RIP Roger Boisjoly: He Tried To Stop Challenger Launch

[CabVet]

As it turns out, many scientists tried to stop the launch of the Challenger shuttle, but NASA managers decided to go ahead even with all the warnings. One of the most vocal engineers was Roger Boisjoly predicted "a catastrophe of the highest order" involving "loss of human life" in a memo to managers at Thiokol a full six months before the accident. Unfortunately, managers chose to ignore his (and others) advice.

Boisjoly died last month and there are a few pieces about his life and work circulating this week:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/us/roger-boisjoly-73-dies-warned-of-shuttle-danger.html?_r=1

Remembering Roger Boisjoly: He Tried To Stop Shuttle Challenger Launch : The Two-Way : NPR

 

[AV1611VET]

One of the most vocal engineers was Roger Boisjoly predicted "a catastrophe of the highest order" involving "loss of human life" in a memo to managers at Thiokol a full six months before the accident.

I don't believe this one bit.

How did Mr. B know what the temperature was going to be before the launch?

As I understand it, the temperature the night before the launch was an unprecedented low -- very rare for the area.

If indeed Mr. B tried to stop it, it must have been by stating he had a 'premonition' or something.

 

[CabVet]

I don't believe this one bit.

How did Mr. B know what the temperature was going to be before the launch?

As I understand it, the temperature the night before the launch was an unprecedented low -- very rare for the area.

If indeed Mr. B tried to stop it, it must have been by stating he had a 'premonition' or something.

Did you read any of the articles? The first warning (the one that he sent as a memo 6 months before the launch) was about launches in low temperatures because they knew the launch was going to be in the winter, you can download it if you google it. They can actually test those seals in simulated conditions, and that is what his group did. He warned them again the week and the day before the launch with more precise forecasts, and was expecting the shuttle to blow up at the launch pad. His group was actually relieved for about a minute thinking they were wrong.

"The problem, Boisjoly wrote, was the elastic seals at the joints of the multi-stage booster rockets. They tended to stiffen and unseal in cold weather and NASA's ambitious shuttle launch schedule included winter lift-offs with risky temperatures, even in Florida."

You don't need premonitions to predict the above, just the power of observation and some experiments.

 

[CabVet]

Oh, and since you don't believe this one bit, here is the original memo:

Letters of Note: The result would be a catastrophe

 

[AV1611VET]

Did you read any of the articles?

No, and I don't plan to.

If those seven astronauts didn't care -- why should I?

Why is this just now coming out?

Are they trying to honor this man posthumously or something?

"The problem, Boisjoly wrote, was the elastic seals at the joints of the multi-stage booster rockets. They tended to stiffen and unseal in cold weather and NASA's ambitious shuttle launch schedule included winter lift-offs with risky temperatures, even in Florida."

Then why wasn't the launch stopped?

Scientists have a way of arguing with each other -- calling it peer review -- and dragging issues out for months and even years.

Some scientists like to skip all that and publish their junk under the Publish or Perish principle.

That's enough to confuse any administration to the point where they give up and put it to a vote.

You don't need premonitions to predict the above, just the power of observation and some experiments.

Then why did those seven astronauts board the shuttle in the first place?

Would you have?

Did they laugh at this Boisjoly all the way up the gantry to the hatch?

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh, and since you don't believe this one bit, here is the original memo:

Letters of Note: The result would be a catastrophe

"Would be" and "will be" are two different things.

Scientists have a way of confusing people with their technobark.

I love what Chuck Swindoll says about preachers communicating their messages clearly and precisely:

If there's a mist in the pulpit, there will be a fog in the congregation.

 

[CabVet]

No, and I don't plan to.

Why is this just now coming out?

Are they trying to honor this man posthumously or something?

Then why wasn't the launch stopped?

Scientists have a way of arguing with each other -- calling it peer review -- and dragging issues out for months and even years.

Some scientists like to skip all that and publish their junk under the Publish or Perish principle.

That's enough to confuse any administration to the point where they give up and put it to a vote.

Then why did those seven astronauts board the shuttle in the first place?

Would you have?

Did they laugh at this Boisjoly all the way up the gantry to the hatch?

It's not just coming out now, it is old news and has been out there for a long time, the only news is that the Boisjoly died. You are so tirelessly trying blame scientists for this (and thalidomide) that you ignore the facts.

The launch was not stopped because of management decisions, not scientific ones. There were no questions regarding the science, but, as usual, management overrules science.

Astronauts were unaware of conversation between engineers and NASA management.

It is all here: Report of the PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident

 

[AV1611VET]

Astronauts were unaware of conversation between engineers and NASA management.

I choose not to believe this.

If I were Boisjoly, I would have gone straight to the pilot, Michael J. Smith, and told him myself.

Here's Mr. Smith's resume -- it's impressive, in my opinion:

The pilot for the fatal 1986 Challenger mission was Michael J. Smith, born on April 30, 1945 in Beaufort, North Carolina. At the time of the Challenger accident a commander in the U.S. Navy, Smith had been educated at the U.S. Naval Academy, class of 1967, and received an M.S. in Aeronautical Engineering from the Naval Postgraduate School in 1968. From there he underwent aviator training at Kingsville, Texas, and received his wings in May 1969. After a tour as an instructor at the Navy's Advanced Jet Training Command between 1969 and 1971, Smith flew A- 6 "Intruders" from the USS Kitty Hawk in Southeast Asia. Later he worked as a test pilot for the Navy, flying 28 different types of aircraft and logging more than 4,300 hours of flying time. Smith was selected as a NASA astronaut in May 1980, and a year later, after completing further training, he received an assignment as a Space Shuttle pilot, the position he occupied aboard Challenger. This mission was his first space flight.

He, of all people, would certainly have understood.

Why didn't Boisjoly lie under the shuttle's nozzles or something to stop the launch himself?

I suspect administration thought Mr. Boisjoly was either trying to get some free publicity, or he was being too vague -- or both.

The fact is though, I wasn't there -- and neither were you -- (AFAIK).

 

[CabVet]

I choose not to believe this.

If I were Boisjoly, I would have gone straight to the pilot, Michael J. Smith, and told him myself.

Here's Mr. Smith's resume -- it's impressive, in my opinion:

He, of all people, would certainly have understood.

Why didn't Boisjoly lie under the shuttle's nozzles or something to stop the launch himself?

I suspect administration thought Mr. Boisjoly was either trying to get some free publicity, or he was being too vague -- or both.

The fact is though, I wasn't there -- and neither were you -- (AFAIK).

Really? Too vague? You can do better than that... The launch was a political and management decision. It was cleared by NASA and the astronauts were ordered to take off, there is such a thing as a chain of command in the military. If Boisjoly had done what you suggest (lie under the shuttle's nozzles) he would be labeled as a terrorist and treated as such.

No, I wasn't there, but there are hundreds of pages of transcripts available for all who want to read, and they all point to the same conclusion: scientists warned the risk was too high, management decided to go ahead with the launch. A lot of people lost their jobs over that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Really? Too vague? You can do better than that... The launch was a political and management decision. It was cleared by NASA and the astronauts were ordered to take off, there is such a thing as a chain of command in the military. If Boisjoly had done what you suggest (lie under the shuttle's nozzles) he would be labeled as a terrorist and treated as such.

No, I wasn't there, but there are hundreds of pages of transcripts available for all who want to read, and they all point to the same conclusion: scientists warned the risk was too high, management decided to go ahead with the launch. A lot of people lost their jobs over that.

Take a look at the first 20 seconds of this video, CabVet:

CNN: Challenger Disaster remembered - YouTube

... do any of them look worried?

Even a reporter says, "Big smiles, today."

They were either sequestered from this Boisjoly fellow, or they took him to be a crackpot.

 

[CabVet]

Take a look at the first 20 seconds of this video, CabVet:

... do any of them look worried?

Even a reporter says, "Big smiles, today."

They were either sequestered from this Boisjoly fellow, or they took him to be a crackpot.

They did not know about it, none of them. There are hundreds of depositions about this, the information about the o-rings never reached the astronauts.

Among many of the conclusions from the investigation:

"NASA managers made a bad call for the launch decision, and engineers who had qualms about the O-rings were bullied or bamboozled into acquiescence. The skeptics’ argument that launching with record cold temperatures is valid, but it probably was not argued as persuasively as it might have been, in hindsight. If launched on a warmer day, with gentler high-altitude winds, there’s every reason to suppose the flight would have been successful and the troublesome seal design (which already had the attention of designers) would have been modified at a pace that turned out to have been far too leisurely. The disaster need never have happened if managers and workers had clung to known principles of safely operating on the edge of extreme hazards — nothing was learned by the disaster that hadn’t already been learned, and then forgotten."

