Re:The Space Shuttle’s Controversial Launch Abort Plan
by jychang on Monday October 13, 2014 @01:57AM
(#8447659)
Challenger never got to RTLS, so yeah, it cleanly avoided settling the bet.
Re:The Space Shuttle’s Controversial Launch Abort Plan
by pdonis on Monday October 13, 2014 @09:29PM
(#8451501)
I think this is a very...nuanced...interpretation of "cleanly avoid".
Re:The Space Shuttle’s Controversial Launch Abort Plan
by masklinn on Monday October 13, 2014 @02:38AM
(#8447716)
> Did the writer just forget about the Challenger mission
Challenger didn't even remotely have the occasion to try RTLS.
Re:The Space Shuttle’s Controversial Launch Abort Plan
by pdonis on Monday October 13, 2014 @09:26PM
(#8451495)
> Challenger didn't even remotely have the occasion to try RTLS.
I know. The point is that it didn't "cleanly avoid" it either, at least not on any reasonable (to me) interpretation of "cleanly".
Re:The Space Shuttle’s Controversial Launch Abort Plan
by Ankaios on Monday October 13, 2014 @03:11AM
(#8447774)
No abort options were available while the solid rocket boosters were burning, as they were in Challenger's case. (I agree, though, that a failure during SRB firing doesn't really count as "cleanly" avoiding demonstrating RTLS.)
"Of the 135 Space Shuttle launches, only one (STS-51F on 7/29/85) experienced an abort-inducing failure during ascent. In the case of 51F, they safely made a lower-than-planned orbit and carried out the mission. All of the other flights cleanly avoided the dubious honor of settling the RTLS bet."
All but one. Did the writer just forget about the Challenger mission, or did that one somehow count as "cleanly avoiding" an "abort-inducing failure"?
(Someone in the comments to the article has brought this up as well.)