Challenger: A Rush to Launch
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 04. 2018
- A WJXT documentary looks at the events and decisions leading up to the January 28, 1986, launch of the Space Shuttle Challenger, and hear from the commander's wife, a retired shuttle astronaut from Jacksonville and the engineer who urged NASA not to launch that cold day.
When Thiokol senior management said “take your engineers hat off and put on your management hat” speaks volumes about what I see every day in most businesses. It’s not about doing what’s right - it’s about doing what’s best for the company and it’s interests. Challenger was not an “Accident”. It was “Arrogance”.
I recall that Reagan wanted the launch to go as scheduled so he could use it as a prop in his SOTU address! smh!
As much as I hate Reagan, that’s typical politics and to be expected.
That NASA and Thiokol management went ahead with the launch because of pressures like these is inexcusable however and shows the lack of respect these people had for space travel.
Putting people on a rocket and launching them into orbit via continuous controlled explosions is not “routine” and never will be.
@@Jim-nt7xy that is a lie.
absolutely agree. An accident is unavoidable for the most part. This was avoidable
Someone should have gone to prison for this foreseeable accident.
19:37 “I refused to sign the recommendation.”
Remember this kids. Don’t let people intimidate you into doing anything you don’t feel is right.
another lesson here: if your engineers redlight the mission, DON'T!
That's right. No matter how high the pressure is or from whom it is coming from. One person can make a difference. If you look at the exact definition of the word accident-it is something that happens by chance, without any apparent or deliberate cause. The engineers at Thiokol were put in a position to prove that a tragedy/accident WOULD occur. That type of fallacious reasoning isn't sound even in a hypothetical situation when you are looking at data in terms of risk calculation and decision making-and it is ABSOLUTELY OUTRAGEOUS AND RECKLESS when you are talking about human life. What they had always been tasked with, is proving that it was SAFE to launch. Even with the tremendous pressure leading up to this with the amount of flights that were set, the pressure to launch on time-and the most important thing to remember is that the Shuttle was designed(or I would say because of its complex design) was never designed and never should have been billed as a vehicle that could make X amount of flights sticking to a specific launch schedule. I commend and have so much respect for everyone who did not waiver and who stuck to their decisions that it was not safe to launch based on what they had seen. It would have(and later did) require two years to get to the root of the problem and fix it. However, based on what they had seen from the boosters that they retrieved after launch and the testing that was done, is that cold temperature was most definitely a factor. This had everything to do with flight readiness. I use that term because the managers at the different NASA 'branches' ie Marshall, Kennedy-would have that review before launch. This information, the information about the concerns (that isn't even strong enough of a word) that were discussed and passionately argued in the previous night's teleconference were deliberately kept from key people. The answer that you kept getting at the Commission(I would highly recommend you watch Roger Boijoly's testimony and Alan McDonald's also) and everyone kept commenting that this wasn't an issue for level III or IV or IV, or that they had told THEIR MANAGER, but had not informed anyone that would have been key in having the power to stop the launch. Yes, people at the highest levels of NASA did know about this problem of course. But instead of using common sense and judgement, they stuck to their 'reporting chain of command' I use the words common sense and judgement because that's exactly what Chairman Rogers of the Presidential Commission said(chain of command is a military term and of course that's what he was comparing it to) There is already inherent risk-even with everything having proper redundancy(meaning back up systems) and in this case, they had to override it in writing after Thiokol management(not the engineers in the meeting who were the most knowledgable on the issue and who had made their presentations) decided it would be a 'management only decision' and the other managers were told to 'take off your engineering hat and put on your managerial one' That is deliberate and reckless, but Larry Mulloy and the others that were on the teleconference from NASA put extreme pressure on them-and that pressure came from the culture that existed. So, in conclusion-having integrity can be costly. But it is vital. Costly meaning, you may be criticized, you may even be fired from your job..Standing up for principles is 'costly.' However, we see that the integrity and courage that came from those men WOULD HAVE saved those lives if it had been listened to. It was more than flawed decision making, it was reckless and it was a complete disregard for flight safety. The O ring issue-in short, was part of an essential safety element. The O rings make sure(including other engineering principles that I actually was able to understand after doing some reading and listening at length to different key people speak) that the joints are SEALED. ANY malfunction on a solid rocket booster would lead to loss of the vehicle and crew. And the O ring concept is very simple. They become brittle and lose their resilience in cold temperature..Dr. Feynman, a nobel laureate physicist, demonstrated that fact not with a complicated presentation with charts and graphs but by simply doing a short demonstration and sticking it in a glass of ice water. The other problem is that people like Mulloy had a huge amount of pressure on them, because they didn't want to go and tell their managers, it's clear we shouldn't launch. The culture at NASA was so important to look at. They had promised X amount of launches, and in a way portended that they Shuttle would therefore 'pay for itself' in the beginning. However, they could clearly see that that was not realistic. Being able to change your mind is also an important principle. Changing in the face of different circumstances and new things that you learn makes you more of a leader, not less of one. This was NOT a commercial aircraft, it was a test vehicle. Commander Dick Scobee felt compelled to let Christa McAuliffe know that. That it is risky business. I didn't finish this, but just wanted to mention that anyone interested in learning more should watch the Netflix documentary called Challenger:; The Final Flight. It really is very well done and you get a broad perspective, and you hear from June Scobee-Rogers(wife of Dick Scobee and just an amazing lady), Cheryl Mc Nair (Ron McNair's wife) and also many of the people who were key and give their testimony of how things unfolded. There are already risks of an accident because of so many things, even tested and working perfectly, that could go wrong. But ignoring clear and specific warnings and gambling with their lives was completely unacceptable. In life I would say the lesson is to stick with your conviction, and if you feel strongly about something, say no-and mostly, you don't need to even explain why. Just the fact that you feel that way IS enough and others should respect it.
I loved hearing the additional information from Allan McDonald that I hadn't previously heard. We know that he refused to sign off after Morton Thiokol had their 'caucus' (and after they had heard several intimidating statements...."when do you want us to fly Thiokol, next April' ) prior to that, they had made the decision to NOT recommend launching. That's the first time in the history of the Shuttle that that had happened. After, when the Thiokol GM started ignoring the data and clear reasons-they basically wanted them to prove that it was unsafe, and back that up with data(which they could do!) but you can only do that to a point. Nevermind the 53 degrees, which would be the normal limit of the SRBs-you would know be taking them down to below freezing-about 18 degrees where they area of concern was. There was ice all over the pad overnight. Even in the best conditions you are pushing things to operate at the highest level of engineering possible. It should have been simple. The people who were the most knowledgable said that operating at those cold temperatures, (and as Allan Mc Donald also said) is ABOVE the capacity of how the Solid Rocket Boosters were designed to operate. It's Florida! They scrubbed the launch previously due to high wind...so extreme cold(the coldest launch of ANY PREVIOUS LAUNCH) should make it an easy decision-no consternation involved. You err on the side of SAFETY. All of these things/factors(including weather) were part of what was called launch commit. criteria.
That statement says it all. Thanks for sharing the time-link. It also shows the integrity of the person who said it.
In the back of his mind: if it goes south we lose not just lives but billions of dollars and the trust of the people.
Bosses: Sign it or we lose millions.
No
Both Challenger and Columbia accidents were preventable, but NASA, and when I say NASA, I mean the people who manage it, chose to ignore the warnings and gamble with the crews lives.
Managers didn’t design it.. blame is on both sides..
It all starts at the top..thats where the buck stops or they pass it!!
In Columbia it was out of control a piece of inclination foam from the external fuel tank broke off from the speed and hit the left wing and blew a hole in the heat shield and thats what caused the disaster but nasa and the crew shook it off as that had happened many times before and cause no damage.also the heat shield material was considered indestructible
@@squishybackpack5675 Yeah but some engineers requested permission to use a satellite and took some pictures of the shuttle wing, just to be sure. Guess what Nasa did, they decline the request.
@@gabrielprates8385 sorry didn’t know
So is it a fair statement that after the “accident” Mr. McDonald’s life changed forever and in a better way earning him respect and giving him an opportunity to continue his career primarily due to his character and integrity.
This was EXCELLENT. Absolutely fascinating. God bless Allan McDonald - he did everything right. If he had given in to the pressure, NASA would have pinned it all on him. And what courage to step forward at the hearing to make the truth known. Wise man and heroic truth teller.
smartest person involved
I was 10 years old and my dad told me the Shuttle had exploded. Later I saw it on the news on TV and still remember the guy saying 'Obviously a major malfunction'- probably the greatest understatement of the century.
You could say that about 2020
The announcement came as a "Major Malfunction" due to the o-rings being compromised by the cold weather. From watching videos on the Challenger Accident Investigation I have learned that Morton Thiokol's engineers recommended not launching but Lawrence Malloy didn't want to accept the fact that a disaster was just waiting to happen. He felt that with Discovery's near fatal flight a year earlier that the o-rings would seal the joint even in cold weather and of course he was wrong. Now granted he likely felt bad that he should've listened to Thiokol's engineers and delayed the launch.
I was 97 years old when it happened, and I am 132 years old today!
@@deoglemnaco7025 🧢
I was 9 going onto 10.
Challenger was No accident👍
This was criminal negligence and people should have went to prison over this.
Colombia was an example of an accident
Columbia wasn't an accident either.
Columbia fault was also known to NASA before it's re-entry.They neglected it again as usual
This brings back so.many sad memories 😢
Great documentary. I like the ads too, it gives me a glimpse into American life!
The ads are horrible.
Why doesn't anyone mention that the senator from Utah sealed the fate of the Space Shuttle in or around 1972 when they pushed to give Morton Thiokol the contract to build the boosters in Utah that had to be multi-piece stacked design shipped on rail cars instead of a monolithic single piece design that could have been build by a competitor in Florida and barged to the Cape? None of these documentary shows mentions this. Doomed based on congressional favoritism. Using that design created something like a 1 in 50 chance of vehicle loss. The commission that allowed this design compromise failed the astronauts and the country.
That Senator's vote was needed to approve the Shuttle's funding. This sort of stuff happens all the time in government programs.
I never heard this. Thanks for the info.
" congressional favoritism" .... based on .........KICKBACKS!!!
Exactly. This comment is totally based. Thiokol’s crappy design couldn’t even meet the design specs of 40-90 degrees Fahrenheit they were contractually obligated to meet. Then on the eve of a launch they say their crappy seals can’t function below 53 degrees
@@jeffreyskoritowski4114
Was this Jake Garn, who was rewarded by NASA with a free ride into space?
The Challenger 7 gave their lives for their country just as much as all the military casualties of war did.
Jan, 1986 was an incredible experience for me. Jan, 1986 is still on my mind. It will not let me rest.
I felt a, like a bond with these astronauts. I was tuned in for the entire program!
Why is there a commercial every 2 minutes
To make you switch to Premium.
Cause it was recorded from some tv station. Notice it's mostly FL commercials.
Nasa has blood on there hands when it comes to challenger.The contractors said we dont recommend a launch and was indimidated by Nasa to launch.Nasa should pay the victims families of this disaster.
Who of you as kids watched Mr. Wizard freeze the rubber ball on his TV show? Did anyone at NASA ever watch that and relate it to below freezing temperatures, with water involved? Is this hindsight?
CPTS 302 gang wya
302 a year later
Gay af
I was 9 years old. My cousin and I were playing the NES and when I swapped to a different game, the Challenger Explosion was on tv.
Damn I remember this like it was 32 years 8 months and one day ago :'( Never Forget
i don’t know anytime rush is a good thing. never rush.
"My god, it's full of ads" - David Bowman.
🤣😂🤣😂
I was in 5th grade. I’ll never forget watching it live in our classroom seeing the expression on our teachers faces. The irony is that all kids loved wearing those black O’rings like Madonna. 😢
I like Allen McDonald guy he seems like he knows what he was talking about.
The responsible moral profesionalist as whole NASA should be.
Total truth teller.
i like those contemporary commercials
This is one of the very very few video records that deals at all with the fate of the cabin (cockpit) and the actual astronauts AFTER the explosion, meaning the fact that they lived through the explosion and had to experience that terrible 3 minute plunge toward their death. NASA and the news has been careful over the decades to mute that discussion, and, to my knowledge has never willingly released photos of any detail/extent of its retrieval and/or photos of the bodies, other than---in regards to the cabin itself---in this documentary. And that's probably best left at that.
It would not be proper to release photos of bodies that had been killed when they hit the water at 200 mph and were not found and recovered for several weeks afterward. Think of their relatives.
Bruh ads inside the video + ads in the youtube, are you serious?
How stupid as if we don't have enough ads to interrupt these videos.
Skip ahead when you encounter the commercials they couldn't be bothered to edit out:
First commercial break ends at 10:15
Second commercial break ends at 23:08
Third commercial break ends at 29:36
Fourth commercial break ends at 50:55
or we could just press the arrow key a few times, thx anyway tho
Much obliged. 👍
@@naternaterspaceinvader8217 right?!?! Thank you!
Lawrence Mulloy you've got their blood on your hands!!!
Along with George Hardy, William Lucas, William Graham, among others who ignored this and pushed for the launch
Reagan wanted the launch too I heard
Yet he denies all responsibility.
@@njjeff201 🙄🤣😂😅
@@kristinstrickland1038 😂😂😂😂
Far and away the best documentary I've seen on this issue. I do have a question though. Howcome Christa McAuliffe's belongings were found by the rescue vessel if the crew cabin remained intact?
One of the worst because of the ads
Probably because it was intact after the explosion but not after slamming into the water.
Love the crazy adverts.
Gave me nightmares as a kid. Was like child abuse. Not suitable for children.
The weather would not have been an issue were it not for the arrogance of many who were involved.
Incredible
Bet none went to jail
Awesome, got to see floridian advertisements. I was not disappointed
Hell yeah
What the hell is this? There are ads baked into the movie every 5 minutes. Rubbish.
That’s the best part.
So you don't edit out the commercials then you put commercials in to make money. Not just a couple commercials 13 of them.
Anyone watching this in 2018?
Yes it sad.
2020.
2020
2022
24:18 so Christa McAuliffe's lesson from space was scheduled for day 4; and if they delayed another day, that would push it from Friday to Saturday. How hard would it have been to just swap days with some other event? Were they that rigid? Was the schedule carved in stone?
And I seem to recall that we had VCRs in 1986. The lessons could have been taped and shown on Monday. No doubt they would have been taped anyway, and shown over and over again. That's one hell of a reason to ignore fundamental safety concerns. But of course after the fact, they were looking for any reason they could get.
In the words of a senior USAF F-4 maintenance NCO from the 1970's: "Better to wait a week than crump the F--- airplane."
NASA administration, especially then, was still out to prove that the funding that they were getting from the government for the Space Shuttle was justifiable; scrubbing the launch, and delaying Christa's lesson, and subsequent tasks on the agenda, would've meant cost overruns. Of course, listening to the engineers and scrubbing the launch is what they should've done; but, y'know, money.
There was also major political pressure way up the ladder to have Challenger in orbit ASAP as President Reagen was scheduled to say congratulations to her during the live broadcast of his annual State of The Union Address before Congress. That exceptionally public event is absolutely impossible to reschedule so scrubbing the launching for several more days was highly undesirable.
@@paulzy5192 And as it turned out, they wound up rescheduling it anyway....
I really like that comment. A similar one which pilots say is ‘Takeoff is Optional but Landing is Compulsory!’
@@stephensmith799 Four years and 1,000 hours in the F-4 and I hadn't heard that one. A variation is that landing is inevitable, even if it's by parachute--or worse.
I'm Glad This Dude Refused to Sign Off on What Would Be a Disaster of Killing Those People 😥💙✝️
I get a turn in my stomach and get angry when I hear the term "ACCIDENT" when it comes to the Challenger and Columbia tragedies! When you are told by the engineers that this may occur, and you proceed with launch anyway, is manslaughter/murder! It is dangerous to do it right and things perform normally to begin with, so why take another risk on top of that?! Someone should be convicted for both launches.
"accident" as opposed to "on purpose"
@@watchgoose take a risk with other people's lives? I'd consider it on purpose. Your own engineers tell you it's not safe to launch, and you do it anyway? Yeah, I'd say on "purpose"
@@westleyburgess3622 don't forget NASA is apart of the government so they love making it's own people suffer
The engineers on Challenger said that it was unsafe to launch because of the weather. The engineers on Colombia thought it was safe to launch. Nobody thought that styrofoam could come loose and make a hole in the wing.
Great docu, but the local ads are friggin awesome
Plenty of CZcams ads as well. Never let a good crisis go to waste. Shame on NEWS4.
I was 9 years old when the Challenger disaster happened. I cried for weeks!;
46:54 As an engineer, this is the most infuriating part for me. Yes there is frequently tension between engineering and management, but I won't pretend that engineers are always correct, or that project managers have an easy job. But on the few occasions when my serious concerns as an engineer were overruled _and_ that decision blew up in our collective face, never once did the relevant manager ever take accountability. They ALWAYS have the same slithering, shifting excuses that basically amount to "it's everyone's fault but mine".
Interesting that Administrators vote one way and Engineers vote another way. Then Administrators try to get Engineers to sign a document to relieve Administrators of any responsibility when something goes wrong, and there was a VERY HIGH probability that something WOULD go wrong or they would not have pushed Thiokol to sign ANY documents. NASA Administrators gambled the lives of 7 souls that day and they lost the bet. But hey, it's OK because we got this signed document from Thoikol, which relieves us of ANY responsibility. what a shame. 😞
That's how corporate management works, just about everywhere.
Have a nice day my dear friends. I greet you and USA
Had any of the astronauts miraculously survived the explosion, U can bet they would have sued the pants off of NASA
I thought that too. Ooooh, it would be incredible if that happened. I was 14 when this happened n I'm still sad n shed tears over it just now. I lost my husband suddenly 4 weeks ago so I'm very sensitive to lose of human lives.
Ineptitude by Marshall and Morton-Thiokol
Get rid of the useless commercials and ads.....
This video needs to be edited & remove all the excess commercials
Safety forgotten as marketing was on top of the table like the lesson from space and so on
Why were the engineers not listened to when it was the first time they went justifiably against launch?
Priorities: 1. politics; 2. economics; 3. safety
If I remember the commission report... it was like Allan said, one thing is to say that is unsafe to launch... another completely different thing is a "prove to me that it WILL fail"... specially since they were asked about the previous incidents in the O-ring sealing in the way of: "Management: This has happened before? Engineers: Yes... Management: And there were no problems, so now there won't be any neither.
1. Money. 2 Money. 3. Money!!!
Very interesting. Not only cold weather were to blame but human and material failures created the disaster. Morton Thiokol rocket engineer Roger Boisjoly and his team knew that January 28th,1986 wasn't a good day to fly and tried to warn Nasa Managers and the Nasa Managers tried to warn not only the press along with the firing room but mission control as well. Because during the Teacher in Space contest that took two years everyone didn't know about the O-Ring problem until on the 28th of January on that everyone felt a little bit of guilt because everyone had participated in this event that went so wrong. I bet the Challenger accident is a good lesson to learn for not only Nasa but public as well about being in a rush to put a Teacher in space. If they are planning on putting a teacher in space I believe that there is something could happen. They should postpone the Challenger flight until 1988, 1989 or 1990 to fix the O-Ring problem along with design changes to the Shuttle in case something happens onboard during liftoff like an explosion for example and the astronauts along with High School teacher Christa McAuliffe will still be alive today.
Yeah, she'd probably be living her best life in retirement. So sad that it was taken from her as well as the other astronauts. (Jan Griffiths).
The then president Regan had a lot to do with that disaster as well
Does anyone happen to know the name of the music that plays at the very end, during the what became of everyone part?
Ask your phone (google) what song is this and let it listen
I’m wondering why a system so integral to the safety of the flight (o-rings) didn’t have some form of defrost or temperature regulation to bring it to within operational parameters before launch.
Would it have been that hard to put some wiring in that would warm up the o-rings pre-flight? Seems like a oversight in design.
The redesigned boosters did indeed have joint warmers.
Time were different then, everything seemed right. There was a glass ceiling on just about everything. The world wasn't mean back then. People had a false sense of hope, and everything was okay back then. I was a kid of the mid 1980's.
Winning the Cold War, economic prosperity…yup
How in the hell could the bureaucrats ignore the engineers warning to delay the launch.
Because engineers are arrogant spoiled brats and without management, nothing would get done... and if the engineers were so great, it wouldn’t have blown up in the first place.. think about it..
You've obviously never worked in a bureaucracy (and you haven't missed one single good thing). In a bureaucracy, the answer is "simply".
@@krakenwoodfloorservicemcma5975 I'm sure that you are manager, the most spineless and arrogant kind of human without honor who is using others like toilet paper.
Even urban thugs are better people than managers.
Because the cameras were already rolling!
I heard Reagan was to mention McCallaugh in his speech few days later & refused to change his speech so he wanted a GO on launch
In place of the bastards who authorized this launch, I would no longer sleep quietly; may they be damned. MM Boisjoly and his colleague were the only honest engineers and they are the ones who paid the consequences, all the others received promotions or were "retired"
Whatever, they should have designed it better in the first place. Managers were idiots too but not fully to blame.. all parties share responsibility. If you design something that exploded than you are responsible.
@@krakenwoodfloorservicemcma5975 Morton Thiokol engineers were trying to get to the bottom of the issue since the second shuttle launch. They didn't know what was causing the issues with the o-rings to fail, which is why they created a task force. And they knew the only way to fix the issue would be to redesign it entirely. And that would take time. And NASA didn't want to wait that long as they were trying to keep an unrealistic launch schedule.
And it was Morton Thiokol engineers who recommended not launching due to the cold temperatures, as the O-rings became brittle and their resiliency to seal was vastly effected. And NASA management, especially Lawrence Mulloy, pressured Morton Thiokol management to approve the launch, over the recommendations of their engineers.
@@krakenwoodfloorservicemcma5975 If in warmer weather the o-rings would have performed as designed.
The Engineers were knowledgeable and capable and could make good estimates of risk. The failure of The Challenger was an Organisational Failure, not a technical one. Why some voices were ignored or suppressed is the big question here. Part of the tragedy is that all the actors had their reasons for acting with what they experienced as good (though conflicting) intentions. There are lessons here for all of us.
It’s simple. NASA was afraid of the negative publicity of continued delays, especially of a high profile mission that was a gimmick to revive rapidly declining interest in the shuttle program. So they responded to the facts with reverse psychology that intimidated Morton Thiokol management, who I turn intimidated their engineers, led by the late Roger Boisjoly, into silence. The case is very useful in teaching workplace ethics.
@@leczorn I agree. But it's interesting to ask at what point and for what reasons the priority attaching to safety shifted in favour of the priority to meet public expectations. Like any cultural entity, we can prioritise Rule Compliance and Deviance or System (Hierarchical Bureaucracy) Change Benificial to All (Egalitarian transformation eg Black Lives Matter, Greenpeace) or Competition to Decide Winners and Losers (Individualistic Winnings Belong to Winners) or Self Preservation and To Hell With the Rest of you (Fatalistic 'Trust Nobody and If it ain't Broken Don't Fix it)... Or poly-rational hybrids of these culturally available positions. No other type of thought is possible and all are culturally available and mutually provocative for all places and all time.
All of these are reasonable ethical, practical and analytical positions ('Thought Styles'). Each position is excellent at solving different kinds of problems and terrible at solving others. See Michael Thompson's brilliant piece How Banks and Other Financial Institutions Think. Grid Group Cultural Theory is the simplest way of explaining the shifts we see at every scale from private thoughts to international treaties and everything in between. Recommended🤔😊
Forget about starting with 'personalities', 'preferences', or 'interests'. These are not necessary for explaining what happens. We just don't need Economics or Psychology which are stuck within that Individualistic Thought Style and therfore very limited in capacity. I think it is over for those disciplines.
Not a technical failure? It exploded... if that is not a technical failuythan I don’t know what is..💥
The bosses were thinking about the millions they would lose instead of the 7 lives and billions they would lose.
I mean if one person had asked how much money they would lose if something happened they may have pushed the pause button.
@@krakenwoodfloorservicemcma5975 Why do you think, although it was known that even two concentric O-Rings could fail at the same point in the rocket casing, this knowledge was set aside? That’s a sociological question not a technical one. Yes there was an O-Ring failure which led to an explosion; but take one step further back in the causal chain. Thank goodness we have official inquiries, institutions designed to reduce risk as far as practical.
Reagan's speech gets me every single time
The crew should have been informed about the o-ring problem!
It was them that were to be most effected by it.
what makes me so mad is that both of these shuttles blowups could have been stopped and avoided if nasa showed a little more backbone and smarts and noone had to die needlessly Allan McDonald should have been put as head manager in charge so he could have make the call he did everything by the book and try to avoid the blowup
There is no getting around the commercials in this video, even if you are paying CZcams for ad free service, as the commercials are embedded in the video. Best you can do is click on the 5 or 10 sec fast forward button several times until the commercial is over.
Mr. MCDonald is the type of person we need more of, sadly people like hime get treated like crap because he put his humanity and ethics before money.
What are commercials doing in this video?
Anyone here from Hundhausen?
But why did the insurance commercial come on right after ?
I saw another very good documentary on this and revealed that NASA was looking for alterntives to the Morton solid rocket boosters with other companies, so it really came down to what it always comes down to is $$$.
Interesting facts I never knew like the astronauts had oxygen & did not black out on the fall
One of those hits is n the water is crew cabin
WHY is there a fricking Ford commercial at 8:55 mins in!?!? I pay CZcams Premium dammit and I'm not supposed to get ANY ads so I guess I need to report this BS!! 😡
Channels can run in video ads as part of the yt vid. Totally seperate to yt premium.
Try CZcams revanced sometime, its free and it auto detects and skips in video ads and sponsors
I need to know more about Peppermint Patty
Preventative maintenance would've saved challenger and Columbia
Why were the Ads not edited out?
8000 commercials and 22 minutes of substance.
There’s a tendency to portray the NASA brass like Molloy as villains, which they probably were, but Thiokol was responsible for flying a fatally flawed, inherently unsafe design. The spec they were contractually obligated to meet was 40 through 90 degrees Fahrenheit. They admitted on the eve of a launch they couldn’t even safely launch at 53 degrees
I like the way this guy explains what happened. You feel bad for him, and that they ignored it all basically. It still makes you mad at the people responsible for this even after all these years, The spearheadedness. It's much easier to forgive when we learn from mistakes and never allow it to happen again.. but it did happen again! Just in a different chain of command, different misson. And its messed up. You have to put the crews safety above everything else! Always!
I tried to watch the adverts, but the show kept getting in the way.
They should not have been allowed to show the faces of the families of the astronauts right after the explosion or at the memorial service.
Have a nice day my dear friends.
Reminds me of the wise words once spoken by woody from toy story "rockets explode".
Challenger Titanic the Titan Sub, sure there is many more Egos in engineering have a lot to answer for
Turn off the ads. Thanks for posting a decent doc, but shame on you for seeking to squeeze every last bit of profit out of this disaster decades afterward.
The ads were part of the recording, not from CZcams. You don’t get monetary from that. You could literally just skip through them.
@@LittleMissV yes, edit them out. and turn off youtube ads, which were on when i watched
Amazing how many people became rocket scientists.
39 years ago today
So we'll done and thorough.
What did they do to fix the o ring problem
If I remember right, they added a third one, changed the material for some more elastic ones so they recover the form easier, and they added a system to add heat to them, so they never were affected by low temps, they did more rigorous regulations in transporting the parts and testing them.
Could be wrong here or there but I think I read something along those lines.
The only one that was right about the o rings was overturned and told to keep quiet
I forgot it was the same year as Halleys
@
Another great (albeit short) video about the Challenger tragedy.
The teacher did give the best lesson from space.. lesson is that we are all dispensable... sounds cruel but it’s the truth.
😂
Cool documentary but more ads/commercials than actual video. CZcams ad-Nazis are hard at work making sure you consume their interests.
The ads are super annoying and disruptive
Oh You Want my Answer, On January 28, 1986, It Started out as a Regular School Day in Red Lodge, MT, at Mountain View Grade School, I was The 3rd Grader that Missed the Launch, Because I was with Mrs. Peggy Arthun in The Special Ed Classroom Playing with Counting Money, and Making Change. Then Someone came into The Classroom and Said Something then She said She wanted to Watch That, And then we were done for the Day and She Sent me back to Mrs. Caye. When I got there Everyone was Sat around the Blackboard, and Someone I Think it was Sean Said "I think it was a Bomb, He wasn't to far off, Those Rockets are like Bombs Strapped to the Shuttle. I was all Mr. "what are You Talking About?" Mrs. Caye and Everyone else Said "The Challenger" I was like "What, Challenger?" Them: "The Space Shuttle." Me: "What about a Space Shuttle?" Them: The Space Shuttle, Challenger, Blew up." Me: "What, was this Today?" Them: "Yes." Me: "Oh."
I had a O ring fail me once I Named him Zaccary 😋
Lockdown isnt treating you well,is it?XD
No it's not Zaccary is Driving me Crazy, in a Good Way, he's 4 year's Old 😋
Over ruling a recommendation is the norm by the higher hierarchy then throw all underlings under the bus. McDonald showed them who had the steel balls.
So management got its way when engineering said no go. Management responsible should have all been fired, period.
What is with these ad's inserted in here that aren't youtube ad's ? How low can you go pal. Blocked channel...
Really commercials...come on bro its 2020 and youtube its called editing
Its crazy that one of the reasons to launch when they did was if they hadda waited one more day the teacher Sharon Christa McAuliffe would have been teaching on a Saturday
The problems with the Space Shuttle Program (delays and costs) were not going to be solved by a "teacher in space (lowe earth orbit really) ". NASA over promised and under delivered with the space shuttle and was afraid Congress was going to cut their budget.
"Was it an accident"?.....If you take into account engineers etc were aware of potential O Ring problems in cold weather it was more an accepted risk than an accident imo.
It was an accident waiting to happen and the NASA managers insisted on launching it in the worst conditions possible in relation to O-Ring integrity. It was all about the schedule and getting the shuttle up. The previous shuttle mission was forced to stay in orbit longer due to weather conditions at the landing sites and that caused the Challenger launch to initially be pushed back. NASA has a rule that two shuttles can’t be in operation at the same time. After that delay each subsequent one put more and more pressure on NASA officials to get Challenger up. The media also had a field day with this-basically saying “NASA can’t get one shuttle down much less get the other one up!” NASA was very aware that they were taking a beating in the press and that the public’s interest in the shuttle program wasn’t that great. The teacher in space mission was an attempt to get both the public and more importantly Congress (who controlled the funding) back on board. Even with all that going for it, none of the major networks broadcast the launch with only CNN showing it live. The broadcasters and public had grown so used to these launches that they had become routine events in most minds. Sadly, it all changed that day.