Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Space Shuttle Challenger disaster/archive2

Challenger breaks up after the explosion

The Space Shuttle Challenger disaster occurred on January 28, 1986, killing all seven crew members aboard. Challenger disintegrated over the Atlantic Ocean, off Cape Canaveral, Florida, at 11:39 a.m. EST (16:39 UTC), 73 seconds into its flight. The disaster was caused by the failure of the two redundant O-ring seals in a joint in the Space Shuttle's right solid rocket booster (SRB) in record-low temperatures. Several crew members are known to have survived the initial breakup of the spacecraft, but the impact of the crew compartment at terminal velocity with the ocean surface was too violent to be survivable, and the orbiter had no escape system. President Ronald Reagan created the Rogers Commission to investigate the accident; it criticized NASA's organizational culture and decision-making processes that had contributed to the accident. There was a 32-month hiatus in the Space Shuttle program. To replace Challenger, construction of Endeavour was approved in 1987, and the new orbiter first flew in 1992.(Full article...)

Lengthy discussions about prose moved from the FAC review page to de-clutter. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm breaking these into "addressed" and "not yet addressed" sections to avoid the wall of text. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet addressed

This is quite a long list and some are only examples. The good news is that the prose improved further down the article and some of it is fairly easily addressed. I'm out of my depth on the physics so focusing on prose. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for further comments from Harry

@HJ Mitchell: I added this sub-header for any comments or corrections for which I hope to get some feedback. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC) @HJ Mitchell: I think I have addressed all of your points, to include some requests for more comments. Please let me know what you think! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The disaster resulted in a 32-month hiatus Why 32-month? For the lead, would "a hiatus of almost three years" not suffice?

  I don't think 32 months is too detailed for the lead, since it is still 4 months away from 3 years, and "almost three years" is a wordier phrase than "32-months". Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't feel strongly about this. If you prefer it your way, keep it like that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest briefly introducing the Space Shuttle program.

  How would you recommend working this in? I added a Space Shuttle overview section, but are you looking to go over Space Shuttle components in the lead? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I think your introductory section is sufficient. That's the kind of thing I was looking for. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The whole O-rings section feels like excess detail. You have four chunky paragraphs but still direct the reader to a "main article". In my opinion, some of the detail should be culled and the remainder should form part of the background section I propose above.

  I removed the "main article" template since I don't think the SRB page gets into more detail about the O-ring concerns. I moved the first paragraph in the section, which discusses the SRB field joint, into the previous section and combined it with the SRB paragraph. I think this shortens the O-rings concerns section. Other than your comments for this section, is there anything else you view as excessively detailed? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• three tang-and-clevis field joints need to explain what these are. Only needs to be a few words, but this is quite a vital point.

  I added "with each joint comprising a tang from the upper segment fitting into the clevis of the lower segment"; I don't love the wording but it at least explains the joint layout. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Middle paragraph of that section is very choppy and contains a lot of redundancy and repetition. Can you see the problems here: The primary mission of the Challenger crew was to deploy a [satellite]. The satellite [...] would have been the second satellite in the TDRS constellation to enable constant communication with orbiting spacecraft. A secondary mission for the crew was to study Halley's Comet as it passed near the sun. The mission was scheduled to deploy the SPARTAN satellite on the second day of the mission and retrieve it three days later.?

  I shortened this and cut down on redundancy, please let me know what you think. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• estimated to have been between 12 and 20 times that of gravity (g) can we say how this compares to the g forces the crew would have been expected to withstand? Or to the limits of what humans can endure without losing consciousness?

  I can't think of a good way to incorporate this. The maximum g force during a shuttle launch was typically 3 g, and while 12-20 g is enough to cause momentary loss of consciousness, there's nothing definitive if they stayed unconscious, and if it was the result of high g forces or depressurization. I think I help qualify this number by ending the paragraph stating that this isn't enough to cause significant injury. Let me know what you think. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Flow is not great. There are a lot of sequences of short sentences, a lot of them starting "these were" or similar where the sentences could be easily combined.

  I think I've addressed many of your wording comments; could you point me to the sentences that still need some work? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Lots of technical terms lack inline explanations.

  I'm probably not the best judge for what requires an inline explanation for a Space Shuttle article; what concepts/terms do you think I should expand upon? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The flow in the last two paragraphs of this section gets choppy again.

  I really struggled with this; I want to summarize what the commission's findings were but am not sure how to get away from a sentence after sentence stating findings/conclusions, since they don't really build on one another, and I don't want to be too detailed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed

• This led to the separation of the right-hand SRB's aft field joint attachment and the structural failure of the external tank Why wait til now to link aft and structural failure? Again, this needs a copy edit to reduce redundancy/repetition and simplify.

  I shortened this slightly; it should be less redundant as the previous sentence has been shortened significantly. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Following the explosion, the orbiter was broken up by aerodynamic forces Explain what the orbiter is, either here or earlier on. I clicked the link earlier on and managed to figure out that it's the bit the crew sit in and therefore its breakup is not conducive to their good health, but we shouldn't make readers click away to be able to understand the article (and that link is easily missed among the large number of links in the opening sentences).

  I added that the crew compartment was in the orbiter. I'm going to add a Space Shuttle overview section in the body that should better explain what the orbiter is. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The disaster began after a joint in the Space Shuttle's right solid rocket booster (SRB) failed at liftoff. The failure was caused by the failure of the two redundant O-ring seals used in the joint, in part because of the unusually cold temperatures at the time of launch. The seals' failure caused a breach in the SRB joint Too many "fail"s too close together.

  Combined some sentences; think it flows better and is less redundant. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• allowed pressurized burning gas from within the SRB to reach the outside and impinge upon the adjacent SRB's aft field joint attachment hardware too much jargon/technical terminology, especially for the lead: Reach the outside of what? What does "impinge upon the adjacent SRB's aft field joint attachment hardware" mean? Wikipedia needs to be accessible to a general audience; this sounds like the sort of thing one would expect to read in a technical report.

  I think I rewrote it to be more accessible. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• A short background section (a paragraph or two) would be useful, I think. You can use this to briefly introduce the space shuttle program (mentioned but not explained, so lacking historical context) and some of the technical stuff, like the shuttle components.

  I added a background section; let me know if it is sufficient. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• that ultimately caused the Challenger disaster dated back to the early 1970s Too early in the article for a definitive conclusion like that.

  Removed this sentence. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The disaster resulted in [...] the formation of the Rogers Commission, a special commission [...] to investigate the accident. The Rogers Commission found Lots of redundancy there and scope for tightening. You could drastically cut your word count with no loss of meaning, which also improves flow. Also, an investigation isn't really is a result of an accident, even if it logically follows it. I'd have one sentence for the hiatus (possibly including the reason for it and when/how it was announced) and one for the commission and its most headline findings.

  Split the first sentence and then made a single sentence about the formation of the commission. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• had been key contributing factors to the accident redundancy: "contributed to the accident", for example, is half the number of words for the same meaning.

  Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• found that issues with NASA's organizational culture and decision-making processes had been suggest using active voice (eg "The Rogers Commission criticised NASA's organizational culture and decision-making processes); also, not sure the link on "organizational culture" is of much value.

  Changed and unlinked. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• potentially catastrophic flaw in the SRBs O-rings apostrophe needed on SRBs?

  Added. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• this was not addressed use active voice whenever possible

  Converted to active voice. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• corrected by NASA or Morton Thiokol Who is Morton Thiokol and what do they have to do with it? We're saying they should have addressed something but this is the first time they're mentioned in the narrative.

  Added they they manufacture the SRB. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• As a result of the disaster, NASA established the Office of Safety, Reliability and Quality Assurance to better address safety concerns within the organization redundancy: you could lose "within the organization" and still preserve all meaning.

  Removed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Additionally, commercial satellites It's odd to see an "additionally" starting a new sentence when this is the third fairly short sentence in a row, making for a choppy read.

  Combined it with the previous sentence; removed excess words. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Additionally, commercial satellites would subsequently be launched Do we need to tell the reader that this is both additional and subsequent? And is it strictly speaking "subsequent" (as in, part of the same sequence of events) or just "later"?

  Removed "subsequently". Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead doesn't seem to explain the cause of the disaster; it tells me that an O-ring failed and that the weather was cold (a temperature would be helpful) but doesn't explicitly connect the two.

  I added a sentence connecting the low temperatures and the failed O-rings. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• As the colder temperatures lowered the elasticity of the rubber O-rings, the engineers feared that the O-rings would not be extruded to form a seal at the time of launch. That's the first time you explicitly make the connection between temperature and O-ring efficacy in plain English. That's the sort of thing I was looking for in the lead.

  Added this to the lead. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• To replace Challenger, construction of Endeavour was approved in 1987, and it first flew in 1992 little bit sloppy: by a strict reading, "it" is "construction", not Endeavour.

  Changed the sentence to say "the new orbiter" Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Subsequent Space Shuttles launched with redesigned SRBs "subsequent" again. The flow is fine here but this one I'm pretty sure you just mean "later".

  Changed to say "later". Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Each SRB was constructed in four main sections at the factory in Utah and transported to Kennedy Space Center (KSC). The four sections were then assembled in the Vehicle Assembly Building at KSC Flow and redundancy: instead of using four words and a full stop, just use a comma.

  Combined the sentences. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• These were required to contain the hot, high-pressure gases The field joint, the O-ring, or the SRB? "These" could be taken as referring to any of those.

  I specified that this is referring to the O-rings. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• as failure to seal in the hot gas would likely cause the destruction of the Space Shuttle and the loss of its crew largely redundant, but if you want to keep it, it could be shortened.

  I removed this part of the sentence. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "the [radar] filter has discreting sources" you need a reference after a direct quote, and what doe this mean in plain English?

  I removed this as I couldn't find a source that explains it in plain English. It means that they are detecting individual pieces rather than the entire Space Shuttle stack, as the spacecraft is disintegrating. Unfortunately, I cannot find a reliable source supporting that, so I took out the quote.Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• could result in the destruction of the vehicle and loss of life redundant: this is mentioned two sentences earlier.

  Removed the previous mention of it. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• the coldest Space Shuttle launch to date, with a 62 °F (17 °C) air temperature at the time avoid the ",with" construction to join a sentence.

  Moved the air temperature to the next sentence, and then made a single sentence with only temperature info. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• completed in 1990, with its first flight ", with"

  Changed to say "and it first flew" Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• While recovering the remains of the crew, Jarvis's body floated away and was not recovered until April 15 reads as though Jarvis was doing the recovery

  Fixed to clarify that this occurred during the recovery operations. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• that the O-rings were not creating an adequate seal redundant to the previous sentence.

  Removed and reworded. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The air temperature on January 28 was predicted to be a record-low for a Space Shuttle launch; previously, the coldest O-ring temperatures at launch You've jumped here from discussing air temperature to O-ring temperature (and haven't really explained the significance of either or the difference).

  I removed the record-low O-ring temperature; it's not really relevant and the dangers of the cold temperature are discussed below.Balon Greyjoy (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• engineers to evaluate if the improved field → whether

  Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• did not have enough data to determine if if → whether

  Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 21:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Kerwin's report concluded that it is unknown → could not determine?

  Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• stated that the launch should not occur redundancy; suggest "recommended against launching" (three words instead of seven for the same meaning) or similar.

  Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• supported by Joe Kilminster use active voice if possible

  Switched to active voice. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 21:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• commercial satellites would subsequently be launched on expendable launch vehicles Is this relevant to the Challenger disaster? You haven't told us what the mission was so this comes out of the blue to the reader.

  I added the mission overview to the lead, but STS-51-L wasn't scheduled to deploy a commercial satellite; this change was because of an increased perception in risk to Space Shuttle missions, so it was viewed as a needless risk to astronauts' safety to have them deploying commercial satellites. Is adding the mission enough here in the lead? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd say that solves the problem here. If you can source it, "it was viewed as a needless risk to astronauts' safety to have them deploying commercial satellites" would be a good addition to the legacy section. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I added sourced info to the legacy section. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• set up on the evening of January 27 by Cecil Houston active voice

  Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Lawrence Mulloy, the NASA SRB project manager,[2]: 3  subsequently called Arnold Aldrich "subsequent" again; this one adds nothing and can just be eliminated.

  Removed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ditto flights in 1985, with erosion of both

  Changed to "and". Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of the detail in "space shuttle mission" seems like it would be better placed in the mission article if this article is to focus on the disaster. For example, the delays could be distilled to "it was postponed several times" or even removed entirely if the delays aren't relevant to the disaster (I understand delays aren't uncommon in space launches).

  I shortened to delays to what you recommended, and removed the sentence about the rainfall. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The commission's report was published passive voice

  Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• More repetition and flow issues: as three of the four recovered Personal Egress Air Packs (PEAPs) on the flight deck were found to have been activated. PEAPs were activated for Smith [...]. The PEAPs were not intended.

  Combined sentences and used more pronouns. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• increased through the day, with a total of 12 aircraft and 8 ships ", with" again

  Fixed and shortened sentence. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• of the White House with a speech written by Peggy Noonan the Oval Office is a sufficiently famous metonym that it doesn't need qualification, and do we need to know who wrote the speech?

  Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Reagan had intended to mention the launch in his remarks.[35][36] Three weeks before the State of the Union address was to have been given, NASA officials had suggested that Reagan mention Challenger launch and Christa McAuliffe's flight in his speech. repetition; also too many "officials" in this paragraph.

  Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• In March 1986, The White House released a copy of the original State of the Union speech as it would have been given before the disaster redundancy

  Reworded. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• On February 3, 1986, President Reagan
  MOS:SURNAME

  Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Considering the commission has its own article, the first two sentences would seem to be better presented there.

  I removed the mention of the executive order, but still want to include its name, nickname, and members. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• On February 10, a hearing was held that discussed the issues with the O-rings The date is excess detail and the passive voice could easily be eliminated; suggest "one hearing covered issues with the O-rings".

  I combined the sentences discussing the hearings; I think it makes it less repetitive and removes excess detail. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]