The Flawed Design That Led To The Space Shuttle Columbia Disaster | Spark

On the 1st of February 2003, Space Shuttle Columbia punched through the earth's upper atmosphere. On board seven astronauts - unaware of the events that are about to unfold. Hot gases are filling the right-wing cavity and melt the aluminum structure inside. At 200,000 feet and traveling more than 14,000 miles per hour the shuttle breaks up killing all on board. In a fast-response documentary produced just five weeks after the disaster and months before NASA's official report the film asks - was it an accident just waiting to happen? Space Shuttle Human Time Bomb explores over 30 years of Shuttle development. Were design compromises forced by the military creating an inherently dangerous vehicle? With contributions from Shuttle engineers and scientists - the show accurately concludes what went wrong on that fateful day.
---
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 #Spaceshuttle #NASA

[@johnbarry5036]

he said "mishap?" A mishap is when I spill my coffee. This is a tragic disaster sir.

[@smokindragn1]

tragic yes, disaster no...this crew was sacrificed

[@cultfilmfreakreviews]

at least they didn't say "anomalous plume"

[@godislove4540]

I thought the same thing. It’s kinda of an offensive minimization. I watched the documentary on this last night on Netflix and none of the family members seem upset directly with NASA.

[@StephenLuke]

RIP Rick Husband (1957-2003) William C. McCool (1961-2003) Michael P. Anderson (1959-2003) Kalpana Chawla (1962-2003) David M. Brown (1956-2003) Laurel Clark (1961-2003) and Ilan Ramon (1954-2003)

[@melodymacken9788]

Beautifully said.

[@StephenLuke]

@@melodymacken9788 Thank you so much for those kind words! ☺️❤️

[@StephenLuke]

Anyone who says they are alive, then you’re inconsiderate about learning history.

[@leedolbear8202]

Legend. Never forget them x

[@Medieval_Dead]

“Hey this thing doesn’t work.” “Then add a second one.” -NASA

[@Errcyco]

Redundancies keep the world flying safe. I think it was Lockheed who first had the thought.. “if we have three redundancies for every system crashes will not really happen and we make more long term as airlines and passengers alike will appreciate it” It’s ironic those same redundancies have been what’s made Boeing comfortable half-adding their builds. Why? So 15-20 executives got bigger dividend payouts that year. They risk the entire planets safety to become a nut hair richer. And therein lies the biggest issue with capitalism. It’s fantastic til the Uber rich consolidate their power and then wrong them for money. People die every year cause some rich guy wants a third Yacht. 😒

[@charleswest6372]

Shuttle was a flying bomb.

[@DeAlpineBro]

The biggest design flaw was having politicians and not engineers run NASA.

[@georgesealy4706]

I agree. NASA is now a committee that makes bad decisions for the wrong reasons.

[@dahliacheung6020]

"That is certainly, most likely, and possibly just a small factor," is what a politician would say. If I were to be an astronaut I'd have to have nothing to lose and be perfectly OK with the likelihood of my demise being somewhere between fifty and one hundred percent with no fairer outlook.

[@djpalindrome]

Nixon’s Office of Management and Budget “designed” the shuttle, not NASA

[@yourcrazyteacher585]

Boeing is having a similar problem

[@raymartcarreon6069]

​@@yourcrazyteacher585 also about 70% of all companies and corporations nowadays too

[@Errcyco]

The block that came off hit the leading edge of the wing and left a like 12" hole.. It couldn't have been worse. There was zero chance of survival unless they somehow got into another craft and used it to come back. The plasma from re-entry into the atmosphere is so hot it looks unreal.. it immediately went into that hole on the leading edge, which had aluminum ribbing that melts at 600*f the plasma was ~1,600*f it melted the wing from the inside.. realizing that must have been terrible for the crew. They had a solid 15 seconds knowing they were dead with no hope. That's just awful.

[@jjramos46]

Challenger was not a design flaw. They knew the orings would freeze. Thats not a flaw its a limitation. A five year old could tell you what happens when things freeze. Challenger was due to lack of concern for those in the shuttle. Plain and simple.

[@jamesrobert4106]

Truly despicable when you look into it.

[@lillagahnavich7700]

its crazy that they shot that thing up over a 100 times and the only 2 times they killed anybody....was when they KNEW the problem that would lead to it and chose to ignore it....thats whats CRAZY to me​@jamesrobert4106

[@TheMarpalm]

You should read “Challenger Launch Disaster” by Diane Vaughn - great read. Challenger was lost as much due to poor management decision making as design flaws.

[@jjramos46]

@@TheMarpalm the design flaw there was weather dependent. And one engineer knew it and voiced his concerns and was right but ignored. If they would have postponed the launch, those people would still be alive and Challenger would most likely be in a museum.

[@jjramos46]

@@TheMarpalm But I'll check out the book. Thanks.

[@Soffity]

Finding the video tape of them all laughing and saying “you wouldn’t want to be outside right now” Is not only chilling to listen to but serendipitous find and the fact it still worked, phew.

[@CatsClaw44]

The fact that there are people who are not watching this video because a clueless person lied and said that 95% of the video has nothing to do with the title shows how easily people can be brainwashed.

[@julezz_91]

Not brainwashed, but misled

[@propertyofpeter]

It is a short attention span problem too. This day and age, folks want one minute Tik Tok clips. The TL:DR generation. Heaven forbid you spend 45 minutes watching something educational.

[@BudgetSongMaker]

@@propertyofpeter As a kid, I’ve watched the entire video. I don’t get what you mean.

[@Errcyco]

I don’t dig into the comments til the video is at the tail end anyways. You start to realize most people just comment than dip without watching anything. Weird.

[@BudgetSongMaker]

@@Errcyco That’s accurate. The Tiktok-Generation doesn’t even care about the content. They need their 3 second videos.

[@aagifford]

When this one happened, I had just turned on the tv and chanced on the news, and they said the Shuttle Columbia was late in arriving at Kennedy Space Center. I recalled going to see the very first shuttle landing, and there was a science center at the base where a bunch of shuttle scientists and engineers were presenting information about the rocket and shuttle and systems. I saw them pull a tile out of an oven with my own eyes white hot and then hold it in their hands in front of me a minute late still glowing. One said that it was impossible for the shuttle to land late, (part of how it bled off energy), that if it was late then it was on the ground somewhere. That its flight path to land would be aloft for nearly as long as possible within seconds. So being 15 minutes late, based on what he said many years before, they were on the ground, we just didn't know where....yet. I couldn't stop watching until that came out, then eventually the fist video, then others came out of the tragedy. "Lock the doors." Never forgot that. They knew way before but didn't want to admit it for the longest time.

[@MisanthropicOcellus]

"costly and difficult" Not a fkin excuse.

[@MaxRank]

Having lived through the challenger consequence I find myself yet again looking at an occurrence easily preventable if NASA took safety and risk seriously. Complacency yet again cost the lives of 7 people. I welcomed the end of this program and am truly stunned that only 2 orbiters were lost.

[@badtrekee4348]

They never bothered improving it like SpaceX does with its rockets

[@georgesealy4706]

Yes. I saw it as a kluge solution, and I consider the shuttle program to be a complete disaster. It never lived up to what was sold to Congress, which was a "space bus" with a launch every 30 days or less. NASA's administration didn't want to hear about problems and design issues. Nope. And then the total loss of two shuttles in 135 flights was unacceptable. Especially since administrative decisions played a direct role in their loss.

[@Soffity]

@@georgesealy4706indeed, why wasn’t the foam hitting the wing experiment done when they were designing the insulation. I’m no engineer but even with my pea brain I can see that something that size hitting at that speed would do a lot of damage. No matter how light it was, 2 pounds at many times the speed of sound is a lot of force. They knew about the shedding, they had seen damage time and time again, it was sheer luck the foam hadn’t caused a loss before Columbia.

[@georgesealy4706]

@@Soffity It seems that NASA was so full of themselves that they didn't ask questions and probe various scenarios. They just forged ahead. People asking difficult questions that would slow down the program were given the 'red stapler.' It's kind of like the current situation where the gubment is going to force people to buy EVs when the electric grid doesn't have the capacity to provide the energy to recharge them. Nobody wants to hear about reality. Again, I say the biggest fault I have with NASA is that they didn't have a plan to handle a disabled shuttle in space. NASA didn't think they could ever fail, and yet they did miserably and tragically.

[@charleswest6372]

Never trusted the shuttle. Too many flaws. Riding on a bomb is one. Tiles were a weakness, too.

[@user-ex8rb3mc3y]

The orbiter itself NEVER failed! The components surrounding it failed, causing the breakup of the 2 vehicles.

[@stevenhashimoto4472]

I was an Air Force Air Traffic Controller in the early 1980s. I arrived shortly before the second launch (STS-2 Columbia) of the Space Shuttle (a space vehicle system that was truly a worthless piece of crap btw). The airspace above and around the launch site included multiple restricted and warning areas that activated on launch days. The boundary of these areas closest to the launch pads ran down the center of the Indian River. Myself and several non-rated controllers (I had arrived about two weeks prior) grouped around a spare scope and started counting aircraft primary targets (reflected radar returns from the skin of the aircraft). Within an area of about 20 miles by 7 miles by 10,000 feet in altitude, we counted over 250 individual aircraft flying back and forth minutes before shuttle launch. Probably the densest accumulation of airborne aircraft ever. We marveled at the fact that nobody ran into somebody when a collective callout by passengers and pilots alike said, “There it goes!” Worked or saw launches #2 thru #22 before leaving that assignment - missing the Challenger disaster by a year. Hated that system from the start… it killed more astronauts than every other rocket system, by every country, in every decade since Yuri Gagarin onward. Anyway, never saw a launch from the air, just the beach at Cocoa Beach, jetty at the Port of Canaveral, on the Cape complex from 4-1/2 miles away, from my couch thru a window of my apartment and on a radar scope while working traffic. From 15 miles away, the radar return (the blip) on a launching shuttle was nearly two inches long, 1/4 inch thick and only lasted two sweeps of the radar before exceeding the radar’s maximum range by altitude, not distance. A Boeing 747 (typically largest radar return) was only 5/8” by 1/8” in size at the most.

[@Gorilla.Guitar]

complacency is what took the lives of both shuttle tragedies.. both of the issues were transparent to all but not heeded by any.

[@dvgese]

Politicians-“let’s not spend money on this but use that money for our own personal benefit and send a bunch to other countries. That’s a much better idea.”

[@timsheehan6954]

This happened 2 days before my 13th birthday. My science class watched this happen live, my whole class was silent

[@isaactravers3101]

I was in high-school science class. Everybody was cracking jokes and being very crass

[@jonberry7515]

Science class on a Saturday?

[@js35701]

That bloody boot sole at 43:41 is unnerving...

[@bobpourri9647]

IMO the biggest flaw design with the entire concept of the shuttles was the piggy-back method of getting them into space in the first place: Too many opportunities for damage.

[@annieanonymous611]

Yes it was very primitive.

[@richalcat66]

I said to a friend that I thought the astronauts seem rather naive and trusting. She pointed out that most of them are from the military and are used to obeying orders without question. i.e. They're not going to argue with Mission Control.

[@brianw612]

A co worker had just came in and told me that the shuttle was 10 minutes late landing. Having followed the shuttle development and missions I replied right away that fire balls must have been seen over Texas.

[@fredferd965]

An obvious problem with the Space Shuttle was that when launching the Shuttle was below part of the rocket boosters, etc. and stuff could, and often did, come off of them and strike the vehicle. If the Shuttle had been above the rest of the stack that would not have happened.

[@krumplethemal8831]

Better, would have been to not use insulated foam on the external tank. If nothing can fall off, there's no problem..

[@jasonstewart8363]

@@krumplethemal8831 but the insulation is necessary to keep the fuel in a liquid state.

[@jasonstewart8363]

You speak as if this is some brilliant revilation you had, yet we just heard them say that for about 20 min of the video. Thank you captain obvious.

[@cmerton]

A REAL problem with the shuttle is that some people thought strapping the sucker to a bomb was a good idea.

[@Kunfucious577]

Lol. She said,” NASA wanted the ultimate dream space vehicle but ended up with a jumble of fuel tanks and rockets with an airplane attached to it.” I couldn’t agree more. I can’t believe they couldn’t find a better way to get people into space. Let’s do better NASA.

[@fastmclaren71]

2 solid rockets, an orbiter(not an aeroplane) and 1 fuel tank. And you believed this misinformed documentary. Wannabe experts were used.

[@GetAwayFroMe]

Listen further, It wasn’t NASA. It was the executive branch, the DOD, and the USAF. The military forced the shuttle design change away from the original stubby design, launched from the back of an airplane. The airplane launch would’ve avoided the falling debris issue.

[@fastmclaren71]

​@GetAwayFroMe It would have never been able to take a significant sized payload to space. Branson can only take people barely into space. Too much Superman Returns.

[@k1productions87]

The Shuttle wasn't built to get people into space. It was built to get CARGO into space, and potentially retrieve payloads to bring back down (which was really the one and only advantage the Shuttle had). It was not designed to be a people-mover, it was a glorified freight truck. Nothing more.

[@fastmclaren71]

@@k1productions87 'Glorified freight truck' way to sh!t on the great minds that created it. I guess the helicopter is just a glorified propeller cap?

[@kirsty916]

If the people at NASA had just grown a spine and asked the military for access to satellites to take photos, this could have been avoided.

[@teflondawn]

girl this is such a good point and nobody is talking about it wth…😂

[@Jessiedoesyoutubee3838]

They didn't even try. Didn't. Even. Try. Too much work up the ladder. Too many emails. Too many stubborn managers. ffs

[@kirsty916]

@@Jessiedoesyoutubee3838 And it still makes me angry now.

[@georgesealy4706]

I believe NASA didn't really want to know. The reason is that had they known for sure there was a critical problem NASA had no way to deal with it. The lack of planning would have become known and everyone at NASA would have lost their jobs. It would be embarrassing to watch the astronauts die slowly in space. No, NASA figured they would roll the dice. If the shuttle made it, then great, everyone marches on and nobody is wiser. If the shuttle disintegrated, then it would be over quick. And NASA could cover their asses with a bunch of arm waving and BS.

[@Jessiedoesyoutubee3838]

@@georgesealy4706 just finished that book Bringing Columbia Home about the search efforts in the aftermath. It is such a stroke-job circle jerk for middle management, praising NASA managers for coming in on their off days (God forbid) to find the rubble and corpses that they caused through their own incompetence and complacency. Absolutely disgusting. Hard not to vomit through that one. Fire them all.

[@LEEHOLMES-gq2gj]

My heart goes out to all the shuttle crew a there loved ones and my RESPECT TO ALL THAT TAKE THAT RISK WITH AIRCRAFT TECHNOLOGY. ✌

[@conradsieber7883]

A NASA Engineer was very concerned about the wing strike by a large piece of foam from the main fuel tank but a NASA manager halted the engineer's attempt at further exploration of the problem prior to return...

[@ChennaJCook]

A similar thing happened with Challenger. The engineers refused to sign off on the flight because it wasn't safe, but their bosses overrode them because what could possibly go wrong? Well, as it turns out, everything.

[@conradsieber7883]

@@ChennaJCook the very same thing...

[@gwendolynstata3775]

Remember kids, the suits will sell you to Satan for a single cornchip.

[@michael-4k4000]

Was there that faithful day and NASA is hiding things....

[@Jessiedoesyoutubee3838]

I want that engineering team to write a book. Problem is, they get a pension for life probably which would be in jeopardy. And also the stigma that they'd be crapping on the crew and their bosses. But I want that book.

[@josephweiss1559]

No more in Video Ads

[@scottaznavourian3720]

Yes the odd are you'd have disasters more often but the fact is In 30 years and a 135 space shuttle missions on y 2 had catastrophic failures neither of those would have happened if a bunch of sanctimonious jackasses weren't making launch decisions.

[@briancheung5576]

According to the book "Wing in Orbit", both Challenger and Columbia suffered from great pressure to launch on time. 1998 was the year when the construction of ISS started, in which the Shuttle would play a huge part. Any delay to launch would cause the delay in the construction of the ISS. The hectic schedule of the launch caused NASA to overlook the bipod ramp foam problem, which damaged the left wing of the shuttle.

[@nyckhusan2634]

After launching of Columbia engineers who studied images of foam that hit left wing of Shuttle already knew that chances of crew for safe return are about 50%. Nevertheless, no rescue operation was initiated because: 1) orbit of flight was " special " , because mission was half-military , it was impossible to reach ISS station for emergency docking from existing orbit, fuel was not enough for that. 2) crew was not equipped with suits for Space activities in violation of safety protocol and could not to go out to make assessment of damage and to make emergency repair on wing. 3) no other Shuttle available ready to start within 2 weeks for emergency rescue operation again in violation of safety protocol. Possibly, the only chance was to force ISS to change its orbit to make its rendezvous with Columbia possible but it would require international cooperation and sending cargo ships to change its orbit. That''s why it's need to have own space stations, not " International " , for more safety in Space.

[@georgesealy4706]

To me, the biggest failure is #3 on your list. Things happen. Things go wrong. They are complex systems with millions of parts. So the correct thinking is to say, "Okay something will go wrong, so how do we deal with it?" And make that part of the planning process. But NASA didn't do that. What NASA said was, "The chances of something going wrong are really small, so we'll deal with it when the time comes." NASA had no plan. And from what I have heard, they didn't want a plan. People who rocked the boat were frowned upon and given a red stapler with a desk in the shipping department. Career over.

[@Guangrui]

The shuttle was supposed to be a shuttle between the space station and the ground, as its name implies, but then things slipped away 😮😮

[@dme1016]

Bottom line? Blonde bozo Big Cheeee Linda Ham screwed-up....over & over again. And still, she's prolly getting big bucks from either NASA or some other Fortune 500 company to make important "decisions"....

[@tiggersboy]

Columbia was the first orbiter built and it was heavier than the subsequent ones. Even under normal circumstances it couldn’t reach the ISS (that’s why it was never used on the construction missions). In fact, because the Shuttle flights were almost exclusively used for the completion of the ISS, there had been discussion of mothballing Columbia since it couldn’t be used for that purpose.

[@SymphonyBrahms]

Why didn't NASA plan for emergencies? It was very poor planning by NASA.

[@djpalindrome]

The Shittle was designed by Nixon’s Office of Management and Budget to be cheap. The Mickey Mouse thermal protection system of brittle ceramic tiles. Solid rocket motors strapped to the sides which had always been considered too dangerous to be used on a manned vehicle. A huge debris-shedding external fuel tank pelting the orbiter with 500mph shrapnel

[@JimMac23]

"Obviously a major malfunction". Obviously a major understatement.

[@essencetoney933]

I hate that NASA knew they had a problem with the shuttle and didn't tell the crew. They watched them in space and they knew they were gonna die

[@mattsmith1137]

There must be some chilling footage of the final moments they’ll never release to the public for obvious reasons.

[@nickhowatson4745]

it was i. the camera didnt capture the last moments and goes corrupted right at the moment of breakup.

[@menardsoliven2178]

it could be on their classified files.

[@blackpanda7612]

There is footage right here on youtube recorded just before the break up. Even audio of the crew and what was said mere seconds before the cabin structure gave way. its not hard to find.

[@Gorilla.Guitar]

if the footage had captured much more footage It wouldnt be appropriate for viewing. I for one would have corrupted it intentionally out of respect for the crew members.. if their demise became obvious to them while cameras roll?? it wouldve turned awful very quick. i for one am glad it corrupted.

[@scz1770]

Not everything is a conspiracy. They have footage from right before breakup and explosion. It's on KZbin.

[@JimMac23]

The space shuttle was an expensive dangerous failure that killed 14 people in two disasters.

[@tech45]

NASA was flying by the seat of their pants:(

[@iamannego]

THE FACT THAT IT WAS 1St TIME AROUND THAT KALPANA RODE COLUMBIA SPACE SHUTTLE BACK I THINK 1993 or 97. Not knowing for the 2nd Time was the last time😢

[@OzzyInSpace]

Seeing that wood pecker go to town on the ET like that. LOL Bruh

[@davidhess6593]

They should have continued to paint the external tank white.

[@MaheshWalatara]

I thought I knew everything but this video taught me a few things I didn’t know. Thanks.

[@Algolxxxxxx]

Cut the bloated military budget and direct the funds towards NASA.

[@jeremyscherbert7336]

Or bloated entitlement spending, or, or, or... NASA is a tiny amount or spending

[@Kunfucious577]

I don’t think we would have nasa without a military.

[@k1productions87]

You wanna know something REALLY crazy? The US Space Force has a larger budget than NASA

[@JimMac23]

The remaining shuttles are in museums now. That's where they belong.

[@ogrebattle22763]

NASA was well aware of the foam strikes, how many occurred during other launches I have no idea , but it's one thing to have a dangerous situation happen that you have no control over it's completely another to be fully aware of a dangerous or potentially dangerous situation & do nothing about it while being warned time & time again.

[@js35701]

Just because something fails doesn't mean its flawed. No design is perfect. The failure comes from accepting deviations from normal. The foam was NEVER meant to fall off during launch. Foam was observed falling during launches, but since it caused no concern, the problem was never fixed and failure begin to be accepted as "normal'. Nothing is supposed to fall off of a 200 billion dollar machine, no matter how harmless it appears. the question was never asked, how much foam can fall before it jeopardizes a mission? The engineers should have went back and discussed solving the foam problem before it was accepted as "normal". This same deviation from normal is what doomed the challenger as well. launch is not supposed to have in cold weather, but they deviated from standard launch temperatures and people died.

[@k1productions87]

Its not just because it failed from time to time, but because so many designs intended to maximize crew safety were sacrificed in order to reduce cost. And that is a BIG-ASS flaw.

[@play030]

Tell us how much you don't know about engineering.

[@fred36956]

There really wasn't any launch escape system in NASA rockets that would save the crew. In Mercury perhaps as I believe it was a one stage rocket with a capsule on top. For Gemini the astronauts could not eject, like the future four shuttle test flights because the ejection seats could not be used above 100,000 feet. And for the three stage Saturn V the launch escape tower was jettisoned after the first stage separated from the second/third stage combination. The second stage of the Saturn V had 5 J2 engines and should a problem develop during second stage flight, like an engine explosion there would have been no way for the Apollo capsule to be pulled away from the rocket. And that also pertains to the third stage with a single J2 engine. If a problem occurred on the third stage that could be an explosion, again since the launch escape tower was jettisoned after the FIRST stage the capsule would not have been pulled away from the rocket. So IMHO NASA never had an escape system for all stages of their rocket's flight. As for the Space Shuttle, as the video shows, to make the crew compartment jettison-able would be very complex and the weight of it would severely limit the weight of payloads it could carry. Lastly, BOTH shuttle accidents were 100% preventable. In 1977, four years before the shuttle's first flight, a NASA engineer wrote a report that the Solid Rocket Booster's "field joint" design was not acting in a manner that would keep a leak of SRB rocket exhaust from occurring. He recommended a redesign of the "field joint" but due to time (delays) and unavailable money the SRB joint design was not changed. After the second shuttle flight was when it was first discovered after recovering the boosters (as they parachuted in to the Atlantic) there was erosion and "blow by" of hot gases impinging on the primary and secondary o-rings. As launches in colder weather yielded more erosion and burning of parts of the SRB o-rings, the old Apollo NASA management would have stopped flying the shuttle and had the field joint redesigned but not 1980's NASA. As for the Columbia accident NASA was well aware that multi-layered hand applied foam covering the forward bipod strut's connection to the External Tank had been breaking free during launch. Two flights before the Columbia's final flight, a piece of that foam broke free and put a gouge in the 1/2 thick steel casing of the SRB. But this same area of foam had been a well known issue, yet again NASA did not stop flying the shuttle until the problem was fixed. Of course after the Challenger accident the SRB field joints were redesigned and heaters were put in the area of the field joints to keep the o-rings at 75 degrees F. As for Columbia the multilayered hand applied foam on the forward bipod strut (where the orbiter's nose is attached to the ET) was removed and again heaters were installed on the now exposed metal bolts that held the forward bipod strut to the ET to keep ice from forming there due to the extremely cold liquid propellants inside the ET. Even after Discovery was launched after these foam issues on the bipod strut was "fixed" NASA neglected to remove two other multi-layered hand applied foam called PAL ramps (proturberance air load) from the front right side of the ET supposedly protecting the 17 inch diameter LOX feed line and smaller feed lines and electrical wires running along side it down from the top of the ET to where it feeds the orbiter's LOX umbilical and inside it the liquid oxygen in to the rear orbiter compartment to feed the three main engines (SSME's). So after that first flight after the Columbia accident in July 2005, NASA again stopped flying the shuttle and removed both PAL ramps from the ET, which after all that, NASA found they weren't ever really needed to begin with. It took another year of delayed shuttle flights. So, both accidents occurred due to very well known issues in the design of the SRB field joint(s) and the multi-layered hand applied foam but due to pressure from Congress (funding) and to avoid long delays in the flight schedule, NASA management let two space shuttles launch despite the warning that cold temperatures would impede the functioning of the SRB o-rings to seal the 3 field joints on each SRB (Challenger) and removing the really unnecessary foam which was well known to break free of the ET and hit the shuttle's tiles, or in the case of Columbia, the RCC (Reinforced Carbon Carbon) panels on the leading edge of both wings (which was carbon cloth only 0.2 inches thick) which punched a 17" hole in the leading edge on the left wing of Columbia (RCC panel) number eight (of 22 panels on each wing). As quoted Christopher Kraft (first NASA Flight Director and then Director of the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas had stated in an oral interview that the shuttle was the safest spacecraft NASA had ever built. It was NOT the fallacy of the machine but the fallacy of the human brain playing Russian Roulette with the shuttle. And even with the two accidents the most complex part, the orbiter and its three main engines were NOT the cause of the PREVENTABLE accidents; just two rubber o-rings in a flawed designed SRB field joint and a piece of multi-layered hand applied insulating foam falling off the ET during many shuttle launches. Again, both very well known design flaws that NASA never bothered to fix until after two accidents and deaths of 14 highly educated and trained astronauts. Unlike Apollo 13's accident which was not a known issue until it happened, NASA could 100% have prevented both shuttle accidents had they acted appropriately.

[@understandingautism1389]

If we gave as much money to nasa as we give to other countries for wars then we would have been on mars already

[@leoarc1061]

Anyone with a piece of paper and a pencil could, effortlessly, conclude that the Space Shuttle, although reusable, would be incredibly inefficient. The vast majority of the mass of the Shuttle would return to Earth. That is, obviously, mass which cannot be used as payload. In addition, such reusable mass would need enormous amounts of fuel and oxidizer, as well as two massive SRBs (solid rocket boosters). One of the reasons for this was the Air Force's (and possible other agencies') ability to dictate payload dimensions. However, there was in fact a need for a craft somewhat similar to the Shuttle. The ISS and Hubble missions do appear to confirm such assessment, to an extent. Could the Hubble missions have been conducted with a non-reusable craft? Probably yes, but such craft wasn't available. So, could Hubble have waited for a more efficient craft? I think it could have.

[@danceswithmules]

The biggest concern I have for Starship is the same issue with the shuttle. The heat shield tiles Starship uses are very similar, if simpler, and they break off at a concerning rate. Starship is going to have a fairly significant "hot" phase on reentry, too, as it bleeds off velocity, even more so if it's coming back from an interlunar or interplanetary orbit. It'll even probably have to survive multiple heating and cooling cycles as I imagine they might adopt the skipping reentry that Orion did. Thankfully, the first flights will be automated, so very little risk to human life.

[@DavidJao]

The fact that the Starship tiles are simpler is actually a meaningful difference. The shuttle was fine as long as you replaced the tiles that got damaged on each entry and no major damage such as debris strikes occurred. The problem was that each individual tile on the shuttle was different from all the others and it was very labor intensive to hand make all of the different tiles that needed replacement after each mission. If the tiles are simpler and identical to each other, they can be mass produced, lowering costs and turnaround time. Also, Starship doesn't have any frontal protrusion such as the shuttle external tank that could serve as a source of foam for debris strikes. Superheavy might possibly be struck by debris coming off of Starship, but Superheavy doesn't carry any human passengers on its return to Earth, so no major concerns there.

[@TheLeftMikeRightMikeShow]

Starships ablative tiles are designed to be easily replaced. The materials scientists and engineers working on Starship are second to none: including NASA.

[@danceswithmules]

The simplified tile design certainly is a plus, as is the elimination of the possibility of foam strikes. And, well, Shuttle Discovery was a good example of losing tiles in just the right place, one of the few areas that used stainless steel structurally. Starship may be a little more tolerant of lost tiles since the whole damned thing is stainless. We'll see.

[@thatoneskierdude4410]

@@danceswithmules alright i think a lot of people don't really understand that the tiles themselves don't actually take up the brunt of the heat. I think it's okay if tiles fall and whatnot because what is known as the boundary layer ends up taking up like 80-90% of the heat when re-entering. this layer in fact has nothing to do with tiles but the smooth design of the orbiter. the only reason it failed is because the hole in the delta wing on the left side of the orbiter completely jeopardized the smooth seamless shape the orbiter had. if starship can have a material that will be able to take up the remaining 10-20% of heat, then that's fine. no use in tiles.

[@miasmic100]

Spaceships look good in movies, we get doomed by the smallest error in flight

[@cmerton]

They were doing stuff that had never been done before. Shit happens...

[@drewpooters62]

Given that space exploration has provided new tech, new medicines, and new knowledge, we should be realizing that NOTHING is ever 100% safe, and those who choose risk ACCEPT the fact that it may not give them long lives. Its what seperates them from the ranks of the cold timid aouls who know neither victory or defeat. USAF SECURITY POLICE 1982-1997.

[@GH-oi2jf]

At 19:00 they say that after the Challenger disaster, the shuttles had the means for crew to eject. That is not true. Ejection seats were present only for the early test flights, when there was a crew of two. No shuttles had ejection seats after they began normal operation.

[@Nienormalny]

I suppose they came to conclusion that it wouldn’t really work. Ejecting at Mach 18 isn’t survivable.

[@Kunfucious577]

This documentary is all full of crap. It’s trying really hard to make the facts fit their opinion.

[@FuzzWoof]

Not eject as such, but all shuttles after the Challenger disaster had an escape system retrofitted (the Crew Escape System), which is what they probably meant. Although, it was next to useless - a spring loaded extendable pole which astronauts would clip themselves on to and slide along then parachute down.

[@k1productions87]

You clearly weren't watching the screen as you were typing that. They clearly showed in the video the bailout procedure from the side hatch - not any "ejector seat"

[@SymphonyBrahms]

@@FuzzWoof A parachute jump from that altitude and at that speed would be fatal in itself.

[@JimMac23]

It wasn't a loss of tiles which were on the underside of the shuttle. It was a briefcase size hole in the upper aluminum part of the wing.

[@leecroysdale8140]

Concorde flew, accident free for over 30 years, by BAirways, until they decided after one fatal accident to finish it's program, if only NASA had the same look towards the protection of human kind 😢

[@CHANCEINTUITIVE]

That’s really bothersome knowing they were all stuck in the cabin 💔

[@nmm0343]

Classic butterfly effect but woodpeckers

[@user-fl2wn5zr5z]

return to flight safely that's what they said when Challenger exploded

[@fionawimber1028]

Oh for... would you STOP titling your shuttle videos like this?! The shuttle did remarkably well, all things considered. And with Challenger, it wasn't the orbiter herself which failed but the boosters. With Columbia-well you find me one airplane that can stay together with a hole in her wing that causes melting from the inside!!!!!

[@k1productions87]

"Space Shuttle" refers to the entire launch stack, not specifically the Orbiter. Calling Challenger or Columbia a "Shuttle" is a misnomer. They are either the spacecraft or the orbiter, and a component of the Space Shuttle. So yes, it was in fact the Space Shuttle that failed, even though the Orbiter was stronger than what it rode on the back of. That doesn't change the fact the concept was still flawed from the get-go, flaws created by the demand for cost saving over crew safety.

[@fionawimber1028]

@@k1productions87 and I know that. But the average person doesn’t.

[@yours2injesus2]

HOW SAD

[@tech45]

They got what they paid for:(

[@lillagahnavich7700]

its crazy that they shot that thing up over a 100 times and the only 2 times they killed anybody....was when they KNEW the problem that would lead to it and chose to ignore it....thats whats CRAZY to me

[@Mishacanttouchthis]

Who wrote the script for this? A jumble of rockets and fuel tanks with an airplane stuck on the side? The space shuttle was an extremely complex and highly engineered vehicle…..nothing close to an airplane.

[@JimMac23]

But that's exactly what it was.

[@acousticaesthetics7535]

I'm sorry "MISHAP??"

[@buckchesterfield8886]

Design was not the significant factor behind the Challenger disaster. Political pressure caused NASA to operate Challenger outside its design specs, plain and simple.

[@user-dc1ud6px3s]

Of course it's the design which called for multiple roles. Why else did they cancel the space shuttle entirely?

[@k1productions87]

This was the last launch window for STS-51-L. If it did not launch that day, it would then have to remove its primary mission objective, which Congress would have then seen as a mission failure and wasted funding. And if you try to step in front of Congress and explain to them you threw away millions of dollars because "it was too cold that day", no matter what other technical details you provide, that will still look in their eyes as dereliction of duty. And the inevitable result would have been further crippling budget cuts, which NASA couldn't afford. So yes, "Political Pressure" is the simple way to explain that. It is easy to look back in hindsight and call NASA's decision to launch "negligence", but you have to take a step back and look at the situation at the time from their perspective. But then, if they had liquid-fueled boosters (cryogenic propellant requires resilience to extreme cold) instead of solids, the Challenger disaster would never have happened in the first place.

[@rkgsd]

21:00 It is NOT a mystery as to why the Columbia shuttle broke apart as the voice over said! It was in fact proven to have been caused by the foam falling on the wing.

[@karaDee2363]

Apparently you didn't listen to the whole video which they said space debris could have further damaged the Leading Edge of the wing

[@SECRETARIATguy224]

​@@karaDee2363Coulda woulda shoulda . . . all bunk. An actual physical test verified that it was the foam striking the wing.

[@zimmerman1031]

How does this channel have so many subs, yet so few views on their videos?

[@thecommonsenseconservative5576]

No it really wasn't a flaw design just flawed management

[@Kunfucious577]

It’s almost always like that.

[@jasonstewart8363]

The people that say go, or no go, are the bravest, and safest people in NASA. Both shuttle failures were from the same root cause, bureaucracy which resulted in people saying shit like, Yeah we know its a problem, but it will be fine!

[@ViruszPlayz.5822]

@@pacingtiger8750 It’s a little like 911, the civilians on the front lines were the only ones making a difference.

[@peterbustin2683]

12:39 Dunno about this car you sold us, guv.."

[@u.k.trainandbusvids]

When STS-114 launched crew checked the tiles and have an extended robotic arm should an emergency occur they could move to the new shuttle and renter the earths atmosphere yet on STS-135 as it was the last mission of Space Shuttle there was no Space Shuttles available but should some damage occurred they would undock the shuttle manually from ISS and the 4 crew would return in the Russian Soyuz Spacecraft one by one which means only two crew members would launch from Baikonour each crew was fitted with a Sokol Suit for the Soyuz seats yet when the Russians launch they have safety first they have only had two disasters Soyuz 1 and Soyuz 11 but they learned from there mistakes and solve problems there has only been twice a launch abort has happened first in the 80s when Titov and Strekalov was gonna launch to Salyut and then in 2010s when Ovchinin and Hague was gonna launch to ISS but they got a different launch

[@robinhood20253]

I was watching this live, i will never forget it. It was like 9/11, it is just as clear as if it was yesterday.

[@charleswest6372]

I never liked the tiles. But no better way back then. Too bad the program is over. Hopefully a better solution will come.

[@joeljohnson3515]

Thank the good Lord that Gemini never had use their ejection seats…. Their cabin was pressurized with 100% oxygen. It would have been a prequel to the Apollo 1 accident.

[@user-dc1ud6px3s]

Yup, blame the politicians that you put into power. Typical.

[@erselley9017]

Man that Russian rocket took off like a bat out of hell. Looked twice as fast as ours. I'm assuming because at that time Russians didn't worry about landing the vessel so it weighed significantly less. I think I read they used to parachute outta the thing. Russians are tough. They had 2 cosmonauts stranded in Siberia for days after landing off course. Not on water but actual ground. Ballsy.

[@Drgonzosfaves]

Yuri had to parachute out because they hadn't perfected the retro rockets to slow the capsule for a safe landing.

[@andrewzab83able]

It's a situation where the only way to discover this "flaw" was through unfortunate experience. This is one of the most advanced and controversial machines ever built. Before it's original test flight, engineers from subcontractors and nasa engineering teams saw the end of the Orbiter program.

[@yoskarokuto3553]

NASA SAID " SAFETY FIRST !!! "

[@Steve-gc5nt]

Those poor people 😪

[@Zakariah1971]

Let the wrongful death lawsuits begin… no statute on murder… 😳

[@k1productions87]

subpoena every member of Congress who insisted the DoD have primary say on the craft's design, and every one of them who held NASA's funding hostage with every delay for safety.

[@Zakariah1971]

Yup. Lets go. Prisons are vacant anyway... A bunch of Supreme Court Justices will also be behind bars soon. Starting with Chief Justice ROBerts@@k1productions87

[@johnshaw359]

NASA wanted to see how far they 'could push the operational envelope' in my opinion.

[@vanessac1721]

Yup, they were being pressured by government because shuttle turnaround was nowhere near as fast as Nasa initially promised. Thus, go fever ensued.

[@ukphone4183]

God bless them all❤❤

[@Wayner71]

Those good souls should not have died up there. NASA handled it woefully. What happened to the Apollo 13 spirit? The NASA of 2003 were heartless corporate yes men and women. Those wonderful astronauts could have been rescued. Those responsible for not saving those lives live in shame and infamy.

[@SymphonyBrahms]

There was no way to rescue them. A rescue shuttle would have taken weeks to prepare. And the Columbia didn't have that much oxygen left.

[@georgesealy4706]

The biggest failure of NASA was not planning for the basic scenario of having a space shuttle disabled in space. Anything can happen in space. Who knows maybe a space rock could hit the shuttle or maybe there could be a fuel leak, it could be anything. NASA had no plan and no backup space shuttle ready to deal with such an event. The thing is, every shuttle mission after Columbia did indeed have a backup shuttle and crew ready. All those years of engineering and the tons of money that was spent, and yet NASA failed in the most basic of situations. Frankly, the whole thing and how it was handled is disgusting.

[@trevorsimpkins3142]

Only one flight had another Orbiter ready. That was the Hubble mission. Since all others post Columbia went to the ISS, it was determined that having one sitting on the pad ready wasn't needed.

[@scoobadooba97]

Biggest problem with nasa is the fact that it exists. Other than that, it's fine

[@Steve-ix2un]

Looks like one minute it's Challenger, next it's Columbia, I turned off.

[@LastBruhStanding]

NASA: Need. Another. Seven. Astronauts. Don't believe the hype.

[@4partmedia]

100% of this video has absolutely everything to do with the title.

[@catelynstark9883]

NASA loss to hubris is Elon Musk’s gain 👍 👍

[@arricammarques1955]

The shuttle program lasted 135 flights.

[@annieanonymous611]

It's absolutely disgusting that NASA chose to do nothing at all to try and secure the safety of the crew. Not even warn the crew so they could try re-entry at a different angle. Bottom line should be safety of the crew.

[@Jessiedoesyoutubee3838]

instead they 'warned' them about questions from the press. Cowards. Spineless incompetent cowards.

[@SymphonyBrahms]

A different angle would not have helped. The heat of re-entry would still have destroyed the shuttle.

[@shaundonohue4879]

Miss hap, understatement of the century.

[@faktisletztenendes]

Like JFK once said (slightly different, but still tho): We didn't choose to go to space because it's easy or perfectly safe.

[@jamesrobert4106]

The SRBs could have been made by several companies in Florida as a single structure. It was a political decision that resulted in Morton Thiokol getting the contract to build them as multi component segments which were then transported and assembled. The whole thing stinks of corruption. The most dangerous part of the whole project, built in segments and transported nearly 2400 miles and the advice of the project engineers ignored even though the evidence was clear from prior launches. The lessons were all in place before they handed the Columbia crew a slow death sentence.

[@frankchardeen3964]

Yes..of course it is

[@tech45]

FAILED DISIGN Was the PROBLEM:(

[@nathanaelwassmann3794]

The Challenger and Columbia crews gave their lives for the USA just as much as all of the American casualties of war did.

[@Thornspyre81]

Is this before they actually did the test that proved the foam could have put a huge hole in the wing?

[@SymphonyBrahms]

They did a test after the disaster on a section of an aluminum wing. They shot the foam at the wing and it made a briefcase sized hole in the wing.

[@tonyk501]

You couldn't pay me to go up in space in that kind of a death trap vehicle. Aside from the impractical and ridiculous amount of fuel required, getting up into space is the relatively easy part. It's the re-entry back into the Earth's atmosphere, while using the Earth's atmosphere as your primary means of slowing yourself down from an orbital speed of 17,000 miles per hour, that is the real problem. At this time in human history, we do not have an energy source that is practical enough to send large objects into space and back without requiring the Earth's atmosphere to slow its descent. We also don't have the means to create space vessels with artificial gravity, to prevent the destruction of the human body from the effects of long-term exposure to a zero gravity environment. In short, humans are going nowhere far as far as "space exploration" is concerned, unless it is purely by the use of robots.

[@barondugger]

The EPA is at fault. They made the original foam insulation on the large external fuel tank 'illegal' , and the new foam wasn't as durable.

[@danceswithmules]

Actually, probably the biggest factor was NASA deciding to save weight (about 400 kg) by not painting the tank white after the first couple of launches. That layer of paint actually did make a difference for the foam insulation durability.

[@av8644]

Why couldn't the insulation have been on the inside of the structure and the outside covered with just the bare minimum strength to provide adequate aerodynamics?

[@danceswithmules]

@@av8644 I'm not an engineer, but I suspect there might be a problem with the pressures forcing liquid hydrogen into the foam. The foam is low density, waaaay lower than the stainless steel tank, and hydrogen just loves to leak through everything.

[@k1productions87]

@@av8644 It is far easier to lay insulation upon the external skin of a completed tank than it would be to put insulation on the inside of each section before assembly. Further, insulating inward reduced the amount of space available for the fuel itself. @barondugger Blaming the EPA is asinine, as the entire design of the Space Shuttle was built around compromise, not choosing what would do the job the best, rather what could do it just well enough at less cost. This also includes eliminating crew safety features in order to keep cost and weight down. If anyone is to blame, it is Congress for demanding the DOD's involvement in the first place, as many of the DOD's demands were what made the design so flawed

[@av8644]

@k1productions87 I got you, never really looked into the production methods of the external tank. I know it couldn't be like the Saturn V's due to ice falling off, but still seems like it could have been achievable in some way to overlay the insulation with a thin layer of some alloy to provide better rigidity without a tremendous weight penalty, even if that entailed liquid fueled boosters with a F-1B type of engine. I know we can't recreate the exact F-1 due to the unique tooling, methods, and skill sets which don't exist anymore, but I find it impossible to believe modern man couldn't produce a gas generator cycle behemoth with modern computational fluid dynamic modeling technology and advanced manufacturing techniques such as 3D printing, etc. I was sad when the F-1B proposals for the SLS ended after testing a gas generator preserved from the Apollo era and the 5 segment SRBs were chosen.

[@omlaboratory291]

I this tragedy could be avoided by emergency steps after take off from the earth

[@SymphonyBrahms]

On the shuttle there was no way to abort the launch once it had begun.

[@briankistner4331]

More than a flawed design. Again, NASA top brass ignored the grunts when they spoke up saying something needed to be done prior to trying to land the damn thing!! Same thing with Challenger and Apollo 1 Top brass thought they knew better than their astronauts and engineers.

[@Guangrui]

it's simply too damn big