LaDonna denies, but she DID say 'Scott said'...

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote
"JimO" wrote
G. Back to the issue of the RCS jets on the Service Module. Several
respondents here
have also suggested, as I did, that this test procedure was a checkout
of the firing commands,
but not a 'hot-fire' of the thrusters. I do not consider "Scott said" to
constitute verifiable
documentation that any of the thrusters actually hot-fired.

OK--first of all, I never said "Scott said" to anything, so right
there your ability to engage in an intelligent debate is severely
hindered. Not once in the 3,000 posts (yes, I'm exaggerating, but it
sure looks like 3,000) on this site have I ever been quoted as saying,
nor have I ever actually said, "Well, Scott said this" or "Scott said
that." NOT ONCE.

JimO contributes new comment:
Funny, I recall this message from two days ago,

---begin quote---
From: "LaDonna Wyss"
Subject: The RCS: Voice Transcript
Date: Friday, June 11, 2004 10:49 AM

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote
Like I said, get your facts straight. They DID conduct Static Fire;
otherwise, what was the point of the test????

"JimO" wrote
Sounds like a test of the RCS commands, probably read by GNC in the MCC (I
could ask him). Since I don't think hypergolics were loaded, no jet would
actually fire. Maybe?

As Scott said, it is documented by IDR that a + roll thruster fired
without being commanded by the crew, and in fact that thruster fired
three times without being commanded by the crew.
---end quote---

JimO resumes the narrative:

We would still like any documentation that can be checked, that
shows that any Apollo RCS actually ignited that day.

"JimO" wrote in message ...
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote
"JimO" wrote
G. Back to the issue of the RCS jets on the Service Module. Several
respondents here
have also suggested, as I did, that this test procedure was a checkout
of the firing commands,
but not a 'hot-fire' of the thrusters. I do not consider "Scott said" to
constitute verifiable
documentation that any of the thrusters actually hot-fired.

OK--first of all, I never said "Scott said" to anything, so right
there your ability to engage in an intelligent debate is severely
hindered. Not once in the 3,000 posts (yes, I'm exaggerating, but it
sure looks like 3,000) on this site have I ever been quoted as saying,
nor have I ever actually said, "Well, Scott said this" or "Scott said
that." NOT ONCE.

JimO contributes new comment:
Funny, I recall this message from two days ago,

---begin quote---
From: "LaDonna Wyss"
Subject: The RCS: Voice Transcript
Date: Friday, June 11, 2004 10:49 AM

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote
Like I said, get your facts straight. They DID conduct Static Fire;
otherwise, what was the point of the test????

"JimO" wrote
Sounds like a test of the RCS commands, probably read by GNC in the MCC (I
could ask him). Since I don't think hypergolics were loaded, no jet would
actually fire. Maybe?

As Scott said, it is documented by IDR that a + roll thruster fired
without being commanded by the crew, and in fact that thruster fired
three times without being commanded by the crew.
---end quote---

JimO resumes the narrative:

We would still like any documentation that can be checked, that
shows that any Apollo RCS actually ignited that day.

Are you unable to find the voice transcript, NASA's data from the fire
(such that it is), the Test Lead Supervisor's log, etc? I thought you
people read the Congressional Record and the Review Board Report?
It's all in there, except for the FIRST uncommanded roll that occurred
during the RCS status check at 4:00 that afternoon (exactly three
minutes after NASA mysteriously cut the voice transcript which does
not resume until 5:17.) (AND, before you ask HOW DO YOU KNOW IT WAS
THE RCS STATUS CHECK: It was T-50--PLEASE tell me I don't need to
provide you with the Crew Checklist as well????) However, it IS
documented that the A & B safe lights did not come on TWICE (the first
time ALSO being 4:00 p.m.; the second time just prior to Static Fire.)
THAT IDR (which I'm certain you don't have and will claim I
manufactured) is IDR #009.
LaDonna

(LaDonna Wyss) wrote:
(AND, before you ask HOW DO YOU KNOW IT WAS
THE RCS STATUS CHECK: It was T-50--PLEASE tell me I don't need to
provide you with the Crew Checklist as well????)

It would be nice if you would provide anything that you have
repeatedly claim you would provide.

For instance, back during our discussion of the behavior of an
electrical bus you claimed you could 'easily prove me wrong'. To date
your proof has not been forthcoming.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
Are you unable to find the voice transcript, NASA's data from the fire
(such that it is), the Test Lead Supervisor's log, etc?

*He doesn't have to.* The burden is entirely on you to provide, not only the
name of the document, but the page and paragraph, as well as a quote.

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message . ..
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
Are you unable to find the voice transcript, NASA's data from the fire
(such that it is), the Test Lead Supervisor's log, etc?

*He doesn't have to.* The burden is entirely on you to provide, not only the
name of the document, but the page and paragraph, as well as a quote.

Yes, and also apparently to provide the Koolaid, cookies, and mats for
naptime.
You people are the ones who adopted the superior attitudes CLAIMING to
know SO VERY much and trying to make me out to be an idiot. Since
you've all read the "Hill Report" and are thus experts on the subject
of Apollo One, I should not have to spoon-feed you the fact-finding
process.
LaDonna

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote:

Are you unable to find the voice transcript, NASA's data from the fire
(such that it is), the Test Lead Supervisor's log, etc?

Do you mean the log which is part of the witness statements?

I thought you
people read the Congressional Record and the Review Board Report?
It's all in there, except for the FIRST uncommanded roll that occurred
during the RCS status check at 4:00 that afternoon (exactly three
minutes after NASA mysteriously cut the voice transcript which does
not resume until 5:17.) (AND, before you ask HOW DO YOU KNOW IT WAS
THE RCS STATUS CHECK: It was T-50--PLEASE tell me I don't need to
provide you with the Crew Checklist as well????)

Where is the reference to this in the Test Supervisor's log?

However, it IS
documented that the A & B safe lights did not come on TWICE (the first
time ALSO being 4:00 p.m.; the second time just prior to Static Fire.)
THAT IDR (which I'm certain you don't have and will claim I
manufactured) is IDR #009.

From Page 1470:

IDR 9 was from OCP-4736 and it was an H2 tank pressure issue.

From Page 1472:

The RCS roll IDR was a GSE related issue:

"Problem: Connector C05WBP495 in RCS roll access has been disconnected
without a PIRR being written and had been connected to GSE cabling.

Action: Reverify connector and record on proper NAA documentation. Sold."

Now you realize that this quote above is yet one more piece of evidence that
the RCS was connected to GSE not the RCS engine electronics, right?

Daniel

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
I should not have to spoon-feed you the fact-finding
process.

But to support the claims that *you* make, you *do* need to spoon-feed the
*facts*, and this includes providing verifiable references. That's the way
the process works.

"Charleston" wrote in message news:Z0Mzc.5217$Gy.2353@fed1read03...
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote:

Are you unable to find the voice transcript, NASA's data from the fire
(such that it is), the Test Lead Supervisor's log, etc?

Do you mean the log which is part of the witness statements?

I thought you
people read the Congressional Record and the Review Board Report?
It's all in there, except for the FIRST uncommanded roll that occurred
during the RCS status check at 4:00 that afternoon (exactly three
minutes after NASA mysteriously cut the voice transcript which does
not resume until 5:17.) (AND, before you ask HOW DO YOU KNOW IT WAS
THE RCS STATUS CHECK: It was T-50--PLEASE tell me I don't need to
provide you with the Crew Checklist as well????)

Where is the reference to this in the Test Supervisor's log?

However, it IS
documented that the A & B safe lights did not come on TWICE (the first
time ALSO being 4:00 p.m.; the second time just prior to Static Fire.)
THAT IDR (which I'm certain you don't have and will claim I
manufactured) is IDR #009.

From Page 1470:

IDR 9 was from OCP-4736 and it was an H2 tank pressure issue.

From Page 1472:

The RCS roll IDR was a GSE related issue:

"Problem: Connector C05WBP495 in RCS roll access has been disconnected
without a PIRR being written and had been connected to GSE cabling.

Action: Reverify connector and record on proper NAA documentation. Sold."

Now you realize that this quote above is yet one more piece of evidence that
the RCS was connected to GSE not the RCS engine electronics, right?

Daniel

You are 100% INcorrect. I have the IDR, and it was not an H2 tank
pressure issue. It had not one thing to do with H2.
You have to realize in order to know what is going on with Apollo One,
you have to look at EVERYTHING. You cannot just take one quote from
an "Investigative Item" and say "Ah hah! NASA said it was this, so it
must be so." There is a lot of information in those Review Board
Items that are just flat wrong. For example, their claim that "MTVC
was engaged." They don't say why, in fact they claim it is puzzling
to them. They also say there was no significance to it and that there
would be no further benefit in pursuing the issue further. If this
claim is to be believed, then it is frightening indeed Frank Borman
was EVER allowed to climb onto a rocket because HE DOES NOT KNOW HOW
TO FLY!!!!! There IS a reason to switch to MTVC, and IF he spent five
minutes studying the CSM he would have KNOWN the reason.
That's why when you repeatedly ask for this-that-and the other
reference, it's extremely difficult to do unless you are sitting here
where I can spread out umpteen things and cross-reference them for you
while laying all the information out. Your quote is a prime example
of the problem.
As for the Test Lead Supervisor's Log, same scenario. You have to
take the T-Counts and then cross-reference them with the Crew
Checklist, using the voice transcript as a guide.

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
You have to realize in order to know what is going on with Apollo One,
you have to look at EVERYTHING.

Yes, and you do it *one thing at a time*. In order to know what happened
with Apollo One, you need to know the *details*, including technical
material such as circuit diagrams and current flows, and be able to
*document* everything. You seem to have a difficult time with the technical
aspects. Why haven't you answered rk's questions if _you_ have looked at
everything?

You cannot just take one quote from
an "Investigative Item" and say "Ah hah! NASA said it was this, so it
must be so."

Not one person here has done that. *Real* investigators will look at an
"investigative item" and compare that to other "investigative items" that
touch on the same subject to see if they are consistent with the explantion
given. If there is a discrepancy, a *real* investigator *would not* assume
that someone is lying. Is the discrepancy real, or simply a
misinterpretation by the investigator? If it's an eyewitness statement, a
*real* investigator would know that such statements are notoriously
unreliable, particularly when the witness is attempting to recall a
traumatic event, and that even diametrically opposed testimony *does not
necessarily mean* that someone has lied. An experienced investigator would
know that two witnesses can see the exact same person run by, yet each
witness will often *truthfully* describe that person so differently it will
be as if they saw two different people. Furthermore, a *real* investigator-
particularly someone who claims to have reviewed over 400 boxes of material
at the National Archives- would not claim that someone who clearly could not
have personally been familiar with every possible detail of a highly
technical incident (such as, say, Frank Borman) was lying merely because
their testimony differed in some details from that of others. A *real*
investigator, without solid documentation to the contrary, would not insist
that such inaccurate testimony was a lie instead of simple error.

There is a lot of information in those Review Board
Items that are just flat wrong. For example, their claim that "MTVC
was engaged." They don't say why, in fact they claim it is puzzling
to them.

Which is probably the reason they say it's "puzzling to them". As you would
say, duh! Where is your documentation that it was *not* engaged? Moreover,
*who* said this, and where did you find it?

They also say there was no significance to it and that there
would be no further benefit in pursuing the issue further.

Please provide *documentation* to the contrary.

There IS a reason to switch to MTVC, and IF he spent five
minutes studying the CSM he would have KNOWN the reason.

Do you? Please document.

That's why when you repeatedly ask for this-that-and the other
reference, it's extremely difficult to do unless you are sitting here
where I can spread out umpteen things and cross-reference them for you
while laying all the information out.

Then do so. Your claim, your burden. As an "investigator", why haven't you
already done this?

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote
\ You have to realize in order to know what is going on with Apollo One,
you have to look at EVERYTHING.

Why do you keep calling it "Apollo One", when
that name probably doesn't appear in ANY investigation documents?

Why not use the term that was used -- Apollo-204?