STS51L Accident Questions

Herb Schaltegger wrote:
I am further
interested in seeing a comparison with data from some of those other
missions Daniel has. I'd like to see the contrasts (if any).

That is, of course, the way to do it. Analyzing something in a vacuum
leads to poor analysis... you have to have something to compare it to.
The only way I could tell, just by looking, that something funny was
starting to happen ca. 59 seconds on the Challenger data was because
two SRB data sets were provided, and they started to diverge noticably.
Throw in another ten or so data sets, and you'll be ready to get to
work.

As for whether the presentation of the data has somehow been messed
with... that's where direct comparison of raw data to raw data would be
valuable with other flights. If other flights have the same repeated
data, then that's a clear sign that it's completely normal
presentation.If they don;t have that paired data, then you're next
question isn't about "conspiracy to hide the truth," but whether you're
getting equivalent data. I have no doubt that both NASA and Thiokol
spent a LOT more effort looking at Challenger data than they did for
the previous flight, and in the process of analyzing the data they
almost certainly fiddled with the presentation of it. So it's important
to get the earliest, raw-est data possible from multiple flights.

On 8 Mar 2005 06:56:27 -0800, wrote:

I can't comment on what you say someone else said.

....I *can*, but I can't find a more vehement and accurate comment than
"it's complete and utter bull****" or "it's an outright lie he or his
father fabricated on the spur of the moment." Take your pick.

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

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 08:11:18 -0600, Herb Schaltegger
wrote:

In article ,
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

I'm not holding my breath either, but Scott's method can't possibly turn
out any worse than what hasn't worked the last four years, so it's worth a
shot.

....Except that it *HAS* been tried, Jorge. When the jerktriarch of the
family first started posting his bull**** claims, they were
methodologically taken apart by people in the know. He ignored every
single rebuttal. I guarantee you that, no matter how solid the
research or the verdict against the bull****, they'll still go on
about how Challenger was a big conspiracy and coverup.

It. Won't. Work. Period. Skunks don't change their stench. Bank on it.

Besides which, the current thread is at least on-topic (although it's
just as on-topic for s.s.s) and it is interesting and informative.
Let's just see where it leads.

....And the shortcut along the path to Hell is paved with pages from
You-Know-Who's book, and the 12th generation xeroxes he claims are
"proof" are mounted along the way like a Burma Shave ad, too.

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

Jorge,

You can defame my name with geek speek, Bob can spell my name
with some *'s in it, S.S.H. and S.S.S. can use an anonamous server and
spell it
"Maxon" or you can even Rot 13 encrypt it. You are going to
get the same results. Me posting here in self defense asking for proof.

I am following this thread in real time which happens to be my right.
Bob can't prove my father is a child molester or that my father was a
Lockheed
janitor, it is cut and dried ongoing defamation. "Plonking" has proven
useless.

I am not "paranoid" I am very well qualified at the highest level in my
field
and I have never exhibited any paranoia on the job in 15 years.
More ongoing defamation.

Prove I "constanly Google my name" and that I am "paranoid."
I take extreme umbrage to your foul mouthed defamatory false label of me.

I have co-workers that read this site now and they know I have went a full
year twice now in the last 4+ years without saying a single word. The
defamtion never stopped, and now they can see for themselves who is
saying what to whom. I haven't mentioned your name in well over a year
and you attack me out of the blue?

I didn't "Google" this, I am not "paranoid" , and you are an unethical
foul mouthed liar that types defamatory statements.

I have put up with enough crap Jorge, when I get called in by a U.S. Marshal
and a *** Agent on my day off that flies all the way over here from the east
coast
while I am in a classified building doing work in the interest of our
national security then of course I have some explaining to do. Your last
remark of me being "paranoid" will not go unchecked I assure you. So
Houston, yes we still have a problem.

Not one person has ever took my advice to take their problem with me to
email
and KEEP it there, they feel compelled to trash me here publiclly. Why?

