Lessons (NOT) Learned from Shuttles Near-Disasters

[@Piolet1549]

I am experimenting with KZbin's auto-generated mid-roll ads, so I do apologize if they occur at inconvenient times or there are too many of them. Just trying to test this feature out, feedback welcome

[@varietyegg]

Np

[@Vullord]

your good

[@Arae_1]

"I believe the space shuttle is one of the greatest engineering feats of all time, but not because it was a good design that worked well, but because it horrible design that worked... at all" is a really good quote and I'm definitely going to be using it

[@javaman7199]

It sure was cute though. The stuff we were sending to the moon was just plain weird looking.

[@skunkjobb]

@@javaman7199 The LM sure was weird looking but still extremely cool.

[@vonzigle]

Thanks!

[@kerbal8216]

It really sucks to look back on these events and realise how easy it would've been to prevent them. This was another great video Piolet!

[@varietyegg]

That pfp looks neat

[@kerbal8216]

@@varietyegg Thank you!

[@judet2992]

⁠@@kerbal8216yeah I’m agreeing with this, that’s flight 4 right? You caught one of the raptors halfway through startup or shutdown, which is why it’s grey, the animation didn’t finish yet on the display. So idk if it actually is but is it flight 4?

[@kerbal8216]

@@judet2992 The darker patch represents an engine that was throttled down for ascent during IFT-4

[@judet2992]

@@kerbal8216 ah that makes sense, offset thrust and whatnot

[@negirno]

I'm convinced that the Space Shuttle was a real life kerbal rocket.

[@RandomGoll]

i love this new style of content! its really well made

[@oneistar6661]

Keep it up man. Thank you for presenting it in the most rocketeer ways possible. Ads are fine and the content is a blast!

[@edward_jacobs]

another gem space channel. glad to have found you!

[@olympicnut]

Preventable? Perhaps. But the shuttle was the most complex machine ever built by humans. Hindsight bias always creeps in to a disaster analysis. After 51-L, other failure modes were analyzed, and modifications were made. However, the ET foam shedding issue was not addressed.

[@Michael_J]

I think the people who are complaining about the little dig at Starship flight 1 need to relax a little. We know it could have gone better; it also could have gone worse. But at least they have now learned. The thing I'm surprised I didn't see any of those people mentioning is that NASA underestimated the power of SLS on Artemis-1 with it damaging the mobile launcher, which I would argue is a worse mistake, considering SLS's heritage. Again, not diminishing the work either of the engineering teams did, sometimes you don't know until you try something. The important this is trying not to make the same mistake twice, which is the true point of the video. The SpaceX issues were not the same as Shuttles but it should still be considered as a lesson for future missions (especially when Starship starts flying crew).

[@caldodge]

The choice to use hydrolox led to both disasters. Solid boosters were required because hydrolox inherently gives low thrust, and liquid hydrogen requires insulated tanks.

[@goldgamercommenting2990]

I still have my tile concerns with starship… If you loose a single tile, you loose the vehicle. Not on the flaps… but near the tanks If SpaceX and the fans aren’t careless, they should rethink on the design before another Columbia disaster would happen The fact is, SPACE FLIGHT IS HARD NO MATTER WHAT! There are going to be risks and some deaths here and there but we must accept those possibilities that starship may or may not become dangerous for flight because it has the same problem as the shuttle. We don’t need to worry about dragon, I like it’s design. Until after 25 starship flights with crew, I’ll be convinced it’s safe Starliner had clear service module problems, Orion… ok Orion is ok and fine, dream chaser is unmanned so I’m happy with that…. I’m still concern with starship’s safety…. Ever since flight 3 and 4 So if we have proven starship is safe I’m happy… until then… BACK TO SOYUZ LAUNCHES!

[@ChicagoMel23]

*its design

[@somedude4805]

You say “not everyone has learned the lessons of shuttle” as if there isn’t a deluge system in place now and a flame trench being built. Keep in mind SpaceX isn’t moving at the snail’s pace that NASA likes to move, so things are gonna break a bit more often, and that’s the point. I think a flame trench and deluge should have been prioritized sooner than they were, but whatever. At least SpaceX can build their own vehicles and get astronauts SAFELY to orbit (and back), unlike NASA and Boeing.

[@n.christianolsson4355]

⬆️ Facts

[@goldgamercommenting2990]

⁠@@n.christianolsson4355I still have my tile concerns with starship… If you loose a single tile, you loose the vehicle. Not on the flaps… but near the tanks If SpaceX and the fans aren’t careless, they should rethink on the design before another Columbia disaster would happen The fact is, SPACE FLIGHT IS HARD NO MATTER WHAT! There are going to be risks and some deaths here and there but we must accept those possibilities that starship may or may not become dangerous for flight because it has the same problem as the shuttle. We don’t need to worry about dragon, I like it’s design. Until after 25 starship flights with crew, I’ll be convinced it’s safe Starliner had clear service module problems, Orion… ok Orion is ok and fine, dream chaser is unmanned so I’m happy with that…. I’m still concern with starship’s safety…. Ever since flight 3 and 4 So if we have proven starship is safe I’m happy… until then… BACK TO SOYUZ LAUNCHES!

[@skunkjobb]

Being built... There was no working deluge system nor flame trench at the first Starship launch so they had not learned by then.

[@ghostblackout1]

Bro you posted 7 in 13 days what drugs are you on but anyways, always love your videos man. Keep it up

[@tomeshec1122]

spaceX didn´t underestimate the power of starship, they were sure the pad could survive a launch, they just didn´t think to check if the ground under the pad could withstand the launch, a dumb mistake they learned from

[@Syntex366]

That first starship flight will always be the most kerbal launch ever conducted in real life. Destroyed the launchpad, half the engines failed, entered a spin mid-flight and exploded.

[@demondoggy1825]

Entered a spin, FTS triggers and fails to destroy the vehicle, continues to spin got a other minute before finally breaking apart. Truly the Untiled Spacecraft of Rocketry

[@MTG_Music]

Additionally, comparing incidents resultant from a "learn fast and break things" style of development to a "carefully calculate everything and be very sure it will work" style is really apples to oranges.

[@grandicellichannel]

7:37 tho... 😅

[@rockyo59]

The shuttle orbiter was a great design, the method of getting it to orbit was terrible. There were safer methods to get it to orbit but those were subject to budget cuts.

[@scottie_2024]

I don't understand the closing dig at Starship. The iterative philosophy at SpaceX is so vastly different than at NASA. They, like many, probably expected the pad to take a hit (though maybe not as much as it actually did), but they wouldn't know until they tried. Moving fast and breaking things is how they get so much done. *shrug*

[@Syntex366]

It doesn’t matter how much you like SpaceX that first launch was very much a dumb move made in impatience. They damaged a ton of their launch facility with chunks of burning concrete, it’s a miracle there weren’t any casualties from the accidental DIY debris cannon they made.

[@rudra.patel.001]

Gyat damn he pumping these videos out

[@judet2992]

“Gyat damn” I can’t even be mad even though every fiber of my being wants to be, that’s hilarious.

[@henrimichelpierreplana4332]

One of R. Feynman greatest moment.

[@paulhunter1735]

NASA obviously hasn't learned a damned thing from loosing our astronauts on the two shuttles that were lost. Knowing that the Star Liner capsule had both leaks and thruster problems before launch they still went ahead with launching a crew onboard a capsule that they knew wasn't ready. To me this means that after the loss of two crews on the shuttle they evidently havn't learned a damned thing.

[@ChicagoMel23]

They did learn things though. That’s why they chose not to have them come back on if

[@paulhunter1735]

@@ChicagoMel23 So you're saying that they learned because they risked the crew's lives going to the ISS but not the return trip? They knew about the leaks and thruster problems before they launched so they never should have launched a crew on it to start with. That would have been them showing that they had learned their lesson.

[@badrinair]

thanks for tis short video. it is shocking how NASA has all information at hand and still took wrong decicions.

[@BPJJohn]

SpaceX fanboy dissing the space shuittle safety, while Starship carries 100 people in a potential Stainless Steel Cooker.

[@edward_jacobs]

It’s meaningful to consider approaches to risk reduction between programs. Ultimately, a process of iterative uncrewed missions will be much safer than immediately starting crew missions and halting iterations all at once, as shuttle did.

[@judet2992]

Difference between future blind hope and knowledgeable hindsight. We don’t know enough yet about the way Starship behaves or is built to do accurate critiques of it besides the planned design itself. New behaviors will crop up and I’m sure we’ll get plenty of content like this discussing what happened, if and when it happens. Shuttle was great, with flaws. Starship has the opportunity to be as well.

[@TheAbsentTourist]

​​@@judet2992the difference is that starship can fly uncrewed, and SpaceX isn't as scared of changing large portions of the design if it becomes apparent it is flawed. The next launch pad looks as if it will have a flame deluge, they discovered they were wrong before, and are acting accordingly. That's not to say things like this won't ever happen on starship, but that they are significantly more likely to happen on uncrewed missions rather than crewed missions.

[@judet2992]

@@TheAbsentTourist absolutely

[@Shenamy]

​@@TheAbsentTouristpretty much why Elon is angry with having to wait to perform a launch, since if there is no flight, there is no test, no results and well, you don't want to discover a flaw in a mission setting than a testing one.

[@britishporygon4678]

Comment for algorithm

[@n.christianolsson4355]

Your last-second slight on SpaceX regarding the underestimation of the power of the Super Heavy comes off as politically motivated and dismisses the fact that it was the very first attempt at launching the world’s most powerful rocket, and that SpaceX made significant improvements to the launch pad since. So, to suggest that the power of WORLD’S MOST POWERFUL ROCKET was underestimated without recognizing the immediate corrections made to Stage 0 and the significant improvements made to the subsequent 3 test flights illustrates a political bias on your part.

[@MTG_Music]

exactly what I was going to say

[@ChicagoMel23]

It’s you’re doing great not your