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
  #21  
Old September 1st 03, 07:52 AM
Kent Betts
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Booster Crossing

"John Maxson" wrote in message ...
Herbs prefers that you all believe that some "paramedics"
parachuted in from 200,000


Herb didn't mention paramedics.

"Surely you must realize that Chuck has a "way with words." Ask him
for a page number and see how fast he back pedals"

Is the Reagan conspiracy theory in the book? No?

""Incoherently expressed" seems ...colorful"

Your colorful writing is incoherent.

"It means that the anomalous flare/plume was an effect,
rather than the cause, of the 51-L catastrophe."

Is this part in the book? Finally, in Steve's words, "Even if they
did cross, what would be so significant about it anyways?"


Berndt:
"Another piece of evidence we have that precludes a
crossing even more solidly is the breach in the right
SRB seen before and after the disintegration."

Maxon:
Notice the words "breach" and "seen." The alleged way
the "breach" was "seen" was via an anomalous "plume."

The big honking aluminum-fueled blowtorch plume was seen coming out of
the
breech. Yo /etc dude.....Maxson tries to create confusion. Notice
that the plume was seen coming out of the breach.

/etc
I suppose the plume was caused by the "breach" then.
Is that right?

Well the breach was caused by hot gas under high presssure.. After
the SRB
casing melted, the hot gases kept on coming out, yeah. Here is a pic
of the right SRB showing the damage.
http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1p78.htm from the page
http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1ch4.htm#4.23

Breach: broken, ruptured, or torn condition or area: a gap

"Maxson"
"If you accept the conclusions of Rogers, NASA, and BBR,
that's true. If you're an independent thinker, you must ask
which booster the anomalous flare/plume appeared on at
fireball exit, because the alleged pre-explosion anomaly was
near the aft part of the right SRB."

The independent Maxson asked which SRB the plume was on when the SRBs
left
the fireball, and answered that it was on the left SRB, because the
SRBs had
crossed.

Maxson:
"NASA and Berndt simply *assume* that the right SRB exited
on the same side as it was prior to the explosion."

This is rather incorrect. There is visual data, SRB pressure data,
and
Berbdt's calculations that an SRB crossing would not fall inside known
physics. This is what Maxson referes to as an "assumption." Whereas
Maxon's hypothesis of an SRB crossing is based on.....?


Maxson:
If it did not,
then there was no pre-explosion, right-SRB "breach;" we were
simply seeing some other type of enhanced flames earlier; and
the flare/plume at fireball exit was actually on the *left* SRB, a
reminder of what happened when it tore away from the tank."

Translated
If the SRBs swapped sides inside the fireball, then the flames seen
coming
off the right SRB during ascent were "some other type of enhanced
flames.".
The breach "flare/plume" in the left SRB was caused when the left SRB
tore
away from the external tank.

A reminder. Maxson won't say damage or defect or breach .....it is a
"reminder."

So there you go /etc. The uh rt SRB flames were "other enhanced
flames" and
the left SRB flames after it hopped over to the right side were a
"reminder. You can consider yourself indebted for this exercise in
independent thinking.
  #22  
Old September 1st 03, 02:17 PM
Herb Schaltegger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Booster Crossing

In article ,
"/etc" wrote:

I'm just trying to understand Mr. Maxsons point of view in
a rational way, and I do not consider "insanity" is a really
good argument in a rational debate.


JTM does not engage in rational debate. Period. In fact, his repeated
absurd assertions, in the face of and despite compelling visual and
telemetric evidence to the contrary, brings to mind the famous lay
definition of insanity, which is to do (or say) the same things over and
over and expect differing results.

After all Mr. Maxson is
a retired engineer


So he says. He's also said, "See, I'm a software guy," or somesuch. In
fact, his degree is apparently in mathematics NOT engineering. However,
he refuses to publically comment on his lack of true engineering
education or expertise.

and probably has his arguments which are
valuable until the contrary has been proven.


The contrary is proven every time one watches an STS-51L launch video
showing a breach in the SRB and every time one reviews the telemetry
data in the Rogers Commission report demonstrating differing chamber
pressures between the boosters at times correlating with the visual
evidence of burn-through.

BTW, what exactly are *your* credentials?


What are yours?

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
"Heisenberg might have been here."
~ Anonymous
  #23  
Old September 1st 03, 05:06 PM
John Maxson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Booster Crossing

Herb Schaltegger wrote in message
...

Jon has posted fairly detailed calculations demonstrating that
not only is such a booster crossing invisble on the film or video,
it is *impossible* given the known rates, masses, thrust levels,
and SRB nozzle gimbal positions.


How quaint! When Dr. Feynman, the Nobel laureate physicist, saw
fit to inquire about a fireball crossing early on, NASA simply put
him off with the promise of *film* research at a later date.

We are all expected to believe that Berndt is not only more brilliant
than the laureate, but more ably forthcoming than NASA with all the
steering details of the boosters' actual flight paths after separation.

Think again, Herbs. I had to before I wrote my book, several times.

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


  #24  
Old September 1st 03, 06:11 PM
John Maxson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default My Education

Herb Schaltegger wrote in message
...

In fact, his degree is apparently in mathematics NOT engineering.


Yes, my only completed degree is in mathematics. That has been
plainly displayed (publicly available) on my website since 9/2000.

However, he refuses to publically comment on his lack of true
engineering education or expertise.


There is no lack. I have discussed my engineering expertise at
length here. The Google archives are available as proof of that.
I have Lockheed and IBM recognition of my work's excellence,
and I'm certain I have mentioned some of that here as well.

I have on many occasions mentioned my undergraduate and
graduate engineering education on this forum, if not also my
graduate work in applied mathematics. (I did not have the
opportunity to complete those, because of family hardship.)

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


  #25  
Old September 1st 03, 07:04 PM
Chuck Stewart
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Requested cites and page numbers. (Was: Booster Crossing)

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 23:52:34 +0000, Kent Betts wrote:

John Maxson" wrote in message


"Surely you must realize that Chuck has a "way with words."
Ask him for a page number and see how fast he back pedals"


Is the Reagan conspiracy theory in the book? No?


Yes.

Incoherently expressed" seems ...colorful


Your colorful writing is incoherent.


Very.

But we have a request here from John Thomas Maxson, duly noted, to
back up my assertions, and provide evidence that JTM did indeed say
these things in his book.

Following are the *requested* excerpts from the book "The Betrayal
Of Mission 51-L" By John Thomas Maxson (Copyright 2000 ISBN
0-9704036-0-7) and their appropriate page numbers.

And remember: JTM *asked* for these...

================================================== ==============

JTM claims NASA and Lockheed conspiracy and treachery:

JTM dismisses NASA's O-ring explanation for the Challenger disaster
with words such as "allegedly"and "purportedly" and claims that
many leading (but curiously unspecified) rocket experts discount
NASA's explanation as well.
(Reference: pg iii, "The Betrayal Of Mission 51-L")

JTM claims that NASA is keeping (unspecified) data from him by
classifying it as "Sensitive" (NASA's argument being that the
privacy of the astronauts families is paramount) Maxson rejects
arguments concerning family privacy as "duplicitous".
(Reference: pg iii, "The Betrayal Of Mission 51-L")

Maxson states that (unspecified) treachery was somehow involved
with the destruction of Challenger. He then states that, thru
collusion with (unspecified) government parties, "the major
aerospace companies profited unlawfully from Mission 51-L".
(Reference: pg iii, "The Betrayal Of Mission 51-L")

NASA creatively enhanced and otherwise misrepresented selected
optics from several cameras
(Reference: pg 48, "The Betrayal Of Mission 51-L")

JTM accuses NASA of disguising the "flight of the IUS"
(Reference: pg 80, "The Betrayal Of Mission 51-L")

(In JTM's world the IUS is supposed to have been ignited in the
payload bay and have smashed into and destroyed the forward
portions of the orbiter, The lack of an IUS-sized hole in the back
of the crew module deters JTM in this belief not at all.)

an "unspecified Rockwell safety, reliability, and quality
assurance engineer" tried to hand over to Lockheed Martin 10 tapes
of software supposedly containing modifications to the final 51-L
flight software which he purportedly had found discarded. This
anonymous emgineer claims that LEMSCO then destroyed the files
and that when he attempted to go in TV about the matter "someone"
threatened the life of his daughter.
(This odd excursion is in chapter 9)

"The administration" intended to conceal "prelaunch cryogenic
temperatures", an "abort attempt", a "fireball crossing", and an
"IUS ignition".
(Reference: pg 82, "The Betrayal Of Mission 51-L")

My Commentary:

Maxson insinuates the prospect of murder often throughout this
book, but he always refuses to make a direct accusation of such
against any specific party beyond vague organizational terms such
as "NASA", "Lockheed", "Reagan Administration" or the "Department
Of Defense" (or some conglomeration of the above). JTM's words
leave no other possible interpretation than murder but in his
cowardice he just drops endless hints and allegations... without
any substantiation.

And the endless cover-ups required by JTM's assertions would
involve so many people that I think that the conspiracy indictments
alone would overwhelm the judicial system.

================================================== ==============

JTM says O-ring burnthrough faked:

Burnthrough in right SRB "later fictionalized by NASA"
(Reference: pg 3, "The Betrayal Of Mission 51-L")

A few top NASA officials developed a problem history for the
O-rings.
(Reference: pg 28, "The Betrayal Of Mission 51-L")

My Commentary:

This accusation, if proven, would be basis for multiple myriads of
indictments. And many people from NASA and Morton Thiokol would
have to have been be involved in order to have pulled it off.

================================================== ==============

JTM's "Dance of the SRB's":

In his attempts to assert that the SRB's crossed (pg 4), JTM
forgets to mention that after their initial crossing his book has
them crossing _yet again_ with each booster resuming its
pre-breakup position to the left and right of the debris cloud
(Reference: pg 6, "The Betrayal Of Mission 51-L")

My Commentary:

This means that, for the booster with the breach to end up on the
"wrong side" when all was said and done (Which JTM now asserts in
the newsgroup), the boosters would have had to have crossed a
_third_ time. Cue "Flight of the Bumblebee"... NASA could not have
missed this. Again, conspiracy.

================================================== ==============

JTM says RCS firings:

JTM claims that Nasa began (unspecified) limited use of RCS below
70000 ft at (unspecified) times.
(Reference: pg 8, "The Betrayal Of Mission 51-L")

JTM says 21 RCS firings on STS-41c on ascent pg
(Reference: pg 13, "The Betrayal Of Mission 51-L")

Nasa enabled RCS on ascent of Challenger pg
(Reference: pg 38, "The Betrayal Of Mission 51-L")

Aft RCS bursts (on Challenger)
(Reference: pg 43, "The Betrayal Of Mission 51-L")

JTM states that the job of Dr. William Graham was to conceal the
"causes of the blasts"
(Reference: pg 81, "The Betrayal Of Mission 51-L")

My Commentary:

The RCS system is the attitude control jets for the orbiter. They
are not supposed to be used in the lower atmosphere.before SRB sep.
NASA says they never were... if JTM is right and RCS firings were
covered up by NASA then it's felony conspiracy. And a lot of people
would have to have been involved to cover this up.

================================================== ==============

JTM says deliberate hydrogen leaks were used to destroy Challenger.

JTM states that it became clear to Bill Bassler that hydrogen leaks
that had occurred at pad B were planned.
(Reference: pg 18, "The Betrayal Of Mission 51-L")

Intentional leaks in the piping at Pad B.
(Reference: pg 19, "The Betrayal Of Mission 51-L")

JTM claims Russell Rhodes to have said that prominent hydrogen
leaks from the launch pad Centaur fill lines and hardware continued
after attempts to stem the leaks.
(Reference: pg 19, "The Betrayal Of Mission 51-L")

JTM says leaks cooled left SRB.
(Reference: pg 19, "The Betrayal Of Mission 51-L")

JTM Waste of hydrogen deliberate
(Reference: pg 22, "The Betrayal Of Mission 51-L")

Deliberate use of a supercooled left booster
(Reference: pg 32, "The Betrayal Of Mission 51-L")

My commentary:

The SRB's cannot be shut off or jettisoned while in operation.
Once ignited they must perform properly or the orbiter and crew
will be destroyed. This fact is inescapable: _if_ the SRB's were
tampered with by deliberate hydrogen leaks, then the result was
murder.

================================================== ==============

JTM says it was planned:

JTM poses that Charlie Floyd prepared for a launch disaster by
intimidating his engineers.
(Reference: pg 21, "The Betrayal Of Mission 51-L")

According to JTM Jesse Moore and Arnold Aldrich were NASA's
"designated executioners"
(Reference: pg 33, "The Betrayal Of Mission 51-L")

Supposed fire seen on the ET between SSME ignition and SRB
ignition. Some (unspecified) Lockheed engineers in the firing room
"knew they had a hydrogen fire on their hands"... but they launched
anyway.
(Reference: pg 34, "The Betrayal Of Mission 51-L")

My Commentary:

A shuttle launch can be aborted after the mains ignite... just so
long as the SRB's haven't been lit yet. If they launched knowing a
ET tank fire was in progress then it was murder.

================================================== ==============

JTM says "IT'S ALL REAGANS FAULT!"

Air Force's (unspecified) corruption at Vandenberg
(Reference: pg 15, "The Betrayal Of Mission 51-L")

JTM says that Bill (William) Casey had knowledge to enable AF to
run covert shuttle program for unlawful industrial gain.
(Reference: pg 25, "The Betrayal Of Mission 51-L")

"sordid executive betrayal"
(Reference: pg 28, "The Betrayal Of Mission 51-L")

And then JTM says "Reagan's plans for militarizing space had been
given a boost" but that a cold o-ring had failed to cause a
launch pad disaster.
(Reference: pg 81, "The Betrayal Of Mission 51-L")

Graham illegally employed plausible deniability in a domestic
situation
(Reference: pg 86, "The Betrayal Of Mission 51-L")

My Commentary:

.... what the hell?...

================================================== ==============

There's much more of this blathering drivel in JTM's book, but this
should do for now.

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

  #26  
Old September 1st 03, 09:36 PM
Jim Norton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Booster Crossing

How quaint! When Dr. Feynman, the Nobel laureate physicist, saw
fit to inquire about a fireball crossing early on, NASA simply put
him off with the promise of *film* research at a later date.


Oh really? Do you have a reference for that? I have read several items by
Feynman about the accident. Don't remember anything even remotly close to
this.

==========================


Anti-environmental myths
http://info-pollution.com/myths.htm
Practical skepticism
http://info-pollution.com/skeptic.htm

  #27  
Old September 1st 03, 10:20 PM
John Maxson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Booster Crossing

Sure I do, from the first USENET post I ever made:

http://tinyurl.com/lw4t

I also discussed the matter with Dr. Feynman.

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


Jim Norton wrote in message
...

How quaint! When Dr. Feynman, the Nobel laureate physicist, saw
fit to inquire about a fireball crossing early on, NASA simply put
him off with the promise of *film* research at a later date.


Oh really? Do you have a reference for that? I have read several items
by Feynman about the accident. Don't remember anything even remotly
close to this.



  #28  
Old September 2nd 03, 12:39 AM
John Maxson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Requested cites and page numbers. (Was: Booster Crossing)

Chuck Stewart wrote in message
news

(In JTM's world the IUS is supposed to have been ignited in the
payload bay and have smashed into and destroyed the forward
portions of the orbiter, The lack of an IUS-sized hole in the back
of the crew module deters JTM in this belief not at all.)


What, no page reference? You're overboard with embellishing.

In his attempts to assert that the SRB's crossed (pg 4), JTM
forgets to mention that after their initial crossing his book has
them crossing _yet again_ with each booster resuming its
pre-breakup position to the left and right of the debris cloud
(Reference: pg 6, "The Betrayal Of Mission 51-L")


Huh? "Forgets to mention?" It's online!

This means that, for the booster with the breach to end up on the
"wrong side" when all was said and done (Which JTM now asserts in
the newsgroup), the boosters would have had to have crossed a
_third_ time. Cue "Flight of the Bumblebee"... NASA could not have
missed this. Again, conspiracy.


Whose "wrong side?" You've gone off the deep end, or else you're
hopelessly confused. Run that one by again, using detailed IDs, etc.

The RCS system is the attitude control jets for the orbiter. They
are not supposed to be used in the lower atmosphere.before SRB sep.
NASA says they never were... if JTM is right and RCS firings were
covered up by NASA then it's felony conspiracy. And a lot of people
would have to have been involved to cover this up.


Many in the media and in the know call it an "official" cover-up.
Otherwise, what you've just posted is more fair to me than you've
ever been. What's up? You're keying on murder/conspiracy now.

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


  #29  
Old September 2nd 03, 03:41 AM
/etc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Booster Crossing

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 19:12:43 -0700, when the end of the tunnel became
apparent, Conspiracy Theory posted:

[snip]

Desist.

Your babblings have been noted.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%3...TF-8&scoring=d


We know who you are and why you want to
contradict Mr. Maxsons point of view, coward!


--
mhm 27x12
smeeter #27 (also)
  #30  
Old September 2nd 03, 05:41 AM
Jon Berndt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default My Education

"John Maxson" wrote :

Herb Schaltegger wrote:


However, he refuses to publically comment on his lack of true
engineering education or expertise.


There is no lack. I have discussed my engineering expertise at
length here. The Google archives are available as proof of that.
I have Lockheed and IBM recognition of my work's excellence,
and I'm certain I have mentioned some of that here as well.

I have on many occasions mentioned my undergraduate and
graduate engineering education on this forum, if not also my
graduate work in applied mathematics. (I did not have the
opportunity to complete those, because of family hardship.)


The point is, what is your experience and education in aerospace
vehicle flight dynamics and control? EOM? etc.

Jon
 




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 10:36 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.