I will begin providing links to form a pattern of defamation towards me by
people
at or with NASA because they claim I started , "a bit of trouble" shortly
after
I compile it. It will be in self defense I assure you, not a personal
attack.

NASA IG and Goddard's LEO's were involved long ago (Daniel's idea by the
way
which I can *prove*) and nothing was done, so obviuosly this isn't going to
stop
until people like you and Bob in Texas both stop. Take it off the group to
email
and this is the VERY LAST time I will say this so you have been advised
Jorge.

By the way, everything you are currently discussing was already written by
my
father in at least one book. It is pathetic to see my brother say he has
a friend there helping him, when his own father lost his career over it
and wrote about it.

You can go straight to his website on the index page and read about this
"15 seconds of video", and read about telemetry by a telemetry EXPERT.
www.mission51l.com John Maxson author, he lived it, shame on Daniel
for claiming to be a christian out of his mouth while watching
his family get trashed with his own eyes and not saying anything.
What is his motive I keep asking myself? A book, money? What is this
group's motive to publicly trash the Maxson name?

Stop defaming me and I won't have to post my defense. Keep it up and
I will have this entire 4 year ordeal investigated at the highest level.
Don't believe me? Just try me Jorge. I already advised Daniel by email
that others in my line of work were following this so he has no excuse,
now neither do you.

Paul Maxson

Path:
sn-us!sn-xit-12!sn-xit-08!sn-xit-13!supernews.com!newshosting.com!nx02.iad01
..newshosting.com!meganewsservers.com!feeder2.on.m eganewsservers.com!newsfeed
..hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!spooler.hal-mli.net!news.hal-pc.org!not-for
-mail
Newsgroups: sci.space.history
Subject: STS51L Accident Questions
From: "Jorge R. Frank"
References: WNTTd.118190$0u.117287@fed1read04

rixUd.133281$0u.35635@fed1read04

4nuWd.155102$0u.111102@fed1read04


opsm9990gdemtzlb@d3h1pn11




Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users
Message-ID:
User-Agent: Xnews/05.08.12
Date: 08 Mar 2005 05:35:29 GMT
Lines: 41
NNTP-Posting-Date: 07 Mar 2005 23:35:29 CST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.123.205.190
X-Trace: 1110260129 news.hal-pc.org 64587 jrfrank/64.123.205.190:1100
X-Complaints-To:
Xref: sn-us sci.space.history:200809

OM om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org
wrote in :

On 08 Mar 2005 01:28:09 GMT, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:

OM om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org
wrote in :

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 14:29:16 -0600, Herb Schaltegger
wrote:

I have downloaded Daniel's spreadsheet...

...So did I. I fail to see what's interesting about his gambling
debts.

You fail to see a lot of things.

...What I *do* see is a lot of good people around here falling into
yet -another- M***** family trap. And it's a ****ing shame, Jorge.

It's even more of a ****ing shame that you fail to see your own
culpability
in continuing it. You *know* that P4u1 M4x50n is a paranoid guy who
constantly Googles his own name to see if anyone's talking about him,
and
yet you *insist* on continuing to bait him. How ****ing stupid is that,
OM?
Let me spell it out for you: *You* are largely responsible for the
repeated
return of the M4x50ns to this group. Or had you not noticed that they
mostly post in sci.space.history - not coincidentally your home group -
and
for the most part leave the other sci.space.* groups alone? If you'd
****ing shut up instead of playing your little sadistic games, the
M4x50n
infestation would have ended long ago.

Scott Lowther is handling this the right way. Watch, and learn.

--
JRF

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

OM wrote:

...Except that it *HAS* been tried, Jorge.

Whether it "works" or not is somewhat irrelevant to me. The topic under
discussion is of particular professional interest to me, and I'm kinda
using this as practice, since I'll be in charge of reconstructing motor
performance for STS-114 in May. It's interesting to see how data can be
presented, and how it can be mis-interpretted.

they'll still go on
about how Challenger was a big conspiracy and coverup.

If so, Google will retain the arguements for and against for people to
point to.

Besides, I've been considered a member of numerous conspiracies
before*, so this'll just be an interesting new one.



* Hmm. Lessee:
1: I was declared part of the conspiracy to cover up the truth about US
Gubmint involvement with alien flying saucers after writing an article
on a Lockheed patent for APR
2: I was declared part of the conspiracy to cover up the truth about US
Gubmint designed hypersonic nuclear antigravity flying saucers after
writing an article on a Lockheed patent for APR (see: 1)
3: I was declared part of the Zionist conspiracy after writing about
how some of the Luftwaffe '46 designs are BS
4: I was declared part of the Nazi conspiracy after writing about some
of the advanced German WWII technologies (see: 3)
5: I was declared part of the conspiracy to cover up Aurora when I
worked for Pioneer Rocketplane
6: I was (apparently) declared to be a spy (for whom was unclear) after
a rather disappointing job interview with Bob Bigelow back in early '99
7: I was declared to be part of the right-wing conspiracy when kicked
off a discussion forum
8: I was declared to be part of the left-wing conspiracy when kicked
off another discussion forum
9: I'm sure someone will declare me to be part of the Great Conspiracy
when the final issue of APR comes out that declares in no uncertain
terms that many of the beliefs about WWII German spaceflight capability
are, in fact, bull****.

So, now maybe I'll be part of the Challenger conspiracy. Whatever.
Maybe I'll finally get inducted into the Illuminatti and get to see the
Ark of the Covenenat, the Spear of Destiny and Mjollnir. Should make
for an interesting afternoon.

if he concentrated very hard
like the book had taught him to, Loni Anderson would indeed appear
naked
at his apartment door

You say that like it's a good thing. She's like 65 now, isn't she?
Might as well wish for a lap dance from Mother Theresa or a booty call
from Hillary Clinton.

wrote in message
oups.com...
OMG. I hope you didn't really mean what you wrote. "...sometime (sic)
you have to gamble."????? NO WAY. Launching Challenger AGAINST
PROTOCOL, with icicles hanging off of it, was irresponsible at BEST,
and I hope the FOOL who gave the final "Go" has never slept a wink
since. I don't care if Reagan had to fly down to the Cape FIVE DOZEN
TIMES...you do NOT risk the crew!!!!! PERIOD.
Space flight is inherently dangerous, so "gambling" on KNOWN hazards is
tantamount to murder.


STS-51L was not the time to gamble. Other missions, with other risks, are.
If you are replying to the post I think you are, the discussion was over
whether the risks on a Hubble service mission is worth the gamble. Every
launch is a gamble, and sometimes the known risk is higher than other times.
(For example, the heavier the payload the more risky a RTL abort is.) Unless
you are so risk adverse that you will only fly minimum risk missions (or no
missions), there are times when one has to "gamble", when the risk is higher
but the rewards are still worth it.

wrote:

Slag is a constant issue. 12.5 sps is enough to pick it up and
recognize it, but you'd want faster data rates for better
characterization AND for dealing with unknown types of pressure blips.




What's the origin of the slag? The igniters?

Pat

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 09:56:15 -0800, lexcorp wrote:

Besides, I've been considered a member of numerous conspiracies
before*, so this'll just be an interesting new one.

Mr. Lowther! Isn't it true that you and Catherine
Zata-Jones have been seen together illegally using
intransitive verbs in the subjunctive mode? In front
of CHILDREN no less! And are you not now, in fact, a
member in good standing of a group that openly promotes
the abuse of intransitive verbs for purportedly
'recreational' purposes?

Have you no shame, Mr. Lowther?

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

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 13:30:11 -0600, Pat Flannery wrote:



wrote:

Slag is a constant issue. 12.5 sps is enough to pick it up and
recognize it, but you'd want faster data rates for better
characterization AND for dealing with unknown types of pressure blips.

What's the origin of the slag? The igniters?

The motor... aluminum perchlorate.

Pat

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