Misplaced Pages

Forces

Excellent article. Personally I find this clear, neutral account of the disaster far more moving than a more sensationalist approach. One small niggle: The article says "was immediately torn apart by aerodynamic forces of 20 g". Isn't g a measure of acceleration not of force? Do any of the sources give a figure in Newtons instead? 4u1e 13:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You are right. The sentence as it is makes no physical sense. I've edited it to what I think was the intended meaning. As for the Newtons, I'm not sure that such figure would be relevant, since here we are not talking about a single force exerted on a particular point of the body in question; instead we have distributed aerodynamic and mass forces, whose effects on the body are globally expressed by the load factor. Giuliopp 00:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

NASA stock

Early in Oliver Stone's 1987 movie Wall Street, John McGinley tells Charlie Sheen that Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas) is so greedy he was short selling NASA stock within minutes of the shuttle's explosion (the scene is actually set in 1985, making it anachronistic).

Other then the fact this was set in 1985, does or did NASA even have stock? I can't find anything on the wikipedia article about them being a publicly listed company, it says they're a US government agency which is what I always thought they were 203.109.240.93 14:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right. NASA is a government agency and as such isn't traded on the stock market. MLilburne 16:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the image of the breakup that said 'the crew was trying to spell "Save us!" before being returned to sender'. Bad facts and poor taste, in my opinion.

Location?

Could someone put in that this occured in the United States, and in what city and state? --Fang Aili 18:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else think this is a very US-centric article? I think most people in the US know what the Challenger was, but some young people might not, and people in other nations might not have the foggiest idea. Besides being US-centric, the lack of location is a lack of context. --Fang Aili 02:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree, and just how far offshore was the crew cabin found? Excellent article, but how about a cutaway diagram of the booster or a picture of an actual O-ring... and a clip of Feynman's demonstration of its failure in icewater? What was it made of, and why did it fail at cold temperatures? What was it replaced with after the SRB redesign? 71.125.132.17 08:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Eyewitnesses

The Media coverage mentions the speed that the new spread. Along those lines perhaps mention of the large number of eyewitnesses in Florida should be made. Shuttle launches are clearly visible for well over a hundred miles until the main boosters separate and shut down. A very large number of people in the state saw the unusual plumes that day. Could it qualify as one of the single events with the most eyewitnesses? --Dan 19:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say no, partly because even after 22 years the only video footage I've ever seen of this launch has been the official NASA one. -Rolypolyman (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

There is in fact another video from a different angle, filmed by someone watching the launch from a considerable distance. It was uploaded by the person who filmed it, and can be found on YouTube.OnTheMantle (talk) 02:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Featured article

Looks like a perfect timing for a featured article - we're on the anniversary of the disaster! Bigtop 21:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, this was why we requested the 28th as the day this should be on the main page! MLilburne 21:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a truly excellent and readable article. Congratulations & thanks to everyone who's worked on this :) Kla'quot 23:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it. MLilburne 15:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Speed at breakup & other questions

The article could use a little more info on how survivable the breakup was. "The breakup of the vehicle began at T+73.162 seconds and at an altitude of 48,000 feet (15 km)." Could someone with access to the data add what the speed was where the breakup began? The story right after the accident was that the aerodynamic forces of the capsule tumbling would have killed them, a atatement which is no longer operative. And what was the air pressure outside the crew cabin in the event of a large penetration of the crew capsule, at the altitude where the breakup began and at the max altitude? If they were not wearing a pressure suit, were they just wearing normal clothing, and when did NASA abandon the wearing of pressure suits at launch? Did the Challenger crew even have parachutes on board? With 20/20 hindsight, would a parachute have slowed the crew capsule enough they could have survived the splashdown or could have bailed out when the capsule got down to 5,000 feet or so? An aeronaut survived a freefall descent from a balloon at 100,000 feet if I recall correctly. Edison 21:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You may want to look at the section "Crew escape not possible". Shuttle astronauts wore pressure suits and had ejection seats for the first four Shuttle missions, but they were not worn afterwards. As the article says, "time of useful consciousness at that altitude is just a few seconds; the PEAPs supplied only unpressurized air, and hence would not have helped the crew to retain consciousness." I don't believe that there were personal parachutes on board the shuttle (there are now, but as the article says, a bail out would not have been possible during a Challenger type scenario). I also doubt very much that a larger parachute would have helped at all; given that the crew compartment was tumbling after the accident, it seems unlikely that it would have deployed successfully.

After the Challenger accident, NASA thoroughly reviewed all the escape options. I doubt that it's possible for non-experts to second-guess their conclusions. MLilburne 21:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, understand that astronauts cannot escape from the orbiter during powered flight. However I recall it is possible for commander to abort shortly after launch, separate orbiter from the boosters, and glide for landing at KSC or ditch if necessary, if there is enough time to make that decision prior to breakup. I think article should mention this in its extensive discussion of the possibilities of crew escape. 71.125.132.17 08:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

About Rocket Engines

The article says that " might either strike the shuttle or be aspirated by its main engines". I don't suppose that any of the engines onboard the Space Shuttle aspirate anything from the atmosphere, given that they are rocket engines. Have I missed something? Giuliopp 23:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

According to testimony given to the Rogers Commission by Rocco Petrone, aspiration "happen when the large SRM motors ignite and in effect suck in air." (Rogers Report, volume 1, chapter 5, p. 114). There had been previous incidents with the SRMs aspirating loose debris on the launch pad. (Vaughan, Challenger Launch Decision, p. 330. Hope that answers your question. MLilburne 10:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

SMEs are not SRBs. I'd also jibed at the idea of the SMEs aspirating debris. IIRC the SMEs start first, since if all was not well they could be shut down whereas once the SRBs are lit, remaining stationary ceases to be a viable choice. Do we have a rocket scientist handy who could take us through that one? Midgley 14:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Entrainment? I can make sense of the jet of exhaust from the SRB entraining air thus producing a current of air past the nozzle, which would "suck in" air from above thus tending to drag ice off the structures and accelerate it downwards. I don't know how much force would be involved, and I suspect that vibration would be a bigger influence - shaking stuff off. I don't see the text as written as being good. Midgley 14:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right... it should be SRBs and not main engines. I'll make that change. However, I don't think it can be denied that they were worried about ice being aspirated by the SRBs. MLilburne 15:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

They were certainly worried about ice being shaken off by vibration. I think the worries about aspiration, though, were more to do with loose ice that might already be present on the pad (perhaps shaken loose by the start of the SMEs). I agree that it's unlikely this effect could actually pull ice off the structures.MLilburne 15:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I got the point and clarified the sentence, otherwise it seems to suggest that the SRBs work like a jet engine, which is definitely not the case. Giuliopp 00:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

boost and max-Q

"At T+51.860, the SSMEs began throttling back up to 104% as the vehicle approached Max Q, the period of maximum aerodynamic pressure on the vehicle." As I understood it, throttle down was to limit max-Q, and the engines then throttled back up _after_ max-Q, thus avoiding excessive forces, and then maintaining acceleration. Is the text correct? Midgley 14:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You understand it the same way I do. However, the time is from a pretty reliable source, which clearly shows that the throttle up started before Max Q: http://spaceflightnow.com/challenger/timeline/ MLilburne 15:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. Midgley 01:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Tufte was specific about Microsoft Powerpoint, the article is not

"Information designer Edward Tufte has used the Challenger accident as an example of the problems that can occur when information is presented unclearly. He argues that if Morton Thiokol engineers had more clearly presented the data that they had on the relationship between cold temperatures and burn-through in the solid rocket booster joints, they might have succeeded in persuading NASA managers to cancel the launch. Tufte has also argued that poor presentation of information may have affected NASA decisions during the last flight of the Columbia."

He argues about Microsoft Powerpoint. Is there a cogent reason why that argument should be as diluted as it is in teh current text? I don't think it should be. Midgley 01:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The Challenger disaster occured before the PowerPoint era began. From what I recall from Visual Explanations, the current text is not a bad summary. I'll try to get my hands on a copy of the book again and make it more precise. For the Columbia disaster, he definitely names PowerPoint as the villain, but the real problem he identifies is bad writing habits that the software tends to encourage, rather than innate problems in the software. I don't work for Microsoft ;) . How about if we aim for, say, two paragraphs summarizing Tufte's arguments about the Challenger disaster, and two or three sentences for his arguments about the Columbia disaster? Kla'quot 06:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

We should also include counter-arguments from here: Representation and Misrepresentation: Tufte and the Morton Thiokol Engineers on the Challenger. With the arguments and counter-arguments, we could have a whole new section on the communication deficiencies that contributed to the decision to launch. This would make the article longer but I think it would be worthwhile. Kla'quot 06:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, although I find Tufte's arguments fascinating, I think that another section in this article would be too much and would push it over the limits of readability length-wise. It's already over 60K and thus we really should be starting to think about summary style and about splitting off sections into their own articles. I've thought for some time about creating an article specifically on the Space Shuttle Challenger launch decision, and the expansion that you've suggested would fit quite handily in that article. What do people think? MLilburne 08:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed the article is long enough, and adding a detailed "launch decision" section would (a) make it too long and (b) unbalance the article with excessive content on that on one item. As you suggested, linking to a separate "Challenger launch decision" article is the best way to handle it.

