Talk:Space Shuttle Challenger disaster/Archive 1

message: Consider using this image of ice on the launch complex. Ke4roh 13:43, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: That would now be this image of ice on the launch complex. (NASA has re-jiggered their image archive and no longer uses the 8-digit photo ID.) --Chris Lawson 09:13, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image suggestion 

message: Rmhermann- I think that its more accurate to say that clear hydrogen flames enveloped the orbiter, rather than smoke.  Whats your rationalee for changing it?
Theon 14:44, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
:Hydrogen flames are pale and are not shown in the picture. What we see in the picture is smoke. Rmhermen 14:46, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
::It might be more accurate to say smoke and steam, since the invisible/blue-white hydrogen flame produces mostly steam.  Then again, many other things (including impurities in the atmosphere) are burning and producing smoke. -- Ke4roh 18:56, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hydrogen flames 

message: This may be a stresh, but can actually turn to be very important trigger for further research in future. Some people seem to think that the lanch of STS-51-l in such a cold day was politically driven. See this comment 
: I've heard this claim many, many times; it's not generally accepted to have any validity, and I've yet to hear of plausible evidence being presented for it. Reagan was aware of the program, and interested in it - IIRC he knew what launch it was when told of the accident, which says something - but he doesn't seem to have ever personally poked around with it, nor has there ever been much other than assertions regarding the plans for the State of the Union address.
: There was pressure, internal pressure within NASA (a lot of it silent, but certainly there) to keep up the launch schedule; gven the speeds they were trying to manage that year, this isn't surprising. It's probably defensible to call this political pressure, but it certainly wasn't external political pressure for the launch. (If nothing else - if it was vitally important she launch in time, why not push the day before, when there was a scrub? Why this one specifically?) Vaughan's The Challenger Launch Decision goes into this in some detail.
: It's also a fairly silly article - yes, NASA has postponed launches for things much less dangerous than ice. This is because they are now, understandably, a little more paranoid about the resiliency of the system post-Challenger. Also, without meaning to sound too cynical, Slashdot's validity as a source of space history is, ah, disputable. I've read a statement there presented as fact that Buran was all a carefully-planned Soviet hoax... Shimgray 15:08, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politics Accident connection 

message: Reagan's famous speech quotes the poem "High Flight" by John Gillespie Magee, Jr., maybe this should be mentioned.
:Done as of this afternoon, after an anon stuck it in a weird place and reminded me I needed to do it.—chris.lawson (talk) 03:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  John G. Magee 

message: Hello. Maybe someone can find out the time of impact of the crew cabin and add that to the article. All the best, Wile E. Heresiarch 20:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time of impact 

message: Much of this seems to come from . I assume this is PD, and therefore okay to use, but it shouldn't it at least be credited? -- uFu 19:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be an excellent idea. You wanna do it, or should I? Also, I didn't mean to sound snippy in my revert of your earlier reversion -- I think the anon who added that tidbit was well-intentioned but probably just put it somewhere it didn't best belong. If you (or anyone else) can think of a better place for it in the article, please move it.—chris.lawson (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copied text 

message: Is there a WP article which discusses the cultural impact of the Challenger disaster? A survey released in the mid-1990s found that this was the most profound childhood event of the so-called Generation X, and is speculated, for instance, to be related to that generation's supposed distrust of institutions. Hoping there is as it would take some time to research a new article.- choster 05:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cultural impact

message: :At least some of the astronauts were alive and concious after the "explosion" because three of the four personal egress air packs (PEAPs) of the flight deck crew had been activated. The evidence indicates that the PEAPs were not activated due to the ocean surface impact.
Am I demonstrating poor reading comprehension, or is this paragraph contradictory? The first sentence says that three out of four were activated, and the last sentence says that they were not activated. --Bletch 03:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The second sentence rules out one way of activation, not ruling out that they were activated in some other way--in fact, it appears intended to imply that they were activated by conscious efforts of the astronauts.  Gene Nygaard 03:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right it could be worded better. Believe it or not the original wording (before the version you saw) was much worse. Joema 04:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reworded it. -- Pinktulip 07:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vague sentence 

message: The "Solid rocket boosters destroyed" deserves about two sentances in this article.  As a matter of history, they are not very Imporant.  I will wait a day or two for feedback/consensus. -- Pinktulip 07:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right; I trimmed it way down. Joema 17:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please reduce SRB section 

message: Do not discuss the veracity of our own assertion in the article! Talk about it here on the TALK page.
OK. You disagree with the statement that "millions" saw the disaster live on TV.  What number would you be happy with?  Hundreds of thousands?  Tens of thouseands?  This was a special launch because the teacher was on board.  This was an important historical event.  Try to find the facts and the words to express this briefly.
One other thing: Never use the word "actually".  That word is a signal that you are about to go off into a lecture about some trivia.  The article is here for Brilliant Prose were you make specific, clear assertions.  -- Pinktulip 13:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tell me about it.  I nominated the picture of Challenger disintegrating as a Featured picture candidate and am only belatedly pushing for it to go on the main page under anniversaries.  If anyone has any brilliant ideas, now's the time to say something. Palm_Dogg 06:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many saw it live on TV? 

message: The 'Plume' section says that even had Houston or Challenger known about the SRB situation ~1 minute after liftoff, they couldn't have done anything. Couldn't they have jettisoned the boosters immediately and kept burning the main engines to gain altitude, then attempt an emergency landing? Risky, but a darn sight better than what ended up happening.
:The SRB plumes would destroy the orbiter.
::Three problems: (1) As stated above SRB plumes an issue. Whether they'd destroy the orbiter is unclear -- depends on departure angle, but it's quite likely they'd significantly damage it. (2) Vehicle was near Max Q (max aerodynamic load). Minus the SRB thrust, there'd be tremendous deceleration from atmospheric drag, as the SSME thrust is small relative to SRBs. This would essentially throw the orbiter forward, shearing off the orbiter/ET attach struts. Orbiter would pitch or yaw into the windstream, breaking up similar to the actual accident. (3) At T+60 (roughly onset of major Challenger SRB problems), minus SRB thrust, orbiter/ET thrust-to-weight ratio is way below 1:1. The orbiter/ET would essentially fall out of the sky, even if the SRBs were successfully jettisoned.
::You could modify the SRBs for bigger lateral jettison motors, possibly fixing or lessening the plume problem. You could beef up the orbiter/ET attach struts to not shear off after SRB jettison near Max Q. However you can't change the orbiter/ET thrust-to-weight ratio at T+60 -- it would still fall to the ocean. Before Challenger there was no bailout and ocean ditching isn't survivable, so even if you could jettison the SRBs, then separate the orbiter and ET, it's futile. Post-Challenger, bailout is available, but orbiter/ET separation near Max Q likely isn't possible. Aerodynamic forces would make the ET "recontact" the orbiter after separation, destroying both. Joema 14:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jettison the SRBs? 

message: Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anything of great detail in this article about the remains of the Challenger crew. Aren't the remains all buried together in a grave at Arlington because they were not able to identify them individually? I think maybe something should be said in the article about that. I could add a little something about this, if no one objects, or someone who knows a good bit about the Challenger disaster could do it. Either way would work. --WikiFiend90 01:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very few details are available. NASA intentionally did not release specific information on this area. Joema 15:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *I was able to find a page on the Arlington National Cemetery website dedicated to the memorial there for the Challenger crew. It says: "On April 29, 1986 the identified remains that had been located were turned over to their families for burial. However, there were number of unidentified remains. These remains were buried at Arlington National Cemetery on May 20, 1986, beneath the Memorial that appears below. Two of the crewmembers, Scobee and Smith, were buried in Arlington National Cemetery as well." So I admit I was halfway wrong about the remains, but I do still think this should be mentioned in the article. (I'm not trying to sound bossy or mean with that last comment, hehe.) Anyway, like I said, if no one minds, I'll be more than happy to put in a little something about this. -WikiFiend90 05:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, I thought you meant remains inside the vehicle. Re the cemetary, go ahead and add something if you want. Please be tactful when adding info about this sensitive area. Add a link to the Arlington site if readers want more info. Joema 06:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If you must, add a section or sub-section to the main body of the article.  I do not think that such info should be added into the lead section.  It is not that Important relative to the other facts already asserted about the disaster in the lead section.  -- Pinktulip 12:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, absolutely. Joema 15:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *Exactly. Another section or sub-section was just what I had in mind. I didn't want to add it to the lead section, like you said, as it obviously isn't as relative to everything else in the lead section. I will also add a link, which I had planned to do anyway. I just wanted to make sure no one objected to me adding a little something. -WikiFiend90 18:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, I added a section on the remains, and kept it as brief and as tactful as possible. I also added a picture and I added the link to the Arlington page in with the external links. I hope it's looked at as a job well done. :-) -WikiFiend90 19:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remains of the Challenger crew 

message: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/sts51l.html
For any interested parties (And because this page needs A LOT!). Palm_Dogg 05:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Same info is already pointed to by the link http://history.nasa.gov/sts51l.html .  I am assuming that the infobox is more standard, even though the articles for the previous and next missions (STS-61-C and STS-26) do not yet use that infobox.  Thanks.  -- Pinktulip 08:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations & Infobox 

message: The Tribute and Burial section to use HTML tables to ensure that the text of other sections does not flow into or otherwise intrude on these two particular sections.  Go ahead and fill in the white space with excess, honorific verbiage, if you can find something appropriate. As far as I am concerned, whitespace is not a problem.  -- Pinktulip 17:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tribute/Burial section should use  tables 

message: I feel like we should push to tidy up those red links with a bunch of somewhat stubby pages or something. -- Pinktulip 03:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. I linked a few red ones to now-exising articles, de-linked some red ones that aren't particularly relevant, and left some red which probably need articles. I'll try to write some stub articles for those if I have time. Joema 19:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Working on adding the stub articles. Harder than I first thought since some existing stubs require editing to a common format, plus have errors requiring correction. Joema 16:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Stub articles now mostly complete for each flight control position mentioned in this article. Joema 18:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review? 

message: I did not start this use of HTML tables, but someone removed them today.  OK.  No tables, but please gather ther honorary things together and keep them "clean" from nerdy, grungy "dirty" stuff like "debris".  It helps to emphasize the solemnity of the tributes and burials.  The investigation fits in OK as well only because it is "Presidential".  The two photos might create a narrow column of text in the middle.  Is that OK with everybody? -- Pinktulip 17:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No tables, I guess 

message: Reduced word count in first section. Moved/added info describing exact failure cause to new section toward article end. Joema 01:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to first section 

message: "Teachers in Space" is the correct term.  I was wrong to assume that "civlian" implied non-aviator.  I just talked with an AMES engineer who straightened me out on that. AWM -- 68.164.245.60 21:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks for wikify to "Teachers" 

message: Moved the picture to get rid of the gap it caused. If everyone hates it, move it back. Dark jedi requiem 03:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: First thanks to User:199.46.245.232 for the changes to the failure scenario in the first section. However for several reasons I had to revert it. Main part of change read: 
The leak also caused a loss of thrust in the right SRB, and the Space Shuttle guidance system attempted to compensate by radically moving the Shuttle control surfaces. This placed overload stresses on one of the SRB connecting struts which failed. The SRB then pivoted about the remaining strut, and impacted the external fuel tank resulting in a rupture. Within seconds the flame and and the pivoting SRB..., and the edit comment was: "Elaborated on cause of SRB seal failure, and cause of external tank rupture - Source of info: Aviation Week and Space Technology, circa Feb 7, 1986)"
Reasons for reversion:
* The shuttle does not use control surface (elevons) steering during ascent, hence the entire reasoning about that isn't correct. Rather the control surfaces follow a fixed position schedule to minimize aerodynamic bending loads on the wings. Ascent steering is solely by SRB and SSME gimbaling. The elevon position/time graph can be seen in the CAIB report, Vol II, Appendix D.8, figure 2-3:(15.8 MB .pdf): 
* The SRB causing ET rupture by itself isn't really correct. According to the Rogers report, the ET aft end failed and SRB pivoting into the intertank structure happened at about the same time. The failure cause was these two approximately concurrent events. These events resulted in the ultimate physical cause of the breakup: the ET disintegrating, which was the structural backbone of the entire stack. That in turn placed the orbiter off-axis into the windstream, causing destruction by aerodynamic loads. For details, see the Rogers Commission report, chapter 3, at 
* In general we want the first section of any article to be somewhat concise. The detailed failure sequence is later in the article, along with the exact timeline.
Let me know if any questions. Joema 17:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion of changes to failure scenario in first section 

message: Removed sentence: "The Challenger disaster remains one of the defining moments of the 20th century." Reason: while phrase is often used in popular media: newspapers, magazines, editorials, etc, it's not really encyclopedic in tone or function. As encyclopedia writers, we don't make judgements about what is or isn't a defining moment. What is a defining moment varies based on background and perspective. For some it was Apollo 11. For others it was the Japanese American internment. If every major headline news event is tagged as a "defining moment", thousands of articles will be so referenced. Let me know if any questions.
Re Jay Greene, he was the flight controller for STS-51-L, so his name and title should remain under the mission control personnel list. True his name is redundantly listed on a picture caption, but it doesn't state his title, and adding his title to that caption means everybody's title should be added. Joema 18:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion of "defining moment" sentence in 1st section and Jay Greene removal 

message: The featured article on the english main page says "Because shuttle launches had become almost routine after fifty successful missions......"  I'm not sure if this is correct.  The Challenger disaster actually occured on STS-25.  Were there 25 test launches before an actual mission took place???  I believe it should be 25 instead of 50. 68.187.192.107 04:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Featured Article" page has an error 

message: Shouldn't this read "deceleration"?
The crew cabin impacted the ocean surface at roughly 207 miles per hour (333 km/hour), causing acceleration of over 200 g, far beyond the structural limits of the crew compartment or crew survivability levels[2].
•Jim62sch• 00:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From an engineering point of view, it is all acceleration.  When one uses the term "deceleartion", it is often understood to mean "controlled decelleration" (as in a self-propelled vehicle doing some braking), which this was not. -- 67.121.113.141 22:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: It is distracting that some of the image names start with "STS-33", which seems wrong. -- 67.121.113.141 18:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The mission was officially desinated STS-33. See CAIB Report Chapter 8, Page 203 (page 107 in the PDF) at the bottom right of the page. Missions after Challenger are often desinated with the letter 'R' to mean a reuse of the desination. See this link for a list that shows the official numbering system and "anti STS-13" numbering system. Boringguy 12:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image names? 

message: I used AndyZ's peerreview.js tool on this page to create its generic output. We should try to conform to it as much as practicable. -- 67.116.253.187 19:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automated peer review 

message: I inlined the references. The last three were books that are not actually cited in the text so I changed them into a book list. -- 75.26.2.209 18:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  inline references 

message: Is anyone interested in adding information about the specialty license plate here in Florida whose proceeds go to some relevant charity? They are still being made almost 20 years later. 207.203.80.14 17:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Florida License Plate 

message: Greetings! Would it not be informative and usefull to add a description of how the failure progressed, specifically, why it took 73 seconds for the field joint to fail? The puffs of smoke in the photos we've all seen indicate the 0-rings being vaporized at SRB ignition. This would have been lethal if not for the fact that the charred residue in effect "plugged" the gap, preventing the exhaust gases from escaping. It is a fact that Challenger encountered the worst wind shear recorded for a shuttle flight, around the time the shuttle passed through Max-Q, which caused the psudeo-seal to be knocked loose, at which time the flame plume exiting the right SRB was seen. You guys let me know what you think, I can write that portion and submit it for review. Thanks!
--TheMadCap 21:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Details of the SRB failure 

message: I think this article is really good, but found a bit sloppy the way times after liftoff are dealt with. Section Liftoff is the first one to mention times in the 'T+' format, but the explanation that "Times are given in seconds after launch" is given only in the next section. This may not be obvious from the start to all readers. Then, statements such as "The last view of smoke around the strut was at T+3.375" are a bit puzzling. Events like a view of smoke surely last some time - why then mention such a precise time when it's not explained whether it means the start or the end of the event, as detected by a piece of equipment? If that is unknown, then it would make greater sense to simply say "around T+3". Finally, expressions like "After the orbiter and external tank disintegrated at about T+73.213" are just pointless. If the exact time is unknown, then why give as reference a time precise to the millisecond? It should read simply "at about T+73". In other words, there seems to be an overly extensive use of very precise times, probably with the aim of reinforcing the accurate nature of the article but really producing the opposite effect... Telmo Amaral 23:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The T+ times are listed verbatim from the Presidential Commission report: http://www.challenger.org/about/assets/nasa_report.pdf. You're right the T+ format should be described early on. Re why say "about T+73.213", that's the telemetry timecode from the closest instrumented event to the described event. You're right in this one case we might could say T+73. However in other similar cases, the Commission report itself uses millisecond precision. The safest decision is always to convey exactly the timecode from the original report, not make changes.  Joema 04:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your explanation, Joema. I took the liberty of removing the sentence "Times are given in seconds after launch" from section 'Initial ascent', where it seemed belated. Then, I inserted the sentence "All times are given in seconds after launch and correspond to the telemetry time-codes from the closest instrumented event to each described event" at the end of section 'Liftoff', that is, after the first usages of the 'T+' notation. I think the reference to "telemetry time-codes" can be clarifying for readers not familiar with the Presidential Commission's report.Telmo Amaral 00:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'T+' times 

message: Should the newly discovered video be mentioned?  - MK (t/c) 03:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New video 

message: I've reverted a few recent edits.
I'm not sure we need to define "left" and "right" in the lead - if it's vague, it ought to be addressed later in the article - and the second section is pretty heavily weighted in terms of assuming malfesance on the part of NASA - "...is doubtful ... a dubious excuse at best ... indicative of an unacceptable level of negligence and apathy". It's cited to two sources, one for "rubber doesn't like being cold" and one an essay with nothing to indicate its reliability.
The second section seems to have been added as a caveat to an earlier sentence in the lead ("According to NASA leadership, however, the actual report submitted to them by Morton Thiokol was vague in its analysis and recommendations...") which was itself added quite recently; I've taken that out as well, as it doesn't really say anything critical and bogs down the lead.
As to the more general issue of the O-rings, etc, the originally featured version seems to have had a lot more material than this one, which has since been lost. I'll see what can be recovered. Shimgray | talk | 18:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: The paragraph starting with "In the aftermath of the" is included in the article twice, once in the "Aftermath" section and once in "Investigation". I removed the one in "Aftermath", as I think it's more relevant as information about the investigation. As far as I could see, the only difference between the two was that the paragraph I removed used the word "disaster" where the other one used "accident". --Spug (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of duplicate paragraph 

message: I just added a photo to show what the Personal Egress Air Packs were, in the "Cause and time of death" section.  I think a photo is needed, as the PEAPs are not explained - do they look like SCUBA tanks?  Breathing masks?  Something else?  However, the photo I located is from the later STS-34 flight in 1989.  I think it's an improvement to the article despite the differing crew.  I wouldn't be offended if others disagree and want to remove the photo because of any confusion — I was specific in the caption that the photo is from a subsequent mission.  Tempshill (talk) 21:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  PEAPs photo 

message: Why is it that there is no mention of him and his work with the Rodger's Commission, seeing as he was the one who came forward with the information?
67.2.67.154 (talk) 18:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allan McDonald? 

message: Twenty-five seconds after the breakup of the vehicle, which occurred at 48,000 feet (14.6 kilometres (9.1 mi)), the trajectory of the crew compartment peaked at a height of 65,000 feet (19.8 kilometres (12.3 mi)).[11]
[edit] Cause and time of death
The shuttle was designed to withstand a load factor of 3 (or 3 g), with another 1.5 g safety factor built in.[13] The crew cabin in particular is a very robust section of the shuttle because of its design and construction of reinforced aluminum.[13] During vehicle breakup, the crew cabin detached in one piece and slowly tumbled into a ballistic arc. NASA estimated the load factor at separation to be between 12 and 20 g; however, within two seconds it had already dropped to below 4 g and within ten seconds the cabin was in free fall. The forces involved at this stage were likely insufficient to cause major injury.
How could the cabin be at free fall 10 seconds after the malfunction if it peaked at 65000 ft. 25 seconds after the breakup? It cant simply be Gforces can it since 0g would occur at the peak which was supposedly 25 seconds afterwards not 10. 74.215.172.243 (talk) 06:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If you throw a stone in the air, from the moment the stone leaves your hand it will be in free fall all the way up and then down (neglecting the friction of the air), since the only force acting on it is gravity. The stone itself will experience 0 g during this time. Parabolic flights produce 0 g during the climb as well as the descent. --Giuliopp (talk) 10:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction in article?

