My daughter and I were lucky enough to have been selected to have lunch with Hoot at Space Camp in 2014. We paid for the special “lunch with an astronaut”, but then we somehow got selected to sit at his table. We had an amazing conversation prior to his presentation to our group, and he made us feel so welcome. He was extremely great with my 9 year old, asked her a lot of questions, made her feel ‘important’ and was definitely an influence on her choice to study science in college now at age 19. Thank you Captain Gibson - you are a national treasure and we’ve been lucky to have you as a leader in our country’s space program.
Had the great and unexpected pleasure of meeting Hoot Gibson on a visit to NASA in 2009. A true gentleman, generous with his time and happy to talk all things Shuttle. Something I'll always remember.
My step father was on recovery duty for Challenger and Columbia. He said after Columbia he couldn’t do it anymore because he worked with the astronauts for mission planning and training, primarily payload deployment and recovery and got to know the payload specialists. He been on since Apollo.
One of the big things I took away from everything I've read and watched on the Challenger disaster, was Allan McDonald's part in ensuring safer space travel afterwards. For those who don't know, he was an engineer at Morton-Thiokol, the manufacturer of the solid rocket boosters used on the space shuttles, and one of the few people who recommended not launching Challenger because of low temperatures, which some engineers worried would lead the infamous O-rings to become brittle and leak fuel, which in the end was what led to the accident. The engineers were eventually forced by their employer (Morton-Thiokol) to green light the launch, which M-T tried to deny during the investigation. Allan McDonald testified against his employer, saying that he had warned them of the potential danger of launching in cold temperatures, which essentially cost him his career at Morton, but only after being one of the chief designers of the new SRB's used on all subsequent STS-missions. I have a huge amount of admiration for integrity like that. Allan McDonald sadly passed away a few years ago at the age of 83.
I appreciate Gibson's honesty in wanting to go back to the big black again. He's grateful for his turns as he called it. Of course he's like a kid in wanting to go again and again. I know I would.
STS-27 was a symptom that NASA didn't learned the lessons of the Challenger disaster, it kept a "business as usual" attitude. On STS-27 the engineers' findings were not communicated to the astronauts and the same thing happened on STS-107, except that this time the crew got killed.
Meh, once you have the whole story of how STS came to be it really was about what OMB predicted--a highly capable and expensive prestige project that kept USAs launch industrial base employed and operating.
The shuttle orbiter had a couple thousand buttons, switches, and circuit breakers. The guys who actually flew the shuttle, the CDR and Pilot, are a special breed. I bet Hoot could dive into real detail on those systems if he had the time, and inclination.
I saw it in Germany on TV being 21 years old. I was physically sick, almost vomited. It was absolutely terrible, like nine-eleven. With hindsight the whole shuttle was an engineering nightmare, but at that time it was the summit of high technology.
I was a senior in high school, and was in my electronics vocational class, watching the launch live when this happened. We just happened to be recording it on a VHS recorder, that I repaired the day before. This was a half day class, and we spent the rest of the time we had left, watching the footage over and over then discussing it. We all agreed that an O-ring blew out, and caused this horrific accident. Everyone was very somber during this whole time, and discussing what happened, helped us thru the days after.
I was 5 years old. I don’t remember the disaster itself,being Australian and from Perth,but I do remember the episode of Punky Brewster which dealt with disaster. It was a good way of making very young children understand what had happened and how we could deal with it.
16:16 haunting photo, I forgot that Greg Jarvis, who perished with Challenger, had been bumped from STS-61C to STS-25 so that the politician could fly.
For anyone wondering about a “patch kit”, not only would one have to be developed and carried on every flight but it would be such a complex task to do a repair that every mission would have to have a crew specify trained to repair tiles. That’s a whole mission on its own. Prohibitively expensive to commit so many resources just to operating the shuttle. Like saying that you have to be a trained mechanic before you can drive a car.
I could listen to Hoot for hours. such a nice and intelligent guy. i never heard of the sts 28 hot reentry before. very interesting. and i never heard of columbia having the bumpiest wings before. that reentry must have been super critical, if steps between the tiles of only a tenth of an inch can cause too high temperatures and a loss of the shuttle. the tragic story of sts 107: the brown foam insulation of the external fuel tank was there to prevent the build up of ice, that later could fall off the tank during the launch caused by vibration and hit the orbiters heat shield. so on sts 107 that foam itself, beeing there exactly to prevent this scenario, broke off the tank and caused the loss of our precious Columbia. so sad. by the way.....its very likely that this caused the loss. BUT, that hole in the left wing, caused by the foam strike, was never actually seen.
Challenger was the 25th mission. We continued on to launch another 110 times, he said. 2 disasters out of 135 launches then. Failure rate is 1.4%. Would you say beam me up Scotty knowing that's how it would be?
I skipped class to watch the launch that day. I cried when it exploded. People were crying through the dorm, in the student center, cafeteria etc. very intense day.
The spaceshuttle incident changed everything for NASA's future in how society could have any association with space exploration due to the death of the teacher. It had a major effect on the future of space exploration. I'm curious how Elon Musk's Space-X will transport passengers, assuming that not just anyone can buy a ticket to fly to Mars.
The engineers warned Morton-Thiokol that the o rings needed an additional ring added and that they shouldn't launch when the temperature was below freezing. Morton-Thiokol ignored the engineers and the shuttle and all seven astronauts were lost.
At some point, the President should have stepped in and told the military you will photograph and submit all requested information to NASA - even if that information had to be hand carried.
I can't even fly coach without panickng, I don't know how astronauts have the guts. How they get that 100s of tons of space craft into space is beyond my comprehension.
Why is the Vehicle lock down arm failure never mentuoned? Some on the investigation panel claimed this the cause. Caused the Vehicle to learch to one side breaking the gasget seal.
I watched the liftoff on live network TV. Saw the flame creeping up the side of the booster and thought that doesn't look right, compared to previous launches I had seen. Also wondered why no one was making any on-air comment about this anomaly. A few seconds later, the terrible explosion.
I've always been amazed that an engine can run at 104% I probably don't understand the engineering concept how that is possible but in simple terms it's 4% above maximum engine performance. Or 100% is just what is necessary operating parameters but they decide another 4% just in case.
This was no accident. They rushed the launch and put the safety of all the pilots at risk and look what it did. Would it have hurt to have waited another week or two?
Space is an extremely challenging environment. We know about the flaw that caused the accident, but we do not know about the 1000 other potential hazards that went well for more than 100 flights (and two accidents). Astronauts are very well aware that Space is one of the most dangerous places you can be. Imagine all the test pilots that perished while testing aircraft.
@@Dronescapes- I worked for a company that tested electrical control panels for indoor and outdoor use. All engineers know there is a major difference between indoor and outdoor (below freezing) rated gaskets and o-rings. All those engineers involved in the gaskets and o-rings on the solid rocket boosters should have gone to jail for manslaughter.
@@Davelakful It wasn't the engineers fault. The engineers warned NASA about the o rings and the below freezing temperature. They recommended that NASA delay the launch until the problem was solved. NASA ignored the engineers.
@@JimMac23 - "recommended" ? Are you kidding me?? It should have been an "absolute recommendation" not to launch!! Are you a gasket engineer? I was so know all gasket / seals requirements. Please don't speak out of ass.
I never want to meet Mr. Gibson in person. The Mr Gibson I met in this interview is of a caliber that I want to keep in mind without the inevitable concessions that being a human being bring.
They clearly put the engines on without releasing the capsule geez tragically and most impatiently the capsule was still at go and should never have shuttled on disgrace
When the shuttle cargo hole exploded it blew off the crew cabin . It was still in good shape at that time then the fall to the water . The astronauts were alive at that time . When it hit the water they were killed . When found all oxy bottles were turned on this had to be done manually . It they had a on board chute they might have survived .
If we could have private companies certify government work instead of other way things would be so much better. Productivity would increase , budgets would be controlled for targets and people could be fired which is most important to weed out the worst prepared employees for success. Trim the dead weight in other words
Hoot was the alpha male within the new class of shuttle astronauts who came to NASA in 1978. Riding Rockets by astronaut Mike Mullane is an interesting read. He has a lot of funny stories about Hoot and his exploits.
Nothing to investigate Both disasters are caused by compromised design to try to cost less but end up with bad high prices Titanium hull for example not Aluminum
Space is extremely dangerous, and Astronauts are perfectly aware of that. There are a million things that can go wrong. The Shuttle flew 135 complicated and dangerous missions.
This event wasn't on the engineers, Nasa completely ignored their professional advice and went ahead with the launch. Nasa and the engineering firms management were at fault here.
No , challenger engineers did not cause anyone to die. Your comment makes no sense. If anything engineers decided that it was cold air wasn't good for the o ring . & They worked their a**es off trying to convince managers & uppers to delay the launch. There's a lot more to the picture than what you think.
The Shuttle Orbiter itself, no matter how fragile it was, has NEVER failed on its own. Challenger, SRB failure. Columbia, ET insulation failure. I will die on this hill!
They knew SOMETHING was going on, because they could see that the shuttle was making some unexpected course corrections via the telemetry downlink. Did they know what was going to happen? Nope. Also, as far as I can remember, that particular closeup view of the shuttle wasn't in the original broadcast, and didn't surface until (IIRC) the next day. It's possible that the UK feed I was watching was different to the US feed, IDK, but the view I got watching live went from launch to explosion in one continuous shot. It was only later in documentaries explaining the accident that the sequence seen in this video appeared...
@@gchampi2some of those corrections were due to the severe wind shear they encountered. It was the most that any shuttle had experienced up to that point. That wind shear also broke loose the plug that had formed from the solid rocket’s fuel residue. After it was gone the plume shows up and spreads, eventually burning a hole into the external tank and the strut connecting the SRB to the tank. If you look at the contrails formed by the engines after the explosion you can tell how extreme the wind shear was by how crooked they are.
I saw it live on TV and I remember that they never said: « Challenger, go with throttle up » . Mission control asked for a course correction, that’s what I remembered… and if you look at the exhaust plume, it is already twisted and deformed due to the high cross winds!
Mission Control wasn’t telling the shuttle that they could proceed with throttling up. That was all automated. Throttle up was a milestone and a checkpoint for Mission Control to tell the shuttle that their flight was still a “go” at that point. No concerns. No need to abort.
Going to space is complicated, and astronauts are very well aware of that. Perhaps that is why companies like SpaceX, despite the owner making claims that his company would build a station on Mars by 2022, still cannot make his heavy rocket work properly in 2024. The Shuttle was a complex machine, and the Russians, despite making ugly copies of it (Buran) never went anywhere.
It’s just a coincidence. The look alives didn’t just pop into existence after challenger. They had lives during the 80s. Also, there are some significant differences in their appearances.
@@allthingsbing1295 I get that. But my main issue with it, is why would they even fake it in the first place? Nasa stopped flying it's shuttle fleet for almost 3 years, and the disaster destroyed a ~2 billion dollar vehicle.
That's beyond ridiculous, a massive conspiracy including their own families, for no reason, is apparently more likely than some people looking similar.
There are videos made by flatearther grifters that make that claim. They found a set of people with similar names to the Challenger astronauts and who looked somewhat similar. These people have nothing to do with Challenger. These claims are braindead.
No one said the boosters exploded dude, just that an o ring in one failed, the 2 things are very different. The hot gasses within the booster escaped through the gap the failed o ring created, you can clearly see this escape on the launch footage. This hot gas caused one of the struts connecting the shuttle to the main fuel tank to melt, the resulting stress on the tank from the remaining connectors ruptured the tank, the hydrogen escaped, hit the hot gas from the boosters, shuttle engines etc and blew up. The boosters, now free carried on until they were remotely destroyed by mission control.
@@monkeyhands5053 if a O ring failed on the boosters then it should have been catastrophic but the orbiter blew not the rockets. They continued on as designed
@@boburwell9921 Not at all, the boosters fuel was solid not liquid so a breach in the side wouldn't make the fuel leak out and cause the booster to explode, only the gases could escape through the hole. In addition the type of fuel in the booster needed to be in a confined space with lots of internal pressure to burn, it would not burn readily in the atmosphere especially at altitude. The fuel is also spread in a cylinder within the booster with a hole down the centre, the fuel burns from the inside out towards the case so up until the last moments of a full burn there would be several feet of solid fuel between the burning part and the case of the booster, the only reason the gases escaped at all is because the o rings are on joins between sections and because of how the boosters are filled there is also a slight join in the solid fuel sections. Finally, and you can time this from the launch footage, the gases were not escaping through the side of the booster for long enough to structurally damage the booster, the main fuel tank exploded way before this could happen, when the boosters carried on on their own after the main tank explosion they were destroyed by mission control to prevent them causing damage on the ground way before the hole in the side could destroy them. Seriously the answer to this stuff is on the internet available to all, just try looking it up for yourself its really easy to educate your self
@@boburwell9921 It wouldn't and wasn't catastrophic. The boosters have a solid fuel not a liquid fuel like the shuttle main engines. How the boosters work is the fuel is poured into the tube and then left to set, there is a hole in the centre running the length of the booster, the shape of the hole changes at intervals and this affects the thrust but its still a continuous hole. When the boosters ignite they ignite from the top, the hot gasses travel down the hole to the bottom and exit the booster, as the gas goes down the hole it ignites the fuel that forms the edge of the hole and this then burns towards the case through the flight, meaning the hole get wider as the flight progresses. Now, this means that the fuel is burning for the length of the booster the whole time, it cant be put out and it cant be controlled i.e throttled like a liquid fueled engine, in effect when its lit it will burn at the rate its designed to burn at no matter what. It wont explode etc because effectively its already all on fire and is designed to burn at a specific speed. Having some gas escape out the side through the hole the o-ring should have been filling wont make the fuel burn faster or explode. It may, at some point have an effect on the integrity of the booster casing however even if this failed the fuel would still burn at its continuous rate and not explode, in fact the fuel burns better in a pressurised environment so if it escaped into the atmosphere it would probably burn slower, not explode. In addition to this we have to consider that the booster wasn't given the chance to explode. The booster burns for 127s, Challenger exploded 73 seconds into the flight meaning the booster still had 54 seconds left to burn so had used up just over half of its fuel. It is possible that as it continued over the remaining 54 seconds the case may have failed however it was never given the chance as both boosters were intentionally blown up by mission control, we will never know what might have happened if it had continued on, what we can say is that it didn't explode when the O ring failed and continued flying. Now, the speed those things were going at means they would have continued going upwards for quite a while even if the thrust was cut completely so even if they were damage in some way, i.e by the main fuel tank explosion they would have still carried on going up unless totally destroyed because you cant stop the fuel burning. You are right that the shuttle fuel tank exploded not the boosters but that's because it was filled with liquid hydrogen and oxygen with will explode given half a chance. I've already explained why the tank ruptured and exploded. All this info is available on the internet too, go luck it up for yourself.
They are rubber seals to prevent hot gas blow by. The boosters are put together in sections. Each section has a joint that can flex. This prevents the metal from buckling. These o-rings were too cold that day, they didn't behave how they were designed to work. So hot gas was able to escape through the gap and melt the metal making a hole in the side of the booster that burned and melted the attachment strut that held it to the external tank.
Watch all Hoot Gibson's episodes at: ruclips.net/p/PLBI4gRjPKfnO5CF3r1r0FHXLAytdsO-J-
My daughter and I were lucky enough to have been selected to have lunch with Hoot at Space Camp in 2014. We paid for the special “lunch with an astronaut”, but then we somehow got selected to sit at his table. We had an amazing conversation prior to his presentation to our group, and he made us feel so welcome. He was extremely great with my 9 year old, asked her a lot of questions, made her feel ‘important’ and was definitely an influence on her choice to study science in college now at age 19. Thank you Captain Gibson - you are a national treasure and we’ve been lucky to have you as a leader in our country’s space program.
Had the great and unexpected pleasure of meeting Hoot Gibson on a visit to NASA in 2009. A true gentleman, generous with his time and happy to talk all things Shuttle. Something I'll always remember.
My step father was on recovery duty for Challenger and Columbia. He said after Columbia he couldn’t do it anymore because he worked with the astronauts for mission planning and training, primarily payload deployment and recovery and got to know the payload specialists.
He been on since Apollo.
Payload deployment? Columbia deployed payload??
One of the big things I took away from everything I've read and watched on the Challenger disaster, was Allan McDonald's part in ensuring safer space travel afterwards.
For those who don't know, he was an engineer at Morton-Thiokol, the manufacturer of the solid rocket boosters used on the space shuttles, and one of the few people who recommended not launching Challenger because of low temperatures, which some engineers worried would lead the infamous O-rings to become brittle and leak fuel, which in the end was what led to the accident. The engineers were eventually forced by their employer (Morton-Thiokol) to green light the launch, which M-T tried to deny during the investigation. Allan McDonald testified against his employer, saying that he had warned them of the potential danger of launching in cold temperatures, which essentially cost him his career at Morton, but only after being one of the chief designers of the new SRB's used on all subsequent STS-missions. I have a huge amount of admiration for integrity like that.
Allan McDonald sadly passed away a few years ago at the age of 83.
A man with integrity.
He also refused to sign a letter which told NASA that the launch would be safe.
I think Hoot Gibson is a true American hero!👍
Totally agree👍. Nasa made a right pick!..👍👍
A very rare breed within humanity.
He was a flyer first and an astronaut second. That's what made Hoot great.
I can listen to Hoot all day long
Me too
Soon as I saw this was Hoot I knew I would watch to the end! Not disappointed, terrible incident but Hoot is a treasure.
This videos are fanfreakingtastick! It still saddens me seeing these tragedies. Even the ones before I was born.
I appreciate Gibson's honesty in wanting to go back to the big black again. He's grateful for his turns as he called it. Of course he's like a kid in wanting to go again and again.
I know I would.
Making space travel routine is a challenge by itself.
Breaking free from Earth's gravitation was already a monumental accomplishment.
Hoot is amazing. A great American!
👍
Great yeah, for an American
STS-27 was a symptom that NASA didn't learned the lessons of the Challenger disaster, it kept a "business as usual" attitude. On STS-27 the engineers' findings were not communicated to the astronauts and the same thing happened on STS-107, except that this time the crew got killed.
Astronaut Mike Mullane says the shuttle itself was a symptom of the hubris of NASA after Apollo.
Meh, once you have the whole story of how STS came to be it really was about what OMB predicted--a highly capable and expensive prestige project that kept USAs launch industrial base employed and operating.
"Kept USA's launch industrial base employed..." There's the silver lining.@@evanfinch4987
The shuttle orbiter had a couple thousand buttons, switches, and circuit breakers. The guys who actually flew the shuttle, the CDR and Pilot, are a special breed. I bet Hoot could dive into real detail on those systems if he had the time, and inclination.
I was sitting at a red light in Tampa and saw it happening live..it was a shock..
It must have been disheartening
@@Dronescapes absolutely....👍
I saw it in Germany on TV being 21 years old. I was physically sick, almost vomited. It was absolutely terrible, like nine-eleven. With hindsight the whole shuttle was an engineering nightmare, but at that time it was the summit of high technology.
Wow, what a story. You’re some pilot Hoot!
Fascinating stuff! Thanks, gentlemen!
I was a senior in high school, and was in my electronics vocational class, watching the launch live when this happened. We just happened to be recording it on a VHS recorder, that I repaired the day before. This was a half day class, and we spent the rest of the time we had left, watching the footage over and over then discussing it. We all agreed that an O-ring blew out, and caused this horrific accident. Everyone was very somber during this whole time, and discussing what happened, helped us thru the days after.
How did you kids know there were orings in a rocket?
I must of missed something I didn't hear anything about challengers accidents investigation
@@ED-es2qvum I was thinking the same thing ??
@@ED-es2qvThey were all 15-year-old geniuses and prodigy rocket scientists, don’t-cha know? 🤣🤣🤣
I totally believe this
I was 5 years old. I don’t remember the disaster itself,being Australian and from Perth,but I do remember the episode of Punky Brewster which dealt with disaster. It was a good way of making very young children understand what had happened and how we could deal with it.
His comment about watching the ailerons makes me wonder if the Columbia crew did the same thing knowing they had potential wing damage.
elevons :)
I was there live. I wish i was not.
If anyone is wondering.
When he talks about 720 thermal tiles were damaged. That's roughly 3.6% of the total tiles.
Excellent video. Thank you so much for sharing this. May God Bless you.
Very articulate person !
I saw a history video of the shuttle and this song played on Columbia’s first test flight. Also Neil Diamond was present to watch her land.
16:16 haunting photo, I forgot that Greg Jarvis, who perished with Challenger, had been bumped from STS-61C to STS-25 so that the politician could fly.
Greg Jarvis was bumped twice. First, by Sen. Jake Garn and then bumped again by US Rep. Bill Nelson.
For anyone wondering about a “patch kit”, not only would one have to be developed and carried on every flight but it would be such a complex task to do a repair that every mission would have to have a crew specify trained to repair tiles. That’s a whole mission on its own. Prohibitively expensive to commit so many resources just to operating the shuttle. Like saying that you have to be a trained mechanic before you can drive a car.
The hole was on the metal part of the wing which was above the tiles. The crew didn't have the means to replace a section of the wing.
It was a horrible disaster 😢 it was in complete shock watching that unfold.
CEO of Cows in Trees LTD.
u r a smart and fantastic bloke
I could listen to Hoot for hours. such a nice and intelligent guy. i never heard of the sts 28 hot reentry before. very interesting. and i never heard of columbia having the bumpiest wings before. that reentry must have been super critical, if steps between the tiles of only a tenth of an inch can cause too high temperatures and a loss of the shuttle. the tragic story of sts 107: the brown foam insulation of the external fuel tank was there to prevent the build up of ice, that later could fall off the tank during the launch caused by vibration and hit the orbiters heat shield. so on sts 107 that foam itself, beeing there exactly to prevent this scenario, broke off the tank and caused the loss of our precious Columbia. so sad. by the way.....its very likely that this caused the loss. BUT, that hole in the left wing, caused by the foam strike, was never actually seen.
Challenger was the 25th mission. We continued on to launch another 110 times, he said. 2 disasters out of 135 launches then. Failure rate is 1.4%. Would you say beam me up Scotty knowing that's how it would be?
I skipped class to watch the launch that day. I cried when it exploded. People were crying through the dorm, in the student center, cafeteria etc. very intense day.
wow so beautiful great job
The spaceshuttle incident changed everything for NASA's future in how society could have any association with space exploration due to the death of the teacher. It had a major effect on the future of space exploration. I'm curious how Elon Musk's Space-X will transport passengers, assuming that not just anyone can buy a ticket to fly to Mars.
What a sweet man!
45:46 Spot on. Saving Columbia might have been possible, or might not have been. The damning thing is, NASA didn't even try.
It would have taken a month to get a rescue shuttle ready. The Columbia didn't have that much oxygen.
@@JimMac23what about a Soyuz?
Alright Hoot!!!
The engineers warned Morton-Thiokol that the o rings needed an additional ring added and that they shouldn't launch when the temperature was below freezing. Morton-Thiokol ignored the engineers and the shuttle and all seven astronauts were lost.
sounds like a real hoot
At some point, the President should have stepped in and told the military you will photograph and submit all requested information to NASA - even if that information had to be hand carried.
Dream on.
I remember that day watched it on TV wa a shame
I remember this from the 80s somewhere
I can't even fly coach without panickng, I don't know how astronauts have the guts. How they get that 100s of tons of space craft into space is beyond my comprehension.
Why is the Vehicle lock down arm failure never mentuoned?
Some on the investigation panel claimed this the cause.
Caused the Vehicle to learch to one side breaking the gasget seal.
I watched the liftoff on live network TV. Saw the flame creeping up the side of the booster and thought that doesn't look right, compared to previous launches I had seen. Also wondered why no one was making any on-air comment about this anomaly. A few seconds later, the terrible explosion.
This guy is a hoot.
I've always been amazed that an engine can run at 104%
I probably don't understand the engineering concept how that is possible but in simple terms it's 4% above maximum engine performance. Or 100% is just what is necessary operating parameters but they decide another 4% just in case.
100% is nominal thrust for long term. Some engines can go up to 120% for short time
This was no accident. They rushed the launch and put the safety of all the pilots at risk and look what it did. Would it have hurt to have waited another week or two?
Space is an extremely challenging environment. We know about the flaw that caused the accident, but we do not know about the 1000 other potential hazards that went well for more than 100 flights (and two accidents).
Astronauts are very well aware that Space is one of the most dangerous places you can be.
Imagine all the test pilots that perished while testing aircraft.
@@Dronescapes- I worked for a company that tested electrical control panels for indoor and outdoor use. All engineers know there is a major difference between indoor and outdoor (below freezing) rated gaskets and o-rings. All those engineers involved in the gaskets and o-rings on the solid rocket boosters should have gone to jail for manslaughter.
@@Davelakful It wasn't the engineers fault. The engineers warned NASA about the o rings and the below freezing temperature. They recommended that NASA delay the launch until the problem was solved. NASA ignored the engineers.
@@JimMac23 - "recommended" ? Are you kidding me?? It should have been an "absolute recommendation" not to launch!! Are you a gasket engineer? I was so know all gasket / seals requirements. Please don't speak out of ass.
Im glad we have gone back to the capsule and let Spacex do what they do
tiles were discovered to have come lose on sts1 as well.those guys that must been chewing their nails,yeah!!??
The problem on the Columbia wasn't the tiles. It was a large hole in the aluminum part of the wing.
@@JimMac23tiles too. Aluminium can't withstand the plasma
They need to make some kind of a patch kit to fix your ship if you get a puncture.
It wasn't a small puncture. The wreckage showed that it was a large hole the size of a briefcase. There is no patch that will fix that.
I never want to meet Mr. Gibson in person.
The Mr Gibson I met in this interview is of a caliber that I want to keep in mind without the inevitable concessions that being a human being bring.
They clearly put the engines on without releasing the capsule geez tragically and most impatiently the capsule was still at go and should never have shuttled on disgrace
What are you rambling about?
@@JimMac23 nothing you can obviously make sense of above your head bro
8:14 Imagine being that guy holding the Zippo lighter to light that torch.
Not a guy… it’s all automated and controlled by computer.
When the shuttle cargo hole exploded it blew off the crew cabin . It was still in good shape at that time then the fall to the water . The astronauts were alive at that time . When it hit the water they were killed . When found all oxy bottles were turned on this had to be done manually . It they had a on board chute they might have survived .
They added chutes to later shuttles. But they only worked if the shuttle was gliding, not falling.
They should add ejection seats.
….Hoot plays with a Roland Jazz Chorus.
If we could have private companies certify government work instead of other way things would be so much better. Productivity would increase , budgets would be controlled for targets and people could be fired which is most important to weed out the worst prepared employees for success. Trim the dead weight in other words
Hoot was the alpha male within the new class of shuttle astronauts who came to NASA in 1978. Riding Rockets by astronaut Mike Mullane is an interesting read. He has a lot of funny stories about Hoot and his exploits.
Mars would be a perfect penal colony.
Hoot and chief hoot?
Every time I see this I laugh my ass off
You don't RATE such disasters ....
Nothing to investigate
Both disasters are caused by compromised design to try to cost less but end up with bad high prices
Titanium hull for example not Aluminum
H2o is fuel
People died because of engerneers and fault on shuttle. Wrong way to die ❤❤
Space is extremely dangerous, and Astronauts are perfectly aware of that. There are a million things that can go wrong.
The Shuttle flew 135 complicated and dangerous missions.
This event wasn't on the engineers, Nasa completely ignored their professional advice and went ahead with the launch.
Nasa and the engineering firms management were at fault here.
No , challenger engineers did not cause anyone to die. Your comment makes no sense. If anything engineers decided that it was cold air wasn't good for the o ring . & They worked their a**es off trying to convince managers & uppers to delay the launch.
There's a lot more to the picture than what you think.
It wasn't the engineers fault. The engineers warned NASA not to launch because of the below freezing temperature that day. NASA ignored the engineers.
The Shuttle Orbiter itself, no matter how fragile it was, has NEVER failed on its own. Challenger, SRB failure. Columbia, ET insulation failure. I will die on this hill!
This should NEVER HAVE HAPPENED!!!!!!!! Pure arrogance!
Notice how the camera showed a closeup of the shuttle right B4 the explosion? Hmm like they KNEW!!
They knew SOMETHING was going on, because they could see that the shuttle was making some unexpected course corrections via the telemetry downlink. Did they know what was going to happen? Nope.
Also, as far as I can remember, that particular closeup view of the shuttle wasn't in the original broadcast, and didn't surface until (IIRC) the next day. It's possible that the UK feed I was watching was different to the US feed, IDK, but the view I got watching live went from launch to explosion in one continuous shot. It was only later in documentaries explaining the accident that the sequence seen in this video appeared...
@@gchampi2some of those corrections were due to the severe wind shear they encountered. It was the most that any shuttle had experienced up to that point. That wind shear also broke loose the plug that had formed from the solid rocket’s fuel residue. After it was gone the plume shows up and spreads, eventually burning a hole into the external tank and the strut connecting the SRB to the tank. If you look at the contrails formed by the engines after the explosion you can tell how extreme the wind shear was by how crooked they are.
I saw it live on TV and I remember that they never said: « Challenger, go with throttle up » . Mission control asked for a course correction, that’s what I remembered… and if you look at the exhaust plume, it is already twisted and deformed due to the high cross winds!
@@renesoucy3444 No you didn’t hear that. Because they actually said, “Challenger, go at throttle up.”
Mission Control wasn’t telling the shuttle that they could proceed with throttling up. That was all automated. Throttle up was a milestone and a checkpoint for Mission Control to tell the shuttle that their flight was still a “go” at that point. No concerns. No need to abort.
At 43:33 is the reason why NASA had better people during Apollo than NASA has during the Shuttle era.
He looks like the lil Christmas boy with the rainender 😂😂😂😂😂😂
I wonder if Regan ever learned of the true reason behind the disaster and what he had to say to NASA about ignoring warnings from the engineers.
Woe ten minutes hearing how it was th3 biggest investigation..... jesus
Space cowboys...
Flawed machine from the get go. America Airforce had a lot to do with the flawed design
Going to space is complicated, and astronauts are very well aware of that.
Perhaps that is why companies like SpaceX, despite the owner making claims that his company would build a station on Mars by 2022, still cannot make his heavy rocket work properly in 2024.
The Shuttle was a complex machine, and the Russians, despite making ugly copies of it (Buran) never went anywhere.
What a waste of money. Study and di more fie our planet. Hiw about huge because people lost their lives.
This guy knows where all the bodies are buried. But he aint going to tell us.
You are a bit too conspiratorial
There are videos showing the astronots from challenger are still alive. All except one.
It’s just a coincidence. The look alives didn’t just pop into existence after challenger. They had lives during the 80s. Also, there are some significant differences in their appearances.
@@dylantb619 pretty big coincidence. You have more faith in coincidence than I do
@@allthingsbing1295 I get that. But my main issue with it, is why would they even fake it in the first place? Nasa stopped flying it's shuttle fleet for almost 3 years, and the disaster destroyed a ~2 billion dollar vehicle.
That's beyond ridiculous, a massive conspiracy including their own families, for no reason, is apparently more likely than some people looking similar.
There are videos made by flatearther grifters that make that claim. They found a set of people with similar names to the Challenger astronauts and who looked somewhat similar. These people have nothing to do with Challenger. These claims are braindead.
If the booster rockets (O rings) failed, why were they still in one piece after the explosion and continued to fly on their own. More Washington BS
No one said the boosters exploded dude, just that an o ring in one failed, the 2 things are very different. The hot gasses within the booster escaped through the gap the failed o ring created, you can clearly see this escape on the launch footage. This hot gas caused one of the struts connecting the shuttle to the main fuel tank to melt, the resulting stress on the tank from the remaining connectors ruptured the tank, the hydrogen escaped, hit the hot gas from the boosters, shuttle engines etc and blew up. The boosters, now free carried on until they were remotely destroyed by mission control.
@@monkeyhands5053 if a O ring failed on the boosters then it should have been catastrophic but the orbiter blew not the rockets. They continued on as designed
@@boburwell9921It appears you didn’t read monkeyhands reply.
@@boburwell9921 Not at all, the boosters fuel was solid not liquid so a breach in the side wouldn't make the fuel leak out and cause the booster to explode, only the gases could escape through the hole. In addition the type of fuel in the booster needed to be in a confined space with lots of internal pressure to burn, it would not burn readily in the atmosphere especially at altitude. The fuel is also spread in a cylinder within the booster with a hole down the centre, the fuel burns from the inside out towards the case so up until the last moments of a full burn there would be several feet of solid fuel between the burning part and the case of the booster, the only reason the gases escaped at all is because the o rings are on joins between sections and because of how the boosters are filled there is also a slight join in the solid fuel sections. Finally, and you can time this from the launch footage, the gases were not escaping through the side of the booster for long enough to structurally damage the booster, the main fuel tank exploded way before this could happen, when the boosters carried on on their own after the main tank explosion they were destroyed by mission control to prevent them causing damage on the ground way before the hole in the side could destroy them. Seriously the answer to this stuff is on the internet available to all, just try looking it up for yourself its really easy to educate your self
@@boburwell9921 It wouldn't and wasn't catastrophic. The boosters have a solid fuel not a liquid fuel like the shuttle main engines. How the boosters work is the fuel is poured into the tube and then left to set, there is a hole in the centre running the length of the booster, the shape of the hole changes at intervals and this affects the thrust but its still a continuous hole. When the boosters ignite they ignite from the top, the hot gasses travel down the hole to the bottom and exit the booster, as the gas goes down the hole it ignites the fuel that forms the edge of the hole and this then burns towards the case through the flight, meaning the hole get wider as the flight progresses. Now, this means that the fuel is burning for the length of the booster the whole time, it cant be put out and it cant be controlled i.e throttled like a liquid fueled engine, in effect when its lit it will burn at the rate its designed to burn at no matter what. It wont explode etc because effectively its already all on fire and is designed to burn at a specific speed. Having some gas escape out the side through the hole the o-ring should have been filling wont make the fuel burn faster or explode. It may, at some point have an effect on the integrity of the booster casing however even if this failed the fuel would still burn at its continuous rate and not explode, in fact the fuel burns better in a pressurised environment so if it escaped into the atmosphere it would probably burn slower, not explode. In addition to this we have to consider that the booster wasn't given the chance to explode. The booster burns for 127s, Challenger exploded 73 seconds into the flight meaning the booster still had 54 seconds left to burn so had used up just over half of its fuel. It is possible that as it continued over the remaining 54 seconds the case may have failed however it was never given the chance as both boosters were intentionally blown up by mission control, we will never know what might have happened if it had continued on, what we can say is that it didn't explode when the O ring failed and continued flying. Now, the speed those things were going at means they would have continued going upwards for quite a while even if the thrust was cut completely so even if they were damage in some way, i.e by the main fuel tank explosion they would have still carried on going up unless totally destroyed because you cant stop the fuel burning. You are right that the shuttle fuel tank exploded not the boosters but that's because it was filled with liquid hydrogen and oxygen with will explode given half a chance. I've already explained why the tank ruptured and exploded. All this info is available on the internet too, go luck it up for yourself.
KAAAABOOOOOM
What did the O rings atrubte to the failed launch.
They are rubber seals to prevent hot gas blow by. The boosters are put together in sections. Each section has a joint that can flex. This prevents the metal from buckling.
These o-rings were too cold that day, they didn't behave how they were designed to work. So hot gas was able to escape through the gap and melt the metal making a hole in the side of the booster that burned and melted the attachment strut that held it to the external tank.
?, when did space camp movie display there robot + short circuit board? There shuttle? Conspiracy theory?