|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Radars Conclusively Disprove O-Ring Theory
The JSC Challenger testimony quoted below may be found at:
http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v5part3b.htm#4 MR. RUMMEL: Well, my question-perhaps you're coming to it-is the cause of the aft rupture. It appears that the SRB didn't hit the tank in that area. Was this due to overstressing from the rupture forward? MR. MOSER: Yes, sir. The aft attachment is connected, the remaining aft attachment about which it is rotating, is connected right at the seam of the aft bulkhead to the cylindrical portion of the tank. And as soon as it rotates over and interferes with that region, then it loads it up in an out-of-plane load for the tank, and so it should rip the tank right in that region. Plus, the solid rocket booster is rotating about 40 degrees per second at that time, and so it fits with the analysis that we have done that says that, it should have in fact tore the tank in that region. ============================= Moser claims above that the right SRB rotated counter-clockwise viewed from aft, as shown by his JSC simulations (eg., http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v5p1177a.htm). However, an official 51-L Radar Report which convincingly refutes Moser's theorized counter-clockwise direction may be found at: http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3appoe3.htm 5.0. Condensed Chronology of Right SRB Observations. Following the structural break-up at T+ 73 seconds, the right Solid Rocket Booster continued under thrust for approximately 37 seconds. It was tracked continuously by Radar 1.17 and Ponce de Leon MIGOR. Radar 0.14 and the UCS-15 IFLOT tracked briefly as shown in Figure 1. Analysis of the PDL MIGOR video tape shows the SB to be rolling clockwise viewed from aft approximately once every 10 seconds during the powered flight period. Possibly this period decreased by about 1.5 seconds during the 37 seconds of powered flight indicating an angular acceleration about the longitudinal axis. ========================================= Conclusion: Both Moser and the Radar Report misidentified the flared SRB. The roll direction (as well as the 'before and after' roll rate) of the target tracked by the radars is consistent with what the live imagery plainly shows relative to the detachment of the aft-flared, nose-blasted left SRB (not with Moser's theorized right SRB). qed -- John Maxson www.mission51l.com |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"john_thomas_maxson" wrote in message
5.0. Condensed Chronology of Right SRB Observations. Following the structural break-up at T+ 73 seconds, the right Solid Rocket Booster continued under thrust for approximately 37 seconds. It was tracked continuously by Radar 1.17 and Ponce de Leon MIGOR. Radar 0.14 and the UCS-15 IFLOT tracked briefly as shown in Figure 1. Analysis of the PDL MIGOR video tape shows the SB to be rolling clockwise viewed from aft approximately once every 10 seconds during the powered flight period. Possibly this period decreased by about 1.5 seconds during the 37 seconds of powered flight indicating an angular acceleration about the longitudinal axis. ========================================= Conclusion: Both Moser and the Radar Report misidentified the flared SRB. The roll direction (as well as the 'before and after' roll rate) of the target tracked by the radars is consistent with what the live imagery plainly shows relative to the detachment of the aft-flared, nose-blasted left SRB (not with Moser's theorized right SRB). qed -- John Maxson www.mission51l.com The video evidence shows only one booster to be obviously rotating about its longitudinal axis - that booster is sporting a flare, which makes it quite easy to notice the rotation. Above in the paragraph you quote, it is indeed interesting that the SRB is stated to be rotating clockwise, given that the only SRB that is obviously rolling is the one sporting a flare and seen to be rotating CCW (viewed from aft) in various video clips. However, in another section of the Report, the SRB is identified as rolling in the same sense as seen in the video clips (CCW): --- start exerpt --- http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3appn.htm "6. Post Structural Breakup Right SRB Characterization A special analysis was undertaken to characterize the condition of the right SRB up to the point of range safety destruct in an attempt to determine the maximum size of the source of the flare (anomalous plume). Figure 129 shows the SRB immediately after it exists the vehicle breakup cloud. External tank hardward is visible still attached to the SRB and deflecting the flare. This deflection gives the impression that the entire aft segment has a burn through. As the SRB continues to fly away, its counterclockwise rotation and varying angle-of-attack cause the appearance of the flare to change drastically. When the flare is on the windward side of the SRB as in figure 130, the flare is blown back and wrapped around the vehicle and gives the impression of a large circumferential burn through. When the flare is on the leeward side of the SRB as in figure 131, the flare gases fill the separated flow area on the back side and give the impression of a large axial burn through. All of these impressions are caused by flowfield effects and are not true representations of the flare source. Recovery of the aft-center segment of the right SRB confirms the burn through location described in previous sections of this report (see figure 132). Figures 133, 134, and 135 show the recovered hardware. The right SRB exits the cloud at approximately 75.8 seconds MET. The separated nose cap and deployed drogue parachute are observed at approximately 76.4 seconds MET. At around 80 seconds MET, a reflection off of the SRB recovery system remnants (drogue parachute and risers) is observed (and confirmed by enhancements) on the side of the SRB as shown in figure 136. This event was initially reported as a possible second anomalous SRB plume." --- end exerpt --- It is additionally interesting to note that one can see (from camera E107) that the right SRB rotates CCW (viewed from aft) just prior to the disintegration, as the aft strut fails. The obvious interpretation is that it continued its CCW roll as it exited the vapor cloud, and that is what is observed in the video. The other SRB is not mentioned as rotating, nor is it seen to be obviously rotating. The right SRB _did_ have an impetus - a motivating moment - for rotation. The left SRB had no obvious motivating moment. What you have done is proven a typo - not uncovered a mis-identification. Regards, Jon http://home.houston.rr.com/fancijon/conspiracy.pdf |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Jon Berndt" wrote in message ...
in the paragraph you quote, it is indeed interesting that the SRB is stated to be rotating clockwise, given that the only SRB that is obviously rolling is the one sporting a flare and seen to be rotating CCW (viewed from aft) in various video clips. You provide no links to support these two claims; no one should have to take your claim about "obviously rolling" and "various video clips" at face value. However, in another section of the Report, the SRB is identified as rolling in the same sense as seen in the video clips (CCW): Again, you provide no links to support your claim concerning video clips. --- start exerpt --- http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3appn.htm "6. Post Structural Breakup Right SRB Characterization snip As the SRB continues to fly away, its counterclockwise rotation and varying angle-of-attack cause the appearance of the flare to change drastically. snip --- end exerpt --- No aspect angle is specified; your point is therefore impossible to verify. What you have done is proven a typo - not uncovered a mis-identification. Don't be absurd. The video evidence cited in the 51-L Radar Report released by the Air Force is *verifiable* evidence. Note that the Ponce de Leon MIGOR tracked the flared SRB *continuously*; there was no extrapolation from early, ambiguous "clips:" "It was tracked continuously by Radar 1.17 and Ponce de Leon MIGOR." The PDL boresight video unequivocally verifies the "clockwise" claim made by the authors of the Radar Report, particularly from t+90 to t+110 seconds, when the angular momentum of the flared SRB increases due to fuel depletion, and after the dangling aft flare has been shortened because pieces of it have burned away and dropped away. You have reviewed that video yourself, as have others: http://tinyurl.com/5pkl5 http://tinyurl.com/6h588 http://tinyurl.com/5ay9j Furthermore, the UCS-10 boresight video (and the E201 film) confirm what the PDL boresight video proves conclusively. I fully expect to be using all of the above in an upcoming series of academic lectures. John Maxson (see www.mission51l.com/challenger.htm) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"john_thomas_maxson" wrote in message
m... "Jon Berndt" wrote in message ... in the paragraph you quote, it is indeed interesting that the SRB is stated to be rotating clockwise, given that the only SRB that is obviously rolling is the one sporting a flare and seen to be rotating CCW (viewed from aft) in various video clips. You provide no links to support these two claims; no one should have to take your claim about "obviously rolling" and "various video clips" at face value. I've posted a segment of E207 he http://home.houston.rr.com/fancijon/E207_Segment1.zip [E207 is typical of the other media showing the counterclockwise angular rate (as viewed from aft) of the flared SRB just after it emerges from the vapor cloud.] Size limitations only allowed the relevant segment to be zipped and posted. For the benefit of others, E207 looks at the stack from the north side - that is, it looks at the right-hand SRB, as the stack climbs out in an inverted orientation. The segment starts just as the bright anomaly (the SRB breach flare) becomes visible. The flare grows slowly and then, just prior to the disintegration, the flare can barely (but noticeably) be seen to move from right to left onscreen. This is not the flare spreading further about the circumference of the SRB casing, it is the SRB rotating about one aft and one forward attachment (another aft attachment strut has failed due to the damage imposed by the flare). The point to this is that when one of the aft attachment struts fails, the SRB rotates about the other two struts, and in a counter-clockwise sense as viewed from aft. This can be seen as I described in the film clip referenced above, and this is also the failure mode as described in the Report. After the SRB leaves the vapor cloud a brief instant later, the rotation that the SRB developed (due to the strut failure prior to disintegration) is seen to have taken the circumferential placement of the flare further around the SRB as it rotates about its own longitudinal axis. The flare can be seen behind the SRB for a moment, showing the rotation of the SRB with the flare to be still counterclockwise (as expected). So, not only is the SRB seen to be rotating counterclockwise both just prior and subsequent to the disintegration, but the circumferential placement of the flare after the SRB emerges from the vapor cloud is right where it is expected to be seen, given the angular rate of the SRB seen before the disintegration (and which was an instrument of the breakup itself). Thanks for raising the issue of SRB angular rate - this has helped to further identify the right SRB as the flared booster before and after disintegration. Jon Berndt Aerospace Engineer http://home.houston.rr.com/fancijon/conspiracy.pdf |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Jon Berndt" wrote in message ...
I've posted a segment of E207 he http://home.houston.rr.com/fancijon/E207_Segment1.zip [E207 is typical of the other media showing the counterclockwise angular rate (as viewed from aft) of the flared SRB just after it emerges from the vapor cloud.] Size limitations only allowed the relevant segment to be zipped and posted. You seem to have forgotten what's at issue here, the validity of the claim by the 51-L Radar Report. Your clip is certainly not "typical" of the total length and continuity of the Ponce de Leon boresight video. You've included irrelevant frames from before the explosion, and you've failed to discuss the relevant frames (out through RSD) contained in the PDL boresight video. "The other media" should include the boresight video from the Ponce de Leon radar site (as well as from other radar sites). Your clip is definitely not "typical" of other sites. Ponce de Leon is around 50 miles north of Pad B (near Daytona Beach). All 51-L Playalinda media originates from one camera site, which was nearly adjacent to Pad B (a mile or two to the north.) For the benefit of others, E207 looks at the stack from the north side - that is, it looks at the right-hand SRB, as the stack climbs out in an inverted orientation. The segment starts just as the bright anomaly (the SRB breach flare) becomes visible. The flare grows slowly and then, just prior to the disintegration, the flare can barely (but noticeably) be seen to move from right to left onscreen. This is not the flare spreading further about the circumference of the SRB casing, it is the SRB rotating about one aft and one forward attachment (another aft attachment strut has failed due to the damage imposed by the flare). I have a notebook full of these frames, which I printed in 1998. Range time is available at the upper top. If you look at the second frame with a tag of 39:03:20, you will see that it is indeed the spreading of flames, as opposed to counterclockwise rotation. (Subsequent frames confirm this.) The point to this is that when one of the aft attachment struts fails, the SRB rotates about the other two struts, and in a counter-clockwise sense as viewed from aft. This can be seen as I described in the film clip referenced above, and this is also the failure mode as described in the Report. After the SRB leaves the vapor cloud a brief instant later, the rotation that the SRB developed (due to the strut failure prior to disintegration) is seen to have taken the circumferential placement of the flare further around the SRB as it rotates about its own longitudinal axis. The flare can be seen behind the SRB for a moment, showing the rotation of the SRB with the flare to be still counterclockwise (as expected). An extremely competent local (with no space experience) looked at your clip. I asked him to decide the direction of the post-explosion rotation. "It's *almost* counterclockwise," he said, "especially when the tumble begins, just before you see it head-on from the nose." At his "almost" point, counterclockwise is equivalent to clockwise viewed from aft. My friend's description is typical, I think, of what is happening in this early interval (which you've evidently chosen to muddy the waters). Preparatory to the first tumble, the booster's circumferential flaring makes directional rotation appear ambiguous, because you never really get to see it from *directly* aft. Thanks for raising the issue of SRB angular rate - this has helped to further identify the right SRB as the flared booster before and after disintegration. Are you afraid of the truth? You conveniently failed to address this: The video evidence cited in the 51-L Radar Report released by the Air Force is *verifiable* evidence. Note that the Ponce de Leon MIGOR tracked the flared SRB *continuously*; there was no extrapolation from early, ambiguous "clips:" "It was tracked continuously by Radar 1.17 and Ponce de Leon MIGOR." The PDL boresight video unequivocally verifies the "clockwise" claim made by the authors of the Radar Report, particularly from t+90 to t+110 seconds, when the angular momentum of the flared SRB increases due to fuel depletion, and after the dangling aft flare has been shortened because pieces of it have burned away and dropped away. You have reviewed that video yourself, as have others: http://tinyurl.com/5pkl5 http://tinyurl.com/6h588 http://tinyurl.com/5ay9j Why do you resort to ambiguity, when unequivocal clarity is in your possession? Remember, Dr. Scofield admitted to the Rogers Commission that Moser's proposed failure mode was merely hypothesis (as did Moser himself to Dr. Feynman): DR. SCOFIELD: ... "If the SRM had not been leaking *as hypothesized* in all these reconstructions, ..." [Emphasis added.] In short, you should be open to reviewing and discussing the verifiable evidence cited in the Radar Report's Summary, rather than evasive of it. John Maxson www.mission51l.com |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"john_thomas_maxson" wrote:
"Jon Berndt" wrote: I've posted a segment of E207 he http://home.houston.rr.com/fancijon/E207_Segment1.zip [E207 is typical of the other media showing the counterclockwise angular rate (as viewed from aft) of the flared SRB just after it emerges from the vapor cloud.] Size limitations only allowed the relevant segment to be zipped and posted. You seem to have forgotten what's at issue here, the validity of the claim by the 51-L Radar Report. Your clip is certainly not "typical" of the total length and continuity of the Ponce de Leon boresight video. You've included irrelevant frames from before the explosion, and you've failed to discuss the relevant frames (out through RSD) contained in the PDL boresight video. I'll review the video that I have in addition to the posted E207 video later, out of curiousity. For now, there are several points I want to make: 1) As I recall, there are a few typographical errors in the Report - it's not a perfect document. 2) In one place (as I posted), the angular rate of the flared SRB after disintegration is described as CCW, in another place (as you posted), CW. So, which is right? What's the interpretation? What's the context? Let's go to the video. 3) The Report also describes that the best camera to view the flared SRB angular rate is E207 (Volume 3, Appendix N, Table 17). I posted the _very_ relevant portion of that - in view of contradictory angular rate statements made. 4) I claim that the flared SRB is the right hand SRB rotating CCW about its longitudinal axis viewed from aft, immediately after the disintegration, based on: a) The right hand SRB rates as telemetered to the ground show CCW roll motion prior to disintegration. b) Careful viewing of E207 immediately after the disintegration (the most pertinent time segment to consider, given the pre-disintegration roll rate) shows that the same CCW-sense roll rate continued post-disintegration. This should be a clue! This is the best evidence, and the _least_ ambiguous. Jon |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Jon Berndt" wrote in message ...
I'll review the video that I have in addition to the posted E207 video later, out of curiousity. For now, there are several points I want to make: 1) As I recall, there are a few typographical errors in the Report - it's not a perfect document. I maintain that you have falsely accused me, as well as the RCA engineers who authored the official 51-L Radar Report from which I quoted (not to mention the AF officials who released it to the Presidential Commission) of misuse of the word "clockwise," due to what you allege to be a "typo." I maintain that the burden has always been and still is upon *you* (being in possession from my son Daniel of the Ponce de Leon boresight video cited by the Radar Report as said "clockwise" evidence) to use *that* video to either confirm or deny the following, as shown by http://tinyurl.com/4mldg: "What you have done is proven a typo - not uncovered a mis-identification." Here is evidence that a year ago you denigrated claims which I had based upon relevant 51-L FOIA imagery http://tinyurl.com/4x2mg, as well as more evidence that (as I mentioned in an earlier post) you briefly placed the Ponce de Leon boresight video on the web, without discussing this issue of post-explosion SRB rotation: http://tinyurl.com/6cycd. It is now your professional and ethical obligation to *prove* what you so brashly alleged without checking, or in the alternative, to *publicly retract* what you alleged and to apologize to all those whose reputations you have damaged by your allegation. 2) In one place (as I posted), the angular rate of the flared SRB after disintegration is described as CCW, in another place (as you posted), CW. So, which is right? What's the interpretation? What's the context? Let's go to the video. What's taken you so long? Clearly that's where you should have gone in the first place! I suspect that Tom Moser proposed his hypothesis to the Rogers Commission on March 7, 1986, and that the Radar Report was not released until several weeks later. That suspicion should be easily verified. 3) The Report also describes that the best camera to view the flared SRB angular rate is E207 (Volume 3, Appendix N, Table 17). I posted the _very_ relevant portion of that - in view of contradictory angular rate statements made. You did not, and you should apologize! You posted a clip from the UCS-10 boresight video camera, which was co-located with the E207 70 mm film camera and the E201 70 mm film camera on Playalinda Beach. I use frames from E207 in my book and on my website, and two of those tend to confirm clockwise rotation (viewed from aft) of the flared SRB (see www.mission51l.com/aprieview.htm, and look for the two photos showing the direction from which the "protruding metal" comes into view). 4) I claim that the flared SRB is the right hand SRB rotating CCW about its longitudinal axis viewed from aft, immediately after the disintegration, based on: a) The right hand SRB rates as telemetered to the ground show CCW roll motion prior to disintegration. If this is true, for precisely how long and as shown in what reference (link or otherwise)? (In my last post, a frame time I gave of 39:03:20 should obviously read 39:13:20.) b) Careful viewing of E207 immediately after the disintegration (the most pertinent time segment to consider, given the pre-disintegration roll rate) shows that the same CCW-sense roll rate continued post-disintegration. This should be a clue! This is the best evidence, and the _least_ ambiguous. Jon The E207 film has a frame rate of 40 samples/second, but the UCS-10 boresight video does not. You have not presented E207 evidence, which picks up the flared SRB much sooner after exit than does the boresight video you discuss. Furthermore, as I posted earlier (and as you should know), extrapolation of conclusions drawn from a short and early interval of ambiguous data are not to be preferred by aerospace professionals and applied mathematicians to conclusions drawn from continuous data of greater and much more sufficient length. Please make your examination of the last 37 seconds of 51-L SRB flight **as shown by the Ponce de Leon boresight video** your highest priority, in your efforts to continue with this thread. Otherwise, you will have convincingly shown that you should indeed be regarded as an ex-Halliburton, currently-Lockheed employee with neither ethics nor credibility, insofar as your constant derision over the years of my Challenger efforts is concerned. John Maxson |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"john_thomas_maxson" wrote:
I maintain that the burden has always been and still is upon *you* (being in possession from my son Daniel of the Ponce de Leon boresight video cited by the Radar Report as said "clockwise" evidence) to use *that* video to either confirm or deny the following, as shown by http://tinyurl.com/4mldg: I viewed what I believe is the PDL BS video this evening (it's black and white, has crosshairs, and is viewed from far north - there is no distinguishing identification). This video is quite explicit about showing the flared booster before and after the disintegration - on the same side - not crossing. However, it is of a very poor angle and quality to be using it to determine the SRB angular rate. It is next to impossible to determine which bright spot is the flare and which is the nozzle plume, as well as which direction the SRB is pointing, relative to the viewer. It is now your professional and ethical obligation to *prove* what you so brashly alleged without checking, or in the alternative, to *publicly retract* what you alleged and to apologize to all those whose reputations you have damaged by your allegation. This is so ironic. How many peoples' reputations do you pretend to tarnish with your book? You talk of ethics after trying to convey that "Pappy" supports your claims!? You ask others to disprove what you have not been able to prove for years? Failing to refute my rebuttals to your false claims, you try and associate my name with a company that has recently suffered a tarnished name - as you write: "Otherwise, you will have convincingly shown that you should indeed be regarded as an ex-Halliburton ...." (incidentally, I was never an employee of Halliburton - I was subcontracted to write software for a seismic data processing application - so what!). Where's the sense in that? Furthermore, you are yourself claiming that the radar report misidentifies the **booster**! Which of us presumes to insult the radar team more!? Which parts of the radar report do you choose to believe, and which do you presume to throw out? To be clear on my position: the claim of a clockwise rotation in the radar report based on the poor quality PDL video is contradictory to the claim elsewhere in the report of a CCW rotation, based on viewing the *acknowledged* much better quality/angle E-207 film. My own analysis of the two clips as well as the ROTI clip is utterly convincing of the SRB rotation in a negative sense about the X body axis (CCW viewed from aft). Therefore, I have no alternative but to label the clockwise rotation statement in the radar report as secondary in accuracy to the previous claim in the Report of a CCW rotation - with the clockwise rotation claim erroneous either as a typo, or based on incorrect interpretation. 3) The Report also describes that the best camera to view the flared SRB angular rate is E207 (Volume 3, Appendix N, Table 17). I posted the _very_ relevant portion of that - in view of contradictory angular rate statements made. You did not, and you should apologize! You posted a clip from the UCS-10 boresight video camera, which was co-located with the E207 70 mm film camera and the E201 70 mm film camera on Playalinda Beach. I use frames from E207 in my book and on my website, and two of those tend to confirm clockwise rotation (viewed from aft) of the flared SRB (see www.mission51l.com/aprieview.htm, and look for the two photos showing the direction from which the "protruding metal" comes into view). No, I posted ( as I mentioned a few days ago - and the clip is still there) E207. I have attached a .jpg image (3K) showing the title placard that says "51-L E-207 0 to 10 minutes". It plainly shows that a second or so after the disintegration, the flare exits the SRB to the left of the booster (relative to the screen view), progresses to the far side of the SRB - silhouetting the SRB - and progresses to the right side of the booster (again relative to the screen view) at which time the booster topples end over end to point backwards for an instant. The ROTI clip is also instructive, showing counter-clockwise rotation about the longitudinal axis (a negative angular rate about the X body axis pointing forward). This is all as described he http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3appn.htm "6. Post Structural Breakup Right SRB Characterization As I mentioned, when the SRB came loose at one of the aft attachments, the angular rate at the time the SRB collided with the ET was about 40 deg/sec. in a CCW sense. The fact that the flared SRB is seen exiting the cloud rotating at about the same rate as it leaves the cloud is unambiguous, obvious proof that it is the right SRB. As I said before, thanks for pointing this out - it will be added to my paper he http://home.houston.rr.com/fancijon/conspiracy.pdf 4) I claim that the flared SRB is the right hand SRB rotating CCW about its longitudinal axis viewed from aft, immediately after the disintegration, based on: a) The right hand SRB rates as telemetered to the ground show CCW roll motion prior to disintegration. If this is true, for precisely how long and as shown in what reference (link or otherwise)? (In my last post, a frame time I gave of 39:03:20 should obviously read 39:13:20.) You've got the Report. This is also detailed in my paper he http://home.houston.rr.com/fancijon/conspiracy.pdf The E207 film has a frame rate of 40 samples/second, but the UCS-10 boresight video does not. You have not presented E207 evidence, which picks up the flared SRB much sooner after exit than does the boresight video you discuss. Furthermore, as I posted earlier (and as you should know), extrapolation of conclusions drawn from a short and early interval of ambiguous data are not to be preferred by aerospace professionals and applied mathematicians to conclusions drawn from continuous data of greater and much more sufficient length. As I mentioned, the video that is posted at the URL I gave a few days ago in my post here is E207 - as evidenced by the attached image. Furthermore, **interpolation** of conclusions about a certain brief incident from temporally far removed (and substandard) evidence is certainly NOT to be preferred over the direct, higher quality, and immediately adjacent continuous evidence that can be seen in E-207 and briefly in ROTI evidence (and again briefly in the ROTI clip later on). Please make your examination of the last 37 seconds of 51-L SRB flight **as shown by the Ponce de Leon boresight video** your highest priority, in your efforts to continue with this thread. I have done so, and found it to be essentially worthless for the suggested use. Jon Berndt Aerospace Engineer |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Jon Berndt" wrote:
As I mentioned, when the SRB came loose at one of the aft attachments, the angular rate at the time the SRB collided with the ET was about 40 deg/sec. in a CCW sense. The fact that the flared SRB is seen exiting the cloud rotating at about the same rate as it leaves the cloud is unambiguous, This last line should have read: rotating at about the same rate as it enters the cloud is unambiguous, obvious proof that it is the right SRB. As I said before, thanks for pointing this out - it will be added to my paper he |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
[Note: I tried posting this a couple days ago. The server would not accept
even tiny .jpg attachments (we're talking 2Kbytes). So, I have placed the image referred to as "attached", below, he http://home.houston.rr.com/fancijon/E207.jpg] "john_thomas_maxson" wrote: I maintain that the burden has always been and still is upon *you* (being in possession from my son Daniel of the Ponce de Leon boresight video cited by the Radar Report as said "clockwise" evidence) to use *that* video to either confirm or deny the following, as shown by http://tinyurl.com/4mldg: I viewed what I believe is the PDL BS video this evening (it's black and white, has crosshairs, and is viewed from far north - there is no distinguishing identification). This video is quite explicit about showing the flared booster before and after the disintegration - on the same side - not crossing. However, it is of a very poor angle and quality to be using it to determine the SRB angular rate. It is next to impossible to determine which bright spot is the flare and which is the nozzle plume, as well as which direction the SRB is pointing, relative to the viewer. It is now your professional and ethical obligation to *prove* what you so brashly alleged without checking, or in the alternative, to *publicly retract* what you alleged and to apologize to all those whose reputations you have damaged by your allegation. This is so ironic. How many peoples' reputations do you pretend to tarnish with your book? You talk of ethics after trying to convey that "Pappy" supports your claims!? You ask others to disprove what you have not been able to prove for years? Failing to refute my rebuttals to your false claims, you try and associate my name with a company that has recently suffered a tarnished name - as you write: "Otherwise, you will have convincingly shown that you should indeed be regarded as an ex-Halliburton ...." (incidentally, I was never an employee of Halliburton - I was subcontracted to write software for a seismic data processing application - so what!). Where's the sense in that? Furthermore, you are yourself claiming that the radar report misidentifies the **booster**! Which of us presumes to insult the radar team more!? Which parts of the radar report do you choose to believe, and which do you presume to throw out? To be clear on my position: the claim of a clockwise rotation in the radar report based on the poor quality PDL video is contradictory to the claim elsewhere in the report of a CCW rotation, based on viewing the *acknowledged* much better quality/angle E-207 film. My own analysis of the two clips as well as the ROTI clip is utterly convincing of the SRB rotation in a negative sense about the X body axis (CCW viewed from aft). Therefore, I have no alternative but to label the clockwise rotation statement in the radar report as secondary in accuracy to the previous claim in the Report of a CCW rotation - with the clockwise rotation claim erroneous either as a typo, or based on incorrect interpretation. 