Talk:Space Shuttle Challenger disaster/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 First teacher in space 2 Delisted GA 3 Merge proposal 4 Overhaul 5 References in popular culture 6 The Jay Greene photo caption 7 Good article 8 GA Review 9 maximum altitude? 10 Pop culture references again... 11 "Cocoa beach" picture 12 GA Passed 13 Timeline removal 14 Removal of crew section 15 For future reference 16 NBC news coverage 17 Damaged clevis - ?!

[edit] First teacher in space

The potential first teacher in space was killed on this disaster, so who was the first teacher in space who was launched and landed safely from a successful mission? Bigtop 22:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Barbara Morgan will be the first when she launches on STS-118 next June. Boringguy 12:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct. Thus there have been no "Teacher in space" type missions completed since Challenger, but one is coming. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delisted GA

The five references given do not cover the entire article, pretty much all of the references in culture section isn't referenced, and it's not even in prose. I don't know if that single reference up top is giving everything for the exact flight sequence, but this needs to be made more clear, call the reference explicitly in the text if you can. Many of the sections don't seem to be referenced at all, and I notice a small group of citation needed tags. Turn that popular reference section into prose, and get some more references is the moral of the story here. 208.62.171.226 19:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, this is User:Homestarmy, for some weird reason, it keeps logging me off whenever I try to type onto this page. Homestarmy 19:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Eh, and now i'm back, that's weird. Homestarmy 19:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only one who wonders whether the popular culture references section actually belongs in a seperate article? MLilburne 12:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You're not alone. As currently written, that section is a travesty and an embarrassment to the article. A few pop cultural references might be appropriate if they are widely known, such as a plot element on a major TV show. However in general "References in popular culture" sections are magnets for mindless trivia, often in poor taste and which have no meritorious contribution. This is an encyclopedia, not Usenet, not a high school locker room, not a blog joke site. Wikipeida is already suffering from credibility problems as a serious reference work. Sections like this (as currently written) weaken Wikipedia and diminish the valuable contributions of serious editors. Joema 13:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't really have the energy to re-write it myself (I'd rather concentrate on the body of the article), but I wonder whether hiving it off into a seperate article might just be passing the buck. Either way, I think a consensus needs to be reached on what to do with it, and then something needs to be done. MLilburne 19:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal

[edit] Overhaul

This article's recent delisting from GA status has prompted me to start a fairly thorough overhaul. It really ought to be a GA, at least, but there are quite a few things that need improvement. What I have done or am planning to do includes:

• (1) Adding citations and removing a few uncited (and unhelpful) statements
• 2) Writing a new section on "Pre-launch conditions" which focuses on the cold weather prior to launch, and the concerns that it prompted.
• 3) Restructuring the timeline to include the events listed in the "Failure sequence" subsection (which I have eliminated).
• 4) Adding more information on the accident investigation, both on the Rogers Report and on the Report of the House Committee on Science and Technology (which isn't currently mentioned).
• 5) Expanding the "Cause of failure" subsection and perhaps promoting it to its own section
• 6) Possibly (pending the results of the discussion above) removing the section of "References in popular culture" to its own article.

If any of this is problematic, or if there are further things that need to be looked at, please let me know. MLilburne 14:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References in popular culture

Per the discussion above (under "Delisted GA"), I've made a start on converting the "References in Popular Culture" section into prose. I would have at least mentioned the numerous songs and television shows that referenced Challenger (while not discussing them in detail), but I didn't have any citations for the references in the old section, and I'm trying to be fairly strict about only including references in the article that can be cited. MLilburne 13:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems you've removed nearly all of the "References in Popular Culture" section, rather than moving it to a separate article.. was this intended? or were you planning on putting some of it back? Mlm42 13:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that it merits a seperate article as it stands. I would like to try to integrate some more information about Challenger and popular culture into this article, but I'm not sure that I have the time at the moment. Do you have an opinion on what ought to be done? I would certainly appreciate another point of view. MLilburne 14:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

yeah, fair enough, another article probably isn't appropriate; but a good sized section should be, since this event did affect many people around the world, and this is reflected by how often it is referenced in popular culture. to draw an comparison, the featured article RMS Titanic has a sizable popular culture section (even when it was elected a featured article). Mlm42 17:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I have now put as much into the prose popular culture section as seems notable, and as I have reliable references for. Still a work-in-progress, but hopefully it's an improvement. MLilburne 11:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Jay Greene photo caption

The previous caption under the Greene photo reads:

Greene reacts to the loss of the Challenger.

That is misleading. This guy is a trained, mature, professional. He does not communicate with others in the control room by making faces at them with his mouth agape as if he were an actor in a Hollywood movie. He is talking into his microphone and the shutter clicked as he is sounding out the vowel of a word. Please ensure that the caption does not suggest that he is doing some kind of movie pose: he is at his console and doing his job. -- PinkCake 01:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Having largely written the article on Jay Greene, I certainly agree that he is a trained, mature professional. On the other hand, I have also watched the footage of Mission Control after the Challenger accident, and I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that the picture shows him reacting to the loss of Challenger. All of the people in Mission Control did show signs of emotion, including Greene, and the picture does tally with his accounts in interviews of how he realised that something was wrong.

Still, I see your point, and agree that the interpretation of the picture isn't exactly provable. I just wanted to note that the original caption wasn't necessarily as misleading as you imply. MLilburne 04:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sticking with your caption but have changed it slightly, so as to read "Jay Greene at his console after the breakup of Challenger". When the picture was taken, the disintegration had already occurred. The picture is one of several in the JSC Image Collection described as being "taken of Mission Control following announcement that STS 51-L launch phase was not proceeding nominally." MLilburne 08:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

From the video monitor with NASA Select Television in the background, the photo was taken 25 to 30 second after the breakup of the Challenger. I'm sure he was done reacting by then. BoringGuy

[edit] Good article

You really did do a great job with the remake, and I think this qualifies as a good article (despite a few formatting issues, nothing too serious). If somebody wanted to refine it, you could try and reposition the pictures to eliminate some of the blank space, and try to clean up the headings/consolidate a bit. Otherwise, another great Wikipedia article. Pcbene 13:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I'm afraid that I don't know much about formatting, so will have to think about how to make those changes. If anyone else wants to help out, I would really appreciate it... MLilburne 10:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

In reviewing the article in accordance to Good Article Criteria, I have decided to decline the GA nomination at this time for concerns listed below.
1. It is well written. - Needs Improvement

• The lead needs some work in accordance to WP:LEAD to provide a more complete overview of the article. For instance, Christa McAuliffe is the only crew member mentioned in the lead and there is not any mention of the changes and reforms that happened in the aftermath. (Done)
• In going through the WP:MOS, I can't really see the encyclopedic form in having a "Transcript timeline" of the entire disaster down to what is being spoken on the intercom. That is a bit of information overload in an article that is meant to be a description of the Challenger disaster. A paragraph form, with a prose summary of what happened and link to a Wiki-source with the transcript seems to be more appropriate. I could possibly see the benefit in having a content fork with a link to Timeline of the Challenger Disaster but including the whole transcript doesn't seem to fit with what this article should be. (Done)
• There is a little OR-ish tone and speculation in the section Crew escape was not possible. Part of the concern stems from the lack of references in this area. I would encourage the editors to take a look and maybe do some rewording to alleviate the OR tone. (Done)
• The External links area is a bit long. I see merit in all the links but I would encourage some editorial discretion and pare down the list to the top 5-7 links that offer the most benefit to the reader. The longer the list is, the more tempting it grows to become a link farm with more and more added. (Done)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. - Pass

• The article was easily verifiable, incorporating the use of in-line cites direct the reader to reliable sources. However I would recommend reviewing WP:CITE to see how to consolidate the cites and remove duplicate footnotes. (Done)

3. It is broad in its coverage. - Needs Improvement

• There is amply coverage on the different investigations in the accident and even reports on what their findings was but details on what NASA did in response to the disaster and the investigation is missing. The Challenger disaster had a profound effect on the shuttle mission program and that should have treatment in the article. (Done.)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy - Pass

• The article does an excellent job of covering an emotional topic in a very clear NPOV tone.

5. It is stable - Pass

• The article did get a bit of a rewrite since its delisting but has been more or less stable through its history.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. - Pass

• The article makes excellent use of images to help illustrate the topic.

I want to thank the article's editors for the hardwork and dedication that they have put into the article to get it up to this point. There are many positive aspects of the article and it is in solid position to meet the criteria for Good Article status in the near future. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Agne 22:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I think there's been a little bit of confusion, as the article had already been passed as GA, but for some reason it was left on the list of articles to be reviewed. Nonetheless, I will abide by your judgment, and try to correct some of the deficiencies in the article over the next few weeks. MLilburne 10:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I have now made the changes requested and will be resubmitting the article for consideration. MLilburne 15:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] maximum altitude?

what was the maximum altitude the shuttle reached? i didn't see it in the article, but may have missed it.. Mlm42 11:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a good question. I'm not sure, but will see if I can look it up and include it in the article. MLilburne 12:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. MLilburne 07:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

cool, thanks. Mlm42 08:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pop culture references again...

I can see that more unassimilated trivia is likely to creep into the pop culture section over time, just as it crept into the bullet point list. Does anyone have any suggestions for what should stay and what should go? It will be difficult to incorporate some of the things that have been added into the flow of the section, and I dislike leaving things in that don't have citations. MLilburne 06:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

As long as the facts are easily verifiable (which most seem to be), you only really need citations if something is challenged.. and popular culture sections never really have a flow anyway; the popular culture section of any popular article will grow sentence by sentence as each person will have some different factoid to add.. once it gets to a certain size they sometimes break off into their own articles, like RMS Titanic in popular culture recently did. but generally, i'd say keep most things that are added. Mlm42 08:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Although in a "real" encyclopedia, a section about the Challenger accident in popular culture would have some sort of flow or argument to it. The goal is not, I think, to simply have a collection of trivia, but to have a section that tells you something about how the accident affected society. Still not sure how to accomplish that.

For the article, I'm trying to stick to the rule of citing anything that might possibly be challenged. Featured Article status may still be a long way away, but it's worth approaching as closely to the standards as possible. MLilburne 08:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

fair enough; i guess the point is that, contrary to "real" encyclopedias, wikipedia articles are never finished.. so at various stages somebody will put all the random trivia facts into a nice coherent section, and then soon later, others will come by and add more random trivia breaking the coherentness.. it's inevitable, really, so it's sometimes best to just go with the flow. Mlm42 08:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Cocoa beach" picture

It may be a picture of Challenger, but in my opinion it is superfluous to the article, since the "SRB plume" picture shows basically the same thing, only more clearly. Does anyone think there's a good reason for it to stay? MLilburne 08:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I do. I think it's useful because it shows the other side of the shuttle stack. Thus I think it should stay for sake of completeness. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I think if we were making arguments about completeness, there could be a lot more pictures that could be included. But I suppose I see your point. If it stays in for that reason, though, maybe it should have a caption that emphasises that point? MLilburne 07:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

i'm generally not a fan of that image.. it's fairly low quality, and although it shows a different angle, it doesn't particularly add much more. Mlm42 13:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Passed

I read this article carefully, and passed it as GA. I read the suggestions made by Agne27, and to my eyes, you have addressed all concerns. This is an excellent article, and I found the prose to be very compelling. I actually thought it an "A" class article. Jeffpw 22:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline removal

While I appreciate efforts to improve this article, as discussed in Space Shuttle Columbia disaster - Featured article, I wanted to say I disagree with the removal of BOTH the timeline format dialog section AND the timeline format failure sequence. These can be seen in their original format here: [1]. The failure sequence timeline was removed in this edit on 17-Sept-06: [2].

Because of the time-critical nature of events preceding aviation accidents, general news and information coverage of such incidents often includes a timeline section. You see this in Time Magazine, New York Times, Aviation Week, etc. A properly-sized timeline section doesn't weigh down the article or swamp it with unnecessary detail. Timeline format facilitates quicker recognition of what happened when, and better illustrates the chronological relationship of events preceding the incident. Readers who don't require that level of detail can easily skip over that section. The timeline format is much more readable than prose format. Is there any way we could re-insert the timeline format dialog and failure sequence sections? Joema 19:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I just want to mention first of all that I did list on the talk page all the changes that I was planning to make before I made them, in case someone wanted to object. But I'm happy to discuss them now too.

First, the dialogue. I tried to include all of the relevant dialogue in the "Launch and failure" section. If there's anything important that I missed, of course you should go ahead and add it, but I think it's excessive to include absolutely everything that was said, and it's certainly excessive to do so in dialogue form.

Second, the timeline. I did indeed remove the failure sequence section, and I did so because it was really redundant when put next to the main "Launch and failure" section, which described basically the same events at the same level of detail. In my opinion, the article is better with the failure sequence section removed. That is not to say, however, that the addition of a different kind of timeline might not improve the article further. I can see the argument that a short timeline make matters clearer, perhaps as a box on the side of the article. Could you produce a draft of the sort of thing that you might want to add, so that we could discuss a substantive proposal? MLilburne 20:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You're correct, you have the essential items, only in prose format. As you said, the same content that worked in timeline format appears "excessive" in prose format. That illustrates why timeline format is so often used in aviation-related disaster accounts.

There's no way to retain the current prose format for the dialog and failure sequence sections, yet avoid duplication if restoring a timeline section (whether in a separate box or in-line). Do not misunderstand -- it's a high quality article as currently written. The changes you've done are improvements, and that's appreciated. But personally I think the timeline format was better suited for the dialog and failure sequence sections. I'm sorry I didn't catch this sooner, before the work was done.

The best stop-gap solution I can think of is creating a new specialized article titled "Space Shuttle Challenger disaster timeline", including ONLY the timeline format dialog and failure sequence material from this version: [3], and linking to that from the main article, say in the "See Also" section. That way it doesn't clutter the main article. The material would be preserved in the original format for those readers inclined to pursue it further. How about that? Joema 21:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

A specialised timeline article would be an excellent compromise, if you're happy with it. (I'm still happy to consider other options in the longer term, just so you know.) MLilburne 21:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Understood and thanks. Let me write the article, add the link then we can examine the result. This method preserves the original content, the current article form, and requires the least work. Also, if later even more detailed timeline info is added, it goes into the specialized article without further cluttering the main article. Joema 23:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Still trying to find time to do this. Good work on the other changes. Joema 23:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Missed this the first time around. Thanks. No rush on the timeline article... my feeling is that it can just be integrated into the article with one of these notices:

Further information: Space Shuttle Challenger disaster timeline. MLilburne 10:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of crew section

It was mentioned in the first peer review that the section on Challenger's crew didn't look very good at the top of the page, and that perhaps it should be moved to the bottom. I agree that it doesn't look very good, but I'm not sure that it fits very well at the bottom either. Now, of course, we have the STS-51-L article, so my feeling is that discussions of the crew belong in that article and not this one. I have removed the crew section so that this article (which is getting quite long) focuses only on the disaster. MLilburne 10:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, although there's a natural tendency to ask "what about the crew info?". In normal linear presentations of this subject (e.g, TV documentary, newspaper, etc.) of course the crew info must be included. But Wikipedia is a heavily hyperlinked, information-rich format. The crew info is one click away under STS-51-L. We must also remember this is an encyclopedia article that documents the topic, not a TV documentary which is often biased by emotional appeal for ratings. I've seen STS-51-L TV documentaries where I came away knowing little besides it "blew up" and Christa McAuliffe died. Relocating the crew info to a separate article at first may seem odd, but upon reflection I think it's OK. Joema 23:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For future reference

An annotated bibliography on the accident. MLilburne 10:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NBC news coverage

Boringguy has removed a sentence on the NBC live coverage of the Challenger launch, saying in the edit summary that "NBC did not show the launch live. The Today Show is 3 hours old on the west coast." There was a solid source for the statement that was removed, namely, as cited: Wright, John C., Dale Kunkel; Marites Pinon; Aletha C. Huston (Spring 1989). "How Children Reacted to Televised Coverage of the Space Shuttle Disaster". Journal of Communication 39 (2): 27. Thus, I have put the statement back in. If there is verifiable evidence this is wrong, however, I would certainly be interested in hearing it. MLilburne 11:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

NBC is an even better source. See the Challenger: Beyond the Tragedy clip at MSNBC.com. Boringguy 15:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. For future reference, it would have been helpful if you'd mentioned this when you removed the sentence for the first time, just so that others could verify the source of your information. MLilburne 16:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Damaged clevis - ?!

> It was later determined that these smoke puffs were caused by the opening and closing of a damaged clevis in the aft field joint of the right-hand SRB...

Well, as far as I know there was no "damaged clevis". Tang and clevis were NOT damaged, they were misdesigned. Ok to edit?

> However, aluminum oxides from the burned cryogenic propellants

Aluminum from CRYOGENIC propellants???

> at T+60.238 there was visual evidence of flame through the rupture impinging on the external tank.

Evidence of... the rest of sentence doesn't sound like correct English (at least to me).

> Challenger veered from its correct attitude with respect to the local air flow and was immediately torn apart by aerodynamic forces of 20 (g)--well over its limit of 3 g.

Why (g) is in ()s? Why double-dash? Also, I think that 3 g is operational limit, not design limit. According to x1.4 NASA rule, design limit should be at least 4.2 g.

> the PEAPs supplied only unpressurized air, and hence would not have helped the crew retain consciousness.

helped the crew TO retain consciousness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.212.29.187 (talk • contribs)

These are all good points. Please do go ahead and edit anything that you feel needs work. MLilburne 12:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Edited —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.212.29.171 (talk) 11:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC).