WD-40 wrote:Some people need a good smack.
I'll never understand why people say stuff like this. Obviously they didn't know, why should they be smacked? They didn't do
anything wrong. I don't even hear the "oh beautiful" when after it exploded, but only
way before. I heard some yelling, but nothing more.
Not that it
ers either way.
But that excitement turned to shock and sadness just 73 seconds after launch, when the space shuttle Challenger exploded, killing all seven astronauts on board and putting shuttle missions on hold for nearly three years.
Uh... no. They didn't (all) die in the "explosion"
*. It is known several survived the "explosion" at least. The rest died when the crew compartment hit the water. If some sort of emergency escape system had been in place, perhaps some of them would have lived. I'm not a rocket scientist, I don't know if they couldn't fit one in thanks to weight restrictions, engineering restrictions, or they just didn't think they'd ever need one.
*Oh, and it didn't actually "explode" which is a word
everyone throws around. Not in the conventional sense of the word. There was no detonation, no shockwave, no bang. Just a fireball of liquid hydrogen and oxygen as the fuel tank tore apart. As you can clearly see in that video, the two rocket boosters climbing away unharmed by a supposed "explosion".
Challenger broke apart as it turned broadside in a mach 2 airstream, it did not explode. Which is how the crew survived. Most people think the flight ended 73 seconds after takeoff, it didn't. The crew compartment and the rest of the shuttle pieces continued upward from their own momentum, before hitting the water at a force of 200G's, destroying everything inside. It is not known if the crew was conscious (when the shuttle tore apart, the crew cabin most likely depressurized, there is very little air at that altitude) when they hit the ground. It is known some of the emergency air supply canisters were activated, designed for leaving a smoking crash on the ground.
Also, does anyone want to explain to me why in the article they claimed this footage was closer than ever seen before? I've seen plenty closer, and higher quality footage.