Castglance Complete (51-L)

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

John Maxson - 01 Jan 2004 15:54 GMT

In order to verify that the Castglance video makes no reference to a
"possible RTLS," one needs to review the entire soundtrack. Even at the
end of that tape, the Castglance crew was still operating with the
complete understanding that a RTLS was actually "in progress."

During the five-minute interval from t+6 to t+11 minutes (on the
Castglance video), one can hear a full discussion/description of exactly
how and when the Castglance crew was expecting the RTLS to be executed.

John Maxson - www.mission51l.com

Reply to this Message

Charleston - 01 Jan 2004 21:50 GMT

> In order to verify that the Castglance video makes no reference to a
> "possible RTLS," one needs to review the entire soundtrack.

I have watched and listened carefully to most of the Castglance videos. You
are right. I don't ever hear anybody say anything about a "possible RTLS"
on Castglance so far. I am looking again at variations between the videos.
The Castglance crew does discuss and speculate where the External Tank (ET)
is going to impact the water given that the SRBs came off a minute early. I
don't think the orbiter/ET would have continued downrange under the thrust
of just the SSMEs, OMS, and aft RCS. I say this because of the mass of the
stack versus the value of the propulsion forces that would remain on the
orbiter after the time of SRB "separation" given the aerodynamic forces at
that time in the ascent.

> Even at the
> end of that tape, the Castglance crew was still operating with the
> complete understanding that a RTLS was actually "in progress."

True.

> During the five-minute interval from t+6 to t+11 minutes (on the
> Castglance video), one can hear a full discussion/description of exactly
> how and when the Castglance crew was expecting the RTLS to be executed.

True and points well taken. I am trying to fully understand and put in
context the discussion between the Starcast video (including all radio
discussion in the background) and Castglance. That is where I have some
real concerns. It is obvious to me now that the Starcast video has been
deliberately altered during the subsequent search and rescue actions. If
this group is really serious about understanding what happened after the
accident, I am prepared to help by putting up all audio of the Castglance
and Starcast videos on my website. As you know, much of the video is not
needed as the cameras are pointed at clouds and empty sky for a vast
majority of the time. I have captioned the first four minutes or so of
Starcast (starting at the beginning of the video). I'll finish it through
"possible RTLS". After that, I want to digitize just the audio, but in its
entirety. Then anybody here can contribute their own thoughts as to what is
said irrespective of my own opinion. If we can reach a consensus, I'll then
post an annotated copy of the audio. Fair enough everybody?

Signature

Daniel
http://www.challengerdisaster.info
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC

Reply to this Message

John Maxson - 02 Jan 2004 00:27 GMT

> I have watched and listened carefully to most of the Castglance videos. You
> are right. I don't ever hear anybody say anything about a "possible RTLS"
> on Castglance so far. I am looking again at variations between the videos.

Apparently you have obtained additional Castglance videos then.

> The Castglance crew does discuss and speculate where the External Tank (ET)
> is going to impact the water given that the SRBs came off a minute early. I
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> orbiter after the time of SRB "separation" given the aerodynamic forces at
> that time in the ascent.

This sounds to me as if you're coming into agreement with the Castglance
context which I used for "failed RTLS."

> I am trying to fully understand and put in context the discussion between
> the Starcast video (including all radio discussion in the background) and
> Castglance.

Still trying, I might add. This context will be your own then.

> It is obvious to me now that the Starcast video has been
> deliberately altered during the subsequent search and rescue actions.

That would be airborne alteration, I gather. Maybe that won't be so
obvious to everyone as it is to you, especially without the video cues.

> If this group is really serious about understanding what happened after the
> accident, I am prepared to help by putting up all audio of the Castglance
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> said irrespective of my own opinion. If we can reach a consensus, I'll then
> post an annotated copy of the audio. Fair enough everybody?

Without event times, your intended audience probably won't try to reach
a consensus about who's saying what, and when. That will help you and
Balettie continue to muddy issues which should instead be cleared up.

Reply to this Message

Charleston - 02 Jan 2004 02:25 GMT

> > I have watched and listened carefully to most of the Castglance videos. You
> > are right. I don't ever hear anybody say anything about a "possible RTLS"
> > on Castglance so far. I am looking again at variations between the videos.
>
> Apparently you have obtained additional Castglance videos then.

> > The Castglance crew does discuss and speculate where the External Tank (ET)
> > is going to impact the water given that the SRBs came off a minute early. I
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> > orbiter after the time of SRB "separation" given the aerodynamic forces at
> > that time in the ascent.

> This sounds to me as if you're coming into agreement with the Castglance
> context which I used for "failed RTLS."

I'll speak for myself on the issue.

> > I am trying to fully understand and put in context the discussion between
> > the Starcast video (including all radio discussion in the background) and
> > Castglance.
>
> Still trying, I might add. This context will be your own then.

It may be other too.

> > It is obvious to me now that the Starcast video has been
> > deliberately altered during the subsequent search and rescue actions.
>
> That would be airborne alteration, I gather. Maybe that won't be so
> obvious to everyone as it is to you, especially without the video cues.

I believe the editing was done on the ground and afterwards. I am pretty
sure of that as the crew probably did not have the equipment on board to do
what I can see has been done nor would they have any motive nor time to do
so.

> > If this group is really serious about understanding what happened after the
> > accident, I am prepared to help by putting up all audio of the Castglance
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> a consensus about who's saying what, and when. That will help you and
> Balettie continue to muddy issues which should instead be cleared up.

You can not get accurate event times on some of the video anyways, but at
least you can tell what happened if you have video. No more mud. There has
been enough mud slung here, hence my website. I do not correspond routinely
with anyone on this group contrary to what you and perhaps others may think.
I do know what goes on among regulars here and that has been pretty
transparent of late. I could use the windows movie format and real movie
formats to provide the visual cues that the Starcast videotape has been
altered. I suspect people will believe what they want of the alterations
with some accusing me of doing them, LI. Nevertheless, I am not inclined to
limit further discussion of Starcast and Castglance to sci.space* newsgroups
due to the pathetic, yes that is the word, attempt to discredit my research
and by extension NASA's own engineering efforts regarding crew escape
systems.

Signature

Daniel
http://www.challengerdisaster.info
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC

Reply to this Message

John Maxson - 02 Jan 2004 14:34 GMT

>>>I have watched and listened carefully to most of the Castglance videos.

On the other hand, you have obviously furnished me with only one video
which can be attributed to Castglance.

>>>You are right. I don't ever hear anybody say anything about a
>>>"possible RTLS" on Castglance so far. I am looking again at
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>>>Tank (ET) is going to impact the water given that the SRBs came off
>>>a minute early.

The Castglance crew discusses much more than that about the RTLS.

>>>I don't think the orbiter/ET would have continued downrange
>>>under the thrust of just the SSMEs, OMS, and aft RCS. I say this
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>>This sounds to me as if you're coming into agreement with the Castglance
>>context which I used for "failed RTLS."

By that I mean the Castglance-recorded/described/discussed "RTLS in
progress," as opposed to your (thus far) contextually unsupported and
insufficiently explained attempt to force down my throat a "possible
RTLS," as reported to 'Peapod One' (and as heard by Starcast).

> I'll speak for myself on the issue.

You already have, of course. Within the past few days, you alleged:

"When I got to the Starcast video, bang, you had failed to
provide the context of what was said onboard the Castglance
airborne platform. I had not played the Starcast video in
years. I was dismayed, ..."

In the meantime, you have produced no "real evidence" to refute a
"failed RTLS," as mentioned within the total context provided by The
Betrayal of Mission 51-L (part of which is "RTLS in progress"). You
continued later in the above with:

"... I have disavowed the position I took in defending you
regarding this "failed RTLS" of yours pending some real
evidence that it occurred."

I suggest that you and Balettie produce some "real evidence" that it did
not occur. My patience is wearing a little thin with you two.

>>Without event times, your intended audience probably won't try to reach
>>a consensus about who's saying what, and when. That will help you and
>>Balettie continue to muddy issues which should instead be cleared up.
> You can not get accurate event times on some of the video anyways, but at
> least you can tell what happened if you have video. No more mud.

Meanwhile, you provide only more mud.

Reply to this Message

Ned Pike - 05 Jan 2004 12:06 GMT

>>>> I have watched and listened carefully to most of the Castglance
>>>> videos.
[quoted text clipped - 58 lines]
>
> Meanwhile, you provide only more mud.

