|
Air Force General Donald J. Kutyna led the Accident Analysis Panel of
the Presidential Commission which investigated the Challenger disaster.
In this thread, I will present optical evidence revealing that General
Kutyna *misled* the American public as to that disaster's true cause.
Either (as Kutyna's own Air Force observed) the flared rocket exited
the fireball and rolled clockwise (viewed from aft) as it tumbled
downrange, or in the same sense it rolled counterclockwise -- as NASA
and the Commission claimed. General Kutyna can no longer have it both
ways.
<http://tinyurl.com/8r6zt>
"Word of my concerns did get to Dr. Eugene Covert, however, and on May
8, 1986, Thiokol engineers were in Washington reviewing NASA's Accident
Analysis Report. On May 9, 1986, Rogers himself convened what to the
best of my knowledge was *his* only Panel Meeting. (General Kutyna was
the regularly assigned Panel Leader.) This meeting was *closed*, and
its transcript is *not* a part of the five-volume Rogers Report. Below
are the first of my own excerpts from the transcript of this meeting."
<snip>
PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON THE
SPACE SHUTTLE CHALLENGER ACCIDENT
- - -
PANEL INVESTIGATIVE SESSION
- - -
FRIDAY, MAY 9, 1986
Suite 760
600 Maryland Aveenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C.
The Accident Analysis Panel held an
investigative session at 9:50 a.m.
WILLIAM P. ROGERS, Chairman, Presiding
NEIL A. ARMSTRONG, Vice Chairman
MAJOR GENERAL DONALD KUTYNA
DR. EUGENE COVERT
ALSO PRESENT:
AL KEEL, Commission Executive Director
Morton Thiokol Personnel:
EDWARD DORSEY, JR.
ARNOLD THOMPSON
ALLAN McDONALD
ROGER BOISJOLY
ED GARRISISON
LELAND DRIBIN
P R O C E E D I N G S
GENERAL KUTYNA: As we started this accident investigation or accident
analysis, we wanted to look at the cause of the failures on the space
shuttle.
<snip>
And I assumed as I was given data that that data had been
agreed to below our level or had been freely discussed below our level
and that there was a consensus. As we neared the end of the
investigation, of course, contractor personnel were involved. As we
neared the end, I got feedback from various sources that maybe that
wasn't true; there were still some voices out there that weren't being
heard on this particular data.
<snip>
And Chairman Rogers suggested that we hold a hearing in
Washington. So that is kind of where we are, and that is the
understanding that I had with you folks on what would be presented.
<snip>
(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
<http://tinyurl.com/7jkzo>
GENERAL KUTYNA: I would like to make a couple of summary comments,
<snip>
We eliminated the external tank, the orbiter, and the SSMEs, and then
finally we get to the SRB, and there are many things that could have
been a factor with the SRB that we looked at first, so there is an
awful lot of writing there.
<snip>
GENERAL KUTYNA: Neil do you have any comments?
VICE CHAIRMAN ARMSTRONG: I thought I understood everything that you
all said. I didn't take issue with the points that were made. I
thought it was all understandable. ...
<snip>
"Gavin, I hope these excerpts are of some value for explaining the
position that Al McDonald, Arnold Thompson, and other Thiokol
engineers found themselves in throughout the period of time prior to
the release of the Rogers Summary."
<http://tinyurl.com/7894k>
<snip>
"Moser claims above that the right SRB rotated counter-clockwise viewed
from aft, as shown by his JSC simulations (eg.,
<http://history.nasa.gov/rogers=ADrep/v5p1177a.htm>).
However, an official 51-L Radar Report which convincingly refutes
Moser's theorized counter-clockwise direction may be found at:"
<http://history.nasa.gov/rogers=ADrep/v3appoe3.htm>
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
5=2E0. Condensed Chronology of Right SRB Observations.
Following the structural break-up at T+ 73 seconds, the right Solid
Rocket Booster continued under thrust for approximately 37 seconds. It
was tracked continuously by Radar 1.17 and Ponce de Leon MIGOR. Radar
0=2E14 and the UCS-15 IFLOT tracked briefly as shown in Figure 1.
Analysis of the PDL MIGOR video tape shows the SB to be rolling
clockwise viewed from aft approximately once every 10 seconds during
the powered flight period. Possibly this period decreased by about 1.5
seconds during the 37 seconds of powered flight indicating an angular
acceleration about the longitudinal axis.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=AD=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
"Conclusion: Both Moser and the Radar Report misidentified the flared
SRB. The roll direction (as well as the 'before and after' roll rate)
of the target tracked by the radars is consistent with what the live
imagery plainly shows relative to the detachment of the aft-flared,
nose-blasted left SRB (not with Moser's theorized right SRB)."
All of the above is preparatory material for those who later this week
or next may wish to actually observe the Ponce de Leon boresight video
for themselves, so that they can either concur or nonconcur with the
observations of the radar engineers who wrote the above radar report
for Air Force officials on the central Florida coast.
It was inexcusable for AF General Kutyna to "assume consensus" about
the roll direction of the flared SRB (regardless of how it was
identified). Stated differently, he had no right to ignore the
scientific observations contained in his own Air Force radar report.
I believe General Kutyna owes all of us a good deal more than a mere
explanation for misleading us. Quite obviously the flared SRB reflects
the roll direction of the doomed orbiter, not the direction counter
thereto, as NASA claimed.
Challenger's Ghost <www.mission51l.com>
|
| |
| |
ghost@gmail.com wrote:
Either (as Kutyna's own Air Force observed) the flared rocket exited
the fireball and rolled clockwise (viewed from aft) as it tumbled
downrange, or in the same sense it rolled counterclockwise -- as NASA
and the Commission claimed. General Kutyna can no longer have it both
ways.
<snip>
"However, an official 51-L Radar Report which convincingly refutes
Moser's theorized counter-clockwise direction may be found at:"
<http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3appoe3.htm>
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
5.0. Condensed Chronology of Right SRB Observations.
Following the structural break-up at T+ 73 seconds, the right Solid
Rocket Booster continued under thrust for approximately 37 seconds. It
was tracked continuously by Radar 1.17 and Ponce de Leon MIGOR. Radar
0.14 and the UCS-15 IFLOT tracked briefly as shown in Figure 1.
Analysis of the PDL MIGOR video tape shows the SB to be rolling
clockwise viewed from aft approximately once every 10 seconds during
the powered flight period. Possibly this period decreased by about 1.5
seconds during the 37 seconds of powered flight indicating an angular
acceleration about the longitudinal axis.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=AD=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
"Conclusion: Both Moser and the Radar Report misidentified the flared
SRB. The roll direction (as well as the 'before and after' roll rate)
of the target tracked by the radars is consistent with what the live
imagery plainly shows relative to the detachment of the aft-flared,
nose-blasted left SRB (not with Moser's theorized right SRB)."
All of the above is preparatory material for those who later this week
or next may wish to actually observe the Ponce de Leon boresight video
for themselves, so that they can either concur or nonconcur with the
observations of the radar engineers who wrote the above radar report
for Air Force officials on the central Florida coast.
Okay, space folks, today I'm presenting the first and shortest of two
movie clips, for your objective scientific observation. Both are from a
NASA FOIA copy of the 51-L Ponce de Leon boresight video, with no frame
deletions.
This first clip takes two minutes to download on DSL, and about seven
minutes on dialup. (With Windows Media Player, try right-clicking on
the image after downloading. You should find either an option for full
screen or an option for changing video size, or both. You can also use
the slidebar to help see what's happening.)
<www.mission51l.com/PDLbs10.mpg>
I'd love to watch and/or participate in a constructive discussion of
the following:
1) Since NASA alleged an "aft circumferential O-ring burnthrough" in
this rocket, to what extent do you observe any spin (cart-wheeling)
during this interval?
2) To what extent to you observe any pitch over (tumbling)?
3) Since NASA alleged "counterclockwise roll, viewed from aft"
(rotation about this rocket's longitudinal axis), to what extent does
your observation concur with NASA's allegation?
Hopefully, traffic to this link will not present a problem. In that
case, within a few days I'll be able to put up the full 37 seconds of
powered flight to which the AF Radar Report refers.
I'm in a hurry to get out of town for a few hours. I hope I haven't
forgotten any detail of much import. For now, thanks in advance for
your comments.
Challenger's Ghost
|
| |
| |
ghost@gmail.com wrote:
Air Force General Donald J. Kutyna led the Accident Analysis Panel of
the Presidential Commission which investigated the Challenger disaster.
In this thread, I will present optical evidence revealing that General
Kutyna *misled* the American public as to that disaster's true cause.
It collided with a UFO observing the launch?
|
| |
| |
ghost@gmail.com wrote:
ghost@gmail.com wrote:
1) Since NASA alleged an "aft circumferential O-ring burnthrough" in
this rocket, to what extent do you observe any spin (cart-wheeling)
during this interval?
2) To what extent to you observe any pitch over (tumbling)?
3) Since NASA alleged "counterclockwise roll, viewed from aft"
(rotation about this rocket's longitudinal axis), to what extent does
your observation concur with NASA's allegation?
Hopefully, traffic to this link will not present a problem. In that
case, within a few days I'll be able to put up the full 37 seconds of
powered flight to which the AF Radar Report refers.
Surf's up: <www.mission51l.com/PDLbs37.mpg>
This clip (from FOIA video, VHS) begins with the explosion, but without
time. Time comes back in at t+82 seconds (upper left corner). The
camera was located in the Daytona Beach area.
Challenger's Ghost
|
| |
| |
"ghost@gmail.com" <john.maxson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1118276024.105990.306670@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
ghost@gmail.com wrote:
Surf's up: <www.mission51l.com/PDLbs37.mpg>
This clip (from FOIA video, VHS) begins with the explosion, but
without
time. Time comes back in at t+82 seconds (upper left corner). The
camera was located in the Daytona Beach area.
Challenger's Ghost
There was about a 110K pound side thrust from the leaking booster.
This was confirmed with trajectory info. The difference from most
rockets is the the shuttle system has several means by which to
steer. The solid rocket boosters and the main engines all can be
vectored.The vehicle was working extremely hard to stay on course,
just like Columbia was doing. All the flight traj info match
extremely well; well within engineering tolerances. BTW, main engine
flight data was received for some time after vehicle breakup. The
engines actually destroyed themselves due to a lack of fuel input.
You could see the temps run out of control then loss of data.
So, get over it. The booster leaked, the flame impinged on the ET
(External Tank) attach strut, which failed (outside design
requirements), and the booster rotated into the ET. The forward nose
cone had the witness marks. This happened at about 73 seconds.
The leak was reproducted in a two segment (versus 4 segment) test
article. The only thing that is surprising is that the leak was
temporarily sealed as it consumed the available material in the
circumferential direction. When max aero loading occured, the leak
opened up and the flame was clearly visible in the flight film.
You should know that there is a big difference between
strategic/tactical missles and a large solid rocket motor. Not enough
time here to hold class.
I know of what I speak...
CJ
Rocket Scientist
|
| |
| |
Curtis Jackson wrote:
"ghost@gmail.com" <john.maxson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1118276024.105990.306670@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
So, get over it.
<snipped reply not specific to the interval/questions>
Not enough time here to hold class.
<snipped irrelevant braggadocio>
CJ
Rocket Scientist
|
| |
| |
ghost@gmail.com wrote:
Air Force General Donald J. Kutyna led the Accident Analysis Panel of
the Presidential Commission which investigated the Challenger disaster.
In this thread, I will present optical evidence revealing that General
Kutyna *misled* the American public as to that disaster's true cause.
Don Kutyna had some help from his own organization, of course. As a
starting point, I'll name AF Col. Ed O'Connor, Director of Salvage
Operations.
Quoting from my book, page 139:
"The annual meeting of the National Space Congress opened in Cocoa
Beach on April 22, 1987, with Arnold Aldrich as keynote speaker and
general spokesman."
I was in attendance, of course. Aldrich promised that the government
would make all 51-L accident reports and launch decisions public,
eventually. I'm still waiting for that to happen, almost twenty years
later. Quoting further, from page 140:
"When Col. Ed O'Connor spoke, he announced that he had been a flight
test officer in the Marines. He referred to Oliver North as his
'classmate and good friend.' O'Connor said NASA would respond to 51-L
FOIA requests, subject to the 'privileged' release of 'safety'
information."
Challenger's Ghost
|
| |
| |
|
