i remember it every well, i live in california, i was on my way to work around 530a.m to be theree by 6a.m. when i saw columbia going over the sky spliting up. never thought about it being columbia, till a coustomer around 10 a.m ask me if herd about columbia accident. i did not know what to say.
Those astronauts were professionals who knew the risks involved with space flight. They have experienced what very few members of the human race will get to witness and feel.
I hope they suffered as little as possible. RIP Heroes of Space.
Very well put together. Very impressive. Chaining the footage together along with the audio and marking progress, even if approximate, must have taken alot of work. Thanks.
Without them, other lives would be lost... They showed that there were proplems with the new space shuttle, NASA were about to launch 4 more Shuttles like that, without those people, other lives would be lost - God bless them
@sweetlikeADAM how on earth do you know? have you a channel to a higher truth? i doubt it. on these matters it's best to have some humility and don't pretend you have any more access to those truths than another person. aetheist zealots are as misguided as religeous zealots. the deepest wisdom available to a person is acceptance of their own ignorance...in my opinion, i may be wrong....
@sweetlikeADAM as may math teacher said>> we cannot prove the unexistence of God beacuse our instruments cannot maeasure divine presence. When our instruments measure that we can say if God exists or not. in fact, when we go to the world of pure math, why we can't think in a dimension (of the 11 we have to-date) on our own world and reality which have the prayer and faith as properties and vital to it? Is a posibility. I'm not sthephen Hawkings, but i think too. sorry for the traslation...
they didnt die instantly unfortunatley, their helmets,suit and restraints didnt work at all well, and they all died of severe head trauma as they were flung around. this was from nasa own PDF on the accident.
@chillyrooster Those people died in the effort to further mankind's understanding of the universe while placing their lives at great risk. You don't think that makes them all heroes?
@remick1974 They were Heroes! They saved peoples lives since there was a faulty with the new Shuttle, they were the test crew for it, they volunteered there lives for other people, they are...
This is a great video that I always like to watch, but I'd like to see a couple of extra things on there:
1. NASA's Crew Survivabilty Report seems to have got another video showing coverage from around LOS (13.59.32) onwards, giving an extra 10-15 secs of eastern video coverage.
2. Can we have a clock showing the actual time passing be put on there? I know it won't be 100% accurate but it gives it a bit more of a context of when various events happened. It can even be just in min:sec format.
I remember this day. I was in Plano, Tx (north of Dallas) visiting family. I was awoken by a loud sonic boom. I turn on the news and everyone is covering the Colombia disaster.
"In memory of those who made the ultimate sacrifice so that others may reach for the stars." Such a tragedy that could have been averted had they an escape capsule or something simple as "on board external cameras"! DUHHHHH!!!!
If you read the CAIB reports, you'll find that Columbia herself -- through the programming within her flight computers -- tried to compensate for increasing drag from her damaged flight surfaces until the very last possible moment.
@kittypie070 Fought to save her crew? Give me a damn break. It was computers following a set of programmed instructions. NASA is the ones who need to fight saving the crew! They can begin by designing a new state of the art orbiter with an escape capsule! Furthermore, install on board external cameras so maybe they can see a joint seal failure (since they have no joint seal integrity sensors) or a catastrophic debris strike! The simplest answers tend to be the right ones! Keep it simple boys!!!
This WILL happen again. We all must realize this fact when attempting space flight. There are risks involved, for as much precaution that is taken, we will have risks. This is just a price we pay for human advancement when reaching for the stars. It's so sad. I really feel for their families!
Per aspera ad astra" is a Latin phrase on a plaque on the only remaining launch structure left as a memorial from the Apollo era of American spaceflight. Ed White, along with fellow astronauts Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee were killed during a pre-launch test for the first Apollo mission (Apollo 1) on this launch pad.
"Per aspera ad Astra" means "to the stars through difficulties".
I think all seven members of Columbia knew of and lived their chosen careers by this Latin phrase.
They almost never wear helmets during re-entry. The wouldve blacked out within seconds, if not died instantaneously from blunt trauma and heat. There is evidence to suggest the challenger crew was alive, fully conscious for just under 3 minutes until they hit the water going 200 mph. Now THAT is a shitty way to die.
Once the Orbiter could no longer maintain attitude, the spin would have generated such high g-forces that everyone would have blacked out rather quickly. Even if they survived ejection into a 12,000 mph slipstream without massive broken bones and loss of consciousness the compressed air around their bodies would have generated such heat as to set them on fire. Likely everyone knew something was really wrong and then they blacked out due to the spin and their bodies burned up over TX.
Actually they knew that something was wrong for at least 2 mins. They tried to correct the shuttle (unaware of the damage) and they blacked out during the breakup of the crew module from the shuttle and decompression. Most of them were alive (but unconcious) until they hit the ground.
I think the Klingons destroyed the shuttle to prevent humans from getting photon torpedo technology. Fortunately, I, Captain Bill Shatner, was able to perform a HALO and save the information and prevent Iran from creating a new dance sensation that would turn the world into a mob of bomb-chucking towelheads. Live long and ruckus!
nasa was hammered for taking the risk of bringing the crew back. Should have stayed in orbit. Arranged a rescue. Probably could have fast-tracked Atlantis - or used the raised orbit/launched mission extension survival kit option.
@mach25man Thats my name for something a nasa guy I had lunch with off tour in Cape Canaveran (I can't remember what its proper name). Essentially its a small box that can be launched to match orbit with the shuttle. Has a range of things in it (I cant remember what he said) that can be used to extend a missions time in orbit beyond the maximum possible until a rescue is prepared and reaches them. Its not like the shuttle can just dock with ISS - could be in different orbits entirely.
This culture would be inexcusable to even an air force test pilot. Their job also involves risk, but the engineers who build the planes they test dedicate their lives to keeping their pilots alive.
Question..was there anything the crew could have done to save themselves?
If they knew or had a warning as to what was happening? When the first 4 sensors went out? Fire rockets to get out of earths atmosphere/heat of reentry?Is there any escape mechanism to abandon ship?
Challenger, no. They were screwed the moment that motor casing popped open. If the failure comes after the solids burn out, you could perform a return to launch site abort, but it's never been tried. The space shuttle itself has no abort or escape mechanisms for heat shield failure.
In theory, Columbia had enough electrical power and water for 45 days because of their EDO package. Atlantis was in prep for March 1 launch, and could have been rushed for a rescue mission.
When Columbia was reentering the atmosphere..and heat build up began to enter the puncture in the left wing..could the crew have fired engines and go into some kind of orbital or suborbital position? Was there enough engine power to do something like that?
main engines are dead once the shuttle is in orbit. 100% or their fuel is from the external tank. Once it is dry - no more main engines for duration of mission.
The oms engines do not have enough power in such a situation to counteract drag. (or fuel)
@ehunter2 It's a interesting question. There are really only two re-entry positions, that was only one of them. Sadly, NASA had no idea what was going on, and probably the crew didn't have a clue either. If they had known, they could have changed the re-entry or aborted the mission. But NASA had no idea until a few minutes after the main vehicle broke up.
@ehunter2 Another good question. There was an escape mechanism, which they could have deployed after the main vehicle broke up and started falling. However, they were most likely knocked out, and even if they were awake, there would only be a small window of time (probably around a minute) for them to escape. Keep in mind that NASA had no idea what was happening until a few minutes later.
@togproductions1 The escape equipment they have would have done no good coming thru the atmosphere. They have to be flying straight and level at 40,000 ft to make it all work. It works like this : Crewman on the middeck pulls 2 handles. One to equalize the pressure and one to blow the hatch. The same crewman deploys the escape pole which is mounted on the middeck ceiling.
@togproductions1 The purpose of the pole which extends out of the hatch when deployed is to throw the crew below the wing when jumping out. They all have to get up out of their seats and down to the middeck if sitting in the flight deck, hook up to the pole and jump. None of this is possible without flying straight and level. This is the senario for ditching on launch and landing.
It was clear from almost a year before challenger that the next time they launched in cold weather that the o-rings were going to leak, and there was a 40% chance they'd leak on the side of the tanks, instantly tearing through them. The foam risk was also known and there was an inspection routine that had been planned for the contingency which was ignored by management. A shuttle had never failed because of foam, so it could never fail.
That sounds a little off the wall about Challenger. The motor joints had blow by years before in hot & cold weather. And you could not predict where it was going to happen. The joint is the same all the way around. The same o-rings fly today just with a different joint design. There have been no issues since Challenger.
There's a mountain of evidence that the Apollo moon missions were faked. I posted a partial summary of it on a science forum. Google "The Naked Scientists". In the "New Theories" section of the forum there's a thread entitled "Did We Land on the Moon?". The summary is on page 15. It's the 7th post from the top.
People who still think they went to the moon simply haven't seen the hoax evidence yet.
Believe it or not, there was. The worms actually survived the disaster...........protected inside the block of moist earth in the biology capsule. Incredible that any organism could have survived that.
Yeah, and if you knew anything you'd realize that there are a stack of warnings that come from every reliability and systems' expert. Mission has to make a judgement call about each and every one of those, and rarely are they are cut and dry. If every single risk was mitigated to N-thousand significant figures no vehicle would ever launch.
Your a fucking idiot. Every risk didn't need to be mitigated to nothing you moron. There was significant risk, and inexcusable failure to follow up on clear warnings that existed pre-reentry.
Seems you can't reply to anyone without an insult.
It sure must be ghastly to live in that black and white world you inhabit. "All one has to do is to locate the significant risks to avoid inexcusable failures". Ever had a car accident in your life? Too bad you couldn't see what was significant ahead of time, wasn't it?
Tell me, when they resumed shuttle flights and on the very first launch more foam fell, was that also an inexcusable failure?
Seems you can't reply without insult either, puncheex.
This shuttle exploded for exactly the same reason Richard Feynman demonstrated was responsible for Challenger. A culture of mischaracterisation and deliberate ignorance of risk by upper management. In both cases engineers on the floor screamed out warnings.
Incompetence of NASA management strikes again. They were warned against launching Challenger after a cold night on the booster o-rings, and they launched anyway. With Columbia they could have kept the orbiter up a little longer for an assessment, but dip shit desk jockeys are in charge. I'm tired of our country loosing billions worth of orbiters and more than a dozen astronaut lives because they are too stupid to to check stuff out before pulling the trigger on something! Fucking retards.
These NASA managers are directly responsible for the deaths, and I hope it haunts them the rest of their miserable lives. The only honorable thing for them to do is put a pistol to their head!
Hmm...who exactly do you want to be in charge? WIll you bitch if they build the shuttle for 10 billion apiece rather than 5, for your lost taxes? You can moan all you want, but it took the team to do the job, and that team included managers, PR flacks, accountants, secretaries, medical people, engineers; hundreds of thousands of desk jockeys. Yes, some bad decisions were made; some worked out and a few didn't. Without the whole team, the shuttle would not have flown. Hind sight is always 20-20.
Some worked out and some didn't?? You retard. This isn't poker to play risks like that with. "Hind sight" is not the issue. Lack of foresight IS! There is a substantial difference.
Mankind has yet to rub two humans together and get perfection. Where were you when they launched and were hit by the foam? Where was your foresight? Did you object? Why not, just because you didn't have enough data? Upon what do you believe foresight is built?
Yes, it is a risk. It was a risk when the first B1 bomber crashed. How many astronauts have crashed their trainers and died? Have any idea? No, of course you don't.
Mission management including Cain and Ham PREVENTED steps from being taken! From the accident investigation I quote an email from Cain a week before the disaster:
From: CAIN, LEROY
Sent: Jan 23, 2003 12:07 PM
Subject: Help with debris hit
"The SSP was asked directly if they had any interest/desire in requesting resources outside of NASA to view the Orbiter (ref. the wing leading edge debris concern). They said, No. After talking to Phil, I consider it to be a dead issue."
This is so sad. But I am so proud of NASA. They are able to achieve what would otherwise be impossible tasks. They encounter disasters but endure. They have the ingenuity of Benjamen Franklin and the efficiency of the Borg. There are no heroes in this business; If even one person out of a thousand was not doing his job none of their work would be possible. It is a communal effort with spectacular results. Thank you NASA.
Unfortunately this is just an emotional homily that is at variance with reality. Cain (the FIDO here) is STILL engaging in wishful thinking about the sensor data, seconds before the astronauts all die. He had a full two weeks to get some eyes on the wing strike area and PREVENTED it from happening. At the end, he's in his own world, oblivious to the reality over his head - or worse, in denial that his own actions doomed the crew. Linda Ham and Leroy Cain - the WRONG stuff.
I could never understand why they didn't design the cabin as an escape module that could be jetisoned in the event of launch or re-entry/approach situations. I think mission control new what was happening, but, didn't have any options to give them.
our fed. gov. told nasa in the late 70,s there will be no escape pod it cost to much and there would be no need for one in an incident ,there would be nothing left, that is true 2 times
Because it would add tons weight to the orbiter and thus decrease payload dramatically.
Further more it is not very likely it would is even possible to make such a pod that would be able to withstand the forces and heat involved in a sudden breakup of the orbiter. when you haeva controlled re-entry, then it's possible, as we saw in the early days of the space program. But when you're dealing with a chaotic, and essentally unpredicable breakup, you can't know what you are designing for.
Like the space bus that won the X prize? That doesnt ride the atmosphere.(Good thing) The next shuttle will be better this is a old design and they did know they where going to die before they did.
anyone who can watch this video without getting teary or at least a lump in the throat, is a pretty tough SOB! i watched challenger explode,standing in back of where i worked in miami & cried like a baby. this vehicle design is flawed and has been from day one.human space flight, is by nature, extremely dangerous. the design vehicle adds more elements of risk than what it's worth. low earth orbit activities accomplish little at best.
The shuttle has to be moving at 17k+ mph to stay in orbit. In order to slow down to the point of not having that kind of heat during re-entry they would need to take a second main fuel tank with them to be able to burn the engines long enough during braking. sub-orbital flights do not have this kind of heat problem.
if you try to enter with less speed you generate lot of heat which will fry the shuttle in a fraction of sec.
as it closes to the earth the gravitational pull on shuttle is increases that in turn accelerate the shuttle to more speed so the best idea is to keep the shuttle in more aerodynamic shape.
The vehicle has to hit the atmosphere at a certain angle and speed. If they come in too shallow theyll skip off and drift out into space, if theyre too shallow they burn. Reentry is a science.
I think you meant to say, "If they're too STEEP, they'll burn." Too shallow, you're right - they'll skip out and drift into space...too steep, and they burn up.
To be in orbit you must be traveling at 6+ miles/sec, 17,000 mph. You are also sliding down into a gravity well 125+ miles deep. Shuttle gained that energy during launch, now it has to dissipate it. You can use a rocket or a parachute They use a parachute, but it is the shuttle body, and it will convert all that potential/kinetic energy into heat. That has also been the choice in all other spacecraft that have to come back down. There are simply no other choices for dissipating the energy.
The deorbit cannot be much longer than 1/2 orbit. That limits what can be done. The design of the shuttle leaves a huge surface to absorb heat - good, because it spreads the dissipation out, bad because the larger the surface the more fragile, hard-to-bind tile needs to be used, and because of complex shapes requireed for aerodynamics. Smaller capsules (Apollo, Soyuz, Orion) have very small, uniformly shaped heat shields by comparison, that will have to handle higher temperatures.
The new replacement vehicle, ARES, will use the sames solid rocket boosters. The "earth departure" or second stage will use the J2 engine from the 1963 design Saturn V. Atribute to the great designer.
The space shuttle itself has been a very safe vehicle. The two accidents were caused by the External Tank and Solid Rocket Booster. The shuttle itself is very safe. And because of the new procedures after columbia the shuttle is even safer.
It's safe enough, within its design limits. It is fragile from the viewpoint that once it's hull integrity is breached (as it was in Columbia), it looses all its designed strength. That is by design, and in common with all other aircraft; it has to be light enough to launch. Very few aircraft haven't crashed several times during development; perhaps the Euro SST is a sterling example. 150 flights for such a flight system is piddling compared with an airplane.
Obviously they know what is wrong, what do you want them to do, fly a plane up there? They couldn't do anything, they did not understand at that time what was going to happen... They knew that something had happened to the shuttle but they couldn't do anything when this happened...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
why are they heroes, there scientists, who unfortunately passed away due to technical failure. They never saved a life, or put there lives in risk to save others
They are heroes because they put their lives at risk to help the rest of us further the understanding of the universe in which we live in. Being a hero does not necessarily mean that they save others lives, though that is the way the word is most commonly used. When you say technical failure you make it sound like some part of the technology on board the shuttle did not work. In actuality it was because of damage sustained during liftoff that caused their deaths.
They are hero's because they gave their lives for space exploration. To discover something more than a dictionary. Just fyi, the little red line under a word means you can not spell. But maybe if you would have invested into an Education, you might have know that. Sucka
That was hard to watch............the commentary was so proffessional............but even the super proffessionals had to eventually acknowledge the reality that all was not well..........even as the shuttle disintegrated they were still reading numbers and figures out...........a terrible tragedy.
Remember also that the video you see on the screen is being shot by people on the ground, not NASA. They have no view of it; all they have is telemetry, which is showing a cascade of alarms starting only 5 minutes before breakup. And as stated above, there is no possibility of doing anything to prevent it - not on the ground, not above, once re-entry started. Their fate was sealed when the re-entry burn started in orbit.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I agree with you, the Space Shuttle is a death-trap; and a stupid design?
Anyone who goes up in that thing needs their head examined first? The original design for the Space Shuttle was much better and safer, but unfortunately cost too much to build, so it was scraped.
Human life does come at a price; a cheap one, by NASA standards. Safety should always be paramount not a compromise.
So, if I were you, I "would wait" till they build them better and safer.
Death trap? There have been almost 130 shuttle mission of which 2 ended in disaster. That figures to a little over 98% success rate. These men and women know the danger when they go up and are prepared to take that risk.
Sorry for clumsy english (not my first language). but what you said is not smart, so as two others who gave you thumbs up.
at first, smth that was concluded in some investigation report shortly after 2003 disaster (but also is what you could attain with you own thinking if you would) :
apply all that percentage (of a failing aka fatality) as analogy to a public jet flights, 2 of 130; and you'll get more than 40 planes falling every day all around the world. not bad, huh? ->
so from that point on we can call it as inconsistency of plan of the regular shuttle missions. if something happens, its gone-case, not only failed mission worth 1 billiob dollars, its human lives being lost in a shocking disaster, in front of the cameras, viewing all that inside or outside.
and a lot more to think about..
for instance, shuttles do not have test flights, they are not launched just by remote control with no people inside. ->
Ummmm - shutte basic cost, about 5 billion 1980 dollars. Mission cost - $600 million (not lost). As for being on camera, I would have it no other way. Would you have preferred to hear about it a week later in a newspaper? Yes, shuttle had lots of testing and test flights - at least 5 orbital flights. And, no, the technology wasn't good enough for unmanned landings.
It made us more cautious, less ambitious. Back to capsules, less manned flight altogether. Much less glamorous, less fun. :(
How many launches have there been? And how many deaths/explosions? I'm sorry, but the things that happen are due to damage during lift off, the shuttle is not a "death trap"
In fact, I would have liked the opportunity to have gone up in it, but they will be replacing it by the time I can become an astronaut...
wow thanks for enlightening me!!! i guess people should abandon cars now cuz they're perfectly safe almost 100% of the time too, those things are death-traps i tell ya, DEATH-TRAPS!!
an "escape pod" is possible, however such a capability on the existing orbiter would have involved extensive modifications and might have been unrealistic with respect to the age of the Columbia orbiter and unfortunately the cost of such an implementation. Whats really sad is the risk assessment of the STS program was misinformative to a great degree. Space is indeed a dangerous place. So many variables and a vary narrow margin for error.
Fair enough kevlar. Let's home we take these lessons to the future with us. Unfortunately, I still can't quite understand why parachutes aren't standard protocol on airplanes.
First temp. transducers go. The crew may have thought these were "false alarms," although with 4 sensors going out at once, I doubt it. Then, tire pressure, on the same side, gone. They knew for sure, by then, they would not make it back. They knew they were burning up and they couldnt do anything about it. That must be a horrible feeling. Also, how did the ground crew not notice "commonality"?
I remember seeing Shuttle Program Manager Ron Dittemore at a press interview. He was holding a 18"X6"X10" chunk of external tank foam. He remarked on 2-6-03 that "the foam simply was not heavy enough or travelling fast enough to damage the shuttles heat-resistant tiles".
I couldn't believe he didn't know that it's intertia, not just weight, that destroys.
He resigned in April 23, 2003. The foam was shot from a cannon and blasted a 16inch hole into the wing on July, 7, 2003.
she is talking about communication "hits" ...the com drop-outs as the tail of the shuttle passes between the shuttle's antenna and the TDRS satellite up in orbit and behind
nothign is awesome, funtastic, amazing they all died for us to day we can use cell phones, watch satelite tv's, pc, wireless & many more just because of them,
So it was falling apart right when it crossed Nevada?
RadioRegio 1 month ago
i remember it every well, i live in california, i was on my way to work around 530a.m to be theree by 6a.m. when i saw columbia going over the sky spliting up. never thought about it being columbia, till a coustomer around 10 a.m ask me if herd about columbia accident. i did not know what to say.
figuestillo30 1 month ago
It's time to build a bigger one.. the bigger the tougher it will be. but god bless all vitcims in that beautiful ship.
co634 4 months ago
Thanks for posting.Very well put together.
Those astronauts were professionals who knew the risks involved with space flight. They have experienced what very few members of the human race will get to witness and feel.
I hope they suffered as little as possible. RIP Heroes of Space.
Damn that must have been a helluva ride!
localbod 6 months ago
INCREDIBLE WORK! TEN STARS!
Crashman2 6 months ago in playlist SEM CLASSIFICAÇÃO 12
I watched this live on the NASA channel...devastating.
dannon2010 6 months ago
Very well put together. Very impressive. Chaining the footage together along with the audio and marking progress, even if approximate, must have taken alot of work. Thanks.
boredpapertigers 6 months ago
Wow! How did you put this together? Unbelievable work.
amsedelm 7 months ago
I loved this. Thank you so much for posting and making this video.
GravityKaguya 7 months ago
Without them, other lives would be lost... They showed that there were proplems with the new space shuttle, NASA were about to launch 4 more Shuttles like that, without those people, other lives would be lost - God bless them
Jord210TRA 7 months ago
So so sad .
ewancharley 8 months ago
NASA should invest in some new microphones.
fuunguus 8 months ago
@MaralizeLegawana Serenity Now!
ratface111 8 months ago
@MaralizeLegawana Hahaha true.
sweetlikeADAM 9 months ago
umm..i'm realy really sorry guys. but i don't get it. can someone explain the video .. i want to know more about it.. please..
Xen0r24 9 months ago
Sorry people, but praying and saying "God bless them" does absolutely nothing except give false hope.
sweetlikeADAM 10 months ago 2
@sweetlikeADAM how on earth do you know? have you a channel to a higher truth? i doubt it. on these matters it's best to have some humility and don't pretend you have any more access to those truths than another person. aetheist zealots are as misguided as religeous zealots. the deepest wisdom available to a person is acceptance of their own ignorance...in my opinion, i may be wrong....
evelyneverettgreen 7 months ago
@sweetlikeADAM as may math teacher said>> we cannot prove the unexistence of God beacuse our instruments cannot maeasure divine presence. When our instruments measure that we can say if God exists or not. in fact, when we go to the world of pure math, why we can't think in a dimension (of the 11 we have to-date) on our own world and reality which have the prayer and faith as properties and vital to it? Is a posibility. I'm not sthephen Hawkings, but i think too. sorry for the traslation...
MrRickillo 6 months ago
they didnt die instantly unfortunatley, their helmets,suit and restraints didnt work at all well, and they all died of severe head trauma as they were flung around. this was from nasa own PDF on the accident.
crazyknight2008 10 months ago
I really hope they died faster than I think might have been.
Leftfield755 11 months ago
This video is put together exceptionally well. Thanks.
check86 1 year ago
Heros all.
AdamB9098 1 year ago
@AdamB9098 a hero saves Llves
chillyrooster 1 year ago
@chillyrooster Those people died in the effort to further mankind's understanding of the universe while placing their lives at great risk. You don't think that makes them all heroes?
AdamB9098 1 year ago 19
@chillyrooster The dictionary disagrees with you.
hero: a person of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds
remick1974 11 months ago
@remick1974 They were Heroes! They saved peoples lives since there was a faulty with the new Shuttle, they were the test crew for it, they volunteered there lives for other people, they are...
Jord210TRA 7 months ago
Heartbreaking
kolaski33 1 year ago
sad day for all families god bless them all
thebrian266 1 year ago
dam man i wish they landed safely well bless their souls
MegaP1kachu 1 year ago
This is a great video that I always like to watch, but I'd like to see a couple of extra things on there:
1. NASA's Crew Survivabilty Report seems to have got another video showing coverage from around LOS (13.59.32) onwards, giving an extra 10-15 secs of eastern video coverage.
2. Can we have a clock showing the actual time passing be put on there? I know it won't be 100% accurate but it gives it a bit more of a context of when various events happened. It can even be just in min:sec format.
PJL1973 1 year ago
I remember this day. I was in Plano, Tx (north of Dallas) visiting family. I was awoken by a loud sonic boom. I turn on the news and everyone is covering the Colombia disaster.
Snarelol 1 year ago
So many intelligently beautiful lives wiped out so quickly....
primordialblade487 1 year ago
we have a comet headed our way, you can't see it but i do.
Iron923 1 year ago
This is a very well put together video.
cook119 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"In memory of those who made the ultimate sacrifice so that others may reach for the stars." Such a tragedy that could have been averted had they an escape capsule or something simple as "on board external cameras"! DUHHHHH!!!!
Puff29646 1 year ago
If you read the CAIB reports, you'll find that Columbia herself -- through the programming within her flight computers -- tried to compensate for increasing drag from her damaged flight surfaces until the very last possible moment.
She fought to save her crew.
kittypie070 1 year ago
@kittypie070 Fought to save her crew? Give me a damn break. It was computers following a set of programmed instructions. NASA is the ones who need to fight saving the crew! They can begin by designing a new state of the art orbiter with an escape capsule! Furthermore, install on board external cameras so maybe they can see a joint seal failure (since they have no joint seal integrity sensors) or a catastrophic debris strike! The simplest answers tend to be the right ones! Keep it simple boys!!!
Puff29646 1 year ago
@Puff29646
Why hello there.
Did Your Almighty and Omniscient Holiness not graciously deign to notice the phrase I very carefully and specifically used
-- THROUGH THE PROGRAMMING WITHIN HER FLIGHT COMPUTERS --
Or was Your Holiness momentarily distracted by an unfortunate lapse of the kind of reading comprehension one might normally expect of a kindergartner?
kittypie070 1 year ago
@Puff29646
That would be great.
However at 16,000 MPH things tend to end badly.
MrJohanasBilderberg 1 year ago
This WILL happen again. We all must realize this fact when attempting space flight. There are risks involved, for as much precaution that is taken, we will have risks. This is just a price we pay for human advancement when reaching for the stars. It's so sad. I really feel for their families!
pillowbugg 1 year ago
@pillowbugg They are heroes. Their names will be written in future history books!
fuunguus 8 months ago
Per aspera ad astra" is a Latin phrase on a plaque on the only remaining launch structure left as a memorial from the Apollo era of American spaceflight. Ed White, along with fellow astronauts Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee were killed during a pre-launch test for the first Apollo mission (Apollo 1) on this launch pad.
"Per aspera ad Astra" means "to the stars through difficulties".
I think all seven members of Columbia knew of and lived their chosen careers by this Latin phrase.
JDBasher 1 year ago
at least they died as heroes :(
IIMaddyGII 1 year ago 3
i think they are fully suited for re-entry
coreyagraph 1 year ago
They almost never wear helmets during re-entry. The wouldve blacked out within seconds, if not died instantaneously from blunt trauma and heat. There is evidence to suggest the challenger crew was alive, fully conscious for just under 3 minutes until they hit the water going 200 mph. Now THAT is a shitty way to die.
robdorg 1 year ago
@robdorg
.
Once the Orbiter could no longer maintain attitude, the spin would have generated such high g-forces that everyone would have blacked out rather quickly. Even if they survived ejection into a 12,000 mph slipstream without massive broken bones and loss of consciousness the compressed air around their bodies would have generated such heat as to set them on fire. Likely everyone knew something was really wrong and then they blacked out due to the spin and their bodies burned up over TX.
Knepperify1 1 year ago
@Knepperify1
Actually they knew that something was wrong for at least 2 mins. They tried to correct the shuttle (unaware of the damage) and they blacked out during the breakup of the crew module from the shuttle and decompression. Most of them were alive (but unconcious) until they hit the ground.
Kingfordian22 1 year ago
@robdorg
Some of them had them on, but they didn't have their visers closed. If they had their visors closed, they would have an oxygen supply.
Kingfordian22 1 year ago
That would be a crappy way to die...well hopefully itll never happen again ;-(
brandonncali5 1 year ago
I think the Klingons destroyed the shuttle to prevent humans from getting photon torpedo technology. Fortunately, I, Captain Bill Shatner, was able to perform a HALO and save the information and prevent Iran from creating a new dance sensation that would turn the world into a mob of bomb-chucking towelheads. Live long and ruckus!
captainbillshatner 1 year ago
@captainbillshatner dumbass
sergeantsoap101mw2 1 year ago
nasa was hammered for taking the risk of bringing the crew back. Should have stayed in orbit. Arranged a rescue. Probably could have fast-tracked Atlantis - or used the raised orbit/launched mission extension survival kit option.
Realfoxhawk 1 year ago 2
What is the extension survival kit option ?
mach25man 1 year ago
@mach25man Thats my name for something a nasa guy I had lunch with off tour in Cape Canaveran (I can't remember what its proper name). Essentially its a small box that can be launched to match orbit with the shuttle. Has a range of things in it (I cant remember what he said) that can be used to extend a missions time in orbit beyond the maximum possible until a rescue is prepared and reaches them. Its not like the shuttle can just dock with ISS - could be in different orbits entirely.
Realfoxhawk 1 year ago
so sad
librano 1 year ago 3
See the light at 3:07 was that the light from the spaceshuttle aimed at the debris?
colsh1690 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
SHE BLEW HIGH HOE!
AngelofMusic8587 2 years ago
@AngelofMusic8587
Your comment sickens me. How can you say that, 7 people died
Kingfordian22 1 year ago
wow , you drank the koolaid!
naboba 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
[snore]
KirbyComicsVids 2 years ago
This culture would be inexcusable to even an air force test pilot. Their job also involves risk, but the engineers who build the planes they test dedicate their lives to keeping their pilots alive.
ChrisInAStrangeLand 2 years ago 2
Question..was there anything the crew could have done to save themselves?
If they knew or had a warning as to what was happening? When the first 4 sensors went out? Fire rockets to get out of earths atmosphere/heat of reentry?Is there any escape mechanism to abandon ship?
ehunter2 2 years ago 3
Challenger, no. They were screwed the moment that motor casing popped open. If the failure comes after the solids burn out, you could perform a return to launch site abort, but it's never been tried. The space shuttle itself has no abort or escape mechanisms for heat shield failure.
In theory, Columbia had enough electrical power and water for 45 days because of their EDO package. Atlantis was in prep for March 1 launch, and could have been rushed for a rescue mission.
ChrisInAStrangeLand 2 years ago 3
When Columbia was reentering the atmosphere..and heat build up began to enter the puncture in the left wing..could the crew have fired engines and go into some kind of orbital or suborbital position? Was there enough engine power to do something like that?
ehunter2 2 years ago
Its a shuttle...there are no engines available on reentry.
Parubhi 2 years ago 2
main engines are dead once the shuttle is in orbit. 100% or their fuel is from the external tank. Once it is dry - no more main engines for duration of mission.
The oms engines do not have enough power in such a situation to counteract drag. (or fuel)
Realfoxhawk 1 year ago 3
@ehunter2 It's a interesting question. There are really only two re-entry positions, that was only one of them. Sadly, NASA had no idea what was going on, and probably the crew didn't have a clue either. If they had known, they could have changed the re-entry or aborted the mission. But NASA had no idea until a few minutes after the main vehicle broke up.
togproductions1 1 year ago
@ehunter2
During re-entry the shuttle flies like a glider. No engines are used after it enters the atmosphere.
Kingfordian22 1 year ago
NO at that speed, and because the booms had no way of seeing the damage, they couldn't have done anything.
danschaoticmind 2 years ago
@ehunter2
they knew what was happening for at least 1 minute
But they also knew they couldn't right the shuttlee
Kingfordian22 1 year ago
@ehunter2 Another good question. There was an escape mechanism, which they could have deployed after the main vehicle broke up and started falling. However, they were most likely knocked out, and even if they were awake, there would only be a small window of time (probably around a minute) for them to escape. Keep in mind that NASA had no idea what was happening until a few minutes later.
togproductions1 1 year ago
@togproductions1 The escape equipment they have would have done no good coming thru the atmosphere. They have to be flying straight and level at 40,000 ft to make it all work. It works like this : Crewman on the middeck pulls 2 handles. One to equalize the pressure and one to blow the hatch. The same crewman deploys the escape pole which is mounted on the middeck ceiling.
See next comment.....
mach25man 1 year ago
@togproductions1 The purpose of the pole which extends out of the hatch when deployed is to throw the crew below the wing when jumping out. They all have to get up out of their seats and down to the middeck if sitting in the flight deck, hook up to the pole and jump. None of this is possible without flying straight and level. This is the senario for ditching on launch and landing.
mach25man 1 year ago
@mach25man
The shuttle was uncontrolable. A wing had fallen off and was spinning. There was nothing they could do.
Kingfordian22 1 year ago
It was clear from almost a year before challenger that the next time they launched in cold weather that the o-rings were going to leak, and there was a 40% chance they'd leak on the side of the tanks, instantly tearing through them. The foam risk was also known and there was an inspection routine that had been planned for the contingency which was ignored by management. A shuttle had never failed because of foam, so it could never fail.
ChrisInAStrangeLand 2 years ago
That sounds a little off the wall about Challenger. The motor joints had blow by years before in hot & cold weather. And you could not predict where it was going to happen. The joint is the same all the way around. The same o-rings fly today just with a different joint design. There have been no issues since Challenger.
mach25man 2 years ago
Thanks. Just thought maybe you had additional info. :)
mach25man 2 years ago
How did you know they were dead ?
mach25man 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is off-topic but it's space-related.
There's a mountain of evidence that the Apollo moon missions were faked. I posted a partial summary of it on a science forum. Google "The Naked Scientists". In the "New Theories" section of the forum there's a thread entitled "Did We Land on the Moon?". The summary is on page 15. It's the 7th post from the top.
People who still think they went to the moon simply haven't seen the hoax evidence yet.
Cosmored 2 years ago
Believe it or not, there was. The worms actually survived the disaster...........protected inside the block of moist earth in the biology capsule. Incredible that any organism could have survived that.
stegatops 2 years ago 6
What a terrible shame, I love space exploration but absolutely despise the risks.
btarrh 2 years ago
Yeah, and if you knew anything you'd realize that there are a stack of warnings that come from every reliability and systems' expert. Mission has to make a judgement call about each and every one of those, and rarely are they are cut and dry. If every single risk was mitigated to N-thousand significant figures no vehicle would ever launch.
warrenkm 2 years ago
Your a fucking idiot. Every risk didn't need to be mitigated to nothing you moron. There was significant risk, and inexcusable failure to follow up on clear warnings that existed pre-reentry.
PhrynosomaTexas 2 years ago
Seems you can't reply to anyone without an insult.
It sure must be ghastly to live in that black and white world you inhabit. "All one has to do is to locate the significant risks to avoid inexcusable failures". Ever had a car accident in your life? Too bad you couldn't see what was significant ahead of time, wasn't it?
Tell me, when they resumed shuttle flights and on the very first launch more foam fell, was that also an inexcusable failure?
puncheex 2 years ago 5
Seems you can't reply without insult either, puncheex.
This shuttle exploded for exactly the same reason Richard Feynman demonstrated was responsible for Challenger. A culture of mischaracterisation and deliberate ignorance of risk by upper management. In both cases engineers on the floor screamed out warnings.
ChrisInAStrangeLand 2 years ago
Incompetence of NASA management strikes again. They were warned against launching Challenger after a cold night on the booster o-rings, and they launched anyway. With Columbia they could have kept the orbiter up a little longer for an assessment, but dip shit desk jockeys are in charge. I'm tired of our country loosing billions worth of orbiters and more than a dozen astronaut lives because they are too stupid to to check stuff out before pulling the trigger on something! Fucking retards.
PhrynosomaTexas 2 years ago 2
These NASA managers are directly responsible for the deaths, and I hope it haunts them the rest of their miserable lives. The only honorable thing for them to do is put a pistol to their head!
PhrynosomaTexas 2 years ago
Hmm...who exactly do you want to be in charge? WIll you bitch if they build the shuttle for 10 billion apiece rather than 5, for your lost taxes? You can moan all you want, but it took the team to do the job, and that team included managers, PR flacks, accountants, secretaries, medical people, engineers; hundreds of thousands of desk jockeys. Yes, some bad decisions were made; some worked out and a few didn't. Without the whole team, the shuttle would not have flown. Hind sight is always 20-20.
puncheex 2 years ago
Some worked out and some didn't?? You retard. This isn't poker to play risks like that with. "Hind sight" is not the issue. Lack of foresight IS! There is a substantial difference.
PhrynosomaTexas 2 years ago
Mankind has yet to rub two humans together and get perfection. Where were you when they launched and were hit by the foam? Where was your foresight? Did you object? Why not, just because you didn't have enough data? Upon what do you believe foresight is built?
Yes, it is a risk. It was a risk when the first B1 bomber crashed. How many astronauts have crashed their trainers and died? Have any idea? No, of course you don't.
Oh, and... Sticks and stones - sticks and stones.
puncheex 2 years ago 2
Mission management including Cain and Ham PREVENTED steps from being taken! From the accident investigation I quote an email from Cain a week before the disaster:
From: CAIN, LEROY
Sent: Jan 23, 2003 12:07 PM
Subject: Help with debris hit
"The SSP was asked directly if they had any interest/desire in requesting resources outside of NASA to view the Orbiter (ref. the wing leading edge debris concern). They said, No. After talking to Phil, I consider it to be a dead issue."
Yeah, a dead issue.
antimatterXXXIII 2 years ago
horrible disaster, and what a horrible loss, really gut-wrenching to listen to
primordialblade487 2 years ago
This is so sad. But I am so proud of NASA. They are able to achieve what would otherwise be impossible tasks. They encounter disasters but endure. They have the ingenuity of Benjamen Franklin and the efficiency of the Borg. There are no heroes in this business; If even one person out of a thousand was not doing his job none of their work would be possible. It is a communal effort with spectacular results. Thank you NASA.
PilsungKMD 2 years ago 2
Unfortunately this is just an emotional homily that is at variance with reality. Cain (the FIDO here) is STILL engaging in wishful thinking about the sensor data, seconds before the astronauts all die. He had a full two weeks to get some eyes on the wing strike area and PREVENTED it from happening. At the end, he's in his own world, oblivious to the reality over his head - or worse, in denial that his own actions doomed the crew. Linda Ham and Leroy Cain - the WRONG stuff.
antimatterXXXIII 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
did anyone die ?
bs1ayer 2 years ago
Are you fucking retarded?
snedie69er 2 years ago
did you seriously ask that?
you're fucking idiot buddy. straight up.
ShowerCurtain31 2 years ago
cant stop the tears when i think deeply abt this thing ... really sad :( ...really really sad ..
v18abc 2 years ago
sad :(
jasonyeozhishen 2 years ago 3
God bless those souls.
dunkiemon 2 years ago 35
So, while the shuttle was already almost completely desintegrated they were still talking about a nosegear malfunction?
Meuk1982 2 years ago
I could never understand why they didn't design the cabin as an escape module that could be jetisoned in the event of launch or re-entry/approach situations. I think mission control new what was happening, but, didn't have any options to give them.
Jackle61 2 years ago 3
Because of the weight of such a system. It takes away from payload capacity. And in the late 70's it was thought to be to complex.
mach25man 2 years ago 2
our fed. gov. told nasa in the late 70,s there will be no escape pod it cost to much and there would be no need for one in an incident ,there would be nothing left, that is true 2 times
cdlmn63 2 years ago
Because it would add tons weight to the orbiter and thus decrease payload dramatically.
Further more it is not very likely it would is even possible to make such a pod that would be able to withstand the forces and heat involved in a sudden breakup of the orbiter. when you haeva controlled re-entry, then it's possible, as we saw in the early days of the space program. But when you're dealing with a chaotic, and essentally unpredicable breakup, you can't know what you are designing for.
mkarnerfors 2 years ago
Space flight will always be dangerous. God bless them....
AZmejia 2 years ago 20
Like the space bus that won the X prize? That doesnt ride the atmosphere.(Good thing) The next shuttle will be better this is a old design and they did know they where going to die before they did.
AZmejia 2 years ago
anyone who can watch this video without getting teary or at least a lump in the throat, is a pretty tough SOB! i watched challenger explode,standing in back of where i worked in miami & cried like a baby. this vehicle design is flawed and has been from day one.human space flight, is by nature, extremely dangerous. the design vehicle adds more elements of risk than what it's worth. low earth orbit activities accomplish little at best.
jmh11962 2 years ago
Can someone answer my question. Why can't nasa decrease the speed of the shuttle during re entry so as to prevent over heating?
relevation 2 years ago
The shuttle has to be moving at 17k+ mph to stay in orbit. In order to slow down to the point of not having that kind of heat during re-entry they would need to take a second main fuel tank with them to be able to burn the engines long enough during braking. sub-orbital flights do not have this kind of heat problem.
tomboi1978 2 years ago 2
if you try to enter with less speed you generate lot of heat which will fry the shuttle in a fraction of sec.
as it closes to the earth the gravitational pull on shuttle is increases that in turn accelerate the shuttle to more speed so the best idea is to keep the shuttle in more aerodynamic shape.
blueice8982 2 years ago
The vehicle has to hit the atmosphere at a certain angle and speed. If they come in too shallow theyll skip off and drift out into space, if theyre too shallow they burn. Reentry is a science.
emtpilot132 2 years ago 2
emtpilot132,
I think you meant to say, "If they're too STEEP, they'll burn." Too shallow, you're right - they'll skip out and drift into space...too steep, and they burn up.
knightryderrwn 2 years ago
To be in orbit you must be traveling at 6+ miles/sec, 17,000 mph. You are also sliding down into a gravity well 125+ miles deep. Shuttle gained that energy during launch, now it has to dissipate it. You can use a rocket or a parachute They use a parachute, but it is the shuttle body, and it will convert all that potential/kinetic energy into heat. That has also been the choice in all other spacecraft that have to come back down. There are simply no other choices for dissipating the energy.
puncheex 2 years ago
The deorbit cannot be much longer than 1/2 orbit. That limits what can be done. The design of the shuttle leaves a huge surface to absorb heat - good, because it spreads the dissipation out, bad because the larger the surface the more fragile, hard-to-bind tile needs to be used, and because of complex shapes requireed for aerodynamics. Smaller capsules (Apollo, Soyuz, Orion) have very small, uniformly shaped heat shields by comparison, that will have to handle higher temperatures.
puncheex 2 years ago
Damn. sad.
brandondallas 2 years ago
The new replacement vehicle, ARES, will use the sames solid rocket boosters. The "earth departure" or second stage will use the J2 engine from the 1963 design Saturn V. Atribute to the great designer.
Anonymouslaw11110 2 years ago
The space shuttle itself has been a very safe vehicle. The two accidents were caused by the External Tank and Solid Rocket Booster. The shuttle itself is very safe. And because of the new procedures after columbia the shuttle is even safer.
joachim2464 2 years ago
It's safe enough, within its design limits. It is fragile from the viewpoint that once it's hull integrity is breached (as it was in Columbia), it looses all its designed strength. That is by design, and in common with all other aircraft; it has to be light enough to launch. Very few aircraft haven't crashed several times during development; perhaps the Euro SST is a sterling example. 150 flights for such a flight system is piddling compared with an airplane.
puncheex 2 years ago
nasa know wots going wrong .
paullees557104 2 years ago
Obviously they know what is wrong, what do you want them to do, fly a plane up there? They couldn't do anything, they did not understand at that time what was going to happen... They knew that something had happened to the shuttle but they couldn't do anything when this happened...
Frogki1 2 years ago
no dont want them to fly a plane up there its just a fact!
paullees557104 2 years ago
yea they could have they could llaunch another shuttle and dock
Socialist36 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
why are they heroes, there scientists, who unfortunately passed away due to technical failure. They never saved a life, or put there lives in risk to save others
Phatberry 2 years ago
They are heroes because they put their lives at risk to help the rest of us further the understanding of the universe in which we live in. Being a hero does not necessarily mean that they save others lives, though that is the way the word is most commonly used. When you say technical failure you make it sound like some part of the technology on board the shuttle did not work. In actuality it was because of damage sustained during liftoff that caused their deaths.
lmtrione 2 years ago 3
They are hero's because they gave their lives for space exploration. To discover something more than a dictionary. Just fyi, the little red line under a word means you can not spell. But maybe if you would have invested into an Education, you might have know that. Sucka
theasphaltblogger 2 years ago 3
That was hard to watch............the commentary was so proffessional............but even the super proffessionals had to eventually acknowledge the reality that all was not well..........even as the shuttle disintegrated they were still reading numbers and figures out...........a terrible tragedy.
stegaflaps 2 years ago 2
Remember also that the video you see on the screen is being shot by people on the ground, not NASA. They have no view of it; all they have is telemetry, which is showing a cascade of alarms starting only 5 minutes before breakup. And as stated above, there is no possibility of doing anything to prevent it - not on the ground, not above, once re-entry started. Their fate was sealed when the re-entry burn started in orbit.
puncheex 2 years ago
Great video.
Very sad though. They were all heroes.
thevmansince1980 2 years ago 2
Crew members are heroes. Condolence to their families
tanhnhi 2 years ago
good video
SAM240886 2 years ago
Thanks! Watch more of my videos.
More space stuff, but oh!!! so much more.
Don't be shy, get involved ...look around, as I have tons to share
youtube/x24val ...come on look around
x24val 2 years ago
I've always wanted to join the Astronaut Corps.. but disasters like these make me wait...
machacker2000 2 years ago
Comment removed
hagvcutadfu 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I agree with you, the Space Shuttle is a death-trap; and a stupid design?
Anyone who goes up in that thing needs their head examined first? The original design for the Space Shuttle was much better and safer, but unfortunately cost too much to build, so it was scraped.
Human life does come at a price; a cheap one, by NASA standards. Safety should always be paramount not a compromise.
So, if I were you, I "would wait" till they build them better and safer.
hagvcutadfu 2 years ago
Death trap? There have been almost 130 shuttle mission of which 2 ended in disaster. That figures to a little over 98% success rate. These men and women know the danger when they go up and are prepared to take that risk.
knytrydr73 2 years ago
True. And one of those losses was due to the rocket boosters, not the shuttle.
gplex86 2 years ago
Sorry for clumsy english (not my first language). but what you said is not smart, so as two others who gave you thumbs up.
at first, smth that was concluded in some investigation report shortly after 2003 disaster (but also is what you could attain with you own thinking if you would) :
apply all that percentage (of a failing aka fatality) as analogy to a public jet flights, 2 of 130; and you'll get more than 40 planes falling every day all around the world. not bad, huh? ->
Vitaminnn07 2 years ago
so from that point on we can call it as inconsistency of plan of the regular shuttle missions. if something happens, its gone-case, not only failed mission worth 1 billiob dollars, its human lives being lost in a shocking disaster, in front of the cameras, viewing all that inside or outside.
and a lot more to think about..
for instance, shuttles do not have test flights, they are not launched just by remote control with no people inside. ->
Vitaminnn07 2 years ago
Ummmm - shutte basic cost, about 5 billion 1980 dollars. Mission cost - $600 million (not lost). As for being on camera, I would have it no other way. Would you have preferred to hear about it a week later in a newspaper? Yes, shuttle had lots of testing and test flights - at least 5 orbital flights. And, no, the technology wasn't good enough for unmanned landings.
It made us more cautious, less ambitious. Back to capsules, less manned flight altogether. Much less glamorous, less fun. :(
puncheex 2 years ago
Comment removed
Vitaminnn07 2 years ago
4.> so thats why "98% success rate" is not what it is if you ever reflected on the whole subject
Vitaminnn07 2 years ago
How many launches have there been? And how many deaths/explosions? I'm sorry, but the things that happen are due to damage during lift off, the shuttle is not a "death trap"
In fact, I would have liked the opportunity to have gone up in it, but they will be replacing it by the time I can become an astronaut...
Frogki1 2 years ago
they are briging back rockets
Socialist36 2 years ago
wow thanks for enlightening me!!! i guess people should abandon cars now cuz they're perfectly safe almost 100% of the time too, those things are death-traps i tell ya, DEATH-TRAPS!!
Wingnut326 2 years ago
sad
osamacul 2 years ago 3
Maybe sad, but watch my 3 part "and for other purposes" ...it might raise your spirits and get "machacker2000" to reconsider.
WATCH MY VIDEOS---- youtube/x24val
Thanks,
Chris Valentine
x24val 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i love america space shuttle is the best,,,
i dont like ussr russia buran,,,
ussr russia is a very cheap space buran shuttle,,,
ussr russia is always copy steal from america space shuttle
bestamerica 2 years ago
you are completely wrong
lookslikesquirrel 2 years ago 4
Avarakedavra
an "escape pod" is possible, however such a capability on the existing orbiter would have involved extensive modifications and might have been unrealistic with respect to the age of the Columbia orbiter and unfortunately the cost of such an implementation. Whats really sad is the risk assessment of the STS program was misinformative to a great degree. Space is indeed a dangerous place. So many variables and a vary narrow margin for error.
310kevlar 2 years ago
Fair enough kevlar. Let's home we take these lessons to the future with us. Unfortunately, I still can't quite understand why parachutes aren't standard protocol on airplanes.
Avarakedavra 2 years ago
I know it sounds crazy, but are escape pods possible at all?
Avarakedavra 2 years ago 2
hmm good question, they have them for during take off of the old school shuttles
so they might have them on the new Orion space craft
TheGoldenHour 2 years ago
it's a good video
NASA1995MaDo 2 years ago 2
First temp. transducers go. The crew may have thought these were "false alarms," although with 4 sensors going out at once, I doubt it. Then, tire pressure, on the same side, gone. They knew for sure, by then, they would not make it back. They knew they were burning up and they couldnt do anything about it. That must be a horrible feeling. Also, how did the ground crew not notice "commonality"?
freezedriedpoop 2 years ago
accept our condolences from Russian astronauts, space is very risky business, only for the chosen ones.
maximAK47 2 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
i love america space shuttle is the best,,,
i dont like ussr russia buran,,,
ussr russia is a very cheap space buran shuttle,,,
ussr russia is always copy steal from america space shuttle
bestamerica 2 years ago
u must be an arse hole learn space shuttle history before doing such comment russina are the fist to go into space then US followed get it?
bee6880 2 years ago
lol Hey Vladamire, Anyone can put a chimp into space. I got a banana. Want to goto space little buddy?
theasphaltblogger 2 years ago
thats really sad
DanJeffery07 2 years ago
I remember seeing Shuttle Program Manager Ron Dittemore at a press interview. He was holding a 18"X6"X10" chunk of external tank foam. He remarked on 2-6-03 that "the foam simply was not heavy enough or travelling fast enough to damage the shuttles heat-resistant tiles".
I couldn't believe he didn't know that it's intertia, not just weight, that destroys.
He resigned in April 23, 2003. The foam was shot from a cannon and blasted a 16inch hole into the wing on July, 7, 2003.
Fallparty 2 years ago
Fallparty. I believe when Ron Dittemore stated "TRAVELLING FAST ENOUGH" he factored in the whole "INERTIA" thing.
freezedriedpoop 2 years ago
Very good, clever video
bal20 2 years ago
It lost his tail and it's gear on the way down?
Brulluhman 2 years ago
she is talking about communication "hits" ...the com drop-outs as the tail of the shuttle passes between the shuttle's antenna and the TDRS satellite up in orbit and behind
x24val 2 years ago
I'm not that brilliant. The tail was jamming the contact or something like that or did they hit that TDRS satellite?
Brulluhman 2 years ago
the tail would/could momentarily block the line of sight between the antenna and the satellite when Columbia made a roll manuver
x24val 2 years ago
Are those people talking to the people on the shuttle?
jburr44 2 years ago
Hi, I was just wondering, at the start of the video it say the shuttles nose was at a 40 degree angle, is that normal for a shuttle?
roden81 2 years ago
Heroes forever...
marcojimenez59 2 years ago
sony vegas pro ?
stuart021 2 years ago
nothign is awesome, funtastic, amazing they all died for us to day we can use cell phones, watch satelite tv's, pc, wireless & many more just because of them,
THEY DESERVE A BEST WORD THAT CAN DESCRIBE THEM
walternokomashala 3 years ago 2
R.I.P.
contractkilla94 3 years ago
Comment removed
hagvcutadfu 2 years ago