Challenger technically did not explode, the explosion noise was added by a news station and everyone kept using that film

>I am really not sure why you think you should be the one creating verbiage for NASA?

What a ridiculous standard. We're allowed to criticize NASA, especially when it comes to Challenger.

'Malfunction' is a weak word to describe their poor management and cowardice that killed 7 astronauts.

Let's not forget that plenty of engineers and safety people at nasa said not to launch the day challenger went up. It was the decision of executives to ignore this and proceed.

So. . .these statues were made during the reign of Augustus or Tiberius?

If I recall correctly, Bill Nelson went up on the last shuttle flight before the Challenger disaster. Lucky for him, I suppose, that NASA started sending politicians up on the shuttle before they started sending teachers.

There was a discussion during Ian that it was the last time they could reasonably bring Artemis back in. Any more times and they risk the having the thing vibrate itself apart.

> They'll probably consult the families and respect their wishes either way.

Why? All the bodies were recovered, and every other bit of wreckage that could be found was recovered.

>A previous story mentioned that the families were contacted before the news ran.

Yes, to give them a heads up that Challenger would be back in the news.

What does NASA and a walrus have in common?

… they both want a tight seal.

Get get a degree in aerospace engineering and then say that

That's why I said it is interesting.

[deleted]

[removed]

[removed]

And the reason they used that particular foam was because "more environmentally friendly." Apparently not "astronaut friendly."

[removed]

It wasn't just pressure to launch a teacher. Part of the arguments NASA had made to secure funding for the shuttle program had hinged on the claim they could launch on reliable schedules. The military wanted more funding for unmanned rockets to launch satellites, but NASA had prevailed in Congress partly by asserting that the shuttles could put military hardware into space, replacing the need for more or newer unmanned boosters. The military was dubious they could maintain tight schedules and launch on short notice.

NASA felt pressure to prove their program could get into space regularly with minimal delays/cancellations in order to justify the spending and prove the military "wrong."

It will be interesting to see if this eventually makes its way to the KSC museum.

>I am really not sure why you think you should be the one creating verbiage for NASA?

Don't you know who I am? I'm Mr. Nasa.

I still remember the day , sitting in Class when it blew up, and then all the jokes..Why did NASA switch to Coke,? Because they couldn't get 7 up!

Columbia University sociologist Diane Vaughan wrote The Challenger Launch Decision to illustrate the theory of "normalization of deviation", in which accepting small deviations from requirements leads to a slippery slope and eventually places a project in an extreme state of nonconformance. She added a section on Columbia in the second edition to show that NASA hadn't actually learned anything from earlier disasters.

There are many similarities. Some see tech as a new religion

I made it mandatory reading when I was the supervisor of a flight safety engineering team.

What we call "religious persecution" was done by absolutely everyone everywhere in the world until about the 18th century (and even then, it was only in the 20th century that the majority of countries stopped doing it).

This is because all adherents of all religions agreed that it was a matter of public interest to ensure that the right gods were worshiped, and worshiped properly. If your city didn't worship the right gods, or didn't worship them correctly, they might decide to smite your city. To allow your neighbor religious freedom seemed as absurd as allowing your neighbor to set his house on fire - the fire might spread to your house, so you can't do that.

The modern idea of religious freedom only became conceivable once people basically stopped believing that God or the gods intervened in the world very much. That's why the first supporters of religious freedom were Deists (people who believed in a distant, non-interventionist God).

I think you're saying that including the find in one of their spooky mysteries(!) episodes is like treating it as part of their no-value, highly self-indulgent, entertainment.

I was walking to a meeting at 3 World Trade center when the first plane flew over my head, and everyone on the street ran because of the visible cloud of debris above us after it hit. No one I knew was killed, but many of my friends did lose people. A few years later a coworker based in Nebraska was at dinner with a group of New Yorkers, totally treating the entire incident as fodder for his mental masturbation. Sorry guy, I'm not interested in hearing about how there were no actual planes, or who knows a friend who knows a friend who has some of the dust that could be sampled, and, if you don't keep it down a litle someone in this restaurant who did lose a spouse or a child might come over and knock your lights out.

Real investigations into the truth behind disasters are extremely helpful in preventing future accidents, and in helping bring closure to victims. Nutty conpiracy theorizing, where all of the endorphins for the truthers come from disordered seeking out of mystery and not-knowingness, and automatically throwing out any facts once they become certain enough to feel mundane, is very different than slowly and deliberately building up facts necessary for a narrative that actually gets close to explaining most of what happened.

kinda interesting how eventually they go from that to persecuting people as well