Re: The RCS: Voice Transcript

From: LaDonna Wyss (hpywife927_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 06/14/04 

Date: 14 Jun 2004 15:58:13 -0700

"Charleston" <Charleston@coxdotgoeshere.net> wrote in message news:<e%czc.26654$fZ1.16090@fed1read03>...
> "LaDonna Wyss" <hpywife927@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > "JimO" <jameseoberg@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> > > 1. > > "LaDonna Wyss" <hpywife927@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > 2. > "JimO" <jameseoberg@houston.rr.com> wrote
> > 3. "LaDonna Wyss" <hpywife927@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I give up on the mess above.
>
> > > > As Scott said, it is documented by IDR that a + roll thruster fired
> > > > without being commanded by the crew, and in fact that thruster fired
> > > > three times without being commanded by the crew.
>
> I thought you said, that you never said, "Scott said". Have you really read
> the report? Did you unfold every one of those little fanfold papers that
> fold out to two or three feet long? I am sure you did on all of the voice
> related ones, but what about all of those launch-pad related fold-outs? I
> don't think so.
>
> > > > You ARE aware of how those thrusters work, don't you? Just because
> > > > the hypergolics are not loaded does NOT mean they won't fire.
>
> The valves may open and close if the wiring is connected properly and the
> key is in the ignition and the engine has been turned over....
>
> > > > Now,
> > > > I'm not talking about the main engines here; those are designed to
> > > > fire once, burn, and that's it. But those RCS thrusters are designed
> > > > to fire repeatedly during the course of a mission.
>
> Among many other engines.
>
> > > > Think of it like a gun:
>
> Nope, I will think of it as an automatic controlled explosion that occurs
> when two chemicals that don't like each other meet in a small chamber under
> high pressure. Thanks.
>
> > > > You pull the hammer back, pull the trigger,
> > > > and the hammer slams down every time unless there's something
> > > > mechanically wrong with it.
>
> Or your finger gets in the way. OW.
>
> > > > Whether or not someone gets shot is only
> > > > determined by the presence of a bullet in the chamber.
>
> Another variable of course is aim. It helps if the gun is aimed at the
> target. Most guns have a safety too. Stay away from me with a gun;-)
>
> > > > The mechanical
> > > > function of the gun itself remains the same regardless of whether it
> > > > is being dry-fired.
>
> Dry. Yes that is true.
>
> <snip point well made>
>
> > OK--first of all, I never said "Scott said" to anything,
>
> Yes you did, I just read it a minute ago.
>
> <snip>
>
> > Back to the SM thrusters: we have pinpointed the source of the fire
> > to the wiring in the heater of one of the thrusters. It is not
> > necessary for the pin of the thruster to actually move in order to
> > keep the heater hot until it burns;
>
> Okay, point of order. All fires require fuel, and an oxidizer. So what was
> the fuel?
>
> > all that is necessary is sustained
> > electrical power to the thermo switch, which, according to the
> > scenario some of you have presented in here, could not possibly have
> > happened because everything was supposedly hooked up to a simulator.
>
> If I can provide a "verifiable reference" to my assertion that indeed the
> Spacecraft was hooked up to simulators for both the Command and Service
> Module's, Reaction Control Systems for the "Plugs Out" test would you
> reconsider your entire explanation as to how the Apollo 1 fire really
> started? Please?
>
> http://www.challengerdisaster.info/Apollo%201%20GSE%20Config%20Drawing%20T-10%20Hold.jpg
>
> and then read this again.
>
> http://www.challengerdisaster.info/Apollo%201-204%20Accident%20Report%20pages%201132-1151.doc
>
> and there is more. I never would have posted the "Hill report" on my
> website if I had not read a whole lot of the Apollo 204 House Report first.

Finally, I repeat what I posted about a half-hour ago; I have never
said, "Scott said" like all I do is sit at his feet, listen to him
expound at length, and then go out and proselitize. I HAVE unfolded
those little sheets, as you called them (and can the stupid
put-downs); in fact I OWN those little sheets. What is your point?
Since you supposedly know so much, then you have surely seen the
wiring to that S-11 switch (clearly demonstrating the effects of a
short on pin #2), you've also seen the diagrams to the A and B react
valves, and you've also seen that cute little photo labelled "Short to
Structure by Terminal of Switch S-11" (translated for those of you who
have NOT bothered to research this: S-11 is the RCS A & C roll switch
Scott has been talking about.) Yes or no? Have you read NASA's B.S.
explanation for that short? Try it. It's very funny, especially to
someone who claims to know electricity as you've told me in email you
do. The switch was never activated during the test so the arcing must
have occurred during a prior test--that's NASA's explanation. Two
problems: 1. I HAVE the post-fire switch configuration list--PER
CREW REQUEST (a OCP was completed because it was NOT per checklist)
the A&C roll switch WAS on. 2. Even if it was NOT in the "on"
position, a short to both sides of the terminal MAKES THE SWITCH LIVE
ALL DAY. So, what should we believe? 1. Rocket scientists have no
clue how a hard short works? or, 2. NASA is lying? Who was it who
brought up "Occam's Razor?" I have a VERY hard time believing people
who build rockets for a living have no clue about shorts. Therefore,
it is much simpler to believe NASA is lying.
Let it fly, people. (You're less-than-intelligent comebacks.)
LaDonna

Quantcast