Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

marketrent OP t1_ivvn171 wrote

Excerpt:

>The artifact was discovered by a TV documentary crew seeking the wreckage of a World War II-era aircraft. Divers noticed a large humanmade object covered partially by sand on the seafloor.

>The proximity to the Florida Space Coast, along with the item’s modern construction and presence of 8-inch square tiles, led the documentary team to contact NASA.

>“While it has been nearly 37 years since seven daring and brave explorers lost their lives aboard Challenger, this tragedy will forever be seared in the collective memory of our country. For millions around the globe, myself included, Jan. 28, 1986, still feels like yesterday,” said NASA Administrator Bill Nelson.

>“This discovery gives us an opportunity to pause once again, to uplift the legacies of the seven pioneers we lost, and to reflect on how this tragedy changed us. At NASA, the core value of safety is – and must forever remain – our top priority, especially as our missions explore more of the cosmos than ever before.”

>A major malfunction 73 seconds after liftoff resulted in the loss of Challenger and the seven astronauts aboard.

ETA:

NASA, November 10, 2022 ~10:00 GMT-5.

459

fantasmoofrcc t1_ivwbzgk wrote

I'd use stronger language than "major malfunction"...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Commission_Report

180

david4069 t1_ivwtzch wrote

The callout by the announcer when it happened was "We've had a major malfunction." It's probably a reference to that.

208

woodnwheel t1_ivzt8b8 wrote

Forgive me for nitpicking, but while I agree with you that Nelson the article was probably referencing that language, I just looked up and listened to the audio again because I remember the quote slightly differently. Here’s what he said:

>Flight controllers here looking very carefully at the situation. Obviously a major malfunction.

5

david4069 t1_ivzv7hd wrote

Weird how your memories of an event burned into your mind like that can be so clear and still be wrong. More proof about how eyewitness testimony is crap in many cases.

Thanks for the correction on the specific phrasing. I guess the most important part was the "major malfunction" part for the point I was trying to make, but I appreciate you finding the exact quote.

5

GArockcrawler t1_iw02ndy wrote

Most understatedly accurate statement in the history of mankind. That phrase was seared into my memory that day.

2

raidriar889 t1_ivwzysr wrote

I don’t see why the phrase “major malfunction” doesn’t perfectly describe what happened to the o-rings. Those are the exact word they used on the live TV broadcast.

145

Pihkal1987 t1_ivx63au wrote

Because it was a known and reported on malfunction ahead of time. Probably why people take cause with the verbiage.

41

wolfie379 t1_ivxi1gp wrote

Although if the person making the callout was looking at a screen of data from the telemetry, rather than a video (or Mark 1 eyeball$ of the launch, they might have assumed that the sudden stop in data was due to a major malfunction of the telemetry rather than a catastrophic failure of the craft.

29

prob_wont_respond t1_ivz04t9 wrote

Ok, still sounds like a major malfunction. A known and reported major malfunction.

18

PoopDeScoopDeWoop t1_ivzuoql wrote

We all know and understand the literal meaning, I think it's the semantics and sentiment behind what was said though.

If I told you that the next time you drive your car there's a very high likelihood one of the wheels comes off, and it does, you're not gonna be all surprised like "whoa there's been a malfunction!!". You would probably be more like "oh that thing happened that he said was going to happen".

4

DaoFerret t1_ivwhrta wrote

As someone who got to witness the launch from the visitor peninsula (car to the visitors center, bus from there) and as a lifelong fan of Richard Feynman, I would use much stronger language and douse whoever used those words in a glass of ice-water.

34

pinotandsugar t1_ivxuvdj wrote

Feynman's addendum to the Challenger Report and "Truth, Lies and "O" Rings should be mandatory reading for young engineering, and MBA students.

""For a successful technology," Feynman concluded, "reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."[6]"

34

gaunt79 t1_ivybwzm wrote

I made it mandatory reading when I was the supervisor of a flight safety engineering team.

10

KingTut747 t1_ivy01ta wrote

Major malfunction is literally the strongest language NASA uses to describe an incident… The rocket blowing up is considered a major malfunction by NASA. They use very technical verbiage.

I am really not sure why you think you should be the one creating verbiage for NASA?

31

craigiest t1_ivy9i9y wrote

This isn’t true. In this NASA account of NASA history they call it an accident, an explosion, and a “fiery crash.” “Major malfunction” is just the phrase the announcer used when it became apparent that something had gone wrong. Besides, this is a news article. There would be no obligation that the writer hew to technical language even if NASA did. This isn’t a technical report.

13

punkinfacebooklegpie t1_ivydny3 wrote

>I am really not sure why you think you should be the one creating verbiage for NASA?

Don't you know who I am? I'm Mr. Nasa.

7

piper_at_the_gates_ t1_ivyzl4k wrote

>I am really not sure why you think you should be the one creating verbiage for NASA?

What a ridiculous standard. We're allowed to criticize NASA, especially when it comes to Challenger.

'Malfunction' is a weak word to describe their poor management and cowardice that killed 7 astronauts.

−5

thinthehoople t1_ivzhj8c wrote

The guy was calling out telemetry in real time, “major malfunction” in that context is not just defensible but desired.

These are engineers and technical people confronted with a technical problem in real time. They need accurate, not emotional or pr-based language to work the problem.

It wasn’t this guy’s place nor function to encapsulate the entire situation while doing his job in the moment.

You can criticize NASA plenty, and at your pleasure, but this is a dumb one to pick.

6

piper_at_the_gates_ t1_iw108xh wrote

OPs quote, and the usage of the word "malfunction" here, is from an article by NASA's history department aimed at the general public.

0

thinthehoople t1_iw10ehj wrote

I watched it in real time, too. Your analysis is wrong.

2

piper_at_the_gates_ t1_iw1dtol wrote

That's not what this post or thread is talking about. See what OP submitted, it's a press article not a quotation. The use of "malfunction" isn't part of Bill Nelson's speech.

0

Epcplayer t1_ivxjouj wrote

> At NASA, the core value of safety is - and must forever remain - our top priority, especially as our missions explore more of the cosmos than ever before.

…proceeds to leave Artemis rocket out on the launch pad during a Hurricane…

25

LazAnarch t1_ivyzbc6 wrote

Let's not forget that plenty of engineers and safety people at nasa said not to launch the day challenger went up. It was the decision of executives to ignore this and proceed.

7

AthiestLoki t1_ivy7mxe wrote

Not to mention the other shuttle explosion...

6

Epcplayer t1_ivy9fxc wrote

I was going off just last week, when he was the NASA director… but yeah, Space Shuttle Columbia as well.

Columbia Accident Investigation Board

> It was the seventh known instance of a piece of foam, from this particular area of the external tank, breaking free during launch.

> The problem of debris shedding from the external tank was well known and had caused shuttle damage on every prior shuttle flight. The damage was usually, but not always, minor. Over time, management gained confidence that it was an acceptable risk.

15

gaunt79 t1_ivycyaj wrote

Columbia University sociologist Diane Vaughan wrote The Challenger Launch Decision to illustrate the theory of "normalization of deviation", in which accepting small deviations from requirements leads to a slippery slope and eventually places a project in an extreme state of nonconformance. She added a section on Columbia in the second edition to show that NASA hadn't actually learned anything from earlier disasters.

12

fjzappa t1_ivym90j wrote

And the reason they used that particular foam was because "more environmentally friendly." Apparently not "astronaut friendly."

2

invaderzim257 t1_ivz31cx wrote

…is that relevant to why it came off of the shuttle? or is it just a point that people can hang on and direct criticism at?

2

fjzappa t1_iw0267j wrote

Yes it's relevant. The foam was a different composition than the original. Original composition foam did not flake off in flight. But it had some pretty strong solvents that were emitted to the air as it cured.

Sauce

> In July 2005, NASA reported that they changed the foam insulation a decade earlier, switching from a foam-blowing agent that used an environmentally damaging chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) to one using a more benign hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) blowing agent. The newer HFC-blown foam insulation is a significant change since it is reported to be more brittle than the originally specified insulation material.

3

SnooWoofers530 t1_ivyzmfk wrote

Challenger technically did not explode, the explosion noise was added by a news station and everyone kept using that film

−1

YsoL8 t1_ivxtwa8 wrote

Ouch.

Agree its pretty dubious though. Probably end up having to take it off the pad to fix it and recertify it anyway.

4

adam-first t1_ivyy1hu wrote

If I recall correctly, Bill Nelson went up on the last shuttle flight before the Challenger disaster. Lucky for him, I suppose, that NASA started sending politicians up on the shuttle before they started sending teachers.

1

[deleted] t1_ivw39ha wrote

[removed]

−4