Review of the 'Unmatched Pair' Intro (51-L)

============================================
COPYRIGHT 2003 - John Thomas Maxson (All rights reserved.)
============================================

Neither the PC Report nor my book (The Betrayal of Mission 51-L)
mentions an 'unmatched pair' -- unmatched in the sense that the
propellant in each solid rocket motor (SRM or HPM) was poured
from a different batch. Charleston was the first one in this group to
use the term 'unmatched pair,' on August 7, 2003. Below are quotes
from some of his posts since then, followed now by my comments.
My final one is lengthy. It summarizes my past and present status
on this group's currently out-of-the-blue (if not off-the-wall) topic.

============================================
8/7 - "Isn't that 22 psi number out of the known database at the
time 51-L was launched? Why yes it is. I have seen the data on
one of my FOIA requests. It is over 2 sigma high."
=============================================

That 22 psi was given by Rogers' Executive Summary as a right-
to-left delta, not as a statistical sigma. What you placed on a
FOIA request was not at issue. At issue was a 51-L delta in Pc.

=============================================
8/7 - "I am not concerned with overall bulk propellant temperature.
I am concerned about the temperature of the propellant which burns
at liftoff when there is a two sigma--22 psi differential.'
=============================================

Sooner or later, you will need to consider MBT due to much lower
*recorded* prelaunch pad temperatures than those explainable by the
weather. That 22 psi was not given as a statistic from a database.

=============================================
8/7 - "Shouldn't any rational evaluation of the probability that a
propellant anomaly contributed to the cause of the accident be
addressed by examining the facts surrounding the use of an
unmatched SRB pair, actual flight performance, and recovered
hardware for burnback review? Why would one base such a
conclusion on little subscale 5 inch motors??
=============================================

One tends to start with whatever data one has at the time. Lee had
a lack of recovered hardware and perhaps no record of a mismatch.

=============================================
8/7 - "Assuming for the moment that I am correct and NASA used
an unmatched SRB pair, would you agree that failing to address and
discuss such use an issue would be grossly negligent and deceptive
at the bare minimum? I would dare say it is possibly criminal.
Especially when lies under oath occurred to hide the facts.
=============================================

First you asked and answered a hypothetical question. Then you
abruptly switched to an unsupported charge of perjury.

=============================================
8/8 (am) - So Jack Lee, a high level NASA manager, who knew
exactly what caused the diffeence in chamber pressure comes up
with an answer that is evasive. He could have said.

"We flew STS 51-L with an unmatched SRB pair. Our subscale
motor tests indicated there would be a thrust differential
but this is higher than we expected. In fact sir you can
see a significant difference at T+1 second and we are looking
into this thrust differential so that we can rule out that it
had anything to do with the accident."

snip I am not going to go back and get any data for you Chuck.
The two sigma speaks for itself. There are no other flights prior
to STS 51-L that have a delta p of that magnitude at that point in
the flight.
=============================================

Frankly, I can't see how we should be expected to believe all of
that from the Report. Lee was discussing R-SRB sigma at a given
time, not R-to-L delta. For all the group knows, L-SRB Pc was a
bit above nominal at the point in time referred to by Lee.

=============================================
8/8 (pm) - "I am saying that Mr. Lee did in fact lie to the Presidential
Commission investigating the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident"
snip "Daniel's Note: Here comes the lie."

MR. LEE: That is just the way the sample that we - the test fire
sample of the actual grain, the five inch motor, and its performance
is comparable to this. It will be a slight, not a defect, a flaw or a
crack in the propellant would give you an increased irregular grain
rate for a longer period of time. It is just an irregular shaping of the
grain maybe, nothing - I mean, not anything abnormal about that at
all from our experience base. The only reason I put it up there is
to explain the Shuttle main engine throttling and because we were
looking for everything that could be slightly unusual.

"Chuck, this was actually the beginning of a long series of lies of
omission surrounding the fact that NASA engineers knowingly
used a pair of unmatched (thrust mismatch due to swapping of
unmatched SRM segments) SRB pairs to launch Challenger on
STS 51-L." snip "Given the existence of a most interesting
Marshall Space Flight Center "Deviation Approval Request"
regarding the use of unmatched pairs, yes I will say it--Jack
Lee--and others lied to the Commission."
=============================================

As you know, it's one thing to allege all this, but it's another
thing to actually show us the data and the documentation which
you believe will lead a jury to your conclusion.

=============================================
I would like to issue a little challenge here. Who will be the
first one to find the statistical chicanery involving the SRB thrust
descriptions in the Presidential Commission's timeline and explain
why the description is chicanery. Dad you know the answer so I
ask that you let the group find it please.
=============================================

I withheld comment long enough for others to reply, but none did.

=============================================
8/9 - "It was more like three sigma."
=============================================

Again, your apparent confusion of sigma and R-L delta crops up.
That 22 psi was lifted (as a R-L delta) from an unsigned report by
MSFC's John Thomas and his Accident Analysis Team (see the
PC Report, Appendix L). If anyone at NASA referred to 22 psi
as sigma, to my knowledge it was not reported to the PC that way.

=============================================
8/9 - "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." snip "His
mention of the *five inch motor* gave him away. He stopped
himself when he realized what he had said."
=============================================

I don't see that Lee's discussion of five-inch motors implies an
unmatched pair. He seemed bent on showing a time-specific, above-
nominal thrust -- sufficient to account for a premature throttledown.
I can't see where he limited such an increase to only one motor.

=============================================
9/9 - "Importantly, the friend of a routine and well respected
poster here can corroborate the unmatched SRB pair issue
independently from me."
=============================================

Obviously *some* sort of corroboration was sorely needed.

=============================================
9/9 - "Roger you are that poster and your "friend", Jay Greene,
can corroborate the "unmatched SRB pair" allegation of mine. He
signed a report that discusses the issue. Will you help the group
by verifying this important issue? It is not classified."
=============================================

Roger declined, as I expected, after distancing himself from Greene.
I gave you an unwelcome assist by supplying a quote from Borrer.

=============================================
9/14 - "You must post all High Performance Motor (HPM) SRM
missions so that we can discuss the true standard deviations etc.,
otherwise you will be no more credible than NASA on this issue."
=============================================

I had no intention of posting data from any missions which flew
HPM motors subsequent to 51-L. You would face difficulty getting
any such data introduced into evidence in a court of law (because of
a new design). Lee's statistical analysis differed from Scofield's, but
neither was correct. Sutter insisted on all flights as basis, after Lee
presented only Challenger's (which were *not* limited to HPMs).
Dr. Covert simply *assumed* all flights; Lee did not agree.

It was because of Sutter's insistence that Rogers placed Sutter in
charge of the PC panel which looked into the SRM matter. All the
transcripts from the meetings of Sutter's panel are needed here.

[From my reading of the PC (FBI) interviews, I see no indication
that Lee, Scofield, and certain other MSFC executives had prelaunch
knowledge of the cryo leaks at KSC, or good launch film to review.]

=============================================
9/14 - "There are no controls in this instance whatsoever. They are
all real flights with real data under varying launch temperatures and
propellant manufacturing processes.
=============================================

The Pc telemetry from any prior in-spec (grain-wise and temp-wise)
'matched-pair' HPM launch serves as a control of sorts for a quick-
look analysis in this forum. My T/M offer (which consisted only of
pre-51-L HPM flights) included at least a couple of the above for
"controls." I don't know of any cold-temperature HPM launch
prior to 51-L, notwithstanding the fact that Reinartz considered (I
think mistakenly) the 51-L motors to be the same as those of 51-C.

=============================================
9/14 - "Hell five of the mission used unmatched pairs."
=============================================

As mentioned earlier, the PC Report doesn't make this claim. What
can be shown is that when the PC Report went to press, Challenger
had lifted off with HPMs at least four or five times out of ten.

The 51-L Flight Operations Summary claims that only two of those
had flown with an unmatched pair (61-A and 51-L). What I don't
have is *prelaunch* documentation (from anywhere) which shows
that KSC had planned to use an unmatched pair for 51-L. The PC
Report soundly *refutes* that notion (see Volume II, page I-6).

In contrast, my own warnings of LH2 pad leaks were documented
and witnessed *prior to* the launch, in several reports to the Senate
(and elsewhere). I showed a related schedule-motive on the part of
Lockheed, General Dynamics, and others. Thiokol had no motive
to jeopardize its fine manufacturing/launch record for KSC launches.

Playing dumb before the launch about MBT, reluctantly going along
with Rogers' O-ring gag, withholding SRM serial numbers to hide
the fireball crossing, and a bad FWC performance/schedule record
for VLS are entirely different Thiokol stories, of course.

I had absolutely no ideas about (or intentions of) ever writing a
book when I picked up the telephone at KSC and called Senator
Grassley's office on December 9, 1985, to warn him of the disaster
about to occur at Pad B. I wrote my book only as a last resort,
because of injustices I suffered at the hands of our legal system.

Paul introduced my book here, and I spent the better part of 2001
making posts in defense of the preview on my website. I later
reviewed all those efforts, at the end of my first year here. (See:

http://tinyurl.com/ozds, http://tinyurl.com/ozg2,
http://tinyurl.com/ozl3, http://tinyurl.com/ozlb,
http://tinyurl.com/ozle, and http://tinyurl.com/ozlm.)

You (Daniel, Mountain Camper, or Charleston -- take your pick)
have fought my efforts here most of the way. First you attacked
me personally; then you attacked my fireball-crossing conclusion,
and now you have attacked the very credibility of my prelaunch
warnings about the primary reason to fear an imminent disaster.

Finally, you have falsely accused me of neglecting the ignition
interval in my book for the layperson, while knowing full well that
I have two technical books copyrighted which I have been unable
to publish, purely because of my financial situation since 51-L.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----

As those of you who have read my book know, I stopped off to
see Dan and his family just before the catastrophe. I told him it was
about to occur; I told him I had been threatened with great bodily
harm; and I made out a will with his neighbors as witnesses.

After the disaster, he immediately focused on the crew. As I fought
my lawsuits over the years (via many of this nation's top attorneys),
Dan often appeared on the verge of publishing a book on the 51-L
crew's final moments. Early on, I had told him that it would be a
tough go for him to do that, because I first needed to prove the real
cause. Due to snarled lawsuits, I eventually urged him to proceed
without me. Our pact was that I would write about the cause later.

Daniel filed FOIA requests of his own from the outset. He decided
to accept the O-ring hypothesis as fact in 1987. That caused many
heated arguments and hard feelings over what the FOIA data was
actually telling us. At that time I soon lost respect for Daniel's new
approach of following the path of least resistance (as well as the
opinion of a medical astronaut) for his crew cabin story.

In 1995 and 1996 I first heard Dan angrily rant that an 'unmatched
pair' had caused Challenger's destruction. I had told him that T/M
listings of chamber pressure were needed. He had received those
(and some other data that he had requested) from MSFC.

We shared FOIA responses until mid-1998, when I received my
first Social Security payout and returned to the Heartland. I asked
Dan then not to send me any more of his FOIA responses, if he
didn't want me to consider them while I wrote my book. At any
rate, 1997 marked the last year I saw FOIA responses from Dan.

By building a big dam, NASA has been able to make the waters
of public opinion run uphill when needed. I will always be grateful
for the FOIA information which Daniel shared with me, but it is
now obvious that he has taken a delay-till-doomsday approach
(witness Columbia) toward presenting what I perceive as a plastic
interpretation of his 51-L research. His hit-and-run attacks on me
here since my book's introduction have obviously not spoken well
for the Maxson name. Be that as it may, I do not regret my travel
down the Master's road, either before or after Mission 51-L.

============================================
COPYRIGHT 2003 - John Thomas Maxson (All rights reserved.)
============================================

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