The Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster
The O-Ring, the Launch Decision, and the Rogers Commission
- 20 chapters
- 42m
- Aerospace
- Free · no sign-up
This audiobook follows the sequence from early O-ring concerns through the final launch decision, including the crucial role of cold weather conditions. It covers the immediate flight events, the Rogers Commission investigation, and the detailed findings about NASA's organizational failures that led to the tragedy.
The book explores how engineers had warned against the launch, how the commission's report revealed systemic problems, and what changes followed. This account will interest anyone who wants to understand how technical failures and organizational decisions combined to create one of aviation's most tragic moments.
Listen
-
Read this chapter
The Space Shuttle was a spacecraft operated by NASA that could fly partially reusable. It made its first flight in April 1981 and was used for research and deploying various kinds of payloads. Each launch included the orbiter, which carried the crew and payload, an external tank, and two solid rocket boosters. Challenger, known as OV-099, was the second orbiter built after being converted from a test article. The orbiter had a crew compartment where astronauts lived and worked, and it was powered by three main engines during launch. Once in space, the crew used two smaller engines called the Orbital Maneuvering System to move around.
When it launched, the orbiter was connected to the external tank, which held the fuel for the shuttle's main engines. The external tank consisted of a larger tank for liquid hydrogen and a smaller tank for liquid oxygen, both of which were required for the main engines to operate. After its fuel had been expended, the external tank detached from the orbiter and burned up upon entering the atmosphere, with debris scattering into either the Indian or Pacific Ocean.
The Space Shuttle Challenger disaster involved two solid rocket boosters, or SRBs, made by a company called Morton Thiokol. These boosters gave most of the power needed to lift the shuttle into space. They attached to a big external fuel tank and fired for about two minutes. After using up all their fuel, the boosters detached from the orbiter and fell into the Atlantic Ocean. Recovery teams later found them and brought them back to Kennedy Space Center. There, engineers took the boosters apart and reused their parts on future missions.
Each solid rocket booster was built in four parts at a factory in Utah, then shipped to Kennedy Space Center, where they were put together in the Vehicle Assembly Building. The joints between the segments used a tang-and-clevis design, with each connection sealed by two O-rings made of Viton rubber. These O-rings were six meters across and had a cross-section diameter of 7.1 millimeters. They were meant to hold in the hot, high-pressure gases from the solid propellant and were critical for crewed flights. The setup included a double bore seal, with a gap between segments filled with putty. When the motor fired, it was designed to compress air in that gap, forcing the upper O-ring against its seating surface. On the SRB Critical Items List, the O-rings were marked as Criticality 1R, meaning their failure could destroy the vehicle and cost lives, though they were considered redundant because of the second O-ring.
-
Read this chapter
In the early 1970s, evaluations of the proposed SRB design showed wide tolerances between parts allowed O-rings to be extruded from their seats instead of being properly compressed. NASA and Morton Thiokol accepted this issue despite concerns from NASA engineers. A 1977 test revealed that joint rotation up to 0.052 inches could occur during simulated launch pressure, reducing the O-ring seal and allowing gases to erode them. Engineers suggested redesigning the joints with shims around the O-rings, but no action was taken. In 1980, the NASA Verification/Certification Committee asked for further tests in temperatures between 40 and 90 degrees Fahrenheit, using only a single O-ring. Program managers deemed current testing enough. By December 1982, the Critical Items List was updated to show that the secondary O-ring could not serve as backup, since it wouldn't necessarily seal during joint rotation. The O-rings were then redesignated as Criticality 1, removing the "R" to indicate no redundancy remained.
The first O-ring trouble appeared during STS-2 in November 1981, when erosion was seen on the right SRB. In August 1984, after STS-41-D, engineers found soot between O-rings on the left SRB, showing primary seal failure. Though secondary O-ring wasn't damaged, this indicated primary problem. The next major issue occurred during January 1985 launch of STS-51-C, the coldest Space Shuttle launch so far — with air temperature at 62°F and O-ring temperature at 53°F. Post-flight analysis revealed erosion in both SRBs' primary O-rings. Engineers from Morton Thiokol concluded cold made O-rings less flexible, reducing proper sealing ability. That year, O-ring erosion happened on all but one mission — STS-51-J — and on STS-51-B, both primary and secondary O-rings were affected.
Engineers at Morton Thiokol, including Allan McDonald and Roger Boisjoly, worked to fix problems with O-ring erosion by designing a new field joint that included a metal lip to reduce movement. They also suggested adding a spacer for extra thermal protection and using an O-ring with a larger cross section. In July 1985, Morton Thiokol ordered new SRB casings, planning to use existing ones for upcoming launches until the redesigned parts arrived the following year.
-
Read this chapter
STS-51-L was the twenty-fifth flight ever launched aboard the Space Shuttle program, and the tenth mission flown by Challenger. The crew was officially announced on January 27, 1985. Dick Scobee served as commander. Michael Smith was the pilot. The mission specialists included Ellison Onizuka, Judith Resnik, and Ronald McNair. Two payload specialists were also assigned: Gregory Jarvis, who worked with the Hughes Aircraft Company, and Christa McAuliffe, chosen to participate in the Teacher in Space Project.
The Challenger crew had a main job: deploy TDRS-B, a satellite that helps track and relay data, using an Inertial Upper Stage, or IUS. They also planned to watch Halley's Comet as it approached the Sun, and to launch and bring back a small satellite called the Spartan Halley. That was part of their mission.
The mission was originally scheduled for July 1985, but it was delayed until November and then pushed again to January 1986. The launch date was first set for January 22, but it kept getting postponed while the shuttle sat on the launch pad waiting for a go-ahead.
On December 23, 1985, delays in preparations for STS-61-C pushed the launch back to January 23. The next day, January 22, the mission was rescheduled for January 26 due to dust storms at Dakar-Yoff International Airport in Senegal. NASA then turned to Mohammed V International Airport in Casablanca, Morocco, as an alternate emergency site, but because of inadequate runway lighting, the shuttle could launch only during daylight hours in Morocco and morning time in Florida. A further delay came on January 26 when thunderstorms near Cape Canaveral prompted a postponement, even though conditions cleared at the planned launch time—storms returned shortly after. The shuttle was prepared for liftoff on January 27, but at T−9 minutes into countdown, a stuck bolt prevented removal of a door handle, delaying installation of an insulation tile. When the bolt was finally fixed, high winds at Cape Canaveral made a launch unsafe, and with the morning window closing at 12:37 p.m. EST, the mission was delayed once more—this time to January 28.
The repeated delays, driven by safety issues, drew criticism from major media outlets due to the attention surrounding the Teacher in Space Program. On the evening of January 27, CBS's Dan Rather referred to the bolt problem as “high-tech low comedy.” Other news sources focused on the disappointment of people who had gathered to witness the launch. This negative reaction was later pointed to as one reason NASA officials chose to overlook possible problems with the O-rings, pushing for a launch as soon as possible.
-
Read this chapter
On January 28, the temperature was expected to be the lowest ever for a Space Shuttle launch, dropping as low as 18 °F (−8 °C) overnight and rising only to 26 °F (−3 °C) at launch time. Engineers from Morton Thiokol raised concerns about how the cold would affect the O-rings, which were responsible for sealing the solid rocket boosters. Cecil Houston, who managed the Kennedy Space Center office of the Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama, organized a conference call with Morton Thiokol and KSC on the evening of January 27 to discuss the risks. The engineers said they lacked data showing whether the O-rings would function properly below 53 °F (12 °C), the coldest temperature of any previous shuttle launch. NASA's SRB project manager, Lawrence Mulloy, questioned the analysis and asked if Morton Thiokol expected him to wait until April for warmer weather. Robert Lund, the Vice President of Engineering, and Joe Kilminster, the Vice President of the Space Booster Programs, advised against launching until temperatures rose above 53 °F (12 °C).
During the teleconference, someone reminded the team in Utah that the primary O-rings’ delays could impact the secondary O-rings' backup function. The goal was to strengthen the engineering case and stop Mulloy from saying the engineers were using weak evidence to delay the launch. When the call resumed, Morton Thiokol reversed its position, saying the data on the O-ring failures was inconclusive and that there was still a good margin of safety even if they failed. They decided to proceed with the launch. McDonald told Mulloy he wouldn’t sign off, so Mulloy demanded a signed recommendation from Utah. Kilminster said he would sign and fax it immediately, ending the call. Mulloy then spoke with Arnold Aldrich, the NASA Mission Management Team Leader, about the launch and weather but didn’t mention the O-ring concerns. The two agreed to proceed.
An overnight measurement by the KSC Ice Team showed the left SRB was 25°F and the right was 8°F, recorded for data but not reported since cold SRB temperatures weren't part of the Launch Commit Criteria. The cold caused ice to form on the fixed service structure as water ran slowly from the system to prevent freezing; it couldn't be fully drained because of the upcoming launch. Ice formed from 240 feet up. Engineers at Rockwell International were concerned that this ice could be violently thrown during launch and damage the orbiter's thermal protection or be sucked into an engine. Rocco Petrone, head of Rockwell's space transportation division, and his team said the mission was unsafe due to the ice. Arnold Aldrich consulted KSC and JSC engineers who advised him otherwise, so he decided to proceed. The launch was delayed an hour to let more ice melt. At T−20 minutes, the ice team reported melting ice, and Challenger launched at 11:38 a.m. EST, with air temperature at 36°F.
-
Read this chapter
At T+0, Challenger blasted off from Kennedy Space Center’s Launch Complex 39B at 11:38 a.m. In the moments just after liftoff, from T+0.678 to T+3.375 seconds, nine puffs of dark gray smoke were seen escaping from the right-hand solid rocket booster near the aft strut where it attached to the external tank. Later analysis determined those puffs came from movement at the joint connecting that booster to the tank at the moment of ignition.
The joint's low temperature kept the O-rings from sealing properly. Water from recent rainfall had probably gathered inside the field joint, worsening the problem. Hot gas then pushed through the failed seal, wearing away the rings. Molten aluminum oxides from the burning fuel accidentally formed a temporary plug, blocking more gas and flame from leaking out. The main engines were throttled down as planned at max q. Along the way, the shuttle met wind shear starting at T+37, but those conditions stayed within the vehicle’s design limits and were handled by the guidance system.
-
Read this chapter
At T+58.788, a tracking film camera recorded the birth of a plume near the right SRB’s aft attach strut, just before the shuttle reached max q at T+59.000. High aerodynamic forces and wind shear likely ruptured an unintended aluminum oxide seal that had taken the place of eroded O-rings, allowing flame to burn through the joint. Within a second, the plume became well-defined, and as the hole expanded, internal pressure in the right SRB dropped. A leak started in the liquid hydrogen tank of the ET at T+64.660, evidenced by the plume’s changing shape.
At T+66.764, the pressure in the external liquid hydrogen tank started to fall, signaling that flame had burned from the solid rocket booster into the tank. The shuttle’s main engines adjusted their position to deal with the unexpected thrust. By T+68, CAPCOM Richard O. Covey told the crew, “Challenger, go at throttle up,” and Scobee replied, “Roger, go at throttle up.” The vehicle continued its descent into history.
-
Read this chapter
At T+72.284, the right SRB separated from its attachment point on the ET, sending a sudden lateral force through the vehicle that the crew felt. During this moment, pressure inside the LH2 tank started to drop. Pilot Mike Smith said “Uh-oh,” and that was the final comment from the crew. Just a moment later, at T+73.124, white vapor began flowing away from the ET, followed by the detachment of the LH2 tank’s aft dome. The exposed liquid hydrogen ignited instantly, forcing the LH2 tank forward into the LOX tank with a force of about 3 million pounds. At the same time, the right SRB struck the intertank structure. The collapse of both tanks triggered a boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion, causing most of the remaining liquid to flash into gas within seconds.
The shuttle stack broke apart suddenly, throwing the vehicle into a new direction as it traveled at nearly 1.92 times the speed of sound. The explosion was hidden by vapor from the destroyed external tank. At 46,000 feet, Challenger experienced aerodynamic forces beyond its design limits and shattered into large sections—like a wing, the still-firing main engines, the crew cabin, and parts of the reaction control system that leaked hypergolic fuel. Both solid rocket boosters survived the breakup, continuing to fly unguided until their flight termination systems activated at T+110.
-
Read this chapter
At T+73.191, static erupted over the air-to-ground loop as the shuttle broke apart, later traced to ground-based radios hunting for a signal from the destroyed craft. NASA Public Affairs Officer Steve Nesbitt wasn’t yet aware of the explosion and kept reading flight details. Then, at T+89, when video of the blast appeared on Mission Control screens, the Ground Control Officer reported "negative contact (and) loss of downlink," indicating they had stopped receiving transmissions from Challenger.
Flight controllers were closely examining what had happened after the shuttle broke apart. Nesbitt said they had no signal from the craft. He later reported that the Flight Dynamics Officer had confirmed the vehicle had exploded. The flight director verified that information. Controllers then began reaching out to recovery forces to assess what could be done at this point.
In the control room, Jay Greene, the flight director, instructed that emergency protocols be activated. This involved securing the facility by locking the doors, halting all phone calls, and preserving the data stored in the computer systems by freezing their terminals.
-
Read this chapter
The crew cabin separated cleanly from the rest of the orbiter and followed a sharp path into the sky, reaching 65,000 feet within about twenty-five seconds after the explosion. At the moment of separation, the cabin experienced between twelve and twenty times the force of gravity. It quickly slowed, dropping below four g forces within two seconds and entering free fall within ten. The forces at that point were likely not enough to seriously harm the crew.
After the shuttle broke apart, at least some of the crew remained alive and conscious. Personal Egress Air Packs, known as PEAPs, were triggered for Smith and two other crewmembers, though not for Scobee. These packs weren’t meant to be used during flight, and the astronauts had never trained with them in such a situation. Smith’s activation switch was found on the back of his seat, suggesting that either Resnik or Onizuka probably activated it for him. Investigators later examined the unused air supply and determined it matched what would have been consumed during the post-breakup flight path.
While examining the wreckage, investigators found that several switches on Smith's right-hand panel had been moved from where they usually sat for launch. These switches each had lever locks on top, which had to be pulled out before the switch could be touched. Later testing showed that the explosion or the ocean impact alone couldn't have caused the switches to move. That meant Smith himself had adjusted them, likely trying to restore power to the cockpit after the crew cabin separated from the rest of the orbiter.
After the Challenger disaster, Richard H. Truly, who held the position of Associate Administrator for Space Flight at NASA and was a former astronaut, shared findings from a report. This report was prepared by Joseph P. Kerwin, a physician and veteran of the Skylab 2 mission. The report addressed the cause of death for the crew members who perished in the accident. It was released on July 28, 1986.
The investigation into what happened to the Space Shuttle Challenger could not reach a clear conclusion. The crash site was so damaged by the violent impact with the ocean that scientists couldn’t determine what occurred in the moments after the vehicle broke apart. The Rogers Commission, which was tasked with figuring out the cause of the disaster, stated their final conclusions were inconclusive. The crew compartment’s hard landing with the sea surface had destroyed much of the evidence that might have revealed the sequence of events just before or during the breakup. Because of this, the true cause of death and the exact timeline of what happened could not be determined. Our final conclusions are:
The crew likely did not suffer immediate harm from the forces acting on them during the orbiter’s breakup. The exact moment of death remains uncertain, even as investigators examined the launch decision and the failure of the O-ring that led to the disaster. The Rogers Commission worked to understand how such a catastrophe unfolded, focusing on both technical and human factors in those final seconds before the shuttle disintegrated. Though the forces were not enough to cause serious injury or death at the time of breakup, the lack of clear data left many questions unanswered about the crew’s condition during the event. The investigation did not determine a precise time of death, only that the crew probably did not endure prolonged suffering.
The crew likely lost consciousness in the seconds after the orbiter broke apart, possibly due to the sudden loss of pressure inside the crew module. There is no definitive proof of when exactly that happened, but it occurred during the moments following the breakup. The exact time of death isn't known, only that it was swift, happening just after the vehicle separated. The crew module's pressure failure likely caused unconsciousness before any other events could take hold. That’s what the investigation concluded about the sequence of events in those final seconds.
The crew cabin hit the ocean at 207 mph, about two minutes and forty-five seconds after the shuttle broke apart. The deceleration was estimated at 200 g, far beyond what the compartment or its occupants could survive. There was no sign of buckling or tearing in the mid-deck floor, which would have occurred during rapid decompression. However, stowed equipment showed damage consistent with such an event, and debris was found between the forward windows that might have caused a loss of pressure. The impact was so severe that it couldn’t be determined if the cabin had already lost pressurization before hitting the water.
-
Read this chapter
After the explosion, NASA’s Launch Recovery Director sent two recovery ships, the MV Freedom Star and the MV Liberty Star, toward the crash site. The Range Safety Officer kept rescue teams away until 12:37 p.m., due to falling debris. By 7:00 p.m., the effort had grown to include 12 aircraft and 8 ships. Surface operations recovered pieces from the orbiter and the external tank. The recovery mission wrapped up on February 7.
On January 31, the US Navy began submarine recovery operations after the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. The search focused first on the right solid rocket booster, then the crew compartment, and finally the rest of the payload, orbiter pieces, and external tank. By February 8, the rescue and salvage ship USS Preserver had started the official search, which soon grew to sixteen ships total—three managed by NASA, four by the Navy, one by the Air Force, and eight by contractors. Using side-scan sonar, they covered 486 square nautical miles at depths between 70 and 1,200 feet. The sonar identified 881 possible debris sites, and 187 pieces were later confirmed as part of the orbiter.
The solid rocket boosters' debris was scattered widely after their linear shaped charges exploded. Crewed submarines and submersibles identified pieces during the search phase. Surface ships used technical divers and remotely operated vehicles to lift the debris with cranes, keeping the solid propellant wet due to its volatility underwater. The failed field joint on the right booster was first located by sonar on March 1. Later dives at 560 feet confirmed it—first by the NR-1 submarine on April 5, then by the SEA-LINK I submersible on April 12—and it was recovered on April 13. Of the total 196,726 pounds of SRB shells, 102,500 pounds were recovered, another 54,000 pounds were found but not lifted, and 40,226 pounds were never located.
On March 7, Air Force divers found what might be the crew compartment debris, and the next day, divers from the USS Preserver confirmed it. The damage showed the compartment stayed mostly intact during the initial explosion but was badly torn apart when it hit the ocean. The crew's remains were so damaged by the impact and being underwater that they weren't whole bodies. The USS Preserver made several trips to bring debris back to port and kept recovering the crew compartment until April 4. One of the remains, Jarvis's, floated away and wasn't found until April 15. Once the remains arrived at port, pathologists from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology tried to identify them and determine the cause of death, but couldn't. Local medical examiners in Brevard County said it was illegal to transfer human remains to military officials for autopsies and refused to issue death certificates. NASA eventually released the official death certificates for the crew members.
The first piece of debris recovered was the IUS meant to boost the TDRS-B satellite, and there was no sign of early ignition, which had been one of the suspected causes. The three SSMEs were found between February 14 and 28, and later analysis showed they’d functioned normally before suddenly losing their liquid hydrogen fuel. Deepwater recovery went on until April 29, with smaller operations continuing through August 29. Nearly eight years later, on December 17, 1996, two parts of the orbiter were spotted at Cocoa Beach. Then, on November 10, 2022, NASA announced another piece had been found near a destroyed World War II aircraft off Florida’s coast, a discovery aired by the History Channel on November 22. Almost all non-organic debris from Challenger is now buried in missile silos at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, at LC-31 and LC-32.
-
Read this chapter
On April 29, 1986, the remains of the Challenger crew were flown from Kennedy Space Center to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware. Each casket was draped with an American flag and carried past honor guards and astronaut escorts. Once at Dover, the families received the remains. Scobee and Smith were buried at Arlington National Cemetery. Onizuka was laid to rest at the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific in Honolulu. McNair was initially buried in Lake City, South Carolina, before being moved to the Dr. Ronald E. McNair Memorial Park. Resnik was cremated, and her ashes scattered over the water. McAuliffe was buried at Calvary Cemetery in Concord, New Hampshire. Jarvis was cremated, and his remains scattered in the Pacific Ocean. The unidentified crew members were buried at the Space Shuttle Challenger Memorial in Arlington on May 20, 1986.
-
Read this chapter
President Ronald Reagan had scheduled his State of the Union Address for the evening of January 28, 1986, the same day the Challenger disaster unfolded. After consulting with his staff, he chose to delay the speech and instead addressed the nation from the Oval Office. On January 31, Reagan and Nancy Reagan traveled to the Johnson Space Center to attend a memorial service for the crew. During the event, an Air Force band performed "God Bless America," while NASA T-38 Talon jets flew overhead in the traditional missing-man formation.
After the disaster, Democratic politicians alleged that White House individuals like Chief of Staff Donald Regan and Communications Director Pat Buchanan urged NASA to proceed with the Challenger launch ahead of the January 28 State of the Union address, since President Reagan intended to reference the mission in his remarks. In March 1986, the White House shared the original draft showing Reagan had planned to mention an X-ray experiment on Challenger designed by a guest he had invited to the event, though he did not elaborate on the launch itself. During the rescheduled State of the Union on February 4, Reagan spoke about the fallen crew and referred to the experiment as "launched and lost." Later that April, the White House published a report concluding no pressure had come from the White House for NASA to accelerate the launch prior to the State of the Union.
-
Read this chapter
John Weller, an 11-year-old boy from Boulder County, was one of six children selected by Ball Aerospace to witness the launch in person. He recalled the moment as being so distant that the sound of the explosion only registered as a pop. The sight was unusual, but at the time, he and those around him did not understand what had occurred. It wasn’t until later that the gravity of what happened began to settle in.
CNN gave live coverage of the launch and explosion, while NASA had arranged for students across the country to watch the event at school as part of the Teacher in Space program featuring McAuliffe. Other networks like CBS quickly joined in, broadcasting continuous updates on the disaster and its aftermath. The press interest grew rapidly; by three days after the accident, the number of reporters at Kennedy Space Center had risen from 535 to 1,467. NASA faced criticism for not sharing key information with journalists. Without official details, reporters speculated the external tank caused the explosion. Until 2010, CNN's live feed was the only known footage taken from the launch site. Since then, more amateur and professional recordings have surfaced. In the Soviet Union, the disaster was shown on television with a tone described as "somber and sympathetic" and "for the most part free of political overtones."
-
Read this chapter
The Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident was formed on February 6, and it was led by William P. Rogers, who chaired the group. Neil Armstrong served as vice chairman, and the commission included David Acheson, Eugene Covert, Richard Feynman, Robert Hotz, Donald Kutyna, Sally Ride, Robert Rummel, Joseph Sutter, Arthur Walker, Albert Wheelon, and Chuck Yeager. The commission was tasked with investigating what went wrong during the Challenger disaster, and it was commonly known as the Rogers Commission because of its chairman’s name.
The Rogers Commission began its work by holding hearings that examined the accident investigation, the Space Shuttle program, and Morton Thiokol’s recommendation to proceed with launch despite O-ring concerns. On February 15, Rogers released a statement saying the commission would investigate independently of NASA due to concerns about internal failures. The commission formed four panels: Kutyna led the Accident Analysis Panel, Sutter headed the Development and Production Panel, Acheson chaired the Pre-Launch Activities Panel, and Ride led the Mission Planning and Operations Panel. Over four months, the commission interviewed more than 160 people, held at least 35 sessions, and involved over 6,000 NASA employees, contractors, and support staff. The commission issued its report on June 6, 1986.
The Rogers Commission found that the Challenger disaster was caused by hot gas that blew past the O-rings in a specific joint on the right solid rocket booster. No other causes were identified. The report blamed a flawed design of that joint, which reacted dangerously to temperature changes, forces during flight, and the materials used. It criticized both NASA and Morton Thiokol for ignoring warning signs about the field joints. NASA was especially faulted for accepting the risk of O-ring damage without fully understanding how it might threaten mission safety. The commission said the agency’s safety culture and leadership were weak, failing to properly handle flight issues. It also pointed out that pressure to launch more frequently cut down on training, quality checks, and repairs for each mission.
The Rogers Commission recommended changes to make the Space Shuttle program safer after the Challenger disaster. It suggested redesigning the joints in the solid rocket boosters to stop gas from escaping past the O-rings. The commission also said management needed restructuring so project managers wouldn’t feel pressured to meet unsafe deadlines. Astronauts should be included in decisions about crew safety. It proposed creating an office for safety that would report directly to the NASA administrator, overseeing all safety and quality assurance efforts across NASA programs. The commission also addressed issues with orbiter maintenance and recommended adding escape systems for the crew during gliding flight.
At a televised hearing on February 11, Feynman showed how rubber loses elasticity in cold temperatures by using a glass of cold water and a piece of rubber, an act that drew media attention. A Nobel Prize-winning physicist, he pushed for stronger criticism of NASA in the report and regularly clashed with Rogers. When his demands weren’t met, Feynman threatened to withdraw his name from the report unless his personal findings on reliability were included—those appeared as Appendix F. In that appendix, he praised the engineering and software achievements of the program’s development, but he also claimed that several parts, including the avionics and SSMEs as well as the SRBs, were more risky and prone to failure than NASA had originally thought.
