| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| 7 Myths About The Challenger Disaster |
| 2006-01-28 |
| SEVERELY EFL'd, but worth the read by a genuine expert in the field. By James Oberg NBC News space analyst Special to MSNBC Updated: 11:25 a.m. ET Jan. 27, 2006 James Oberg NBC News space analyst 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. The flight, and the lost crewmembers, deserve proper recognition and authentic commemoration. Historians, reporters, and every citizen need to take the time this week to remember what really happened, and especially to make sure their memories are as close as humanly possible to what really did happen. If that happens, here's the way the mission may be remembered: 1. Few people actually saw the Challenger tragedy unfold live on television. 2. The shuttle did not explode in the common definition of that word. 3. The flight, and the astronauts’ lives, did not end at that point, 73 seconds after launch. 4. The design of the booster, while possessing flaws subject to improvement, was neither especially dangerous if operated properly, nor the result of political interference. 5. Replacement of the original asbestos-bearing putty in the booster seals was unrelated to the failure. 6. There were pressures on the flight schedule, but none of any recognizable political origin. 7. 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. Mike |
| Posted by:Mike Kozlowski |
| #1 Does'nt matter if it was live or not. 73 seconds or 303 seconds. On that day 20 years ago we lost some hero's. I had just Ets'D from the 82d and was at the reserve center to watch it depart. We all just stood there and cried. Dangerous profession and brave Americans, God bless them. I was glad to see at the end of it all we continued to move forward with the program. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2006-01-28 17:05 |