The Backup Space Shuttle

[@michaelschlissel8071]

In 2009 STS-125, the final shuttle mission to the Hubble Telescope was deemed so dangerous, that NASA had Discovery ready and on pad 39Bravo. It was labeled STS-401...no payload, no arm...just 4 crew members. 4 go up, 11 come down.

[@DamplyDoo]

Glad they didn't need it

[@MRblazedBEANS]

If it was so dangerous they need a stand by rescue ship why didn't they Scrub the mission? That sounds insane

[@rickywick]

@@MRblazedBEANS because it was important to do so, better have a reserve plan at a dangerous mission than have no mission at all

[@thomasackerman5399]

This is incorrect. It was not Discovery that was on STS-400 rescue standby for Atlantis on STS-125, it was Endeavour.

[@duramirez]

@@thomasackerman5399 He said 401, Discovery was the Backup for the Backup 400, basically they had 2 Recovery ships ready. xD

[@allenmoore4569]

I am an employee a technician who works on Cape Canaveral Air Force station . This shuttle sat on the pad for months . During that time woodpeckers had knocked holes into the foam on the main tank.. also during that time we had multiple rainstorms. It's my personal belief that these holes collected water that then froze when they fuel the shuttle. I believe this water would have frozen and broke off and then hit the shuttles wing .

[@trespire]

That sound very plausible. I wonder if deleting the white original paint from the central fuel tank would have protected against woodpeckers and other such natural wear and tear.

[@ajspencer5837]

Tap on a clip to paste it in the text box.Tap on a clip to paste it in the text box.Tap on a clip to paste it in the text box.Use the edit e,m icon to pin, add or delete clips.

[@TheBIGB420]

Yeeeeeeeaaah I'm sure u were a biiiiiig part of it all eh? Think if that were true you'd know how to pronounce a little better.,

[@johnlarro6872]

The tests using foam showed that foam alone, at the right speed, was enough to massively puncture the wing. Didn't need to be ice.

[@colonelmustard2652]

@@johnlarro6872 it's a matter of what is, by their account, likely to have caused the foam to fail, ie weakened due to the birds. Thanks for adding nothing to the conversation.

[@thesquirrel914]

I guarantee you, if NASA could have made the rescue attempt, every engineer & technician would have pulled days long shifts to get Atlantis ready for flight to save those astronauts.

[@jjramos46]

They didnt even have them inspect the wing. Get out of here.

[@jsldj]

Absolutely! Whatever happened to that "failure is not an option" attitude?

[@TheLukaszpg]

Modern nasa is full of wankers. They ignored the risk. Management was negligent. They killed those astronauts. Need Another Seven Astronauts That's what it stands for now

[@HoboThatIsHigh]

@@jjramos46 do you know about Apollo 13? Do your research before saying such things. Rocket science is hard. Cutting corners has ended after the challenger, which now groupthink is studied in grade school. The smallest overlook ends in disaster.

[@martinc.720]

Ok

[@darkguardian1314]

Frustrating part about all this... It was the one mission that didn't go to the ISS. Had it been any of the other three shuttles and the damage found... The crew would be alive today with a shuttle permanently docked at ISS or remotely destroyed during reentry.

[@samcostanza]

Or they'd have had time to send up materials to attempt a repair, and then reenter Columbia remotely, just in case.

[@antibrevity]

@@samcostanza Interesting idea, but it wouldn't have been worth it; they would have just de-orbited it over an ocean if they could. Leaving it at the ISS would not have been practical, so de-orbiting would be the only feasible option.

[@StsFiveOneLima]

Exactly. Had it been an ISS mission, and it only was not by random chance, even discarding the Orbiter would not have been so great a loss.

[@johnlarro6872]

@@antibrevity Pretty sure the cost of including a replacement panel or two, and a few space walks... versus a whole new shuttle... they'd try save the shuttle.

[@Fleetwing1627]

@@johnlarro6872 That wouldn't have entered in the calculation because another Shuttle would never have been built. But repairing a Shuttle and remotely landing it would've been good experience for NASA and the astronaut corps.

[@ncc74656m]

I watched the launch, and I remember saying "What was THAT" when the impact happened. I woke up late the day Columbia attempted reentry and came upstairs to see a fireball streaking across the sky on the news, and asked my dad what it was, knowing what the answer would be. I was less than three, but I remember when the Challenger happened - mostly, everyone talking about it. When I visited DC for the first time years later, we visited Arlington, and we just wandered as people do who have no one particular to visit, and we came across the Challenger memorial. It hit me immediately and viscerally, and it would again a year ago when I visited KSC and saw the shuttle memorial there, along with Atlantis hanging in the air. Hopefully we never again make the decisions we did for expediency that cost us the 14 lives aboard Challenger and Columbia.

[@MomMom4Cubs]

I was almost 4 when Challenger happened, and it's one of my first clear television memories. I thought it was a movie my Daddy was watching (he was a major space sci-fi nut). Funny, I thought the same thing initially whilst watching another aerospace disaster unfold in living color, 9/11.

[@Defender78]

Katie, you are LYING about seeing the foam strike during the launch.. You CLAIM that you watched the Columbia launch on television, and that you saw the foam strike the wing during the broadcast? I don't think that particular footage was visible to anyone on the day of the launch, that angle of the tight view of the shuttle and the foam falling and hitting the wing wasn't reviewed until days later, and then so only internally by NASA specialists on the ground. So to say that you saw the wing strike impact on the day of the launch and "wondered what it was", doesn't sound too trustworthy. the NASA ground teams were reviewing videos a couple days after the launch come and that's when they detected the foam impacting the wind. And either way Ordinary television cameras broadcasting the event of the launch weren't the same as dedicated NASA cameras taking high resolution video. I think I'm right, and I don't think you're being truthful by saying you saw the impact. No news channel, not NBC or CBS, or any other company filming or broadcasting the launch would have seen that angle; there's no record of it. I think you're making up a story Katie. You're trying to sound all learned and technically Inclined and simply wanting to say something profound at the end of your silly piece there but you're just making up a bullshit story.

[@ndmusick11]

There was a TV show in the '90s called The Cape that was centered around the space shuttle program. One of the episodes covered this exact scenario!

[@ManyTriangles]

I don’t know why there was such a gap in uploads on this channel but we’re all glad you’re back.

[@TheWinstn60]

I watched news reports at the time and there was discussion about possible damage to the shuttles wing by the foam falling off. Then later into to the mission there were more media reports of possible repairs or flying a different re-entry path to try to avoid the red hot plasma on the suspected damaged area. I think NASA knew the options available were virtually non existent and so gambled as it turned fatally.

[@spaceflight1019]

A major component was complacency. Foam strikes happened all the time and it never caused a problem before so why would this time be any different?

[@Correa24bori]

@@spaceflight1019 yeah that was their mentality. It was complacency that got the crew killed however.

[@spaceflight1019]

@@Correa24bori That, and something called "normalization of deviance" that led to less-than-optimal operating conditions becoming accepted as nominal. It almost caught up with them one more time during the pre-launch testing for STS-133.

[@Taz6688]

It was murder, they knew and let them die, rather than die of lack of air and continue to circle the earth, NASA is full of bad decisions.

[@samcostanza]

Never...NEVER tell the people (not the management) that something can't be done. They'll find a way to make it happen.

[@trespire]

This is when we needed another, smaller and more robust vehicle, to act as an emergency life raft for LEO. The DreamChaser, in it's previouse incarnations, as envisaged by ESA and NASA in the mid '90s, could have easily served as an emergency vessel, with a simplified processing cycle and prelaunch procedures.

[@genxlife]

I was thinking the same thing.

[@robertoaguiar6230]

The soyuz could have reached the shuttle and be grabbed by the canadarm. However only 4 people would fit inside, same for crew dragon. Boeing starliner fit 6. Unfortunantly all those options require someone else to rush up something in little time and only another shuttle could carry them.

[@JarrodBaniqued]

Plus, Soyuz is typically launched on a 51.6° orbit to avoid risking diplomat incidents with China, Columbia was launched on a 28.5° orbit; having a Soyuz meet it would have been like lightning in a bottle

[@jacuzzibusguy]

Could have been NASA’s finest hour.

[@lawrencejones1517]

The actual way to save the crew would have to have started years before. I remember an issue of a 1979 National Geographic magazine that extensively covered the Shuttle. Among the many things that were being worked on at the time, was an applied ablative to cover the space of any missing tiles. It also meant being able to inspect any part of the thermal protection, not to mention work on any part of the spacecraft. These techniques were abandoned because it was felt that they wouldn't be needed. Another thing that was worked on was the Personal Rescue Enclosure. This was an 86 cm diameter spherical space suit that an astronaut could crawl into that could then be carried by an EVA suited astronaut to transfer to a waiting rescue Shuttle. Again, the development was cancelled. But 20/20 hindsight is, well, 20/20.

[@JimMac23]

It wasn't the tile section that was damaged. It was the aluminum wing section above the tiles.

[@lawrencejones1517]

@@JimMac23 No, it was the reinforced carbon leading edge. There was no aluminum structure exposed on the exterior of the shuttle

[@Mastercorban]

I loved the shuttle growing up. I lived in the future with it; it was the future, now. This was painful to watch. So glad humanity has kept moving forward, but was worrying for a while what the next step was going to be.

[@Wesley_H]

I remember turning on the TV that morning to watch cartoons, and all four channels were tuned into the major news networks covering the crash and showing looping images of the debris streaking across the sky. I also remember that in the 90’s, there was a show called The Cape. I remember an episode where a shuttle was damaged in a collision with something in space, and a second shuttle was send up to repair it. Apparently somebody at NASA wasn’t listening. Update: It was the two part finale “Mir, Mir, off the wall”. Atlantis was struck by one of Mir’s solar panels and few of the tiles on the shuttle’s belly were knocked off. A second shuttle (I wanna say Discovery?) was sent up to make repairs. Both shuttles made it home.

[@Amrepdude499]

I don’t mean to be ironic. The rescue shuttle in that episode for Atlantis was none other than OV-102, AKA Columbia

[@SimonHollandfilms]

i worked on a couple of tv docs on Columbia. we think they knew about possible damage and told the crew, secondly, telemetry was maintained longer than reported, due to a space relay communication system designed to send data during re entry blackout....

[@brooks-e8249]

Great video. Covers something that many of us have pondered since the event. Those of us who are old enough to remember it vividly. Perhaps this would have been the stuff that Hollywood makes award winning moves about, and not the stuff that devastates a country for as long as we can and will remember.

[@johnlarro6872]

The crew of Columbia had no way of inspecting the potential damage - the arm was either not long enough or not included on that mission (it was later expended specifically for being able to inspect the shuttles for damage), and no way to repair it either (it was only later that they performed repairs to heat shield tiles). So whilst yes, some techs were debating whether the foam had caused damage, and perhaps fatal damage to the shuttle - the decision was made not to tell the crew as nothing could be done.

[@izom]

-the decision was made not to tell the crew as nothing could be done. - ashame if thats true....

[@nathanl5856]

@@izom It's unfortunately very true. The same failures of managers and directors not listening to their engineers about potential risks that caused them to disregard the risks of the poorly designed O-rings that caused the Challenger explosion came back to bite them again with Columbia. The standard NASA had set stated tha zero foam sheading was acceptable. However it was found that foam had come loose and dislodged on as many as 80% of prior shuttle launches. Just like the O-rings, this was a known problem that the higher ups in NASA decided to ignore. When some technicians expressed concern about the foam strike while Colombia was in orbit they were told they had to prove without a doubt that such a strike could have caused catastrophic damage before any deviation from the mission would occur or any ground based telescope powerful enough inspect the shuttle would be used. There simply wasn't time for such proof to be developed before the tragedy occurred. It wouldn't be until months after the accident that the directors got their proof.

[@spaceflight1019]

This mission carried the Spacehab, a module that eliminated the ability to carry the Canadarm system.

[@spaceflight1019]

@@izom You should read "High Calling" by Evelyn Husband. They did tell the crew but didn't know how extensive the damage was. The decision to not investigate was made by a flight director whose husband is an astronaut named Ham .

[@Taz6688]

@@spaceflight1019 The thought of them dying and being left to circle the earth would be too much for the public, they let them die claiming it was an accident.

[@4runnertowchain]

Your content is great! I love all of your channels.

[@josephpiskac2781]

NASA knew at least one week before reentry that there was an extreme problem with the shuttle. I suspect they had greater issues that made a rescue impossible.

[@RideAcrossTheRiver]

There was no problem with the Shuttle. It was struck and damaged by debris.

[@Sashazur]

@@RideAcrossTheRiver Isn’t that a problem?

[@RideAcrossTheRiver]

@@Sashazur There was no problem with the Orbiter. It was a problem with the booster system. If a passenger jet suffers a bird strike, do you consider that a design flaw in the jet?

[@Sashazur]

@@RideAcrossTheRiver You should have defined “problem” as “design problem”. Otherwise it’s perfectly fine to describe a debris strike as a “problem”.

[@jm2437]

The failures of those in charge that lead to this disaster are unforgivable.

[@cjford2217]

If we could rescue 3 astronauts in a foil wrapped toaster in 1970, we certainly could have saved these folks 30 years later with another spacecraft already being prepped. I remember that day, I was out in the middle of nowhere camping and a passerby stopped to tell us. A huge black eye for America. The worst part of this is that this "study" should have taken place before the very first shuttle was ever launched. Something as complex as space travel should have nothing less than triple redundancy. May they rest in peace.

[@JimMac23]

It would have taken several weeks to get another shuttle ready. Columbia didn't have that much oxygen reserve.

[@Napoleon1815-l8c]

Glad to see that Dark Space is back!

[@iJustB58]

I was 10 years old when this happened. I remember the updates being on all news and radio stations. Tragic 😮

[@jdmozee12]

I was 12 at the time, somewhat devastating to me, yet intriguing on how and the aftermath of the even.

[@zooot820]

id like to think they could have done it. with all the brilliant minds a nasa they excel at problem solving. this was a great space doc, id like to see this channel get more content

[@johnp139]

Probably, but the risk of losing TWO orbiters and TWO crews would have been too great.

[@MichaelJohnson-uo3ef]

This is the same as the fitting a square peg in a round hole with Apollo 13s issue, this is attempting EVA an entire crew to one shuttle then jettison the damaged one into earth with no losses. Like moving people in space is hard, really fucking hard and the thought of losing someone in transport while in EVA is impossible, the entire mission would be seen as impossible. Because you can’t risk the act of having someone drift out to space to die alone like that. You can’t risk the accident of collision with the damaged shuttle which would doom both crews. Even if the shuttle could have made it to the ISS there wouldn’t be enough supplies to handle the extra crew for that period until a second launch. The crews fate was sealed unfortunately

[@sharkheadism]

I think they could have pulled it off too. NASA has a huge, well educated workforce and many assets to pull resources from. Just as importantly, US astronauts are the best in the world and I have confidence in their decision making and drive to succeed.

[@anthonyb5279]

@Ash You are correct. Columbia had no air lock installed for that mission. Was never even considered this video is bullshit.

[@clone_bricks9855]

Columbia couldn't dock with any other spacecraft, because it didn't have a docking adapter. There was consideration of using some sort of pressurised rescue balloons to get the columbia crew out to Atlantis

[@chrisrosati8264]

I remember the painting of an astronaut floating with another rescued astronaut in the rescue ballon. I always wondered, would a second shuttle be even ready???? What NASA should have done was always have prepped 2 shuttles, for a possible rescue mission...we spend zillions on military defense but cheaped out on all the hard working valiant astronauts at NASA...shameful!

[@JimMac23]

@@chrisrosati8264 There wasn't another shuttle ready. That would have taken two weeks, and Columbia didn't have that much oxygen left.

[@NotoriousIP]

It was negligence, they didn't learn from the mistakes they made with Challenger, engineers warned NASA and the refused to listen.

[@mikeall7012]

I remember watching coverage of the Columbia disaster, sitting on the couch in the common room of dorm building in my freshman year of college. It was wild watching folks try and figure out what happened.

[@vespurrs]

There was an episode of The Cape in the 90s that was about NASA sending a second shuttle into orbit to rescue the crew of one stricken for some reason I can't remember now. Eerily prescient.

[@JimMac23]

It would have taken two weeks to prepare another shuttle for a rescue. Columbia didn't have that much oxygen in reserve.

[@djohanson99]

Gave thumbs up. Very informative. Heart breaking. Some people said they knew at NASA there was no hope. And to burn them up was more humane to dying a slow death trapped in space shuttle stuck in orbit.

[@phrog9884]

I had watched them birds go up as a child and saw the Columbia take off on t.v. and went outside to look for it on its Inaugural flight. From Fort Lauderdale. I was in 7th grade science class on the south side of Fort Lauderdale when the Challenger blew up watched it on t.v. and looked for her when she fell apart. I saw the Discovery when she ran down the State of Florida from CoCo beach when she passed Miami in the evening time and i could see her with a pair of binoculars. As a child. I will never forget those days. To bare witness Amazement of those birds going up into space.

[@beefsuprem0241]

Could they not have just waited at the ISS and got back on Soyuz capsules or another shuttle later. Rather than "running out of air" Seeing the Shuttle close up at the NASA visitors centre is something everyone should do also. Awe inspiring and a lot bigger than I imagined.

[@da40flyer]

ISS was in a completely different orbital plane. Columbia didn't have nearly enough fuel to change its orbit that much.

[@Phildo8]

I gotta believe that no matter how brutal and tiring the schedule would’ve been to get Atlantis ready for flight to save the crew of Columbia. There likely wasn’t 1 person who would’ve said “no I don’t wanna do that!” I’ve always thought that had NASA seen the fatal flaw and did decide to go the rescue way with an emergency launch of Atlantis that all hands on deck would’ve gladly worked 24/7 to get Atlantis ready to launch. Imagine the thoughts that would be going through everyone’s heads who would be apart of prepping an emergency launch. “What if we succeed and Atlantis makes a successful rescue of the Columbia crew?” Imagine the immense pride and immense joy that every single person who would’ve prepped Atlantis to launch would’ve felt! They never get even a teeny tiny bit of recognition from the public and likely not from their superiors for the work they do to prep the shuttles for a regular launch let alone an emergency rescue launch to save a stranded crew in space. Sure it would’ve been a gigantic undertaking but WHAT IF they succeeded!? They would be looked at as heroes even if only for a short time. They definitely would’ve secured their place in space flight history for centuries to come. I gotta think the hardest part would be getting a flight crew together that most experienced pilots would see as a “one way mission” bc of the odds of it being a failure versus a success. That would be the hardest part imo. Unless the space flight community is as tight as say Military units in combat. There’s no thinking about going to rescue brothers in arms in combat. It’s not “what if we don’t make it?” It’s always “if we don’t try it’ll be forever worse than having tried and failed”

[@JimMac23]

Even working full crews 24 hours a day, it would have taken two weeks to prepare Atlantis for launch. Columbia didn't have that much oxygen reserve.

[@olsmokey]

I seem to recall during this mission, listening to news reports that the crew knew about this and had inspected the damage via spacewalk. Later on, I was surprised to hear that they attempted re-entry knowing what could have happened. And of course, it did. Very sad. I also recall the tension during the Apollo 13 mission. Scary stuff indeed. Have you done a video on that mission?

[@JimMac23]

They didn't do a spacewalk, because they didn't have the right spacesuits or the tether needed to do a spacewalk

[@matismf]

JSC also refused to request the Air Force or Hubble telescope to check the spacecraft. They could have tried to re sequence the banking the Shuttle flew during re-entry to reduce heating on that wing.

[@JimMac23]

That would have done no good. The computer on the shuttle changed the angle of entry to try and save the wing, but the heat melted it anyway.

[@gracelandone]

Thanks for this effort to sort this out a bit. This damage risk had been identified on the very first shuttle mission. As was awareness of of the o-ring temperature susceptibility. It’s harsh, but clearly NASA with its attendant political funding threat, was willing, on more than even these two missions, to put all bets on red and spin the wheel. And so they were unforgivably lost.

[@evryhndlestakn]

In some defence of Nasa every mission comes with an unending list of risks. That tragedies dont occur more often is miraculous in my opinion. Unfortunately its packed away but an excellent book I have called "Moon Shot" about the Apollo moon landing showed a brilliant example of the odds faced in space exploration. I cant quote from the book directly but in that program when talking of odds for success/failure in reference to parts, the odds weren't a million to one that a single part would fail but something like 15 million to one (I've hopefully underestimated the total parts number but whatever the total is I remember reading the passage & thinking "WOW!" because the odds of a single part failure was way more likely than unlikely.)

[@djohanson99]

Did you know the solid rocket boosters on SLS burn thru 6 tons of solid rocket fuel every second. Think about that! And the liquid fuel is like 10,000 gallons a second. Please correct me if I am wrong. Overheard this while watching SLS moon launch.

[@catchup4430]

I followed the space shuttle a lot in my opinion. This accident was caused by one decision when NASA decided to save bunny and quit painting that external fuel tank when they painted it, it kept the foam from breaking off if you look at the early space shuttle missions with the painted external fuel tight and you will understand what I’m saying, grace and peace because I grew up and was living in Louisiana about 50 miles from where they built those external fuel tanks down there in New Orleans grace and peace

[@rickmartin2392]

Nope it was because of O' failure due to freezing temps at Cape that morning. A senior engineer at Morton/Thiokol recommend they not launch at that temp. but was over ruled by management so they would look good to NASA. There was aa HBO movie made about it a numbers of years ago.

[@onionhead5780]

@@rickmartin2392 This video is about Columbia space shuttle disaster and you’re talking about Challenger space shuttle disaster. Two completely different situations. Also he’s talking about the external fuel tank and you’re talking about the solid rocket boosters.

[@antibrevity]

@@rickmartin2392 No, you're referring to the Challenger, but @catchup4430 is referring to Columbia. The video is primarily about Columbia as well. I've never heard anyone argue about the cause of Challenger as it was ultimately a cut and dried issue of launch at all costs.

[@antibrevity]

If what you say is true, perhaps they could have just painted the ramp and other areas where foam was likely to become a projectile. I disagree with painting the whole tank and will note that, to my knowledge, they only had 2 launches with painted tanks so it might be hard to claim that the paint solved the issue entirely. If the paint did help, however, it would seem worth covering small areas, but otherwise the payload penalty of a painted external tank, which was carried all the way to orbit, was substantial (~600lbs). Paint was not just about cost, but weight, as NASA would have preferred to have the nice white tank appearing on televisions around the world rather than the ugly, brown-orange one. In my opinion, the accident was "caused" by routine underestimation of the dangers posed by foam impacts and by a general refusal during the mission to find a way to inspect the underside of the wing for damage; even a potato camera can see a hole that size. Everything is simple in hindsight, so ultimately we're left only with lessons for the future. It would have been difficult and perhaps irresponsible to use Atlantis as a rescue ship as that would have put a second, though smaller, crew in danger as well and one where seat space would be over-capacity, but humans are always willing to risk rescuers in such situations so there's no question that astronauts would have volunteered.

[@thetruenolan6655]

The paint was not the only change. The original external tank foam used in initial launches was considered to be an environmental danger due to some toxic outgassing which happened during application. NASA changed to a more environmentally friendly formula, but unfortunately, the new foam did not stick to the tank as well as the original formula. Columbia and seven crew were lost -- but at least NASA did not stink up the neighborhood with polluting gases. (Yes, that last sentence is sarcastic.)

[@101Cypher]

if a inspection was carried out in orbit and the damage discovered, and the other shuttle would have not been able to carry all the astronaut's, they may have been able to carry out a repair that would have improved the chances of a safe return or take some of the crew aboard the Atlantis to reduce the amount of crew descending in the damaged shuttle, it was a saddening part of the exploration of space and the risks involved, I'm sure everyone who ventures into space takes the risk into account before choosing to be a pioneer.

[@antibrevity]

On-orbit repair of the leading edge would have been impractical and no astronaut could be risked during its re-entry and landing, so they would have put all astronauts aboard the rescue vehicle, regardless. Shuttles could carry both crews of astronauts, but modifications were needed to do so. After Columbia, a "Launch On Need" program was developed whereby a Shuttle could be equipped for landing crews of at least 11 persons.

[@matthewcaughey8898]

No the rescue shuttle would have cut the crew down to 4 to accommodate the 7 on the stricken shuttle. The rendezvous would have been hard enough

[@robinmasters4547]

I would hope that balancing risk vs. Gain was there true intentions.

[@Name-ot3xw]

My proposal would be to put a purpose built shuttle in orbit to function as a lifeboat/transport. You could save a lot of weight by ditching all of the parts dedicated to re-entry, fill it with fuel and supplies. Leave it unmanned on standby when not in use.

[@h0ckeyman136]

The only problem would be that, the vessel that needs it would have to get to it. Which could take days depending on how the orbits line up.

[@Name-ot3xw]

@@h0ckeyman136 we have all sorts of capsule designs to handle the ferrying of people to and from.

[@h0ckeyman136]

@@Name-ot3xw Again, its not that its not possible, but for you to save someone who gets stranded. You would have to be able to fly to the lifeboat which is in a whole other stage of its orbit. These things arnt like sailing ships. They require lots of time to get to places because of the vast distances

[@Name-ot3xw]

@@h0ckeyman136 You do realize that the shuttle and capsules exist as they do because we made them so. If we were to change the mission parameters we could build them that way instead. Like, we have already built multiple space based vehicles that were never intended to return to earth except for end of life. Many were infrequently manned so we have some experience with storing space-trucks. Most of them are still in space, though as you so helpfully pointed out, do not currently wear appropriate engines.

[@Name-ot3xw]

@@h0ckeyman136 Further, it's not like we don't know where various manned missions are taking place, it's not as if we need a warp drive to have a lifeboat in position for a planned mission.

[@m3528i]

Seems odd that they had pieces falling off during launch. Ice is one thing but random foam flying around at 500mph should have been considered unacceptable.

[@redcat9436]

Loose foam and heat shield tiles were a problem throughout the program.

[@JimMac23]

The had foam coming loose on previous launches with no damage.

[@cbspock1701]

Really good book on Columbia people should check out is "Bringing Columbia Home". If you want to learn about the whole program the best books are Into the Black, Bold They Rise, Truth Lies and O-Rings, Wheels Stop, Bringing Columbia Home.

[@phillipray871]

NASA knew about the damage but chose not to tell anyone on board cause they didn't want them to panic but they knew the astronauts were doomed

[@josephdupont]

I appreciate that effort that went into this. This video is that right after the launch? Despite agency offered to take a picture of the shuttle to assess the damage, and NASA said it's not necessary, and the reason why they said that. Cos they did not want to go through a rescue mission. Which could have lost the second shuttle. It was just a matter of money and that's a sad side of it, and I don't think he mentioned that here. In fact, the same thing happened with who Gibson, he had a tremendous piece of tile, come off his shuttle, fortunately, there was some steel behind where came off, but he thought he was cooked too, and asked him to made no contingency plans or no rescue plans. NASA made no contingencies for rescue or anything else. So the whole thing is, it's a dirty mess. And even this even the Columbia. What was the first 1 the first one that blew up? That was because they were trying to not lose money and spend more money delaying the mission. It was too d***

[@JimMac23]

A photo wouldn't have done any good. They couldn't do a rescue mission. It would have taken two weeks to prepare another shuttle. And Columbia didn't have that much oxygen reserve.

[@Phildo8]

I’ll never forget the first time I watched the footage from Houston Ground Control when Leroy E. Cain was standing there knowing what he had to say but didn’t really want to say it. Then he uttered the words that no one in Houston Ground Control history ever wanted to hear again after The Challenger Disaster & that’s “lock the doors” when he said that you just seen in body language and facial expressions that he was just crushed inside and then all those people at their stations simultaneously dropped their heads when they heard that in their ear. For those that don’t know “lock the doors” means that no one goes in & absolutely no one inside goes out of the control room for a long time. Until they’ve done all the necessary steps, gathered all the vital information, study every piece and every number of data and then ran those numbers through a ton of scenarios so that not only the public has an answer regardless if 100% accurate or not they have an answer that everyone in that room put their absolute best into arriving at. Then there’s the families of the crew that not only have to be told “I’m sorry your husband/wife/son/daughter was lost while reentering the earths atmosphere.”

[@randyrobertson4686]

Regardless of human fatigue from working long hours, I refuse to believe that NASA doesn’t have the manpower to relieve workers for rest periods and have other fully qualified employees to take their place for a few hours. When crap hit the fan on the moon mission they went into overdrive and figured out a way to get those astronauts back using only what they had on hand in the craft. I obviously can’t know for sure but I imagine the number crunchers said….we can get this second shuttle up there but it is going to take around the clock man hours and huge dollar signs. So they probably all convened in a locked room and said…… “it’s theoretically possible to do this and save this crew but the time and money is just not worth it, there’s a half way decent chance that they can make a successful re-entry but it is not guaranteed. We will let them try and whatever happens, happens and this conversation stays in these walls “. Then they let them try and you know the rest. This is just a probability of what could have happened, I really hope not but with governments…..you just never know.

[@JimMac23]

Even with working crews around the clock it would have taken two weeks to get a shuttle ready. Columbia didn't have that much oxygen reserve.

[@changelotdulac]

You might be interested in the space shuttle emergency landing sites. These landing sites were the only areas outside US territory where the space shuttle was allowed to land in case of an emergency. The French Istres military base was one of them.

[@dampnickers]

Elvington, England, was another such place.

[@JimMac23]

It wouldn't have mattered. The atmosphere would have burnt up the shuttle wherever it had landed.

[@Texan96]

I lived in Mansfield, Tx and you could hear the windows buzzing and house shaking when it came over

[@paulo50001]

Your content is getting better and better

[@rolflandale2565]

3:55 It was a large craft, bulk infastructer means cannot be fully sstol in shape, ejection methods required. Also lacked emergency disposable surround heat shield layer paint. X-15a was assumed "infinite" paint for horizontal flight, could've saved on merely entery

[@midwestlegacy1919]

Imagine the level of fear and desperation the astronauts would have been in if they truly understood the circumstances they were in. We need to have standby rescue ships ready for assistance in LEO at all times in future space missions

[@secretagent86]

that is simply not feasible. there are inherent risks in any activity

[@mattheww2797]

They retired the shuttle and went back to capsules because this situation can't happen to them, the shuttle while an impressive machine was deeply flawed

[@cbspock1701]

Oh please. the only way to make space safe is not to go. There is always Risk.

[@midwestlegacy1919]

@@cbspock1701 space is one of the most hostile environments known to man, it couldn’t hurt to have a backup vessel.

[@TheWebstaff]

Iss always has a life boat craft at dock when people are there.

[@the_lost_navigator]

Launching any shuttle without a rescue plan was akin to Titanic sailing without any Lifeboats. Had NASA's management acted on Day-2 and Satellite-imagery made available, I'm sure the engineers & technicians could have readied Atlantis for a mission within four weeks. There would have been no failure - yet a triumph of Human achievement...

[@fatstorvolay2243]

They should have just sent a pod up with all the repair equipment needed and guided the astronauts onboard about how to go out and fix it.

[@da40flyer]

No way to dock a "pod" to Columbia and no way to get an EVA astronaut to the pod or the damage site.

[@JimMac23]

They didn't have the right spacesuits to do a space walk. And fixing a hole the size of a briefcase would be impossible.

[@JimMac23]

The astronauts couldn't do a space walk to check the damage. They didn't have the right spacesuits to do that. The astronauts didn't have the tools to make the repairs. The wreckage showed a huge hole in the wing. They didn't have a piece of aluminum to patch it. And as for preparing another shuttle for a rescue, it would have taken several weeks to prepare one, and the astronauts didn't have that much oxygen left.

[@ljessecusterl]

NASA's response to questions about an orbital inspection was kinda gross. It was basically, "it's better to let them die on re-entry than suffocate in orbit."

[@mlmmt]

... Yeeeah, gonna have to agree though, would rather die close to instantly (and unexpectedly) when the shuttle turned into tiny shuttle-bits than die slowly of suffocation, knowing it was coming...

[@ToaArcan]

@@mlmmt Yeah, it's horrifying, but it's not wrong. If you're gonna die, better something expected and only terrifying for a few seconds, than something you have to stew in for days while you wait to choke to death.

[@RideAcrossTheRiver]

On Apollo 12, there was concern that lighting had damaged the capsule's parachute system. The crew was sent to the Moon anyway. Why not?

[@ToaArcan]

@@RideAcrossTheRiver Well, the last time you can abort due to parachute damage and actually change the crew's prospects for survival is before the launch. Everything after that, they need to use the parachutes to get back down, no matter how high or far they went.

[@RideAcrossTheRiver]

@@ToaArcan On Apollo 12, lightning hit the rocket just seconds after launch. There are no guarantees.

[@liamwilson1058]

I could never understand why after knowing the shuttle was damaged they didn’t have a rescue shuttle ready or at least work their asses off to get one ready. They knew the ship was doomed.

[@da40flyer]

By the time one would've been ready, even with 24/7 effort, Columbia crew would've run out of consumables, namely LiOH scrubbers to keep the cabin air breathable.

[@JimMac23]

Columbia didn't have enough oxygen left for the time it would have taken to ready a rescue shuttle.

[@davkrod]

The lump of foam was between large briefcase/small suitcase size, not dinner plate.

[@JimMac23]

The wreckage showed an 18 inch diameter hole in the aluminum part of the wing.

[@cateclism316]

The final episode of the short-lived TV series "The Cape" gave a possible scenario for a shuttle rescue. A heat shield repair in orbit, and transfer of all but the last two astronauts to the rescue shuttle. Should have been explored as a possibility.

[@JimMac23]

There was no shuttle ready to launch. And that type of rescue had never been tried. It could have meant the loss of both shuttles.

[@cateclism316]

@JimMac23 True. NASA had a goal in the 1980s to schedule a launch every two weeks. They never attained that goal, and the Challenger disaster put an end to it. And they had no backup vehicle like the Apollo.

[@EssGeeSee]

Thank you. Many questions answered.

[@auro1986]

now you have spacex for backup

[@bco-fm5qu]

SpaceX makes most of NASA's rockets now.

[@vernonlemoignan1392]

We all talk about what if’s and contingencies, while blaming NASA. However the real problem was operating the worlds most complex experimental vehicle on a shoestring budget. Everybody, especially the US government wanted the glory of the great things NASA does without paying the money necessary to do it properly. The whole shuttle program was a result of this thinking by combining the the airforce and NASA needs into one. It could have been successful, but a lack of funds delayed the SRB joint redesign, and the shedding of foam could have been fixed but the money wasn’t spent to find a fix. Penny pinching killed the personal maneuvering units, even after they were shown to work, and if they were on columbia that mission as they were originally envisioned, could have been used to do an inspection. You can blame the engineering or the management, but the fact is NASA was forced into a corner to make due with the shuttles flaws and never fix them, but bandaid things along to keep the costs down. This pressure was put on them by congress. The shuttle was a GIANT leap forward, and it worked. But instead of working out the bugs and fixing the problems nasa was left to fly with what they had and be happy congress or a president didn’t pull the plug. Even with the disastrous schizophrenic funding the shuttle never failed. A solid rocket booster did. Designed in segments to allow for money to flow to a certain congressional district, and a fuel tank so simple and inconsequential that it was disposable. Politicians created the shuttle and politicians killed 14 people.

[@robertszyka7873]

You know one of the first astronauts on the very first space shuttle mission mentioned how "they" said it was impossible that this space shuttle could succeed. Citing the amazing accomplishments of the American people when the effort is put forth. I fully believe had that damage been caught early and confirmed, we would have had a different story to tell today. Would it have been difficult yes, but so was getting Apollo 13 home. So is every mission in some way shape or form. It comes with the territory. I fully believe that everybody on the ground when the word came out that those men and women needed to be rescued everybody would have stepped up, all available assets would have been put forth and a successful rescue mission would have been accomplished. Unfortunately was not to be. May God embrace all those souls of all lost astronauts and cosmonauts lost.

[@JimMac23]

Even with everybody working overtime it would have take two weeks to prepare another shuttle for a rescue mission. Columbia didn't have that much oxygen in reserve.

[@djohanson99]

The shuttle program was a failure. After returning to earth and getting prepared and ready to launch again was estimated to cost $1 billion and over a month. The shuttle was a complicated. Hopefully the SLS program is going to do better.

[@Crogon]

That was just damage control (Atlantis). In the really real world, every single Space Shuttle that gets retired, gets handed over to the the USAF, then they use the fleet to run around the clock missions indefinitely. The really real number of Space Shuttle missions we've sent up is insane, and possibly unknowable, considering their probable security levels.

[@spaceflight1019]

This coming February 1st will mark 20 years since that fateful morning. See if any of the legacy media even mentions it. They always mention Challenger but ignore Apollo 1 and Columbia. But I remember, because it changed my life, and maybe that's all that matters.

[@jeffguevara5967]

Apollo 13 was rescued using slide rule & vacuum tube technology. It's sad they weren't able to do the same on the space shuttle using advanced computers, experience & knowledge.

[@darylb5564]

I don’t want to debate this I just want to make a point. When the shuttle was first launched all of the foam was painted white. If everything would have painted in the launch in question would chunks have fallen off? My guess is no. The engineers that designed those tanks to be painted probably didn’t do it for Looks

[@JimMac23]

The foam wasn't as heavy as the paint was. They needed to use a lot more fuel at launch with the paint.

[@darylb5564]

@@JimMac23 I’m guessing they wish they had saved weight somewhere else…

[@choo22choo]

Great video

[@brianhiles8164]

The report in question does not address the potential alternative of the second Shuttle bringing a portable crew module (that would be in the equipment bay), repair equipment (including refractory foam), and possibly consumables, to the stricken shuttle. All crew would then return to Earth _on the damaged _Columbia,_ not the _Atlantis._ Despite the risk of four(?) more dead astronauts, the risk would be deemed acceptable insofar the damaged and repaired _Columbia_ would have been fully prepared and checked, whereas the _Atlantis_ would not have been -- which exemplifies the importance (and complexity) of duly preparing such a launch, as you mention. The _Atlantis_ could have presumedly been flown up to a higher orbit, via remote link, and recovered at leisure. It is my informal remembrance that it was not possible to land a Shuttle remotely. By the way, I am surprised that the original design engineers of the early Shuttle did not anticipate this failure mode by placing enough TPS (Thermal Protection System) material _within_ the wing to have theoretically survived the time for reentry. I understand that the _real_ cause of the _Columbia_ breakup was the asymmetric drag upon the damaged wing created a yawing force that prematurely exhausted the supply of hypergolic fuel being used by the RCS (Reaction Control System) venier thrusters when instructed to by the IBM AP-101 flight computer(s) trying to compensate for same. The craft _then_ entered a flight regime which was unsustainable, and broke up.

[@Peter-976]

What they needed was a way that the astronauts could have fixed the hole the insulation made.

[@JimMac23]

It was a hole in the aluminum wing the size of a briefcase. The astronauts didn't have the materials on board to fix it. And they didn't have the kind of spacesuits for a spacewalk.

[@joewynn2445]

I don't remember which sts mission it was but NASA almost lost another space shuttle when a thermal tile fell off but it got lucky where it fell off because it was right where a piece of steel was and it kept the shuttle from burning up.

[@dougc190]

I believe that was Atlantis. And I remember seeing the commander he had a few choice words for NASA if things start to go awry when reentering. I don't remember if it was steel or titanium but either way it had a higher melting point than the aluminum did on Columbia where it's hole was

[@JarrodBaniqued]

It was STS-27, and it was a heavy aluminum plate underneath a critical antenna

[@Kyle-gb9dq]

@@JarrodBaniqued it was a steel plate, not aluminum

[@JimMac23]

@@Kyle-gb9dq The shuttles had wings made of strong carbon carbon aluminum.

[@liammeech3702]

Where do you get high-quality historical footage of the Soviet/Americans space-race from? I want to make a analogue-horror video using only historical images footage...but cannot find what I need on either Google or Bing

[@thetruenolan6655]

Would it have been possible to send up an unmanned capsule carrying some sort of patch for the hole, and rendezvous with Columbia?

[@johnp139]

No

[@JimMac23]

The hole was the size of a briefcase. There isn't a patch that big. And the astronauts didn't have the right spacesuits for a spacewalk.

[@VictorRobotov00]

Wow, technical and emotional. What a downer.

[@williamv9058]

I remember being woke up by a rumble that was loud. I believe that this was Columbia breaking up on reentry. I live in iowa. weird for that to be so loud. I later found out what the rumble was via news at the time.

[@dinoduderocket]

Columbia had the space lab module so it would not have been possible to dock to Atlantis, crew transfer would need to happen via e v a

[@robinmasters4547]

If there was any type of damage in the leading edge area. Why didn’t the pressure sensors in the tire area alert a problem to the pilots on their instrument panel? I would assume that the tires would probably be expanding after being exposed to the vacuum of space? I welcome all educational responses. The question is to educate, not ignorantly criticise.

[@TrainDriver186]

The wheel wells weren't sealed, so were already at vacuum anyway. I'm fairly sure the only major part of the orbiter that was sealed is the crew compartment. Payload bay was certainly not sealed/pressurised.

[@JimMac23]

Everything was fine until re -entry. Then the computer showed the tires lost pressure. By that time it was too late.

[@enzofitzhume7320]

I wonder if the technician that installed the foam on Columbias external tank still works for Nasa?

[@Steven_Edwards]

They didn't install anything incorrectly. The foam just sucks and comes off.

[@JimMac23]

The foam was decided by the scientists at NASA because it was lighter in weight than paint was.

[@Tomcatntbird]

I think it's effing stupid to not have had a pre-reentry inspection of the shuttles exterior in place. They saw the foam hit the shuttle, why wasn't anything said?!

[@JimMac23]

It wouldn't have done any good. There was no way to repair an 18" diameter hole in space. They didn't have the materials, the tools. or the right space suits for a space walk.

[@bryjb10]

AFSPCs involvement back in those days was to ensure BMEWS was down at takeoff and landing so they wouldn’t get fried. I’m not sure where they think the usaf should have been looking for holes in the wing

[@JimMac23]

That wouldn't have helped. There was no way to repair a hole two feet in diameter.

[@bryjb10]

@@JimMac23 regardless they can’t blame the US Air Force.

[@thomasboren3580]

They could have rescued the crew with no problem, most don’t know about the secret shuttle our Air Force still has and could have saved the crew, NASA really knew this and after the damage that Atlantis had on a flight after Challenger disaster they knew for sure things should have been put into a mode to even get shuttle to space station for full rescue mode . I know a lady that worked in Houston at JSC and all that worked there and past workers there were heart broken with loss

[@anthonyb5279]

Thats not true. Columbia was the Air Force Shuttle and it was not a secret. There was no possibility of rescue. After this disaster policies were changed to be sure rescue or repair was a possible on every flight.

[@JimMac23]

There was no secret shuttle. Quit listening to conspiracy theorists. They are nuts.

[@Datan0de]

Another reason why Columbia couldn't have aborted to the ISS is that Columbia, as the first and heaviest of the shuttles, wasn't capable of racing the ISS' altitude.

[@JimMac23]

They didn't have enough fuel left to change their orbit.

[@GuilhermeM1]

This man speaks at 1,25 speed

[@victorsilveira2423]

You should make a video about the one way space man project

[@fungalcoffee]

If there was an organization that could have pulled off the rescue mission I would think it'd be NASA

[@lawrencebraun7616]

The old NASA engineers from the moon shot could have

[@fredwood1490]

I wonder if it might be possible to to have a solid fuel rescue rocket available all the time? Simpler, smaller, safely stashed in its own hanger or launch tube, it could be little more than a can with automatic controls and heat shielding, not unlike the supply rockets used for ISS today, but designed to travel up to the damaged ship or station, unmanned, gather a dozen people and fall back to Earth, controlled by AI. The main thing being the solid boosters with a second stage to push to orbit and with nobody aboard at lift off, it could push 10 Gs or more. I'm sure this idea has been passed around by NASA, maybe even by Space X, but why wouldn't it work?

[@YouTube_user3333]

Poor design. Poor safety rating. Poor reusability. Poor rescue procedures. It was only a matter of time before 💩 hit the fan. I’m surprised that NASA had as much success as they did. Murphy’s law is no joke

[@richlrn64]

If NASA had not abandoned the capsule methodology and had concurrently developed more advanced Apollo spacecraft would it have been possible for a capsule vehicle to dock with the shuttle? I always thought it was unfortunate the US space program abandoned capsule methodology given how generally reliable Mercury, Gemini and Apollo had been. I have no idea if a capsule would work at the Shuttle orbit position; just something about which I've been curious.

[@JimMac23]

The capsule and the shuttle were very different in design. It's doubtful that docking would have been possible.

[@ceeceemartini4348]

Why would they ever send a shuttle or any vehicle and persons into space without 1 of the back up plans being able to go to the ISS ICOE????? Smh

[@omgthnkyoubasedgod66]

Hellyeah dude dark's videos rule

[@laurogarza4953]

There were already plans for a camera mounted extension for the CanadaArm to be used to enable inspection of the heat shield while on orbit before this disaster but which was not implemented until AFTER this disaster. They also had a plan to employ astronauts aboard ISS to visually inspect the shuttle and it was employed AFTER this disaster. Not only these facts but there was an engineer at then "Morton Thiokol" who warned of the great dangers of flying the Solid Rocket Boosters in freezing weather BEFORE the Challenger disaster which was caused by the faulty O-rings in the SRBs in freezing weather. Safety and security are always written in blood which means they could have applied these safety measures BEFORE these disasters but simply did not until after the disaster which could had been prevented.

[@NATES84]

They knew it EARLY.they shut up and did not get after the rescue . It was also photoed by other cameras .

[@matthewcaughey8898]

Allow me to explain the rescue attempt and what it would require for a success. So upon finding out Columbia is critically damaged NASA immediately orders the Columbia crew to “ do as little as possible” this would minimize the power and consumption of supplies to buy the crew some time. At the same moment the shuttle prep people would be calling everyone in they could find. Nobody would refuse knowing 7 lives were depending on them doing the impossible just became possible. Next NASA would call in 4 of the most experienced astronauts they had ( every astronaut would volunteer to go no questions asked those not going would join the prep crews cause they would be desperate to help). Those 4 would begin intense training at that moment for something never done before. The controllers would be doing similar training likewise. There would be more then enough help cause nobody would want to let Columbia down. The external tank risk would be mitigated by removing foam in select areas. Contractors would be there with full staffs working 24/7 too. Nobody would have to make anyone do anything. Launch day and Atlantis goes up without a hitch. That’s the easy part, this entire time Columbia has been orbiting the earth with the crew doing the absolute minimum while CO2 has been building up. Then they hear the call from mission control “ Atlantis is on their way to you to rescue you”. No cheers go up yet cause the toughest part awaits. Once on scene 2 of Colombia’s crew suit up as does 2 of Atlantis’ crew. ( shuttles carry 2 spacesuits maximum) Atlantis’s crew snags the first 2 Columbia astronauts and brings them in. Then the rescue crew take over 2 suits and 2 more Colombia astronauts suit up and get brought across. On the final trip the Atlantis crew takes over a special remote link antenna for Columbia ( all the shuttles except Columbia had remote control capabilities and the link antenna plugs into Columbia and will let mission control remotely fly it ). Once installed Columbia’s commander signs off and they head to Atlantis. Once aboard the rescued astronauts are seated in the lower section and the shuttles separate. Atlantis comes in for re-entry and lands in Florida. Cheers and TV interviews are requested and NASA gets its best PR boost since Apollo 13. Colombia is de orbited over point Nemo and it’s debris splash down into one of the deepest points of the ocean as it breaks up. Unfortunately this didn’t happen

[@johnp139]

It’s not that easy.

[@dpsamu2000]

@@johnp139 Yes it would have been. Except for the addition that a tile repair was also available, and the shuttle would likely have survived.

[@urcarsucks6959]

@@dpsamu2000 I don't think you understand the level of complexity involved with simply getting a shuttle to the pad, much less so trying to expedite the process and perform a mission that has never been attempted. We all want to believe it could have been done. If it could, it would have happened.

[@FrankBUILTperformance]

Alternatively atlantis is also lost and it’s the worst PR disaster ever and the definite end of the shuttle. (Full disclosure if it were up to me I would have attempted the rescue mission though)

[@dpsamu2000]

@@urcarsucks6959 I certainly do know enough to write a paper 6 hours after the first press conference the conclusions of which about the size, and cause of the damage matched the test specifications, and the damage caused during the first one million dollar test so closely NASA told the media that were invited to the test that the damage was a fluke. That was in the news that day. They also spent another 20 million blowing holes in the wing in a failure to prove it was a fluke, and to prove me wrong that the damage was predictable from video that was seen by those responsible in NASA in the first hours of the strike, and that they chose not to respond or even report for 2 weeks until the disaster. i also know enough that all the recommendations in my paper for subsequent launches were implemented. Inspection after launch during which the first launch after the disaster detected a card of felt stuffing between the tiles had come partly out which was removed by EVA attached to the arm. Repair equipment be used which was a large caulking gun filled with quick hardening refractory heat resistant ceramic material. A rescue shuttle with astronaut transfer on standby, and remote, and automatic unmanned reentry control to possibly save a repaired shuttle. Maybe when someone knows that much about it you should look some of it up to see if it's true before you childishly bop off with some ignorant platitude about what someone understands. Just because you don't know something doesn't mean no one does kid. By the way. I've made machine parts to repair the crawler that gets the shuttle to the pad, and spacecraft parts that flew from the pad. What have you ever done to get a spacecraft to the pad?

[@grhinson]

Jinx send Max to space! Jinx send Max to space!

[@WacKEDmaN]

What's the worst thing that can happen? We'll all die, right?

[@victorboucher675]

Never A Strait Answer

[@jonlamontagne]

Was there no option to try alter orbit and try to rendezvous with the MIR or the ISS instead of rushing another shuttle up there? Seems like that would have a better success ratio over a hasty preflight for the second shuttle? Even if it took a week to adjust orbit enough to dock with either vessel seems a far more realistic and when compared to preflighting a shuttle and boosters in record time and getting a weather opening after all of that. These are just ideas I am spitballing.

[@JimMac23]

Columbia didn't have enough fuel left to change orbit to the MIR or the ISS.

[@GraphicalRanger]

Could Russia or China have launched rescue missions. or Could Atlantis have taken crew to ISS if similar problems occurred? Also what ever happened to the 'golf ball' passenger reentry pods I remember reading about?

[@JimMac23]

It would have take two weeks to launch a recovery shuttle. Columbia didn't have that much oxygen in reserve.

[@josephdupont]

Wow good info

[@froginasock8782]

2:15; "The Colombia Accident Investigation Board, or CAIB..." *shows footage of Challenger*

[@drlong08]

Yep, but with not a lot of actual 'incident footage' of Columbia I'll take the editor's discretion on this one.

[@chrisrosati8264]

I remember the painting of an astronaut floating with another rescued astronaut in the rescue ballon. I always wondered, would a second shuttle be even ready???? What NASA should have done was always have prepped 2 shuttles, for a possible rescue mission...we spend zillions on military defense but cheaped out on all the hard working valiant astronauts at NASA...shameful!

[@JimMac23]

One wasn't ready. It would have taken two weeks to prepare a rescue shuttle, even with staff working 24 hour shifts. By that time Columbia would be out of oxygen.

[@whatsreal7506]

There's plenty of criticism and accolades for the shuttle program. The "Dark" series took this one on... I applaud "Dark" series for approaching this. 👏