"Those Birds Could Not Have Flown"

On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 13:55:15 +0000, Scott M. Kozel wrote:

Bogus. The drogue deployment was not prevented by basic physics,
while your "booster crossing" within 0.7 second of stack breakup

Worse: JTM says the switch took less than .25 secomds

would appear to be impossible according to basic physics,

Yep.

Well??

Anthro's are fine indeed, and technicals are fascinating... but
neither style can match an old-fashioned rakugaki-style nekomimi
for sheer cuteness

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

"John Maxson" wrote:

Jon Berndt is like the little boy who looks at a robin sitting
on a nest of blue eggs, saying, "A blue egg could never fly."
He ignores the fact that all flying robins were once blue eggs.

He claims the 51-L boosters could not have crossed in the
fireball. It's a claim similar to one that a 51-L drogue could
not have deployed when it did, because of fail-safe design
and exhaustive prior testing.

Bogus. The drogue deployment was not prevented by basic physics, while
your "booster crossing" within 0.7 second of stack breakup would appear
to be impossible according to basic physics, given the huge size and
momentum of the shuttle SRBs at the point where the stack broke up.

You have been asked repeatedly to explain in detail the kinematics of
how such an event could have happened.

Well??

In article ,
"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:

"John Maxson" wrote:

Jon Berndt is like the little boy who looks at a robin sitting
on a nest of blue eggs, saying, "A blue egg could never fly."
He ignores the fact that all flying robins were once blue eggs.

He claims the 51-L boosters could not have crossed in the
fireball. It's a claim similar to one that a 51-L drogue could
not have deployed when it did, because of fail-safe design
and exhaustive prior testing.

Bogus. The drogue deployment was not prevented by basic physics, while
your "booster crossing" within 0.7 second of stack breakup would appear
to be impossible according to basic physics, given the huge size and
momentum of the shuttle SRBs at the point where the stack broke up.

You have been asked repeatedly to explain in detail the kinematics of
how such an event could have happened.

Well??

He *can't* because he's plainly not any sort of real engineer, either by
education or training. If he was, he should have been able to discuss
the kinematics of the stack elements when Jon posted his own detailed
analysis, which analysis was clearly stated and based on physical and
mathematical fact.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
"Heisenberg might have been here."
~ Anonymous

You have failed to explain what was supposed to keep
a drogue from deploying at around t+80 seconds during
Mission 51-L. You make it sound as though NASA was
perfectly happy to allow the laws of physics to deploy a
drogue at any time during Mission 51-L. Well?

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


Scott M. Kozel wrote in message
...

Bogus. The drogue deployment was not prevented by basic
physics

"John Maxson" wrote in message
...
You have failed to explain what was supposed to keep
a drogue from deploying at around t+80 seconds during
Mission 51-L. You make it sound as though NASA was
perfectly happy to allow the laws of physics to deploy a
drogue at any time during Mission 51-L. Well?

Semi-OT aside:

Sometimes when I am reading newsgroups, I feel stupid because I don't
understand the deep discussions going on.

Sometimes I feel smart.

"John Maxson" wrote:

You have failed to explain

Not my job. YOU explain (see my last post).












what was supposed to keep
a drogue from deploying at around t+80 seconds during
Mission 51-L. You make it sound as though NASA was
perfectly happy to allow the laws of physics to deploy a
drogue at any time during Mission 51-L. Well?

Scott M. Kozel wrote:

Bogus.

In article hWL5b.11430$QT5.1958@fed1read02,
"Richard Henry" wrote:

"John Maxson" wrote in message
...
You have failed to explain what was supposed to keep
a drogue from deploying at around t+80 seconds during
Mission 51-L. You make it sound as though NASA was
perfectly happy to allow the laws of physics to deploy a
drogue at any time during Mission 51-L. Well?

Semi-OT aside:

Sometimes when I am reading newsgroups, I feel stupid because I don't
understand the deep discussions going on.

Sometimes I feel smart.




If you feel smart because you recognized this as yet another Maxson
attempt to evade and distract by injecting red herrings into the
discussion, well then, your feeling is very well-deserved!

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
"Heisenberg might have been here."
~ Anonymous

Double standard, eh? You can flop in hear with no
shuttle experience and make a bald-ass claim with no
proof; but I can't, right? That's because your unsound
allegations are perfectly acceptable to the Human O-ring,
correct (as long as they tend to discredit anything I post)?

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


Scott M. Kozel wrote in message
...
"John Maxson" wrote:

You have failed to explain

Not my job. YOU explain (see my last post).

what was supposed to keep
a drogue from deploying at around t+80 seconds during
Mission 51-L. You make it sound as though NASA was
perfectly happy to allow the laws of physics to deploy a
drogue at any time during Mission 51-L. Well?

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote in message
...
"John Maxson" wrote:

Double standard, eh? You can flop in hear with no
shuttle experience and make a bald-ass claim with no
proof;

You made the bald-ass claims, Maxson. I'm not the one making wild-assed
claims about the shuttle 51-L, you are.

Many posters have asked you for a detailed explanation of the kinematics
of the "booster crossing".

The fact that you keep refusing to answer the questions, makes you look
foolish and dishonest.

And makes me feel smart.

Richard Henry wrote in message
news:hWL5b.11430$QT5.1958@fed1read02...
"John Maxson" wrote in message
...

You have failed to explain what was supposed to keep
a drogue from deploying at around t+80 seconds during
Mission 51-L. You make it sound as though NASA was
perfectly happy to allow the laws of physics to deploy a
drogue at any time during Mission 51-L. Well?

Sometimes when I am reading newsgroups, I feel stupid because
I don't understand the deep discussions going on.

Alongside the others who have replied, you look brilliant.
The point is that in the example I gave (which, like the fireball
crossing, actually occurred during Mission 51-L), something
happened which NASA had apparently not designed to prevent.

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