Out Of Options | The Space Shuttle That Lost An Engine | STS 51 F
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 гру 2020
- Footage: / nasa
Marianne Dyson: www.mariannedyson.com
Images: commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/...
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...
Scott’s Video: • KSP Doesn't Teach: Roc...
This is the story of challengers 8th mission or STS-51-F, the story of STS 51 F starts on the 12th of July 1985, the space shuttle was on the pad and ready to go. The space shuttle was carrying space lab 2, it was a reusable lab that was developed by the ESA, A helium cooled IR telescope and I kid you not pepsi and coke in specially designed cans so that astronauts could drink pepsi and coke in space. Actually coke had their can ready to go on an earlier mission and pepsi asked the reagan administration to not let coke be the first cola in space.
Anyway the countdown on the 12th was scrubbed when a coolant valve on engine number 2 of the space shuttle's main RS-25 engines malfunctioned at T-3 seconds. The coolant valve had to partially close for the engine startup; it had to go from 100% open to 70% open but this didn't happen. They had to abandon their launch attempt and their next window of opportunity was on the 29th of july 1985, and on the 29th all the readings from the vehicles were healthy, they were a go for launch, at 5 pm edt after a delay of about and hour and a half challenger was on her way to space, the engines ramped up to full power to clear the shuttle of the tower and as she executed the roll program, they throttled the engines down to 65%. The engines are throttled back at max-q or maximum aerodynamic pressure to reduce the loads on the vehicle. Challenger made it through max-q, and when it was a little over two NM from the launch pad huston came on the frequency and said “Challenger huston youre go with throttle up” giving them the all clear to push the engines back up to 104%. So far so good the APUs and the fuel cells were all in the green. One minute and 30 seconds into the flight all looked good, the shuttle zoomed upward at 2000 feet per second. A while later the solid rocket boosters fell away as they had done all that they could to get challenger into orbit. 5 minutes and 5 seconds had gone by still, everything was going according to plan. Suddenly a voice comes over the radio and says “standby for press to ATO”, Which was quickly followed up by “challenger huston press to ATO”. Challengers engine number 1 had failed and they were told to ATO or reject to orbit. Now i am using the word reject instead of another word. Just bear with me ok? ATO was a way to safely reject the launch, in this case due to the engine failure they wouldn't be able to reach their intended orbit and the ATO allowed them to reach a safe albeit lower orbit than the targeted orbit.
This reject call was made based off of a flurry of activity at Houston. At the flight dynamics console two people by the name of brian perry and bruce hilty had been pouring over the ARD or the reject region determinator. It was a computer that gave them their reject options in the current phase of flight. A person by the name of Jenny Howard monitored the main engine parameters that were being beamed down from challenger. As her data told her the bad news jenny howard called “center engine down” on the flight director loop. Focus was now on perry and bruce, they now had to make the all important decision of what to do.
Challenger at this point was at an altitude of 58 nm and the downrange distance was 275 nm. Challenger was too far away to attempt a return to Kennedy space center. Challenger could make it to a lower orbit with two engines but before they could make that call brian perry his flight dynamics team had to run some calculations about how the external fuel tank which was still attached to the shuttle would impact things. The math checked out they would be able to reject this launch and reach the safe lower orbit , and thats how huston made the ATO call. Once the shuttle crew got the ATO command from houston shuttle commander Gordon fullerton turned a rotary dial in the cockpit to the ATO setting - Наука та технологія
Correction: Marianne Dyson Is actually a Flight Controller and not a Flight Director as I said in my video. My bad
@@HeaanLasai thanks for the clarification!
You play minecraft??
Mini Air Crash Investigation I think you can forgive yourself 😁 Excellent video by the way
Dont ever do that again.
Ok
Hearing someone say “Challenger go for throttle up” still brings chills
1st: It's go at throttle up not for.
2nd: Why is this comment on every shuttle video.
Yeah, I’m sad every time I hear Challenger or Columbia.
@@djbeezy Why? Clearly because a lot of people have the same thoughts.
@@Round_Slinger The Gen Xers and Boomers who were watching STS-51-L and saw the Shuttle Challenger destroyed will always remember "Challenger, go at throttle up".
@@dundonrl Yup I'm a Brit, born in 77 and I'll never forget Challenger and Columbia. Anyone interested in space in the youth around the globe during the shuttle years will.
It would not be a stretch to state that Every Space Shuttle mission was a Close Call....
Yes it would.
@@olympicnut it would not be. most of them were pretty sketch and unique lol
@@olympicnut with the shuttles being the most complex pieces of machinery in the history of the human race, yes every mission was a close call. Think about the fact that something as simple as foam caused Columbia to break up on re-entry, and rings of rubber took out Challenger.
> Every Space Shuttle mission was a Close Call < Some closer than others, but the more you know about the STS, the more that truth is evident [It should be noted at this point that I'm a retired engineer who did a brief stint providing advice to the Orbiter program manager regarding certain Orbiter problems, vs a purveyor of internet folklore.] A few things I'm aware of:
* If STS-1 had been flown at the design payload weight, the wings would have come off (or maybe just parts of them? -- the torsional strength deficiency was out towards the tips). As the Orbiter manager put it, "We're flying on strain gauges."
* The orbiter brakes were getting so hot on some landings that parts melted and flew from the wheel [edit: I'm not positive as to whether that extreme situation, which could have led to loss of the orbiter via runway departure, happened on more than one landing]. This was the original beryllium one, prior to the carbon brake upgrade done during the Challenger downtime.
