The Challenger: What's Wrong with this Picture?

[AV1611VET]

Here we go again with the science bashing.
While you want to blame scientists for the disaster Bob Ebeling ultimately blamed God.

That's all after the fact.

What's wrong with that picture in the OP? anything?

 

[atpollard]

What about anyone who ignores that possibility?

What evidence is there that anyone ignored any possibility?

Every time I drive to work, there is a possibility that a truck will cross the yellow line on the highway and crush my Toyota car like an empty soda can. I do not “ignore” that possibility when I drive to work every day, but neither do I wring my hands in angst before starting my car or trade my car for an armored vehicle or refuse to drive.

 

[atpollard]

I'm not sure they even SUSPECTED anything was wrong.

I think a picture of seven astronauts tearing their clothes and throwing ash on their heads as a gesture of mourning while they marched past onlookers on an once in a lifetime trip into space that they had competed for and trained for would be a more suspicious picture than those same seven people smiling and waving to the crowd as they passed.

 

[atpollard]

That's all after the fact.

What's wrong with that picture in the OP? anything?

The biggest thing wrong is that “space” has remained a “flags and footprints” mission proposition with no real goal except pork in critical Congressional districts for “development” without any realistic long-range vision.

 

[AV1611VET]

The biggest thing wrong is that “space” has remained a “flags and footprints” mission proposition with no real goal except pork in critical Congressional districts for “development” without any realistic long-range vision.

You're entitled to your opinion, Pollard, but I don't think you have a proper grasp on what went on behind the scenes.

 

[atpollard]

You're entitled to your opinion, Pollard, but I don't think you have a proper grasp on what went on behind the scenes.

If they had delayed the Challenger launch and no lives had been lost … the STS Program would ultimately have achieved nothing that could not have been achieved with ULA (Atlas-Delta) payload launches for less money so the Shuttles would have ultimately still flown too infrequently to be cost effective and would still have been canceled.

The details of that day do not change the nature of the overall boondoggle. Just as the STS replacement is too large to be affordable and accomplish anything, so its details are also irrelevant.

So what if 7 people died because a bureaucrat overrode the decisions of an engineer? How many people die EVERY DAY because a clerk in an insurance company overrides the will of a doctor? If you are going to shake your fist at an unfair world, there are greater injustices to shake your fist at.

 

[AV1611VET]

So what if 7 people died because a bureaucrat overrode the decisions of an engineer?

Wow ... just wow.

I hope this was meant as sarcasm.

 

[atpollard]

Wow ... just wow.

I hope this was meant as sarcasm.

Why do you care nothing for the MANY that die from medical treatment denied them, but offer pages of angst over these particular 7 tragic deaths? Do you have an agenda that some few deaths matter while the many deaths do not?

Wow … just wow.
(You suspiciously clipped my last paragraph to truncate its point.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Why do you care nothing for the MANY that die from medical treatment denied them, but offer pages of angst over these particular 7 tragic deaths? Do you have an agenda that some few deaths matter while the many deaths do not?

Wow … just wow.
(You suspiciously clipped my last paragraph to truncate its point.)

Have a nice day, atpollard.

I'm not going to dignify your posts by responding.

(And I think I know why you didn't capitalize your name.)

 

[atpollard]

(And I think I know why you didn't capitalize your name.)

For the same reason e. e. cummings did not capitalize his name … I am not that important (God is).

 

[AV1611VET]

For the same reason e. e. cummings did not capitalize his name … I am not that important (God is).

No comment.

 

[sjastro]

That's all after the fact.

The irony went right over your head.
You have such a pathological hatred of science to the point if the Challenger missions were successful the scientists and engineers can take no credit because they received a gift from God going by your previous threads.
It's only when things go wrong God takes no responsibility and it's all the scientists fault.
Ebeling saw his responsibilities or in your terminology a God given gift which he claims was a mistake.

What's wrong with that picture in the OP? anything?

Probably nothing at all as only a few individuals were aware of potential problems with the O-rings.

Key NASA officials, including astronauts, have said they were not aware of the significance of the booster problem until after the explosion.

ASTRONAUT WAS TOLD O RINGS WERE 'PROBLEM' (Published 1987)

 

[Enilorac]

@AV1611VET I highly recommend reading some of the numerous books that have been written about the Challenger accident or even just the Challenger Accident Report. Truth, Lies and O-Rings is a good book to start with. Beyond that, I'll not entertain your questions and tell you that doing your own research is the best way to go. I know quite a bit of what went on behind the scenes due to knowing some of the people involved. But, if you can't go do your own research, there's absolutely no point in me attempting to impart knowledge to you. You're anti-science as it is and probably couldn't begin to understand the multiple factors that went into the launch decision.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's only when things go wrong God takes no responsibility and it's all the scientists fault.
Ebeling saw his responsibilities or in your terminology a God given gift which he claims was a mistake.

Perhaps God sent three guys to warn them?

 

[AV1611VET]

@AV1611VET I highly recommend reading some of the numerous books that have been written about the Challenger accident or even just the Challenger Accident Report. Truth, Lies and O-Rings is a good book to start with. Beyond that, I'll not entertain your questions and tell you that doing your own research is the best way to go. I know quite a bit of what went on behind the scenes due to knowing some of the people involved. But, if you can't go do your own research, there's absolutely no point in me attempting to impart knowledge to you. You're anti-science as it is and probably couldn't begin to understand the multiple factors that went into the launch decision.

All that knowledge, and you can't tell me what's wrong with the picture I posted in my OP?

And you're recommending I read some of the numerous books that have been written about the Challenger accident?

What good will that do?

 

[Enilorac]

All that knowledge, and you can't tell me what's wrong with the picture I posted in my OP?

And you're recommending I read some of the numerous books that have been written about the Challenger accident?

What good will that do?

What would be the point of me telling you? What would it hurt you to go do some independent research? I tell you the same thing I tell my students. Avail yourself of the brain God gave you. Learn things on your own. Apollo 1, Challenger and Columbia have been favorite research topics of mine. Why should I impart to you, for free, the knowledge I spent time acquiring?

 

[AV1611VET]

What would be the point of me telling you?

To show me you know -- or at least, understand.

What would it hurt you to go do some independent research?

That's not how I get my kicks.

I tell you the same thing I tell my students.

Okay.

Avail yourself of the brain God gave you.

Good advice.

Learn things on your own.

So we can share our knowledge with the rest of the world?

Instead of making a contest out of it and saying, "My country scores higher than your country."

Apollo 1, Challenger and Columbia have been favorite research topics of mine.

To a point, I take it.

Thanks to those authors, you know what you know, don't you?

What if they took the attitude you do? (Id est, learn it on your own?)

Why should I impart to you, for free, the knowledge I spent time acquiring?

So you won't be considered parsimonious?

 

[AV1611VET]

Look, Enilorac.

If you don't want to participate in this thread, then don't.

You don't have to make yourself look bad trying to make ME look bad for daring to ask a simple question.

 

[Enilorac]

Ok, the astronauts were smiling because they had no clue of what had gone on the night before. There had been similar issues in earlier flights, but again, the astronauts did not know about those either. Allan McDonald and others tried to stop the launch. They failed due to people in charge at Marshall SFC refusing to believe McDonald and Eberling and others regarding the weather.

To try to explain all the ins and outs of the STS-51L accident, it is more beneficial for you to actually read the report than for me to attempt to explain it all to you in this forum. To this day Arnie Aldrich, who was vocally against stopping the launch ("Good God Thiokol, when do you expect me to launch, next April") to this day refuses to bear any responsibility for his role in approving the launch after being told that it was not a great idea.

The first evidence of a problem with the seal was at 0.687 seconds after launch, where a plume of black smoke was seen coming out of the lower field joint at the 270 degree to 310 degree part of the SRB. There were a few more puffs of smoke and then they stopped. The educated assumption is that as the aluminum melted, it formed an in-situ seal that temporarily sealed the burn through. About a minute later, the Shuttle got hit by a wind gust as it passed through the jet stream, as evidenced by the exhaust distortion as seen shortly after the explosion. The force was within technical limits, but the fragile in-situ seal was disrupted and the o-ring started up again and proceeded to a burn through. The bottom of the SRB came detached from the external tank and swung around, bashing a hole in the ET hydrogen tank. The release of pressure then pushed the O2 tank up through the top of the tank and when the H2 and LOX mixed, they combusted (known as a hypergolic reaction). At that point the shuttle was destroyed due to exceeding aerodynamic limits from the force of the explosion. It is believed that all 7 crew members survived the initial explosion but died of hypoxia, as the crew cabin continued upward to about 60,000 ft, then hit the water at roughly 200 mph and sunk in about 100 ft of water off the coast of Cape Canaveral.

Now, that was all from memory. I still recommend reading this
https://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1ch1.htm along with the Challenger mini-series available on Netflix.

If you'd like to know more, there's plenty out there.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you'd like to know more, there's plenty out there.

Thank you for an honest answer.

And believe me, I know much more about the Challenger than you think I do.

I'm familiar with the iconic picture, depicting the zig-zag smoke trail as it entered the jet stream, et cetera.

Not to mention your said in situ "plug" that was created from the fuel mixture, then shaken loose when the Challenger vibrated through the jet stream, causing the blowtorch effect that eventually destroyed the shuttle.

All of this has NOTHING to do with this thread though.