A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » History
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

STS51L Accident Questions



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old February 18th 05, 04:22 AM
Charleston
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Herb Schaltegger" wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote:

snip

You know, there's a far better video of the smoke plume out there than
that; in fact, I can't even see the smoke plume in that crappy and
distorted video. The other video is in color in color and a _lot_ closer
up.


Which is probably one reason why this particular footage was
"unreleased," along with the fact that due to the angle of the camera
with respect to the trajectory and orientation of the stack
immediately prior to and following breakup, you can't really see much
that you can't see from much better perspectives elsewhere.


If this video footage and other similar footage had actually been released
in its entirety to the Commission investigating the accident and the public
during the original investigation, we would not be discussing when the smoke
ended at all. See my previous comment.

Daniel


Ads
  #12  
Old February 18th 05, 07:08 AM
Charleston
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...
Charleston wrote:

Kind of like this unreleased STS 51-L video where the smoke, uh stops at
3.375 seconds?

http://www.challengerdisaster.info/s..._m-2_mpg_i.mpg


You know, there's a far better video of the smoke plume out there than
that; in fact, I can't even see the smoke plume in that crappy and
distorted video. The other video is in color in color and a _lot_ closer
up.


Okay, I have uploaded MPEG II videos of M-2 and M-3. Still not AVI, nor
3/4", but they are good enough. If you look at M-3 at 10.4 to 10.5 seconds
MET, you will notice that the space between the SRBs and the Orbiter (side
shot) is obscured by smoke. At MET 12.7 and 12.8 seconds the first right
SRB stiffener ring immediately below the base of the ET and from there on up
the SRB to the ET is intermittedly obscured by smoke. When you combine M-3
with M-2 you can get a 3-dimensional feel for the smoke's location based on
what is being obscured! In a nutshell something is still leaking! I have
reviewed prior flight photography and nothing comes close to the density of
the smoke (obscured hardware behind smoke) as can be seen on STS 51-L.

If you do not have freeze frame/frame by frame advance, it is very difficult
to pick-up/appreciate the subtlety of what is happening as described above.

Daniel


  #13  
Old February 18th 05, 03:03 PM
Herb Schaltegger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article [email protected],
"Charleston" wrote:

Personally, I
can see plenty of black smoke up to about 3.4 seconds, and subsequently I
see significant diffuse smoke brightly illuminated by the light of the SRB
flames. Also, I conclude that the "STS 51-L JSC Visual Data Analysis
Sub-Team" and the team at LMSC got it right when they saw smoke and "solid
material" as late as 45 seconds emanating from the same region of the
vehicle. Unfortuantely, they were overruled by the film team at KSC. As
you probably know, it is KSC's views that are reflected in the final
Presidential Commission report.


Okay, Daniel - you've explained what it is you perceive in the footage
you've provided and you've indicated your agreement with a
later-overruled/discredited/under-appreciated/whatever view held by a
JSC sub-team.

However, I'm now forced to ask a question that keeps popping up in my
mind: why does it matter? In other words, what's the significance of
your view as opposed to the views and conclusions contained within the
Presidential Commission report?

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D., GPG Key ID: BBF6FC1C
"The loss of the American system of checks and balances is more of a security
danger than any terrorist risk." -- Bruce Schneier
http://dischordia.blogspot.com
http://www.angryherb.net
  #14  
Old February 18th 05, 05:41 PM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Charleston wrote:

The best motion picture film photography of the
smoke puffs at launch, that is the cameras positioned with a direct angle to
observe the start-up tranisent as to location, direction of smoke, size,
etcetera, all failed to operate! The odds of that failure being coincidence
are dim, but it did happen that way.



And your point is?

As for your inability to see the smoke, please don't blame me. It takes a
lot of bandwidth to put up MPEG II or AVI. I will put up some higher
resolution photography later tonight for a limited timeframe. Personally, I
can see plenty of black smoke up to about 3.4 seconds, and subsequently I
see significant diffuse smoke brightly illuminated by the light of the SRB
flames.


That stuff coming off the side of the tank, and falling into the area
behind the ET isn't related to the SRB problem, it shows up on every
Shuttle launch; it's either some sort of venting from the ET or frost
falling off of its exterior surface.

Also, I conclude that the "STS 51-L JSC Visual Data Analysis
Sub-Team" and the team at LMSC got it right when they saw smoke and "solid
material" as late as 45 seconds emanating from the same region of the
vehicle.


Are we talking about the SRB here, or some other part of the vehicle?

Unfortuantely, they were overruled by the film team at KSC. As
you probably know, it is KSC's views that are reflected in the final
Presidential Commission report.



As we have photos showing the plume coming out of the SRB and impinging
on the ET's surface, followed by the failure of the ET, and also
detailed extremely clear film of the burning of the O-rings at the field
joint during SRB ignition with a plume of smoke exiting the SRB, this
whole thing is about as open and shut case as it's possible to get in
regards to the cause of the accident.

Pat
  #15  
Old February 18th 05, 05:48 PM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Charleston wrote:

Okay, I have uploaded MPEG II videos of M-2 and M-3. Still not AVI, nor
3/4", but they are good enough. If you look at M-3 at 10.4 to 10.5 seconds
MET, you will notice that the space between the SRBs and the Orbiter (side
shot) is obscured by smoke. At MET 12.7 and 12.8 seconds the first right
SRB stiffener ring immediately below the base of the ET and from there on up
the SRB to the ET is intermittedly obscured by smoke.



Is there some pertinent point to this? NASA says that it leaked at
liftoff, stopped leaking, then restarted leaking.
You say it was leaking all the way up to a greater or lesser degree.
What difference does it make?

Pat
  #16  
Old February 18th 05, 07:07 PM
OM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 10:48:16 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:

What difference does it make?


....Pat, he's on another bender, attempting to unvillify his "Father's"
worthless name. Just killfile the little ******* and put him out of
our misery again.

Please.

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
  #17  
Old February 18th 05, 07:07 PM
OM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 10:41:36 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:

And your point is?


....On his head, as all of his particular strain of inbreeding tend to
possess.

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
  #18  
Old February 18th 05, 07:13 PM
OM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 08:03:47 -0600, Herb Schaltegger
wrote:

However, I'm now forced to ask a question that keeps popping up in my
mind: why does it matter? In other words, what's the significance of
your view as opposed to the views and conclusions contained within the
Presidential Commission report?


....They're not *his* views, but those of that worthless psychotic
janitor of a "father" of his. He's just trying to unbesmirch daddy's
name. Just killfile the little ******* and put him out of our misery.

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
  #19  
Old February 18th 05, 11:33 PM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



OM wrote:

...Pat, he's on another bender, attempting to unvillify his "Father's"
worthless name. Just killfile the little ******* and put him out of
our misery again.



You notice though that the the theory has changed very considerably from
it's first incarnation; now the problem's with the SRB, not the
Shuttle's RCS.

Pat
  #20  
Old February 19th 05, 02:26 AM
Charleston
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Herb Schaltegger" wrote:
"Charleston" wrote:

Personally, I
can see plenty of black smoke up to about 3.4 seconds, and subsequently I
see significant diffuse smoke brightly illuminated by the light of the
SRB
flames. Also, I conclude that the "STS 51-L JSC Visual Data Analysis
Sub-Team" and the team at LMSC got it right when they saw smoke and
"solid
material" as late as 45 seconds emanating from the same region of the
vehicle. Unfortuantely, they were overruled by the film team at KSC. As
you probably know, it is KSC's views that are reflected in the final
Presidential Commission report.


Okay, Daniel - you've explained what it is you perceive in the footage
you've provided and you've indicated your agreement with a
later-overruled/discredited/under-appreciated/whatever view held by a
JSC sub-team.


"later overuled" The JSC Sub-Team I spoke of stood by their report which
was published in June 1986, and they did so only after receiving the final
EA (Enhancement/Analysis) report from LMSC (one of many outside groups
called in by NASA to help with the photo analysis). The folks at KSC
wielded the real power on the Photo and TV Support Team. They based their
conclusions and thus their report on preliminary EA work, which was done
with inferior photographic products.

from http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3appn.htm (page N-81) we have:

"The analyses were hampered in this initial stage (2 weeks after the
accident) by the lack of suitable photographic materials to support digital
analysis. All organizations reported problems in digitizing from the
cut-film transparencies and most resorted to digitizing from 8 x 10 positive
prints or abandoned the effort entirely. Exxon and one other laboratory had
contact transparencies of E60 and E63 and performed analyses of the smoke at
launch."

Herb, the KSC Photo Team obeyed a capricious Presidential Commission (PC)
deadline. That deadline was extended, in any event, at the request of NASA
to address late breaking events like recovering an SRB piece with a hole
burned through it. The Photo and TV Support Team could have elected to
amend their report as others did. They chose not to do so despite receiving
the final report from LMSC in early April.

http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3appn.htm (page N-81)
"c. Results

The results of these follow-on analyses were received in the mid-March to
early-April timeframe and generally have not been analyzed and consolidated
for this report **PC Report**. The findings do, however, generally
corroborate the integrated timeline events when the analyses pertain to a
particular event."

To me at least, "generally corroborate" is a far cry from out right
contradict, but that is what the final LMSC report does--contradict the PC
report. It is also what the flight photography does. Of course the final
PC report could only be as good as the data upon which it was based and
basing a Presidential report on preliminary data from early April, when the
report is not due on the President's desk until June 9th, seems decidedly
foolhardy, or something worse, deceitful.

"discredited" I would say the discredited team was working at KSC and they
are "discredited" because they chose to draw conclusions before all of the
facts were in and to not amend their report when confronted by JSC with said
facts based on better photographic products.

"under-appreciated" Well, you'd have to ask the JSC team. I believe them to
be honest and hard working having spoken to one of the team members myself.

However, I'm now forced to ask a question that keeps popping up in my
mind: why does it matter?


Nah, don't let me force you into anything, please;-)

In other words, what's the significance of
your view as opposed to the views and conclusions contained within the
Presidential Commission report?


Well it is pretty simple. If there is smoke up until at least T+45 seconds
(JSC/LMSC conclusion) then it is likely that there was always smoke. If
there was always smoke, it is difficult to believe the SRB field joint did
in fact reseal. If in fact the SRB field joint did not reseal then it is
difficult to believe that there was nothing more than smoke for 58 seconds
or so. Stated differently, the evidence suggests to me that the early smoke
seen at lift-off was not from an SRB filed joint leak at all and if that is
the case the real question is where did the smoke really originate?

Go ahead OM throw rocks and smoke jokes. I will try to throw objective
opinion based on overlooked facts from overlooked reports and overlooked
photography that does not seem so very "crappy" to me. Oh, and please don't
forget that I can examine the facts fairly decently ala Apollo 1/204. I am
not drawing any conclusions as to what ultimately happened but more research
is warranted and that is what I am doing. Please consider this an update.
Thanks.

Daniel




 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lessons Learned but Forgotten from the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident Jim Oberg Space Shuttle 0 December 13th 04 05:58 PM
Lessons Learned but Forgotten from the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident Jim Oberg History 0 December 13th 04 05:58 PM
"Hindsight bias" could hide real lessons of Columbia accident report,expert says (Forwarded) Andrew Yee Space Shuttle 0 September 3rd 03 01:54 AM
NASA Administrator Accepts Columbia Accident Report Ron Baalke Space Shuttle 3 August 27th 03 04:48 PM
Columbia Accident Investigation Board Releases Final Report Jacques van Oene Space Shuttle 0 August 26th 03 03:30 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.