Fatal Shuttle Flaws -- Design or Operational?

At Edwards AFB on July 4, 1982, after the fourth space shuttle landing,
President Reagan declared the shuttle "operational." Despite twenty
more successful missions, Challenger caused many people (even at NASA)
to question Reagan's declaration. They proposed "design flaws" in
Challenger (and later in Columbia).

On the other hand, for many long years I have sought to bring attention
to *operational* flaws at NASA and Lockheed.

Let's briefly revisit Reagan's mandate to the Rogers Commission.
"Review the circumstances surrounding the accident to establish the
probable cause or causes of the accident," it orders. Can anyone deny
that Rogers ignored prelaunch operational negligence at the expense of
"design flaws?" Did not Gehman do the same?

Official radar-based records at NASA recently came to my attention
which refer with great frequency to "R&D project case files relating to
STS 51-L accident and investigation." That in itself was enough to
raise my eyebrows (because of Reagan's "operational" terminology and my
own experience with the operational nature of the subsequent pre-51-L
flights).

All of those records contain something even more disturbing, however.
They say, "NOTE: ACCESS TO RECORDS IS RESTRICTED TO NASA OFFICIALS
ONLY." In stark contrast, the Rogers Report itself states at the
outset: "In this case a vigorous investigation and full disclosure of
the facts were necessary."

Return now to the subject issue. Accepting the veracity of my present
disclosure, why should the public be kept in the dark about *how* these
"R&D project case files relat[e]" to the Challenger fatalities? Where
does Reagan's mandate authorize an investigative project described as
"R&D?"

Challenger's Ghost
Copyright 2005
All rights reserved.

wrote:

Return now to the subject issue. Accepting the veracity of my present
disclosure, why should the public be kept in the dark about *how* these
"R&D project case files relat[e]" to the Challenger fatalities?

I've just received information which appears to support various
post-launch portions of my book. They relate to the R&D use of RCS jets
during the 51-L ascent (see www.mission51l.com). Those portions begin
with a statement by the president of MIT, overheard on the Hill
immediately after the Challenger explosion by Larry Craig, an Idaho
congressman who later became Senator (Ruby Ridge).

The new information comes from numbered pages of NASA's Photo
Acquisition plan which were missing, when I received that 51-L document
under the FOIA back in 1987. The missing pages reportedly show that
metric cameras M10 through M15 were a part of that photo plan, with the
stipulation that they were to be used on direct insertion flights
during certain conditions of ET reentry.

Mission 41-C (for which Dick Scobee was pilot) and STS-26 (the RTF
flight after 51-L) were direct insertion flights. Obviously RCS jet
firings on ascent could be expected to produce off-nominal ET heating.
RCS jet firings on ascent were observed on both 41-C and 51-L, despite
the objections of my s.s.s. detractors (Oberg, Frank, Balettie, Berndt,
et al).

Challenger's Ghost
Copyright 2005
All rights reserved.

" wrote:
I've just received information which appears to support various
post-launch portions of my book. They relate to the R&D use of RCS jets
during the 51-L ascent (see www.mission51l.com). Those portions begin
with a statement by the president of MIT, overheard on the Hill
immediately after the Challenger explosion by Larry Craig, an Idaho
congressman who later became Senator (Ruby Ridge).

Please provide evidence of this purported information.

There is no RCS jet usage during first-stage ascent.

Mission 41-C (for which Dick Scobee was pilot) and STS-26 (the RTF
flight after 51-L) were direct insertion flights. Obviously RCS jet
firings on ascent could be expected to produce off-nominal ET heating.
RCS jet firings on ascent were observed on both 41-C and 51-L, despite
the objections of my s.s.s. detractors (Oberg, Frank, Balettie, Berndt,
et al).

RCS jet firings were never "observed" by anything other than your particular
visual interpretation.

There is no evidence other than you saying "here it is" to support your
visual interpretation.

Again, there is no RCS jet usage during first-stage ascent.

http://home.austin.rr.com/sts51lvideo/

Roger
--
Roger Balettie
former Flight Dynamics Officer
Space Shuttle Mission Control
http://www.balettie.com/

Roger Balettie wrote:
" wrote:
I've just received information which appears to support various
post-launch portions of my book. They relate to the R&D use of RCS jets
during the 51-L ascent (see www.mission51l.com). Those portions begin
with a statement by the president of MIT, overheard on the Hill
immediately after the Challenger explosion by Larry Craig, an Idaho
congressman who later became Senator (Ruby Ridge).

Please provide evidence of this purported information.

I refer you to NASA's 51-L Photo Acquisition Disposition Document, pp.
19-20. You should have that at your fingertips, given the web-page
libel you've formally leveled at my book for the past few years.

There is no RCS jet usage during first-stage ascent.

Okay, Clinton; we've been through this before. The jet usage I referred
to *on Challenger missions* was no doubt banned after Mission 51-L.

Mission 41-C (for which Dick Scobee was pilot) and STS-26 (the RTF
flight after 51-L) were direct insertion flights. Obviously RCS jet
firings on ascent could be expected to produce off-nominal ET heating.
RCS jet firings on ascent were observed on both 41-C and 51-L, despite
the objections of my s.s.s. detractors (Oberg, Frank, Balettie, Berndt,
et al).

RCS jet firings were never "observed" by anything other than your particular
visual interpretation.

Again, we've been through this before. There's simply no reason for you
to be wooden-headed about it. To refresh your memory, here's the
record:

http://tinyurl.com/bofbf

http://tinyurl.com/dtjc3

http://tinyurl.com/cwgd3

There is no evidence other than you saying "here it is" to support your
visual interpretation.

I'm sick of your libel. Do your homework. Check it out with PBS, or
check with Pat Duggins. I imagine he's still in Orlando, possibly still
at WMFE FM.

Again, there is no RCS jet usage during first-stage ascent.

Again, get your tenses straight. There's simply no reason for you to be
evasive, manipulative, and wooden-headed about this.

Challenger's Ghost

" wrote:
Roger Balettie wrote:
" wrote:
I've just received information which appears to support various
post-launch portions of my book. They relate to the R&D use of RCS jets
during the 51-L ascent (see www.mission51l.com). Those portions begin
with a statement by the president of MIT, overheard on the Hill
immediately after the Challenger explosion by Larry Craig, an Idaho
congressman who later became Senator (Ruby Ridge).

Please provide evidence of this purported information.

I refer you to NASA's 51-L Photo Acquisition Disposition Document, pp.
19-20. You should have that at your fingertips, given the web-page
libel you've formally leveled at my book for the past few years.

That remains your flawed visual interpretation of a grainy image. "Proof"
in this case would be telemetric evidence of jet firings.

You have none, because there is none.

There is no RCS jet usage during first-stage ascent.

Okay, Clinton; we've been through this before. The jet usage I referred
to *on Challenger missions* was no doubt banned after Mission 51-L.

There is, nor has there ever been, RCS jet usage during first-stage ascent.

Better?

There is no evidence other than you saying "here it is" to support your
visual interpretation.

I'm sick of your libel.

And we are all sick of your slanderous and incorrect assumptions that you
continue to put forth as "fact".

For the sci.space.* groups... I apologize for stepping into this again.

With Discovery's imminent launch, I was catching back up on my long-overdue
reading.

John, for you... I have no patience, personal time, or desire to re-engage
in this p***ing contest with you.

For the newsgroups, please read my rebuttal to anything John may have to say
he
http://home.austin.rr.com/sts51lvideo/

Another rebuttal, with which I completely agree, is he
http://home.houston.rr.com/fancijon/conspiracy.pdf

Roger
--
Roger Balettie
former Flight Dynamics Officer
Space Shuttle Mission Control
http://www.balettie.com/

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 19:59:14 -0500, Roger Balettie wrote
(in article ):

For the sci.space.* groups... I apologize for stepping into this again.

Well, somebody had to do it Roger. No apology necessary. In fact,
thanks are probably in order.

--
"Fame may be fleeting but obscurity is forever."
~Anonymous
www.angryherb.net

Roger Balettie wrote:

"Proof" in this case would be telemetric evidence of jet firings.

That's but one form of many which has been presented here.

You have none, because there is none.

Now you're effectively libeling a retired NASA official, one
well-respected by the media, and one who has excellent credentials --
both as a telemetry expert and as an expert witness concerning most
aspects of the space shuttle. For many years he was the Shuttle Program
Office Director at KSC, and he has many qualified technical experts for
friends.

Libeling me is one thing; libeling a man like Sam Beddingfield is quite
another. Sonny, you were still wet behind the ears when Mission 51-L
lifted off. You didn't work that flight; you were barely on board at
the time. To date, you've provided nothing but hearsay to prove no jet
usage on Mission 41-C, and you've provided nothing but hearsay to prove
no right-aft jet usage on Mission 51-L.

It's pathetic to think you'd stoop so low. Stick with managing video
games; that's something you may know about.

Challenger's Ghost

" wrote:
It's pathetic to think you'd stoop so low.

yawn

I'm done with you now, John... go away.

For the newsgroups, please read my rebuttal to anything John may have to say
he
http://home.austin.rr.com/sts51lvideo/

Another rebuttal, with which I completely agree, is he
http://home.houston.rr.com/fancijon/conspiracy.pdf

Roger
--
Roger Balettie
former Flight Dynamics Officer
Space Shuttle Mission Control
http://www.balettie.com/

Roger Balettie wrote:
" wrote:
It's pathetic to think you'd stoop so low.

yawn

I'm done with you now, John... go away.

You're done, period. Overdone, actually. Don't be surprised if someone
sticks a fork in you.

Challenger's Ghost

NASA decides for some odd reason that using the RCS during ascent is a
good idea. They ask MIT to come up with a plan. MIT does so, and 51L is
the test flight. A secret plan, of course. The test goes horribly
wrong, resulting in the loss of the vehicle. MIT also fails to
co-ordinate their test with the sabotage hydrogen fuel link on the pad
that was masterminded by President Reagan. And the guy from Yale who was
supposed to smash the SMEs with a ball peen hammer got stuck in traffic
and did not pass his fraternity initiation.

Later the President of MIT is in Washington loitering around and
describing the RCS during ascent test, and is oveheard by a congressman.
And the overheard remarks tend to support claims made in a self-published
book about the Challenger accident. It's nice when things fall into
place.

On a different topic, I think I'll try to get into the public viewing
area wearing a turban ... that sounds like loads of fun. The way things
are with all the media generated hysteria it would be reassuring to see
some guy with a towel on his head manning a station in MCC. I guess you
could even let one fly on the shuttle as long as the pilot compartment
had a reinforced door.