Shuttle Missions That Dodged A Bullet | Shuttle Stories
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- The Space Shuttle flew 135 missions over 30 years, and while it achieved many great moments, it also faced some terrifying close calls. Join us as we dive into the the close calls that could have ended the Shuttle program prematurely. From engine shutdowns to dangerous foam strikes, these stories highlight the incredible risks and resilience of human spaceflight.
🔘 STS-51F: Main Engine Shutdown in Flight
🔘 STS-27: We Almost Lost Atlantis
🔘 STS-93: “Yikes, You Bet, Concur”
🔘 STS-112: We Almost Lost Atlantis Again
🔘 Lessons Learned from the Shuttle Program
#SpaceShuttle #CloseCalls #NASA #Spaceflight #STS51F #STS27 #STS93 #STS112 #SpaceHistory #SpaceExploration
🔗 NSF Store: www.nasaspacef...
⚡ Become a member of NASASpaceflight's channel for exclusive discord access, fast turnaround clips, and other exclusive benefits. Your support helps us continue our 24/7 coverage. Click JOIN above to get started.⚡
🤵 Hosted by Jack Beyer (@thejackbeyer)
🖊️ Written by Justin Davenport. Research Assistance by Sawyer Rosenstein and Chris Bergin.
✂️ Edited by Sawyer Rosenstein (@thenasaman).
💼 Produced by NAME (@Name).
🔍 If you are interested in using footage from this video, please review our content use policy: www.nasaspacef...
L2 Boca Chica (more clips and photos) from BC's very early days to today.
🔗 forum.nasaspac...
(Join L2 and support NSF here: www.nasaspacef...)
STS-1 probably came closer to catastrophe than any flight other than the Challenger and Columbia disasters. The acoustic overpressure was miscalculated in pre-launch preparations and Columbia's body flap was displaced way past its movement range. It hung down into the reentry plasma much further than the norm and as a consequence, got much hotter than anticipated. The overpressure shock also broke a support strut on a nitrogen tetroxide tank in Columbia's nose section just behind the control panel. If the tank had ruptured, the cockpit would have been filled with toxic gas that probably would have destroyed rubber seals around windows and in Young and Crippen's suits killing them. No more Space Shuttle program if the first flight crew had died.
100% correct. Young said afterwards that if he'd known at the time just how far the vehicle's body flap had been displaced -- more than twice the distance that its stops were supposed to allow -- he would have assumed the vehicle was unflyable and abandoned it at the earliest opportunity, leading to its destruction.
So many ways that mission could have gone badly, badly wrong.
@@R.Instro What was their emergency plan to return to Earth had they abandoned the shuttle?
@@mikeguilmette776Young and Crippen had ejection seats.
Geez, this is great stuff. Where did you find such detailed information? Is it publicly accessible?
@@ronjon7942 Of course, Google “STS-1 Near Disaster” and you’ll have a plethora of information on this incident.
Considering the huge complexities of the Space Shuttle system I always thought every mission that didn't fail dodged a bullet
I was born in Oct 2009 so I knew very little about Space Shuttle before this video came out. Thanks to this video, I learned a lot new things and facts from it! Great work, Jack and NSF team! ❤
"Space Shuttle Stories" by Tom Jones (NASA Astronaut) is a great book I highly recommend, even to the most dedicated Shuttle fans. It covers all 135 flights.
Great video, that really showcases just how dangerous the shuttle truly was to operate. I still cannot believe that more crews weren't killed.
My dad helped design n build the shuttle tires for BF Goodrich. My dad got a call from NASA telling him his tire failed upon landing and basically told him he was in a lot of trouble. They shipped the remains of the tire as well as it's mate for testing. After testing, there was nothing wrong with the tire and it wasn't the reason for the failure. The mate tire had some odd wear as if it had been dragged. After some more digging, they found out that the new pilot freaked out and locked the brakes resulting in the blowout. After the Challenger disaster that took the life of my dad's highschool classmate, NASA immediately called my dad saying his tires were the reason for the explosion. He had to prove his tires didn't do it to clear his name. He provided the original tire testing info as well as he had to repeat the tests on tires made the same time the Challenger tires were made. There was no difference in the tires meaning they were identical in results. Also talked to a lady that helped build the breaks and her department was also led to believe that their breaks caused it and had to prove it didn't.
Your family is forever apart of American history. That’s so cool!
Honesty and facts are necessary for a safe Vehicle of any kind. Too much finger pointing results in dangerous results.
My dad also contributed to engineering the Space Shuttle. It’s gross that NASA had the audacity to blame one single person, for their gross negligence and incompetence. Cheers to your dad.
@@charleskavoukjian3441 thank you ☺️ He was very proud of his work with NASA and the US government. He also developed the tires for the stealth bomber and a few rollercoasters that used them to speed up n slow down the cars.
@@teddy.d174
It is absolutely disgusting how an organization can treat their people like this. This is no different than the F-16 at Cold Lake, Canada that took multiple large bird strikes, including one that took out the engine, and the pilot had to eject (he wound up safe). Investigators told the maintenance guys that the crash was their fault and let them think for 3 days that they were all getting court-martialed. That is behavior that should be punishable.
When I was a kid, the Space Shuttle was awesome! In hindsight, the Space Shuttle was complete insanity.
Yep. It didn't have the national priority or funding that Apollo had, so due to money constraints, they had to cut a lot of corners. The program lost 14 people and were lucky it wasn't more. I was born in 1970, too young to remember anything from Apollo, so the shuttle is all I had.
I got to see Discovery up close at Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center.
It amazed me how big the thing was!
Thoughts came into my head of how things could easily go wrong with it.
And things did go wrong!
You can find a lot of outrageous risk taking through history. Read about the explorers who crossed oceans of undrinkable salt water in wooden sailing ships with poor navigation. Or the making of the first glider, the first airplane, or the first parachute. While your at it, read about Spartacus leading a slave rebellion against the Roman Empire, or Pancho Villa attacking Texas. History books often leave me saying, "OMG, they did WHAT?"
more please,shuttle content is always welcome
Shuttle.... It looked good in the store.
In real life it was a rolling hot mess that missed it's promised launch date performance and turn-around times, cost too much money, cost too many lives, and pushed development of the next better thing back 25 years. We had to crawl to the Russians and pay them through the nose to get to ISS.
I miss the shuttle program. StS-93 was pretty crazy.
We don't need any more of these!
@@NASASpaceflightConcur!!
The eerie parallels between STS-51-F and STS-93 is unsettling. Apart from the close calls, they were also the third-to-last Shuttle flights ever flown by the respective Shuttles (Challenger and Columbia) and both Shuttles each only flew one more mission successfully before being destroyed.
I loved it!!! Thank you. Reminds me that my son did the insulation fire proofing on the Canada Arm. Regards form Canada.
It's a miracle that the shuttle flew.
Also a miracle that nobody else was killed due to NASA’s managerial negligence and incompetence.
@@teddy.d174 Apollo 1?
Man, the geniuses at NASA really did a great job to limit incidents once they occurred. The Space Shuttle program was complete insanity though, but that is what makes us human, right?
Save chandra observatory!!!
Space travel is important, so we need lots of testing, honesty, and caution.
The Shuttle was a white elephant that consumed half of NASA's budget. It was originally designed to change film in spy satellites. But during its development, spy satellites switched to using digital sensors and beaming the images back to Earth via radio. Deprived of its primary mission, NASA was left with a ridiculously expensive white elephant that they were forced to use. (I believe the Shuttle was about $55k per kg of payload to LEO, versus $10k-$15k for other launch vehicles at the time. Falcon 9 is about $4k.)
Great video. Nice way to fill the void between launches.
Every single shuttle launch was a crap-shoot. People love to say it's "the most complex machine ever built". It was. And that's what made it so dangerous. There were so many single points of failure that it's a miracle more catastrophic losses did not occur earlier in the program cutting it short. There's a reason Elon Musk says "the best part is no part". The more simple the design the more reliable it is along with being much cheaper to build. And, the Shuttle launch, recovery and refurbishment ended up costing more than an expendable Saturn V launch.
So many bad decisions were made.
Too bad Musk doesn't apply the same logic to his lame attempts to make a pickup truck.
One thing often missed about Musk's rockets: the iterative development process is superior to the "design perfect" process because it allows you to learn, come up with new ideas, test, keep, simplify, redesign or abandon ideas as you go. You already build operations knowledge as you develop, you are already used to writing procedures which work. You end-up exploring, validating, experimenting more and faster. It's superior, hands down.
@@TishaHayes lol. This truck is iconic already, but probably not for the good reasons.
A sobering and eye opening video regarding NASA’s managerial negligence and incompetence.
It was their high level of competence that made most missions succeed. Some mistakes were made, yes, but many, many more were not.
Three words: Normalization of Deviance. If you ever find yourself justifying an action based on "Well, it's never caused a problem before", stop and think again.
@@T_Mo271 Exactly. That's what caused both Challenger and Columbia.
NASA will be passing that Torch to Private companies including SpaceX so watch this "Space."
Its sad that is the way you view it. If you want to blame someone, blame the politicians who put severe budgetary and time constraints on NASA. NASA has the unfortunate responsibility to keep the money coming in. Over-budget projects, not meeting deadlines, aborted projects/launches all lead to further budget constraints. I am not saying they are perfect, but if we gave NASA the same funding and support they had during Apollo and the space race, they would accomplish so much more.
I was in my teen years, at the height of it. They're lucky they only lost 2 flights. Now it's all coming out. Very informative video. Well done 👏
Excellent coverage of the topic. I think the most concerning aspect of the shuttle program was the difference between how the risk was presented to the public, and what was actually known of the risk.
I don't believe they lied. They just did not know all the ways things could go wrong.
I always thought the "We don't need any more of these" was about starship, as seen on livestreams, it is played with SN10, a test tank, and B7 all exploding.
Because we dont need any more of those!
@@JackABeyer
No doubt. Damn thing can't even get to orbit empty, how is it ever going to do it with a payload?
Reportedly when asked if he'd be willing do an RTLS for STS-1 John Young responded "Let's not practice Russian roulette."
John Young was epic.
@@T_Mo271 veteran of Gemini, Apollo, and STS?
Sounds like a certified badass to me!!
So, STS-27 should've warned us about the potential for Columbia. And they didn't learn.
Given a choice between shutting down a program that your job and livelihood depends on for an indeterminate amount of time, or continuing on as normal, most people choose to ignore the warning signs and continue on as normal.
Nice Job Jack and Team! Very informative and interesting. To become an Astronaut, you have to accept high risk - because space is hard. How we manage "problems" when known defines our character. How we handle disaster and recover from it defines our determination. How we handle politics of space defines our ability to hit the middle ground of success and satisfaction. We will be forever in a struggle to know more, get better, and do it more cost effectively. It's the struggle that makes the endeavor worthy of human pursuit.
The problem was that NASA kept flying civilians like Christa McAuliffe and Jake Garn without telling them how dangerous Shuttle flights were. Same thing with the public. Not once did NASA admit publicly that the probability of an accident was 1 in 100 (and much higher with the first flights).
Atlantis, with the Galileo spacecraft and a liquid Oxygen/liquid Hydrogen Centaur G' upper stage in the payload bay, was the very next launch scheduled after Challenger. I think this would have been the heaviest shuttle launch had it happened. Part of the changes made post Challenger disaster was cancelling the use of Centaur G' in the shuttle bay of any shuttle mission.
I loved the shuttle throughout my childhood and have many fond memories of it. That being said I am glad it no longer flies. Not only did it set us back 30 years as all it was capable of was low earth orbit, but it was obviously extremely dangerous. If anything failed in the run time of the SRBs they were basically screwed. And there was very little in the way of crew safety. For instance if Apollo failed at launch or even right before, the little rocket motor on top of the capsule would've propelled it off of the rocket and away to safety where they could parachute in. I often wonder why they didn't design the crew section of the orbiter to be capable of detaching and parachuting in.
It was a weight issue. The military needed a minimal amount of performance. With the extra weight of a safety crew capsule they would not be able to take as much weight to orbit as they wanted.
GREAT retrospective as always NSF! I'm always impressed by how great the shuttle did given all the problems that it had - I'm glad we didn't lose anyone else.
love the shuttle -- my grandfather and i drove from oklahoma to watch sts-3 (the van had a bad electronic ignition and we broke down about every 300 miles) i also wrote and have multiple autographes of crews unfortunately not Challenger or Columbias last missions had just taken a new job when we lost Challenger
Thanks Jack and the NSF team, a sobering reminder that space is hard.
Love these deeper dives. Thanks Jack and team NSF
Wasn’t there a later shuttle mission from when they started inspecting the heat shield where something was sticking out between the tiles and they did a special spacewalk to pull it out?
Yes, the return to fight after the Columbia disaster.
Discovery had a gap filler sticking out from between the tiles. It was not a threat to the mission, but NASA was pretty eager to show their new heat shield inspection and repair capabilities so they did a spacewalk to pull it out.
Super interesting topic, thanks for this lovely video!
Did not know about a few of these. Thanks for another great video..!
Awesome Shuttle Stories Jack,Thanks! And Thank you NSF!!!
These really help get us by until Falcon 9 returns to flight.
I saw the launch of 51F from the roof of the Launch Control Center. Pretty dang exciting! My uncle was a crew member.
Shuttle? Wait, where’s Chris B?
I would have been ok with an animated horse head narrating the video.
If you read the great book by Gene Kranz, you'll find out that this was also the case for almost all the Apollo missions.
The difference was that the nation understood that all of the Apollo missions were subject to failure by thousands of causes. It's called a moonshot for a reason. Failure due to that like the Apollo 1 was not acceptable... Sadly, that NASA seems to operate on the moonshot paradigm today is unacceptable. Failures will occur- SpaceX had one after more than 300 successful missions. That is a number or risk level any astronaut will likely accept. And even that failure would have not been fatal to the crew or a crewed mission. But the continued failures like that has plagued Starliner points to it being a lemon like Apollo 1. The loss of crew is not acceptable in these circumstances. "Good enough" is not good enough today. The tax payer is paying for better than that at twice the price of a Dragon mission.
NASA didn't try to fly a schoolteacher on the Apollo missions. NASA pretended that the Shuttle was safe for civilians to ride it routinely.
A flying shitshow. Huge fan of the shuttles despite terminal ends; glad I only found out decades later how failure prone they were...
Most SS missions were case studies in problem-solving as much as accomplishing the planned objectives. Outstanding crews persevered and were consummate professionals.
I strolled around Discovery, complete with its re-entry scars in Dulles and could not help thinking how inherently fragile and primitive it looked regarding its exterior construction. The whole Shuttle design concept was flawed from the outset, but flying Challenger in sub-zero conditions when having been persistently warned by Morten Thiokol not to do so, was nothing less than criminal negligence. After the Apollo 1 fire NASA pledge 'never again'. Empty words.
Amazing they could find people willing to risk their lives flying these things.
There's a good bit of info I was unaware of. Magnificent video Jack Justin Sawyer and Kevin.
The Space Shuttle is a lesson that a design can be inherently unsafe no matter how much you try to engineer away the problems. No amount of engineering was gonna fix the fact that foam strikes to the heat shield tiles were always going to be an issue. Instead of engineering away issues, sometimes it's best to see if you are trying to engineer away something that shouldn't be there in the first place.
I remember that challenger kept getting delay after delay, so they were chomping at the bit when their bad flight happened.
I gotta wonder how much of that factored into the decision to send them off anyway.
Atlantis in STS 27: you fools a mire heat can’t harm me because I’m already on fire. *lands still burning hot because of the climate it landed in* ehhhh there goes my left side…. Again…
Years Later:
Atlantis in STS-112: HAHAAAAH I LIVED AGAIN!!! I AM FUCKING IMMORTAL!!!
*years later again (this time in 2003)*
Columbia: …… I don’t want to talk about it.
Looks like this one’s been on the back burner for a while now
0:54 . . . That's RIGHT !! . . . Both STS TLoC's were caused by Failures of THERMAL CONTROL DEVICES :
(1) Challenger's Single SRB O-Ring Thermal Barrier / Containment failure, then burn-through of the External Tank Thermal Shielding.
(2) Columbia's Main Tank Assent Insulation Detachment then Impact onto a Carbon-Carbon Leading Edge Re-Entry Thermal Shield.
No mention of STS-9 with the computer failures and hydrazine fire?
Weren’t there also close calls with SRB burn through prior to STS-51-L?
Yes. There sure was
Fantastic and terrifying. Thanks!
There was another mission in the 90's that could have resulted in disaster, if launched. In the aft section, just above the main engines, a technician observed a small "compression" on some insulation. Pulling this insulation back revealed a major compression on a fuel line that had both an internal and external configuration. Had the vehicle launched with the compression damage, one of the engines could have exploded. The fuel line compression damage was caused by a technician moving in the aft section and not adhering to approved weight placements.
thank you jack and all nsf team
i would love if you could dig up more info on the “piss puck” that banged up challenger on re-entry on sts-41-b, and discussed how sts-1 could have resulted in the loss of columbia!
Well done guys!
1 - 9 chance of failure...
I love the space shuttle but wtf
40% of the shuttles failed in flight, catastrophically.
@@clarencegreen3071very true 😳
Great work Jack. Perfectly paced.
For how many time was this video in a folder waiting to be uploaded ? Still great video
Jack and NSF, y'all rock! Peace
Please do a video on Space Toilets in the NASA program.
Ststing with Apollo.
They had some funny audio related to it.
To today's ISS design and issues.
Dragon .
During the Space Shuttle the were 10 flights in which they had bathroom malfunction.
If you decide to do a video on this subject please use the Star Trek MALFUNTION audio.
How will this be on Starship.
Just pry it out of The Everyday Asrtronaut.😅
Richard Feynman was totally right when he explained the completely flawed risk /success analysis Nasa used
One in a hundred jives with actual data: 2 disasters, One in the first hundred, and one in the second hundred. Where's Richard Feynman when you need him?
The Moon? Mars? My Ass... LOL
Nasa sounds pretty incompetant. Surprised there weren't more lost shuttles.
Nonsense. These are people, mistakes happen. For the most part they were successful.
Jack you are a great presenter! Keep up the good work!
Thanks!
Very good, Justin & Jack; well written, annotated, illustrated and presented. I thoroughly enjoy and appreciate this type of video. Thank you from 🇬🇧
Mosquito , Legend 👍👍
This is really good.
At 4:33 with a graphic of the old and new SRB joint, it’s hard to imagine gas pressures being so high as to escape around the original joint design. The pressures must be incredibly high. It’s difficult to try to scale this up in my mind, to the actual dimensions - maybe the joint wouldn’t appear so large and strong when compared to the ‘real’ size of the joint relative to the diameter of the ‘real’ SRB connection.
It’s also hard to imagine the engineers could consistently recreate the failure scenario with iterative drops in temperature, in order to come up with the new design. Especially when solid rocket engines have been used prior for so long without experiencing a similar problem.
It would be an interesting career to repeatedly test existing structures and designs, over and over and over, that have otherwise been flying successfully for so long. It’s so painfully obvious in hindsight this particular joint would fail so dramatically when operating outside its intended envelope. I wonder what the next ‘obvious in hindsight’ failure might have been - not including the foam strikes that have occurred so many times. And which were photographed, acknowledged, and ignored. That was operational stupidity in addition to a massive design flaw.
I wonder if this type of testing is one of the many reasons the Falcon9 is so successful. If so, it would be really interesting to see the family tree of engineering changes applied to an otherwise ‘frozen’ design.
Can we send this episode to a certain contractor, with candy, flowers and a card that says
“Those who forget me, are doomed to repeat me.
Love and kisses,
-History”
I have often wondered how safe the shuttle actually was but given the failures were things that were already understand,it seems,with the bad decisions out of the loop,it was after all reasonably safe.
Don't forget about the multiple instances of not having a working space toilet and having to use the Apollo fecal collection bags for the mission.
Great video. Hindsight is 20/20, but the combo of: 1) orbital vehicle right next to tank and SRB's, plus 2) no ascent stages crew escape system made it a low tolerance system. Only so much NASA could do to increase safety.
So Jenny M Howard is another hero I've never heard of. Damn.
Love the Shuttle content!
Excellent! Thanks nerds.
If That had happened to Hoot and his crew, NASA would no longer be named NASA. It’d be called the Hoot Gibson center for Rocketry or something like that!
Surprised you guys didn’t wind up mentioning how close STS-1 was to disaster. Another comment summed it up pretty well.
Another one that surprised me was there was no mention of STS-9. While preparing for re-entry. Two of Columbia’s flight computers crashed, rattling John Young so much that he delayed the shuttle’s re entry and later said “When the first computer failed my knees started shaking, when the second failed I turned to jelly.” Keep in mind this is the guy who took Columbia on her first and also nearly catastrophic flight, walked on the moon, and flew two Gemini missions. To rattle Young, it had to be bad.
So they wound up landing, unbeknownst to them they landed with one of the Auxiliary Power Units on fire. The fire damaged this area so badly that Columbia wound up removed from service for almost 3 years to be fixed and given an overhaul at Palmdale, not flying at all in 1984 or 1985. The fire thankfully burned itself out, but the damage was discovered in post flight checks. These spaceships were so cool and so beautiful but they were bombs in the sky. I have little doubt that if they had continued flying them we would have lost another one despite all the safety upgrades. STS-135, although the safest the shuttle had ever been, was still estimated to be somewhere around a 1 in 90 loss of crew and vehicle rate. I wouldn’t have flown on it haha.
Informative video thank you for the great content love NSF
Great video but Futurama premiered in March 99
you missed one very serious problem on the first launch. The same overpressure wave also forced the orbiter body flap - an extension on the orbiter's underbelly that helps to control pitch during reentry - into an angle well beyond the point where cracking or rupture of its hydraulic system would have been expected. Such damage would have made a controlled descent impossible, with John Young later admitting that had the crew known about this, they would have flown the shuttle up to a safe altitude and ejected, causing Columbia to be lost on the first flight. Young had reservations about ejection as a safe abort mode due to the fact that the SRBs were firing throughout the ejection window, but he justified taking this risk because, in his view, an inoperative body flap would have made landing and descent "extremely difficult if not impossible."
Perhaps the wonder isn't that two were eventually lost, it is that any made it home.
If there weren't any human lives lost, the shuttle would have been (one of?) the best space launch system. Its cargo carrying capability to LEO was phenomenal, and the possibility of astronauts to carry out repairs on already orbiting equipment was unique.
However Wernher von Braun warned never to strap solid fuel motors to a human rated spacecraft, and a tragedy happened just for that. Also the foam insulation was in hindsight a really bad idea, having foam (however tough) in a very fast or supersonic air stream can be and once proved to be a recipe for a catastrophe.
Interestingly the foam problem became much more apparent when NASA switched a low-VOC (volatile organic compounds) mixture for making the foam. It was one of those ozone-layer-depleting chemicals and the replacement did not bond as well so you would get big chunks that would tear off.
Rockwell and Morton Thiokol had insisted that the SRBs had a lower failure rate than liquid-fueled boosters. And they were right--but that was only a half truth.
The problem is that when a solid-fueled booster does fail, it invariably fails *catastrophically*. With a liquid-fueled engine on fire, shutting off the fuel pump will starve the fire of fuel, as pilots and truck drivers know.
But with a solid-fueled engine on fire, there's no way to shut it off or extinguish the fire.
@@stevenlitvintchouk3131 For anybody interested in the SBR related shuttle accident investigation I can highly recommend the book Truth, Lies, and O-Rings by Allan J. McDonald.
@@stevenlitvintchouk3131 There's an imperfect and rarely used method of exploding a designated blowout element to drop the pressure inside the burning grain, greatly reducing the reaction rate. It certainly will not put out the fire, but will reduce the thrust to a negligible level. None of this would have saved the shuttle.
Great presentation! The US should have looked for a safer manned (capsule-type) replacement after Challenger. I wonder if the Soviet Buran would have been safer, better.
heat sheilds never gave a problem, tiles always have problems, stupid is as stupid does
Your opening music is MAGNITUDES louder than your commentary. That wouldn't be so bad if you started with it, but you start with commentary, and then you blast it in out of nowhere. Please fix that! Oh and your commentary is not loud enough so you wind up turning the volume up in order to hear you - compounding the force of the soundwaves to come
Why did they choose the heaviest orbiter to carry the heaviest payload? I know they had the highest performance SSME’s on Columbia for this mission
Thqnks much!
It's a miracle they didn't all explode.
Thanks I really enjoyed that
As Long as they learned from all these fails, it’s all good.
I’m pretty sure that they treat all these failures in the same way as aviation failures. As more knowledge to put into future enterprises, to close the holes in the Swiss cheese.
I sometimes dream that we had continued with the Saturn 5 and further developed it with reusable parts.
When the STS programme ended in 2011 there was still one complete external tank and the unassembled sections of two more ETs so the Space Shuttle could've flown three more times before ending.
I held my breath, so to speak, all during the last shuttle mission. When it landed safely, I thought to myself that they can now put those things in museums before they kill somebody else.
@@clarencegreen3071 I get your point but there would be astronauts willing to take the risk with three more flights using up the remaining Shuttle ETs.
Great information video
My question is why did it have to be a bunch of small tiles couldn't they have made a lot bigger pieces or made something kinda like a wrapand used some better kind of adhesive to hold them on after the very first time the tiles fell off and especially after losing challenger on reentry there should have been major changes to make sure it couldn't happen again
Be excellent to each other
Nice job Jack
Good one. Thanks
Wow love 6his one. Thanks
I'd be curious about the investigations and decision making processes after each of these close calls - for instance after the lost tile and exposed plate.
If the NTSB were to conduct that investigation, they would certainly identify the potential for debris during lift-off as a primary cause, and list the encryption of the feed as a secondary, perhaps issuing recommendations such as:
• Redesign of the boosters' and external tank's protective layers to mitigate the risk of debris coming loose during lift-off
• Change in procedure where communication not pertaining to the details of the payload, but to crew safety, are not to be encrypted in order to prevent deterioration of safety-critical visual information.
I wonder if the (probably NASA-internal) investigations were structured in a similar way. Quite clearly they suffered from a lack of neutral parties demanding appropriate changes to and re-certification of safety-critical systems, seeing as both the foam strikes and o-ring-related issues that destroyed Challenger and Columbia respectively were absolutely known issues before they killed these crews.
Can you do a video on how the Shuttle was locked down tot he mobile launcher?
7:22 . . . Yea, I helped fabricate those AXAF / Chandra Mirrors, and it is TRULY a CRIME that this magnificent GREAT OBSERVATORY is being shut down !! 🤨🙄🤯
btw, There are 4 sets of Wolter Type-I (originally planned 6) telescope mirrors (parab-hyperb) with such exquisite surfaces & alignment that still to this day produce < 1 arc-sec PSF's . . .
No Other X-ray Telescope has matched that image resolution performance to date !