Ladies and Gentlemen of the 51-L Jury

At this time I would like to present my summary argument
with respect to the RCS telemetry evidence available to the
public on the web -- for Challenger, Mission 51-L.

Unsworn statements have been made by both sides in
support of their positions. Take them at face value.

There are 44 RCS jets. Chamber pressure plots for two
*left-aft* jets constitute the only telemetry presented by
either side. For the period of flight from t+15 through
t+73.9 seconds, I agree with what those two plots show.

However, for the period from t+73 seconds until the end,
I have shown that NASA is internally inconsistent about
the authenticity of those two plots. Since that period is so
critical, and to my understanding was recorded originally
on stripcharts, NASA's inconsistency regarding those two
RCS thrusters must be explained.

More importantly, both sides need access to telemetry for
the *remaining* 42 RCS jets. NASA owns the original data;
you know how to get it. All it takes is a subpoena for it, or
for a certified copy of the original (assuming a grand jury).

Until then, it is clear that the NASA argument has failed via
*telemetry* to carry its burden of proving no RCS firings
during the ascent phase of Challenger, Mission 51-L.

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

"John Maxson" wrote
Until then, it is clear that the NASA argument has failed via
*telemetry* to carry its burden of proving no RCS firings
during the ascent phase of Challenger, Mission 51-L.

Nor has NASA disproved that the antimatter pods had not been activated. Nor
that the mini black hole that might have been in the payload bay came loose
from its magnetic bottle. Nor that the magic carpet allegedly in locker
M45-002 suddenly headed for Mecca.

In a rational world, the burden of proof lies with the claimant of
unusualness -- which in this case is Mr. & Mr. Maxson.

I have seen not a lick of telemetric indication -- much less proof -- that
any anomalous RCS activity occurred in this time period, or on any other
shuttle ascent, ever.

I think it's reasonable to deduce, after so many opportunities to produce
such evidence have been ducked, that such evidence does not exist.

Reluctantly, I'm forced to conclude that John Maxson either:

1. Has no evidence whatever to substantiate his claims,

2. Has some evidence, but for perverse reasons beyond the ken of
mortals refuses to share or divulge it, or

3. Suffers from fantastic misapprehensions of what evidence is
available.

John, as I've said numerous times before, all you have to do is lay out
your arguments and evidence, then rebut your critics with well-reasoned
argument. Instead, you post crap like "Who cares about you, Mr
Flatspin."

You're so fond of Googling up past posts. Go Google up your own. Read
them. Then try putting yourself in an objective reader's shoes. Would
YOU be persuaded by your own posts?

Moe

I don't see you putting any pressure on the other side to
produce 51-L telemetry evidence proving the absence of
valve commands to any and all of the thrusters, nor do I
see you clammering for Oberg to put up or shut up with
his 'Area 51 Aliens' sort of innuendo and insinuation. You
just take out your frustration on me, the one who stood
up in a full meeting of project engineers before the disaster
and warned that incomplete RCS work at the pad should
receive top priority for 51-L, because it was Crit 1!

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


Moe Blues wrote in message
...

Reluctantly, I'm forced to conclude that John Maxson either:

1. Has no evidence whatever to substantiate his claims,

2. Has some evidence, but for perverse reasons beyond the ken of
mortals refuses to share or divulge it, or

3. Suffers from fantastic misapprehensions of what evidence is
available.

John, as I've said numerous times before, all you have to do is lay out
your arguments and evidence, then rebut your critics with well-reasoned
argument. Instead, you post crap like "Who cares about you, Mr
Flatspin."

You're so fond of Googling up past posts. Go Google up your own. Read
them. Then try putting yourself in an objective reader's shoes. Would
YOU be persuaded by your own posts?

Moe

In article , "John Maxson"
wrote:

I don't see you putting any pressure on the other side to
produce 51-L telemetry evidence proving the absence of
valve commands to any and all of the thrusters, nor do I
see you clammering for Oberg to put up or shut up with
his 'Area 51 Aliens' sort of innuendo and insinuation. You
just take out your frustration on me, the one who stood
up in a full meeting of project engineers before the disaster
and warned that incomplete RCS work at the pad should
receive top priority for 51-L, because it was Crit 1!

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


You're right: I am frustrated with you. The argument you present
essentially amounts to "I can't prove I'm right, but you can't prove
I'm wrong." In the absence of any other well-documented and supported
theory, this might almost be acceptable. But there IS another
well-documented and supported theory. Thus, you must produce
documentation and support at least equal to the other theory to win
acceptance.

Get it, John? As long as you are unable or unwilling to put together an
iron-clad case, you'll have people dismissing you as a crackpot.

I once had an eye witness to an in-flight breakup swear there was a
bomb on the airplane. He knew there was because he saw a flash and
heard a "BOOM" as the wings came off. In actual fact, the airplane
broke up from gross overstress. He managed to tie up the investigation
for almost two years using essentially the same "You can't prove I'm
wrong" argument. (Sidenote--metal failing in extreme overload often
produces a flash.) The absence of any physical evidence of a bomb
(outward-curled metal, scorch marks, molten balls, etc.) just
reinforced his belief. Are you falling into the same trap?

Moe

Please try to stay 'on thread.' My summary argument was for
web-available RCS T/M only! I have published a *book* that
presents my case, which is solid. A small part of it is on the
web, which is not bad considering the relative financial power
of NASA/Lockheed relative to my own. Believe who you wish.
I'll stay the course, despite the lectures of the blind and unread.

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



Moe Blues wrote in message
...

You're right: I am frustrated with you. The argument you present
essentially amounts to "I can't prove I'm right, but you can't prove
I'm wrong." In the absence of any other well-documented and
supported theory, this might almost be acceptable. But there IS
another well-documented and supported theory. Thus, you must
produce documentation and support at least equal to the other
theory to win acceptance.

Get it, John? As long as you are unable or unwilling to put together
an iron-clad case, you'll have people dismissing you as a crackpot.

"John Maxson" wrote
Only one of the items on Marchica's list was in Category 1M.
It was titled 'Relief Development Checkout for the
OMS/RCS Crossfeed Isolation Valve.' I did not even
think twice about where to place Lockheed's top priority.

I don't understand how any possible failure of an RCS crossfeed valve
or its indicator can cause an RCS jet to fire. I lived and breathed those
systems for three years and was certified competent to serve in Mission
Control
on them, and I don't understand the connection between a potential anomaly
on this
valve or indicator, and the claim about jets actually firing. Can the
claimant please
explain this and clear up my incomprehension, please?

You're the one insinuating I claimed that; you clear it up!
I don't mind reading soliloquies; I do object to you trying
to put words in my mouth. Your methods are deplorable!

While you're at it, you might want to clarify what you said
yesterday as to how soon after SRB ignition any 51-L ascent
RCS commands could have been telemetered.

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


James Oberg wrote in message
news

I don't understand how any possible failure of an RCS
crossfeed valve or its indicator can cause an RCS jet to fire.

"John Maxson" wrote
While you're at it, you might want to clarify what you said
yesterday as to how soon after SRB ignition any 51-L ascent
RCS commands could have been telemetered.

I don't recall saying anything at all about that.

I tried to say that such parameters (as well as valve positions, thruster
pressures and temps, etc.) were on telemetry throughout ascent (heck, I
watched them live on STS-1, I was on the 'Silver Team' for the very first
shuttle launch). But the ascent software -- Major Modes 102, 103 etc.,
through MECO -- did not have the capability to even issue such commands, and
this couldn't happen until after moding to OPS 6 (RTLS as I recall --
haven't looked it up, could be wrong -- other rotary-switch-selected abort
choices were TAL, AOA, and ATO), whose software could then command thruster
firings during ET sep and then for forward tank depletion (for c.g.
control). That's what I had been trying to say.

So it's not just a question of dispute over whether jets WERE fired -- it's
about whether during these flight phases the DAP could even fire jets if it
wanted to (or if the crew even commanded them with the THC, say). Since
flight software was constructed in this way, according to all documentation
(such as the FSSR), I remain baffled by your insistence that there was some
'secret way' unbeknownst to the software developers, the flight controllers,
and even the crew, to turn on any of the RCS thrusters during ascent,
without moding to RTLS, which then would leave its own indelible
fingerprints on the PASS and BFS downlist.

"James Oberg" wrote in message

So it's not just a question of dispute over whether jets WERE fired --
it's
about whether during these flight phases the DAP could even fire jets if
it
wanted to (or if the crew even commanded them with the THC, say). Since
flight software was constructed in this way, according to all
documentation
(such as the FSSR), I remain baffled by your insistence that there was
some
'secret way' unbeknownst to the software developers, the flight
controllers,
and even the crew, to turn on any of the RCS thrusters during ascent,

This is exactly what I have been telling them for weeks. Not only is there
no evidence they *could* fire if they wanted to, all those knowledgeable
about such things here have relayed explicitly and categorically that they
*cannot* fire during a nominal first stage. Additionally, the purported
visual evidence when viewed from different cameras shows that the "RCS
firing" is an artifact and not an RCS firing at all. As we have seen, no
telemetry has been shown to support any kind of RCS firing, nor did the crew
radio back anything suggesting they had indications of an unscheduled RCS
firing. There is no indication that an RCS jet had failed ON, and I can find
no history of an RCS jet ever failing ON - though I seem to recall that some
have failed OFF.

The "leaps of faith" that one has to accept to believe in this house of
cards built by John Maxson has not a single strong leg that I have seen in
the past two years.

Still waiting ...

Jon