It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by 56
I forgot where, but i read something that said when they were making the o rings some guy used a calculator instead of a slide rule. his calculations were wrong, and had he been using a slide rule he would have noticed something was wrong. I remember it was something about the advantages of using a slide rule instead of a calculator, which they called an electric liar.
Originally posted by Valhall
No - there was an ice build up on the sealed joint and the ice was the ultimate root cause. But the seal/joint design was kind of sucky as well.
Concerning the statement that some company tried to talk them out of it, that's not entirely true. It was a long line of bad decisions from Morton-Thiokol all the way through NASA. It was just flat a bad day on shuttle is what it was.
Originally posted by UnknownOrigins
There is always risk associated with space exploration, always has been, and there will continue to be into the foreseeable future. The astronauts knew that. No, they probably did not deserve to die, but they were aware of the risks they were taking.
Fifteen years ago, two senior spacecraft engineers spent six hours pleading with Nasa to delay the launch of Challenger. The next day, the shuttle exploded in the skies, with the loss of its entire crew.
www.guardian.co.uk
But when Morton Thiokol told NASA not to launch, NASA’s upper management said they wanted to meet with the engineering firm’s management and engineers in 45 minutes, Boisjoly said. They wanted Morton Thiokol to prove the launch would fail. “We had 45 minutes to prepare for the most important meeting of our lives,” Boisjoly said.
Morton Thiokol engineers and management presented all the proof they could to NASA that the launch would be disastrous, but NASA would not back down, Boisjoly said. NASA accused Morton Thiokol of coming up with criteria the eve of the launch and it accused engineers of messing up the launch schedule, Boisjoly said.
In the mist of the pressure, Morton Thiokol managers stepped to the side, ignoring their engineers’ recommendations, and decided to make a “management decision,” Boisjoly said. They gave NASA the OK to launch with no criteria on the weather.
www.madisoncourier.com
Boisjoly was a senior engineer for the company that built the solid rocket boosters for the shuttle, and says he warned against liftoff in freezing conditions the day the Challenger was set to launch on Jan. 28, 1986. The go-ahead for liftoff resulted in the explosion that killed six astronauts and schoolteacher Christa McAuliffe.
Boisjoly testified before the presidential commission that investigated the tragedy, was branded a "whistleblower," and lost his 27-year career in the aerospace industry. He has given hundreds of lectures on the Challenger disaster and is a self-employed forensic engineer.
www.uc.edu
On the evening of January 27, 1986, Thiokol was providing information to NASA regarding concerns for the next day's planned launch of STS 51-l. Thiokol engineers were very concerned that the abnormally cold temperatures would affect the "O" rings to nonperformance standards. The mission had already been canceled due to weather, and, as far as NASA was concerned, another cancellation due to weather was unthinkable ([4] pg. 23). Both parties were already aware that the seals on the SRB needed upgrading but did not feel that it was critical. Though the information provided by the GDSS (with an associated expert system) showed that the "O" rings would perform under the predicted temperatures, Thiokol engineers questioned their own testing and data that were programmed into the GDSS. Thus on the eve of the Challenger launch, NASA was being informed that their GDSS had a flawed data base.
At this point, NASA requested a definitive recommendation from Thiokol on whether to launch. Thiokol representatives recommended not to launch until the outside air temperature reached 53º F. The forecast for Florida did not show temperatures reaching this baseline for several days. NASA responded with pressure on Thiokol to change their decision. NASA's level III manager, Mr. Lawrence Mulloy, responded to Thiokol's decision by asking, "My God, Thiokol, when do you want me to launch, next April?" ([4] pg. 24).
After this comment the Thiokol representatives requested five minutes to go off-line from the GDSS. During this period the Thiokol management requested the chief engineer to "take off his engineering hat and put on his management cap," suggesting that organizational goals be placed ahead of safety considerations [4]. Thiokol reentered the GDSS and recommended that NASA launch. NASA asked if there were any other objections from any other GDSS member, and there was not.
dssresources.com
Originally posted by conspiracy123
Yer NASA suck; they haven't even landed on the moon yet and they already want to land on Mars!
The Apollo program was designed to land humans on the Moon and bring them safely back to Earth. Six of the missions (Apollos 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17) achieved this goal. Apollos 7 and 9 were Earth orbiting missions to test the Command and Lunar Modules, and did not return lunar data. Apollos 8 and 10 tested various components while orbiting the Moon, and returned photography of the lunar surface. Apollo 13 did not land on the Moon due to a malfunction, but also returned photographs. The six missions that landed on the Moon returned a wealth of scientific data and almost 400 kilograms of lunar samples. Experiments included soil mechanics, meteoroids, seismic, heat flow, lunar ranging, magnetic fields, and solar wind experiments.
Apollo Program
Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Originally posted by conspiracy123
Yer NASA suck; they haven't even landed on the moon yet and they already want to land on Mars!
Huh?
Apollo Program
Edit: Oh wait! I forgot this is ATS.
[edit on 2006/1/24 by GradyPhilpott]
The fact that the third anniversary of the shuttle Columbia's fiery disintegration will be noted on Feb. 1 is a certain indication the agency didn't retain Challenger's deadly lessons. In many ways, that was the greatest tragedy of Challenger.
Columbia's loss, just like Challenger's, wasn't an accident but rather a prediction. Cultural issues within the agency allowed intense schedule pressures (pressures to expand the shuttle flight rate preceding Challenger and pressures to meet space station construction milestones preceding Columbia) to overwhelm warnings of serious design flaws. The flaw that brought Challenger down was in the booster rocket O-ring design; for Columbia it was in the foam used to insulate the gas tank. In fact, in some of its findings, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board could have plagiarized the Challenger Rogers Commission report nearly word for word. The only edits required would have been to substitute "External Tank" for "Solid Rocket Booster" and "foam-shedding" for "O-ring erosion."
Every American should use the anniversaries of Challenger and Columbia to remember those astronauts who have paid the ultimate price. At the Kennedy Space Center Astronaut Memorial, there are 24 names etched in granite.
news.yahoo.com