What went wrong? I can tell you with some bitterness - the engineers were ignored, the data was ignored! (previous launch near catastrophic o-ring blow by (failure of the primary and partial failure of the second) ....and as Dr. Richard Feynman said to the Rogers commission "Anyone knows that an o-ring does not work worth a damn at low temperatures" Of course he made a very elementary and easily understood demonstration with a chunk of the o-ring material, a c clamp and a glass of ice water. Dr. Feynman said that o-rings are not made out of lead, for a reason - they MUST exhibit elasticity to work, and at low temps the material exhibited the characteristics of lead - it could compress, but there was NO elasticity, it could not seal the field joint from extreme pressures and gasses as it was required to do. The fault lies solely on the management at Morton-Thiokol over riding the SRB field joint engineers, NASA afraid to lose face as they would lose their PR "teacher in space" launch window (for a Friday class room) - and a complete lack of engineering and technical ethics, on the part of management. The deaths and the destruction of the vehicle was and IS on their heads. This situation was so dire that the chief SRB engineer (Mr. McDonald) refused to sign the go for launch fax - it was signed by Kilminster (Morton Thiokol management, (Mr. McDonalds boss)). It was Kilminster who played ball and accepted the absurd, baseless, untennable risk, for Morton-Thiokol.... who IGNORED his own engineers and data!!! The engineers were forced into doing the impossible - PROVING that the SRB would fail catastrophically. That is illogical, that is not science, that is means for management to accept a go for launch determination that they simply wanted to hear - in this tragic case, management acceptance of intolerable risk, not supported by ANY data, and outside ALL of the go for launch parameters for the STS, killed the crew and lead to loss of the vehicle. STS 51-L was NOT an accident (see the definition of an accident) - it should never have happened - it SHOULD have been a NOGO if the temp was 250 MPH and many many many G's...... and in space flight, regardless of what is told to, or believed by the public - it IS and will remain, very dangerous and can not be made less so past a certain point of data and science based acceptable risk.... , yes, more people will perish as the envelope is pushed - every test pilot knows and accepts the risk, without risk, you stagnate - However, as I said, when the data and engineering team)s) is/are ignored, for political or program expediency -- it is no longer an accident. Rest in peace, crews of Challenger and Columbia, your trust in those you entrusted your fate to, was betrayed, you did your duty.....

@mikebuck3252

6 жыл бұрын

Launch Priority Vs Safety.

@skylinegtr96

6 жыл бұрын

Cynthia Klenk This is a very accurate and well said assessment of the Challenger and Columbia disasters.

@SebisRandomTech

5 жыл бұрын

You can also blame Congress’s constant threats to cut funding for the program, NASA management was definitely to blame for both tragedies, but the looming threat of budget cuts due to delayed or scrubbed launches definitely didn’t help matters, and may have pressured management to want to “go” the launch.

@bluebird6327

5 жыл бұрын

ONE ENGINEER TOLD THE OTHER ENGINEERS FOR LAUNCH. THERE WERE WARNED OF LAUNCHING IN COLD WEATHER AND THAT ONE ENGINEER TOLD THE WARNING. THEY VOTED. AND THeY LAUNCHED. THAT ONE ENGINEER TOLD ABOUT THE O RINGS, AND COLD WEATHER, AND THE WARNINGS. THE OTHER ENGINEERS DID NOT LISTEN.

@corettaha7855

5 жыл бұрын

No idea why you claim to feel bitterness over someone else’s loss, but I can see you’ve watched that one documentary and taken it as gospel. The engineers did everything short of creating a design that wouldn’t automatically fail. Screaming their hysterical heads off after they invented that murder machine failed to stop the launch because nasa, rightly imo, found it incredible that a bunch of professional engineers would have created such a deadly amateurish affair. It wasn’t effectively sealing even at room temperature. That roger guy specifically undermined his case by presenting it in such a fabulous and grandiose fashion, which he continued to exhibit for decades since. He probably also cloaked himself in the bloody shirts of the crew just as you do, although I sincerely doubt you know what it means to lose someone. I also doubt anything in life would get accomplished from cancer treatment to structure construction if blameful, spiteful, “bitter” little minds like yours were allowed to rule our actions. May you be forever bitter, but may it never become the prevailing attitude of the American spirit.

Even after decades since the disaster happened the second of the explosion still feels like a kick in the stomach to me 😥

I thought I'd seen every Challenger documentary until I found this. Solid.

@elta6241

5 жыл бұрын

Indeed. This is one of the best I've seen, and it isn't sugar coated. Space shuttle operational? It's an experimental vehicle at best. Always has been, right until the end.

To be honest, and this is just personal, the space shuttle was never operational, it was a test spacecraft from beginning to end.

@pedrodiaz5540

4 жыл бұрын

Kit Canyon North American X-15 flew 199 missions; how about that ?

@pedrodiaz5540

4 жыл бұрын

And only one fatal accident .

@pedrodiaz5540

4 жыл бұрын

Kit Canyon So you tell me it was operational or not ? The astronauts that flew the shuttle never called operational and if they did they might have a concealed smile .

@pedrodiaz5540

4 жыл бұрын

Kit Canyon Check this same doc from 5:50 that’s regarding what the astronauts thought about it.

@pedrodiaz5540

4 жыл бұрын

Capt.Robert Lee "Hoot"Gibson made my case

One of the best documentaries on the Challenger I’ve seen. Thank you for this!

The longer documentary was shown in the UK in 1987 on BBCs "Horizon" documentary programme. They titled it "Riding the Stack". Very interesting to see it again.

Ok, I have to say, that SOUTHERN CROSS was at the PERFECT TIME!! Well done and TY lads and ladies who have gone to space!! Safe travels!

Title a bit misleading but thank you for posting this. Very cool seeing the older footage from some of the first shuttle missions

An excellent video, thanks for the upload.

Fascinating beyond belief, so much information and great interviews👍😎

Very interesting documentary and interviews. I didn't know the detail that the shuttle had plans for a boost back burn in case of certain failures in order to get back to land.

And then, the SECOND FLIGHT AFTER CHALLENGER, Hoot Gibson and his crew was almost killed. STS 27, DoD mission. Atlantis took hit from SRB cork insulation. Did major tile damage down the right side of the vehicle. NASA disregarded obvious tile damage. One tile was completely lost over a bracket for the S-BAND antenna. The bracket melted. Had the bracket not been there, there would have been a burn through.

@nativeam25

4 жыл бұрын

The foam that sits on top of the brown tank?

@rebelndirt8830

4 жыл бұрын

Also had that bracket not been steel things would have been different. Aluminum would have melted, and titanium would have burned, either one would have caused the loss of vehicle and crew.

@krugerfuchs

4 ай бұрын

A forerunner of columbia gibson sat in front of Al gehman and told him that

Dont forget Challenger had other indirect fatalities. The PEPCON plant in Henderson, NV where the solid rocket fuel was made exploded in 1988. Like how you included the Slick 6 debacle. However the shuttle would never had launched from VAFB, as the contractor that built the concrete foundations screwed up the build. The concrete was so stiff the stack would have shaken itself apart before the solids lit.

my dream would have been to see christa mc aulife come out of the shuttle and greet the public with a big smile. I would have loved so much that she knew that ... forever in my thoughts christa ...

@joeybaseball7352

2 жыл бұрын

She died.

@the_road__warrior6185

2 жыл бұрын

@@joeybaseball7352 🤦‍♂️😂

@deoglemnaco7025

Жыл бұрын

And married

@rekunta

Жыл бұрын

Yeah. Really hard to watch her footage pre-launch. You could tell she was so exuberant and thrilled to be living her dream. I can’t help but wonder what her thoughts were as they were all plunging to their deaths, for minutes on end, after the breakup.

@JD-eq4dp

Жыл бұрын

What about the other poor souls who perished ?

Great documentary...one of my favorites out of a hundred on this subject.

Excellent production in an age of very few excellent productions.

@MalcolmShawVids

Жыл бұрын

Thanks, but I have to say that my favorite space and military documentaries are from the 1980s.

I watched Enterprise piggy backing on the back of a 747 fly past my school in May 1983. It was going from RAF Fairford to Paris. It was such a memorable event. 😀 I still remember Challenger exploding in 1986 and it was such a saddening event. Such a contrast of feelings.

@MalcolmShawVids

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for checking it out and leaving a comment. I had no idea that they had flown it to Europe like that, I'm surprised, as that is a big ocean to have something go wrong with nowhere to divert to. Since you saw the very first full mock up on a 747, I thought I would share with you the very final moments of the program, and that is the arrival of Endeavor at LAX on the back of the 747, which was significant enough for me to make a special trip to film it. Best regards. kzread.info/dash/bejne/n6GD09SQdrS9l7w.html

@Dr.ArbazRahmann

5 ай бұрын

@@MalcolmShawVidsthanks for bringing such an epic and nostalgic video I just have one question and very important one from you to help me correct my confusion. At 1:20 of this video, we see the astronaut sitting in the shuttle cockpit supon the launch but his hand arm is naked - without spacesuit - how is this possible?? Really appreciate your reply in advance.

@Dr.ArbazRahmann

5 ай бұрын

@@MalcolmShawVids@MalcomShawVids ​​⁠thanks for bringing such an epic and nostalgic video I just have one question and very important one from you to help me correct my confusion. At 1:20 of this video, we see the astronaut sitting in the shuttle cockpit supon the launch but his hand arm is naked - without spacesuit - how is this possible?? Really appreciate your reply in advance.

@MalcolmShawVids

5 ай бұрын

@@Dr.ArbazRahmannInteresting. It might be footage from a simulated launch or a dry run, but they didn't wear pressurized suits until after Challenger, so it might be actual launch footage.

This video is a documentary of Americans proud space program that has made them the world's leader in space exploration and deserves to be part of Americas wonderful history.

Good video man

After watching my first launch in 2020 of a SpaceX rocket, I’m kinda sad I never saw a launch of the shuttle program. Although, I wouldn’t want to have been there when tragedy struck. But you know what I mean. It was a very specific era in space flight, and is the space era I was born into. When I think of space travel, that shuttle is what pops in my brain first.

@MalcolmShawVids

6 ай бұрын

I saw one from quite a distance, Lake Placid, I think it was Discovery.

Bill Nelson: "Sure, let's send more teachers into space, but I'm not getting on a shuttle again!"

@j.scottcaudill7543

4 жыл бұрын

He's a total douche...always has been! He turned his back on Florida for decades as Senator and only fattened his bank account on the backs of all us hard working Floridians

@bowtie3

3 жыл бұрын

@@j.scottcaudill7543 BS you sound like a un-American pos. Nelson was a patriot.

@bowtie3

3 жыл бұрын

republicans are to blame for both shuttle tragedies.

@kittiesshortie5011

27 күн бұрын

Bill Nelson is a DEMOCRAT.

outstanding. This really brings it real.

Hoot, what a Great American, just found out he lives close to me, amazing these people are a lot like us with hopes dreams preferences. Hoot and his wife, also an astronaut , could live in New York, or California, but he moved to a small town area. Godspeed Hoot Gibson

A very thoughtful and sensitive documentary.

BBC in the UK showed this as part of their "Horizon" science series. I presume this is the PBS Nova version. BBC called the programme "Riding the Stack". I still have it on VHS.

@MalcolmShawVids

6 жыл бұрын

Cool, thanks for the info. My brother recorded it on a VHS, this is all that he recorded. BBC originally copyright claimed a portion of this video when I uploaded it, I was not sure why they claimed it, they were gracious enough to release their claim because I suggested that this has high historic value and NASA footage is usually public domain. The portion was just the song for whatever reason. Yes, I believe this is the PBS Nova version, in fact, reasonably sure.

@MalcolmShawVids

6 жыл бұрын

I'm glad to see this video doing so well, it was extremely well-made.

@EricIrl

6 жыл бұрын

BBC have often shown Nova programmes under their Horizon banner. They usually change the narrator to a Brit but on this programme they left it with the original American narrator. Another Shuttle documentary I'd like to see on you tube is one made by the BBC under their "Panorama" current affairs banner. It was broadcast in the summer of 1986 - only a few months after the accident - and was called "The Dream that Fell Out of the Sky". It was hosted and narrated by Robert Harris, who has gone on to be a best selling thriller writer. I have it on VHS but not seen it uploaded to the internet yet.

@zapfanzapfan

5 жыл бұрын

I thought I recognized it, but there were lots of extra parts I hadn't seen before. Very interesting to see. I definitely recognized the "Southern Cross"-segment.

This is an amazing look inside nasa.

The harsh criticism of the scrubs by the press didn’t exactly help. Those articles were so disappointing:

This is a fabulous documentary for the first 2/3 of the video. The narrator interviewer is wonderful. After that it is just someone flipping through news broadcasts. What happened?

@MalcolmShawVids

5 жыл бұрын

Christopher M. It is a compilation of videos from VHS tapes. My brother had an interest at the time and recorded this and the local news stories.

The press must assume their share of responsibility for undue and inappropriate reporting and pressure.

@kyleparker733

Жыл бұрын

Yes....absolutely. But in their eyes, they do no wrong

The shuttle and all of it's components needed to be able to launch was often called the most complex machine ever designed - and any major disaster usually takes a series of unlikely events to occur in order to make the disaster unfold - but let's face it - with Challenger .. the engineers warned them in no uncertain terms about launching in such cold temps - and the damn suits did it anyway.

@mrkipling2201

2 жыл бұрын

As always, money comes before safety. Then a huge disaster happens and they’re all sorry, the suits, and they come out with worthless platitudes. Then what they don’t realise it the disaster costs them more money than if they hadn’t launched.

@bjbell52

Жыл бұрын

Especially the head "suit" ---- REAGAN.

@willl7780

Жыл бұрын

@@bjbell52 ya reagan handled it like a dumm ass..did his best to cover for them...really sick

It's unusually scary even to watch this. For example, where they talked about some of the payloads that were essentially bombs on board, or how dangerous it could be just to spill a little hydrazine on your suit, how it could poison everybody. Many times I've wondered how a decision could be made to launch a Shuttle in the face of well-known dangers. I think now I partially understand. There are many dangers in spaceflight, and some of them are major risks. In that category are probably not hundreds, or even dozens, but there may be several serious risks. And if you never launched with a major, known risk, you might well never launch anything at all. This is not to excuse the decisions in the case of Challenger or Columbia. In those cases, a sober assessment probably would have said the hazard for either of those missions was over 10%, maybe over 50%. So those were still exceptional, to the point where launching anyway could be called criminally negligent. But those cases were against a backdrop that was not a whole lot safer, on any launch. The result was a lot of difficult decisions.

@michaelthompson7217

Жыл бұрын

i think they surveyed the engineers or technicians after everything was said and done and the general sentiment amongst the general NASA engineer was that the shuttle had a 1/10 chance of a failure. So i think everyone knew about how many problems this thing had and it quickly became normal, expected, and acceptable to go forward with the risk… otherwise, like you said, it probably would have hardly flown.

I remember when it happened I was 10, it was so painful, now 36 years later and it feels raw…it’s horrendous and also sweet because it shows how determined humans are to conquer space and they got so good at it! RIP challengers heroes!!

The Shuttle design was fundamentally flawed, making an escape system nearly impossible. In every other crewed spacecraft (US, Russian or Chinese), the vehicle is/was on *top* of the rocket and fuel tanks. In the event of a booster failure the crew compartment can be pulled up and away from whatever is going wrong with the rocket. On the other hand, the shuttle orbiter was mounted to the side of the fuel tank and SRB's, making it vulnerable to any calamity that might occur. When the external tank exploded, the orbiter and crew didn't stand a chance. Likewise for the Columbia, debris from the external tank struck the wing and also doomed the orbiter and crew.

@dougmc666

5 жыл бұрын

The shuttle had to be at the bottom of the stack in order to bring home the main engines for refurbishment.

@RideAcrossTheRiver

2 жыл бұрын

The Shuttle was Nixon's baby.

@russellblake9850

2 жыл бұрын

as in all things, design is a compromise. Certainly the design was flawed, but the O-ring design could be managed; and it was shown to be reasonably safe in many launches. The fatal flaw was in the Operations of the shuttle, and in the hubris of NASA to believe they knew better. The consequences of over confidence will very often quickly arrive at your door step.

Funny to think that the computers in our smart phones are 100 times faster than those in the shuttle.

@normal_media

5 жыл бұрын

Hubble is running a 386!

@RideAcrossTheRiver

2 жыл бұрын

Funny also that the people on smartphones are 100 times slowefr than those on the Shuttle.

The Soviet approach was far better. Like them, we should have been incremental and built on what we were using. Skylab and the continued use of Apollo capsules were a great start. The shuttle was likely more political and less scientific, also less economical.

@MrGrace

2 жыл бұрын

They said in the video that congress wouldn't approve funding for the shuttle unless they designed it to carry commercial satellites

@RideAcrossTheRiver

2 жыл бұрын

The Shuttle was to precede Apollo--smaller, and would build the lunar ship in space. Kennedy ruined those plans.

@scott6504

2 жыл бұрын

@@MrGrace Yep. They got it wrong from the beginning.

I was in 8th grade watching it take off outside. We didn’t know what happened until we went back to class. It’s one of the few days I’ll never forget

Once it became clear that the shuttle could not launch as frequently as advertised and was not after all a cheap way Of getting into space, then it should have been retired before the Challenger tragedy. Virtually the only thing the shuttle Did that could not have been done by robotic spacecraft was the repair of the Hubble Space Telescope and the Subsequent servicing missions. So many near disasters occurred before Challenger and as the late physicist Richard Feynman said one of the most unfortunate consequences of regarding the shuttle as a commercial airliner was to Encourage ordinary citizens to fly in such a dangerous machine. NASA managers should have been charged with Manslaughter for deciding to launch Challenger that terrible day knowing full well from warnings from engineers that To launch in cold weather might result in catastrophe. And as the Columbia tragedy demonstrated 17 years later It seemed NASA managers had forgotten The lessons of Challenger - the risks of debris falling off and hitting The shuttle had become to be seen as normal and not a risk. In effect, NASA was playing Russian roulette With astronauts lives - in the Shuttle missions that ended in disaster the bullet was in the gun chamber.

@corettaha7855

5 жыл бұрын

Oliver Grumitt shouldn’t have been constructed to start with. You check carfax to find out what untold trauma a used car has been through that might lead to chronic problems with the car. With the shuttle you know it’s been battered by the severity of all the destructive forces physics has to offer. Why would you expect it to go through indefinite numbers of these traumas without failing catastrophically as a natural result?

@AlonsoRules

5 жыл бұрын

Whoever thought that it was some sort of "space taxi" clearly had no idea.

@lukestrawwalker

5 жыл бұрын

Spot on... The shuttle was a jobs program, even NASA and academia's own studies showed the shuttle system's ability to provide "cheap, routine access to space" was based on a lie and a complete fallacy. The Mathematica study done of the shuttle system in the 70's is the smoking gun. But still the shuttle went ahead, because of the "sunk cost argument" and the "well, we HAVE to do *something*" argument... The whole "military shuttle" thing scared the Soviets SO badly that they decided they had to build their OWN shuttle. Even from outside the program, with only public sources of cost data, the Soviets calculated and understood that the shuttle would NEVER provide the supposed "cost benefits" and high flight rates that were promised, and which were the SUPPOSED reason given in the media for WHY the shuttle was being built. Since it was OBVIOUS that the supposed cost savings weren't there, they got to wondering what was the REAL REASON the shuttle was being built? The head of the Soviet Academy of Sciences at the time, Mstyslav Keldish, did an analysis of all the facts and data they had on the shuttle program, including the USAF's plans for "military shuttle" launches out of Vandenberg AFB into polar orbits, which could NOT be launched out of Kennedy Space Center in Florida. His analysis determined that a shuttle launched out of Vandenberg with a payload of thermonuclear warheads in reentry vehicles could take off, fly over the SOUTH pole, approach the Soviet Union from the SOUTH, opposite the direction all their early warning radars and missile defenses were pointed, and release a flurry of hydrogen bombs that would devastate the western Soviet Union and their major cities shortly thereafter, with virtually no warning. The shuttle would then begin reentry over the North Pole area and descend back to a runway landing at Edwards AFB in California 90 minutes after launch in a "once around" flight. When the Soviet leadership saw this report, they approved the design and construction of their own shuttle vehicle to provide them with "similar capability" as the US and "maintain the strategic balance". The Soviets were well aware of this potential method of attack-- they had originally built their "Proton" launch vehicle as a super-heavy ballistic missile designed to launch SOUTHWARDS from the Soviet Union, fly the much longer route over the SOUTH pole and approach the United States from the south, again, away from the northward-located and north-facing early warning systems designed to warn of an incoming nuclear attack, and bomb the US with little or no warning. This was their so-called "fractional orbital bombardment system" or "FOBS". They didn't field the system, but the missile design lived on and became a heavy launch vehicle for the Soviet space program, launching their lunar-looping Zond spacecraft and their Salyut and later Mir space station modules and cores... The shuttle was already YEARS late when it eventually flew for the first time in April 1981... originally it was to have flown in the 1977-79 time frame, as dates slipped throughout its development phase. By January of 1986, the shuttle was already WAY behind in its planned flight schedule, payloads were delayed and backlogged, and things weren't looking any better for the foreseeable future, despite the fact that 1985 had managed a then-record number of shuttle flights. The next launch after Challenger was planned to be the first polar orbital launch of a "military" shuttle mission out of Vandenberg AFB in California (Vandenberg can only fly POLAR launches, primarily for military spy satellites, and KSC in Florida can only fly relatively low-inclination "equatorial" launches-- low inclination posigrade orbits cannot be flown out of Vandenberg because it would drop spent rocket stages and debris on California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, etc. and polar orbits are impractical from KSC for the same reason-- launching north it would drop spent stages and debris on the heavily populated eastern seaboard cities of the northeast US and eastern Canada, and launching south into polar orbit from KSC would drop stages and debris on Cuba, the Caribbean nations, and the north/eastern nations of South America...) These polar launches were designed to deploy and service US spy satellites, ostensibly, although other missions such as the "once around" (single orbit) missions of 90 minute or so duration were even used to drive the shuttle design, and created a lot of the problems with the shuttle that resulted in many of the shuttle's problems. Faget's original straight-wing, all-metal heatshield "fluffy" (low density, therefore low-heat load reentry) shuttle design was incapable of delivering the cross-range necessary for "once-around" flights that the Air Force deemed NECESSARY for their missions, hence the change to the larger, heavier, denser delta-winged orbiter with a huge payload bay to accommodate enormous spy-sats, thus causing shuttle to have to switch from the all-metallic "hot structures" heat shield that was far more resilient to potential damage, and far cheaper to build and maintain, instead requiring the fragile, expensive, and easily-damaged thermal tiles that could survive the greater heat loads imposed on the larger, heavier, delta-winged orbiter. As it was, the shuttle never flew out of Vandenberg. SLC-6, the shuttle pad and support infrastructure at Vandenberg, had been frought with problems, was years overdue and overbudget, and was STILL deemed by some engineers to be dangerous to fly from-- they had evidence that supported their concerns that the acoustics of launching from SLC-6 could fatally damage a shuttle before it even reached orbit. SLC-6 was converted to launch EELV's (Delta-IV Heavy) for satellite launches years later. The military soon learned the foolishness of relying on a complex, fragile, expensive, and highly constrained MANNED launch vehicle for their vital "national security" spy-sat payloads, after Challenger they were caught with their pants down and scrambled for a way to get these spy-sats and other national security satellites launched into space in a timely manner. This led to the revival and improvement of Delta, Atlas, Titan III, and Titan IV, and later the EELV's Atlas V and Delta IV. Much simpler, easier and cheaper to launch unmanned rockets, for unmanned military satellite payloads. The whole "military shuttle" thing was rather ridiculous on the face of it-- it was a bone the government threw to the USAF because they had cancelled first the Air Force's "Dyna-Soar" Titan III-launched space plane of the early 1960's, and then the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) military space station and "Blue Gemini" program that was put in place to replace Dyna-Soar. The USAF justified the "once around" missions with things like sending shuttles up to rendezvous and "inspect" foreign military spy satellites, perhaps even to sabotage them by doing things like having astronauts spray-paint the lenses of their cameras black and other such nonsense to prevent foreign powers from spying on the US (which of course was ridiculous, as they would have then been justified in developing systems to shoot down or destroy or sabotage our own spy-sats, leading to a possible blind confrontation between the superpowers...) Such was the fallacy that governed the design and construction and operation of the shuttle. Personally, I'm glad that the shuttles have been retired. It's just a shame that NASA and gubmint persist in the same sort of nonsense that got us the compromised, dangerous, expensive shuttle we got, instead of learning from it and moving forward with new thinking... IMHO shuttle SHOULD have been retired after Challenger, and replaced with an "evolved Apollo" capsule design (which is inherently safer, and has more flexibility for performing missions both in and beyond low Earth orbit, which is why shuttle was replaced with the Orion capsule) and any one of a bunch of proposals for a new "low cost" expendable launch vehicle, most notably at the time, the "Jarvis launcher" which would have used the shuttle External Tank tooling to create a new kerosene-powered core stage with 2 F-1 engines, with a new single J-2S hydrogen upper stage. This would have been a FAR more sensible and flexible space vehicle, and could have grown and adapted as missions dictated. Instead, they persisted with the stupid shuttle, which hobbled our space program for the last 40 years, and continues to do so to this day... Later! OL J R :)

@RideAcrossTheRiver

2 жыл бұрын

@@AlonsoRules Richard Nixon.

@stargazer7644

7 ай бұрын

Oh good grief. Yes management made mistakes. But spaceflight is dangerous. Even when working as designed the Shuttle was expected to have about a 1 in 120 chance of a loss of the crew and vehicle on any particular launch. The early launches were as low as 1 in 7. The astronauts knew this going in. No spacecraft is "safe". They were volunteers who thought the risk was worth it.

Malcolm, do you know how the narrator of this documentary was?

@MalcolmShawVids

3 жыл бұрын

Kim Lerner I don't, sorry.

Great Space Workhorse Question: With danger of heatshield being damaged during launch was any consideration made to mount shuttle along its topside so heat shield side faces away with wings having more distance from falling foam or ice. Yes, vertical stabilizer in the way, but if mounted to a rotating ring it could be stowed parallel to wings. During emergency, it could be rotating back in position as external tank is jettisoned.

@lukestrawwalker

5 жыл бұрын

I posited that same question. If they had gone with a dual-rudder system with them mounted outboard say near the wing tips, it would seem possible to mount the orbiter that way. In addition, it would have eliminated the "doors" in the heat shield where the LOX and LH2 lines connected the ET to the orbiter itself, to transfer the propellants from the ET into the manifold feeding the SSME's. The connections could have all been on the TOP of the orbiter, for the bipod at the front of the orbiter, the two aft connection points mating the orbiter to the tank, and the propellant line connections to the ET (and of course the other connections like for the computers and telemetry system monitoring the tank and controlling the gimbal of the SRB's nozzles). It would have required a near COMPLETE redesign of the orbiter, though... of course at the design stage, that's not a huge deal, BUT it would have also precluded the possibility of loading and servicing the payloads AT THE PAD, which is what they designed the shuttle to do. That's what the huge "rotating service structure (RSS) was for at the pad... it would rotate in, cocoon the shuttle orbiter, allowing them to open the payload bay doors, and then load and service and fuel the payload prior to launch... and if anything went wrong with the payload, allow them to go back in and fix it before launch. With the orbiter mounted "backwards" on the tank (top side to the tank) this would have been impossible. Payloads would have to be loaded and serviced BEFORE the orbiter was mated to the stack, and if anything went wrong with the payload at the pad, the rocket would have had to be taken BACK to the VAB, de-mated from the stack, and sent back to a payload processing building for work... That's why they built the shuttle with the fragile tiles next to the spray-foam covered tank... Later! OL J R :)

@dougmc666

5 жыл бұрын

Mounting the orbiter on the side of the tank was a way of returning the main engines but has a list of safety problems, it's a bad idea that won't be repeated.

Barbara Morgan, back up to Christa McCauliffe, did eventually fly into space on Endeavour many years later, in 2007. (Or so I think). But by then she was a fully trained astronaut and therefore not just an ordinary member of the public, as Christs McCauliffe was. I do not remember her flight getting any more significant attention from Americans than others at the time, and this was probably the reason why. Her flight was mercifully successful but while most Americans know who Mrs. McCauliffe was, very few outside the spaceflight community and NASA know the name of and heard of Barbara Morgan. If her flight was partly intended to give NASA more news coverage and attention from the public, then frankly it was a failure, though of course it was a sucess in the goal of continuing to build the International Space Station. Mrs.McCaullife’s flight was intended to herald a new era, and she was to be the pioneer after whom many ordinary people would be able to fly in space, and for flight of ordinary people into space to be routine. Sadly, it was an era that lasted only 73 seconds. Now, getting on 4 decades after the Challenger disaster, it now seems very clear and obvious that there will never be an era of routine spaceflight for ordinary members of the public. And certainly no chance absolutely that Elon Musk will get astronauts to Mars by 2050, never mind a million ordinary members of the public! People like Mr. Musk still seem to think spaceflight will be safe and routine. I can assure him that spaceflight is not and never ever will be routine. Spaceflight by people may end altogether before too long, as people and politicians decide that the rewards do not justify the huge risks and costs. America only went to the Moon to beat the Russians to getting there first, NOT for science, exploration, wonder and discovery. President Kennedy only approved the Apollo programme after every other proposal to beat or better the Russians was deemed to be unworkable, NOT because he was enthusiastic about space. He was not and that is one of the many myths about the Kennedy Presidency. The fact that the space center was named after him is really ironic, even though he made the Moon landings possible. Also tragically ironic, the success of the Moon landings sowed the seeds for the Challenger and Columbia tragedies. To make it as cheap as possible the Shuttle was poorly designed with so many risks - I believe over 700 - built into it. And, as it turned out, making the Shuttle routine, safe and cheap was so, so difficult that it was impossible and also making the Moon landings so easy to carry out in comparison.

There had a to a onboard camera inside Challenger when it was going up. They showed video inside one around the 3 min mark. And I believe that launch was before the Challenger explosion.

@MalcolmShawVids

3 жыл бұрын

I don't know how they get around the freedom of information act, but NASA acknowledged they had recordings and basically flaunted that they weren't releasing them out of sensitivity to the families.

@bradthadon4936

3 жыл бұрын

That was actually a recording of Challenger on sts 8

Equivalent of the golden spike / operational vehicle. Right.

@normal_media

5 жыл бұрын

yeah, he was a little too generous with those words.

The man who said they are traveling over 100 mph by the time the shutle clears the launch tower is ridiculously exaggerating. Based on time & feet per second, it equates to approximately 17 mph.

@MalcolmShawVids

Жыл бұрын

I always thought that seemed high. It is accelerating, so you could be right that is the average velocity, but the actual speed it's going at at that moment is probably higher than 17 MPH.

@Dave-co1cv

Жыл бұрын

@Malcolm Shaw No, not really. The entire assembly is just slightly more than hovering from simple thrust at takeoff. At 1.46 feet per second per mph, factored in to the height of the tower and time to clear it, 17 mph is pretty accurate. Once it fully clears the tower, the acceleration begins to increase rapidly. Think about a Harrier fighter jet aircraft. It will make a very slow vertical accent, then slowly push forward and then rapidly accelerate.

@MalcolmShawVids

Жыл бұрын

@@Dave-co1cv "Reaching 100 mph as it clears the tower, the shuttle is a study in thunderous vibration, and this only builds in intensity for the first two minutes until the solid boosters tail off and drop away with a pyrotechnic clatter." www.historynet.com/space-shuttles/#:~:text=Reaching%20100%20mph%20as%20it,away%20with%20a%20pyrotechnic%20clatter.

@Dave-co1cv

Жыл бұрын

@@MalcolmShawVids Yes, I watched the video. It does not reach 100 mph as it clears the tower. Video and a stopwatch do not lie. It is not even close to going 100 mph after a mere 380' above the ground.

@MalcolmShawVids

Жыл бұрын

@@Dave-co1cv Speed is time times acceleration.

Well done

RIP AMERICAN ASTRONAUTS....... I JUST HOPE THE KIDS THAT LOST THEIR TEACHER HAVE TO REMEMBER THERE ARE RISKS WE ALL MUST TAKE TO ACHIEVE OUR DREAMS

The Challenger disaster was bad enough, but finding out that they KNEW low temperatures would compromise the o-rings, and went ahead with the launch... that made it far more devastating. The shuttle program was a collosal waste of money, especially when they lost 2 of the 5 shuttles and 14 astronauts due to negligence. Let's not forget: they spent close to $1B per launch -and managed to forget to calibrate the Hubble lense and needed another launch to fix it. Those shuttles were worth a couple billion each, and needed EXTENSIVE maintenance repairs after each launch. The program was a success in many ways, but it never lived up to the mission of frequent travel with a reusable vehicle. They should have been more realistic from the start.

Little unrelated note. When the big fuel Tank is painted white in any video, was the first space shuttle launch. They only painted it once due to cost to paint and extra weight.

@brainandforce

Ай бұрын

STS-2 also used a white tank.

I wished they could have designed a separation from non crew area part and at below 10,000 parachute for entire crew-d area!

The engineers of the solid rocket boosters demonstrated with o-ring material and ice water at a meeting prior to launch that the o-rings are compromised below a certain temperature. Corporate pressure replaced caution and they launched anyway and of course there was no accountability for those people.

@stargazer7644

7 ай бұрын

Actually, that demonstration was done by Richard Feynman during the investigation AFTER the loss of Challenger.

The thing about all the astronauts, while those of us who fly in the atmosphere, we are not test pilots. Everyone, whether a teacher a doctor, a laser scientist, who flys the space shuttle is a test pilot. Godspeed to the astronauts of every nation.

@thefrase7884

Жыл бұрын

Wrong. Not every astronaut is a test pilot.

ok - low temp problems??? 41F = +5 C .... so after all these years I ask: WTF?

“Fail-safe” does not mean “fail-proof.” Fail- safe means that when a particular failure occurs, the system enters a safe state. I can’t imagine what kind of failure of a booster would be safe.

@MalcolmShawVids

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, but I think what you are referring to is the notion of removing the O-ring altogether. The idea being, no O-ring, no chance of an O-ring failure. However, another documentary I saw on this issue was the redesign was actually complicated, inviting murphy's law creeping in.

@stargazer7644

7 ай бұрын

@@MalcolmShawVidsYou don't seem to understand the role redundancy plays in engineering. The SRB joint was required to be redundant, and it had 2 O-rings to provide that redundancy to meet the requirements. As it turned out there was a flaw in the design that meant the two O-rings had a common failure mode, so they weren't truly redundant. They added a third O-ring to meet the redundancy requirement in the redesigned joint. They also added joint heaters to address the temperature concerns.

What about a fully separable front cabin

@Kyle-gb9dq

Жыл бұрын

I thought the same thing. And with a parachute for it

3G! DAMN!

Well... 3:00 + + ...How can you fly through the fireball, while it's been ALWAYS behind you, and you constantly accelerate? Oh, just a pre-GSCE pupil question... ??? So??? (and, btw - we can hardly see your fireball on the footage... )

@lukestrawwalker

5 жыл бұрын

There are small forward-pointing solid rocket motors on the front of the SRB's (and aft pointing ones on the rear skirt of the SRB's) that are ignited when the charges that separate the SRB's from the External Tank are fired to jettison the SRB's. They blow a big plume of rocket exhaust FORWARD to push the SRB's backwards and away from the accelerating shuttle... This looks like a "fireball" from inside the cockpit. The same thing was used on the Apollo Saturn V moon rockets, for the same reason. When the first stage engines shut down for staging, a pair of solid rocket motors under each of the four fairings under the fins on the back of the first stage would be fired simultaneously-- this would create a backward thrust pulling "down" on the vehicle. A split-second later, a sequencer would detonate the linear shaped charge on the back part of the interstage ring connecting the upper stages and the first stage, severing this connection between the stages. The front stages would then continue to coast up and away from the decelerating first stage as these small solid rocket motors burned out. This caused the astronauts to be thrown forward in their seats when the motors fired, and then back in their seats as the stages separated. To settle the propellants in the bottom of the tanks to start the second stage engines, ANOTHER set of rearward-firing solid rocket motors called "ullage motors" would be fired immediately after the linear shaped charge separated the stages. This would accelerate the stages and threw the astronauts back in their seats as well. Once these motors had caused the propellants in the tanks to all slosh back to the bottom, the rocket engines on the next stage would fire up, and the rocket would continue on, jettisoning the interstage ring to get rid of dead weight. Watch the staging in the movie "Apollo 13" and you'll see what I mean. The astronauts reported seeing a fireball outside their spacecraft as all this occurred. The blast of the forward-facing rocket engines blows this "fireball" out in front of the accelerating vehicle, creating the effect. Remember when you're seeing it from ground cameras, they're miles away and under miles of atmosphere looking at something occurring on the edge of space, where gases cool quickly, and viewing it against a bright sky. So it doesn't look like a fireball to us on the ground, but to the crew, it's quite visible and impressive. Later! OL J R :)

in fact the o rings were leaking all around that can be see quite vividly and btw did they deiced the wings like a plane ? ice affects air flow under and top of wings witch could result of trajectory errors leading to abord or worst

@stargazer7644

7 ай бұрын

No, they didn't deice the wings. The wings were vertical and they weren't used during launch.

There is something that still doesn't add up. Rubber, of any kind, cannot contain gases hot enough to melt steel. That being the case, how could the loss of a shuttle be attributed to the failure of a rubber ring? In my estimation, the failure of the ring was only symptomatic of a bigger failure

@07Flash11MRC

2 жыл бұрын

Bruh, nobody ever said that rubber melted steel. You just made that up on the get go.. If you knew anything about how the SRBs are build and stacked together, it would all make sense to you. You could also read up the doc that was put together by the commision.

@RodrigoRamirez-eq6gj

2 жыл бұрын

@@07Flash11MRC Could you read again my comment and make sure you understand before responding?

What went wrong twice?

A lot of people don’t understand how unsuccessful the shuttles were. They had a lot of money to just keep on repairing the vehicle over and over again

@stargazer7644

7 ай бұрын

You apparently don't realize that EVERY aircraft requires a lot of money "to just keep on repairing the vehicle over and over again". The Shuttle was very successful on 133 missions. It just didn't meet all of its original design goals.

Reagan also wanted it to fly. Talking to the astronauts in space was very important. He needed a break from Iran Contra.

That flight never should have happened

Biggest problem with both disasters, 'Lockmart' in control.

@jmarston1043

5 жыл бұрын

and they both start with a "C"

10:43 That a Global Hawk design. js..

@lukestrawwalker

5 жыл бұрын

No, Faget's original "fully reusable" straight-winged orbiter design. Looked more like a "regular airplane" with tail planes and wings, and used large internal fuel tanks (which of course would be empty on return to Earth), making the vehicle very large but very lightweight, with a lot of surface area. This would allow the use of a fully-reusable metallic heat shield using a principle called "hot structures" that could handle the lower heat loads on reentry of that orbiter design. The downside was, the enormous internal fuel tanks took up SO much space there was only room for a SMALL payload bay. When NASA teamed up with the Air Force to get their support and partial funding of the shuttle program, the Air Force and their requirements took over... They required a "once around' polar orbit capability launch from Vandenberg and landing back at Edwards AFB in California, and a HUGE 15x60 foot payload bay for gigantic spy-sats and other military needs, both of which Faget's straight-winged "hot structures" orbiter could not do. SO, they went with the big "delta-winged" orbiter design of the shuttle as we know it. No internal fuel tanks meant room for the huge payload bay the AF wanted, but the heavier, faster reentering orbiter got MUCH hotter on reentry, and thus needed a heat shield that could handle higher heat than the metallic heat shield of Faget's orbiter, requiring switching to the fragile, delicate thermal tiles made of "glass foam" (essentially). No internal fuel tanks also meant shuttle would have to use a huge EXTERNAL fuel tank, and there wasn't money to develop a huge fly-back fully reusable booster to loft the shuttle orbiter/external tank combo, so they decided on "cheap" "reusable" SRB's.... the rest is history. Later! OL J R :)

Yes

Can anyone tell is this actually a real video at timestamp 1:20 where we see an astronaut sitting in space shuttle with no space suit, with his hands and arms naked holding the joystick? It’s shocking thing to see in an apparently real video of actual shuttle launch. Never seen anyone sitting in shuttle without space suit at launch. Is it a fake clip or something else?

Some individuals should have gone to jail, for murder

God so love that crew.

More efficient solid fuel? This guy needs to check his facts. The SRB's had an ISP far lower than most, if not all, liquid fuel engines. Certainly worse than any kerolox engines.

@lukestrawwalker

5 жыл бұрын

Yep... quite true. Only thing solids had going for them were they were *cheap* to develop, relatively speaking, and since they require a nearly 2 inch thick hardened steel case to withstand the 700 PSI + internal pressures of the burning solid propellant, it made "reuse" of the casings much simpler-- much easier to recover a 150-ish foot 12 foot diameter steel pipe splashing down into the ocean under parachutes and reuse it than a delicate, lightweight LIQUID propellant booster system... Of course the solids ALSO sacrificed safety to cheapness, as well... they cannot be throttled in the normal sense (you CAN design the burn grain pattern to increase or decrease thrust somewhat as the motor burns its propellant, this is called a "regressive" burn or "progressive" burn). Unlike a liquid rocket booster, they cannot be shut down, either. Once a solid propellant is lit, it's LIT, and WILL burn until all the propellant is consumed. They're also INCREDIBLY heavy (over a million pounds EACH) and that really caused a lot of problems with stacking and moving the vehicle to the launch pad. Unlike a liquid propellant rocket, which is lightweight and transported with its propellant tanks EMPTY to the launch pad, (as Saturn V was), the SRB's are FULLY FUELED when assembled inside the VAB and transported to the pad. That makes it ENORMOUSLY heavy, which is why they had to get rid of the steel towers on the launch platforms that they used for Apollo/Saturn, and move the towers to the pad area BESIDE the launch platform (which the shuttle rides on, carried to the pad by the crawler-transporter). Saturn V was MUCH lighter and safer to assemble and transport to the pad, which is why the tower could be on the MLP right beside the rocket and transported to the pad with it on Saturn/Apollo... The solids also made the shuttle much more dangerous to assemble in the VAB, as each segment was full of solid propellant as they were stacked. Saturn, assembled from empty tanks in the stages, was much safer to handle and work on. The weight issues of solids doomed Ares V. They found through analysis as time went on they needed not just the four segments of the shuttle boosters, but five, and then further study showed they actually needed SIX segments on each booster. Of course that weighed so much it would crack the foundation of the VAB and launch pads, and would require an all-new six-truck crawler transporter that there was no money for, and HUGE rework/reinforcement of the miles-long crawlerways used to transport the rockets from the VAB to the launch pads. No money for ANY of that. They finally settled for the maximum that the VAB and existing crawlers and infrastructure could support-- two 5.5 segment boosters (each booster segment is comprised of two sections assembled at the factory, so a half-segment would be one of these by itself). They needed more boost, so they started adding liquid engines, but that meant a bigger, heavier core, which needed more thrust, and the whole thing just started to unravel. That's why they scrapped Ares I and V and went with SLS. Ares I was a basket case all its own... Later! OL J R :)

I'm glad I seen this I was under the impression that the teacher was from Canada

@annetteslife

5 жыл бұрын

I cannot remember what state Christa McAuliffe was from.

@marlonisaac1

5 жыл бұрын

@@annetteslife Concord, New Hampshire.

@haroldlipschitz9301

4 жыл бұрын

New Hampshire is basically Canada

Why do they launch from cape Canaveral when the weather there is always dodgy?

@MalcolmShawVids

Жыл бұрын

Several factors, for one, the closer you get to the equator, the easier it is to launch a spacecraft, land was and still is dirt cheap in that area, but mostly, they can launch over the ocean, so it is much safer than having rockets launching over populated areas.

The primary and secondary o ring gasket enclosures failed on the right rocket booster.

@MalcolmShawVids

4 жыл бұрын

Dicky Ball specifically, the cold weather changed the softness of the o-ring. Instead of being soft enough to seal, the rubber became stiff. which left voids for the hot gases to leak through, as they were under immense pressure. This caused a plume of flame, basically a blowtorch, to form and unfortunately it happened to focus on the attachment assembly. When it failed, the front of the SRB smashed into the top of the external tank. This of course ruptured the internal chambers, which held liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. The mixing of these elements are what caused the fireball and basically a white cloud of steam. As the SRB swayed back, it sliced the wing off of the orbiter, which sent it sideways and of course caused it to break up under the force of the airflow.

@youarerightboss

4 жыл бұрын

@@MalcolmShawVids, thanks. I knew that the lower temps(

@kyleparker733

Жыл бұрын

@@MalcolmShawVids interesting

@stargazer7644

7 ай бұрын

@@MalcolmShawVidsWell the cold weather was only part of the problem. They had evidence the dual O-rings had failed on previous flights as well even where temperature wasn't an issue. It just hadn't burned through to the point the vehicle was lost. The O-rings weren't actually fully redundant for each other as was believed due to the design of the joint. This is one of the things that was changed after the accident.

9:05 The three X-15s flew a total of 199 missions, not "over 200".

@MalcolmShawVids

Жыл бұрын

Remember that they didn't have the internet to look up facts like we do today.

@kenchorney2724

Жыл бұрын

@@MalcolmShawVids True, but I read it in a book.

I have so much respect for all the NASA teams they had a big vision and 9-10 the hit there targets for the voyager mission what a success and so many more involving spacecraft sent to other planet's if not for the people at NASA we would still be using 1989 technology so I personally thank you all at NASA and also the astronauts that went above and beyond so much courage they had to do half the things they did.. my condolences to the FAMILY'S and friends of the astronauts that died they we're great people a massive 👍🏻🇬🇧✌🏻

I saw John Glen go up 7 miles away

46:53 to 46:55 Listen real closely and you can hear that the crowd noise was looped ... No exaggeration 🧐

@lex.cordis

7 ай бұрын

Interesting.

"They got a Chevy." What they got was a Yugo. The Challenger "accident" was no accident. The Shuttle flights were so much riskier than Apollo. Watching this still infuriates me.

@PabloGonzalez-hv3td

3 жыл бұрын

They got rear ended in a Pinto

@GH-oi2jf

2 жыл бұрын

it was much better than a Yugo. The two disasters were both management failures. NASA had warning of the problems, and chose to hope they could ignore them rather than spend some money to fix them. They endd up spending a lot more as a result.

I had a O ring fail once, I Named him Zaccary 😋

@MalcolmShawVids

4 жыл бұрын

Che Jones I was expecting a messier punchline.

@2DclanSnipingTeam

4 жыл бұрын

I blew a seal once. They still won't let me back in that zoo.

@chejones8858

4 жыл бұрын

Dewey B Hilarious B

@danedgar1539

4 жыл бұрын

I dont get it? And it bothers me that i dont......

@chejones8858

4 жыл бұрын

Dan Edgar it's a Condom Joke

Maybe, thinking linear, at throttle up the vibrations were increased suddenly to a level that caused the connecting strut on the SRB to snap; SRB then rotated in to the tank and it blew? One question tho'......how does throttle up equal 110%? Surely full throttle is represented by 100%? (seems sorta like the guitar amp in the movie 'Spiral Tap' that are louder cos they go up to 11)

@MalcolmShawVids

6 жыл бұрын

Checked and I think I have the answer. 100% is what the original design called for, but when rocket engines are improved, they don't revise the spec for 100%, so they just say 108 or whatever percent it actually is. Not positive, but I looked it up too. Whether the strut would have held for a few more seconds without throttling up seems to be irrelevant to me. It is a shame though, because they probably just needed less than a minute more, and it would have been fine. I do agree with your inference that accelerating could have helped shake it loose as opposed to just the maximum constant force that the shuttle had passed through. I believe the report pretty much just said after prolonged exposure to the flame, the strut failed catastrophically.

@TomTremayne

6 жыл бұрын

Thanks for your replies Malcolm and for explaining about the percentage thing. I hope to come to America and visit the space museum either in New York or indeed Florida and see one of the decom'ed shuttles. My idea about the vibration is just an attempt to make sense of the disaster and to tie the explosion in with the throttle up sequence but you're probably right and it may just be coincidence. I've posted elsewhere on youtube today tho' after seeing an interview with Alan McDonald of Morton Thiacol I think it is, who said that when everything went in to lock down and they shut the doors and cut the phones, he knew then that 'the one thing that DIDN'T cause the crash was an SRB'. Now, I know that in the editing of an interview things can get chopped about and he goes on to try and explain that it was the SRB that caused the explosion but he did make that statement initially and I thought it an unusual thing to say.

@MalcolmShawVids

6 жыл бұрын

They are breathtaking in person. I have visited Endeavor in LA and Atlantis at the Kennedy Space Center. I did see Discovery take off from a distance. I was definitely close enough to see the flames and hear the crackle. I also got to witness Endeavor's last moments in the air as she was brought to LAX. Since I am into the KZread thing, I edited my footage it into a short video. If you would like to see it, here is the link kzread.info/dash/bejne/n6GD09SQdrS9l7w.html.

@slowpoke3102

6 жыл бұрын

Throttle up begins just past the time of maximum stress on the vehicle.

@txtabby

6 жыл бұрын

Wind sheer was severe that day.

18:14 weird no one mentions judirh resnick was on this flight

I hope they didn't feel anything😞. We were watching it at wirk. It was a horrific moment, Everyone was crying. Just unbelievable

@dare-er7sw

Жыл бұрын

They were alive.

@lex.cordis

7 ай бұрын

@@dare-er7sw are*

And now, we can't even figure out who's going to use what bathroom... Lol

@hito6464

5 жыл бұрын

There are people who still think that Moon Landing is fake...

@musicmaker1311

5 жыл бұрын

💀💀💀💀👏🏾

When we were Proud...stood tall....when nothing could tell us that we, as Americans could not.....when we were excellent!

On this day my mom says she was in the 5 th grade..... she says her teacher started crying and they did a paper on it.... september11 I was 1st grade at lunch when it happend I was eating pizza

@MalcolmShawVids

4 жыл бұрын

Ho Chi Squad Those were both very distressing days.

What went wrong was the powers that be at NASA were warned not to launch because the low temps were out of the parameters of the Orings being able to seal properly and the Engineers warning were ignored killing every one on board, sad tragic and the gutless finger pointing after the fact showed full well that safety is not priority 1

What are they going to have for the next vehicle to go to space little rockets

what went wrong? i think the title went wrong..

@MalcolmShawVids

5 жыл бұрын

georgschenkfilm Watch the whole thing if the subject is of interest to you, there is more than one video.

If the crew cabin had a parachute like the booster nose cone they would have survivef

money was more important then human life.

@GH-oi2jf

2 жыл бұрын

Politics was more important than either.

I think what could have been done is all the back seats should have had been on guide rails and if there was a problem detected the seats would automatically pulled forwards towards the commander and then the compartment would have separated from the space shuttle. when Safe parachute would have deployed and brought the crew back to safety

@executivesteps

Жыл бұрын

What about the 3 astronauts in the mid deck below the flight deck?

🚀

Salio mal lo unico que tenia que salir mal para que esta tragedia pasara .

Have a nice day my dear friends

Bravest of the brave.

I've wondered who schitt their pants harder, Roger Boisjoly and the team from MortonThiokol who were adamant that the launch should be scrubbed because of cold temps and the imminent failure of the o-rings, or the a-holes at NASA who insisted on going ahead with the launch despite the insistence of the engineers not to. I bet they about schitt themselves when it went BOOM!!!, and they realized that they were guilty of 6 counts of manslaughter.

Happened

Best of 🇺🇸🇺🇸for sure

NAASA IGNORED THE ENGINEERS, THATS WHAT WENT WRONG IN A NUTSHELL.

@07Flash11MRC

2 жыл бұрын

Management, not NASA...

@3dartistguy

2 жыл бұрын

@@07Flash11MRC the management at NASA. The managers who manage NASA, duh

There was a astronaut named hoot gibson seriously

ehhh.... has anybody really check weather data? was it 41F ??? It's about +5 CentiGrade - no frost, no water turn into ice, no rubber seals should ever fail... Or ???

@zdzichus.3264

5 жыл бұрын

or it's a total and v. deep bullshit

@georgschenkfilm

5 жыл бұрын

the flexibility and the performance of rubber seals gets worse in low temperature. doesnt need to be below zero to fail, i guess.

@MalcolmShawVids

5 жыл бұрын

Zdzichu S. Yes, it was below freezing overnight with icicles noted on the launch pad. Remember also, that if it was almost freezing at the time of launch, it quickly was freezing in flight as the vehicle was still icy and cold.

@dougmc666

5 жыл бұрын

What a great idea, looking at the weather data! Overnight temperatures of 18 °F (−8 °C)

@haroldlipschitz9301

4 жыл бұрын

Thiokol only had data on O-ring performance to 53F...this launch was out of known limits regardless of the time you took the temperature

If we spend 18 billion per year on an investment such as NASA, would there be a return on investment calculation somewhere>

@kevinbaker2054

3 жыл бұрын

Rather give 18 billion to NASA than 150 billion to IRAN.

@07Flash11MRC

2 жыл бұрын

Bruh, you never gave anything to Iran. Those dollars all went to the pentagon an your domestic us warhawks.