Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NASA)   Oh yes the good old days of January 1986 when they watched football at mission control   (blogs.nasa.gov) divider line
    More: Murica, Space exploration, Space Shuttle, Human spaceflight, International Space Station, Flight controller, Mission Control Center, Rocket, Spacecraft  
•       •       •

1101 clicks; posted to STEM » on 17 Jan 2022 at 5:18 AM (17 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



19 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2022-01-17 5:40:27 AM  
People act like people and watch sports at work

Such shock. Much wow.
 
2022-01-17 5:43:29 AM  
That article was so boring I accidentally struck oil from reading it.
 
2022-01-17 5:52:07 AM  

Tom Marvolo Bombadil: That article was so boring I accidentally struck oil from reading it.


That was kind of the point. Being bored by mundane but critical aspects of a job led to one of NASA's biggest failures.
 
2022-01-17 5:57:36 AM  

Ragin' Asian: Tom Marvolo Bombadil: That article was so boring I accidentally struck oil from reading it.

That was kind of the point. Being bored by mundane but critical aspects of a job led to one of NASA's biggest failures.


Not caring about the details certainly was a root cause of Apollo 1, Challenger, and Columbia.
 
2022-01-17 6:13:38 AM  
Avengers - That man is playing Galaga!
Youtube t4Fy6AUMv8E
 
2022-01-17 7:39:46 AM  
I have no recollection of who was even playing ball on that Sunday in January 1986.

NFC Championship: Chicago Bears 24, Los Angeles Rams 0. AFC Championship: New England Patriots 31, Miami Dolphins 14.  The Bears would win Super Bowl XX, 46-3.
 
2022-01-17 7:41:03 AM  

Tom Marvolo Bombadil: That article was so boring I accidentally struck oil from reading it.


I think if the punchline didn't just say "STS-51-L," it might make more sense to the common reader as to what they launched.

upload.wikimedia.orgView Full Size
 
2022-01-17 7:54:32 AM  

Ragin' Asian: Tom Marvolo Bombadil: That article was so boring I accidentally struck oil from reading it.

That was kind of the point. Being bored by mundane but critical aspects of a job led to one of NASA's biggest failures.


Go Fever led to that disaster.
 
2022-01-17 8:26:15 AM  

Tom Marvolo Bombadil: That article was so boring I accidentally struck oil from reading it.


So boring it made a traffic jam underground?
 
2022-01-17 8:29:40 AM  

Gubbo: Ragin' Asian: Tom Marvolo Bombadil: That article was so boring I accidentally struck oil from reading it.

That was kind of the point. Being bored by mundane but critical aspects of a job led to one of NASA's biggest failures.

Go Fever led to that disaster.


Yep.

Also, Richard Feynman pointed out that there was a distinct disconnect between the engineers and management.   Management put the odds of catastrophic failure at 1 in 100,000 missions.  The engineers said it was more like 1 in 100.  Even the managers who were formerly engineers went with the higher number.

Empirically, the failure rate was 1 in 67.5 missions.

Listen to your engineers.
 
2022-01-17 8:37:51 AM  
Oh, and don't put your crew vehicle on the side of the booster stack.   Put it on top where it belongs.

Had the Space Shuttle been designed so the orbiter was at the top of the fuel tank, the Columbia disaster simply couldn't have happened, and it would have been more likely that the orbiter Challenger would have survived, especially if there was some kind of automated abort mode.  You are more likely to survive a bomb going off behind you than one going off right next to you.

The design was stupid from the very start.
 
2022-01-17 9:05:48 AM  

dittybopper: Gubbo: Ragin' Asian: Tom Marvolo Bombadil: That article was so boring I accidentally struck oil from reading it.

That was kind of the point. Being bored by mundane but critical aspects of a job led to one of NASA's biggest failures.

Go Fever led to that disaster.

Yep.

Also, Richard Feynman pointed out that there was a distinct disconnect between the engineers and management.   Management put the odds of catastrophic failure at 1 in 100,000 missions.  The engineers said it was more like 1 in 100.  Even the managers who were formerly engineers went with the higher number.

