#11
|
|||
|
|||
Booster Crossing
/etc wrote in message
news On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 13:26:53 -0500, when the end of the tunnel became apparent, John Maxson posted: /etc wrote in message news On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 12:16:33 -0500, when the end of the tunnel became apparent, John Maxson posted: /etc wrote in message news On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 11:30:12 -0500, when the end of the tunnel became apparent, John Maxson posted: Steve wrote in message m... Forgive me for jumping into this debate WAY late in the game, but what is the significance of this SRB crossing that John Maxson is always talking about? It means that the anomalous flare/plume was an effect, rather than the cause, of the 51-L catastrophe. IMHO nobody ever stated that this flare/plume was the cause of the accident. Not even Jon Berndt? You've got me lost here... Here's a recent quote from BBR (one of dozens): "Another piece of evidence we have that precludes a crossing even more solidly is the breach in the right SRB seen before and after the disintegration." Notice the words "breach" and "seen." The alleged way the "breach" was "seen" was via an anomalous "plume." I suppose the plume was caused by the "breach" then. Is that right? If you accept the conclusions of Rogers, NASA, and BBR, that's true. If you're an independent thinker, you must ask which booster the anomalous flare/plume appeared on at fireball exit, because the alleged pre-explosion anomaly was near the aft part of the right SRB. NASA and Berndt simply *assume* that the right SRB exited on the same side as it was prior to the explosion. If it did not, then there was no pre-explosion, right-SRB "breach;" we were simply seeing some other type of enhanced flames earlier; and the flare/plume at fireball exit was actually on the *left* SRB, a reminder of what happened when it tore away from the tank. -- John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace) Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com) |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Booster Crossing
Jon Berndt wrote in message
... John Maxson wrote: Notice the words "breach" and "seen." The alleged way the "breach" was "seen" was via an anomalous "plume." It was also detected via a sudden simultaneous and obvious drop in the right SRB chamber pressure at the same time the breach plume became visible. That's altogether false, of course, as the Pc telemetry from both JSC and MSFC shows. At ~ t+52 seconds, the Pc in both boosters began to increase as it should have. The Pc in the left SRB continued to increase until loss of telemetry. The Pc in the right SRB reached a plateau at about t+66 seconds (although its rate of increase slowed a bit prior to that), and remained there until loss of telemetry, without ever decreasing. Its Pc was high at lift-off, which explains this. -- John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace) Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com) |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Booster Crossing
In article ,
Jonathan Silverlight wrote: Has he ever explained why anyone would want to do that? No, nor has he explained why we should rather believe in such a plot and conspiracy than in the plainly-visible photographic and telemetric evidence of an SRB O-ring failure and joint burn-through, which evidence includes multiple video and film cameras, booster chamber pressure readings, booster rates telemetry and so forth. In addition, Jon has posted fairly detailed calculations demonstrating that not only is such a booster crossing invisble on the film or video, it is *impossible* given the known rates, masses, thrust levels, and SRB nozzle gimbal positions. -- Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D. Reformed Aerospace Engineer "Heisenberg might have been here." ~ Anonymous |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Booster Crossing
Jonathan Silverlight wrote
in message ... In message , Chuck Stewart writes This is important to JTM because he has his own incoherently expressed story about what destroyed Challenger... that being an intentional act of sabotage and murder by the men and women of NASA at the orders of a military cabal led by Ronald Reagan. And no... I'm _not_ making that up. Has he ever explained why anyone would want to do that? It seems as pointless as murdering the Apollo 1 crew (yes, I know a certain person believes that happened) Surely you must realize that Chuck has a "way with words." Ask him for a page number and see how fast he back pedals, even though he kept my son's book for months and refused to return it in a timely way. "The men and women of NASA" takes in a lot of territory, you know. "Incoherently expressed" seems more than colorful, doesn't it? -- John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace) Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com) |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Booster Crossing
Herbs prefers that you all believe that some "paramedics"
parachuted in from 200,000 feet to save the crew at Range Safety Destruct, rather than that a SRB drogue deployed and was shown live to the nation on NASA Select by CNN. -- John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace) Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com) Herb Schaltegger wrote in message ... In article , Jonathan Silverlight wrote: Has he ever explained why anyone would want to do that? No, nor has he explained why we should rather believe in such a plot and conspiracy than in the plainly-visible photographic and telemetric evidence of an SRB O-ring failure and joint burn-through, which evidence includes multiple video and film cameras, booster chamber pressure readings, booster rates telemetry and so forth. In addition, Jon has posted fairly detailed calculations demonstrating that not only is such a booster crossing invisble on the film or video, it is *impossible* given the known rates, masses, thrust levels, and SRB nozzle gimbal positions. -- Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D. Reformed Aerospace Engineer "Heisenberg might have been here." ~ Anonymous |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Booster Crossing
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 01:05:32 +0000, when the end of the tunnel became
apparent, Clark posted: "/etc" wrote in news [snip] Yes I saw the videos. I'm just trying to understand Mr. Maxson's rationale. Ummm, by definition, insanity isn't rational. YMMV. I'm just trying to understand Mr. Maxsons point of view in a rational way, and I do not consider "insanity" is a really good argument in a rational debate. After all Mr. Maxson is a retired engineer and probably has his arguments which are valuable until the contrary has been proven. BTW, what exactly are *your* credentials? -- mhm 27x12 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Booster Crossing
[snip]
Desist. Your babblings have been noted. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%3...TF-8&scoring=d |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Booster Crossing
In article , /etc wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 01:05:32 +0000, when the end of the tunnel became apparent, Clark posted: "/etc" wrote in news [snip] Yes I saw the videos. I'm just trying to understand Mr. Maxson's rationale. Ummm, by definition, insanity isn't rational. YMMV. I'm just trying to understand Mr. Maxsons point of view in a rational way, and I do not consider "insanity" is a really good argument in a rational debate. After all Mr. Maxson is a retired engineer and probably has his arguments which are valuable until the contrary has been proven. BTW, what exactly are *your* credentials? Those who rely on the name-calling either have no argument or are too lazy to present it. You're right, belief in an unpopular (or incorrect, for that matter) theory isn't evidence of "insanity". Personally, I'm inclined to accept what I've read so far of the official version (although my knowledge is a *long* way from complete), but I don't believe that Mr. Maxson is "insane". Steve |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Booster Crossing
It seems as
pointless as murdering the Apollo 1 crew (yes, I know a certain person believes that happened) Now thats one I've never heard before. Maybe I'm missing something here but what would anyone have to gain by spouting such fairy tales about Apollo1,Challenger or Columbia, other than maybe trying to peddle some book ?? Jim |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Booster Crossing
It seems as
pointless as murdering the Apollo 1 crew (yes, I know a certain person believes that happened) Now thats one I've never heard before. Maybe I'm missing something here but what would anyone have to gain by spouting such fairy tales about Apollo1,Challenger or Columbia, other than maybe trying to peddle some book ?? Jim To cover up the "fact" that we never landed on the moon. (yes, people actually believe such nonscence.) From the bad astronomy site: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/f...lo.html#murder "Very, very Bad: Kaysing says that the Apollo 1 fire that killed Roger Chaffee, Ed White and Gus Grissom was no accident. Grissom was ready to talk to the press about the Moon hoax, so NASA killed him. Kaysing says NASA also killed other people who were about to blow the whistle as well. This is so disgusting I have a hard time writing a coherent reply. Kaysing has no grasp of basic physics, photography or even common sense, but he accuses NASA of killing people to shut them up. That is a particularly loathsome accusation. " Jim =========================== |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Berndt's Butchery | John Maxson | Space Shuttle | 9 | August 28th 03 01:10 PM |
FOIA Data Exposing 51-L Fireball Crossing | John Maxson | Space Shuttle | 6 | August 26th 03 10:18 AM |
Why do we care about the crossing? | BenignVanilla | Space Shuttle | 9 | August 16th 03 09:52 AM |
Challenger Salvage Chief Conceded Fireball Crossing | John Maxson | Space Shuttle | 31 | July 25th 03 05:54 AM |