51-L RCS Telemetry (Two Details)

1) In July 1986, I was given a few RCS pages copied from a
CR for me by a colleague. He said they were for 51-L, but the
set of RCS MSIDs appeared incomplete. For those FDs listed,
however, mission TFLs (and pertinent data in them) were given.
I wanted to verify that the *ascent-RCS* info listed was for 51-L.
I was advised to get the "51-L TFL document" for that purpose.

For those other than Jim Oberg and company who may be
interested in my credibility, below is an excerpt from a letter of
reply addressed to me and dated August 20, 1986. It is signed
by Mary Jo Tippett, in the KSC FOIA Office.

"1. There is no TFL document for the 51-L mission."

At that time I obtained 51-L RCS telemetry from the list in the CR.
Later I obtained 51-L RCS data from an expanded list of RCS FDs.
I trust my colleague's word about the TFL info which he gave me.

2) It is my understanding (from other KSC FOIA responses and
from other NASA sources) that the stripchart-recorder telemetry
(for the final second or so of 51-L RCS data) was S-band, and
that it was recorded at the MILA (Merritt Island) ground station
(not at JSC via standard telemetry processing techniques).

Nevertheless, I was ultimately forced by the KSC FOIA Office
to obtain that data from JSC, in the form of *fan-fold listings*.

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

Good technical data. If there was no 51-L-specific TFL
(Telemetry Format load, is what it stands for)
which listed MSIDs (Measurement ID's, numbers
assigned to each parameter that is measured on board, then selected
for download at a rate specified in the TFL), I would guess
it's because it used a standard telemetry format. Hence, asking for
the'51-L TFL' was a request they could legitimately respond to by
saying, 'No such animal'. However, asking for the generic TFL
that was used during 51-L should have been answerable.

Ascent telemetry is of course via S-band since the Ku-band antenna
is still tucked inside the PLB. The FM downlink is also used for main engine
data
and, once on orbit, for high-speed palyback and for TV -- the only two sites
that can handle it, as I recall, are MLA and Goldstone. And of course
all raw TM is recorded at the site that receives it.

The issue remains: the RCS data that was received -- and that was all there
was,
there wasn't any extra RCS data on board or sent back on a different
channel --
shows no RCS activity during this ascent, as far as I know. I have seen
no evidence to the contrary.




"John Maxson" wrote in message
...
1) In July 1986, I was given a few RCS pages copied from a
CR for me by a colleague. He said they were for 51-L, but the
set of RCS MSIDs appeared incomplete. For those FDs listed,
however, mission TFLs (and pertinent data in them) were given.
I wanted to verify that the *ascent-RCS* info listed was for 51-L.
I was advised to get the "51-L TFL document" for that purpose.

For those other than Jim Oberg and company who may be
interested in my credibility, below is an excerpt from a letter of
reply addressed to me and dated August 20, 1986. It is signed
by Mary Jo Tippett, in the KSC FOIA Office.

"1. There is no TFL document for the 51-L mission."

At that time I obtained 51-L RCS telemetry from the list in the CR.
Later I obtained 51-L RCS data from an expanded list of RCS FDs.
I trust my colleague's word about the TFL info which he gave me.

2) It is my understanding (from other KSC FOIA responses and
from other NASA sources) that the stripchart-recorder telemetry
(for the final second or so of 51-L RCS data) was S-band, and
that it was recorded at the MILA (Merritt Island) ground station
(not at JSC via standard telemetry processing techniques).

Nevertheless, I was ultimately forced by the KSC FOIA Office
to obtain that data from JSC, in the form of *fan-fold listings*.

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

I also asked for TFL 129, which my CR identified as the TFL
for high ascent-RCS data rates. This was her response:

3. "Format #129 was used for prelaunch checkout, but
not for launch itself."

4. "The format #129 data can be printed out with each
measurement function designator and its nomenclature
identified."

Well, I already *had* that, and *now* I had (and still have) an
official, signed document claiming that JSC's officially numbered
Change Request (also in my possession) was bogus! How much
sweeter can it get, if you're trying to prove someone's lying?

I simply requested the data, which of course was from *ascent*.

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



Michael Gardner wrote in message
...

That is not proof that the TFL didn't exist, just that a "51-L
TFL document" didn't exist.

"Michael Gardner" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"John Maxson" wrote:

1) In July 1986, I was given a few RCS pages copied from a
CR for me by a colleague. He said they were for 51-L, but the
set of RCS MSIDs appeared incomplete. For those FDs listed,
however, mission TFLs (and pertinent data in them) were given.
I wanted to verify that the *ascent-RCS* info listed was for 51-L.
I was advised to get the "51-L TFL document" for that purpose.

For those other than Jim Oberg and company who may be
interested in my credibility, below is an excerpt from a letter of
reply addressed to me and dated August 20, 1986. It is signed
by Mary Jo Tippett, in the KSC FOIA Office.

"1. There is no TFL document for the 51-L mission."

And it seems, she was technically correct. And legally there was no
document required to be given you via FOIA rules. FOIA was never
intended for fishing expeditions. If you can't accurately describe what
you want, they don't have to give it to you. That is not proof that the
TFL didn't exist, just that a "51-L TFL document" didn't exist.

Thank God for technicalities, huh? Remind me to put up a FOIA response from
JSC that led to the 51-L repository when I get my website up. It redefines
being helpful:-(

--

Daniel
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC