Talk:Space Shuttle Challenger disaster/Archive 2

message: The potential first teacher in space was killed on this disaster, so who was the first teacher in space who was launched and landed safely from a successful mission? Bigtop 22:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Barbara Morgan will be the first when she launches on STS-118 next June. Boringguy 12:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct.  Thus there have been no "Teacher in space" type missions completed since Challenger, but one is coming.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First teacher in space 

message: The five references given do not cover the entire article, pretty much all of the references in culture section isn't referenced, and it's not even in prose. I don't know if that single reference up top is giving everything for the exact flight sequence, but this needs to be made more clear, call the reference explicitly in the text if you can. Many of the sections don't seem to be referenced at all, and I notice a small group of citation needed tags. Turn that popular reference section into prose, and get some more references is the moral of the story here. 208.62.171.226 19:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, this is User:Homestarmy, for some weird reason, it keeps logging me off whenever I try to type onto this page. Homestarmy 19:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, and now i'm back, that's weird. Homestarmy 19:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Am I the only one who wonders whether the popular culture references section actually belongs in a seperate article? MLilburne 12:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not alone. As currently written, that section is a travesty and an embarrassment to the article. A few pop cultural references might be appropriate if they are widely known, such as a plot element on a major TV show. However in general "References in popular culture" sections are magnets for mindless trivia, often in poor taste and which have no meritorious contribution. This is an encyclopedia, not Usenet, not a high school locker room, not a blog joke site. Wikipeida is already suffering from credibility problems as a serious reference work. Sections like this (as currently written) weaken Wikipedia and diminish the valuable contributions of serious editors. Joema 13:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really have the energy to re-write it myself (I'd rather concentrate on the body of the article), but I wonder whether hiving it off into a seperate article might just be passing the buck. Either way, I think a consensus needs to be reached on what to do with it, and then something needs to be done. MLilburne 19:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Delisted GA

message: This article's recent delisting from GA status has prompted me to start a fairly thorough overhaul. It really ought to be a GA, at least, but there are quite a few things that need improvement. What I have done or am planning to do includes:
* (1) Adding citations and removing a few uncited (and unhelpful) statements
* 2) Writing a new section on "Pre-launch conditions" which focuses on the cold weather prior to launch, and the concerns that it prompted.
* 3) Restructuring the timeline to include the events listed in the "Failure sequence" subsection (which I have eliminated).
* 4) Adding more information on the accident investigation, both on the Rogers Report and on the Report of the House Committee on Science and Technology (which isn't currently mentioned).
* 5) Expanding the "Cause of failure" subsection and perhaps promoting it to its own section
* 6) Possibly (pending the results of the discussion above) removing the section of "References in popular culture" to its own article.
If any of this is problematic, or if there are further things that need to be looked at, please let me know. MLilburne 14:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhaul 

message: Per the discussion above (under "Delisted GA"), I've made a start on converting the "References in Popular Culture" section into prose. I would have at least mentioned the numerous songs and television shows that referenced Challenger (while not discussing them in detail), but I didn't have any citations for the references in the old section, and I'm trying to be fairly strict about only including references in the article that can be cited. MLilburne 13:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems you've removed nearly all of the "References in Popular Culture" section, rather than moving it to a separate article.. was this intended? or were you planning on putting some of it back? Mlm42 13:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that it merits a seperate article as it stands. I would like to try to integrate some more information about Challenger and popular culture into this article, but I'm not sure that I have the time at the moment. Do you have an opinion on what ought to be done? I would certainly appreciate another point of view. MLilburne 14:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah, fair enough, another article probably isn't appropriate; but a good sized section should be, since this event did affect many people around the world, and this is reflected by how often it is referenced in popular culture. to draw an comparison, the featured article RMS Titanic has a sizable popular culture section (even when it was elected a featured article). Mlm42 17:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now put as much into the prose popular culture section as seems notable, and as I have reliable references for. Still a work-in-progress, but hopefully it's an improvement. MLilburne 11:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References in popular culture 

message: You really did do a great job with the remake, and I think this qualifies as a good article (despite a few formatting issues, nothing too serious). If somebody wanted to refine it, you could try and reposition the pictures to eliminate some of the blank space, and try to clean up the headings/consolidate a bit. Otherwise, another great Wikipedia article. Pcbene 13:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the comments. I'm afraid that I don't know much about formatting, so will have to think about how to make those changes. If anyone else wants to help out, I would really appreciate it... MLilburne 10:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article

message: In reviewing the article in accordance to Good Article Criteria, I have decided to decline the GA nomination at this time for concerns listed below.
1. It is well written. - Needs Improvement
* The lead needs some work in accordance to WP:LEAD to provide a more complete overview of the article. For instance, Christa McAuliffe is the only crew member mentioned in the lead and there is not any mention of the changes and reforms that happened in the aftermath.  (Done)
* In going through the WP:MOS, I can't really see the encyclopedic form in having a "Transcript timeline" of the entire disaster down to what is being spoken on the intercom. That is a bit of information overload in an article that is meant to be a description of the Challenger disaster. A paragraph form, with a prose summary of what happened and link to a Wiki-source with the transcript seems to be more appropriate. I could possibly see the benefit in having a content fork with a link to Timeline of the Challenger Disaster but including the whole transcript doesn't seem to fit with what this article should be. (Done)
* There is a little OR-ish tone and speculation in the section Crew escape was not possible. Part of the concern stems from the lack of references in this area. I would encourage the editors to take a look and maybe do some rewording to alleviate the OR tone. (Done)
* The External links area is a bit long. I see merit in all the links but I would encourage some editorial discretion and pare down the list to the top 5-7 links that offer the most benefit to the reader. The longer the list is, the more tempting it grows to become a link farm with more and more added. (Done)
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. - Pass
* The article was easily verifiable, incorporating the use of in-line cites direct the reader to reliable sources. However I would recommend reviewing WP:CITE to see how to consolidate the cites and remove duplicate footnotes. (Done)
3. It is broad in its coverage. - Needs Improvement
* There is amply coverage on the different investigations in the accident and even reports on what their findings was but details on what NASA did in response to the disaster and the investigation is missing. The Challenger disaster had a profound effect on the shuttle mission program and that should have treatment in the article. (Done.)
4. It follows the neutral point of view policy - Pass
* The article does an excellent job of covering an emotional topic in a very clear NPOV tone.
5. It is stable - Pass
* The article did get a bit of a rewrite since its delisting but has been more or less stable through its history.
6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. - Pass
* The article makes excellent use of images to help illustrate the topic.
I want to thank the article's editors for the hardwork and dedication that they have put into the article to get it up to this point. There are many positive aspects of the article and it is in solid position to meet the criteria for Good Article status in the near future. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Agne 22:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your comments. I think there's been a little bit of confusion, as the article had already been passed as GA, but for some reason it was left on the list of articles to be reviewed. Nonetheless, I will abide by your judgment, and try to correct some of the deficiencies in the article over the next few weeks. MLilburne 10:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have now made the changes requested and will be resubmitting the article for consideration. MLilburne 15:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Review 

message: what was the maximum altitude the shuttle reached? i didn't see it in the article, but may have missed it.. Mlm42 11:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good question. I'm not sure, but will see if I can look it up and include it in the article. MLilburne 12:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. MLilburne 07:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: cool, thanks. Mlm42 08:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  maximum altitude? 

message: It may be a picture of Challenger, but in my opinion it is superfluous to the article, since the "SRB plume" picture shows basically the same thing, only more clearly. Does anyone think there's a good reason for it to stay? MLilburne 08:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do.  I think it's useful because it shows the other side of the shuttle stack.  Thus I think it should stay for sake of completeness.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. I think if we were making arguments about completeness, there could be a lot more pictures that could be included. But I suppose I see your point. If it stays in for that reason, though, maybe it should have a caption that emphasises that point? MLilburne 07:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: i'm generally not a fan of that image.. it's fairly low quality, and although it shows a different angle, it doesn't particularly add much more. Mlm42 13:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Cocoa beach" picture 

message: I read this article carefully, and passed it as GA. I read the suggestions made by Agne27, and to my eyes, you have addressed all concerns. This is an excellent article, and I found the prose to be very compelling. I actually thought it an "A" class article. Jeffpw 22:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Passed

message: It was mentioned in the first peer review that the section on Challenger's crew didn't look very good at the top of the page, and that perhaps it should be moved to the bottom. I agree that it doesn't look very good, but I'm not sure that it fits very well at the bottom either. Now, of course, we have the STS-51-L article, so my feeling is that discussions of the crew belong in that article and not this one. I have removed the crew section so that this article (which is getting quite long) focuses only on the disaster. MLilburne 10:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, although there's a natural tendency to ask "what about the crew info?". In normal linear presentations of this subject (e.g, TV documentary, newspaper, etc.) of course the crew info must be included. But Wikipedia is a heavily hyperlinked, information-rich format. The crew info is one click away under STS-51-L. We must also remember this is an encyclopedia article that documents the topic, not a TV documentary which is often biased by emotional appeal for ratings. I've seen STS-51-L TV documentaries where I came away knowing little besides it "blew up" and Christa McAuliffe died. Relocating the crew info to a separate article at first may seem odd, but upon reflection I think it's OK. Joema 23:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of crew section 

message: An annotated bibliography on the accident. MLilburne 10:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  For future reference 

message: Boringguy has removed a sentence on the NBC live coverage of the Challenger launch, saying in the edit summary that "NBC did not show the launch live. The Today Show is 3 hours old on the west coast." There was a solid source for the statement that was removed, namely, as cited: Wright, John C., Dale Kunkel; Marites Pinon; Aletha C. Huston (Spring 1989). "How Children Reacted to Televised Coverage of the Space Shuttle Disaster". Journal of Communication 39 (2): 27. Thus, I have put the statement back in. If there is verifiable evidence this is wrong, however, I would certainly be interested in hearing it. MLilburne 11:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NBC is an even better source. See the Challenger: Beyond the Tragedy clip at MSNBC.com. Boringguy 15:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, fair enough. For future reference, it would have been helpful if you'd mentioned this when you removed the sentence for the first time, just so that others could verify the source of your information. MLilburne 16:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NBC news coverage 

message: > It was later determined that these smoke puffs were caused by the opening and closing of a damaged clevis in the aft field joint of the right-hand SRB...
Well, as far as I know there was no "damaged clevis". Tang and clevis were NOT damaged, they were misdesigned. Ok to edit?
> However, aluminum oxides from the burned cryogenic propellants
Aluminum from CRYOGENIC propellants???
> at T+60.238 there was visual evidence of flame through the rupture impinging on the external tank.
Evidence of... the rest of sentence doesn't sound like correct English (at least to me).
> Challenger veered from its correct attitude with respect to the local air flow and was immediately torn apart by aerodynamic forces of 20 (g)--well over its limit of 3 g.
Why (g) is in ()s? Why double-dash? Also, I think that 3 g is operational limit, not design limit. According to x1.4 NASA rule, design limit should be at least 4.2 g.
> the PEAPs supplied only unpressurized air, and hence would not have helped the crew retain consciousness.
helped the crew TO retain consciousness.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.212.29.187 (talk • contribs) 
:These are all good points. Please do go ahead and edit anything that you feel needs work. MLilburne 12:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Edited —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.212.29.171 (talk) 11:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Damaged clevis - ?! 

message: I've nominated this article for Today's Featured Article on 28 January 2007. Its nomination is loacated here. Please take a look and comment on the proposal. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 12:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This should have been on the main page today! 198.203.175.175 (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Today's Featured Article nomination 

message: Please don't post links to YouTube videos about the Challenger accident. The one that was posted last night has already been removed from YouTube due to a terms of service violation. Besides which, the External Links already include a link to the official NASA documentary on the accident, which is hosted at the Internet Archive and is thus a lot more likely to be there for the long haul. MLilburne 08:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  YouTube links 

