32 years ago today

[bing101]

America's space program took a major blow!  We lost seven pioneers.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/challenger-disaster-marks-30th-anniversary-gallery-1.1593956?pmSlide=1.1593932

RIP to the Shuttle victims.

[abefroman329]

And insurance rates for teachers went up everywhere.

You say a lot of jerkish things on this site, but I think this one takes the cake.

Amazing what qualifies as hate-filled to him, and then he says crap like this.

Oh lighten up, you two.

[US71]

And on January 27, 1967 we lost 3 astronauts in the Apollo 1 fire.

And February 1, 2003 we lost Columbia.

[US 81]

Just wondering.. How many people over here did read Roger's commission report and Feynman's memoir of investigation?
From my perspective, an absolute must-read for anyone in engineering or technical field.

Yes, both, cover to cover. Also Vaughn's The Challenger Launch Decision and Cook's Challenger Revealed....

and well, lots of of space and engineering books....

[roadman65]

Its odd that we remember where we were during tragedies.  I was home at the time and I heard from my sister that it had exploded. I quickly turned on the news and I first saw that it was a reported malfunction, but when I heard the whole thing went up I was in shock as it was the second vehicle that was presented (as Columbia was the first).  I thought that soon after we would hear that the crew was found safe, but when they were not I had a hard time believing the seven were indeed gone forever.  I would think that they made it up to orbit for some reason.

As far as the jokes go, the new acronym for NASA was one.  Need Another Seven Astronauts was told for ages to come.

However the school teacher I thought of first as it was the first time a civilian was allowed to go on a mission and the news for months covered Christa's training and how excited she was to teach her school children science from outer space. 

With that being said, FDOT did name the SR 3 bridge on Merrit Island across the Canaveral Barge Canal after her which lies to the south of the Space Center which I think is a great tribute.

[US 81]

...
However the school teacher I thought of first as it was the first time a civilian was allowed to go on a mission and the news for months covered Christa's training and how excited she was to teach her school children science from outer space. 
...

Actually, several civilians preceded her: Sen Jake Garn, Sen Bill Nelson, and a Saudi prince - I think there were others. She was certainly the most popular and well-known, even before the disaster.

[Beltway]

However the school teacher I thought of first as it was the first time a civilian was allowed to go on a mission and the news for months covered Christa's training and how excited she was to teach her school children science from outer space. 

Actually, several civilians preceded her: Sen Jake Garn, Sen Bill Nelson, and a Saudi prince - I think there were others. She was certainly the most popular and well-known, even before the disaster.

Any of a number of shuttle crew members that were not active duty military at the time of their flight, would be considered as 'civilians'

[english si]

I'll wager you were bloody cold, then.

Wasn't that the problem with the shuttle launch? it was bloody cold and that broke something.

the loss of Columbia February 1, 2003.

That's the one that killed US space exploration.

Challenger had got people behind the space program again, before it exploded, and when it did then there was another re-rallying to get behind space exploration, as there was with Apollo 1. With Columbia people were tired of the space program anyway, and the extra-carefulness stopped a rebound. Of course there were 22 more missions, but it was very much the beginning of the end of US-led manned spaceflight.

[jwolfer]

Challenger tags were the first specialty licence plates in Florida.. now we have literally hundreds

And yet we still have the horrible general issue "myFlorida.com" tags.. we we're supposed to get new design in 2012, but some controversy over new vendor and not being the prisoners

Z981

[SP Cook]

Any of a number of shuttle crew members that were not active duty military at the time of their flight, would be considered as 'civilians'

One of my English pet peeves.  The only proper use of the word "civilian" means "not in the uniformed military services".    In addition to the above use, I have seen it used to mean "not the police", "not a politician" and even on old game shows to mean "not an actor".  All are wrong.

As the the space program, I never was a big follower.  It seems just a way to distract the public from other issues.  Like the movie Apollo 13.  Everybody all up in arms about 3 volunteers.  While over 1000 men were in the hands of a purely evil enemy under torture, a torture which lasted for over a decade for some.  And 10s of 1000s were in harm's way in the same conflict, with many killed during that brief period.  And pretty much nobody did diddly to help them.

[abefroman329]

I'll wager you were bloody cold, then.

Wasn't that the problem with the shuttle launch? it was bloody cold and that broke something.

the loss of Columbia February 1, 2003.

That's the one that killed US space exploration.

Challenger had got people behind the space program again, before it exploded, and when it did then there was another re-rallying to get behind space exploration, as there was with Apollo 1. With Columbia people were tired of the space program anyway, and the extra-carefulness stopped a rebound. Of course there were 22 more missions, but it was very much the beginning of the end of US-led manned spaceflight.

You could've been trucking gold bars to space and it wouldn't have offset the cost of having a second shuttle ready and waiting to rescue astronauts who weren't able to return to Earth on the primary shuttle for that mission.

[Beltway]

the loss of Columbia February 1, 2003.

