Author Topic: Challenger STS-51L  (Read 98602 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31362
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9637
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: Challenger STS-51L
« Reply #200 on: 02/01/2016 04:50 PM »
In the TV movie Challenger which I just looked at again, during the break in the pre-launch meeting with Thiokol, Cecil Houston got a call from the Coast Guard saying the booster recovery ships were in a "full gale" and headed back to port.  Any truth to this? 

no

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31362
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9637
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: Challenger STS-51L
« Reply #201 on: 02/01/2016 04:50 PM »
Hypothetical question here and I apologize if this has been answered but I've searched and cannot find an answer to this.  I know that the SRBs continued to fire until they were destroyed by the SRO.  It only just occurred to me, what if the burn through had occurred in a "safer" location (ie. away from the ET and shuttle), could the shuttle have made it to SRB SEP?  I know that the shuttle engine gimbals and SRB gimbals had already started reacting to the SRB thrust asymmetry, but at what point would they have not been able to keep control of the stack?

unknown

Offline Paul Howard

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 451
  • Perth, Western Australia
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Challenger STS-51L
« Reply #202 on: 08/04/2016 01:29 PM »
Any plans to name any of the Orions after the fallen orbiters?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31362
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9637
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: Challenger STS-51L
« Reply #203 on: 08/04/2016 01:37 PM »
Why? They are Orion.

Offline WBY1984

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 176
  • Liked: 117
  • Likes Given: 105
Re: Challenger STS-51L
« Reply #204 on: 08/25/2016 10:37 AM »
How did the flames even reach the damaged joint? Isn't there a wall of unburned propellant between the hot combustion gasses and the joint, right up until burnout?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31362
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9637
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: Challenger STS-51L
« Reply #205 on: 08/25/2016 11:53 AM »
How did the flames even reach the damaged joint? Isn't there a wall of unburned propellant between the hot combustion gasses and the joint, right up until burnout?

Not at the joints. Do a google search on the joint.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12858
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3610
  • Likes Given: 617
Re: Challenger STS-51L
« Reply #206 on: 02/07/2017 02:27 AM »
I worked STS-51L payload processing and was an eyewitness to the 1986 disaster.  The accident literally changed my life, steering me toward where I am today. 

This photo from ISS, and the story behind it, just floored me when I read it today.  My wife, a middle school teacher, said "wow" when she read the story.  (She usually doesn't say "wow" when I show her something space-related!)

http://www.collectspace.com//news/news-020617a-challenger-soccer-ball-space-station.html

#NASARemembers indeed.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 02/07/2017 02:30 AM by edkyle99 »

Offline catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4711
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 1496
  • Likes Given: 932
Re: Challenger STS-51L
« Reply #207 on: 06/24/2017 12:55 AM »
STS-51L Challenger - Multi Angle Launch Footage


lunarmodule5
Published on Jun 23, 2017

STS-51L multi-launch angle coverage with audio from ABC Radio

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YFrhpe0I7s?t=001

Tony De La Rosa

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5164
  • Liked: 791
  • Likes Given: 550
Re: Challenger STS-51L
« Reply #208 on: 11/01/2017 04:04 PM »
During the Senate hearing just concluded on (among others) Rep. Brindenstine's nomination as NASA administrator, Sen. Nelson made what I believe to be a garbled reference to the Challenger accident.  Bashing Brindenstine's non-technical background, he said that the last time NASA lost a crew it was under the leadership of a non-technical administrator.  So far, so accurate:  Columbia was lost while accountant Sean O'Keefe was running NASA.  But Nelson then went on to talk about James Beggs, who was NASA administrator in the early and mid-1980s.  Sometime before the loss of Columbia, in what was described as a temporary move, Beggs stepped aside to defend himself against corruption charges related to an early position he had held at a defense contractor (and not only was eventually acquitted but received an apology from the government).

The point is that on the day of Challenger's fatal launch, Beggs was technically the administrator, but William Graham was acting administrator.  Nelson claimed that Beggs, being aware of the low temperatures at the Cape, called NASA and begged it to cancel the launch.  Is that true?

It's odd that Nelson would get his facts wrong on this, since the Challenger accident followed his own Shuttle flight so closely.  I'd have thought the events of the time would be very clear in his mind, especially since his mistake only muddies his claim that non-technical NASA leadership is dangerous.

Tags: