New Crackpot "Challenger" Site
JamesOberg
At http://www.mission51l.com/home.htm
a guy named "Max" (hrdwa...@email.com)
is competing for crackpot of the century.
John Beaderstadt
Looks like it's just another commercial venture out for publicity.
Jim, have you ever considered some of these things in light of one of
Barnum's more obscure sayings, to the effect that people like to be
"humbugged"? Granted, the Challenger explosion is miles away from the
Wild Man of Borneo or the Egress exhibit but, citing HL Mencken, "No one
ever went broke by underestimating the taste of the American public."
Face it: when conspiracy theorists show up here, we all have quite a bit
of fun with them. We only start getting down on them in earnest when
they start repeating themselves and the novelty begins to fade. As long
as it's fun, we're willing to treat them seriously.
--
44:57:19N
73:16:18W
UT-5
rk
>
> At http://www.mission51l.com/home.htm
> a guy named "Max" (hrdwa...@email.com)
> is competing for crackpot of the century.
Has anyone read the book yet and found it Cooper-ized?
Of course, some strange stories are true. How many really believed that
there was a major fight right before the launch with the engineers
pressing not to launch the Shuttle, people told to put on their
"management hat," and a refusal to sign a consent to launch, all to make
a nice splasy PR piece at the State of the Union address for Reagan?
Better yet, how many have read _Challenger, A Major Malfunction_ - and
if it was written before the blow up, how many thought it would be
possible?
We've all seen many things that we thought were unbelievable that turned
out true.
Probably a crackpot exploiting the death of seven astronauts, which is
horrible. Anyways, I've read and seen enough crap to hold back until
some facts are in.
Perhaps we can invite the author to participate in a discussion here.
Give him his say. And then, if warranted, shred him.
rk
Matt Ota
> Of course, some strange stories are true. How many really believed that
> there was a major fight right before the launch with the engineers
> pressing not to launch the Shuttle, people told to put on their
> "management hat," and a refusal to sign a consent to launch, all to make
> a nice splasy PR piece at the State of the Union address for Reagan?
> Better yet, how many have read _Challenger, A Major Malfunction_ - and
> if it was written before the blow up, how many thought it would be
> possible?
>
(snip)
In 1979 I attended a speech by Astronaut Hank Hartsfield at JSC. I was with
a National Assn. Of Rocketry group,
as the NAR National NARAM meet was being held at the JSC Radar Range that
year. Anyways, Mr. Hartsfield's
lecture was all about RTLS abort procedures. It alerted me to the
possibilites of the safety problems with the shuttle.
I also read before the fisrst flight about statistical possibilites of
catastrrophic failures of the shuttle. It was a known thing but not
very publicized. I told my rocket club members that eventually they were
going to lose an orbiter, and I said this in 1983.
What shocked me was not that an orbiter was lost, but the crew as well.
Matt Ota
(snip)
>
>
> Face it: when conspiracy theorists show up here, we all have quite a bit
> of fun with them. We only start getting down on them in earnest when
> they start repeating themselves and the novelty begins to fade. As long
> as it's fun, we're willing to treat them seriously.
>
I disagree. It upsets me when these people spout nonsense and make money at
it!
Matt Ota
At http://www.mission51l.com/home.htm
a guy named "Max" (hrdwa...@email.com)
is competing for crackpot of the century.
All I can do is sigh and take solace in the fact that I am not having the wool pulled over my eyes.
I just hope that this author doesn't make too much money on this book.
When I see this book in the stores I will try to
move all of them into the Science Fiction area. I have done this in
the past when Astrology books were mistakenly
placed in the Astronomy section at bookstores.
T...@sky.net
>
>At http://www.mission51l.com/home.htm
>a guy named "Max" (hrdwa...@email.com)
>is competing for crackpot of the century.
The guy is obviously a major asshole. Another pathetic conspiracy
moron...
rk
Interesting but a bit off my point.
For example, would you have expected a launch where the engineers were
fighting against launching into the early morning hours just before
launch with the manufacturer's rep at the launch site refusing to sign
the consent to launch?
