Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
WarlordATF

Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster

Recommended Posts

You guys are pretty smart about aircraft and spaceflight, What do you make of this...

 

http://www.mission51l.com/apreview.htm

 

I know, Tin-foil hat time, right?

 

But...

 

I checked the Video of the Launch...

 

 

This Video of the launch clearly shows that the LEFT booster is the only one with the black band and NASA identified the other booster as having the smoke plume at launch and i agree it probably caused the disaster due to the cold weather.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghNG-xkbV2M

 

The closeup video shows the flames at the O-Ring Joint on the Right Booster burning towards the main tank...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msEfxY3eZsY...feature=related

 

but whats in those photos coming from the Left Boosters O-Ring Joint???

 

I'm left scratching my head, Did both O-Rings Fail???

 

Was it post breakup damage?

 

Why was this never mentioned before?

 

I'm not claiming to have any answers and i am NOT supporting a coverup theory.

 

I also don't think this author should be making a profit from the disaster, but those photos are interesting, NASA either didn't have or didn't make public any views from the Left side during the explosion,could both Boosters have failed and crossed paths as he claims?

 

This is a interest of mine because i saw the smoke in the sky all the way down here in Fort Myers and I was at the KSC Visitors center and Museum the day after it happened.

 

A very sad day and i will always remember it along with Columbia and 9/11 as the worst things to happen so far in my lifetime.

 

I know it does not matter if one or both failed, the outcome was the Death of 7 Brave Astronauts, but I'd like to hear what you make of all this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

here is the key phrase;

 

"So went the Challenger launch disaster that Lockheed and NASA officials negligently and intentionally executed on the morning of January 28, 1986."

 

the contention that anyone intentionally launched to an intended disaster, and then covered up anything is an abhorent, disgusting and utterly deranged and delusional viewpoint.

 

The facts were covered in exhausting detail in the commission report on the disaster. The contention on that deranged site that anyone tried to cover up anything, but in particular the fact that the boosters happened to cross paths as the vehicle broke up is utterly ridiculous since that was quite clearly noted in the video on the day of the disaster. Those nutty fruitcakes had to intentionally ignore the data available and then fabricate a conspiracy.

 

anyone involved with that conspiracy site is in desperate need of psychiatric treatment and continuing medication. In my own view, having been accused before of other conspiracy involvment, is that those deranged and delusional idiots should be prosecuted for slander and libel by all of the dedicated NASA and contractor personnel. I have, as noted previously, a very low tolerance threshold for such back-stabbing traitors.

 

I remember that day very clearly. We had just launched on the NEACP and were linked into the LCU as the launch went up. So we heard it all live including the launch of the SAR until the conferences all shut down.

 

Ok, so he's describing the breakup and the fireball, but what is the conspiracy/coverup?

 

 

exactly!

 

:good:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG, do people not have anything better to do then make a conspiracy theory on ALL things that dont go the right way????? I mean, come on, people need to grow up, this is getting redamndiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NASA had to solve several problems after the Challenger:

1) Convince the public and federal government that the problem was understood and that it could not happen again.

2) Get the shuttle flying as soon as possible and as often as possible to keep the program alive and not fall further behind (the shuttle was 2 or 3 years behind its original projected schedule before it even launched and never achieved the theoretical 1 shuttle launch per week rate that had been envisioned with multiple shuttles and landings at Kennedy).

3) Do whatever it took to make sure 1 and 2 would not be compromised in the future. Anything requiring extensive investigation and engineering would have been unacceptable. Whether it was the primary cause or not, the O-ring and Morton-Thiokol were the perfect scape-goats to permit rapidly arriving at a solution that would permit returning the shuttle program to flight status as quickly as possible.

 

There is contradictorary data on the cause of the disaster.

The official answer is that the o-rings failed due to weather.

Some footage from the initial launch provides evidence that the liquid fuel engines had an inexplicable flame shooting out toward the solid booster before the shuttle even cleared the launch pad...

But I never saw clarification why that footage was disregarded.

 

If there was a conspiracy, it would have been to hide the engineering problems with the liquid fuel main engines that might have grounded the program permanently.

NASA continues to struggle with the main engines and many launches have been postponed due to problems with them.

I see space shuttle flights as being a lot like airline flights, for obvious reasons, you don't make your problems public.

You solve them as quickly and correctly as possible while telling everyone else it is something minor.

As long as you don't get caught making a mistake, such a policy results in much better publicity with no consequences.

 

Of course Columbia proved that nothing had really changed since the Challenger:

NASA procedures and safety were warped by the political/economic need for flights.

Essentially, given key decisions involving risk assessment such as extremely cold weather on the launch pad or external damage to the airframe, the people making the decisions did not receive or ignored negative feedback from knowledgable engineers in the quest to stay on schedule and given the historically good success rate the shuttle enjoyed.

 

I hate to see the shuttle program end... especially when it has no real replacement and our manned program is farmed out to the Russians until the Apollo rehash pseudo-replacement arrives.

In order to save money and reduce risk, we our taking steps backward in our space program.

The shuttle never met the original design goals of fully reusable launch vehicle, useful orbit altitude, and 1 week turnaround time mostly due to budget cuts and partially due to unwillingness to take the risks on new technology required to do it right.

The next step should have been a program that overcame the limitations of the current shuttle and met or exceeded the original 1960s goals.

A proper space shuttle design would be cheaper and safer than any conventiol rocket design: winged aircraft for the mother aircraft and orbiter mean less weight spent on fuel and structure while in the atmosphere.

Fortunately, Burt Rutan got funding from someone other than the government and is proving that it can be done on a shoe-string budget compared to NASA programs.

The private-industry is taking greater risks, but I'll bet it pays off and that their risk level will have to be much lower than NASA's before they can start taking passengers up on a routine basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intentionally blowing up a space shuttle?

 

Ok, I can see a CYA thats almost a daily occurance for a careless decision that could have averted the disaster.

 

New Theory: The Soviets actually shot down the challenger to gain an advantage for their shuttle program :drag:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<shaking head>

Nutjobs. 'tards

 

Those whackos should be put up against a wall and executed as enemies to good taste and intellegent thinking.

 

It IS a major pity that the Shuttle never reached it full potential. I've always thought of it as a 'space pick-up truck' to haul things back and forth.

To bad the SSTOs never got off the ground, or even the 2-part spaceplane (carrier and orbiter) ... I think they would've been much better, in the long run.

 

The real shame is the national will, turning it's back on the Human Expansion Into Space. As a child of the space age (born in 1957 - so my early years were filled with Mercury, Gemini and Apollo, to say nothing of the statellites and robot moon landers -Surveyor, Mariner, etc), I fell "The Dream" has yet to be fulfilled.

 

To quote Tom Hanks in Apollo 13 --

 

"When are we going back?"

 

Wrench

kevin stein

 

ps: if anyone is ever near Hutchinson, Kansas, make the trip to the Cosmodome (?) Space Museam. You won't be sorry!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please don't think i'm trying to start trouble over this, I really don't think NASA tried to coverup anything.

 

All i wanted to know is what is going on with the Left Booster in the first 2 photos on that page. The Black Band clearly shows its the left booster and something is coming out of it near the O-Ring joint, but no mention was ever given to an issue with the left booster, The site claims that NASA ID'ed that as the right booster,its just strange IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please don't think i'm trying to start trouble over this, I really don't think NASA tried to coverup anything.

 

All i wanted to know is what is going on with the Left Booster in the first 2 photos on that page. The Black Band clearly shows its the left booster and something is coming out of it near the O-Ring joint, but no mention was ever given to an issue with the left booster, The site claims that NASA ID'ed that as the right booster,its just strange IMO.

I din't really click on your link, but if it's just photos, forget about it dude. Conspiracy people love pics! You have a bunch on the Pentagon on 9/11, 'proving' that a passenger jet couldn't possibly have hit it. Vid Stills showing small detonations on the Twin Towers before they fell... I've seen pics of clouds shaped like angles for crying out loud.

 

 

You can't analyse a photo so much or else you'll end up seeing all kinds of things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Friend of mine worked on the shuttle program until the late 90's. He worked in the life support systems. He told me that no 1 person is left alone with the orbiter vehicle. Also if you needed to loosen or tighten a screw it went through about 10 people before it happened. He also said the orbiter was designed to have a turn around time of a month. But NASA being super safe tares it down and looks at everything. He said doing that "BODY OFF RESTORATION" takes its toll over time which it wasn't designed for. They were to get a quick check new engines put on and sent back out in about 1-2 months. he worked on the program from the early 80's when they thought these would be going up every month. Was at his Bar asked about this he said Hogwash the higher ups didnt listen to the enginers. He said the old booster ring would vent all the time just not that soon so close to the ground were the radiant heat was a factor in that venting ignited.

 

After the Columbia disaster I spoke to him that afternoon (yes at his bar) and he spoke with some of his former co-workers. The higher ups didn't listen to the enginers, same thing. You would think they would learn, oh well time for bed later guys and gals be safe.

Edited by MAKO69

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please don't think i'm trying to start trouble over this, I really don't think NASA tried to coverup anything.

 

All i wanted to know is what is going on with the Left Booster in the first 2 photos on that page. The Black Band clearly shows its the left booster and something is coming out of it near the O-Ring joint, but no mention was ever given to an issue with the left booster, The site claims that NASA ID'ed that as the right booster,its just strange IMO.

 

Lets try a little common sense here.

 

So, we've got photos of the left booster venting gas...in the same joint as the right one? Lets see...same design launched under the same identical conditions as the other one and its leaking too? What a revelation!!! :rolleyes: Also consider that the photo of the left booster is AFTER the main tank exploded. That booster being subjected to a huge explosion and the resulting change in aerodynamic stresses after it was blown off and still burning also suggests (to me anyway) any comparison to what might have been going on prior to the blast is invalid. Some people just don't understand basic science. Thats about the goofiest "conspiracy theory" I've seen yet.

 

Also, as I understand it, those seals were designed to reach maximum effectiveness under the pressure of the fuel as it burned (thus the occasional venting seen before as noted by MAK069's friend). The conclusion that the cold weather affected that ability makes perfect sense. IMHO streakeagle sums it up pretty well.

 

"NASA procedures and safety were warped by the political/economic need for flights.

Essentially, given key decisions involving risk assessment such as extremely cold weather on the launch pad or external damage to the airframe, the people making the decisions did not receive or ignored negative feedback from knowledgable engineers in the quest to stay on schedule and given the historically good success rate the shuttle enjoyed."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's space flight.

 

Steve Buscemi said it in Armageddon. "You know we're sitting on four million pounds of fuel, one nuclear weapon and a thing that has 270,000 moving parts all built by the lowest bidder. Makes you feel good, doesn't it? "

 

Ok, the challenger didn't have a nuclear weapon to blow up an asteroid, but the rest stands. We're extremely lucky we've only had 2 shuttle accidents, the apollo 13 semi-accident and one fire on one of the earlier apollo missions still on the launch pad. The russians haven't been nearly as lucky with their rockets.

 

Besides, there's no back history with tons of convenient coincidences and damn near impossibilities. Like how did Lee Harvey Oswald, an ex marine(who are fiercely patriotic) renounce his citizenship, move russia, marry a russian general's daughter, then just move back to the US like if he had a vacation in britain? Forget magic bullets and grassy knolls, look at personal histories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was born 28.01.1986 How's that for a conspiracy? :crazy:

 

The russians haven't been nearly as lucky with their rockets.

Yup... We lost a number of people. The dogs got fried too. :sorry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a stupid conspiracy.

OMG THEY BLAMED ONYL ONE BOOSTER BUT BOTH WER BAD!!!!!!!!!1111111111111

 

The JFK/Area 51 guys would laugh them out of the building of their tinfoil convention.

 

It was a real simple sequence of events that NO ONE has ever disputed.

O-ring failure.

Jet of flame bursts EXT.

Explosion shatters shuttle and sets boosters free until range destruct.

 

I've been where Challenger is buried. I've seen the Columbia debris on the floor of that hangar. The idea that anyone would INTENTIONALLY do it is so ridiculous that it doesn't warrant ANY consideration--there's no reason for it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might be going a bit off topic here, but since this topic is about conspiracies, I might as well add another dumb one here. I found that a conspiracy got brought up about my base a month ago. Apparently, we're to be blamed for a tornado that wrecked havoc on a nearby highway.

 

Anyways, my feelings on conspiracy theorists are that they just like to rock the boat to see the splashing water. The don't care about the facts that are quite obviously there. As long as they've pissed someone off, they've done there job. What really gets me are the folks that believe them. Bunch of gullible dumb f$@!s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember the early hours after the disaster as everyone was wondering WTF happened. It was quite some time (a day? two?) before the reverse angle shots showing the burnthrough of the O-ring on the booster were made public. In the meantime, people were instead speculating on the SMEs blowing since it happened when we heard "Go throttle up" from the orbiter. In fact it was just a coincidence, but that seemed unlikely at the time.

I remember I had just recently watched the miniseries "Space" on TV which started with the multiple rocket failures the US space program suffered in the 50s and wondering what had happened all day until I got home (since there was no TV in the school I was in to see the news...which was odd as my elementary school years earlier DID have them in most classrooms...whatever).

When I saw the actual footage I remember feeling hollow that it seemed so banal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..