message: Just curious.  If Challenger in 1986 was STS-51-L, how come a 1989 mission was STS-34?  i thought there was some kind of typo in the caption. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: NASA has used three different numbering systems for shuttle missions. In the first system, which ended with STS-9, the missions were numbered based on which order they were launched. After STS-9, the system was changed due to NASA Administrator James S. Begg's triskaidekaphobia and his unwillingness to designate a mission as STS-13. In this second system, flights were designated based on the year they were authorized (in this case, the "5" indicating 1985), the launch site they were launched from ("1" indicating Kennedy Space Center, "2" would indicate Space Launch Complex 6 at Vandenburg Air Force Base, although Vandenburg was never used), and the letter indicating scheduling sequence. After STS-51-L, the third system was used. This third and current system is numbered sequentially based on when the launch is scheduled, rather than when it is actually launched, unlike the first numbering system. Under this system, missions have frequently launched out of sequential order; i.e. STS-107 launched after STS-113. There is also a fourth and so far unused numbering system that is used for contingency missions if a shuttle is disabled or damaged in orbit and unable to return to Earth. KerathFreeman (talk) 01:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  STS missions 

message: Just curious, why is Template:refimprove on this page if it's a featured article??  — Gabe 19 (talk contribs) 04:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Featured articles degrade over time due to rising standards and unless editors keep a vigilant watch over edits, making sure that prose quality remains high and any dubious/unsourced/poorly sourced info remains out.  So it should not be a surprise if someone feels that the current referencing could be better on an FA. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Needs additional citations for verification"? 

message: Given the article's current condition, with a loose Legacy section (actually more like a Popular Culture section), poor prose ("The crew cabin in particular is a very robust section of the shuttle because of its design and construction of reinforced aluminum" as an example), and lots of uncited text, is this article really deserving of its FA status?  I suggest not. Parrot of Doom 09:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I just came here to question the exact same thing. It's really at WP:FAR stage, as far as I can tell. The paucity of references for this, a FA, is alarming. Seegoon (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep agree this version was promoted long ago (November 26, 2006). We should have FA and GA articles automatically listed for review after 2 years at minimum. But that's another talk. Shall we go over this and see if WE can save this....or is it to far gone?Moxy (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no access to any authoritative sources but I'm prepared to work on this, if others are, to solve its problems.  If not, then I think it's WP:FAR for this. Parrot of Doom 18:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA? 

message: Please also include that in Decatur, AL, a smaller town outside of Huntsville AL, an elementary school opened named Julian Harris Elementary School in 1986.  The school chose the mascot "Challengers" and all of the streets surrounding the school were named in honor of those astronauts and one very special teacher who lost their lives.  The school address is 1922 McAuliffe Drive.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.195.164.179 (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Under the Legacy section 

message: Where would it be appropriate to include the song 'January 28, 1986', by Owl City, which is a tribute to this event?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irandill (talk • contribs) 21:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As a rule, we don't tend to put pop culture stuff in space-related articles. Colds7ream (talk) 11:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Owl City 

message: While the article does have a section on crew escape, a huge part of the 51L story that is still missing (that would later apply to STS-107 as well) is the decision going back to the 1970s to not give the crew any emergency egress option. Since they survived the initial break-up, and Joe Kerwin in the official report does not rule out the possibility that some survived until ocean impact, we are faced with the disturbing awareness that giving the crew something as simple as a parachute could have made the difference between life and death. At the very least, a hope for survival. An excellent addition to this article would be identifying key decision points that date back to the early 1970s where it was decided that the crew would not be given an escape module that would take advantage of the already designed crew cabin pressure vessel - the vital element that survived the initial breakup of both Challenger as well as Columbia. This could have been designed with a minimum weight drogue chute for stabilization for eventual crew egress. It is understandable that the comprehensive escape module with rocket separation motors, full parachutes and impact attenuation bags was deemed to be weight (/cost) prohibitive. Instead a very practical lightweight system could have been implemented but wasn't. This would consist of a stabilization drogue chute for the crew cabin, minimal thermal protection such as a spray-on ablative coating on the front side. This would get the crew decelerated into parameters where it would be possible to pop the hatch and parachute to safety. Such a lightweight, minimal cost design would obviously not give the highest probability of surviving a loss-of-vehicle, but it would have given them a fighting chance. Even post-Challenger, such a mod might have preserved lives on Columbia.
The facts are out there. I didn't see much in Rogers' report on holding the people responsible for these decisions accountable, but there has to be information on who made those decisions and why. I expect the majority of those officials are still alive today. I never saw Rogers call them to testify. I never saw Gehman, post-Challenger, call for testimony on that either. I'm sure that both boards looked thoroughly into the matter. It's just their reporting that seems to fall short. There must be resources available to Wikipedians that can fill in this blank.
Perhaps the very people involved in making those decisions would like to edit in the facts as to why they did what they did.--Tdadamemd (talk) 05:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comment appears to be asking for when they made the decision to not have an emergency escape option. I suspect it wasn't a single decision made by a single person, but rather several decisions made be several people, possibly made over several years.. so I think it would be difficult to pin-point. And in the extremely unlikely event that somebody with inside knowledge stumbles across this talk page, it would be inappropriate for them to add information to the article, because that would count as original research. Mlm42 (talk) 00:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I thoroughly expect that the decision involved dozens of people through a lengthy timeframe.  There is, however, one "pin-point" that is most significant to identify: that is the person who had been authorized to make the final decision on the matter.  If I were to take a guess, I'd say this happened around 1973 or so.  We can expect that every astronaut helping to develop shuttle during those early years consented to the decision that the engineers and management had made.  With all the people involved, I don't think it is unreasonable that at least one of them would want the world to know the accurate story as to why they did what they did, and how they view their decision with the hindsight of 14 dead astronauts.  There are many new space vehicles being designed today that could benefit from these lessons learned.  Wikipedia can serve as an excellent record of those facts.  Not just in the initial design of shuttle, but also after 1986 when NASA was forced to re-examine the problem.  That group of people obviously did not provide an adequate solution for the situation that struck again in 2003.--Tdadamemd (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accountability for the crew not being given an ejection/escape option 

message: The article has a section that thoroughly explains how the destruction of the vehicle was not an explosion.  I had edited the section title to "Vehicle disintegration was not an explosion", but that quickly got reverted back to "Explosion".  The section already communicates a more comprehensive understanding (that extreme air loads can tear up a vehicle so that it looks like it exploded, when in fact it did not).  I see no way for "Explosion" to be upheld as an accurate and appropriate title for the section.  Perhaps those involved in naming that title are not bothering to read the section.  Or if the problem is that what that section is saying is not being understood, then this Talk section here can be used to provide a more thorough explanation.  Or this section can be used for debate, if anyone really believes that the vehicle did explode.  The starting point in that case would be to provide any solid evidence.  Quoting a reference written by the many people who do not care to understand the difference between what an explosion is and what an explosion is not would not count as solid evidence.
The beauty of Wikipedia is that it helps to educate us where we can advance from our individual states of ignorance.--Tdadamemd (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The vast majority of sources report the incident as an explosion and in the everyday sense of the word that is what happened. Technically the shuttle didn't explode, but the liquid propellants did, after the collapse of the fuel tanks. I don't support a change to "No explosion". We're not myth busters. However, I would support a change to "shuttle break up" or "shuttle disintegration" or something similar. Polyamorph (talk) 07:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

text: I have removed the section entirely. We already have a perfectly good section describing the "Vehicle breakup" and no where does it state that the shuttle exploded so there is no misconception to clarify, we present the facts as they happened. I merged the useful information from the "Explosion" section into this pre-existing "Vehicle breakup" section. Polyamorph (talk) 07:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

text: The only part that might require clarification is in the flight controller dialogue "We have a report from the Flight Dynamics Officer that the vehicle has exploded." Perhaps a sentence stating how technically this was not correct would be fine but it doesn't warrant its own section.Polyamorph (talk) 07:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Why "Explosion"?

message: I've reverted a recent edit, and notice more by the same user which seem to veer off neutrality, into synthesis of sources and a personal interpretation, and appear to promote a particular expert, in a fashion that reads like some COI might be involved. 76.248.149.98 (talk) 03:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of it appears to be copyright violation, and I'm wondering if the rest isn't aimed at promoting the views of one expert. Comment here would be welcome, though I may ask for more eyes at a noticeboard. 76.248.149.98 (talk) 03:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your attention to encyclopedic content.  Which direction is this copying going?  The web site in question seems to be from 2010.  We've had this article up with much of its content since well before that.  Let's be sure the site author didn't grab content here for his page. -- ke4roh (talk) 03:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A Google search indicates that the recent additions-those since November 15-- were copied from text added to the 'o-ring' website on November 9 . But if you look at the content I've reverted, it does appear to be a sort of advocacy, perhaps lifted from a website whose reliability as a source has not been established; Fred Policelli may be an expert, but that needs to be established by other sources, not by his website. The tone raises some questions, and the possibility of copyright infringement raises more. 76.248.149.98 (talk) 03:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

text: I think the discussion engaged here is helpful: . 76.248.149.98 (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits, neutrality

message: Under the Further Reading header in the article page, I have posted a book by Rosa Lynn Pinkus called Engineering Ethics: Balancing Cost, Schedule, and Risk. The book goes far into detail about the O-ring malfunction. It explains where engineers went wrong with the construction on the booster rockets, and supplies solutions to their mistakes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjwinder93 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Engineering Ethics: Balancing Cost, Schedule, and Risk

message: Here is a "new" video of the explosion from an amateur camera: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/09/challenger-video-film-space-shuttle-explosion_n_1333794.html KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 23:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Video 

message: While we're on the subject, at least as relevant is the song "Flying For Me" by John Denver, which is specifically written about the event in general and Christa McAuliffe in particular.  Denver was one of the finalists for the Citizens In Space program that McAuliffe won.
As such it's very surprising to see no mention of it either here, or on her page... I've checked the history and it doesn't seem to be in there anywhere.  Is there a reason, or just an omission, and what's the opinion on adding it?  Zastrozzi (talk) 10:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Denver and ''Flying For Me'' 