3) The Report also describes that the best camera to view the flared SRB angular rate is E207 (Volume 3, Appendix N, Table 17). I posted the _very_ relevant portion of that - in view of contradictory angular rate statements made. You did not, and you should apologize! You posted a clip from the UCS-10 boresight video camera, which was co-located with the E207 70 mm film camera and the E201 70 mm film camera on Playalinda Beach. I use frames from E207 in my book and on my website, and two of those tend to confirm clockwise rotation (viewed from aft) of the flared SRB (see www.mission51l.com/aprieview.htm, and look for the two photos showing the direction from which the "protruding metal" comes into view). No, I posted ( as I mentioned a few days ago - and the clip is still there) E207. I have attached a .jpg image (3K) showing the title placard that says "51-L E-207 0 to 10 minutes". It plainly shows that a second or so after the disintegration, the flare exits the SRB to the left of the booster (relative to the screen view), progresses to the far side of the SRB - silhouetting the SRB - and progresses to the right side of the booster (again relative to the screen view) at which time the booster topples end over end to point backwards for an instant. The ROTI clip is also instructive, showing counter-clockwise rotation about the longitudinal axis (a negative angular rate about the X body axis pointing forward). This is all as described he http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3appn.htm "6. Post Structural Breakup Right SRB Characterization" As I mentioned, when the SRB came loose at one of the aft attachments, the angular rate at the time the SRB collided with the ET was about 40 deg/sec. in a CCW sense. The fact that the flared SRB is seen exiting the cloud rotating at about the same rate as it entered the cloud (verified by telemetry and visually) is unambiguous, obvious proof that it is the right SRB. As I said before, thanks for pointing this out - it will be added to my paper he http://home.houston.rr.com/fancijon/conspiracy.pdf 4) I claim that the flared SRB is the right hand SRB rotating CCW about its longitudinal axis viewed from aft, immediately after the disintegration, based on: a) The right hand SRB rates as telemetered to the ground show CCW roll motion prior to disintegration. If this is true, for precisely how long and as shown in what reference (link or otherwise)? (In my last post, a frame time I gave of 39:03:20 should obviously read 39:13:20.) You've got the Report. This is also detailed in my paper he http://home.houston.rr.com/fancijon/conspiracy.pdf The E207 film has a frame rate of 40 samples/second, but the UCS-10 boresight video does not. You have not presented E207 evidence, which picks up the flared SRB much sooner after exit than does the boresight video you discuss. Furthermore, as I posted earlier (and as you should know), extrapolation of conclusions drawn from a short and early interval of ambiguous data are not to be preferred by aerospace professionals and applied mathematicians to conclusions drawn from continuous data of greater and much more sufficient length. As I mentioned, the video that is posted at the URL I gave a few days ago in my post here is E207 - as evidenced by the attached image. Furthermore, **interpolation** of conclusions about a certain brief incident from temporally far removed (and substandard) evidence is certainly NOT to be preferred over the direct, higher quality, and immediately adjacent continuous evidence that can be seen in E-207 and briefly in ROTI evidence (and again briefly in the ROTI clip later on). Please make your examination of the last 37 seconds of 51-L SRB flight **as shown by the Ponce de Leon boresight video** your highest priority, in your efforts to continue with this thread. I have done so, and found it to be essentially worthless for the suggested use. Jon Berndt Aerospace Engineer |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Steady State Theory vs The Big Bang Theory | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 3 | September 9th 04 06:30 AM |
The Gravitational Instability Theory on the Formation of the Universe | Br Dan Izzo | Policy | 6 | September 7th 04 09:29 PM |
Gravity as Falling Space | Henry Haapalainen | Science | 1 | September 4th 04 04:08 PM |
The Gravitational Instability Cosmological Theory | Br Dan Izzo | Astronomy Misc | 0 | August 31st 04 02:35 AM |
[Fwd: This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 205)] | Sam Wormley | Amateur Astronomy | 5 | April 16th 04 10:20 PM |