My Challenger Challenge Challenge

[Split Rock]

The space shuttle Challenger represented the fruit of Man's science. It blew up. This proves the following:

 

[Hespera]

it proves that dead dogs dont bark

 

[Jro]

I think it proves that strapping yourself to umpteen pounds of rocket fuel and then lighting it on fire as some dangers associated with it.

 

[Upisoft]

I don't believe in FSM, but I'll make some spaghetti and praise His Noodliness. After all I don't want to spend eternity in place where the beer is stale and the strippers have venereal diseases.

Anyway the Challenger accident proves I'm correct in my logic above.

 

[Hespera]

I think it proves that strapping yourself to umpteen pounds of rocket fuel and then lighting it on fire as some dangers associated with it.

Not as dangerous as saying the wrong thing about religion in England
in 1500.

 

[Jro]

Not as dangerous as saying the wrong thing about religion in England
in 1500.

Can you imagine how bad it would be to get a little tipsy? "Say Bill, I've got my doubts about this whole Bible thing - URK"

 

[JustMeSee]

I don't understand how or why this is used as an example on these forums. The whole point escapes me.

 

[Split Rock]

I don't understand how or why this is used as an example on these forums. The whole point escapes me.

The point is supposed to be that science is sooooo unreliable, that it is better to rely on creationists' interpretation of scripture as applied to nature. Yeah... really..

 

[AV1611VET]

What the Challenger proved is that, when you put O-rings that won't expand when cold on a space shuttle, then launch that space shuttle (containing O-rings that you know aren't going to expand) toward outer space ... it proves that O-rings that won't expand, don't expand -- caskets closed.

 

[JustMeSee]

The point is supposed to be that science is sooooo unreliable, that it is better to rely on creationists' interpretation of scripture as applied to nature. Yeah... really..

Thanks. With that kind of thinking, I doubt that humans would have the desire to advance in knowledge of most things in the universe. That is actually kind of troubling.

 

[AV1611VET]

With that kind of thinking, I doubt that humans would have the desire to advance in knowledge of most things in the universe.

I know seven that won't.

And please do feel free to tell me what new knowledge NASA acquired from this.

Be specific please -- was a formula corrected somewhere because of this?

 

[JustMeSee]

What the Challenger proved is that, when you put O-rings that won't expand when cold on a space shuttle, then launch that space shuttle (containing O-rings that you know aren't going to expand) toward outer space ... it proves that O-rings that won't expand, don't expand -- caskets closed.

Okay, so they shouldn't use O-rings under those conditions. People probably screwed up. Live and learn.

 

[AV1611VET]

Okay, so they shouldn't use O-rings under those conditions. People probably screwed up. Live and learn.

Oh, my -- LOL.

I pour water on my tabletop and I predict it will expand and cascade over the edge of the tabletop and fall to the floor.

Now, I have a pitcher of ice, because it got so cold last night.

I think I'll take a vote, and exclude all those who understand the scientific process of 'freezing', and if they vote in my favor, I'll go ahead an pour this water out on to the tabletop.

Oh, look! Obviously a "major malfunction". No water expanding and cascading on to the floor!

I wonder what went wrong?

Better call in a big committee and get to the bottom of this, eh?

What formula needs to be changed, so this won't happen again?

 

[JustMeSee]

Is there any way that I can change my vote in the poll?

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

caskets closed.

Don't you have any respect for those tragic deaths?

 

[AV1611VET]

Don't you have any respect for those tragic deaths?

Of course I do.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Of course I do.

Then why'd you say "casket closed" as if it was cute wordplay?

I find it very revealing that you use tragedies to fuel your anti-science stances. It makes you look rather petty. We all know you're self-absorbed, but can you leave the dead in peace on your ego-trips?

 

[AV1611VET]

I find it very revealing that you use tragedies to fuel your anti-science stances. It makes you look rather petty. We all know you're self-absorbed, but can you leave the dead in peace on your ego-trips?

Um -- excuse me:

1. The Challenger is the focus of this thread.
2. If the Challenger would have been successful, you bet the white-coats would be gloating and high-fiving each other.
3. Non-mishaps are not a very good example of inept scientific choices.
4. You guys need to realize that the failure was not because something went wrong on the hardware end, it's because something went wrong on the human end. I don't buy that junk that the O-rings 'failed'. They were made to release their chemical bonds by subjecting them to undue stress.

You don't throw something in the fire, then complain it burned up.

 

[JustMeSee]

Humans sometimes make really bad decisions. Not really news or much of a reflection on science in general.

 

[AV1611VET]

Humans sometimes make really bad decisions. Not really news or much of a reflection on science in general.

What's your point?