A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Radars Conclusively Disprove O-Ring Theory



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 21st 04, 02:20 AM
john_thomas_maxson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Radars Conclusively Disprove O-Ring Theory

The JSC Challenger testimony quoted below may be found at:

http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v5part3b.htm#4

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.
=============================

Moser claims above that the right SRB rotated counter-clockwise viewed
from aft, as shown by his JSC simulations (eg.,
http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v5p1177a.htm).

However, an official 51-L Radar Report which convincingly refutes
Moser's theorized counter-clockwise direction may be found at:

http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3appoe3.htm

5.0. Condensed Chronology of Right SRB Observations.

Following the structural break-up at T+ 73 seconds, the right Solid
Rocket Booster continued under thrust for approximately 37 seconds. It
was tracked continuously by Radar 1.17 and Ponce de Leon MIGOR. Radar
0.14 and the UCS-15 IFLOT tracked briefly as shown in Figure 1.

Analysis of the PDL MIGOR video tape shows the SB to be rolling
clockwise viewed from aft approximately once every 10 seconds during
the powered flight period. Possibly this period decreased by about 1.5
seconds during the 37 seconds of powered flight indicating an angular
acceleration about the longitudinal axis.
=========================================

Conclusion: Both Moser and the Radar Report misidentified the flared
SRB. The roll direction (as well as the 'before and after' roll rate)
of the target tracked by the radars is consistent with what the live
imagery plainly shows relative to the detachment of the aft-flared,
nose-blasted left SRB (not with Moser's theorized right SRB).

qed -- John Maxson www.mission51l.com
  #2  
Old September 23rd 04, 01:24 AM
Jon Berndt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"john_thomas_maxson" wrote in message

5.0. Condensed Chronology of Right SRB Observations.

Following the structural break-up at T+ 73 seconds, the right Solid
Rocket Booster continued under thrust for approximately 37 seconds. It
was tracked continuously by Radar 1.17 and Ponce de Leon MIGOR. Radar
0.14 and the UCS-15 IFLOT tracked briefly as shown in Figure 1.

Analysis of the PDL MIGOR video tape shows the SB to be rolling
clockwise viewed from aft approximately once every 10 seconds during
the powered flight period. Possibly this period decreased by about 1.5
seconds during the 37 seconds of powered flight indicating an angular
acceleration about the longitudinal axis.
=========================================

Conclusion: Both Moser and the Radar Report misidentified the flared
SRB. The roll direction (as well as the 'before and after' roll rate)
of the target tracked by the radars is consistent with what the live
imagery plainly shows relative to the detachment of the aft-flared,
nose-blasted left SRB (not with Moser's theorized right SRB).

qed -- John Maxson www.mission51l.com


The video evidence shows only one booster to be obviously rotating about its
longitudinal axis - that booster is sporting a flare, which makes it quite
easy to notice the rotation. Above in the paragraph you quote, it is indeed
interesting that the SRB is stated to be rotating clockwise, given that the
only SRB that is obviously rolling is the one sporting a flare and seen to
be rotating CCW (viewed from aft) in various video clips.

However, in another section of the Report, the SRB is identified as rolling
in the same sense as seen in the video clips (CCW):

--- start exerpt ---

http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3appn.htm

"6. Post Structural Breakup Right SRB Characterization

A special analysis was undertaken to characterize the condition of the right
SRB up to the point of range safety destruct in an attempt to determine the
maximum size of the source of the flare (anomalous plume). Figure 129 shows
the SRB immediately after it exists the vehicle breakup cloud. External tank
hardward is visible still attached to the SRB and deflecting the flare. This
deflection gives the impression that the entire aft segment has a burn
through. As the SRB continues to fly away, its counterclockwise rotation and
varying angle-of-attack cause the appearance of the flare to change
drastically. When the flare is on the windward side of the SRB as in figure
130, the flare is blown back and wrapped around the vehicle and gives the
impression of a large circumferential burn through. When the flare is on the
leeward side of the SRB as in figure 131, the flare gases fill the separated
flow area on the back side and give the impression of a large axial burn
through. All of these impressions are caused by flowfield effects and are
not true representations of the flare source. Recovery of the aft-center
segment of the right SRB confirms the burn through location described in
previous sections of this report (see figure 132). Figures 133, 134, and 135
show the recovered hardware.
The right SRB exits the cloud at approximately 75.8 seconds MET. The
separated nose cap and deployed drogue parachute are observed at
approximately 76.4 seconds MET. At around 80 seconds MET, a reflection off
of the SRB recovery system remnants (drogue parachute and risers) is
observed (and confirmed by enhancements) on the side of the SRB as shown in
figure 136. This event was initially reported as a possible second anomalous
SRB plume."

