Booster Crossing

"Charleston" wrote in message

"Jon Berndt" wrote:
"John Maxson" wrote:

We are all expected to believe that Berndt is not only more brilliant
than the laureate, but more ably forthcoming than NASA with all the
steering details of the boosters' actual flight paths after
separation.

MR. FEYNMAN: The actuators are the gadgets that turn the elevons, is
that
correct?
MR. LEE: The actuators are the hydraulic pistons, if you will, that
gimbal
the engine.

In this instance they were talking about the Solid Rocket Booster which is
not an *engine* as near I can tell. The SRB actuators move the *nozzles*
of
the SRB. The elevons do in fact have actuators and they are single points
of failure.

Solid Rockets are motors.

Mr. Feynman, with all due respect, was coming up to speed in a subject
outside his normal area of expertise.

Perhaps *Dr.* Feyman was coming up to speed but Mr. Lee should have

Yes, it certainly is _Dr._ Feynman. The above were copy/pasted from the PC
Report, in which they refer to Feynman in a random fashion as Mr. and Dr.
:-/

The point is that Dr. Feynman was not omnipotent, as JTM periodically seems
to want to portray him.

Jon

"Charleston" wrote:
"Jon Berndt" wrote:
MR. FEYNMAN: The actuators are the gadgets that turn the elevons, is
that
correct?
MR. LEE: The actuators are the hydraulic pistons, if you will, that
gimbal
the engine.

In this instance they were talking about the Solid Rocket Booster which is
not an *engine* as near I can tell. The SRB actuators move the *nozzles*
of
the SRB. The elevons do in fact have actuators and they are single points
of failure.

"Engine" and "motor" are both terms used in the aerospace community to
describe various rocket/propulsion systems (see "SRB").

"Jet" and "engine" have been used to mean the same thing (see "RCS") as
well.

It's not inconsistent with other descriptions.

Roger
--
Roger Balettie
former Flight Dynamics Officer
Space Shuttle Mission Control
http://www.balettie.com/

Below, we see Burnt trying to pick apart the only real scientific
credibility of the very cornerstone for his own hypothesis.

On the other hand, Dr. Feynman's question on February 7, 1986,
merely reinforced my own early opinion about a fireball crossing.
I had emphatically broached my opinion to my son Daniel on
Saturday, February 1, 1986 (when Bill Graham first released his
creatively doctored, vastly reduced, and grossly under-exposed
"15-second video" to members of Congress and to the media).

--
John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)


Jon Berndt wrote in message
...

MR. FEYNMAN: The actuators are the gadgets that turn the
elevons, is that correct?

Mr. Feynman, with all due respect, was coming up to speed in a
subject outside his normal area of expertise.

Jon Berndt
Aerospace Engineer

"Jon Berndt" wrote in message
...
"Charleston" wrote in message

"Jon Berndt" wrote:
"John Maxson" wrote:

We are all expected to believe that Berndt is not only more
brilliant
than the laureate, but more ably forthcoming than NASA with all the
steering details of the boosters' actual flight paths after
separation.

MR. FEYNMAN: The actuators are the gadgets that turn the elevons, is
that
correct?
MR. LEE: The actuators are the hydraulic pistons, if you will, that
gimbal
the engine.

In this instance they were talking about the Solid Rocket Booster which
is
not an *engine* as near I can tell. The SRB actuators move the
*nozzles*
of
the SRB. The elevons do in fact have actuators and they are single
points
of failure.

Solid Rockets are motors.

Mr. Feynman, with all due respect, was coming up to speed in a subject
outside his normal area of expertise.

Perhaps *Dr.* Feyman was coming up to speed but Mr. Lee should have

Yes, it certainly is _Dr._ Feynman. The above were copy/pasted from the
PC
Report, in which they refer to Feynman in a random fashion as Mr. and Dr.
:-/

The point is that Dr. Feynman was not omnipotent, as JTM periodically
seems
to want to portray him.

Indeed, the good Dr. Feynman was not omnipotent or he would have let Dr.
Covert keep on rolling, in his questioning of one Jack Lee. See post above
in response to Chuck Stewart.

--

Daniel
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC

"Charleston" wrote in message news:v5a7b.46545$cj1.45456@fed1read06...

find the statistical chicanery involving the SRB thrust
descriptions in the Presidential Commission's timeline and explain why
the description is chicanery.

