Talk:Space Shuttle Challenger launch decision

	United States portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spaceflight Low‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for merging with Space Shuttle Challenger disaster on 5 July 2011. The result of the discussion was Merge.

Not a redundant page

This page was created as a subarticle of the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster page, and is intended to complement it by going into further detail regarding the background of the decision to launch. The main page is over 60K already, so a subarticle seems to be indicated. I am removing the notice, but am of course happy to discuss the decision further. Please see the main article's talk page for more information. MLilburne 17:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it is expanded it should be deleted. As I stated in the nomination enough infor can be found in the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster article. --Tainter 17:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is going to be expanded, but that is going to take some time as there are several interested editors and we need a base to work from. The amount of information in the main article is only the tip of the iceberg, as there have been whole books written on the decision. It is clearly a notable topic that deserves discussion in more detail than can be offered in the main article. MLilburne 17:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In keeping with Wikipedia:Article size, this article is needed to prevent Space Shuttle Challenger disaster from getting any bigger, and hopefully reduce it in size. It's exactly the same as when the Space Shuttle article became too big, and we split the material into subarticles such as NASA Space Shuttle decision, Space Shuttle abort modes, etc. Those now-separate articles were formerly too-large subheadings in a big monolithic article. The purpose of this article is similar. There's a lot of information various editors want to add on the Challenger launch decision, but it would make the main Challenger disaster article too big, hence this article is needed. By any reasonable standard the material is historic and meritorious. I don't see what the problem is. Wikipedia guidelines specifically call for this procedure. See Wikipedia:Summary style. Joema 22:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a word of advice from someone who just wants to read about the thing and isn't interested in Wikipedia guidelines: I was reading the Challenger disaster page and it sent me here "for more information on the launch decision". There is nothing on this page about the launch decision. There is heaps on the other one. ? Strange way of doing things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.79.120 (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was not moved. Both sides have good arguments. The name of the article about the flight itself is STS-51-L, which would indicate that this article should be renamed for consistency and precision. However, this seems to be the only Space Shuttle mission to have a separate article about its launch decision, and it is clearly marked as a sub-article from Space Shuttle Challenger disaster##Pre-launch_conditions_and_delays, while the STS-51-L article does not contain any information about the launch decision, and only links to this article through a standardized template at the bottom of the article. Aervanath (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Space Shuttle Challenger launch decision → STS-51-L launch decision — Challenger was launched ten times, and launch/delay decision had to be made for all of those missions (in some cases multiple times on the same mission). This article only covers the decision to launch STS-51-L, so should be named accordingly. --G W… 14:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Technically that is correct, but it is way too technical. Everyone knows that the only important decision was the last one. Had it failed on any of the earlier flights, that one would be the only important decision, but since it didn't, they all became moot. Everyone knows it was called the Challenger, hardly anyone knows it was called STS-51-L. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Technically, this is a more accurate title, since there were ten launch decisions, but in 23 years since the Challenger disaster, I'd say Challenger is known primarily for its demise. Thus we are probably fine leaving it where it is, but the other one has better descriptive value. I'll be satisfied with either, I believe. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the need for this to be it's own article. I think it should be merged into the article about the Challenger shuttle (and space isn't a issue since the Challenger article is practically a stub in size). TJ Spyke 04:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well it can not be merged into Challenger, because there are already last flight of and results of last flight articles. It could be filled out a bit though. One quote I remember, but can not find, is "What do you want us to do, wait until March (or April, or May, or June)?", emphasizing the time pressure to complete as many launches per year as possible. Instead, they "waited" 2 1/2 years. To me it is unconscionable to not build four more replacement shuttles and fly them from 2010 until something else is ready, but that is neither here nor there, nor is it my decision, unfortunately. What I have said is that they fly them until another fails and then retire the fleet. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 17:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support more specific term is more specific. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 04:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Naming convention consideration: the launch code on its own might mean something to the specialist audience but would mean nothing to the general readership of wikipedia. Combine both parts into the article name? NASA STS-51-L launch decision (Space Shuttle Challenger) maybe? LunarLander // talk // 16:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eccch, no. Way too much. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mild support. I see it both ways. Wikipedia article titles should assume general readership. Terms like STS-51-L mean nothing to the average reader. Wikipedia article titles often prioritize general recognition over accuracy. E.g, the article on the 9/11 attacks is called "September 11 attacks", despite other attacks having occurred on 9/11 of that year or 9/11 of other years: [1]. That said, the launch decision article is itself narrowly focused, not of broad interest. Unlike the 9/11 article title, renaming to "STS-51-L launch decision" would have little negative impact, provided there's a redirect from the current title. Unlike the 9/11 article, virtually all access to this article will be by links, not by title queries. Based on that I could see changing to a more technically-accurate title. Joema (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Effect of Cold Temperature

This article shows a picture of the ice build up, but does not discuss the effect of the cold temperature. The temperature was colder than critical components had been subjected to in qualification testing, so the launch should not have taken place. This is a much more critical part of the launch decision than the theoretical discussion of possible modes of failure. L3kn (talk) 01:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stub

Why is this a stub? KConWiki (talk) 02:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the Stub tag and reassessed the article as Start. Rpyle731^talk 09:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge --NavyBlue84 02:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article was forked about 4½ years ago, and still does not contain any information regarding the actual launch decision. The background information that is here can easily be merged to the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster article, without any adverse effects on the length or readability of that article. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, unnecessary fork --G W… 11:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Super-Support: this fork no serves no purpose. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support.. no reason for the split. (The title of this article is ambiguous anyway..). Mlm42 (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tyrol5 [Talk] 15:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Who would look up such a term like "Space Shuttle Challenger launch decision"? greeneese (talk) 12:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the above mentioned reasons.--Witan (talk) 02:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support and I see clear consensus for merge. As Bongwarrier notes this article doesn't really give a lot of information on the launch decision itself and is mostly a discussion on what was previously known about the 'O' rings. Polyamorph (talk) 10:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shiggity (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this article doesn't have correct information as it would have information aboutall launch attemps if it was really a real article.It would have information about the Roger's commision reports and more references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelphin (talk • contribs) 08:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.