troll (assumed) responses

A small rant: I came here because I'm interested in a) space history, and b)
shooting the breeze with like-minded anoraks^H^H^H^H^H^H^H people. I'm not
the least bit interested in the apparent feud between some of this parish
and Scott Grissom et al. I'm frankly shocked at, and tired of, the degree
(and the incredible bulk!) of venom currently directed at LaDonna. (Yes, I
am aware of the history of this issue. I'm tired of it, but mostly tired of
the responses.)

If a troll posts, why feed it? Why foul our own nest?

Please, guys, show a little restraint.

Steve
http://www.fivetrees.com

"Steve at fivetrees" wrote in message ...
A small rant: I came here because I'm interested in a) space history, and b)
shooting the breeze with like-minded anoraks^H^H^H^H^H^H^H people. I'm not
the least bit interested in the apparent feud between some of this parish
and Scott Grissom et al. I'm frankly shocked at, and tired of, the degree
(and the incredible bulk!) of venom currently directed at LaDonna. (Yes, I
am aware of the history of this issue. I'm tired of it, but mostly tired of
the responses.)

If a troll posts, why feed it? Why foul our own nest?

Please, guys, show a little restraint.

Steve
http://www.fivetrees.com

Well, this sounds like an intelligent post. I have twelve years with
your interest in space history. Unfortunately I lost my ability to
"shoot the breeze" when I read NASA's official account of the Apollo
One fire on December 5, 2002. Have you read it? If so, surely you
see how their arguments have more holes than a sieve. If for some
reason you need them to be pointed out to you, here are a few problems
(by far not all). This is just a partial list of the things that got
my attention from the report NASA has on their Internet site:
1) The O2 surges. NASA says they could not identify a source of the
surges, so they attributed them to "crew movement." However, Ed
reported on the voice transcript they were happening "pretty well
cyclic, and the last was about 13 minutes ago." Additionally, each
surge (there were at least ten) maxed the O2 flow to capacity, and
triggered the C&W on multiple occasions; said C&W having a 15-second
built-in delay to prevent routine flow variations from triggering the
alarm. Finally, if NASA wishes to sell a "flash fire, ‘fueled' by
oxygen", shouldn't it go to a little more trouble to get to the bottom
of repeated surges in the O2?
2) Gus not hitting the dump valve because of the "wall of flames"
preventing him from doing so. Aside from the evidence that shows the
fire initially sat in the LEB for eight seconds (the surge tank
pressure did not drop until 12.4 seconds into the fire), Gus had his
faceplate open from 6:30.85 THROUGH the first call of fire, which came
from Gus (source: Bell Labs Voice Tape Analysis.) If this thing
flamed up as quickly as NASA claims, I don't know about you,
Commander, but I would have immediately closed MY faceplate, and I
certainly would NOT have taken the time to say, "Break" followed by a
ONE POINT SEVEN SECOND PAUSE, followed by "We've got a fire in the
cockpit." (Again, Bell Labs Voice Tape Analysis.) Additionally, if
Gus did not hit the dump valve, Ed was wasting his time trying to open
the hatch, wasn't he? Yet Ed was found in front of the hatch, which
means he WAS working on opening it. Finally, knowing Gus, a rabid
grizzly bear would not have kept him from hitting that relief. (And
if you need more proof, read the 102 pages of witness statements in
the Congressional Record from technicians who all swore they heard the
sound of that relief.)
3) What happened after the fire made me see red. When technicians
finally removed the hatch, Babbitt looked inside the CM, could not
POSSIBLY have been able to see ANYTHING, and went hysterical. He
decided the crew was dead, reported that fact to everyone, and
according to NASA, everyone just took his word for it. According to
NASA, the doctors arrived at the White Room at 6:45 and determined
"the crew could not have survived the heat, smoke, and thermal burns."
From the White Room? What I have noticed is that not one person has
taken a pulse, no one has gotten out a stethoscope. They have LOOKED
at three men in space suits and called it. EXCEPT for the fireman who
used a technique I've never heard of but which intrigues me: By
pulling on Ed White's leg, he was able to determine that Ed, Gus, AND
Roger were ALL THREE DEAD!!! Fascinating. But the HORRIBLE truth,
Commander, is this: According to the medical and security logs, as
well as the statements of the doctors, nurses, firefighters, and
security personnel on scene, when the doctors arrived at the base of
the tower circa 6:37 they were ordered NOT to go to the Command
Module. They in fact did NOT arrive until 7:02, THIRTY-ONE minutes
after the fire.
4) Finally, and again, I'm only scratching the surface of what I've
learned in the past eighteen months, the list of so-called
"anomalies." NASA lists six, although it turns out there were many
more which were far more serious than the ones they list. The first
thing I noticed about this list of "anomalies" is they all occur on
the same bus, AC Bus 2, but NASA says they are all unrelated to each
other. This portion of their report reads as follows: "We had this
problem, but it had nothing to do with the fire. We had that problem,
but it had nothing to do with the fire. We had this problem over
here, we don't know WHAT that was, but we're SURE it had nothing to do
with the fire. And, oh, BY THE WAY, we don't know WHAT caused the
fire!"
LaDonna