What I see is that the SRB thrust was normal, there was a two degree
gimbal angle at T+40 sec, and that the flame became continuous about
the same time as max Q.

"Kent Betts" wrote:
"Charleston" wrote:

find the statistical chicanery involving the SRB thrust
descriptions in the Presidential Commission's timeline and explain why
the description is chicanery.

What I see is that the SRB thrust was normal, there was a two degree
gimbal angle at T+40 sec, and that the flame became continuous about
the same time as max Q.

I am sorry if I was unclear about the timeline and the SRB chamber
pressures.

Here are the references from which you can gleen the abuse of statistical
analysis techniques.

http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1ch3.htm

go he [37-39] STS 51-L Sequence of Major Events
and

http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3appn.htm#n5

go he V. C. INTEGRATED TIMELINE.

Importantly, the friend of a routine and well respected poster here can
corroborate the unmatched SRB pair issue independently from me.



--

Daniel
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC

"Charleston" wrote in message

I am sorry if I was unclear about the timeline and the SRB chamber
pressures.

Here are the references from which you can gleen the abuse of statistical
analysis techniques.

http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1ch3.htm

go he [37-39] STS 51-L Sequence of Major Events
and

http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3appn.htm#n5

go he V. C. INTEGRATED TIMELINE.

Importantly, the friend of a routine and well respected poster here can
corroborate the unmatched SRB pair issue independently from me.

In the first link the delta Pc is identified as being 19 psi lower in the
right SRB (compared to the left) just prior to the explosion, as the Pc
readings diverge (having begun to diverge just after 59 seconds). They
appear at first glance to have accounted for a bias between the two. Yet in
the second link they show the entire delta Pc as 24 psi.

There are two applicable plots he

http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3n34a.htm
-and-
http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3n35a.htm

Jon

You should not presume to speak for me about this matter.

--
John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)


Charleston wrote
in message news:v5a7b.46545$cj1.45456@fed1read06...

I would like to issue a little challenge here. Who will be the first one to find the statistical chicanery involving the SRB thrust descriptions in the Presidential Commission's timeline and explain why the description is chicanery. Dad you know the answer so I ask that you let the group find it please.

--

Daniel
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC

"Jon Berndt" wrote in message
...
"Charleston" wrote in message

I am sorry if I was unclear about the timeline and the SRB chamber
pressures.

Here are the references from which you can gleen the abuse of
statistical
analysis techniques.

http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1ch3.htm

go he [37-39] STS 51-L Sequence of Major Events
and

http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3appn.htm#n5

go he V. C. INTEGRATED TIMELINE.

Importantly, the friend of a routine and well respected poster here can
corroborate the unmatched SRB pair issue independently from me.

In the first link the delta Pc is identified as being 19 psi lower in the
right SRB (compared to the left) just prior to the explosion, as the Pc
readings diverge (having begun to diverge just after 59 seconds). They
appear at first glance to have accounted for a bias between the two. Yet
in
the second link they show the entire delta Pc as 24 psi.

There are two applicable plots he

http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3n34a.htm
-and-
http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3n35a.htm


Indeed the PC report volume I reports a 19 psi difference between the two
SRBs at near 73 seconds while the third volume shows a 24 psi difference in
the same time frame. Supposedly everyone had the same 12.5 Hz sample rate
data so why the difference? Having said that though, we will call that a
significant but not lonely inconsistency within the report. What you point
out however is not a statisitical issue it is a "reading" the same data the
same issue. There are several of these "error" types in this technical
report even though NASA consistently reports using the same set of data to
read.

Also note that even the time at which the data ends is not the same. This
is discrete data BTW that NASA has put in a graph that appears *somewhat*
continuous. I have a few piles of the discrete data and there is no
mistaking when the data ends.

Volume I 73.124 seconds MET
Volume III 73.044 seconds MET

Good shot but try again.

--

Daniel
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC

"Charleston" wrote:
Good shot but try again.

Daniel -- if you have the data, present the data... stop playing guessing
games.

"Teasing" with it only serves to make you look bad, frustrate everyone else,
and make your argument less worthy.

I, for one, would very much like to see what you have that you believe is so
critically important, so we can discuss it as rational adults. As before, I
appreciated your posting the "Castglance" video, as it did not have the
conclusive evidence to which it had been attributed.

Roger
--
Roger Balettie
former Flight Dynamics Officer
Space Shuttle Mission Control
http://www.balettie.com/