/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10828633
That's not wrong. In both cases the failures were predicted by engineers. Columbia was still mostly engineers' fault because the way they communicated that debris seen during launch could cause catastrophic failure (there had been an earlier incident that was similar but didn't cause failure because the debris was not quite as intense and the damage was done over a portion of the spacecraft that exposed the steel airframe which was able to tolerate reentry) was with a footnote on a PowerPoint slide, but with Challenger the engineers responsible for the SRBs told NASA explicitly that launch temperatures lower than 53 degrees freedom could cause catastrophic failure of the SRBs, but were ignored because of time constraints.