As stated above Microsoft Powerpoint didn't exist until 1990; Challenger happened in January 1986. So the whole Powerpoint thing is a red herring regarding Challenger -- this article is Challenger, NOT Columbia. Nonetheless Tufte's argument is that poorly designed visual presentations (manually-drawn overhead transparencies in this case) contributed to the launch decision. With the benefit of hindsight he constructs a graph that he thinks might have been more persuasive in preventing the launch: . However examination of the graph shows his curve fit is so poor quality it has little predictive value. In statistical terms the confidence interval and prediction interval are poor. To a knowledgeable person (and we assume his audience knew basic high school statistics) this would indicate lack of preparation and poor understanding of statistics, and might have weakened the "no launch" case even more than happened.

There was no shortage of forceful written and verbal arguments against launch. The Thiokol engineering manager arguing for no launch couldn't have put it much more forcefully: "...I don’t know why NASA would ever launch below 40 degrees Fahrenheit if that is what the SRM (Solid Rocket Motor) was qualified to. In fact, I made the direct statement that if anything happened to this launch, I told them I sure wouldn’t want to be the person that had to stand in front of a board of inquiry to explain why we launched this outside of the qualification of the solid rocket motor..."

Written memos prior to the launch warned Thiokol of the O-ring problem: "...if we do not take immediate action to dedicate a team to solve the problem...we stand in jeopardy of losing a flight with all the launch pad facilities."

There's lots of interesting material on the Challenger launch decision: , particularly in the Rogers Commission hearings: , , and supporting documents: , A separate properly-written encyclopedic article seems like a good idea. Joema 14:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Great comments, Joema. Spinning out Space Shuttle Challenger launch decision is an excellent idea. Kla'quot 15:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, that sounds like an agreement. I will create the new article as a stub and then we can work on spinning it out. We'll want to remove some of the "Pre-launch conditions" and "Rooted in history" sections from this article and place them in context in the new article. MLilburne 17:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hold the line on article size

This article has actually been improved as a result of its time on the front page, which is fantastic. However, I think we have to be very careful about continuing to add to it and expand it ad infinitum. It was already at the upper bounds of the acceptable length when it was a FAC, and it's just kept expanding since then. I'm going to be keeping an eye on its length and trying to trim down the prose a little bit. (See WP:SIZE.) As I mentioned above, it's also time that we started considering summary style and subarticles (see WP:SUMMARY). Personally I think a good place to start would be with an article specifically on the Space Shuttle Challenger launch decision. I'd welcome comments on the idea. MLilburne 08:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Media Coverage

I recall like many of my age watching this on Newsround in the UK. A few short comments about the global media coverage would be an improvement, its a little US-centric. Catwhoorg 13:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No Explosion

Correct as described. Here is some more info. (I'm not a good enough editor to try and fit this in to a Featured Article, so maybe one of you can do so...) The Flight Dynamics Office (FIDO) was relaying a message to the Flight Director (FLIGHT) that the Supervisor of Range Operations (SRO) had destroyed what was left of the launch vehicle. These communications were not done on the main OIS Net channel that the Public Affairs commentary monitors, so at first blush it would seem that the vehicle was destroyed by explosion. The Public Affairs commentator (PAO) would have been more correct to say "The vehicle has been exploded".

The back-channel OIS comms went like this:

  PAO: .... Obviously a major malfunction. (pause) We have no downlink.
  FIDO: FLIGHT, FIDO
  FLIGHT: Go
  FIDO: SRO Reports vehicle exploded
  FLIGHT: (long pause) Roger
  PAO: We have a report from the flight dynamics officer....

