alt Hacker News> However NASA also believed the o-rings could still take the abuse, because
> although they were moving they were getting shoved deeper into the joint,
Why would they be "shoved deeper," when the problem is that the joint opens wider under load?
> However NASA also believed the o-rings could still take the abuse, because
> although they were moving they were getting shoved deeper into the joint,
Why would they be "shoved deeper," when the problem is that the joint opens wider under load?
See here: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Scott-Post/publication/...
What would happen "normally" (i.e. the normalization of deviance) was that the rotation (from the SRB joints bowing--essentially "ballooning") would create a gap, and the O-rings would get blown into that gap and ultimately seal in there
With Challenger, it was too cold, so the O-ring rubber was not malleable enough to seal into that space (like the O-ring towards the right of the diagram), so the hot gases were allowed to blow by and erode the O-ring. If they had sealed in (like the one on the left) it would have just taken the pressure but not worn away