Carrier panel theories
Bruce Palmer
object detected on FD 2 was a leading edge carrier panel. Can anyone
posit a scenario that explains what series of events would cause one
of these panels to separate? I can't.
If the damage occurred on launch, how in the world could it survive
the ascent all the way into orbit and through the OMS burn? How could
it subsequently remain attached for over 24 hours and then suddenly
come loose more than 24 hours later after an attitude maneuver? Would
both bolts have to break? Could it fall off while leaving the bolts
in place? Could thermal cycling affect the attachment mechanism?
The Board has been saying they are determining what the mystery object
*wasn't* with radar signatures. It doesn't look like they will be
able to definitively say it *was* a carrier panel.
I assume they are also examining the possibility that the damage was
caused by orbital debris or a micrometeoroid, although I haven't seen
any mention of this in the hearings. Was the orbiter oriented during
the first day such that the leading edge of the left wing (or the
underside) would have been facing into the direction of travel?
I know Occam's Razor suggests that simpler explanations are more
likely than convoluted, improbable ones, but a carrier panel just
coming loose all of a sudden doesn't make much sense to me yet. And
it's not like the danger from orbital debris hasn't been noted before.
bp
john_thomas_maxson
news:cd2la.15778$Xd1.6...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> The CAIB seems to be trending
Is that old detergent back in vogue?
> toward a determination that the mystery object
Is that a replacement for the fabled mystery bullet?
> detected on FD 2
Was it really detected that day?
> was a leading edge carrier panel.
Was *NASA* using "leading edge" technology?
> Can anyone posit a scenario that explains what series of
> events would cause one of these panels to separate?
Yes, a stowed carrier pigeon pecked it loose and flew off with it.
> I can't.
Grab a towel.
JTM
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> Bruce Palmer wrote:
<snipped>
<notes subject line> Hey Bruce! Yer a HOR! ;)
Mike Speegle
JTM jumps, with conspiracies ablazing, on another shuttle accident.
And HORS grows by leaps and bounds. <sniff> John, you do us much
honor. ;-)
--
Mike
________________________________________________________
"Colorado Ski Country, USA" Come often. Ski hard.
Spend *lots* of money. Then leave as quickly as you can.
JTM --- Where's my damned subpoena? I'm waiting.
Bruce Palmer
Schweeeeet! I seriously considered un-plonking him just to try and
provoke something like this. Glad I didn't have to take that extreme
measure.
Where do I get my membership card?
bp
Mike Speegle
You'll be contacted by the Sergeant-At-Arms soon. Enjoy your
membership! ;-)
Alan Erskine
--
Alan Erskine
alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au
The Coalition of the Willing,
against the Axis of Evil,
In a War of the Damned
"Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhonda...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:b72l4m$agbf3$1...@ID-181658.news.dfncis.de...
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> Bruce Palmer typed:
>> Where do I get my membership card?
>
> You'll be contacted by the Sergeant-At-Arms soon. Enjoy your
> membership! ;-)
Yeah, right! I've been a HOR for how long now? Where's my card?
OM needs to get on the stick. :-P
rl
Bruce Palmer
> Bruce Palmer <bpalm...@optonline.net> typed:
>> Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
>>> john_thomas_maxson wrote:
>>>> Bruce Palmer wrote:
>>>
>>> <snipped>
>>>
>>> <notes subject line> Hey Bruce! Yer a HOR! ;)
>>
>> Schweeeeet! I seriously considered un-plonking him just to try and
>> provoke something like this. Glad I didn't have to take that extreme
>> measure.
>>
>> Where do I get my membership card?
>
> You'll be contacted by the Sergeant-At-Arms soon. Enjoy your
> membership! ;-)
I certainly will, Mike. I hereby state that I am willing to assume
whatever responsibilities are required of a junior HORS member. My
.sig shall be updated shortly.
bp
Kevin Willoughby
> HOR? <notes ignorance>
HORS.
Human O-Ring Society.
A medal awarded by JTM to those of us who have, uh, suggested logic and
facts to refute the JTM Consipracy Theorises.
--
Kevin Willoughby kevinwi...@scispace.org.invalid
What gets measured gets done. -- David Patterson
Michael R. Grabois ... change $ to "s"
<alane...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>HOR? <notes ignorance>
Way back when (OK, October 2000), Jim Oberg Maxson's web site and promptly
called him a crackpot in sci.space.history in a thread called "New Crackpot
"Challenger" Site" (http://tinyurl.com/9781)
Maxson, when he found out (June 2001), took exception to being called a
crackpot. He took the names of the six worst offenders (I guess, I wasn't
reading back then) and arranged them in a hex format (since you can't really
draw a circle with only six points) and titled the post "The Origin of a Human
O-Ring". (http://tinyurl.com/9786). The first six were James Oberg, T...@SKY.net,
John Beaderstadt, Christopher M. Jones, Richard Katz and Matt Ota.
Well, a couple days later after reading more of the old threads, he expanded
the Human O-Ring (http://tinyurl.com/9788) to include the likes of William
Bianco, Douglas Pratt, Chuck Stewart, Patrick Schaaf, Richard A. Schumacher,
Derek Lyons, Greg D. Moore, Brian Thorn, Pix!, Jorge R. Frank, wolfshadow4,
Andy, GCGassaway, David Higgins, PixelCat, Art Fuldodger, Lynn Killingbeck,
Karel Jansens, Paul F. Dietz, and Stephen Clark. Several people requested their
names be on the list, too.
Beady soon suggested (http://tinyurl.com/978c) "a couple of us are considering
having membership cards made up. The only qualification is that you have to be
named by the Collective" (who were a number of trolls like CT, Maxson, etc.).
Shortly afterwards, and still in the same thread, he said "If you can produce a
post where one of the Collective names you as part of the Human O-Ring Society
(HORS), you're in. It doesn't matter what the context was. I get to be the
Chief HOR because mine is the only name used by the Collective as a Google
keyword (having trouble finding it at the moment, but something on the order of
"new whacko John Beaderstadt")."
And thus was born the Human O-Ring Society, aka the HORS. If you're a member,
then you're a HOR. OM later took the title of Sergeant-at-Arms, which you can
see in his .sig.
The definition has changed a bit over the last couple years, where now you get
to be a HOR if Maxson or his ilk put your name in the subject line or make up a
pseudo-insulting name (like "PalmWell" for "Palmer").
Thus endeth the history lesson.
Seeing as how I don't have nearly as much time as Maxson to sit in front of the
computer and google away for hours trying to find the HOR Alumni list, I invite
all the HORs that were not mentioned above to sign in (along with your cute
nickname or title, if one was given).
Michael "GrabBoy" Grabois
Doug...
Grabois ... change $ to \"s\"" <wizardimp$1...@houston.rr.com> says...
>
> <snip>
>
> The definition has changed a bit over the last couple years, where now you get
> to be a HOR if Maxson or his ilk put your name in the subject line or make up a
> pseudo-insulting name (like "PalmWell" for "Palmer").
I'm sure that JTM had maligned me and/or my name in the past two years,
but I'm not going to wade through his crap enough to find a cite. (I
seem to recall being called 'Dumb Van Dorn' once, anyway.) I'd love to
be recognized as a HOR, but it's not worth taking the man out of killfile
hell for long enough to incite him -- er, to speak logic and facts to
him.
Paul nearly threatened my life at one point when I suggested he seek
psychiatric help for his anger management issues -- does that count?
On the other hand, Daniel has shown signs of being a Real Person, on
occasion. I've tried to encourage his sane/rational posts, of which
there have been quite a few. I still think Daniel could be a valuable
contributor to this forum (though I notice he's disappeared for the past
few weeks). For example, while Columbia's loss hit Daniel hard (as it
did us all), he never went over the deep end like, say, Bob Haller has.
I don't think encouraging someone, even (or sepcially) a Maxson, when he
shows signs of being a valuable contributor, ought to disqualify me from
being the HOR that I am...
> Thus endeth the history lesson.
And a good one it was, too. Thanks, Grab-boy! ...*grin*...
Doug Van Dorn
dvan...@mn.rr.com
OM
...Actually, I'm not in charge of membership. I'm just there to keep
the riff-raff castrated. Which is why John Maxson posts in such a high
pitch.
...Hmmm, who *did* have the membership card images? I really need to
get an official HORS page up on OMWorld after I get thru this latest
round of FAQ updates.
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
Craig Fink
The carrier panel is held on by two fasteners. Haven't seen a picture of
the fasteners the yet, but most likely bolts. Only two bolts are
present to improve maintenance, and limit the number of holes through
the tiles. Each panel can be removed by taking out only two fasteners.
This is probably the weakest link in the system.
Pictures of the carrier panel show what looks to be a flat metal plate
(probably aluminum, maybe titanium (would be better)). The flat metal
plate is mounted against another flat metal plate inside the wing. It
appears that there are no strong alignment pins and holes on either the
carrier panel or wing mounting structure in the wing. Also, I'm not sure
what the clearances are of the carrier panel wrt other wing structure
which may have been able to take up the shear loads. Would be nice to
look have the 20+ year old blueprints.
One flat metal plate mounted against another flat metal plate can act
like a pair of scissors when impacted in shear. Without alignment pins
to take the shear impact load, one plate could slid with respect to the
other plate. This could cut the bolts in half.
During the same time period in the 1970, Ford learned this lesson with
the Pinto. One of the safety improvements to the front bumper was to add
a skid plate between the bumper bracket and frame. In an impact, this
allowed the bumper bracket to slid against the frame without cutting the
bolt. The bolt would fail in tension instead of shear.
The Orbiter was at +2 degrees of angle of attack at that point in the
trajectory. The wind loads may have held the panel in place without
bolts. Later in the trajectory, the vehicle was out of the atmosphere,
so the only loads on the panel would be acceleration. Which may not
dislodge it.
After the Orbiter got onorbit, it starts to go through a very large day
night thermal cycle every 90 minutes. Aluminum is very bad in terms of
expansion and contraction when exposed to thermal cycles. The now loose
carrier panel may have slowly worked itself out of the wing due to the
thermal cycling.
Video of a SOFI plug fired at a flat plate at 500 mph show that the SOFI
is very resilient. It basically bounce of the plate intact. It only
broke in one or two places, although all the cells in the foam (closed
cell foam) were most likely burst. Unlike the tiles, which would most
likely fracture into something that resembles dust. A glancing blow
impact could have transferred large forces to the carrier panel, that
would force the panel to slide with respect to the wing structure.
This is all speculation without having access to the engineering
diagrams to verify that wing structure would not have take the shear
load in some other manner.
If the bolts had to take the shear load they could have been cut.
Anyway, I kind of like the theory.
Craig Fink
Richard Kaszeta
> The definition has changed a bit over the last couple years, where now you get
> to be a HOR if Maxson or his ilk put your name in the subject line or make up a
> pseudo-insulting name (like "PalmWell" for "Palmer").
You mean I'm *already* a member? Wow!
--
Richard W Kaszeta
ri...@kaszeta.org
http://www.kaszeta.org/rich
Alan Erskine
news:MPG.18fec6c3f...@news.rcn.com...
> Alan Erskine said:
> > HOR? <notes ignorance>
>
> HORS.
>
> Human O-Ring Society.
>
> A medal awarded by JTM to those of us who have, uh, suggested logic and
> facts to refute the JTM Consipracy Theorises.
In the name of all the gods, why would you waste your time doing that??? ;-)
Alan Erskine
in message news:sou99vgpntempnfoi...@4ax.com...
hehe... An honourable society if there ever was one. I doubt I'll ever
become a member as I just don't give a damn about JTM or the other Maxson
in-breds
Alan Erskine
assorted trolls...
--
Alan Erskine
alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au
The Coalition of the Willing,
against the Axis of Evil,
In a War of the Damned
"Michael R. Grabois ... change $ to "s"" <wizardimp$1...@houston.rr.com> wrote
in message news:sou99vgpntempnfoi...@4ax.com...
Herb Schaltegger
"Alan Erskine" <alane...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "Michael R. Grabois ... change $ to "s"" <wizardimp$1...@houston.rr.com> wrote
> in message news:sou99vgpntempnfoi...@4ax.com...
>>
>>(snippage)
>
> hehe... An honourable society if there ever was one. I doubt I'll ever
> become a member as I just don't give a damn about JTM or the other Maxson
> in-breds
>
Come on, Alan! Let yourself get worked up just once really good, lay
into him with unassailable logic, common sense and clear thought and
then wait for the appellations to fly. Then you're in, it's that simple!
--
Herb Schaltegger, Esq.
Chief Counsel, Human O-Ring Society
http://www.crank.net/conspiracy
"JTM is the CRANKIEST!"
Gavin Bull
> Seeing as how I don't have nearly as much time as Maxson to sit in front of the
> computer and google away for hours trying to find the HOR Alumni list, I invite
> all the HORs that were not mentioned above to sign in (along with your cute
> nickname or title, if one was given).
John Maxson very kindly named a couple of threads after me, although I don't recall
him ever giving me a nickname or title, unfortunately.
I suppose that only qualifies me for associate membership?
Ted Molczan
news:cd2la.15778$Xd1.6...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> object detected on FD 2 was a leading edge carrier panel.
Today, the NY Times reported new evidence that suggests it might not have
been a carrier panel:
"Suspicion initially centered on carrier panels because of tests in a radar
laboratory conducted over the last few weeks. They had established that of a
wide variety of shuttle components, only carrier panels reflect radar energy
the way the mystery object did.
But all or part of the carrier panels extending nearly halfway out from the
fuselage have now been accounted for; investigators believe that the debris
struck about one-third of the way out. So technicians at the radar
laboratory at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio have returned to work,
testing fragments of components instead of whole pieces, looking for a match
with their Day 2 radar image."
The full article is available here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/10/national/nationalspecial/10SHUT.html
On a related matter, I have analysed the orbital elements of the mystery
object issued yesterday by USSTRATCOM, and find that its A/m (area to mass
ratio) was about 0.049 m^2/kg - about 20 percent greater than the value
derived from my estimate of the orbital elements, as reported here:
http://www.satobs.org/columbia/STS107mysteryobject.html
Increasing the A/m to 0.049 m^2/kg does not change my findings concerning
the possible identity of the mystery object - that the A/m best fits the
densest elements of a shuttle's thermal protection system, for example a
fragment of an RCC panel or an aluminium carrier panel, with or without the
densified tile layer, but not the full tiles.
The carrier panels may now be out of the running, but it is too soon to say
it is an RCC panel. Candidates for the mystery object must match both its
aerodynamic and radar characteristics. In the press briefing of 2003 Apr 08,
Brig. Gen. Deal listed the following additional items to undergo radar
signature tests:
- carrier panels with 3 and 4 tiles, with the structure brackets behind it
- a partial RCC panel
- a T-seal
Ted Molczan
Mike Speegle
<g> You gotta bring the beer for the next meeting. ;-)
ed kyle
>
The carrier panel theory seem to be in trouble. A story
in the New York Times today (April 10) says that crews at
KSC have now identified recoverd parts of *all* of the
carrier panels from the left wing in the area where the
foam hit occurred.
- Ed Kyle
Rhonda Lea Kirk
>Chief Counsel, Human O-Ring Society
<wonders what Herb knows about Landlord/Tenant law on the net> Do you
think it's possible, counselor, to evict him from sci.space? What are
the options? And where do I file the complaint for eviction?
rl
Bruce Palmer
> Hi Bruce,
>
> The carrier panel is held on by two fasteners. Haven't seen a picture of
> the fasteners the yet, but most likely bolts. Only two bolts are
> present to improve maintenance, and limit the number of holes through
> the tiles. Each panel can be removed by taking out only two fasteners.
> This is probably the weakest link in the system.
I know it's held on by 2 fasteners. How do you know that maintenance
concerns led to the choice of 2 bolts? I think that 2 bolts were used
because it's just the simplest design. How can you say that having
only 2 fasteners is the weakest link?
> Pictures of the carrier panel show what looks to be a flat metal plate
> (probably aluminum, maybe titanium (would be better)). The flat metal
Why do you say titanium would be better? If the thermal protection
carried on top is sufficient, it could be made out of tin and it
wouldn't matter.
> plate is mounted against another flat metal plate inside the wing. It
> appears that there are no strong alignment pins and holes on either the
> carrier panel or wing mounting structure in the wing. Also, I'm not sure
Every diagram I've seen, from early ASAP reports right on up to some
of the CAIB slides, have clearly shown brackets at the junctions of
the RCC panels that appear to provide mount points for both the RCC
and the carrier plates. Where did you come with this "another flat
plate" theory? What leads you to conclude that there are no "strong"
alignment pins or holes?
> what the clearances are of the carrier panel wrt other wing structure
> which may have been able to take up the shear loads. Would be nice to
> look have the 20+ year old blueprints.
You don't know what the clearances are (neither do I) but yet you've
been able to conclude that (a) the plate substrate would be better if
it were made of titanium, (b) there's another flat plate to which the
carrier plate is mounted, (c) that maintenance concerns led to the
selection of a 2-bolt mounting arrangement, and (d) that there are no
strong mounting pins or holes in the whole setup.
> One flat metal plate mounted against another flat metal plate can act
> like a pair of scissors when impacted in shear. Without alignment pins
> to take the shear impact load, one plate could slid with respect to the
> other plate. This could cut the bolts in half.
Only if there are, in fact, 2 metal plates, and only if there are no
alignment pins.
[snip irrelevant Pinto analogy]
> The Orbiter was at +2 degrees of angle of attack at that point in the
> trajectory. The wind loads may have held the panel in place without
> bolts. Later in the trajectory, the vehicle was out of the atmosphere,
> so the only loads on the panel would be acceleration. Which may not
> dislodge it.
And the sudden deceleration at MECO. You're getting a pretty good
kick in the pants from the SSMEs and then, fairly rapidly, they shut
down. In my Pinto, when I hit the brakes things tend to go flying off
the back seat.
Wouldn't the proposed loads acting to shear the bolts - a sideways
foce, if you will - also act to dislodge the plate at that point? If
the bolts were sheared off you would have to conclude that there was
side to side motion of the plate, however small, due to the airstream
and vibration of the stack. You're asking me to believe that the same
"scissors" effect that sheared off the bolts suddenly stopped once the
bolts were severed.
> After the Orbiter got onorbit, it starts to go through a very large day
> night thermal cycle every 90 minutes. Aluminum is very bad in terms of
> expansion and contraction when exposed to thermal cycles. The now loose
> carrier panel may have slowly worked itself out of the wing due to the
> thermal cycling.
I didn't know thermal expansion coefficients were classified as either
good or bad. Very interesting. But if the plate were held in place
all the way to orbit then how is it that the underlying aluminum was
exposed to the day/night temperature cycles?
> Video of a SOFI plug fired at a flat plate at 500 mph show that the SOFI
> is very resilient. It basically bounce of the plate intact. It only
> broke in one or two places, although all the cells in the foam (closed
> cell foam) were most likely burst. Unlike the tiles, which would most
> likely fracture into something that resembles dust. A glancing blow
> impact could have transferred large forces to the carrier panel, that
> would force the panel to slide with respect to the wing structure.
But the plate is covered with tiles. Where did you see reference to a
video of SOFI being fired at a carrier panel? It was my understanding
that the tests involving firing SOFI at things haven't started yet.
And if the plate is recessed such that it becomes flush with the rest
of the wing when fastened in place then how is it that a glancing blow
would cause it to move from side to side in any significant way? It's
a tight fit. It has to be.
> This is all speculation without having access to the engineering
> diagrams to verify that wing structure would not have take the shear
> load in some other manner.
Oh.
> If the bolts had to take the shear load they could have been cut.
>
> Anyway, I kind of like the theory.
I don't. I'm not saying you're 100% wrong, because I don't have any
detailed diagrams either, but I have seen enough diagrams and drawings
to say with some degree of confidence that many of your assumptions
about the way the carrier panels are attached are incorrect.
--
bp
; Debunking Challenger Conspiracy Nuts:
Junior Member ; http://www.hal-pc.org/~jsb/conspiracy.html
Human O-Ring Society ; http://home.austin.rr.com/sts51lvideo/
Bruce Palmer
[snip]
> And the sudden deceleration at MECO. You're getting a pretty good kick
> in the pants from the SSMEs and then, fairly rapidly, they shut down.
> In my Pinto, when I hit the brakes things tend to go flying off the back
> seat.
OK, this is wrong. After MECO velocity remains constant and there's
no deceleration.
Kevin Willoughby
> "Kevin Willoughby" <ke...@scispace.org.invalid> wrote in message
> news:MPG.18fec6c3f...@news.rcn.com...
> > A medal awarded by JTM to those of us who have, uh, suggested logic and
> > facts to refute the JTM Consipracy Theorises.
>
> In the name of all the gods, why would you waste your time doing that??? ;-)
I may be slow, but I do learn! I haven't replied to JTM in a longlong
time.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"Doug..." <dvan...@mn.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Tt8la.5212$B4.1...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> On the other hand, Daniel has shown signs of being a Real Person, on
> occasion. I've tried to encourage his sane/rational posts, of which
> there have been quite a few. I still think Daniel could be a valuable
> contributor to this forum (though I notice he's disappeared for the past
> few weeks). For example, while Columbia's loss hit Daniel hard (as it
> did us all), he never went over the deep end like, say, Bob Haller has.
> I don't think encouraging someone, even (or sepcially) a Maxson, when he
> shows signs of being a valuable contributor, ought to disqualify me from
> being the HOR that I am...
Agreed.
Craig Fink
>
> I don't. I'm not saying you're 100% wrong, because I don't have any
> detailed diagrams either, but I have seen enough diagrams and drawings
> to say with some degree of confidence that many of your assumptions
> about the way the carrier panels are attached are incorrect.
>
Yeah, your right. Rather hard to speculate without any hard data. I
would have hoped that with a National Space Program, the engineering
diagrams would be public domain and freely available, it would make
talking on s.s.s much more pleasent.
Just look at all the speculation going on just because nobody bothered
to look at the damage. What a waste of time, effort, and money.
Looks like NASA wants to take an evolutionary approach to the Shuttle
and continue flying for another 20 years. I really feel sorry for all
the good NASA empolyees and contractors who have built "paper queen"
after "paper queen", all hoping to someday build and fly something new.
Studies are one thing, and actually building something and flying it is
quite another. Another generation lost.
Then again, it looks like NASA may be taking the leadership by Accident
Investigation Board approach. I wonder if that's what Reagen had in mind
after the Callenger Accident. Hopefully, they will suggest to NASA that
they build another vehicle.
Craig Fink
Herb Schaltegger
<qvlla.21979$cO3.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
[/begin serious discussion]
Sadly, the closest analogy to "real life" property law that appears to
apply to electronic fora such as usenet seems to be the "commons" such
as was used in early New England colonies. That is, the central space
in a town or village that was open to all as a space for grazing animals
and political and social meetings. That means we can't evict him.
On the other hand, as more than one person has pointed out, he serves a
useful function as a unifying force among all HORS, a bogey man or devil
for us to rally against. If he didn't exist, we'd have to invent him.
He symbolizes and stands for all the net.kooks and .loons and .cranks
out there.
The best we can hope to do is simply that which is done among certain
small, socially-regressive cultures -- shun him. Killfile him, show
general disdain (indirectly, by posts directed at others who DO respond
to him) and hope he gets the message to shape up or get lost.
*The above is not meant to and does not constitute legal advice and no
attorney-client relationship exists or is presumed, implied or created.
I'm also probably not licensed to practice law in your state. Do not
taunt Happy Fun Ball . . . ;-)
[/end serious discussion]
I think we're doing that anyway and it's way more fun (and by "fun" I
mean "technically interesting" of course) than arguing the politics of
war with a bunch of ungrateful, politically retarded, historically
ignorant, anti-war Euro-peaceniks-at-any-price (and you know which ones
I'm talking about).
--
Herb Schaltegger, Esq.
Chief Counsel, Human O-Ring Society
john_thomas_maxson
in message news:3E96B184...@houston.rr.com...
>
> Looks like NASA wants to take an evolutionary approach to the Shuttle
> and continue flying for another 20 years. I really feel sorry for all
> the good NASA empolyees and contractors who have built "paper queen"
> after "paper queen", all hoping to someday build and fly something new.
> Studies are one thing, and actually building something and flying it is
> quite another. Another generation lost.
I'm thankful that a few from that generation show more promise
than the incompetent, hopelessly lost BBR's out there -- bragging
about the exotic tiles in their master bedrooms and such.
JTM
Johnson
goes to the rest room. Comes back. Damn dribbles, need to get that colon
check soon getting old.
Looks at monitor again in disbelief. States aloud. "Yes it appears that this
group is still solely based on gibberish. This newsgroup has gone to hell.
Nothing but Hounds BARK BARK GIBBERISH BARK!!!" Good Grief (looks around for
Linus and Lucy to jump on him for even daring to speak his mind. Awaits
threats from the Texas Illuminati Lunatic.
A bunch of HORS babbling on and on about anything and everything except
space shuttles. Scratches ass, farts (great Chinese food last night) thinks
(can't you all see me doing all this?)>
Snips the entire thread of 14 year old garbage
/begin quoting 14 year old #1, "If he didn't exist, we'd have to invent
him."
At last a nugget of substance!
Speaks aloud again loudly.
"If this group didn't have JTM who would it talk about? Not space shuttles.
Obviously you would need another reason to clutter the group with gibberish
to avoid talking about mistakes that NASA has made that they don't want to
fess up to.
You hit the nail on the head!"
<Pats himself on the back, feeds the animals, eats some chili cheese
flavored Fritos. Pops a Snapple> Fires up his force field firewall from the
*real* kooks out there.
/ end thread..
--
JJ
Founder;
Members Ending Nonsense Retarded Posts In Sci Space Every Day or the MEN R
PISSED club.
Rhonda Lea Kirk
<snipped>
> / end thread..
You're right. You're not Maxson. I apologize. As much your post was
intended as an insulting parody, it was a very funny flame. I haven't
seen that JTM is capable of creating that kind of humor, except by
actually being the brunt of his own joke.
You have potential, if only you will mind the formatting. Some people
use [ ] and some use < >. Heck, some even use ( ), but either way,
you must be sure to enclose the action therein to separate it from the
"spoken" portions.
The bigger issue here, particularly since I'm in the subject line
again (and it should be "rl" not "RL"), you have not gone away as
promised, so I once again doubt the existence of God. My faith is
shattered, you mean, evil man.
rl
Bruce Palmer
<snip>
> therapists (if that isn't obvious). John came here to sell his book -
> little is more clear in the google history. He has remained because HE
> needs to create an antagonist - for without it he has no reason to
> believe he is right (fighting on moral grounds against the tyranny of
> big government and the aerospace industrial complex). Without an
> antagonist, he might realize no one cares about his book or his
> arguments. That is why he will NEVER carry an argument through to the
> end, because he doesn't want it to end. As long as he can argue with
> people that seem to be respected in these newsgroups, he can imagine he
> has some respect in the community. That is also why ignoring him will
> not make him go away. In the thousands of people who read this group,
> someone, even newbies will argue with him. And still, if everyone
> ignores him, he'll just post messages in the middle of other's
> discussion threads and presume the silence is some nasa funded secret
> plot. He'll probably drive to libraries several states away to make
<snip>
I respectfully disagree with some of this. You are right about his
motivation, and I agree he doesn't want it to end. And you're also
right that as long as he can argue he will imagine he has some sort of
respect or credibility. My contention is that the only way to deprive
him of this mental masturbation is to completely and totally ignore him.
If the newbies want to argue with him, let them. He will gain none of
the satisfaction that he gets from arguing with those you've
characterized as respected in these newsgroups. When he realizes
they're newbies his sense of satisfaction will quickly disappear.
If everyone ignored him by using their killfiles then even if he did
jump into the middle of a thread, no one would see that intrusions by
virtue of the fact that he was being totally ignored in the first place.
I'll grant you that this is hard to completely ignore him. He sets
himself up as such an easy target to poke fun at. He's pathetic,
really. He's never actually prevailed on any of his arguments.
Certainly none that I've ever seen, and while I've only been posting
here for a couple of months, I was lurking for years. I've only got 5
or 6 newsgroups in my subscription list and sci.space.shuttle is the
only one that's been a constant since around 1995.
JTM. Heh. What a maroon.
Bruce Palmer
John, this new persona is at least somewhat entertaining. Pleas keep
using it!
Herb Schaltegger
"Johnson" <Joh...@johnson.com> wrote:
> (snip!)
[Clearing throat loudly and rolling eyes; thinking of good quote from
'80's movie to fit the situation]
"Lighten up, FRANCIS!"
If you get it, great. If not, I'll spell it out for you. LIGHTEN UP!
If you don't like the inhabitants, no one's making you move in. Go back
to lurking or post somewhere else or post here, but either way, stop
complaining. Life's too short to take this seriously, especially with
Maxsons posting every day. Besides, what's a little nuttiness among
friends, eh?
Kim Keller
> The carrier panel is held on by two fasteners. Haven't seen a picture of
> the fasteners the yet, but most likely bolts.
Yes, two machine screws are threaded into nutplates ttat are riveted to wing
structure.
> Only two bolts are
> present to improve maintenance, and limit the number of holes through
> the tiles.
It's not to improve maintenance; two are all that is needed.
> Each panel can be removed by taking out only two fasteners.
> This is probably the weakest link in the system.
Why?
> Pictures of the carrier panel show what looks to be a flat metal plate
> (probably aluminum, maybe titanium (would be better)).
It's aluminum.
>The flat metal
> plate is mounted against another flat metal plate inside the wing.
No, it's bolted to those nutplates that I mentioned earlier. The purpose of
the carrier panel is to fill a *gap*, not cover another panel.
> It
> appears that there are no strong alignment pins and holes on either the
> carrier panel or wing mounting structure in the wing.
So?
> Also, I'm not sure
> what the clearances are of the carrier panel wrt other wing structure
> which may have been able to take up the shear loads.
Maybe 1/16th of an inch or so, on all sides.
> Would be nice to
> look have the 20+ year old blueprints.
Write Boeing Space Systems and ask.
> The Orbiter was at +2 degrees of angle of attack at that point in the
> trajectory. The wind loads may have held the panel in place without
> bolts. Later in the trajectory, the vehicle was out of the atmosphere,
> so the only loads on the panel would be acceleration. Which may not
> dislodge it.
Agree.
> After the Orbiter got onorbit, it starts to go through a very large day
> night thermal cycle every 90 minutes. Aluminum is very bad in terms of
> expansion and contraction when exposed to thermal cycles. The now loose
> carrier panel may have slowly worked itself out of the wing due to the
> thermal cycling.
Or, damaged nutplates may have finally given in to the various accelerations
of thruster firings, freeing the carrier panel.
--
-Kim-
former shuttle tech
StarFurie
<rhonda...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>The bigger issue here, particularly since I'm in the subject line
>again (and it should be "rl" not "RL"), you have not gone away as
>promised, so I once again doubt the existence of God. My faith is
>shattered, you mean, evil man.
To make it clear:
RL is net shorthand for "Real Life",
rl is far more interesting.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:
Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html
Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html
OM
wrote:
>In article <b772k3$btc7k$1...@ID-181658.news.dfncis.de>, "Rhonda Lea Kirk"
><rhonda...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>>The bigger issue here, particularly since I'm in the subject line
>>again (and it should be "rl" not "RL"), you have not gone away as
>>promised, so I once again doubt the existence of God. My faith is
>>shattered, you mean, evil man.
>
>To make it clear:
>
>RL is net shorthand for "Real Life",
>rl is far more interesting.
...Now you know how I feel when someone calls me "Om".
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
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> StarFurie wrote:
>> To make it clear:
>> RL is net shorthand for "Real Life",
>> rl is far more interesting.
<eyes StarFurie curiously>
> ...Now you know how I feel when someone calls me "Om".
"The jewel is in the lotus...."
<gleefully remembers how StarFurie characterized OM> I don't think
anyone would ever really confuse you with a mantra, dear.
rl