i wish Nasa would be about exploration, as opposed to strictly science..it seems they're scared to take a step forward. they just use the same old technology for observation, as opposed to exploration..
I suppose hindsight is easy but I think it a shame that NASA didn't focus on disposables. Think of the things that could have been done instead of the shuttle.
For those not content with the idea that reality is determined by popular vote, I have a link to the official findings of the investigation into the Challenger accident, in which it is made clear that the loss of Challenger was a result of structural failure of the ET causing Challenger to veer off course, allowing aerodynamic loads to promtply disintegrate the ship. YouTube won't let me post links it seems, so if you want it, send me a message.
"A combustion gas leak through the right Solid Rocket Motor aft field joint initiated at or shortly after ignition eventually weakened and/or penetrated the External Tank initiating vehicle structural breakup and loss of the Space Shuttle Challenger during STS Mission 51-L."
@Boy75402 Ok. But in reality astronauts died. Shuttles weren't safe. Oh and according to Wikipedia articles, the word "explosion" means a sudden burst of energy releases at a given time. So In actuality they did explode. Both times.
I *strongly* encourage you to research the exact natures of the loss of both shuttles.
Challenger was lost because aerodynamic stress as the orbiter veered off its planned course. Pretty much the same with Columbia. For Challenger, the veering off was caused by the loss of the tanks structural integrity. For Columbia, a wing was burned through and the ship lost its ideal aerodynamic properties.
Are you really going to argue this? Or are you going to look this up?
@Boy75402 Yea. I know the reasons why it happened. I'm just saying they didn't just drift down to the earth and they just suddenly died. I'm just saying that the freakin shuttle blew up in the air. How else did the astronauts die? I don't care the reasons that caused for it to explode, all I am trying to get out of this is that the shuttle exploded. Blew up and thats why they died. Okay? I'm not trying to argue anything with you. The shuttle blew up.
@Jontheking100 Yes, they both blew up to different reasons, The drifting off coarse didn't kill them, the explosion did. The burnt wing didn't kill them, the explosion did. There was an explosion, that is the ONLY thing that I am trying to tell you, why can't you just accept that.
Google's define: tool offers "a violent release of energy caused by a chemical or nuclear reaction." (this is more or less the scientific definition of an explosion).
Since we know both shuttles were destroyed due to aerodynamic stress (caused by veering off course due to ET structural failure, or port wing structural failure), it is thus perfectly reasonable to deduct that no explosion occurred on either flight.
If you want, I'll see if I can find the file presenting NASA's investigation committee's findings on the loss of both shuttles. Though they're kinda verbose.
@Boy75402 Ok, let me get some from different sources. "Sudden noise or release of energy"-Bing dictionary, "A violent expansion or bursting with noise"-Online Dictionary, "A release of energy in a sudden and violent manner"-the free dictionary, "A bursting a violence and loud noise" -Babylon dictionary, "Sudden, violent burst of energy"- Your lovely Google dictionary. Hmmmmmm...?? I think that the sudden Loud burst of the shuttle is translated into the explosion of a shuttle!! Wow...Good stuff.
@Jontheking100 Let's describe the shuttle when it "Malfunctioned" . 1) Sudden 2) Loud 3) Violent 4) Release of energy...Wow looks like that this fits into every category of the definition of an explosion!! Maybe because...I don't know, maybe it was an explosion. It does fit into every category for an explosion, I guess it is one after all.
@Jontheking100 I went to the NASA official website to do some research. Go to the home page and there will be a search bar. Type in STS-51L. Click on the first link titled "NASA - STS - 51L" It will take you to this page with the picture of the crew. Hit CONTROL+F (Find) and type in "explosion" (So you don't need to read the entire thing to find explosion) It will take you to a paragraph that says "The EXPLOSION 73 seconds after liftoff Blah blah blah...The cause of the EXPLOSION was determined"
The person you hear during the launch describe an explosion did not know anything more about what had happened than anyone else at the time. Remember this is before the investigation into what actually occurred.
But alright man, you would know more about this than NASA would I guess.
Who is science and NASA's detailed investigation committee to claim otherwise?
@Realfoxhawk WTF? Thats freakin weird...Does it do that when you keep replying comment after comment, me and this guy were getting into a stupid argument, he said that the Challenger didn't explode when it took off. It seem as though I was talking to my self, but really I was just replying a buttload of times....That does make me look silly.
@Jontheking100 Actually the shuttles have done very well considering how long ago they were developed and the number of times they were used. They were made in an age where rockets were expensive. Who knew one day rockets would suddenly go back to being the cheaper option.
@Realfoxhawk Actually, we got lucky that only 14 people lost their life out of 135 missions. Shuttle was the most dangerous manned rocket ever made. Here are a few reasons why: No launch escape system. Solid rocket fuel that "cannot be turned off" (one reason VonBraun left NASA) (SRB's should never be used on human missions!) Cockpit inline with main fuel tank. Glued on heat shield. Winged shape craft not good for atmospheric re-entry. Overly complex design.
@ti994apc I actually agree with all you just posted. In what I wrote I didn't place all my opinions down. I feel that the shuttle was the wrong way to go. They should have continued on from the Saturn and advanced rocket technology. I agree - you did get lucky, which is why I say that the shuttles have done very well considering. One thing is sure - governments will stuff it up again and probably waste money trying for the moon when they should just forget it and go for Mars.
in defense of shuttle program: challenger and columbia accidents were both human errors and not vehicle deficiencies.
JuanGMSG 3 months ago
i wish Nasa would be about exploration, as opposed to strictly science..it seems they're scared to take a step forward. they just use the same old technology for observation, as opposed to exploration..
metaknight95 4 months ago
I suppose hindsight is easy but I think it a shame that NASA didn't focus on disposables. Think of the things that could have been done instead of the shuttle.
ma049 1 year ago
For those not content with the idea that reality is determined by popular vote, I have a link to the official findings of the investigation into the Challenger accident, in which it is made clear that the loss of Challenger was a result of structural failure of the ET causing Challenger to veer off course, allowing aerodynamic loads to promtply disintegrate the ship. YouTube won't let me post links it seems, so if you want it, send me a message.
Boy75402 1 year ago
@Boy75402
In any event, the relevant portion is
"A combustion gas leak through the right Solid Rocket Motor aft field joint initiated at or shortly after ignition eventually weakened and/or penetrated the External Tank initiating vehicle structural breakup and loss of the Space Shuttle Challenger during STS Mission 51-L."
Boy75402 1 year ago
Haha, it looks just like jontheking100's video! Thats kinda funny
ThisKidIsADickHaHa 2 years ago
Have you ever seen these rockets explode with people in them, The shuttles weren't very safe.
Jontheking100 2 years ago 11
@Jontheking100
I've never seen a shuttle explode.
Boy75402 1 year ago
@Boy75402
look up Challenger and Columbia
this happened twice....12 astronauts...dead.
Jontheking100 1 year ago
Hmm I seem to remember things differently.
Look up Challenger and Columbia. Both of them disentegrated due to aerodynamic pressures. For both, there was no explosion.
And for both, 7 died. 7+7 = 14.
Boy75402 1 year ago
@Boy75402
Ha. Sorry, I got the numbers wrong. I thought there were six instead of seven in each shuttle. I guess I'm just used to the Orion crew module.
Jontheking100 1 year ago
@Jontheking100
The latest expectations are that Orion will carry 4, not 6. (Orion was designed for six at the start, but continuing cutbacks and all ruined that).
Boy75402 1 year ago
@Jontheking100
From the Wikipedia articles on the Challenger and Columbia accidents.
(Challenger): "the shuttle and external tank did not actually "explode". Instead they rapidly disintegrated under tremendous aerodynamic forces"
(Columbia): "In reality, Columbia disintegrated rather than exploded"
Boy75402 1 year ago
@Boy75402 Ok. But in reality astronauts died. Shuttles weren't safe. Oh and according to Wikipedia articles, the word "explosion" means a sudden burst of energy releases at a given time. So In actuality they did explode. Both times.
Jontheking100 1 year ago
@Jontheking100
I *strongly* encourage you to research the exact natures of the loss of both shuttles.
Challenger was lost because aerodynamic stress as the orbiter veered off its planned course. Pretty much the same with Columbia. For Challenger, the veering off was caused by the loss of the tanks structural integrity. For Columbia, a wing was burned through and the ship lost its ideal aerodynamic properties.
Are you really going to argue this? Or are you going to look this up?
Boy75402 1 year ago
@Boy75402 Yea. I know the reasons why it happened. I'm just saying they didn't just drift down to the earth and they just suddenly died. I'm just saying that the freakin shuttle blew up in the air. How else did the astronauts die? I don't care the reasons that caused for it to explode, all I am trying to get out of this is that the shuttle exploded. Blew up and thats why they died. Okay? I'm not trying to argue anything with you. The shuttle blew up.
Jontheking100 1 year ago
@Jontheking100 Yes, they both blew up to different reasons, The drifting off coarse didn't kill them, the explosion did. The burnt wing didn't kill them, the explosion did. There was an explosion, that is the ONLY thing that I am trying to tell you, why can't you just accept that.
Jontheking100 1 year ago
@Jontheking100
Do you know what an explosion is?
(It just occurred to me that perhaps you don't actually know what an explosion is, is the factual, scientific meaning of the word)
Boy75402 1 year ago
@Boy75402 Ok what is is to you?
Jontheking100 1 year ago
@Jontheking100
Google's define: tool offers "a violent release of energy caused by a chemical or nuclear reaction." (this is more or less the scientific definition of an explosion).
Since we know both shuttles were destroyed due to aerodynamic stress (caused by veering off course due to ET structural failure, or port wing structural failure), it is thus perfectly reasonable to deduct that no explosion occurred on either flight.
Boy75402 1 year ago
@Boy75402
If you want, I'll see if I can find the file presenting NASA's investigation committee's findings on the loss of both shuttles. Though they're kinda verbose.
Boy75402 1 year ago
@Boy75402 Ok, let me get some from different sources. "Sudden noise or release of energy"-Bing dictionary, "A violent expansion or bursting with noise"-Online Dictionary, "A release of energy in a sudden and violent manner"-the free dictionary, "A bursting a violence and loud noise" -Babylon dictionary, "Sudden, violent burst of energy"- Your lovely Google dictionary. Hmmmmmm...?? I think that the sudden Loud burst of the shuttle is translated into the explosion of a shuttle!! Wow...Good stuff.
Jontheking100 1 year ago
@Jontheking100 Let's describe the shuttle when it "Malfunctioned" . 1) Sudden 2) Loud 3) Violent 4) Release of energy...Wow looks like that this fits into every category of the definition of an explosion!! Maybe because...I don't know, maybe it was an explosion. It does fit into every category for an explosion, I guess it is one after all.
Jontheking100 1 year ago
@Jontheking100 I went to the NASA official website to do some research. Go to the home page and there will be a search bar. Type in STS-51L. Click on the first link titled "NASA - STS - 51L" It will take you to this page with the picture of the crew. Hit CONTROL+F (Find) and type in "explosion" (So you don't need to read the entire thing to find explosion) It will take you to a paragraph that says "The EXPLOSION 73 seconds after liftoff Blah blah blah...The cause of the EXPLOSION was determined"
Jontheking100 1 year ago
@Jontheking100 So even NASA, the guys in charge of the whole thing says there was an EXPLOSION. The end.
Jontheking100 1 year ago
@Jontheking100
The person you hear during the launch describe an explosion did not know anything more about what had happened than anyone else at the time. Remember this is before the investigation into what actually occurred.
But alright man, you would know more about this than NASA would I guess.
Who is science and NASA's detailed investigation committee to claim otherwise?
Boy75402 1 year ago
@Jontheking100 Why are you talking to yourself? It makes you look silly.
Realfoxhawk 1 year ago
@Realfoxhawk WTF? Thats freakin weird...Does it do that when you keep replying comment after comment, me and this guy were getting into a stupid argument, he said that the Challenger didn't explode when it took off. It seem as though I was talking to my self, but really I was just replying a buttload of times....That does make me look silly.
Jontheking100 1 year ago
@Jontheking100 Lol. I just realised that a few of my posts the other day did the same. So I look silly too!
Realfoxhawk 1 year ago
@Jontheking100
I was thinking a more scientific definition of explosion.
Boy75402 1 year ago
@Jontheking100 Actually the shuttles have done very well considering how long ago they were developed and the number of times they were used. They were made in an age where rockets were expensive. Who knew one day rockets would suddenly go back to being the cheaper option.
Realfoxhawk 1 year ago
@Realfoxhawk Actually, we got lucky that only 14 people lost their life out of 135 missions. Shuttle was the most dangerous manned rocket ever made. Here are a few reasons why: No launch escape system. Solid rocket fuel that "cannot be turned off" (one reason VonBraun left NASA) (SRB's should never be used on human missions!) Cockpit inline with main fuel tank. Glued on heat shield. Winged shape craft not good for atmospheric re-entry. Overly complex design.
ti994apc 7 months ago
@ti994apc I actually agree with all you just posted. In what I wrote I didn't place all my opinions down. I feel that the shuttle was the wrong way to go. They should have continued on from the Saturn and advanced rocket technology. I agree - you did get lucky, which is why I say that the shuttles have done very well considering. One thing is sure - governments will stuff it up again and probably waste money trying for the moon when they should just forget it and go for Mars.
Realfoxhawk 7 months ago
yes, I think so
TheBosnianson 2 years ago
So, the ARES I-Y is a test of the LAS?
jxvwp 2 years ago
yes
TheBosnianson 2 years ago 2