What is the sound of two sock puppets debating?

Reply to this Message

Charleston - 05 Jan 2004 13:41 GMT

> What is the sound of two sock puppets debating?

It's pretty loud. To get the exact decibel level on the A weighted scale,
ask JerOMe. He is the sock master.

Signature

Daniel
http://www.challengerdisaster.info
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC

Reply to this Message

Charleston - 05 Jan 2004 13:54 GMT

> > "John Maxson" <maxson@iowatelecom.net> wrote in message

> >>>I have watched and listened carefully to most of the Castglance videos.
>
> On the other hand, you have obviously furnished me with only one video
> which can be attributed to Castglance.

One of the two Castglance narrow field of views is of the damaged SRB and
the other one is of the undamaged SRB.

> >>Apparently you have obtained additional Castglance videos then.

Apparently?

> By that I mean the Castglance-recorded/described/discussed "RTLS in
> progress," as opposed to your (thus far) contextually unsupported and
> insufficiently explained attempt to force down my throat a "possible
> RTLS," as reported to 'Peapod One' (and as heard by Starcast).

You can hear the Castglance crew on Starcast on more than one occasion.
Both crews can hear Variety.

> Within the past few days, you alleged:
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Betrayal of Mission 51-L (part of which is "RTLS in progress"). You
> continued later in the above with:

You failed to provide a lot of context... ...in your book.

> "... I have disavowed the position I took in defending you
> regarding this "failed RTLS" of yours pending some real
> evidence that it occurred."
>
> I suggest that you and Balettie produce some "real evidence" that it did
> not occur. My patience is wearing a little thin with you two.

Suggest whatever you want.

Signature

Daniel
http://www.challengerdisaster.info
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC

Reply to this Message

John Maxson - 05 Jan 2004 16:55 GMT

> You failed to provide a lot of context... ...in your book.

If you live to be as old as Methuselah, you will nevertheless be unable
to provide the first-hand context found in The Betrayal of Mission 51-L.
You may call that well-illustrated but condensed book for the
layperson a monograph (or a textbook) if you like; others have. You
may also wish to take note of its copyright and publishing year.
Regardless, it was definitely a pioneering work, both in topic and
context. If you now prefer Challenger's Shadow, you've been exceedingly
ambivalent about it.

I was there in November 1985, warning the NASA Inspector General; I was
there in December 1985, warning Congress and the Pentagon; and I was
both there and at the VLS site in January 1986, warning Congress, the
Air Force, and NASA (among many others in positions of authority).

John Maxson - www.mission51l.com

Reply to this Message

John Maxson - 05 Jan 2004 17:06 GMT

> One of the two Castglance narrow field of views is of the damaged SRB and
> the other one is of the undamaged SRB.

> You can hear the Castglance crew on Starcast on more than one occasion.
> Both crews can hear Variety.

You're long on unsupported claims here, and short on completeness at
your web site.

Reply to this Message

John Maxson - 06 Jan 2004 03:00 GMT

>>On the other hand, you have obviously furnished me with only one video
>>which can be attributed to Castglance.
>
> One of the two Castglance narrow field of views is of the damaged SRB and
> the other one is of the undamaged SRB.

Referring to videos not yet available on your website, you earlier
wrote: "You have those complete videos--"all".

I'm not aware that I've ever had any "narrow field of view" video from
Castglance. Therefore, perhaps any such video has been (or will be) of
no help to you in showing additional "possible RTLS" context.

It looks as though you're trying to change this subject and cloud an old
one. (I have no way of knowing whether the fields of view are too
narrow and/or the zoom is too poor to prove a fireball crossing.)

Reply to this Message

Charleston - 29 Jan 2004 07:24 GMT

> On the other hand, you have obviously furnished me with only one video
> which can be attributed to Castglance.

Well that's more credit than you give me in your book.

Reply to this Message

john_thomas_maxson - 31 Jan 2004 01:17 GMT

> > On the other hand, you have obviously furnished me with only one video
> > which can be attributed to Castglance.
>
> Well that's more credit than you give me in your book.

Get your glasses checked; libel won't serve you very well.

People who read and post here have the book; others may wish to get it.

Reply to this Message

Space Forum / Shuttle / January 2004

Castglance Complete (51-L)