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
I have twelve years with
your interest in space history.

You hide it well.

Unfortunately I lost my ability to
"shoot the breeze"

and instead choose to spread the manure.

If so, surely you
see how their arguments have more holes than a sieve.

While your investigation seems to be performed by the same tailors that make
the Emperor's new clothes.

You keep claiming that NASA is wrong, but you never seem to be able to
provide any *evidence*. NASA might be wrong, but not because you say so.
NASA has provided evidence- let's see yours.

On or about Tue, 8 Jun 2004 17:28:12 +0100, Steve at fivetrees made the sensational claim that:
Please, guys, show a little restraint.

History (ha!) shows most of the people in this froup have no restraint. Even
the intelligent ones. Except Henry Spencer.
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | Just because something
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | is possible, doesn't
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | mean it can happen

On 8 Jun 2004 16:48:15 -0700, (LaDonna Wyss)
wrote:

Unfortunately I lost my ability to "shoot the breeze"

....Yes, now you're only capable of "breaking the wind".


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

(LaDonna Wyss) posted:

: EXCEPT for the fireman who used a technique I've never heard of but which intrigues me: By
: pulling on Ed White's leg, he was able to determine that Ed, Gus, AND Roger were ALL
: THREE DEAD!!!

Actually, I have heard of this technique. It is very similar to
taking a patient's pulse. You squeeze on the leg, let go, and if the
squeezed area snaps back fast, there is still circulatory action going
as well as neuromuscular tension. The slower it snaps back, the more
likely the patient is dead. It is not accurate, but it is supposed to
be used in situations, say, where the roof is about to collapse and
you have only a minute to pull out who you can before it is too late.

In article ,
(LaDonna Wyss) wrote:

Well, this sounds like an intelligent post. I have twelve years with
your interest in space history. Unfortunately I lost my ability to
"shoot the breeze" when I read NASA's official account of the Apollo
One fire on December 5, 2002. Have you read it? If so, surely you
see how their arguments have more holes than a sieve. If for some
reason you need them to be pointed out to you, here are a few problems
(by far not all). This is just a partial list of the things that got
my attention from the report NASA has on their Internet site:
1) The O2 surges. NASA says they could not identify a source of the
surges, so they attributed them to "crew movement."

Says you.

"Any significant crew movement results in minor motion of the Command
Module. This motion is detected by the Guidance and Navigation System
and is indicative of crew movement; however, the type of movement cannot
be determined. Data from this system indicate a slight movement at
23:30:24 GMT with more intense activity beginning at 23:30:39 GMT. More
movement begins at 23:31:00 GMT and continues until loss of data
transmission during the fire.

"Increases of oxygen flow rate to the crew suits also indicate movement.
All suits have some small leakage. This leakage rate varies with crew
positions. Earlier in the Plugs-Out Test, the crew reported that a
particular movement, the nature of which was unspecified, provided
increased flow rate. This is also confirmed from the flow rate data
records. The flow rate shows a gradual rise at 23:30:24 GMT which
reaches the limit of the sensor at 23:30:59 GMT."

