STS51L Accident Questions
Mark Percival
the ET causing the accident. Then I started to wonder.
Would it have been possible for the o-ring to burn through on the other
side of the SRB (ie: away from the tank)? Was it just bad luck it burned
through where it did?
If the above is possible then what would the effect had been on the
remainder of the rise to orbit? Would the Challenger been destroyed
anyhow?
If not then would have one of the abort modes been called after SRB
burnout? How bad would the gasses leaking pushed it off course?
Mark Percival
Montreal, Quebec
Jorge R. Frank
news:7jj211h1vq9bmm1ns...@4ax.com:
> As it is known, the left SRB burned through the o-ring at the side facing
> the ET causing the accident.
Right SRB, not left.
> Would it have been possible for the o-ring to burn through on the other
> side of the SRB (ie: away from the tank)? Was it just bad luck it burned
> through where it did?
Possible but less likely. The O-ring burned through because it had gotten
brittle due to cold temperatures, and the side facing the ET was colder due
the cryogenic propellants in the ET.
> If the above is possible then what would the effect had been on the
> remainder of the rise to orbit? Would the Challenger been destroyed
> anyhow?
Hard to say. The SRBs and SSMEs were clearly trying to compensate for the
loss of thrust from the RSRB when the stack broke up. It's possible that if
the breach had not gotten much worse, the gimbals would still have been
able to control it. On the other hand, if the breach had gotten worse, it
could have exceeded the control authority of the gimbals and the stack
would have tumbled and broken up.
In the actual accident, the breach was observed to be growing
circumferentially around the aft field joint up to the time of the break
up, so another scenario for an outward-facing breach is that eventually the
breach would have weakened the entire field joint to the extent that it
would fail altogether, which also would have resulted in stack breakup.
> If not then would have one of the abort modes been called after SRB
> burnout? How bad would the gasses leaking pushed it off course?
It would not be far off course. The side force was not that great compared
to the thrust of the SRBs; the issues were that 1) the torque from the side
force could have exceeded control authority, and 2) there could have been
enough underspeed at SRB sep that the SSMEs alone couldn't make it up
during second stage, resulting in an ATO.
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
Ed Kyle
>breach would have weakened the entire >field joint to the extent that
it
>would fail altogether, which also would >have resulted in stack
breakup.
This is what I think would have happened. The stack broke up at 73
seconds, only
15 seconds after the first flame appeared at the joint. The SRB would
have had to hold together for another 47 seconds to make it.
- Ed Kyle
Pat Flannery
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
>Hard to say. The SRBs and SSMEs were clearly trying to compensate for the
>loss of thrust from the RSRB when the stack broke up. It's possible that if
>the breach had not gotten much worse, the gimbals would still have been
>able to control it. On the other hand, if the breach had gotten worse, it
>could have exceeded the control authority of the gimbals and the stack
>would have tumbled and broken up.
>
>
>
If burning had started between the exterior of the fuel grain and the
inside of the SRB casing due to the breach, that also could have caused
the SRB to break up, as the gas being generated could debond the fuel
grain from the casing, or cause it to fracture- leading to uncontrolled
burning and excessive pressures in the casing. When solids fail that way
the result is generally a big explosion in a matter of a few seconds.
Pat
Pat
Mark Percival
Would it have been possible for the o-ring to burn through on the other
side of the SRB (ie: away from the tank)? Was it just bad luck it burned
through where it did?
If the above is possible then what would the effect had been on the
remainder of the rise to orbit? Would the Challenger been destroyed
anyhow?
If not then would have one of the abort modes been called after SRB
burnout? How bad would the gasses leaking pushed it off course?
Mark Percival
Montreal, Quebec
Daydreamer99
the area where the O ring was compromise the leak or explosion could
have taken place anywhere. If I remember correctly the SRB where
manufacture and shipped in pieces to cut costs. No problem...The
problem is basic plumbing you need a compression fit with the O ring.
I think this would have decrease the change of the accident from
happening.
Also everyone under pressure to meet time and cost restrictions.
NASA is Safe but sometime you have to gamble. The shuttle is a
proven.........We need a ship assemble like the space station in
orbit.......This will cut cost.
Pat Flannery
Daydreamer99 wrote:
> I'm not an expert. lets down scale this to model rocketry. If
>the area where the O ring was compromise the leak or explosion could
>have taken place anywhere.
>
>
The area where it failed at was the one that got a great deal of stress
put on it during the "twang"- when the shuttle makes the rest of the
launch stack bend as its engines are ignited before SRB ignition. The
area of the SRBs astern of the aft attachment point to the ET undergo
the most stress during this event; and indeed film of the Shuttle on the
pad showed a jet of smoke emerging from the the field joint that would
later burn through on SRB ignition and prior to lift-off. This was due
to the O-rings on that field joint being unseated by the "twang" and
unable to reseat themselves due to their low temperatures making them
inflexible.
Pat
Henry Spencer
Mark Percival <ma...@syndicomm.com> wrote:
>Would it have been possible for the o-ring to burn through on the other
>side of the SRB (ie: away from the tank)? Was it just bad luck it burned
>through where it did?
Not entirely just bad luck. The SRB rear attach struts put extra stress
on that area of the casing, tending to pull the joint farther open there.
Transient loads from the struts during ignition probably contributed to the
initial leak and likely O-ring damage there; transient loads during
windshear shortly before the accident probably re-opened the leak.
The joint design was generally a poor one, with margins particularly thin
in the conditions of that launch, and a leak could have happened anywhere,
but that particular area was predisposed to it.
>If the above is possible then what would the effect had been on the
>remainder of the rise to orbit? Would the Challenger been destroyed
>anyhow?
Had the leak been elsewhere, there would have been some chance of
survival. The shit hit the fan not because of the leak itself, but
because of the stream of hot gas playing on the attach struts and the ET;
more or less simultaneously, (a) the struts failed and the SRB pivoted
around its forward attachment, so its nose mashed in the side of the ET,
and (b) the ET aft dome tore loose. So the ET disintegrated, and the
orbiter was thrown violently out of control at Mach 3 and broke up. The
failing SRB stayed pretty much intact until Range Safety blew it up some
seconds later.
If the struts had held and the ET not been exposed to excessive heat, the
SRB would have stayed in one piece for a while, perhaps long enough. If
the leak was in a position where it didn't damage the orbiter wing, then
there could have been problems with side thrust from the leak, and from
forward thrust falling off because of the gas lost to the leak (the
shuttle can't cope with any substantial difference in thrust between the
two SRBs), but there was a chance.
>If not then would have one of the abort modes been called after SRB
>burnout? How bad would the gasses leaking pushed it off course?
Hard to say. It might even have been possible to carry on to orbit.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert | he...@spsystems.net
Charleston
"Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote:
<snip>
> and indeed film of the Shuttle on the pad showed a jet of smoke emerging
> from the the field joint that would later burn through on SRB ignition and
> prior to lift-off. This was due to the O-rings on that field joint being
> unseated by the "twang" and unable to reseat themselves due to their low
> temperatures making them inflexible.
Kind of like this unreleased STS 51-L video where the smoke, uh stops at
3.375 seconds?
http://www.challengerdisaster.info/sts_51-l_m-2_mpg_i.mpg
Daniel
Pat Flannery
Charleston wrote:
>Kind of like this unreleased STS 51-L video where the smoke, uh stops at
>3.375 seconds?
>
>http://www.challengerdisaster.info/sts_51-l_m-2_mpg_i.mpg
>
>
You know, there's a far better video of the smoke plume out there than
that; in fact, I can't even see the smoke plume in that crappy and
distorted video. The other video is in color in color and a _lot_ closer up.
Pat
Herb Schaltegger
Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> wrote:
Which is probably one reason why this particular footage was
"unreleased," along with the fact that due to the angle of the camera
with respect to the trajectory and orientation of the stack
immediately prior to and following breakup, you can't really see much
that you can't see from much better perspectives elsewhere.
--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D., GPG Key ID: BBF6FC1C
"The loss of the American system of checks and balances is more of a security
danger than any terrorist risk." -- Bruce Schneier
<http://dischordia.blogspot.com>
<http://www.angryherb.net>
Charleston
There is definitely better film of the smoke puffs that occured immediately
at launch, that is true (film cameras E-60, E-63). Subsequently that film
was transferred to video. The best motion picture film photography of the
smoke puffs at launch, that is the cameras positioned with a direct angle to
observe the start-up tranisent as to location, direction of smoke, size,
etcetera, all failed to operate! The odds of that failure being coincidence
are dim, but it did happen that way.
As for your inability to see the smoke, please don't blame me. It takes a
lot of bandwidth to put up MPEG II or AVI. I will put up some higher
resolution photography later tonight for a limited timeframe. Personally, I
can see plenty of black smoke up to about 3.4 seconds, and subsequently I
see significant diffuse smoke brightly illuminated by the light of the SRB
flames. Also, I conclude that the "STS 51-L JSC Visual Data Analysis
Sub-Team" and the team at LMSC got it right when they saw smoke and "solid
material" as late as 45 seconds emanating from the same region of the
vehicle. Unfortuantely, they were overruled by the film team at KSC. As
you probably know, it is KSC's views that are reflected in the final
Presidential Commission report.
Daniel
Charleston
> Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> wrote:
>
<snip>
>>
>> that; in fact, I can't even see the smoke plume in that crappy and
>> distorted video. The other video is in color in color and a _lot_ closer
>> up.
>
> "unreleased," along with the fact that due to the angle of the camera
> with respect to the trajectory and orientation of the stack
> immediately prior to and following breakup, you can't really see much
> that you can't see from much better perspectives elsewhere.
If this video footage and other similar footage had actually been released
in its entirety to the Commission investigating the accident and the public
during the original investigation, we would not be discussing when the smoke
ended at all. See my previous comment.
Daniel
Charleston
news:1119o7h...@corp.supernews.com...
Okay, I have uploaded MPEG II videos of M-2 and M-3. Still not AVI, nor
3/4", but they are good enough. If you look at M-3 at 10.4 to 10.5 seconds
MET, you will notice that the space between the SRBs and the Orbiter (side
shot) is obscured by smoke. At MET 12.7 and 12.8 seconds the first right
SRB stiffener ring immediately below the base of the ET and from there on up
the SRB to the ET is intermittedly obscured by smoke. When you combine M-3
with M-2 you can get a 3-dimensional feel for the smoke's location based on
what is being obscured! In a nutshell something is still leaking! I have
reviewed prior flight photography and nothing comes close to the density of
the smoke (obscured hardware behind smoke) as can be seen on STS 51-L.
If you do not have freeze frame/frame by frame advance, it is very difficult
to pick-up/appreciate the subtlety of what is happening as described above.
Daniel
Herb Schaltegger
"Charleston" <charl...@coxthedotgoeshere.net> wrote:
> Personally, I
> can see plenty of black smoke up to about 3.4 seconds, and subsequently I
> see significant diffuse smoke brightly illuminated by the light of the SRB
> flames. Also, I conclude that the "STS 51-L JSC Visual Data Analysis
> Sub-Team" and the team at LMSC got it right when they saw smoke and "solid
> material" as late as 45 seconds emanating from the same region of the
> vehicle. Unfortuantely, they were overruled by the film team at KSC. As
> you probably know, it is KSC's views that are reflected in the final
> Presidential Commission report.
Okay, Daniel - you've explained what it is you perceive in the footage
you've provided and you've indicated your agreement with a
later-overruled/discredited/under-appreciated/whatever view held by a
JSC sub-team.
However, I'm now forced to ask a question that keeps popping up in my
mind: why does it matter? In other words, what's the significance of
your view as opposed to the views and conclusions contained within the
Presidential Commission report?
Pat Flannery
Charleston wrote:
> The best motion picture film photography of the
>smoke puffs at launch, that is the cameras positioned with a direct angle to
>observe the start-up tranisent as to location, direction of smoke, size,
>etcetera, all failed to operate! The odds of that failure being coincidence
>are dim, but it did happen that way.
>
>
And your point is?
>As for your inability to see the smoke, please don't blame me. It takes a
>lot of bandwidth to put up MPEG II or AVI. I will put up some higher
>resolution photography later tonight for a limited timeframe. Personally, I
>can see plenty of black smoke up to about 3.4 seconds, and subsequently I
>see significant diffuse smoke brightly illuminated by the light of the SRB
>flames.
>
That stuff coming off the side of the tank, and falling into the area
behind the ET isn't related to the SRB problem, it shows up on every
Shuttle launch; it's either some sort of venting from the ET or frost
falling off of its exterior surface.
> Also, I conclude that the "STS 51-L JSC Visual Data Analysis
>Sub-Team" and the team at LMSC got it right when they saw smoke and "solid
>material" as late as 45 seconds emanating from the same region of the
>vehicle.
>
Are we talking about the SRB here, or some other part of the vehicle?
> Unfortuantely, they were overruled by the film team at KSC. As
>you probably know, it is KSC's views that are reflected in the final
>Presidential Commission report.
>
>
As we have photos showing the plume coming out of the SRB and impinging
on the ET's surface, followed by the failure of the ET, and also
detailed extremely clear film of the burning of the O-rings at the field
joint during SRB ignition with a plume of smoke exiting the SRB, this
whole thing is about as open and shut case as it's possible to get in
regards to the cause of the accident.
Pat
Pat Flannery
Charleston wrote:
>Okay, I have uploaded MPEG II videos of M-2 and M-3. Still not AVI, nor
>3/4", but they are good enough. If you look at M-3 at 10.4 to 10.5 seconds
>MET, you will notice that the space between the SRBs and the Orbiter (side
>shot) is obscured by smoke. At MET 12.7 and 12.8 seconds the first right
>SRB stiffener ring immediately below the base of the ET and from there on up
>the SRB to the ET is intermittedly obscured by smoke.
>
>
Is there some pertinent point to this? NASA says that it leaked at
liftoff, stopped leaking, then restarted leaking.
You say it was leaking all the way up to a greater or lesser degree.
What difference does it make?
Pat
OM
wrote:
>What difference does it make?
...Pat, he's on another bender, attempting to unvillify his "Father's"
worthless name. Just killfile the little bastard and put him out of
our misery again.
Please.
OM
--
"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
OM
wrote:
>And your point is?
...On his head, as all of his particular strain of inbreeding tend to
possess.
OM
<herb.sch...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>However, I'm now forced to ask a question that keeps popping up in my
>mind: why does it matter? In other words, what's the significance of
>your view as opposed to the views and conclusions contained within the
>Presidential Commission report?
...They're not *his* views, but those of that worthless psychotic
janitor of a "father" of his. He's just trying to unbesmirch daddy's
name. Just killfile the little bastard and put him out of our misery.
Pat Flannery
OM wrote:
>...Pat, he's on another bender, attempting to unvillify his "Father's"
>worthless name. Just killfile the little bastard and put him out of
>our misery again.
>
>
You notice though that the the theory has changed very considerably from
it's first incarnation; now the problem's with the SRB, not the
Shuttle's RCS.
Pat
Charleston
> "Charleston" <charl...@coxthedotgoeshere.net> wrote:
>
>> Personally, I
>> can see plenty of black smoke up to about 3.4 seconds, and subsequently I
>> see significant diffuse smoke brightly illuminated by the light of the
>> SRB
>> flames. Also, I conclude that the "STS 51-L JSC Visual Data Analysis
>> Sub-Team" and the team at LMSC got it right when they saw smoke and
>> "solid
>> material" as late as 45 seconds emanating from the same region of the
>> vehicle. Unfortuantely, they were overruled by the film team at KSC. As
>> you probably know, it is KSC's views that are reflected in the final
>> Presidential Commission report.
>
> Okay, Daniel - you've explained what it is you perceive in the footage
> you've provided and you've indicated your agreement with a
> later-overruled/discredited/under-appreciated/whatever view held by a
> JSC sub-team.
"later overuled" The JSC Sub-Team I spoke of stood by their report which
was published in June 1986, and they did so only after receiving the final
EA (Enhancement/Analysis) report from LMSC (one of many outside groups
called in by NASA to help with the photo analysis). The folks at KSC
wielded the real power on the Photo and TV Support Team. They based their
conclusions and thus their report on preliminary EA work, which was done
with inferior photographic products.
from http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3appn.htm (page N-81) we have:
"The analyses were hampered in this initial stage (2 weeks after the
accident) by the lack of suitable photographic materials to support digital
analysis. All organizations reported problems in digitizing from the
cut-film transparencies and most resorted to digitizing from 8 x 10 positive
prints or abandoned the effort entirely. Exxon and one other laboratory had
contact transparencies of E60 and E63 and performed analyses of the smoke at
launch."
Herb, the KSC Photo Team obeyed a capricious Presidential Commission (PC)
deadline. That deadline was extended, in any event, at the request of NASA
to address late breaking events like recovering an SRB piece with a hole
burned through it. The Photo and TV Support Team could have elected to
amend their report as others did. They chose not to do so despite receiving
the final report from LMSC in early April.
http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3appn.htm (page N-81)
"c. Results
The results of these follow-on analyses were received in the mid-March to
early-April timeframe and generally have not been analyzed and consolidated
for this report **PC Report**. The findings do, however, generally
corroborate the integrated timeline events when the analyses pertain to a
particular event."
To me at least, "generally corroborate" is a far cry from out right
contradict, but that is what the final LMSC report does--contradict the PC
report. It is also what the flight photography does. Of course the final
PC report could only be as good as the data upon which it was based and
basing a Presidential report on preliminary data from early April, when the
report is not due on the President's desk until June 9th, seems decidedly
foolhardy, or something worse, deceitful.
"discredited" I would say the discredited team was working at KSC and they
are "discredited" because they chose to draw conclusions before all of the
facts were in and to not amend their report when confronted by JSC with said
facts based on better photographic products.
"under-appreciated" Well, you'd have to ask the JSC team. I believe them to
be honest and hard working having spoken to one of the team members myself.
> However, I'm now forced to ask a question that keeps popping up in my
> mind: why does it matter?
Nah, don't let me force you into anything, please;-)
> In other words, what's the significance of
> your view as opposed to the views and conclusions contained within the
> Presidential Commission report?
Well it is pretty simple. If there is smoke up until at least T+45 seconds
(JSC/LMSC conclusion) then it is likely that there was always smoke. If
there was always smoke, it is difficult to believe the SRB field joint did
in fact reseal. If in fact the SRB field joint did not reseal then it is
difficult to believe that there was nothing more than smoke for 58 seconds
or so. Stated differently, the evidence suggests to me that the early smoke
seen at lift-off was not from an SRB filed joint leak at all and if that is
the case the real question is where did the smoke really originate?
Go ahead OM throw rocks and smoke jokes. I will try to throw objective
opinion based on overlooked facts from overlooked reports and overlooked
photography that does not seem so very "crappy" to me. Oh, and please don't
forget that I can examine the facts fairly decently ala Apollo 1/204. I am
not drawing any conclusions as to what ultimately happened but more research
is warranted and that is what I am doing. Please consider this an update.
Thanks.
Daniel
Charleston
> Charleston wrote:
>
>> The best motion picture film photography of the smoke puffs at launch,
>> that is the cameras positioned with a direct angle to observe the
>> start-up tranisent as to location, direction of smoke, size, etcetera,
>> all failed to operate! The odds of that failure being coincidence are
>> dim, but it did happen that way.
>>
>
> And your point is?
That is was not a coincidence and the film issue was never adequately
resolved.
http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3appn.htm Page N-74)
"7) Factors or Anomalies Not Ruled Out
The pattern of camera locations of the items that failed does not appear to
be a random pattern. The grouping of failed items cannot be rationalized on
the basis of purely statistical rationale without reaching an extremely high
improbability estimate.
It cannot be explained why the cameras on the MLP deck, which according to
all evidence should have been in a more favorable environment than the
cameras on the FSS, had a high failure percentage, while the FSS cameras had
no failures.
The fact that the most important cameras, in terms of direct viewing of the
critical event at lift-off, were among the failed items is only partially
explainable as a random statistic. The percent of failed items to total MLP
items is 32 percent. Of the nine failed items, four are considered most
important as directly viewing the smoke event. The percent of critical items
to failed items is 44 percent.
Other factors about which there is insufficient evidence to report will be
the subject of continuing investigation."
>>As for your inability to see the smoke, please don't blame me. It takes
a
>>lot of bandwidth to put up MPEG II or AVI. I will put up some higher
>>resolution photography later tonight for a limited timeframe. Personally,
>>I can see plenty of black smoke up to about 3.4 seconds, and subsequently
>>I see significant diffuse smoke brightly illuminated by the light of the
>>SRB flames.
>>
> That stuff coming off the side of the tank, and falling into the area
> behind the ET isn't related to the SRB problem, it shows up on every
> Shuttle launch; it's either some sort of venting from the ET or frost
> falling off of its exterior surface.
You don't know that for sure. The 3 dimensional origin of most of the smoke
is from the right half of the vehicle. Undoubtedly some of the smoke is
from ET offgassing and a little frost; nevertheless, smoke was conclusivley
seen by LMSC as early as T+15 seconds from the E-217 70mm film and in the 40
to 45 second timeframe with "solid material" being visible from the same
camera.
>> Also, I conclude that the "STS 51-L JSC Visual Data Analysis Sub-Team"
>> and the team at LMSC got it right when they saw smoke and "solid
>> material" as late as 45 seconds emanating from the same region of the
>> vehicle.
>>
> Are we talking about the SRB here, or some other part of the vehicle?
From the area where smoke was seen shortly after lift-off.
>> Unfortuantely, they were overruled by the film team at KSC. As you
>> probably know, it is KSC's views that are reflected in the final
>> Presidential Commission report.
>
> As we have photos showing the plume coming out of the SRB and impinging on
> the ET's surface, followed by the failure of the ET, and also detailed
> extremely clear film of the burning of the O-rings at the field joint
> during SRB ignition with a plume of smoke exiting the SRB, this whole
> thing is about as open and shut case as it's possible to get in regards to
> the cause of the accident.
So do you conclude that NASA could not have overlooked multiple failures,
with one failure initiating others in a cascading series of events outside
of the current leaky field joint failure as reflected in the STS 51-L
history books? Please keep an open mind.
Daniel
Charleston
>
> You notice though that the the theory has changed very considerably from
> it's first incarnation; now the problem's with the SRB, not the Shuttle's
> RCS.
Observation and discussion itself is not theory. I have tried to present
everything I have ever written here in fair context with my usual and
customary sarcasm. I ask you to do likewise.
Daniel
OM
wrote:
>You notice though that the the theory has changed very considerably from
>it's first incarnation; now the problem's with the SRB, not the
>Shuttle's RCS.
...Yeah, same bullshit direction "scott" goes with his bogus theory.
Figures.
scot...@gusgrissom.com
it's never changed, "o" ring boy. are you smoking crack
again?
OM
> it's never changed, "o" ring boy. are you smoking crack
>again?
...Whoops! The little bastard got out of Killfile Hell *again*!
<PLONK>
...Back in you go. Now *stay* there, asshat.
OM
wrote:
>Charleston, J*** M*****'s bastard kid wrote:
...Who cares? It's all lies anyway.
>You know, there's a far better video of the smoke plume out there than
>that; in fact, I can't even see the smoke plume in that crappy and
>distorted video. The other video is in color in color and a _lot_ closer up.
...Then again, Patrick, you're neither a washed-up janitor with a
mad-on for his former employers, nor one of his genetically-inferior
excuses for offspring.
Pat Flannery
OM wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 12:22:39 -0600, Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>Charleston, J*** M*****'s bastard kid wrote:
>>
>>
>
>
Watch your quotations there, I did not write that- that happens again
and it's off to the killfile with you.
Pat
OM
wrote:
>Watch your quotations there, I did not write that- that happens again
>and it's off to the killfile with you.
...True, you did *not* write that. Doesn't change the validity of the
change, tho. I mea culprit with glee, so let the little bastard's
vehemence fall upon me instead of thee!
Charleston
wrote:
> ...True, you did *not* write that. Doesn't change the validity of the
> change, tho. I mea culprit with glee, so let the little bastard's
> vehemence fall upon me instead of thee!
OM! Facts are an amazing thing. How much do you think you really know about
the Challenger disaster? The key word is "think". Everything about that
disaster and NASA's account of that disaster hinges on the validity and
integrity of one 15 second clip of film shot from Playalinda Beach Universal
Camera Site 10, camera E207.
True or false?
No help please.
Daniel
Terrell Miller
> OM! Facts are an amazing thing. How much do you think you really know about
> the Challenger disaster? The key word is "think". Everything about that
> disaster and NASA's account of that disaster hinges on the validity and
> integrity of one 15 second clip of film shot from Playalinda Beach Universal
> Camera Site 10, camera E207.
>
> True or false?
False
You do realize that there were several cameras tracking the ascent, and
buttloads of telemetry radiod down, yes?
--
Terrell Miller
mill...@bellsouth.net
"Every gardener knows nature's random cruelty"
-Paul Simon RE: George Harrison
Charleston
> Charleston wrote:
>
>> OM! Facts are an amazing thing. How much do you think you really know
>> about the Challenger disaster? The key word is "think". Everything
>> about that disaster and NASA's account of that disaster hinges on the
>> validity and integrity of one 15 second clip of film shot from Playalinda
>> Beach Universal Camera Site 10, camera E207.
>>
>> True or false?
>
> False
>
> You do realize that there were several cameras tracking the ascent, and
> buttloads of telemetry radiod down, yes?
No, I put buttloads of STS 51-L tracking camera video on my website in total
denial of the obvious fact that any of those cameras were actually tracking
anything. Of course I realize that there were several cameras tracking STS
51-L into the history books. Now you do of course realize that one in
particular camera is the one camera upon which NASA formed its precise
conclusions as to the most probable cause of the disaster, right?. You of
course also understand the consequences of any significant errors in that
film as they pertain to other cameras used to directly corroborate said
film.
Oh, and are you helping OM;-| ?
Daniel
OM
<mill...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>You do realize that there were several cameras tracking the ascent, and
>buttloads of telemetry radiod down, yes?
...You do realize that the insanity runs deep within his family shrub,
and that using concepts like "truth" "facts" and "logic" are anethema
to his kind of selective inbreeding? Best just to put him in your
killfile and out of our misery.
Charleston
"OM" <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research_facility.org>
wrote:
> ...You do realize that the insanity runs deep within his family shrub,
> and that using concepts like "truth" "facts" and "logic" are anethema
> to his kind of selective inbreeding? Best just to put him in your
> killfile and out of our misery.
Evasion of even the most simple question noted.
OM! Facts are an amazing thing. How much do you think you really know about
the Challenger disaster? The key word is "think". Everything about that
disaster and NASA's account of that disaster hinges on the validity and
integrity of one 15 second clip of film shot from Playalinda Beach Universal
Camera Site 10, camera E207.
True or false?
No help please.
Daniel
Chuck Stewart
> True or false?
> No help please.
In a usenet group?
Dear Bast, it _was_ hereditary after all...
> Daniel
*plonk*
--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"
Charleston
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 19:06:23 -0800, Charleston wrote:
>
>> True or false?
>
>> No help please.
>
> In a usenet group?
>
> Dear Bast, it _was_ hereditary after all...
>
>
"*plonk*"?
Chuck that is kind of silly since you;
1. Have no idea where this is going and;
2. Not one of you here on this group can point to anywhere on the entire
web that shows that 15 second clip in its entirety. Why Chuck? Does that
seem like such a big deal after 19 years? How can it be that no one can get
that clip today in video or film format in its entirety, without any frame
deletions or slow motion interruptions? Laugh if you want, but you should
at least truly understand and have seen what is on that video before you
laugh. I will be putting it on the web down the road but getting it is a
bear. I think if I can get to the bottom of Scott Grissom's Apollo I issues
in a concise manner, I can surely get to the bottom of the E-207 issue.
Whatever the truth is, that is what will come out. Keep me in your plonk
file if you want but at least look at the E-207 file when I post it on my
website before you disparage me. Thanks.
Daniel
OM
wrote:
>Dear Bast, it _was_ hereditary after all...
...You mean to tell me you didn't figure this out the first time he
posted supporting his child molesting father??
[shakes head in utter dismay]
Chuck Stewart
> ...You mean to tell me you didn't figure this out the first time he
But he got better... for a while... he
really did...
> [shakes head in utter dismay]
Look at it this way: you're not gaining a
daughter... you're twirling a wombat!
> OM
Dave Michelson
>
> ...You mean to tell me you didn't figure this out the first time he
> posted supporting his child molesting father??
Bob,
You're rather close to the line.
Knock it off, please.
--
Dave Michelson
da...@ece.ubc.ca
OM
wrote:
>You're rather close to the line.
...Possibly. Doesn't change the fact that people need to just killfile
him and spare the rest of us who already have.
Derek Lyons
>Now you do of course realize that one in
>particular camera is the one camera upon which NASA formed its precise
>conclusions as to the most probable cause of the disaster, right?.
One particular camera, plus metric buttloads of telemetry evidence,
plus considerable physical evidence, plus, plus, plus....
It's not nearly as simple as you make it out to be.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Paul Maxson
sn-us!sn-xit-12!sn-xit-09!sn-xit-14!supernews.com!postnews.google.com!news4.
google.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!lo
cal1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.io.com!news.io.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 02:44:56 -0600
From: OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research_facility.org>
Newsgroups: sci.space.history
Subject: Re: STS51L Accident Questions
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 02:46:53 -0600
Organization: Charter Member & Sergeant--At-Arms, Human O-Ring Society, US
Chapter
Message-ID: <g25r11594c4t2tpia...@4ax.com>
References: <11148dd...@corp.supernews.com>
<gGVQd.90629$0u.6111@fed1read04> <1119o7h...@corp.supernews.com>
<rcs911pp7ribaqsas...@4ax.com>
<111p815...@corp.supernews.com>
<cgkp1157ho4ag6upb...@4ax.com>
<EH9Td.117495$0u.20820@fed1read04>
<pS9Td.34835$a96....@bignews3.bellsouth.net>
<7dgq11ljp17g6rn7q...@4ax.com>
<twbTd.117878$0u.115260@fed1read04>
<pan.2005.02.24....@gmx.co.uk>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 19
NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.224.83.131
X-Trace:
sv3-GueQkiZmmF6g6yP9w+/5OKtSyZy1bwmdviE9f4G0OxnKIUBoFsGSER2tawdQp94QVkLcP1FQ
SiIDHqe!BeuzL3ZxbQPDo2tMZMiTIA7BC0LjhoVHodJxyuZ8qdVj+efxmHcwMjmDjg593NKqQzAH
Al67iOA+!a+cSwq9i0vY=
X-Complaints-To: ab...@io.com
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: ab...@io.com
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint
properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.31
Xref: sn-us sci.space.history:199967
OM
--
Bob,
Exactly whom are you claiming that John Thomas Maxson of Iowa molested?
It has been roughly 3 or 4 years now that you have posted this claim. Please
provide proof of your defamatory claim that is archived on servers around
the world. Leaving the group obviously doesn't work so I want to get to the
bottom of this claim once and for all. I feel your written comments are
damaging and harassing in nature and have nothing to do with "space history"
. Yet you make these claims weekly, year after year.
Daniel Maxson may overlook your defamation of character but I assure you
that I will not now and I never have in the past. I have also asked you to
stop doing so several times. It's time for you to prove your claims or
retract them. I am publicly asking you to do so now. I am John Maxson's son
(for the record.) 2-24-05 1035 hrs PST.
P.S.
"You're rather close to the line."
Dave,
Exactly where is the "line drawn" on this Usenet forum?
Sincerely,
Paul Maxson
OM
<pma...@surewestspam.net> wrote:
>Exactly where is the "line drawn" on this Usenet forum?
...Right here:
<PLONK>
...Once again, problem solved. Begone.
Terrell Miller
> ...You do realize that the insanity runs deep within his family shrub,
not so much a shrub, more of a Chia Pet
Charleston
> "Charleston" <charl...@coxthedotgoeshere.net> wrote:
>
>>Now you do of course realize that one in
>>particular camera is the one camera upon which NASA formed its precise
>>conclusions as to the most probable cause of the disaster, right?.
>
> One particular camera, plus metric buttloads of telemetry evidence,
> plus considerable physical evidence, plus, plus, plus....
>
> It's not nearly as simple as you make it out to be.
True, but almost all of the STS 51-L launch photography is inextricably
linked by NASA to the E-207 film and therein lies the issue.
As for the telemetry, seeing is nauseating, trust me Derek. I can even send
you some if you will trust a spreadsheet from MSFC.
Daniel
Charleston
> OM wrote:
>
>> ...You do realize that the insanity runs deep within his family shrub,
>
Reduced to babbling with Saint Jerome.
Daniel
OM
<mill...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>OM wrote:
>
>> ...You do realize that the insanity runs deep within his family shrub,
>
>not so much a shrub, more of a Chia Pet
...Yeah, but how do we go about having said pet spayed and/or
neutered?
Charleston
> Bob,
<snip Saint JerOMe post>
>
>
> Exactly whom are you claiming that John Thomas Maxson of Iowa molested?
OM's claims are simply adolescent prurient bullshit not worth the time it
takes to read them.
> It has been roughly 3 or 4 years now that you have posted this claim.
> Please
> provide proof of your defamatory claim that is archived on servers around
> the world. Leaving the group obviously doesn't work so I want to get to
> the
> bottom of this claim once and for all. I feel your written comments are
> damaging and harassing in nature and have nothing to do with "space
> history"
> . Yet you make these claims weekly, year after year.
>
Hence my reference to OM's prurient nature.
Prurient: adj.
1.. Inordinately interested in matters of sex; lascivious.
2..
1.. Characterized by an inordinate interest in sex: prurient thoughts.
2.. Arousing or appealing to an inordinate interest in sex: prurient
literature.
>
> Daniel Maxson may overlook your defamation of character but I assure you
> that I will not now and I never have in the past.
Most of the time, I overlook OM's preoccupation with being an absolute jerk.
Sigmund would have loved OM. I do not consider anything *personal* OM
writes about me, my family members or anyone else here for that matter,
anything more than temporary electrons clogging up my screen. To give OM a
serious response is to give him credibility. Don't judge this group based
on his behavior. People here have tried to influence him in a positive
manner from time to time with varying degrees of success. In the end
(literally) OM is still a human hole through which much shit passes.
Nevertheless even OM has some good in him. Trust me Paul, everyone needs an
asshole;-)
> I have also asked you to
> stop doing so several times. It's time for you to prove your claims or
> retract them. I am publicly asking you to do so now. I am John Maxson's
> son
> (for the record.) 2-24-05 1035 hrs PST.
> Exactly where is the "line drawn" on this Usenet forum?
There is a line. That line is the point at which many good people leave a
group and rarely come back. It has been crossed here and elsewhere many
times.
Daniel
Derek Lyons
>"Derek Lyons" <fair...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Charleston" <charl...@coxthedotgoeshere.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Now you do of course realize that one in
>>>particular camera is the one camera upon which NASA formed its precise
>>>conclusions as to the most probable cause of the disaster, right?.
>>
>> One particular camera, plus metric buttloads of telemetry evidence,
>> plus considerable physical evidence, plus, plus, plus....
>>
>> It's not nearly as simple as you make it out to be.
>
>True, but almost all of the STS 51-L launch photography is inextricably
>linked by NASA to the E-207 film and therein lies the issue.
Therein lies the non-issue you mean. No matter how much film you
post, or how much you bray, the basic failure mechanism remains the
same.
Terrell Miller
>>>...You do realize that the insanity runs deep within his family shrub,
>>
>>not so much a shrub, more of a Chia Pet
>
>
> ...Yeah, but how do we go about having said pet spayed and/or
> neutered?
dunno, one would think that in his case we'd be talking about a
self-limiting system. But apparently not :O
Terrell Miller
>>not so much a shrub, more of a Chia Pet.
>
>
> Reduced to babbling with Saint Jerome.
I thought that was the Blessed St. Germain...
--
Terrell Miller
mill...@bellsouth.net
LaToya, Tito
Charleston
<snip>
>>True, but almost all of the STS 51-L launch photography is inextricably
>>linked by NASA to the E-207 film and therein lies the issue.
>
> Therein lies the non-issue you mean. No matter how much film you
> post, or how much you bray, the basic failure mechanism remains the
> same.
Well are you sure? Seriously. Is your mind so closed that even if you were
given clear evidence that NASA made obvious errors in the presentation of
that film, that you would not reconsider that there may be more to the
disaster than we have been told? I am not trying to be difficult Derek,
however, if your mind is made up, it will make it easier for me to address
your posts later.
Daniel
Derek Lyons
>"Derek Lyons" <fair...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Charleston" <charl...@coxthedotgoeshere.net> wrote:
>
>>>True, but almost all of the STS 51-L launch photography is inextricably
>>>linked by NASA to the E-207 film and therein lies the issue.
>>
>> Therein lies the non-issue you mean. No matter how much film you
>> post, or how much you bray, the basic failure mechanism remains the
>> same.
>
>Well are you sure? Seriously. Is your mind so closed that even if you were
>given clear evidence that NASA made obvious errors in the presentation of
>that film, that you would not reconsider that there may be more to the
>disaster than we have been told?
If you have evidence that something other than the o-rings were the
cause of the accident, feel free to present it.
If your theory is (as I understand it) nothing more than the o-ring
leak was somewhat different than as presented in the accident report,
then you aren't really accomplishing anything.
>I am not trying to be difficult Derek, however, if your mind is made up, it will
>make it easier for me to address your posts later.
You *are* being difficult. You keep posting these films and making
dark hints and handwaving conclusions about NASA conspiracies and
incompetence. If you have a theory[1], lay it out and the evidence
you have supporting it. You've bragged about your scientific
competence before, if it's real it means you know how to present a
case and to support it. Do so.
[1] Of the accident, not handwavings about how NASA missed
'something'. Identify that something precisely in clear language.
Alan Erskine
news:422030a2...@supernews.seanet.com...
> "Charleston" <charl...@coxthedotgoeshere.net> wrote:
Derek, you should know better. This has been going on for years now and the
Ma*xs*on trolls will never change. Just killfile them and be done with it.
--
Alan Erskine
We can get people to the Moon in five years,
not the fifteen GWB proposes.
Give NASA a real challenge
Alaner...@bigpond.com
OM
wrote:
>Therein lies the non-issue you mean. No matter how much film you
>post, or how much you bray, the basic failure mechanism remains the
>same.
...Yes. And in his case, it's all genetic.
OM
wrote:
>You *are* being difficult.
...Difficulty, thy name is M*****.
Charleston
> "Charleston" <charl...@coxthedotgoeshere.net> wrote:
>>"Derek Lyons" <fair...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "Charleston" <charl...@coxthedotgoeshere.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>True, but almost all of the STS 51-L launch photography is inextricably
>>>>linked by NASA to the E-207 film and therein lies the issue.
>>>
>>> Therein lies the non-issue you mean. No matter how much film you
>>> post, or how much you bray, the basic failure mechanism remains the
>>> same.
Not necessarily true. Your assumption is based on the concept that all film
and video of the STS 51-L accident was honestly presented. Do not
overstate for me what I have expressed here. My posts on this thread are
fairly clear. They are obscured only by smoke on the videos to which I have
referred but which have received scant intelligent commentary.
>>
>>Well are you sure? Seriously. Is your mind so closed that even if you
>>were
>>given clear evidence that NASA made obvious errors in the presentation of
>>that film, that you would not reconsider that there may be more to the
>>disaster than we have been told?
>
> If you have evidence that something other than the o-rings were the
> cause of the accident, feel free to present it.
You did not answer my question. From your comments on this thread so far,
it would appear your mind is made up.
> If your theory is (as I understand it) nothing more than the o-ring
> leak was somewhat different than as presented in the accident report,
> then you aren't really accomplishing anything.
I have not presented a theory here. I have presented some evidence and
questions.
>>I am not trying to be difficult Derek, however, if your mind is made up,
>>it will
>>make it easier for me to address your posts later.
>
> You *are* being difficult. You keep posting these films and making
> dark hints and handwaving conclusions about NASA conspiracies and
> incompetence.
Since there was smoke beyond 3.375 seconds after lift-off then where could
it have come from Derek? Whether it is using preliminary evidence instead
of final evidence or just holding back key videos and film from the
Presidential Commission investigating the accident, NASA either made some
serious mistakes or worse. I have brought out new facts and new questions.
It is the evidnece that is difficult not me. I don't have all of the
answers but I do have a lot of questions and a growing list of evidence that
I will present here from time to time whether it is difficult or not.
> If you have a theory[1], lay it out and the evidence
> you have supporting it.
Let's be clear in our discussion. I don't have to proffer any theory here.
I will proffer some evidence. I have some nagging questions that need
answers. The questions should have been answered by a fair presentation of
all available evidence in 1986. This is a discussion group. Let's discuss
some of those films I took the time to put on my website.
Daniel
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC
www.challengerdisaster.info
Derek Lyons
> They are obscured only by smoke on the videos to which I have
>referred but which have received scant intelligent commentary.
The only smoke here is the smoke you are using (in conjunction with
some mirrors) to deflect attention away from your lack of ability to
make a coherent claim.
I asked you to clearly state your theories and evidence, and got
nothing but handwaving and diversions.
OM
wrote:
>I asked you to clearly state your theories and evidence, and got
>nothing but handwaving and diversions.
...Which is why, once and for all, the entire family of the former
Lockheed janitor and all his kin should be sent to Killfile Hell and
*left* there. Their theories are complete and utter bullshit, founded
on complete and utter lies, misconceptions and fabrications, and they
will *NEVER* provide -ANY- evidence to back up said because it not
only doesn't exist, anything they do happen to provide is fabricated
and/or of such low quality that only a total psychotic would accept it
as valid.
For God/Yahweh/Jehovah/Buddah/Allah/Roddenberry's sake, people
*PLEASE* just killfile them and put them out of our misery.
Charleston
> I asked you to clearly state your theories and evidence, and got
> nothing but handwaving and diversions.
Really? I think I was fairly clear in my answer.
Facts:
1. You, nor anyone else here for that matter, have expressed an interest in
my genuine offer to share telemetry which I described as "nauseating". I
did not even get a simple question back as to which telemetry I was
referring.
2. You, nor anyone else here for that matter, have offered any evidence
that the smoke to which I refer in videos on my website is "stuff" which
"shows up on every Shuttle launch" as suggested by Pat Flannery in the
following quote from an earlier post.
"That stuff coming off the side of the tank, and falling into the area
behind the ET isn't related to the SRB problem, it shows up on every
Shuttle launch; it's either some sort of venting from the ET or frost
falling off of its exterior surface."
Interesting given the 113 launches to date. I have seen some visual
evidence of nominal ET offgassing on numerous flights but only a few flights
remotely resemble the 51-L smoke anomaly post T + 10 seconds. This is
important given that I have yet to see a recovered ET other than 51-L to
determine what if any anomalies existed on those remotely similar flights.
The handwaving therefore is not mine on this issue, it belongs to those
agreeing with Mr. Flannery, like yourself for instance. Put up some similar
video or admit you have no evidence contrary to that which I have presented.
I will even host such video on my website at no charge to anyone but me.
Questions:
1. I repeat my earlier question.
"Seriously. Is your mind so closed that even if you were
given clear evidence that NASA made obvious errors in the presentation of
that film, that you would not reconsider that there may be more to the
disaster than we have been told?"
2. Will you honestly answer one of my questions on my video here?
http://www.challengerdisaster.info/STS%2051-L%20%20E-207%20digital%20clips%20MPEG%20I.mpg
"Is the drogue parachute consumed by the flames?"
I will even help you with your choices here. First let's go back to the PC
Report for some testimony. It was February 13th, 1986, Charles Stevenson
was testifying at KSC. At the time, he was the KSC lead on the photo team
and for that reason he was showing the PC some 70mm motion picture film
using an old projector. It was a closed hearing.
http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v4part5.htm#3
(search for the string "471" to get to the right page.)
"MR. STEVENSON: This is the right rocket, and you can see the chute coming
out here, the drogue, and the nose cone is long gone. And here is somewhere,
if I remember correctly - well, we missed that. This is the plume we were
referring to. And of course the nozzle here, the aft skirt, and the aft
booster. The chute blooms, and then is immediately consumed."
So according to Mr. Stevenson, that parachute was consumed right then and
right there at about T + 77-78 seconds; however, a careful check elsewhere
in the report reveals the following in the actual photo team report.
"6. Post Structural Breakup Right SRB Characterization...
...The right SRB exits the cloud at approximately 75.8 seconds MET. The
separated nose cap and deployed drogue parachute are observed at
approximately 76.4 seconds MET. At around 80 seconds MET, a reflection off
of the SRB recovery system remnants (drogue parachute and risers) is
observed (and confirmed by enhancements) on the side of the SRB as shown in
figure 136. This event was initially reported as a possible second anomalous
SRB plume."
Figure 136: http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3n80.htm (bottom photograph).
Of course that photograph does not show the remnants of an SRB recovery
system; nevertheless, you get the idea--the report uses photography from an
unidentified film to substantiate Mr. Stevenson's testimony. The importance
of the fact that the photograph used to substantiate Mr. Stevenson's
testimony, is the wrong one is yours to decide. You must decide why the
wrong photograph is presented in an official report. Is it an honest
mistake? Was the truth honestly presented? Please, let's discuss this
fairly simple and straightforward issue in a scientific manner. No need to
handwave, let's just see if we can get some facts straight. Thanks.
Daniel
Mount Charleston, not Charleston SC
I have received no answer just more of waht you yourself complain
about--handwaving and diversions.
Herb Schaltegger
"Charleston" <charl...@coxthedotgoeshere.net> wrote:
> "Derek Lyons" <fair...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "Charleston" <charl...@coxthedotgoeshere.net> wrote:
>
> > I asked you to clearly state your theories and evidence, and got
> > nothing but handwaving and diversions.
>
> Really? I think I was fairly clear in my answer.
>
> Facts:
>
> 1. You, nor anyone else here for that matter, have expressed an interest in
> my genuine offer to share telemetry which I described as "nauseating". I
> did not even get a simple question back as to which telemetry I was
> referring.
Perhaps if you posted excerpts (here directly, or via a link to
something specific on your site) along with an analysis of any
significance (e.g., why it is "nauseating"), you might draw some
serious interest.
> 2. You, nor anyone else here for that matter, have offered any evidence
> that the smoke to which I refer in videos on my website is "stuff" which
> "shows up on every Shuttle launch" as suggested by Pat Flannery in the
> following quote from an earlier post.
>
> "That stuff coming off the side of the tank, and falling into the area
> behind the ET isn't related to the SRB problem, it shows up on every
> Shuttle launch; it's either some sort of venting from the ET or frost
> falling off of its exterior surface."
>
> Interesting given the 113 launches to date. I have seen some visual
> evidence of nominal ET offgassing on numerous flights but only a few flights
> remotely resemble the 51-L smoke anomaly post T + 10 seconds.
Have you correlated the visual phenomena with ambient temperature,
pressure and relative humidity? The "smoke" on your video clip looks
a lot more like condensed water vapor (e.g., a contrail forming from
ice shards shed by the ET flash-evaporating and immediately
recondensing/freezing in the cold, dry air that day), than true smoke,
at least to me, especially given the way the rest of the video
appeared to have contrast heightened.
> This is
> important given that I have yet to see a recovered ET other than 51-L to
> determine what if any anomalies existed on those remotely similar flights.
The STS Mission Data and In-Flight Anomalies List (a/k/a the "Green
Book" - I don't have my 1991-version handy for the NASA publication
number) would have detailed descriptions of any anomalies; from that
you could form FOIA requests for post-flight inspection photos and
test data of the ET segments if you found any correlation.
--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D., GPG Key ID: BBF6FC1C
"The loss of the American system of checks and balances is more of a security
danger than any terrorist risk." -- Bruce Schneier
<http://dischordia.blogspot.com>
<http://www.angryherb.net>
OM
> 1. You, nor anyone else here for that matter, have expressed an interest in
> my genuine offer to share telemetry which I described as "nauseating".
...That's because nobody wants to see your father's kiddie porn.
Nobody normal, that is.
Again, kids, please. Just killfile every M***** and put them out of
our misery. Don't waste your time on them.
Charleston
> "Charleston" <charl...@coxthedotgoeshere.net> wrote:
>>
>> Facts:
>>
>> 1. You, nor anyone else here for that matter, have expressed an interest
>> in
>> my genuine offer to share telemetry which I described as "nauseating". I
>> did not even get a simple question back as to which telemetry I was
>> referring.
>
> Perhaps if you posted excerpts (here directly, or via a link to
> something specific on your site) along with an analysis of any
> significance (e.g., why it is "nauseating"), you might draw some
> serious interest.
The data would not fit here well and any subsequent posts would make it
become difficult to read. I will post the raw "as received" STS 51-L SRB
chamber pressure data in its entirety on my website
www.challengerdisaster.info tonight. Any serious comments would be
appreciated. I am willing to discuss my concerns about that data and why I
find it "nauseating" as long as anyone wants to discuss it in a serious
manner.
>> 2. You, nor anyone else here for that matter, have offered any evidence
>> that the smoke to which I refer in videos on my website is "stuff" which
>> "shows up on every Shuttle launch" as suggested by Pat Flannery in the
>> following quote from an earlier post.
>>
>> "That stuff coming off the side of the tank, and falling into the area
>> behind the ET isn't related to the SRB problem, it shows up on every
>> Shuttle launch; it's either some sort of venting from the ET or frost
>> falling off of its exterior surface."
>>
>> Interesting given the 113 launches to date. I have seen some visual
>> evidence of nominal ET offgassing on numerous flights but only a few
>> flights
>> remotely resemble the 51-L smoke anomaly post T + 10 seconds.
>
> Have you correlated the visual phenomena with ambient temperature,
> pressure and relative humidity?
No, nor did NASA during its investigation into the disaster.
> The "smoke" on your video clip looks
> a lot more like condensed water vapor (e.g., a contrail forming from
> ice shards shed by the ET flash-evaporating and immediately
> recondensing/freezing in the cold, dry air that day), than true smoke,
> at least to me, especially given the way the rest of the video
> appeared to have contrast heightened.
I suppose one should ask him or herself what the smoke is supposed to look
like after the initial o-ring leak? At what point does that black smoke
leaking from a dynamically vibrating joint, transition from the products of
incomplete rubber o-ring combustion, to the pressurized SRB propellant gases
and fire. I believe the o-rings and associated grease and putty have a very
short/finite life expectancy when exposed to 5,900 degree Fahrenheit
temperatures at 950 pounds per square inch pressure (1 atmospehere). One
might also ask how NASA film experts ascertained (if they even did so) when
the o-ring combustion was finished so that any subsequent SRB joint leakage
could be properly identified as a leak of the bright SRB gases, smoke, and
eventually fire, everyone normally sees during a launch (out of the nozzles
of course). Again, exactly how long does one look for black smoke? Where
is this discussed in any engineering detail in the PC report? It is not
enough IMHO to state the joint was likely clogged with a chunk of putty and
then ignore or kiss off as vapor what we can see on M-2 and M-3--withholding
M-2 and M-3 from the Presidential Commission entirely, and from the public
until I made a FOIA request BTW.
>
>> This is
>> important given that I have yet to see a recovered ET other than 51-L to
>> determine what if any anomalies existed on those remotely similar
>> flights.
>
> The STS Mission Data and In-Flight Anomalies List (a/k/a the "Green
> Book" - I don't have my 1991-version handy for the NASA publication
> number) would have detailed descriptions of any anomalies; from that
> you could form FOIA requests for post-flight inspection photos and
> test data of the ET segments if you found any correlation.
The PC report discussed these issues in some detail on flights prior to STS
51-L except for STS 51-J. The ASAP annual reports have discussed various
potential SRB leak and pressure deviation issues since STS 51-L (mostly
associated with the nozzles).
The ET of course is not recovered and that was my point. Other than STS
51-L (partial recovery), an ET has never been recovered and only a few have
ever been photographed. None of that photography was at a resolution that
would detect small tank leaks which leaves leak detection up to hydrogen
depletion sensors coupled with ullage pressure deviations.
--
Charleston
wrote:
>
>> 1. You, nor anyone else here for that matter, have expressed an interest
>> in
>> my genuine offer to share telemetry which I described as "nauseating".
>
> ...That's because nobody wants to see your father's kiddie porn.
> Nobody normal, that is.
Which would rule you out of course.
Daniel
Scott Lowther
>"Herb Schaltegger" <herb.sch...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>"Charleston" <charl...@coxthedotgoeshere.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Facts:
>>>
>>>1. You, nor anyone else here for that matter, have expressed an interest
>>>in
>>>my genuine offer to share telemetry which I described as "nauseating". I
>>>did not even get a simple question back as to which telemetry I was
>>>referring.
>>>
>>>
>>Perhaps if you posted excerpts (here directly, or via a link to
>>something specific on your site) along with an analysis of any
>>significance (e.g., why it is "nauseating"), you might draw some
>>serious interest.
>>
>>
>
>The data would not fit here well and any subsequent posts would make it
>become difficult to read. I will post the raw "as received" STS 51-L SRB
>chamber pressure data in its entirety on my website
>www.challengerdisaster.info tonight.
>
I will look forward to that. Since I'll be responsible for analyzing the
ballistics of the two SRB's from the forthcoming launch in May, it
should be interesting to see what you have... and how you interpret it.
Charleston
> Charleston wrote:
>>The data would not fit here well and any subsequent posts would make it
>>become difficult to read. I will post the raw "as received" STS 51-L SRB
>>chamber pressure data in its entirety on my website
>>www.challengerdisaster.info tonight.
>
> I will look forward to that. Since I'll be responsible for analyzing the
> ballistics of the two SRB's from the forthcoming launch in May, it should
> be interesting to see what you have... and how you interpret it.
Great. It is now posted. Of course I look forward to your insight as well.
Daniel
Pat Flannery
Scott Lowther wrote:
>
> I will look forward to that. Since I'll be responsible for analyzing
> the ballistics of the two SRB's from the forthcoming launch in May, it
> should be interesting to see what you have... and how you interpret it.
Did they fix those bolt catchers? That was a major accident waiting to
happen.
Pat
Scott Lowther
>
>
> Scott Lowther wrote:
>
>>
>> I will look forward to that. Since I'll be responsible for analyzing
>> the ballistics of the two SRB's from the forthcoming launch in May,
>> it should be interesting to see what you have... and how you
>> interpret it.
>
>
>
> Did they fix those bolt catchers?
Couldn't tell ta... that was on the ET side. I *believe* they did so,
however.
I couldn't get anyone at UTC to take my idea seriously of putting GPS
guided booster rockets on the bolts, and have them, blast away after
severance... sigh...
Scott Lowther
At first glance, after converting the date and time into something Excel
can use and restting T0 to be ignition, the pressure dats looks pretty
normal up until 59 seconds or so, when the right-hand transducers all
show a decrease in chamber pressure compared to the left handers. Not
overly surprising given that there was a hole in the side of the
booster, and total port area was increased.
I can compare this data to recent RSRM motor firings no sweat, but
performance has changed a little since 86. But to first order the
overall pressure trace up until T+59 seconds looks about right.
Neither the spread in readigns from Xducer to Xducer not the very jagged
appearance of the data are unusual. The data rate from the Xducers is
achingly slow to this date
Pat Flannery
Scott Lowther wrote:
>>
>> Did they fix those bolt catchers?
>
>
>
> Couldn't tell ta... that was on the ET side. I *believe* they did so,
> however.
I checked, they fixed them:
http://www.dancewithshadows.com/tech/space-shuttle-discovery-launch.asp
"March 3, 2005
Space Shuttle Discovery: External tank mated to rocket boosters
NASA marked a major step in assembling Space Shuttle Discovery for its
Return to Flight mission, as workers successfully mated the redesigned
External Tank and twin Solid Rocket Boosters. The fuel tank and booster
rockets will help launch Space Shuttle Discovery. The External Tank was
lifted by a giant crane and joined to the already stacked boosters in
the 52-story Vehicle Assembly Building at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in
Florida.
The external tank is the largest element of the Space Shuttle system,
which also includes the orbiter, main engines and rocket boosters. It
measures 27.6 feet wide and 154 feet tall. Despite the tank's size, the
aluminum skin covering it is only one eighth of an inch thick in most
areas. Yet it still withstands more than 6.5 million pounds of thrust
during liftoff and ascent. The tank is the only Shuttle component that
cannot be reused.
Following integration and final checkout of the tank with the Solid
Rocket Boosters, Discovery will join its propulsion components in the
Vehicle Assembly Building. Discovery will roll over from the Orbiter
Processing Facility later this month, marking the end of Return to
Flight processing. The orbiter will be attached to the stack in the
Vehicle Assembly Building .
The external tank will fly with several modifications. They include two
new forward bipod heaters at the forward attach fittings that connect
the tank to the orbiter. NASA and Lockheed Martin Space Systems Co.
spent nearly two years modifying the tank to make it safer. During the
tank-booster mating, the left and right boosters are bolted to the tank
at both the top and tail ends. At the forward end, a vertical bolt
mechanism attaches each booster to the tank.
After the Space Shuttle Discovery launch, approximately two minutes
after lift-off, the boosters will separate from the external tank, when
pyrotechnic devices fire to break the 25-inch, 62-pound steel bolts. One
half of the bolt is caught in canister-like bolt catchers located on the
tank; the other half remains with the boosters.
Discovery will be the first flight with a modified bolt catcher. It was
upgraded from a two-piece welded design to a one-piece, machine-made
design. By eliminating the weld, the new bolt catcher is structurally
stronger than the original.
Prior to Discovery joining the stack, final closeouts on the external
tank will include attaching the new bolt catcher and electrical cable
connections. An aerodynamic fairing and the bi-pod struts, the attach
points for the nose of the orbiter to the tank, will also be installed."
God knows how many times they dodged the bullet with those things; if a
piece of urethane foam can fatally damage the TPS, I'd hate to think
what a 30 pound piece of steel would do.
>
> I couldn't get anyone at UTC to take my idea seriously of putting GPS
> guided booster rockets on the bolts, and have them, blast away after
> severance... sigh...
Theoretically they are supposed to stay attached to the vehicle, and not
fall off at all- I still shake my head when they found out that they
were coming free, and the Cape radar operators finally found out what
those odd things were that were showing up on radar when the SRBs
separated. You would have thought they would have mentioned that to
someone earlier on. :-\
Pat
Charleston
> Charleston wrote:
>>"Scott Lowther" <scottl...@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOK.com> wrote:
>>>Charleston wrote:
>>
>>>>The data would not fit here well and any subsequent posts would make it
>>>>become difficult to read. I will post the raw "as received" STS 51-L
>>>>SRB chamber pressure data in its entirety on my website
>>>>www.challengerdisaster.info tonight.
>>>>
>>>I will look forward to that. Since I'll be responsible for analyzing the
>>>ballistics of the two SRB's from the forthcoming launch in May, it should
>>>be interesting to see what you have... and how you interpret it.
>>>
>>
>>Great. It is now posted. Of course I look forward to your insight as
>>well.
>>
> At first glance, after converting the date and time into something Excel
> can use and restting T0 to be ignition, the pressure dats looks pretty
> normal up until 59 seconds or so, when the right-hand transducers all show
> a decrease in chamber pressure compared to the left handers. Not overly
> surprising given that there was a hole in the side of the booster, and
> total port area was increased.
I put the data up as I received it, adjusting the headers slightly for
clarity, so that anyone familiar with same would recognize that I have
presented it the way NASA first saw it 19 years ago. I too, have set it up
in an Excel spreadsheet to examine it in a number of meaningful ways.
From your read of the data what is the data rate for xducers 1302 and 2302?
How about the other two sets of xducers? They do have data rates IIRC.
> I can compare this data to recent RSRM motor firings no sweat, but
> performance has changed a little since 86.
By all means please do.
> But to first order the overall pressure trace up until T+59 seconds looks
> about right.
Following the redesign of the SRBs a higher thrust differential between the
two boosters was allowed. The data I posted reflects rather sensitive
instrumentation with three significant figures right? Given the resolution
of the xducers at 1/1000 of a PSI, what do you suppose the actual accuracy
is in PSI? Don't bother looking in the PC report, you will not find it
anywhere in any of the five volumes. We can come back to the 59 second
issue later. It might be helpful.
> Neither the spread in readigns from Xducer to Xducer not the very jagged
> appearance of the data are unusual.
Not back then, I must agree. Does that make it okay during steady state
burn? Today I sort of doubt you have those spreads between the xducers.
They have been under configuration control *since* STS 51-L. NASA is aware
of some relatively small perturbations in the pressure from reading to
reading, sure.
> The data rate from the Xducers is achingly slow to this date
Quality high rate data is three things:
1. Expensive
2. Heavy
3. Processor intensive
Nevertheless, if one is going to stake a report on data like that to which I
have referred, it should be honestly presented, accurate within a tolerance
that makes the data truly relevant, and it should mate with applicable
photographic and related data measurements.
Now one more thing, looking at the data, what interpretive value would you
place on it during the first second following T= 0?
Daniel
Mount Charleston, not Charleston SC
Scott Lowther
> From your read of the data what is the data rate for xducers 1302 and
> 2302?
!2 samples per second.
>How about the other two sets of xducers?
>
>
One and five samples per second. 1, 5 and 12 sps are what we run with to
this day. Likely to change sometime around STS 115 or after, though.
>
>
>>But to first order the overall pressure trace up until T+59 seconds looks
>>about right.
>>
>>
>
>Following the redesign of the SRBs a higher thrust differential between the
>two boosters was allowed. The data I posted reflects rather sensitive
>instrumentation with three significant figures right? Given the resolution
>of the xducers at 1/1000 of a PSI, what do you suppose the actual accuracy
>is in PSI?
>
*Precision* may be down to milli-psi, but *accuracy* is another matter.
As a general rule of thumb on these, expect on the order of a percent
variability between smae make and model xducers in this application.
Vibration, heating and whatnot.
>
>
>>Neither the spread in readigns from Xducer to Xducer not the very jagged
>>appearance of the data are unusual.
>>
>>
>
>Not back then, I must agree. Does that make it okay during steady state
>burn?
>
Yup. 1,5, and 12 sps is more than adequate for post-flight ballistic
reconstruction. Kinda stinks for blips and ignition transient, so that's
why we're lookign at bumping it up by more than an order of magnitude.
>Today I sort of doubt you have those spreads between the xducers.
>
>
Same data rates today. Our traces don;t have the jagged appearance
because int he data you've presented, the 3 xducers are displaying data
at all time points. To clean up the data, just delete the cells that
have the extraneous data (such as, say, B14-B16, B19-B21, C14-C25, etc.)
>
>Quality high rate data is three things:
>
>1. Expensive
>2. Heavy
>3. Processor intensive
>
>Nevertheless, if one is going to stake a report on data like that to which I
>have referred, it should be honestly presented, accurate within a tolerance
>that makes the data truly relevant,
>
The data presented looks to be fully in compliance with what would have
been actually recorded. You can't present data that *wasn't* recorded.
>
>Now one more thing, looking at the data, what interpretive value would you
>place on it during the first second following T= 0?
>
>
I'm not sure what you're after. If you're askign if it looks right...
yes, it does. A spike followed by a dip in pressure follwed by a climb
back up. This is normal in *many* solid rockets: the igniter fires and
quickly pressurizes the case; the case begins to blow down, and then the
main propellant gets up to speed and drives the pressure back up.
If you delete the extraneous data, you'll see that the transducers
aren't grabbing data at the same time, but are offset by some
milliseconds. This also addes to the apparent lack of co-ordination
between them, as the pressure was constantly changing, and they weren;t
reading it at the same time.
Charleston
> Charleston wrote:
>
>> From your read of the data what is the data rate for xducers 1302 and
>> 2302?
>
> !2 samples per second.
I know what the data rate was supposed to be and my question pertains to the
STS 51-L data I put on my website not data from post 51-L flights. NASA
repeatedly and throughout the five volumes of the Presidential Report,
stated that the data rate for those same xducers was 12.5 samples per
second. The cycle is completed every two seconds when the 25th sample is
finished. NASA reported the sample period as 80 milliseconds. That would
make sampling at a rate higher than 12.5 samples a bit difficult. If you
look at the first second of data again you will see that there are 25 data
points. That first second of data is farcical and NASA has since admitted
as much to me.
From the Executive Summary of the PC Report
http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1ch3.htm scroll down to pages 37-39 where
we have the following:
Channel Identifier Sample Rate Sample Period Description
(Samples/sec) (sec)
B47P1302C 12.5 0.080
LH SRM CHAMBER PRESSURE
B47P2302C 12.5 0.080
RH SRM CHAMBER PRESSURE
So again I ask what is your read of the data rate for the STS 51-L flight
data on my website?
>>How about the other two sets of xducers?
> One and five samples per second. 1, 5 and 12 sps are what we run with to
> this day. Likely to change sometime around STS 115 or after, though.
And back then on 51-L it was 1, 2, and 12.5 samples per second respectively.
>>
> *Precision* may be down to milli-psi, but *accuracy* is another matter. As
> a general rule of thumb on these, expect on the order of a percent
> variability between smae make and model xducers in this application.
> Vibration, heating and whatnot.
Ah yes precision and accuracy, first year chemistry, thanks. Accuracy is
indeed another matter. I expect that NASA would have a standard and indeed
they did. The CEI requirement was +- 15 PSI but there was no requirement to
actually calibrate the pressure transducers. There was a requirement to
discard the transducers after three flights or so. I'd have to go look up
that number of flights to be sure. I think you would agree that if the
accuracy requirement was 15 PSI, that any interpretation of that data should
be caveated with an engineering disclaimer to that effect. No such
disclaimer exists anywhere that I have ever seen in any volume of the PC
Report. I find it quite nauseating that NASA suggested that their data was
quite accurate without ever addressing the issue of the accuracy
specification, nor lack of a calibration requirement. I guess it would be
embarrassing to admit that the measurements NASA relied on most were not in
fact reliable. It was like pulling teeth just to get the CEI document for
the HPM and even then NASA did not give me the figures or tables for the
document. You can verify what I have stated is true through MSFC's RSRM
project office. You will have to find an engineer who was there at the time
of the accident. I know one. The SRM chamber pressure accuracy debacle led
directly to the requirement to place all future SRM pc measurements under
configuration control.
>
>>Not back then, I must agree. Does that make it okay during steady state
>>burn?
> Yup. 1,5, and 12 sps is more than adequate for post-flight ballistic
> reconstruction. Kinda stinks for blips and ignition transient, so that's
> why we're lookign at bumping it up by more than an order of magnitude.
Yes for the ignition transient, the data rate for STS 51-L was wholly
useless. To this day NASA can not definitively state what really happened
pressure-wise in that first 600 milliseconds other than the boosters did
ignite and pressurize. NASA used data from other flights in their charts
pertaining to the ignition transient. IIRC they never showed a single
chamber pressure data point from 51-L data for that time when the black
smoke first appeared.
>
>>Today I sort of doubt you have those spreads between the xducers.
> Same data rates today. Our traces don;t have the jagged appearance because
> int he data you've presented, the 3 xducers are displaying data at all
> time points. To clean up the data, just delete the cells that have the
> extraneous data (such as, say, B14-B16, B19-B21, C14-C25, etc.)
Ya, I know. I have done much more than clean up that data. I have actually
gone in and separated out the two different data streams that NASA used to
generate the first second of 51-L data following T=0. I have also treated
the rest of the data the same way and the results are quite interesting.
>>
>>Quality high rate data is three things:
>>
>>1. Expensive
>>2. Heavy
>>3. Processor intensive
>>
>>Nevertheless, if one is going to stake a report on data like that to which
>>I have referred, it should be honestly presented, accurate within a
>>tolerance that makes the data truly relevant,
>>
> The data presented looks to be fully in compliance with what would have
> been actually recorded. You can't present data that *wasn't* recorded.
Okay, we can discuss this more later, but if it is compliant then how come
the data is recorded at a variable data rate throughout the flight?
>>
>>Now one more thing, looking at the data, what interpretive value would you
>>place on it during the first second following T= 0?
>>
> I'm not sure what you're after. If you're askign if it looks right... yes,
> it does. A spike followed by a dip in pressure follwed by a climb back up.
> This is normal in *many* solid rockets: the igniter fires and quickly
> pressurizes the case; the case begins to blow down, and then the main
> propellant gets up to speed and drives the pressure back up.
Umm, I just wondered if you noticed the data rate was 25 samples/second and
that it changes many times thereafter?
> If you delete the extraneous data, you'll see that the transducers aren't
> grabbing data at the same time, but are offset by some milliseconds. This
> also addes to the apparent lack of co-ordination between them, as the
> pressure was constantly changing, and they weren;t reading it at the same
> time.
I wish it were so simple. Of course I hope others here will look at the
data too, and add their comments.
Daniel
OM
<scottl...@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOK.com> wrote:
>I will look forward to that. Since I'll be responsible for analyzing the
>ballistics of the two SRB's from the forthcoming launch in May, it
>should be interesting to see what you have... and how you interpret it.
...How *he* interprets it? Are you willing to undergo the same level
of psychochemical abuse, Scott?
Scott Lowther
>
> If you
>look at the first second of data again you will see that there are 25 data
>points.
>
That is an artifact of presentation. There are multpile xducers reading
at different rates. In order for Excel to plot them all on the same
graph, whoever compiled the data chose to give all three xducer readings
a single "time" column. As a result, every Xducer had it'd data
repeated. In the case of the 12.5 sps xducers, that meant repeatign each
data poitn twice. Note that in the first second, when pressure was
ramping up, the data for 1302 and 2302 was paired.
>That first second of data is farcical
>
No. It's just presented poorly. Take out every other data poitn for 1302
and 2302. This is the result of having different sample rates and trying
to smash them all on the same graph.
>So again I ask what is your read of the data rate for the STS 51-L flight
>data on my website?
>
>
1,5, and 12.5 (not 12, as I said before). Again, look at the initial
ramp-up, and note the repeated readings.
>Ah yes precision and accuracy, first year chemistry, thanks. Accuracy is
>indeed another matter. I expect that NASA would have a standard and indeed
>they did. The CEI requirement was +- 15 PSI but there was no requirement to
>actually calibrate the pressure transducers.
>
That seems massively unlikely. Did you look at the specifications for
the *transducers?* How about the work processes?
>>>Not back then, I must agree. Does that make it okay during steady state
>>>burn?
>>>
>>>
>>Yup. 1,5, and 12 sps is more than adequate for post-flight ballistic
>>reconstruction. Kinda stinks for blips and ignition transient, so that's
>>why we're lookign at bumping it up by more than an order of magnitude.
>>
>>
>
>Yes for the ignition transient, the data rate for STS 51-L was wholly
>useless.
>
Not *wholly*, just annoyingly lean.
> To this day NASA can not definitively state what really happened
>pressure-wise in that first 600 milliseconds other than the boosters did
>ignite and pressurize.
>
And they did so nominally. Thing is, somethign goes funny at ignition,
funny enough to cause trouble, and it'll show up. Motors like the
Shuttle SRM are pretty stable... mess with them, and they'll settle back
down. To mess with them enough to cause trouble, you'd *really* have to
mess with them. Block the throat with a car-sized chunk of propellant,
that sort of thing. And that shows up.
>
>>>Quality high rate data is three things:
>>>
>>>1. Expensive
>>>2. Heavy
>>>3. Processor intensive
>>>
>>>Nevertheless, if one is going to stake a report on data like that to which
>>>I have referred, it should be honestly presented, accurate within a
>>>tolerance that makes the data truly relevant,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>The data presented looks to be fully in compliance with what would have
>>been actually recorded. You can't present data that *wasn't* recorded.
>>
>>
>
>Okay, we can discuss this more later, but if it is compliant then how come
>the data is recorded at a variable data rate throughout the flight?
>
>
As I said, I only really looked at the data for the first secodn or two.
Where do you see variability in the data rate?
>
>
>>>Now one more thing, looking at the data, what interpretive value would you
>>>place on it during the first second following T= 0?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I'm not sure what you're after. If you're askign if it looks right... yes,
>>it does. A spike followed by a dip in pressure follwed by a climb back up.
>>This is normal in *many* solid rockets: the igniter fires and quickly
>>pressurizes the case; the case begins to blow down, and then the main
>>propellant gets up to speed and drives the pressure back up.
>>
>>
>
>Umm, I just wondered if you noticed the data rate was 25 samples/second
>
Not in the first second. I'll look at later times... later.
>and
>that it changes many times thereafter?
>
>
>
>>If you delete the extraneous data, you'll see that the transducers aren't
>>grabbing data at the same time, but are offset by some milliseconds. This
>>also addes to the apparent lack of co-ordination between them, as the
>>pressure was constantly changing, and they weren;t reading it at the same
>>time.
>>
>>
>
>I wish it were so simple.
>
Actaully, it is, if you know you need to do it. I've not yet doen this
with a flight RSRM (the job of reconstructing flight data circulates,
and let's face it, the flight rate hasn't been that high lately), but I
have with static test data, where the data rates are *far* higher. Trust
me, trying to make sesne out of several different transducers reading at
different but hundred+ sampels per second rates is a pain. I've had it
crash Excel numerous times. Flight data will be a snap in comparison.
lex...@ix.netcom.com
Scott Lowther wrote:
> Charleston wrote:
>
> >
> > If you
> >look at the first second of data again you will see that there are
25 data
> >points.
> >
> That is an artifact of presentation. There are multpile xducers
reading
> at different rates. In order for Excel to plot them all on the same
> graph, whoever compiled the data chose to give all three xducer
readings
> a single "time" column. As a result, every Xducer had it'd data
> repeated. In the case of the 12.5 sps xducers, that meant repeatign
each
> data poitn twice. Note that in the first second, when pressure was
> ramping up, the data for 1302 and 2302 was paired.
A revision after discussion with co-workers: the SRM pressure
transducers *do* pick up data at 25 sps. But the data aquisition system
on the shuttle *alternates* grabbing data. So, each Xducer loses every
other data point, and the *effective* data rate is thus 12.5/sec.
Very '70's.
lex...@ix.netcom.com
OM wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 19:59:14 GMT, Scott Lowther
> <scottl...@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOK.com> wrote:
>
> >I will look forward to that. Since I'll be responsible for analyzing
the
> >ballistics of the two SRB's from the forthcoming launch in May, it
> >should be interesting to see what you have... and how you interpret
it.
>
> ...How *he* interprets it?
So long as the data is presented honestly... data is data.
Interpretation can be interesting, though. So far the data appears to
be valid, and includes the rather annoying duplication of data involved
with trying to smash multiple and poorly-synchronized readings onto one
time-axis.
OK, that was worded badly. But you get the idea.
lex...@ix.netcom.com
Scott Lowther wrote:
> >Following the redesign of the SRBs a higher thrust differential
between the
> >two boosters was allowed. The data I posted reflects rather
sensitive
> >instrumentation with three significant figures right? Given the
resolution
> >of the xducers at 1/1000 of a PSI, what do you suppose the actual
accuracy
> >is in PSI?
> >
> *Precision* may be down to milli-psi, but *accuracy* is another
matter.
I will also point out that the way these (and most, I imagine) pressure
transducers work is to generate a voltage, and then convert that
voltage into a psi reading. During calibration, a "X millivolts = Y
psi" factor is worked out for each xducer. So even though you might see
a reading with numerous decimal points... 892.347 psi, say, what you
are actually seeing is what the conversion factor makes of, say, 68
millivolts. There's a lot of psi between 68 and 69 millivolts, so you
don't get the pressure readings between them. And yet you still wind up
with all those decimal points.
Them's the breaks when you use a digital system.
D Schneider
[...]
> Again, kids, please. Just killfile every M***** and put them out of
> our misery. Don't waste your time on them.
Acutally, I'm finding Scott's discussion of the data to be pretty
interesting. I'm hoping also that Mary will chime in, as the data streams
she has dealt with undoubtedly have artifacts and other details that must
be dealt with before interpreting the data.
/dps
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
lex...@ix.netcom.com
D Schneider wrote:
> Acutally, I'm finding Scott's discussion of the data to be pretty
> interesting.
Woo hoo!
> I'm hoping also that Mary will chime in, as the data streams
> she has dealt with undoubtedly have artifacts and other details that
must
> be dealt with before interpreting the data.
The Shuttle flight data is not what you might hope for. It was
restricted in its capabilities by 1970's computer capabilities, and it
just never got updated. This is partially due to inertia (getting the
new, far higher sample rate xducers approved is a rather time- and
taxpayer-dollar-consuming enterprise), and partially due to the fact
for a motor that runs for 2 minutes, 12.5 samples per second is
adequate for post-flight reconstruction. As mentioned before, it's not
really what you want for brief events, blips and initiation; but in 220
or so flights, there has never been an issue with any of the motors
except for Challenger... and that was hardly a ballistics problem. You
can not reasonably expect a motor to have a perfectly normal pressure
trace if you open a second port in the side...
The problem with interprettign the given Challenger data is due to some
goofy but explainable phenomena. For starters... the xducers *are* 25
samples per second, but only every other one is read, leading to 12.5
sps. Then there's the fact that there are two other, slower xducers...
and 5 does not go into 12.5, so you have to decide how you're going to
present these different data streams. The data given here presents them
all with a single time axis; the way we get the data from static tests
(again, haven't been here long enough for a flight...) is that each
xducer has it's own time *and* pressure column. So when we have xducers
of different rates, it can be difficult to work with. If you just want
to plot them together, that's easy, leav ethe data alone, they'll plot
just fine. But if you want to compare moment-by-moment performance, you
need to pick a sample rate, and then interpolate the others to fit that
data rate. This works, but it's not the data you were originally given,
and you have to be careful with that.
What was done with the Challenger data is not what we'd do today. What
they did Way Back Then was, it seems, to include every time point
recorded from all three xducer streams. That's good for plotting, but
it gives you some weird variability in percieved data rate. And then,
instead of interpolating between pressure data points, they simply
repeated the data between relevant time points. An odd way of going
about it, but an honest one, and one that can be easily interpretted if
you know how... and easily *mis*interpretted if you don't know how.
And so long as I'm on about the Shuttle SRB's... I think using the
single SRB/neo-S-IVb stage for a CEV launcher is a decent option
(insert disclaimer about working for the people who *make* the RSRM
here). Again, in 220 flights, there was not a single catastrophic event
within the SRBs... not many other propulsion systems can claim that.
Also, look at the Challenger: yes, the SRB caused that disaster... but
the SRB's *survived.* The ET and the Shuttle got converted into
confetti by the aero loads when the one SRB punched into the ET... but
the SRB's had to be blown up from the ground. Them suckers is *tough*.
Herb Schaltegger
"D Schneider" <snid...@netscape.com> wrote:
> OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research_facility.org> wrote:
>
> [...]
> > Again, kids, please. Just killfile every M***** and put them out of
> > our misery. Don't waste your time on them.
>
> Acutally, I'm finding Scott's discussion of the data to be pretty
> interesting. I'm hoping also that Mary will chime in, as the data streams
> she has dealt with undoubtedly have artifacts and other details that must
> be dealt with before interpreting the data.
>
> /dps
So am I. I have downloaded Daniel's spreadsheet but I've done nothing
more than glance through the data; paying work beckons and all that.
Given Scott's current job and his experience with solid rockets
generally, his comments are very interesting. I further appreciate
his willingness to suspend any urge towards editorializing to discuss
the information actually available rather than shooting the messenger.
lex...@ix.netcom.com
Herb Schaltegger wrote:
> Given Scott's current job and his experience with solid rockets
> generally, his comments are very interesting. I further appreciate
> his willingness to suspend any urge towards editorializing to discuss
> the information actually available rather than shooting the
messenger.
In this case, the primary issue under discussion... the matter of
sample rates and the determination thereof... really is a
straightforward matter of numbers and knownign generally how the system
works. There is no real area for debate... the data is what it is, and
it appears fully consistent with what it's *supposed* to be.
Now, as for what happens with the data around 59 seconds, when the two
SRB's begin to diverge, THAT would be an area where interpretation and
debate can come in.
OM
<herb.sch...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> I have downloaded Daniel's spreadsheet...
...So did I. I fail to see what's interesting about his gambling
debts.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"D Schneider" <snid...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:opsm9990gdemtzlb@d3h1pn11...
> OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research_facility.org>
wrote:
>
> [...]
> > Again, kids, please. Just killfile every M***** and put them out of
> > our misery. Don't waste your time on them.
>
> Acutally, I'm finding Scott's discussion of the data to be pretty
> interesting.
Same here. Though it's bringing back some disturbing memories of working
with some 1980s era Perkin Elmer A/D converters (I want to say 3090, but I'm
sure that's just the IBM mainframe from college creeping in.)
Scott makes a point about voltages and all.
The work I was doing on was on software for thermal analysis. Easy enough
when the temperatures in the unit varied a few hundred degrees. Easy to add
correction factors. Then some smartasses (well ok, they had PhDs so they
were at least smart :-) started doing ceramics work over a thousand or more
degrees. That meant all our correction factors had to be extended, etc.
Jorge R. Frank
in news:d8up21de3t0hn4sm3...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 14:29:16 -0600, Herb Schaltegger
><herb.sch...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I have downloaded Daniel's spreadsheet...
>
> ...So did I. I fail to see what's interesting about his gambling
> debts.
You fail to see a lot of things.
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
Scott Lowther
>In article <1110212064.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> <lex...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>>...During calibration, a "X millivolts = Y
>>psi" factor is worked out for each xducer. So even though you might see
>>a reading with numerous decimal points... 892.347 psi, say, what you
>>are actually seeing is what the conversion factor makes of, say, 68
>>millivolts. There's a lot of psi between 68 and 69 millivolts, so you
>>don't get the pressure readings between them. And yet you still wind up
>>with all those decimal points.
>>
>>
>
>Only if the software doesn't judiciously round off the value to reflect
>the limited precision of the original data. Keeping all those decimal
>places is simply silly -- a waste of bytes and (as we've seen) a boobytrap
>for incautious analysts -- but carelessly-written software *is* common.
>
>
Take a look at the data presented in the Excel file under discussion. In
particular, make a chart from it, using jsut the date points in a
scatter plot (no lines) and focus in on the first, say, 2 seconds.
You'll see horizontal bands of data points. If you look at the first 2
seconds and between 875 and 925 psi, the issue becomes clear. You have,
for instance, a number of readings for the 2302 xducer at 903.504 psi,
and some more at 905.493... and none in between. There is a quantum step
there. The readings are down to the milli-psi, but there is a difference
of nearly 2 psi in resolving power. It's precise, but not accurate.
OM
wrote:
>OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research_facility.org> wrote
>in news:d8up21de3t0hn4sm3...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 14:29:16 -0600, Herb Schaltegger
>><herb.sch...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> I have downloaded Daniel's spreadsheet...
>>
>> ...So did I. I fail to see what's interesting about his gambling
>> debts.
>
>You fail to see a lot of things.
...What I *do* see is a lot of good people around here falling into
yet -another- M***** family trap. And it's a fucking shame, Jorge.
Pat Flannery
Herb Schaltegger wrote:
>So am I. I have downloaded Daniel's spreadsheet but I've done nothing
>more than glance through the data; paying work beckons and all that.
>Given Scott's current job and his experience with solid rockets
>generally, his comments are very interesting. I further appreciate
>his willingness to suspend any urge towards editorializing to discuss
>the information actually available rather than shooting the messenger.
>
>
>
Pat read what Herb had written...Pat then looked out the window....but
surprisingly, there wasn't a lunar eclipse going on.
Pat then knew what the explanation was...if he concentrated very hard
like the book had taught him to, Loni Anderson would indeed appear naked
at his apartment door, and the rest of the dream would get even better. :-)
Pat
Jorge R. Frank
wrote in news:hp4q21500emea1co6...@4ax.com:
> On 08 Mar 2005 01:28:09 GMT, "Jorge R. Frank" <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg>
> wrote:
>
>>OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research_facility.org>
>>wrote in news:d8up21de3t0hn4sm3...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 14:29:16 -0600, Herb Schaltegger
>>><herb.sch...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have downloaded Daniel's spreadsheet...
>>>
>>> ...So did I. I fail to see what's interesting about his gambling
>>> debts.
>>
>>You fail to see a lot of things.
>
> ...What I *do* see is a lot of good people around here falling into
> yet -another- M***** family trap. And it's a fucking shame, Jorge.
It's even more of a fucking shame that you fail to see your own culpability
in continuing it. You *know* that P4u1 M4x50n is a paranoid guy who
constantly Googles his own name to see if anyone's talking about him, and
yet you *insist* on continuing to bait him. How fucking stupid is that, OM?
Let me spell it out for you: *You* are largely responsible for the repeated
return of the M4x50ns to this group. Or had you not noticed that they
mostly post in sci.space.history - not coincidentally your home group - and
for the most part leave the other sci.space.* groups alone? If you'd
fucking shut up instead of playing your little sadistic games, the M4x50n
infestation would have ended long ago.
Scott Lowther is handling this the right way. Watch, and learn.
Charleston
> Charleston wrote:
>>
>> If you look at the first second of data again you will see that there are
>> 25 data points.
> That is an artifact of presentation. There are multpile xducers reading at
> different rates. In order for Excel to plot them all on the same graph,
> whoever compiled the data chose to give all three xducer readings a single
> "time" column. As a result, every Xducer had it'd data repeated. In the
> case of the 12.5 sps xducers, that meant repeatign each data poitn twice.
> Note that in the first second, when pressure was ramping up, the data for
> 1302 and 2302 was paired.
No it is not an artifact of presentation. I believe it was a
misrepresentation by NASA. Please let me explain. The original data I
received was in Minitab format http://www.minitab.com/. IIRC, it was
recovered for me from a VAX computer tape at MSFC after an interesting and
laborious phone conversation involving a NASA lawyer, an SRM project
engineer, a Public Affairs FOIA officer, and on my end a longtime personal
friend, myself, two pens, and two steno pads. Subsequently I received the
data. You can now review a portion of that data in one of the many ways I
have reviewed it. In my job I look for patterns and lack thereof.
http://www.challengerdisaster.info/sts_51-l_srb_pc_telemetry_djm_ver1_t=0-t+1.xls
(Excel) or
http://www.challengerdisaster.info/sts_51-l_srb_pc_telemetry_djm_ver1_t=0-t+1.htm
(HTML for the Microsoft impaired)
My review of the data as posted at the above URL, led directly to a
subsequent phone call to the above engineer and an admission by him that for
the timeframe T+0 to T+1 second, no "real" data was available for STS 51-L
and therefore "theoretical trajectory based data was substituted instead".
When I asked him why I had not been told this fact upfront, no answer was
given, just silence. When I asked why there were two separate sets of data
embedded in the samples with contradictory data he again had no answer.
>
>
>>That first second of data is farcical
>>
> No. It's just presented poorly. Take out every other data poitn for 1302
> and 2302. This is the result of having different sample rates and trying
> to smash them all on the same graph.
Please graph the above two sets of data I have added to my website for that
first second on the same graph and let me know if you still think your
explanation works.
Which set of data points would you have me take out? When you separate the
two distinct streams of data as I have, they contradict themselves. Please
tell me which stream you would choose and why. Also, before anyone
overinterprets the data, you need to understand that there are at least two
more additional data sets for STS 51-L and neither of those data sets match
this one. I was careful to indicate that the data I presented was "raw" and
that it was just one version. It turns out to one of at least three
different versions. I also have the data for the first 24 flights and have
reviewed it as well.
>
>>So again I ask what is your read of the data rate for the STS 51-L flight
>>data on my website?
>>
1,5, and 12.5 (not 12, as I said before). Again, look at the initial
> ramp-up, and note the repeated readings.
Okay we disagree on whether the second one is 2 or 5 s/s. Is there any
particular reason you believe the second one is five? I only know what I
was told by the NASA engineer at the time they filled my request. Can you
explain the variable data rate? Do you need a few examples?
>>Ah yes precision and accuracy, first year chemistry, thanks. Accuracy is
>>indeed another matter. I expect that NASA would have a standard and
>>indeed they did. The CEI requirement was +- 15 PSI but there was no
>>requirement to actually calibrate the pressure transducers.
> That seems massively unlikely. Did you look at the specifications for the
> *transducers?* How about the work processes?
Massively unlikely? I'll tell you what, you can call it "unlikely" if you
want to, but you can always read the CEI document I was referring to for
yourself. I have posted one particular page from that document to
substantiate my claim. I have reviewed the entire document. As I stated
earlier the figures and tables were all missing.
http://www.challengerdisaster.info/hpm_cei_reqts_verification_doc_page_5-2.doc
<snip>
>>Yes for the ignition transient, the data rate for STS 51-L was wholly
>>useless.
>>
> Not *wholly*, just annoyingly lean.
Yeah it was useless. You can't make any sense of it and what I was given
turned out to be a farce anyway. You can not get that first second of data.
I have tried several ways and have failed every single time.
>
>> To this day NASA can not definitively state what really happened
>> pressure-wise in that first 600 milliseconds other than the boosters did
>> ignite and pressurize.
> And they did so nominally. Thing is, somethign goes funny at ignition,
> funny enough to cause trouble, and it'll show up. Motors like the Shuttle
> SRM are pretty stable... mess with them, and they'll settle back down. To
> mess with them enough to cause trouble, you'd *really* have to mess with
> them. Block the throat with a car-sized chunk of propellant, that sort of
> thing. And that shows up.
Nominally? Show me the data.
> As I said, I only really looked at the data for the first secodn or two.
> Where do you see variability in the data rate?
>
That comment is quite frustrating. You have made comments vouching for this
data like.
"The data presented looks to be fully in compliance with what would have
been actually recorded. You can't present data that *wasn't* recorded."
"Neither the spread in readigns from Xducer to Xducer not the very jagged
appearance of the data are unusual."
All I ask of you or anyone here is that before you comment to the facts,
that you give at least one serious examination of all the data I have
provided. Only then can we continue this conversation with anything
resembling common ground.
OM
wrote:
>Scott Lowther is handling this the right way. Watch, and learn.
...The only proof that this method works is if a) all the M*****s
disappear, and b) the current troll concedes defeat first.
[Breath_hold_mode=Off(eternal)]
Charleston
>
> Herb Schaltegger wrote:
>
>> Given Scott's current job and his experience with solid rockets
>> generally, his comments are very interesting. I further appreciate
>> his willingness to suspend any urge towards editorializing to discuss
>
>> the information actually available rather than shooting the
> messenger.
>
> In this case, the primary issue under discussion... the matter of
> sample rates and the determination thereof... really is a
> straightforward matter of numbers and knownign generally how the system
> works. There is no real area for debate... the data is what it is, and
> it appears fully consistent with what it's *supposed* to be.
Please explain the variable data rate. I don't think I am asking too much
in making that request.
> Now, as for what happens with the data around 59 seconds, when the two
> SRB's begin to diverge, THAT would be an area where interpretation and
> debate can come in.
Sure. I agree there especially given the earlier divergences between the
two boosters.
Daniel
hpywi...@yahoo.com
you have to gamble."????? NO WAY. Launching Challenger AGAINST
PROTOCOL, with icicles hanging off of it, was irresponsible at BEST,
and I hope the FOOL who gave the final "Go" has never slept a wink
since. I don't care if Reagan had to fly down to the Cape FIVE DOZEN
TIMES...you do NOT risk the crew!!!!! PERIOD.
Space flight is inherently dangerous, so "gambling" on KNOWN hazards is
tantamount to murder.
Charleston
> The Shuttle flight data is not what you might hope for. It was
> restricted in its capabilities by 1970's computer capabilities, and it
> just never got updated. This is partially due to inertia (getting the
> new, far higher sample rate xducers approved is a rather time- and
> taxpayer-dollar-consuming enterprise), and partially due to the fact
> for a motor that runs for 2 minutes, 12.5 samples per second is
> adequate for post-flight reconstruction. As mentioned before, it's not
> really what you want for brief events, blips and initiation; but in 220
> or so flights, there has never been an issue with any of the motors
> except for Challenger...
They did have that problem with aluminum slag expulsion causing spikes in
the chamber pressure at around T+ 80 sceonds or so and the pc sensors were
sensitive enough to pick that issue up. To NASA's credit they figured it
out. Ironically the problem was actually discovered pre STS 1, IIRC, and
subsequently forgotten apparently. I think that issue was found in the STS
54 timeframe, again IIRC. I believe it would have been missed if NASA had
not upgraded the status/control of the pc measurements following STS 51-L.
> and that was hardly a ballistics problem. You
> can not reasonably expect a motor to have a perfectly normal pressure
> trace if you open a second port in the side...
No but the data rate should not change because of such a leak.
> The problem with interprettign the given Challenger data is due to some
> goofy but explainable phenomena. For starters... the xducers *are* 25
> samples per second, but only every other one is read, leading to 12.5
> sps. Then there's the fact that there are two other, slower xducers...
> and 5 does not go into 12.5, so you have to decide how you're going to
> present these different data streams.
I agree that the solution was not perfect, but if you look at all of the
data, you will see that there are problems of data rate consistency
throughout the flight and other problems too. In a perfect world, NASA
would have separated all of the telemetry they sent to me into its
respective data streams as they were downlisted with the correct METs. If
this was the only data set I had to look at, I would not be discussing it at
all. There are others and we will get to them if there is interest and
people like you continue to add to the discussion.
> The data given here presents them
> all with a single time axis; the way we get the data from static tests
> (again, haven't been here long enough for a flight...) is that each
> xducer has it's own time *and* pressure column. So when we have xducers
> of different rates, it can be difficult to work with. If you just want
> to plot them together, that's easy, leav ethe data alone, they'll plot
> just fine. But if you want to compare moment-by-moment performance, you
> need to pick a sample rate, and then interpolate the others to fit that
> data rate. This works, but it's not the data you were originally given,
> and you have to be careful with that.
Thanks.
> What was done with the Challenger data is not what we'd do today. What
> they did Way Back Then was, it seems, to include every time point
> recorded from all three xducer streams. That's good for plotting, but
> it gives you some weird variability in percieved data rate. And then,
> instead of interpolating between pressure data points, they simply
> repeated the data between relevant time points. An odd way of going
> about it, but an honest one, and one that can be easily interpretted if
> you know how... and easily *mis*interpretted if you don't know how.
Please take a look at all of the data.
Charleston
> A revision after discussion with co-workers: the SRM pressure
> transducers *do* pick up data at 25 sps. But the data aquisition system
> on the shuttle *alternates* grabbing data. So, each Xducer loses every
> other data point, and the *effective* data rate is thus 12.5/sec.
So how then was it "grabbing" 25 samples per second in the case of STS 51-L
and 51-L alone? Was my statement as far as actual data acquisition
therefore correct--12.5 samples into the data stream/downlink? Not that the
25 s/s rate holds up throughout this particular data set.
Daniel
Mount Charleston, not Chrleston SC
Jorge R. Frank
in news:idgq215c4g6no3j4k...@4ax.com:
> On 08 Mar 2005 05:35:29 GMT, "Jorge R. Frank" <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg>
> wrote:
>
>>Scott Lowther is handling this the right way. Watch, and learn.
>
> ...The only proof that this method works is if a) all the M*****s
> disappear, and b) the current troll concedes defeat first.
>
> [Breath_hold_mode=Off(eternal)]
I'll settle for a lack of trollish behavior, whether it's due to trolls
leaving, or simply deciding not to act like trolls any more.
I'm not holding my breath either, but Scott's method can't possibly turn
out any worse than what hasn't worked the last four years, so it's worth a
shot.
lex...@ix.netcom.com
Charleston wrote:
> <lex...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > A revision after discussion with co-workers: the SRM pressure
> > transducers *do* pick up data at 25 sps. But the data aquisition
system
> > on the shuttle *alternates* grabbing data. So, each Xducer loses
every
> > other data point, and the *effective* data rate is thus 12.5/sec.
>
> So how then was it "grabbing" 25 samples per second in the case of
STS 51-L
> and 51-L alone?
It does that every flight, not just 51-L.
Herb Schaltegger
"Jorge R. Frank" <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote:
> I'm not holding my breath either, but Scott's method can't possibly turn
> out any worse than what hasn't worked the last four years, so it's worth a
> shot.
Besides which, the current thread is at least on-topic (although it's
just as on-topic for s.s.s) and it is interesting and informative.
Let's just see where it leads.
If I had a few days off I'd love to delve into Daniel's spreadsheet
data further. While I don't have Scott's experience with solid
rockets, I do have experiencing spec'ing and procuring pressure
transducers that interface with digital data systems. I am further
interested in seeing a comparison with data from some of those other
missions Daniel has. I'd like to see the contrasts (if any).
lex...@ix.netcom.com
spikes in
the chamber pressure at around T+ 80 sceonds or so and the pc sensors
were
sensitive enough to pick that issue up.
Slag is a constant issue. 12.5 sps is enough to pick it up and
recognize it, but you'd want faster data rates for better
characterization AND for dealing with unknown types of pressure blips.
> the data rate should not change because of such a leak
I see no evidence of a change in data rate.