|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Berndt/Balettie Bologna
The subject libel was aided and abetted by my son Dan.
I understand that Dan (who like Berndt and Balettie had no first-hand experience at the Challenger launch site in the months and years prior to that disaster) is now active in again pushing their libelous and defamatory webpages. Dan was among the first to attempt an assassination of my character and a falsification of my book in sci.space newsgroups. (I refer to 'The Betrayal of Mission 51-L.') I therefore feel compelled to again offer the following as a brief rebuttal on the merits to the damage they have done: ====================================== 'One-Page Technical Summary of an O-Ring Cover-Up' (requested by Pentagon efficiency expert A. Ernest Fitzgerald on July 4, 2003) NASA's fault-tree analysis failed to consider that Challenger's solid rocket boosters could have crossed paths within the 51-L fireball. A crossing necessarily negates Rogers' postulated "right-aft O-ring burnthrough." In a hearing on February 7, 1986, Dr. Feynman inquired: "Can I ask a dumb question? Do we know on which side which rocket is afterwards? Did they go like this and cross or do they look like they went that way?" NASA put Feynman off, and Rogers sidetracked him. Dr. Feynman did not know about NASA's black ID band until I told him, in late 1987. For photo/recovery identification, NASA paints a black ID band 18'' high around the nose of the space shuttle's *left* solid rocket booster. Rogers ignored this ID band in his report, most notably at the crucial fireball exit. Instead, Rogers conjectured a "R-SRB burnthrough" for identification. Rogers' ID relies on an enhanced 15-second film strip ending in explosion. However, in JSC's '51-L Mission History Video,' the continuation of this film strip leaves no doubt that the *flared* booster sported the ID band. On January 22, 1986, in a pre-Challenger technical report requested by Senator Grassley's office, I warned: "... and 'cold flows' run at Pad B were a failure, costing much waste of time and money. Tom Wiley can testify to this. The net result of all this would be delays in launching from Pad B, and delays in Centaur launches. I also learned from Bill Bassler, Centaur 'single-point-of-contact' in LSOC CMO, that the waste of hydrogen was deliberate, ..." The terminal LH2 leaks were at the base of the left booster. It became super-cooled during prelaunch scrubs. A thrust imbalance resulted. That caused a right-aft leak in the hydrogen tank at lift-off, later aggravated by 5000-plus degree heat from continuous R-Aft RCS firings at 59 seconds. The pre-explosion chamber pressures of the two boosters (relative to each other and to their respective lift-off pressures) were to be expected. NASA could not identify the key piece of lower booster debris by serial number, or by *any other* of NASA's standard identification methods. The Rogers Report admits that no direct view exists of the location from which black smoke at lift-off and an assumed burnthrough at 59 seconds originated. Live launch-day video refutes NASA's "burnthrough" copies. Congressional subpoena of the originals should lead to credible closure. John Thomas Maxson (www.mission51l.com) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Berndt/Balettie Bologna
I'm new here, so I'll bite: why does your son publicly oppose your position
on this? I know that I didn't buy into all of my father's views on NASA (despite his long history in the space program), but I would certainly would not have taken any disagreements public. Sean "John Maxson" wrote in message ... The subject libel was aided and abetted by my son Dan. I understand that Dan (who like Berndt and Balettie had no first-hand experience at the Challenger launch site in the months and years prior to that disaster) is now active in again pushing their libelous and defamatory webpages. Dan was among the first to attempt an assassination of my character and a falsification of my book in sci.space newsgroups. (I refer to 'The Betrayal of Mission 51-L.') |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Berndt/Balettie Bologna
"John Maxson" wrote in message ... The subject libel was aided and abetted by my son Dan. I understand that Dan (who like Berndt and Balettie had no first-hand experience at the Challenger launch site in the months and years prior to that disaster) is now active in again pushing their libelous and defamatory webpages. Not really. Dan was among the first to attempt an assassination of my character and a falsification of my book in sci.space newsgroups. (I refer to 'The Betrayal of Mission 51-L.') No, as I have pointed out before you have completed that job yourself. No one but you can make your statements or write your books, both published and unpublished. Posters here cite your prior statements about things you believe, not what I believe about you. Thus you have created your own persona for this group. If you do not like that image, change it yourself. Minor nit, it is Daniel and always has been. IIRC, you had something to do with the name. Please respect yourself and use the correct name. Daniel |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Berndt/Balettie Bologna
Sean Conolly wrote in message
.. . I'm new here, so I'll bite: why does your son publicly oppose your position on this? I know that I didn't buy into all of my father's views on NASA (despite his long history in the space program), but I would certainly would not have taken any disagreements public. That's a fine question; I'm overjoyed that someone like you finally came forth to ask it. I don't know what your own professional interests are, but Dan chose biological science at an early age. As a youth he had great concern for pollution of our ecological systems and how that degraded our health. He hadn't been out of the Air Force long (after duty in the Azores in his chosen field) when I warned him that Challenger was about to be the object of a launch disaster. He was trying to finish his degree requirements on the GI bill at the time. He became involved in trying to help me get media attention for my prelaunch warnings, along with Lt. Col. Bill Middleton (USAF Ret'd). After I had given presentations to a respected legal group and to an AIAA-based university forum, AF Col. Ed O'Connor, in charge of the Challenger recovery forces, paid Dan and Bill a personal visit at Dan's home. Ed unloaded several NASA internal documents on Dan and asked Dan to give them to his Senator. From that point on, Dan took his own, biological view of the catastrophe. It centered on fitting his belief (from the day of the disaster) that the crew could have been saved, to NASA's explanation of an O-ring failure. Because I refused to go along with the primary Rogers conclusions, he became angry with me. I think his opposition to me on the cause stems from his lack of adequate technical background in aerospace. I think the difference between you and him relative to publicly opposing me here and elsewhere is that he was the victim of a bigamous marriage (as was I). After he was about ten years old, he had a series of other fathers and father figures. Having invested considerable effort in obtaining his own FOIA data, he feels that he understands what happened to the crew. He has great ambition to tell that story in a book, but it opposes my story. -- John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace) Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Berndt/Balettie Bologna | SpamBot | Space Station | 3 | August 6th 03 09:25 PM |
Berndt/Balettie Bologna | George William Herbert | Space Station | 1 | August 6th 03 09:49 AM |
Berndt/Balettie Bologna | John Maxson | Policy | 0 | July 6th 03 05:53 PM |