Great video as always, small error though, 5:29, "... always made sure the fuel tank would have extra oxygen compared to the hydrogen to make sure that the oxygen would always be the thing that would burn out first". Guessing that it should be extra hydrogen...
I think so it would make more sense the other way around... If there was extra oxygen how would it run out first? I would think they would have extra hydrogen so the oxygen runs out first.
This was the one and only launch I saw in person. Was on vacation at Disney when I heard the launch was going to happen. Dragged my kids and wife out in the middle of the night and parked on the side of the highway to watch the launch. To this day, absolutely the most awesome sight I have ever seen.
Childbirth isn't more or less amazing (or gross) than pretty much any other bodily function... It is all amazing so childbirth is just... Meh, another automatic natural amazing function. A rocket launch however is AMAZING! Generations of knowledge, thousands of engineers etc working together to achieve one of the hardest things humans do... KAPLAAAAA!!!
Pretty much. Except jump seats and auto rotation is not really an option in emergencies. Personally I think it's a miracle the shuttles didn't cause more loss of life than they did. However insecure the final design was you really have to hand it to the engineers for making something that endured so many missions before any fatigue set in.
I mean, I would describe as helicopter as a bunch of super-critical gears spinning inside an oil leak wrapped in metal-fatigue..... I fly fixed-wing. ; )
and people wonder why technicians need to use a torque wrench, document what Individual torque wrench that was used and show document that the torque wrench was correctly calibrated.....
Pomo Dorino Scott said it could have been overtightened by an engineer, it would be the increasing process that would cause the burr to release it, not the other way around.
It was the last mission before the scheduled upgrade that all the orbiters were undergoing at the turn of the century. Its next flight was Mike Massimino's first Hubble servicing mission. It was then lost due to a completely unrelated issue that was not age-related. Although it was one that had been seen 15 years before on an Atlantis launch. Hubris and complacency killed all 14 astronauts, not the vehicles.
+xureality _"Every other shuttle has an external airlock. Chandra is too big to fit inside with said airlock. So they did what had to be done."_ That was after this mission. The external airlock was *_added_* for ISS mission/servicing/resupply - and this was actually the last mission Columbia flew before getting her upgrade (which she still did not receive the conversion that the rest of the active orbiter fleet did). There was no "oh no, we ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO DO THIS" circumstances. It was merely bad planning. And it's not like this is NASA's first (...or last) bad call. Just, thankfully, this time no one died. Although, quite obviously, we came *_VERY_* close to having that happen.
I feel like with this and how the Shuttles that did fail ended up actually failing, it's surprising they even made it through as many missions as they did.
When something fails, the user always looks at it and wonders why it failed so soon. The technicians look at it and wonder why it hadn't failed sooner!
stigmaticraven It’s kind of hard to say the shuttles never failed when 2 broke up and killed the entire crew. If an asteroid or something crashed into one or some other external object caused it then I could see your point but without those “stacks” as you put it or the pieces of foam you don’t get a shuttle in space for it to fail. That said, statistically it had a pretty high success rate really with 133 successful missions out of 135. The problem was that when it failed it failed spectacularly. It did quite a lot in those 134 missions though.
NASA would keep sending you around the racetrack in a car with square wheels, and simply insist that you're a bad driver and you complain too much about bumpy rides... until the square wheels make you crash and kill some people in the stands. Then it's a story about how nobody ever though square wheels could present any kind of problem.
@@Prometheus4096 the original design would have been a lot more capable but budget issues made it a design by the customers i.e. DoD and intelligence agencies all had demands that NASA was forced to bend to their will which meant sadly they had to make choices which resulted in a highly complex highly experimental craft that couldn't be more than a ghosr of what had originally been imagined. In the end, blame the budget dick that chopped NASAs budget.
If weight was an issue, why did they assign Columbia to this mission? She weighed about four tons more than her sister ships. As the first shuttle, she was a bit overengineered, with extra black tiles on her wing chines and a stronger frame. There was also some wiring from test equipment from the early flights that was difficult to access to remove.
All of the other orbiters at this point had undergone significant overhauls to better fit them for construction of the International Space Station, namely the removal of a native airlock. The other three shuttles were stuck with an external airlock no matter the mission. Simply put, Chandra would not fit in any of the other orbiters. Plus, using another orbiter for STS-93 would not have been a very efficient use of resources, as Columbia was generally incapable of reaching the International Space Station. (inb4 someone mentions her planned visit on STS-118)
Columbia was not "generaly incapable of reaching ISS". It could reach ISS just as well as any other orbiter vehicle. She reached Hubble which was much higher than ISS, though it's inclination is much more desirable. The issue was Columbias extra mass which ate into ISS payload.
sounded like "hope we dont need another one of those" reffering to the abnormally heavy payload. which was not the reason the mission struggled as much as it did, but its an easy scapegoat in the moment when you dont have the shuttle back to diagnose what actually was going wrong.
Impressive at first, but the more you look at it, the more you think, "What the fuck were they thinking, exactly?" At least windows vista didn't kill seven crew members on reentry because of a similar failure to the ablative foam as what happened with Challenger's SRB decoupler: Shitter fell off. Columbia suffered a piece of foam falling off. These rocket powered space gliders seem to have loved tossing pieces off of themselves during ascent.
Rather a sad thing about Challenger. The engineers who designed it told them that they could guarantee failure if they launched. The bureaucrats and corporate executives said hey what do engineers know, and they launched anyway. Then of course the engineers that it tried to tell them got sacked and blamed for the disaster. Basically anyone who actually knew anything about the system was left out of the loop and the decision was made by politicians and CEOs. The space shuttles were amazing machines. But they were pushing the boundaries of what we knew how to do. Still, there were two failures during the entire program. They were catastrophic, but there were only two.
Titou1384: "except most of the times a space shuttle doesn't freeze or bluescreen, which is considerably less annoying". Yeah, well, I guess it still was kinda annoying for some people who'd have probably opted for a blue screen or twenty instead of turning into fireworks.
I've listened to the MCC audio for this flight (it's available on RUclips), and I love the demeanor of the controllers. That last line - "we don't need any more of these" - is one of my favorites as well.
OMG I never knew of that near disaster. They came very close to total vehicle loss, and loss of crew. I was aware that in the case of the reusable space shuttle orbiter after every launch the main engines had to be stripped down and completely inspected and serviced. Your video gives more insight as to just what this entails and how complicated it is. I have wondered about this detail in the SpaceX reusable first stage. I would really like to know the extent of the inspection and servicing required to reuse the Falcon 9 engines. There has been a temptation to characterize the reuse of the Falcon 9 first stage in airliner terms: 'just refuel it and go'. This is nonsense. Getting into space is a vastly more difficult proposition. A rocket has been more accurately described as an 'controlled explosion'. When I worked on commercial satellites we jokingly referred to the choice of launch vehicles our customers could choose from (Atlas, Ariane 5, Proton), as a choice of which 'bomb' they could choose to put their satellite on!
Well for one Space X is designing its engines so they don't have to be stripped down after each flight. They are designed to be put through a battery of tests, then reflown after the test all pass. No major refurbishment needed.
I don't think it's fair to compare the engines of SpaceX and the shuttle. Ignoring the fact that the SpaceX engines are simpler there is also the fact that the crew on the SpaceX rockets will be riding at the top end in a launch abort system capable of pulling away from the rocket at any height. The Shuttle had no real abort system and what options they did have depended more or less on a complete save of the shuttle superstructure mid accident. As for the extent of Falcon 9 servicing they have taken the exact opposite route compared to the shuttle. SpaceX has had long cycles with a great deal of testing and tear down on early iterations of the design. They have built the re-usability into their engines over time. The Shuttle program started out with minimal refurbishment and only increased it as the accident rates started going up. For SpaceX this is not really an issue as they will just retire any vehicle that fails it's inspections post flight or that has reached a number of flights where their confidence in it is reduced. I'm sure there will still be accidents, but I doubt the number of failures by the time they reach the same number of flights as the shuttles, will be much worse and I'm pretty sure the loss of life is lower. At least for the Falcon 9. The BFR is a completely different beast and it will be interesting to see how well it fares as the design is far more complex and has a lot of similarities to the shuttles. Personally I'm far more interested in seeing how that thing fully loaded is supposed to handle an on-pad abort as opposed to the Falcon 9 where the system is already tested and the core design ideas have been proven through numerous earlier launchers.
+aBoogivogi Yeah, a BFR on pad abort is going to be very interesting indeed. Do you just fire all main engines directly down onto a canister full of liquid oxygen and liquid methane? Can a set of Dracos lift a fully fueled BFS off a booster?
I dont think so, It will need hundreds of dracos for a job like that. & without hundreds of dracos... If you want to fire all main engines to get out of the main booster, it will be imposible... probably the TWR of a fully loaded BFR orbiter on sea level shouldn't be greater than 1 or maybe 1.1, can you imagine? just the explosion of the booster will probably destroy the engines of the orbiter before it reach a safe distance.
That part he mentioned sounds like something you'd only have in a Staged-Combustion engine and not something that'd be needed in an engine that just dumps the turbine exhaust.
I like how all these succesfully launched devices, all outlive their original mission parameters by quite a substantial margin, goes to show how brilliant the people who design them are.
Asshole The shuttle lived past it's life, but it killed 14 astronauts, more than any other launch vehicle ever. So it definitely succeeded in breaking that record.
Duhya I was refering to things like the mars rovers and the various space probes we got flying around in the solar system. I am well aware that the space shuttles were a costly mistake. Its why I used the word "devices" and not something else.
This is the kind of NASA gems that I hunt for. I never heard of this issue before and I thank you for bringing it to life with incredible story telling, a high grasp of the science behind the problem, incredible visuals and editing, and wrapping it up in a digestible way. Cheers....I know this is an old video but you have my subscription!
Forgiveness and redundancy... important design principles in low failure tolerance missions. I tried playing KSP on hard (no redo) and killed 5 kerbals before getting into orbit.. 2 tourists and 3 kerbals. In one mission I landed close to a mountain, and because I had lowered the parachute altitude, the capsule crash landed. In another mission I had 2 capsules and a liquid engine aligned aero dynamically, while going at orbital speed... Which meant I was going too fast for my parachutes to deploy before hitting the water. Lastly, I accidentally triggered the final stage when I meant to throttle up the engine, deploying the parachutes, breaking one of them and killing a tourist. hard mode is super tedious, the only responsible way to play is to test everything and put kerbals in as few missions as possible. Preferably, never put a kerbal in a mission that hasn't been done unkerbaled.
the set of failures that are each irrevocably catastrophic =/= set of failures likely enough they've engineered mitigations for them to survive up to several of them occurring ..right?
Sometimes only one thing goes wrong and ends in failure, sometimes something goes wrong and it ends up ok. It depends on whether it's something that creates a chain reaction.
There was nothing wrong with Columbia that would have prompted her retirement. Same goes for the 2003 STS-107 incident, there was nothing wrong orbiterwise that caused that incident.
Excellent video, Scott. I worked at Rocketdyne '81-'85 as a MTS in the Ground Support and Electrical Design group. My landlord, Mr. Joseph Duesberg, R.I.P., was an engineer in the Combustion Engineering group. I used to love talking shop with him, and picking his brain - those folks solved some of the gnarliest problems you could never even imagine with brilliantly elegant ideas. I must admit though - I'd like to know why they didn't deactivate bad LOX posts by just plug welding their exit ports shut. I wish my friend Joe was still around to ask that question of him. I worked nearly a third of my engineering career in aerospace - at Rocketdyne, JPL, Space Vector, and Phaostron - and Rocketdyne was the best - it was simply THE POWER - nothing else compared with it.
Thank you Scott Manley stories like these remind me why i keep going back to collage every day in spite of how hard or impossible it seems some times. I hope to become a part of stories like these one days though some times i loose sight of that among the anxiety and difficulty.
So did any of NASAs policies or checks of the orbiter change after this mission? Did they stop using these gold plated plugs? Did they check the wiring and screw heads for burs? Did this collection of incidents change spaceflight in any way going forward?
Love these mission analysis / incident investigation videos. Great to see content from someone who doesn't shy away or shield their audience from the technical details - it's what we all want!
Every spacecraft and piece of space technology is built to significantly outlast its mission deadline- because if they build it *to* match the mission length, then anything that goes wrong will cut the critical mission short. They build it to be certain to last as long as the primary mission, and expect it to last longer to do more.
Also, sending stuff to space is really expensive, so you want to get as much out of the hardware that you send as possible. Kepler went into radiation-stabilized mode after 2 of 4 reaction wheels broke on it; Spirit was driving backwards while dragging a nonfunctioning wheel fro a while; Hubble was taking scientific data for 3 years with a terrible mirror, etc.
I love Wayne Hale's blog, all his posts are always riveting. Especially the one about the succession of random events that eventually lead to them finding what actually caused the insulation foam to come off on Columbia.
They saved a lot of weight by eliminating the paint - yet I wonder if it might have prevented the foam artillery shell that eventually took Columbia & Crew (R.I.P.) down.
You describe it so thoroughly and dramatically. I just watched an interview Adam Savage did with one of the Astronauts that was aboard the Challenger when this issue happened. She described it so casually to like it was nothing. Which in a way it was nothing, nothing they couldn't handle.
You can always add Realism Overhaul to KSP and make it much more challenging, but it's still much simpler, than actual rocket science and engineering. But you have to cinsider, thay you usually play KSP alone, while rockets are constructed by teams of hundreds of people
I guess rockets could be considered complex and overwhelming, but i build rockets in my basement, by myself. well, there is a lifealert, but it's just me working. if you have the passion, like, you reaaaally want it, it's just step by step, 'ferociously'. It's painted by pop culture to be more difficult than it is to deter the people that really shouldn't be messing with it.
I think the trickiest part is getting all that shit to be within a certain weight limit and form factor. It's like designing an oil refinery, but it needs to fit on the back of a shuttle, instead of being allowed to sprawl all over the ground.
Brilliant account and so specific and detailed too. The internals are complex beyond belief with so much to wrong or right depending on whether you are on board or on the ground. Great narration , again Scott .Can't wait for the Mars missions .
They are usually named after famous astronomers or astrophysicists , for example Chandra is named after Chandrasekhar, and well Hubble is obvious. James Webb is different though, he was the administrator of NASA for the years right up to the moon landing, (he retired in 1968).
This is one of your most fascinating videos to me so far. It really highlights how ambitious, complicated, and risky the space shuttle was. What an interesting era in space history. The most cowboyish rocket ever.
Hey Scott Manley. My father was an instrument maker. He made the test instruments used in the creation of the Iroquois engine during it's development in the 50's at Orenda Engines in Nobel Ontario. In 1959 the Canadian Government killed the Avro Arrow project including the unflown Iroquois engine and 10,000 workers headed to The States including our family. Fast forward a few years and he had a thermocouple in the fins of the launcher rocket for the Gemini & Apollo missions that triggered the escape rocket up at the pointy end if something went wrong with that hydrogen cooling system that was highlighted in your video. I knew the story but now after watching your video I understand how that system works a little better.
Collins is one of those people you just have to sit back & marvel at. Not only for the many glass ceilings she smashed through, but her demeanour & her professionalism are second to none. The speed she was on top of that failure & on the radio after barely clearing the tower & the cool head whilst dealing with such a stream of unexpected events. I dont doubt the way she handled this launch & her veteran astronaut status directly contributed to NASA giving her the return to launch mission after the Columbia disaster.
Except that the shuttle was a deathtrap with no launch escape system. Once the candle was lit there was no getting off till orbit, and sadly that killed people.
Yep. Unless the super structure of the shuttle survived whatever disaster occurred you were dead. Even something most people take for granted these days like an on-pad abort system was non-existent for the shuttle.
James Yeah, that abort handle thats the "see, mom" handle. As in "See, mom if things go wrong, we have a way off this thing." The posibility of surviving a serious catastophic failure of ANY launch system is slim to none Regardless of weather or not the spacecraft has a LES.
@@jamesburleson1916 You get what you pay for. The Space Shuttle as it flew was compromise after compromise because Congress had no vision. But to criticize it in the manner you have shows you don't know much about the space shuttle so why go off saying it was a "death trap"? You insult the bravery of the astronauts that competed for Shuttle mission assignments despite knowing all the risks and compromises involved. If you want to criticize anything to do with the Space Shuttle program, criticize Congress for forcing NASA to either use what they got or go home and stop putting man into space. The Space Shuttle was a marvel of engineering, and yes, it had a couple tragedies costing lives, but still, those people whose lives were at stake would tell you to a person, to simply shut the hell up and let the real women and men sign up for a Shuttle mission.
Just after Columbia was lost, the announcement from NASA to all engineering students studying Composites went out. We need to "Monitor in real time the Composites". This is now called "Smart Composites". This new technology will allow us to connect a sensor directly into the "Composite Parts" and connect directly into a computer. This will allow technicians to view the health of every Composite part on your craft, planes, or what ever you need. If this had been in effect before the accident, we might have saved lives? I was involved with a college here in California and we set-up test panels. One foot square and in the middle of the composite cloths we placed a very thin Piezoelectric sensor fabric. This is what you need to measure "OHMS" and record the value of a new part. When this part gets older and starts to fail, the "OHMS value is reduced" , then we can replace this part before failure occurs. The leading edge for the wing should have been "Monitored" and a "Alarm sent warning" would be sent. This new technology works very well and is ready to use in the "Composite World". RIP COLUMBIA.
Thanks for reminding us how dangerous this engineering marvel was. So happy its behind us. Looking forward to the retro-future of capsules sittin' on a candle...
That was the key failure of the shuttle program... it made the public think of manned spaceflight as 'safe' when it was and still is anything but safe. And all of the comprimises made from day one of the design process to the destruction of Columbia in 2003 were to try and downplay or ignore the risks and behave as if launching a shuttle was like taking off on a commercial jetliner. The shuttle was a constat battle between managers pushing for more launches more missions more payloads and the engineers and basic physics pushing back and unforunately 14 people were killed in the crossfire between them. I was born in 82 and even spend a week at space camp in Florida in the summer of 1993 and got to see Endeavour launch for STS-57 when I was there. It was awesome to see and I was enamoured and amazed by the entire shuttle program like most Americans at the time but in retrospect it was never a good system and in many ways really set back manned space exploration by becoming an outrageously expensive and inefficent space pickup truck that we spent 30 years making payments on... If they had stuck with the Apollo program and its planned spinoff missions and applications I have little doubt we would be far more advanced in our manned spaceflight capabilites today than where we actually are now.
I don't know what's more amazing, the amount of design and engineering that went into space crafts and rockets like this or the fact that back in the day nearly all of it was built by hand with rulers and gauge blocks. People now a days simply don't have the skill to craft things of such magnitude and complexity without the use of modern tools and manufacturing techniques. That kind of engineering is more beautiful than any art you'd ever find in a museum.
Actually the most overly complex machine built, with far more failure modes than necessary, built by the highest cost plus bidder in your congressional district.
Sounds like another example of how each Shuttle launch was *this close* to going sideways. The number of 'we almost lost that one' missions uses up all of your fingers and some of your toes. Spectacular craft but a deathtrap all the same.
It's hard to compare it to anything else though. All other rockets only had to last 2-8 minutes before being tossed away. So they were built for a short life and one use unlike the shuttle which had to go through all the extremes over and over..
Lensflare Deviant SpaceX is doing it smarter. Ramping up reusability over time and only as much as is provably safe. And on hardware that is cheap enough that it they can just expend it if that’s the safer option.
I'd love to see videos like this for all the Shuttle close calls. The body flap on STS-1, the computer crashes and APU fires on STS-9, the tile damage on STS-26 and STS-27, etc.
"Don't repeat this to anyone" they post publicly Also I don't plan to be alive in 2158, regardless of whether I can (ATM non-"natural" death is unlikely tho, calm down)
''Tightened it too much during assembly'' - It was damaged removing it..I think that's what you meant, because it was so tight - and its not a Phillips as people are saying - the flats are offset. Edit: It is a Phillips! they make the 'Torque set' screw range. (Two 'L's unlike the Dutch electronics giant).
so if they where so preoccupied with everything else, did they realise what happened during the mission or was it not till the shuttle was in refurbishment and some engineer spots the big freakin hole in the engine bell?
NASA has long had an extensive array of cameras (still & video) to record each launch. In the case of 51-L it helped immensely in the post flight accident inquiry. There were numerous cameras that recorded the infamous 'puff' of black smoke right at liftoff signalling ole girls soon to be demise. Those cameras recorded the initial plumage and subsequent burn through at the aft attachment ring adjacent too the aft field joint for the right hand SRB. It's been rumored the cockpit voice recorder captured a crew member commenting on how the ride had suddenly gotten very 'bumpy'. This sinc'd up with the timeline just milli seconds prior too vehicle breakup. If this is true, then it would suggest that the crew felt the axial breakup of the aft attach ring and rotation of the right hand SRB as it broke away from (aft end) and rotated into (forward attachment) the external tank and orbiter. We also know that most of the crew actually survived the explosion and vehicle breakup. The crew compartment is seen exiting the fireball intact on long range cameras post mortum. Impact with the ocean is what killed the crew. This is supported by the discovery that all but 2 of the emergency life support systems had been activated and almost depleted. The systems had too be manually activated by each crew member and only had 5 mins. of oxygen. This was meant for use in an on pad abort as after the first 4 flights they crews stopped using full fledged flight suits and went too the jumpsuits. 51-L put an end too that practice.
Scott, you should do a series on all the near misses the US space program has ever had, going back to Mercury. You are so good at breaking this all down. Thank you!
I'm curious if you ever thought about talking about all the laptops and computers on the ISS. Specifically, do they bother with passwords and how they maintain cyber security? Have they ever been hacked or is it possible? Is the main control computer isolated?
Probably not networked, totally physically isolated, only a select few people will ever see them in person let alone touch them. Id say their likely the most secure computers ever built. Also there would likely be little to be gained from actually hacking them outside of being a huge target for a large chunk of the worlds security agencies
thanks you so much! this is exactly the amount of detail that makes your videos so good. I love knowing about all the little why's and how's and your ability to explain all of this is amazing!
I had no idea the engines were tuned to run that way, and that it was such a fine balance between getting max thrust and not turning the nozzles into molten slag! Apparently there's some other considerations as well that make things work better, especially with engines using larger molecular species like the Space-X Raptor, but apparently all these things are run fuel rich for a number of reasons that give better performance - interesting stuff! Thank you....
Hey Scott, this was an excellent video on the Chandra/Columbia STS-93. And while there was a potential for many issues, the excessive oxidizer consumption resulted in a 15-16 foot per second orbital underspeed and an altitude deficit of approx. 10 nautical miles(depending on what source you read). With your research and presentation skills, I think that if you did a similar video about STS-51-L Challenger with the 36,000 pound SpaceLab-2 in the Payload Bay. About 3-1/2 minutes into teh ascent there was some SSME sensor issues forced the center engine to maintain function on her backup sensor loop, 2 minutes 12 seconds later the secondary sensors failed causing the center engine to safely shutdown. Immediately an Abort To Orbit was called. About 8 minutes into the ascent, one of the same sensors but on the left engine began to act up. Booster Systems Engineer who was sitting in the backroom, quickly suggested that the automatic engine shutdown system which depended on these specific sensors to be disabled/ignored by setting the switch from ENABLE to INHIBIT. Her quick thinking prevented a 2nd SSME shutdown of the right engine based on bad sensor data. Due to the timing of this late 2nd engine out scenario, keeping the 2 remaining left and right engines burning avoided a Loss of Crew/Loss of Vehicle and the Orbiter was able to Abort it's mission to a lower than planned, but safe and stable orbit 312x321 kms @ an inclination of 49.5º.. Here is a condensed video of the Press to ATO and the actual ATO call. The female voice is Jenny Howard. ruclips.net/video/JMtNUxklj50/видео.html The resulting Abort To Orbit required that the remaining left and right SSME's to run for a program record 9-12 minutes. They usually run for approx. 8-1/2 minutes when all 3 engine are operating nominally. If this was later in the program with the upgraded Block-II engines, the remaining engines could have had their thrust increased from the normal 104.5% Rated Powel Level to 109% for Intact Aborts, or if there was a "Do or Die" Contingency Abort they could go to 111% on the Space Shuttle Main Engines. The discussion about going to "Limits To Inhibit" begins at 3:39 with the actual call going up to Challenger at 3:47. Engineer Jenny Howard mentions that they "Are good to go inhibit as they have single engine capability." The Launch Director asks if they are past the TAL abort window(Trans Atlantic Landing", FIDO replies that they have passed the TAL abort window-thus only Abort Once Around(which was a window of opportunity of only a few seconds) and Abort To Orbit are the only abort scenarios remaining. FLIGHT then tells CAPCOM to instruct Challenger to set "Limits to Inhibit", CAPCOM then send up the message "Challenger-Houston, Main Engine Limits to Inhibit." With the challenger crew replying "OK Inhibit." Jenny Howard then communicates "We'll keep a good close eye on it." IIRC Jenny Howard received an award for her actions that day. Potentially life altering decisions must be made in seconds. This was the only time that the Space Shuttle Main Engines ever failed during a flight, and it was due to bogus sensor info failing SAFE, rather than an actual engine failure.
I sat through an MCC overview presentation and they used the sts 93 loop as an example of how the individual positions communicate with their back rooms to outline the issue and solutions.
How would the weight of the payload affect an emergency landing, either the go-around or abort? In all the years I've been watching docs on the shuttle and reading about it, I don't ever recall hearing how a heavy payload inside would have changed the landing characteristics. Empty it fell like a rock...what would have happened if it almost literally came back with extra rocks? Cheers Scott!
I would imagine that meant the landing tolerances were such that it could land safely even with the maximum payload? Or could there be a case where it was too heavy to land safely or at least would be a brown trouser moment for everyone? Wouldn't envy the crew in that situation.
If a payload caused a shuttle to be too heavy to land, then the shuttle would have NO abort options during ascent (other than, maybe, bail out over ocean during descent). I don’t think mission rules would allow that.
Shuttle was designed to return with payloads, including some fairly heavy ones like Hubble. Columbia retrieved and landed with the LDEF, which was about 10 tons IIRC. Not sure about this one.
Wow, this is an exciting real life story! It gives some idea of why everything does not always work. There's just so many things that all have to go right.
Great video as always, small error though, 5:29, "... always made sure the fuel tank would have extra oxygen compared to the hydrogen to make sure that the oxygen would always be the thing that would burn out first". Guessing that it should be extra hydrogen...
Jon Sten I was gonna say the same
So was I. I mean my script had the right stuff but I tend to adlib sometimes.
I think so it would make more sense the other way around... If there was extra oxygen how would it run out first? I would think they would have extra hydrogen so the oxygen runs out first.
me three
Me four and Scott pronounces Stoichiometric weird.
"The plumbing was pretty complicated..."
**Proceeds to show the most complicated diagram I have ever seen**
“It’s only slightly complicated guys. Trust me it’ll be fine”
Ruphite that's something JEB would say
So I guess it really is rocket science
And that's the simplified diagram! There's a reason why engine plumbing is often a cause for accidents.
I can only imagine the guys that had to fabricate it opened the plans and said “are you f’ing kidding me”
"Yikes." "Concur."
That's the most professional pants-crapping that I've ever heard.
This was terrifying
I forgot to mention that minutes after this there was almost a fire in mission control.
My palms are sweating.
Derek Fendrock knees weak, mom's spaghetti
Scott Manley Some New Orleans black magic person put a curse on it STS-93. Only possible scenario.
Derek Fendrock Knees weak? Arms heavy?
This was the one and only launch I saw in person. Was on vacation at Disney when I heard the launch was going to happen. Dragged my kids and wife out in the middle of the night and parked on the side of the highway to watch the launch. To this day, absolutely the most awesome sight I have ever seen.
feraxks and your kids birth isnt?
@ Van's Videos Oops. Didn't mean to leave "after the birth of my kids" off at the end. :)
@@feraxks close one lol
Always wanted to see a launch. To feel the power of those solid rocket engines firing would of been awesome.
Childbirth isn't more or less amazing (or gross) than pretty much any other bodily function... It is all amazing so childbirth is just... Meh, another automatic natural amazing function.
A rocket launch however is AMAZING! Generations of knowledge, thousands of engineers etc working together to achieve one of the hardest things humans do... KAPLAAAAA!!!
STS, the helicopter of space. A bunch of spare parts flying in close formation at Mach 25.
Pretty much. Except jump seats and auto rotation is not really an option in emergencies. Personally I think it's a miracle the shuttles didn't cause more loss of life than they did. However insecure the final design was you really have to hand it to the engineers for making something that endured so many missions before any fatigue set in.
I mean, I would describe as helicopter as a bunch of super-critical gears spinning inside an oil leak wrapped in metal-fatigue.....
I fly fixed-wing. ; )
I'm perfectly happy to fly rotary wing. It would take three burly men and a syringe full of ketamine to get me on a shuttle.
Haha, I actually really want to get my rotor wing license as well. I just like being dramatic.
Cole Smith dramatic is good... BTW, I'm only a rotary wing student pilot. It's still fun though!
9:40 "yikes!"
"you bet."
"concur."
lol I agree on the quality of that exchange :D
@@juanixinauj same
"We don't need any more of these" :)
Not quite the tension that was evident at the beginning of Apollo 12, but hair-raising nonetheless.
"Yikes!"
"You bet!"
"Concur."
"We don't need any more of these, *how 'bout that.* "
The engineer that over-tightened the screw has already disliked this video
and people wonder why technicians need to use a torque wrench, document what Individual torque wrench that was used and show document that the torque wrench was correctly calibrated.....
Also, was it a reverse thread? It looks smudged counterclockwise.
Pomo Dorino Scott said it could have been overtightened by an engineer, it would be the increasing process that would cause the burr to release it, not the other way around.
Pomo, sure was. :-)
Paul Ward - What do you mean with "increasing process"?
>Oldest shuttle orbiter with increasing failures
>Biggest payload yet (and ever)
...Yeah, that seems like a good idea.
And they let a woman drive, no less.
Yep. kinda like they were the only way it was going to get done.
It was the last mission before the scheduled upgrade that all the orbiters were undergoing at the turn of the century. Its next flight was Mike Massimino's first Hubble servicing mission. It was then lost due to a completely unrelated issue that was not age-related. Although it was one that had been seen 15 years before on an Atlantis launch. Hubris and complacency killed all 14 astronauts, not the vehicles.
Every other shuttle has an external airlock. Chandra is too big to fit inside with said airlock. So they did what had to be done.
+xureality
_"Every other shuttle has an external airlock. Chandra is too big to fit inside with said airlock. So they did what had to be done."_
That was after this mission. The external airlock was *_added_* for ISS mission/servicing/resupply - and this was actually the last mission Columbia flew before getting her upgrade (which she still did not receive the conversion that the rest of the active orbiter fleet did). There was no "oh no, we ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO DO THIS" circumstances. It was merely bad planning. And it's not like this is NASA's first (...or last) bad call. Just, thankfully, this time no one died. Although, quite obviously, we came *_VERY_* close to having that happen.
So, the engine spat out a gold filling :-)
and i couldnt find it on the shuttle launch pad otherwise i would have made a ring out of it . ONE RING TO RULE THEM ALL XD XD
Into its own lips, causing it to almost bleed out
_* ptooey *_
Crazy how a mission can go so wrong and still succeed. Great video Scott!
KSP in a nutshell
mclkai me taking off, doing an unplanned 360 spin and getting back on track
Johan Nilsson Great teamwork on behalf of the entire shuttle team as well!
Scott.... your research and presentations are excellent. You deserve a big applause. God Bless You. Please continue doing such great work.
Golden bullet, survivable. Foam bullet, not survivable.
More like a foam artillery shell
FIREEEEEE (BOOM)
Its the difference between getting shot in the leg vs getting shot on the chest
Some bullets hit vital spots
Too soon...
I feel like with this and how the Shuttles that did fail ended up actually failing, it's surprising they even made it through as many missions as they did.
When something fails, the user always looks at it and wonders why it failed so soon. The technicians look at it and wonder why it hadn't failed sooner!
I feel what you're saying, but the Shuttle's themselves did not fail, rather, their stacks did sadly.. From an O-ring to a simple piece of foam
@@stigmaticraven It was all part of the Shuttle launch system. So, yes, the Shuttle failed as designed.
stigmaticraven It’s kind of hard to say the shuttles never failed when 2 broke up and killed the entire crew. If an asteroid or something crashed into one or some other external object caused it then I could see your point but without those “stacks” as you put it or the pieces of foam you don’t get a shuttle in space for it to fail. That said, statistically it had a pretty high success rate really with 133 successful missions out of 135. The problem was that when it failed it failed spectacularly. It did quite a lot in those 134 missions though.
NASA would keep sending you around the racetrack in a car with square wheels, and simply insist that you're a bad driver and you complain too much about bumpy rides... until the square wheels make you crash and kill some people in the stands. Then it's a story about how nobody ever though square wheels could present any kind of problem.
Great video, Scott! I'll rate it 19 out of 5.
Who offers 20?
19 and a full set of stainless steel pans!
I'll do you one better, I'll rank it 38 out of 10!
No no no you guys don’t get it at the end of the video Scott manly said the satellite last 19 years of of the 5 yea it was meant to last
Amen, Doc. It's a new version of "give 110%." - "You dig deep, soldier, and give me a 19/5!!"
Landing a flying brick with a 20 ton payload would have been interesting
Yeah, I don't think it could have done it. I vaguely recall someone telling me as much.
It could barely glide when empty, let alone full
@@jorge8596 Then what was the point of the space shuttle? Such a bad design.
@@Prometheus4096 the original design would have been a lot more capable but budget issues made it a design by the customers i.e. DoD and intelligence agencies all had demands that NASA was forced to bend to their will which meant sadly they had to make choices which resulted in a highly complex highly experimental craft that couldn't be more than a ghosr of what had originally been imagined. In the end, blame the budget dick that chopped NASAs budget.
That would have been quite a hot landing.
If weight was an issue, why did they assign Columbia to this mission? She weighed about four tons more than her sister ships. As the first shuttle, she was a bit overengineered, with extra black tiles on her wing chines and a stronger frame. There was also some wiring from test equipment from the early flights that was difficult to access to remove.
The main reason was that Columbia wasn't retrofitted with docking hardware for ISS & Mir operations so it was first choice for other missions.
So it had more space to fit the payload
All of the other orbiters at this point had undergone significant overhauls to better fit them for construction of the International Space Station, namely the removal of a native airlock. The other three shuttles were stuck with an external airlock no matter the mission. Simply put, Chandra would not fit in any of the other orbiters. Plus, using another orbiter for STS-93 would not have been a very efficient use of resources, as Columbia was generally incapable of reaching the International Space Station. (inb4 someone mentions her planned visit on STS-118)
Just the way you worded this comment reminds me of the song of the Edmunds Fitzgerald
Columbia was not "generaly incapable of reaching ISS". It could reach ISS just as well as any other orbiter vehicle. She reached Hubble which was much higher than ISS, though it's inclination is much more desirable. The issue was Columbias extra mass which ate into ISS payload.
This is the best and most informative video I've seen in a while! Awesome job!
“Yikes!”
“You bet...”
“I concur.”
A writer would be called a hack for making his/her characters talk like this. In real life when you almost die you may be at a loss for words.
Dave Fogman That was mission control, not the pilots
What else did he say? It sounded like: “We don’t need another one of those.”
Any time they talk in plain English you know something sphincter-clenching just happened.
sounded like "hope we dont need another one of those" reffering to the abnormally heavy payload. which was not the reason the mission struggled as much as it did, but its an easy scapegoat in the moment when you dont have the shuttle back to diagnose what actually was going wrong.
The Space shuttle reminds me of Windows Vista.
except most of the times a space shuttle doesn't freeze or bluescreen, which is considerably less annoying
Impressive at first, but the more you look at it, the more you think, "What the fuck were they thinking, exactly?"
At least windows vista didn't kill seven crew members on reentry because of a similar failure to the ablative foam as what happened with Challenger's SRB decoupler: Shitter fell off. Columbia suffered a piece of foam falling off. These rocket powered space gliders seem to have loved tossing pieces off of themselves during ascent.
Rather a sad thing about Challenger. The engineers who designed it told them that they could guarantee failure if they launched. The bureaucrats and corporate executives said hey what do engineers know, and they launched anyway. Then of course the engineers that it tried to tell them got sacked and blamed for the disaster. Basically anyone who actually knew anything about the system was left out of the loop and the decision was made by politicians and CEOs.
The space shuttles were amazing machines. But they were pushing the boundaries of what we knew how to do. Still, there were two failures during the entire program. They were catastrophic, but there were only two.
And Falcon 9 of Windows 10
Titou1384: "except most of the times a space shuttle doesn't freeze or bluescreen, which is considerably less annoying".
Yeah, well, I guess it still was kinda annoying for some people who'd have probably opted for a blue screen or twenty instead of turning into fireworks.
I've listened to the MCC audio for this flight (it's available on RUclips), and I love the demeanor of the controllers. That last line - "we don't need any more of these" - is one of my favorites as well.
NASA, last bastion of the laconic.
OMG I never knew of that near disaster. They came very close to total vehicle loss, and loss of crew. I was aware that in the case of the reusable space shuttle orbiter after every launch the main engines had to be stripped down and completely inspected and serviced. Your video gives more insight as to just what this entails and how complicated it is. I have wondered about this detail in the SpaceX reusable first stage. I would really like to know the extent of the inspection and servicing required to reuse the Falcon 9 engines. There has been a temptation to characterize the reuse of the Falcon 9 first stage in airliner terms: 'just refuel it and go'. This is nonsense. Getting into space is a vastly more difficult proposition. A rocket has been more accurately described as an 'controlled explosion'. When I worked on commercial satellites we jokingly referred to the choice of launch vehicles our customers could choose from (Atlas, Ariane 5, Proton), as a choice of which 'bomb' they could choose to put their satellite on!
Well for one Space X is designing its engines so they don't have to be stripped down after each flight. They are designed to be put through a battery of tests, then reflown after the test all pass. No major refurbishment needed.
I don't think it's fair to compare the engines of SpaceX and the shuttle. Ignoring the fact that the SpaceX engines are simpler there is also the fact that the crew on the SpaceX rockets will be riding at the top end in a launch abort system capable of pulling away from the rocket at any height. The Shuttle had no real abort system and what options they did have depended more or less on a complete save of the shuttle superstructure mid accident. As for the extent of Falcon 9 servicing they have taken the exact opposite route compared to the shuttle. SpaceX has had long cycles with a great deal of testing and tear down on early iterations of the design. They have built the re-usability into their engines over time. The Shuttle program started out with minimal refurbishment and only increased it as the accident rates started going up. For SpaceX this is not really an issue as they will just retire any vehicle that fails it's inspections post flight or that has reached a number of flights where their confidence in it is reduced. I'm sure there will still be accidents, but I doubt the number of failures by the time they reach the same number of flights as the shuttles, will be much worse and I'm pretty sure the loss of life is lower. At least for the Falcon 9. The BFR is a completely different beast and it will be interesting to see how well it fares as the design is far more complex and has a lot of similarities to the shuttles. Personally I'm far more interested in seeing how that thing fully loaded is supposed to handle an on-pad abort as opposed to the Falcon 9 where the system is already tested and the core design ideas have been proven through numerous earlier launchers.
+aBoogivogi Yeah, a BFR on pad abort is going to be very interesting indeed. Do you just fire all main engines directly down onto a canister full of liquid oxygen and liquid methane? Can a set of Dracos lift a fully fueled BFS off a booster?
I dont think so, It will need hundreds of dracos for a job like that. & without hundreds of dracos... If you want to fire all main engines to get out of the main booster, it will be imposible... probably the TWR of a fully loaded BFR orbiter on sea level shouldn't be greater than 1 or maybe 1.1, can you imagine? just the explosion of the booster will probably destroy the engines of the orbiter before it reach a safe distance.
That part he mentioned sounds like something you'd only have in a Staged-Combustion engine and not something that'd be needed in an engine that just dumps the turbine exhaust.
I like how all these succesfully launched devices, all outlive their original mission parameters by quite a substantial margin, goes to show how brilliant the people who design them are.
It's a shame they didn't apply the same detail to workmanship to the shuttle program, it might be still flying today without loss of life.
merrin, what you said is really stupid in the current context. Everything andre said, applies to the shuttle program.
Asshole The shuttle lived past it's life, but it killed 14 astronauts, more than any other launch vehicle ever.
So it definitely succeeded in breaking that record.
Duhya I was refering to things like the mars rovers and the various space probes we got flying around in the solar system. I am well aware that the space shuttles were a costly mistake. Its why I used the word "devices" and not something else.
Was responding to someone who responded to you.
This is the kind of NASA gems that I hunt for. I never heard of this issue before and I thank you for bringing it to life with incredible story telling, a high grasp of the science behind the problem, incredible visuals and editing, and wrapping it up in a digestible way. Cheers....I know this is an old video but you have my subscription!
"Only one thing needs to go wrong for a rocket to fail." _proceeds to list a dozen things that went wrong, not quite causing the shuttle to fail_
It's obvious what Scott was saying, your pedantry has failed.
Personally, I really liked that bit of harmless irony.
Forgiveness and redundancy... important design principles in low failure tolerance missions. I tried playing KSP on hard (no redo) and killed 5 kerbals before getting into orbit.. 2 tourists and 3 kerbals. In one mission I landed close to a mountain, and because I had lowered the parachute altitude, the capsule crash landed. In another mission I had 2 capsules and a liquid engine aligned aero dynamically, while going at orbital speed... Which meant I was going too fast for my parachutes to deploy before hitting the water. Lastly, I accidentally triggered the final stage when I meant to throttle up the engine, deploying the parachutes, breaking one of them and killing a tourist. hard mode is super tedious, the only responsible way to play is to test everything and put kerbals in as few missions as possible. Preferably, never put a kerbal in a mission that hasn't been done unkerbaled.
the set of failures that are each irrevocably catastrophic =/= set of failures likely enough they've engineered mitigations for them to survive up to several of them occurring ..right?
Sometimes only one thing goes wrong and ends in failure, sometimes something goes wrong and it ends up ok. It depends on whether it's something that creates a chain reaction.
liquid O² is no joke.. one time I ordered a Bagel with LOX instead of a Bagel with Lox on accident. That cafe def went out of business... 🤣😲
Columbia dodged this bullet, but the next one got her.
I was thinking the same.
Also, is this your favorite video on RUclips?
Golden bullet, survivable. Foam bullet, not so much.
They got very lucky the first time and very unlucky the second time.
Foam bullet of newer more epa friendly recipe.
This was very well done. I never fully grasped how complex the shuttles were, and how simple faults could cause big problems.
@5:28 - "So, when loading the space shuttle, they always made sure the fuel tank would have extra oxygen". I think you meant "hydrogen" here? :D
Err yes.
These videos are great. Some nights I can't sleep and I get historical story time from Scott Manley. Thanks Scott!
Fortunately nobody got hurt
This time. However the columbia shuttle did end up in a fatal accident only 4 years later. Maybe it should have been retired after this mission...
"Fortunately nobody got hurt"
tell that to that gold pin, all smashed unter the launch ramp...
There was nothing wrong with Columbia that would have prompted her retirement. Same goes for the 2003 STS-107 incident, there was nothing wrong orbiterwise that caused that incident.
Aside from a few over-tightened anuses.
Excellent video, Scott. I worked at Rocketdyne '81-'85 as a MTS in the Ground Support and Electrical Design group. My landlord, Mr. Joseph Duesberg, R.I.P., was an engineer in the Combustion Engineering group. I used to love talking shop with him, and picking his brain - those folks solved some of the gnarliest problems you could never even imagine with brilliantly elegant ideas. I must admit though - I'd like to know why they didn't deactivate bad LOX posts by just plug welding their exit ports shut. I wish my friend Joe was still around to ask that question of him. I worked nearly a third of my engineering career in aerospace - at Rocketdyne, JPL, Space Vector, and Phaostron - and Rocketdyne was the best - it was simply THE POWER - nothing else compared with it.
It really shows how dangerous LOX is that by comparison, venting unburned hydrogen through your engine is seen as a fail-safe.
Thank you Scott Manley stories like these remind me why i keep going back to collage every day in spite of how hard or impossible it seems some times. I hope to become a part of stories like these one days though some times i loose sight of that among the anxiety and difficulty.
So did any of NASAs policies or checks of the orbiter change after this mission? Did they stop using these gold plated plugs? Did they check the wiring and screw heads for burs? Did this collection of incidents change spaceflight in any way going forward?
After this they insisted posts get replaced rather than plugged.
Sounds more sensible :)
This may be a stupid question, but why couldn't they weld the plugs shut?
As close as they were, you'd likely damage more of them, perhaps without visible external effects.
Also, why was gold used for the plug?! Seems an odd choice of metal.
Love these mission analysis / incident investigation videos. Great to see content from someone who doesn't shy away or shield their audience from the technical details - it's what we all want!
When I read the title I was thinking... "What did Cody'sLab do this time?"
Same. Cus i did shoot a gold bullet
Shlushe 10 same!!!
These science and history videos are absolute gems, Scott! Keep 'em coming!
5:28 I think you meant to say extra hydrogen?
Yeah, I got confused here too.
This right here: is why I love your channel. I remember this but this was very clearly laid out. Good job sir.
Redundant systems saved the day.
"It's been going for 19 years of its 5 year mission" is such an iconic astronomy phenomenon
But Captain Kirk gets his five year mission cancelled after three seasons. Where's the justice?
Every spacecraft and piece of space technology is built to significantly outlast its mission deadline- because if they build it *to* match the mission length, then anything that goes wrong will cut the critical mission short. They build it to be certain to last as long as the primary mission, and expect it to last longer to do more.
Also, sending stuff to space is really expensive, so you want to get as much out of the hardware that you send as possible. Kepler went into radiation-stabilized mode after 2 of 4 reaction wheels broke on it; Spirit was driving backwards while dragging a nonfunctioning wheel fro a while; Hubble was taking scientific data for 3 years with a terrible mirror, etc.
Love to see more videos like this, going into failure analysis
I love Wayne Hale's blog, all his posts are always riveting. Especially the one about the succession of random events that eventually lead to them finding what actually caused the insulation foam to come off on Columbia.
real shuttle fans remember when the fuel tank wasn't orange
That's me! Still has yet been born in to the world.
They saved a lot of weight by eliminating the paint - yet I wonder if it might have prevented the foam artillery shell that eventually took Columbia & Crew (R.I.P.) down.
You describe it so thoroughly and dramatically. I just watched an interview Adam Savage did with one of the Astronauts that was aboard the Challenger when this issue happened. She described it so casually to like it was nothing. Which in a way it was nothing, nothing they couldn't handle.
Little did NASA know 4 years later, this exact shuttle would be destroyed during reentry
I love how you showed the hindenburg, "just one wrong move and it transforms into a blimp... so look out!.
Rockets are really complex. Ksp makes it really simple but the real thing is overwhelming
You can always add Realism Overhaul to KSP and make it much more challenging, but it's still much simpler, than actual rocket science and engineering. But you have to cinsider, thay you usually play KSP alone, while rockets are constructed by teams of hundreds of people
Rocket science? You can do that with a slide rule.
Rocket engineering? Now there's a toughie...
I guess rockets could be considered complex and overwhelming, but i build rockets in my basement, by myself. well, there is a lifealert, but it's just me working. if you have the passion, like, you reaaaally want it, it's just step by step, 'ferociously'.
It's painted by pop culture to be more difficult than it is to deter the people that really shouldn't be messing with it.
That's why I personally prefer Orbiter
I think the trickiest part is getting all that shit to be within a certain weight limit and form factor.
It's like designing an oil refinery, but it needs to fit on the back of a shuttle, instead of being allowed to sprawl all over the ground.
Brilliant account and so specific and detailed too. The internals are complex beyond belief with so much to wrong or right depending on whether you are on board or on the ground. Great narration , again Scott .Can't wait for the Mars missions .
That was fascinating, I had no idea those engines had to have bungs fitted! STS- sadly, like driving an electric toaster through a car wash...
Like building a boat out of lithium and crossing a river.
This is the type of stuff that I really enjoy from Scott. This really shows off his expertise and research
Yeah that's right, blame it on the Burr. Seriously.
Careful with that sharp wit......
F3cking Burr-racists OCDsupremacists!
John Burr Some Burts don't get filed, but you are recorded here, so your good !
Still no "screw go burrr" reply? I am disappoint.
Wow... It really is a miracle only 2 STS flights were catastrophic failures.
Make a video on the story behind the names of these telescopes.
Please
They are usually named after famous astronomers or astrophysicists , for example Chandra is named after Chandrasekhar, and well Hubble is obvious. James Webb is different though, he was the administrator of NASA for the years right up to the moon landing, (he retired in 1968).
TESS isn't really named after anyone, though. Just an acronym. Edit: In fact, so is SOFIA.
This is one of your most fascinating videos to me so far. It really highlights how ambitious, complicated, and risky the space shuttle was. What an interesting era in space history. The most cowboyish rocket ever.
Like a leaf on the wind
Now i have to go back and watch Firefly again
All 5 episodes of it
Jukelo Ouch.
I had the same reaction, glad to see I'm not the only one.
Here i am. You wanna watch me ?
Hey Scott Manley. My father was an instrument maker. He made the test instruments used in the creation of the Iroquois engine during it's development in the 50's at Orenda Engines in Nobel Ontario.
In 1959 the Canadian Government killed the Avro Arrow project including the unflown Iroquois engine and 10,000 workers headed to The States including our family.
Fast forward a few years and he had a thermocouple in the fins of the launcher rocket for the Gemini & Apollo missions that triggered the escape rocket up at the pointy end if something went wrong with that hydrogen cooling system that was highlighted in your video.
I knew the story but now after watching your video I understand how that system works a little better.
"The plumbing is pretty complicated" understatement of the year LOL
Collins is one of those people you just have to sit back & marvel at. Not only for the many glass ceilings she smashed through, but her demeanour & her professionalism are second to none. The speed she was on top of that failure & on the radio after barely clearing the tower & the cool head whilst dealing with such a stream of unexpected events. I dont doubt the way she handled this launch & her veteran astronaut status directly contributed to NASA giving her the return to launch mission after the Columbia disaster.
great video, kinda reaffirms how sketchy the shuttle was in some cases sadly
All rocketry is "sketchy" the shuttle is no different.
Except that the shuttle was a deathtrap with no launch escape system. Once the candle was lit there was no getting off till orbit, and sadly that killed people.
Yep. Unless the super structure of the shuttle survived whatever disaster occurred you were dead. Even something most people take for granted these days like an on-pad abort system was non-existent for the shuttle.
James
Yeah, that abort handle thats the "see, mom" handle.
As in
"See, mom if things go wrong, we have a way off this thing."
The posibility of surviving a serious catastophic failure of ANY launch system is slim to none
Regardless of weather or not the spacecraft has a LES.
@@jamesburleson1916 You get what you pay for. The Space Shuttle as it flew was compromise after compromise because Congress had no vision. But to criticize it in the manner you have shows you don't know much about the space shuttle so why go off saying it was a "death trap"? You insult the bravery of the astronauts that competed for Shuttle mission assignments despite knowing all the risks and compromises involved. If you want to criticize anything to do with the Space Shuttle program, criticize Congress for forcing NASA to either use what they got or go home and stop putting man into space. The Space Shuttle was a marvel of engineering, and yes, it had a couple tragedies costing lives, but still, those people whose lives were at stake would tell you to a person, to simply shut the hell up and let the real women and men sign up for a Shuttle mission.
Really great video, love to hear those little stories about how much a disaster could shuttle be in number of missions.
I had no idea! I just remember yelling GO BABY GO then switching the channel to Manix 😊
Just after Columbia was lost, the announcement from NASA to all engineering students studying Composites went out. We need to "Monitor in real time the Composites". This is now called "Smart Composites". This new technology will allow us to connect a sensor directly into the "Composite Parts" and connect directly into a computer. This will allow technicians to view the health of every Composite part on your craft, planes, or what ever you need. If this had been in effect before the accident, we might have saved lives? I was involved with a college here in California and we set-up test panels. One foot square and in the middle of the composite cloths we placed a very thin Piezoelectric sensor fabric. This is what you need to measure "OHMS" and record the value of a new part. When this part gets older and starts to fail, the "OHMS value is reduced" , then we can replace this part before failure occurs. The leading edge for the wing should have been "Monitored" and a "Alarm sent warning" would be sent. This new technology works very well and is ready to use in the "Composite World". RIP COLUMBIA.
Thank you, Starchaser2489. Was this the basis of the "real time failure warning system" on the Titan submersible?
Thanks for reminding us how dangerous this engineering marvel was. So happy its behind us. Looking forward to the retro-future of capsules sittin' on a candle...
That was the key failure of the shuttle program... it made the public think of manned spaceflight as 'safe' when it was and still is anything but safe. And all of the comprimises made from day one of the design process to the destruction of Columbia in 2003 were to try and downplay or ignore the risks and behave as if launching a shuttle was like taking off on a commercial jetliner. The shuttle was a constat battle between managers pushing for more launches more missions more payloads and the engineers and basic physics pushing back and unforunately 14 people were killed in the crossfire between them. I was born in 82 and even spend a week at space camp in Florida in the summer of 1993 and got to see Endeavour launch for STS-57 when I was there. It was awesome to see and I was enamoured and amazed by the entire shuttle program like most Americans at the time but in retrospect it was never a good system and in many ways really set back manned space exploration by becoming an outrageously expensive and inefficent space pickup truck that we spent 30 years making payments on... If they had stuck with the Apollo program and its planned spinoff missions and applications I have little doubt we would be far more advanced in our manned spaceflight capabilites today than where we actually are now.
I don't know what's more amazing, the amount of design and engineering that went into space crafts and rockets like this or the fact that back in the day nearly all of it was built by hand with rulers and gauge blocks.
People now a days simply don't have the skill to craft things of such magnitude and complexity without the use of modern tools and manufacturing techniques.
That kind of engineering is more beautiful than any art you'd ever find in a museum.
nope
The most complex machine ever devised by man built by the lowest bidder.
Actually the most overly complex machine built, with far more failure modes than necessary, built by the highest cost plus bidder in your congressional district.
Brian Cox you forgot the 'designed by committee, with hugely conflicting interests, and totally spurious requirements'
Andy Wilderness that's sarcasm?
Great Video as always Scott! I love your RCA summaries! Keep them coming!
Sounds like another example of how each Shuttle launch was *this close* to going sideways. The number of 'we almost lost that one' missions uses up all of your fingers and some of your toes.
Spectacular craft but a deathtrap all the same.
It's hard to compare it to anything else though. All other rockets only had to last 2-8 minutes before being tossed away. So they were built for a short life and one use unlike the shuttle which had to go through all the extremes over and over..
Lensflare Deviant SpaceX is doing it smarter. Ramping up reusability over time and only as much as is provably safe. And on hardware that is cheap enough that it they can just expend it if that’s the safer option.
Going to space is hard.
Damn I LOVE your videos. By far the best channel on RUclips.
0:25 am i the only one who sees a sarcophagus?
symbolisms my friends
Holy moly. That night launch was fabulous looking. And so is that booster gimbal/thrust test video.
Very interesting video Scott!
I'd love to see videos like this for all the Shuttle close calls. The body flap on STS-1, the computer crashes and APU fires on STS-9, the tile damage on STS-26 and STS-27, etc.
Beam me off this death trap scotty!
These videos are so good, space travel history is fascinating.
Wish this had been a subject at schools.
Daerderemerter-firamantentium. You'll all understand in 2158. Don't repeat this to anyone.
Why would you tell the people? You've put the people in danger!
"Don't repeat this to anyone" they post publicly
Also I don't plan to be alive in 2158, regardless of whether I can (ATM non-"natural" death is unlikely tho, calm down)
''Tightened it too much during assembly'' - It was damaged removing it..I think that's what you meant, because it was so tight - and its not a Phillips as people are saying - the flats are offset.
Edit: It is a Phillips! they make the 'Torque set' screw range. (Two 'L's unlike the Dutch electronics giant).
"To fail, only one thing has to go bad"
Elon Musk: "Well yes, but actually There is another."
A lot more complicated than I realized! Thanks!
so if they where so preoccupied with everything else, did they realise what happened during the mission or was it not till the shuttle was in refurbishment and some engineer spots the big freakin hole in the engine bell?
Yep all these had to wait for post flight examination.
NASA has long had an extensive array of cameras (still & video) to record each launch. In the case of 51-L it helped immensely in the post flight accident inquiry. There were numerous cameras that recorded the infamous 'puff' of black smoke right at liftoff signalling ole girls soon to be demise. Those cameras recorded the initial plumage and subsequent burn through at the aft attachment ring adjacent too the aft field joint for the right hand SRB.
It's been rumored the cockpit voice recorder captured a crew member commenting on how the ride had suddenly gotten very 'bumpy'. This sinc'd up with the timeline just milli seconds prior too vehicle breakup. If this is true, then it would suggest that the crew felt the axial breakup of the aft attach ring and rotation of the right hand SRB as it broke away from (aft end) and rotated into (forward attachment) the external tank and orbiter.
We also know that most of the crew actually survived the explosion and vehicle breakup. The crew compartment is seen exiting the fireball intact on long range cameras post mortum. Impact with the ocean is what killed the crew. This is supported by the discovery that all but 2 of the emergency life support systems had been activated and almost depleted. The systems had too be manually activated by each crew member and only had 5 mins. of oxygen. This was meant for use in an on pad abort as after the first 4 flights they crews stopped using full fledged flight suits and went too the jumpsuits. 51-L put an end too that practice.
JW Schwartz Nice history lesson, and all correct, but what does that have to do with the above question?
Evidence of the nozzle leak was found on films of the launch fairly quickly, the cause of the nozzle leak was not known until teardown.
Oops!
Scott, you should do a series on all the near misses the US space program has ever had, going back to Mercury. You are so good at breaking this all down. Thank you!
0:51 - The oldest orbiter... and also the _heaviest,_ by quite a bit.
You sound like a young "Scotty" from Star Trek. Very interesting video. The amount of technology and precision in operation, is mind boggling.
I'm curious if you ever thought about talking about all the laptops and computers on the ISS. Specifically, do they bother with passwords and how they maintain cyber security? Have they ever been hacked or is it possible? Is the main control computer isolated?
Probably not networked, totally physically isolated, only a select few people will ever see them in person let alone touch them. Id say their likely the most secure computers ever built. Also there would likely be little to be gained from actually hacking them outside of being a huge target for a large chunk of the worlds security agencies
thanks you so much! this is exactly the amount of detail that makes your videos so good. I love knowing about all the little why's and how's and your ability to explain all of this is amazing!
Columbia burnt all it's luck in this mission. Glad they made it to orbit.
I had no idea the engines were tuned to run that way, and that it was such a fine balance between getting max thrust and not turning the nozzles into molten slag!
Apparently there's some other considerations as well that make things work better, especially with engines using larger molecular species like the Space-X Raptor, but apparently all these things are run fuel rich for a number of reasons that give better performance - interesting stuff! Thank you....
More, more of this please.
Hey Scott, this was an excellent video on the Chandra/Columbia STS-93. And while there was a potential for many issues, the excessive oxidizer consumption resulted in a 15-16 foot per second orbital underspeed and an altitude deficit of approx. 10 nautical miles(depending on what source you read). With your research and presentation skills, I think that if you did a similar video about STS-51-L Challenger with the 36,000 pound SpaceLab-2 in the Payload Bay. About 3-1/2 minutes into teh ascent there was some SSME sensor issues forced the center engine to maintain function on her backup sensor loop, 2 minutes 12 seconds later the secondary sensors failed causing the center engine to safely shutdown. Immediately an Abort To Orbit was called. About 8 minutes into the ascent, one of the same sensors but on the left engine began to act up. Booster Systems Engineer who was sitting in the backroom, quickly suggested that the automatic engine shutdown system which depended on these specific sensors to be disabled/ignored by setting the switch from ENABLE to INHIBIT. Her quick thinking prevented a 2nd SSME shutdown of the right engine based on bad sensor data. Due to the timing of this late 2nd engine out scenario, keeping the 2 remaining left and right engines burning avoided a Loss of Crew/Loss of Vehicle and the Orbiter was able to Abort it's mission to a lower than planned, but safe and stable orbit 312x321 kms @ an inclination of 49.5º.. Here is a condensed video of the Press to ATO and the actual ATO call. The female voice is Jenny Howard. ruclips.net/video/JMtNUxklj50/видео.html The resulting Abort To Orbit required that the remaining left and right SSME's to run for a program record 9-12 minutes. They usually run for approx. 8-1/2 minutes when all 3 engine are operating nominally. If this was later in the program with the upgraded Block-II engines, the remaining engines could have had their thrust increased from the normal 104.5% Rated Powel Level to 109% for Intact Aborts, or if there was a "Do or Die" Contingency Abort they could go to 111% on the Space Shuttle Main Engines. The discussion about going to "Limits To Inhibit" begins at 3:39 with the actual call going up to Challenger at 3:47. Engineer Jenny Howard mentions that they "Are good to go inhibit as they have single engine capability." The Launch Director asks if they are past the TAL abort window(Trans Atlantic Landing", FIDO replies that they have passed the TAL abort window-thus only Abort Once Around(which was a window of opportunity of only a few seconds) and Abort To Orbit are the only abort scenarios remaining. FLIGHT then tells CAPCOM to instruct Challenger to set "Limits to Inhibit", CAPCOM then send up the message "Challenger-Houston, Main Engine Limits to Inhibit." With the challenger crew replying "OK Inhibit." Jenny Howard then communicates "We'll keep a good close eye on it." IIRC Jenny Howard received an award for her actions that day. Potentially life altering decisions must be made in seconds. This was the only time that the Space Shuttle Main Engines ever failed during a flight, and it was due to bogus sensor info failing SAFE, rather than an actual engine failure.
Fascinating story, thanks.
Love to hear stories like this. Keep them coming
I know the space shuttle was considered a failure but that thing is beautiful.
It wasn’t a failure. It wasn’t perfect but not a failure. Without the shuttle the Hubble telescope wouldn’t have been fixed.
@@oakpineranch Ohh, that completely excuses 14 needless deaths then.
@@krashd I am so glad that the explorers from centuries past didn't have your idiotic mentality.
I sat through an MCC overview presentation and they used the sts 93 loop as an example of how the individual positions communicate with their back rooms to outline the issue and solutions.
How would the weight of the payload affect an emergency landing, either the go-around or abort? In all the years I've been watching docs on the shuttle and reading about it, I don't ever recall hearing how a heavy payload inside would have changed the landing characteristics. Empty it fell like a rock...what would have happened if it almost literally came back with extra rocks? Cheers Scott!
They would come down faster and land faster, they had all the numbers already precalculated.
I would imagine that meant the landing tolerances were such that it could land safely even with the maximum payload? Or could there be a case where it was too heavy to land safely or at least would be a brown trouser moment for everyone? Wouldn't envy the crew in that situation.
I think any hasty landing after an abort would be nerve wracking. At least they probably know where the brakes were, unlike me.
If a payload caused a shuttle to be too heavy to land, then the shuttle would have NO abort options during ascent (other than, maybe, bail out over ocean during descent). I don’t think mission rules would allow that.
Shuttle was designed to return with payloads, including some fairly heavy ones like Hubble. Columbia retrieved and landed with the LDEF, which was about 10 tons IIRC. Not sure about this one.
I don’t think anybody on the planet could say “hullo it’s Scott Manley here” and sound as awesome as you do
0:26 Ha, I thought they were holding that.
Wow, this is an exciting real life story! It gives some idea of why everything does not always work. There's just so many things that all have to go right.
"Yikes!"
"You bet."
"Concur."
"We don't need any more of these, how 'bout that?"
xD
Always wondered what all those lines did in the combustion nozzle. Those engines are way more complicated than I ever imagined. Nice job here ..