3 ms·
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
by 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 agoYep, 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 agoOkay, 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?