 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / February 2008Credible Challenger Closure
Over the years, this forum has seen many negative posts about Christa McAuliffe and her mother. Some of them (labeled "jokes") have been plainly disgusting. Nevertheless, I can't recall anyone ever referring to Christa and Grace as dishonest. Those two women were honest educators. When Mission 51-L lifted off, they honestly believed we had a healthy space program for civilians. Since then, doubletalk and disinformation about Challenger have prevented children from getting an honest space education. This has bred even more duplicity and double-dealing. On the other hand, many citizens still remember the success that openness at NASA once brought to our civilian manned space program. Many people fear that NASA cannot remain viable much longer without credible closure of major issues resolved irrationally by the Reagan- appointed Challenger Commission. In a free and open society, there can be no long term acceptance of answers given in doublespeak, no matter how "officially" they were rendered. As the anniversary again nears, I have a simple request. I ask that readers bear with me long enough to carefully analyze just one brief caption. It is found on an untimed photo in the Report of the Presidential Commission. If you will indulge me to this extent alone, credible closure can appear on the immediate horizon. Background in engineering and science is helpful but not really necessary for this exercise. I strongly urge the participation of those with rigorous knowledge of logic, English, and the law. We start with an aerial view of the exit event: http://mission51l.com/art/fireball.jpg A southern view of the same exit event is found at: http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1p30.htm After replying to any initial comments, or to any questions about the photogrammetrics of the event, I would like to proceed to the pertinent portion of the caption to be analyzed. Thanks in advance for your cooperation at this memorable time. JTM >After replying to any initial comments, or to any questions about the >photogrammetrics of the event, I would like to proceed to the >pertinent portion of the caption to be analyzed. I don't see how this is a simple request. If it takes you more than one post to make the request, it isn't a simple request. This accident was put to bed over 20 years ago. I can't imagine why there is any reason to microanalyse the documents at this date. No one in their right mind has any belief that this wasn't anything other than an accident. On Jan 22, 11:12 am, nf...@shell1.sentex.ca (Nicholas Fitzpatrick) wrote: > In article <67497fc6-211b-4df6-b928-5bd6b67e6...@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I don't see how this is a simple request. If it takes you more than one > post to make the request, it isn't a simple request. If you deem the request (along with the way it was described and introduced) to be unreasonable or beyond your level of interest, why bother to reply? > This accident was put to bed over 20 years ago. I can't imagine why there > is any reason to microanalyse the documents at this date. No one > in their right mind has any belief that this wasn't anything other > than an accident. To quote Grace Corrigan on the tenth anniversary, "So they say." Whether wittingly or not, you've managed to take another cheap shot at Grace, as well as other tireless educators and researchers who continue in her stead. JTM The phrase dogs and old bones comes to mind here. Brian  SignatureBrian Gaff - briang1@blueyonder.co.uk Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff' in the display name may be lost. Blind user, so no pictures please! On Jan 22, 11:12 am, nf...@shell1.sentex.ca (Nicholas Fitzpatrick) wrote: > In article > <67497fc6-211b-4df6-b928-5bd6b67e6...@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I don't see how this is a simple request. If it takes you more than one > post to make the request, it isn't a simple request. If you deem the request (along with the way it was described and introduced) to be unreasonable or beyond your level of interest, why bother to reply? > This accident was put to bed over 20 years ago. I can't imagine why there > is any reason to microanalyse the documents at this date. No one > in their right mind has any belief that this wasn't anything other > than an accident. To quote Grace Corrigan on the tenth anniversary, "So they say." Whether wittingly or not, you've managed to take another cheap shot at Grace, as well as other tireless educators and researchers who continue in her stead. JTM > In article > <67497fc6-211b-4df6-b928-5bd6b67e6b31@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > in their right mind has any belief that this wasn't anything other > than an accident. maxon is a known net kook and a troll. You can't reason with him. Please killfile him. Thanks, Jeff SignatureA clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein On Jan 22, 12:51 pm, "Jeff Findley" <jeff.find...@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote: > maxon is a The correct spelling is M-a-x-s-o-n. Proceeding with no technical questions raised, we find again in the Report of the Presidential Commission on the Challenger Accident, at page 30 of Volume I http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1p30.htm the following statements (in the caption for the lower photo): "At left, the two Solid Rocket Boosters thrust away from the fire, crisscrossing to form a 'V.' The right booster - identifiable by its failure plume - now to the left of its counterpart." To begin with, in the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary the relevant entry for "plume" is: 3:b: an elongated and usually open and mobile column or band (as of smoke, exhaust gases, or blowing snow) In past years, I have taken issue with any inflight booster identification approach not based on the left booster's photo ID band. In those years, most defense in support of that part of the objectionable captioned material quoted above (i.e., "identifiable by its failure plume") has come from forum members who post links to delayed-release *enhanced* photos appearing earlier in Volume I, and which occurred prior to the fireball, e.g., http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1p26.htm In response, I have pointed out that under the loupe, this sequence begins with perfect ellipses obviously produced by a computer. While an ellipse is indeed elongated somewhat from a circle, in that location an ellipse cannot be classed objectively as a plume originating from only one of two possible sources. I have stated further that their is nothing in this sequence (particularly just before the fireball) to conclusively prove anything other than a fire. To many, the origin of that fire is not clear. Indeed, several eminent experts (even a NASA director under oath) have put there reputations on the line and stated their belief that the source of that fire was the hydrogen tank and *not* the right solid rocket booster. Another point I have made in the past is that film frames immediately following this sequence show no "plume" at all emanating from the right (northside) solid rocket. To prove this, I have referred to the northside FOIA frame at http://mission51l.com/art/explosion.jpg My Challenger book (published in 2000) goes further. There, within milliseconds after the beginning of the fireball, *southside* FOIA frames show a flare originating on the *left* booster. Perhaps this much is sufficient for my first shot at the doubletalk in the quoted caption, but believe me, I have just begun. After digesting the flak I expect to receive from this post, I'll continue with far less technical but more persuasive doubletalk analysis. I'll watch the ratings for this thread, and If there is any genuine interest at all, I'll ultimately post links to FOIA optics that is not only conclusory, but ironic. (Sometimes one cannot dispense with the preliminaries.) I feel certain you'll be unable to find my latest efforts and discoveries anything short of convincing. They are definitely intriguing, because they prove beyond a shadow of doubt that NASA suppressed photographic evidence that disproves the O-ring theory. For now, please study carefully the captioned material quoted. Till next time, thanks again. (Disregard the attack dogs. As you know, they are the norm for this forum.) JTM > To many, the origin of that fire is not clear. > Indeed, several eminent experts (even a NASA director under oath) have > put there reputations on the line and stated their belief that the > source of that fire was the hydrogen tank and *not* the right solid > rocket booster. Well now this is really interesting. I mean, I would like to know the name of an eminent expert and where he says this, and the name of another eminent expert and his statement, and the name of the NASA director and a quote of his sworn testimony. I mean, this is key info. Is it in the book? If they believe that the source of the fire was the hydrogen tank, I'll bet they have some sound evidence to back it up. Maybe presented along with the sworn statement and so on? SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > > To many, the origin of that fire is not clear. > > Indeed, several eminent experts (even a NASA director under oath) have [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > expert and his statement, and the name of the NASA director and a quote of > his sworn testimony. I mean, this is key info. Is it in the book? Yes, it is in my book. > If they believe that the source of the fire was the hydrogen tank, I'll bet they > have some sound evidence to back it up. Maybe presented along with the > sworn statement and so on? That is indeed correct. Dr. Lucas (at the time a deacon in Huntsville's largest Baptist church) was also the Director of Marshall Space Flight Center and a protege of Wehrner von Braun. You will find an online version of Dr. Lucas' sworn testimony here, but I can't swear that it precisely matches the published report: http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v4part5.htm#4 That *closed* hearing was held on February 13, 1986, at KSC. Please notice that Dr. Lucas was very careful to never identifiy the flared SRB as to right or left. Weeks earlier, Dr. Lucas had immediately told the press that any booster flares he had seen on video tapes were likely an effect, rather than a cause. Dr. Harold Ritchey, a man with three doctorates (one in metallurgy), and a man well-known as the father of the solid rocket booster, was one of the first to dismiss the right SRB as a pre-explosion cause. John Osborne, was Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics at Purdue University. He had been a rocket expert for 35 years. He dismissed the SRBs (for the press) even more explicitly, and perhaps even a few hours earlier. There were several others. If you need more names and more quotes, I can dig out the old newspapers. I hope this is of some help to you. JTM > That is indeed correct. Dr. Lucas (at the time a deacon in Huntsville's largest Baptist church) was also the Director of Marshall Space Flight Center and a protege of Wehrner von Braun. You will find an online version of Dr. Lucas' sworn testimony here, but I can't swear that it precisely matches the published report: http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v4part5.htm#4 > That *closed* hearing was held on February 13, 1986, at KSC. Please notice that Dr. Lucas was very careful to never identifiy the flared SRB as to right or left. > Weeks earlier, Dr. Lucas had immediately told the press that any booster flares he had seen on video tapes were likely an effect, rather than a cause. Dr Lucas met with the Challenger Commission during a discussion that was aimed at including or ruling out any possible factors in the accident. Dr Lucas knew of flaws in the SRB joint as early as 1977, and ordered his managers not to raise the issue of o-ring erosion at the Flight Readiness Review. This was a breach of NASA regulations. Dr Lucas was later removed as the Marshall director. His suggestion that an external tank leak caused the joint failure was self-serving, and never considered other than a highly remote possibility. O-ring erosion was a recurring problem, and hydrogen tank leaks were essentially non-existant. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > Dr Lucas was later removed as the Marshall director. It's my understanding that Dr; Lucas retired, at a proper age for retirement. Actually removed by Ronald Reagan were his fanatical right-wing Acting NASA Administrator, Dr. William Graham, and Reagan's ultra-secretive right-wing chairman of the all-powerful Senior Interagency Group on Space (SIG Space), John Poindexter. JTM >> Dr Lucas was later removed as the Marshall director. > > It's my understanding that Dr; Lucas retired, at a proper age for > retirement. Yeah we both know about that game. The point is that having the top official in charge of the SRB, who covered up faults in the o-rings for years, is not a convincing witness when he goes around saying it was a leak in the main tank. If he ever did. It is not in the Challenger hearing transcript. Lucas offered it to the comittee as a scenario that would have to be ruled out. Feynman, I think, almost started laughing. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > >> Dr Lucas was later removed as the Marshall director. > > > It's my understanding that Dr; Lucas retired, at a proper age for > > retirement. > > Yeah we both know about that game. Speak for yourself, not me. Check into the history of Thiokol's Calvin Wiggins, if you want to understand removal for cause. Google with 'Calvin Wiggins Thiokol.' You'll find NY Times articles on his role, and that of others. Go even further. Check out the Wiggins Report and discover how it was referenced (relative to Challenger) in PC documents buried in the National Archives. When you've finished, you'll understand that years before 51-L, Wiggins accurately predicted a failure mode (sans O- rings) that fits Challenger much better than the Rogers theory. JTM On Jan 22, 3:51 pm, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote: > Proceeding with no technical questions raised, we find again in the > Report of the Presidential Commission on the Challenger Accident, at [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > crisscrossing to form a 'V.' The right booster - identifiable by its > failure plume - now to the left of its counterpart." Let me begin today by thanking everyone who has followed this thread from the beginning. I have introduced top and side views of the exiting boosters; I have mentioned the difference between a plume and a fire; and I have stressed the importance of understanding how misleading the above caption is to readers. For those who may be unaware of my book, my website, and my past technical contributions here, I should add that I have always described the prominent aft appendage seen on one of the exiting boosters as a flare, rather than a plume. I should also mention that since the shuttle flies its first-stage ascent heads-down, prior to the fireball the right booster was to the north. It seems to me a good point of departure to first assume the truth of the Rogers conclusion (i.e., that the right/north booster had a plume prior to the fireball, and that it also *exited* to the north). Without any doublespeak, the caption *should* have read something like this: "At left, the two Solid Rocket Boosters thrust away from the fire, veering to form a 'V.' The right booster - identifiable by its failure plume - still to the north of its counterpart." Notice that I have changed only three words, "crisscrossing" to "veering," "now" to "still," and the last "left" to "north." Given Executive Editor Al Keel's aerospace and budget credentials and no intent to mislead, surely such editorial clarification should have been imperative. Let's look next at what's shown by evidence discovered the long/hard way, via FOIA requests. Ironically, given that evidence and the aerial view at http://mission51l.com/art/fireball.htm the caption should read something like this: "At left, the two Solid Rocket Boosters thrust away from the fire, crisscrossing to form an 'X.' The left booster - identifiable by its aft flare - now to the north of its counterpart." Notice that again I have essentially made only three changes, "V" to "X," "right" to "left," and (consistently again) the last "left" to "north." The ironic part is that the left booster actually is "identifiable" by its "aft flare!" (The "crisscrossing" occurred a few tenths of a second earlier, while still inside the fireball.) The short and hopefully by now most obvious point of all this is that there was absolutely no technical reason for a "David Copperfield" style of duplicity. The exit situation was confusing enough already. It *begged* for clarification. Indeed, technical writers are trained to avoid bad descriptions, even when writing about things with long- term ramifications far less critical to national security. The optical evidence I am still preparing for public presentation proves that the introduction of such doublespeak was a form of insurance, so to speak. It helped get NASA, the Air Force, their prime launch contractor, and Reagan/Bush off the hook for their intentionally negligent 51-L launch. We are still feeling the effects from it. If you understand the caption now, I've succeeded. Thanks for your time on this 22nd Challenger Anniversary. Credible closure is just around the corner. JTM -- <www.mission51l.com> On Jan 28, 6:32 am, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote: > On Jan 22, 3:51 pm, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://mission51l.com/art/fireball.htm My apologies, but that (corrected) link is: http://mission51l.com/art/fireball.jpg JTM On Jan 28, 6:32 am, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote: > On Jan 22, 3:51 pm, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://mission51l.com/art/fireball.htm My apologies, but that (corrected) link is: http://mission51l.com/art/fireball.jpg JTM ++ The remarkable thing about that so-called "fireball" is that there is relatively little fire in it. Most of the orange in the cloud is Nitrogen Tetroxide (N2O4) from the Orbital Maneuvering System (OMS) tanks which ruptured as the aft fuselage was ripped apart by mechanical and aerodynamic forces. Nasty stuff, that N2O4. Its vapor is an orange cloud. ++ Bill Ferreira On Jan 28, 6:02 pm, "William Ferreira" <william- ferre...@houston.rr.com> wrote: > <max...@mission51l.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > ++ Bill Ferreira That's the first time I've ever gotten any agreement from NASA or its contractors about that. Now if we just had your enhanced "belly" flash ... On Jan 28, 6:02 pm, "William Ferreira" <william- ferre...@houston.rr.com> wrote: > ++ The remarkable thing about that so-called "fireball" is that there is > relatively little fire in it. Most of the orange in the cloud is Nitrogen [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > ++ Bill Ferreira Bill, why did the following sequence from your photo team ultimately turn up missing in the Rogers Report? http://www.mission51l.com/1.jpg http://www.mission51l.com/2.jpg http://www.mission51l.com/3.jpg Oh, and I guess I should include here another suppressed frame from E207, the one which led to your above reply: http://mission51l.com/art/explosion.jpg By the way, what was the camera number of the out-of-focus film to which you referred as being needed for enhancement -- to show the "belly" flash from the north? Might that have been E205? JTM On Jan 29, 7:49 am, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote: > Bill, why did the following sequence from your photo team ultimately > turn up missing in the Rogers Report? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://www.mission51l.com/3.jpg Why would the NASA Photo Team (officially charged with getting to the bottom of the worst disaster in space history) have "synchronized" critical fast-action events seen on 48 f/s color frames (*converted to B/W*) with 40 f/s color frames (which ultimately turn up missing)? The answer, my friend, is NOT "blowing in the wind." JTM On Jan 29, 7:49 am, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote: > Bill, why did the following sequence from your photo team ultimately > turn up missing in the Rogers Report? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://www.mission51l.com/3.jpg Why would the NASA Photo Team (officially charged with getting to the bottom of the worst disaster in space history) have "synchronized" critical fast-action events seen on 48 f/s color frames (*converted to B/W*) with 40 f/s color frames (which ultimately turn up missing)? The answer, my friend, is NOT "blowing in the wind." JTM " Maybe (and probably) not, but a great song nonetheless. Onya Max, take it easy Mate, Mark > <max...@mission51l.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Mark Yeah Mark, great song, great lyrics. Like Dylan, I can't rest until I get things out in a way folks will better understand. Thanks much for following along. Give me a few more days. Hang in. JTM > This accident was put to bed over 20 years ago. I can't imagine why > there is any reason to microanalyse the documents at this date. No > one in their right mind has any belief that this wasn't anything other > than an accident. And Maxson has not been in his right mind for many years, if ever. Just killfile the unhappy soul; there's no reason in him. --Damon > > This accident was put to bed over 20 years ago. I can't imagine why > > there is any reason to microanalyse the documents at this date. No [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > And Maxson has not been in his right mind for many years, if ever. > Just killfile the unhappy soul; there's no reason in him. He is undebatable and he is a very disturbed individual. "Nicholas Fitzpatrick" >this wasn't anything other > than an accident. Some rather unassociated factors came together on the Challenger launch. The temp was a full 15 degrees colder than any earlier launch, from 53 degrees, rather balmy, to a cool 38 degrees at launch. Then there is info that some of the joints had been chilled to 8 degrees during the hydrogen loading. There were some stiff o-rings there. Then there are reports that the steel SRB segments were seriously out of round. So the techs figured, what the hell, we'll make them fit. So it is possible that the assembly of the SRBs was singularly crappy. Then there was the wind shear. Personally I don't think some cross-wind while climbing is that big of a deal, but the engineers say it made a difference, and it is true that the cross-winds were the highest of any launch. I was reading some remarks by a witness at the Challenger investigation, maybe it was Dr Lucas, saying that a hole in the SRB would have grown quickly and blown up the main tank..... and I'm thinking well duh that is what happened. Yeesh. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com On Jan 22, 11:21 am, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote: > Many people fear that NASA cannot remain viable much longer without > credible closure of major issues resolved irrationally by the Reagan- > appointed Challenger Commission. I'll bite Why? On Jan 22, 5:19 pm, behlin...@gmail.com wrote: > On Jan 22, 11:21 am, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Why? and who are the many people? I bet the 'many people" group intersects with the bulk of the "we didn't land on the moon" and the "USA uses alien technology" groups The cause of the incident is known and fixed. Case closed. Also what does it matter 20 years from now and also once the shuttle stops flying? Double talk? That is what you are doing. Let it go You are doing no good On Jan 22, 4:24 pm, behlin...@gmail.com wrote: > and who are the many people? > > I bet the 'many people" group intersects with the bulk of the "we > didn't land on the moon" and the "USA uses alien technology" groups Barack has too many supporters for that to be true. > The cause of the incident is known and fixed. Case closed. Also > what does it matter 20 years from now and also once the shuttle stops > flying? The last I heard, there was still no statute of limitations on mass homicide, especially when it involves corporate fraud, government/ contractor conspiracy, and obstruction of justice (just for starters). > Double talk? That is what you are doing. > > Let it go I refused to be an accomplice to mass murder then, and I refuse to be one now. Upon what foundation do your own morals rest? Are you part of the junior Bush's "vision," the one which destroys shuttles and makes no visible progress? JTM On Jan 22, 6:05 pm, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote: Are you part of the > junior Bush's "vision," the one which destroys shuttles and makes no > visible progress? The shuttles need to be retired (as soon as the ISS is completed). They have outlasted their usefulness. They have set back the US space program and now are wasting money On Jan 22, 6:05 pm, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote: > On Jan 22, 4:24 pm, behlin...@gmail.com wrote: > I refused to be an accomplice to mass murder then, and I refuse to be > one now. There wasn't any murder. > On Jan 22, 6:05 pm, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > There wasn't any murder. No bodies, no way to determine cause of death, no conspiratorial cover- up -- just a good "clean kill," eh? You really should take the time to educate yourself before you attack someone who knows -- someone who was there doing his job and trying to convince Senators, attorneys, and Pentagon officials to stop the needless slaughter before it happened. Shirley Green (mentioned in the Times article below) was secretary to George Bush Sr. before her appontment to NASA Headquarters PAO, immediately prior to Mission 51-L: http://tinyurl.com/23j73h BTW, I thought you said you were "out." Maybe I misunderstood. Is that "out like a light," or are you still just a little wet behind the ears? JTM On Jan 22, 10:42 pm, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote: > You really should take the time to educate yourself before you attack > someone who knows That isn't you. >On Jan 22, 10:42 pm, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >That isn't you. Q: How long will it take Maxson to sic his psychotic son on Jim? Place your bets now! OM Signature]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ > On Jan 22, 10:42 pm, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > That isn't you. Just so you know, John Maxson has been trying to convince others of his conspiracy theory for a few years now and has written a self-published book on the subject. However, no one outside of his immediate family has found any of his arguments credible. If you do wish to debate him, please do all of us a favor and take it privately. SignatureGreg Moore SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available! Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html On Jan 23, 6:10 pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_deletet...@greenms.com> wrote: > If you do wish to debate him, please do all of us a favor and take it > privately. Greg, you seem worried about the truth coming out. If you and the people here to whom you refer would spend more time proving what the Presidential Commission and NASA did not and could not prove, instead of waffling and avoiding the issues as Jon Berndt has done, you might be in a more credible position to be handing out avoidance advice. As it is, you're "all" on the ropes; and it's showing in your defensive mudslinging. For example, Jon recently replied with nothing more than a link to the fireball exit of the other booster, rather than pointing out NASA's "right-aft burnthrough plume" on the pre-fireball frame I had asked about. This was a plainly a last-legs dodge, because ironically NASA and the Presidential Commission formally identified *their* right SRB at fireball exit by "its failure plume." I took Jon's link as a concession that he and his resources at JSC could not produce any frames from any NASA camera that show a pre- fireball "plume" on the right SRB during the time frame where I presented my evidence of none (i.e., when Range Safety cameras adjusted for flame would have picked up a 6000 degree plume in that location, *if* one had been there). JTM "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote: > "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Greg, you seem [... snip ...] He's sick, OK! On Jan 23, 9:30 am, behlin...@gmail.com wrote: > On Jan 22, 10:42 pm, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > That isn't you. Let's assume for a moment that you *do* know something about Challenger, anything at all other than sick rhetoric. Let's start with your expert opinion as a photo interpreter. (Other opinions are invited as well, expert or not.) In the frames below, the X-axis and Z-axis locations of what has been rather commonly referred to as Challenger's "belly flash" can be fairly well determined. NASA has placed an arrow there, without an explicit 3-D location for the source. http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1p28.htm http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1p29.htm Based on these photographs and any others you may have access to, approximately where do you place this event on the Y-axis, and why? JTM The belly flash represented in the first set of pictures, second frame (with the arrow) is the Oxygen fire streaming down the right side of the orbiter beginning where the frustum of the right SRB penetrated the LO2 tank. When the second SRB attachment melted through, the SRB rotated around the upper attachment until it hit the right wing, which deflected it outward causing the nose cap (frustum) of the SRB to impact the LO2 tank poking a sizeable hole in the tank near the base. In the second set of pictures, in the seconf picture the complete failure of the LO2 tank is evident in the large flash ahead of the nose of the orbiter. Bill Ferreira In case you are interested, I was on the film and video analysis team at JSC. On Jan 23, 9:30 am, behlin...