 |
 | 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 2004Three Questions for Challenger's 18th Anniversary
In this photograph from the north, which post-explosion SRB contrail appears to have the greater altitude? http://rjsullivan.com/chllngr/Five.html What light does this photo shed on Jon Berndt's repeated and now formalized allegations as to the SRBs' relative exit-trajectories? In conjunction with the Castglance video, does the sequence of photos available at Sullivan strengthen or weaken a conclusion that the north-exiting SRB traveled further downrange under more adverse conditions, hence proving that it could not have been the SRB with the lower thrust? John Maxson - www.mission51l.com > In this photograph from the north, which post-explosion SRB contrail > appears to have the greater altitude? > > http://rjsullivan.com/chllngr/Five.html Wow John, the SRBs just hit each other!!! So, the answer to your first question is neither, because they're at the same altitude. ;-( Craig Fink ;-( > > In this photograph from the north, which post-explosion SRB contrail > > appears to have the greater altitude? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Wow John, the SRBs just hit each other!!! So, the answer to your first > question is neither, because they're at the same altitude. No doubt you'd also have us believe that bats love sunlight. Is this a 'space' science-group or a 'flat-earth' group? Didn't NASA's tracking cameras convince you that the higher contrail in this photo has to be the one nearer to the Sullivan camera at fireball exit? I suspect that one or more of the other Sullivan photos are giving you a problem with one or both of my other two questions. Three questions.....ok Is a photo a good reference for determining relative altitude? Does Berndt's (now a formal alligator) scenario rest on a photograph, or on other findings? Is the Castglance video the only source of data to determine the distance that each booster travelled? If these distances were not observed or measured by some other independent means, then the info is not available. If we stipulate that each of the facts that you support is true, the higher altitude, longer flight, and so on, it still does not move us further along toward supporting your deductions that a damaged SRB could not have flown higher and farther, or that since it flew higher and farther it was undamaged. (Replying to one of your posts requires the respondent to engage in all sorts of verbal contortions.) Look, how about you just be satisfied that you're right and that the rest of us are fools, ok? We can deal with it. > Three questions.....ok > > Is a photo a good reference for determining relative altitude? In conjunction with other optics, one photo may very well serve as a good reference. > Does Berndt's (now a formal alligator) scenario rest on a photograph, or on > other findings? Maybe he's looked at some X-rays which we don't know about: "When the SRBs were suddenly 'liberated' from the stack, the left SRB (in the gospel according to St. Jon) was seen to angle off towards a lower trajectory - EXACTLY what would be expected ..." (Berndt is referring to the SRB which exited to the south.) > Is the Castglance video the only source of data to determine the distance > that each booster travelled? No, it definitely is not. > If we stipulate that each of the facts that you support is true, the higher > altitude, longer flight, and so on, it still does not move us further along > toward supporting your deductions that a damaged SRB could not have flown > higher and farther, or that since it flew higher and farther it was > undamaged. If you truly believe you have a convincing argument with this, you must be a green lawyer, not a capable and experienced aerospace engineer. I've never known anyone in his or her right mind to stipulate to "and so on." If you'd like to list all of the aero-factors which I've brought up (including a blunted nose-cone due to deployed pilot and drogue chutes), maybe we could come to terms. This is not a general question of "damaged" vs. "undamaged," but rather a specific question of whether there was a substantial pre-explosion "O-ring burnthrough" between the right SRB's aft segments. > If you'd like to list all of the aero-factors which I've brought > up (including a blunted nose-cone due to deployed pilot and drogue > chutes), maybe we could come to terms. (God, why am I doing this?) And, Mr. Maxson, what exactly are YOUR qualifications to discuss aerodynamics at all, let alone high-speed compressible fluid dynamics of a rapidly-disintegrating STS stack?  SignatureHerb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D. Reformed Aerospace Engineer Remove invalid nonsense for email. >>If you'd like to list all of the aero-factors which I've brought >>up (including a blunted nose-cone due to deployed pilot and drogue >>chutes), maybe we could come to terms. > > (God, why am I doing this?) It's probably because you find the topic of this thread (and its presentation/development thus far) more intellectually and professionally challenging than this month's policy run. > And, Mr. Maxson, what exactly are YOUR qualifications to discuss > aerodynamics at all, let alone high-speed compressible fluid dynamics of a > rapidly-disintegrating STS stack? The paragraph you responded to was a request for acknowledgement of facts I've been able to point out here in the past, as a result of my experience in test, guidance/control, and launch, among others (e.g., a thrust imbalance, some 3-D optical coverage, and downrange tumbling). As usual, you can't get past your sig. Dr. Feynman didn't have that problem. He began by asking the obvious question, the one NASA ignored. > > If you'd like to list all of the aero-factors which I've brought > > up (including a blunted nose-cone due to deployed pilot and drogue [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > aerodynamics at all, let alone high-speed compressible fluid dynamics of a > rapidly-disintegrating STS stack? He's never mentioned having any, because the embarrassment would have further fueled the rapid disintegration of his *hypothesis*, which was completed some time ago. Jon "STS-51L: The Challenger Accident Conspiracy Theories, Challenger, and Solid Rocket Boosters" http://home.houston.rr.com/fancijon/conspiracy.html >>> If you'd like to list all of the aero-factors which I've brought >>>up (including a blunted nose-cone due to deployed pilot and drogue [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > further fueled the rapid disintegration of his *hypothesis*, which was > completed some time ago. As Dr. Feynman pointed out, it doesn't take a "trained eye" to make photo observations. It takes integrity to answer the questions which you and Herbs avoid with groundless personal innuendo or red herrings. > Jon (Jon (Badly) Burnt, this group's "woulda, coulda, shoulda" apologist for the Lockheed/Halliburton, Bush/Cheney, and Reagan/Bush atrocities) > "STS-51L: The Challenger Accident > Conspiracy Theories, Challenger, and Solid Rocket Boosters" > http://home.houston.rr.com/fancijon/conspiracy.html > It takes integrity to answer the questions which > you and Herbs avoid with groundless personal innuendo or red herrings. > >> Jon > > (Jon (Badly) Burnt And calling me and Jon names for questioning your unsubstantiated hypothesis and your qualifications for advancing same just proves yet again why you are held in contempt by so many. So, again, what are your educational qualifications in supersonic compressible fluid dynamics? How about the basics of stability and control? What do you know of combustion thermodynamics? Metallurgy? You've grown very fond of quoting Feynman for a man who belives Feynman was complicit in a conspiracy of epic proportions. SignatureHerb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D. Reformed Aerospace Engineer Remove invalid nonsense for email. > John Maxson wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > You've grown very fond of quoting Feynman for a man who belives Feynman was > complicit in a conspiracy of epic proportions. It's no wonder Lockheed and Burnt love you, Herbs. When you can't argue the facts, you'll argue anything (embellished by pandering to Burnt's initial and continued personal attacks here). > What do you know of combustion thermodynamics? http://mission51l.com/art/fireball.jpg http://www.qsl.net/w8wn/steve/chlgr1a.jpg > Metallurgy? http://mission51l.com/art/cover1.jpg http://mission51l.com/art/cover2.jpg > You've grown very fond of quoting Feynman http://rjsullivan.com/chllngr/Seven.html Castglance link at www.challengerdisaster.info John Maxson - www.mission51l.com (snip) Posting links to jpg's of the cover of your book doesn't answer my questions, nor does providng links to sites not maintained by you explain your sudden penchant for quoting Feynman despite his key role in the Rogers Commission, which you disdain so readily. SignatureHerb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D. Reformed Aerospace Engineer Remove invalid nonsense for email. > (snip) > > Posting links to jpg's of the cover of your book doesn't answer my > questions, nor does providng links to sites not maintained by you explain > your sudden penchant for quoting Feynman despite his key role in the Rogers > Commission, which you disdain so readily. I began quoting the cancer-plagued Feynman (whom I respect) in my first post to this group (early February 2001). All you've done is ask new questions (without showing their relevancy to the 3-D outcome illustrated post-exit). That insult certainly doesn't answer the questions referred to in the title of this thread. Earlier someone also replied with new questions, in an insulting manner. I answered those (without first receiving any answers to my own) because their geometrical relevancy was fairly obvious, as I recall. I have yet to see any answers (from anyone) to the questions I posed. Meanwhile, in reply I've suggested an answer to my own first question. I don't plan to play '20 questions' with you and the rest of your Ring under unfair circumstances. Field your responses in any technical context you feel comfortable with. If they're relevant, we can have a discussion. If you can present evidence to conclusively prove the SRBs veered in the fireball, it will be more than NASA has undertaken to do. John Maxson > If you can present evidence to conclusively prove the SRBs > veered in the fireball, it will be more than NASA has undertaken to do. Jon, Roger and others have done so for literally years now. You simply refuse to accept the physics, the aerodynamics and the data supporting the conclusive proof you request. Just take Kent Betts' suggestion from a few days ago: just accept that the rest of us here are all crazy, conspiratorial, or both, and stop trying to convert us loonies. It's obvious we simply can't accept your Truth-With-A-Capital-T. So why don't you save your effort and spend your time in peace? SignatureHerb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D. Reformed Aerospace Engineer Remove invalid nonsense for email. > John Maxson wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > refuse to accept the physics, the aerodynamics and the data supporting the > conclusive proof you request. How would you know? You came in when Columbia went out. Burnt and BeltWay have always been OTL on these questions. I've proved that time and again by quoting their pathetically slow evolution to veering (or topic evasion), as duly recorded for posterity in the Google Archives. If that's not enough for you, just reflect on the fact that these two led an unethical attack on me for 12-18 months without reading my book. An underhanded book loan from my son finally formalized their libel. > Just take Kent Betts' suggestion from a few days ago: just accept that the > rest of us here are all crazy, conspiratorial, or both, and stop trying to > convert us loonies. It's obvious we simply can't accept your > Truth-With-A-Capital-T. The usually incoherent Kent Betts runs a porno site. I have no reason to convert you; you're not the center of the space-science universe. I post here for others. You may proclaim till doomsday that I'm held in contempt here by "so many," but my reply is that "too many" are aware that you and Burnt have earned reputations here as troublemakers. > So why don't you save your effort and spend your time in peace? Maybe one reason (although certainly one of the least) is that I don't mind seeing you and Burnt make fools of yourselves with <PLONK>, <UNPLONK>, <REPLONK>; ad infinitum. If anyone shows signs of being in a perpetual state of nervous twitch, it's you (as well as Burnt). As for me, I'm perfectly at peace helping to spread the word as to the real underlying reasons for the Challenger atrocity, the reasons NASA and the Rogers Commission buried or never brought to light. John Maxson > How would you know? You came in when Columbia went out. That's actually not true. A little research will demonstrate that. Furthermore, I've posted very irregularly here (under pseudonyms) on and off since around 1995 and continuing intermittently until February 2003. > Burnt and > BeltWay have always been OTL on these questions. I've proved that time > and again by quoting their pathetically slow evolution to veering (or > topic evasion), as duly recorded for posterity in the Google Archives. You *do* realize how ironic that statement is, don't you? > If that's not enough for you, just reflect on the fact that these two > led an unethical attack on me for 12-18 months without reading my book. > An underhanded book loan from my son finally formalized their libel. If it's "libel" then sue them. Otherwise, you are guilty of libel for falsely accusing them. While you're at it, I'm sure you can add others to that list of defendants. Feel free to include me. >> Just take Kent Betts' suggestion from a few days ago: just accept that >> the rest of us here are all crazy, conspiratorial, or both, and stop [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The usually incoherent Kent Betts runs a porno site. If true, good for him. He's serving one of the only human desires guaranteed to make a buck throughout history. If not, you're libeling him. > I have no reason > to convert you; you're not the center of the space-science universe. Nor are you, much to your chagrin I'm sure. >I > post here for others. Who? No one is responding to you but me these days. > You may proclaim till doomsday that I'm held in > contempt here by "so many," but my reply is that "too many" are aware > that you and Burnt have earned reputations here as troublemakers. Riiiiiight. Again, you *are* aware of the irony of your own statement, aren't you? Juvenile name calling does nothing to further your agenda and merely serves to strenghthen your reputation as an embittered crank. >> So why don't you save your effort and spend your time in peace? > > Maybe one reason (although certainly one of the least) is that I don't > mind seeing you and Burnt make fools of yourselves with <PLONK>, > <UNPLONK>, <REPLONK>; ad infinitum. If anyone shows signs of being in > a perpetual state of nervous twitch, it's you (as well as Burnt). I suppose one should be glad, from a humanitarian perspective, that you find enjoyment in anything. On the other hand, the newsreader I'm using these days doesn't use a killfile per se so you'll have to do without the pleasure today. SignatureHerb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D. Reformed Aerospace Engineer Remove invalid nonsense for email. >>How would you know? You came in when Columbia went out. > > That's actually not true. A little research will demonstrate that. Prove it, in the original context. >>Burnt and BeltWay have always been OTL on these questions. >>I've proved that time and again by quoting their >>pathetically slow evolution to veering (or topic evasion), >>as duly recorded for posterity in the Google Archives > > You *do* realize how ironic that statement is, don't you? Prove it, in context, using that heavy expertise you've alluded to. >>If that's not enough for you, just reflect on the fact that these two >>led an unethical attack on me for 12-18 months without reading my book. >>An underhanded book loan from my son finally formalized their libel. > > If it's "libel" then sue them. I've repeatedly shown that it's libel; prove otherwise if you're able. > Who? No one is responding to you but me these days. You can't count the ways, let alone the days. *You're* responding for one reason and one reason alone, to harass me for posting what you and/or someone else dislikes hearing, but can't disprove. >>You may proclaim till doomsday that I'm held in contempt >>here by "so many," but my reply is that "too many" are aware >>that you and Burnt have earned reputations here as troublemakers. > > Riiiiiight. Again, you *are* aware of the irony of your own statement, > aren't you? Why do you insinuate? You're a lawyer; prove it. > Juvenile name calling does nothing to further your agenda and > merely serves to strenghthen your reputation as an embittered crank. You, Herbs (as well as Burnt and BeltWay), have gone out of your way here to convince me that you are juvenile. Eric Max Francis may think he knows me by listing me on his website, but he thinks wrong. Halliburton experience, bum simulations, an abandoned profession in orbital rendevous, computer games, ECLSS, and ambulance chasing don't much impress me as relevant platforms for the 51-L expertise which you three pretend. You've not only been OTL, but out of line. Make my day; sue me till you're blue in the face. (That's right after you step back into line by addressing the topic of this thread -- here in this group). John Maxson >>>How would you know? You came in when Columbia went out. >> >> That's actually not true. A little research will demonstrate that. > > Prove it, in the original context. <http://tinyurl.com/yqk8y> My first sci.space postings under my own name (rather than psuedonymously) were November 21, 2001. >>>Burnt and BeltWay have always been OTL on these questions. >>>I've proved that time and again by quoting their [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Prove it, in context, using that heavy expertise you've alluded to. You want me to prove the irony of *your* accusations of "topic evasion"? The google record (and the memories of anyone hanging around very long) are fairly self-evident. Your history of changing thread topics just to call people names is also well-known. Now, if that doesn't help, go to <http://www.dictionary.com> and look up "irony" >>>If that's not enough for you, just reflect on the fact that these two >>>led an unethical attack on me for 12-18 months without reading my book. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I've repeatedly shown that it's libel; prove otherwise if you're able. Umm, no. You haven't proven ANYTHING to anyone's satisfaction. Not your pet bogus theory, not your claims of libel, not your claims of being harrased out of your former job (which you've never really explained, actually), nor anything else. Your say-so does not equal fact. >> Who? No one is responding to you but me these days. > > You can't count the ways, let alone the days. Sure I can. I count two responders in the last three days - me and Jon. > *You're* responding for > one reason and one reason alone, to harass me for posting what you > and/or someone else dislikes hearing, but can't disprove. No, we're calling you to task: to wit, to *prove* what you *allege.* As the one presenting a claim, the duty is incumbent upon you to prove the claim, not for me to disprove it. It has already been substantively rebutted by others: the Rogers Commission, originally, and Jon and Roger more recently. >>>You may proclaim till doomsday that I'm held in contempt >>>here by "so many," but my reply is that "too many" are aware [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Why do you insinuate? You're a lawyer; prove it. Prove that the readers of sci.space think you're a crank? Or prove the irony of your claims that Jon and I are "troublemakers?" Again, the posting history speaks for itself. See also dictionary.com for help with any words you don't understand. Once more you missapprehend the concept of "burden of proof." >> Juvenile name calling does nothing to further your agenda and >> merely serves to strenghthen your reputation as an embittered crank. > > You, Herbs (as well as Burnt and BeltWay), have gone out of your way > here to convince me that you are juvenile. Name calling in the manner of a three year old ill-becomes someone who is so desperately seeking converts to his "Truth." The sad fact is that you are responding to me for one reason and one reason only: you are desperate for attention and like any three-year-old, since you aren't getting the positive attention you crace, you are seeking "bad" attention. Like an ill-tempered toddler you call me and Jon names, just to see your own posts on usenet. Wouldn't you really rather have a blankie and a nap instead? > Eric Max Francis may think > he knows me by listing me on his website, but he thinks wrong. Is he the author of your listing on <http://www.crank.net>? I wouldn't know, but I wasn't specifically referring to that site. But now that you mention it, *I* don't have a listing there. Neither does Jon, or Roger, or anyone else who posts here except for Brad Guth and Daniel Min, I think. Does it make you feel good to be in such rarefied company? > Halliburton experience, bum simulations, an abandoned profession in > orbital rendevous, computer games, ECLSS, and ambulance chasing don't > much impress me as relevant platforms for the 51-L expertise which you > three pretend. You've not only been OTL, but out of line. Make my day; > sue me till you're blue in the face. You're the one threatening to sue everyone, not me. I do that every day. It's really not all that glamorous or exciting and the process takes some time to work its way to fruition. The results are often gratifying. Well, they are if the claims have *legal merit* that is, a concept you might not comprehend. > (That's right after you step > back into line by addressing the topic of this thread -- here in this > group). The topic *I* choose to address is your lack of qualification to even discuss the topic meaningfully or intelligently. Listening to your rambles and confused approach to physics, flight dynamics, metallurgy, combustion thermodynamics and any other technical matter is like discussing whether the fatness of a pig is more or less green than the designated hitter rule. It's one non sequitur after another, a veritable free verse of gibberish interspersed with more claims of libel, meaningless referrences to people who have nothing to do with the discussion, and name calling, usually accompanied by you changing the title of the thread to call those names. Look, you're obviously an embittered fellow. Why don't you discuss it with a health care professional of choice and find some way to let it all go? Why torture yourself here, day after day, tilting at windmills who not only don't fight back, but just don't care? > John Maxson SignatureHerb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D. Reformed Aerospace Engineer Remove invalid nonsense for email. > As the one presenting a claim, the duty is incumbent upon you to > prove the claim, not for me to disprove it. Here (again) are the three *questions* which I "presented," Herbs: ============================================ In this photograph from the north, which post-explosion SRB contrail appears to have the greater altitude? http://rjsullivan.com/chllngr/Five.html What light does this photo shed on Jon Berndt's repeated and now formalized allegations as to the SRBs' relative exit-trajectories? In conjunction with the Castglance video, does the sequence of photos available at Sullivan strengthen or weaken a conclusion that the north-exiting SRB traveled further downrange under more adverse conditions, hence proving that it could not have been the SRB with the lower thrust? ============================================ Here (again) are three pertinent responses which I have made to your abundant arm-waving (which has continued unabated as your only reply): ============================================ > What do you know of combustion thermodynamics? http://mission51l.com/art/fireball.jpg http://www.qsl.net/w8wn/steve/chlgr1a.jpg > Metallurgy? http://mission51l.com/art/cover1.jpg http://mission51l.com/art/cover2.jpg > You've grown very fond of quoting Feynman http://rjsullivan.com/chllngr/Seven.html Castglance link at www.challengerdisaster.info ============================================ The only formal claim at issue was attributed to Berndt. Apparently it's launched you into outer space. John Maxson - www.mission51l.com > Here (again) are the three questions which I "presented," Herbs: Name-calling like an ill-mannered three-year-old again, I see. Why don't you speak to your mental health care professional and try to figure out why that is? SignatureHerb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D. Reformed Aerospace Engineer Remove invalid nonsense for email. >>Here (again) are the three questions which I "presented," Herbs: > > Name-calling like an ill-mannered three-year-old again, I see. "Herbs" originated with you: http://tinyurl.com/yqnlt You simply refuse to get on topic! >>>Here (again) are the three questions which I "presented," Herbs: >> >> Name-calling like an ill-mannered three-year-old again, I see. > > "Herbs" originated with you: http://tinyurl.com/yqnlt An obvious (and short-lived) typo setting up a new newsreader and a spam-munged addy does *not* give you license to call names like a child. What's your excuse for calling names of everyone else? More interstingly, have you discussed this uncontrollable urge you have to call names with a mental health professional? > You simply refuse to get on topic! "Irony", thy name is Maxson. *sigh* Your topic is nothing more than a ill-conceived, incoherent attempt creating the appearance of confusion, doubt and conspiracy where none exists. You seem to do this is in a vain attempt to stroke your own ego as the lone outsider privy to some Truth that only you know and to sell your book (which services that same psychological need). No one buys either your theories or your book. Yet somehow you find it easier to believe that everyone else is in on The Conspircacy than to admit you're wrong. Doesn't that tell you something? Seek help. SignatureHerb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D. Reformed Aerospace Engineer Remove invalid nonsense for email. >>>>Here (again) are the three questions which I "presented," Herbs: Note that *once again* you've evaded the issue. Bailiff! >>>Name-calling like an ill-mannered three-year-old again, I see. >> >>"Herbs" originated with you: http://tinyurl.com/yqnlt > > An obvious (and short-lived) typo setting up a new newsreader and a > spam-munged addy does *not* give you license to call names like a child. You're projecting again, Herbs, and making excuses for your own shortcomings and/or mental lapses. On 3/23/2003 (in a new thread which he created expressly for the purposes of applying for his HORS membership), using get-attention kiddy-gibberish toddler Herbs wrote to his role-model as follows: "Hey, OM, can I be a Human O-Ring now? Can I? Can I? Pretty please with sugar on top?" >>You simply refuse to get on topic! > > "Irony", thy name is Maxson. *sigh* How "ironic!" If this is not "name-calling," what is? Bailiff! (more gibberish snipped) Are you sure you're taking your meds? SignatureHerb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D. Reformed Aerospace Engineer Remove invalid nonsense for email. Herb Schaltegger (self-described as the group's "Reformed" Aerospace Engineer) *again* evaded the thread topic with: > Are you sure you're taking your meds? I have no idea what you're talking about, but it's not this: http://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=bv4ei3%24dad%241%40news.netins.net You must not last long in court; you spend all your time looking for people to trash and misrepresent here. > Herb Schaltegger (self-described as the group's "Reformed" Aerospace > Engineer) *again* evaded the thread topic with: > >> Are you sure you're taking your meds? > > I have no idea what you're talking about, but it's not this: Then you should speak to your mental health care professional of choice. They'll help you understand. After all, this isn't the first time or place you've been urged to seek help, is it? > http://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=bv4ei3%24dad%241%40news.netins.net Links to old posts that contain nothing but links to scans of your book covers don't answer questions I posed. You remember? The questions challenging your sheer *ability* to even understand the technical issues involved? You still haven't answered those. > You must not last long in court; I do just fine. <http://tinyurl.com/2cf8V> But thanks for asking! > you spend all your time looking for > people to trash and misrepresent here. Speaking of misrepresntation, what basis do you have to call yourself an engineer of any sort? SignatureHerb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D. Reformed Aerospace Engineer Remove invalid nonsense for email. > Links to old posts that contain nothing but links to scans of your book > covers don't answer questions I posed. You may think that's a clever line, but as written it's not relevant. What's relevant is that an unrequested link to your court cases doesn't answer the *sci.space.shuttle* questions which initiated this thread: ========================================= "In this photograph from the north, which post-explosion SRB contrail appears to have the greater altitude? http://rjsullivan.com/chllngr/Five.html What light does this photo shed on Jon Berndt's repeated and now formalized allegations as to the SRBs' relative exit-trajectories? In conjunction with the Castglance video, does the sequence of photos available at Sullivan strengthen or weaken a conclusion that the north-exiting SRB traveled further downrange under more adverse conditions, hence proving that it could not have been the SRB with the lower thrust?" ======================================== > Here (again) are the three *questions* which I "presented," Herbs: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > What light does this photo shed on Jon Berndt's repeated and now > formalized allegations as to the SRBs' relative exit-trajectories? Look at *all* the pictures presented here: http://rjsullivan.com/chllngr/ The single frame carefully selected by John Maxson does not tell the whole story, as can be seen by viewing all the images. Additionally, given the lack of easily accessible detailed information on the SRB trajectories post-disintegration, it is impossible (and stupid) to try and identify SRBs by flyout characteristics as captured by distant still image shots on 110 film when identification can be much more easily and reliably done by other means. For a more formal presentation of the facts illustrating that the SRBs did not cross, see this: http://home.houston.rr.com/fancijon/conspiracy.html Now, John, since I answered your question (perhaps not to your liking), will you answer one for me? Jon >>In this photograph from the north, which post-explosion SRB contrail >>appears to have the greater altitude? >> >>http://rjsullivan.com/chllngr/Five.html Obviously you have some great aversion to answering this simple question about *appearances* first. I suppose if your wife asked you whether a short tree in the foreground of one of her nature photos *appeared* to be higher than a background tree well-known to be taller, you'd go into a rant about her "stupidity," rather than simply giving her your opinion and a professional explanation. (As we know, ordinary photos don't always give one a sense of depth perception.) >>What light does this photo shed on Jon Berndt's repeated and now >>formalized allegations as to the SRBs' relative exit-trajectories? >> > Look at *all* the pictures presented here: > > http://rjsullivan.com/chllngr/ That's what I've been trying to get people to do for days, with no initiative on your part until now. The idea, of course, is for people to get to the third (or final and most important) question. I asked about photo 'Five' first because of its unique contrail cut-off, terminating as it does in a (two-dimensional) way that leaves no ambiguity as to which of the trails' segments I am referring (for answers to my first and second questions). For example, it would have been more difficult to verbally pin down (for discussion and comparison) the same two segment-lengths in this photo: http://rjsullivan.com/chllngr/Seven.html Nevertheless, it is the difference between that portion of the contrail segments seen in photo 'Five' and the corresponding portion of the contrail segments shown in photo 'Seven' which I think sheds more light on your exit allegations. By itself, photo 'Five' seems to add a confusion factor for you (as you have essentially just admitted). > The single frame carefully selected by John Maxson does not tell the > whole story, as can be seen by viewing all the images. Additionally, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > still image shots on 110 film when identification can be much more > easily and reliably done by other means. I've never claimed, of course, that any one photo "tells the whole story." I've simply questioned your abandonment of valuable SRB data from exit to RSD. I fail to see how you (of all people) could possibly consider it a 'given' that there is (or ever was at NASA) a "lack of easily accessible detailed information on the SRB trajectories post-disintegration." I think it's a treasonous shame that NASA and the PC did not formally and objectively address the 'total distance traveled' issue (by each unidentified SRB *, after fireball exit) from the perspective of NASA's metric and boresight cameras. You have amply shown that you choose merely to follow in their footsteps. * I mean "unidentified" by anything other than the optically observed booster anomalies. John Maxson - www.mission51l.com Lots of BS snipped... I wish you would quit changing your newsreader config so I could keep you in my killfile. SignatureWhy, if aliens are smart enough to travel light years through space, do they keep abducting the dumbest people on earth? >I wish you would quit changing your newsreader config so I could >keep you in my killfile. ...If you put "maxson" in your killfile with wildcards attached, it should catch all of them. It's what I do, and to be totally honest the only time I ever want to see another post about John Maxson is his obituary. Rest assured that when the molesting old bastard finally dies - hopefully sometime tonight from painful natural causes - I fully intend to get so blasted that I may be begging for donations for my liver replacement. But until then...kids, please. Put that backdoor bandit in your killfiles where he and all his worthless kinfolk deserve to rot. OM Signature"No bastard ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms poor dumb bastard die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr "Herb Schaltegger" > > You may proclaim till doomsday that I'm held in > > contempt here by "so many," but my reply is that "too many" are aware [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > aren't you? Juvenile name calling does nothing to further your agenda and > merely serves to strenghthen your reputation as an embittered crank. I'm a troublemaker!? Well. Damn! That sucks. :-) I guess John Maxson is at it again. For the benefit of those newbies joining us recently, you can search the history of this newsgroup in Google if you are a true masochist.;-) Go ahead and ask John Maxson any question you'd like. Even buy his book if you'd like. I've discussed my position and determinations in the matter ad nauseum. You can view my position here (free of charge): http://home.houston.rr.com/fancijon/conspiracy.pdf Jon Herb Schaltegger <herbschaltegger@thethomasnonsenselawfirm.com.invalid> wrote: > (snip) > > Posting links to jpg's of the cover of your book doesn't answer my > questions, nor does providng links to sites not maintained by you explain > your sudden penchant for quoting Feynman despite his key role in the Rogers > Commission, which you disdain so readily. Maxson is still striking out, I see... > In this photograph from the north, which post-explosion SRB contrail > appears to have the greater altitude? Okay I'll play. The contrail that went to the right looking at the vehicle from shore until they appear about the same at the end (left side of photo). > http://rjsullivan.com/chllngr/Five.html > > What light does this photo shed on Jon Berndt's repeated and now > formalized allegations as to the SRBs' relative exit-trajectories? It's at variance IIRC. > In conjunction with the Castglance video, does the sequence of photos > available at Sullivan strengthen or weaken a conclusion that the > north-exiting SRB traveled further downrange under more adverse > conditions, hence proving that it could not have been the SRB with the > lower thrust? Strengthen. SignatureDaniel http://www.challengerdisaster.info Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC "Charleston" <Charleston@coxdotgoeshere.net> wrote in message > Okay I'll play. The contrail that went to the right looking at the vehicle > from shore until they appear about the same at the end (left side of photo). > > > http://rjsullivan.com/chllngr/Five.html Wrong. The contrail that is higher in this image: http://rjsullivan.com/chllngr/Three.html is the north booster (I claim damaged right SRB - with all the other proof as laid out in the paper I link to: http://home.houston.rr.com/fancijon/conspiracy.html), which correlates with the other images and movies, as well. Viewed from shore, the higher exiting contrail here is from the north-exiting booster (damaged right SRB). > > What light does this photo shed on Jon Berndt's repeated and now > > formalized allegations as to the SRBs' relative exit-trajectories? > > It's at variance IIRC. Wrong again. Supports it completely. > > In conjunction with the Castglance video, does the sequence of photos > > available at Sullivan strengthen or weaken a conclusion that the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Strengthen. Wrong yet again. What adverse conditions? It exited in a higher trajectory, initially, which can be seen in the other movies as well as this photo (the north exiting right booster). The Pc as shown in the traces was less than three percent lower in the damaged right booster after the breach. Given that both boosters' flyouts were erratic, no inference can be made as to which one should or should not have traveled further, because a simple FPA variance between the two could have accounted for different downrange trajectories, not to mention the size of the post destruct SRB chunks. You're struggling again. There is actual hard evidence that *can* be viewed as decisive in the paper I mention above. Is this really the best you can do? Jon Berndt Aerospace Engineer > > Okay > > **I'll play.** > Wrong. The contrail that is higher in this image: > > http://rjsullivan.com/chllngr/Three.html > > is the north booster. > > > What light does this photo shed on Jon Berndt's repeated and now > > > formalized allegations as to the SRBs' relative exit-trajectories? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > You're struggling again. No I am not. In one post I just succeeded in getting one regular to actually answer the three questions my Dad posed some 34 posts ago, regardless of what I actually think is clearly on so many other videos and films of the accident. The main thing as I see it now, is what's next Dad? I have several different video camera angles posted at my website. Surely they shed some light on the issue? http://www.challengerdisaster.info So Dad, you have the answers to the 3 questions from a regular. Next? Quoting Jon from an earlier post. "Now, John, since I answered your question... ...will you answer one for me?" That remains to be seen. SignatureDaniel http://www.challengerdisaster.info Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC > No I am not. Correct - I actually meant to aim that comment at John. > In one post I just succeeded in getting one regular to > actually answer the three questions my Dad posed some 34 posts ago, > regardless of what I actually think is clearly on so many other videos and > films of the accident. The main thing as I see it now, is what's next Dad? > I have several different video camera angles posted at my website. Surely > they shed some light on the issue? Actually, I've been filtering a good portion of the traffic here, so did not see John's post initially, and did not want to dig it back up again, either, and will still be hesitant to discuss it much further, as I don't suspect anyone is going to change their mind. > http://www.challengerdisaster.info > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Daniel > Actually, I've been filtering a good portion of the traffic here, so did not > see John's post initially, and did not want to dig it back up again, either, > and will still be hesitant to discuss it much further, as I don't suspect > anyone is going to change their mind. What you're saying is that you've simply been trying to make an issue which is embarrassing to you go away, rather than resolve it. That's been NASA's approach as well, to this day. It's *that approach* which should be an embarrassment, both to you and to what was once the world's premier space agency. John Maxson - www.mission51l.com "john_thomas_maxson" <maxson@iowatelecom.net> wrote in message > John Maxson - www.mission51l.com The "issue" that you raised cannot be embarrassing to anyone (other than yourself), because you presented no valid argument to be embarrassed about. I gave you a straight answer. It's resolved. Discuss the "issue" instead of trying to instill FUD or conveying emotions upon someone else which do not exist. Your hypotheses remain insupportable. If you have a problem with the resolution as I conveyed it, discuss *that*. Jon > "john_thomas_maxson" <maxson@iowatelecom.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > exist. Your hypotheses remain insupportable. If you have a problem with the > resolution as I conveyed it, discuss *that*. Did you reply to something? If so, I missed it. Did you say something intelligible? If so, I missed it. I've discussed your problems here at length, ever since you started your personal attack on me and my book without ever reading it, and then after you had openly admitted that you would have "expected" a fireball crossing. You had the benefit of an honest review by Jim Drew. Later you even had a loan of my book. You misused both for the benefit of your employer. You posted from work and blocked your posts' archiving. If you want to re-discuss the content you've placed on the web *outside* this group (*after* all the benefit of my newsgroup data and discussion, the FOIA data you privately obtained from my son Dan without detailing for us what that was, and the professional help you admitted getting from JSC), then simply reintroduce that content for discussion *in this newsgroup*. Then simply behave like an ethical professional. John Maxson, Author -- The Betrayal of Mission 51-L > In one post I just succeeded in getting one regular to > actually answer the three questions my Dad posed some 34 posts ago, > regardless of what I actually think is clearly on so many other videos and > films of the accident. The main thing as I see it now, is what's next Dad? As at least a partial or minimal showing of common decency, professional ethics, and good faith, publicize in this group a list of all the 51-L optics which you have sent to Jon Berndt and/or Roger Balettie. You should have done that many long months ago, at the time they were received in Texas. The group knows that Berndt placed a couple of boresight video clips on Katz's site for about 48 hours. We also know what clips Balettie has made live links to at one time or another. Finally, we know what clips you've put up. Beyond that, I think the group is pretty well as much in the dark as I am as to how much behind-the-scenes maneuvering you've done in this regard. John Maxson > > In one post I just succeeded in getting one regular to > > actually answer the three questions my Dad posed some 34 posts ago, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Balettie. You should have done that many long months ago, at the time > they were received in Texas. I am working on the others too for everyone to see. > The group knows that Berndt placed a couple of boresight video clips > on Katz's site for about 48 hours. We also know what clips Balettie [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > am as to how much behind-the-scenes maneuvering you've done in this > regard. There is less darkness than there has ever been as far as what this group can view now. TV-1 TV-2 TV-3 TV-4 TV-5 TV-7 IIRC TV-13 TV-16 TV-18 E-205 boresight video E-207 boresight video If there are others, Jon and Roger can tell you as I did not keep a list of them. Now will you address the thread and the answers Jon gave you? SignatureDaniel http://www.challengerdisaster.info Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC >>As at least a partial or minimal showing of common decency, >>professional ethics, and good faith, publicize in this group a list of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I am working on the others too for everyone to see. "Working on the others too?" You haven't provided the detailed list of optics sent to Texas yet, as I requested. I know what the full lengths were, what the original FOIA formats were, and other pertinent information about them which is not available to the group as a whole. We're entiltled to know, as a minimum, what Balettie and Berndt have seen and selected from -- if you're trying (as you constantly profess) to help keep this group's discussions on a "scientific" foundation. > There is less darkness than there has ever been as far as what this group > can view now. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > E-205 boresight video > E-207 boresight video If that's true, just list (alongside each of the above) where or how we can link to them. John Maxson > > As at least a partial or minimal showing of common decency, > > professional ethics, and good faith, publicize in this group a list of > > all the 51-L optics which you have sent to Jon Berndt and/or Roger > > Balettie. You should have done that many long months ago, at the time > > they were received in Texas. <snipped runaround> > There is less darkness than there has ever been as far as what this group > can view now. > > TV-1 <snipped list of 4 videos or partial videos on your website> > TV-7 IIRC > TV-13 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > If there are others, Jon and Roger can tell you as I did not keep a list of > them. I don't believe you. It is totally out of character for you not to have kept a list of the optics which you copied and sent to Texas and/or for you to have no memory of the optics which you sent. This isn't the first time I've asked for the list. You replied before that Berndt was sending back to you a CD with the optics on them. I suppose I'm to believe that CD was lost in the mail. Again, where can we locate the videos which you claim can now be viewed? It should not be necessary for Berndt or Balettie to answer for you, although common decency should dictate that they come to your assistance, if their is no collusive effort to obstruct justice and the advancement of shuttle science. John Maxson > > > As at least a partial or minimal showing of common decency, > > > professional ethics, and good faith, publicize in this group a list of > > > all the 51-L optics which you have sent to Jon Berndt and/or Roger > > > Balettie. Not the best way to solicit cooperation. > > TV-1 > <snipped list of 4 videos or partial videos on your website> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I don't believe you. Oh well. It appears that you do not believe a lot of people when they tell you things you do not want to hear. > It is totally out of character for you not to > have kept a list of the optics which you copied and sent to Texas > and/or for you to have no memory of the optics which you sent. I don't keep a lot of things. >This > isn't the first time I've asked for the list. You replied before that > Berndt was sending back to you a CD with the optics on them. I > suppose I'm to believe that CD was lost in the mail. Jon did. I have been unable to open the CD. Today, I took it to work. Finally, on the third computer we tried, it opened. I have witnesses but you would not believe them anyway IMO. > Again, where can we locate the videos which you claim can now be > viewed? ? > It should not be necessary for Berndt or Balettie to answer > for you, although common decency should dictate that they come to your > assistance, if their is no collusive effort to obstruct justice and > the advancement of shuttle science. For me? What about for themselves? Would that be okay? Now after opening that CD, I learned that is has over 4,000 files (90 pages printed out). Among those files, under movies, I found these additional films/videos. E-201 E-203 E-206 M-1 M-4 I may have missed one or two. SignatureDaniel http://www.challengerdisaster.info Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC Charleston" <Charleston@coxdotgoeshere.net> wrote in message > > > TV-1 > > <snipped list of 4 videos or partial videos on your website> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Finally, on the third computer we tried, it opened. I have witnesses but > you would not believe them anyway IMO. That's wierd. It hasn't been a problem for anyone else. Were they old machines? Old CD drives? > Now after opening that CD, I learned that is has over 4,000 files (90 pages > printed out). Among those files, under movies, I found these additional > films/videos. What is 90 pages printed out? There's a lot more than that on the CD!! :-) > E-201 > E-203 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I may have missed one or two. From the tapes as Daniel labeled them: E-204 E-207 M-1 M-2 M-3 M-4 E-205 TV-1 TV-2 TV-3 TV-4 TV-5 TV-13 CB ROTI E-208 TV-16 TV-18 ITEK And I also have the CNN footage from that day, including a local Minneapolis television station interview with me at the U. of Mn. student union building. It's interesting to see myself from almost 20 years ago ... Jon > > Jon did. I have been unable to open the CD. Today, I took it to work. > > Finally, on the third computer we tried, it opened. I have witnesses but > > you would not believe them anyway IMO. > > That's wierd. It hasn't been a problem for anyone else. Were they old > machines? Old CD drives? One of the computer techs noted the CD had a couple of scratches on it. He buffed it with a micro-cloth towel and then it worked on his computer. I was Gee what a dope I am. I bring it back to my office and it does not work. He just laughs and shrugs his shoulders. I bring it home and now I get the message "The file or directory is corrupt or unreadable." Yes I do have an older PlexWriter 12/10/32A CD ROM, but it should handle the CD. My office computer is a one year old Dell with a P4 2.4 GHz CPU, IIRC. Anyway, the tech copied it to his hard drive (12 minute back-up) and burned me a new copy which works fine. Go figure. His computer? Brand new Dell (speed unknown). So much drama I feel a yawn coming on. <snip> > > I may have missed one or two. Yep, M-2 and M-3. > From the tapes as Daniel labeled them: > > E-204 , E-207, M-1, M-2, M-3, M-4, E-205, TV-1, TV-2, TV-3, TV-4, TV-5, (TV-13, CB ROTI, E-208) TV-16, TV-18 ITEK. > And I also have the CNN footage from that day, including a local Minneapolis > television station interview with me at the U. of Mn. student union > building. It's interesting to see myself from almost 20 years ago ... Thanks Jon. I appreciate that. I don't really know how it can hurt for people to see for themselves what is on the STS 51-L videos. If the truth sets one free, hey let's have some truth. Personally I am working on some truth but I have always had too many irons in the fire and not enough BTUs to go around. SignatureDaniel http://www.challengerdisaster.info Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC > "Charleston" <Charleston@coxdotgoeshere.net> wrote in message > > John Maxson wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Wrong yet again. <<snip>> > It exited in a higher trajectory, initially, which can be seen in the other > movies as well as this photo (the north exiting right booster). I disagree with "initially," because of FOIA optics. I would agree with "very quickly but not for the duration of its pre-RSD flight." (There is an Av Week photo giving us a fairly