History Of The Dangerous Space Shuttle Program

The space shuttle was designed as a cost-effective way of making travel to low Earth orbit routined, but the promise of low and cheap easy access to space has unexpected consequences.
---
Revisit the key advances that have marked space exploration and discover the latest innovations in space science.
--
Subscribe to Spark for more amazing science, tech & engineering videos: goo.gl/LIrlur 🚀
Join the Spark Channel Membership to get access to perks:
/ @sparkdocs
Find us on:
Facebook: / sparkdocs
Instagram: / spark_channel
Any queries, please contact us at: [e-mail]
#Spark #NASA #space

[@starwatcher9900]

I remember seeing the shuttle for the first time how aw I was of its massive size. I've been very fortunate to witness three launches it's nearly undescribable the amount of power being witnessed

[@sexynelson100]

wow.. Cool. How far were you from the launch pad..

[@lawrenceallen8096]

135 missions, 2 catastrophic failures. NOTE: The Space Shuttle itself never failed. In both cases the launch system destroyed the space shuttle: SRB's leaked and burned a hole into the External Fuel Tank and blew it up in 1986, and ice+External Fuel Tank broke off and punched a hole in the Shuttle's wing. Now ask yourself this: If you launched the Saturn V 135 times, would you have seen 2 catastrophic failures?

[@bretthibbs6083]

I totally agree.

[@yassassin6425]

A well articulated post, to which I partially agree. Much of the innate design problems lay in the inception of the stack and the prone position of the shuttle at launch. The fact remains that the heat shield was intrinsically vulnerable to damage. STS-27 was infamous and STS-118 is just one of multiple examples of such tile issues that the Shuttle fleet sustained during its operational lifetime. However, irrespective of this, the orbiter itself came close to disaster on multiple occasions due to other failures - STS-9 in particular was terrifying. In addition to the inherent design flaws, the costings and launch cadence were not as pledged and all things considered, remarkable machine that it was, the shuttle became a white elephant that detracted from the continuation of manned deep space exploration. The Saturn V was a remarkable machine and heavy lift capability that would have made short work of constructing the ISS. Whether is would have catastrophically failed during 135 launches we will never know. We can only wonder at the reliability and duration of the Roscosmos Soyuz workhorse which came from a similar era.

[@lawrenceallen8096]

@@yassassin6425 Thanks for your thoughts. I would love to see a cost comparison between continuation of Saturn V vs. Shuttle. More accurately, disposable rockets with capsule return vs. Shuttle. One of the main selling benefits of the Shuttle was the ability to bring satellites back for repair and refurbishment. This turned out to be impractical, not from an executional standpoint (it could be done and was done once or twice), but technology was advancing so rapidly it was better to just chuck the old satellites and launch new ones. That said, for me anyway, it just feels more "advanced" to have 7 people walk off the Shuttle like an airliner, than 3 of them being pulled out of a capsule from the ocean or on land. I look forward to SpaceX changing all that by having Starship passengers plucked out of thin air and "de-rocket" like spacemen. P.S. Re-entry vehicle insulation is still a vexing problem 40 years after the Shuttle first launched: Starship has the very same problem.

[@robinm1729]

@@yassassin6425 Let's not forget the fact that Apollo-13 was as equal a catastrophic failure as the two shuttle incidents. It was a million percent sheer luck that those three astronauts survived the initial explosion.

[@yassassin6425]

@@robinm1729 *_"Let's not forget the fact that Apollo-13 was as equal a catastrophic failure as the two shuttle incidents."_* It wasn't though. Also, the cause could not be solely attributed to an innate design flaw, rather a chain of failures related to process and procedure. The No.2 tank had originally been fitted to Apollo 10 but was removed to rectify a fault. It was not rated for 65 volt ground testing at KSC rather the 28 volt DC power of the CM which the automatic shut-off switches on the tank’s heater to fail due to the surge. It was also dropped and although tested, the internal damage did not show up during subsequent inspections. Fortunately the force of the blast blew off the panel which exposed the interior to the vacuum of space and extinguished the fire. The enquiry do however criticise the highly questionable use of teflon and other highly flammable materials in the tank. *_"It was a million percent sheer luck that those three astronauts survived the initial explosion."_* Million percent sheer luck? What does this even mean?

[@karaDee2363]

This barely scratched the surface about the space shuttle, there's so much more to it..

[@henrytowne7463]

Space is an inherently dangerous place to go. I worked as a software engineer for the Rockwell STSSOC program at Mission Control, Johnson Space Center for over 20 missions. The launch pad is 39b at KSC. The SRB tests were run at Morton Thiokol testbed in Huntsville Alabama after the Challenger launch failure. The Canadian Arm was the crane mounted on the shuttle. The MMU was the sled used to get astronauts around for service maneuvers. Then there was Columbia crash that was caused by launch damage... You learn as you go; Hubble and the ISS "schooled" us often. Telemetry rules! Lots of moving parts that require some serious coordination.

[@williamgreene4834]

It's amazing they would ever fire an SRB in Alabama. I thought the SRB test firings were at Promontory point, Utah :)

[@henrytowne7463]

@@williamgreene4834 i was wrong, the shuttle srbs were tested at Promontory, Utah sorry, wrong planet! Marshall in Huntsville was the NASA shop that was responsible for the safety call on the SRBs. Morton T wanted to call off the launch ; Marshall over-ruled.... ng.

[@census3370]

I wish I was able to see a launch in person. Maybe if I wasn’t a child in the 2000s 😂 wish the space shuttle returned

[@merrywissemes]

I only seen one. STS-59. It was gone before I even knew what happened. I was actually lucky enough to have The Discovery Channel happen to be doing a documentary on that very launch. So I got all kinds of extra behind the scenes footage.

[@DMNSAV]

It was incredible to see it in person. My mother would take me out of school for every launch.

[@ti994apc]

For every 7 people that go to fly on the Shuttle ( with 1/50 chance of death). 110 Astronauts will not get to go into space. Because you can launch Falcon9 manned 22 times safely for the price of one Shuttle. ( with 0% chance of death)

[@laletemanolete]

My favorite spaceship even being so dangerous.

[@sgregg5257]

Apollo was more dangerous than the Shuttle. Apollo killed three astronauts and had two mission failures, in only 17 missions. The shuttle had 135 mission and killed 14. That means you are statistically more likely to die on or be part of, a failed mission on Apollo than on the Shuttle.

[@adamsteele6148]

Space shuttle was a shit design by politicians this is well documented. It is well documented how unsafe it's design was, and it's high failure rate is evidence.

[@bretthibbs6083]

But on Apollo 13 it was a successful failure which means no one died on that mission and they were able to get home. But I do agree the rest though

[@urcarsucks6959]

Apollo 1 was a dress rehearsal that did experience an unexpected and catastrophic failure, resulting in the loss of the crew. That, however, prompted a complete redesign of the apollo spacecraft. The craft itself performed flawlessly, as well as the Saturn V. Do some research regarding the nature of the shuttle's design, and you'll discover it was inherently more dangerous, in nearly all respects, than any spacecraft before it.

[@robinm1729]

​@@bretthibbs6083 Apollo-13 was just as much a catastrophic failure as the two shuttle incidents. It was sheer luck that those three astronauts survived the initial explosion.

[@Nunavuter1]

The difference between the the Apollo failures and the Shuttle failures is that the Apollo failures involved malfunctions of equipment. The two shuttle failures were a product of the inherent design of the STS system. The O-ring system was flawed as originally designed. The shedding of ice from the fuel tank impacting the orbiter was also inherent to the design. Nothing malfunctioned. The STS launch systems were themselves flawed. NASA fixed the problems that caused the Apollo I fire in the Command Module before launching anybody. Apollo 13 was a screw up on the ground that took place that damaged the Service Module months before launch. In comparison, O-ring burn-through and ice impacts on the shuttle orbiter happened many times outside the Challenger and Columbia launches, where they proved fatal.

[@gryphenicedancer8796]

As someone born early enough to remember the original run of Star Trek and yet young enough to wonder what's all the fuss about landing on the moon, I am amazed at how much of this I did not know. I knew there were troubles and stumbles with getting the shuttle up and running. I watched the first shuttle take off on TV. When weather and assent angle allowed, I could go outside and watch takeoffs live as I lived across the state south of Tampa for the majority of the shuttle's run. I remember when Challenger exploded, and Endeavor came apart. But a lot of this is actually new information

[@Kyle-gb9dq]

You mean when Columbia came apart.

[@newforestpixie5297]

Without modern re telling of mighty space & technological achievements of decades ago , we’d still be stuck with historic footage being hilariously mismatched with the sound of Woodwind instrumentals - growing up in the 1970s was so bloody weird

[@fred36956]

Both Space Shuttle disasters were TOTALLY preventable. The culture at NASA was to blame and also the US Congress and every Presidential administration for not funding the program enough to make totally reusable vehicles and only funded just FIVE orbiters. Meanwhile the Congress has used our taxpayer money in the amount of $1.5 TRILLION to get the "bugs" out of the Lockheed/Martin Joint Strike Fighter, the F-35, which still has a ton of problems as is by now probably obsolete. Also, it was NASA's culture that caused the Apollo 13 oxygen tank explosion. In a book on space flight missions during Apollo, it was written that the oxygen tank that exploded had issues before the launch. After filling the tank and draining it several times, that one particular tank wouldn't completely drain the liquid oxygen during several tanking/de-tankings. To get the remaining LOX out of the tank, the engineers used heaters in the tank and during those several times the heat had frayed some insulation around wires in the tank. That LOX tank should have been replaced before the flight but to remove it and put in another tank was tedious and would delay the mission so that faulty tank was left in place. And the Apollo One fire was another disaster that could have been prevented. NASA knew about the lousy construction issues of the initial design if the Apollo capsule and idiotically decided to have a "hatch" that opened inward to that tiny capsule as well as pressurizing the capsule with our 100% oxygen. The Russians were inn a way ahead of the US space program in that the craft and the 50 plus year old Soyuz design (and now the Chinese copy) had a top module that acted as an airlock so that the middle module which ultimately returned to Earth could have a nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere as later did the shuttle. Yes, the Space Shuttle did not live up to its very frequent reusability nor inexpensive access to low Earth orbit as mentioned in this video. But that was due to a lack of proper funding by Congress and the Nixon/Carter presidencies to build what NASA initially wanted. Everyone is flouting SpaceX's Starship that hasn't flown a completely successful flight and there are many unknowns about how capable it really will be an unlike the Saturn V it will need an estimated 6 to 8 other Starship launches just to refuel in microgravity, which has never been done in any quantity, the Starship to leave Earth orbit. According to Wikipedia the Saturn V could launch 116,000 plus pounds on a translunar insertion. Only time will tell how well the Starship performs and its reusability. The Space Shuttle did what other spacecraft could and the "Starship" won't have all the Space Shuttle's capabilities.

[@larrysouthern5098]

If it sounds too good to be true..it probably is...when I. read about Von Braun not going along with the Space shuttles design and the scathing discussion he had about the boosters and their dangers.. I began to tke notice. And lo and behold..he was right. and they (NASA) fired him for it.

[@Kyle-gb9dq]

That's usually what large corporations/agencies do when employees speak against them in any way

[@JimMac23]

They had trouble with those damn tiles coming loose all through the shuttle program.

[@JimMac23]

The first disaster was on the Challenger in 1986. They launched in below freezing temperatures and the rubber o rings shrank and let the fuel leak. The shuttle blew up right after the launch. The second disaster was on the Columbia in 2003. During launch a large piece of foam came off the external fuel tank and knocked a large hole on the left wing. During re-entry the hole let in the heat and the wing fell off. The shuttle came apart. In each disaster all seven of the astronauts were killed, for a total of fourteen deaths.

[@ukphone4183]

Great watch ❤❤

[@dalton6173]

Even if they knew reliability wasn't as good as they said the fact that they said it was extremely reliable and extremely mundane at that point may have caused some people to act the way they do whenever they are driving a car which is extremely dangerous however because you don't get in an accident 99.99999999999999999% the time well that means that you just go on autopilot and sometimes don't notice things that you otherwise would definitely care about.

[@tombystander]

John Young one of the greatest astronauts to ever live

[@stormsfromcalifornia4379]

the shuttle wasnt that dangerous it was thee managment who turned it into a dangerous spacecraft .managment didmnt wait to listen to engieers on challenger or ccolumbia tragic flights i dont use the word accidents

[@yassassin6425]

Actually, by design, the shuttle was inherently dangerous due to the prone position of the orbiter on the stack and the lack of an escape system.

[@dalton6173]

There has to be a way to make a hybrid space shuttle that can go to say mock whatever we can (Google says 6.75) and then have the added advantage of being a higher and going a reasonable speed when the chemical engines engage therefore requiring that much less fuel storage needed... I mean yes you would probably not be able to get to the full Mach 6.75 however would be at least reasonable I mean I guess it's spin launch its basically doing that.

[@lawrencemanning]

Nice to see the pics of the Enterprise being built, but having “dangerous” in the title of this video is a nonsense. Show me any space rocket that isn’t inherently dangerous.

[@guylawes]

As soon as I heard her accent I knew we were in store for the metric system! We don't use that here! I have no idea how high 4 kilometers is and don't want to have to flip back and forth to Google. Really frustrating

[@johngisbourne7197]

NASA uses the metric system. Get used to it, at some point you guys have to get rid of imperial units.

[@Kyle-gb9dq]

Yeah. We use the standard system. Metric system wasn't taught when I was in school.

[@astroblue6207]

Humans explore deal!

[@cbspock1701]

I have news for you going to space is dangerous no matter what

[@RAMON-mm1io]

🤔

[@Alcisco504]

Chris?

[@astroblue6207]

the shuttle program continues today but it is top secret

[@connorcoultas9629]

It absolutely does not.

[@theashpilez]

Does tooooo , published pics last week

[@karaDee2363]

If it's so top secret, how you know about it...

[@kirkenzoalian8023]

Zach?

[@JustinAH]

And Elon Musk wants to land a Heavy-lift rocket the size of an office building back on it's pad!🤣🤣

[@oxymoron5167]

He’s not used to being told no and surrounds himself with yes men

[@jimmyjango5213]

Do you think it is an unachievable goal?

[@thomascassler4406]

and he did !

[@DestroyerWill]

He’s done it multiple times.

[@Kyle-gb9dq]

Don't even get me started on Elon. Not a fan of his at all. Not to mention Jeff bozo and Mark zuckersucker. What buffoons!

[@EipsteinClyde]

White Carol Garcia Cynthia Lopez Melissa

[@ti994apc]

It was design failure on so many levels and they were lucky that there was only 2 catastrophic failures. Putting the orbiter inline with the fuel tank. Requiring the SRB's rings to absorb the full thrust of the SSMEs trying to push it over during engine ignition verification. Mixing solid fuel and liquid fuel. No real escape system. Shuttle was a compromise that no one was happy with. Shuttle should have stopped after the 3rd launch when its true cost was revealed and improvements to Saturn should have started. Shuttle ended up being a jobs program.

[@johnchirgwin2616]

why so many brit-ish speaking people doing American history narration. SO ANNOYING.

[@valedan1075]

Just you wait till the optimism over start ship dies once it kills it's crew.

[@vivi_75]

Why?

[@theairacobra]

mhm yes start ship

[@marcocambray7725]

First

[@dereckgauthier5549]

all fake don,t know what to believe anymore

[@northuniverse]

Bruh

[@theairacobra]

the only fake thing over here is your brain

[@misty28882]

You can know that Jesus Christ died for our sins

[@ronaldtartaglia4459]

The base was the X-20 dinasoar and the X-15. The latter had 199 "test flights" get over it.