Booster Crossing

Jon Berndt wrote in message
...

"My" hypothesis was arrived at as shown he

Bye, bye, Berndt.

It also happens to pretty much mirror the overall
conclusions reached by the Roger's Commission,

Don't worry about getting a nose job.

it obeys the laws of physics and conforms to what the visual
evidence and telemetry show.

You don't have any face left to save.

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

In article , Michael Gardner wrote:
In article ,
"John Maxson" wrote:

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 .

So, if I'm reading right - feel free to correct me with FACTS john, the
difference between the two SRB's absolute pressure was about 5 psia out
of 600 or 0.8 percent difference - and that pressure difference tore the
stack apart?

I'd like to add to the above with a direct quote from page 34 of the final
CAIB report on STS-107 since it seems timely and relevant to the above
discussion:

quote

Nozzle Deflections

Both Solid Rocket Boosters and each of the Space Shuttle Main Engines have
exhaust nozzles that deflect (gimbal) in response to flight control system
commands. Review of the STS-107 ascent data revealed that the Solid Rocket
Booster and Space Shuttle Main Engine nozzle positions twice exceeded
deflections seen on previous flights by a factor of 1.24 to 1.33 and 1.06,
respectively. The center and right main engine yaw deflections first
exceeded those on previous flights during the period of maximum dynamic
pressure, immediately following the wind shear. The deflections were the
flight control system's reaction to the wind shear, and the motion of the
nozzles was well within the design margins of the flight control system.

Approximately 115 seconds after launch, as booster thrust diminished, the
Solid Rocket Booster and Space Shuttle Main Engine exhaust nozzle pitch and
yaw deflections exceeded those seen previously by a factor of 1.4 and 1.06
to 1.6, respectively. These deflections were caused by lower than expected
Reusable Solid Rocket Motor performance, indicated by a low burn rate; a
thrust mismatch between the left and right boosters caused by
lower-than-normal thrust on the right Solid Rocket Booster; a small
built-in adjustment that favored the left Solid Rocket Booster pitch
actuator; and flight control trim characteristics unique to the Performance
Enhancements flight profile for STS-107.

The Solid Rocket Booster burn rate is temperature-dependent, and behaved as
predicted for the launch day weather conditions. No two boosters burn
exactly the same, and a minor thrust mismatch has been experienced on
almost every Space Shuttle mission. The booster thrust mismatch on STS-107
was well within the design margin of the flight control system.

/unquote

Specifically, this key sentence: "No two boosters burn exactly the same,
and a minor thrust mismatch has been experienced on almost every Space
Shuttle mission. ...booster thrust mismatch ... well within the design
margin of the flight control system."

5 PSIA out of 600 seems possible that it could have been within design
tolerance for chamber pressure, but don't know for sure, not being a
steely-eyed booster guy. :-)

At any rate, Mr. Maxson, I'm not quite sure how your assertion invalidates
the rest of the evidence in a variety of areas as reported by the Warren
Commission.

-Dan

Michael Gardner wrote:

"While they probablby can
tell the difference between
Hydrogen and SRB flame
- so can the naked eye.

plonk"

John Maxson wrote:

When Bill Graham released his video on Feb 1, my opinion was broached
emphaticallly to my son Daniel.

....Translated: He was drunk, and probably beat the **** out of Daniel
in a drunken rage and sent him to bed without supper.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

Dan Foster wrote in message
...

At any rate, Mr. Maxson, I'm not quite sure how your
assertion invalidates the rest of the evidence in a variety
of areas as reported by the Warren Commission.

The assertion was Daniel's (who has posted about having
been to the grassy knoll):

======================================
Roger you are that poster and your "friend", Jay Greene,
can corroborate the "unmatched SRB pair" allegation of
mine.
======================================

Daniel's assertion was denied by Balettie, and here we are
again in Wonderland.

I believe the links I posted (to which you refer) were also
posted earlier by Daniel (before he changed the thread).

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

"John Maxson" wrote:

Bye, bye, Berndt.

It's about time.

Advice for you: "Quitters never win. Winners never quit. Those who
never win and never quit are idiots."

You may just save yourself some face by quitting. Up to now, you seem
to have gone by the mantra, "When you earnestly believe you can
compensate for a lack of competence by doubling your efforts, there's
no end to what you can't do."

Which possibly explains why you've not been able to convince anyone of
your hypotheses, and have been posting copious single-message threads
lately that are simply reposts. Stop now and preserve some dignity.

If you ever decide to come back, be prepared to be asked these
questions (that you have refused to answer so far):

1) What qualifications do you have to discuss flight dynamics with any
degree of competence? It's essential to the discussion of *your* "SRB
crossing" hypothesis.

2) How could the SRBs have possibly crossed as you say, and taken the
exit trajectory they did?

Good luck to you.

Jon Berndt
Aerospace Engineer

-- as always my posts do not represent the views of any other entity.

I was only trying to be polite for Stephen. I thought
you'd be ethical enough to accept what I was saying.
Let me spell it out for you in no uncertain terms:

By failing to answer the Lee/Krantz question,
or engaging in any of the follow-ons, you have
"kissed your sweet ass goodbye" relative to
having any credibility about the 51-L lift-off.
(The same is true for your partner Balettie.)

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



Jon Berndt wrote in message
om...
"John Maxson" wrote:

Bye, bye, Berndt.

You may just save yourself some face by quitting.

Kent Betts wrote in message
om...

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

Not quite. Here is Jon Berndt a few days ago, quoting the
cornerstone of his arguments. It's the hypothesis proposed by
Dr. Feynman, that "flame later comes from the rocket" in the
same region as black smoke "appears to come from" at lift-off.

============================================
MR. FEYNMAN: Suppose that we do seem to all agree and that
we have established something, which is that the black smoke
appears to come from a region which is the same region as the
flame later comes from the rocket. Nobody is proposing that that
is a mere coincidence.

So if I have understood our situation, to take a very elementary view
without solving too many problems at once, axiom one, you have got
to explain the black smoke. After that, the rest of the problems will be
less important.

How long does it take before the other thing comes out and so on are
clues perhaps to the mechanism of the black smoke, but are not as
essential. I mean, they are just helpers.
===============================================

The cornerstone of my arguments has always been that until one
establishes by NASA's standard ID methods that the *same* SRB
had the anomalous flare after fireball exit as before, one cannot
correctly start by using Dr. Feynman's hypothesis. Doing so runs
a 50% risk of being wrong, for it may well *not* be so that "flame
later comes from the rocket," prior to the explosion. Nevertheless,
one must certainly explain the black smoke at lift-off, relative to
those flames (from wherever they came) at about t+59 seconds.

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

Kent Betts wrote in message
om...

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

Not quite. Here is Jon Berndt a few days ago, quoting the
cornerstone of his arguments. It's the hypothesis proposed by
Dr. Feynman, that "flame later comes from the rocket" in the
same region as black smoke "appears to come from" at lift-off.

============================================
MR. FEYNMAN: Suppose that we do seem to all agree and that
we have established something, which is that the black smoke
appears to come from a region which is the same region as the
flame later comes from the rocket. Nobody is proposing that that
is a mere coincidence.

So if I have understood our situation, to take a very elementary view
without solving too many problems at once, axiom one, you have got
to explain the black smoke. After that, the rest of the problems will be
less important.

How long does it take before the other thing comes out and so on are
clues perhaps to the mechanism of the black smoke, but are not as
essential. I mean, they are just helpers.
===============================================

The cornerstone of my arguments has always been that until one
establishes by NASA's standard ID methods that the *same* SRB
had the anomalous flare after fireball exit as before, one cannot
correctly start by using Dr. Feynman's hypothesis. Doing so runs
a 50% risk of being wrong, for it may well *not* be so that "flame
later comes from the rocket," prior to the explosion. Nevertheless,
one must certainly explain the black smoke at lift-off, relative to
those flames (from wherever they came) at about t+59 seconds.

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

"John Maxson" wrote in message ...

The cornerstone of my arguments has always been that...
it may well *not* be so that "flame
later comes from the rocket," prior to the explosion. Nevertheless,
one must certainly explain the black smoke at lift-off, relative to
those flames (from wherever they came) at about t+59 seconds.

It is not necessary to explain the black smoke relative to those
flames since anyone with a good magnifier can see that the flames were
inserted into the picture later...by means of computer generation.

John Maxson:
"I discredit your "*huge* flare" on page 86, and many times
thereafter. I believe that it was carefully *inserted* during
enhancement, as a perfect, gradually-increasing, computer-generated
ellipse. Anyone who doubts this need only examine the pertinent
images
in the Rogers Summary under a good magnifier."