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

Booster Crossing



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old September 10th 03, 11:05 PM
John Maxson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Booster Crossing

Charleston wrote
in message news:JLu7b.50473$cj1.49476@fed1read06...
"John Maxson" wrote:

Does the report make lucid mention of an unmatched pair
on 51-L?


Absolutely positively yes.


Assuming you can put up or quote from odd-numbered pages
in the Appendix at the end of the Flight Operations Report
(which were missing in your initial FOIA response, and which
therefore I may not have seen yet), I take it that your issue is
that both the right hand (JSC's Kranz, et al) and the left hand
(MSFC's Lee, et al) were in a position to offer the PC a more
plausible explanation for some of the early differences in Pc.

You apparently have other FOIA records which make you think
that Lee should have offered the PC a half-explanation, *based on
unmatched pairs*, for why the right SRB's early chamber pressure
was dangerously higher than the left SRB's, perhaps from about
t+1.5 seconds through t+20 seconds. (The PC found that *KSC*
knew about this unmatched pair, but the PC never tied that to Pc.)

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


  #102  
Old September 11th 03, 07:19 AM
Chuck Stewart
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Booster Crossing

On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 18:33:17 +0000, Charleston wrote:

"Chuck Stewart" wrote:
Charleston wrote:


He (Mr. Lee) was sloppy above and elsewhere. He did not even lie
very well.


Are you saying that Mr. Lee lied to the Commission? If so... evidence to
back this assertion?


Yes. I am saying that Mr. Lee did in fact lie to the Presidential
Commission investigating the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident.


I would have said it last night but my mouse's batteries died and the
spares were still at Costco;-)


That's Ok... I'm coming back online just now from a failed motherboard. :\

Obviously much discussion follows... I'll catch up.

--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"

  #103  
Old September 11th 03, 10:02 AM
Kent Betts
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Booster Crossing

"John Maxson" wrote in message ...
He was comparing *only* R-SRB Pc to its past-performance
statistics, essentially giving us a red herring:


Not a red herring.

To establish your issue, it would have been necessary for Lee
to have shown early performance for the *left* SRB as well


There is no issue, hence no need to compare past left SRB stats.

Look at Balettie. He's stonewalling the greater significance
of the Castglance video


The castglance vid *has* no greater significance.
  #104  
Old September 11th 03, 09:26 PM
Kent Betts
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Chuck Stewart Insists on Libel

JTM's book was written without his objectively thinking through
and researching the very concepts he espouses. And since he has
wasted his life since Challenger pursuing it he cannot, absolutely
cannot, go back and correct even the most egregious errors.

..
..
  #105  
Old September 12th 03, 04:09 PM
Charleston
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default STS 51-L and the Unmatched SRM pair Was: Booster Crossing

"John Maxson" wrote:
Charleston wrote:
"John Maxson" wrote:

Does the report make lucid mention of an unmatched pair
on 51-L?


Absolutely positively yes.


Assuming you can put up or quote from odd-numbered pages


Why assume that?

in the Appendix at the end of the Flight Operations Report
(which were missing in your initial FOIA response,


They were missing in my initial request as filled by JSC? No, I received
the whole document from JSC and received it fairly promptly, IIRC.. I
copied the whole document twice. Are you suggesting that you don't have
the applicable odd numbered pages and therefore have never read about this
critical fact on the unmatched pair? Now, you have since posted (yesterday)
that you do in fact have the pages and know there was an unmatched pair.
Please explain what you mean because I am not finding this line of
discussion helpful, productive or of any real value at all.

and which
therefore I may not have seen yet),


We have discussed those details at length.

I take it that your issue is
that both the right hand (JSC's Kranz, et al) and the left hand
(MSFC's Lee, et al) were in a position to offer the PC a more
plausible explanation for some of the early differences in Pc.


I believe you have figured out the statistical chicanery on the SRB thrust
data pulled off by NASA. Either that or you are real close. I thought you
knew it all along. It is a most critical part of any real analysis of the
SRB thrust data and goes to the heart of NASA's credibility on the entire
issue of SRB thrust data on Mission 51-L. Once you see it the door opens
and you can see that behind that door are even more deceptions.

You apparently have other FOIA records which make you think
that Lee should have offered the PC a half-explanation, *based on
unmatched pairs*,


His mention of the *five inch motor* gave him away. He stopped himself when
he realized what he had said.

for why the right SRB's early chamber pressure
was dangerously higher than the left SRB's, perhaps from about
t+1.5 seconds through t+20 seconds.


The right SRB was higher than the left as far out as 50 seconds at least at
some points, IIRC. Now
it is interesting that you mention a specific timeframe above.

(The PC found that *KSC*
knew about this unmatched pair, but the PC never tied that to Pc.)


I have reviewed a lot of data about the SRB midweight configuration (Dennis
Jenkins needs to read the PC report Volume II and correct the third edition
of his book on that issue. The associated Engineering Change Proposal
(ECP), but never seen anything substantive about the term unmatched pair in
the report itself.

http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v2appk.htm

Page K-13
"A.5. Design and Production Control

The MTI configuration control system was reviewed (Referenced Appendix C,
Section CC). This system was formulated upon the contractual requirements
(MSFC document MMI 8040.12) and is documented by the NASA-controlled SRM
Configuration Management Plan and subordinate MTI policies and procedures.
The Class I and Class II control systems were addressed; the membership of
the MTI Configuration Control Board (CCB) was defined and its authority was
addressed. A summary level explanation was provided for each Class I (NASA
approval required) authorized change. It was noted that the change (ECP SRM
0995) [K14] establishing the midweight case configuration was certified only
by similarity. However, the midweight assembly does not represent a
significant redesign, and since its loads and case reactions are between the
two extremes demonstrated, verification by similarity was deemed
appropriate. The midweight SRM utilizes an aft casting segment identical to
that of a standard weight motor with lightweight center and standard weight
forward casting segments of a lightweight SRM configuration. The resulting
load changes were assessed, and it was determined that they were within
previously demonstrated experience; therefore, specific testing was not
required."



"Finding

5. A change was made to the SRM stack configuration that created the
midweight configuration; i.e., a combination of standard and lightweight
cases. This change was qualified by similarity.

Conclusion

5. The midweight configuration, which was not flown on 51-L, did not
represent a significant redesign. Its loads and case reactions were between
the two extremes demonstrated, which were the standard weight and
lightweight configurations. Each of these configurations were a verified by
analyses and ground testing. Therefore, at the time, verification by
similarity of the midweight case design was acceptable. The effort to
requalify the SRM for flight must include sufficient analyses and ground
tests to adequately prove that the redesign of the motor as an entity, and
its various components, will satisfy all CEI specification requirements, and
operate safely over the total flight regime."



I have already mentioned the DAR.

--

Daniel
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC




  #106  
Old September 12th 03, 07:54 PM
John Maxson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default STS 51-L and the Unmatched SRM pair Was: Booster Crossing

Charleston wrote
in message news:2ll8b.52996$cj1.17976@fed1read06...
"John Maxson" wrote:

No, I received the whole document from JSC and
received it fairly promptly, IIRC..


Unless you're now telling me that you lied to me years ago,
I suggest that you test your recollection more thoroughly.

Now, you have since posted (yesterday) that you do in
fact have the pages


"The pages?" That's absolutely false. Until your fairly
recent E-mail to me (with an attachment, which included only
pages 1 through 56), I had never seen pages 20, 32, and 35,
or pages 43, 47, 49, 51, 53, and 55. That's as far as I intend
to comment publicly about that matter at this time.

and know there was an unmatched pair.


I've known about that since mid-1986, but not from JSC.

I believe you have figured out the statistical chicanery on
the SRB thrust data pulled off by NASA.


Don't assume. In your line of work, you rely a lot on statistics.

It is a most critical part of any real analysis of the SRB
thrust data and goes to the heart of NASA's credibility on
the entire issue of SRB thrust data on Mission 51-L.


"Any real analysis?" That's your eyeglass, hence your opinion.

His mention of the *five inch motor* gave him away.


I thought you had mentioned a mysterious 'deviation' document.

The right SRB was higher than the left as far out as 50
seconds at least at some points, IIRC.


You'd better go back and check JSC's attached plot. If this
becomes a point of contention, I can E-mail that page around
to professionals in the group with a real interest in the truth.
If you're referring to some other telemetry, state which/when.

I have reviewed a lot of data about the SRB midweight
configuration


That's not what I had in mind. (As you know, I got into the
SRB/ET pedigrees post-1986, via my MSFC FOIA requests.)

I was referring to the incomplete PC testimony on right SRM
swapping due to left SRM damage (begun by NASA's Bob
Lang and Lockheed's Bill Barsh, but never completed by
Thiokol's Carver Kennedy). After all was said and done, I
never saw any real proof of a matched pair, only hearsay.

As I recall, my FOIA research into the pedigrees didn't give
me any more of a warm feeling about it than Lang and Barsh.

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


  #107  
Old September 13th 03, 03:20 AM
John Maxson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default STS 51-L and the Unmatched SRM pair Was: Booster Crossing

Charleston wrote
in message news:2ll8b.52996$cj1.17976@fed1read06...
"John Maxson" wrote:

I take it that your issue is that both the right hand (JSC's
Kranz, et al) and the left hand (MSFC's Lee, et al) were
in a position to offer the PC a more plausible explanation
for some of the early differences in Pc.


It's beginning to look this was not your issue. Apparently
you were only prepared to argue that Lee "lied to the PC,"
based on his misuse of statistics in arriving at 51-L R-SRB
performance. It looks like you were counting on the MOD's
document to reinforce you on this.

I believe you have figured out the statistical chicanery on the
SRB thrust data pulled off by NASA.


Originally you were going to show us that Lee misused statistics
to lie to the PC. I want to get you and my opposition here to
examine and judge how NASA Headquarters could allow two
of its Centers to have *different* "hot" SRBs, each identified
by its own set of telemetry and real-time or expert witnesses.

Until you (and the three you loaned my book to) get me your
answer to this Lee/Kranz inconsistency, I'm taking it that you've
thrown in the towel. One 51-L SRB was hotter (either during
the first twenty seconds, or from then through the throttle
bucket). Which one was "hot" (and during which period)?

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


  #108  
Old September 13th 03, 11:18 AM
Kent Betts
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Booster Crossing

When Bill Graham released his video on Feb 1, my opinion was broached
emphaticallly to my son Daniel. On Feb 7, Feynman asked a question
that reinforced my opinion.

Berndt's hypothesis rests on a cornerstone whose only real scientific
credibility depends on whether SRB actuators are within Feynman's area
of expertise.
  #109  
Old September 13th 03, 12:49 PM
Jon Berndt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Booster Crossing

"Kent Betts" wrote in message
om...

John Maxson wrote:


When Bill Graham released his video on Feb 1, my opinion was broached
emphaticallly to my son Daniel. On Feb 7, Feynman asked a question
that reinforced my opinion.


So ... John Maxson wasn't sure if the gadget was the thingie that drives the
elevons, either? :-)

Berndt's hypothesis rests on a cornerstone whose only real scientific
credibility depends on whether SRB actuators are within Feynman's area
of expertise.


"My" hypothesis was arrived at as shown he

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

It also happens to pretty much mirror the overall conclusions reached by the
Roger's Commission, but more importantly (and as opposed to John Maxson's
hypothesis), it obeys the laws of physics and conforms to what the visual
evidence and telemetry show.

His hypothesis - in the continued absence of oft-requested flight dynamics
analysis - relies on the purported (unverifiable) hearsay of often mythical
"experts", the misuse of quotes, and the exclusion of any evidence that
won't shoehorn into his predetermined conclusions. This perpetrator's
hypothesis has been shown here for a long time (in increasingly strong
arguments) to fall apart when the individually weak arguments are linked,
hanging by a thread, only to be sliced apart by Occam's razor.

Jon


  #110  
Old September 13th 03, 05:38 PM
John Maxson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default STS 51-L and the Unmatched SRM pair Was: Booster Crossing

John Maxson wrote
in message ...
Charleston wrote
in message news:2ll8b.52996$cj1.17976@fed1read06...

The right SRB was higher than the left as far out as 50
seconds at least at some points, IIRC.


You'd better go back and check JSC's attached plot. If this
becomes a point of contention, I can E-mail that page around
to professionals in the group with a real interest in the truth.


Here you get a glimpse of the SRBs' Pc levels during the
transition from the initial roll maneuver to high Q (JSC's
version): http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3n34a.htm .
At t+49: http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3n35a.htm .

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


 




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
Berndt's Butchery John Maxson Space Shuttle 9 August 28th 03 01:10 PM
FOIA Data Exposing 51-L Fireball Crossing John Maxson Space Shuttle 6 August 26th 03 10:18 AM
Why do we care about the crossing? BenignVanilla Space Shuttle 9 August 16th 03 09:52 AM
Challenger Salvage Chief Conceded Fireball Crossing John Maxson Space Shuttle 31 July 25th 03 05:54 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:53 AM.


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.