message: This article is on the front page, but doesn't appear to be protected from anonymous users like me.
Also, Need Another Seven Astronauts. --90.240.34.177 00:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOPRO Gdo01 01:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: A complete response would include the fact that this is a disputed policy. See Wikipedia talk:Main Page featured article protection. –Outriggr § 05:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Until it is overturned, that is the only explanation necessary. Believe me, I disagree with it too but that doesn't mean we shouldn't tell people about the policy. Gdo01 06:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: Reviewing edit: 17:20, 11 December 2006 Blueboy96 (Talk | contribs) (→Rogers Commission investigation=)
Is 'tang' the right word here? I'm not sure if tang is a technical term or not, never heard it myself.
:Yes, the SRB Field Joints were a standard type of joint called "Tang and Clevis"Arakunem 15:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tang

message: I'm a little bit surprised that this article doesn't include any mention of all the sick jokes (like the above anon alludes to) that circulated widely after the accident. Now I understand why they might not have been included, since it's a sensitive subject and those who worked on this article are focusing on the engineering.
But there should be a section on them under references in popular culture, since IIRC at least one radio DJ was fired for cracking the Tang joke onair. You can also find that Michael Lewis mentions in Liar's Poker that the day of the accident, several people in different parts of the world called in with the Need Another Seven Astronauts joke (might also go under the part about how rapidly the news spread). Finally, there's a backpage column in The New Republic (don't know by who, Kinsley maybe?) a week or so later daring to suggest that the jokes were a popular reaction to the way the media told Americans how they would feel. (And there can be a link to one of the online archives of those jokes which still exist).
I mean, I remember, and I think everyone else old enough to does, just how widespread those jokes were. There's enough material there to make some discussion of it encyclopedic and relevant. If there's some reason why, I'll respect it, but I think it's a noticeable omission. Daniel Case 05:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a very good question. The jokes used to be mentioned in the old "popular culture" section, which was just a list that people added to. What tended to happen was that they got more and more tasteless, and were added without any effort to set them in cultural and historical context. There is definitely an argument for mentioning them if they can be discussed in the context of reliable secondary sources (like the New Republic article, which I had not encountered), but I have to say that I'm afraid the section would go downhill very quickly. MLilburne 09:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Literally the first thing I noticed when I checked the article.  I don't know if it was an '80s thing or just a way to cope but there were a lot of jokes, to the point where I believe it easily passes the notability test.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.45.44 (talk) 04:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jokes 

message: I've always wondered if footage of the launch/explosion exists aside from the official NASA clip.  Is there any record of anyone taking camcorder footage?  All I've ever seen over the past 21 years is the official NASA footage (the one which cuts to wide-angle a second after the explosion and zooms out). -76.4.49.201 05:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never heard that there was any major camcorder footage of the accident, and I've certainly never seen any despite having immersed myself in the topic when working on the article. Appendix N of the Rogers Report is the Photo and TV Team Report, and it does say that "films from private citizens and news media were made available to the team" but it seems to analyse (as far as I can tell) only the NASA film. MLilburne 09:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe that at a height of 48,000 feet (8 miles, 15km), that 1986 personal camcorders would have just reported a bright dot that was not moving as the breakup occurred.  The NASA version would likely be one of the few with the magnification needed. IMO, of course. CodeCarpenter 15:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  The UK magazine SpaceFlightNews showed stills from camcorder footage shot at New Smyrna (?) beach on 28th January 1986. I believe this was in the January 1987 issue. The footage clearly shows various "puffs" before the main SRB contrail, and the shuttle arcing upwards into the sky at T+40 seconds. The magazine also showed a zoomed-in shot of the moment of explosion; the SRBs, ET and orbiter are clearly visible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.19.57.170 (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Well, this is quite old, but if anyone else reads this page like myself, Yes, there is indeed an alternate angle for this disaster.  While researching this several weeks ago, I found a home video on YouTube uploaded by the person who filmed it.  They are considerably farther away than the NASA clip, so you won't be getting a close up, but you can clearly see the ship explode, as well as several shots of of the camera panning down to follow burning wreckage.  Just search around, I assure you it's there.  Kind of creepy too, as you actually get the hear people's confusion and fear as to what exactly they are witnessing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by OnTheMantle (talk • contribs) 17:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video footage 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Forces