 

[AV1611VET]

They did not know about it, none of them. There are hundreds of depositions about this, the information about the o-rings never reached the astronauts.

Among many of the conclusions from the investigation:

"NASA managers made a bad call for the launch decision, and engineers who had qualms about the O-rings were bullied or bamboozled into acquiescence. The skeptics’ argument that launching with record cold temperatures is valid, but it probably was not argued as persuasively as it might have been, in hindsight. If launched on a warmer day, with gentler high-altitude winds, there’s every reason to suppose the flight would have been successful and the troublesome seal design (which already had the attention of designers) would have been modified at a pace that turned out to have been far too leisurely. The disaster need never have happened if managers and workers had clung to known principles of safely operating on the edge of extreme hazards — nothing was learned by the disaster that hadn’t already been learned, and then forgotten."

Okay -- well, for the record, I don't believe it's that simplistic.

Just like the Deepwater Horizon, scientists and administration were high-fiving each other seconds before an explosion killed -- what was it? -- eleven people?

Let's let Boisjoly rest in piec... er ... peace -- shall we?

 

[CabVet]

Okay -- well, for the record, I don't believe it's that simplistic.

Just like the Deepwater Horizon, scientists and administration were high-fiving each other seconds before an explosion killed -- what was it? -- eleven people?

Of course it is not simplistic. There is an investigation that resulted in a report that is hundreds of pages long. But blaming the scientists is not remotely accurate either. If there is anybody to blame, that would be high level management both at the company that made the rockets and at NASA.

Before you start blaming scientists (and science in general), you can start a new thread about the Deepwater Horizon if you want, I happen to know a lot about that one.

 

[sandwiches]

I choose not to believe this.

This sums up nicely the entirety of AV's theology and general understanding of reality. Sad...

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

I don't believe this one bit.

How did Mr. B know what the temperature was going to be before the launch?

As I understand it, the temperature the night before the launch was an unprecedented low -- very rare for the area.

If indeed Mr. B tried to stop it, it must have been by stating he had a 'premonition' or something.

I think god may have told him.

 

[Split Rock]

I choose not to believe this.

You believe only what you want to believe.. hence the reason you cling to "Embedded Age" creationism. And hence the reason most of us here take your understanding of "The Truth" with a grain of salt.

Just like the Deepwater Horizon, scientists and administration were high-fiving each other seconds before an explosion killed -- what was it? -- eleven people?

Oh goody.... now we get to hear how the Deepwater Horizon incident was the work of evil, Godless, Anti-Christ following "scientists," too!

 

[AV1611VET]

You believe only what you want to believe..

And you don't?

 

[Cromulent]

When anything even remotely involving science gets it wrong: Science is evil.
When anything religious gets it wrong: Hypocrisy.

AV, I have never seen anyone apply such double standards as yourself. When a space shuttle blows up, you use it to condemn all science, but when a "faith healer" is exposed as a fraud, or an inquisition kills thousands, you are silent.

When there are 5 credible theories of how the moon came to be, science is "myopic", but when there are 30,000 sects of christianity, it does not worry you in the slightest.

You are quite shockingly intellectually dishonest.

 

[AV1611VET]

When anything even remotely involving science gets it wrong: Science is evil.
When anything religious gets it wrong: Hypocrisy.

AV, I have never seen anyone apply such double standards as yourself. When a space shuttle blows up, you use it to condemn all science, but when a "faith healer" is exposed as a fraud, or an inquisition kills thousands, you are silent.

When there are 5 credible theories of how the moon came to be, science is "myopic", but when there are 30,000 sects of christianity, it does not worry you in the slightest.

You are quite shockingly intellectually dishonest.

Okay, newbie, thank you for your opinion.

 

[Cromulent]

Okay, newbie, thank you for your opinion.

My opinion is no less valid, just because I don't spend half my life posting in counting threads, thank you very much. A seven figure post count is nothing to be proud of when 99% of it is tripe.