4 ms·

> The first rocket made by Morton after the --partnership-- merger was the Challenger. Sorry, but that's just too inaccurate. Challenger was the name of an orb

> The first rocket made by Morton after the --partnership-- merger was the Challenger. Sorry, but that's just too inaccurate. Challenger was the name of an orbiter (one of several), the whole system was called the Space Shuttle, and one part of the system were the SRBs (Solid Rocket Boosters), and Morton-Thiokol was responsible for the actual rocket motor part of the SRBs.

Retric 4y ago
Language is funny, “the Challenger” can refer to different things depending on context.
- eesmith 4y ago
  In this context it's "Their first attempt at rocket building was the Challenger, which blew up less than two minutes after launch." The companies merged in the summer of 1982, right? The first Shuttle launch after the merger was STS-5, when Columbia launched in November 1982. Doesn't that count as Morton-Thiokol's first attempt? (FWIW, Tiokol's first attempts were in the 1940s. And of course MTI had many successful attempts before the Challenger explosion.)
  - Retric 4y ago
    Yep, clearly it wasn’t referring to the disaster not the orbiter. Further what’s important for accuracy of the statement was when the SRB’s used in each launch where built or refurbished not when the actual launch occurred. Thus it turns the quote is completely unambiguous and factually accurate.
    - eesmith 4y ago
      Okay, so having the contract wasn't the key factor. Instead, the proper interpretation of sam_goody's comment requires us knowing ... what, exactly? When the last Thiokol employee touched the the engine? When Morton Thiokol made the first design change? (https://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1ch6.htm https://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1ch6.htm says there was a design change when 'new Randolph putty was eventually substituted for the old putty in the summer of 1983', but that started in 1982, before the merger.) So, when exactly was that? What decided the moment when we can say the SRB motor units were something was Morton Thiokol's first attempt at rocket building, and not Thiokol's?
raverbashing 4y ago
Sure, not Challenger, but what do you think an SRB is in itself? There is no rocket motor on an SRB. It's a giant firework. The whole SRB was Morton-Thiokoi if I'm not mistaken And when it lights up, the shuttle is flying. No ifs, and or buts (or holding bolts).
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > There is no rocket motor on an SRB. Yes, there is. > The whole SRB was Morton-Thiokoi if I'm not mistaken You are mistaken. The rest of the SRB besides the rocket motor was Pratt and Whitney. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Solid_Rocket_Booster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Solid_Rocket_Boo...
  - raverbashing 4y ago
    Thanks for the info So, a solid-rocket motor is not exactly a motor (like a liquid-fuel one) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-propellant_rocket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-propellant_rocket but if that's the term used I'm happy with it, especially given there's a nozzle with directional control. I stand corrected on MT making the whole thing!

Retric 4y ago

Language is funny, “the Challenger” can refer to different things depending on context.

eesmith 4y ago
In this context it's "Their first attempt at rocket building was the Challenger, which blew up less than two minutes after launch." The companies merged in the summer of 1982, right? The first Shuttle launch after the merger was STS-5, when Columbia launched in November 1982. Doesn't that count as Morton-Thiokol's first attempt? (FWIW, Tiokol's first attempts were in the 1940s. And of course MTI had many successful attempts before the Challenger explosion.)
- Retric 4y ago
  Yep, clearly it wasn’t referring to the disaster not the orbiter. Further what’s important for accuracy of the statement was when the SRB’s used in each launch where built or refurbished not when the actual launch occurred. Thus it turns the quote is completely unambiguous and factually accurate.
  - eesmith 4y ago
    Okay, so having the contract wasn't the key factor. Instead, the proper interpretation of sam_goody's comment requires us knowing ... what, exactly? When the last Thiokol employee touched the the engine? When Morton Thiokol made the first design change? (https://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1ch6.htm https://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1ch6.htm says there was a design change when 'new Randolph putty was eventually substituted for the old putty in the summer of 1983', but that started in 1982, before the merger.) So, when exactly was that? What decided the moment when we can say the SRB motor units were something was Morton Thiokol's first attempt at rocket building, and not Thiokol's?

raverbashing 4y ago

Sure, not Challenger, but what do you think an SRB is in itself? There is no rocket motor on an SRB. It's a giant firework. The whole SRB was Morton-Thiokoi if I'm not mistaken And when it lights up, the shuttle is flying. No ifs, and or buts (or holding bolts).

dragonwriter 4y ago
> There is no rocket motor on an SRB. Yes, there is. > The whole SRB was Morton-Thiokoi if I'm not mistaken You are mistaken. The rest of the SRB besides the rocket motor was Pratt and Whitney. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Solid_Rocket_Booster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Solid_Rocket_Boo...
- raverbashing 4y ago
  Thanks for the info So, a solid-rocket motor is not exactly a motor (like a liquid-fuel one) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-propellant_rocket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-propellant_rocket but if that's the term used I'm happy with it, especially given there's a nozzle with directional control. I stand corrected on MT making the whole thing!