Re: Challenger

On Sun, 09 Jun 2024 11:47:50 -0700, john larkin wrote:

On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:29:13 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
<cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
 

On Sun, 09 Jun 2024 08:08:26 -0700, john larkin wrote:
>

On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 08:21:52 +0100, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
 

On 09/06/2024 03:42, john larkin wrote:

https://www.amazon.com/Challenger-Story-Heroism-Disaster-Space/dp/

198217661X

 
This is a very well researched and written book, and a sad, ghastly
story.
 
It reminds me that humans have no purpose in space but to die.

>
That's a very jaundiced and negative view. Firstly, they weren't in
space when they died; they were at 46000 feet, which was below the
operational height of Concorde.

 
Dead is dead. Optimistically, they died instantly but probably not.

>
I would guess it must have been very much like being exposed to a
nuclear blast. So basically frazzled to death over several seconds. Not
nice.

 
The crew may have been alive when the cabin hit the water. The recovery
of the remains and the forensics was grim. I'm shocked that NASA ever
flew another shuttle.
 
The tiles and the SRBs and the external tanks and the engines were all
known hazards. Columbia was the nail in the coffin.
 
Two shuttles out of five were lost. NASA estimated that the loss rate
would be 1 in 100,000 flights.

So about as reliable a statistic as their figures for historical CO2 in
the atmosphere, then.