--- end exerpt ---

It is additionally interesting to note that one can see (from camera E107)
that the right SRB rotates CCW (viewed from aft) just prior to the
disintegration, as the aft strut fails. The obvious interpretation is that
it continued its CCW roll as it exited the vapor cloud, and that is what is
observed in the video. The other SRB is not mentioned as rotating, nor is it
seen to be obviously rotating. The right SRB _did_ have an impetus - a
motivating moment - for rotation. The left SRB had no obvious motivating
moment.

What you have done is proven a typo - not uncovered a mis-identification.

Regards,

Jon
http://home.houston.rr.com/fancijon/conspiracy.pdf


  #3  
Old September 24th 04, 05:34 PM
john_thomas_maxson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Jon Berndt" wrote in message ...

in the paragraph you quote, it is indeed interesting that the SRB is
stated to be rotating clockwise, given that the only SRB that is obviously
rolling is the one sporting a flare and seen to be rotating CCW (viewed from
aft) in various video clips.


You provide no links to support these two claims; no one should have
to take your claim about "obviously rolling" and "various video clips"
at face value.

However, in another section of the Report, the SRB is identified as rolling
in the same sense as seen in the video clips (CCW):


Again, you provide no links to support your claim concerning video
clips.

--- start exerpt ---

http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3appn.htm

"6. Post Structural Breakup Right SRB Characterization

snip
As the SRB continues to fly away, its counterclockwise rotation and
varying angle-of-attack cause the appearance of the flare to change
drastically.

snip

--- end exerpt ---


No aspect angle is specified; your point is therefore impossible to
verify.

What you have done is proven a typo - not uncovered a mis-identification.


Don't be absurd. The video evidence cited in the 51-L Radar Report
released by the Air Force is *verifiable* evidence. Note that the
Ponce de Leon MIGOR tracked the flared SRB *continuously*; there was
no extrapolation from early, ambiguous "clips:"

"It was tracked continuously by Radar 1.17 and Ponce de Leon MIGOR."

The PDL boresight video unequivocally verifies the "clockwise" claim
made by the authors of the Radar Report, particularly from t+90 to
t+110 seconds, when the angular momentum of the flared SRB increases
due to fuel depletion, and after the dangling aft flare has been
shortened because pieces of it have burned away and dropped away.

You have reviewed that video yourself, as have others:

http://tinyurl.com/5pkl5

http://tinyurl.com/6h588

http://tinyurl.com/5ay9j

Furthermore, the UCS-10 boresight video (and the E201 film) confirm
what the PDL boresight video proves conclusively. I fully expect to
be using all of the above in an upcoming series of academic lectures.

John Maxson (see www.mission51l.com/challenger.htm)
  #4  
Old September 26th 04, 02:42 AM
Jon Berndt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"john_thomas_maxson" wrote in message
m...

"Jon Berndt" wrote in message

...

in the paragraph you quote, it is indeed interesting that the SRB is
stated to be rotating clockwise, given that the only SRB that is

obviously
rolling is the one sporting a flare and seen to be rotating CCW (viewed

from
aft) in various video clips.


You provide no links to support these two claims; no one should have
to take your claim about "obviously rolling" and "various video clips"
at face value.


I've posted a segment of E207 he

http://home.houston.rr.com/fancijon/E207_Segment1.zip

[E207 is typical of the other media showing the counterclockwise angular
rate (as viewed from aft) of the flared SRB just after it emerges from the
vapor cloud.]

Size limitations only allowed the relevant segment to be zipped and posted.
For the benefit of others, E207 looks at the stack from the north side -
that is, it looks at the right-hand SRB, as the stack climbs out in an
inverted orientation. The segment starts just as the bright anomaly (the SRB
breach flare) becomes visible. The flare grows slowly and then, just prior
to the disintegration, the flare can barely (but noticeably) be seen to move
from right to left onscreen. This is not the flare spreading further about
the circumference of the SRB casing, it is the SRB rotating about one aft
and one forward attachment (another aft attachment strut has failed due to
the damage imposed by the flare).

The point to this is that when one of the aft attachment struts fails, the
SRB rotates about the other two struts, and in a counter-clockwise sense as
viewed from aft. This can be seen as I described in the film clip referenced
above, and this is also the failure mode as described in the Report. After
the SRB leaves the vapor cloud a brief instant later, the rotation that the
SRB developed (due to the strut failure prior to disintegration) is seen to
have taken the circumferential placement of the flare further around the SRB
as it rotates about its own longitudinal axis. The flare can be seen behind
the SRB for a moment, showing the rotation of the SRB with the flare to be
still counterclockwise (as expected).

So, not only is the SRB seen to be rotating counterclockwise both just prior
and subsequent to the disintegration, but the circumferential placement of
the flare after the SRB emerges from the vapor cloud is right where it is
expected to be seen, given the angular rate of the SRB seen before the
disintegration (and which was an instrument of the breakup itself).

Thanks for raising the issue of SRB angular rate - this has helped to
further identify the right SRB as the flared booster before and after
disintegration.

Jon Berndt
Aerospace Engineer
http://home.houston.rr.com/fancijon/conspiracy.pdf


  #5  
Old September 27th 04, 04:49 PM
john_thomas_maxson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Jon Berndt" wrote in message ...

I've posted a segment of E207 he

http://home.houston.rr.com/fancijon/E207_Segment1.zip

[E207 is typical of the other media showing the counterclockwise angular
rate (as viewed from aft) of the flared SRB just after it emerges from the
vapor cloud.]

Size limitations only allowed the relevant segment to be zipped and posted.


You seem to have forgotten what's at issue here, the validity of the
claim by the 51-L Radar Report. Your clip is certainly not "typical"
of the total length and continuity of the Ponce de Leon boresight
video. You've included irrelevant frames from before the explosion,
and you've failed to discuss the relevant frames (out through RSD)
contained in the PDL boresight video.

"The other media" should include the boresight video from the Ponce de
Leon radar site (as well as from other radar sites). Your clip is
definitely not "typical" of other sites. Ponce de Leon is around 50
miles north of Pad B (near Daytona Beach). All 51-L Playalinda media
originates from one camera site, which was nearly adjacent to Pad B (a
mile or two to the north.)

For the benefit of others, E207 looks at the stack from the north side -
that is, it looks at the right-hand SRB, as the stack climbs out in an
inverted orientation. The segment starts just as the bright anomaly (the SRB
breach flare) becomes visible. The flare grows slowly and then, just prior
to the disintegration, the flare can barely (but noticeably) be seen to move
from right to left onscreen. This is not the flare spreading further about
the circumference of the SRB casing, it is the SRB rotating about one aft
and one forward attachment (another aft attachment strut has failed due to
the damage imposed by the flare).


I have a notebook full of these frames, which I printed in 1998.
Range time is available at the upper top. If you look at the second
frame with a tag of 39:03:20, you will see that it is indeed the
spreading of flames, as opposed to counterclockwise rotation.
(Subsequent frames confirm this.)

The point to this is that when one of the aft attachment struts fails, the
SRB rotates about the other two struts, and in a counter-clockwise sense as
viewed from aft. This can be seen as I described in the film clip referenced
above, and this is also the failure mode as described in the Report. After
the SRB leaves the vapor cloud a brief instant later, the rotation that the
SRB developed (due to the strut failure prior to disintegration) is seen to
have taken the circumferential placement of the flare further around the SRB
as it rotates about its own longitudinal axis. The flare can be seen behind
the SRB for a moment, showing the rotation of the SRB with the flare to be
still counterclockwise (as expected).


An extremely competent local (with no space experience) looked at your
clip. I asked him to decide the direction of the post-explosion
rotation. "It's *almost* counterclockwise," he said, "especially when
the tumble begins, just before you see it head-on from the nose."

At his "almost" point, counterclockwise is equivalent to clockwise
viewed from aft. My friend's description is typical, I think, of what
is happening in this early interval (which you've evidently chosen to
muddy the waters). Preparatory to the first tumble, the booster's
circumferential flaring makes directional rotation appear ambiguous,
because you never really get to see it from *directly* aft.

Thanks for raising the issue of SRB angular rate - this has helped to
further identify the right SRB as the flared booster before and after
disintegration.


Are you afraid of the truth? You conveniently failed to address this:

The video evidence cited in the 51-L Radar Report
released by the Air Force is *verifiable* evidence. Note that the
Ponce de Leon MIGOR tracked the flared SRB *continuously*; there was
no extrapolation from early, ambiguous "clips:"

"It was tracked continuously by Radar 1.17 and Ponce de Leon MIGOR."

The PDL boresight video unequivocally verifies the "clockwise" claim
made by the authors of the Radar Report, particularly from t+90 to
t+110 seconds, when the angular momentum of the flared SRB increases
due to fuel depletion, and after the dangling aft flare has been
shortened because pieces of it have burned away and dropped away.

You have reviewed that video yourself, as have others:

http://tinyurl.com/5pkl5

http://tinyurl.com/6h588

http://tinyurl.com/5ay9j


Why do you resort to ambiguity, when unequivocal clarity is in your
possession? Remember, Dr. Scofield admitted to the Rogers Commission
that Moser's proposed failure mode was merely hypothesis (as did Moser
himself to Dr. Feynman):

DR. SCOFIELD: ... "If the SRM had not been leaking *as hypothesized*
in all these reconstructions, ..." [Emphasis added.]

In short, you should be open to reviewing and discussing the
verifiable evidence cited in the Radar Report's Summary, rather than
evasive of it.

John Maxson www.mission51l.com
  #6  
Old September 28th 04, 01:35 AM
Jon Berndt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"john_thomas_maxson" wrote:

"Jon Berndt" wrote:

I've posted a segment of E207 he

http://home.houston.rr.com/fancijon/E207_Segment1.zip

[E207 is typical of the other media showing the counterclockwise angular
rate (as viewed from aft) of the flared SRB just after it emerges from

the
vapor cloud.]

Size limitations only allowed the relevant segment to be zipped and

posted.

You seem to have forgotten what's at issue here, the validity of the
claim by the 51-L Radar Report. Your clip is certainly not "typical"
of the total length and continuity of the Ponce de Leon boresight
video. You've included irrelevant frames from before the explosion,
and you've failed to discuss the relevant frames (out through RSD)
contained in the PDL boresight video.


I'll review the video that I have in addition to the posted E207 video
later, out of curiousity. For now, there are several points I want to make:

1) As I recall, there are a few typographical errors in the Report - it's
not a perfect document.
2) In one place (as I posted), the angular rate of the flared SRB after
disintegration is described as CCW, in another place (as you posted), CW.
So, which is right? What's the interpretation? What's the context? Let's go
to the video.
3) The Report also describes that the best camera to view the flared SRB
angular rate is E207 (Volume 3, Appendix N, Table 17). I posted the _very_
relevant portion of that - in view of contradictory angular rate statements
made.
4) I claim that the flared SRB is the right hand SRB rotating CCW about its
longitudinal axis viewed from aft, immediately after the disintegration,
based on:

a) The right hand SRB rates as telemetered to the ground show CCW roll
motion prior to disintegration.
b) Careful viewing of E207 immediately after the disintegration (the most
pertinent time segment to consider, given the pre-disintegration roll rate)
shows that the same CCW-sense roll rate continued post-disintegration. This
should be a clue!

This is the best evidence, and the _least_ ambiguous.

Jon


  #7  
Old September 28th 04, 08:02 PM
john_thomas_maxson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Jon Berndt" wrote in message ...

I'll review the video that I have in addition to the posted E207 video
later, out of curiousity. For now, there are several points I want to make:

1) As I recall, there are a few typographical errors in the Report - it's
not a perfect document.


I maintain that you have falsely accused me, as well as the RCA
engineers who authored the official 51-L Radar Report from which I
quoted (not to mention the AF officials who released it to the
Presidential Commission) of misuse of the word "clockwise," due to
what you allege to be a "typo."

I maintain that the burden has always been and still is upon *you*
(being in possession from my son Daniel of the Ponce de Leon boresight
video cited by the Radar Report as said "clockwise" evidence) to use
*that* video to either confirm or deny the following, as shown by
http://tinyurl.com/4mldg:

"What you have done is proven a typo - not uncovered a
mis-identification."

Here is evidence that a year ago you denigrated claims which I had
based upon relevant 51-L FOIA imagery

http://tinyurl.com/4x2mg,

as well as more evidence that (as I mentioned in an earlier post) you
briefly placed the Ponce de Leon boresight video on the web, without
discussing this issue of post-explosion SRB rotation:

http://tinyurl.com/6cycd.

It is now your professional and ethical obligation to *prove* what you
so brashly alleged without checking, or in the alternative, to
*publicly retract* what you alleged and to apologize to all those
whose reputations you have damaged by your allegation.

2) In one place (as I posted), the angular rate of the flared SRB after
disintegration is described as CCW, in another place (as you posted), CW.
So, which is right? What's the interpretation? What's the context? Let's go
to the video.


What's taken you so long? Clearly that's where you should have gone
in the first place! I suspect that Tom Moser proposed his hypothesis
to the Rogers Commission on March 7, 1986, and that the Radar Report
was not released until several weeks later. That suspicion should be
easily verified.

3) The Report also describes that the best camera to view the flared SRB
angular rate is E207 (Volume 3, Appendix N, Table 17). I posted the _very_
relevant portion of that - in view of contradictory angular rate statements
made.


You did not, and you should apologize! You posted a clip from the
UCS-10 boresight video camera, which was co-located with the E207 70
mm film camera and the E201 70 mm film camera on Playalinda Beach. I
use frames from E207 in my book and on my website, and two of those
tend to confirm clockwise rotation (viewed from aft) of the flared SRB
(see www.mission51l.com/aprieview.htm, and look for the two photos
showing the direction from which the "protruding metal" comes into
view).

4) I claim that the flared SRB is the right hand SRB rotating CCW about its
longitudinal axis viewed from aft, immediately after the disintegration,
based on:

a) The right hand SRB rates as telemetered to the ground show CCW roll
motion prior to disintegration.


If this is true, for precisely how long and as shown in what reference
(link or otherwise)? (In my last post, a frame time I gave of
39:03:20 should obviously read 39:13:20.)

b) Careful viewing of E207 immediately after the disintegration (the most
pertinent time segment to consider, given the pre-disintegration roll rate)
shows that the same CCW-sense roll rate continued post-disintegration. This
should be a clue!

This is the best evidence, and the _least_ ambiguous.

Jon


The E207 film has a frame rate of 40 samples/second, but the UCS-10
boresight video does not. You have not presented E207 evidence, which
picks up the flared SRB much sooner after exit than does the boresight
video you discuss. Furthermore, as I posted earlier (and as you
should know), extrapolation of conclusions drawn from a short and
early interval of ambiguous data are not to be preferred by aerospace
professionals and applied mathematicians to conclusions drawn from
continuous data of greater and much more sufficient length.

Please make your examination of the last 37 seconds of 51-L SRB flight
**as shown by the Ponce de Leon boresight video** your highest
priority, in your efforts to continue with this thread. Otherwise,
you will have convincingly shown that you should indeed be regarded as
an ex-Halliburton, currently-Lockheed employee with neither ethics nor
credibility, insofar as your constant derision over the years of my
Challenger efforts is concerned.

John Maxson
  #8  
Old September 29th 04, 05:14 AM
Jon Berndt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"john_thomas_maxson" wrote:

I maintain that the burden has always been and still is upon *you*
(being in possession from my son Daniel of the Ponce de Leon boresight
video cited by the Radar Report as said "clockwise" evidence) to use
*that* video to either confirm or deny the following, as shown by
http://tinyurl.com/4mldg:


I viewed what I believe is the PDL BS video this evening (it's black and
white, has crosshairs, and is viewed from far north - there is no
distinguishing identification). This video is quite explicit about showing
the flared booster before and after the disintegration - on the same side -
not crossing. However, it is of a very poor angle and quality to be using it
to determine the SRB angular rate. It is next to impossible to determine
which bright spot is the flare and which is the nozzle plume, as well as
which direction the SRB is pointing, relative to the viewer.

It is now your professional and ethical obligation to *prove* what you
so brashly alleged without checking, or in the alternative, to
*publicly retract* what you alleged and to apologize to all those
whose reputations you have damaged by your allegation.


This is so ironic. How many peoples' reputations do you pretend to tarnish
with your book? You talk of ethics after trying to convey that "Pappy"
supports your claims!? You ask others to disprove what you have not been
able to prove for years? Failing to refute my rebuttals to your false
claims, you try and associate my name with a company that has recently
suffered a tarnished name - as you write: "Otherwise, you will have
convincingly shown that you should indeed be regarded as an ex-Halliburton
...." (incidentally, I was never an employee of Halliburton - I was
subcontracted to write software for a seismic data processing application -
so what!). Where's the sense in that? Furthermore, you are yourself claiming
that the radar report misidentifies the **booster**! Which of us presumes to
insult the radar team more!? Which parts of the radar report do you choose
to believe, and which do you presume to throw out?

To be clear on my position: the claim of a clockwise rotation in the radar
report based on the poor quality PDL video is contradictory to the claim
elsewhere in the report of a CCW rotation, based on viewing the
*acknowledged* much better quality/angle E-207 film. My own analysis of the
two clips as well as the ROTI clip is utterly convincing of the SRB rotation
in a negative sense about the X body axis (CCW viewed from aft). Therefore,
I have no alternative but to label the clockwise rotation statement in the
radar report as secondary in accuracy to the previous claim in the Report of
a CCW rotation - with the clockwise rotation claim erroneous either as a
typo, or based on incorrect interpretation.

3) The Report also describes that the best camera to view the flared SRB
angular rate is E207 (Volume 3, Appendix N, Table 17). I posted the

_very_
relevant portion of that - in view of contradictory angular rate

statements
made.


You did not, and you should apologize! You posted a clip from the
UCS-10 boresight video camera, which was co-located with the E207 70
mm film camera and the E201 70 mm film camera on Playalinda Beach. I
use frames from E207 in my book and on my website, and two of those
tend to confirm clockwise rotation (viewed from aft) of the flared SRB
(see www.mission51l.com/aprieview.htm, and look for the two photos
showing the direction from which the "protruding metal" comes into
view).


No, I posted ( as I mentioned a few days ago - and the clip is still there)
E207. I have attached a .jpg image (3K) showing the title placard that says
"51-L E-207 0 to 10 minutes". It plainly shows that a second or so after
the disintegration, the flare exits the SRB to the left of the booster
(relative to the screen view), progresses to the far side of the SRB -
silhouetting the SRB - and progresses to the right side of the booster
(again relative to the screen view) at which time the booster topples end
over end to point backwards for an instant. The ROTI clip is also
instructive, showing counter-clockwise rotation about the longitudinal axis
(a negative angular rate about the X body axis pointing forward). This is
all as described he

http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3appn.htm
"6. Post Structural Breakup Right SRB Characterization

As I mentioned, when the SRB came loose at one of the aft attachments, the
angular rate at the time the SRB collided with the ET was about 40 deg/sec.
in a CCW sense. The fact that the flared SRB is seen exiting the cloud
rotating at about the same rate as it leaves the cloud is unambiguous,
obvious proof that it is the right SRB. As I said before, thanks for
pointing this out - it will be added to my paper he

http://home.houston.rr.com/fancijon/conspiracy.pdf

4) I claim that the flared SRB is the right hand SRB rotating CCW about

its
longitudinal axis viewed from aft, immediately after the disintegration,
based on:

a) The right hand SRB rates as telemetered to the ground show CCW roll
motion prior to disintegration.


If this is true, for precisely how long and as shown in what reference
(link or otherwise)? (In my last post, a frame time I gave of
39:03:20 should obviously read 39:13:20.)