* The orbiter tires were so overtaxed on some landing rollouts that the tire rubber wore down all the way into the cord layers.
* A coworker who had a lot of friends involved in the shuttle program said that immediately after the Challenger loss (before the cause was widely known), many of them figured their piece would end up being the cause. So there were many things which those in the know considered an accident waiting to happen. The 17" propellant line valve interfaces between Orbiter and ET, for example.
* The NASA culture had deteriorated into so-called "normalization of deviance", from what I saw during my week there. Why worry about the things for which I was there that might cost a shuttle, when there were even worse problems which might cost a shuttle? I ended up lecturing people far more senior than me regarding aerospace safety standards, and that felt odd.
@@WaterlooExpat Hadn't heard that one, other than relating to tiles. I took an in-plant short course taught by Bendat & Piersol of "random data analysis" fame. They mentioned having been hired by NASA to analyze sound data from Shuttle static firings in order to guess whether tiles would come off en masse at launch when the SRM's kicked in. So once again, not the most confidence-inspiring piece of hardware to be sticking people in.
Every space shuttle mission was a close call but unfortunately challenger and Columbia were caught up. RIP Heros.
Every nasa manned mission was closer to disaster than nasa's propaganda. Cdr Young states as such before his death.
@@ccserfas4629 It's not "NASA's propaganda". They've generally been pretty forthcoming. The simple fact is that a rocket is, at best, a barely contained bomb, and they know it.
@@almostfm they knew not to launch in such cold weather.
the fucking manufacturers of the SRBs TOLD THEM NOT TO!
spoiler alert: they did it anyway and they failed due to the seals on them being too cold and thus combustion gases leaked and burned a hole through the liquid tank, and boom.
many people say that the space shuttle was the downfall of nasa.
I agree, except it wasn't the cause of the problem, but the symptom.
@@TauCu Yeah, thanks for the spoiler alert. I had absolutely no idea what happened when I watched it live, and I certainly didn't learn that in the intervening 35 years.
What happened is called "normalization of risk". You do something a little risky and get away with it, and it emboldens some people to take a little more risky. And you keep doing that, right up to the point that you don't get away with it.
@@almostfm So what is your point?
Is it that you think "normalization of risk" or, as I would call it: "recklessness", a good thing when peoples lives are at stake?
Gordon fullerton was on that flight. We used to be his neighbor and i remember swimming in his pool as a kid. Really nice guy. RIP Mr. Fullerton
Was that the name you went by back then, Mr. Mehoff?
They ALMOST lost Challenger, and then later they lost Challenger.
NASA blows
Yeah.. same with Columbia. Its mindboggling how many serious incidents the Space Shuttle program had. Not only 2 catastrophic failures but at least 3 more incidents that almost also would have resulted in loss of vehicle and crew. STS-51-F (this one). Then the "gold bullet" incident with Columbia in STS-93, where a metal pin came loose and got violently ejected through one engine, rupturing 3 hydrogen fuel lines. And STS-27, where a hole got ripped in the heatshield during lift off, just like with Challenger but luckily under a piece of steel which protected the craft.
@@haraldhimmel5687 *Just like columbia
Unfortunately, that's true. The Challenger was destined to fail, I guess. 😪😢😞
@@haraldhimmel5687 I hadn't heard of the other ones you mentioned.
A few factual mistakes. 1) it was go at throttle-up. At this point the flight computers had already commanded full thrust, and the call was to recheck communications and to reaffirm that flight was go at that point. 2) press to ATO call is to again check communications and affirm that IF an engine would go down, the crew should perform the ATO procedure. The engine then failed later on.
I was about to make a similar comment but since you already did, I won’t.
Yes
Similar to the Apollo call-outs "S-IV B to orbit capability" and "SPS to orbit capability," "1 Bravo" and "1 Charlie."
Lots of errors in this video unfortunately. You are better off just reading the Wikipedia article about this flight.
It's weird seeing footage of Challenger and hearing "Go with throttle up" without it exploding just a year before the accident. STS-27, only the second flight after the return to flight following Challenger's explosion, also came very close to a Columbia type breakup.
STS-27 suffered severe heat shield damage due to parts of an SRB nose striking it. Over 700 tiles where damaged and one came off. It was the only tile on the entire vehicle save one or two other spots that could be lost and still survive the mission. Usually the aluminium air frame would be exposed but under that tile was a steel mounting plate for an antenna that withstood the heat of reentry.
Never realized the OMS was fired while the main engines where still burning. Fascinating.
In this case the OMS fired as part of the abort procedure to add a bit of thrust but also to burn fuel to reduce weight. But this procedure later became a normal part of the launch once the Shuttle started launching heavy payloads to the high-inclination orbit of the ISS.
@@kevenguimaraes I didn't realize that. I thought all Shuttle flight first dropped the ET, coasted towards apogee and ignited the OMS only then. I guess it paid off that they put a lot of margin in.
@@user-lv7ph7hs7l depended on the flight profile. “Coasting to apogee” as you put it was called the OMS-2 burn to circularize the orbit. I believe the original profile also called for an OMS-1 burn almost immediately after dropping the tank. OMS-1 might also be required if there was an underperformance of the SSME’s. If you watch clips of launches from the 90’s onwards mission control will almost always tell them “OMS-1 not required” after shutdown of the SSME’s. But yeah they would definitely burn the OMS during ascent as a normal part of the flight profile later on in the program to give a slight performance boost for high-inclination ISS orbits.
@@kevenguimaraes Interesting, that means my KSP RO Shuttle flights are more realistic than I thought. Had to burn the OMS early to reach an acceptable orbit quite a few times. 30 t is pushing it, but if you don't care about leaving margin in the ET it certainly could do it. At least low inclination orbits.
Challenger hit an area of turbulence at “throttle up” in January 1986, and everything fell apart. If that hadn’t happened, the mission might have survived.
Relentless intensive training is what benefited the Challenger's successful transition to lower orbit after #1 engine went off line. "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity."
I flew with Gordon Fullerton on the KC-135, great pilot.
Interesting how astronauts from the third and fourth groups served as CAPCOMs during Apollo and Skylab (such as Fullerton and Bruce McCandless and Bob Overmeyer), but didn't get to fly until the Shuttle.
"Press to ATO" is a routine call that informed the crew that they were cleared to the next mission milestone, ATO, or the ability to Abort To Orbit. On STS-51F, the number 1 engine failed 28 seconds after they reached ATO and the order was given to Abort to orbit. Limits to inhibit is also a routine call. Listen to the flight recordings of some other shuttle launches.
Sadly, Jay Green, the Ascent Flight Director on this flight was back in the seat a few months later, launching the same orbiter for STS-51L.
Seems odd they wouldn't have done a full inspecting of challenger before launching again in January and probably discovered the broken O Rings.
@@JeffDearman the o-rings weren't broken before launch. They failed because NASA ignored Morton Thiokol's warnings that they would likely fail if launched below 54° F. They were brittle from the cold, so they failed when the boosters flexed during start-up.
Imagine being FD Leroy Cain in the MOCR while Columbia was breaking up, and realizing the worst-case scenario was playing out.
I blame Linda Ham for it.
As shown in the video footage recorded in Mission Control during ascent, the Flight Director was Cleon Lacefield. A cool head in a crisis.
@@104thDIVTimberwolf Also the comment you were replying to appeared to think that not only were the same SRBs in place for both flights, but the same O-rings were inside them. Incredible.
It’s so weird hearing the phrase “Scott Manley has a great video and I’ll link it down below” in a air crash investigation video!
Actually I forgot to link his video thanks for the reminder haha
Ha. I never thought I’d see another two Scott Manley fans at random on the inter webs. Kind of a niche channel!
@@funnyitworkedlasttime6611 Make that three!
Right?! Two worlds colliding lol!
@@funnyitworkedlasttime6611 1.17 million subs I wouldn’t call that niche
"I want my exceedingly fructose caramel-colored bubble drink to be first in space and not the other guy's exceedingly fructose caramel-colored bubble drink"
When humans are making their first tentative steps into the universe and this is your priority in life.
Seriously. Wtf. I would've laughed them out of the office.
One of those rare UA-cam comments that cuts through all the chatter and BS to provide a view of human life as aliens would see us. Do you teach philosophy?
1st world problems
@@jamc666 Dammit, Jam, you beat me to it!
Werner von Braun is shaking his Nazi head
NASA: "We lost an engine, can't get much worse than this."
Booster O-ring: "Am I a joke to you?"
nah man this aint it
the people who launched it even after the mfg's of the boosters told them it was too cold to safely fire them: ... NOT MY FAULT! I- it was their fault, yes theirs!
@@danielf1506 too soon?
@@g0ast yes we must wait until January 2026 there is a 40 year statute
Not gonna lie I did laugh. But too soon bro. Too soon. In fact please never joke like this again. Let us pay respect to these heroic men and women.
I thought i clicked on a Scott Manley video, i was surprised. Great video! I'm a fan of both of you
ok ngl being compared to scott manley is a great compliment haha
Mini Air Crash Investigation i think the both of you have much different style of presentation. Was this video inspired by his videos? It does have the Manley vibe in the presentation, well done!
@@JoshuaC923 Actually i found out about this on Wikipedia, I started researching this and I was like hmm i know nothing about rocket engines and so a person on my discord reminded me about his video and I used it to learn the basics of rocket engines
Mini Air Crash Investigation that's great! He is definitely one of the go to guys for rockets! Keep up the good work buddy
Yes they saved the shuttle. By making the right call in time at the right time. Also for just being there with knowledge and passion. Thank you guys! You are beautiful NASA assets.
I was listening to the Flight Director’s voice loop that day. Jenny explained the situation succinctly and clearly in real time. She said that the first engine was shut down due to those sensors. When that happens, the engines automatically go into a mode to ignore a similar situation again. The flight controllers looked at the data and determined it was appropriate to reenable the automatic engine shutdown function based on those temp readings. They passed that on to the Flight Director who had Capcom pass that instruction on to the crew. A short while later, Jenny explained to the Flight Director that the first engine was shut down by two failed sensors (not truly high temps) and now another one had failed on a second engine. The crew needed to inhibit the auto shutdown feature, which they were instructed to do.
This extreme professionalism during a very rapid pace dynamic environment gave me a tremendous amount of vicarious pleasure.
A point about women not getting a break today in a man’s world…I think such opinions are just bunk. This episode happened 30+ years ago and was led by a woman.
Thanks for adding this important context. Here's a great video for those interested, which includes audio from the Flight Loop so you can hear it for yourself! ua-cam.com/video/9Luwm_gjLCs/v-deo.html
In regards to your last point - being able to point to particular situations through the years where women's contributions weren't overlooked, ignored or diminished does not mean that you can make a broad brushed statement that that situation never occurs for them - that on average they don't face more hurdles than men because of their gender
@@jim2lane Hush
Anyone who chooses to sit on top of many tons of explosive material deserves the title of 'HERO'. Nice descriptive video. Thank you.
I have some momentos I received as a child, including C Gordon Fullerton's autograph on a crew picture. It is awesome to hear anout his flight as an adult. Thanks and keep up with the great content.
"Challenger Houston, abort ATO. Abort ATO." That's what was said.
yeah, pretty dumb that youtube has creators scared to say the word "abort"
Yes, "Press to ATO" is just a point in the launch where the speed and altitude of the Orbiter combined with low remaining fuel precludes them doing the back flip manuever and returning (signaled by Houston saying "...negative return". Press to ATO basically means that should one critical failure (and only one) occur, such as a single engine failure, from that point on the remaining engines and fuel can put them into orbit. Maybe not as high as mission planned, but a safe orbit at least.
About modes of the Shuttle Orbiter.
None until SRB separation.
Return to Launch Site: Shuttle does a backflip and uses all the fuel to set up a return to zshuttle Landing runway at the Cape. (Sort of like a Falcon 9 return, but with a glider)
Transoceanic Abort to Landing (TAL): Shuttle continues onward but goes to the designated Western Atlantic abort base such as Zaragoza, Spain or Cape Verde.
Abort Once Around (AOA): a low altitude orbit abort with either Edward's, White Sands, or the Cape as the preferred landing point.
Abort to Orbit : a little higher than AOA abort, but not a mission orbit, some science might still be possible, but flight likely will be cut short.
The above are intact aborts. There was an abort known as contingency abort where the crew bailed out and parachuted. It was hoped in a Challenger like event it would be a viable option. Unfortunately, even if the Orbiter remains in tact there is a very narrow speed window where the latest was possible.
* Columbia had ejection seats for the Commander and Pilot at first, but these were later removed and would have again been only an option in a small window of the launch.
there's a comma between Challenger & Houston.
@Derek if a bot thinks you're talking about aborting babies you can kiss your ad revenue goodbye.
@@rhekman It's not fear; it's common sense. UA-cam demonetizes videos that have the word 'abort' in them, and flags them for review.
Some bonus facts:
The engines on this mission were E2023, E2020 & E2021. All three continued to launch Challenger missions and were ultimately lost with Challenger and her crew on STS-51L.
A typical SSME burn is 510-530s. The Engine 1 failed at 343s, and the other 2 engines burned for 581s total.
Of course they deserves a medal. They wouldn't be the first person "doing her job" so incredibly well, in a way that no one else likely could, that deserves one. Being humble certainly does not disqualify them :)
20 mins before work and the video is 13 mins long, perfect 🔥💪🏻
This comment was an hour ago. You are now at work right now. Sad.
It can be the other way and I guess work would be waiting 7 minutes for me to get started. 😂😂😂
@@edwin3928ohd lol eh it's life what can you do?
@@guykiernan537 lol
Excellent work! I remember that in the news when I was still kid. This is far more info on the incident than I recall hearing. Well done.
Agree. That is because the press is often too lazy to do the job of taking something very complex and accurately presenting it in an easily digestible form for the public.
@@commerce-usa Too lazy is one thing. But they are also usually not knowledgeable enough.
@@Lovuschka Exactly why, just like for major sporting events, they bring in a seasoned veteran, to translate all the technical gobbledygook for the rest 'v us!
Hey, I love your channel, keep going back to it, think I've watched every video of yours, I'm really happy you've made so many and that you keep making them
I understand the awkward feeling when you do your job and it ends up saving people. On the one hand, that's the point of you having your job and doing it but, on the other hand, you saved people. It's just weird because lots of people all over the world do their jobs without any recognition so it's weird if you get some just because you did your job even if you did save some people. That was kind of the point. Still, human life is irreplaceable so it does make sense to praise people when they save lives, even if was in the process of doing their job like they normally would.
In the end, Challenger still had a tragic ending.
Getting some Final Destination vibes...
RIP Challenger and crew 😔
They didn't die 😆
@@franklyspeaking4480 I must've watched a different Challenger than you.
@@guykiernan537
25 yrs later they admitted it, its on my channel
@@franklyspeaking4480 what's your channel and I'll watch it? Everything I've ever seen says they didn't die instantly but did die.
@@guykiernan537
ua-cam.com/video/gp58SpvntsQ/v-deo.html
Nicely done. Lots of great research put together in an interesting way that we can all understand. Thank you!
the day was saved by overriding the computer ...because the computer was about to shut down another engine.... GREAT VIDEO....Go Scott Manley .....Nice !!
Sometimes doing your job well, inadvertently saves a life. As a nanny I've saved many a baby and kiddo from themselves but I'm just doing my job! Great episode! Cheers mate!
LMAO!!! A nanny with THAT YT moniker! Would like to know you! (I THINK)!!!
