Beyond the Bunk: Challenger's Terminal Timeline

|| INTRODUCTION ||

This is a five-part technical commentary.

|| PART ONE ||

The final timeline in the Report of the Presidential Commission (RPC)
describes a key set of Challenger's terminal telemetry data as the
'Last State Vector Downlinked:'

Begin Quote

(45) Last State Vector Downlinked
The parameters defining the state vector update downlisted from the
GPC a

V95H0185C-X-component of current Shuttle position vector
V95H0186C-Y-component of current Shuttle position vector
V95H0187C-Z-component of current Shuttle Position vector

V95L019OC-X-component of current Shuttle velocity vector
V95L0191C-Y-component of current Shuttle velocity vector
V95L0192C-Z-component of current Shuttle velocity vector

V95W0200C-Time tag associated with current state
These are all 1-sample/second measurements and the time selected was
72.624 seconds MET.

End Quote

(Notice that no first-stage GPC update rate is provided for the state,
only the downlist rate.)

There is a notable absence on this final NASA timeline of any specific
event called 'Flight Control System Failure.' Indeed, the reference
point 'Last State Vector Downlinked' doesn't merit so much as a
mention in the "veering" scenario initially postulated by Arnie
Aldrich and quickly enhanced by Tom Moser (both rapidly promoted after
the tragedy from JSC to NASA Headquarters).

|| PART TWO ||

The relevant quotes below were taken from the closed-session testimony
of Arnie Aldrich on February 7, 1986:

MR. ALDRICH: There's at least one other thing that shows on the
telemetry. The telemetry shows, from the gyros that Sally was talking
about - there are gyros in each solid, and it shows that in the last
second before the loss of data the right solid rocket deviates from
the stack, and the left one and the orbiter stay together in a
conformed trajectory.

(Note carefully both Aldrich's time-frame and his claim, respectively:
"... before the loss of data ..." and "the right solid rocket deviates
from the stack, and the left one and the orbiter stay together in a
conformed trajectory.")

VICE CHAIRMAN ARMSTRONG: When was that?

MR. ALDRICH: Within the last half second before loss of data.

(Note carefully Aldrich's adjusted time-frame.)

DR. FEYNMAN: Can I ask a dumb question? Do we know on which side which
rocket is afterwards? Did they go like this and cross or do they look
like they went that way?

MR. ALDRICH: The photo team will be able to pinpoint that precisely,
and you've asked quite a few questions about what we see in the
photography and, believe me, there's a lot of photography.

(My initial post to this forum in 2001 highlighted that first -- and
so far as I know, only -- RPC mention of the word "cross," with
respect to the paths taken by the boosters within the fireball. Dr.
Feynman told me just a few months before his death that he was never
informed about the left booster's photographic black ID band. If that
doesn't constitute withholding of technical evidence by NASA, what
does? When I asked Dr. Feynman if those two questions he asked were
ever answered, he said, "I don't remember." I sure wish he'd been in
better health.)

DR. COVERT: Arnie, can I ask, in this rotation of this right-hand
solid booster, does it look like it is pinned at the bottom or pinned
at the top?

MR. ALDRICH: I did it wrong in my talk. It looks like the bottom comes
free and it toes in at the top.

(Note carefully Aldrich's concession: "I did it wrong in my talk.")

The next quotes were taken from a later closed session on February 13,
1986, where Tom Moser attempted to prove Aldrich's "conformed
trajectory" allegation from the same "last half second" SRB gyro
telemetry:

DR. COVERT: Well, this says relative roll rate.

MR. MOSER: That is the roll rate about the new hinge.

DR. COVERT: I understand that. I wondered what the data indicate. I
can't put this back into a single thing in my head. Lets go on, Tom.

MR. MOSER: It is shown on chart BU-16, that shows the right hand has a
pitch rate at that time of about minus point - I mean, about .5
degrees positive. And it has a corresponding yaw rate - this is about
the body axis now for the right-hand SRB - which changes drastically
and goes up, goes from minus about .15 or 1-1/2 up to about 3-1/2
degrees per second.