However, Ed
reported on the voice transcript they were happening "pretty well
cyclic, and the last was about 13 minutes ago." Additionally, each
surge (there were at least ten) maxed the O2 flow to capacity, and
triggered the C&W on multiple occasions; said C&W having a 15-second
built-in delay to prevent routine flow variations from triggering the
alarm. Finally, if NASA wishes to sell a "flash fire, ‘fueled' by
oxygen", shouldn't it go to a little more trouble to get to the bottom
of repeated surges in the O2?

NASA doesn't have to "sell" a flash fire, lady. The condition of the
vehicle and crew remains following the fire, combined with the known
atmospheric composition of 100% oxygen, sells itself.

2) Gus not hitting the dump valve because of the "wall of flames"
preventing him from doing so. Aside from the evidence that shows the
fire initially sat in the LEB for eight seconds (the surge tank
pressure did not drop until 12.4 seconds into the fire), Gus had his
faceplate open from 6:30.85 THROUGH the first call of fire, which came
from Gus (source: Bell Labs Voice Tape Analysis.) If this thing
flamed up as quickly as NASA claims, I don't know about you,
Commander, but I would have immediately closed MY faceplate, and I
certainly would NOT have taken the time to say, "Break" followed by a
ONE POINT SEVEN SECOND PAUSE, followed by "We've got a fire in the
cockpit." (Again, Bell Labs Voice Tape Analysis.)

What makes you so certain his faceplate was open when he made the call
of "fire in the cockpit"?

"The Command Pilot was lying supine on the aft bulkhead or floor of the
Command Module, with his helmet visor closed and locked and with his
head beneath the Pilot's head rest and his feet on his own couch."

Additionally, if
Gus did not hit the dump valve, Ed was wasting his time trying to open
the hatch, wasn't he? Yet Ed was found in front of the hatch, which
means he WAS working on opening it. Finally, knowing Gus, a rabid
grizzly bear would not have kept him from hitting that relief. (And
if you need more proof, read the 102 pages of witness statements in
the Congressional Record from technicians who all swore they heard the
sound of that relief.)

Do you understand the ideal gas laws? What was the mode and methods of
operation of the cabin pressure relief valve? What was its design and
maximum flow rates?

"Although operation of this valve, located on a shelf above the left
hand equipment bay, is the first step in established emergency egress
procedures, such action would have been to no avail because the venting
capacity was insufficient to prevent the rapid build-up of pressure due
to the fire. It is estimated that opening the valve would have delayed
Command Module rupture by less than one second."

Furthermo

"With a slightly higher pressure inside the Command Module than outside,
opening the inner hatch is impossible because of the resulting force on
the hatch. Thus the inability of the pressure relief system to cope with
pressure increase due to the fire made opening of the inner hatch
impossible until after cabin rupture, and after rupture the intense and
widespread fire together with rapidly increasing carbon monoxide
concentrations further prevented egress."

3) What happened after the fire made me see red. When technicians
finally removed the hatch, Babbitt looked inside the CM, could not
POSSIBLY have been able to see ANYTHING, and went hysterical. He
decided the crew was dead, reported that fact to everyone, and
according to NASA, everyone just took his word for it. According to
NASA, the doctors arrived at the White Room at 6:45 and determined
"the crew could not have survived the heat, smoke, and thermal burns."
From the White Room? What I have noticed is that not one person has
taken a pulse, no one has gotten out a stethoscope. They have LOOKED
at three men in space suits and called it. EXCEPT for the fireman who
used a technique I've never heard of but which intrigues me: By
pulling on Ed White's leg, he was able to determine that Ed, Gus, AND
Roger were ALL THREE DEAD!!! Fascinating. But the HORRIBLE truth,
Commander, is this: According to the medical and security logs, as
well as the statements of the doctors, nurses, firefighters, and
security personnel on scene, when the doctors arrived at the base of
the tower circa 6:37 they were ordered NOT to go to the Command
Module. They in fact did NOT arrive until 7:02, THIRTY-ONE minutes
after the fire.

What part of the following don't you understand?

"Throughout this period, other pad personnel were fighting secondary
fires on level A-8. There was considerable fear that the launch escape
tower, mounted above the Command Module, would be ignited by the fires
below and destroy much of the launch complex."

* * *

"Immediately after the firemen arrived, the Pad Leader on duty was
relieved to allow treatment for smoke inhalation. He had first reported
over the headset that he could not describe the situation in the Command
Module. In this manner he attempted to convey the fact that the crew was
dead to the Test Conductor without informing the many people monitoring
the communication channels. Upon reaching the ground the Pad Leader told
the doctors that the crew was dead. The three doctors proceeded to the
White Room and arrived there shortly after the arrival of the firemen.
The doctors estimate their arrival to have been at 23:45 GMT. The second
Pad Leader reported that medical support was available at approximately
23:43 GMT. The three doctors entered the White Room and determined that
the crew had not survived the heat, smoke, and thermal burns. The
doctors were not equipped with breathing apparatus, and the Command
Module still contained fumes and smoke. It was determined that nothing
could be gained by immediate removal of the crew. The firemen were
directed to stop removal efforts.

"When the Command Module had been adequately ventilated, the doctors
returned to the White Room with equipment for crew removal. It became
apparent that extensive fusion of suit material to melted nylon from the
spacecraft would make removal very difficult. For this reason it was
decided to discontinue efforts at removal in the interest of accident
investigation and to photograph the Command Module with the crew in
place before evidence was disarranged."

4) Finally, and again, I'm only scratching the surface of what I've
learned in the past eighteen months, the list of so-called
"anomalies." NASA lists six, although it turns out there were many
more which were far more serious than the ones they list. The first
thing I noticed about this list of "anomalies" is they all occur on
the same bus, AC Bus 2, but NASA says they are all unrelated to each
other. This portion of their report reads as follows: "We had this
problem, but it had nothing to do with the fire. We had that problem,
but it had nothing to do with the fire. We had this problem over
here, we don't know WHAT that was, but we're SURE it had nothing to do
with the fire. And, oh, BY THE WAY, we don't know WHAT caused the
fire!"

That's not how it reads at all:

"1. FINDING:

There was a momentary power failure at 23:30:55 GMT.
Evidence of several arcs was found in the post-fire investigation.
No single ignition source of the fire was conclusively identified.

DETERMINATION:

The most probable initiator was an electrical arc in the sector between
-Y and +Z spacecraft axes. The exact location best fitting the total
available information is near the floor in the lower forward section of
the left-hand equipment bay where Environmental Control System (ECS)
instrumentation power wiring leads into the area between the
Environmental Control Unit (ECU) and the oxygen panel. No evidence was
discovered that suggested sabotage."

Furthermo

"10. FINDING:

Deficiencies existed in Command Module design, workmanship and quality
control, such as:
Components of the Environmental Control System installed in
Command Module 012 had a history of many removals and of technical
difficulties including regulator failures, line failures and
Environmental Control Unit failures. The design and installation
features of the Environmental Control Unit makes removal or repair
difficult.
Coolant leakage at solder joints has been a chronic problem.
The coolant is both corrosive and combustible.
Deficiencies in design, manufacture, installation, rework and
quality control existed in the electrical wiring.
No vibration test was made of a complete flight-configured
spacecraft.
Spacecraft design and operating procedures currently require the
disconnecting of electrical connections while powered.
No design features for fire protection were incorporated."

Specifically in regard to AC Bus 2, the report reads:

"(2) AC Bus 2 Voltage Anomaly

A momentary increase in AC Bus 2 voltage on all three phases was noted
at approximately 9 seconds before the report of fire, and at the same
time telemetry data from equipment powered from AC Bus 2 showed
abnormalities. These we

1. Dropout of C-band decoder and transmitter outputs for 1.7
seconds.
2. Momentary dropout of VHF-FM transmitter.
3. Fluctuation of rotation controller null outputs.
4. Gas chromatograph telemetry signal transient.

Other equipment connected to AC Bus 2 at this time had no data
monitoring capability that would detect effects of power transients.

