“We had an anomaly “ Sounds so much better than, “that sumbeech blew up” doesn’t it?

[youtube]https://youtu.be/3m5qxZm_JqM[/youtube]

It was a learning opportunity. NASA knew that cold temps could be problematic for the O-rings, but they didn't learned it until they failed.

Learning occurs when behavior changes.

NASA knew before they failed. NASA engineers knew before the launch that the booster o-rings would fail at temperatures below 32 degrees. The engineers and safety officer fell under "operations" in the organizational structure. The objection to launch was overridden by the ops officer and never got to the launch decision authority. This is why in modern organizational structures the safety officer reports directly to the launch authority or in my case directly to the commander.

I'm not sure I understand this. If you are correct, and NASA engineers truly knew the O-rings would fail at temps below 32, why would they launch? Also, this is Virgin Orbit, not NASA.

I'm not sure I understand this. If you are correct, and NASA engineers truly knew the O-rings would fail at temps below 32, why would they launch? Also, this is Virgin Orbit, not NASA.

The engineers reported to their boss, the chief of operations, that the launch should be delayed because the o-rings would fail if exposed to sustained temperatures below 32 degrees. The weather was unusually cold for several days following the original scrubbed launch date. Due to pressure to launch in the back-up launch window, the chief of operations decided to launch despite the engineers warnings. This was a major finding in the mishap summary.

From "Truth, Lie, and O-Rings: Inside the Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster":
"He had to testify before a Presidential commission, during which he explained to commission Chairman William Rogers that Morton Thiokol had been so concerned about the O-rings that they recommended that NASA not launch the shuttle in temperatures below 53 degrees. They just didn't have enough data to determine if the O-rings would seal properly at lower temperatures."

The overnight temperatures were in the low 20's all night before the launch.

I think you have deviated from the original post about Virgins rocket. It's not NASA.

Aaron,

You are making my point, Nasa had the knowledge, but as an organization, they had not learned it, because the knowledge that they had did not change their behavior. After the failure, an experience, there was no chance they would launch a cold booster.

This is textbook learning.

A question an applicant for a CFI can count on from me is, "Is it possible to know something but not have learned it?" The answer is: "Absolutely!"

The knowledge is there, but the behavior is not. An experience causes behavior change.

The example is, nearly all of us know we should: weigh less, drink less, quit smoking, exercise more, pick your bad behavior...

But for most, it takes an experience like a cardiac event to change the behavior.

It doesn't matter what we know, it matters what we do.

Sadly in NASA's case the greater learning didn't take place even with the Challenger mishap. Sure, they "learned" not to launch with cold boosters, duh, but the overarching systemic flaws in the organization continued unconsidered, resulting in the loss of Columbia.

Now they're partnering with Boeing on the Starliner project. Interesting times.



I'm sorry to hear of Virgin Orbit's failed launch. Space is hard. They'll get it.

Back to the Virgin Orbit Launch; it was in one important way a success: the liquid fueled rocket was able to shutdown on its own. The other space launch vehicles launched from aircraft (Grumman Pegasus and Scaled Composites Space ship one) use solid fuel, so once you light that sucker up you are either going to space or blowing up. Virgin's methodology is more complex, but safer.

Not quite true about Unity’s motor. (I didn’t know this either, but your post made me question why VG would not have an off switch on a passenger carrying ship)

https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/edit ... collection

That’s a big one.

Gary

The 747 has a 5th engine mount on the left wing used for ferrying a spare engine. It looks like they are using that mounting point to carry their rocket.

Vince