(On BU-16, at http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v4p584.htm,
carefully compare the last yaw rates from the right booster with those
from the left booster.)

|| PART THREE ||

Sadly, Presidential Commission (PC) transcript-history and charts
reveal that under the forceful direction and closed-session witness-
preparation of Lockeed corporate attorney Bill Rogers, NASA initially
described the booster paths through the fireball so as to fit the
Rogers-backed O-ring theory, not the actual fireball observations.

At http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3n48a.htm we find that NASA's
Photo Team and the RPC ultimately abandoned the most terminal SRB rate
gyro data. This is the data that Tom Moser (like Arnie Aldrich) had
relied upon in a blundered attempt to show radical "veering" at the
last split-second, away from a "conformed trajectory."

As Dr. Feynman pointed out and Tom Moser admitted in open session on
March 7, 1986, Moser's use of "last half-second" SRB rate-gyro events
was just "guess" work. The boosters had no inertial measurement units
(only two rate gyros each) to help describe the terminal dynamics of
the Challenger stack.

Moser needed more definitive telemetry data (valid split-second state
vector updates) for accuracy in his determination of "relative roll
rate," as well as for his interpretation of "veering." However, Tom
Moser persisted that day with an unusually belated reference to a
misidentified SRB-TVC actuator-position plot.

Using http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v5p1179.htm, Moser asserted
that the Flight Control System continued to "behave properly" until
72.95 seconds (0.33 seconds after the final timeline's 'State Vector'
event at 72.624 seconds). With similar vaguery, on his defensive
Challenger website Lockheed's Jon Berndt now boasts:

"The SRBs sent back various parameters until 73.124 seconds."

Jon's failure to disprove a fireball crossing illustrates the veering-
scenario inadequacy of Moser's final pitch. As noted above, it was
then that Moser made his very tardy switch to terminal Left-SRB TVC
data.

(http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.shuttle/msg/
aa6cecfc9363d5db provides more detail about this tardiness.)

Any switchback "veering" at 2000 ft/sec (as implied by Moser's last
testimony) has since degenerated into the muddled obscurity that I
refer to here as merely the Berndt theory, for lack of any further
technical clarification or meaningful explanation from NASA JSC. (I
don't consider probative Dan Germany's hands-in-the-air gesture, with
arms slightly outspread and tongue-in-cheek expression, during an open
session on March 21, 1986.)

|| PART FOUR ||

With whatever respect is due, I ask these questions of Jon Berndt (and/
or those at JSC with whom he consulted):

1) Using http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3n44.htm from the RPC,
why does your latest web-pitch selectively consider just the TVC
actuator positions as the only valid telemetry received from the 51-L
boosters up until the later time you provided (or even the earlier
time provided by Tom Moser for this data on March 7, 1986)?

2) On http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v4p584.htm, why didn't the
pitch and yaw rates from the SRB rate gyros ultimately qualify as
accurately received until 73 seconds also, i.e., without the backward-
adjusted end-times of the final plots that you used for reference?

(See http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3n48a.htm once more, for the
final plots selected by Jon.)

3) If those last-split-second SRB gyro rates were ultimately deemed
invalid due to FCS failure and inadequate sample rate, why was this
earth-shattering decision never publicized by NASA or reflected in the
RPC, in the form of an official explanation and a full-blown
retraction by officials at NASA JSC? ("Poof!" Up in a cloud of smoke
had gone Moser's inconsistent February 13 "veering" scenario. See his
March 7 testimony in answer to Mr. Rummel's inquiry as to when
specifically the aft hydrogen tank failed! I will quote both for you,
at the end of these questions.)

4) If the rate gyro data was obviously in error beyond 72.8 seconds
(as the optics clearly indicate), why should we trust JSC's next-
introduced TVC actuator position data, which (if authentic) reflects
any erroneous IMU attitude data and GPC-propagated states beyond
72.624 seconds, the time of the 'Last State Vector Downlinked?'

(http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/...utref/orbiter/
avionics/gnc/imu.html, first paragraph, provides a reference point
for the above question.)

5) Why should we expect to see late SRB TVC commands validly reflected
in the RPC, specifically, in the Photo Team Report?

Here (as promised) is the relevant February 13 testimony pertaining to
Question 3 above:

MR. MOSER: ... And it has a corresponding yaw rate - this is about the
body axis now for the right-hand SRB - which changes drastically and
goes up, goes from minus about .15 or 1-1/2 up to about 3-1/2 degrees
per second. ... I want to show you what I think is happening up in the
forward end, and again just to put the other pieces of the puzzle
together. ... With a 12 degree rotation about that new hinge line, we
bottom out the forward SRB attachment to that on the external tank. So
now we're beginning to induce a bending moment in that carry-through
structure between the SRB's, which is a load direction for which it
was not designed for a very high magnitude, and I don't know that
number right off the top of my head. ... What that is doing, it is
inducing loads into the inner tank region, which is dumping them into
the blocks, wall, and the bulkhead of that, and the same way with the
hydrogen tank. ...

MR. RUMMEL: Could I ask, the impact point of the SRB with the tank is
between the oxygen tank and the other tank?

MR. MOSER: Correct.

MR. RUMMEL: Is there any evidence of those tanks in fact failing?

MR. MOSER: Just the visual evidence, yes, sir.

The following is the relevant March 7 testimony, after the terminal
SRB rate gyro data was removed. Long gone is that suspect gyro data at
73 seconds, needed to hypothesize "veering" away from a "conformed
trajectory:"

MR. RUMMEL: The aft rupture in the ET is after the explosion, due to
explosive force? On what do you postulate the cause to be?

MR. MOSER: I'm sorry, Mr. Rummel. Could you repeat that, please?

MR. RUMMEL: I think you mentioned that after the LOX tank and the
hydrogen tank and the inter-tank area had been damaged, that was
followed by a separation in the aft end of the hydrogen tank. Did I
understand that correctly?

MR. MOSER: Yes, sir. Let me verify that. We first see that, the
spillage of the aft dome of the liquid hydrogen tank, at 73.137
seconds. We see-that is visually, and I think I'm going to show you a
picture of that in just a moment.

MR. RUMMEL: Well, my question-perhaps you're coming to it-is the cause
of the aft rupture. It appears that the SRB didn't hit the tank in
that area. Was this due to overstressing from the rupture forward?

MR. MOSER: Yes, sir. The aft attachment is connected, the remaining
aft attachment about which it is rotating, is connected right at the
seam of the aft bulkhead to the cylindrical portion of the tank. And
as soon as it rotates over and interferes with that region, then it
loads it up in an out-of-plane load for the tank, and so it should rip
the tank right in that region. Plus, the solid rocket booster is
rotating about 40 degrees per second at that time, and so it fits with
the analysis that we have done that says that, it should have in fact
tore the tank in that region.

MR. RUMMEL: So you're postulating the failing of that part of the
attach fitting that is attached to the ET at that point in time?

MR. MOSER: That is correct, sir.

MR. RUMMEL: Thank you.

To summarize, Mr. Rummel was persistent. Beginning in closed session
on February 13, Rummel cleverly alerted Tom Moser to the reality that
Moser couldn't concurrently have "veering" (to prove the "O-ring"
theory) and "toeing-in" at the top (to destroy the LOX tank)!
Following up in open session on March 7, Mr. Rummel just as cleverly
made sure that Moser no longer claimed to have things both ways. The
boner was out; the bunk was in!

|| PART FIVE ||

This forum's archives show that Jon Berndt (like Tom Moser) was also
left clutching at straws to show fireball "veering." Jon received
sharp criticism from me (as Moser did from PC members) for failing to
present (like Aldrich and Moser) any valid (believable) telemetry (or
optics) to support his original claim (like JSC's bum implication)
that at 73 seconds and beyond the 51-L boosters "toed-in at the
bottom," rather than maintaining or continuing their toe-in at the
top.

