The Challenger crew was alive until they hit the water. Did you know that?

[RTFirefly]

@MandaJo

It’s odd to me how much less of a media event the Columbia was. Partly, I am sure, that’s a matter of my perspective, but some of it is really just a shift in the times, I think. Challenger was treated as a national tragedy: Columbia was an accident, and a personal tragedy for those directly involved.

There’s also what else was happening at the time. When the Columbia went down, we were less than seven weeks from invading Iraq, and a rather larger disaster had happened on our soil less than a year and a half earlier.

The Challenger disaster didn’t have quite so much to compete with in terms of popular attention.

[Boyo_Jim]

So I wonder, since we now know that most of the crew would have survived had there been a soft landing, how difficult it would have been, and how much weight would have been added, if they did design the cabin with such a disaster in mind and put in an emergency chute.

[SenorBeef]

It’s $10,000 per pound to get to orbit and whatever weight you add means you miss out on some equivelant science equipment/provisions/etc. Situations where you’re going to be able to get a successful cockpit escape are rare enough as to not justify the weight usage.

[Arnold_Winkelried]

I’m another one who learned about this from reading the Straight Dope column, and this would have been after I signed up for the message boards here, so this would have been approximatley 14 years after the Challenger disaster.

[billfish678]

@SenorBeef

It’s $10,000 per pound to get to orbit and whatever weight you add means you miss out on some equivelant science equipment/provisions/etc. Situations where you’re going to be able to get a successful cockpit escape are rare enough as to not justify the weight usage.

In theory yes. I think in practice the situation wasnt quite as rare as they thought it would be.

[SenorBeef]

Having an example of one does not indicate that probable failure rates were miscalculated. If something else had gone wrong, you could say “well why didn’t they have X safety equipment!?” - if you want to cover all possibilities you’ll add so much weight that you can’t bring aboard useful payload.

Space travel is dangerous. We shouldn’t expect it to be as safe as something like commercial airlines. The US space program has actually been amazing at its safety record so far.

[beowulff]

@SenorBeef

Having an example of one does not indicate that probable failure rates were miscalculated. If something else had gone wrong, you could say “well why didn’t they have X safety equipment!?” - if you want to cover all possibilities you’ll add so much weight that you can’t bring aboard useful payload.

Space travel is dangerous. We shouldn’t expect it to be as safe as something like commercial airlines. The US space program has actually been amazing at its safety record so far.

Feynman begs to differ: Feynman's Personal Observations On The Reliability Of The Space Shuttle
As many, many mathematicians have observed, NASA never really had any idea of the likelihood of catastrophic failure, and still doesn’t.

[billfish678]

@beowulff

Feynman begs to differ: Feynman's Personal Observations On The Reliability Of The Space Shuttle
As many, many mathematicians have observed, NASA never really had any idea of the likelihood of catastrophic failure, and still doesn’t.

THIS.

Feynmans observations on this are great!

And all 3 of his laymans books are very interesting reading.

[MOIDALIZE]

@beowulff

Yes, this is common knowledge…

Apparently not.

Thanks to all that voted.

[Northern_Piper]

I believe I saw an article about this in the summer of 1986 in the Globe & Mail.

[Uncle_Brother_Walker]

I’ll have to admit - this was news to me.

I didn’t see it live, but watched the CNN replays (although not all day).

I couldn’t believe they would have survived the explosion. Now I know better.