Why the PC Buried the MOD's Report (51-L)

MSFC and the PC had to have *some* sort of plausibly
deniable explanation for a lift-off delta in booster Pc, one
which was sufficient to explain the premature throttledown.

Clearly, the Flight Operations report didn't reveal any Pc
differences prior to t+20 seconds in its telemetry plots.
If it had revealed them, that would have been the same as
admitting Jay Greene promptly lied to us on national TV.

Those managing the O-ring cover-up would rather *not*
have introduced the concept of a "hot" SRB prior to t+20
seconds. Doing so only served to raise suspicions about
*other* potential reasons for that *black smoke* at lift-off
(especially after the lengthy initial delay in admitting it and
then releasing the launch photographs which showed it).

The creatively enhanced "burnthrough" flames at Max Q
had to be released first (the old 'smoke and mirrors' trick).

--
John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)

Michael Gardner wrote in message
...
In article ,
"John Maxson" wrote:

MSFC and the PC had to have *some* sort of plausibly
deniable explanation for a lift-off delta in booster Pc, one
which was sufficient to explain the premature throttledown.

Clearly, the Flight Operations report didn't reveal any Pc
differences prior to t+20 seconds in its telemetry plots.
If it had revealed them, that would have been the same as
admitting Jay Greene promptly lied to us on national TV.

Those managing the O-ring cover-up would rather *not*
have introduced the concept of a "hot" SRB prior to t+20
seconds. Doing so only served to raise suspicions about
*other* potential reasons for that *black smoke* at lift-off
(especially after the lengthy initial delay in admitting it and
then releasing the launch photographs which showed it).

The creatively enhanced "burnthrough" flames at Max Q
had to be released first (the old 'smoke and mirrors' trick).

More innuendo

It's readily apparent from discussions I've presented in this
forum which were based on FOIA data and first-hand info.

--
John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)

John Maxson wrote:

MSFC and the PC had to have *some* sort of plausibly
deniable explanation for a lift-off delta in booster Pc, one
which was sufficient to explain the premature throttledown.


What's your take on this then?

Clearly, the Flight Operations report didn't reveal any Pc
differences prior to t+20 seconds in its telemetry plots.
If it had revealed them, that would have been the same as
admitting Jay Greene promptly lied to us on national TV.

Those managing the O-ring cover-up

What cover up?

would rather *not*
have introduced the concept of a "hot" SRB prior to t+20
seconds.

What do you mean a *Hot* SRB? The exhaust is hot is it not?

Doing so only served to raise suspicions about
*other* potential reasons for that *black smoke* at lift-off

What do you think caused the black smoke?


(especially after the lengthy initial delay in admitting it and
then releasing the launch photographs which showed it).

The creatively enhanced "burnthrough" flames at Max Q
had to be released first (the old 'smoke and mirrors' trick).


How did the flames get enhanced?

--
John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)

"Julian Bordas" wrote:

John Maxson wrote:

MSFC and the PC had to have *some* sort of plausibly
deniable explanation for a lift-off delta in booster Pc, one
which was sufficient to explain the premature throttledown.


What's your take on this then?

--- start JTM post ---

From: john_thomas_maxson )
Subject: Why Maxson, Not Rogers? (51-L: Year in Review - Part II)
Date: 2001-12-29 10:27:59 PST

"PART II - THEORY: Engineering/Science vs. Politics/Law
....
....
B.
I blame (primarily) an abnormal thrust imbalance between the 51-L SRBs,
created by cryogenic cold below, near, and above the left LH2-fueling
umbilical. I believe this cryo cold made the left SRB the colder of the two.
I believe cold-soaking of the left SRB occurred from known leaks in the days
preceding launch, during fueling and draining of the external tank via the
new plumbing for Launch Pad B."

--- end JTM post ---

What I'd like to know is why a cold-soaked LEFT SRB burned slightly hotter
than the right one:

http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3n34a.htm
http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3n35a.htm

Cold soaking *lowers* Pc and thrust. What does that say?

--- start JTM post ---

"I believe that the two boosters crossed in the fireball because of the
thrust imbalance and from failures in the flight software."

