Challenger - "Go With Throttle Up"

Why do official transcripts and books etc. say that the last
communication from Challenger was "Go At Throttle Up", when its clearly
"Go with throttle up"?

Cheers

Paul
--
http://www.paullee.com

wrote in message
oups.com...
Why do official transcripts and books etc. say that the last
communication from Challenger was "Go At Throttle Up", when its clearly
"Go with throttle up"?

Exactally its very clearly:
"Challenger, go with throttle up"
"Roger. Go with throttle up"

It might even be "Roger. Go for throttle up" I think the confusion is
because one recording that has been distributed scratches badly on the
disputed word.

On 2005-10-11, wrote:
Why do official transcripts and books etc. say that the last
communication from Challenger was "Go At Throttle Up", when its clearly
"Go with throttle up"?

The human ear is pretty good at error-correcting - hearing something
indistinct and recognising it as something. I just announced "Go at
throttle up" (to an empty room), and listening carefully to what I said
it's almost impossible to tell if the sound before "thr-" is "at", or
"on", or even "for", "in", "by" or "with".

This is especially true because a lot of words, like this one, aren't
critical to the meaning of the sentence - you could say "go enclosed
throttle up" there, and the meaning would be mostly consistent though
it'd sound stupid.

As such, if someone's checking a recording against a transcript, they're
likely to construe what they hear as being the same as what's on the
transcript if it's an indistinct but unimportant word. So this may be
why the error propagates.

--
-Andrew Gray

On 11 Oct 2005 02:16:39 -0700, wrote:

Why do official transcripts and books etc. say that the last
communication from Challenger was "Go At Throttle Up", when its clearly
"Go with throttle up"?

I just replayed "Failure is Not an Option II" that I had on TiVo from
History Channel.

It sure sounds like "Roger, Go _at_ Throttle-Up" to me. And since
that's the standard call (before and since, acknowledging that
throttle-up was successful and normal) I'm inclined to accept it as
such.

Brian

Brian Thorn wrote in
:

On 11 Oct 2005 02:16:39 -0700, wrote:

Why do official transcripts and books etc. say that the last
communication from Challenger was "Go At Throttle Up", when its clearly
"Go with throttle up"?

I just replayed "Failure is Not an Option II" that I had on TiVo from
History Channel.

It sure sounds like "Roger, Go _at_ Throttle-Up" to me. And since
that's the standard call (before and since, acknowledging that
throttle-up was successful and normal) I'm inclined to accept it as
such.

You're correct; that's what is written in all the console handbooks as
well.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Why do official transcripts and books etc. say that the last
communication from Challenger was "Go At Throttle Up", when its clearly
"Go with throttle up"?

Because it is "Go AT throttle up." It's an acknowledgement, not a command.



Cheers

Paul
--
http://www.paullee.com

"Andrew Gray" wrote in message
. ..
On 2005-10-11, wrote:
Why do official transcripts and books etc. say that the last
communication from Challenger was "Go At Throttle Up", when its clearly
"Go with throttle up"?

The human ear is pretty good at error-correcting - hearing something
indistinct and recognising it as something. I just announced "Go at
throttle up" (to an empty room), and listening carefully to what I said
it's almost impossible to tell if the sound before "thr-" is "at", or
"on", or even "for", "in", "by" or "with".

This is especially true because a lot of words, like this one, aren't
critical to the meaning of the sentence - you could say "go enclosed
throttle up" there, and the meaning would be mostly consistent though
it'd sound stupid.

As such, if someone's checking a recording against a transcript, they're
likely to construe what they hear as being the same as what's on the
transcript if it's an indistinct but unimportant word. So this may be
why the error propagates.



Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer
in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht
the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl
mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae
the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but
the wrod as a wlohe."

http://dan.hersam.com/archives/2005/...umbled-letters





--
-Andrew Gray

In message , jonathan
writes

"Andrew Gray" wrote in message
...

As such, if someone's checking a recording against a transcript, they're
likely to construe what they hear as being the same as what's on the
transcript if it's an indistinct but unimportant word. So this may be
why the error propagates.



Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer
in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht
the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl
mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae
the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but
the wrod as a wlohe."

http://dan.hersam.com/archives/2005/...umbled-letters


Shouldn't that be rsceearh? :-)
The idea is being used on posters in railway stations here that tell
people not to assault the staff, with the bottom line "Hard to
understand ?"
--
Boycott Yahoo!
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

Why is the call to Challenger "Go with throttle up"? And I looked at
the STS26 launch video and the call to discovery is "Go with throttle
up" too. Just because thats what it should be, doesn't mean thats that
what it really is. Everyone I've spoken to says it sounds like "Go
with...."

On 12 Oct 2005 02:28:38 -0700, wrote:

Why is the call to Challenger "Go with throttle up"? And I looked at
the STS26 launch video and the call to discovery is "Go with throttle
up" too. Just because thats what it should be, doesn't mean thats that
what it really is. Everyone I've spoken to says it sounds like "Go
with...."

Ask someone before you tell them what you think you hear.
It's "Go at..." in both cases.

Brian