Talk:STS-51-L

message: If the O-rings failed the shuttle would have blown up on the pad and destroyed the whole launch complex.  The O-rings failed to expand properly and some gas periodically escaped and coincided with the flexing of the orbiter (which was nicknamed "twang").  Some slag built up in the gaps and stopped the leak as the shuttle raced upwards.  During the acceleration phase they encountered a burst of wind which blow the shuttle sideways which was reflected with the shuttle's engine gymbals adjusting to correct for it.  That knocked the slag loose and at that point the small amount of flames emitting were able to burn through the support struts which caused the booster to slam into the shuttle 24.44.68.183 (talk) 12:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Cause of Break-up

message: Previous discussion can be found at Talk:Space Shuttle Challenger disaster.
Not wanting to disrespect the memories of those lost in the disaster, but is the wording "second spaceflight" & "only spaceflight" technically correct? Did the orbiter actually leave the Earth's atmosphere (enter space) in the 73 seconds before it was destroyed?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.210.199 (talk) 09:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Per NASA, Challenger reached an apogee of 65,000 feet, about 12.31 miles. (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/11031097/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/myths-about-challenger-shuttle-disaster/) The Kármán line is 62 miles.  The US military awards the Astronaut Badge to servicemembers who fly above that altitude.  The FAA awards it to civilians. (In the 1960s, though, the altitude was 50 miles, but Challenger still wouldn't qualify.  However, to complicate things, NASA awards the Astronaut Badge to anyone selected as an astronaut, even if they have never flown.   TychaBrahe (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: For discussion about the proposed merge, see Talk:Space Shuttle Challenger disaster.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: Could someone take a look at the masses listed here? Eg: Orbiter Liftoff: 121 778 kilograms (1,720 lb). 121 778 kilograms is equal to 267 911 lbs. Are the numbers listed in pounds, in brackets after the kilograms and indication of something else? TheNeutroniumAlchemist (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Mass

message: It strikes me that this page (which I know is fairly new) could use quite a bit of expansion. There could stand to be more information about Christa McAuliffe and the Teacher in Space program, because that doesn't really belong in Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, yet is quite important. MLilburne 10:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion?

message: I saw this video of a rocket launch, which ended up exploding. I don't have any idea what rocket this is and who owns this type of rocket. (Note: It isn't the Challenger.) Does anyone know what this rocket is? And who it's owned by? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.16.151.77 (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Video

message: Okay, so we all know that Challenger was destroyed 73 seconds after liftoff. But, here were the sucesses of the would-be mission: 
*The first teacher in space 
*The second woman in space —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.151.77 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 25 May 2007 
Wrong! I detect an insular american (small a) here. Even Sally Ride was not the first woman in space. She was merely the first American woman.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.142.17 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 15 July 2007 
*The second African American in space 
*The 10th mission of Challenger 
*The 25th space shuttle mission 
*Involved Halley's Comet, which would fly-by Earth that year 
*Carried Ellison S. Onizuka, a member of the Department of Defense 
So, those were the sucesses of the would-be mission.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.151.77 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 25 May 2007 
:*It didn't reach space. --GW… 10:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sucesses of 51-L (before explosion)

message: Who's Louis Butterworth?
: Butterworth was a backup payload specialist for Greg Jarvis.  He is a mechanical engineer who worked at JPL. (http://astronomy.activeboard.com/t58079597/louis-william-butterworth/) TychaBrahe (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Butterworth?

message: From the current revision:
Evidence later re-opened shows that one of the Oxygen Tanks carried by crew members in case of such a disaster had been activated, showing that one of the crew members may have been alive during the fall into the sea. If this is so, that crew member is likely to have died and/or disintegrated due to massive amounts of g-force, much like the orbiter which disintegrated due to huge amounts of overwhelming aerodynamic forces.
What's the source on the oxygen tank assertion?  I know the crew carried Personal Emergency Air Pack (PEAP) air supply systems, but theses provided compressed air, not pure oxygen and were intended to provide breathing air during a launch pad evac, not during a plummet from 10km up.  
As for G forces killing the crew, the reports I've read that the max G on the cabin was 20g at the moment of disintegration, insufficient over short time spans to kill a human being in most circumstances. A few seconds from the 20g peak the cabin was in free fall, meaning the conents of the cabin were effectively weightless.  Any survivors would, assuming the pressure vessel didn't rupture, still be alive on impact and would have been killed by that event.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhennPhawcks (talk • contribs) 11:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, I've tried a fix to it. Since the fate of the crew is detailed in the Kerwin sub-report of the Rogers Commission report, maybe someone wants to put a reference link to it in. 91.33.253.218 (talk) 11:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Oxygen tank?

message: At at least two instances this article states that the disaster was an explosion. This should be changed since it wasn't an explosion and the article on the disaster specifically points that out. --85.89.84.15 (talk) 01:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Explosion?

message: In the intro paragraph, Christa McAuliffe is described as a "non-government civilian", a potentially misleading (and probably unhelpful) description. In fact, she was a public school teacher, and therefore a government employee.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.183.168.34 (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous two civilians who had flown aboard the Space Shuttle were elected officials, Senator Jake Garn and Representative Bill Nelson, whose presence aboard the Shuttle was sponsored by the US Government.  While McAuliffe was a government employee, her presence aboard the Space Shuttle was not on behalf of a government agency.  The Teacher in Space candidates were a mix of public, private, and parochial school educators. TychaBrahe (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-government Civilian

message: I keep reading this, & I keep forgetting how it happened. 67.1.75.211 (talk) 06:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Man 

message: For clarification regarding the second edit on 27 February 2016, the Teacher in Space program was part of NASA's Space Flight Participant Program.  There were plans to send a number of "creative types" into space, including journalists and artists.  For example, there was a corresponding Journalist in Space program, and a journalist was supposed to fly on Challenger during a September 1986 mission.  NASA has confirmed that Spinney was approached about playing Big Bird on board the Space Shuttle, and that this idea was dropped because the suit would not fit inside the living space.  However, there is no reason to believe that Spinney's flight would have been 51-L.  --TychaBrahe (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big Bird 

message: The "Crew Fate" section says "Divers from the USS Preserver located what they believed to be the crew cabin on the ocean floor on March 7", so I wondered how long after the launch this took place and discover there's no date for the launch anywhere.Tym Whittier (talk) 05:01, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It is in the second paragraph, should likely be in the first.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 14:52, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Date in the Lede 

message: I have removed reference to snopes.com as original research/Primary source because snopes.com is not transparent about it's sourcing to official historical accounts or other accounts, and therefore the material isn't objectively verifiable. 66.90.153.184 (talk) 00:52, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Per this list of sources and their reliability, Snopes is generally considered reliable. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 00:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference Removal

message: From the article:
:Immediately after the disaster, President Ronald Reagan convened the Rogers Commission to determine the cause of the explosion. The failure of an O-ring seal on the starboard Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) was determined to have caused the shuttle to break-up in flight. Space Shuttle flights were suspended while the hazards with the vehicle were addressed. Shuttle missions resumed in September 1988 with STS-26, launched 32 months after the accident.
I know that his was probably not intended by the writer(s), but the impression I get when I read this is that the failure of the O-ring was unforeseeable, an unpreventable ‘oops’, an overlooked material defect in one particular O-ring perhaps. But the disaster was caused by the safety culture (or lack thereof perhaps) at NASA and the failure of an O-ring or something similar was bound to happen at some point.
I also notice that the article uses the word ‘accident’ several times, but I don't believe that's neutral language, since the word implies that nobody is to blame for the disaster. But the official investigation at the time said otherwise and to the best of my knowledge this hasn't been disputed since.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 11:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problematic paragraph in the lead