Space Shuttle Challenger Was Sabotaged


Recommended Posts

With modern technology they have no excuse whatsoever to make screwups of that magnitude again. The shuttle should have been retired ages ago anyway.

According to Clark McClelland, the shuttle is the most unstable, most sensitive-to-damage vehicle ever created by NASA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With modern technology they have no excuse whatsoever to make screwups of that magnitude again. The shuttle should have been retired ages ago anyway.

not really.

Theres still a tonne of fuel being strapped onto it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not really.

Theres still a tonne of fuel being strapped onto it.

Agree. We are talking about a 35 tons of liquid hydrogen and oxygen bomb. You gotta have guts to fly with that thing under you, knowing it can blow up at any given moment because of faulty wiring, tiny holes made by debris from lift-off or just plain bad luck!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to Clark McClelland, the shuttle is the most unstable, most sensitive-to-damage vehicle ever created by NASA.

Yep, but it was designed in the 1970s, they now have a chance to start totally from scratch and eliminate some of the design flaws.

not really.

Theres still a tonne of fuel being strapped onto it.

Commercial aircraft do as well, but they don't randomly blow up. The technology exists to Isolate that kind of fuel safely, so you really shouldn't make catastrophic f***ups, bearing in mind that both of the shuttle crashes where caused by large slices of negligence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Commercial aircraft do as well, but they don't randomly blow up. The technology exists to Isolate that kind of fuel safely, so you really shouldn't make catastrophic f***ups, bearing in mind that both of the shuttle crashes where caused by large slices of negligence

Commercial aircraft have it INSIDE the fuselage.

The shuttle has it as an external component. Also theres a massive difference between jet propulsion engines and cryogenic propulsion.

Theres plenty of room for catastropic **** ups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both "conspiracies" hold no weight.

Challenger: Yes, the company that supplied the "O rings" did warn NASA that they couldn't be failsafe (or would fail) at a certain temperatures. Thats no different to when you buy anything electical, there are notes that state that it could be dangerous or that the appliance will fail at certain temperatures. The leeway is debatable, and the shuttle was already delayed when it eventually took off.. A tragic incident, but no conspiracy.

Columbia: Filming eventual damage to the delta wings denied: probably. You know how much that **** costs? Plus, its already been proven that HAD they looked and discovered the problem, they wouldn't have been able to send anything up in time to rescue the crew. Thats fact, not conspiracy.

So yeah.. All in all, since '81 and all of 100+ missions since, the success rate is still something to be proud of.

Edited by GreyWolfSC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both "conspiracies" hold no weight.

Challenger: Yes, the company that supplied the "O rings" did warn NASA that they couldn't be failsafe (or would fail) at a certain temperature. Thats no different to when you buy anything electical, there are notes that state that it could be dangerous or that the appliance will fail at certain temperatures. The leeway is debatable, and the shuttle was already delayed when it eventually took off.. A tragic incident, but no conspiracy.

Columbia: Filming eventual damage to the delta wings denied: probably. You know how much that **** costs? Plus, its already been proven that HAD they looked and discovered the problem, they wouldn't have been able to send anything up in time to rescue the crew. Thats fact, not conspiracy.

So yeah.. All in all, since '81 and all of 100+ mission since, the success rate is still something to be proud of.

Hell yeah Steve! Thanks for pointing that out about the success rate of the Space Program.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both "conspiracies" hold no weight.

Challenger: Yes, the company that supplied the "O rings" did warn NASA that they couldn't be failsafe (or would fail) at a certain temperatures. Thats no different to when you buy anything electical, there are notes that state that it could be dangerous or that the appliance will fail at certain temperatures. The leeway is debatable, and the shuttle was already delayed when it eventually took off.. A tragic incident, but no conspiracy.

I didn't claim that did make it a conspiracy, but you have to admit it was inherently stupid, and arrogant for Nasa to basically browbeat Thiokol's management into giving them go for launch when there was a very real danger. This wasn't a first incident, something similar happened to Discovery a couple of years previously in almost identical conditions, so it can't be said the warnings wern't there.

It wasn't just a warning, it was an indicator, and one that Nasa missed. A screwup that cost 7 people their lives, but admittedly not a conspiracy.

Does however go to show how dangerous it is when management people with big egos become more concerned with schedules than safety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's certainly easier to believe that someone sabotaged the launch as opposed to believing all the crazy testing they

do pre-launch would allow a faulty part to cause such a catastrophe. That being said, if I were NASA/The Govt, I definitely

would keep it quiet. The last thing we need now is another example of how <insert Terrorist organization name here> got

a mole into yet another American agency.

Regardless of the how and why, it was a sad day. If it was sabotage, I hope they caught the ****** and made him/her

quietly disappear. If it was a fault that managed to get through all the testing... I hope they learned their damn lesson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.