I had left aerospace work by then but got passes for the KSC viewing area and took my daughter to see that Challenger launch. When I heard the MECO call I told her we might not be able to leave for a while, if they were returning to land there. They went on to a lower orbit and the mission was cut short. In 1986 we went back for the Challenger launch that ended in disaster but had to leave when it was delayed and, gladly, did not witness the explosion on-site. It was a preventable tragedy: NASA should have heeded the warning from the Thiokol engineer about the very cold temperature being outside the design basis for SRB seals.
"NASA" didn't make the decision to launch - NASA administrator's did. I was the friend of a senior NASA safety engineer who was in the room at NASA on the other end of that conference call who argued in favor of delaying the launch during the internal discussion that happened while everyone else was put on hold. More than one person tried to stop that launch.
@@TinkersWithMotherboards Yes, blame rests with those higher up. A Thiokol VP at Marshall did refuse to sign off on the Challenger launch (but one at corp hdqtrs signed). Both he and a Thiokol engr who testified to Congress about the disaster, and Thiokol's role in it, were demoted. 😬
Actually, if I may, everybody thinks that "< Space Shuttle name >, go at throttle up" was said by Capcom to give the crew a go to accelerate, but actually that phrase was said right AFTER the throttling up. It was just a confirmation by Houston of the readings the crew had within the cockpit to say that the three engines had correctly throttled up to 104% as planned.
Always excited to see a new offering from you!
Hope you enjoy!
Cool video, really like the turbo pump explanation.
Just one thing call after MaxQ is actually "Go at Throttle Up" not Go with Throttle Up. Throttle up has already happened at this point. The statement is made post throttle up as a call that the flight is still in a Go status..
That's right! The "Booster" flight controller confirms that the throttle-up sequence was successful and the engines are stable at 104% thrust level, hence the call go AT throttle-up.
My neighbor's son was a mission specialist in Challenger's maiden voyage... Don Peterson...... successful family... Don's brother Gil Peterson made a few movies in Hollywood back in the late 60's
STS-93 was even more dramatic if I can recollect correctly.
Eh
Id say it was more dangerous but they handled it much worse than they handled sts 51f
Notification from your channel, nah uh, can't miss it. Love your work! Stay Blessed, happy and safe! And keep making more content! ❤️
Thanks for the love Singh!
@@MiniAirCrashInvestigation Man I'm at 2:43 and your reply already came, that's why we all love you! Haha!
Well researched and great description of entire situation that could have ended tragically
There are ALWAYS seemingly innocuous radio calls made like the one that started this event and without guys like the producer of this video providing the explanation as to what they mean, we uneducated souls would continuing to blissfully watch and think that everything is "A-OK". Thanks for the lesson. I can count with the fingers on one hand the number of Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and Space Shuttle launches that I missed "attending". It's easy when you live in New Smyrna Beach and can see the launches from my front yard (weather permitting). Challenger was one of my worst memories of those space days ... watching those cork-screwing exhaust trails still make me nauseous.
Note: “press to ATO” means that the shuttle stack had enough speed and altitude (energy) to be able to make it to orbit if one engine fails. It provides a benchmark and the call is made so that the commander and pilot know what to do in the event of a failure.
“Press to MECO” is a favored call because it meant that they would make it to the intended orbit even if an engine failed.
So when “Press to ATO” was called all was still okay. Thus when the engine failed “Abort ATO” was instantly called.
That was really interesting Thank you
At the very least Howard and Perry saved NASA a load of egg on face by being as cool operators as you could ask for in that moment, the situational awareness to go "If we're screwed, let's be screwed in the best position possible" is very reminiscent of Bob Hoover's sentiment "One should fly the aircraft as far into the crash as possible"
YOu had a teaser you never followed up on : ATO means Abort to ORBIT.
He didn’t want to say “abort.” And I respect him for it.
@@forestgeorge8855 I do not understand. Is it not the correct term? Or is it bad luck to say it unless it's an emergency?
@@grumpy-man UA-cam's monetization bot isn't particularly good at context and might've flagged the video for "political controversy" otherwise.
@@Soandnb Oh, shit...
YT will hear the A word and flag the video. Horrible, I know.
yes. just got home from work. perfect timing ;-)
just started my lunch break
What a great video. Thank you very much!
"Press to ATO" was a standard call during launch which meant they could abort ATO if they lost one engine. The actual abort call that came barely a minute later was simply "Abort ATO".
It's honestly a good thing that they never had to do an RTLS. Scott Manley did it in a simulator and said it was basically flying by the seat of his pants. Astronaut Mike Mullane dubbed it "an unnatural act of physics."
Great video, well researched and delivered. I really enjoyed the slightly different subject as I’m really interested in space travel.
Mate, that was brilliant. Just subscribed 👍
Thanks a ton it means a lot
Yes they did! and they did receive medals for them. Brian is my husband and I am 200% proud of him!
I would say they saved it. Unfortunately 6 months later on January 28th 1986, she exploded. I will never forget that event as long as I have my faculties in order. R.I.P. STS 51L crew!
Technically, Challenger didn’t explode. The vehicle broke apart following the complete structural collapse of the External Tank.
@@veritateseducational217 True, it disintegrated.
Give credit where it is due.
She did a great job and deserves the accolades.
Exactly
Very informative. Thank you.
Great video as always
oh i think my dad saw this launch and we have home video of the footage! i’m pretty sure, anyway. the timing of him being in florida in 85 and him saying he saw a shuttle launch means it’s gotta be this one. i have to find and watch the tape to know for sure.
Awesome, thanks for this.
I do think they made the right decision in the moment engine 3 failed as it could easily be deduced that it "could" be instrumentation. Computers can most certainly process many more items quicker than us ie: (Auto Sequence Start), but you can never completely replace the "Human Element". Given the alternatives in that very moment, I believe this was a fine example of this. As always, great video.
Good call Jenny! And that's a huge understatement.
Thanks for the video.
I like your videos a lot, they are fun to watch
Thanks!!
@@MiniAirCrashInvestigation :D
Ur channel is too under rated.. it’s actually very entertaining..
I think Jenny made the right call in the event of a critical indication of potential failure you have to put life ahead of the mission. I think she did the right thing
Woohoo 👍 great vid
Great work by flight control
Keep making the videos you want to make. Whether the topic is strictly planes or not, it's great content
Thanks, will do!
Yesssss! Always great covetage of a variety of incidents!
Fantastic video thank you
When things start going wrong, it's easy to be deceived by the situation into deviating from trained responses, which in turn can create a situation that cannot be recovered. By sticking to their training, they avoided that. So it's definitely a well done, good job.
But I'd go further to say that what they saved the Shuttle from was not the shutdown of one engine, blowing up the rest; they saved it from the situation turning sour.
It's probably possible to outline a different timeline where different decisions are taken that result in it ditching in the Atlantic. I not be surprised if the entry into such a timeline looked to be pretty inviting. It does take a certain quality of character to say "no" and stick to the training when the pressure is on.
What helps such people do that is knowing that an awful lot of thought and preparation lies behind that training.
And, frankly, this is why such endeavours are so expensive. It's one thing to design and build a vehicle. It's quite another to work out through analysis how to handle that vehicle in every stage of flight to maximise the chance of a safe outcome. It's an entirely other thing altogether to redesign if the result of that "what-if" analysis is inadequate. It also takes superhuman patience on the part of the funding bodies to let the engineers do that and do it properly.
It's interesting comparing the business of going into space with rail travel. We think today of rail travel as being safe, routine, etc. But once upon a time, it wasn't. There were a lot of crashes, and people died. Gradually the rail engineers worked out safer braking and signalling systems, rules got developed, etc. Rail travel became routine thanks to a lot of rules and procedures being written down in split blood. We can't afford to develop space travel that way, there's got to be an emphasis on getting it right-first-time.
What our experience with the railways taught us was that extensive, careful analysis saves lives in the long run, and is a massive enabler of the growth of an industry. Look at aviation; the first aeroplanes were sketchy as anything, but even quite early-on passenger aviation got aircraft carefully thought about, designed and operated. Today the business is vast, and has made something that is otherwise inherently dangerous into a safe industry.
Great story....Here's another-- anecdotally I know OF an occasion prior to 1st Shuttle disaster, only seconds of run time away from blowing it up in space due to engine erosion. Had a bro working for JPL on main engines at the time.
Great video, thanks
Nice hadn´t seen/heard this before.
Clarification around 2 minutes, "go at throttle up" is not giving them permission to throttle up, that happens automatically and is controlled by the computer. It is a call to let them know that nothing is wrong as of the point in time that throttle up is happening. Also, "Press to ATO" is not the abort call, it's telling them that ATO is available as an abort if it's necessary. There was a separate "Challenger, Abort ATO" call that came later that was Houston actually telling them to abort. Finally, it's abort, not reject; and it's Abort ATO not just ATO.
I think he said reject because “abort” could be flagged by the almighty algorithm 😒
He said "reject" because the word "abort" gets your video automatically demonetized and flagged for human review, both of which can affect how much you earn on other videos. It's a sensible precaution.
imagine letting yourself be censored by an AI
Fantastic report!
You ask if they made the right decision and the answer is absolutely yes. Jenny Howard saved the day. If I remember this correctly, she realized that the probability of dual pre-burner failures in two separate engines was very very low which led her to conclude, in a split second, that it was an instrumentation problem. To prevent the instrumentation from shutting down another engine she called for “limits to inhibit” which, as you point out, tells the computer to ignore any instrumentation limits which are exceeded, i.e., to “inhibit” the auto shutdown sequence that would occur if limits were exceeded. She would then make the shut down call herself if necessary. She ignored the erroneous readings and surmised that engine three was in fact in good shape. Had a second engine shut down they would not have been able to reach orbit and safely drop the external tank. So yes, it was the right call and she in fact did save the day.
I’m happy to hear that Challenger managed to avoid a critical accident and remained a safe space craft 😌
On the balance of probabilities, she made the right call. And saved the shuttle.
Woah it’s painful to see the crew descending the stairs in those blue jumpsuits and not proper pressure suits...
Great video!
Sounds like she took a calculated risk in assuming the sensor data was faulty since it would be highly unlikely that 2 engine would experience the same fault on the same flight at almost the same time. I'm surprised that the shuttle would only have 2 sensors per engine. If one is faulty, which sensor is wrong? With 3, if one fails or has faulty data you do with what the other 2 are indicating. That's what the O2 sensors in an underwater rebreather does.
“The lowest bidder “ lol
The failure was that no valid temperature was indicated. In such a case, the remaining sensor would be used as is. I do agree that a third sensor might seem wise. The Shuttle had many instances of greater redundancy. For example, there were 5 GPCs (general-purpose computers) doing the same work, part of which involved voting on each other's outputs to determine whether one should be disabled.
Jenny is part of a very unique TEAM, Like a V8 engine, alot of pieces working together for the ultimate goal. What's a motor want to do? It wants to run. And as always SAFETY FIRST.
Fantastic. (And sad. I saw the previous Challenger launch, I think? LDEF into orbit.) I smiled when you said the simplest rocket engine has an oxidizer tank and a fuel tank. My dad's company Thiokol made solid rockets. Of course, they're infamous too, but that's another story. (He wasn't part of the solid rocket booster team; his plant in Maryland just worked on satellite motors and the smaller kick motors that popped the boosters and external fuel tank off the shuttle's launch system when they were used up.).
Anyway, solid rockets are basically high-tech fireworks: they use a solid rubbery matrix with fuel(s) and oxidizer suspended in it, inside a tough metal casing, and that's it. Shaping the surface area of the core can control the speed/vary the burn in a preset manner, and you can aim the thrust by aiming the nozzle at the bottom, but it lacks the fiddly pipes, valves, and electronics of a liquid combustion engine, so there's fewer moving parts to worry about.
Thiokol was the voice of reason on the day of the 51L launch, but was overruled for being too cautious, as expressed in the memorable line during the teleconference: "My god, Thiokol! When do you want to launch? April?" Because your dad's company was not listened to, three Aprils would come and go before another Shuttle would be launched.
Yay! More space stuff!
I remember a PBS report on some primetime show, maybe Nova, that described how Jenny Howard made the last-second decision to override the computer indications and get the Shuttle into orbit.
A point of interest. The two lost shutters have one other than in common. Both used the laboratory.
I think she handled the pressure well. Losing a 2nd engine at that point meant crashing in the ocean, which is no worse than an overheated engine exploding 60 miles up. She reasoned that keeping 2 engines running as long as possible was the best option, even tho at the risk of an explosion. It paid off. That took nerves of steel.
If you are doing more of the space program, Please, could you do the VSS Enterprise crash, I have not seen any real documentaries on it on UA-cam (though I think Mayday ACI did do something...), I think it is a fascinating sequence of events showing both our limits in mental preparedness for space-flight (in terms of safety/CRM assessment) and the learning curve of the NTSB as it deals with the reality and challenge of understanding a complex yet beautiful design to rethinking its safety-experience in this novel application.
Those who also want such an episode, please like this comment or otherwise show your interest....
Good suggestion it’s a unique incident
I had briefly read about the mission but I didn't know about the high-stakes decision-making in Mission Control. You gotta have nerves of steel to make those decisions quickly. The right stuff indeed. Why not belatedly award those hypothetical medals?
I believe Jenny and others were awarded NASA's Exceptional Service Medal for their work on 51F.
STS 51C also came close to a failure caused by the burn through of the primary O-ring in a segment of one of the SRBs due to launching in cold temperatures.
Flight No. 10 with the Discovery???
@@davidharrison3711 No, i was refering to the 15th mission (STS 51C). But previosly STS 8 had suffered from a burn thru of the primary O-ring although not as bad as on STS 51C.
The words "...go for throttle up" still brings horror to my mind.
Small point, but the engine you describe at about the seven minute point must have hypergolic fuels to spontaneously ignite. The ascent stage of the Luner lander did of course have such fuels.
So three people did all this work to be pivotal to save this rocket but only two of them deserve a medal? That's some army stuff right there
Jenny Howard whether she "saved the shuttle" or not, exhibited grace under pressure. Regardless of the outcome, she had the intelligence & courage to make a gutsy call in just seconds. I want her on my team! 👍Jenny, if you read this, well done! A couple of points of clarification - at about 6:45 mention is made about unlike a jet engine, rocket engines needs an oxidizer. All combustion is a reduction reaction and jets are no exception. Jets take their oxidizer from atmospheric oxygen, which is only about 21% of the air we breathe. In space though, there is no oxidizer, so a rocket engine traveling outside the atmosphere must carry its own oxidizer. The RS 25's oxidizer is 100% liquified oxygen providing the ability to burn vastly higher amounts of fuel and thus providing huge increases in specific impulse. Also at about 7:00, mention is made that after it cleared the tower (about 300 feet off the pad) that the engines were throttle down to 65%. That happened later in flight as the vehicle approached the speed of sound. Reducing engine thrust reduced the stress loads on the vehicle which otherwise, combined with the aerodynamic loading of passing through the speed of sound could have caused damage. That was not a sufficiently significant factor just off the pad before speed had picked up that much. And lastly, just to add to the lunar ascent module motor - those rockets use mono-methyl hydrazine as fuel and nitrogen tetroxide as oxidizer, which spontaneously combust on contact. Thus, no ignition source is needed making them simple, light and highly reliable. That also applied to the shuttle's OMS engines as well as RCS thrusters. They are nasty chemicals and even slight exposure to inhalation can be fatal.
