Engineer Who Opposed Challenger Launch Offers Personal Look at Tragedy. 10.05.12. On January 28, 1986, as the Space Shuttle Challenger broke up over the Atlantic Ocean 73 seconds into its flight, Allan McDonald looked on in shock -- despite the fact that the night before, he had refused to sign the launch recommendation over safety concerns.

The Challenger explosion was caused by faulty o-rings that didn't seal sections of the solid rocket booster correctly and led to improper venting of exhaust gasses. It …

Image: The Final Crew of the Space Shuttle Challenger via Wikipedia. The cause of the disaster was traced to an O-ring, a circular gasket that sealed the right rocket booster. …

In the wake of the Challenger disaster, investigations found that the shuttle launch failed due to a faulty o-ring: an elastomer loop designed to seal joints between sections of the rocket booster to prevent leaks from the fuel tank. Cold temperatures that morning made the o-ring brittle and caused it to fail under high pressures during liftoff.

Challenger not only taught America a lesson about faulty O-rings and hubris; it forever changed our relationship with spaceflight and our tax-funded space agency.

The failure was a result of a faulty design in combination with several factors, some of them weather-related. ... This is what happened with the sub-freezing O-rings in Challenger's right Solid ...

9. O-ring resiliency is directly related to its temperature. a. A warm O-ring that has been compressed will return to its original shape much quicker than will a cold O-ring when compression is relieved. Thus, a warm O-ring will follow the opening of the tang-to-clevis gap. A cold O-ring may not. b.

Challenger was destroyed due to a faulty O-ring seal in one of its booster rockets, allowing burning gas to escape. The rubber O-rings, of which there were a primary and secondary between each rocket segment, weren't supposed to be burned by the gases resulting from liftoff, but that's exactly what happened during the testing phase.

In the Parker O-Ring Handbook ORD 5700 paragraph 4.0 says "It has been said that O-rings are 'the finest static seals ever developed.' Perhaps the prime reason for this is because they are almost human proof . If the gland has been designed and machined properly". The disaster of Challenger mission STS-51-L was the result of human engineering ...

HydraPak was the sole contractor NASA used in the manufacture of the space shuttle O-rings. On the morning of January 28, 1986, NASA decided to go ahead with the launch of the Challenger despite ...

Image: The Final Crew of the Space Shuttle Challenger via Wikipedia. The cause of the disaster was traced to an O-ring, a circular gasket that sealed the right rocket booster. This had failed due to the low temperature (31°F / -0.5°C) at launch time – a risk that …

Challenger Disaster Blamed on O-Rings, Pressure to Launch ... "The space shuttle's solid rocket booster problem began with the faulty design of …

The Space Shuttle Challenger explodes shortly after lifting off from Kennedy Space Center, Fla., Tuesday, Jan. 28, 1986. All seven crew members died in the explosion, which was blamed on faulty o-rings in the shuttle's booster rockets. The Challenger's crew was honored with burials at Arlington National Cemetery. (AP Photo/Bruce Weaver)

NASA's space shuttle Challenger accident was a devastating tragedy that killed seven astronauts and shocked the world on Jan. 28, 1986. Killed in the accident were Challenger …

The Challenger accident was the result of a faulty sealing system which allowed exhaust flames from the Solid-Fuel Rocket Boosters (SRB) to vent directly on the external tank, rupturing the tank and causing the explosion. NASA identified the failure due to the improper sealing of the O-rings, the

A faulty o-ring seal, its function impeded by cold temperatures, let slip a stream of hot gas, which ignited an external fuel tank. ... Physicist Richard Feynman, later serving on a panel to ...

A little over three weeks later, on 30 October 1985, Challenger flew Mission 61A, experiencing nozzle O-ring erosion and blow-by at the SRB field joints; neither of these problems were identified at the Flight Readiness Review for the next mission, 61B, in November. Indeed, that flight also suffered nozzle O-ring erosion and blow-by. By early ...