This was a sad accident. The incident, as well as the subsequent investigation, showed the worst side of government action and cover-up.
iPhone;390278 Wrote: > > Its a sad state of affairs when something so important, costing so > much, and carrying human life is often built by the lowest bidder > because the government is involved. Are you suggesting government contracts should be awarded to the highest bidder? If a contract is properly spec'ed, isn't the lowest bidder the most appropriate choice for a fixed price contract? Do you know that the relevent NASA contracts were fixed price ones? iPhone;390278 Wrote: > On a final note, STA-099 Challenger was never meant to go into space. It > was the test unit for stress, heat, and vibration because computers back > in the 70s couldnt tell us if building a lighter weight orbiter (that > NASA now wanted) by using a lighter airframe could withstand all the > stresses involved in launching then making a winged full glide > re-entry. After being the test bed for future lighter orbiter, it was > decided to retrofit and upgrade it to OV-099 instead of scraping it. > Are you implying that the light construction contributed to the crash? I thought the explosion was caused by a O-ring failure on an outboard rocket engine and had nothing to do with the structural integrity of the shuttle unit. Perhaps our colleague who was there could weigh in. Here's a web page with similar and additional info, for those interested: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/shuttleoperations/orbiters/challenger-info.html -- Goodsounds ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Goodsounds's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14201 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=58929
_______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
