#81
|
|||
|
|||
Booster Crossing
"Charleston" wrote in message
"Jon Berndt" wrote: "John Maxson" wrote: We are all expected to believe that Berndt is not only more brilliant than the laureate, but more ably forthcoming than NASA with all the steering details of the boosters' actual flight paths after separation. MR. FEYNMAN: The actuators are the gadgets that turn the elevons, is that correct? MR. LEE: The actuators are the hydraulic pistons, if you will, that gimbal the engine. In this instance they were talking about the Solid Rocket Booster which is not an *engine* as near I can tell. The SRB actuators move the *nozzles* of the SRB. The elevons do in fact have actuators and they are single points of failure. Solid Rockets are motors. Mr. Feynman, with all due respect, was coming up to speed in a subject outside his normal area of expertise. Perhaps *Dr.* Feyman was coming up to speed but Mr. Lee should have Yes, it certainly is _Dr._ Feynman. The above were copy/pasted from the PC Report, in which they refer to Feynman in a random fashion as Mr. and Dr. :-/ The point is that Dr. Feynman was not omnipotent, as JTM periodically seems to want to portray him. Jon |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Booster Crossing
"Charleston" wrote:
"Jon Berndt" wrote: MR. FEYNMAN: The actuators are the gadgets that turn the elevons, is that correct? MR. LEE: The actuators are the hydraulic pistons, if you will, that gimbal the engine. In this instance they were talking about the Solid Rocket Booster which is not an *engine* as near I can tell. The SRB actuators move the *nozzles* of the SRB. The elevons do in fact have actuators and they are single points of failure. "Engine" and "motor" are both terms used in the aerospace community to describe various rocket/propulsion systems (see "SRB"). "Jet" and "engine" have been used to mean the same thing (see "RCS") as well. It's not inconsistent with other descriptions. Roger -- Roger Balettie former Flight Dynamics Officer Space Shuttle Mission Control http://www.balettie.com/ |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Booster Crossing
Below, we see Burnt trying to pick apart the only real scientific
credibility of the very cornerstone for his own hypothesis. On the other hand, Dr. Feynman's question on February 7, 1986, merely reinforced my own early opinion about a fireball crossing. I had emphatically broached my opinion to my son Daniel on Saturday, February 1, 1986 (when Bill Graham first released his creatively doctored, vastly reduced, and grossly under-exposed "15-second video" to members of Congress and to the media). -- John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace) Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com) Jon Berndt wrote in message ... MR. FEYNMAN: The actuators are the gadgets that turn the elevons, is that correct? Mr. Feynman, with all due respect, was coming up to speed in a subject outside his normal area of expertise. Jon Berndt Aerospace Engineer |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Booster Crossing
"Jon Berndt" wrote in message
... "Charleston" wrote in message "Jon Berndt" wrote: "John Maxson" wrote: We are all expected to believe that Berndt is not only more brilliant than the laureate, but more ably forthcoming than NASA with all the steering details of the boosters' actual flight paths after separation. MR. FEYNMAN: The actuators are the gadgets that turn the elevons, is that correct? MR. LEE: The actuators are the hydraulic pistons, if you will, that gimbal the engine. In this instance they were talking about the Solid Rocket Booster which is not an *engine* as near I can tell. The SRB actuators move the *nozzles* of the SRB. The elevons do in fact have actuators and they are single points of failure. Solid Rockets are motors. Mr. Feynman, with all due respect, was coming up to speed in a subject outside his normal area of expertise. Perhaps *Dr.* Feyman was coming up to speed but Mr. Lee should have Yes, it certainly is _Dr._ Feynman. The above were copy/pasted from the PC Report, in which they refer to Feynman in a random fashion as Mr. and Dr. :-/ The point is that Dr. Feynman was not omnipotent, as JTM periodically seems to want to portray him. Indeed, the good Dr. Feynman was not omnipotent or he would have let Dr. Covert keep on rolling, in his questioning of one Jack Lee. See post above in response to Chuck Stewart. -- Daniel Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Booster Crossing
"Charleston" wrote in message news:v5a7b.46545$cj1.45456@fed1read06...
find the statistical chicanery involving the SRB thrust descriptions in the Presidential Commission's timeline and explain why the description is chicanery. What I see is that the SRB thrust was normal, there was a two degree gimbal angle at T+40 sec, and that the flame became continuous about the same time as max Q. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Booster Crossing
"Kent Betts" wrote:
"Charleston" wrote: find the statistical chicanery involving the SRB thrust descriptions in the Presidential Commission's timeline and explain why the description is chicanery. What I see is that the SRB thrust was normal, there was a two degree gimbal angle at T+40 sec, and that the flame became continuous about the same time as max Q. I am sorry if I was unclear about the timeline and the SRB chamber pressures. Here are the references from which you can gleen the abuse of statistical analysis techniques. http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1ch3.htm go he [37-39] STS 51-L Sequence of Major Events and http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3appn.htm#n5 go he V. C. INTEGRATED TIMELINE. Importantly, the friend of a routine and well respected poster here can corroborate the unmatched SRB pair issue independently from me. -- Daniel Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Booster Crossing
"Charleston" wrote in message
I am sorry if I was unclear about the timeline and the SRB chamber pressures. Here are the references from which you can gleen the abuse of statistical analysis techniques. http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1ch3.htm go he [37-39] STS 51-L Sequence of Major Events and http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3appn.htm#n5 go he V. C. INTEGRATED TIMELINE. Importantly, the friend of a routine and well respected poster here can corroborate the unmatched SRB pair issue independently from me. In the first link the delta Pc is identified as being 19 psi lower in the right SRB (compared to the left) just prior to the explosion, as the Pc readings diverge (having begun to diverge just after 59 seconds). They appear at first glance to have accounted for a bias between the two. Yet in the second link they show the entire delta Pc as 24 psi. There are two applicable plots he http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3n34a.htm -and- http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3n35a.htm Jon |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Booster Crossing
You should not presume to speak for me about this matter.
-- John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace) Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com) Charleston wrote in message news:v5a7b.46545$cj1.45456@fed1read06... I would like to issue a little challenge here. Who will be the first one to find the statistical chicanery involving the SRB thrust descriptions in the Presidential Commission's timeline and explain why the description is chicanery. Dad you know the answer so I ask that you let the group find it please. -- Daniel Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Booster Crossing
"Jon Berndt" wrote in message
... "Charleston" wrote in message I am sorry if I was unclear about the timeline and the SRB chamber pressures. Here are the references from which you can gleen the abuse of statistical analysis techniques. http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1ch3.htm go he [37-39] STS 51-L Sequence of Major Events and http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3appn.htm#n5 go he V. C. INTEGRATED TIMELINE. Importantly, the friend of a routine and well respected poster here can corroborate the unmatched SRB pair issue independently from me. In the first link the delta Pc is identified as being 19 psi lower in the right SRB (compared to the left) just prior to the explosion, as the Pc readings diverge (having begun to diverge just after 59 seconds). They appear at first glance to have accounted for a bias between the two. Yet in the second link they show the entire delta Pc as 24 psi. There are two applicable plots he http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3n34a.htm -and- http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3n35a.htm Indeed the PC report volume I reports a 19 psi difference between the two SRBs at near 73 seconds while the third volume shows a 24 psi difference in the same time frame. Supposedly everyone had the same 12.5 Hz sample rate data so why the difference? Having said that though, we will call that a significant but not lonely inconsistency within the report. What you point out however is not a statisitical issue it is a "reading" the same data the same issue. There are several of these "error" types in this technical report even though NASA consistently reports using the same set of data to read. Also note that even the time at which the data ends is not the same. This is discrete data BTW that NASA has put in a graph that appears *somewhat* continuous. I have a few piles of the discrete data and there is no mistaking when the data ends. Volume I 73.124 seconds MET Volume III 73.044 seconds MET Good shot but try again. -- Daniel Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Booster Crossing
"Charleston" wrote:
Good shot but try again. Daniel -- if you have the data, present the data... stop playing guessing games. "Teasing" with it only serves to make you look bad, frustrate everyone else, and make your argument less worthy. I, for one, would very much like to see what you have that you believe is so critically important, so we can discuss it as rational adults. As before, I appreciated your posting the "Castglance" video, as it did not have the conclusive evidence to which it had been attributed. Roger -- Roger Balettie former Flight Dynamics Officer Space Shuttle Mission Control http://www.balettie.com/ |
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 |