Where were you when you heard about the Challenger disaster?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Explosion
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
Sign up Log in
51 replies · 7K views
I don't remember what I was doing or how I found out. That particular disaster didn't have the same deep tragic resonance as the day Kennedy was shot, or of 911 such that where I was and what I was doing would be burned into my memory. In fact, the death of the three astronauts Grisson, Chaffee, and White, who died during a horrible fire in a capsule when I was a kid was more personally upsetting to me than the later Challenger explosion.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I was sitting in an electronics class when one of my classmates came in and told me, in his words, that the Space Shuttle had "gone Blooey". I thought he just meant that something had gone wrong and they had scrubbed the launch. Wanting more details, I asked what he meant by "gone Blooey". Then he said that it had blown up. I still wasn't sure that he was being serious, but then others came in with the same news.
Even then, I don't think I really accepted it until I got to a TV later that day and actually saw the footage of the explosion.
 
I was more than likely taking a dump in my dipers and crying about that. I was 1 year and 20 days young.
 
I think some people tend to misunderstand some of what I said. Combined with the unrealistic promises made, the cancellation of the next generation of shuttles, and the shuttle disaster, the space program was set back for decades. The Challenger explosion was the signature event for this. If you weren't even born or were still clinging to mom, the dream didn't die for you, but it did me and people my age and older. What do I care if you get to play in space when I'm dead? :biggrin:
 
Last edited:
Ivan Seeking said:
I think some people tend to misunderstand some of what I said. Combined with the unrealistic promises made, the cancellation of the next generation of shuttles, and the shuttle disaster, the space program was set back for decades. The Challenger explosion was the signature event for this. If you weren't even born or were still clinging to mom, the dream didn't die for you, but it did me and people my age and older. What do I care if you get to play in space when I'm dead? :biggrin:
Having seen Nasa pick right up and keep moving after the earlier disaster I mentioned when I was a young kid, it wasn't at all apparent to me that the Challenger explosion spelled any kind of doom for the space program. Of course I wasn't paying close attention to any of it at the time, but it took quite a while for the implications to sink in. All I can recall is that it just struck me as a very sad event, what with the schoolteacher being on board and all. I didn't, that day, have any inkling of the space program being set back decades.
 
For me there was the immediate realization that things had just changed. Now I realize that many of us had been duped by the hype and we had expected far too much. For me, this probably had a little, or even a lot do with Reagan. The shuttle was all a part of the revival of America after Vietnam, Nixon, the Iran hostages, the double-digit inflation and the gas shortages of the 70's, etc. It launched right about the time that many Americans began to feel good and hopeful about their country under the father figure of Reagan. So I think that in many ways the Shuttle was symbol for all of this.
 
I didn't expoled that's a myth.I'am too sure to describe but it kind of fell apart and melted
 
On top of what Ivan has already said, let me add a little.
We are of a generation that grew up with the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo missions. In 8 years we saw the US go from a manned sub-orbital flight to landing on the Moon. During the 11 year span of these missions (1961-1972) we witnessed 27 manned missions. To many of us this just seemed the beginning of bigger and better things to come.

And then, the manned program began to slide. In 1973-1974 we saw three Skylab missions, and in 1975, only one Apollo-Soyuz mission.

And then nothing for 6 years. Hope faded.

The Shuttle program represented a revival of the manned space program, and a re-awakening of hope that the dream of bigger and better things could still be alive. Then the shuttle disaster occurred, and we weren't sure if the dream would survive it.
 
I actually do remember this happening, even though I was 5 at the time. I was in class - kindergarten - and my teacher Mrs. Stroud told us what had happened. I went home and watched the replays on television. I honestly don't remember how I felt about it, though. I remained heavily interested in and hopeful about space travel throughout my childhood.
 
scott_alexsk said:
NASA only has 3 orbiters left: Discovery, Atlantis, and Endurance/Explorer.

Not to be nitpicky or anything, but the third shuttle (and newest) would be the Endeavor, not Endurance or Explorer.
 
I was working as a TV and appliance salesman at the time and was trying to sell a tv. The store had all the TVs turned on to the launch, so we all saw it live. We just stood there in stunned silence. Needless to say, I didn't feel like selling any TVs and they didn't feel like buying.
 
Janus said:
We are of a generation that grew up with the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo missions. In 8 years we saw the US go from a manned sub-orbital flight to landing on the Moon. During the 11 year span of these missions (1961-1972) we witnessed 27 manned missions. To many of us this just seemed the beginning of bigger and better things to come.

And then, the manned program began to slide. In 1973-1974 we saw three Skylab missions, and in 1975, only one Apollo-Soyuz mission.

And then nothing for 6 years. Hope faded.

The Shuttle program represented a revival of the manned space program, and a re-awakening of hope that the dream of bigger and better things could still be alive. Then the shuttle disaster occurred, and we weren't sure if the dream would survive it.
I concur with Janus's comments. Though I was optimistic we would continue with manned missions fairly soon afterwards.

One of the first shuttle missions I recall was as a grad student, it was STS-9 spacelab Columbia in 1983. From our radio club at Purdue we exchanged greetings with Astronaut Owen Garriot who operated (during off-duty) an amateur radio station onboard the shuttle. We needed to run satellite tracking software on the university mainframe to find our best windows of opportunity. It was an exciting moment.
 
Last edited:
Janus said:
The Shuttle program represented a revival of the manned space program, and a re-awakening of hope that the dream of bigger and better things could still be alive. Then the shuttle disaster occurred, and we weren't sure if the dream would survive it.
And the Shuttle program, like several other scientific/technological programs, ran smack into Reaganomics and successive programs, which slashed budgets, and nickel & dimed those programs, such that compromises undermined the integrity of the technology. Add to that, each time an administration changes, program abruptly stop while the top level management in the various agencies get replaced. For about 3-6 months, sometimes longer, people stop work, teams go to HQ to explain what they are doing, and then sit around waiting for policy to be decided, and what programs get funded.

I have seen so much go to waste as a result, it just about sends me into a rage :mad: , and it is still going on.

I haven't given up though, it's just going to take a little longer than I expected.
 
Astronuc said:
And the Shuttle program, like several other scientific/technological programs, ran smack into Reaganomics and successive programs, which slashed budgets, and nickel & dimed those programs, such that compromises undermined the integrity of the technology.
Your point was used in my engineering ethics course as an example of the http://quantum.dialog.com/q2_resources/whitepapers/budget_process.pdf triangle in project budgeting. As time of launch became imminent, with budgets slashed, it reduced the technical labor which lowered the quality of the design to the point of failure.

As it was related to me, at least one of the engineers identified a potential problem with the O-ring design before launch, but due to pressure to adhere to their schedule, they went ahead anyway. Whatever happened to stopping the countdown at T-7 and fixing it?? (As it pertained to the triangle, given more time they could have improved the quality of the project and averted disaster).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not to mention incompetent management! I have seen people in positions to which they should never have been assigned, but the administration places business people to manage a technological program like a business - which it is not. A scientific or technical enterprise is much more complicated than a commercial enterprise.

During the 50's-70's, many of the programs flourished under a whatever it costs attitude. That really started to change probably during the 60's with competition from the Vietnam War and Johnson's anti-poverty programs. Then budgets go tighter and tighter.

I forgot to rag about the ISS! It was painful to watch redesign after redesign, and part of that was the lack of knowledge and analytical capabilities. And they still got stuff wrong - e.g. the sound generated by fans on board.
 
Now that Rutan and the X-Prize have helped to pave the road for commercial space flight, hopefully momentum will start to build in that sector.
 
Ivan Seeking said:
Now that Rutan and the X-Prize have helped to pave the road for commercial space flight, hopefully momentum will start to build in that sector.
I am not so sure, and in fact I am rather skeptical.

Rutan was successful in sub-orbital (really high altitude) flight. We posted stuff in the Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Forum, IIRC. That is a huge difference to escape velocity (~17200 mph/27674 km/h), and the only way back is an aerobraking concept.

It takes a lot of energy to put a kg of mass in space (roughly $10,000/kg), and it takes special technology to get back safely.

How many of the public have $100,000 or so to go into space, and then consider that routinely.

Someone onced mentioned "energy too cheap to meter." :rolleyes:
 
Ivan Seeking said:
Twenty years ago... it's hard to believe.

I clearly remember the moment that the news report was heard on the radio. I was working in the Cat Scan bone yard checking on equipment. When the report aired it was like the whole world changed; having been a huge shuttle fan since long before it even existed. The rest of the day was a complete waste.

Wow! has it been 20 years!? It seems like yesterday to me.
I was 16 and in the shop portion of class that day (went to a voc/tech high school for electronics). A few of us were sitting around talking about what we were going to do for a graded project or if we could get together as a team and each do a portion of a bigger overall project when Mr. Gross (no kidding that was one of my 2 shop teachers names) comes in from the lounge and says all deadpan "the shuttle just blew up". We're like "yea right ha ha what's the punch line" (he had a weird sense of humor, good jokes though)and he says "no I'm not kidding, no bulls--- the shuttle just blew up on launch" so we all scrambled to get a TV up and working and rig an antenna. Sure enough there it was right on TV.
The rest of the day was surreal. We kept the TV on for any kind of posative updates but we all knew deep down that the crew had been lost.
 
I think I was picking my nose, but then again, that might have happened the Wednesday prior to the accident. My memory is getting fuzzy.

Old age, I guess..:frown:
 
arildno said:
I think I was picking my nose

That's what I was guessing... :-p