The Challenger Disaster
Posted on 01/28/2003 8:27:33 AM PST by Indy Pendance
Ladies and Gentlemen, I'd planned to speak to you tonight to report on the state of the Union, but the events of earlier today have led me to change those plans. Today is a day for mourning and remembering. Nancy and I are pained to the core by the tragedy of the shuttle Challenger. We know we share this pain with all of the people of our country. This is truly a national loss.
Nineteen years ago, almost to the day, we lost three astronauts in a terrible accident on the ground. But, we've never lost an astronaut in flight; we've never had a tragedy like this. And perhaps we've forgotten the courage it took for the crew of the shuttle; but they, the Challenger Seven, were aware of the dangers, but overcame them and did their jobs brilliantly. We mourn seven heroes: Michael Smith, Dick Scobee, Judith Resnik, Ronald McNair, Ellison Onizuka, Gregory Jarvis, and Christa McAuliffe. We mourn their loss as a nation together.
For the families of the seven, we cannot bear, as you do, the full impact of this tragedy. But we feel the loss, and we're thinking about you so very much. Your loved ones were daring and brave, and they had that special grace, that special spirit that says, 'Give me a challenge and I'll meet it with joy.' They had a hunger to explore the universe and discover its truths. They wished to serve, and they did. They served all of us.
We've grown used to wonders in this century. It's hard to dazzle us. But for twenty-five years the United States space program has been doing just that. We've grown used to the idea of space, and perhaps we forget that we've only just begun. We're still pioneers. They, the members of the Challenger crew, were pioneers.
And I want to say something to the schoolchildren of America who were watching the live coverage of the shuttle's takeoff. I know it is hard to understand, but sometimes painful things like this happen. It's all part of the process of exploration and discovery. It's all part of taking a chance and expanding man's horizons. The future doesn't belong to the fainthearted; it belongs to the brave. The Challenger crew was pulling us into the future, and we'll continue to follow them...
I've always had great faith in and respect for our space program, and what happened today does nothing to diminish it. We don't hide our space program. We don't keep secrets and cover things up. We do it all up front and in public. That's the way freedom is, and we wouldn't change it for a minute. We'll continue our quest in space. There will be more shuttle flights and more shuttle crews and, yes, more volunteers, more civilians, more teachers in space. Nothing ends here; our hopes and our journeys continue. I want to add that I wish I could talk to every man and woman who works for NASA or who worked on this mission and tell them: "Your dedication and professionalism have moved and impressed us for decades. And we know of your anguish. We share it."
There's a coincidence today. On this day 390 years ago, the great explorer Sir Francis Drake died aboard ship off the coast of Panama. In his lifetime the great frontiers were the oceans, and a historian later said, 'He lived by the sea, died on it, and was buried in it.' Well, today we can say of the Challenger crew: Their dedication was, like Drake's, complete.
The crew of the space shuttle Challenger honoured us by the manner in which they lived their lives. We will never forget them, nor the last time we saw them, this morning, as they prepared for the journey and waved goodbye and 'slipped the surly bonds of earth' to 'touch the face of God.'
If you have any doubts about that, go back and see what happened once they re-started the shuttle launches a few years afterward. All military payloads were given top priority, and the crews were all comprised of a bunch of older white military veterans.
January 28, 1986 was the day the U.S. space program stopped playing games. At least for a while.
She then told me that in the company she started working for, she was in the department that manufactured and assembled the failed solid rocket booster. She quit immediately after the crash. I didn't ask her any more questions about her engineering career.
Gee, thanks for reminding me. At least you didn't mention that it's also Susan Sontag's birthday.
But, Alan and Susan are quite a bit older than me, and probably going to die soon. And then there's that Elijah Wood kid, who apparently has a birthday today, too ;)
So did I. I had returned the day before from the hospital after a weeks stay following being hit by a drunk. I knew about the launch so I made myself coffee and settled my body full of broken bones into a recliner to watch the launch.
I have spent 8 years with an Army missile known as the Nike Hercules. It has four solid propellent boosters at its base. When I saw the first clouds of smoke, I knew the Challenger was a "Moonball". A missile term for a round that explodes prematurely. With mixed emotions I sat there and felt lucky for my own survival a week before and wept in my coffee.
God Bless the crew of Challenger.
Buck.
If anyone has a copy of this photo or even remembers seeing it, I'd like to know where it was published.
I had slept in late that morning, and had missed the launch. My father woke me up, banging at my door yell "The shuttle blew up, the shuttle blew UP!". I thought I was dreaming, since I had had many nightmares of just that scenerio, the shuttle blowing up on launch. When I was in Jr. High, I had done a report on the shuttle, and during my research, I found out just how complicated that thing was, and still is today. How far close to the edge those main engines are run at.. Since that day, I have never had those dreams again, perhaps that fear, once satisfied, was forever quelled...
The other thing I remember was watching, hearing, Dan Rathers comments. I recall clearly, while watching an open parachute falling slowly (those parachutes were from the Solid Rocket Boosters), hearing Dan hoping out loud "is that an escape capsule? Could that be an escape capsule?".. alas, I knew well that the Shuttle was not equiped with such a device. Made me think that Rather was an idiot, of course, later on I realized he really was...
i guess i shouldn't have bitched so much.
The poem "High Flight" by John Gillespie McGee Jr. I have had the pleasure of meeting his younger brother and his nephew. Nice people. They are very aware of the poems influence. The father of John McGee, a minister, put the poem in into public domain in his sons honor, rather than copyright it.
Temperatures for the next launch date were predicted to be in the low 20°s. This prompted Alan McDonald to ask his engineers at Thiokol to prepare a presentation on the effects of cold temperatureon booster performance. A teleconference was scheduled the evening before the re-scheduled launch in order to discuss the low temperature performance of the boosters. This teleconference was held between engineers and management from Kennedy Space Center, Marshall SpaceFlight Center in Alabama, and Morton-Thiokol in Utah. Boisjolyand another engineer, Arnie Thompson, knew this would be an other opportunity to express their concerns about the boosters, but they had only a short time to prepare their data for the presentation. Thiokol's engineers gave an hour-long presentation, presenting a convincing argument that the cold weather would exaggerate the problems of joint rotation and delayed O-ring seating. The lowest temperature experienced by the O-rings in any previous missionwas 53°F, the January 24, 1985 flight. With a predicted ambient temperature of 26°F at launch, the O-rings were estimated to be at 29°F. After the technical presentation, Thiokol's Engineering Vice President Bob Lund presented the conclusionsand recommendations. His main conclusion was that 53°F was the only low temperature data Thiokol had for the effects of cold on the operational boosters. The boosters had experienced O-ring erosion at this temperature. Since his engineers had no low temperaturedata below 53°F, they could not prove that it was unsafe to launch at lower temperatures. He read his recommendations and commented that the predicted temperatures for the morning's launch was outside the data base and NASA should delay the launch, so the ambient temperature could rise until the O-ring temperaturewas at least 53°F. This confused NASA managers because the booster design specifications called for booster operation as low as 31°F. (It later came out in the investigation that Thiokol understood that the 31°F limit temperature was forstorage of the booster, and that the launch temperature limit was 40°F. Because of this, dynamic tests of the boosters had never been performed below 40°F.)Marshall's Solid RocketBooster Project Manager, Larry Mulloy, commented that the datawas inconclusive and challenged the engineers' logic. A heated debate went on for several minutes before Mulloy bypassed Lundand asked Joe Kilminster for his opinion. Kilminster was in management, although he had an extensive engineering background. By by passing the engineers, Mulloy was calling for a middle-management decision, but Kilminster stood by his engineers. Several other managersat Marshall expressed their doubts about the recommendations,and finally Kilminster asked for a meeting off of the net, so Thiokol could review its data. Boisjoly and Thompson tried to convince their senior managers to stay with their original decision not to launch. A senior executive at Thiokol, Jerald Mason, commented that a management decision was required. The managers seemed to believe the Orings could be eroded up to one third of their diameter and still seat properly, regardless of the temperature. The data presented to them showed no correlation between temperature and the blowby gasses which eroded the O-rings in previous missions. According to testimony by Kilminster and Boisjoly, Mason finally turned to Bob Lund and said, "Take off your engineering hat and put on your management hat." Joe Kilminster wrote out the new recommendation and went back on line with the teleconference. The new recommendation stated that the cold was still a safety concern, but their people had found that the original data was indeed inconclusive and their "engineering assessment" was that launch was recommended, even though the engineers had no part in writing the new recommendation and refused to sign it. Alan McDonald, who was present with NASA management in Florida, was surprised to see the recommendation to launch and appealed to NASA management not to launch. NASA managers decided to approve the boosters for launch despite the fact that the predicted launchtemperature was outside of their operational specifications.
Yah, I figured as much. She was young and that probably ruined her career.
So, you're saying that the Shuttle was destroyed because it had a diverse crew?
If you have any doubts about that, go back and see what happened once they re-started the shuttle launches a few years afterward. All military payloads were given top priority, and the crews were all comprised of a bunch of older white military veterans.
I have many doubts about that. I also have many doubts about your second sentence. Do you have any actual data to support it (from this universe, that is)? After Challenger, military payloads were shifted to expendables. The astronaut corps composition did not change. The flights continued, and continue, to carry women and minorities. Sorry you have a problem with that.
January 28, 1986 was the day the U.S. space program stopped playing games. At least for a while.
The only "games" they were playing was lousy management, and wishful thinking.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.