STS-51F launch, abort & landing (7-29-85)

[Milliedances]

Hooray for a successful abort instead of a tragedy.

[jah0524]

The orbiter spent a week in orbit after launch, although it was a lower than planned orbit.

[xXDEICIDE216Xx]

I was just wondering if this ever happened. Time to google.

[jwrx7tt01]

how come no parachute opened when it touched down?

[amgen52]

@jwrx7tt01 The shuttles were not modified with parachutes until 1994.

[nightwriterou812]

@jwrx7tt01 When landing on the lakebed at Edwards, there was no need to use the braking chute because they had more than ample "runway" length for rollout deceleration.

[krashdown102]

ejection in 9.8.7.6.5.4.3.2.1

[mjptrapster]

Is the Capcom Story Musgrave?

[damiano8]

@mjptrapster musgrave was mission specialist in this mission ;)

[greenseaships]

What is usually overlooked about this mission is that this was the largest crew ever embarked on a single spacecraft. 8 astronauts. The only time we ever crammed that many people into a shuttle.

[greenseaships]

@greenseaships Disregard that! I suck. I got this one and 61A confused.

[gketchup777]

10 minutes from ksc to edwards... pretty fast, we might say :) I wonder how long did it take to get back :P

[Backlight22]

@gketchup777 They completed their mission in space before landing, took a few days.

[RockinToke]

Crazy ironic to hear the call from Houston to "go at throttle up," and not explode considering that's the moment that Challenger exploded 28 Jan 1986.

[Rangerpl1322]

@RockinToke I don't see how that's ironic, all the Shuttle missions have "go at throttle up". Even the most recent one, STS-135.

[maksphoto78]

STS-51F did have a proper launch abort prior to this, at T-3 seconds after main engine ignition when a malfunction of the number two Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) coolant valve caused shutdown of all three main engines.

And Challenger didn't explode like a bomb, it disintegrated due to enormous aerodynamic forces on it when the faulty SRB pushed it off-course.

[Zoomer30]

To parapharese mission control:

"Yeah guys? FYI your computer is totally out to lunch, kinda losing its mind, may be a good Idea to not let to shut off anymore engines and stuff"

Bad sensors will get you everytime, the damn engine was most likely fine.

[Zoomer30]

Challenger lucked out on this day. Had this engine issue happened about 30 secs earlier, it would have been a Trans Atlatic About. A min earlier and we are looking at a dreaded "really dont wanna do something this insane" return to launch site abort. Right after liftoff.....well thats what they call a "contingency abort" meaning they ditch in the water and hope for the best.

As you can see safety was a top priority for NASA when planning the shuttle (not) 0-o

[tackN2Wind]

Great job and decisive action by Jenny Howard. After losing 3 of the 6 temperature sensors, her call to inhibit limits proved NASA's emphasis on training instills the confidence to make correct and timely decisions. (See Brian Welch's good description in the PDF file of the scenario as it happened on -51F).

[YoshiFan501]

challenger always has the bad missions. :(

[GreatExterminator]

For some reason, I thought they throttled the remaining SSMEs to 106%.

[heyeveryoneimcool]

Hey those were Quindar tones in their transmissions. When did they phase those out?

[kennerfreak7]

i have done shuttle landing simulators and i could easliy land a shuttle if sked to on a rean mission

[Bahamut347]

@kennerfreak7

yh dream more

[kennerfreak7]

@Bahamut347

for you info buddy. i have landed the shuttle at space camp. its the same exact thing. ive landed 15 times in arow. its easy if you know what to do ass

[Bahamut347]

@kennerfreak7 proof?

[RainbowManification]

STS-51 isnt the only launch abort in history.STS-93 and many others.

[sledger25]

@RainbowManification STS 93 and 4 others were pad aborts... this is the only abort in history where they had to abort after launch...

[gnark1ll1us]

biggest problem they had on this mission was the coca cola machine on board that nearly blew up

[gnark1ll1us]

@gnark1ll1us Oh and they made an ATO on this flight but also succeeded in their mission.

[rollprogramhouston]

I have a short NBC News Special Report ive coverage on tape of the T-3 second abort. It lasts about 15-20 minutes I believe. Also taped the news reports that evening from both CBS and NBC. Outside of that, any footage of the countdown that day leading up to the RSLS abort is rare. That launch attempt occurred on July 12, 1985.

[Dennisthemenace217]

@rollprogramhouston Where can I see that?

[rollprogramhouston]

@Dennisthemenace217 I'm working on putting together my collection and I will post it all at one time. The coverage I was refering to was simply an NBC News break-in by Tom Brokaw that afternoon. At the time (July 1985) I didn't have cable or satellite, so I hung close to the TV around launch time. I always had the VCR ready in case some network broke in. That afternoon it paid off. Sorry for the delay in posting -I've been on vacation. Keep checking back, I hope to have everything on soon.

[Dennisthemenace217]

@rollprogramhouston mmmmkay

[John19182004]

how come no one can find any video of the pad-abort of this mission at T-3 seconds?

[John19182004]

It never exploded. Might want to check your facts.

[Eclipezz]

@John19182004 No it didn't with STS 51-F, it did with STS 51-L

[John19182004]

@Eclipezz NO. it did NOT happen with STS-51L or any flight; the vehicle never "exploded"/ Again, check your facts and you'll find the real reason for the loss of vehicle and crew.

[timothyp873]

@John19182004 on sts 51L challenger did explode

[ceredigio]

Doesn't Endeavour fill its place for you?

[MegaUltraGalactic79]

if Challenger wouldn't exploded, the 51L crew wouldn't die and all that canceled missions should be launched. RIP Challenger 7.

[usnsquirrel]

@MegaUltraGalactic79 The shuttle orbiter Challenger (STS-51L) didn't explode. It disintegrated due to aerodynamic stresses.

[AdamB9098]

@usnsquirrel It was still attatched to the boosters and the main fuel tank. The booster had the faulty rings that made the fuel leak which in turn exploded and destroyed the ship. There was no aerodynamic stress that destroyed the ship, it was already blown up by the explosion! You need to realize when over 1million pounds of rocket propellant is ignited, anything within close range is going to be destroyed.

[usnsquirrel]

@AdamB9098 So all of the dozens of books about the mishap I've read have been wrong? There's a distinct difference between "the space shuttle" and "the space shuttle orbiter". See the wiki for "shuttle challenger disaster," end of the second paragraph, and also wiki STS-51L. See also columbiasacrifice (dot) com, among many other sources. I've been into the shuttle program since STS-51L, when I was 6. I wouldn't state inaccurate facts about such a topic.

[AdamB9098]

@usnsquirrel Ok, you're right and I'm  wrong. I'm sure that if you stand next to an explosion of a million pounds of rocket fuel you'll be just fine unless you're at altitude where the stress of tumbling through the air will then tear you and your craft apart. Come on man, use just an ounce of common sence. The damn thing blew up, it didn't disintigrate from aerodynamic stress failure, that's insane. It's like saying the world trade center never fell, they were just hidden from sight.

[usnsquirrel]

@AdamB9098 The explosion didn't cause the orbiter to disintegrate. The forward support strut failed, pitching (rotating) the orbiter "up" along the Z axis. If you look at the stills from the event, you'll see the FRCS spew prop, the wings separate and fling off to the sides, and the cabin separate. The spacecraft itself didn't explode. The ET shrapnel didn't cause it to. The loss of pressure and prop to the SSME's did, along with the wind shear and the asymmetric SRB. Thrust.

[olympicnut]

Check out the Rogers Commission Report. There was no explosion. The failure of SRB joint allowed the burning solid fuel plume to effectively destroy the ET. The fuel released from the ET added 3 million pounds of thrust to the vehicle in the lower atmosphere and also pushed the orbiter out of it slipstream. The aerodynamic loads, around 20 g's, caused Challenger to break apart. If there was an explosion, the SRBs would not have exited the cloud of burning fuel intact and undamaged. Facts...

[AdamB9098]

@usnsquirrel Yea, and I suppose you also believe that the world will end on Dec. 21, 2012 too huh? You can sit here and spew all of this wannabe aerodynamic engineer bullshit all day, but the damned thing blew up. BTW, you say there is a difference between the shuttle and the orbiter? They are the same damn thing! The shuttle IS the orbiter you dumb ass. Pull your head out of your ass for a minute and think about what you post back here because so far you sound very stupid.

[usnsquirrel]

@AdamB9098 2012 is going to be the exact same as every year, the shuttle is the stack, not just the orbiter itself. The orbiter is the thing that actually orbits (it's even called an OV; Orbital Vehicle) . It didn't blow up. Try reading the Rogers report. If you're saying I sound stupid, see how you feel about yourself after reading the report. Here's another, more credible source than myself if you need further proof; go to on(dot)msnbc (dot) com (slash)m7YEqS

[usnsquirrel]

@AdamB9098 The shuttle did not explode in the common definition of that word. There was no shock wave, no detonation, no "bang" — viewers on the ground just heard the roar of the engines stop as the shuttle’s fuel tank tore apart, spilling liquid oxygen and hydrogen which formed a huge fireball at an altitude of 46,000 ft. (Some television documentaries later added the sound of an explosion to these images.)

[usnsquirrel]

@AdamB9098 But both solid-fuel strap-on boosters climbed up out of the cloud, still firing and unharmed by any explosion. Challenger itself was torn apart as it was flung free of the other rocket components and turned broadside into the Mach 2 airstream. Individual propellant tanks were seen exploding — but by then, the spacecraft was already in pieces.

[SImonK1996]

@usnsquirrel The horrific thing is 3 of the astronauts managed to start emergency oxygen and the last transmission heard was smith's "uh-oh" Which means after the explosion of the fuel behind the main fuel tank, at least 3 of them were aware of their surroundings. It also means that they knew they were going to die for the 2 and a half minute fall from forty six thousand feet. What it means is that throughout the entire disaster, they stared death in the face....

[usnsquirrel]

@AdamB9098 I think the worst part about your perspective is that you're actually challenging me on something I've dedicated over five sixths of my life to learning about. I've read the Rogers report, as well as the CAIB, a 93 page report about how Columbia met its fate, as well as studying every aspect of the STS began. All credible sources distinctly point out that Challenger did *not* explode.

[olympicnut]

Do a search on Wikipedia and you will see there was no explosion. There are also several books that point this out. Good research involves checking out information and not just making assumptions. The official NASA film on the accident also explains this. Search YoutTube for "Space Shuttle Challenger Accident Investigation 1986".

[earlshort1]

You're an IDIOT.....get the FACTS before you post......it shows your LACK of information and understanding of aerodynamics......But that's what we get when ANYONE can make a post.....

[Enatbyte]

@AdamB9098 *facepalm

[earlshort1]

@AdamB9098 You are such an idiot.....I'm reading no more of your posts........it's sad.....

[Enatbyte]

@AdamB9098 Do you even know what rocket fuel is?

[AdamB9098]

@Enatbyte The ET holds liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen oxidizers. The SRB's have a cocktail of ammonium perchlorate, iron oxide and aluminum along with a couple of other chemicals. So to answer your question, YES I DO know what rocket fuel is. To add to the argument, I happen to be a professional firefighter as well, so I do understand very well the process of ignition, explosion and burning in general. But whatever, go ahead, light a match next to these things and see what happens.

[eastsidelife4ever36]

@AdamB9098 I very much agree with you. You know my friend's uncle, who i know quite well, was part of the investigation team, in 1986, of the challenger explosion. He told me what happened to the challenger and why it exploded. So tell that usnsquirrel character that he is wrong as all hell!

[usnsquirrel]

@eastsidelife4ever36 You may want to clarify with your "uncle" about the event that the orbiter Challenger didn't explode. It simply didn't, and you can clearly see that in the slow motion video of the launch. If I'm wrong, then NASA, the Rogers Commission, nasaspaceflight, spaceflightnow, technicians, engineers, and enthusiasts are all wrong. Anyone with a pair of working synapses knows things resembling aircraft don't deal with angles of attack exceeding 40 degrees at Mach 2+ very well. 

[eastsidelife4ever36]

@usnsquirrel Let me get one thing straight: YOU ARE THE ONLY PERSON WHO IS WRONG!!!! The only reason you believe this is because a lot of arguments went back and forth with NASA about what happened. It was all over the press but most of the people in NASA believe the astronauts died on impact. But the people in the administration as well as the press change the truth because either they believe it or they want reviews. It happens all the time to fool morons like you. You must be pretty stupid.

[eastsidelife4ever36]

@usnsquirrel Oh and another thing my "uncle" as you call him is not my uncle. He is my friend's uncle. See? You are stupid. You can't even read a fucking sentence properly. You know what I've had enough of your ignorance. Just one response from you made me realize you're very unintelligent. Your first comment was so ignorant and stupid that it actually gave me headache. So take the courtesy to not respond because I don't want another one. Ignorance always makes my head hurt.

[usnsquirrel]

@eastsidelife4ever36 Shh, the adults are speaking.

[usnsquirrel]

@eastsidelife4ever36 Your defensive attitude is sad, given that you've clearly not checked the facts for yourself. I'm a well respected member of spacevidcast, a site in which I answer many FAQs. Check your facts about the RogersCommission and see for yourself that Challenger did not explode, and realize that I just might know what I'm talking about.

[eastsidelife4ever36]

@usnsquirrel spacevidcast??? HAHAHA!! Hey listen buddy i checked the facts numerous times. Answer me this question: WERE YOU PART OF CHALLENGER'S INVESTIGATION TEAM??? Because I see my friend's uncle almost everyday when I'm with my friend. My friend lives across the street from me. And my friend's uncle lives just 1 block from me. I see him just about everyday and HE WAS PART OF CHALLENGER'S INVESTIGATION TEAM and we have talks about this stuff all the time. Hey man you just can't beat that.

[usnsquirrel]

@eastsidelife4ever36 You've clearly not checked if you're saying the orbiter exploded. Either that or your friend's uncle is telling you otherwise, simply because you're incapable of understanding what an explosion actually is.

[eastsidelife4ever36]

@usnsquirrel Look i know it exploded. Me and my friend's uncle clearly know that it did and yes i know what an explosion is. Sweet jesus you just wont stop though will you?

[usnsquirrel]

@eastsidelife4ever36 You clearly don't. Keep thinking you know more about something people and organizations have spent millions on learning about. Poor kid.

[eastsidelife4ever36]

@usnsquirrel Oh my god. I've had to put this to you about like 3 times and you still don't seem to understand. Look you are a waste of time because you cant seem to understand anything I'm saying. So I'm done with you. I know I'm right about what happened. Sorry I just am. If you think you're right, good for you. Bye now. I've had enough of your ignorance.

[usnsquirrel]

@eastsidelife4ever36 Shh. This is over and done with. You've not looked for yourself. It's over.

[ceredigio]

Is the ascent PAO here Brian Welch or John Lawrence? I always thought it was John Lawrence.

[3210andLiftoff]

I have it listed as Welch

[MultiTakeDown]

All these years later and my heart was still beating hard at the ATO call !

[artsmith1972]

This is somewhat misleading, in the respect that you didnt include all relevant info... An ATO or abort to orbit, does not mean the shuttle comes back immediately or is a "launch abort" as you call it. It means that they go to a lower but yet stable orbit, IN SPACE... and complete their mission. The orbiter is able to achieve this lower orbit on the two remaining engines running at about 105% of their capacity..... That's the facts..

[antimatterXXXIII]

@artsmith1972 Before 51L, very limited ascent abort options existed. Only a single ME failure was survivable prior to about 350 seconds. 2/3 failed MEs prior to that would mean loss of crew (no bailout option). 2/3 failed while the SRBs are firing would have probably overstressed the attach struts, causing vehicle breakup. RTLS abort was not possible for 2/3 failed MEs. Studies showed ocean ditching was not survivable. Losing 2/3 MEs anytime during an RTLS abort was LOCV (wikipedia)

[tarjulsaj11]

@artsmith1972

If the shuttle would come back immediately it would be called RTLS or "Return to Launch Site". That is why they reach "negative return" close to main engine cut off meaning that they are too high in altitude to return to the launch site in the event of an engine failure.

[faostube]

@artsmith1972 during ato the shuttle reaches low earth orbit. because center ssme failed mission cannot continue and orbiter is brought back for safety purposes. when meco is reached the periapsis of orbit is inside earth atmosphere to allow tank to re enter and burn up. ato in this case shuttle does not fire omse engines at apoapsis to bring periapsis out of atmosphere, therefore it re enters and aborts orbit.

[brch2]

@faostube You need to do your research. An ATO means Abort TO Orbit. In an ATO situation, the shuttle can reach a lower, yet still stable orbit. If they were doing a mission such as a space station docking, they'd be unable to complete THAT mission... but they'd still remain in orbit if they had other missions to complete. In this case, this was a Spacelab mission, which was contained on the shuttle, and they were able to complete the mission.

[faostube]

@brch2 I just checked my flight manuals again and you are correct, sorry its been a while. in ATO a mission can still be continued but in the event it cannot, RTLS or TAL is chosen ... the shuttle however can still re-enter the earths atmosphere and land at Edwards if it does not fire its orbital manuevering system engines at apogee.

[brch2]

@faostube Yes they can... in an AOA (Abort Once Around), the shuttle would have had enough thrust to reach space and complete most of one orbit, but it would immediately begin deorbit prep. and land at Edwards (preferably, depending on the problem) or White Sands or Kennedy on the first orbit. This abort would have been used either in a very brief window between TAL and ATO abort options, or in the case of an issue where they reach orbit, but have other problems (like depressurization).

[EndeavourLaunch]

they almost lost a second one too, but one of the Flight Controllers corrected it seconds before it failed.

[ChrisCooper312]

AFAIK a second engine failure at that point would have caused a LOVC (loss of vehicle and crew), as they were "passed TAO" i.e too fast and high to be able to land at Zaragoza in Spain (Trans Atlantic Abort) yet presumably would not have been able to Abort once around (AOA) and land in the US. The desision oviously was that since a second shut down would doom the crew, it was better just to inhibit the warning and hope it was a false alarm. If it hadn't have been, the crew were dead either way.

[wimicon]

if u watch columbias first landing they didnt use a dragchute

[3210andLiftoff]

The drag chute was not used until 1992 on STS-49. They have the rudder as the speed brake and the wheels.

[wolfe1970]

@3210andLiftoff if that WAS the STS-51F landing, then it did have a speed brake on the rudder, you can clearly see it, im not disputing what your saying, it just doesn't make sense to me if that was in july 85

[wolfe1970]

im shocked at how many aborted launch's there are, i feel sorry for the astronauts, bet they where pissed about it, especially as it was just a faulty temperature reading 

[TPM75108]

How did they slow down without the parachute?