Ladies and Gentlemen of the 51-L Jury

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

Nicely loaded question... I won't correct the top-posting, but I will
answer it in parts, if I may.

Question fragment 1: "Do you have any 51-L RCS telemetry documentation
whatsoever..."

Answer: No... nor have I ever claimed to have any. On the other hand, Mr.
Maxson, you have claimed to have such evidence for some time now, but refuse
to present any of it. I, and others here, have asked you repeatedly to
produce even *one* such piece of evidence. I realize that you have said it
is in "fan-fold sheets" of printouts. If you take it to your local copy
shop (Kinko's or whatever they have in Iowa) and have them scan *just one
page* of your choosing, we could then all start from the same set of
information for discussion. Perhaps Daniel could put it on his
close-to-overdue compilation of information website that has been hinted at
for some time now.

Question fragment 2: "which you wish to present as justification for your
webpage libel?"

Answer: This question is along the same lines of "have you stopped beating
your wife yet?" It is a question that pre-supposes an intent with which I
do not agree. My webpage review of "Betrayal" (conveniently located at:
http://home.austin.rr.com/sts51lvideo/) was written with the kind loan of a
copy of your theories by your son, Daniel. I do not agree, in any way, that
the contents of that web review constitute libel. It does, however, most
certainly fall under the legal definition of "fair comment".

Roger Balettie wrote in message
m...
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.

Please define "leak", as you see it applying to the right-aft RCS on
STS-51L.

Do you claim an oxidizer leak only? If so, what was the fuel source for
combustion?

Do you claim a fuel leak only? If so, what was the oxidizer source for
combustion?

Do you claim both oxidizer *and* fuel leaking simultaneously? If so, were
all four right-aft RCS fuel and oxidizer lines leaking simultaneously, so
that a coordinated right-aft RCS jet firing occured?

Did I leave out any other possibilities?

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

"Stephen Stocker" wrote in message

I know very little about the shuttle, so I'm taking it a step at a time.

Just in case you are interested, here are a few links that might prove
helpful:

http://www.theandyzone.com/launchzone/DEFAULT.HTM
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/...nce/index.html

Jon

Roger Balettie wrote in message
...
"John Maxson" wrote:

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

Question fragment 1: "Do you have any 51-L RCS telemetry
documentation whatsoever..."

Answer: No... nor have I ever claimed to have any.

Question fragment 2: "which you wish to present as justification
for your webpage libel?"

It is a question that pre-supposes an intent with which I do not
agree. It does, however, most certainly fall under the legal
definition of "fair comment".

Sticking then to only the question of webpage libel with regard to
what you have represented to the world that my book says about
51-L RCS firings, it's obvious from your answers above that you
feel it's legally "fair" to link to "comment" on your webpage which,
as far as telemetry is concerned, is based on nothing but thin air.

Putting it in barnyard language, you believe you're on solid legal
ground to tell folks via your webpage that I'm full of 'RCS' ****.
You feel it's "fair" to harangue me for failing to release "one page"
of my FOIA telemetry when your beloved NASA would not release
one frame of E202/E207 film for (RCS) spectral analysis at Kodak.

You and HORS attorney Herbs believe "the truth" is an "absolute
defense" to libel, yet you have no "truth" based on RCS telemetry.
You can't even prove NASA downlinked any during Mission 51-L.
Have I misinterpreted your position?

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

In article , Jon Berndt wrote:
"Stephen Stocker" wrote in message

I know very little about the shuttle, so I'm taking it a step at a time.

Just in case you are interested, here are a few links that might prove
helpful:

http://www.theandyzone.com/launchzone/DEFAULT.HTM
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/...nce/index.html

Jon

Thanks. I had the NASA shuttle page bookmarked, but never saw the
other one. It looks good.

Steve

In article , Jon Berndt wrote:
"James Oberg" wrote in message news:8Jr%

True, some NASA people are human, but then (...)

"Former NASA Employee Admits Government Employs Non-Humans!" Excuse me a
second whilst I phone the /Enquirer/...

Q. What kind of abort would you use when you lose an engine over the
Pacific.
A. A Pacific Trans-Atlantic Landing (PTAL)!

That's an abort-once-around, surely... or else a really, really long
glide into the Phillipines over Asia :-)

(It's also begging trouble to give an abort mode a name that can be
accidentally called if the CDR sneezes in his mike during ascent... see,
this is why they never flew out of Vandenberg...)

--
-Andrew Gray

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.

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



James Oberg wrote in message
...

even if a thruster HAD fired, its role in a causal chain leading
to loss-of-vehicle was implausible.

Uh, isn't the needed proof what your own son posted earlier in this
thread? To wit:

"2. Independent Firing of the OMS Engine or Orbiter Thrusters
The theory that either the OMS engines or the Orbiter thrusters
were inadvertently activated and fired is also based on the same
photographs stated previously. Those photographs show a bright
spot in the same general area where these engines and thrusters
are. The Committee has received photographs from Flights 41-G,
61-A, 61-13, and 61-C, all of which show similar "bright spots') in
the same location as those seen on Flight 51-L. **The Committee is
still evaluating the possibility of a second failure in this regard**
and
has requested additional telemetry data from Flight 51-L. Had the
thrusters been firing, however, it would have had little impact on
the launch of the Challenger. The thrust from these tiny engines is
insignificant compared to the thrust from the two Solid Rocket
Boosters and the main engines. The inadvertent activation of the
OMS engine has been ruled out on the basis of telemetry data re-
ceived from NASA. NASA has stated that the bright spot seen in
the photographs is a reflection from the plume of the Solid Rocket
Booster motors. Neither of these possibilities contributed to the
Challenger accident."

This seems to pretty categorically support Oberg's assertion.

As for your causal chain, I've yet to see you lay it out. Lord knows
I've asked you repeatedly to do so, and I can't for the life of me
figure out why you won't simply post what it is you believe happened.

It's simple: Start with A and progress to the end of the event chain.
Can you (will you) do that for us?

Moe

Moe Blues wrote:

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.

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



James Oberg wrote in message
...

even if a thruster HAD fired, its role in a causal chain leading
to loss-of-vehicle was implausible.

Uh, isn't the needed proof what your own son posted earlier in this
thread? To wit:

"2. Independent Firing of the OMS Engine or Orbiter Thrusters
The theory that either the OMS engines or the Orbiter thrusters
were inadvertently activated and fired is also based on the same
photographs stated previously. Those photographs show a bright
spot in the same general area where these engines and thrusters
are. The Committee has received photographs from Flights 41-G,
61-A, 61-13, and 61-C, all of which show similar "bright spots') in
the same location as those seen on Flight 51-L. **The Committee is
still evaluating the possibility of a second failure in this regard**
and
has requested additional telemetry data from Flight 51-L. Had the
thrusters been firing, however, it would have had little impact on
the launch of the Challenger. The thrust from these tiny engines is
insignificant compared to the thrust from the two Solid Rocket
Boosters and the main engines. The inadvertent activation of the
OMS engine has been ruled out on the basis of telemetry data re-
ceived from NASA. NASA has stated that the bright spot seen in
the photographs is a reflection from the plume of the Solid Rocket
Booster motors. Neither of these possibilities contributed to the
Challenger accident."

This seems to pretty categorically support Oberg's assertion.

As for your causal chain, I've yet to see you lay it out. Lord knows
I've asked you repeatedly to do so, and I can't for the life of me
figure out why you won't simply post what it is you believe happened.

It's simple: Start with A and progress to the end of the event chain.
Can you (will you) do that for us?


He can't. It's hardwired into his brain by his mental illness. He's
trapped in his own scenario, to him nothing else is possible. He'll
be this way until he either gets treatment, or dies an old, broken
man. In a way I feel sad for him, really.

JazzMan

--
***************************************
Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net.
Curse those darned bulk e-mailers!
***************************************

"John Maxson" wrote:
Sticking then to only the question of webpage libel with regard to
what you have represented to the world that my book says about
51-L RCS firings, it's obvious from your answers above that you
feel it's legally "fair" to link to "comment" on your webpage which,
as far as telemetry is concerned, is based on nothing but thin air.

Until you prove otherwise (it is your claim, after all), I will stick with
my knowledge of (the absence of) RCS flight control during nominal first
stage ascent.

And, before you nitpick the word "nominal" above, the flight control
software/guidance software was behaving as if it were a nominal first stage
ascent, regardless of the extremely "off nominal" situation of the right SRB
burnthrough.

On my web review of "Betrayal" (http://home.austin.rr.com/sts51lvideo/), I
am very clear to give you proper credit for quotes taken from your book as
part of "fair use" review. I am also very clear in my statement (unchanged
since it was placed online over a year ago) regarding your claim of first
stage RCS usage, to wit:

QUOTE from http://home.austin.rr.com/sts51lvideo/
There is no telemetry evidence available within Mr. Maxson's book, nor any
of which I am aware at all, that would back up these fantastic claims.
Ascent guidance does not rely on RCS for attitude control. The claim that
"the Air Force had begun a policy of using the RCS jets to maintain center
of gravity for certain payloads" (ibid, page 38) shows a lack of basic
understanding of the flight dynamics of the Space Shuttle, especially in the
ascent regime.
/QUOTE

Putting it in barnyard language, you believe you're on solid legal
ground to tell folks via your webpage that I'm full of 'RCS' ****.

I am on solid legal ground to "tell folks via (my) webpage" that the
theories that you espouse are not backed up with any evidence in your book.
It is a book review, John.

If you have the evidence that proves your point, I will make it my number
one priority to update my web review with such information.

Until that time, my direct and extended experience as a Flight Dynamics
Officer, my knowledge of the Space Shuttle, and the combined knowledge of
many others here with credentials far more impressive than mine will serve
as a direct and factual counterpoint to your "fantastic claims".

You feel it's "fair" to harangue me for failing to release "one page"
of my FOIA telemetry when your beloved NASA would not release
one frame of E202/E207 film for (RCS) spectral analysis at Kodak.

I am asking, John... nicely. I'm asking you to prove me wrong... hell, I'm
almost *begging* you to prove me wrong.

Claims of NASA not releasing information are irrelevant when you claim to
have said info that will bring this discussion, one way or the other, to a
close!

Please, John. Put this issue to rest. If you have the evidence, present
it. If you do not have the evidence, say so (you have alluded to the fact
that your evidence does not show what you claim, since it was "from
Johnson").

I also noticed you conveniently did not address my series of questions,
repeated below:

==============
Please define "leak", as you see it applying to the right-aft RCS on
STS-51L.

Do you claim an oxidizer leak only? If so, what was the fuel source for
combustion?

Do you claim a fuel leak only? If so, what was the oxidizer source for
combustion?

Do you claim both oxidizer *and* fuel leaking simultaneously? If so, were
all four right-aft RCS fuel and oxidizer lines leaking simultaneously, so
that a coordinated right-aft RCS jet firing occured?
==============

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

"OM" om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org wrote
in message ...
...Since PoppaDip is in Killfile Hell, I naturally missed his abuse
response. Did he call Alasdair any names? His HORS membership is
riding on this one :-)

Alisdair would have to respond with the name quoted, since I've had our
resident loon flock killfiled since late last year. One of JTM's kids
referred to me sarcastically as a "genius" but I don't think that officially
gets me in the club... Maybe Alisdair has better luck.

Oh no, there goes my group-think again...

In article , Terrence
Daniels wrote:
"OM" om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org
wrote
in message ...
...Since PoppaDip is in Killfile Hell, I naturally missed his abuse
response. Did he call Alasdair any names? His HORS membership is
riding on this one :-)

Alisdair would have to respond with the name quoted, since I've had our
resident loon flock killfiled since late last year. One of JTM's kids
referred to me sarcastically as a "genius" but I don't think that officially
gets me in the club... Maybe Alisdair has better luck.

Oh no, there goes my group-think again...

Truth in sarcasm. I like that!

Steve