message: I recently came across a paper co-authored by Roger Boisjoly, Representation and Misrepresentation: Tufte and the Morton Thiokol Engineers on the Challenger. 
http://www.onlineethics.org/CMS/profpractice/exempindex/RB-intro/RepMisrep.aspx
It strongly refutes Tufte's claims against the Morton Thiokol engineers. As such, I believe its addition to the "case study" section provides a more balanced view of the sub-topic. I'm not an experienced editor, so I didn't add the citation to the footnotes and muck them up. Thanks to the user that cleans up my mess.
: Thanks for the addition! -- ke4roh (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Use as case study" addition 

message: Propose that the article be changed to "Space Shuttle Challenger Explosion".
Disaster is a value judgement.  Also some enemies of America might say it was a good event and celebrate it.  If so, it is not a disaster to them.  Use of the word "disaster" would be appropriate for the name of a TV episode but not an encyclopedia article.
Auchansa (talk) 04:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you trolling, or just stupid? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

text: According to our Disaster article, "A disaster is a natural or man-made (or technological) hazard resulting in an event of substantial extent causing significant physical damage or destruction, loss of life, or drastic change to the environment." There is neither consensus nor need for a page move. Polyamorph (talk) 10:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point that you raised.  I wonder if there is consistency in Wikipedia about other disasters?  Without looking, I can think of several disasters.  One was in Japan in the nuclear power plants after the tsunami.  Another one was Chernobyl.   September 11th was one, too, though the word "terrorist attacks" might be another term used.  When two 747's slammed into each other, that was a disaster, too. Auchansa (talk) 06:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes we have Chernobyl disaster and Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. See also Lists of disasters where you'll see many other examples. It's a consistent term used throughout wikipedia. Polyamorph (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed name change 

message: So... did it break, or did it actualy explode? seriously, I need that info.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmartyPantsKid (talk • contribs) 15:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest reading through the sources to see how the event is described in reliable sources. -- Trevj (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kaboom  or no kaboom? 

message: Was it an explosion or structural failure? I need to know.--SmartyPantsKid, Signing off. 15:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest reading through the sources to see how the event is described in reliable sources. -- Trevj (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did it go boom? 

message: In the article citation 63 says, in part, "It is part of the required readings for engineers seeking a professional license in Canada".
There is no such thing as "a professional license in Canada" for engineers. The federal government in Canada has empowered the provinces to regulate professions and the provinces allow professional bodies to self-organize as, how and where they deem it appropriate. 
The body that licenses engineers is different from province-to-province. While engineers and other professional groups have national consultative bodies that cooperate on educational standards and the like this reference is, I believe, unintentionally misleading.
Without exhaustively checking the required reading of each licensing body in Canada there is no way to determine if this assertion is true.
It may be that the author was thinking of the accreditation of engineering educational programs that is organized nationally. Gaining accreditation for a program will require a school to adhere to national standards as laid down by the consortia of all of the provinical bodies. 
These standards for education may require the readings in question but this is only indirectly related to gaining professional standing. 
In any case there is no such thing as a "professional license in Canada". The phrase is nonsensical and should be substantially changed or removed. Thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.64.104.159 (talk) 04:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Challenge to reference 63 - unintentionally misleading 

message: There is some confusion as to the number of segment joints on the solid boosters. The article says:
:Each of the two Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) that comprised part of the Space Transportation System was constructed of six sections joined in three factory joints and three "field joints".(Cite NASA Solid Rocket Motor Joint Reliability)
The problem is: there can only be five joints between six items, not six; one joint would have to be at the end! The NASA source says there are three field (O-ring) joints, but does not specify the number of factory joints. The extra field joint would have to go at one end (nozzle or nose cone), but why would an O-ring be necessary there? (I would assume the topmost segment contained an end-cap, since the nose cone contained parachutes.) We need another source, with an illustration which clearly shows the booster segment configuration. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I cleared up the mystery. From reading Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster and a thread from its talk page, there are actually seven segments, not six. Six of the seven are paired at the factory (three factory joints), leaving four segments (an ambiguous definition of segment) assembled at KSC (three field joints.) JustinTime55 (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''How'' many joints? 

message: Did the Challenger not have a cockpit voice recorder?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godofredo29 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Although NASA later released a written transcript of the crew's final moments from it, The New York Times unsuccessfully challenged the agency several times in federal court for the release of the audio tape. DrNegative (talk) 12:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cockpit Voice Recorder? 

message: It is strange that this article does not even mention, explicitly, who was the commander (the astronaut in command) of the Challenger on the fateful day. One astronaut, Michael Smith, is mentioned as the "pilot", but in NASA jargon, that was really the assistant pilot of the Space Shuttle. The actual pilot in command was always the commander of the Space Shuttle. They were always one and the same person. Confusion needs to be removed from the "commander" and the "pilot" of the Columbia.    
Also, this article makes no attempt to describe the assignments of the other astronauts on board the Challenger, such as payload specialist, scientist-astronaut, and so forth.
11:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: They are at the bottom in this template STS-51L. They have been there for a few years i looked back in the history. They do not state their job, except for the cmdr, but they have their own wiki that includes all of that.  --Кwiztas (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Commander 

message: This uncited text constitutes original research:
:"Feynman's famous demonstration is arguably an example of the Dunning–Kruger effect. (People with limited knowledge tend to overestimate their knowledge, those with high levels of knowledge tend to underestimate it.) Although highly qualified and highly regarded as a theoretical physicist, Feynman had no qualification or experience in aerospace engineering. As physicist, Feynman had a basic understanding of the effect of temperature on materials so his demonstration mistakenly concentrated on the properties of the O-rings and missed weaknesses in the engineering design. Had O-ring material been the cause of the accident, the original O-ring configuration could have been retained and the failure rectified by replacing the O-ring material with one that remained pliable at low temperatures. However, the Rogers Commission Report found that the accident was caused by a fundamental design flaw in the O-ring arrangement which made it sensitive to the effects of temperature. In response to the Rogers Commission Report, the O-ring arrangement was redesigned for future flights."
We can't put uncited opinion in the Wikipedia, no matter how logical they may seem to be. I think the word "arguably" is a warning sign of this, even though it doesn't appear in our WP:Words to watch. We can only include this if some published source has made the argument.  JustinTime55 (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dunning-Kruger effect 

message: If the descent started at 98 seconds after launch and ended at 238 seconds after launch (for descent time of 140 seconds) and acceleration at Earth's surface is 9.8 m/s^2, the velocity after 140 seconds would have been 1372 m/s (3,060 miles per hour), which is about 15 times faster than the 200 miles per hour quoted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idster (talk • contribs) 18:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If the Earth didn't have an atmosphere, that would be correct. --Deeday-UK (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

text: See page on "Terminal Velocity" for detailed explanation of why your calculation is inaccurate. Nerch (talk) 05:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would have been over 3,000 mph at Earth's surface 

message: We're about a month and half away from the 30th anniversary of the disaster, and it would be nice to bring the article back to featured status so that it could be that day's featured article. I don't know what improvements are needed, though. Hellbus (talk) 17:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's crazy how I saw this on the front of Facebook but not the front of Wikipedia. It's a shame it's not even a WP:GA on it's 30th anniversary.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.156.86.50 (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  30th anniversary 

message: This is a matter I have heard very little about, in the last 30 years.  Decades ago, I heard a long comment that said that the SRB's were built in pieces for what amounted to political reasons:  Morton Thiokol's plant was in Utah, and it would have been prohibitively difficult to transfer a single-piece SRB from Utah to Florida, or to any coast. (Roads have overpasses, railroads have tunnels, etc.)   The reason the contract went to Morton Thiokol was political.    One alternative would have been to build a factory on the Gulf Coast, and then barge the SRB's to Florida.  Had that been done, they would have had no joints to fail, and so the event would not have occurred.  Once the contract went to MT, they had to include the joints.  Lurie2 (talk) 23:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The proper place for that information, if properly sourced, would be in Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster. -- GB fan 23:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You said, "The proper place..." as if you are implying, "The ONLY proper place..."   If you meant the latter, why didn't you say the latter?   Because you might have to prove it? Lurie2 (talk) 04:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not implying anything.  I am saying IMO the proper place for the information, if properly sourced, is in the article about the boosters.  I don't have to prove anything. If you feel the information belongs here, you will need to convince other editors it belongs here.  Before that happens though you will need to find reliable sources that says the reason the contract went to MT was political.  You will also need to find reliable sources that say there was an option to build single piece SRBs not just that you heard that.   -- GB fan 22:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You repeat the stilted claim that "THE proper place...".  You are not addressing why it would also not be proper to include it here, even if it also is included at the other location. After all, the actual cause of the incident was merely the end of a long chain of events leading from the choice to build the SRB's in pieces.   Further, while I referred to the contract as "political", that doesn't mean that I expected that allegation to be part of the article.  (That's why I'm writing on this Talk page.)  BTW, are you challenging the idea that there was NOT "an option to build single-piece SRBs".   That's called "engineering".  And while you harp about "reliable sources", nothing I have said implies that I didn't expect to obtain them!  So you are objecting to a future edit based solely on your assumption that reliable sources will not be obtained.   That would be like me telling you 'Don't use swear words in edits!!!' when you haven't yet done so! Lurie2 (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think any of it belongs here, it is your responsibility to show why it belongs here.  I have told you where in my opinion (IMO) the information belongs.  I am not challenging anything, just explaining what we need to have the information in any article. -- GB fan 23:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  We should cover why the SRB's were built with joints, rather than in one piece. 

message: I think if I am reading WP:UNITS correctly that as a scientific article, this article should display metric first. Any thoughts? --John (talk) 12:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've adjusted the units. The guideline seems clear and sensible and there is no good reason to diverge from it. --John (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: , I missed this section previously when I was trying to find discussion on the use between Celsius and Fahrenheit. Because of that, I created my own section regarding what units should be used. This does not seem to be a scientific article since it is an article on a disaster, even though it has some scientific information in it. The overall article is on a disaster, with some science used within to show the causes of that disaster. Because of that, I believe, per WP:UNITS, the units should be US customary. In fact, the Space Shuttle Columbia Disaster also uses US customary units. I'd love to hear your (or others) thoughts on this. --Bassmadrigal (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units