Challenger: A True Story of Heroism and Disaster on the Edge of Space

edwest4 said:
Available now.

Click to expand...
Even as a small child, I was able to understand that the Space Shuttle was a fundamental and economic failure in its primary envisioned role as a reusable satellite launching platform. The Challenger disaster was only a confirmation that NASA had become completely directionless and inept following the Apollo era. There are some even harder truths about the American space program’s origins, and initial success, originating in “Operation Paperclip.” But that’s a different book.
 
I strongly disagree. The temperature on the launch date was too low. But there was financial pressure to launch that day. The O-rings failed. Hot exhaust escaped and the result was predictable. Today, the exact same pressure exists.

I find it beyond unbelievable that today with our supposedly more advanced technology, that Elon Musk can launch three rockets and two fail catastrophically, while the third barely completes its mission. If you want cheap and hire less than competent people, or people who believe that good enough is good enough, then this result is all that can be expected going forward. This has nothing to do with technology or people. It's all driven by money. When those money people realize they have to figure out how to do what was done in 1969 (!) or lose public confidence, then, and only then, will something get done. To (somewhat) quote Winston Churchill: "The Americans will get the job done but only after they've exhausted all other options."
 
As someone who was watching the Challenger launch and subsequent explosion on live TV at the time, I can agree with you edwest4 that NASA should never have launched the Shuttle on such a cold day as it then was. NASA were only asking for trouble.
 
FighterJock said:
As someone who was watching the Challenger launch and subsequent explosion on live TV at the time, I can agree with you edwest4 that NASA should never have launched the Shuttle on such a cold day as it then was. NASA were only asking for trouble.
Click to expand...

But they had to answer to a higher power - the money men. Scrub that launch and lose money? Never!
 
I was at KSC for the launch and that was the coldest Florida weather I have ever experienced. When the spacecraft came apart, other nearby spectators who hadn't seen a launch before thought it was normal booster separation. I knew immediately that something terrible had happened but only realized the extent of the catastrophe when I saw how much debris was plummeting toward the ocean. The largest fragments began hitting the water three minutes later, but there were smaller pieces falling for three quarters of an hour. The sky was otherwise a clear, dark blue with that cloud hanging overhead. I heard later that it was visible as far away as Jacksonville. [Note: The book cited in the OP looks pretty good. I skimmed a copy in my local Barnes & Noble. There's a photo of some of the Challenger wreckage being interred at Cape Canaveral; I was there when that picture was taken.]

Prior to the flight, the engineers at Morton Thiokol (manufacturer of the solid rocket boosters) argued that it would be a terrible mistake to launch in such cold temperatures. But there was a lot of administrative pressure to launch. At one point, the Thiokol general manager told one of his subordinates who opposed launching, "Take off your engineering hat and put on your management hat." The subordinate changed his vote and sealed Challenger's fate.

The booster O-ring burn-through problem was already well known from previous missions, but it had never before resulted in a catastrophe. Efforts to fix the problem were put on the back burner. This is known as normalization of deviance. When a known problem repeatedly fails to have catastrophic consequences, it gets ignored. People become complacent. It's the same cultural dynamic that led to the loss of Columbia in 2003.
 
"cultural dynamic"? It's about people doing what is right according to the known data. There is no corporate or other culture to blame this on.
 
edwest4 said:
I strongly disagree. The temperature on the launch date was too low. But there was financial pressure to launch that day. The O-rings failed. Hot exhaust escaped and the result was predictable. Today, the exact same pressure exists.

I find it beyond unbelievable that today with our supposedly more advanced technology, that Elon Musk can launch three rockets and two fail catastrophically, while the third barely completes its mission."
Click to expand...
that is a wrong. Musk is trying to build a completely reusable inexpensive launch system from the start; unlike Falcon 9, which was fully expendable at the beginning. This is still unlearned rocket science. The inexpensive, not the fully reusable is the hard part. There is no financial pressure, it is Musk's own schedule that is the driver.

It is with more advanced technology that they have got this far in three launches. If this were just a large expendable launch vehicle, it would have made it to orbit on the first try.
 
Byeman said:
that is a wrong. Musk is trying to build a completely reusable inexpensive launch system from the start; unlike Falcon 9, which was fully expendable at the beginning. This is still unlearned rocket science. The inexpensive, not the fully reusable is the hard part. There is no financial pressure, it is Musk's own schedule that is the driver.

It is with more advanced technology that they have got this far in three launches. If this were just a large expendable launch vehicle, it would have made it to orbit on the first try.
Click to expand...

"unlearned"? Is that the right word? Tests. Ground tests. Low-altitude tests. Not a rocket taller than the Saturn V starting to tumble shortly after launch and the decision to self-destruct. That's not progress. I'm sure Mr. Musk had to pay for the three failures. If there are more, he may decide to abandon his idea and use an expendable launch vehicle. The point is to complete the mission successfully, not pour the champagne after almost getting it right. Musk should be able to model all aspects on a computer right now.
 
edwest4 said:
"unlearned"? Is that the right word? Tests. Ground tests. Low-altitude tests. Not a rocket taller than the Saturn V starting to tumble shortly after launch and the decision to self-destruct. That's not progress. I'm sure Mr. Musk had to pay for the three failures. If there are more, he may decide to abandon his idea and use an expendable launch vehicle. The point is to complete the mission successfully, not pour the champagne after almost getting it right. Musk should be able to model all aspects on a computer right now.
Click to expand...
Wrong on all accounts. You can not model all aspects on a computer, especially for regimes or processes that are new or seldom used. For examples, supersonic retropropulsion, hot staging, bellyflop entry or grid fin interactions.

Low altitude tests? What relevant data would they provide? Doesn't do any good for events that occur at high altitudes, which is where most of the critical events do happen.

Flight testing is cheaper than ground testing. Don't have to build expensive test facilities. There were 4 ground test units of each Saturn V stage and 2 flight test stages. Some of the test stages blew up. SpaceX is choosing to fly test stages. SpaceX can still afford to go though more test vehicles and still not spend more than 4 ground test & 2 test units plus ground test facilities. SpaceX is still ahead of the Saturn V. Funding is not a problem for SpaceX.

Making Starship an expendable rocket would be a failure to Musk and there would be no point of continuing with the vehicle from their POV.
 
Last edited:
Whisperstream said:
I was at KSC for the launch and that was the coldest Florida weather I have ever experienced. When the spacecraft came apart, other nearby spectators who hadn't seen a launch before thought it was normal booster separation. I knew immediately that something terrible had happened but only realized the extent of the catastrophe when I saw how much debris was plummeting toward the ocean. The largest fragments began hitting the water three minutes later, but there were smaller pieces falling for three quarters of an hour. The sky was otherwise a clear, dark blue with that cloud hanging overhead. I heard later that it was visible as far away as Jacksonville. [Note: The book cited in the OP looks pretty good. I skimmed a copy in my local Barnes & Noble. There's a photo of some of the Challenger wreckage being interred at Cape Canaveral; I was there when that picture was taken.]

Prior to the flight, the engineers at Morton Thiokol (manufacturer of the solid rocket boosters) argued that it would be a terrible mistake to launch in such cold temperatures. But there was a lot of administrative pressure to launch. At one point, the Thiokol general manager told one of his subordinates who opposed launching, "Take off your engineering hat and put on your management hat." The subordinate changed his vote and sealed Challenger's fate.

The booster O-ring burn-through problem was already well known from previous missions, but it had never before resulted in a catastrophe. Efforts to fix the problem were put on the back burner. This is known as normalization of deviance. When a known problem repeatedly fails to have catastrophic consequences, it gets ignored. People become complacent. It's the same cultural dynamic that led to the loss of Columbia in 2003.
Click to expand...
Watched a special the other night on the Columbia loss and many of the same decision failures existed for that loss, the loss just by other means. The look on faces in the control room as the various sensors started failing and falling off computer screens followed by the loss of radio communications was hard to watch, cannot imagine what it was like for them individually. Then the call about a video of the break up from a news station was the dagger. A friend of mine in Dallas was on his roof watching the reentry and knew right away something was all wrong as he had done the same thing for previous returns. He called a local news station who essentially blew him off.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom