|
Author
|
Topic: What if the challenger disaster had never happened?
|
ASCAN1984
Member Posts: 1049
From: County Down, Nothern Ireland
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 04-25-2004 11:33 AM
   
What if the challenger disaster had never happened? |
nasamad
Member Posts: 2121
From: Essex, UK
Registered: Jul 2001
|
posted 04-25-2004 02:40 PM
I would say thats just too vast an alternative future to speculate upon, apart from the fact that there would have probably been some other major disaster sooner than the Columbia tragedy, purely due to the highly packed launch schedule ! Adam |
HouseDadX4
unregistered
|
posted 04-25-2004 03:36 PM
And also, NASA would've continued to fly with the O-ring problem in the SRBs. They knew about it and chose to fly anyway, so, sooner or later, it would've happened... |
Rodina
Member Posts: 836
From: Lafayette, CA
Registered: Oct 2001
|
posted 04-25-2004 04:06 PM
I have to agree with the previous comment. The O-Ring problem was a landmine waiting to be stepped on -- Discovery, in 1985, had a serious burn through on one of its SRBs -- but rest assured, we'd have lost an orbiter by 1990 at the outside. There were too many lingering problems and lackluster management oversight. |
Hart Sastrowardoyo
Member Posts: 3445
From: Toms River, NJ
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 04-25-2004 06:41 PM
A couple of conceivable scenarios:There could have instead been a "Columbia 7," with the next flight, Mission 61E. As (I believe) McBride says in "Before Lift Off," he couldn't sleep the midnight of March 5/6, so he called to find out what the weather was like on that date, which was their launch date, and he found out it was just as cold as when 51L launched. Or it could have been the "Challenger 5" or "Atlantis 5" with the launch of a liquid-fueled Centaur in Shuttle, what some called the "Death Star" flights, Mission 61F and 61G. Or there could have been a "Discovery 7," with the Vandenberg launch of 62A. I forget the exact details, but in the conversion of the launchpad from MOL to Shuttle they didn't enlarge one of the lines or ducts - and the resulting hydrogen buildup would have lead to a huge hydrogen explosion. Columbia was supposed to have been used for the FRF at Vandenberg, so another alternative is that Columbia is lost with no crew onboard - but just as long a RTF period happens. Even without these happening, I think it's safe to say that NASA would not have been able to launch 20 flights in 1986, especially with Discovery dedicated to Vandenberg. That's one less orbiter at KSC that can be used to canabilize parts from. Somewhere along the way, an accident resulting to a suspension of flights - whether or not leading to a loss of crew - was going to happen. Hart |
OV-105
Member Posts: 816
From: Ridgecrest, CA
Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted 04-26-2004 12:40 AM
I like what if questions, sometimes. I do not think that 1986 would have had 15 flights (that is per the January 1986 Countdown Magazine, yes I am and old timer) Nasa wanted. I think 61-L and maybe 71-A (Astro-2)would have been cancelled or delayed. I think 1985 will always bee the best year of the Shuttle 9 flights is the best that was ever done with only 2(!) OPF's. All it would have taken to mess the flight rate up would have been one or two shuttles having to land at Edwards and they would have not been able to stay on track. 61-C showed what could happen. Stay on orbit too long then have to land at Edwards. I do think that a disaster was just around the bend. 51-C and 51-B in 1985 could have been the flights that it happened on they were almost there. Also I belive the Columbia FRF at Vandenberg was talked about after Challenger but before Vandenberg was cancelled totally |
DavidH
Member Posts: 1217
From: Huntsville, AL, USA
Registered: Jun 2003
|
posted 04-26-2004 11:41 AM
Of course, one of the things that differentiated 51-L from the next few subsequent missions was its "passenger," Christa McAuliffe.
With all the changes that occurred post-Challenger, it's likely that there still would have been a cessation in non-astronaut spaceflight following the disaster which we agree would probably still have been immenent.
However, do you think that, had McAuliffe, instead of being killed, succesfully completed her mission, with all of the publicity that would have accompanied that, NASA's attitude towards further "civilian" flights would have been the same?------------------
http://www.hatbag.net/blog.html
"America's challenge of today has forged man's destiny of tomorrow." - Commander Eugene Cernan, Apollo 17 Mission, 11 December 1972 |
tegwilym
Member Posts: 2331
From: Sturgeon Bay, WI
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 04-26-2004 03:09 PM
I agree that it was just a matter of time before something happened with the O ring. Just imagine if he shuttle managed to launch and it blew up just before clearning the tower? *shudder*Tom
|
HouseDadX4
unregistered
|
posted 04-26-2004 03:35 PM
It's interesting to read the comments in this particular section because I just wrote a paper for government about the new space initiative and commented on how things would have to change at NASA including maintenance and management..My professor thought it was awesome..gave me a perfect 50 points for it... |
mark plas
Member Posts: 385
From: the Netherlands
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 04-27-2004 07:24 AM
Would John Young have made a seventh flight? |
Tom
Member Posts: 1597
From: New York
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 04-27-2004 03:36 PM
If I remember correctly, John Young was scheduled to fly on Atlantis (STS-61J) in August '86...the Hubble mission. |
mikepf
Member Posts: 441
From: San Jose, California, USA
Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted 04-27-2004 08:07 PM
If it wasn't Challenger then, it would have been a shuttle sooner or later. I just finished reading Michael Collins book LIFTOFF. In one of the final chapters he discusses Challenger (NASA had not yet returned to flight when the book was written). I was experiencing some serious Deja Vu while reading it. His description of the management failures that led to the first shuttle disaster could easily be used to describe the management failures that led to the second. Change the dates, shuttle, names and the components and it could be used to describe Columbia. Sure hope the lesson sinks in this time. It certainly didn't before. Great book by the way.
Mike |
advertisement