Talk:Space Shuttle Challenger disaster/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 12:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to take this one. Expect comments over the next few days. —Kusma (talk) 12:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Looking forward to getting this article to GA/FA! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a wonderful topic for a GA/FA, and a very informative article (my previous knowledge comes from reading Feynman's memories plus vague childhood memories of seeing it on TV). If you're aiming for FA, if you don't mind then I'm going to be a bit more thorough in my reading and perhaps suggest more changes than strictly necessary to get to GA level. As the article was previously a FA, I think it can be helpful to look at the 2006 version for inspiration every now and then. —Kusma (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate any feedback you can give; more work for the GAN (hopefully) means less work on the FAC! I was born a few years afterwards, so the Columbia disaster (my next project) is the major space event I remember from my childhood. Getting Space Shuttle to FA made me learn more about the spacecraft and disaster, as my previous knowledge about the disaster was simply that the cold caused an O-ring to shrink and a subsequent explosion. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My first space memories really are of my childhood hero, Ulf Merbold (that article needs some TLC too). —Kusma (talk) 10:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Progress template

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Comments on criteria

Starting with easier comments, more when I get there.

Images: Lots of great free images (thanks, NASA). File:Brumidi Challenger.jpg might cause you problems at FAC but I am not an expert. Captions are fine, with the possible exception of the one in the infobox. The 2006 version's was better. "Smoke plume of Challenger after its breakup" or so would be an improvement. It would be desirable to have a better picture of the Rogers commission (there are some great pictures of them all together, or of Feynman with the ice water, but I couldn't find anything free) but we just don't have one. Is there a source for the identification of the blob on File:Challenger breakup cabin.jpg as the cabin?
- Good changes, won't insist on the main caption.
Stable: Can't see any back-and-forth editing; your pruning seems to have met little resistance.
There was a bit of a back and forth in October/November 2020 and a big discussion on the GAO investigation a few months ago. The discussions for it are on the talk page. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Prose: Generally precise but a bit jargon-heavy. (The widespread use of TLAs and mission codes reminds me more of a technical report than something written for a general audience). More details to follow below.

Can you point me to which acronyms/terms you find too technical? I know I use a lot of SRB/STS, but I think those are unavoidable in this article. Regarding abbreviations for systems and places, any specific feedback helps; I don't think I'm a good judge on what is good for the general audience after reading a lot of space material over the years. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will do in detail.

Neutrality: I think the article could make stand out more how preventable this was, and I think that some people (including Feynman and potentially Boisjly) did put a lot more blame on NASA/Morton Thiokol management than comes out here. The lead does that quite well, but the article focuses very much on O-rings. (One story is "the O-ring let our heroes down", another story is "seven Americans became victims of management incompetence that sent them out in a known unsafe vehicle"). [I'd personally love to see what the Russians thought of it, given that it was the first time Americans died in the same way as Vladimir Komarov, but I don't expect you to research that]. The Britannica article is much shorter, but I think it gets the points across better.
After careful reading, I think I should go back on this a little bit, and it is neutral overall.
Sourcing/original research/formatting: Fine. You do rely very much on the Rogers report, which isn't as independent as one might like, but I've covered that in my Neutrality comments.
Broadness: Does answer most questions. I'm curious about the mission objectives, though: were any of them realized in later missions? It was too late for the Halley's comet mission I guess, but what about the other plans?
Copyvio: Seems fine.

Detailed comments

Will go through section by section, leaving lead for last.

STS-51-L

Not a fan of the section title (which hasn't been explained in the article body yet, only in the lead). It also has a dual focus: what was supposed to be the mission, and the pre-flight delays (which could possibly be discussed elsewhere). The 2006 version lacked the mission background but was clearer on the delays.
Renamed to "Space Shuttle mission" Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain "STS-51-L" on first use and consider using it less often? ("The mission", "the spacecraft", "Challenger" could all be acceptable alternatives depending on sentence).
Explained STS-51-L meaning in first sentence of section. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removed excessive usage of "STS-51-L". Balon Greyjoy (talk) 21:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The mission objectives: I'm not totally sure I follow. Were they carrying the satellite and the rocket for a launch from LEO? What about the Greek (?) satellite? Were they supposed to just launch it or use it to observe Halley's comet?
Added mission objectives. Does it address your questions? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, much better. —Kusma (talk) 14:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Crew: you could either drop some unnecessary detail here (announcing date, "assigned in October as a payload specialist to conduct research for the Hughes Aircraft Company" or make it seem more relevant -- I'm still not sure what they were supposed to actually do, with the exception of McAuliffe).
Shortened Jarvis description, and added information about the mission specialists. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mention that "STS-61-C" was a space shuttle flight, and why this caused delays here. (I'd prefer to read something like "Challenger was scheduled to launch on January 22, but the delayed return of Columbia mission STS-61-C, caused the launch to be postponed" together with an explanation why these events were not completely independent).
Done. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 21:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The "further delays" sentence is a bit long.
Split into two sentences. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 21:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps explain where the ice came from and how it was dealt with (the 2006 version does a better job here). This comes up again in the "safety concern" section. Not sure about the best structure yet.
I'm a little confused about this, as I think the current version does a more complete job of explaining where the ice came from and where it was found. I added that there was concern that the ice could be aspirated, but I'm not sure what else you're looking for regarding the ice on the launch tower. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I wasn't very clear here. The discussion of the ice in the later "safety concerns" section is fine (and even better now, thanks for adding more on why the ice was dangerous). Here in the "mission overview" section, the ice that needs to melt is a bit surprising as we haven't been told of the freezing temperatures yet. (The ice could conceivably have been a by-product of some other process going wrong). —Kusma (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why not replace "KSC LC-39B" by the friendlier "Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39B"? That way, you don't have to explain what "LC-39B" means.
Done. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 21:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Safety concerns

The section has essentially two parts: the general O-ring issues, and the cold temperatures at launch/go-ahead discussions. I'm not convinced that these things should be together in one section.
Split the sections. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of agree with the editor asking for clarification. We have four huge segments (how large?) that are already filled with propellant when they come to KSC, and then they are joined together in a process that later looked like File:STS-134 solid rocket booster segment stacking.jpg? They added O-rings and putty and then screwed/bolted the thing together?
Also, zinc chromate/asbestos putty?
Reduced to "putty" Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good.
It would be nice to be told a little more about the size of the O-rings, and how large the joint "rotation" made the gap.
Added the diameter of the O-rings. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That sentence is a bit broken now, I've tried to fix it.
There's a lot of detail about previous O-ring issues, perhaps a bit too much. (All those mission codes are also confusing). Perhaps some of the detail might even be better in a subarticle? Space Shuttle solid rocket booster O-ring safety issues?? (better title needed).
Tried cutting it down a bit; let me know what you think. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I like it. You cut just the part where it becomes boring and repetitive. Happy with this section now. —Kusma (talk) 20:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cold weather

The air temperature on January 28 was low relative to other Space Shuttle launches, with STS-51-C launching with an air temperature 53 °F (12 °C). The reader not paying enough attention probably thinks this is talking about our shuttle (STS-51) and that it launched at 53 °F (which doesn't actually sound all that cold if you're not from Florida). Why not say that the weather was colder than in any previous launch, with the previous record 53 °F ?
Agreed about 53 not sounding all that cold; updated. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Based upon O-ring erosion and blowby that had occurred in warmer launches, Morton-Thiokol engineers were concerned over the effect the cold temperatures would have on the seal provided by the SRB O-rings. Is this the general concern from above, or a specific concern they expressed on the day?
Added a little bit to make it clear that it was for the launch. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Engineers ... were concerned that ice ... could potentially damage the orbiter's thermal protection system (Not something for you to do). Does sound like predicting the Columbia catastrophe :(
Challenger was cleared to launch at 11:38 a.m. EST hmm... we've got a "Decision to launch" section coming up, and this one sounds like part of the decision to launch?
Moved. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I like the restructuring and changes. Please check my edit of the tenses used, happy to be reverted if I made it worse. —Kusma (talk) 20:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decision to launch

This is jumping a bit backwards and forwards in time. We know of the O-ring issues, we know of the ice, have cleared the shuttle to launch, and now it is suddenly a day earlier and we are deciding to launch. Consider the 2006 version: far fewer details, but much easier to understand what happened.
I really struggled with how to best handle chronology. Putting all of the safety concerns at the beginning, which mostly predate any mission activity, makes it unclear how the O-ring/cold weather concerns fit into the launch schedule. But putting mission info, while "setting the scene" forces jumps in chronology. One thing would be to have an opening discussing the O-ring safety concerns, then go into the mission information, and then go into the launch decision. Thoughts? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that it is difficult, and I don't have a good answer yet. If you move the O-ring issue to a specialised article and just put a two-paragraph summary here, this might become less relevant (currently the long section on O-rings on previous missions breaks the main flow). I'll think about it and will let you know if I have a good idea. —Kusma (talk) 14:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could put half of the mission info/plan first, up to and including the TDRS-B circuitry delay. Then discuss the general pre-flight safety concerns (Background on O-rings, known low temperature issues). From then it should flow quite well chronologically: pre-launch delays (Columbia issue, weather linked to certain abort scenarios), Morton Thiokol engineers debating and the management decision to greenlight the launch. Then you can shift the scene to KSC and talk about the ice related delay and the final go for takeoff, and then the very next thing will be launch and failure. [There's probably a flaw in my suggestion, but I hope it's worth thinking about]. —Kusma (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How do you like the new structure? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is quite an improvement. Not sure it is the best possible, but certainly good enough for now. Please change the heading, though "O-rings concerns" doesn't sound good. "O-ring concerns" or "Concerns about O-rings" looks better. —Kusma (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the header. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lawrence Mulloy, the NASA SRB project manager called Aldrich Do we know what their opinions were? And did they have any power to stop the launch?
Reworded to show they supported launching. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Launch and failure

Generally I am much happier with this section than the previous one.

The STS-51-L mission began with the launch at 11:38 a.m I think you want to say that T+0 was at 11:38?
Done. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
the SSMEs were throttled to 104% of their rated maximum thrust this is weird until we follow the link to read that this is their nominal power level (I assume it is called "104%" for historical reasons).
I added a note explaining it. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
the SRBs began decreasing thrust at T+21.6, followed by the SSMEs throttling down to 94% at T+28. At T+35.379, the SSMEs throttled back further to 65% prior to max q If all of these are normal occurrences, perhaps give a little less detail?
Shortened. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Prospect of crew escape: for context, one could perhaps mention that almost every other spacecraft does have launch abort systems?
Added. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recovery of debris and crew

propellent The spelling "propellant" seems more common in the relevant articles?
Looks like I doubled down and spelled it both ways throughout the article! Standardized it to "propellant". Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The debris from the SRBs was widely distributed due to the detonation of their linear shaped charges. Is the linear shape responsible? Or would any detonation at high altitude do that?
They're always referred to as linear shaped charges; I can't speak for any high-altitude detonation, but I think stated that they were linear charges emphasizes that the boosters would separate into many pieces, rather than just 2 or 3 large chunks from a localized explosion. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so they run along the length of the SRB? —Kusma (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe so. I don't know if they run the entire length, but it is along those lines (pun not intended). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
the damaged field joint what's a "field joint"?
The term "field joint" is the description for the joint where the two O-rings were located. The term is used multiple times in "Solid Rocket Booster O-rings"; is it not clear later in the article to what that is referring to? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake from reading only parts of the article each day. —Kusma (talk) 14:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
concluded crew compartment recovery until April 4 "continued until" or "concluded on" would look better?
Mistake on my part! Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unidentified crew remains Is this everything else that wasn't definitely connected to any of the astronauts? We're left to assume this was possibly Resnik, but unidentifiable?
I just take it to be sterile way of describing the remains recovered that were too damaged or small that they could not be identified. Regarding Resnik's remains, I have seen forum posts (definitely not WP:RS) stating she was buried at sea, but could not find a source stating what her family did with her remains. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's fine. There was a crazy German man obsessed with Resnik a few years ago [1], which made me extra curious. —Kusma (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rogers commission

he argued that multiple components of the Space Shuttle, including the avionics and SSMEs in addition to the SRBs, were more dangerous and accident-prone than original NASA estimates. Hmm, IIRC Feynman explicitly praised the programming bit for the avionics, so is this perhaps simplifying a bit too much?
According to the Appendix F, Feynman believes the programming was of quality and was mostly critical of the avionics hardware. I think it's going too much into detail of the specific aspects praised by Feynman, as his overall assessment was that the Space Shuttle had many different aspects that were all potentially underestimated dangers. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think Feynman's report would come across better (more balanced) if you mentioned that it does contain some praise, but I won't insist. —Kusma (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added mention of his praise. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Generally we have some decent criticism of NASA here and in the "U.S. House Committee report" subsection (not clear why it is a subsection of "Rogers commission" though). I think what still bugs me is that all the accused are nameless corporate entities that just diffuse blame and then nobody is really responsible.
There's not a ton of new information in the US House Committee, so I didn't think it merits its own section. As it includes reviewing the findings of the Rogers Commission, I included it in the section because it is, in some sense, a "response" to the report. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. —Kusma (talk) 20:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NASA response

There is some conceptual overlap between the section titles "response" and "aftermath". The NASA response is to the reports (so fairly late), the Aftermath includes some immediate and early things. Perhaps you should think about what a chronological way of telling this would look like (and then decide whether to implement that when you go for FAC): in a sense, the establishment of the Rogers commission is part of the aftermath of the disaster?
I moved the section up to after the recovery section and renamed it "Public response". I know the Reagan and media responses preceded the recovery/salvage efforts, but I want to keep those sections together. Regarding the Rogers Comission, I know it could be considered part of the response, but I think it is significant enough to merit its own section. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Return to flight: The mention of Barbara Morgan here is a bit unconnected to the rest.
Removed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is an interesting bit of astronaut trivia, but it felt out of place in this section. —Kusma (talk) 21:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

The "media coverage" section is a bit short and seems incomplete, given how interested journalists were through the Rogers commission time. This would make more sense if you moved this before the Rogers commission section.
I know the disaster was a large media event, but I'm not sure what else to put. The media doesn't seem to do much reporting on itself (understandably), and most of the articles focus on the disaster, which is covered in the remainder of this article. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK.
Engineering case study: Boisjoly here sounds a bit different in character from what we learn at Roger Boisjoly (and there could be a place to mention his AAAS Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility somewhere?)
What are you suggesting gets changed here? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. I was wondering whether to mention that award, but in your current structure where this is mixed in with the immediate aftermath it might be a bit odd. Leaving as is for now is fine, but you could think about it for later. —Kusma (talk) 20:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

There are too many very short paragraphs here. Consider combining them a bit, and maybe use subsections to structure this. Beyonce Knowles feels a bit out of place here. The two objects retrieved from the flight could be mentioned also in "Recovery of debris" as they seem not to have been buried in missile silos.
Combined paragraphs; removed Beyonce mention. I prefer the soccer ball and flag being left in this section; I acknowledge that they are recovered debris but I think their significance fits more in line with the legacy of the disaster. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks much better! —Kusma (talk) 20:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Media

Again, very short paragraphs. Combine them and/or add to them (what is so great about this book? why do you mention it here? reviews say what?) Are the films pro-NASA or anti-NASA? Shouldn't there be some discussion of Feynman's book?
Added additional books/reviews. I also expanded the TV/film section a bit, but it was hard not to feel like I was repeating myself for all of them, as it's not like any of them take an approach different than critical of NASA. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overall a very promising article, lots of good stuff (and you've done great work already), but still needs some more work. Most important: section organisation, short paragraphs, overly technical language. Looking forward to further improvements! —Kusma (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I'll get working on it! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Almost forgot I still have to review the lead section. I have only very minor comments to make.

The term "solid rocket motor" isn't used later
Replaced with "SRB". Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You could mention that there are two (redundant) O-rings, perhaps as simple as saying "failure of both O-ring seals"
Added. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"SRBss" looks like a typo.
Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You could mention that Endeavour was built as a replacement, and that changes were made in response to the disaster.
Added Endeavour info to lead. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's all I have. —Kusma (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma: I think I have addressed all of your points! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree (sorry there were so many, I tried to be thorough). A very nice article! I'll go and do the paperwork for the GA status now. —Kusma (talk) 07:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't apologize for the large amount of feedback; I appreciate that there was a lot of communication and discussion on your part. Thanks for the review! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]