I think everyone knew, more or less, that launching the shuttle was a
risky venture. But please think about the questions above. While the
negative thinking in me immediately assumed that there was something
rotten somewhere, I must admit to being shocked that it took place at
such a high level and so open and visible. And that the problem with
the o-ring was known and openly debated with "bad" test data going back
to the very first test of the booster and lasting all of those years.
rk
Christopher M. Jones
>
> At http://www.mission51l.com/home.htm
> a guy named "Max" (hrdwa...@email.com)
> is competing for crackpot of the century.
Well, from what I can see on the website I would have to
agree. I wish I could hear a bit more about this guy's
actually theory to see just how far he has his head
crammed up his ass, but I'm not gonna buy it. The tone
and content of what is put up on the webpage is very
revealing to me. I can't quite explain fully, but
there's just something that tickles my senses about the
style of writing that has "bunk" written all over it.
John Beaderstadt
> I wish I could hear a bit more about this guy's
> actually theory to see just how far he has his head
> crammed up his ass, but I'm not gonna buy it.
Part of the blurb says: "You can be one of the first to discover what
caused the boosters to cross and destroy Challenger!"
Near as I can tell, then, his theory has got something to do with the
SRBs crossing each other's paths after separation. That doesn't match
what I've seen on the videotape (from the much-maligned 25th anniversary
"Greatest Show in Space" set).
Considering the rather public recriminations, investigation, displays of
evidence and findings, the idea of covering up the "real" cause just
doesn't make any sense at all. Regardless of the cause, the shuttle blew
up and the astronauts died. That presidential politics may have been
partly behind the launch decision is old news, and came out even before
the investigation (IIRC). Precisely what was left to cover up? What
could possibly have been more damning than what the investigation
uncovered? The blurb doesn't say.
Other than that, the web site is awash in bait-and-switch: the link
says, for example, "Did you know that weeks before the Challenger
disaster occurred, former Lockheed engineer John Maxson warned Senator
Charles Grassley about it?" Clicking on the link, though, does
absolutely nothing to expand on this, but instead gives you platitudes
about the "code" of midwestern farmers that died in World War 2.
If the blurb is any example of how the author (the aforementioned John
Maxson, who is also owner of the publishing house) presents his
arguments, this is worth a miss. BTW, it also appears that this book is
meant to be the lead product in what will otherwise be a series of
engineering titles. Looks to me like he's hoping to make a splash in the
beginning, then have the following, less sensational, titles ride the
first book's notoriety.
JamesOberg
<Of course, some strange stories are true. How many really believed that
there was a major fight right before the launch with the engineers
pressing not to launch the Shuttle, people told to put on their
"management hat," and a refusal to sign a consent to launch, all to make
a nice splasy PR piece at the State of the Union address for Reagan? >
Heck, I still don't believe that. I was there, and the pressure came from the
two May launches to Jupiter, not some Washington hindquarters memo.
rk
Nevertheless, the decision making process was the key point. "When do
you want to launch, April?" or words to that effect, "Put your
management hat on", engineers put into the position of having to prove
it would fail, McDonald not signing the consent to launch [I think it
was McDonald, my book Challenger, A Major Malfunction got swiped by the
guy I loaned it to [yes, a lawyer :-]] and I haven't been able to find
another copy. Most people, I think, were quite shocked when all this
came out.
I don't recall a Washington memorandum as the source of pressure. From
what I remember of my reading, it was sort of self-generating. Do you
think that that was a contributing factor?
I've recently started Logsdon's _The Decision To Go To The Moon_. Is
there a book similar to that for Challenger?
Back to point 1, the most recent nutcase; I sort of have a saying in
design reviews: "Shred the design, not the designer." Let's shred the
material. I think we'll all learn something from the exercise and
perhaps, even if it is mostly bunk, something of interest might pop out.
Would you like to debate this in this forum with the author? I'll play
the moderator. And I'll go to the trouble to invite the author.
Guaranteed to be more interesting than the Presidential "debates."
rk
OM
...Agreed. Jim, it's your call to action apparently. Go get this
bastard and give him the what-for!
OM
Brett Buck
> I think everyone knew, more or less, that launching the shuttle was a
> risky venture. But please think about the questions above. While the
> negative thinking in me immediately assumed that there was something
> rotten somewhere, I must admit to being shocked that it took place at
> such a high level and so open and visible.
This goes on all the time in the space biz. Even in other
life-critical systems.
Brett
Brian Thorn
<stel...@nospamplease.erols.com> wrote:
>I don't recall a Washington memorandum as the source of pressure. From
>what I remember of my reading, it was sort of self-generating. Do you
>think that that was a contributing factor?
Reagan's political opposition tried for over a year to put some of the
blame for Challenger on him, and they finally, quietly gave up. The
most common "It was Reagan's fault" argument insinuates that Reagan
planned to speak to McAuliffe during his State of the Union Address
the night of the 28th. But the Rogers Commission found that no comm
links were in place between JSC and the Capitol Building and therefore
no such conversation would have been possible.
Reagan almost certainly would have mentioned McAuliffe's flight had it
been successful that day, and some NASA officials may have had that in
the back of their minds, but there is no evidence that the Reagan
White House took part in the launch decision, in fact, the evidence is
that the Reagan White House did not.
Brian
rk
>
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2000 12:06:14 -0400, rk
> <stel...@nospamplease.erols.com> wrote:
>
> >I don't recall a Washington memorandum as the source of pressure. From
> >what I remember of my reading, it was sort of self-generating. Do you
> >think that that was a contributing factor?
>
> Reagan's political opposition tried for over a year to put some of the
> blame for Challenger on him, and they finally, quietly gave up. The
> most common "It was Reagan's fault" argument insinuates that Reagan
> planned to speak to McAuliffe during his State of the Union Address
> the night of the 28th. But the Rogers Commission found that no comm
> links were in place between JSC and the Capitol Building and therefore
> no such conversation would have been possible.
Ah, thanks for the details. I read the Rogers Commission report, almost
in its entirety, a year and a half ago, so I don't recall all the
details. Especially since I was reading it from a different
perspective.
> Reagan almost certainly would have mentioned McAuliffe's flight had it
> been successful that day, and some NASA officials may have had that in
> the back of their minds, but there is no evidence that the Reagan
> White House took part in the launch decision, in fact, the evidence is
> that the Reagan White House did not.
That's consistent with all of my reading, too. I don't recall any link
between the Reagan White House and NASA on it.
I can't recall if they actually had a paragraph written for the speech
or a possible version of the speech. Do you recall? And where can I
get another _Challenger, A Major Malfunction_?
Thanks!
rk
OM
<be...@together.net> wrote:
>If the blurb is any example of how the author (the aforementioned John
>Maxson, who is also owner of the publishing house) presents his
>arguments, this is worth a miss.
...Exactly. Save your $$ and wait for the eventual Jim Oberg
administered castration and autopsy of this diseased body of
disinformation.
OM
wolfshadow4
one pays that much unless it is their special interest area. And anyone that
interested in space won't buy that book!
Chris Manteuffel
<stel...@nospamplease.erols.com> arranged electrons in an arbitrary
pattern familiar to all as:
>I can't recall if they actually had a paragraph written for the speech
>or a possible version of the speech. Do you recall? And where can I
>get another _Challenger, A Major Malfunction_?
According to Burrows, _This New Ocean_, the sentence was not in the
speech, but NASA wanted him to put it in the speech. This book is a
tertiary source, however, so take it with some salt. However, the book
mentions another source of pressure- Ms. McAuliffe was scheduled to
give two lessons on day four of the mission. If they were to delay,
she would be giving those lessons on a Saturday. Who was going to
watch lessons on a Saturday? I think it would be easier to change the
day of the lessons than Burrows does, (he claims they were locked in),
but I don't know any of the details, so it's just a guess on my part.
BTW, his footnotes list the source for the line NASA wanted in as
"Mother Recounts Challenger Blast", New York Times, September 8, 1993.
Chris Manteuffel
"...the war situation has developed not necessarily
to Japan's advantage..."
-Emperor Hirohito, August 14, 1945
Remove something from email address
rk
>
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2000 14:42:13 -0400, rk
> <stel...@nospamplease.erols.com> arranged electrons in an arbitrary
> pattern familiar to all as:
>
> >I can't recall if they actually had a paragraph written for the speech
> >or a possible version of the speech. Do you recall? And where can I
> >get another _Challenger, A Major Malfunction_?
>
> According to Burrows, _This New Ocean_, the sentence was not in the
> speech, but NASA wanted him to put it in the speech. This book is a
> tertiary source, however, so take it with some salt. However, the book
> mentions another source of pressure- Ms. McAuliffe was scheduled to
> give two lessons on day four of the mission. If they were to delay,
> she would be giving those lessons on a Saturday. Who was going to
> watch lessons on a Saturday? I think it would be easier to change the
> day of the lessons than Burrows does, (he claims they were locked in),
> but I don't know any of the details, so it's just a guess on my part.
>
> BTW, his footnotes list the source for the line NASA wanted in as
> "Mother Recounts Challenger Blast", New York Times, September 8, 1993.
OK, here's a few things I found on-line:
http://www.me.utexas.edu/~uer/challenger/chall3.html
After investigation, there is some evidence suggesting
that there was pressure from the White House for this
particular Challenger launch. The day of the accident,
speculation about pressure from the White House to have
the Challenger launched before Reagan's State of the
Union address, was denied by NASA officials. However,
Richard Cook, the former NASA budget analyst, contended
in a 137-page report that the reason NASA managers
overruled Thiokol's engineers was politically motivated.
He claims that the President wanted to mention the teacher
in space in his State of the union message ["Bell," 1987].
Bell, Trudy and Karl Esch, "The Fatal Flaw in Flight 51-L,"
IEEE Spectrum, vol. 24, no. 2(Feb. 1987), pp. 36-51.
--------------------------------------
http://lowery.tamu.edu/ethics/ethics/shuttle/shuttle1.htm
NASA wanted to launch the Challenger without any delays so
the launch pad could be refurbished in time for the next
mission, which would be carrying a probe that would examine
Halley's Comet. If launched on time, this probe would have
collected data a few days before a similar Russian probe
would be launched. There was probably also pressure to
launch Challenger so it could be in space when President
Reagan gave his State of the Union address. Reagan's main
topic was to be education, and he was expected to mention
the shuttle and the first teacher in space, Christa McAuliffe.
rk
MattWriter
launched people in what they knew were unsafe conditions (or conditions not
proven safe) for political purposes. Sure, they were impatient, maybe enough
to make some judgement calls go the wrong way. (Don't foregt Dan Rather
calling the launch process a 'high-tech low comedy because of the delays.) But
in the absence of a single piece of primary evidence (memo, first-hand
recollection, etc.) the idea they launched hastily on White House orders is
unproven (and, most NASA people would probably say, insulting in the extreme.)
A grief-stricken mother's opinion is hardly evidence, and Cook (IIRC) didn't
cite any proof either.
.
Matt Bille
(MattW...@AOL.com)
OPINIONS IN ALL POSTS ARE SOLELY THOSE OF THE AUTHOR
JamesOberg
what I remember of my reading, it was sort of self-generating. Do you
think that that was a contributing factor?>
It's possible it was on somebody's mind, yes. But I'm certain the May launch
windows -- the first launch dates it was impossible to slip -- were
oppressively on everyone's minds, to the detriment of sound decision-making,
agreed.
JamesOberg
blame for Challenger on him, and they finally, quietly gave up.>
Christa's mother didn't give up blaming Reagan, but she's hardly a balanced
source.
Brian Thorn
<stel...@nospamplease.erols.com> wrote:
>> According to Burrows, _This New Ocean_, the sentence was not in the
>> speech, but NASA wanted him to put it in the speech. This book is a
>> tertiary source, however, so take it with some salt. However, the book
>> mentions another source of pressure- Ms. McAuliffe was scheduled to
>> give two lessons on day four of the mission. If they were to delay,
>> she would be giving those lessons on a Saturday. Who was going to
>> watch lessons on a Saturday? I think it would be easier to change the
>> day of the lessons than Burrows does, (he claims they were locked in),
>> but I don't know any of the details, so it's just a guess on my part.
>>
>> BTW, his footnotes list the source for the line NASA wanted in as
>> "Mother Recounts Challenger Blast", New York Times, September 8, 1993.
Burrows' book tends to fall down on accuracy in the later chapters,
though, such as claiming that Reagan/Stockman caused the cancellation
of some programs in 1980 (Reagan took office on January 20, 1981...)
He blames Reagan for many budget cuts made by the Carter
Administration. Therefore, I suspect Burrows' political leanings make
his charges against the Reagan White House somewhat suspect.
> http://www.me.utexas.edu/~uer/challenger/chall3.html
>
> After investigation, there is some evidence suggesting
> that there was pressure from the White House for this
> particular Challenger launch. The day of the accident,
> speculation about pressure from the White House to have
> the Challenger launched before Reagan's State of the
> Union address, was denied by NASA officials. However,
> Richard Cook, the former NASA budget analyst, contended
> in a 137-page report that the reason NASA managers
> overruled Thiokol's engineers was politically motivated.
> He claims that the President wanted to mention the teacher
> in space in his State of the union message ["Bell," 1987].
So where is this evidence? All I see is hearsay.
> NASA wanted to launch the Challenger without any delays so
> the launch pad could be refurbished in time for the next
> mission, which would be carrying a probe that would examine
> Halley's Comet. If launched on time, this probe would have
> collected data a few days before a similar Russian probe
> would be launched.
This is badly mangled. The next mission wasn't a "probe", but Spacelab
Astro-1, and it was to launch from Pad 39A, not 39B where Challenger
departed Earth for the last time.
It sounds as if there is confusion about the next mission (61E, Astro
1) and the two missions planned after that (61F and 61G, the May
Galileo and Ulysses launches.) The latter two were indeed probes, and
NASA was struggling to meet that tight launch window. It needed
Challenger's 51L mission finished soon so that the Shuttle-Centaur
modifications could be made to Challenger. Meanwhile, Astro-1 was in
trouble because of all the delays launching and landing Columbia, and
Columbia's unexpected return to Edwards instead of KSC, which ate
another week of turnaround time.
Brian
Michel Morton
rk wrote:
>
> I can't recall if they actually had a paragraph written for the speech
> or a possible version of the speech. Do you recall? And where can I
> get another _Challenger, A Major Malfunction_?
>
The Challenger Launch Decision by Diane Vaughan, is still
available. Having read them both I'd say it was the better book.
It's more academic and as it was written ten years after, I think
has a better perspective. Challenger A Major Malfunction had more of
an "outraged investigative journalist" air about it which isn't
really my thing. I prefer to be presented with the facts and make
up my own mind whether or not to be outraged.
--
Michael Morton
>==========================================================<
School of Information Systems | Everything is linear if
University of East Anglia | plotted on log-log with
Norwich | a fat magic marker.
>==========================================================<
Brian Thorn
wrote:
>
>
>rk wrote:
>>
>> I can't recall if they actually had a paragraph written for the speech
>> or a possible version of the speech. Do you recall? And where can I
>> get another _Challenger, A Major Malfunction_?
>>
>
>The Challenger Launch Decision by Diane Vaughan, is still
>available. Having read them both I'd say it was the better book.
>It's more academic and as it was written ten years after, I think
>has a better perspective. Challenger A Major Malfunction had more of
>an "outraged investigative journalist" air about it which isn't
>really my thing. I prefer to be presented with the facts and make
>up my own mind whether or not to be outraged.
So did "Prescription For Disaster" from about the same time.
Unfortunately, both books found plenty to be outraged about.
Brian
DCastle872
> the launch pad could be refurbished in time for the next
> mission, which would be carrying a probe that would examine
> Halley's Comet.
Wasn't STS51L the first STS launch from pad 39B? 39A was unoccupied at the
time if I remember correctly (undergoing repairs from Columbia a few weeks
prior I imagine). So wouldn't there have been a pad clear?