Difference between revisions of "Talk:Space Shuttle Challenger"
There are no discussions on this page.
(Exposé of a coverup) |
(Richard Feynmann was clearly upset that NASA presented its clearly fantastical figures as fact) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Richard Feynmann]] revealed the cause to be O-rings which were not designed for a cold weather launch. [[Arthur Robinson]] said NASA engineers warned their superiors about this but were ignored. [http://www.accesstoenergy.com/view/ate/s41p890.htm] How should we write about this? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:52, 12 January 2008 (EST) | [[Richard Feynmann]] revealed the cause to be O-rings which were not designed for a cold weather launch. [[Arthur Robinson]] said NASA engineers warned their superiors about this but were ignored. [http://www.accesstoenergy.com/view/ate/s41p890.htm] How should we write about this? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:52, 12 January 2008 (EST) | ||
| + | :Maybe we should just split the article as Wikipedia does - one half on the event, half on the event's aftermath (including the investigation). That way with the proper headings we can have an especially easy layout--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 22:36, 12 January 2008 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::Sorry for the delay. And I just now discovered that NASA had engaged in [[Climategate]]-style fudging: | ||
| + | ::*NASA management's desire to make the numbers fit ... [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Commission#Role_of_Richard_Feynman] | ||
| + | ::*he was clearly upset that NASA presented its clearly fantastical figures as fact [ibid] | ||
Latest revision as of 17:33, December 18, 2009
Richard Feynmann revealed the cause to be O-rings which were not designed for a cold weather launch. Arthur Robinson said NASA engineers warned their superiors about this but were ignored. [1] How should we write about this? --Ed Poor Talk 21:52, 12 January 2008 (EST)
- Maybe we should just split the article as Wikipedia does - one half on the event, half on the event's aftermath (including the investigation). That way with the proper headings we can have an especially easy layout--IDuan 22:36, 12 January 2008 (EST)
- Sorry for the delay. And I just now discovered that NASA had engaged in Climategate-style fudging:
- NASA management's desire to make the numbers fit ... [2]
- he was clearly upset that NASA presented its clearly fantastical figures as fact [ibid]
- Sorry for the delay. And I just now discovered that NASA had engaged in Climategate-style fudging: