Ladies and Gentlemen of the 51-L Jury

In article , "John Maxson"
wrote:

How did you miss the column 'EVALUATION,' where it lists
"All Measurements Except Valve Commands?"

I didn't miss it. You never answered the question of how *any* data
pertaining to the valve commands could prove an RCS firing in the
absence of any other telemetry readings to support it, so the valve
commands are off the table as far as I'm concerned.

-A

--
Remove .kil to reply by email.

Not to my knowledge. That would have meant paying
attention to Dr. Lucas' sworn testimony that there was
a hydrogen leak in the ET, "all the way up."

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



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

Is it? Where's your proof? I laid out a plausible causal chain
in my book, as well as in this group. It's deplorable that you're
so unethical that you don't read what you attempt to debunk.

Did NASA, or anyone else, ever publish a study of what (if any)
effect a firing RCS jet or jets would have during some or all of the
first 70-some seconds of launch?

-A

--
Remove .kil to reply by email.

I answered it. I told you parenthetically that one must
always worry about combustion in the chamber due to
leaks, rather than due to commanded firings. That's
especially important *between* commanded firings, and
during colder than specified temperatures.

You could be a little more reasonable than narrow-minded
about these things by giving me your bio or experience.

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


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

How did you miss the column 'EVALUATION,' where it lists
"All Measurements Except Valve Commands?"

I didn't miss it. You never answered the question of how *any* data
pertaining to the valve commands could prove an RCS firing in the
absence of any other telemetry readings to support it, so the valve
commands are off the table as far as I'm concerned.

"John Maxson" wrote in message
...
I answered it. I told you parenthetically that one must
always worry about combustion in the chamber due to
leaks, rather than due to commanded firings. That's
especially important *between* commanded firings, and
during colder than specified temperatures.

It's true you told him this, but it still doesn't make the telling accurate.

RCS leaks do NOT cause undesired combustion. They do NOT -- as any
expert in the RCS system can tell you (and probably have told you). They
NEVER have.

There is no importance, 'especially' or otherwise', about 'always worrying'
about
a non-existent hazard. Your words are nonsensical.

I was a certified OMS-RCS flight controller from 1978 to 1982, and I know
the
design, function, and flight experience of this system.

Leaks were of concern due to the possibility of a 'hard stat' the next time
you commanded a thruster firing.

The chance of there being simo leaks on both ox and fuel, especially on a
system
that had been checked out on the ground and hadn't been fired in space yet,
was astronomically remote. Even if such a pair occurred in the same
thruster,
the amounts involved would not cause a thruster to 'fire' at all.

Your statements above, without any engineering documentation to support
them,
appear to be entirely imaginary.

"John Maxson" wrote:
I answered it. I told you parenthetically that one must
always worry about combustion in the chamber due to
leaks, rather than due to commanded firings.

The only way an RCS "leak" could cause "combustion" would be if both the
fuel and oxidizer leaked *at the same time*.

Are you saying this was a two-deep failure leak event on *each* the right
yaw aft RCS bank of four thrusters?

That's a simultaneous 4-way-2-deep failure mode.

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

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 22:34:18 GMT, "James Oberg"
wrote:

Your statements above, without any engineering documentation to support
them, appear to be entirely imaginary.

....Hallucenations due to senile dementia, most likely.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

On 17 Aug 2003 00:17:39 GMT, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:

Will that be the extent of your questioning, Mr. Stocker? Mr. Maxson is
attempting to draw your attention to an 870 lb. housefly buzzing around,
while hoping you will ignore the 3 million lb. elephant in the room.

....This is why I put Stocker in Killfile Hell weeks ago. He's nothing
but another Maxson sock puppet based on his postings.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

Do you have any 51-L RCS telemetry documentation whatsoever
which you wish to present as justification for your webpage libel?

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


Roger Balettie wrote in message
m...

The only way an RCS "leak" could cause "combustion" would
be if both the fuel and oxidizer leaked *at the same time*.

That's one reason for telemetering the valve commands, to get
an explanation for any unexpected chamber pressure readings.
If anyone reading my book or my posts hasn't understood
"hypergolic" by now (and that includes you and Berndt), it isn't
for lack of my explanation of same. Why play games, Dodger?

Are you saying this was a two-deep failure leak event on *each*
the right yaw aft RCS bank of four thrusters?

That's a simultaneous 4-way-2-deep failure mode.

Are you saying orange is blue, except when black is white or red
is green? That's a knee-deep failure mode for your conjecture.

In article , Jorge R. Frank wrote:
Stephen Stocker wrote in
:

In article , John Maxson wrote:
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.

Thanks John, I think that answers my question.

Will that be the extent of your questioning, Mr. Stocker? Mr. Maxson is
attempting to draw your attention to an 870 lb. housefly buzzing around,
while hoping you will ignore the 3 million lb. elephant in the room.

I'm assuming from the sarcasm that you honestly didn't see my reply to
Jon, in which I made the analogy of a sewing machine motor vs a car
engine. John isn't drawing my attention away from anything, I'm simply
asking questions in a logical order.

snip
Do those sound like the words of a man who has been "bought" by NASA, Mr.
Stocker? Why don't you ask Mr. Maxson? Then perhaps he can bestow upon you
a pejorative nickname. That's the *sole* requirement to become a member of
the "Human O-Ring Society", despite what Ms. Kirk might tell you. We didn't
choose to become HORS. Mr. Maxson chose that for us.

Now *there's* a noble goal. The Failed Human Society can shove their
"membership" and their abuse. As for Rhonda, she's considerably more
tolerant than I am, apparently.

It is inexcusable that some prople on this newgroup give into their
frustration and respond to Mr. Maxson and his sons with cruel insults.

Thank you, I sometimes wonder if anybody here is sane.

Inexcusable, but fully understandable. Perhaps, after you have been asking
Mr. Maxson the same questions for two and a half years, and received the
same non-answers, will you begin to understand as well. A Google search
will only tell you part of the story, as Paul Maxson has had many of his
(real-name) posts removed from Google, and many others have started using
X-No-Archive in response to legal threats.

I'm far more likely to ignore what tires me or irritates me.
Currently, there have been a few who've been willing to answer
questions I have, whatever their personal feelings toward me may be
and despite the temptation to join the bully brigade. John Maxson has
answered my questions, as has Jon Berndt (and several others whose
names escape me.

No, I didn't ask John what the effects, if any, of an RCS firing at
that point in 51L's flight would be. I know very little about the
shuttle, so I'm taking it a step at a time.

As for those who'd rather play the abuse game, in time they'll all
filter my posts, and that's by far the best course of action.

Having said that (and I'm sure it sounds harsh), thank you for the
information. I snipped most of it in this reply, since I was
commenting on the "social" aspects, but your post is saved for
reference.


In your quest to remain open-minded, are you leaving yourself open to
deception, Mr. Stocker?

Probably. It's a great way to learn. Asking any question of anyone
always carries the danger of deception, I suppose.

Steve

"John Maxson" wrote:
I answered it. I told you parenthetically that one must
always worry about combustion in the chamber due to
leaks, rather than due to commanded firings.

"Roger Balettie"
The only way an RCS "leak" could cause "combustion" would be if both the
fuel and oxidizer leaked *at the same time*.

Looks like we can cancel the FOIA request for "RCS firing commands" telemetry.