Challenger/Columbia, here is your chance to gain a new convert!

In article , Paul Maxson
wrote:


Satellites.

What is the ability of our satellites in 2003 in regards to space
shuttles?

Classified.

I guess we should all turn off our TV's then and go live in a cave. They
show Sattelite imagery all the time on Fox etc.

Well, Roger did add that _if_ this was for military satellites, then the
exact capabilities are classified (as expected), although one can make a
well educated guess as to the ballpark figures of their abilities.

For non-military satellites, the capabilities are publically known.

In either case, previous discussions about satellite capabilities by folks
likely to know this stuff, indicated that the best you could generally
expect to do with 'assets' (read: spy satellites or ground equipment) would
be to distinguish a single pixel down to about one feet or so.

The CAIB believes the damaged area to be less than a feet, so at best you'd
be able to distinguish a single missing pixel... further compounded by the
fact this was a black underbelly against a black background, so it's not
known if you could've made out anything even if you'd trained the best gear
we have upon the underbelly.

Dittemore also stated during a news conference that they did try to do this
for the Glenn Shuttle flight but received such absymal results that this
factored into their decision not to pursue this for STS-107.

Now whether that was the correct decision or not, is up to debate... but
these are the generally known / accepted facts.

It is also thought that (but not conclusively proven it _did_ happen;
merely that it was _possible_ it happened) STS-1 may have been imaged by
one of the Key Hole satellites. Nobody in a position to know has ever
confirmed or denied this. Ted Molczan did, however, post the calculations
to s.s.s a while ago indicating that it was quite feasible given known
and estimated orbital elements for both space objects.

Roger we can be civil if you don't patronize me ok? I am simply asking if
from 1986 to 2003 did the sattelites *ever* train their cameras on a
space shuttle, the ISS or anything NASA related? Is that "classified?"

I don't think he was necessarily being patronizing. Consider that mission
control personnel are also required to obtain some sort of TS clearance.

I don't know if that's still an active requirement; CAIB report mentioned
that some folks let their clearance lapse so it may not be a current hard
requirement / condition of employement; I just don't know.

So by that very nature, they may not be in a position to elaborate further
- whether for even basic yes/no answers or denials. Especially if it
involves classified hardware. He may have simply elected to stay out of any
grey areas with that, entirely. Can't hold it against him.

I've seen this kind of response from others in different fields as well, so
I don't find it particularly unusual that he would be extra cautious in
making public comments about stuff, whether or not it involves military
hardware, given potential for him having had TS clearance. Even if he could
publically guesstimate stuff, he may not have felt it appropriate to
broadcast it in an international forum. I'd suggest not holding it against
him.

I can tell you that other than for the Glenn mission, I haven't read any
public mention of cameras trained upon the Shuttle for the 1986-2003 time
frame, for what it's worth. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, of course; just
not publically known.

There are other folks who has posted more details about suspected and known
capabilities of these equipment including from Henry Spencer, Ted Molczan,
amongst others in the past. Don't recall much more than that. Should be
Google-able for these threads.

If you're really curious, perhaps this might be something you could make a
FOIA request for unclassified information on this subject?

-Dan

-- "Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message ...
You read my dad's testimony to the PCR Jon?

Also, if you are referring to the testimony that your dad posted
here a year or so ago, then, yes, I have read that. Waste of time.

It's evident that he couldn't have been referring to that segment,
which I furnished from *my own tape* and noted as incomplete.

As I understand his question and its context, Paul wants to know
if you have ever read the Commission's *own* transcripts of my
*complete* testimony, or listened to the Commission's tape of it.

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


Thanks,

I'm glad someone understood such a cut and dried specific question with a
link.
I didn't link to a tiny url or google post in my question.

Actually to be honest Paul, I didn't realize this is what you were asking.
Though I'll admit I've only been following this thread as an aside.

I for one can say I haven't. Is it on-line someplace? (and forgive me if
you're already posted the link, I must have missed it.)


They see what they want to see and selectively filter out the rest.

PM


Hi Greg,

It is not online I linked to the index so others could find the section it is under.
That's why I was surprised when Jon said he had read it. It's Restricted.

Thanks for the civil approach and answers,

PM

-- "Dan Foster" wrote in message ...
In article , Paul Maxson
wrote:


Satellites.

What is the ability of our satellites in 2003 in regards to space
shuttles?

Classified.

I guess we should all turn off our TV's then and go live in a cave. They
show Sattelite imagery all the time on Fox etc.

Well, Roger did add that _if_ this was for military satellites, then the
exact capabilities are classified (as expected), although one can make a
well educated guess as to the ballpark figures of their abilities.

For non-military satellites, the capabilities are publically known.

In either case, previous discussions about satellite capabilities by folks
likely to know this stuff, indicated that the best you could generally
expect to do with 'assets' (read: spy satellites or ground equipment) would
be to distinguish a single pixel down to about one feet or so.

The CAIB believes the damaged area to be less than a feet, so at best you'd
be able to distinguish a single missing pixel... further compounded by the
fact this was a black underbelly against a black background, so it's not
known if you could've made out anything even if you'd trained the best gear
we have upon the underbelly.

Dittemore also stated during a news conference that they did try to do this
for the Glenn Shuttle flight but received such absymal results that this
factored into their decision not to pursue this for STS-107.

Now whether that was the correct decision or not, is up to debate... but
these are the generally known / accepted facts.

It is also thought that (but not conclusively proven it _did_ happen;
merely that it was _possible_ it happened) STS-1 may have been imaged by
one of the Key Hole satellites. Nobody in a position to know has ever
confirmed or denied this. Ted Molczan did, however, post the calculations
to s.s.s a while ago indicating that it was quite feasible given known
and estimated orbital elements for both space objects.

Roger we can be civil if you don't patronize me ok? I am simply asking if
from 1986 to 2003 did the sattelites *ever* train their cameras on a
space shuttle, the ISS or anything NASA related? Is that "classified?"

I don't think he was necessarily being patronizing. Consider that mission
control personnel are also required to obtain some sort of TS clearance.

I don't know if that's still an active requirement; CAIB report mentioned
that some folks let their clearance lapse so it may not be a current hard
requirement / condition of employement; I just don't know.

So by that very nature, they may not be in a position to elaborate further
- whether for even basic yes/no answers or denials. Especially if it
involves classified hardware. He may have simply elected to stay out of any
grey areas with that, entirely. Can't hold it against him.

I've seen this kind of response from others in different fields as well, so
I don't find it particularly unusual that he would be extra cautious in
making public comments about stuff, whether or not it involves military
hardware, given potential for him having had TS clearance. Even if he could
publically guesstimate stuff, he may not have felt it appropriate to
broadcast it in an international forum. I'd suggest not holding it against
him.

I can tell you that other than for the Glenn mission, I haven't read any
public mention of cameras trained upon the Shuttle for the 1986-2003 time
frame, for what it's worth. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, of course; just
not publically known.

There are other folks who has posted more details about suspected and known
capabilities of these equipment including from Henry Spencer, Ted Molczan,
amongst others in the past. Don't recall much more than that. Should be
Google-able for these threads.

If you're really curious, perhaps this might be something you could make a
FOIA request for unclassified information on this subject?

-Dan

Great post and all points duly noted.

Thanks,

PM

"Paul Maxson" wrote:
OverSoul spoke out and was ran off ...

********.

... but newsflash, he read the book, he invested money to read the theory.

Indeed, I thanked him when he first put forth the theories contained therein
(after many attempts to get you or your father to state them).

You didn't, Jon didn't, Chuck didn't.

We all read "Betrayal"... but we didn't buy it. Daniel provided his copy
for our review, including several emails from him supporting our review
process. And no... I will *not* be posting or sharing those emails. The
people here who have done that in the recent past (of which you've been a
recipient, Paul) are beneath contempt for betraying that trust. Regardless
of what differences of opinion Daniel and I may have, I will not betray the
email that he sent me.

Besides... there's no crime in reading a borrowed book... there's not even
any attempt at denying that we didn't buy it. To be blunt, I wouldn't pay a
penny for it, as it's completely without merit, IMHBCO.

Yet you ran him off just like you are trying to do to Stocker and it
doesn't work anymore!

I would suggest, Paul, that you be much more careful with your attributions.
While I personally think that Mr. Stocker is riding too much "on the fence"
with the amount of information available, I have no problem with his
attempts to draw information out of your father.

News Flash... I saw
OverSoul (new handle now) posting on a well respected group recently so
you never know who might be reading here ok? NASA and Lockheed for
starters.

Don't forget the FBI, CIA, NSA, and other TLEs.

A 3rd party comes along and reviews the book and gets trashed. (Legally
purchased.)

If you're referring to Oversoul, please point out where he was "trashed"?

Daniel posts a website and it gets a DoS from here. (Publicly archived.)

There was some frustrated discussion of it... but was the site actually
taken down for excessive bandwidth usage?

Another 3rd party comes along and he is called a Maxson etc (Stocker.)

I've been called *far* worse by your father, and you don't hear me whining
like a sick mule, Paul... seriously... grow up.

Meanwhile you all illegally read the book or borrowed it (never spent a
dime)
and even held it against the owners permission so you could erect web
pages.

"Illegally read the book"? Would you like to quote a statute... any
statute... that says reading a borrowed book is "illegal"?

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

"John Maxson" wrote:
As you know, I have no control over errors made by reporters
in writing about me. They have misquoted or misrepresented
my statements from the beginning. I know better than anyone
that hydrogen is odorless, and I did not tell her I "smelled the
leaking hydrogen." That is not to say that in a hydrogen-rich
atmosphere the air has the same effect on one's nostrils as in
a normal one, at least not in my experience.

So... you're now claiming that there was enough H2 in the "hydrogen-rich
atmosphere" that your nostrils were affected?

Are you aware of the H2 flammable range in "normal air"?

What percentage affects "one's nostrils" without said nostrils bursting into
flame?

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

"Dan Foster" wrote:
I don't think he was necessarily being patronizing. Consider that mission
control personnel are also required to obtain some sort of TS clearance.

Correct.

So by that very nature, they may not be in a position to elaborate further
- whether for even basic yes/no answers or denials. Especially if it
involves classified hardware. He may have simply elected to stay out of
any
grey areas with that, entirely. Can't hold it against him.

Correct again.

I've seen this kind of response from others in different fields as well,
so
I don't find it particularly unusual that he would be extra cautious in
making public comments about stuff, whether or not it involves military
hardware, given potential for him having had TS clearance. Even if he
could
publically guesstimate stuff, he may not have felt it appropriate to
broadcast it in an international forum. I'd suggest not holding it against
him.

Excellent summary, Dan. Thank you.

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

"Roger Balettie" wrote in message ...
"Paul Maxson" wrote:
OverSoul spoke out and was ran off ...

********.

Is that like BS? I see that allot here but it's not used in California, anyway...

He left because of the hostile environment here. I knew him from
another group and spoke with him on the phone several times. Are you calling me a liar?


... but newsflash, he read the book, he invested money to read the theory.

Indeed, I thanked him when he first put forth the theories contained therein
(after many attempts to get you or your father to state them).

I quoted from my fathers book once because he couldn't post and wa told by him
(the author) not to do so anymore. I was trying, what were you doing back then?

We all read "Betrayal"... but we didn't buy it. Daniel provided his copy
for our review, including several emails from him supporting our review
process. And no... I will *not* be posting or sharing those emails. The
people here who have done that in the recent past (of which you've been a
recipient, Paul) are beneath contempt for betraying that trust. Regardless
of what differences of opinion Daniel and I may have, I will not betray the
email that he sent me.

Good, I don't like making private email public either. Are you saying Daniel dispaged me
in email? Yes or no will do no need to elaborate.



Besides... there's no crime in reading a borrowed book... there's not even
any attempt at denying that we didn't buy it. To be blunt, I wouldn't pay a
penny for it, as it's completely without merit, IMHBCO.


Shouldn't that be IMHO? How can you say your opinion is correct when it is an opinion?
We all have opinions what makes yours so correct? I dislike that acronym.


Yet you ran him off just like you are trying to do to Stocker and it
doesn't work anymore!

I would suggest, Paul, that you be much more careful with your attributions.

I will put your suggestion in my files under CS. The same file your other stuff is.


While I personally think that Mr. Stocker is riding too much "on the fence"
with the amount of information available, I have no problem with his
attempts to draw information out of your father.

He is not on the fence attempting to draw information about my father.
He is publiclly on record as being open to all opinions as long as
they are not leading or dictated (at least that is hopw I read him.)

So that is libel Roger. I will sue you and tell the police etc etc :-)


News Flash... I saw
OverSoul (new handle now) posting on a well respected group recently so
you never know who might be reading here ok? NASA and Lockheed for
starters.

Don't forget the FBI, CIA, NSA, and other TLEs.

??

You know I am told my dad worked for the NSA , did you know that Roger?
My mom told me, my dad never mentioned it. There is some more info for the "janitor"
theory you self admitdly started.


A 3rd party comes along and reviews the book and gets trashed. (Legally
purchased.)

If you're referring to Oversoul, please point out where he was "trashed"?

I prefer not to, my new line has been forward not backwards. Can we keep it that way?
Others are bringing up the past in links which makes me feel compelled to defend my career.
I am tired of reiterating that BTW.


Daniel posts a website and it gets a DoS from here. (Publicly archived.)

There was some frustrated discussion of it... but was the site actually
taken down for excessive bandwidth usage?

I was on the phone with Daniel when it was occuring. That's all you need to know.
You know all about need to know right Roger?

Daniel is a nice man. It's in his hands. Let me be clear on here something Roger.
I have not made one ISP, Police or any other type of report regarding activity
here (exception, one person who IMO crossed the line and that was months ago!)
It's not OM and it doesn't matter because it is over with (it seems) and that is all I wanted.
I have never even emailed io.com's abuse Dept. I handle it right here on the group.
My goal is to stop what I feel is defamation of my charachter.

Another 3rd party comes along and he is called a Maxson etc (Stocker.)

I've been called *far* worse by your father, and you don't hear me whining
like a sick mule, Paul... seriously... grow up.

He jabs, I duck. Moving on. Is this your way of trying to gain a new convert?


Meanwhile you all illegally read the book or borrowed it (never spent a
dime)
and even held it against the owners permission so you could erect web
pages.

"Illegally read the book"? Would you like to quote a statute... any
statute... that says reading a borrowed book is "illegal"?

I refer to the illgal copies of the unbound book floating around. If you read Daniel's loaner
then you have nothing to worry about Roger.


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


PM
Former Mall Guard
this space for rent.

"Roger Balettie" wrote in message ...
"Paul Maxson" wrote:
Roger, Do you have the Supreme Court transcripts of my fathers lawsuit in
your possesion?

insert answer here _______

I do not have Supreme Court transcripts of your father's lawsuit in my
possesion.

A yes or no would have been aprpriate but whatever.... Maybe they are somewhere else?

:-)

The primary reason for not having said documents is that I could care less
about the Supreme Court transcripts of your father's lawsuit.

I do, it it's entirity.

Good for you.

Is there anything worth discussing in there that hasn't been brought forward
to date? If so, please discuss it. If not, please do *not* do the "I have
something you don't have" tease again. I won't play that game any more.

I do not need to read this any further. A quick glance seems to reflect that
you are defensive for some unknown reason and are trying to belittle me.
I don't take orders from you or anyone else here. I try and be civil with you
while you and Jon host web pages against my dad and you seem to want to end that.

You asked me for all of the Supreme Court data in a very specific fashion.
Need a link? Does everyone always need a link? Why ask if you "don't care?"

It is not extraordinary for me to inquire about the results of said data after providing it.

You asked about 2 things. The Reporter and the Supreme Court info.
I gave you both, you published the results of one here. My father disputes that reporters
intepretation of what he said and me knowing his intelligence would choose his words
over a reporter 24/7 365. You want to believe her for some reason despite my dad's explanation.
To me *that* seems odd, so we both can agree that we are not on the same page I guess.

You seem to be impying that you hold a TS Clearance, I don't think you do.
Sensitive would be my gas but who cares? I wasn't asking classified questions.
You may think your answers are classified but my questions were not!

Frankly I don't really care either, you host a web page against a family
member and like to belittle people. It is a proven track record of yours.

My job/background wasn't to impress you with clearances just to let you know that
I know the difference between the classifications and what can and can't be
talked about ok? You are not on a TS mission anymore. As a Former FDO
I thought you might be more helpful but someone more "civil" came along (Dave)
& Greg and answered all of these "calssified" questions for me. Apperntly they
were not worried about the FBI, NSA etc, and neither am I.

Thanks anyway, I am not about to get into a ****ing match with you,

PM



In 1986 were our satellite camera's less capable than they are now?

If you're talking DoD assets, that's classified.

Well if it can prevent the loss of life on a known bad launch or help in
*any* way
then there should be a work around for that imagerey in a non sensitive
fashion.

If you have held a proper DoD clearance at some point in the past, you will
understand that declassification of a classified asset is a difficult
proposition. When an asset is produced with a classified system, said asset
is classified, regardless of the subject matter until such time as
declassification is performed.

As pointed out, your father flooded this group with several
presentations of
his "testimony". IIRC, there was little to no response to the posts he
made
then... it was as if he were talking to himself.

At times he was posting to himself because no one wanted to listen till
Columbia!
Not talking but typing (big difference Roger.)

"Talking to himself" in the sense that no one was responding... I'm very
much aware, Paul, that typing takes place on USENET...

To ask us to do this work for you is equivalent to asking us to go out
and
find all the theories and positions of the "we never landed on the Moon"
crowd, present them to you, and walk you through them one-by-one.

Bla Bla waste of space Bla

It's not going to happen.

Why not?


If you want to present information, do so. If you want someone else to do
your work for you, expect to be told "no".

I don't do my children's homework for them, but I *do* answer questions for
them and help them to find the information they need to do the job for
themselves.

This is not going to go away I assure you!

That's the sad part, Paul... y'know, I have no problem with your father
believing that the Easter Bunny brought down Challenger, if he wants to. As
a matter of fact, I would promise to *never* mention another word about your
father (including removing my "Betrayal" review website from the Internet)
if he could convince me of his major points in his theory.

He hasn't, to date, been able to do that with even *one* point.

Roger please. Just where did you find that article? I'll answer , I sent
you the info so
please don't patranize me because I have the original not a copy. I got
mine several
years ago, when did you get yours and why? Mine was sent to me because I
was family.

I contacted the reporter myself, based on information provided by you, thank
you. She was more than willing to provide me with a copy when I asked her
for it. I thanked her very much for her time and effort.

There was no patronization involved, Paul. I do, however, find it quite
humorous that your father is the only person on the planet that seems to be
able to "smell the leaking hydrogen" when H2 is an odorless gas.

Paul, even my 13-year-old son knows that hydrogen is an odorless gas.

Good for him, I'm sure my father and brother know that too. Smart kid.

From what I've seen, I'm not convinced that your father *does* know that...
or at least that he knew it when he gave the interview in 1996.

As far as my son goes... yeah... he's a smart kid, thanks... and a heck of a
goalkeeper. We were undefeated in our soccer tournament in Houston this
past weekend, winning all three of our matches without giving up a single
goal, before Tropical Storm Grace brought a premature end to the tournament.
We're waiting to find out if our goal differential will be enough to get
first place or not.

What is the protocol for this scenario? FDO's expound please.

It's been discussed and documented in the CAIB report that imaging was
requested, but denied.

Well, finnaly one answer I was looking for. Thanks Roger. Denied. Let that
sink in.

Please read, Paul, that it was well documented in the CAIB report that the
request was denied.

What part of the smart-aleck "let that sink in" was required for what I
said?

Satellites.

What is the ability of our satellites in 2003 in regards to space
shuttles?

Classified.

I guess we should all turn off our TV's then and go live in a cave. They
show
Sattelite imagery all the time on Fox etc.

Yup. If you think that's the level of capability for national security
assets, then please... by all means... keep watching Fox.

Roger we can be civil if you don't patronize me ok? I am simply asking if
from 1986 to
2003 did the sattelites *ever* train their cameras on a space shuttle, the
ISS or anything
NASA related? Is that "classified?"

Yes. That is classified.

Let's be civil not patronizing. I hold a classified position in a federal
building that
houses 2 or more federal agencies. I have signed non disclosures, I was in
the Military.

That doesn't mean that you have a "need to know" any of the information for
which you are asking.

I am not talking about weapons or trying to breech our National Security,
I am asking
the questions a layman might ask, I was hoping for better answers but the
"DENIED"
speaks volumes and for that I thank you.

"Denied" related to an MMT decision to cancel the requests for imaging.
Feel free to review the CAIB report for yourself, if you don't believe me.

What, pray tell, does that "speak volumes" about?

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

Paul Maxson wrote:

No I won't , it wasn't my website. The owner of it can if he feels so inclined.
You can find Herb's apology rather easily. I said "intent." Look it up.

No, you said Herb issued "instructions to bring down my
brothers website". I said I reviewed Herb's posts for
the last month, and didn't see any such statement (the
only apology I found was on the issue of copyright). So
I asked for the article id -- the supporting documentation,
if you will.

It would appear you can accuse, but you can't be bothered
to support the accusation. Got it. Where have I seen this
pattern before?

Paul Maxson wrote in message
...

You asked about 2 things. The Reporter and the Supreme
Court info. I gave you both, you published the results of
one here.

No, he didn't. What he did was pick out one of the few errors
Melinda made, in a splendid, color-illustrated, front-page, 3-page,
10th anniversary Challenger special (written completely about
my efforts to stop the launch and my efforts ever since to get out
the truth). It was titled 'The Ghost of Challenger' by her editors
(or something very similar). Now what it will take to undo another
of Roger's biased "fair use reviews" is nothing less than posting the
entire color article. It's copyrighted though, so that isn't going
to happen. The bottom line is more irreparable damage by Balettie.

My father disputes that reporters intepretation of what he said
and me knowing his intelligence would choose his words
over a reporter 24/7 365. You want to believe her for some
reason despite my dad's explanation. To me *that* seems odd,
so we both can agree that we are not on the same page I guess.

He's on the same page with his partner in crime, Lockheed's
long-nosed, burnt-to-a-crisp Jon S. Berndt (BBR). Rocket expert
Chuck Tamagni, among others, can tell him about my pioneering
work with hydrogen and fluorine at the Santa Cruz Test Site.
He knows how long I've been around leaking hydrogen, and
when I learned about its properties (during rocket engine tests).
Chuck is even quoted in Melinda's article.

Paul, maybe you could undo some of the damage by picking
out some of the more glowing testimony about me in her article
and posting it, since you have it, and since you enabled Roger.

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