Empirically, the failure rate was 1 in 67.5 missions.

Listen to your engineers.


They also didn't consider what would happen if the temperatures went near freezing because it's Florida and those temperatures don't happen that often. People just assumed everything would work and that turned out to be a big mistake.
 
2022-01-17 9:16:04 AM  
Listen to engineers...on the subject of engineering. On everything else, take their opinions with a grain of salt.

/opinions are like assholes
//there are a lot of them
///especially in North America
 
2022-01-17 10:38:42 AM  

Dr.Fey: Tom Marvolo Bombadil: That article was so boring I accidentally struck oil from reading it.

I think if the punchline didn't just say "STS-51-L," it might make more sense to the common reader as to what they launched.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x178]


I kind of think the mundanity of the launch title is part of the point. Instead of taking every mission dead seriously, the ennui of routine had set into mission control and the NASA admin staff.

The explosion of Challenger was the result. By not explicitly saying the name of the shuttle that launched, but clearly stating the date, I think the author is inviting the reader to look a bit deeper into the details themselves: an act which may very well have prevented tragedy had NASA done the same thing at the time.
 
2022-01-17 10:42:37 AM  

Ragin' Asian: Tom Marvolo Bombadil: That article was so boring I accidentally struck oil from reading it.

That was kind of the point. Being bored by mundane but critical aspects of a job led to one of NASA's biggest failures.


How did mission controllers watching football while the shuttle was floating through space cause the systematic failures and lapses in judgement at the highest levels that forced the shuttle to launch in unsafe conditions over the protests of the people who were concerned about the integrity of the vehicle?

Seriously.  I want an answer.
 
2022-01-17 10:48:20 AM  

BrundleFlyForAWhiteGuy: Dr.Fey: Tom Marvolo Bombadil: That article was so boring I accidentally struck oil from reading it.

I think if the punchline didn't just say "STS-51-L," it might make more sense to the common reader as to what they launched.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x178]

I kind of think the mundanity of the launch title is part of the point. Instead of taking every mission dead seriously, the ennui of routine had set into mission control and the NASA admin staff.

The explosion of Challenger was the result. By not explicitly saying the name of the shuttle that launched, but clearly stating the date, I think the author is inviting the reader to look a bit deeper into the details themselves: an act which may very well have prevented tragedy had NASA done the same thing at the time.


And the details are that NASA administrators had a hard on for getting a teacher into space for publicity purposes so they ignored all the "little people" who told them it was unsafe.

Every second of every mission can't be a white knuckle, lock the doors, failure is not an option death struggle for mission control.  If it were, that would indicate the vehicle was too unsafe to fly in the first place.  At the time of Challenger, NASA had 20 plus years of manned space flight and after 24 missions with multiple shuttles in less than four years under their belts.  One of the goals of the shuttle program was supposed to establish space travel as being as routine and safe as possible.
 
2022-01-17 10:50:30 AM  

The Reverend Sam Hill: I have no recollection of who was even playing ball on that Sunday in January 1986.

NFC Championship: Chicago Bears 24, Los Angeles Rams 0. AFC Championship: New England Patriots 31, Miami Dolphins 14.  The Bears would win Super Bowl XX, 46-3.


Of course the Patriots won.  Tom Brady never loses.

The fact he was only nine years old at the time is irrelevant.
 
2022-01-17 11:49:53 AM  

cryptozoophiliac: Listen to engineers...on the subject of engineering. On everything else, take their opinions with a grain of salt.

/opinions are like assholes
//there are a lot of them
///especially in North America


True enough.
 
2022-01-17 8:48:08 PM  

Ragin' Asian: Tom Marvolo Bombadil: That article was so boring I accidentally struck oil from reading it.

That was kind of the point. Being bored by mundane but critical aspects of a job led to one of NASA's biggest failures.


Thankfully, working in aerospace is a lot less tiresome nowadays when I can just pop onto Fark and leave comments whenever work becomes tedious.
 
Displayed 19 of 19 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.