New Spin on Challenger 1986

I just saw a new BBC TV production on the Rogers Investigation 1986 with
the focus on Feynman. Its claimed to be based on his book "What Do You
Care What Other People Think?". I read the book years ago and it departs
faaaar away in a crucial point.

In this movie its claimed that NASA wanted to launch in cold because
they wanted to show the capability to launch spy satellites in any
climate. Instead in the book Feynman points to the real reason. Ronald
Reagan wanted a "live" interview with the teacher in space during his
State of the Union speech in Congress.

As far as I know there is still no hard evidence that this was the case.
Feynman only explained that NASA had the technical means to do such a
TV stunt without much (known) preparations. I suspect they planned to
record a live feed with Reagan to the Shuttle and later present it as
"live" in the darkened room of the Congress.

I find it awkward that there is a whole production line of new spins.
A famous book claimed a poor technical presentation, another psychological
reasons, a TV docu abnormal strong winds. Now the book that points to the
only convincing reason gots such a bad distortion.


## CrossPoint v3.12d R ##

In article , n-
neckar.de says...

I just saw a new BBC TV production on the Rogers Investigation 1986 with
the focus on Feynman. Its claimed to be based on his book "What Do You
Care What Other People Think?". I read the book years ago and it departs
faaaar away in a crucial point.

In this movie its claimed that NASA wanted to launch in cold because
they wanted to show the capability to launch spy satellites in any
climate. Instead in the book Feynman points to the real reason. Ronald
Reagan wanted a "live" interview with the teacher in space during his
State of the Union speech in Congress.

As far as I know there is still no hard evidence that this was the case.
Feynman only explained that NASA had the technical means to do such a
TV stunt without much (known) preparations. I suspect they planned to
record a live feed with Reagan to the Shuttle and later present it as
"live" in the darkened room of the Congress.

I find it awkward that there is a whole production line of new spins.
A famous book claimed a poor technical presentation, another psychological
reasons, a TV docu abnormal strong winds. Now the book that points to the
only convincing reason gots such a bad distortion.


## CrossPoint v3.12d R ##

The Rogers Commission Report is the only reference needed if you want to
find the "true" cause of the Challenger disaster.

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

Scrolling to the bottom, a PDF version can be found:

Report of the PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION on the Space Shuttle Challenger
Accident ? pdf version (9.85Mb), compiled by Thomas ('thomasafb')
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?
PHPSESSID=n2pbop2fh60010n76lmcnh4po7&action=dlatta ch;topic=
8535.0;attach=25186

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

On 1/31/2016 8:53 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article , n-
neckar.de says...

I just saw a new BBC TV production on the Rogers Investigation 1986 with
the focus on Feynman. Its claimed to be based on his book "What Do You
Care What Other People Think?". I read the book years ago and it departs
faaaar away in a crucial point.

In this movie its claimed that NASA wanted to launch in cold because
they wanted to show the capability to launch spy satellites in any
climate. Instead in the book Feynman points to the real reason. Ronald
Reagan wanted a "live" interview with the teacher in space during his
State of the Union speech in Congress.


The Boston Globe was big on this conspiracy theory for more than a year
after the Challenger disaster. That it gets repeated in Feynman's book
(if true, I haven't read it yet) is unfortunate. After a year of harping
and w/o any evidence whatsoever that the White House was pressuring NASA
in any way, shape or form to pull of this supposed SOTUS PR stunt, the
Globe quietly buried "the story".

I put as much credibility in that story as I did all the Globe stories
that ran in the 80's penned by one Fred Kaplan, about money wastage on
cruise missile technology of highly doubtful efficacy. Then came Desert
Storm. And yet another series of "stories" quietly disappears. Esp. when
said weapons were the tool of choice in the Clinton administration and
were in fact, in the manner deployed, largely ineffective....

Dave

In article , says...


The Boston Globe was big on this conspiracy theory for more than a year
after the Challenger disaster. That it gets repeated in Feynman's book
(if true, I haven't read it yet) is unfortunate. After a year of harping
and w/o any evidence whatsoever that the White House was pressuring NASA
in any way, shape or form to pull of this supposed SOTUS PR stunt, the
Globe quietly buried "the story".

I put as much credibility in that story as I did all the Globe stories
that ran in the 80's penned by one Fred Kaplan, about money wastage on
cruise missile technology of highly doubtful efficacy. Then came Desert
Storm. And yet another series of "stories" quietly disappears. Esp. when
said weapons were the tool of choice in the Clinton administration and
were in fact, in the manner deployed, largely ineffective....

At the time, there was huge internal (management) pressure to up the
flight rate. Unfortunately, safety issues were being glossed over and
parts were being routinely cannibalized from other orbiters to prepare
the next for flight. Lack of critical flight spares should have been
one, of many, red flags for the program. The projected flight rate was
a fantasy, plain and simple.

It's worth noting that during the downtime after Challenger *many*
problems were fixed in addition to the SRB related issues. For the SRB,
the SRB field joint was redesigned, heaters were added to keep the o-
rings flexible, and etc.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

On Monday, February 1, 2016 at 6:21:32 PM UTC-5, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article , says...


The Boston Globe was big on this conspiracy theory for more than a year
after the Challenger disaster. That it gets repeated in Feynman's book
(if true, I haven't read it yet) is unfortunate. After a year of harping
and w/o any evidence whatsoever that the White House was pressuring NASA
in any way, shape or form to pull of this supposed SOTUS PR stunt, the
Globe quietly buried "the story".

I put as much credibility in that story as I did all the Globe stories
that ran in the 80's penned by one Fred Kaplan, about money wastage on
cruise missile technology of highly doubtful efficacy. Then came Desert
Storm. And yet another series of "stories" quietly disappears. Esp. when
said weapons were the tool of choice in the Clinton administration and
were in fact, in the manner deployed, largely ineffective....

At the time, there was huge internal (management) pressure to up the
flight rate. Unfortunately, safety issues were being glossed over and
parts were being routinely cannibalized from other orbiters to prepare
the next for flight. Lack of critical flight spares should have been
one, of many, red flags for the program. The projected flight rate was
a fantasy, plain and simple.

It's worth noting that during the downtime after Challenger *many*
problems were fixed in addition to the SRB related issues. For the SRB,
the SRB field joint was redesigned, heaters were added to keep the o-
rings flexible, and etc.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

both challenger and columbia were pure management failures......

a up tick in flying catches, should result in a mandated safety stand down