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  NASA stock 

message: Could someone put in that this occured in the United States, and in what city and state? --Fang Aili talk 18:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 talk 02:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Eyewitnesses 

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

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

message: The article says that "[loose ice] 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)
replies: text: According to testimony given to the Rogers Commission by Rocco Petrone, aspiration "happen[s] when the large SRM [Solid Rocket Motors] 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  About Rocket Engines 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: OK. Midgley 01:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  boost and max-Q 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hold the line on article size 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Media Coverage 

message: 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)
thread_title:  No Explosion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: SRB POV of ''Challenger'' disaster

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Bad Math? 

message: Got any use for this photo? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: 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 Wikipedia.  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: As discussed above, "Challenger disaster" has been well-established for years. Both Encarta and Britannica so describe it. Wikipedia'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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Title of article

message: 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)
thread_title:  Anniversary not newsworthy anymore? 

message: I think that mention must be made of Richard C. Cook's "Challenger Revealed" ()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)
thread_title: Challenger Revealed

message: :After the Challenger accident, Thiokol agreed to "voluntarily accept" the monetary penalty in exchange for not being forced to accept liability.[40]
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)
thread_title:  Why no Morton Thiokol liability? 

message: The findings are inconclusive. The impact of the crew compartment with the ocean surface was so violent that evidence of damage occurring in the seconds which followed the explosion was masked. Our final conclusions are:
*the cause of death of the Challenger astronauts cannot be positively determined; 
*the forces to which the crew were exposed during Orbiter breakup were probably not sufficient to cause death or serious injury; and 
*the crew possibly, but not certainly, lost consciousness in the seconds following Orbiter breakup due to in-flight loss of crew module pressure.
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)
replies: text: Not much about it out there but I did find an article from Time magazine here  that talks about the crew capsule and remains recovery. DrNegative (talk) 09:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cause and Time of Death question

message: 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: 

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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Spoken word link 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Political/media pressure? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Background on NASA 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Contradiction re: "No Explosion" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bert Hinkler trivia 

message: 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.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.252.116 (talk) 00:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  christy mcauliffe - big help for other things too 

message: Does anyone know what number ship the challenger is.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.98.158 (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  what 

message: in the vehicle breakup section there is a sentence 'Challenger veered from its correct attitude with respect to the local air flow and was immediately torn apart by abnormal aerodynamic forces resulting in a load factor of up to 20g (etc)' - is it meant to be attitude? i'd have thought it was meant to be altitude, but as i have no idea about space travel etc, i have no idea if i am right or wrong, lol! therefore can someone else please confirm what it is supposed to be? thanks 77.97.110.57 (talk) 20:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  is this a spelling mistake? 

message: The opening paragraphs mention the ejection system and implies that had there been an ejection system the astronauts might have lived, making the assertions that a) several astronauts survived the initial explosion and b) the previous ejection system was removed. Assertion a has no citation and as I understand is a hotly debated topic, so shouldn't be taken for granted. Assertion b is completely true, but consists of a lie through ommission. It implies, when combined with the previous assertion, that with this ejection system lives may have been saved. This is completely untrue, as evidenced by various sources: 
http://articles.latimes.com/1988-04-08/news/mn-1124_1_crew-members
http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1988/Shuttle-Carrying-New-Escape-System/id-50c3be84147652b242204463a5b036d5
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2003/02/could_ejection_seats_have_saved_the_columbiaastronauts.html
http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/1325/why-didnt-the-space-shuttle-have-a-launch-escape-system
So, I think that section is best removed. I'm not a regular contributor so I'll leave the decision up to someone else to make, but it seems clear to me that it's inaccurate and really somewhat inappropriate.
138.38.7.96 (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implications regarding ejection system 