Arakunem 15:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The Last Communication

Why do people always say that the last communication from Challenger was "Go at throttle up"? Probably because its in the NASA transcript - what should have been said, not was actually said. Its clear that the last communication was "Go with throttle up". Even Capcom Richard Covey says "Go with throttle up" - this can be seen on the film made at mission control that day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.19.57.170 (talk • contribs)

The last communication was "Go at throttle up." That's the wording of the call. Have you ever seen a picture of that famous CAPCOM neck tie with all the calls from the first shuttle launch? It said "Go at throttle up." "Go with throttle up" doesn't even make any sence. "Go at throttle up" means that all systems are go at the point of throttle up (which occured at about 58 second). Plus, everytime I listen to the air-to-ground audio from the launch, I hear it as "Go at throttle up." When Col. Covey says "at," it almost sounds like he is saying "et" which can be mistaken for "with." Boringguy 05:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that the call actually happens after throttle-up itself has occured. Go with throttle-up implies that they are go to carry it out, so NASA would not use such a call to avoid ambiguity. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 12:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

We use "Go at throttle up" because that's what the NASA transcript says. Inserting different wording would be original research, which is against Misplaced Pages standards.

Also be advised the main engine throttle operations are totally automatic, under computer control. The astronauts don't vary throttle settings except in rare contingency situations. The flight controller "throttle up" call and the crew readback of that call are simply an acknowledgement the computer-controlled SSME throttle changes are happening (or have happened). The calls don't indicate action by the crew to change throttle settings. As GWSimulations said, the actual throttle up event happened before the call, automatically under computer control, at T+51.8 seconds. See table "STS 51-L Sequence of Major Events" (scroll down): . Joema 14:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't agree. Many people with whom I've talked have said it says "go with". Also, regarding CAPCOM calls, in STS-26, the ground communicator says "Discovery, Go with throttle up". It seems in this case that people are hearing what should have been said, not what was actually said. Shades of "One small step for {a} man"....? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.197.238.135 (talk) 10:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

If you don't believe me, perhaps you'll believe the guy who was the Flight Director: 29 January 1986 News Conference Boringguy 15:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen the video of that press conference before! Is there any more where that came from? MLilburne 16:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

In case anyone can't see the video, it's Jay Greene (Ascent Flight Director on Challenger STS-51-L) speaking at a news conference on 29 January 1986. He explains (1) The call is "go AT throttle up" (2) Purpose is to indicate all systems on vehicle are looking good, it's NOT a "go" for the commander to throttle-up (3) Call is made AFTER the throttle-up event is completed. Joema 20:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there an audio file of the commands given to Challenger? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.19.57.170 (talk) 11:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Do you mean in the article? (I gather you've heard the audio already.) In any case, the Challenger astronauts weren't actually given any commands during the launch, only status reports. MLilburne 11:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I heard "Go with throttle up" a hundred times. Anything else is revisionist, whether it's the official line or what-he-meant-to-say. Same with "One small step for man". I believe my ears. 71.125.132.17 08:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You should listen to the audio tapes more clearly then. The problem is that the audio quality is simply bad (for untrained ears standards). Also note how "go at throttle" conjoins when you speak it very quickly and a little unclear (the latter to simulate radio conditions). "go at" becomes worse because they are adjoined syllables. When you speak it quickly you almost skip the entire 'a' sound. Similarly the consonants "at throttle" have a same problem due to the "t th". Given the conditions of how the words were spoken, combined with they way they were recorded and added to that peoples expectation that you are being told what WILL(/IS) happen(ing) opposed to what HAS happened when you watch something like that. The human mind is very good at "correcting" such issues by basically making up information, in this case there was little information, and with th being the most audible sound, most minds went "must be the word 'with', between go and throttle". Almost every major newssource that detailed the event at the time quoted this incorrectly as well, so you see why many people might THINK that, but it's not correct and even as soon as 29 January 1986 NASA started correcting people on this. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It is most certainly "...go AT throttle-up." I have a copy of the film shot in Mission Control room when the accident happened. CAPCOM Richard Covey clearly says "at". It's a nominal call to the crew, tells them that the SSMEs are performing as expected as they throttle up out of the "bucket." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.212.206.162 (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

SRB POV of Challenger disaster

I found this video at google.com and it shows the Challenger disaster from the SRB camera. I didn't know they had cameras on the SRBS.

By the way, here is the link:

Great find! One change - I think that this camera was mounted on the External Tank. Its view is high above the orbiter, and the SRBs are clearly visible in the footage. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I suspect this to be a fake; mounting cameras to the ET was only a recent innovation. Why would NASA keep quiet about this for all these years? They've never mentioned this camera before, and it would have been during the Rogers Commission. Also, when the oxygen tank exploded, it surely would have vapourised the camera? Also, the report on the disaster says that the right hand SRB broke free from its aft attachment point and swiveled into the ET, with the aft portion striking the right wing of the orbiter. We see nothing of that in the video. Its a fake, QED.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.197.238.135 (talk) 10:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Yeah, that's a fake. NASA didn't start mounting cameras on the ET until much later. And if it had existed we would have seen it in the video analysis. I'm removing the link. MLilburne 10:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Given the file description says "montage .. Original video by RocketCam, Atlantis STS-112 spce mission", I don't think we need to seriously consider the possiblity it's real. Shimgray | talk | 18:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

That footage was the famous "ET Cam" from STS-112 (Google it) as stated on the file description. However, there were cameras on board Challeger's SRB. They were engineering film cameras designed to capture parachute deployment. The films were lost in the range safety destruct. Boringguy 01:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Bad Math?

The "media coverage" section now states "seventeen percent of respondents in one study reported that they had seen the shuttle launch, while eighty-five percent said that they had learned of the accident within an hour". 17 + 85 = ???. This is obviously wrong, but the citation is from a journal. Does anyone have the original journal article or another source? If not we should just remove this section altogther. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

There's not necessarily any inconsistency, nor any math error. "Percentages of responders" are often stated that way -- there's no implication the numbers must total 100%. E.g, a population is given a medical treatment. It's often described something like: "x% responded after one day, y% after two days", etc. There's no implication or necessity that x%+y% = 100%. You're simply stating the % of the total population that responded by a given time. You don't add up the % that responded at each point in time. Joema 21:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah... i suppose so. Still, if someone has the original journal article, or another source, do you think we could check this, and add those kind of statistical details in a footnote? It does look quite weird to me. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have the original journal article and I'm the one who wrote the section. In my reading, the 85% *includes* the 17%, so there's no inconsistency at all. MLilburne 09:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Disaster the right word?

Looking up the meaning of disaster, while it has a very cool pun, it doesn't really seem like the right word. There have been car accidents with 7 deaths, probably military helicopter crashes, etc. I don't mean to minimize what happened, but when compared to Sept. 11 or hurricanes hitting densely populated areas, the Challenger accident was at most a psychological disaster. 171.71.37.207 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I also wondered about that, but I suppose it was a disaster in many ways aside from the deaths of the astronauts and their guest--for the U.S. space program, for Reagan's political and public relations initiatives, for NASA's pre-launch technical review policies, and for America's image of technological infallibility. A couple of years ago I saw a reference to "the Three Mile Island catastrophe" in an Associated Press story. Now there's a poorly-chosen label (zero deaths, zero injuries).

--NameThatWorks 03:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally I dislike the use of the term "disaster" in connection with Challenger (as you'll see, I used "accident" in most of the article), but I didn't think it was worth the trouble of getting the page renamed. If someone else wanted to do it, I certainly wouldn't object. MLilburne 11:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

While the term "disaster" may seem exaggerated, we should be guided by the already-established, prevailing practice by historians, other encyclopedia writers and news media regarding the nomenclature. The Challenger loss is commonly described as "Challenger disaster". Both Encarta and Britannica so describe it. Misplaced Pages's usage is currently consistent with those, so adopting a new and different term seems unnecessary. Joema 16:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree with Joema's view of it. Yeah, "disaster" is a bit much when "accident" will suffice, but being consistent with other scholarly works is also important. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Photo

Got any use for this photo? User:Zscout370 03:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Strong Jetwind & Roger Boisjoly

The National Geographic show Seconds From Disaster stated that a strong jetwind occured during the fatal flight.The jetwind was first noticed when Eastern Airlines Flight 677,a Boeing 757,was cruising over Cape Kennedy,and encountered the strong jetwind.When Challenger exploded,it was exactly in the area of the strong jetstream.Some photos show that the blasting smoke after the explosion went sigzag until coming above the jetstream,and contunied to climb vertically.

The night before the launch,Firecall booster engineer Roger Boisjoly had a scenario similar to the disaster.The icy conditions would make the o-ring burn out and a disaster would happen on the launh pad.He tried to convince NASA not to launch,but his warning was ignored.He showed the Firecall managers photos of the rocket boosters from Discovery`s near fatal flight one year earlier,that the o-ring nearly burned out,and could have exploded the same way as Challenger.