You've got the Report. This is also detailed in my paper he

http://home.houston.rr.com/fancijon/conspiracy.pdf

The E207 film has a frame rate of 40 samples/second, but the UCS-10
boresight video does not. You have not presented E207 evidence, which
picks up the flared SRB much sooner after exit than does the boresight
video you discuss. Furthermore, as I posted earlier (and as you
should know), extrapolation of conclusions drawn from a short and
early interval of ambiguous data are not to be preferred by aerospace
professionals and applied mathematicians to conclusions drawn from
continuous data of greater and much more sufficient length.


As I mentioned, the video that is posted at the URL I gave a few days ago in
my post here is E207 - as evidenced by the attached image. Furthermore,
**interpolation** of conclusions about a certain brief incident from
temporally far removed (and substandard) evidence is certainly NOT to be
preferred over the direct, higher quality, and immediately adjacent
continuous evidence that can be seen in E-207 and briefly in ROTI evidence
(and again briefly in the ROTI clip later on).

Please make your examination of the last 37 seconds of 51-L SRB flight
**as shown by the Ponce de Leon boresight video** your highest
priority, in your efforts to continue with this thread.


I have done so, and found it to be essentially worthless for the suggested
use.

Jon Berndt
Aerospace Engineer




Attached Images
File Type: jpg E207.jpg (2.1 KB, 75 views)
  #9  
Old September 29th 04, 12:05 PM
Jon Berndt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Jon Berndt" wrote:

As I mentioned, when the SRB came loose at one of the aft attachments, the
angular rate at the time the SRB collided with the ET was about 40

deg/sec.
in a CCW sense. The fact that the flared SRB is seen exiting the cloud
rotating at about the same rate as it leaves the cloud is unambiguous,


This last line should have read:

rotating at about the same rate as it enters the cloud is unambiguous,

obvious proof that it is the right SRB. As I said before, thanks for
pointing this out - it will be added to my paper he



  #10  
Old October 1st 04, 12:23 AM
Jon Berndt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

[Note: I tried posting this a couple days ago. The server would not accept
even tiny .jpg attachments (we're talking 2Kbytes). So, I have placed the
image referred to as "attached", below, he
http://home.houston.rr.com/fancijon/E207.jpg]

"john_thomas_maxson" wrote:
I maintain that the burden has always been and still is upon *you*
(being in possession from my son Daniel of the Ponce de Leon boresight
video cited by the Radar Report as said "clockwise" evidence) to use
*that* video to either confirm or deny the following, as shown by
http://tinyurl.com/4mldg:


I viewed what I believe is the PDL BS video this evening (it's black and
white, has crosshairs, and is viewed from far north - there is no
distinguishing identification). This video is quite explicit about showing
the flared booster before and after the disintegration - on the same side -
not crossing. However, it is of a very poor angle and quality to be using it
to determine the SRB angular rate. It is next to impossible to determine
which bright spot is the flare and which is the nozzle plume, as well as
which direction the SRB is pointing, relative to the viewer.

It is now your professional and ethical obligation to *prove* what you
so brashly alleged without checking, or in the alternative, to
*publicly retract* what you alleged and to apologize to all those
whose reputations you have damaged by your allegation.


This is so ironic. How many peoples' reputations do you pretend to tarnish
with your book? You talk of ethics after trying to convey that "Pappy"
supports your claims!? You ask others to disprove what you have not been
able to prove for years? Failing to refute my rebuttals to your false
claims, you try and associate my name with a company that has recently
suffered a tarnished name - as you write: "Otherwise, you will have
convincingly shown that you should indeed be regarded as an ex-Halliburton
...." (incidentally, I was never an employee of Halliburton - I was
subcontracted to write software for a seismic data processing application -
so what!). Where's the sense in that? Furthermore, you are yourself claiming
that the radar report misidentifies the **booster**! Which of us presumes to
insult the radar team more!? Which parts of the radar report do you choose
to believe, and which do you presume to throw out?

To be clear on my position: the claim of a clockwise rotation in the radar
report based on the poor quality PDL video is contradictory to the claim
elsewhere in the report of a CCW rotation, based on viewing the
*acknowledged* much better quality/angle E-207 film. My own analysis of the
two clips as well as the ROTI clip is utterly convincing of the SRB rotation
in a negative sense about the X body axis (CCW viewed from aft). Therefore,
I have no alternative but to label the clockwise rotation statement in the
radar report as secondary in accuracy to the previous claim in the Report of
a CCW rotation - with the clockwise rotation claim erroneous either as a
typo, or based on incorrect interpretation.

3) The Report also describes that the best camera to view the flared SRB
angular rate is E207 (Volume 3, Appendix N, Table 17). I posted the

_very_
relevant portion of that - in view of contradictory angular rate

statements
made.


You did not, and you should apologize! You posted a clip from the
UCS-10 boresight video camera, which was co-located with the E207 70
mm film camera and the E201 70 mm film camera on Playalinda Beach. I
use frames from E207 in my book and on my website, and two of those
tend to confirm clockwise rotation (viewed from aft) of the flared SRB
(see www.mission51l.com/aprieview.htm, and look for the two photos
showing the direction from which the "protruding metal" comes into
view).


No, I posted ( as I mentioned a few days ago - and the clip is still there)
E207. I have attached a .jpg image (3K) showing the title placard that says
"51-L E-207 0 to 10 minutes". It plainly shows that a second or so after the
disintegration, the flare exits the SRB to the left of the booster (relative
to the screen view), progresses to the far side of the SRB - silhouetting
the SRB - and progresses to the right side of the booster (again relative to
the screen view) at which time the booster topples end over end to point
backwards for an instant. The ROTI clip is also instructive, showing
counter-clockwise rotation about the longitudinal axis (a negative angular
rate about the X body axis pointing forward). This is all as described he

http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3appn.htm "6. Post Structural Breakup
Right SRB Characterization"

As I mentioned, when the SRB came loose at one of the aft attachments, the
angular rate at the time the SRB collided with the ET was about 40 deg/sec.
in a CCW sense. The fact that the flared SRB is seen exiting the cloud
rotating at about the same rate as it entered the cloud (verified by
telemetry and visually) is unambiguous, obvious proof that it is the right
SRB. As I said before, thanks for pointing this out - it will be added to my
paper he

http://home.houston.rr.com/fancijon/conspiracy.pdf

4) I claim that the flared SRB is the right hand SRB rotating CCW about

its
longitudinal axis viewed from aft, immediately after the disintegration,
based on:

a) The right hand SRB rates as telemetered to the ground show CCW roll
motion prior to disintegration.


If this is true, for precisely how long and as shown in what reference
(link or otherwise)? (In my last post, a frame time I gave of
39:03:20 should obviously read 39:13:20.)


You've got the Report. This is also detailed in my paper he
http://home.houston.rr.com/fancijon/conspiracy.pdf

The E207 film has a frame rate of 40 samples/second, but the UCS-10
boresight video does not. You have not presented E207 evidence, which
picks up the flared SRB much sooner after exit than does the boresight
video you discuss. Furthermore, as I posted earlier (and as you
should know), extrapolation of conclusions drawn from a short and
early interval of ambiguous data are not to be preferred by aerospace
professionals and applied mathematicians to conclusions drawn from
continuous data of greater and much more sufficient length.


As I mentioned, the video that is posted at the URL I gave a few days ago in
my post here is E207 - as evidenced by the attached image. Furthermore,
**interpolation** of conclusions about a certain brief incident from
temporally far removed (and substandard) evidence is certainly NOT to be
preferred over the direct, higher quality, and immediately adjacent
continuous evidence that can be seen in E-207 and briefly in ROTI evidence
(and again briefly in the ROTI clip later on).

Please make your examination of the last 37 seconds of 51-L SRB flight
**as shown by the Ponce de Leon boresight video** your highest
priority, in your efforts to continue with this thread.


I have done so, and found it to be essentially worthless for the suggested
use.

Jon Berndt
Aerospace Engineer


 




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
The Steady State Theory vs The Big Bang Theory [email protected] Amateur Astronomy 3 September 9th 04 06:30 AM
The Gravitational Instability Theory on the Formation of the Universe Br Dan Izzo Policy 6 September 7th 04 09:29 PM
Gravity as Falling Space Henry Haapalainen Science 1 September 4th 04 04:08 PM
The Gravitational Instability Cosmological Theory Br Dan Izzo Astronomy Misc 0 August 31st 04 02:35 AM
[Fwd: This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 205)] Sam Wormley Amateur Astronomy 5 April 16th 04 10:20 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.