@gmail.com wrote: > On Jan 22, 10:42 pm, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > That isn't you. Let's assume for a moment that you *do* know something about Challenger, anything at all other than sick rhetoric. Let's start with your expert opinion as a photo interpreter. (Other opinions are invited as well, expert or not.) In the frames below, the X-axis and Z-axis locations of what has been rather commonly referred to as Challenger's "belly flash" can be fairly well determined. NASA has placed an arrow there, without an explicit 3-D location for the source. http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1p28.htm http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1p29.htm Based on these photographs and any others you may have access to, approximately where do you place this event on the Y-axis, and why? JTM On Jan 27, 7:09 pm, "William Ferreira" <william- ferre...@houston.rr.com> wrote: > The belly flash represented in the first set of pictures, second frame (with > the arrow) is the Oxygen fire streaming down the right side of the orbiter [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Bill Ferreira In the photos, however, we are looking directly at the orbiter's left side. Are you saying that we are seeing a "belly" event that occurs only on the +Y side? (Forgive me for using the term "belly" so loosely.) From how many camera angles did you synchronize fireball frames before arriving at your conclusion? > In case you are interested, I was on the film and video analysis team at > JSC. That's good to know. I'm quite surprised to hear from someone on that team after all these years. Thanks for giving me your insight on the matter. JTM Hi group and Maxon, with regards to the general design of the SRB's, is it true that each segment (solid fuel ends) at the field joint, is not in contact with each other when finally put together? In otherwords, there is a gap that always allows hot gasses to the joint? Why is that? Surely when the segments are assembled NASA they would/should use some kind of ablative(spongee ) washer between the seg's and thereby not expose the joint and "O" ring area to any hot gasses until burnout. Flame me as you's will (pardon the pun) but i've done my research and am confused about that one. Please someone explain th reason why. (I know there will be a good reason, I just wish to know what it is) By the way, i'm no fuckwit when it comes to solid fuel motors. I've made some myself (small of course) and do understand what 'blow by' means. But hell! it does seem crazy to allow any outer wall to be exposed to combustion gasses at ignition and onwards. I would have thought only at burn out, that the seals and walls of the SRB's would be exposed to that kind of heat and then who cares, there's no fuel left anyway and the duration would be short. Correct me please, if i'm way out here. (I really want to know) Mark (mad scientist from Australia) I will always love that big framed poster of Columbia on my wall, piggybacked on the twice (or three times) as big, N905NA plane (NASA 905 on it's tail), coming in to land on what was one of those transfer missions in the eighties.. love it!!! Mark from Australia . On Jan 27, 7:09 pm, "William Ferreira" <william- ferre...@houston.rr.com> wrote: > The belly flash represented in the first set of pictures, second frame > (with [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Bill Ferreira In the photos, however, we are looking directly at the orbiter's left side. Are you saying that we are seeing a "belly" event that occurs only on the +Y side? (Forgive me for using the term "belly" so loosely.) From how many camera angles did you synchronize fireball frames before arriving at your conclusion? > In case you are interested, I was on the film and video analysis team at > JSC. That's good to know. I'm quite surprised to hear from someone on that team after all these years. Thanks for giving me your insight on the matter. JTM > Hi group and Maxon, Hi Mark. It's "Maxson," however. You know, son of Max, like all those other good old English names found in Australia. Your question deserves a detailed and accurate answer. I'm sure others here (perhaps more qualified) will jump on it. Your message gives me a good opportunity to post a couple of links for William Ferreira (whose reply you included below) > On Jan 27, 7:09 pm, "William Ferreira" <william- > > ferre...@houston.rr.com> wrote: > > The belly flash represented in the first set of pictures, second frame > > (with > > the arrow) is the Oxygen fire streaming down the right side of the orbiter The right side? Are you sure? There appears to be as much or more "streaming" on the left (-Y) side, as well as in the center, as seen here: http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3n52b.htm (Figure 77) > > beginning where the frustum of the right SRB penetrated the LO2 tank. Where do you see the "belly flash?" Here's an earlier frame: http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3n51b.htm (Figure 75) I can't spot any reference to it on the associated CAD drawing to the right. JTM Sorry for spelling your name wrong Max, (Maxson) but you didn't supply an answer to the main question. Is it true that the main segments have a clearance between once assembled and rely on (aft and forward) inhibiter surfaces? It's just a simple question. I'm not having a shot at you, I just wonder, thats all. I have seen cross section diagrams of the old and the new field joints and I cant believe that the combustion gasses are able to attack that region from the first second until the 120th sec. Only relying on "O" rings and a snug Tang and Clevis arrangment. Is this true or not? Mark On Jan 28, 10:56 am, "Mark Kelepouris" <markkel...@bigpond.com> wrote: > Hi group and Maxon, Hi Mark. It's "Maxson," however. You know, son of Max, like all those other good old English names found in Australia. Your question deserves a detailed and accurate answer. I'm sure others here (perhaps more qualified) will jump on it. Your message gives me a good opportunity to post a couple of links for William Ferreira (whose reply you included below) > On Jan 27, 7:09 pm, "William Ferreira" <william- > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > the arrow) is the Oxygen fire streaming down the right side of the > > orbiter The right side? Are you sure? There appears to be as much or more "streaming" on the left (-Y) side, as well as in the center, as seen here: http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3n52b.htm (Figure 77) > > beginning where the frustum of the right SRB penetrated the LO2 tank. Where do you see the "belly flash?" Here's an earlier frame: http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3n51b.htm (Figure 75) I can't spot any reference to it on the associated CAD drawing to the right. JTM On Jan 28, 10:56 am, "Mark Kelepouris" <markkel...@bigpond.com> wrote: > Hi group and Maxon, Hi Mark. It's "Maxson," however. You know, son of Max, like all those other good old English names found in Australia. Your question deserves a detailed and accurate answer. I'm sure others here (perhaps more qualified) will jump on it. Your message gives me a good opportunity to post a couple of links for William Ferreira (whose reply you included below) > On Jan 27, 7:09 pm, "William Ferreira" <william- > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > the arrow) is the Oxygen fire streaming down the right side of the > > orbiter The right side? Are you sure? There appears to be as much or more "streaming" on the left (-Y) side, as well as in the center, as seen here: http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3n52b.htm (Figure 77) > > beginning where the frustum of the right SRB penetrated the LO2 tank. ++Some of the streaming to the left is Oxygen vapor and fire being affected by the sonic shock wave off the ET nose cap and nose of the orbiter. Where do you see the "belly flash?" Here's an earlier frame: http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3n51b.htm (Figure 75) I can't spot any reference to it on the associated CAD drawing to the right. JTM ++ In that photo, you are seeing Hydrogen streaming from a 4 inch hole made by the hot gas leak from the right SRB in the side of the ET. The arrows are pointing to the circular vapor cloud forming around the base of the ET when the aft dome weld on the Hydrogen tank shattered. That happened when the SRB broke free of the aft mounts. The next frame of the referenced video shows even more of the 30+ foot diameter column of LH2 exiting the bottom of the tank. ++ The belly flash I was referring to was your first photo referenced here: http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1p28.htm ++ Bill Ferreira On Jan 28, 5:54 pm, "William Ferreira" <william- ferre...@houston.rr.com> wrote: > <max...@mission51l.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > ++ Bill Ferreira I thought from your first message that we were in complete agreement about the event we were discussing, because you specified the second frame: "The belly flash represented in the first set of pictures, second frame (with the arrow) is the Oxygen fire streaming down the right side of the orbiter" Because of the vehicle's roll orientation at the time, the event as you describe it should have been seen first (and most prominently) from the north. The frames I've synched show that not to be the case. Boresight video picked it up first (and most brightly) from the south. It's clear to me that it originated on the south side, along with the forward LOX flash, JTM > Hi group and Maxon, with regards to the general design of the SRB's, is it > true that each segment (solid fuel ends) at the field joint, is not in [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Mark (mad scientist from Australia) Hi Mark. I'm back again, this time with a bit to add for your topic. After the Report of the Presidential Commission on the Challenger Accident was released, Chief Astronaut John Young testified before the House Committee with NASA oversight. He told the committee that prior to the first space shuttle flight, he and his pilot Bob Crippen were sent to Thiokol in Utah, about concerns such as you raise again now. At that time, Young testified, Thiokol officials told the commander and his pilot that even metal-to-metal, with *no* O-rings in the joints, there would be no leaks between segments. They were that confident in their design. Young and Crippen left Utah with that same sense of confidence, and 24 successful shuttle missions followed. JTM G'Day again Max, I understand what you are saying but you still haven't answered the question though. I'd really like to know if when the segments delivered from Morton Thiokol, that a "gap" exists between the segments when finally put together as a SRB?? Mark On Jan 28, 10:56 am, "Mark Kelepouris" <markkel...@bigpond.com> wrote: > Hi group and Maxon, with regards to the general design of the SRB's, is it > true that each segment (solid fuel ends) at the field joint, is not in [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Mark (mad scientist from Australia) Hi Mark. I'm back again, this time with a bit to add for your topic. After the Report of the Presidential Commission on the Challenger Accident was released, Chief Astronaut John Young testified before the House Committee with NASA oversight. He told the committee that prior to the first space shuttle flight, he and his pilot Bob Crippen were sent to Thiokol in Utah, about concerns such as you raise again now. At that time, Young testified, Thiokol officials told the commander and his pilot that even metal-to-metal, with *no* O-rings in the joints, there would be no leaks between segments. They were that confident in their design. Young and Crippen left Utah with that same sense of confidence, and 24 successful shuttle missions followed. JTM > G'Day again Max, > I understand what you are saying but you still haven't answered the question > though. I'd really like to know if when the segments delivered from Morton > Thiokol, that a "gap" exists between the segments when finally put together > as a SRB?? My professional background was not in solid rocket development, although I've spoken several times with Dr. Harold Ritchey and other engineers from Thiokol. Therefore, as I said in my first reply, you may be better off waiting for others to answer your question. Like yourself, I've studied the mating diagrams extensively. I know of no gap in the case metal between segments, but obviously the segments have to be mated. What I've found is that ablative material on each segment to be mated comes into hard contact, after all the circumferential bolts have been adequately torqued. JTM > G'Day again Max, > I understand what you are saying but you still haven't answered the [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > JTM Sorry about the top posting, group, can anyone verify that once all four sections are in the hands of NASA that they are butted up together and there remains a gap between them? or is a binder used to make it one solid grain? Mark On Jan 27, 7:09 pm, "William Ferreira" <william- ferre...@houston.rr.com> wrote: > The belly flash represented in the first set of pictures, second frame > (with [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Bill Ferreira In the photos, however, we are looking directly at the orbiter's left side. Are you saying that we are seeing a "belly" event that occurs only on the +Y side? (Forgive me for using the term "belly" so loosely.) ++Yes. Most of the flash you see is reflection of the fire on the orbiter's undeside. From how many camera angles did you synchronize fireball frames before arriving at your conclusion? ++We synchronized all of the film and video, including an out of focus film showing the right side of the orbiter. With a little image enhancement, it is obvious where the flame is coming from. > In case you are interested, I was on the film and video analysis team at > JSC. That's good to know. I'm quite surprised to hear from someone on that team after all these years. Thanks for giving me your insight on the matter. JTM ++ You are most welcome. ++ Bill Ferreira On Jan 28, 5:43 pm, "William Ferreira" <william- ferre...@houston.rr.com> wrote: > <max...@mission51l.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > ++Yes. Most of the flash you see is reflection of the fire on the orbiter's > undeside. Apparently there were those at JSC with other ideas about this, judging from the CAD drawing in my original link, and from the CAD drawings shown here: http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3n53.htm > From how many camera angles did you synchronize fireball frames before > arriving at your conclusion? > > ++We synchronized all of the film and video, including an out of focus film > showing the right side of the orbiter. With a little image enhancement, it > is obvious where the flame is coming from. Your proof would require NASA enhancement again, as in the "15 Second Clip?" How do you explain this frame, at t+73.30 seconds? http://mission51l.com/art/E203_13_17.jpg > > In case you are interested, I was on the film and video analysis team at > > JSC. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > ++ You are most welcome. > ++ Bill Ferreira >++ You are most welcome. ...If you're going to respond to this senile old fuckwit of a troll, do it in Killfile Hell where the rest of us won't have to put up with it again. <PLONK> ...Fucktards. Can't shoot'em, so we'll just killfile'em and let God/Yahweh/Roddenberry sort'em out. OM Signature]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ On Jan 28, 5:43 pm, "William Ferreira" <william- ferre...@houston.rr.com> wrote: > ++We synchronized all of the film and video, including an out of focus film > showing the right side of the orbiter. With a little image enhancement, it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > ++ Bill Ferreira Hi Bill, Why have you been making yourself so scarce since my web strips went up? We could use some good solid answers from the Photo Team. (Don't worry about Mosley, his henchmen, and their insults. This is more important than all that.) JTM >In case you are interested, I was on the film and video analysis team at >JSC. ...Bill, Maxson is a known psychotic troll. Every single one of his bullshit claims have been debunked. Repeatedly. Just killfile the senile old fuckwit and be done with him. Thanks! OM Signature]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ sadly nasa has created much of its own grief, with apollo one, challenger and columbia failures and their attempt to provide a clean no suffering kill for the crews. anytime you appear to cover something up you widen and spread gossip, which then takes on a life of its own........ On Jan 22, 5:25 pm, bob haller safety advocate <hall...@aol.com> wrote: > 1. sadly nasa has created much of its own grief, with apollo one, > challenger and columbia failures and their attempt to provide a clean > no suffering kill for the crews. > > 2. anytime you appear to cover something up you widen and spread gossip, > which then takes on a life of its own........ 1. "attempt to provide a clean no suffering kill" what kind of an asinine comment is that? Russia has had its problems. How many test pilots have been killed? 2. What coverup? On Jan 22, 5:57�pm, behlin...@gmail.com wrote: > On Jan 22, 5:25 pm, bob haller safety advocate <hall...@aol.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > 2. �What coverup? On Jan 22, 5:57�pm, behlin...@gmail.com wrote: > On Jan 22, 5:25 pm, bob haller safety advocate <hall...@aol.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > 2. �What coverup? nasa attempts to cover up exactly how astronauts die. just ask scott grissom about cover ups. nasa claimed all crew died instantly in challenger later leak indicates some crew members managed to turn on emergency air. so they didnt die at break up. its very possible some of the columbia crew didnt die till they recached lower levels. note both challenger and columbia died because of carelesness On Jan 22, 5:57?pm, behlin...@gmail.com wrote: > On Jan 22, 5:25 pm, bob haller safety advocate <hall...@aol.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > 2. ?What coverup? nasa attempts to cover up exactly how astronauts die. just ask scott grissom about cover ups. nasa claimed all crew died instantly in challenger later leak indicates some crew members managed to turn on emergency air. so they didnt die at break up. its very possible some of the columbia crew didnt die till they recached lower levels. note both challenger and columbia died because of carelesness <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< What you call cover-up is merely the way many things like this work. You start with an assumption, learn more information and correct your assumption. NASA claimed the crew died instantly within days of the accident. Even then, there was some question. Once the PEAPSs were discovered, they corrected their original claim. No one denies that it is in fact VERY likely that the crew survived, albeit in all likelihood unconscious, until impact. But unlike certain people, most people don't dwell on it. SignatureGreg Moore SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available! Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html > On Jan 22, 5:57?pm, behlin...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Jan 22, 5:25 pm, bob haller safety advocate <hall...@aol.com> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > But unlike certain people, most people don't dwell on it. I've wondered if an astronaut in the airlock, and space suit, strapped in,...would have survived reentry. Parachuted safely with scorched suit. What was the airlock like when it hit the ground? On Jan 22, 4:19 pm, behlin...@gmail.com wrote: > On Jan 22, 11:21 am, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Why? Competition begets credibility. Credibility begets funding. Look-the-other-way sole-source funding does not beget credibility. JTM On Jan 22, 5:51 pm, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote: > Competition begets credibility. Credibility begets funding. What competition? Just another internet kook I am out > On Jan 22, 11:21 am, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Why? Don't feed the trool! Jeff SignatureA clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein >Don't feed the trool! ...I've tried the polite approach this time as requested. We'll see if this works, but to be honest I'm not going to hold my breath. Someone who knows Jim confided that he can be "a real Herbert" when it comes to getting him to quit trying to hammer his view of things across. Still, I did make the polite request that he killfile the likes of CT, ANY of the Maxson trash, ElfNazi, Guthball, Chumpko & McCall, and Ian Parker, and devote his posting time to *sharing* knowledge instead of beating trolls over their heads with it. OM Signature]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ >>Don't feed the trool! > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Parker, and devote his posting time to *sharing* knowledge instead of > beating trolls over their heads with it. The Maxsons are the worst, IMHO. Anyone that doesn't quickly stop replying to all of the Maxsons deserves to be put into killfile hell themselves. Jeff SignatureA clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein >> Don't feed the trool! > > ...I've tried the polite approach this time as requested. We'll see if > this works, but to be honest I'm not going to hold my breath. Someone > who knows Jim confided that he can be "a real Herbert" when it comes > to getting him to quit trying to hammer his view of things across. You mean another *George Herbert*? Heaven forbid. > Still, I did make the polite request that he killfile the likes of CT, > ANY of the Maxson trash, ElfNazi, Guthball, Chumpko & McCall, and Ian > Parker, and devote his posting time to *sharing* knowledge instead of > beating trolls over their heads with it. Quoting the vice president of the Unity States A'murka : Go f.ck yourself. :>Don't feed the trool! : [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] :Parker, and devote his posting time to *sharing* knowledge instead of :beating trolls over their heads with it. But who cares about YOUR list? Hint: There is no "Chumpko & McCall". Signature"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong." -- Thomas Jefferson > :> Don't feed the trool! > : [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Hint: There is no "Chumpko & McCall". But there -is- a Chumpko ! > > :> Don't feed the trool! > > : [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > But there -is- a Chumpko ! Who is laughing at you Scott. > > > :> Don't feed the trool! > > > : [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Who is laughing at you Scott. Well, at least he knows his name. > > > > :> Don't feed the trool! > > > > : [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Well, at least he knows his name. As does my dog... Hi John, Glad to see that you are alive and doing well. Closure has to do with you, not Challenger, ... I wish you had been able to stop the launch. Your efforts didn't go un-noticed. ... Ron Paul in 08! ;-) SignatureCraig Fink Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ WeBeGood@GMail.Com -- > Over the years, this forum has seen many negative posts about Christa > McAuliffe and her mother. Some of them (labeled "jokes") have been [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > JTM > Hi John, > > Glad to see that you are alive and doing well. Closure has to do with you, > not Challenger, ... Translation: "Give up, Maxson. NASA will never publically (or even privately) respond directly, honestly, and openly (with the data in its possession) to your prelaunch warnings, or to the issues you and your son raised post-launch about visual evidence never addressed. Nobody on a space-program payroll will either." My Response: No credible evidence, no credible closure. I will never give up. Just answer the questions I raise honestly, Craig. Remember, "I don't know" is an acceptable answer. JTM >> Hi John, >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > give up. Just answer the questions I raise honestly, Craig. Remember, > "I don't know" is an acceptable answer. Then you seek no closure for yourself, and this subject will continue to be all consuming to you. You can only seek closure for yourself not others, they will think what they want, just like you will. The people who are in the group called NASA have, for the most part, already found closure and moved on in their lives. I have no other answers to your questions, if that's unacceptable to you, then so be it. > You can only seek closure for yourself not others, Who are you trying to convince of that, yourself? > The people who are in the group called NASA have, for the most part, already > found closure and moved on in their lives. The "group" called NASA? Or the civilian space agency called NASA? "For the most part?" How can you be the judge of that? "Found closure?" In what respect? "Can't change things, so I'll just keep working?" "Moved on in their lives?" Who do you know who hasn't? Time marches on. It doesn't stand still for *anyone*. Time is no respector of persons. NASA has become Lockheed and its lobbyists. It's shameful. I'm proud of the progress I've made in my life since Mission 51-L, particularly with regard to getting the truth out about the cover-up. I can't say the same about the progress of a certain "group" you apparently refer to within NASA. You have said you were in the "back room" at JSC on 1/28/86, but since you can't answer any of my questions, maybe someone else will choose to do so. Here's another one, from launch day broadcast video (CBS). The time is 73.30 seconds. Does anyone spot what appears to be a larger, circular, LH2/LOX flash at the left aft-attach (i.e., larger than the circular LOX flash at the left forward-attach)? http://mission51l.com/CBS_30.jpg If so, where do you place the aft flash in the -Y (south) direction? Is much or most of it between the left SRB and the ROTI camera? How about the forward flash? How much of that is between the camera and the nose of the left SRB, in your opinion? http://mission51l.com/art/E203_13_17.jpg JTM >> You can only seek closure for yourself not others, > > Who are you trying to convince of that, yourself? Yes, Closure is a personal thing, it's just the way it is. Your subject line looked like you were seeking some sort of closure. Well, maybe not. > You have said you were in the "back room" at JSC on 1/28/86 Yes, I was, and Closure for me occurred when Barbara Morgan stepped safely onto the Runway last year. NASA had finally finished some unfinished business. :-) SignatureCraig Fink Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ WeBeGood@GMail.Com > max...@mission51l.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Yes, Closure is a personal thing, it's just the way it is. Your subject line > looked like you were seeking some sort of closure. Well, maybe not. I'll give you just one example of someone else who would still like to see credible closure at NASA from my efforts -- Grace Corrigan. Many others who supported my efforts have passed on -- NASA pilot Stan Nelson for one. I don't know if Bruce Jarvis is still alive, but a few days after they were handed him in a ceremony at Washington, Bruce gave me his gold- embossed, hardbound copies of the five volumes in the Rogers Report. He couldn't stand to have them in his home. "It's always darkest before the dawn," he told me, when I once got a bit discouraged. "It will take a long time for the truth to come out," he said. Later I returned the volumes for another of Bruce's sons, who lived in Florida. Bruce and his wife offered to fly to Des Moines to speak on my behalf. JTM >> max...@mission51l.com wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > others who supported my efforts have passed on -- NASA pilot Stan > Nelson for one. Grace Corrigan... http://www.google.com/search?q=grace+corrigan ...Grace found Closure, she is doing many positive things for the Challenger Center... http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/15/cnn25.grace.corrigan/index.html ...Christa McAuliffe's father never did... http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/page1/96/01/28/families.html ...it seems most have.... Did you contribute anything to the Challenger Center? SignatureCraig Fink Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ WeBeGood@GMail.Com > Grace Corrigan... The anguish still shows in Grace's voice, in her face, in her book, and in her relentless striving to fullfill her daughter's goal -- space education from space. She is an admirable woman, and a very strong one. Her amazing and enduring strength also shows up -- in her face, in her voice, and in her relentlessness. > Did you contribute anything to the Challenger Center? I won't stoop to your level to answer. Ask Grace. JTM >> Grace Corrigan... http://www.arisleyschool.org/GraceCorriganPt1.mov http://www.arisleyschool.org/Gracequestions.mov > The anguish still shows in Grace's voice, in her face, in her book, > and in her relentless striving to fullfill her daughter's goal -- [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I won't stoop to your level to answer. Ask Grace. Did you contribute anything to the Challenger Center? I think she still is contributing. > ...Christa McAuliffe's father never did... And Grace never blamed him for that -- it hurt him bad, very bad. He wanted desperately to know the truth, even though he already knew it in his heart. Unlike the "group" you laud, neither were the type to profit from such a tragedy. JTM http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/15/cnn25.grace.corrigan/index.html > And Grace never blamed him for that -- it hurt him bad, very bad. He > wanted desperately to know the truth, even though he already knew it > in his heart. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message