The power distribution system was in the standard configuration at the
time of the anomaly. DC bus A was receiving power from the ground DC "A"
power supply. This power supply in turn powered AC Bus 1 through
inventor no. 1. Similarly DC Bus B received power from the DC "B" power
supply and powered AC bus 2 through inverter no. 2.

A possible explanation for dropout of the C-band decoder and
transmitter, the interruption of the VHF-FM transmitter and rise in AC
Bus 2 voltage follows. The post-landing bus supplies power through a
single conductor and circuit breaker to the power relay holding coils
for both the C-band beacon and the VHF-FM transmitter. Temporary loss of
voltage to the relay holding coils by unknown cause, would temporarily
interrupt power to the C-band decoder and VHF-FM transmitter. The
resulting transient to the voltage level on AC Bus 2 could account for
other measured phenomena.

The most probable cause of the AC Bus 2 transient and associated
indications was a momentary short or interruption of DC Bus B. Analysis
and subsequent testing correlate with this conclusion as follows:

(a) AC Bus Transient

This high voltage indication can be interpreted as evidence of a
momentary drop of DC voltage input to the inverter which results in a
drop in AC output and a subsequent overshoot upon recovery. First
indication of a disturbance was noted during apparent recovery. The
voltage decrease was not seen because the channel was sampled only 10
times a second.

(b) C-band Beacon Dropout

The 1.7 second dropout observed is the minimum recovery time of the
protective circuit internal to the beacon. A momentary interruption of
AC Bus 2 power for a period as short as 10 milliseconds would cause the
C-band beacon dropout. These results were verified by special tests on a
C-band beacon similar to the one used in Spacecraft 012. The most
probable cause of the beacon dropout was a momentary loss of AC input
power to the beacon particularly since the transponder dropout was
coincident with a transient on the AC Bus 2 and the beacon performed
normally after recovery from the dropout unit loss of data.

(c) VHF-FM Transmitter Signal Dropout

The RF carrier dropout was observed by all monitoring ground stations
and the duration of the dropout was approximately 20 milliseconds. The
recorded data wave train from the VHF-FM transmitter also indicated
dropout. A dropout of this nature has been duplicated by several special
tests with a similar transmitter under similar conditions. Because the
VHF transmitter recovered, the most probable cause of the dropout was a
momentary interruption of the AC input power.

(d) Rotation Controller Null Output Transients

Momentary transients were noted on each of the three control axes. The
rotation controller, whose output was reading slightly off null just
prior to the anomaly (the controller was pinned), was supplied by phase
A of AC Bus 2. Transient voltages on the phase A Bus would most likely
be detected on the controller output. Special tests have shown that the
null output transients experienced can be duplicated by a momentary
interruption of AC Bus 2 phase power.

(e) Gas Chromatograph Telemetry Signal Transient

As previously discussed this transient could result from a change in
the electromagnetic field. Such a change in the electromagnetic field
could also be the result of electric arcing."



So, LaDonna, if you actually understood anything technical rather than
parroting the big words someone has been feeding you, you'd realize just
how wrong your conclusions are.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Columbia Loss FAQ:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

"Herb Schaltegger" wrote in message
...
So, LaDonna, if you actually understood anything technical rather than
parroting the big words someone has been feeding you, you'd realize just
how wrong your conclusions are.

Wanna bet she comes back with something equivalent to "neener neener neener,
you're wrong!"

(LaDonna Wyss) wrote:
Finally, if NASA wishes to sell a "flash fire, ‘fueled' by
oxygen", shouldn't it go to a little more trouble to get to the bottom
of repeated surges in the O2?

There's no need to get to the bottom of this as simple physics has
already done so. The capsule was pressurized over atmospheric with
100% O2, thus creating an atmosphere that was all but explosive. The
surges are largely irrelevant considering that there is no evidence of
unusual cabin pressures AFFAIK.

I don't know about you, Commander, but I would have immediately closed
MY faceplate, and I certainly would NOT have taken the time to say, "Break"
followed by a ONE POINT SEVEN SECOND PAUSE, followed by "We've got
a fire in the cockpit."

That shows that you don't have the training Gus (and I) have had.
Standard communications protocol calls for clearing the line (calling
"break"), pausing a moment, and *then* passing the word you need to
pass. (This allows the folks on the channel a moment to clear their
minds and *concentrate*.)

Secondly, in the event of a casualty, the basic principle is to pass
the word *first*, then you try and save yourself/fight the casualty.
(If you don't pass the word, then help will not be forthcoming. If
you wait to pass the word, the casualty grows worse.)

(And if you need more proof, read the 102 pages of witness statements in
the Congressional Record from technicians who all swore they heard the
sound of that relief.)

Eyewitnesses are wrong all the time, ask any cop or lawyer. They are
*especially* frequently wrong during rapid high stress events. You
need to allow for this factor in your analysis.

This portion of their report reads as follows: "We had this
problem, but it had nothing to do with the fire. We had that problem,
but it had nothing to do with the fire. We had this problem over
here, we don't know WHAT that was, but we're SURE it had nothing to do
with the fire. And, oh, BY THE WAY, we don't know WHAT caused the
fire!"

That's not as impossible as it seems. Even without knowing the exact
cause of the fire, you can examine the problems individually and in
aggregate and determine if the faults noted could have been the cause.
It's entirely likely that those faults could not have caused the fire
leaving the exact cause undetermined.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

(Derek Lyons) wrote in message ...
(LaDonna Wyss) wrote:
Finally, if NASA wishes to sell a "flash fire, ?fueled' by
oxygen", shouldn't it go to a little more trouble to get to the bottom
of repeated surges in the O2?

There's no need to get to the bottom of this as simple physics has
already done so. The capsule was pressurized over atmospheric with
100% O2, thus creating an atmosphere that was all but explosive. The
surges are largely irrelevant considering that there is no evidence of
unusual cabin pressures AFFAIK.

I don't know about you, Commander, but I would have immediately closed
MY faceplate, and I certainly would NOT have taken the time to say, "Break"
followed by a ONE POINT SEVEN SECOND PAUSE, followed by "We've got
a fire in the cockpit."

That shows that you don't have the training Gus (and I) have had.
Standard communications protocol calls for clearing the line (calling
"break"), pausing a moment, and *then* passing the word you need to
pass. (This allows the folks on the channel a moment to clear their
minds and *concentrate*.)

Secondly, in the event of a casualty, the basic principle is to pass
the word *first*, then you try and save yourself/fight the casualty.
(If you don't pass the word, then help will not be forthcoming. If
you wait to pass the word, the casualty grows worse.)

(And if you need more proof, read the 102 pages of witness statements in
the Congressional Record from technicians who all swore they heard the
sound of that relief.)

Eyewitnesses are wrong all the time, ask any cop or lawyer. They are
*especially* frequently wrong during rapid high stress events. You
need to allow for this factor in your analysis.

This portion of their report reads as follows: "We had this
problem, but it had nothing to do with the fire. We had that problem,
but it had nothing to do with the fire. We had this problem over
here, we don't know WHAT that was, but we're SURE it had nothing to do
with the fire. And, oh, BY THE WAY, we don't know WHAT caused the
fire!"

That's not as impossible as it seems. Even without knowing the exact
cause of the fire, you can examine the problems individually and in
aggregate and determine if the faults noted could have been the cause.
It's entirely likely that those faults could not have caused the fire
leaving the exact cause undetermined.

D.

Oh, THIS is going to be FUN. First, I don't know WHAT training you
claim to have had with Gus, but if you are in the middle of a "flash
fire", with your faceplate open, and you are milliseconds from dying,
are you seriously trying to tell me you would take the time to use
proper radio protocol???? BEFORE you answer, let me make you aware I
was in a life-threatening situation once; I'm still here which tells
you something about my survival instincts. A million thoughts cross
your mind at the same time, and each one is crystal-clear--if Gus knew
he was "burning up" as he spoke he would have said to HELL with
protocol, and you damned well know it.
As for witness inconsistencies; inconsistencies are one thing. But if
you are such an expert on witness statements, you must realize when
you have 102 pages all saying the SAME DAMNED THING,...HELLO???????
You don't need to be Columbo to solve that one.
As for what caused the fi I know EXACTLY what caused the fire. So
does NASA; they're just not telling the story.