Talk:Space Shuttle Challenger/Archive 1

Disaster

Now that individual missions have links, should the detailed information about the disaster go under the link to the appropriate mission? - Montréalais

Perhaps it would be best to collect all info on the disaster itself at Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, in analogy to Space Shuttle Columbia disaster. Problem is, unlike STS-107, the Challenger mission never took place, or rather lasted for just a short time, but then, the mission page might be used to talk about what it would have been about. -Scipius 17:09 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)

Good idea! I made an STS-51-L page with the information that used to be on this page. It didn't seem right to have most of the text on this page dedicated to 73 seconds of the ship's history. Ke4roh 02:48, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

News reports

Not strictly germane to the article, but I just came across a tape I made of various radio news reports at the time. A sobering experience. Even the Russians, in the first thaw of glasnost, sent telegrams of condolences. Lee M 01:59, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Rogers commission

The paragraph mentioning and listing the Rogers commission is redundant to the two other articles referenced, and does not deal directly with the subject of the article. I would not mind having a one-paragraph summary of the loss, but this isn't it. Jgm 13:43, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The transcript was incomplete and lacking much information. I simply removed it since it very much out of context, broke the style of the page and is much more suited for the STS-51-L mission article. --J-Star 15:39, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

'Destroyed' vs. 'Exploded'

In the article, Challenger was referred to as having been destroyed during launch, with all astronauts still on board. So what then? Did the Commies come and dismantle it with their bare hands, trying to ensure a Space Race victory?

...Lame wording!

No, she was destroyed - broke up under severe dynamic stresses. The shuttle never exploded (although some subsystems may have exploded due to the fireball - I don't offhand know what happened to the RCS, but it'd be a possibility), and if you look at it in a sufficiently technical sense neither did the external tank - it ruptured open, and the H2 immediately caught fire, causing a fireball which looked like an explosion. It's technically correct wording, in much the same way that Columbia didn't "explode" either.

Referring to it as an explosion is dramatic, certainly, but doesn't describe what happened accurately - an explosion would have been a very different accident with very different causes. Shimgray 17:13, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"birth" and "death" dates

An interesting idea, but things aren't born, nor do they die. The convention of birth and death dates has a specific purpose and common understanding with respect to people that doesn't exist for things. For instance, why should the "birth" date be the maiden voyage? Why not the day the first bolt was fastened, or the date the last tile was placed? Also, all the information is in the article along with the correct context, so the summary mention is redundant. Jgm 12:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The Challenger explosion was among the most dramatic historical events of the 20th Century ?

It certainly was dramatic - but to my mind calling it one one the most dramatic of the 20th century in terms of the whole world ?

Perhaps it should be rephrased as one of the most dramatic in american history of the 20th Century ?

ahpook 12:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I just came to look at this entry and found it woefully incomplete, because it failed to mention the impact that the Challenger's explosion had on the youth of my generation. Don't forget that many, if not most, of us 80s kids were herded into cafeterias and auditoriums to watch that launch because the shuttle was carrying a schoolteacher. We all saw it blow up on live TV, and we all watched our teachers and authority figures try and fail to explain it to us. To people who are 25-35 right now, watching the Challenger incident was probably as significant as the Kennedy assassination was to our parents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.212.146.120 (talk) 03:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Challenger was only orbiter to have an in-flight abort, STS-51-F

This is mentioned briefly under STS-51-F, however it was a very significant and ultimately ironic event. Challenger was the only orbiter to have an in-flight abort, in this case abort to orbit. One SSME shut down at about T+345 seconds, at a velocity of roughly 13,000 ft/sec. Cause of shutdown was a spurious overtemp, which also affected a second SSME. A second shutdown was only averted through a fast acting flight controller inhibiting it. If the second SSME had failed within about 15-20 seconds of the first, the vehicle and crew would have been lost, as the vehicle didn't have sufficient energy for a Trans-Atlantic Abort (TAL). Before the STS-51L loss, there was no bailout capability, so failure to cross the Atlantic means loss of vehicle and crew. Joema 01:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

What kind of miles?

"Space Shuttle Challenger flew 10 flights, spent 62.41 days in space, completed 995 orbits, and flew 25,803,940 miles (it is unknown whether these are nautical or statute miles;"

The average orbit, therefore, is 25,803,940 ÷ 995 = 25,934 miles, which is 41,736 km if those are statute miles and 48,029 km if those are nautical miles. According to the astronautix.com site, the typical orbit was circular with a radius of 319 km. Adding this to the 6,372.797 km mean radius of Earth gives an orbital radius of 6,692 km, so the length of an orbit is 42,046 km. This is a 12% error based on nautical miles but less than a 1% error based on statute miles. Clearly, these are statute miles. DanBishop 20:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Loss of Challenger section

Even with the link to the main article for the disaster, this section should be a short paragraph, not just one line long. OzLawyer 16:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

After thorough reading this section seems to contain a wealth of detail as to why the craft was destroyed - unfortunately, the technical jargon is not explained so as to be understandable by the general public, and this explanation should be added. {{Technical}} template added. 2.102.172.135 (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Was the O-ring entirely to blame for the failure of Challenger?

Since the destruction of the Challenger Shuttle, it is speculated while the O-ring is the biggest factor in the failure of the vehicle as a whole, the O-ring was only part of the whole picture. In some of the research lies a very pertinent aspect that might be more a combination of factors rather than just the O-ring failure.

When Challenger first took off, there was a puff of smoke that burned initially was the beginning of the O-ring failure. However, if the O-ring was to failing then, the entire vehicle should have exploded on the pad or less than ten seconds after liftoff. Instead, the puff of smoke stopped and the flight continues. So what sealed the leak at least until the ultimate destruction of the vehicle?

The fuel used in space flight has some properties that many people are not aware of. The fuel used in this case has some particles of aluminum that aid in the combustion of the liquid fuel. It is believed that the aluminum particles gathered in the crack of the rocket booster and actually sealed the hole and thus, kept the fuel from burning through the O-ring initially. If the next factor in the failure of the vehicle had never happened, Challenger may not have been destroyed at all.

What factor then is responsible for the ultimate destruction? As I said before, the O-ring is the root cause of the accident, the minor contributors to the failure is the weather, both the cold temperature that caused the O-ring to perform under specifications and something that doesn't get mentioned much was the upper level winds. There were planes that took off earlier in the day that were reporting upper level wind shear at this altitude. Also, if you look closely at the exhaust of the rockets before and after the explosion is that they are shifted over pretty significantly at the point of the explosion.

The upper level winds or wind shear is a significant factor in the destruction of the vehicle. What the chain of events is that the O-ring failed initially, but sealed itself a few seconds after the flight began. As the shuttle approches the 90 second mark, the wind shear begins shaking the vehicle, adding stress to the joints of the rocket booster, causing the slag that built up in the failing O-ring to work loose and start burning again with the most violent wind shear happening at the go with throttle up command and then the explosion.

Wheelieguy 19:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It was the high temp putty that was to blame. There were a number of delayed launches while the ship sat in sub-zero temps. Engineers at Lockheed-Martin requested the launch be aborted entirely as the putty protecting the o-rings from the fuel had frozen solid, and was inoperable. L-M management did not pass on the engineers' message to NASA, with the result that the launch went ahead. The right booster ejected hot gases from the bottom clevis joint. The hot gases cut through the legs holding the hydrogen tank to the booster, and the right booster then caved in towards the tank and set it on fire. The putty must be pliable to take the initial shock of the igniting solid fuel of the Minuteman engines. Only when the o-rig has expanded to tightly fill the clevis joint has the puutty finished its job. The putty was frozen solid after several delayed launches and the initial 900psi shock of the fuel igniting fractured the putty and blew the o-ring out of the clevis gap. How do I know all this? Simple! Several of the engineers from L-M resigned and went on a world wide tour of Engineering depts at many universities. These guys were after new jobs, and I had participated in an interview with one. It was a very fruitful afternoon of discussions. I repeat: the accident was known to be very possible before the launch, and the mendacity of L-M management caused it to happen. The putty and o-ring construction makes it essential to keep solid fuel rockets in silos or some temp-controlled conditions.61.68.71.253 (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Chris? Chris who?

I don't really think it's that funny when people (such as 208.122.87.40), make silly edits such as "I hate Chris". RageSamurai21655 13:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

References Needed?

There really aren't many citations to this article. That might be something to strive for to make this article stand out more. I added one. If you have a few minutes, start referencing some credible sources.==Stivo 01:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

STA-099

can someone writeup a section on STA-099? (the pre-Challenger test article) 70.55.88.11 06:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that would be good to have. If anyone is fluent in French, they can go to the source of the image of STA-099 and translate to get a citation for such information, I'd hope. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I added a bit of information about Challenger's use as a static test article. I think we need a reference documenting that NASA figured it would be cheaper to refit the static test article than to modify Enterprise - it seems like reference 2 from that article (Jenkins, Dennis R. (2007). Space Shuttle: The History of the National Space Transportation System. Voyageur Press.) would work, but I don't have it. Khakiandmauve (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Rewording loss of Challenger section

I reworded this for several reasons:

(1) We cannot state anything else about the failure details except that stated by an authoritative credible source. As a first approximation that means the Rogers Commission report. As encyclopedia writers we merely convey information, don't originate it.

(2) This article is only Challenger itself, not the disaster. Therefore any material on the disaster should be very limited in scope and detail, mainly serving to introduce the linked article Space Shuttle Challenger disaster.

