Ladies and Gentlemen of the 51-L Jury

In article , BenignVanilla wrote:

"John Maxson" wrote in message
...
Stephen Stocker wrote in message
...

What I'm trying to find out is whether an RCS firing is
*possible* 73 seconds into a flight, or was possible in
1986.

For Mission 51-L, the requisite DAP (digital autopilot) was
loaded and running in the orbiter's GPCs (flight computers)
at lift-off, Stephen. That's one of the first things I verified
on my job in the days following the disaster.

I am not a shuttle systems expert...can someone please tell me if that was a
yes or a no?

Me either, to put it mildly! But I assumed that the term "requisite"
in reference to the digital autopilot meant this autopilot was what's
required to fire the RCS. Hope I got that right.

Steve

In article , Chuck Stewart wrote:
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 18:34:56 +0000, Stephen Stocker wrote:

As to the RCS, I'm in a total quagmire. What I'm trying to find out is
whether an RCS firing is *possible* 73 seconds into a flight, or was
possible in 1986.

Hmmm...

The correct phrasing would seem to be "Would it have been possible?
And, if so, under what circumstances would it have been possible?"

Yep, at least on the first part. Under what circumstances would be my
next question. If I understand what I've read, while it's not normal
for such an event to occur, it *is* within the realm of possibility,
with any one of several sets of circumstances?

Steve

"John Maxson" wrote

Stephen Stocker wrote
What I'm trying to find out is whether an RCS firing is *possible* 73
seconds into a flight, or was possible in 1986.

For Mission 51-L, the requisite DAP (digital autopilot) was
loaded and running in the orbiter's GPCs (flight computers)
at lift-off, Stephen. That's one of the first things I verified
on my job in the days following the disaster.

That's where you have to provide evidence that contradicts not only the
Rogers report but the testimony of several people here, who had earned
certificates as flight controllers relevant to this question, and are
unanimous in their belief that on a nominal ascent through MECO there is no
way for the DAP to command any RCS thruster to fire. Selecting an abort mode
also enables RCS commanding.

You keep saying it's different, but as odd-man-out you realize YOU are the
one who must provide evidence, and so far you've dodged all requests.

"John Maxson" wrote in message ...
Alasdair McKie wrote in message
...
In article , "John Maxson"
wrote:

Everyone should now be able to understand why it is crucial
for NASA to make public the 51-L RCS valve commands.

I'm probably least qualified here, so bear with me. The points you
raised in this post all seemed to relate to crossfeed issues. Are you
saying that something to do with crossfeeds caused an RCS firing?

Do you have nothing better to do than insult my intelligence?

Is your pursuit of the valve command info tied completely to the
crossfeed issue you know existed or does it relate to something else?

Both, obviously.

Why don't you ****ing answer the questions you puss? Because you have
no answers, that's why. Because of this crappy attitude of yours,
your theories remain ramblings of a psychotic maniac.

Bob

Moe Blues wrote:

Geez, John--I'm bending over backwards to get you to support your case.
Why can't you just get it together?

Because he's such a putz. Oy.

Paul

"Roger Balettie" wrote in message news:Zxh%a.5467

"John Maxson" wrote:
My facts have been well *presented* (in my book below),

Correction: Your claims were stated, without factual evidence, in your
book.

Like it or not, this is vey, very true. There were many unsupported
assertions for which I was left wondering: how the heck did he get that? or,
where's the proof of this?

Any of you are free to disbelieve me. Go ahead and buy his book, then do the
research yourself. I don't believe he offers a money-back guarantee.

Jon

"James Oberg" wrote in message news:EV5%

Good data. TAL, by the way, stands for Trans oceanic Abort Landing, that's
what the 'A' means (not Atlantic).

FWIW, I have actually seen TAL in some NASA docs as Trans-Atlantic Landing,
although now everyone seems careful about calling it Transoceanic Abort
Landing.

Jon

"James Oberg"
OK, explain to us how a crossfeed valve anomaly of any sort can cause a
thruster to fire.

In an earlier post J Maxson described an alleged incident where scheduled
maintenance to the crossfeed valve was postponed by a supervisor. Maxson went
on to say in conclusion, paraphrasing, that "It should be now be clear to
everyone why it is essential to obtain RCS command telemetry." It is not clear,
but it wouldn't be, would it?

If you speed read his post, you could get the idea that the crossfeed and his
RCS theories were connected.

In article , "John Maxson"
wrote:

You'd best be sure! Where's your link, or your quote?

My mistake. *Daniel's* post titled " RCS data from STS-51L PC report
(was Roger, Please...)" on August 7th contained the following quote
from Mr Coultas:

"The reaction control system consists of numerous engines on the front
and the aft of the vehicle that provide us with attitude control
maneuvers in space and during re-entry. We reviewed all the measurements
associated with those engines and the propulsion systems, and we also
reviewed the flight photos. All of that data again was nominal."

There is a document linked from that post
(http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v5p1227.htm) which also depicts a
chart showing Findings next to the item "RCS" as "Nominal"

That's what I was referring to.

-A

--
Remove .kil to reply by email.

"John Maxson" wrote
Wrong! Bald assertion! Unsworn allegation! Unproven with
telemetry! Unprovable with imagery or with physical evidence!

"John Maxon"
"How much
sweeter can it get, if you're trying to prove someone's lying?"

"John Maxson"
"Dogged pursuit of
that line is... the work of diseased minds."