My Challenger Challenge

[AV1611VET]

List one specific piece of hardware that failed that shouldn't have failed* the day the Challenger failed.

If you can do this to my satisfaction, I shall refrain from using the Challenger decisions as an example of inept science.

This does not include equipment used for testing, or any faulty hardware.

* Not one they were hoping wouldn't fail, but one that should not have failed, but did.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Stupid question. Why don't you list one specific piece of hardware that didn't fail* that should have failed.

* Not one they were hoping would fail, but one that should have failed, but didn't.

 

[Nabobalis]

List one specific piece of hardware that failed that shouldn't have failed* the day the Challenger failed.

If you can do this to my satisfaction, I shall refrain from using the Challenger decisions as an example of inept science.

This does not include equipment used for testing, or any faulty hardware.

* Not one they were hoping wouldn't fail, but one that should not have failed, but did.

You really do love using tragedies for your own misguided uses don't you? Very Jesus like.

To answer your question, every piece of hardware was designed and tested to not fail. But unfortunately since humans are not infallible, they couldn't make something that was always going to never fail.

 

[AV1611VET]

Stupid question.

Meaning what? you can't answer it?

 

[AV1611VET]

You really do love using tragedies for your own misguided uses don't you?

Like I've said before, had the Challenger been a success, all we would hear is how science has progressed; but since it failed, it's corporate's fault, isn't it?

Very Jesus like.

Nice try.

To answer your question, every piece of hardware was designed and tested to not fail.

That doesn't answer my challenge.

But unfortunately since humans are not infallible, they couldn't make something that was always going to never fail.

What 'failed', Nabobalis?

Do you mean 'failed' as in "didn't do what it was supposed to do"; or 'failed' as in "broke down due to stress"?

If I drive a 40-ton truck over a 35-ton bridge, and the bridge 'fails' -- should I be surprised?

 

[Nabobalis]

Like I've said before, had the Challenger been a success, all we would hear is how science has progressed; but since it failed, it's corporate's fault, isn't it?

If it had been a success, it would be of been an engineering success. Since it failed it was an engineering failure.

What 'failed', Nabobalis?

Do you mean 'failed' as in "didn't do what it was supposed to do"; or 'failed' as in "broke down due to stress"?

If I drive a 40-ton truck over a 35-ton bridge, and the bridge 'fails' -- should I be surprised?

The O-ring failed. It wasn't designed to withstand the really cold temperatures at take-off (on that day) and as a result it failed, however it had been designed to withstand other extremes but the oversight was the cold temperatures due to human fallibility.

In your case, the bridge sign tells you that you shouldn't drive over that bridge in your truck. With the case of the O-ring they didn't anticipate the cold morning would have an effect, it was a massive oversight which has been corrected.

 

[AV1611VET]

The O-ring failed. It wasn't designed to withstand the really cold temperatures at take-off (on that day) and as a result it failed, however it had been designed to withstand other extremes but the oversight was the cold temperatures due to human fallibility.

Does this sound like an 'oversight' to you?

More broadly, the report also considered the contributing causes of the accident. Most salient was the failure of both NASA and Morton Thiokol to respond adequately to the danger posed by the deficient joint design. However, rather than redesigning the joint, they came to define the problem as an acceptable flight risk. The report found that managers at Marshall had known about the flawed design since 1977, but never discussed the problem outside their reporting channels with Thiokol—a flagrant violation of NASA regulations. Even when it became more apparent how serious the flaw was, no one at Marshall considered grounding the shuttles until a fix could be implemented. On the contrary, Marshall managers went as far as to issue and waive six launch constraints related to the O-rings. Thttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_disaster#cite_note-38he report also strongly criticized the decision making process that led to the launch of Challenger, saying that it was seriously flawed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_disaster#cite_note-39

 

[Nostromo]

So there's a failure of management too, does that strengthen your case somehow?

 

[Nabobalis]

Does this sound like an 'oversight' to you?

Well if that is the case then I would consider that criminally negligence on the part of the management.

 

[Jro]

I spilt water on my computer, it broke, therefore science is wrong. Deal with it.

 

[variant]

List one specific piece of hardware that failed that shouldn't have failed* the day the Challenger failed.

If you can do this to my satisfaction, I shall refrain from using the Challenger decisions as an example of inept science.

This does not include equipment used for testing, or any faulty hardware.

* Not one they were hoping wouldn't fail, but one that should not have failed, but did.

The O-rings failed but should not have failed because they launched the shuttle in temperatures colder than the O-rings were tested safe in.

This would not be a failure of science but a failure to do and heed needed research.

Instead the challenger itself became the test to see if the O-rings were safe. After the experiment the design flaw was obvious and it was fixed.

Thiokol engineers argued that if the O-rings were colder than 53 °F (12 °C), they did not have enough data to determine whether the joint would seal properly. This was an important consideration, since the SRB O-rings had been designated as a "Criticality 1" component—meaning that there was no backup if both the primary and secondary O-rings failed, and their failure would destroy the Orbiter and its crew.

Space Shuttle Challenger disaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This would be like claiming that science is to blame if I break my car by operating it outside it's specifications.

 

[sandwiches]

Like I've said before, had the Challenger been a success, all we would hear is how science has progressed; but since it failed, it's corporate's fault, isn't it?

Correct. If I build a computer and it works fine, it's a success for me. If the person I sell it to submerges it in water and it stops working, it's a failure of the customer. So, you're on the right track. Keep going.

 

[Split Rock]

List one specific piece of hardware that failed that shouldn't have failed* the day the Challenger failed.

If you can do this to my satisfaction, I shall refrain from using the Challenger decisions as an example of inept science.

This does not include equipment used for testing, or any faulty hardware.

* Not one they were hoping wouldn't fail, but one that should not have failed, but did.

If I respond by saying the o-rings shouldn't have failed but did, how does that convince you that science isn't "inept?" Especially since every piece of technology you use day after day (including your computer) apparently isn't enough to convince you?

 

[AV1611VET]

If I respond by saying the o-rings shouldn't have failed but did, how does that convince you that science isn't "inept?"

The O rings should have 'failed'.

Just like the bridge with the 35-ton weight limit.

Had the Challenger mission been a success -- it would have been in spite of the laws of nature, not with respect to them.

I get the impression the engineers wanted science to take a hike.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

The O rings should have 'failed'.

Just like the bridge with the 35-ton weight limit.

Had the Challenger mission been a success -- it would have been in spite of the laws of nature, not with respect to them.

I get the impression the engineers wanted science to take a hike.

I still can't believe how callus you are about the lives lost in that tragedy to make some convoluted point that will ultimately make no sense for people with normal brains.

 

[sandwiches]

The O rings should have 'failed'.

Just like the bridge with the 35-ton weight limit.

Had the Challenger mission been a success -- it would have been in spite of the laws of nature, not with respect to them.

I get the impression the engineers wanted science to take a hike.

I'm not really getting your point then. Are you saying science was right all along and the o-rings should have failed but the people in charge of the mission didn't listen or are you saying that the scientists didn't know it should have failed so it was human error? Which is it?

 

[variant]

I'm not really getting your point then. Are you saying science was right all along and the o-rings should have failed but the people in charge of the mission didn't listen or are you saying that the scientists didn't know it should have failed so it was human error? Which is it?

A reference that may help you understand:

The Irrefutability of nonsense-arguments

 

[Delphiki]

*waits for the part where AV learns something and pretends that he knew it when he started the thread*

 

[Jro]

Ethically, I really think the o-rings were in the wrong and should not have failed.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Meaning what? you can't answer it?

Meaning it's a stupid question. It is not possible to design a piece of hardware that is "supposed to fail". If a piece of hardware is meant to fall apart that is not failure, that is success - failure would be if it didn't fall apart. Therefore any piece of hardware that didn't perform as expected meets your criteria. Management reaction to failure is not failure of science.