Talk:Space Shuttle Challenger
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Space Shuttle Challenger is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images. |
Now that individual missions have links, should the detailed information about the disaster go under the link to the appropriate mission? - Montréalais
- Perhaps it would be best to collect all info on the disaster itself at Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, in analogy to Space Shuttle Columbia disaster. Problem is, unlike STS-107, the Challenger mission never took place, or rather lasted for just a short time, but then, the mission page might be used to talk about what it would have been about. -Scipius 17:09 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)
Good idea! I made an STS-51-L page with the information that used to be on this page. It didn't seem right to have most of the text on this page dedicated to 73 seconds of the ship's history. Ke4roh 02:48, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Not strictly germane to the article, but I just came across a tape I made of various radio news reports at the time. A sobering experience. Even the Russians, in the first thaw of glasnost, sent telegrams of condolences. Lee M 01:59, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
The paragraph mentioning and listing the Rogers commission is redundant to the two other articles referenced, and does not deal directly with the subject of the article. I would not mind having a one-paragraph summary of the loss, but this isn't it. Jgm 13:43, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- The transcript was incomplete and lacking much information. I simply removed it since it very much out of context, broke the style of the page and is much more suited for the STS-51-L mission article. --J-Star 15:39, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] 'Destroyed' vs. 'Exploded'
In the article, Challenger was referred to as having been destroyed during launch, with all astronauts still on board. So what then? Did the Commies come and dismantle it with their bare hands, trying to ensure a Space Race victory?
...Lame wording!
- No, she was destroyed - broke up under severe dynamic stresses. The shuttle never exploded (although some subsystems may have exploded due to the fireball - I don't offhand know what happened to the RCS, but it'd be a possibility), and if you look at it in a sufficiently technical sense neither did the external tank - it ruptured open, and the H2 immediately caught fire, causing a fireball which looked like an explosion. It's technically correct wording, in much the same way that Columbia didn't "explode" either.
- Referring to it as an explosion is dramatic, certainly, but doesn't describe what happened accurately - an explosion would have been a very different accident with very different causes. Shimgray 17:13, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] "birth" and "death" dates
An interesting idea, but things aren't born, nor do they die. The convention of birth and death dates has a specific purpose and common understanding with respect to people that doesn't exist for things. For instance, why should the "birth" date be the maiden voyage? Why not the day the first bolt was fastened, or the date the last tile was placed? Also, all the information is in the article along with the correct context, so the summary mention is redundant. Jgm 12:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] The Challenger explosion was among the most dramatic historical events of the 20th Century ?
It certainly was dramatic - but to my mind calling it one one the most dramatic of the 20th century in terms of the whole world ?
perhaps it should be rephrased as one of the most dramatic in american history of the 20th Century ?
ahpook 12:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Challenger was only orbiter to have an in-flight abort, STS-51-F
This is mentioned briefly under STS-51-F, however it was a very significant and ultimately ironic event. Challenger was the only orbiter to have an in-flight abort, in this case abort to orbit. One SSME shut down at about T+345 seconds, at a velocity of roughly 13,000 ft/sec. Cause of shutdown was a spurious overtemp, which also affected a second SSME. A second shutdown was only averted through a fast acting flight controller inhibiting it. If the second SSME had failed within about 15-20 seconds of the first, the vehicle and crew would have been lost, as the vehicle didn't have sufficient energy for a Trans-Atlantic Abort (TAL). Before the STS-51L loss, there was no bailout capability, so failure to cross the Atlantic means loss of vehicle and crew. Joema 01:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] What kind of miles?
"Space Shuttle Challenger flew 10 flights, spent 62.41 days in space, completed 995 orbits, and flew 25,803,940 miles (it is unknown whether these are nautical or statute miles;"
The average orbit, therefore, is 25,803,940 ÷ 995 = 25,934 miles, which is 41,736 km if those are statute miles and 48,029 km if those are nautical miles. According to the astronautix.com site, the typical orbit was circular with a radius of 319 km. Adding this to the 6,372.797 km mean radius of Earth gives an orbital radius of 6,692 km, so the length of an orbit is 42,046 km. This is a 12% error based on nautical miles but less than a 1% error based on statute miles. Clearly, these are statute miles. DanBishop 20:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Loss of Challenger section
Even with the link to the main article for the disaster, this section should be a short paragraph, not just one line long. OzLawyer 16:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Airbrushed from history?
Is NASA trying to forget the short, but distinguished career of Challenger, due to the horrific way it was lost? I have seen pictures of this shuttle (for instance, a shot of it in orbit from STS-7, with its RMS arm cocked in a "7" position) in a NASA souvenir booklet with the "Challenger" name airbrushed from its wing? This is reminiscent of the way Hollywood et al tried to remove shots of the World Trade Center after 9/11 to protect public sensitivities. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.197.238.135 (talk • contribs).
