4 ms·
Challenger did not explode. The key events of the disaster took place over about three seconds. A leak of high-temperature gas in the right solid rocket boost
by zipwitch 7y ago
Challenger did not explode.
The key events of the disaster took place over about three seconds.
A leak of high-temperature gas in the right solid rocket booster damaged the external stack of solid rocket boosters and external fuel tank.
The damage to the external tank caused it to come apart, and resulted in a fireball from the released liquid oxygen and hydrogen. The solid rocket boosters broke free of their mountings as the disaster unfolded.
The Challenger orbiter momentarily survived both the fireball and external tank failure. But those events made it impossible to keep the orbiter correctly oriented.
The loss of proper orientation while travelling ~1000mph meant Challenger was hit with very high stress forces, far beyond anything it was designed to survive, and swiftly broke apart.
Shortly afterward, the Range Safety Officer remotely detonated both solid rocket boosters, which had survived the disaster mostly intact and were careening out of control.
More detail at Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster#January_28_launch_and_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disas...
- nrb 7y agoIt did indeed explode in the literal sense: rapid decomposition of the launch vehicle. I suppose it is worth mentioning that it did not "explode" in the sense people normally understand though: a blast of rapid combustion of fuel.
- Klathmon 7y agoIIRC the word "explosion" has a very specific meaning in this context. I remember reading that the SpaceX AMOS-6 failure was specifically NOT an explosion even though it really looked like one to a layperson.
- mr_toad 7y agoEven SpaceX refers to that as an explosion. Technically it was a deflagration, not a detonation, but energetic deflagrations are a type of explosion.
- fourseventy 7y agoKing of pedantry over here...
- Jamwinner 7y agoExplosion has both a technical, as well as a lay meaning. This is just disambiguation, which I feel is welcome and hardly the usual pedantry.
- greglindahl 7y ago"Challenger did not explode" is not a good start to disambiguation. Nothing in the comment is disambiguation.