[Houmatt]

Quite frankly, I just don't give a crap. And I will tell you why:

Back when the Challenger disaster happened, we all saw (and people have since referred to it as) an explosion. Everyone assumed the astronauts had been killed instantly, and there was no reason to believe otherwise.

Months later, after the families had buried their dead and gone on with their lives, a couple of scientists tell the press the astronauts were, in fact, still alive at the time of the explosion, and were killed when the separated crew cabin made contact with the ocean.

Naturally, I thought, hey, what tact. Open up those wounds and pour a salt shaker into them just so you could get your name in the effing newspapers. I mean, for God's sake, did we really need to know they all suffered immensely prior to death? Some things are better left unsaid.

So, if you wish to discuss something like that, fine. Just don't do it in my presence.

As far as I am concerned, the Challenger astronauts all died instantly.

The end.

[capitan_refugio]

I'll tell you why it is important to make the truth known and it has nothing to do with "scientists getting their names in the newspapers."

(1) NASA went to great lengths to cover-up the disposition of the crew. They consistantly lied about the accident. The alternative would have been to graciously decline to answer the more personal questions, but make the data available to engineers in the redesign of the vehicle.

(2) The Soviet Union had a pure-oxgen environment accident several years before Apollo 1. They covered it up. If we hade known about the accident, we would have been able to avoid the disaster that killed three astronauts on the pad.

(3) The fact that the fuel in the Challenger accident erupted as a hypergolic burn suggests that the G-forces on the crew compartment were lower than first thought. In fact, they were so low that they apparently did not buckle the deck. The crew compartment broke up on impact with the water. This suggests that even in the worst case scenario (main tank "explosion") an ejectable, controlable crew capsule could have saved them. In fact, in the early design of the shuttle, that idea was considered considered, but the chances of that type of accident were too remote to justify the cost.

(4) Progress sometimes means learning from mistakes. The greatest tragedy would be to ignore the facts and repeat the mistake.

NASA needs to learn from its mistakes. Mistakes in engineering. Mistakes in design and construction. Mistakes in risk assessment. And mistakes in public relations.

[bonesmccoy]

Dear "Houmatt",

Since NASA is a governmental agency and is using American taxpayer dollars to assure our national interests, it is incumbent upon our national space agency to follow the scientific process in an accident investigation.

You are obviously unconnected to the program and definitely ill-informed regarding the post-mortem evaluation of the Challenger crew.

While your sense of ethics may be violated by the scientific process that occurs after EVERY USAF and NASA accident, your misinformation impacts public perception of the scientific and engineering processes involved with the crew's demise. Because Free Republic has such widespread readership, I do my best to review these threads for misinformation amongst the FR following.

Your facts are incorrect.

My only interest is in correcting the record. No hurt feelings are intended, and my apologies if your sensibilities feel violated. However, it was YOU who chose to broach the subject.

Returning the shuttle to flight capability will require the investigation to be willing to discuss matters, including how the crew died. These discussions are not meant to be a macabre spectacle for TV News media. They are intended to be a medical and scientific process in order to better design systems for the future.

The crew of 51-L deserved to have the question of when and how they perished solved. It was a very thorough investigation by Dr. Kerwin and the reality is that the report is part of aerospace history.

Ad Astra!