- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 1/28/24 at 6:05 pm to RollTide1987
Because the suits did not listen to the engineers.
Posted on 1/28/24 at 6:14 pm to RollTide1987
I was in initiation on Dalrymple. We thought the actives were lying to us.
Posted on 1/28/24 at 6:44 pm to Kirby59
Kirby59
Bet you have more stories to tell. I enjoyed your post.
Roger Boisjoly was the Thiokol engineer who (rightly) was waving the red flag. But he had a cry-wolf reputation which perhaps kept others from joining him.
Eventually, NASA cobbled together rationale and strong armed Thiokol to signing on.
Charles Stevenson was maybe the only NASA manager who voted no-gp. Not because of the O-ring concern but due to the large icicles on the pad structure.
Bet you have more stories to tell. I enjoyed your post.
Roger Boisjoly was the Thiokol engineer who (rightly) was waving the red flag. But he had a cry-wolf reputation which perhaps kept others from joining him.
Eventually, NASA cobbled together rationale and strong armed Thiokol to signing on.
Charles Stevenson was maybe the only NASA manager who voted no-gp. Not because of the O-ring concern but due to the large icicles on the pad structure.
Posted on 1/28/24 at 6:49 pm to GruntbyAssociation
quote:was he related to Debbie Masson?
Albert Jr. knew his way around a kitchen.
I had a friend that knew her
well and I’ve been to the house that was next door…
Posted on 1/28/24 at 6:55 pm to RollTide1987
I remember watching it live in my 5th grade classroom.
Posted on 1/28/24 at 7:39 pm to RollTide1987
I don’t know how many times I’ve watched this disaster, but I’ve never noticed that. I wonder what the folks in Mission Control were thinking when they saw that flame. Wow.
Posted on 1/28/24 at 8:18 pm to Crow Pie
quote:
was he related to Debbie Masson?
Yes, Debbie and Albert were cousins.
Posted on 1/28/24 at 8:24 pm to RollTide1987
Saw it live
Posted on 1/28/24 at 8:56 pm to TutHillTiger
IIRC, President Reagan was supposed to have a speech that night or even the SOTU speech. There was pressure to launch so Reagan could talk about during his speech.
One thing that came out of it was all future briefing packages developed by the Utah Division required a footnote stating something to the effect: “The contents of this briefing are incomplete without the verbal discussion that was included during the presentation.” Apparently something was interpreted wrongly based on the printed material. I don’t know how it affected the decision making, but thought it was interesting that it was required going forward
One thing that came out of it was all future briefing packages developed by the Utah Division required a footnote stating something to the effect: “The contents of this briefing are incomplete without the verbal discussion that was included during the presentation.” Apparently something was interpreted wrongly based on the printed material. I don’t know how it affected the decision making, but thought it was interesting that it was required going forward
Posted on 1/28/24 at 9:45 pm to RollTide1987
I was a junior at LSU standing in line at the Laville Cafeteria when I heard someone say, "the shuttle blew up". I've never forgotten how stunned I was. Shortly afterwards, Reagan gave his to talk to the American people. Time flies.
Posted on 1/28/24 at 10:08 pm to RollTide1987
Go fever.
Posted on 1/28/24 at 10:11 pm to messyjesse
quote:
Why did it have to come from Utah?
In reality they wanted them built in a place so remote that if they exploded only cows would be endangered.
Posted on 1/28/24 at 10:15 pm to RollTide1987
I did a pretty deep presentation on this. From a structural side, there were multiple erosion events and because none totally burned through they accepted the risk that was out of the design, this term became known as normalized deviation,,,from a political side there was pressure to stay on schedule,,,this caused NASA to push the engineers to concede on launching beyond temp limits,,,,combined with some erosion, there was wind sheer event that flexed the SRB and the O ring couldn’t compensate and it totally burned through, which set of a chain of events that caused to strut to fail and rotate into the main tank and this a rapid unscheduled disassembly occurred.
Posted on 1/28/24 at 10:26 pm to Boston911
I believe that NASA calculated that there would be one or two failures in 100 launches. The last Challenger mission was something like the 102nd STS mission.
I'm going from 35 year old memory. It might have been the 110th or so, but that 98/99% success rate rang true.
I'm going from 35 year old memory. It might have been the 110th or so, but that 98/99% success rate rang true.
Posted on 1/29/24 at 12:38 am to White Roach
quote:
I believe that NASA calculated that there would be one or two failures in 100 launches. The last Challenger mission was something like the 102nd STS mission.
I'm going from 35 year old memory. It might have been the 110th or so, but that 98/99% success rate rang true.
Did you mean Columbia instead of Challenger?
Challenger was the 25th shuttle mission; Columbia the 113th mission.
Posted on 1/29/24 at 1:41 am to AlwysATgr
quote:
Did you mean Columbia instead of Challenger?
Challenger was the 25th shuttle mission; Columbia the 113th mission.
I meant Challenger, but it was probably Columbia. I guess I conflated the two of them. But two catastrophic failures out of 113 missions works out to something just above 98%.
Does anyone actually believe space is entirely without risk? Admittedly, the Challenger accident could have been avoided if "people" had taken heed of warnings. The Columbia accident involved either ice or foam shedding from the external fuel tank and damaging heat tiles on the orbiter. This shite had been going on since the git go and presumed to be an acceptable risk. And then it wasn't.
Posted on 1/29/24 at 2:54 am to White Roach
quote:
I believe that NASA calculated that there would be one or two failures in 100 launches. The last Challenger mission was something like the 102nd STS mission.
I'm going from 35 year old memory. It might have been the 110th or so, but that 98/99% success rate rang true.
Wish I could remember the details but there was an engineer back in the day that thought there was too much sloppiness in the program. He predicted a catastrophic event within 25 launches. Challenger was #25.
Posted on 1/29/24 at 7:08 am to Kirby59
quote:
There was pressure to launch so Reagan could talk about during his speech.
That was debunked (as far as the presser from the White House angle) as the original draft of the speech had no reference to Challenger.
Posted on 1/29/24 at 7:25 am to RollTide1987
Watched on monitors with the rest of our team at Michoud. Having watched every launch, everyone knew instantly it was bad.
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News