3 ms·
There are always risks when engaging in hazardous endeavors. The shuttles were designed (mostly) using solid, engineering principles with a fundamental goal of
by sizzzzlerz 7y ago
There are always risks when engaging in hazardous endeavors. The shuttles were designed (mostly) using solid, engineering principles with a fundamental goal of minimizing risks to human life. The Challenger explosion wasn't a failure of engineering, rather, it was a political decision to launch overriding engineer's insistence that it wasn't safe. Similarly, the Columbia disaster, caused by heat shield tiles falling off, was again, a political decision. It was known that the tiles weren't adhering correctly and, rather than correct the problem, NASA decided to proceed because they were under pressure to go.
- gdy 7y agoThese are the concerns that should've been listened to. But that's the benefit of hindsight. Were those the only concerns? If all the concerns were listened to, how much that would've affected flight schedules? Would've been Shuttles flying at all? And as a consequence, weren't the Shuttles overly complicated? Much simpler Soyuz is clearly a safer option.
- sizzzzlerz 7y agoWho knows? Failure analysis is, by its nature, one of hindsight. Unless failures occur, there isn't any way to assess what other issues might there have been.