History Of The Dangerous Space Shuttle Program

The space shuttle was designed as a cost-effective way of making travel to low Earth orbit routined, but the promise of low and cheap easy access to space has unexpected consequences.
---
Revisit the key advances that have marked space exploration and discover the latest innovations in space science.
--

Join the Spark Channel Membership to get access to perks:

Find us on:

#Spark #NASA #space

[starwatcher]

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

[lawrenceallen]

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

[henrytowne]

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

[karaDee]

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

[tombystander]

John Young one of the greatest astronauts to ever live

[dalton]

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

[stormsfromcalifornia]

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

[guylawes]

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

[cbspock]

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

[astroblue]

the shuttle program continues today but it is top secret

[sgregg]

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

[laletemanolete]

My favorite spaceship even being so dangerous.

[census]

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

[dalton]

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

[JimMac]

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

[fred]

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

[gryphenicedancer]

As someone born early enough to remember the original run of Star Trek and yet young enough to wonder what's all the fuss about landing on the moon, I am amazed at how much of this I did not know.

I knew there were troubles and stumbles with getting the shuttle up and running.

I watched the first shuttle take off on TV. When weather and assent angle allowed, I could go outside and watch takeoffs live as I lived across the state south of Tampa for the majority of the shuttle's run.

I remember when Challenger exploded, and Endeavor came apart. But a lot of this is actually new information

[larrysouthern]

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

[newforestpixie]

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

[JanaTeague-rc]

Jones Sandra Lopez Jose Rodriguez Christopher