Berndt/Balettie Insights

"Chuck Stewart"

JTM was apparently involved at KSC as some sort of a computer systems
guy working for Lockheed. He decided that NASA was trying to rig
computer purchase contracts

Amazing. That is an idea that I could almost buy into.

Kent Betts wrote in message
...
"Chuck Stewart"

JTM was apparently involved at KSC as some sort of a
computer systems guy working for Lockheed.

Yes, I gave it my best (reposted here for your reading pleasure):

'Technical Summary of an O-Ring Cover-Up'
(requested by Pentagon efficiency expert
A. Ernest Fitzgerald on July 4, 2003)

NASA's fault-tree analysis failed to consider that Challenger's solid
rocket boosters could have crossed paths within the 51-L fireball.
A crossing necessarily negates Rogers' postulated "right-aft O-ring
burnthrough."

In a hearing on February 7, 1986, Dr. Feynman inquired: "Can I ask
a dumb question? Do we know on which side which rocket is
afterwards? Did they go like this and cross or do they look like they
went that way?" NASA put Feynman off, and Rogers sidetracked
him. Dr. Feynman did not know about NASA's black ID band until
I told him, in late 1987.

For photo/recovery identification, NASA paints a black ID band 18''
high around the nose of the space shuttle's *left* solid rocket booster.
Rogers ignored this ID band in his report, most notably at the crucial
fireball exit. Instead, Rogers conjectured a "R-SRB burnthrough" for
identification.

Rogers' ID relies on an enhanced 15-second film strip ending in
explosion. However, in JSC's '51-L Mission History Video,' the
continuation of this film strip leaves no doubt that the *flared* booster
sported the ID band.

On January 22, 1986, in a pre-Challenger technical report requested by
Senator Grassley's office, I warned: "... and 'cold flows' run at Pad B
were a failure, costing much waste of time and money. Tom Wiley can
testify to this. The net result of all this would be delays in launching
from Pad B, and delays in Centaur launches. I also learned from Bill
Bassler, Centaur 'single-point-of-contact' in LSOC CMO, that the
waste of hydrogen was deliberate, ..."

The terminal LH2 leaks were at the base of the left booster. It became
super-cooled during prelaunch scrubs. A thrust imbalance resulted.
That caused a right-aft leak in the hydrogen tank at lift-off, later
aggravated by 5000-plus degree heat from continuous R-Aft RCS
firings at 59 seconds. The pre-explosion chamber pressures of the two
boosters (relative to each other and to their respective lift-off pressures)
were to be expected.

NASA could not identify the key piece of lower booster debris by serial
number, or by *any other* of NASA's standard identification methods.

The Rogers Report admits that no direct view exists of the location from
which black smoke at lift-off and an assumed burnthrough at 59 seconds
originated. Live launch-day video refutes NASA's "burnthrough" copies.
Congressional subpoena of the originals should lead to credible closure.

John Thomas Maxson (www.mission51l.com)

The subject libel was aided and abetted by my son Dan.
I understand that Dan (who like Berndt and Balettie had
no first-hand experience at the Challenger launch site in
the months and years prior to that disaster) is now active
in again pushing their libelous and defamatory webpages.

Dan was among the first to attempt an assassination of
my character and a falsification of my book in sci.space
newsgroups. (I refer to 'The Betrayal of Mission 51-L.')

I therefore feel compelled to again offer the following as a
brief rebuttal on the merits to the damage they have done:

======================================
'One-Page Technical Summary of an O-Ring Cover-Up'
(requested by Pentagon efficiency expert A. Ernest
Fitzgerald on July 4, 2003)

NASA's fault-tree analysis failed to consider that Challenger's solid
rocket boosters could have crossed paths within the 51-L fireball.
A crossing necessarily negates Rogers' postulated "right-aft O-ring
burnthrough."

In a hearing on February 7, 1986, Dr. Feynman inquired: "Can I ask
a dumb question? Do we know on which side which rocket is
afterwards? Did they go like this and cross or do they look like they
went that way?" NASA put Feynman off, and Rogers sidetracked
him. Dr. Feynman did not know about NASA's black ID band until
I told him, in late 1987.

For photo/recovery identification, NASA paints a black ID band 18''
high around the nose of the space shuttle's *left* solid rocket booster.
Rogers ignored this ID band in his report, most notably at the crucial
fireball exit. Instead, Rogers conjectured a "R-SRB burnthrough" for
identification.

Rogers' ID relies on an enhanced 15-second film strip ending in
explosion. However, in JSC's '51-L Mission History Video,' the
continuation of this film strip leaves no doubt that the *flared* booster
sported the ID band.

On January 22, 1986, in a pre-Challenger technical report requested by
Senator Grassley's office, I warned: "... and 'cold flows' run at Pad B
were a failure, costing much waste of time and money. Tom Wiley can
testify to this. The net result of all this would be delays in launching
from Pad B, and delays in Centaur launches. I also learned from Bill
Bassler, Centaur 'single-point-of-contact' in LSOC CMO, that the
waste of hydrogen was deliberate, ..."

The terminal LH2 leaks were at the base of the left booster. It became
super-cooled during prelaunch scrubs. A thrust imbalance resulted.
That caused a right-aft leak in the hydrogen tank at lift-off, later
aggravated by 5000-plus degree heat from continuous R-Aft RCS
firings at 59 seconds. The pre-explosion chamber pressures of the two
boosters (relative to each other and to their respective lift-off pressures)
were to be expected.

NASA could not identify the key piece of lower booster debris by serial
number, or by *any other* of NASA's standard identification methods.

The Rogers Report admits that no direct view exists of the location from
which black smoke at lift-off and an assumed burnthrough at 59 seconds
originated. Live launch-day video refutes NASA's "burnthrough" copies.
Congressional subpoena of the originals should lead to credible closure.

John Thomas Maxson (www.mission51l.com)

I'm new here, so I'll bite: why does your son publicly oppose your position
on this?

I know that I didn't buy into all of my father's views on NASA (despite his
long history in the space program), but I would certainly would not have
taken any disagreements public.

Sean


"John Maxson" wrote in message
...
The subject libel was aided and abetted by my son Dan.
I understand that Dan (who like Berndt and Balettie had
no first-hand experience at the Challenger launch site in
the months and years prior to that disaster) is now active
in again pushing their libelous and defamatory webpages.

Dan was among the first to attempt an assassination of
my character and a falsification of my book in sci.space
newsgroups. (I refer to 'The Betrayal of Mission 51-L.')

"John Maxson" wrote in message
...

The subject libel was aided and abetted by my son Dan.
I understand that Dan (who like Berndt and Balettie had
no first-hand experience at the Challenger launch site in
the months and years prior to that disaster) is now active
in again pushing their libelous and defamatory webpages.

Not really.

Dan was among the first to attempt an assassination of
my character and a falsification of my book in sci.space
newsgroups. (I refer to 'The Betrayal of Mission 51-L.')

No, as I have pointed out before you have completed that job yourself. No
one but you can make your statements or write your books, both published and
unpublished. Posters here cite your prior statements about things you
believe, not what I believe about you. Thus you have created your own
persona for this group. If you do not like that image, change it yourself.

Minor nit, it is Daniel and always has been. IIRC, you had something to do
with the name. Please respect yourself and use the correct name.

Daniel

Sean Conolly wrote in message
.. .

I'm new here, so I'll bite: why does your son publicly oppose
your position on this?

I know that I didn't buy into all of my father's views on NASA
(despite his long history in the space program), but I would
certainly would not have taken any disagreements public.

That's a fine question; I'm overjoyed that someone like you
finally came forth to ask it. I don't know what your own
professional interests are, but Dan chose biological science
at an early age. As a youth he had great concern for pollution
of our ecological systems and how that degraded our health.

He hadn't been out of the Air Force long (after duty in the
Azores in his chosen field) when I warned him that Challenger
was about to be the object of a launch disaster. He was trying
to finish his degree requirements on the GI bill at the time.

He became involved in trying to help me get media attention
for my prelaunch warnings, along with Lt. Col. Bill Middleton
(USAF Ret'd). After I had given presentations to a respected
legal group and to an AIAA-based university forum, AF Col.
Ed O'Connor, in charge of the Challenger recovery forces, paid
Dan and Bill a personal visit at Dan's home. Ed unloaded several
NASA internal documents on Dan and asked Dan to give them
to his Senator.

From that point on, Dan took his own, biological view of the
catastrophe. It centered on fitting his belief (from the day of
the disaster) that the crew could have been saved, to NASA's
explanation of an O-ring failure. Because I refused to go along
with the primary Rogers conclusions, he became angry with me.

I think his opposition to me on the cause stems from his lack
of adequate technical background in aerospace. I think the
difference between you and him relative to publicly opposing
me here and elsewhere is that he was the victim of a bigamous
marriage (as was I). After he was about ten years old, he had
a series of other fathers and father figures. Having invested
considerable effort in obtaining his own FOIA data, he feels
that he understands what happened to the crew. He has great
ambition to tell that story in a book, but it opposes my story.

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

In article , John Maxson
wrote:

Michael Gardner wrote in message
...
In article ,
"John Maxson" wrote:

I gave you Doherty as a reference for verifying that I have 51-L, RCS
telemetry, and for no other reason. I could care less about either his
or your RCS opinions on 51-L. You were not there, not in the loop.

no, you gave me him as a reference when I asked about what evidence
you had for the telemetry - saying you gave him a copy. So I asked him
what he remembered about the telemetry and I relayed it here. I'm sure
you have RCS telemetry. I'm just as sure it does not conclusively show
what you are claiming and so when given an opportunity to ask someone
else who had actually seen it, someone who claimed to have worked on
the issue for years, I asked for his reading. While he may have done the
interview it does't seem that his recollections exactly line up with
yoru claims. We are back where we started. You either have clear
telemetry showing RCS activity or you have nothing that you can bring
forth except your suspicions. The answer is clear.

Here's what's clear, Gardner. You are a heckler; you have treated me
unprofessionally and like the scum of the earth. I referred you to
someone who could verify that I have 51-L RCS telemetry. You and
Herbert have put your spin on that (with no supporting links, of course).
The Google archives (which you by-pass) record what I've written.

Find someone else with 51-L telemetry showing RCS firings, if you're
so positive that it does not show what Sam Beddingfield claimed as an
expert witness on PBS. Ask yourself how many times you have tritely
told me (like Berndt and Balettie) that you were through replying to me.
--
John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)

"Find someone else with the same evidence I have and look at it..."

Translation: I have no evidence to show.

Put up or shut up.

In article , John Maxson
wrote:

So take your own advice, professional heckler.


You are nothing but a ****ing coward. You don't have the courage of
your convictions to post the data you (claim to) have...could this be
because you don't have it? Any author would not feel threatened by
polite requests to see any evidence which would buttress his argument.

Why not just admit you have no such data, instead of posting
nonsensical replies to the polite requests of others?

Are you so lonely and bitter that you have to pollute the newsgroup
with your paranoid rants? You're the usenet eauivalent of those guys
you see on streetcorners, wearing long pants and winter coats in the
middle of summer, smelling of ****, holding a sign that fortells the
end of the world.

Oh wait, I'm sure if we asked any of THOSE guys for proof, they'd be
happy to show us.

In article , John Maxson
wrote:

George William Herbert
wrote in message ...

Websites can be *free*, John:
http://us.geocities.yahoo.com/ps/lea...Get4_Free.html

So get the data you're interested in from some of the sources I've
given you and post it. Are they not as reputable as I am?

I'm perfectly happy with my efforts to date, under the circumstances.
I don't think you're to be commended for yours. What claims I've
made I've proven to experts in the field, and made those sources
available to you as well.

Where's the beef, Herbert?

You ****ing, lying, piece of ****. You purport to have "evidence", but
when people ask to see it, you tell them to go find it themselves?

You have no evidence.

You are a disturbed individual.

You are obsessed.

You need to seek professional help.


Any engineer would welcome the opportunity to prove his (or her)
argument to the public. Throwing up a smoke screen by telling people to
"get the data from some of the sources I've given you..." only exposes
you as a sham, and a sad, pathetic joke of an "engineer".

**** off, old man.

SpamBot wrote in message
om...
In article , John Maxson
wrote:

I referred you to someone who could verify that I have 51-L
RCS telemetry. You and Herbert have put your spin on that
(with no supporting links, of course). The Google archives
(which you by-pass) record what I've written.

snip

"Find someone else with the same evidence I have and look at it..."

Who are you quoting, yourself? See my final responses to Herbert,
the ones which ended his badgering. Thanks for reposting this title;
I'd forgotten it. I posted a response to Balettie today also; maybe
that prompted your obscene outbursts.

Here, you can quote this. When NASA explains why they didn't look
at the 51-L RCS valve commands, you'll have a talking point.

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