Did the challenger space shuttle accident change the way nasa builds designs and tests systems of space shuttl

Question

details and reference please and thanks!

Answer 1

The Challenger disaster had little impact on the design of the space shuttle itself. The accident that happened that cold Florida morning was the result of not following established protocols and aggressive image control.

Bad weather had delayed the space shuttle launch for some time. In an era when people still cared about the space program and were excited about launches, the higher powers decided that the shuttle would be launched that day, regardless of conditions. The sky was clear, but the temperature cold - too cold for the O-rings used in the booster rockets.

NASA engineers warned the launch team of the potential O-ring problem, and that the temperature had to increase in order for the O-rings to seal correctly. Despite these warnings, the launch could not be delayed again, especially for such "petty" reasons. So the established rules went right out the window, just so all the people that came to Cape Canaveral that day wouldn't go home disappointed. No doubt it would become a day they would never forget.

After liftoff, the O-rings were still "frozen" (in layman's terms), and unable to seal the gap to prevent fuel from leaking from the booster rocket to the outside. Fuel leaked out, ignited, and eventually detonated, killing all aboard.

Naturally, a thorough design review was conducted, and the design of the system wasn't flawed. The investigation revealed that pre-launch protocols had been ignored, and obviously needed review and revision to ensure that this wouldn't happen again.

23 years later, we have not had another shuttle disaster due to this failure mode. Of course, we did experience the Columbia re-entry disaster, which has definitely caused thorough review of the current space shuttle design.

Answer 2

Its no longer that NASA hasn't tried--various cases. Congress gained't fund it--and killed 2 courses NASA did have going to do jsut that contained in the Nineties (the Delta Clipper (McDonnell Douglas) and the VentureStar (Lockheed)). they are construction a "alternative" for the commute--besides the undeniable fact that it truly is more often than not only a reconfiguration of older technologies. Congress and the Bush administration rejected a NASA suggestion following the Columbia disaster to boost a 2d-era commute. NASA has their faults--yet this one isn't theirs--it belongs squarely in Congress' lap. And--to Simon H--sorry. Bush gutted the NASA funds before the Columbia disaster--jointly with protection measures which could have kept the astronauts, shrink it again in a while, and refused to help a real nexxt-gen craft. That "new" spacecraft you talk about includes : a million) a good looking good rocket booster of the variety at the moment utilized by technique of the commute; 2) a 2d degree utilizing an engine and gasoline tank of an identical variety because the commute and three) an Apollo-type pill with some refinements, besides the undeniable fact that it truly is largely Nineteen Sixties technologies. And the talk about a "go back to the moon" isn't something yet rhetoric--no funding has been allotted-orrequested by technique of the Bush administration.

Answer 3

You better believe it! Year of investigative study went in to the incident. The shuttle fleet was grounded for a very long time, until ever potential problem was correct.

The two shuttle accidents will be big determining factor in the designs and tests systems of all future space vehicles!

Answer 4

Yes it did, but the profound affect of the Challenger disaster was to affect how people say no to power. There were too many problems, they were too inflexible on how they did things and how people who were worried about problems can speak out. After that they really started to listen to everybody. It was how they did business that changed mostly after that. Not the testing or the business they did.
B