message: First of all, the official transcript of the Challenger voice recorder tape at https://history.nasa.gov/transcript.html states "Roger, go at throttle up."
Also in :File:Challenger_Mission_Control.ogv we hear the words being spoken inside the control room, with slightly better audio quality than the audio accompanying the launch footage, and with subtitles that say "go at throttle up".
However, the clearest indications come from the audio of other shuttle launches, of which there are numerous videos on YouTube. Every shuttle launch has a throttling-down phase to about 72% followed by throttle up. In some of these videos the phrasing is very much more distinct and unmistakable.
For example, watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJb1mDME6J4&t=1m37s (at 1:37), which shows the launch of Columbia's last (ill-fated) flight, where the "at" is entirely unambiguous: "Columbia, Houston, you're 'go' at throttle up".
The phrasing "you are go" is also used in Discovery's final launch, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy1Nc4YpAUI&t=12m05s (at 12:05), which suggests that the "go" in "Challenger, go at throttle up" was not a command but perhaps an authorization or even a simple status notification.
[strike out original phrasing, which was too strongly a personal interpretation]
In Discovery's final launch the words "Discovery, Houston, you are go at throttle up" are spoken at 12:05, eight seconds after the captions show that the SSME Thrust indicator has already reached 104% at 11:57. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy1Nc4YpAUI&t=11m55s (at 11:55). We are already in the "throttle up" stage, and control is telling us that all systems are go at this stage.
In other words, this is not an instruction to the shuttle pilot to "go with throttle up", rather it confirms that the status is a "go" at the "throttle up" stage. See dictionary.com meaning no. 55 for "go": an adjective meaning "functioning properly and ready", with the sample phrase "all systems are go" in the context of a rocket launch.
— P.T. Aufrette (talk) 04:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. See also , lots of go! :) Polyamorph (talk) 11:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Challenger, go at throttle up (not "with") 

message: Generally, it's good practice to include the planned mission goals of the launch. This seems to be lacking here. 40.142.183.194 (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be in the article about the mission, not this one.  See STS-51-L.  - GB fan 18:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goals 

message: The opening for the videos section mentions 7 videos.  There are 8 bulleted videos.  While I cannot imagine one of them being uncounted yet still being in the list, I will ask here.
Zaccari (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Videos section 

message: Hi, I just read Diane Vaughan's very excellent book "The Challenger Launch Decision".  It is very well researched and presents different root causes to the Rogers and Presidential commissions.  Namely, her belief that the root cause was not managers acting as "amoral calculators" and breaking rules, but instead the causes are rooted in work group culture, false paradigm in belief in o-ring redundancy, and normalization of deviance.  I find it surprising none of this is mentioned in this article, and the concept of "normalization of deviance" is not even mentioned.  I was going to add some information on this well respected research, however if this has been hotly debated in the past I don't want to blunder into the hornet's nest!  Can anyone advise if there is opposition to adding some of this material? Thanks. Zatoichi26 (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I added some relevant facts from Vaughan's book to the O-Rings Concerns section, but my above question still stands regarding adding some of her conclusions on the cause. Zatoichi26 (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diane Vaughan's book and Normalization of Deviance 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130103015825/http://history.nasa.gov/kerwin.html to http://history.nasa.gov/kerwin.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060818060521/http://www.questbbs.fsnet.co.uk/rvhouston.htm to http://www.questbbs.fsnet.co.uk/rvhouston.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "...which covered an area of 480 nautical miles (890 km),..."  Is this supposed to be square nautical miles and square km?
:Yes. I corrected the mistake and added a proper source. There was no source for the number, which in fact was slightly incorrect (the search area was 486 square nautical miles).Renerpho (talk) 03:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recovery 

message: The correct spelling (and the Swedish word for "the water", from which the band's name is taken) is not "Vattnett" but "Vattnet", with only three t's. In the linked article the name is correctly spelled. I'd alter it here, but I don't have the necessary technical skills to make the change without damaging the link (if I try to position the cursor on the word, the link is automatically activated, which of course isn't what I want to do). So I've put this comment on the Talk page in the hope that someone else can fix it.213.127.210.95 (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Vattnett Viskar" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060926022431/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/challenger/64_420.pdf to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/challenger/64_420.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061207150227/http://ethics.tamu.edu/ethics/shuttle/shuttle1.htm to http://ethics.tamu.edu/ethics/shuttle/shuttle1.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140221230834/http://www.corpsofcadets.org/outfit-genealogy-since-1876/ to http://www.corpsofcadets.org/outfit-genealogy-since-1876/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725154320/http://www.challengerms.org/history.jsp to http://www.challengerms.org/history.jsp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120527054257/http://www.greenbay.k12.wi.us/ES/McAuliffe/Pages/default.aspx to http://www.greenbay.k12.wi.us/ES/McAuliffe/Pages/default.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150527073015/http://www.oxnardsd.org/mcauliffe/Home.aspx to http://www.oxnardsd.org/mcauliffe/Home.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130217084458/http://www.osd.noaa.gov/GOES/GOES-NOP_Brochure.pdf to http://www.osd.noaa.gov/GOES/GOES-NOP_Brochure.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130113063709/http://www.lwsd.org/School/mcauliffe/Pages/default.aspx to http://www.lwsd.org/school/mcauliffe/Pages/default.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: I've removed the image :File:ChallengerSimple.png. This is partly because it's difficult to follow through, given that it's basically nine instances of the same pair of drawings with different parts highlighted.
The main problem is the caption to the centre top image. It reads: SRBs are fastened to the ET by joints which contained a rubber seal called an "O-ring". The O-ring holds the joint together ... This is very wrong. The O-rings were in the joints between segments of the SRBs. Imagine four tin cans stacked up. These cans are the segments of the SRB; where one can [segment] meets the next one, there is a joint around the edges. The O-rings are around the circumference of these joints. Further, the O-rings play no part in holding the joint together: their function was purely to seal against the emission of gases through the joint instead of down through the rocket nozzle. See this image, bottom row, second from left - the Field Weld Joint. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:18, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Good removal. The 9 o'clock image caption is also very wrong. VQuakr (talk) 14:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  ChallengerSimple.png image removed 

message: On the 31st of January, 2019, I posted a paragraph about a new movie that was released.  The movie, titled "The Challenger Disaster", was described in the "Film" heading.  My post was written in neutral style, and followed the format of the two entries above it.  I included three footnotes to published outside material.
The movie's official Web site is:  www.TheChallengerDisaster.com.
And yet, the paragraph was removed in its entirety.  I was not notified, much less consulted.  Can anyone explain why?  Thank you.
BBBookWorm 08:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your contribution. I assume you are talking about this edit. Judging from a quick Google search, it looks like the movie doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. There have been other movies about the Challenger accident that aren't listed here. Qzekrom (talk) 05:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

text: Thank you for the reply and explanation.  I have read the referenced guidelines.  I will track the movie's progress, and resubmit if it later meets the "notability" standard.  BBBookWorm 08:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was paragraph about new movie removed? 

message: I corrected the date from 1986 to 1984 because I was in a Hawaii elementary school when us students watched the Challenger explosion recorded replay following the live news coverage of the explosion. I am not the only one who knows it was 1984, as this discussion site shows multiple people know it was 1984: https://mandelaeffect.com/challenger-explosion-1984-1985-1986/. The BIG QUESTION is that the video source is CNN coverage from 1984... what year-2000 non-compliance problem or else history revisionist agenda caused both electronic and printed page archives from mulitple source to indicate 1986? Not all news sources are free, and some what to charge a subscription monthly fee for access to their archives before a certain year... but that means they have ORIGINAL printed newspaper or ORIGINAL news video showing the Challenger explosion occurred in 1984.
I can trace this back to the fact I attended a Hawaii Junior High School in early 1985, moved to California mid-1985, finished 7th grade and 8th grade in a California Jr. High School, and attended High School in 1987. NO WAY did we watch the "1986 Challenger Explosion" at San Marcos Junior High in San Marcos, CA 92069... that was my 8th grade year!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:483:200:ED21:B058:25AF:DCF5:8B98 (talk) 10:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Reviewing the site that you've linked, you are referring to the comments, which are not a reliable source. If you are able to find a reliable source arguing for a different date, you are welcome to add it; however, a person's memories are not sufficient proof for Wikipedia. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 15:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

text: Your memory must be defective. I know for a fact the Challenger loss occurred after I moved from Florida to Connecticut in August 1985, but again this is meaningless for Wikipedia's purposes because we have a policy of WP:No original research and require WP:Reliable sources (please spend a few moments reading these). A quick Google search will verify the 1986 date. The Year 2000 problem has nothing whatever to do with this. "The BIG QUESTION is", why are you so invested in a conspiracy theory? JustinTime55 (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Mandella Effect" 

message: Ok, in an effort to make progress here by going with John's suggestion to 'summarize, don't quote', I will ask everyone in this discussion to give a 20-word or less summary to explain the cause of the Challenger failure.
Right now, the article communicates "defective o-ring design and bad management".  Six words.--Tdadamemd sioz (talk) 03:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: "Summarise, don't quote..."

message: The link to the paragraph in the "Recovery of debris and crew" section which says
On board Challenger was an American flag, dubbed the Challenger flag, that was sponsored by Boy Scout Troop 514 of Monument, Colorado. It was recovered intact, still sealed in its plastic container.[52]
goes to a 404 page on the reference site (and would a plastic container seriously survive that explosion?)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.167.196 (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: Is there any reason why the 1986 Rendez-vous Houston concert is not mentioned? I was reading the article and thought there should be something about this in the Aftermath/Tributes section. It was a major event dedicated to the memory of the astronauts. At the time it had over 1 million people in attendance. Jean Michel Jarre also released the album Rendez-Vous with music especially composed for the event. I respect this article for the information regarding the disaster, but I consider the concert somehow relevant among the many tributes to the astronauts.
I searched the History of the article and sometime in November 2007 a bit of information about this event was removed. If no one opposes or writes, I'll try writing something about it in the near future.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by HMFS (talk • contribs) 04:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jean Michel Jarre and Rendez-vous Houston 

message: I'm not sure, but I don't believe the Owl City song is dedicated to the crew of Challenger. The song is not actually in reference to space flight at all. The other is, however.
There could be a note somewhere from Owl City that I am not aware of, but it should be included in the article if there is. If no one objects, I'll remove the Meteor Shower reference.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.56.224 (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Owl City - Meteor Shower 

message: For Greg Jarvis's body, use "it" instead of "he" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.130.55.207 (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect. We say (for example) that we buried "his body" or "her body", never "its body". Human remains keep their gender for all time. Narky Blert (talk) 14:17, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Human remains keep their gender for all time". I suffer a personal rejection feeling when 'gender' is used in place of 'sex'. When I was a kid we laughed at that kind of victorian prudery.--Damorbel (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A body is no longer living. 

message: The contract to make the SRBs went to Morton Thiokol, in Utah, perhaps for political reasons.  It would have been impossible to ship such a huge device, in one piece, to Florida. (Roads have overpasses, railroads had tunnels.)  So, they designed it to be constructed in multiple pieces that could be moved individually.  That led to the weakness that caused it to fail.  Had they contracted with a company that built the device on the Gulf Coast, it could have been barged as a single unit to Florida and it would have not been possible for it to fail in the way it did.  This article should include material that reveals this.  They died due to politics. http://www.tsgc.utexas.edu/archive/general/ethics/boosters.html Aeroview854 (talk) 02:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: While that is a valid point, it's easier to look back on the disaster as a failure of politics, while at the time it was viewed as a safe option. While it subsequently came out that there were issues with the O-rings in the 24 preceding flights, the general understanding was that the multiple segment SRBs were a safe option. While the SRBs were redesigned after the disaster, and the cost-benefit of changing manufacturers mid-program can be debated, the engineers and safety personnel associated with the Space Shuttle continued to trust multi-segment SRBs for the rest of the program, and are doing so again on the SLS system. Obviously these people are not perfect and can make mistakes, but it seems difficult to fathom that they would stick with the multi-segment SRB if it is doomed to fail. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This "roads and rails" thing sounds like a permutation of the "space shuttle was designed to fit Roman roads" email forward/meme. Additionally, other transportation methods could have been used- cross-country shipping of the Shuttle itself was figured out, for instance. I don't believe there are reliable sources that support this. tedder (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should explain WHY the SRB was built in multiple pieces, and thus subsequently failed.