-
Read this chapter
After the disaster, NASA moved to redesign the solid rocket booster, creating what came to be called the redesigned solid rocket motor, or RSRM, under the supervision of an independent oversight group. The new design included a capture feature on the tang inside the clevis to stop joint rotation, with an additional O-ring sealing the space between the two. This change reduced the chance of rotation to just 15% of what had happened before. Heaters were also added to keep the O-rings at consistent, higher temperatures. The first test of the RSRM took place on August 30, 1987. Then, in April and August 1988, tests with intentional flaws allowed engineers to check if the new joint could handle hot gas penetration. After those tests succeeded, the RSRM was cleared for flight.
-
Read this chapter
After the Challenger disaster, NASA faced criticism for aiming to launch 24 missions a year, a goal the Rogers Commission called unrealistic and pressuring. In August 1986, President Reagan approved building a new orbiter, later named Endeavour, to replace Challenger. Construction started in 1987 and finished in 1990. Endeavour made its first flight in May 1992 during STS-49. Reagan also announced that the Space Shuttle program would no longer carry commercial satellite payloads, redirecting those missions to commercial launch vehicles. This change was meant to reduce pressure on NASA to launch crewed missions just to meet customer demands.
The Space Shuttle program was grounded for over two years after the Challenger disaster, during which time engineers and officials worked to investigate what went wrong, redesign parts of the shuttle, and restructure the entire operation. On September 29, 1988, the shuttle Discovery lifted off from Launch Complex 39B on mission STS-26, carrying a crew of five veteran astronauts. The mission’s payload was TDRS-3, a satellite meant to replace one lost in the Challenger accident. This launch was a test of the redesigned boosters, and the crew wore pressure suits during both ascent and reentry. The mission was successful, marking the return of space shuttle flights.
-
Read this chapter
On February 1, 2003, the Space Shuttle program suffered its second major accident when Columbia broke apart during reentry on STS-107, killing all seven crew members. The cause was foam insulation from the external tank that struck the orbiter’s left wing during launch. Once again, NASA's culture came under fire. Just like with the O-ring problem, the agency had ignored warnings about foam strikes, even though they'd happened before. There was also pressure to stick to a launch schedule for the International Space Station. The Columbia Accident Investigation Board said NASA hadn’t learned from the Challenger disaster, noting: “NASA's response to the Rogers Commission did not meet the Commission's intent” and “the causes of the institutional failure responsible for Challenger have not been fixed.” The shuttle program didn’t fly again until 2005, with STS-114.
-
Read this chapter
In the years after the Challenger explosion, several books tried to explain what went wrong and how the disaster was handled. Malcolm McConnell wrote Challenger–A Major Malfunction in 1987, describing a story involving politics and greed, and suggesting that NASA Administrator Fletcher gave the contract to Morton Thiokol because it was based in Utah. That book was criticized for proposing a conspiracy. Also in 1987, Joseph Trento published Prescription for Disaster, arguing the Space Shuttle program had been flawed from the start due to political pressures. Then in 1988, Richard Feynman’s memoir What Do You Care What Other People Think? came out, with a section detailing his work on the Rogers Commission and his relationship with Kutyna.
After the shuttle Challenger exploded shortly after launch, several books were released to examine what led to the tragedy. In 1996, Diane Vaughan authored The Challenger Launch Decision, which argued that the disaster stemmed from NASA’s broader organizational culture and mission rather than just program management. Also that year, Claus Jensen wrote No Downlink, a narrative on rocket development prior to the accident, though it was criticized for depending largely on secondary sources. Then in 2009, Allan McDonald collaborated with space historian James Hansen on Truth, Lies, and O-Rings, detailing his personal involvement in the launch, the disaster, and the return to flight, while blaming NASA and Morton Thiokol leadership for proceeding with the launch despite warnings about the O-rings. In 2024, a detailed historical account of the events before, during, and after the accident was published by British journalist Adam Higginbotham.
-
Read this chapter
The ABC television movie Challenger, broadcast on February 25, 1990, starred Barry Bostwick as Scobee and Karen Allen as McAuliffe. It criticized NASA while portraying the engineers who opposed the launch in a positive light. The widows of Smith, McNair, and Onizuka later called the depiction inaccurate. A BBC docudrama titled The Challenger Disaster aired on March 18, 2013, with William Hurt as Feynman, focusing on the investigation into what went wrong. Then, in January 2019, a film directed by Nathan VonMinden, also called The Challenger Disaster, was released, featuring fictional characters involved in the decision to launch.
The eleventh episode of the American sitcom Mixed-ish, titled "When Doves Cry", dealt with the characters' emotional responses to the Challenger disaster, exploring themes of grief, trauma, and healing after witnessing the tragic event unfold on television.
A four-part docuseries called Challenger: The Final Flight premiered on Netflix in 2020. It was created by Steven Leckart and Glen Zipper. The series examines the events leading up to the disaster, using interviews with people from NASA and Morton Thiokol. It argues that poor decision-making led to a tragedy that could have been prevented. The show focuses on the choices made before launch, especially concerning the O-rings, and how those decisions contributed to the accident.
The first episode of the Australian television drama The Newsreader, which aired on August 15, 2021, shows the Challenger disaster through the eyes of the TV news world. It follows the story of a newsroom in Australia during the time of the explosion, focusing on journalists and crew members. One of the main characters hosts a breaking news update that weaves in with a larger plot about how television news was changing, shifting from a serious format to one that allowed more emotion into its delivery.
The television drama series This Is Us included an episode in Season 6 titled "The Challenger," which depicted the disaster through the eyes of children in school and explored a parent’s concern about how to explain the event to them. The episode focused on the moment when the space shuttle exploded, affecting families and communities across the country. It showed how the tragedy was understood by those who witnessed it firsthand, especially the young viewers who were learning about it for the first time. The show used this pivotal moment to reflect on loss and the difficulty of discussing such events with children.
-
Read this chapter
In 2004, President George W. Bush awarded posthumous Congressional Space Medals of Honor to all 14 crew members who died in the Challenger and Columbia accidents. A portrait of the Challenger crew was completed in 1987 by Charles Schmidt and mounted on the wall of the Brumidi Corridors in the U.S. Capitol. The “Forever Remembered” exhibit opened at the Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex in July 2015, featuring a 12-foot section of the recovered fuselage. NASA Administrator Charles Bolden joined family members of the crew in opening the display. At the Johnson Space Center, a tree was planted for each astronaut killed in the Challenger disaster, along with trees for those who died in the Apollo 1 and Columbia accidents.
The crew of the Challenger were honored in space and on other worlds. Seven asteroids bear their names, officially announced by the Minor Planet Center on March 26, 1986. Two years later, in 1988, the International Astronomical Union named craters on the Moon’s far side — within the Apollo Basin — after them. The Soviet Union also paid tribute, naming craters on Venus after McAuliffe and Resnik. On Mars, the Opportunity rover’s landing site was dedicated as the Challenger Memorial Station.
In the years since the Challenger disaster, tributes have grown across the nation to remember those lost. Peers Park in Palo Alto, California, holds the Challenger Memorial Grove, where redwoods planted from seeds carried on the 1985 mission now grow. Schools and streets have been renamed in honor of the crew or the shuttle itself. A scaled-down version of the Challenger, posed as if mid-launch, was placed in Little Tokyo, Los Angeles, in 1990. One mountain peak, Challenger Point, rises in the Sangre de Cristo Range. In Concord, New Hampshire, the McAuliffe-Shepard Discovery Center stands, named for teacher Christa McAuliffe and astronaut Alan Shepard, who came from Derry, New Hampshire.
The families of the Challenger crew created an organization called the Challenger Center for Space Science Education, which continues to teach students about space and science today.
A flag flown aboard the Challenger, later called the Challenger flag, was carried by the mission and recovered intact, still in its plastic container. It had been sponsored by Boy Scout Troop 514 from Monument, Colorado. The flag was among the few items recovered from the disaster. Also recovered was a soccer ball that Ellison Onizuka had brought along, which was flown to the International Space Station aboard Soyuz Expedition 49 by astronaut Shane Kimbrough. That ball is now displayed at Clear Lake High School in Houston, where Onizuka’s children once attended.
The 1986 film Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home opened with a dedication to the Challenger crew. The message said, "The cast and crew of Star Trek wish to dedicate this film to the men and women of the spaceship Challenger whose courageous spirit shall live to the 23rd century and beyond."
The final track on Jean-Michel Jarre’s 1986 album Rendez-Vous was set to include a saxophone part recorded by Ron McNair while aboard the Challenger. That piece was meant to be the first music ever recorded in space.
Read
Free to download, keep and share. For general information only — not professional medical, legal or financial advice. Please consult a qualified professional.