Steff Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 Except the problem is you have got the government trying to justify every penny of what they do, and making them push harder than they should because they don't get the sublties of space flight until something happens. Yep. Add to that the fact that the previous set had been used 7, yes.. seven times to that mission being that sets 4th trip. They were doing what they had proven to be within safe limits. Right, no.. hindsight is 20/20. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 Yep. Add to that the fact that the previous set had been used 7, yes.. seven times to that mission being that sets 4th trip. They were doing what they had proven to be within safe limits. Right, no.. hindsight is 20/20. This isn't toward you steff, just general thoughts... Just because it didn't fail in previous missions didn't mean they were used properly. I saw a couple specials that talked about how NASA was warned about lifting off when temps were below 40F that something like what happened could happen. The mateial used for the o-rings had a specific temp spec. Just because they got it to work outside that spec doesn't mean it is guaranteed to work everytime outside the spec. This is something I deal with on a near daily basis. I get a customer telling me they can put more juice through our parts than what they are rated. That's nice and dandy, but when it fails don't come crying to us since it was used outside of our guaranteed spec. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonkeyKongerko Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 I saw a special on this a little while ago: The company that manufactured the O-Ring seals refused to sign off on a launch the day before because they were 100% against the use of the seals at such low temperatures. Every single engineer in their department agreed with this assesment. It took much wrangling and basically the waiver of all responsibility by NASA to get these guys to give the green light and allow the Challenger launch. I can't imagine anyone was feeling very good after that but there were many people who may have been expecting that to happen. In all the years of space flight, America had never had a problem on reentry. This is really a minor miracle considering the fact that so much can go wrong during this hazardous ordeal. A giant piece of frozen foam about the size of a suitcase broke some heat tiles off during launch. Unfortunately nobody could confirm this had happened. That and NASA did not want to perform an unscheduled space walk so someone could walk outside the shuttle and inspect for damage. Also, had they even found the damage on the tiles, there was really no other option for escape for these doomed astronauts. I don't think the shuttle was fitted for docking with the space station or the station simply could not have supported these astronauts for very long. An emergency rescue mission also could not have feasibly been prepared in time. Still, in the name of cost-cutting, NASA would never have attempted a rescue mission of the Columbia or further delayed the launch of Challenger because at the time, NASA launched satellites using the shuttles for money. Since Challenger, I think NASA changed their policies regarding payloads. I'm not sure what kind of future the shuttle program has left. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 This isn't toward you steff, just general thoughts... Just because it didn't fail in previous missions didn't mean they were used properly. I saw a couple specials that talked about how NASA was warned about lifting off when temps were below 40F that something like what happened could happen. The mateial used for the o-rings had a specific temp spec. Just because they got it to work outside that spec doesn't mean it is guaranteed to work everytime outside the spec. This is something I deal with on a near daily basis. I get a customer telling me they can put more juice through our parts than what they are rated. That's nice and dandy, but when it fails don't come crying to us since it was used outside of our guaranteed spec. Fan I absolutely, positively, agree with everything you said. I am in no way trying to make excuses. There is no excuse for loss of life in such a manner IMO. One thing though... it was no where near 40F below in Florida that day.. I don't think it's ever been that cold south of St. Louis.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 That's the one I saw Donkey. Thanks for reminding me of the details! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 Fan I absolutely, positively, agree with everything you said. I am in no way trying to make excuses. There is no excuse for loss of life in such a manner IMO. One thing though... it was no where near 40F below in Florida that day.. I don't think it's ever been that cold south of St. Louis.. No, no I meant temps 40F and below - sorry if I misworded that. below those temps, the material could develop cracks and thusly break apart (or something along those lines). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 In all the years of space flight, America had never had a problem on reentry. This is really a minor miracle considering the fact that so much can go wrong during this hazardous ordeal. A giant piece of frozen foam about the size of a suitcase broke some heat tiles off during launch. Unfortunately nobody could confirm this had happened. That and NASA did not want to perform an unscheduled space walk so someone could walk outside the shuttle and inspect for damage. Also, had they even found the damage on the tiles, there was really no other option for escape for these doomed astronauts. I don't think the shuttle was fitted for docking with the space station or the station simply could not have supported these astronauts for very long. An emergency rescue mission also could not have feasibly been prepared in time. That was the harsh thing, their best chance of survival was trying to fly back in since they weren't equiped to do a space walk or to dock at the station and even if they could do either, there was nothing available to them to repair the situation. As you stated, a rescue operation would never have happened in time due to the amount of time preparig for a launch takes... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 No, no I meant temps 40F and below - sorry if I misworded that. below those temps, the material could develop cracks and thusly break apart (or something along those lines). LOL.. now that you clarified, it makes sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 29, 2004 Author Share Posted January 29, 2004 They are aiming to have the Shuttle flying by September. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4079684/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 29, 2004 Author Share Posted January 29, 2004 Today is NASA's day of rememberance http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/remember/index.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.