Key of events during flight:

73 seconds before disaster-A hole in the o-ring caused the o-ring to nearly burn out,and if it did,a disaster would have happened at the launch pad,possibly resulting more fatalities.

70 seconds-The hole get`s filled by alliminium peices,which prevents a launch pad disaster.

13 seconds-The shuttle encounters the strong jetstream,and shakes voilently,this makes the alliminium peices fall out from the hole,making the flame getting able to burn trough it.A flame then appears visible on a video footage filmed during the fatal flight.

3 seconds-The flame burns down the o-ring,making the rocket booster separate from the tank.

1 second-The booster hits the tank,and the flame makes the rocket fuel ignite.

0 seconds-The shuttle explodes,and 7 astronauts are dead.

Title of article

I've change the introduction to eliminate one word. Certain events have names, like the Falklands War or World War II. The Challenger accident does not have a title. Some American TV and news broadcasts like to give events a title, almost as if it were a film or theatre production. We should not copy such practices in Misplaced Pages. So I have not highlighted the title of the article into the introduction as is done with biographies or names of wars.

An example is a news broadcast may have theme music and the headlines "Showdown with Saddam" or "Mayhem in Madrid". This is a bit silly. Let's not copy them. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you for your thoughtfulness about this! I agree we want to avoid the dramatic practices of certain other media! But after some review and thought, I assert it is correct to use the phrase "Space Shuttle Challenger disaster" in the introductory sentence of this article. (If you prefer "accident" to "disaster" that would certainly be understandable, as it would be a bit less dramatic.) The article cannot, however, be titled, "Space Shuttle Challenger", because that is the title of another article entirely! And the article's introductory text should (per WP:MOS I think) include its title. (sdsds - talk) 16:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

As discussed above, "Challenger disaster" has been well-established for years. Both Encarta and Britannica so describe it. Misplaced Pages's usage is currently consistent with those, so adopting a new and different term seems unnecessary. However using that term for the title is one thing. Repetitively using it in the article body adds nothing. I think the wording prior to the last change is better -- more concise. Also, the shuttle is not currently operated by NASA but by United Space Alliance, so that phrase seems misleading. True it was operated by NASA in 1986, but stating that is an extraneous detail. The lead section should describe the topic, not who operates the shuttle, who built it, etc. Joema (talk) 13:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that feedback about the change! Reading WP:LEAD, though, it seems the lead should establish context. The location of a spaceflight launch disaster doesn't tell the reader much about the entity for which the launch was conducted. (E.g. European launches take place in South America; Russian launches in Khazakstan, etc.) Even if it had been a United Space Alliance launch, the phrasing would be "launched on behalf of NASA". As the reader can easily determine, NASA establishes the context of this having been a United States civilian launch. (sdsds - talk) 21:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops! I should have emphasized more that in fact I agree with Joema's assertion that NASA, per se, isn't so important in the lead of this article. What is important is expressing succinctly and with a WP:NPOV that these people died while participating in the civilian spaceflight program of the United States. "NASA" is just a succinct way of saying that. Indeed it seemed succinct enough to squeeze it into the first sentence, but if someone wants to move it to a later sentence that would be understandable. Joema, is it safe to assume the other wording changes to the first sentence (i.e. mentioning that people died and not mentioning the time of day) are OK? (sdsds - talk) 23:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's OK but overall quality has diminished over the months due to a succession of ill-coordinated edits. E.g, the first three sentences mention "broke" apart, and then "disintegrated" twice. That's excessively wordy, redundant and unecessary. Note the wording in this version, which is more concise and clearer: . Joema (talk) 05:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Anniversary not newsworthy anymore?

Noticed today that I couldn't find anything about any memorials or rememberances scheduled for today on CNN.com or USAToday.com in honor of the 7 astronauts who bravely gave their lives. 22 years later and it seems like they have been forgotten by the news media. How sad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArcAngel (talk • contribs) 19:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC) We can't speak for CNN but Misplaced Pages lists the event on the main page under anniversaries. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Challenger Revealed

I think that mention must be made of Richard C. Cook's "Challenger Revealed" (ISBN 1560259809)published by Basic Books in January 2007; whatever one may think of Cook's conclusions, this book, written by someone inside NASA merits consideration, especially in so far as possible deeper, systemic reasons behind the disaster (a military/political angle to the story)Guerre1859 (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Why no Morton Thiokol liability?

After the Challenger accident, Thiokol agreed to "voluntarily accept" the monetary penalty in exchange for not being forced to accept liability.

This sentence shouts for an explanation. Can someone knowledgeable add a sentence or two explaining why this was allowed? Tempshill (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Cause and Time of Death question

When the capsule was recovered, weren't the bodies inside dismembered? Its gruesome but shouldn't it be mentioned in the article? Also, weren't photos taken of the recovered capsule itself? --98.232.182.66 (talk) 10:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Spoken word link

I'm not sure why this has remained like it has for over a year, but the link at the bottom, that is in a box that has the spoken version of this article, is causing some massive formatting issues. It squished everything below it into the tiny, right-aligned box, including the See also section and External links, as well as the template. From looking at the history, this has been this way for a very, very long time. It also causes horizontal scrolling, because so much stuff cannot fit in that one inch box.

I tried to figure out what is causing the issue, but was not able to resolve it. I removed for now, the spoken word box:

{{Spoken Misplaced Pages-4|2007-01-28|--Space_Shuttle_Challenger_Disaster--.ogg|--Space_Shuttle_Challenger_Disaster_part_2--.ogg|--Space_Shuttle_Challenger_Disaster_part_3--.ogg|--Space_Shuttle_Challenger_Disaster_part_4--.ogg|2007-01-28}}

I'd appreciate it if someone could figure out why it is causing the problems, and fix it so it does not adversely affect the format of the page. Thanks! Ariel♥Gold 12:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, per WP:MOS and WP:LS, I increased slightly the image sizing in the lead section. Also, the external links had two YouTube links to network news broadcasts (ABC/CBS), which is a copyright violation, so I have removed those. I also removed the Snopes link, as it is not relevant, since it is about a fake rumor. Ariel♥Gold 12:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Political/media pressure?

This article seems to link the reason for the launch starting at a bad time was due to political and media pressure to get it going faster after many delays. However, I just read an article from msnbc about myths about the Challenger disaster, which although may not be reputable, says:

"There were pressures on the flight schedule, but none of any recognizable political origin. Launch officials clearly felt pressure to get the mission off after repeated delays, and they were embarrassed by repeated mockery on the television news of previous scrubs, but the driving factor in their minds seems to have been two shuttle-launched planetary probes. The first ever probes of this kind, they had an unmovable launch window just four months in the future."

I don't know if this is true or not, but I think it is worth looking in to, and I couldn't find anything about these probes on the page. G man yo (talk) 14:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It's published in a reliable source, so if you think that the article can be reworked based on this source, then go for it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Only one problem: I don't know how to cite sources. I guess I could learn, though. G man yo (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Background on NASA

Although this is a great article, I feel that it is missing background information. I think that giving a brief background of NASA and their policies, people's view of NASA and people's view of space travel in general is needed. The article sort of intersperses some of this info throughout the whole thing, but I think that a section on it would help. G man yo (talk) 07:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction re: "No Explosion"

The "No Explosion" section does an excellent job of dispelling the mistaken notion that Challenger exploded. And YET....right in the second paragraph of the introduction: "...and causing a massive explosion as this fuel was immediately ignited..." Someone with more time than I have at the moment needs to go thru the article and correct any such contradictions. StanislavJ (talk) 00:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Most of the problem "explosion" references were added by an anonymous editor on 17-Oct 2008. I tried to fix those. I also restored a more appropriate encyclopedic tone and format to the lead section. There's no need for great in-line detail in the first section, especially when terms are hotlinked for easy reference. Adding great detail in line causes digressions which impede readability. See Elements of Style. Joema (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Bert Hinkler trivia

Regarding this edit, if someone feels the info adds to the article, it could be supported by this online link. Offline sources include "Elizabeth Gosch. "Fed: Bundaberg historic house home to Challenger memorabilia." AAP General News . Newspaper Source Plus, EBSCOhost (accessed May 25, 2009)." and "David Dale. 2001. "SIGN POSTS." Sydney Morning Herald, The : 24. Newspaper Source Plus, EBSCOhost (accessed May 25, 2009)." I don't personally feel strongly that it adds to the article, but I did find sources that support it and am providing them here in case someone wishes that info to be restored in a way that can be cited.  Frank  |  talk  17:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

christy mcauliffe - big help for other things too

She was not only a space piolot but, also a volenteer at church.Also, a girl scout leeder and YMCA founder.She worked at a hospital.