Posted on 01/27/2006 9:29:40 AM PST by John W
HOUSTON - Twenty years ago, millions of television viewers were horrified to witness the live broadcast of the space shuttle Challenger exploding 73 seconds into flight, ending the lives of the seven astronauts on board. And they were equally horrified to learn in the aftermath of the disaster that the faulty design had been chosen by NASA to satisfy powerful politicians who had demanded the mission be launched, even under unsafe conditions. Meanwhile, a major factor in the disaster was that NASA had been ordered to use a weaker sealant for environmental reasons. Finally, NASA consoled itself and the nation with the realization that all frontiers are dangerous and to a certain extent, such a disaster should be accepted as inevitable.
At least, that seems to be how many people remember it, in whole or in part. That’s how the story of the Challenger is often retold, in oral tradition and broadcast news, in public speeches and in private conversations and all around the Internet. But spaceflight historians believe that each element of the opening paragraph is factually untrue or at best extremely dubious. They are myths, undeserving of popular belief and unworthy of being repeated at every anniversary of the disaster.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Few people saw the tragedy unfold? Bullocks. There were classrooms full of children watching because there was a teacher on board.
I stopped reading after this statement.
"There were pressures on the flight schedule, but none of any recognizable political origin."
The media back then was relentless against the shuttle, every launch attempt aborted (even for weather!), the scumbag MSM would use it against NASA.
That may have caused pressure.
I learned to never trust the media back then because of how they handled shuttle news.
Few versus the number who were able to watch earlier launches live would not be untrue.I think CNN was it for live coverage.
I can't agree.
Very few classrooms had TV, let alone cable.
By 1986, shuttle launches weren't considered events by most people.
I heard about it while eating lunch in my college cafeteria.
Many people saw the replay immediately after, but most would agree that they didn't really see it live.
Fewer, but still in the tens or hundreds of thousands. Why even make such a foolish statement?
Well, because probably several million watched the first one.
Few people saw the tragedy unfold? - I think they mean few people saw this coming; by the first line the author acknowledges millions saw the event.
He notes in the main text that there were children watching live in classrooms, but those were the ONLY people watching live.
I think he's giving CNN the benefit of the doubt there.
Watched it live. In Canada. With a few hundred people to share the moment. I remember the littlest kids best. Even they knew what happened. I think the adults took longer to figure it out.
This article is full of nit picking. A good example is that few "saw" the shuttle explode. If you mean "LIVE" that is probably true, since the networks cut away before the explosion. CNN was the only network still on it "LIVE", however, the networks came right back on the event, within seconds later. Yes, I watched it, and watched the events unfold, but we didn't have cable at work, so I guess I didn't see it explode "LIVE".
After she blew, I called my relief on the Ike and told him the news. He thought I was yanking his chain until somebody else ran into the EOS with the news.
One of those memories, like Tuesday the 11th, I'll sadly never forget...
:-(
Well, most of this strikes me as hair-splitting. Somebody screwed up by not realizing that the o-ring couldn't take the low temperature. Feynman was the guy who figured out where the problem was. The shuttle blew up, in common parlance, i.e., it leaked fuel that exploded. It was understood at the time that the crew might not have died right away, but there didn't seem to be any point, or respect for the crew, in rubbing it in the unpleasant details. A lot of people saw it on TV. If they missed the live action, they saw the reruns.
So, what's the point of this article?
Maybe the only significant point that I can draw from it is that the news media tried to blame a powerful Republican senator, who was accused of having an incestuous relationship with a greedy corporation. Given the behavior of the media over the years since the shuttle accident, is anyone surprised by this?
maybe I've had my head in the sand for 20 yrs, but I've never heard the claim that enviro-derived design changes were related to the seal failure on challenger. on the other hand, far too little attention has been paid to the change in insulation application for columbia... drastic rise in significant tile damage thereafter.
Obert is a great space related expert and author, he knows his stuff. Perhaps there was some nitpicking, but I think he was looking for something to write about on the 20th anniversary of the disaster. Most people still dont know that the shuttle didnt "blow up", and that the astronauts were at least alive when they hit the ocean..
I think its true that the number of people who watched it live-live was a minute fraction of those who watched the taped broadcasts, and for that matter they had something on that disaster on either the History or Discovery channel, and apparently by that time (just before the disaster) most people (and news stations) had lost virtually all fascination with shuttle launches. In fact the only reason this launch was being watched by school kids was because of Ms McAuliffe being the first teacher in space.
Anyways, millions of people watched the disaster .....if you add the rest of the world it is easily in the higher hundreds of millions (might even have clocked one billion) since each and every world station was showing footage of that disaster over and over and over again. Everywhere. However the number that watched it, while it happened, was limited to the NASA people viewing the launch, the family members of the astronauts, the school children who had been given a live-feed by NASA, and anyone who had CNN or satellite and had decided to watch it. Most people either couldn't watch it or were just not interested to watch it in the first place.
Then the disaster happened.
In other news, only 18 more ETs are being built.
Internal Lockheed Martin Memo From Marshall Byrd To Michoud
Employees Regarding Shuttle External Tank Contract Changes
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=19405
"Claims that the disaster was the unavoidable price to be paid for pioneering a new frontier were self-serving rationalizations on the part of those responsible for incompetent engineering management — the disaster should have been avoidable"
It was avoidable. And there is no excuse for the warnings of the engineers to have been ignored. But in past history of exploration, human judgment failings have indeed caused disasters. Learning about ourselves (good and bad) is as much a part of the exploration process too. And the only way you learn is by doing.
It was a very heartbreaking day for me. I collected all the shuttle mission patches then, still do. I consumed NASA news as a child, I was a young man in 1986 and it hit me hard.
I see it in a bit different light now. They were all there because that is where they wanted to be. I wish I could change what happened. But I choose to celebrate those lost, and their lives still inspire the young to explore.
We will lose more people in these endeavours of exploration. History teaches this. But there is no lack of passion by those who choose to continue even if it be on imperfect wings.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.