|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
D Schneider wrote: Acutally, I'm finding Scott's discussion of the data to be pretty interesting. Woo hoo! I'm hoping also that Mary will chime in, as the data streams she has dealt with undoubtedly have artifacts and other details that must be dealt with before interpreting the data. The Shuttle flight data is not what you might hope for. It was restricted in its capabilities by 1970's computer capabilities, and it just never got updated. This is partially due to inertia (getting the new, far higher sample rate xducers approved is a rather time- and taxpayer-dollar-consuming enterprise), and partially due to the fact for a motor that runs for 2 minutes, 12.5 samples per second is adequate for post-flight reconstruction. As mentioned before, it's not really what you want for brief events, blips and initiation; but in 220 or so flights, there has never been an issue with any of the motors except for Challenger... and that was hardly a ballistics problem. You can not reasonably expect a motor to have a perfectly normal pressure trace if you open a second port in the side... The problem with interprettign the given Challenger data is due to some goofy but explainable phenomena. For starters... the xducers *are* 25 samples per second, but only every other one is read, leading to 12.5 sps. Then there's the fact that there are two other, slower xducers... and 5 does not go into 12.5, so you have to decide how you're going to present these different data streams. The data given here presents them all with a single time axis; the way we get the data from static tests (again, haven't been here long enough for a flight...) is that each xducer has it's own time *and* pressure column. So when we have xducers of different rates, it can be difficult to work with. If you just want to plot them together, that's easy, leav ethe data alone, they'll plot just fine. But if you want to compare moment-by-moment performance, you need to pick a sample rate, and then interpolate the others to fit that data rate. This works, but it's not the data you were originally given, and you have to be careful with that. What was done with the Challenger data is not what we'd do today. What they did Way Back Then was, it seems, to include every time point recorded from all three xducer streams. That's good for plotting, but it gives you some weird variability in percieved data rate. And then, instead of interpolating between pressure data points, they simply repeated the data between relevant time points. An odd way of going about it, but an honest one, and one that can be easily interpretted if you know how... and easily *mis*interpretted if you don't know how. And so long as I'm on about the Shuttle SRB's... I think using the single SRB/neo-S-IVb stage for a CEV launcher is a decent option (insert disclaimer about working for the people who *make* the RSRM here). Again, in 220 flights, there was not a single catastrophic event within the SRBs... not many other propulsion systems can claim that. Also, look at the Challenger: yes, the SRB caused that disaster... but the SRB's *survived.* The ET and the Shuttle got converted into confetti by the aero loads when the one SRB punched into the ET... but the SRB's had to be blown up from the ground. Them suckers is *tough*. |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Herb Schaltegger wrote: Given Scott's current job and his experience with solid rockets generally, his comments are very interesting. I further appreciate his willingness to suspend any urge towards editorializing to discuss the information actually available rather than shooting the messenger. In this case, the primary issue under discussion... the matter of sample rates and the determination thereof... really is a straightforward matter of numbers and knownign generally how the system works. There is no real area for debate... the data is what it is, and it appears fully consistent with what it's *supposed* to be. Now, as for what happens with the data around 59 seconds, when the two SRB's begin to diverge, THAT would be an area where interpretation and debate can come in. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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 |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
"D Schneider" wrote in message newspsm9990gdemtzlb@d3h1pn11... OM om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org wrote: [...] Again, kids, please. Just killfile every M***** and put them out of our misery. Don't waste your time on them. Acutally, I'm finding Scott's discussion of the data to be pretty interesting. Same here. Though it's bringing back some disturbing memories of working with some 1980s era Perkin Elmer A/D converters (I want to say 3090, but I'm sure that's just the IBM mainframe from college creeping in.) Scott makes a point about voltages and all. The work I was doing on was on software for thermal analysis. Easy enough when the temperatures in the unit varied a few hundred degrees. Easy to add correction factors. Then some smartasses (well ok, they had PhDs so they were at least smart :-) started doing ceramics work over a thousand or more degrees. That meant all our correction factors had to be extended, etc. I'm hoping also that Mary will chime in, as the data streams she has dealt with undoubtedly have artifacts and other details that must be dealt with before interpreting the data. /dps -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
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. -- JRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Henry Spencer wrote:
In article .com, wrote: ...During calibration, a "X millivolts = Y psi" factor is worked out for each xducer. So even though you might see a reading with numerous decimal points... 892.347 psi, say, what you are actually seeing is what the conversion factor makes of, say, 68 millivolts. There's a lot of psi between 68 and 69 millivolts, so you don't get the pressure readings between them. And yet you still wind up with all those decimal points. Only if the software doesn't judiciously round off the value to reflect the limited precision of the original data. Keeping all those decimal places is simply silly -- a waste of bytes and (as we've seen) a boobytrap for incautious analysts -- but carelessly-written software *is* common. Take a look at the data presented in the Excel file under discussion. In particular, make a chart from it, using jsut the date points in a scatter plot (no lines) and focus in on the first, say, 2 seconds. You'll see horizontal bands of data points. If you look at the first 2 seconds and between 875 and 925 psi, the issue becomes clear. You have, for instance, a number of readings for the 2302 xducer at 903.504 psi, and some more at 905.493... and none in between. There is a quantum step there. The readings are down to the milli-psi, but there is a difference of nearly 2 psi in resolving power. It's precise, but not accurate. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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 |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Herb Schaltegger wrote: So am I. I have downloaded Daniel's spreadsheet but I've done nothing more than glance through the data; paying work beckons and all that. Given Scott's current job and his experience with solid rockets generally, his comments are very interesting. I further appreciate his willingness to suspend any urge towards editorializing to discuss the information actually available rather than shooting the messenger. Pat read what Herb had written...Pat then looked out the window....but surprisingly, there wasn't a lunar eclipse going on. Pat then knew what the explanation was...if he concentrated very hard like the book had taught him to, Loni Anderson would indeed appear naked at his apartment door, and the rest of the dream would get even better. :-) Pat |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Lowther" wrote:
Charleston wrote: If you look at the first second of data again you will see that there are 25 data points. That is an artifact of presentation. There are multpile xducers reading at different rates. In order for Excel to plot them all on the same graph, whoever compiled the data chose to give all three xducer readings a single "time" column. As a result, every Xducer had it'd data repeated. In the case of the 12.5 sps xducers, that meant repeatign each data poitn twice. Note that in the first second, when pressure was ramping up, the data for 1302 and 2302 was paired. No it is not an artifact of presentation. I believe it was a misrepresentation by NASA. Please let me explain. The original data I received was in Minitab format http://www.minitab.com/. IIRC, it was recovered for me from a VAX computer tape at MSFC after an interesting and laborious phone conversation involving a NASA lawyer, an SRM project engineer, a Public Affairs FOIA officer, and on my end a longtime personal friend, myself, two pens, and two steno pads. Subsequently I received the data. You can now review a portion of that data in one of the many ways I have reviewed it. In my job I look for patterns and lack thereof. http://www.challengerdisaster.info/s...r1_t=0-t+1.xls (Excel) or http://www.challengerdisaster.info/s...r1_t=0-t+1.htm (HTML for the Microsoft impaired) My review of the data as posted at the above URL, led directly to a subsequent phone call to the above engineer and an admission by him that for the timeframe T+0 to T+1 second, no "real" data was available for STS 51-L and therefore "theoretical trajectory based data was substituted instead". When I asked him why I had not been told this fact upfront, no answer was given, just silence. When I asked why there were two separate sets of data embedded in the samples with contradictory data he again had no answer. That first second of data is farcical No. It's just presented poorly. Take out every other data poitn for 1302 and 2302. This is the result of having different sample rates and trying to smash them all on the same graph. Please graph the above two sets of data I have added to my website for that first second on the same graph and let me know if you still think your explanation works. Which set of data points would you have me take out? When you separate the two distinct streams of data as I have, they contradict themselves. Please tell me which stream you would choose and why. Also, before anyone overinterprets the data, you need to understand that there are at least two more additional data sets for STS 51-L and neither of those data sets match this one. I was careful to indicate that the data I presented was "raw" and that it was just one version. It turns out to one of at least three different versions. I also have the data for the first 24 flights and have reviewed it as well. So again I ask what is your read of the data rate for the STS 51-L flight data on my website? 1,5, and 12.5 (not 12, as I said before). Again, look at the initial ramp-up, and note the repeated readings. Okay we disagree on whether the second one is 2 or 5 s/s. Is there any particular reason you believe the second one is five? I only know what I was told by the NASA engineer at the time they filled my request. Can you explain the variable data rate? Do you need a few examples? Ah yes precision and accuracy, first year chemistry, thanks. Accuracy is indeed another matter. I expect that NASA would have a standard and indeed they did. The CEI requirement was +- 15 PSI but there was no requirement to actually calibrate the pressure transducers. That seems massively unlikely. Did you look at the specifications for the *transducers?* How about the work processes? Massively unlikely? I'll tell you what, you can call it "unlikely" if you want to, but you can always read the CEI document I was referring to for yourself. I have posted one particular page from that document to substantiate my claim. I have reviewed the entire document. As I stated earlier the figures and tables were all missing. http://www.challengerdisaster.info/h...c_page_5-2.doc snip Yes for the ignition transient, the data rate for STS 51-L was wholly useless. Not *wholly*, just annoyingly lean. Yeah it was useless. You can't make any sense of it and what I was given turned out to be a farce anyway. You can not get that first second of data. I have tried several ways and have failed every single time. To this day NASA can not definitively state what really happened pressure-wise in that first 600 milliseconds other than the boosters did ignite and pressurize. And they did so nominally. Thing is, somethign goes funny at ignition, funny enough to cause trouble, and it'll show up. Motors like the Shuttle SRM are pretty stable... mess with them, and they'll settle back down. To mess with them enough to cause trouble, you'd *really* have to mess with them. Block the throat with a car-sized chunk of propellant, that sort of thing. And that shows up. Nominally? Show me the data. As I said, I only really looked at the data for the first secodn or two. Where do you see variability in the data rate? That comment is quite frustrating. You have made comments vouching for this data like. "The data presented looks to be fully in compliance with what would have been actually recorded. You can't present data that *wasn't* recorded." "Neither the spread in readigns from Xducer to Xducer not the very jagged appearance of the data are unusual." All I ask of you or anyone here is that before you comment to the facts, that you give at least one serious examination of all the data I have provided. Only then can we continue this conversation with anything resembling common ground. Daniel Mount Charleston, not Charleston SC www.challengerdisaster.info |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Lessons Learned but Forgotten from the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident | Jim Oberg | Space Shuttle | 0 | December 13th 04 04:58 PM |
Lessons Learned but Forgotten from the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident | Jim Oberg | History | 0 | December 13th 04 04:58 PM |
"Hindsight bias" could hide real lessons of Columbia accident report,expert says (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Space Shuttle | 0 | September 3rd 03 01:54 AM |
NASA Administrator Accepts Columbia Accident Report | Ron Baalke | Space Shuttle | 3 | August 27th 03 04:48 PM |
Columbia Accident Investigation Board Releases Final Report | Jacques van Oene | Space Shuttle | 0 | August 26th 03 03:30 PM |