Referring once more to Jon's "dissingly" disinformative Challenger
website, we find:

"The idea that the SRB rotated purely outward at its base and 'nosed
into' or 'flew through' the ET is incorrect."

I don't believe anybody ever claimed that either booster rotated
"purely" outward aft. After all, each had unique pitch, separated well
forward by the length of the thrust beam. Also, it is an established
fact that the entire vehicle was in right-roll mode (despite Moser's
hypothesis).

At any rate, it will take more than NASA's last-ditch SRB TVC plots,
Jon's redundant handwaving, and Jon's frequent use of formalized
personal attacks to prove the "veering" contention (Berndt theory) to
a world that is now much better informed than it was during the first
quarter of 1986.

(See http://www.mission51l.com/challenger.htm for a small example of
my own efforts to inform.)

It's high time for Jon to make better use of the totality of the
fireball optics, the pertinent laws of physics, and good common sense.
In addition, JSC ought to give careful consideration to the fireball
opinions of a world-wide jury. (Remember, Dr. Feynman denounced the
idea of a "trained eye," but not the science of photogrammetrics.)

If and when Jon Berndt changes his approach, I'm certain that he'll
find the final NASA timeline grossly inadequate, especially for
terminal events easily identifiable in the optics. Missing are mission
elapsed times for several rather conspicuous film events, such as
"right OMS/RCS explosion" and "last glimpse of LOX tank flames."
Similarly, no times are given for "first indication of a SRB exiting
fireball" and "left-SRB ID band first visible at exit."

|| SUMMARY ||

For objective purposes of post-explosion booster identification, no
valid analysis of Challenger's fireball dynamics should assume a pre-
explosion "blowtorch burnthrough" in the right booster.

JTM -- http://www.mission51l.com/aboutus.htm

On Nov 9, 7:55 am, "
wrote:

(reposted to remedy Google Groups' lack of a capability to handle long
links)

|| INTRODUCTION ||

This is a five-part technical commentary.

|| PART ONE ||

The final timeline in the Report of the Presidential Commission (RPC)
describes a key set of Challenger's terminal telemetry data as the
'Last State Vector Downlinked:'

Begin Quote

(45) Last State Vector Downlinked
The parameters defining the state vector update downlisted from the
GPC a

V95H0185C-X-component of current Shuttle position vector
V95H0186C-Y-component of current Shuttle position vector
V95H0187C-Z-component of current Shuttle Position vector

V95L019OC-X-component of current Shuttle velocity vector
V95L0191C-Y-component of current Shuttle velocity vector
V95L0192C-Z-component of current Shuttle velocity vector

V95W0200C-Time tag associated with current state
These are all 1-sample/second measurements and the time selected was
72.624 seconds MET.

End Quote

(Notice that no first-stage GPC update rate is provided for the state,
only the downlist rate.)

There is a notable absence on this final NASA timeline of any specific
event called 'Flight Control System Failure.' Indeed, the reference
point 'Last State Vector Downlinked' doesn't merit so much as a
mention in the "veering" scenario initially postulated by Arnie
Aldrich and quickly enhanced by Tom Moser (both rapidly promoted after
the tragedy from JSC to NASA Headquarters).

|| PART TWO ||

The relevant quotes below were taken from the closed-session testimony
of Arnie Aldrich on February 7, 1986:

MR. ALDRICH: There's at least one other thing that shows on the
telemetry. The telemetry shows, from the gyros that Sally was talking
about - there are gyros in each solid, and it shows that in the last
second before the loss of data the right solid rocket deviates from
the stack, and the left one and the orbiter stay together in a
conformed trajectory.

(Note carefully both Aldrich's time-frame and his claim, respectively:
"... before the loss of data ..." and "the right solid rocket deviates
from the stack, and the left one and the orbiter stay together in a
conformed trajectory.")

VICE CHAIRMAN ARMSTRONG: When was that?

MR. ALDRICH: Within the last half second before loss of data.

(Note carefully Aldrich's adjusted time-frame.)

DR. FEYNMAN: Can I ask a dumb question? Do we know on which side which
rocket is afterwards? Did they go like this and cross or do they look
like they went that way?

MR. ALDRICH: The photo team will be able to pinpoint that precisely,
and you've asked quite a few questions about what we see in the
photography and, believe me, there's a lot of photography.

(My initial post to this forum in 2001 highlighted that first -- and
so far as I know, only -- RPC mention of the word "cross," with
respect to the paths taken by the boosters within the fireball. Dr.
Feynman told me just a few months before his death that he was never
informed about the left booster's photographic black ID band. If that
doesn't constitute withholding of technical evidence by NASA, what
does? When I asked Dr. Feynman if those two questions he asked were
ever answered, he said, "I don't remember." I sure wish he'd been in
better health.)

DR. COVERT: Arnie, can I ask, in this rotation of this right-hand
solid booster, does it look like it is pinned at the bottom or pinned
at the top?

MR. ALDRICH: I did it wrong in my talk. It looks like the bottom comes
free and it toes in at the top.

(Note carefully Aldrich's concession: "I did it wrong in my talk.")

The next quotes were taken from a later closed session on February 13,
1986, where Tom Moser attempted to prove Aldrich's "conformed
trajectory" allegation from the same "last half second" SRB gyro
telemetry:

DR. COVERT: Well, this says relative roll rate.

MR. MOSER: That is the roll rate about the new hinge.

DR. COVERT: I understand that. I wondered what the data indicate. I
can't put this back into a single thing in my head. Lets go on, Tom.

MR. MOSER: It is shown on chart BU-16, that shows the right hand has a
pitch rate at that time of about minus point - I mean, about .5
degrees positive. And it has a corresponding yaw rate - this is about
the body axis now for the right-hand SRB - which changes drastically
and goes up, goes from minus about .15 or 1-1/2 up to about 3-1/2
degrees per second.

(On BU-16, at http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v4p584.htm,
carefully compare the last yaw rates from the right booster with those
from the left booster.)

|| PART THREE ||

Sadly, Presidential Commission (PC) transcript-history and charts
reveal that under the forceful direction and closed-session witness-
preparation of Lockeed corporate attorney Bill Rogers, NASA initially
described the booster paths through the fireball so as to fit the
Rogers-backed O-ring theory, not the actual fireball observations.

At http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3n48a.htm we find that NASA's
Photo Team and the RPC ultimately abandoned the most terminal SRB rate
gyro data. This is the data that Tom Moser (like Arnie Aldrich) had
relied upon in a blundered attempt to show radical "veering" at the
last split-second, away from a "conformed trajectory."

As Dr. Feynman pointed out and Tom Moser admitted in open session on
March 7, 1986, Moser's use of "last half-second" SRB rate-gyro events
was just "guess" work. The boosters had no inertial measurement units
(only two rate gyros each) to help describe the terminal dynamics of
the Challenger stack.

Moser needed more definitive telemetry data (valid split-second state
vector updates) for accuracy in his determination of "relative roll
rate," as well as for his interpretation of "veering." However, Tom
Moser persisted that day with an unusually belated reference to a
misidentified SRB-TVC actuator-position plot.

Using http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v5p1179.htm, Moser asserted
that the Flight Control System continued to "behave properly" until
72.95 seconds (0.33 seconds after the final timeline's 'State Vector'
event at 72.624 seconds). With similar vaguery, on his defensive
Challenger website Lockheed's Jon Berndt now boasts:

"The SRBs sent back various parameters until 73.124 seconds."

Jon's failure to disprove a fireball crossing illustrates the veering-
scenario inadequacy of Moser's final pitch. As noted above, it was
then that Moser made his very tardy switch to terminal Left-SRB TVC
data.

(http://tinyurl.com/2xo8up provides more detail about this
tardiness.)

Any switchback "veering" at 2000 ft/sec (as implied by Moser's last
testimony) has since degenerated into the muddled obscurity that I
refer to here as merely the Berndt theory, for lack of any further
technical clarification or meaningful explanation from NASA JSC. (I
don't consider probative Dan Germany's hands-in-the-air gesture, with
arms slightly outspread and tongue-in-cheek expression, during an open
session on March 21, 1986.)

|| PART FOUR ||

With whatever respect is due, I ask these questions of Jon Berndt (and/
or those at JSC with whom he consulted):

1) Using http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3n44.htm from the RPC,
why does your latest web-pitch selectively consider just the TVC
actuator positions as the only valid telemetry received from the 51-L
boosters up until the later time you provided (or even the earlier
time provided by Tom Moser for this data on March 7, 1986)?

2) On http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v4p584.htm, why didn't the
pitch and yaw rates from the SRB rate gyros ultimately qualify as
accurately received until 73 seconds also, i.e., without the backward-
adjusted end-times of the final plots that you used for reference?

(See http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3n48a.htm once more, for the
final plots selected by Jon.)

3) If those last-split-second SRB gyro rates were ultimately deemed
invalid due to FCS failure and inadequate sample rate, why was this
earth-shattering decision never publicized by NASA or reflected in the
RPC, in the form of an official explanation and a full-blown
retraction by officials at NASA JSC? ("Poof!" Up in a cloud of smoke
had gone Moser's inconsistent February 13 "veering" scenario. See his
March 7 testimony in answer to Mr. Rummel's inquiry as to when
specifically the aft hydrogen tank failed! I will quote both for you,
at the end of these questions.)

4) If the rate gyro data was obviously in error beyond 72.8 seconds
(as the optics clearly indicate), why should we trust JSC's next-
introduced TVC actuator position data, which (if authentic) reflects
any erroneous IMU attitude data and GPC-propagated states beyond
72.624 seconds, the time of the 'Last State Vector Downlinked?'

(http://tinyurl.com/2febql, first paragraph, provides a reference
point for the above question.)

5) Why should we expect to see late SRB TVC commands validly reflected
in the RPC, specifically, in the Photo Team Report?

Here (as promised) is the relevant February 13 testimony pertaining to
Question 3 above:

MR. MOSER: ... And it has a corresponding yaw rate - this is about the
body axis now for the right-hand SRB - which changes drastically and
goes up, goes from minus about .15 or 1-1/2 up to about 3-1/2 degrees
per second. ... I want to show you what I think is happening up in the
forward end, and again just to put the other pieces of the puzzle
together. ... With a 12 degree rotation about that new hinge line, we
bottom out the forward SRB attachment to that on the external tank. So
now we're beginning to induce a bending moment in that carry-through
structure between the SRB's, which is a load direction for which it
was not designed for a very high magnitude, and I don't know that
number right off the top of my head. ... What that is doing, it is
inducing loads into the inner tank region, which is dumping them into
the blocks, wall, and the bulkhead of that, and the same way with the
hydrogen tank. ...

MR. RUMMEL: Could I ask, the impact point of the SRB with the tank is
between the oxygen tank and the other tank?

MR. MOSER: Correct.

MR. RUMMEL: Is there any evidence of those tanks in fact failing?

MR. MOSER: Just the visual evidence, yes, sir.

The following is the relevant March 7 testimony, after the terminal
SRB rate gyro data was removed. Long gone is that suspect gyro data at
73 seconds, needed to hypothesize "veering" away from a "conformed
trajectory:"

MR. RUMMEL: The aft rupture in the ET is after the explosion, due to
explosive force? On what do you postulate the cause to be?

MR. MOSER: I'm sorry, Mr. Rummel. Could you repeat that, please?

MR. RUMMEL: I think you mentioned that after the LOX tank and the
hydrogen tank and the inter-tank area had been damaged, that was
followed by a separation in the aft end of the hydrogen tank. Did I
understand that correctly?

MR. MOSER: Yes, sir. Let me verify that. We first see that, the
spillage of the aft dome of the liquid hydrogen tank, at 73.137
seconds. We see-that is visually, and I think I'm going to show you a
picture of that in just a moment.

MR. RUMMEL: Well, my question-perhaps you're coming to it-is the cause
of the aft rupture. It appears that the SRB didn't hit the tank in
that area. Was this due to overstressing from the rupture forward?

MR. MOSER: Yes, sir. The aft attachment is connected, the remaining
aft attachment about which it is rotating, is connected right at the
seam of the aft bulkhead to the cylindrical portion of the tank. And
as soon as it rotates over and interferes with that region, then it
loads it up in an out-of-plane load for the tank, and so it should rip
the tank right in that region. Plus, the solid rocket booster is
rotating about 40 degrees per second at that time, and so it fits with
the analysis that we have done that says that, it should have in fact
tore the tank in that region.

MR. RUMMEL: So you're postulating the failing of that part of the
attach fitting that is attached to the ET at that point in time?

MR. MOSER: That is correct, sir.

MR. RUMMEL: Thank you.

To summarize, Mr. Rummel was persistent. Beginning in closed session
on February 13, Rummel cleverly alerted Tom Moser to the reality that
Moser couldn't concurrently have "veering" (to prove the "O-ring"
theory) and "toeing-in" at the top (to destroy the LOX tank)!
Following up in open session on March 7, Mr. Rummel just as cleverly
made sure that Moser no longer claimed to have things both ways. The
boner was out; the bunk was in!

|| PART FIVE ||

This forum's archives show that Jon Berndt (like Tom Moser) was also
left clutching at straws to show fireball "veering." Jon received
sharp criticism from me (as Moser did from PC members) for failing to
present (like Aldrich and Moser) any valid (believable) telemetry (or
optics) to support his original claim (like JSC's bum implication)
that at 73 seconds and beyond the 51-L boosters "toed-in at the
bottom," rather than maintaining or continuing their toe-in at the
top.

Referring once more to Jon's "dissingly" disinformative Challenger
website, we find:

"The idea that the SRB rotated purely outward at its base and 'nosed
into' or 'flew through' the ET is incorrect."

I don't believe anybody ever claimed that either booster rotated
"purely" outward aft. After all, each had unique pitch, separated well
forward by the length of the thrust beam. Also, it is an established
fact that the entire vehicle was in right-roll mode (despite Moser's
hypothesis).

At any rate, it will take more than NASA's last-ditch SRB TVC plots,
Jon's redundant handwaving, and Jon's frequent use of formalized
personal attacks to prove the "veering" contention (Berndt theory) to
a world that is now much better informed than it was during the first
quarter of 1986.

(See http://www.mission51l.com/challenger.htm for a small example of
my own efforts to inform.)

It's high time for Jon to make better use of the totality of the
fireball optics, the pertinent laws of physics, and good common sense.
In addition, JSC ought to give careful consideration to the fireball
opinions of a world-wide jury. (Remember, Dr. Feynman denounced the
idea of a "trained eye," but not the science of photogrammetrics.)

If and when Jon Berndt changes his approach, I'm certain that he'll
find the final NASA timeline grossly inadequate, especially for
terminal events easily identifiable in the optics. Missing are mission
elapsed times for several rather conspicuous film events, such as
"right OMS/RCS explosion" and "last glimpse of LOX tank flames."
Similarly, no times are given for "first indication of a SRB exiting
fireball" and "left-SRB ID band first visible at exit."

|| SUMMARY ||

For objective purposes of post-explosion booster identification, no
valid analysis of Challenger's fireball dynamics should assume a pre-
explosion "blowtorch burnthrough" in the right booster.

JTM -- http://www.mission51l.com/aboutus.htm

Please, give us a break, post a link not the whole thing again...

Is this deja vue all over again.

Brian


--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!

On Nov 10, 4:58 am, "Brian Gaff" wrote:
Please, give us a break, post a link not the whole thing again...

Is this deja vue all over again.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!

http://tinyurl.com/yvhavv

Please sir, get yourself another hobby.

Leopold Stotch wrote in news:RCnZi.194566$Fc.65908
@attbi_s21:

Please sir, get yourself another hobby.


Just killfile him, or ignore him; he has nothing to contribute
here but his own obsessive madness.

--Damon