--- end JTM post ---

How? What FSW failures? How would this happen? Again: assertion.

--- start JTM post ---

"I believe that a secondary (guidance) IUS burn in the 51-L payload bay
contributed to the deaths of the crew at that time.

--- end JTM post ---

Disproven.

--- start JTM post ---

"I believe that there was no pre-explosion SRB burnthrough, and that the SRB
flare/plume seen post-explosion was an effect of this crossing -- rather
than a cause of the main cryo blast.

--- end JTM post ---

And he has never provided any discussion with any degree of plausibility of
how this could have been done, given the boosters' post-explosion
trajectory, the pre-disintegration nozzle positions, the obvious right SRB
breach flare (a "marker"), flight dynamics characteristics, and the lack of
any "breached" SRB dynamics indicating a collision/strike (this would have
been apparent). Also, the breach just happens to be at the same location on
the right SRB for all of the pertinent evidence - in space and time.

I'd say "good try", JTM, but it wasn't.

Jon Berndt
Aerospace Engineer

-- These views are not presented as the views of any other entity, they are
mine alone.


Jon

Jon Berndt wrote in message
...

What I'd like to know is why a cold-soaked LEFT SRB
burned slightly hotter than the right one:

http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3n34a.htm

Your selective use of Rogers' Appendix fails to acknowledge
his Executive Summary, as cited by Daniel. See page 37:

================================
STS 51-L Sequence of Major Events

snip

38:04.349
SSME 104% Command
4.339
E41M2076D

38:05.684
RH SRM pressure 11.8 psi above nominal
5.674
B47P2302C
=================================

--
John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)

John Maxson wrote
in message ...
Jon Berndt wrote in message
...

What I'd like to know is why a cold-soaked LEFT SRB
burned slightly hotter than the right one:
snip
38:05.684
***RH SRM pressure 11.8 psi above nominal***
5.674
B47P2302C
[Emphasis added to above excerpt from PC Summary.]

Since the PC found that the lift-off burn was *not* nominal,
why did Jay Greene fail to report it (http://tinyurl.com/nf7f)?
More importantly, why didn't the PC use the MOD's report?

--
John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)

MSFC and the PC had to have *some* sort of plausibly
deniable explanation for a lift-off delta in booster Pc,

absolutely essential. Deny it in a plausible manner.Part of their training, the
*******s.

one which was sufficient to explain the premature throttledown.

Good thinking. Otherwise we're screwed.

Clearly, the Flight Operations report didn't reveal any Pc
differences prior to t+20 seconds in its telemetry plots.
If it had revealed them, that would have been the same as
admitting Jay Greene promptly lied to us on national TV.

Yes that was close. Worked for Clinton, not for Nixon.

Those managing the O-ring cover-up would rather *not*
have introduced the concept of a "hot" SRB prior to t+20
seconds.

Tell me about it.

Doing so only served to raise suspicions about
*other* potential reasons for that *black smoke* at lift-off

Yeah. Suspicions are running high near the pad. Lurking. Spying.
And that was just in the public viewing area.

(especially after the lengthy initial delay in admitting it and
then releasing the launch photographs which showed it).

Timing. Very important. Plausible deniablility. Jay Green's lie must be
accepted as fact.

The creatively enhanced "burnthrough" flames at Max Q

Adobe Photoshop.....the real flames were not convincing.

had to be released first

Absolutely. Enhanced flames first, then black smoke from the launch.

(the old 'smoke and mirrors' trick).

Tha's how we got the SRBs to cross.

Misguided Hairball wrote
in message ...
John Maxson wrote:

Clearly, the Flight Operations report didn't reveal any Pc
differences prior to t+20 seconds in its telemetry plots.
If it had revealed them, that would have been the same as
admitting Jay Greene promptly lied to us on national TV.

Jay Green's lie must be accepted as fact.

Why so? I can still remember a radio show with episodes
which began something like, "This is a true story from the
files of your FBI. Only the names have been changed to
protect the innocent." (You've changed Greene to 'Green.'
Does that make him innocent?)

--
John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)