Lol it's like he paused at the thought of saying "I believe this has some significance to how you guys fucked up" and put it more nicely as "I believe this has some significance to .... our problem."
@timothy51886 That's because he seriously pissed off. During the investigation, he found that that NASA management had no idea what they were talking about when it came to the science or safety and should've been more honest, especially when a member of the public was part of the mission. To put it into persepective, the management concluded that the odds of the shuttle exploding were 1/100,000 while the engineers who built it and never had a voice at NASA estimated 1/100 odds of disaster.
@timothy51886 you may wish to read about RF. true he is a bit of a maverick but one of amazing intuitive intelect. To label him the way you have is pretty lousy...perhaps you'd supply some reasonable arguements for your opinion? That is what He would have suggested. Good Luck
@Soroboruo Of course the pause before 'our problem' was intentional, so was the lowered voice. His ability to communicate is legendary and what he wanted to communicate was the......'significance'......of what he had just said.
@zer0dahero The O2 leaked after the aft strut on the SRB was burned through and detached. This allowed the SRB to pivot around the forward strut and smack into the tank, rupturing it.
@deedubya286 Right, but this vid's description implies that the o rings cause an O2 leak, not that the o rings caused the SRB rear strut to detatch, which then cause the explosion (not so much of a leak). I was kind of trying to suggest that the vid description should be corrected.
@zer0dahero Oh. My mistake, sorry about that. I've been a fan of the shuttle since the first gliding flights of the Enterprise. I watched the Challenger launch live on tv when it was lost and all the Roger Commission hearings as well.
I guess I get a little carried away with wanting to let people know what really happened.
The O-ring's purpose is to seal the joints of the SRB. This keeps the hot gase of the burning motor inside. If the o-ring isn't flexible it won't conform to the gap it is filling as the motor casing flexes due to loads. What happens then is the barrier of immobile air between the o-ring and the hot gases leaks out, allows the hot gases to come in contact with the o-ring itself which then burns through the o-ring, and acts like a blow torch on anything in it's path.
@sferrin2 Don’t mean any disrespect but... DUH, everyone already knows that. My point is that the vid description states erroneously that the o-ring failure cause an O2 leak. I imagined that people would be intelligent enough to understand that’s what I was pointing out, since I did point it out in my post. Maybe people aren't actually reading the post they are replying to, which is a pre-requitite to replying. Ok, maybe that was a little disrespectful after all.
It's not as if Feynman ever said that he came up with the O-ring thing himself. In his book "What Do You Care What Other People Think?", he clearly says that NASA engineers had steered him towards the seals early on, and that another commissioner (Gen. Kutyna) had thought of the significance of cold on the O-rings.
@mjkobb, yes, that's right - thank you! I wasn't sure in which book Feynman said this. Feynman was too generous to management, saying maybe it was poor communications - or something like that - but, then, he had to be diplomatic, as he wasn't a NASA insider.
Just before the Challenger disaster, me & Georgie Ryan cooled various materials with Component Cooler/"Component Killer" including O-rings. They got stiff and in some cases would fracture. I want to know: Why were we suddenly so curious about the properties of various rubber materials at 0C? The jokes about NASA = Need Another Seven Astronauts flew thick & fast around the shop (although not told by ME) all day to mask the feeling of horror.
You people are not thinking deep enough! This man is a genius. Just think deep about it and you will realise that he is talking about the masonic lodge! (32 degrees)
This man tells us alot more than simple shallow sentences.Think about it!
@poochewer1 Wow. He placed it in a figure eight shape. Not infinity.
Also 32 degrees is when it has no resilience, so are you telling me nature is part of the Masonic Lodge since it made the material act like that in that particular temperature?
@poochewer1, that is clearly NOT Feynman dipping a rubber ring in cold water. Could you stop it with these insane "conspiracies", because conspiracies do exist; you, however, are doing a good job discrediting everyone.
@poochewer1, Feynman was not a member of any secret organization trying to "enslave" the masses. NASA knew the 'O' rings caused the explosion cos the engineers had argued with their managers, telling them not to fly the shuttle after a night out in freezing temps. Top managment didn't listen, so a "cover up" ensued. Feynman was unknowingly part of it - what did he know about the shuttle? Nothing! The engineers led Feynman 2 the answer, then NASA tried to silence Feynman, but he didn't go along.
@poochewer1 Wilson thanX you for your loyalty. What's the point of symbols that have no message? Self fulfilment is a powerful thing no? As is dissinformation.
With all the career politicians and NASA staff worried about their jobs, Feynman was probably the only person in the USA with the right combination of scientific authority, media presence and reckless independence to make this statement and get it noticed by the public.
who gives a fuck about challenger - its just 7 people a billion dollars - we lose that every few hours on the roads in car accidents and in the finance system
@JamesMorlan no you polarized republican dipshit. he's simply stating the undue attention given to this "tragedy" when it is a drop in the bucket when compared to human suffering on a global scale. troll
@kirby7979 said, "no you polarized republican dipshit."
LOL! I think I would rather be that than whatever the fuck you are.
I don't see how any attention given to the Challenger incident was undue. Besides, it was *MY* point about caring about human suffering on a global scale. I just didn't think the lives of the Challenger crew were any less significant than anyone else's. Dipshit.
Mr Feynman was dying at the time. He came out of retirement for this. He never lived to see the results in the launching of Discovery a year and a half later. God Speed Richard Feynman. RIP
god bless feynman for standing up to arrogance, passing off blame, and stupidity of the bureaucrats within nasa. challenger disaster NEVER should have happened, it SHOULDNT'VE happen, and as long as the nasa culture of ignorance and arrogance stays the same, it WILL happen again.
oh wait, it did, when columbia disintegrated and killed all crew members in 2003. guess what the final report said? the nasa culture was just as much to blame as the foam. don't believe me? look it up.
Former Secretary of State and Washington fixer William Rogers was trying to cover up the real problem. Feynman absolutely OWNED Rogers. Rogers should have known better than to match wits with Feynman but he learned the hard way.
Hardly. The O-rings of the SRBs had been identified as a possible hazard after smaller SRBs had destroyed a Titan III two years before the shuttle program even started. "As long as you build rockets, and you have to build them in sections, this problem will exist, and is simply part of this dangerous enterprise." - Jet Propulsion Laboratories, 1976
The point about Challenger that I think most people miss is....Challenger didn't blow up because of a faulty O-ring. The O-ring isn't the point. It was the faulty decision making process that led to attempting to operate the O-ring in temperatures that it wasn't designed to operate in. It was the faulty decision making process....THAT was the point to be understood about the Challenger disaster. Human factors. Most people don't get that.
Furthermore, the EXACT same faulty decision making proccess that went un-corrected after Challenger, was the same human factor that led to the Columbia disaster. Complacency...one of the "Dirty Dozen" human factors, led to the launch officials becomeing complacent with FOD hitting the launch vehicle during previous launches. Complacency killed the Columbia, not Foreign Object Damage.
What does he mean it doesn't stretch back? It seems very elastic in that example. Is he saying it doesn't stretch back to a perfectly circular shape with no curves?
@TheGreekPimp12: What does he mean it doesn't stretch back? It seems very elastic in that example. Is he saying it doesn't stretch back to a perfectly circular shape with no curves?
JM: This is rocket science. The o-ring has to work perfectly. Because it was stiff from cold, it let hot gasses get past the joint which started the chain reaction of disaster. Some systems allow small leaks. Rockets aren't one of them.
@JetMechMA "Is he saying it doesn't stretch back to a perfectly circular shape with no curves?"
No, I think he is really talking about the thickness of the ring where it has been squeezed as would occur when in use. The video clip of the ring being twisted doesn't really help show this very well because it does go back almost to its original shape.
JM: "Almost", isn't good enough. Do you understand that? "Circular" has two meanings, in cross section and in diameter. Doesn't matter to Feynman's explanation. Either way demonstates it's lack of elasticity. Somebody else said the quote you have, I was responding to that person.
'...I believe that has some signifance for our problem.' (!) Classic understatement, and typical modesty. Read Feynman's account of the Challenger Inquiry, and it is quickly apparent that without his presence the whole thing would have been a whitewash - convenient both for NASA and the US government - but not the truth. And Feynman cared about the truth above anything or anybody. RIP, RF.
I think this clip might be the best explanation of the idiom "Let's get down to brass tacks". Feynman always explained things in an easy to understand, to the point manner... Unless it was that at the time not understandable, then of course he would say some thing like "don't be concerned if you don't understand this, nobody does".
To the point, it's awesome how far our species has come in such a short amount of time, but how far we have to go. Imagine, a billion dollar space ship destroyed by a 0.50 cent piece of rubber. Hhahaha, nature is crazy
@Grundalizer Well, it was a bigger piece of rubber than this, which was just a small sample. The o-ring that failed went around the entire circumference of the engine where the sections joined.
@lytrigian So what? The physics is the same at 32 degress, regardless of the size of O ring. (And they didn't go round the engine, it was the joins in the rocket boosters - exposed to the freezing weather - that was the fatal flaw.)
@redcrowdemon Yes, but it's not a "50-cent piece of rubber", is it? That makes it sound like something very simple. It wasn't. And there were design issues too, aside from the choice of material.
"Rocket booster" = "solid rocket motor". Gosh, I said "engine" instead of "motor". So shoot me.
@lytrigian: Hey, friend, I wasn't intending any personal slight in my point about the engine vs. rocket etc. - it was just the fact that the 'o' rings were exposed to the weather, whereas the main engine wasn't. It wasn't me who made the '50-cent piece of rubber' comment below; I just said the physics would be the same for the whole o-ring as for the sample of that ring that Feynman put in iced-water. Surely?
@redcrowdemon Then was was the "so what?" about? SO WHAT, THE PART THAT FAILED WASN'T A 50-CENT PIECE OF RUBBER. I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT THE PHYSICS AT ALL. Of course they're the same. That was utterly beside the point, and only a moron would think otherwise.
I wish I had Feynman as my physics professor. Mine had this uncanny ability to take the most elementary concept in physics and explain it in such a convoluted way that by the time he was done none of us was sure whether up was really down. My grade was inversely proportional to my attendance. By the last quarter I showed up only for exams, and I got my first A!
I have to mention Carl Sagan too. He & Feynman had that gift for making the incomprehensible knowable and wondrous!
Well, unfortunately, these type of people only show up now and then in history. I suppose this should inspire us to achieve the best we can for sake of others.
BTW, if you REALLY want to see a genius in action, check the "Cold Facts" chapter in Feynman book on the Challenger investigation ("What Do You Care What Other People Think?"). Absolutely brilliant!
Feynmann was one of history's greatest theoretical physicists (actually he was much into the experimental part too). When you're doing physics at level, you've to get this uncanny ability to grasp the bottom line of the most complicate situations, otherwise you'll never make it. Fermi had it, Dirac had it, Wheeler had it, and of course Feynmann had it too
i love how complicated other people's reasoning must have been in explaining what went wrong with the Challenger, and he just goes "i stuck your o-ring in some cold water... you messed up"
@nacho862, read my posts - Feynman was being used in a "cover up", the engineers led Feynman to the answer, but they kept silent for fear of losing their jobs.
The investigation wasn't needed - it was a PR "stunt" to fool the public.
For those who don't know, Google "Challenger Revealed: How the Reagan Administration Caused the Greatest Tragedy of the Space Age" for a short article on how NASA used Feynman in a cover-up - they knew EXACTLY why the shuttle had exploded. NASA's management - NOT the engineers! - effectively murdered the astronauts, including a teacher.
I found this out from Feynman himself, from one of his books.
@rainofcows, buy "Challenger Revealed" by Richard C. Cook. The photos show the shuttle launch tower covered in thick ice. Excerpt: "The head of NASA ice team told launch controllers, 'I'd say your only choice is not to go"'.
"...the decision to continue flying the shuttle with known...O-ring joint design defects...Thiokol recounted the history of O-ring charring & erosion during previous shuttle missions...Flames from burning fuel during...shuttle flights had caused damage to the O-rings"
@rainofcows, excerpts: "The [NASA] memo dated July 23, 1985: 'There is little question...that flight safety has been & is still being compromised by potential failure of the seals, &...failure during launch would...be catastrophic...' -God, they knew all about it. They told me it was being fixed. But they kept on flying...the waiver allowed the shuttle 2 continue to fly, even though the secondary O-ring might not seal & prevent the type of catastrophic flame leaks that destroyed the Challenger."
@rainofcows, if you want to believe Feynman was some kind of human god, then fine. However, Albert Einstein was a far superior physicist, and he laughed when people called him a "genius".
The engineers led Feynman to the O-ring problem - they didn't need Feynman! NASA management did, however, because they had murdered the shuttle crew and needed to pretend they were ignorant of the O-ring design problem. Feynman was used!
Real life isn't a fairy tale story - sorry about that!
@jakeZaks2012 dude, relax, i'm just pointing out how much you're repeating the same stuff, not commenting on whether i think you're right or wrong- so you respond by repeating it again?
@rainofcows, I'm citing facts. The NASA memo I quoted was published in the New York Times at the time.
Another extract fr. "Challenger revealed" by Richard C. Cook: "Mulloy was alleged in testimony to have pressured the Thiokol engineers who thought the weather on Jan. 28 would be 2 cold for the O-rings to perform as they should. They were afraid the O-rings in the SRB [Solid Rocket Booster] joints would lack the resiliency 2 seal properly, which is what happened when Challenger exploded..."
what "o" ring..... Is this vid about the Challenger? Because there's lot's of O rings and washers out there. Be specific when you title a vid, or at least right in the info section what this is about.
dude... I majored in engineering (minor in physics)....
O-rings in any practical science whether it's physics or chemistry etc, are a very common item. point is: that it's weird the word "Challenger" is nowhere in the desc. or the title. Is the "O ring" suddenly synonymous with challenger disaster?
I know that's what he was talking about because I was around when that happened, and remember the controversy behind it... was just giving shit, because it's a bit silly he didn't even mention it
you're right, the word challenger should have been there.. but it make no difference unless one is trying to search for the vid.. anyway, i agree about being more specific.
If there's Feynman in the video, and it's about an O ring, it doesn't take a whole mess of brain cells to deduce what exactly the whole thing is about.
'Is the "O ring" suddenly synonymous with challenger disaster?'
To anyone alive at the time of the disaster, yes it is. 95% of people have never heard of an O-ring, and 99% of those that have will only have heard the term associated with the challenger disaster.
Please take your Asperpers attitude elsewhere you bellicose halfwit.
He didn't even mention it because he was talking in a discussion about the possibility of the o-rings used in the Challenger's boosters being the problem. It was already in context.
All is inside our interacting brain hemispheres; right=parallel processor, left=serial. This (and prob the double helix structure of DNA) creates duality thinking and perception, e.g., polarity, matter/antimatter, yin/yang, etc. Right brain is sensitive to external waves, while left interprets them to comport with our senses; hence the illusion of sequentiality (time), for example. Everything "exists" in an eternal, pulsating, spherical wave singularity. Such is likely the physics of Reality.
The text accompanying the video is wrong. It was not O2 that leaked from the 'main booster tank', it was hot gasses that blew out past the seal on the Solid Rocket Boosters, these SRBs have no O2, the O2 is in the fuel tank that feeds the Shuttles 3 rocket engines.
O2 is irrelevant, there is no O2 in the SRB, the cold was weather related. O2 is cryogenically stored but in a different tank unrelated to the system that failed.
Right, it's supposed to stay squishy and rubbery. When it was cold, as it was the day of the launch, they weren't because they weren't designed for those temperatures. Launches are done in Florida, the design assumptions assumed non-freezing weather, and no testing was done in these conditions. Florida occasionally has bitter cold, just not usually. The engineers were saying scrub the mission because of this, management was "nah, go ahead".
If he had dipped the sela in the water for more longer than a feww seconds, let's say an hour...the seal would have had absolutely ZERO resilience !i.e it would not have sprung back to its original shape or even TRY to spring back to its original shape.
The man was just made of win and awesome. As was the gentleman at Thiokol (can't remember his name off the top of my head) who tries to have the launch scrubbed.
From pg. 141 of "What do YOU care what other people think" the engineer at Thiokol who first brough to Feynman's attention that the engineers wanted the launch scrubbed was "Mr. MacDonald." Perhaps his first name is Roger. The book doesn't give first names for many of the people.
A "Mr. Rogers" ran the commission. Perhaps irrelevant, perhaps not.
alright I understand now...so at 32F , the seal's molecules cannot withstand the pressures being placed onit so as to boomerang back into its EXACT previous shape as it was before....
No, the combustion pressures caused the segments of theSRB to bunge, this causing the gasket to flex. The seal failed becaused it did not recover from this flexion as designed and so did not maintain a seal. When the seal failed hot combustion gasses blew past the gaps in the seal and burned the seal away leading to a complete failure of cumbustion chamber integrity.
okay, but I was trying to figure out feynman's logic and his usage of the word 'resilience' i.e in what context etc...Feynman is saying that if he had dipped the seal longer in the cold water, it would not spring back or flex back, at all, not even an inch ....but how does this relate to how u are decribing it?
The seal was supposed to flex back after being compressed in the joint and maintain a seal. When the flexion of the booster sections squeezed and unsqueezed the seal it it did not expand back to maintain the joint seal.
Roger Penrose? another prominent physicist...can u explain to me what Feynman is saying here? Is he suggesting that the reason why the 02 leaked during launch was because the seal was not effective enough in its purpose of sealing?
Feynman is pointing out that when the o-ring was very cold (as it was the day of the launch), the rubber didn't snap back as quickly as it should have. So, it didn't seal properly in those colder conditions. Something no one bothered to worry about....well..actually, the engineers did but no one in the command.
It was. I think it about as big as twenty hullahoops stuck together to make a big one if not bigger. I've never seen Space Shuttle rocket boosters up close but that's my very rough guess.
the word 'resilience' is being used in which context here? Resilience meaning 'toughness'?btw, the rubber seal he is holding DID more or less stretch back to its original shape (well kind of), maybe not ALL the way....
pwned
aussersein 4 months ago
And this is why he is known as the "Rockstar Physicist"
Clarinerd617 5 months ago
Lol it's like he paused at the thought of saying "I believe this has some significance to how you guys fucked up" and put it more nicely as "I believe this has some significance to .... our problem."
PrUnEJuIcEtHeThIrD 6 months ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
tl;dr: "Gentlemen. I told you so. That is all."
Flaumenkopf 7 months ago
"I believe that has some significance to our problem."
That's a very VERY gentlemanly way of putting it.....
droculoh 7 months ago 12
genius!
TheWheels777 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
He actually seems like a bit of a jackass
timothy51886 1 year ago
@timothy51886 That's because he seriously pissed off. During the investigation, he found that that NASA management had no idea what they were talking about when it came to the science or safety and should've been more honest, especially when a member of the public was part of the mission. To put it into persepective, the management concluded that the odds of the shuttle exploding were 1/100,000 while the engineers who built it and never had a voice at NASA estimated 1/100 odds of disaster.
VZero25 1 year ago 3
@VZero25 Oh... I stand corrected
timothy51886 1 year ago
@timothy51886 you may wish to read about RF. true he is a bit of a maverick but one of amazing intuitive intelect. To label him the way you have is pretty lousy...perhaps you'd supply some reasonable arguements for your opinion? That is what He would have suggested. Good Luck
borg22222 11 months ago
@timothy51886 He's, he's from Queens. Rockaway Beach. It's the law there.
zazeify 11 months ago
Need I say anymore?
MrBennetzen 1 year ago
has anyone read the book "Surely you are jonking Mr. Feynman?" It is amazing, and I really enjoyed it. I recommend it.
MeGg1120 1 year ago 7
@MeGg1120 Yerh it's a great book, didn't expect him and the book to turn out to be so interesting and inspiring :)
JayDee98765 1 year ago
Anyone else reminded of Miracle Max watching this?
Also, nothing will convince me that the pause before 'our problem' was unintentional.
Soroboruo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Soroboruo Of course the pause before 'our problem' was intentional, so was the lowered voice. His ability to communicate is legendary and what he wanted to communicate was the......'significance'......of what he had just said.
Tapecutter59 1 year ago
The vid description mentions O2 leaks on the main booster tank. Is that why the SRB failed or is the vid description out to lunch?
zer0dahero 1 year ago
@zer0dahero The O2 leaked after the aft strut on the SRB was burned through and detached. This allowed the SRB to pivot around the forward strut and smack into the tank, rupturing it.
deedubya286 1 year ago
@deedubya286 Right, but this vid's description implies that the o rings cause an O2 leak, not that the o rings caused the SRB rear strut to detatch, which then cause the explosion (not so much of a leak). I was kind of trying to suggest that the vid description should be corrected.
zer0dahero 1 year ago
@zer0dahero Oh. My mistake, sorry about that. I've been a fan of the shuttle since the first gliding flights of the Enterprise. I watched the Challenger launch live on tv when it was lost and all the Roger Commission hearings as well.
I guess I get a little carried away with wanting to let people know what really happened.
deedubya286 1 year ago
@zer0dahero
The O-ring's purpose is to seal the joints of the SRB. This keeps the hot gase of the burning motor inside. If the o-ring isn't flexible it won't conform to the gap it is filling as the motor casing flexes due to loads. What happens then is the barrier of immobile air between the o-ring and the hot gases leaks out, allows the hot gases to come in contact with the o-ring itself which then burns through the o-ring, and acts like a blow torch on anything in it's path.
sferrin2 1 year ago
@sferrin2 Don’t mean any disrespect but... DUH, everyone already knows that. My point is that the vid description states erroneously that the o-ring failure cause an O2 leak. I imagined that people would be intelligent enough to understand that’s what I was pointing out, since I did point it out in my post. Maybe people aren't actually reading the post they are replying to, which is a pre-requitite to replying. Ok, maybe that was a little disrespectful after all.
zer0dahero 1 year ago
Only on youtube can people break into a flame war over anything....
JungleNin 1 year ago
It's not as if Feynman ever said that he came up with the O-ring thing himself. In his book "What Do You Care What Other People Think?", he clearly says that NASA engineers had steered him towards the seals early on, and that another commissioner (Gen. Kutyna) had thought of the significance of cold on the O-rings.
mjkobb 1 year ago
@mjkobb, yes, that's right - thank you! I wasn't sure in which book Feynman said this. Feynman was too generous to management, saying maybe it was poor communications - or something like that - but, then, he had to be diplomatic, as he wasn't a NASA insider.
jakeZaks2012 1 year ago
thats why the challenger spaceship blew up
cardriver222 1 year ago
Just before the Challenger disaster, me & Georgie Ryan cooled various materials with Component Cooler/"Component Killer" including O-rings. They got stiff and in some cases would fracture. I want to know: Why were we suddenly so curious about the properties of various rubber materials at 0C? The jokes about NASA = Need Another Seven Astronauts flew thick & fast around the shop (although not told by ME) all day to mask the feeling of horror.
Feynman & Sagan RIP My heroes.
HornerOnTheCorner 1 year ago
32 is 23 backwards, that must have some significance!
TurtlesEatingStuff 1 year ago
You people are not thinking deep enough! This man is a genius. Just think deep about it and you will realise that he is talking about the masonic lodge! (32 degrees)
This man tells us alot more than simple shallow sentences.Think about it!
poochewer1 1 year ago
Not to mention that he placed the o-ring into the shape of "infinity"
poochewer1 1 year ago
@poochewer1 Wow. He placed it in a figure eight shape. Not infinity.
Also 32 degrees is when it has no resilience, so are you telling me nature is part of the Masonic Lodge since it made the material act like that in that particular temperature?
AdHominus 1 year ago
@poochewer1, that is clearly NOT Feynman dipping a rubber ring in cold water. Could you stop it with these insane "conspiracies", because conspiracies do exist; you, however, are doing a good job discrediting everyone.
jakeZaks2012 1 year ago
@poochewer1, Feynman was not a member of any secret organization trying to "enslave" the masses. NASA knew the 'O' rings caused the explosion cos the engineers had argued with their managers, telling them not to fly the shuttle after a night out in freezing temps. Top managment didn't listen, so a "cover up" ensued. Feynman was unknowingly part of it - what did he know about the shuttle? Nothing! The engineers led Feynman 2 the answer, then NASA tried to silence Feynman, but he didn't go along.
jakeZaks2012 1 year ago
@poochewer1 Wilson thanX you for your loyalty. What's the point of symbols that have no message? Self fulfilment is a powerful thing no? As is dissinformation.
kwiksotik 1 year ago
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what is known as massive ownage.
PassiveSmoking 1 year ago 38
The description states, "This allowed the O2 leak from the main booster tank."
Correction: this allowed hot gasses to escape from the SRB rocket body. Feynman was great, BTW.
RCAvhstape 1 year ago 4
Houston, you have a problem....
mightyfinejonboy 1 year ago
He really scared the SHIT out of NASA!
jfko6 1 year ago 7
All those military personnel are pussies. Christian nuts, they are. They make the entire population of the US Mafia terrorist forces.
LogicalFlawDetector 1 year ago
With all the career politicians and NASA staff worried about their jobs, Feynman was probably the only person in the USA with the right combination of scientific authority, media presence and reckless independence to make this statement and get it noticed by the public.
chrisofnottingham 1 year ago 5
Surely you are joking Mr. Feynman.
karmicide 1 year ago 10
who gives a fuck about challenger - its just 7 people a billion dollars - we lose that every few hours on the roads in car accidents and in the finance system
mallamoozoo 1 year ago
@mallamoozoo So are you saying we shouldn't give a fuck about the people and money lost in car accidents and in the finance system, either?
JamesMorlan 1 year ago
@JamesMorlan no you polarized republican dipshit. he's simply stating the undue attention given to this "tragedy" when it is a drop in the bucket when compared to human suffering on a global scale. troll
kirby7979 1 year ago
@kirby7979 said, "no you polarized republican dipshit."
LOL! I think I would rather be that than whatever the fuck you are.
I don't see how any attention given to the Challenger incident was undue. Besides, it was *MY* point about caring about human suffering on a global scale. I just didn't think the lives of the Challenger crew were any less significant than anyone else's. Dipshit.
JamesMorlan 1 year ago
@JamesMorlan dumbass troll.
kirby7979 1 year ago
@kirby7979 HAHA! I half expected you to end your comment with, "pwned!"
JamesMorlan 1 year ago
@JamesMorlan HAHA, i half expected you to put a dick in your mouth
kirby7979 1 year ago
@JamesMorlan faggot ass e-thug. suck it easy
kirby7979 1 year ago
@kirby7979 It's too bad I'm not a troll. You'd be such an easy target.
JamesMorlan 1 year ago
MAC GYVER !
looks too simple , but its just the right "question"
RIP Ritchie !
hackie77 1 year ago
Mr Feynman was dying at the time. He came out of retirement for this. He never lived to see the results in the launching of Discovery a year and a half later. God Speed Richard Feynman. RIP
silvereagle2061 1 year ago 6
god bless feynman for standing up to arrogance, passing off blame, and stupidity of the bureaucrats within nasa. challenger disaster NEVER should have happened, it SHOULDNT'VE happen, and as long as the nasa culture of ignorance and arrogance stays the same, it WILL happen again.
oh wait, it did, when columbia disintegrated and killed all crew members in 2003. guess what the final report said? the nasa culture was just as much to blame as the foam. don't believe me? look it up.
whentheskyfalls 1 year ago 4
Former Secretary of State and Washington fixer William Rogers was trying to cover up the real problem. Feynman absolutely OWNED Rogers. Rogers should have known better than to match wits with Feynman but he learned the hard way.
Skeptic121 1 year ago
@Skeptic121
Hardly. The O-rings of the SRBs had been identified as a possible hazard after smaller SRBs had destroyed a Titan III two years before the shuttle program even started. "As long as you build rockets, and you have to build them in sections, this problem will exist, and is simply part of this dangerous enterprise." - Jet Propulsion Laboratories, 1976
Merlin5x5 1 year ago
@Merlin5x5 Right. You go ahead and match wits with Feynman. Too bad he's dead. Maybe shoot some hoops with MJ instead.
Skeptic121 1 year ago
Im working for Merkel Freudenberg ... I have to control O-Ring's with a Quick Scope
21680Boys 1 year ago
Th simpler the explanation, the better.
frankystein12 1 year ago
@frankystein12 apparently feynman hates simple explanations
XxNaYhOmAxX 1 year ago
@XxNaYhOmAxX really?
countpopethe3rd 1 year ago
The point about Challenger that I think most people miss is....Challenger didn't blow up because of a faulty O-ring. The O-ring isn't the point. It was the faulty decision making process that led to attempting to operate the O-ring in temperatures that it wasn't designed to operate in. It was the faulty decision making process....THAT was the point to be understood about the Challenger disaster. Human factors. Most people don't get that.
JetMechMA 1 year ago 28
Furthermore, the EXACT same faulty decision making proccess that went un-corrected after Challenger, was the same human factor that led to the Columbia disaster. Complacency...one of the "Dirty Dozen" human factors, led to the launch officials becomeing complacent with FOD hitting the launch vehicle during previous launches. Complacency killed the Columbia, not Foreign Object Damage.
JetMechMA 1 year ago 5
I love Feynman. One of his greatest gifts is demonstrating "what one fool can understand another fool can" every time he talks.
tonimatasnim 1 year ago 9
google Doe's Account, its mindblowing.
Yellowwatts 1 year ago
Look, it's simple: Feynman is God. Every one of us that ever went to Caltech knows this.
RiotNrrrdUTube 1 year ago 3
@RiotNrrrdUTube CalTech nuttin! He's a Cornell God! ...every one of us that went to Cornell knows this. :)
CaptainMacNasty 1 year ago
@CaptainMacNasty And every one of us that went to Caltech knows it's spelled "Caltech", not "CalTech" :P
RiotNrrrdUTube 1 year ago
@RiotNrrrdUTube & @CaptainMacNasty - Look it's simple: Faynman is God. Everyone who has more than two brain cells knows this.
ElPeejerino 1 year ago
What does he mean it doesn't stretch back? It seems very elastic in that example. Is he saying it doesn't stretch back to a perfectly circular shape with no curves?
TheGreekPimp12 1 year ago 2
@TheGreekPimp12 exactly, the O-ring is supposed to maintain that, and that's a showstopper right there
hmsrenown 1 year ago 2
@hmsrenown thanks for the response
TheGreekPimp12 1 year ago
@TheGreekPimp12: What does he mean it doesn't stretch back? It seems very elastic in that example. Is he saying it doesn't stretch back to a perfectly circular shape with no curves?
JM: This is rocket science. The o-ring has to work perfectly. Because it was stiff from cold, it let hot gasses get past the joint which started the chain reaction of disaster. Some systems allow small leaks. Rockets aren't one of them.
JetMechMA 1 year ago
@JetMechMA "Is he saying it doesn't stretch back to a perfectly circular shape with no curves?"
No, I think he is really talking about the thickness of the ring where it has been squeezed as would occur when in use. The video clip of the ring being twisted doesn't really help show this very well because it does go back almost to its original shape.
chrisofnottingham 1 year ago
@chrisofnottingham: it does go back almost to its original shape.
JM: "Almost", isn't good enough. Do you understand that? "Circular" has two meanings, in cross section and in diameter. Doesn't matter to Feynman's explanation. Either way demonstates it's lack of elasticity. Somebody else said the quote you have, I was responding to that person.
JetMechMA 1 year ago
'...I believe that has some signifance for our problem.' (!) Classic understatement, and typical modesty. Read Feynman's account of the Challenger Inquiry, and it is quickly apparent that without his presence the whole thing would have been a whitewash - convenient both for NASA and the US government - but not the truth. And Feynman cared about the truth above anything or anybody. RIP, RF.
redcrowdemon 1 year ago 6
@redcrowdemon (And that's without even mentioning quantum electrodynamics, which as evry skoolboy kno is kwite clever too...)
redcrowdemon 1 year ago
The simple answers are always the best ones. Feynman gives attention to small but important details. The theory behind Occam's razor.
frohman101 1 year ago
Feynman has a way of explaining complicated issues in such simplicity, that it makes the listener feel clever. We need more Feynmans!
eaglefort 1 year ago 10
I think this clip might be the best explanation of the idiom "Let's get down to brass tacks". Feynman always explained things in an easy to understand, to the point manner... Unless it was that at the time not understandable, then of course he would say some thing like "don't be concerned if you don't understand this, nobody does".
shizzle5150 2 years ago 45
Comment removed
defect530 2 years ago
Comment removed
dcs002 2 years ago
Comment removed
defect530 2 years ago
Comment removed
dcs002 2 years ago
@dcs002
@@
good day.
defect530 2 years ago
I love Feynmnan.
To the point, it's awesome how far our species has come in such a short amount of time, but how far we have to go. Imagine, a billion dollar space ship destroyed by a 0.50 cent piece of rubber. Hhahaha, nature is crazy
Grundalizer 2 years ago 58
@Grundalizer "I believe natures imagination is so much greater than mans shes never gonna let us relax" - Feynman
JHsillypantsMcGee 2 years ago 16
@Grundalizer Well, it was a bigger piece of rubber than this, which was just a small sample. The o-ring that failed went around the entire circumference of the engine where the sections joined.
lytrigian 2 years ago
@lytrigian So what? The physics is the same at 32 degress, regardless of the size of O ring. (And they didn't go round the engine, it was the joins in the rocket boosters - exposed to the freezing weather - that was the fatal flaw.)
redcrowdemon 1 year ago
@redcrowdemon Yes, but it's not a "50-cent piece of rubber", is it? That makes it sound like something very simple. It wasn't. And there were design issues too, aside from the choice of material.
"Rocket booster" = "solid rocket motor". Gosh, I said "engine" instead of "motor". So shoot me.
lytrigian 1 year ago
@lytrigian: Hey, friend, I wasn't intending any personal slight in my point about the engine vs. rocket etc. - it was just the fact that the 'o' rings were exposed to the weather, whereas the main engine wasn't. It wasn't me who made the '50-cent piece of rubber' comment below; I just said the physics would be the same for the whole o-ring as for the sample of that ring that Feynman put in iced-water. Surely?
redcrowdemon 1 year ago
@redcrowdemon Then was was the "so what?" about? SO WHAT, THE PART THAT FAILED WASN'T A 50-CENT PIECE OF RUBBER. I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT THE PHYSICS AT ALL. Of course they're the same. That was utterly beside the point, and only a moron would think otherwise.
lytrigian 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
i don't give thumbs down. how childish!!!!
ihurtedmypeepee 2 years ago
and there you have it
tgallemore 2 years ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
Women used to have sex with Feynman, because they knew Feynman would give them cheques for $500 to have an abortion if they got knocked up.
moronpaul 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
$500 isn't enough. they must have been dumb women.
ihurtedmypeepee 2 years ago
"$500 isn't enough. they must have been dumb women."
Give it as many 'thumbs down' as you can, but the fact remains true. Read his biography...it's all in there.
moronpaul 2 years ago
oh i am not denying it. i was only saying those women were dumb.
ihurtedmypeepee 2 years ago
Wow. Thirty seconds, and now I can say I have a rudimentary understanding of why the Challenger blew up. And I'm into Computer Science.
POOPTURTLE 2 years ago 10
I wish I had Feynman as my physics professor. Mine had this uncanny ability to take the most elementary concept in physics and explain it in such a convoluted way that by the time he was done none of us was sure whether up was really down. My grade was inversely proportional to my attendance. By the last quarter I showed up only for exams, and I got my first A!
I have to mention Carl Sagan too. He & Feynman had that gift for making the incomprehensible knowable and wondrous!
dcs002 2 years ago 47
Well, unfortunately, these type of people only show up now and then in history. I suppose this should inspire us to achieve the best we can for sake of others.
MewHamHead 2 years ago 11
completely agree -- Kip Thorne is an easier read too.
toddsmith00 2 years ago
I wish all grades worked on inverse proportionality,
shk9664 2 years ago
where can i get the whole speech?
DLPBurke 2 years ago
BTW, if you REALLY want to see a genius in action, check the "Cold Facts" chapter in Feynman book on the Challenger investigation ("What Do You Care What Other People Think?"). Absolutely brilliant!
signorellil 2 years ago
Feynmann was one of history's greatest theoretical physicists (actually he was much into the experimental part too). When you're doing physics at level, you've to get this uncanny ability to grasp the bottom line of the most complicate situations, otherwise you'll never make it. Fermi had it, Dirac had it, Wheeler had it, and of course Feynmann had it too
signorellil 2 years ago 9
i love how complicated other people's reasoning must have been in explaining what went wrong with the Challenger, and he just goes "i stuck your o-ring in some cold water... you messed up"
nacho862 2 years ago 265
Yeah, dude rocked.
Virility 2 years ago
@nacho862 i don't wanna LOL or ROFL but i'll just say VERY WELL PUT. 59 others agreed :)
theimperfektman 2 years ago
@nacho862, read my posts - Feynman was being used in a "cover up", the engineers led Feynman to the answer, but they kept silent for fear of losing their jobs.
The investigation wasn't needed - it was a PR "stunt" to fool the public.
jakeZaks2012 1 year ago
For those who don't know, Google "Challenger Revealed: How the Reagan Administration Caused the Greatest Tragedy of the Space Age" for a short article on how NASA used Feynman in a cover-up - they knew EXACTLY why the shuttle had exploded. NASA's management - NOT the engineers! - effectively murdered the astronauts, including a teacher.
I found this out from Feynman himself, from one of his books.
jakeZaks2012 1 year ago
@jakeZaks2012 keep repeating it, maybe someone will think it's true...
rainofcows 1 year ago
@rainofcows, buy "Challenger Revealed" by Richard C. Cook. The photos show the shuttle launch tower covered in thick ice. Excerpt: "The head of NASA ice team told launch controllers, 'I'd say your only choice is not to go"'.
"...the decision to continue flying the shuttle with known...O-ring joint design defects...Thiokol recounted the history of O-ring charring & erosion during previous shuttle missions...Flames from burning fuel during...shuttle flights had caused damage to the O-rings"
jakeZaks2012 1 year ago
@rainofcows, excerpts: "The [NASA] memo dated July 23, 1985: 'There is little question...that flight safety has been & is still being compromised by potential failure of the seals, &...failure during launch would...be catastrophic...' -God, they knew all about it. They told me it was being fixed. But they kept on flying...the waiver allowed the shuttle 2 continue to fly, even though the secondary O-ring might not seal & prevent the type of catastrophic flame leaks that destroyed the Challenger."
jakeZaks2012 1 year ago
@rainofcows, if you want to believe Feynman was some kind of human god, then fine. However, Albert Einstein was a far superior physicist, and he laughed when people called him a "genius".
The engineers led Feynman to the O-ring problem - they didn't need Feynman! NASA management did, however, because they had murdered the shuttle crew and needed to pretend they were ignorant of the O-ring design problem. Feynman was used!
Real life isn't a fairy tale story - sorry about that!
jakeZaks2012 1 year ago
@jakeZaks2012 dude, relax, i'm just pointing out how much you're repeating the same stuff, not commenting on whether i think you're right or wrong- so you respond by repeating it again?
rainofcows 1 year ago
@rainofcows, I'm citing facts. The NASA memo I quoted was published in the New York Times at the time.
Another extract fr. "Challenger revealed" by Richard C. Cook: "Mulloy was alleged in testimony to have pressured the Thiokol engineers who thought the weather on Jan. 28 would be 2 cold for the O-rings to perform as they should. They were afraid the O-rings in the SRB [Solid Rocket Booster] joints would lack the resiliency 2 seal properly, which is what happened when Challenger exploded..."
jakeZaks2012 1 year ago
@rainofcows, maybe you can learn from Feynman and show some honesty!
jakeZaks2012 1 year ago
@nacho862 And that's what makes him a genius. He doesn't get caught up in all the BS thrown at him.
Anastasius37 1 year ago
How to own executive meddlers and knock some arrogance out of them temporarily
Teirusu155 2 years ago 17
Go Feynman!
Overtime123 2 years ago 63
This has been flagged as spam show
Huh huh huh... He said O Ring... LOL.
Lol, couldn't resist.
FormerlyBannedUser 2 years ago
what "o" ring..... Is this vid about the Challenger? Because there's lot's of O rings and washers out there. Be specific when you title a vid, or at least right in the info section what this is about.
freezazoid 2 years ago
what do you think it's about? there is not much room for confusion, of course it's about Challenger!!
asf04 2 years ago 2
dude... I majored in engineering (minor in physics)....
O-rings in any practical science whether it's physics or chemistry etc, are a very common item. point is: that it's weird the word "Challenger" is nowhere in the desc. or the title. Is the "O ring" suddenly synonymous with challenger disaster?
I know that's what he was talking about because I was around when that happened, and remember the controversy behind it... was just giving shit, because it's a bit silly he didn't even mention it
freezazoid 2 years ago
you're right, the word challenger should have been there.. but it make no difference unless one is trying to search for the vid.. anyway, i agree about being more specific.
asf04 2 years ago
If there's Feynman in the video, and it's about an O ring, it doesn't take a whole mess of brain cells to deduce what exactly the whole thing is about.
SparkyXX 2 years ago 6
the challenger failed due to some o rings malfunctioning on the boosters, so its synonymous to challenger, at least to the public
noun12345 2 years ago
'Is the "O ring" suddenly synonymous with challenger disaster?'
To anyone alive at the time of the disaster, yes it is. 95% of people have never heard of an O-ring, and 99% of those that have will only have heard the term associated with the challenger disaster.
Please take your Asperpers attitude elsewhere you bellicose halfwit.
FactualTruthProvider 2 years ago 12
He didn't even mention it because he was talking in a discussion about the possibility of the o-rings used in the Challenger's boosters being the problem. It was already in context.
PierreZeFrenchButler 2 years ago
Ockham's razor
tgallemore 2 years ago
Or even occams.
FactualTruthProvider 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
All is inside our interacting brain hemispheres; right=parallel processor, left=serial. This (and prob the double helix structure of DNA) creates duality thinking and perception, e.g., polarity, matter/antimatter, yin/yang, etc. Right brain is sensitive to external waves, while left interprets them to comport with our senses; hence the illusion of sequentiality (time), for example. Everything "exists" in an eternal, pulsating, spherical wave singularity. Such is likely the physics of Reality.
AbookOfverse 2 years ago
When your 'O ring' lacks flexibility it's time to stop using it.
Subutubiata 2 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
That's a big cock ring
Razersun 2 years ago
Comment removed
youtert 2 years ago
You like it put a ring on it.
Thank you Dr. Feynman.
francescaemc2 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
feynman's logic seems so oversimplified, like he's adding 2 and 2, I think the mishap that happened was due to more complex circumstances.....
crawhip2 3 years ago
Occam would not like your reasoning, just fyi.
spleenblender 3 years ago 7
Just cause it seems simple doesn't mean it's incorrect. As spleenblender said, Occam's Razor.. more complex the possibility, lower the probability.
absentmindednik 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
shut up noob
notToast 3 years ago
crawhip receives a minor penalty misconduct....
"crawhip2 minutes for hooking"
crawhip2 3 years ago
The text accompanying the video is wrong. It was not O2 that leaked from the 'main booster tank', it was hot gasses that blew out past the seal on the Solid Rocket Boosters, these SRBs have no O2, the O2 is in the fuel tank that feeds the Shuttles 3 rocket engines.
dorbie 3 years ago 5
what's the relevence between O2 and cold temperatures?
crawhip2 3 years ago
O2 is irrelevant, there is no O2 in the SRB, the cold was weather related. O2 is cryogenically stored but in a different tank unrelated to the system that failed.
dorbie 3 years ago
i think the bottom line is that there was a wrong assumption in temperatures.
CamiloSanchez1979 3 years ago
Right, it's supposed to stay squishy and rubbery. When it was cold, as it was the day of the launch, they weren't because they weren't designed for those temperatures. Launches are done in Florida, the design assumptions assumed non-freezing weather, and no testing was done in these conditions. Florida occasionally has bitter cold, just not usually. The engineers were saying scrub the mission because of this, management was "nah, go ahead".
silikon2 3 years ago
,yep, thats the same attitude that killed Vladimir Komarov
Stantzs 3 years ago
...AT ALL !
crawhip2 3 years ago
If he had dipped the sela in the water for more longer than a feww seconds, let's say an hour...the seal would have had absolutely ZERO resilience !i.e it would not have sprung back to its original shape or even TRY to spring back to its original shape.
crawhip2 3 years ago
One of the most badass "take that!"s in America's history.
malomeat 3 years ago 5
There are no words to convey Richard Feynmans greatness
Hania454 3 years ago 10
The man was just made of win and awesome. As was the gentleman at Thiokol (can't remember his name off the top of my head) who tries to have the launch scrubbed.
PassiveSmoking 3 years ago 2
McDonald?
jamesblackburnlynch 3 years ago
Pretty sure his name was Roger something
PassiveSmoking 3 years ago
From pg. 141 of "What do YOU care what other people think" the engineer at Thiokol who first brough to Feynman's attention that the engineers wanted the launch scrubbed was "Mr. MacDonald." Perhaps his first name is Roger. The book doesn't give first names for many of the people.
A "Mr. Rogers" ran the commission. Perhaps irrelevant, perhaps not.
jamesblackburnlynch 3 years ago
His full name was Roger Boisjoly, senior seal specialist....(just thought you might be interested in having me inform you about his full name)
Oh ...sorry i forgot to add the 'period' after my long sentence.
crawhip2 3 years ago
alright I understand now...so at 32F , the seal's molecules cannot withstand the pressures being placed onit so as to boomerang back into its EXACT previous shape as it was before....
crawhip2 3 years ago
No, the combustion pressures caused the segments of theSRB to bunge, this causing the gasket to flex. The seal failed becaused it did not recover from this flexion as designed and so did not maintain a seal. When the seal failed hot combustion gasses blew past the gaps in the seal and burned the seal away leading to a complete failure of cumbustion chamber integrity.
dorbie 3 years ago 2
okay, but I was trying to figure out feynman's logic and his usage of the word 'resilience' i.e in what context etc...Feynman is saying that if he had dipped the seal longer in the cold water, it would not spring back or flex back, at all, not even an inch ....but how does this relate to how u are decribing it?
crawhip2 3 years ago
The seal was supposed to flex back after being compressed in the joint and maintain a seal. When the flexion of the booster sections squeezed and unsqueezed the seal it it did not expand back to maintain the joint seal.
dorbie 3 years ago
i didn't necessarily say anything different from what you're saying anyhow....
crawhip2 3 years ago
Roger Penrose? another prominent physicist...can u explain to me what Feynman is saying here? Is he suggesting that the reason why the 02 leaked during launch was because the seal was not effective enough in its purpose of sealing?
crawhip2 3 years ago
Feynman is pointing out that when the o-ring was very cold (as it was the day of the launch), the rubber didn't snap back as quickly as it should have. So, it didn't seal properly in those colder conditions. Something no one bothered to worry about....well..actually, the engineers did but no one in the command.
jamesblackburnlynch 3 years ago
How large was THIS 0-ring? (rough estimate), I assume that it was much bigger than the one Feynman is holding in his hand right now in the clip...
crawhip2 3 years ago
It was. I think it about as big as twenty hullahoops stuck together to make a big one if not bigger. I've never seen Space Shuttle rocket boosters up close but that's my very rough guess.
sailorstarlightmoon 3 years ago
the word 'resilience' is being used in which context here? Resilience meaning 'toughness'?btw, the rubber seal he is holding DID more or less stretch back to its original shape (well kind of), maybe not ALL the way....
crawhip2 3 years ago
it did not make a resilient seal.
marsCubed 3 years ago