In 2014 while at the Endeavour exhibit at the Cal Science Center, I spoke with one of the docents that day who was a retired Rocketdyne design engineer on the RS 25 team. Art was his name. I asked him his thoughts about the engine and he replied that when they were given the parameters of size, weight, thrust and reusability requirements, they told the managers that they were nuts. But, they pressed on with it. One of the biggest design hurdles were the bearings in the pre burners and high pressure turbo pumps. Any petroleum based lubricant would freeze almost instantly so were ruled out. Ultimately the fuel, H2 and oxidizer, O2 were the bearing lubricants. The cryogenic temperature cause serious embrittlement of the metals, but they figured it out. He went on that they pushed these engines to just a couple of % of their absolute limits - they ran them to the very ragged edge of exploding. They had to in order to push the stack to orbital velocity. When asked about how he felt during the launches and that the RS 25's never had a mechanical failure (just this sensor failure), his reply that he was scared to death on each and every launch. That probably said more than anything . . .
Despite the number of engines or redundancy of space launches today, it is such an extreme undertaking in to the ultimate hostile environment that risks are off the scale. As long as we fly humans in to space, some of them are going to die. It will happen again. We're complacent about Falcon, Soyuz, Blue Origin and the rest. But it's going to happen . . . it's the nature of the beast. The shuttle had its unique flaws, but had management paid better attention it is possible and even likely that both Challenger and Columbia would be in museums today with the others. In hindsight the shuttle gets a bad rap as being too risky, but it's likely other rocket launch systems will as well when their dark moment comes. It's a risky business - deal with it. On a capability to risk basis, IMHO the shuttle beats today's launches 7 days a week and twice on Sunday. It could DO things in space - retrieve things, service the Hubble and more. Falcon and Soyuz are just a small taxi cab hauling cargo cans up, which is fine, but they are doing hardly any more than what was available in the 1960's.
.
In retrospect, it's AMAZING that "only" two Shuttles were lost during the entire program !! I've NO doubt there were PLENTY of problems and issues on just about EVERY shuttle launch we never were aware of, simply because those missions ended "successfully".
But sadly, the fact that two entire crews were lost to "accidents" proves that NASA wasn't able to solve all of the problems they encountered on every single mission......and how NOBODY went to jail for the MURDER (in my opinion) of the six astronauts and one civilian on the Challenger, when they had NO business launching back on 1/28/1986 (and had been warned NOT to), is just beyond me...... :-(
.
Hell Boeing and the FAA colluded and got 500+ people killed and the only person that got arrested was the freaking test pilot for Boeing. No surprise no one answered for that.
Although it's true that in a gas generator a little bit of oxidizer and fuel are burned to drive the turbine, in a pre-burner either ALL of the fuel or ALL of the oxidizer is pumped in and partially burned or pre-burned (hence the name pre-burner) to produce the gas that drives the turbine. Then, this fuel or oxidizer rich exhaust powers the main combustion chamber. On the RS-25 all the of the LH2 is pumped into the pre-burners and a little bit of LO2 is pumped in to produce the gas that drives the turbines.
Now, one pre-burner would had worked just fine, it worked on the RD-253 and the NK-33 rocket engines. The chamber pressure in the pre-burner must be higher than in the main combustion chamber, high enough to counteract the back-pressure posed by the combustion chamber in order to deliver the propellants at the proper rates. The main reason to use two pre-burners on the RS-25 is to avoid the wear and tear of a reduction gearbox. First of all, LH2 is about 3 times less dense than LO2; and second, all of the LH2 is pumped into the pre-burner. So, the low density and the very high chamber pressure of the pre-burner require the LH2 turbopump to run at a much higher RPM than the LO2 turbopump. Therefore, with one pre-burner you would need a reduction gearbox, which would wear and tear quickly. Two pre-burners were chosen: one to drive the turbine of the LH2 high-pressure turbopump via a single shaft, and the other one to drive the turbine of the LO2 high-pressure turbopump and the pre-burner's LO2 booster pump, also via a single shaft (no gears involved). By having a single shaft between the turbine and its corresponding turbopump you increase the reusability factor and maintenance intervals. Remember that the design goal for these engines was 55 flights with minimum maintenance.
On January 28, 1986, Space Shuttle Challenger disintegrated 73 seconds into liftoff killing all 7 astronauts, including school teacher Christa McAuliffe. The cause of the disaster was a failure of the O-Ring joint in the right SRB.
7:58 That's why Apollo only used pressurized gas instead of pumps, to prevent critical failure.
Which you can't do with large engines
Love your content! I’m so glad you covered this story
How can people get in touch with you? Do you have any social media accounts?
looks like a save to me!
we do not know what would happen, but that is often true of pilot decisions... could X have safely landed? could pilot Q go around and not overrun, or did his actions prevent a worse accident? if G had not done what he did, would an accident have occurred?
we know one outcome, often we cannot calculate the rest with any degree of accuracy...
You make the best choice based on available data. You're basically putting a handful of humans on top of a giant bomb. You're already taking some big chances.
STS-51-B - delayed by 2 minutes and 18 seconds because of a launch processing failure
STS-51-E - scrubbed
STS-51-F - malfunction of a coolant valve on engine 2 and abort at T-3 seconds
STS-51-F - engine 1 failed and had to reject to orbit
STS-51-L - loss of life and vehicle
Good thing everything kept working out for challenger after this
*(imitates Palpatine from "Star Wars")*
Ironic...
Yep, dodged a bullet. Happy endings all around.
I remember seeing footage of a live shuttle launch where the engines were shut down on the pad just after ignition and it made the most curious hollow howl that I have EVER heard. Going through TONS of shuttle launch footage, I can't find the same clip that I saw live on TV... Given how many flights there were over the years, and how many launch aborts, how is it that I can't find the footage?