Please discuss any further changes to this section here. Joema 20:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

-There's a really dreadfully placed sentence about how the crew will be remembered and honored forever. Punctuation is wrong and you can see what is supposed to be a link to eastern standard time sort of, sitting there. I'm removing that sentence. 76.115.175.1 (talk) 16:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

See my comments above re high temp putty. I cannot name this guy as job interviews are confidential, and material destroyed after a short time.61.68.71.253 (talk) 11:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Image used shows seemingly safe launch of Challenger -- on its final mission

Regarding the image used showing Challenger 'launching' on mission STS-51-L, I think that if there is another Challenger launch image (I know this may be difficult or not possible because of Challenger's short life) then I think that should replace the one currently used showing the 'launch' on its final mission -- that mission ended in disaster and killed all seven crew members included the first civilian in space, so I think it's not really appropriate. That's just my opinion; I have search for other Challenger launch images myself and couldn't find any so I understand the difficulty. --J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 07:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not all that concerned about it being from 51-L. Besides, we also show Image:STS-107 launch.jpg on Space Shuttle Columbia, which depicts that orbiter's launch on its final mission. If we can find an image that is of better quality that provides the same information, that's one thing. But I would oppose replacing it solely on the grounds that it was the 51-L launch. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The image being used is of very, very poor quality. It should not need to be the image of the final launch, the article on the breakup of Challenger is obviously linked in the intro. This article is about the orbiter itself, so the image should be of the best quality to illustrate that, and the one currently used is quite poor. I'll work on finding a better image that is more in keeping with the rest of the shuttle articles. Ariel♥Gold 06:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to still swap out for a more detailed image, but I did find a better Challenger launch photo, though it's zoomed a bit far out. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Discovery before Endeavor

Thought it should be noted that missions were restarted long before Endeavor took flight. It's just when I read the way it was written it came across as though there were no flights between the Challenger disaster and Endeavor, which is not true. :) Knotslanding (talk) 01:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Picture?

Honestly, I don't know why we don't have a picture of the explosion. Isn't there one out there? We should put one up here.--MozartEinsteinPhysics! (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

See the article just for that purpose: Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. The picture belongs there, not on this article. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, then why does the Hindenburg (airship) article include the disaster picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.184.77 (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Challenger crew not astronauts

I dont consider the crew whom only flight was on the doomed Challenger launch in 1986 as astronauts since they failed to reach US/FAI rules as so, why are they listed? RGDS Alexmcfire

Alex, there's a distinction between earning astronaut wings and being an "astronaut". NASA uses the term to refer to people in the program, not only those who have actually flown to space. If you look here, http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/astrobio.html, http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/astrobio_former.html, and http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/psbio.html, they list a number of people as astronauts who haven't been to space, such as Michael Smith, who died on Challenger in his first mission; Roger Chaffee, who died in the Apollo 1 fire before flying; and John Bull, who resigned from the corps because of medical problems before he was even assigned to a crew. Interestingly, Christa McAuliffe is listed as a "space-flight participant", separate from the "astronaut" list on the payload specialist page. However, she has an "astronaut biography" and is called an astronaut a number of times on NASA web pages. She was posthumously awarded the Congressional Space Medal of Honor, which can only be awarded to an astronaut, per http://history.nasa.gov/spacemedal2.pdf. She and the rest of the Challenger crew might be referred to as "crew members", which I think would be a reasonable compromise, but I don't think it's necessary to change the term used here, given that it was a NASA mission and this is the way NASA uses it. Khakiandmauve (talk) 21:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

challenger space shuttle website

www.challengerspaceshuttle.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.218.152 (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

B-class review

This article was previously assessed as b-class, however I have conducted a review of it against the WikiProject Spaceflight criteria for b-class articles and found it lacking in several key areas.

• Referencing & citations: For a topic of this nature there are very few references. Of the 14 provided, three are identical while eight more are from primary sources, leaving only four secondary sources. Even with the primary sources there are large swathes of uncited text.
• Coverage & accuracy: The article provides a nice amount of depth on the development of the orbiter and on its demise; its operational history is skimmed over in a couple of paragraphs and a table. This should be expanded.
• Structure: The article depends far too much upon tables to display information which should be presented as prose.
• Grammar & style: Some of the tables contain sentence fragments. The page could also use a copyedit. In terms of style, again some of the tables and lists should be converted to text.
• Supporting materials: The encyclopaedic value of the entire gallery in the mission patches section is dubious, and the tribute image - a nice touch as it is - definitely does not belong in a formal article. Elsewhere most of the images seem to show the orbiter in launch configuration - it would be nice to include some of it landing, or in orbit - as seen during EVAs or looking back from the flight deck.

As a result of these issues I have downgraded it to c-class. --W. D. Graham 16:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)