Re: Who'll Take the Fall for Lockheed/NASA This Time?

On Feb 18, 6:02 am, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com>
wrote:

Thanks. Frankly I went and searched the Presidential report looking
for some or any photos that clearly contradicted any of your photos.
People will Photoshop just about anything nowadays so I did wonder if
that is what you had done because the photos if genuine are difficult
to explain.  I could not find any contradictory photos in th report
and the photos do look authentic to me. Not too long ago I did quite a
bit of Presidential report reading so I felt I had to say something
here on the nature of the burnthrough. I think as time passes,
people's recollection of technical aspects of the accident blurs. I
think this is normal. I am dismayed at the dismal quantity of
photographs in the report.

As for the dead silence, it appears that several people here do not
like you so my guess is that they are ignoring you. The personal
attacks just clutter up the topics at hand so the "average Joe" will
quit reading an otherwise interesting topic and missing a lot of
interesting discussion. I like to hear both sides of every story even
when one side goes against the status quo so it is a shame the posts
get personal. Candidly, it might help too, if you were less
antagonistic in your posts as you make negative personal comments as
well.

I did not intend to drop anything on any poster.

Dave

Great 3-D perception, Dave, and very good recall from the Rogers
report. Maybe no one really can produce optics contradicting those
FOIA strips.

At any rate, there suddenly appears to be dead silence on my threads.
All the personal attacks have ceased for 24 hours. I don't know what
to make of it, I intentionally delayed replying to your insightful
post, to give others a chance.

I suspect that you inadvertently dropped an elephant's foot on
Findley's toes, in the process of bringing Gaff back to reality,
Again, yours was obviously a concisely scientific post, and it went
right to the point

JTM

Your statement about the SRB leak being intermittent is not accurate
as it relates to Mr. Maxson's web strips. I say this because you
mention the mounting being cut which occurred at approximately MET 1
minute 13 seconds which is the timeframe of Maxson's web strips. The
"intermittent" portion of the SRB flame leak which you mention
occurred only in the first second or so after burnthrough beginning at
about MET 59 seconds. After that timeframe, the plume was reportedly
"continuous" and "well-defined" according to the Presidential report,
with an ever increasing thrust exiting the sidewall of the booster.

Near the point of structural break-up the right SRB thrust was 24 psi
(which is roughly 96,000 pounds) lower than the left booster. This
thrust differential was attributed to the right SRB burn-through. So
given the extent of the SRB leak at MET 1 minute 13 seconds, it is
difficult for me to imagine the burnthrough disappearing at the
critical point of structural break-up. I personally have no
explanation for why none of the camera angles on Maxson's web strips
appear to show the right SRB burnthrough and what must have been a
pretty long flame coming out of the side of the booster. That flame
should be visible coming up vertically away from the earth and
spraying over the top of the ET (viewed from the south) as the right
SRB rotates about its aft attachments and breaks away from the tank.
Has anyone seen any video, film, or photos that clearly contradicts
Maxson's? I have searched through the Presidential report but there
really is not much there photographically.

Dave

I cannot believe this debate is going on. Its obvious to me that the burn
through was intermittent. I had sight in those days and even I saw this
effect, once the mounting was cut, the stresses were different and the burn
through subsided.

Take more putty with it mate.

Brian

Will it be Thiokol again?

After booster separation aft, there is NO evidence on Challenger's
right solid rocket of the 6000 degree heat from an "aft burnthrough."

Synchronized frames from several cameras now prove that well,
particularly frames from cameras due west (i.e., those with an exposed-
for-flame end view of Challenger's inclined outboard side).

If the right booster "pivoted" forward and rotated outward to the
north after the failure of its lower aft strut (as NASA dogmatically
alleged), a "blowtorch plume" would have shown UP in the next few
frames,

None did, on ANY camera!

To borrow a worn out phrase from mother Lockheed and father NASA, the
O-ring theory has been "put to bed."

Produce the post-aft-sep plume, NASA supporters, or cool it.

JTM