early glimpse of the fireball exit at www.mission51l.com/aboutus.htm. There are other pertinent images elsewhere on my site, and there is some relevant video available on other sites.) As long as you insist on using subjective phrases like "the north exiting right booster" instead of "the north-exiting booster" (as I do), it will be impossible for us to have either an objective science-based discussion or the beneficial resolution which so often comes from keeping an open mind. > The Pc as shown in the traces was less than three percent lower in the > damaged right booster after the breach. This is another prime example of the non-scientific and subjective road down which you so blissfully travel. You refer to a "damaged right booster after the breach" as if everyone should be convinced from endless repetition of NASA claims that a R-SRB burnthrough indeed occurred at t+59 seconds. That should be something you try to prove, rather than something you state as fact for the purposes of describing the downrange flight-paths and relative distances traveled. As you know, the chamber pressure differential between the SRBs developed as a function of time, cut-off from us (for inspection out to the time of RSD) by the catastrophe. If you're going to give a percentage, you should cite a distinct time for that percentage. You also have a bad habit of loosely using "lower" (e.g., "lower" Pc, or a "lower" trajectory). That forces us to guess your meaning. It's not good science for you to put us in that position. You should have told us whether you meant a lower "conformed trajectory" than prior to the explosion, or a lower "exit trajectory" than that of the other SRB (arrived at very quickly but not sustained throughout its entire flight). You need to either disprove initial and terminal thrust imbalance (e.g., due to the effects of cold-soaking) or else conclusively prove to everyone's satisfaction that *only* a 59-second burnthrough could account for what the boosters did prior to RSD. Finally, you should openly list in detail *all* of the FOIA optics which you have obtained from Dan for inspection. Digital data from a large subset of it can be readily adapted to calculate the SRBs' trajectories prior to RSD. We need to know which optics you had access to, in order to ascertain which (if any) additional data you may need (be it boresight, metric, or airborne) to confirm or disprove your conclusion. Regardless of what Papadakis may have claimed, I understand from Bruce Hoover that the binary-encoded data we should expect to see on the 70 mm film is range time. I know there is plenty more than that available in much of the metric, boresight, and airborne optics. (Note: "We" and "us," as used above, refer to all the members of this newsgroup, sci.space.shuttle.) John Maxson - www.mission51l.com "john_thomas_maxson" <maxson@iowatelecom.net> wrote in message > "Jon Berndt" <jsb@at.hal-pc-dot.org> wrote in message news:<401880e8$0 > (Note: "We" and "us," as used above, refer to all the members of this > newsgroup, sci.space.shuttle.) > > John Maxson - www.mission51l.com You are putting yourself on the same side of the fence as s.s.s. members in general. This is amusing, as I have not seen anyone here agree with your stance on Challenger in years. If anyone else here sincerely requires a more elaborate response (besides immediate family members) than that which I have already given you, I may provide it. But your mind is made up and I'm not going to waste my limited time to try and change it. The burden of proof remains with you, as it always has. My position is clearly outlined here: http://home.houston.rr.com/fancijon/conspiracy.html Jon > "john_thomas_maxson" <maxson@iowatelecom.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You are putting yourself on the same side of the fence as s.s.s. members in > general. Not at all! I have no doubt about which side of the fence from the HORS I'm on; but I doubt you can prove that every member of this group belongs to that less than honarably-led "society." I have a wealth of evidence and website interest which leads me to believe otherwise. > If anyone else here sincerely requires a more elaborate response > (besides immediate family members) than that which I have > already given you, I may provide it. That's an iffy-big "may." Your response was, "Wrong yet again." That wasn't very elaborate. From there you wandered off sophmorically about a "north exiting right booster" and a "damaged right booster after the breach." That, I guarantee you, was a great deal less than "elaborate." > But your mind is made up and I'm not going to waste my limited time > to try and change it. There's that attitude again! You've already wasted years in the effort. I think my mind is and always has been a great deal more open on this issue than yours. Fortunately, my conclusions were based on vastly more evidence than that which I have asked you to inform us about (i.e., as to what you have or have not inspected and considered for engineering computation and/or optical and photogrammetric analysis). > The burden of proof remains with you, as it always has. That's merely your cop-out. I've presented my evidence openly here in this group, on the issues relating to this thread. I can't say the same for you. I don't see that you've ever presented anything more detailed and objective than arm-waving, in reply to question #3. That's where we are right now. In years past I have argued *your* concerns, right here in this group. (If you think you have formalized more-valid concerns, introduce them here (as I have done in this thread, with one of my own valid concens). By mere generalizations and/or links to your web page (rather than reasoned replies), you've abandoned a key 51-L issue. Hopefully in the future you will abstain from responding to my 51-L posts by snipping everything but my name. If you can't cut the mustard (or simply don't have the time to try), sift chaff. John Maxson > From there you wandered off sophmorically about > a "north exiting right booster" and a "damaged right booster after the > breach." That's "sophomorically." Your educational deficiencies in English are showing now as blatantly as your technical deficiencies always have. More importantly, however, why do you insist on abusing these dead horses? No one here (or anywhere, so far as I can tell) accepts anything you have ever concluded, alluded to, implied or pretended concerning Challenger. The dramatic value of your Ahab-like obsession notwithstanding, all you do is waste bandwidth with nonsense and cement your reputation among the pantheon of Min, Guth and the like. Wouldn't you rather spend your time more fruitfully and enjoyably? You should discuss these issues with the health care professional of choice; they'll likely have recommendations for you. SignatureHerb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D. Reformed Aerospace Engineer Remove invalid nonsense for email. >>From there you wandered off sophmorically about a "north exiting >>right booster" and a "damaged right booster after the breach." > > That's "sophomorically." Your educational deficiencies in English are > showing now as blatantly as your technical deficiencies always have. Typos happen, occasionally, even in the best of families. Some of us have better things to do than pointing out all of your own. Try the spelling found here, if you like: http://www.google.com/groups?&selm=bs4om2%24n0%241%40news.netins.net > More importantly, however, why do you insist on abusing these dead horses? Who's "abus[ively]" beating a "dead horse" below? > You should discuss these issues with the health care professional > of choice; they'll likely have recommendations for you. Herbs, maybe you should consider checking in with one of those guys (or gals). We don't want to see you slip off the deep end completely. (snipped much) One of JTM's more interesting usenet comments: "On February 26, I was walked off the base. I had my badges taken away and the decals scraped off my car, because on very short notice -- without being given any reason -- I was asked to go down to the Santa Barbara County Mental Health Center. They said if I didn't, they were gonna escort me from the base." <http://tinyurl.com/2xywy> For an independent take on Mr. Maxson and his theories, see <http://www.crank.net> For a clear and lucid presentation of the STS-51L (Challenger) disaster, please see Jon S. Berndt's excellent document at <http://home.houston.rr.com/fancijon/conspiracy.pdf> For another excellent resource, see Roger Balettie's site: <http://home.austin.rr.com/sts51lvideo/> SignatureHerb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D. Reformed Aerospace Engineer Columbia Loss FAQ: <http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html> > For an independent take on Mr. Maxson and his theories, see > <http://www.crank.net> Is that "independent take," or "on the take?" I'd like to see the shuttle credentials of Erik Max Francis. He doesn't reply to E-mail, so I fail to see how anyone could attach credibility to an opinion he formed after my first two posts. John Maxson (snipped much) One of JTM's more interesting usenet comments: "On February 26, I was walked off the base. I had my badges taken away and the decals scraped off my car, because on very short notice -- without being given any reason -- I was asked to go down to the Santa Barbara County Mental Health Center. They said if I didn't, they were gonna escort me from the base." <http://tinyurl.com/2xywy> For an independent take on Mr. Maxson and his theories, see <http://www.crank.net> For a clear and lucid presentation of the STS-51L (Challenger) disaster, please see Jon S. Berndt's excellent document at <http://home.houston.rr.com/fancijon/conspiracy.pdf> For another excellent resource, see Roger Balettie's site: <http://home.austin.rr.com/sts51lvideo/> SignatureHerb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D. Reformed Aerospace Engineer Columbia Loss FAQ: <http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html> > One of JTM's more interesting usenet comments: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > For another excellent resource, see Roger Balettie's site: > <http://home.austin.rr.com/sts51lvideo/> Well, old Herbs has finally gone off the deep end and joined up with Nomen Nescio. Yes, I'm afraid old Herbs has completely flipped out! He's suffering from redundancy disorder, even worse than Mosley. "Mr. Maxson" (snipped much) One of JTM's more interesting usenet comments: "On February 26, I was walked off the base. I had my badges taken away and the decals scraped off my car, because on very short notice -- without being given any reason -- I was asked to go down to the Santa Barbara County Mental Health Center. They said if I didn't, they were gonna escort me from the base." <http://tinyurl.com/2xywy> For an independent take on Mr. Maxson and his theories, see <http://www.crank.net> For a clear and lucid presentation of the STS-51L (Challenger) disaster, please see Jon S. Berndt's excellent document at <http://home.houston.rr.com/fancijon/conspiracy.pdf> For another excellent resource, see Roger Balettie's site: <http://home.austin.rr.com/sts51lvideo/> SignatureHerb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D. Reformed Aerospace Engineer Remove invalid nonsense for email. > (snipped much) > > One of JTM's more interesting usenet comments: I think it's interesting that he thought it was a _good_ idea to post that on usenet, or put it in his book. >>(snipped much) >> >>One of JTM's more interesting usenet comments: > > I think it's interesting that he thought it was a _good_ idea to post that on > usenet, or put it in his book. As I stated at the time, *Senator Grassley* advised me to put my FBI/PC interview on the web, along with hundreds of pages of reports and supporting documents which I sent him (many of them just days before the 51-L launch). If I had the means, I would put it all on the web. John Maxson > >>(snipped much) > >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > supporting documents which I sent him (many of them just days before the > 51-L launch). If I had the means, I would put it all on the web. No need to get defensive. I am sure Senator Charles Grassley (R) IA, has your best interests at heart. SignatureDaniel http://www.challengerdisaster.info Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC >That's "sophomorically." ...In his case, that's "sophomoronically". >More importantly, however, why do you insist on abusing these dead horses? ...Because his bastard brats have moved out of the house? OM Signature"No bastard ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms poor dumb bastard die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr >This is amusing, as I have not seen anyone here agree with your >stance on Challenger in years. ...To date, the only ones who've supported his bullshit lies and slanders have been either his bastard kids or the occasional psycho troll. However, as a rule none of these add any weight to his case as the probability that they're just sock puppets is just one iota shy of 1. OM Signature"No bastard ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms poor dumb bastard die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr "john_thomas_maxson" <maxson@iowatelecom.net> wrote in message > This is another prime example of the non-scientific and subjective > road down which you so blissfully travel. This is really ironic, considering that your book is an assembly of unsupported transitions, non-physical dynamics, clueless photo-interpretation, and baseless assertions. I've given far more than you have in the way of detailed explanation in the paper here: http://home.houston.rr.com/fancijon/conspiracy.html just on the topic of the SRB dynamics alone. And you had an entire book to try and make your case. > You refer to a "damaged > right booster after the breach" as if everyone should be convinced [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > to the time of RSD) by the catastrophe. If you're going to give a > percentage, you should cite a distinct time for that percentage. There are these from the PC report: "Their review of the recorded events revealed that the chamber pressure inside the right Solid Rocket Booster began to differ from that of the left booster approximately 60 seconds after lift off." "The chamber pressure difference between left and right Solid Rocket Boosters (SRB's) was within a tolerance range of that observed on previous missions until approximately 10 seconds before LOS. At this point, the left SRB continued to increase thrust as expected but the right SRB began increasing thrust at a degraded rate. At 6 seconds before LOS, the right SRB thrust was no longer increasing." "The STS 51-L mission launch on January 28, 1986, at approximately 11:38 a.m. EST, proceeded normally through SSME startup and SRB ignition. The first anomaly noted was a small puff of smoke observed between the right SRB and the ET in a region near the SRM aft field joint. The smoke appeared to persist for a period between 0.678 seconds and 3.375 seconds. From this point onward to approximately 59 seconds, all systems appeared to perform within their design boundaries; however. there were significant vehicle attitude excursions and high thrust vector control (steering) system activity observed beginning at approximately 37 seconds. This high activity created by upper atmospheric wind gusts and planned maneuvers persisted through the time (59 seconds) when the vehicle was heavily loaded by dynamic pressure. At 58.788 seconds, a flame reappeared. emanating from the general region where the puff of smoke was observed near lift-off. This event occurred almost 5 seconds after the SRMs had experienced their expected chamber pressure reduction at approximately 54 seconds and the SRMs pressure was again rising. Within less than 2 seconds, at 60.004 seconds. the right SRM internal pressure began to diverge from that of the left SRM and did not rise as rapidly as normal. This correlated with a right SRM combustion gas leak. At 61 seconds. just over 2 seconds after the leak was observed, the well defined plume was observed to be deflected, indicating that the hot gas had contacted the ET. Photographic analysis indicated that the plume breached the tank and produced an LH2 leak at 64.660 seconds. the LH2 leak was confirmed 1.2 seconds later, at 66.8 seconds. when the tank pressurization system could no longer maintain its normal repressurization rate; and at 72.6 seconds. the tank pressure could no longer be maintained indicating that the leak path had significantly increased and was growing rapidly. At 72.2 seconds, the guidance system showed that right SRB motion was not the same as the Orbiter and left SRB indicating that the lower ET-to-SRB attachment strut was severed or was pulled loose from the ET." "At 58.788 seconds MET, camera E207 recorded flickering flame visible between the right SRM and the External Tank (ET). At 60.004 seconds MET, the chamber pressure of the right booster began to diverge from that of the left booster. By 73.124 seconds MET, this chamber pressure disparity had progressed to produce a 19 psi differential between left and right motors. This 19 psi differential constituted a 4.9 standard deviation low departure from the performance of the left booster, which was responding normally at that time." [There is a trace of SRM Pc on page v3n34a.htm of the PC Report which shows the SRMs having a varied Pc of about 5 - 10 psi at MET 20 seconds. In reality, one SRB appears to merely be off-profile by about 1 second, and bo |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message