That's the one that killed US space exploration.
Challenger had got people behind the space program again, before it exploded, and when it did then there was another re-rallying to get behind space exploration, as there was with Apollo 1. With Columbia people were tired of the space program anyway, and the extra-carefulness stopped a rebound. Of course there were 22 more missions, but it was very much the beginning of the end of US-led manned spaceflight.

You could've been trucking gold bars to space and it wouldn't have offset the cost of having a second shuttle ready and waiting to rescue astronauts who weren't able to return to Earth on the primary shuttle for that mission.

The Soviets and Russians have been flying the Soyuz every year for over 50 years, and it carries three crew, and at least one Soyuz spacecraft is docked to the International Space Station (ISS) at all times for use as an escape craft in the event of an emergency.

The shuttle had far more capability and capacity but most of it wasn't needed for any practical missions.

Sometimes simpler may be better.

[kalvado]

The Soviets and Russians have been flying the Soyuz every year for over 50 years, and it carries three crew, and at least one Soyuz spacecraft is docked to the International Space Station (ISS) at all times for use as an escape craft in the event of an emergency.

The shuttle had far more capability and capacity but most of it wasn't needed for any practical missions.

Sometimes simpler may be better.

Not even that... Shuttle was supposed to be cheap space launch vehicle - and the only US space launch vehicle. Launching everything in a shuttle - and doing it for a fraction of competitor's price; running some science along the way - almost for free, launch paid for by satellite! - and building and maintaining SDI on military side would keep the thing busy.
Now costs started to climb after Challenger as problems were understood, very few satellites were actually launched by shuttle, and SDI was never deployed.
Two meaningful things Shuttle did were putting together ISS and servicing Hubble telescope.
But most of its career shuttle was a solution in search of a problem.  Since purpose of human space flight itself is not clear to begin, problems were hard to formulate. Same goes to ISS.

[1995hoo]

Some of the other issues with the shuttle came from it being designed to do things that never happened, such as launches into polar orbit from Vandenberg Air Force Base (they spent something like $4 billion on the launch site and ultimately never used it for the shuttle). I read somewhere that analysts concluded there would have a 25% chance per launch of a catastrophic loss of the orbiter, crew, and payload had they ever attempted a shuttle launch out of Vandenberg.

[kalvado]

Some of the other issues with the shuttle came from it being designed to do things that never happened, such as launches into polar orbit from Vandenberg Air Force Base (they spent something like $4 billion on the launch site and ultimately never used it for the shuttle). I read somewhere that analysts concluded there would have a 25% chance per launch of a catastrophic loss of the orbiter, crew, and payload had they ever attempted a shuttle launch out of Vandenberg.

I really doubt that 25% number. Would be interesting to look at that analysis... $4B also sounds too high for Vandenberg construction alone - maybe that includes payloads? And launch capability of Vandenberg is not wasted..
But role of military in (mis)shaping the shuttle, including 30 ton trunk capacity, is definitely part of the mess.

[Beltway]

The Soviets and Russians have been flying the Soyuz every year for over 50 years, and it carries three crew, and at least one Soyuz spacecraft is docked to the International Space Station (ISS) at all times for use as an escape craft in the event of an emergency.
The shuttle had far more capability and capacity but most of it wasn't needed for any practical missions.
Sometimes simpler may be better.

Not even that... Shuttle was supposed to be cheap space launch vehicle - and the only US space launch vehicle. Launching everything in a shuttle - and doing it for a fraction of competitor's price; running some science along the way - almost for free, launch paid for by satellite! - and building and maintaining SDI on military side would keep the thing busy.
Now costs started to climb after Challenger as problems were understood, very few satellites were actually launched by shuttle, and SDI was never deployed.
Two meaningful things Shuttle did were putting together ISS and servicing Hubble telescope.
But most of its career shuttle was a solution in search of a problem.  Since purpose of human space flight itself is not clear to begin, problems were hard to formulate. Same goes to ISS.

Some space analysts have posited that it would have been less expensive to launch a new telescope when the previous one needed major repairs, and also that it would have been less expensive to utilize a heavy lift expendable rocket to send up the components of the space station.

[1995hoo]

Some of the other issues with the shuttle came from it being designed to do things that never happened, such as launches into polar orbit from Vandenberg Air Force Base (they spent something like $4 billion on the launch site and ultimately never used it for the shuttle). I read somewhere that analysts concluded there would have a 25% chance per launch of a catastrophic loss of the orbiter, crew, and payload had they ever attempted a shuttle launch out of Vandenberg.

I really doubt that 25% number. Would be interesting to look at that analysis... $4B also sounds too high for Vandenberg construction alone - maybe that includes payloads? And launch capability of Vandenberg is not wasted..
But role of military in (mis)shaping the shuttle, including 30 ton trunk capacity, is definitely part of the mess.

I don't remember where I saw the article, but I recall it citing a number of factors–filament-wound SRBs (specified for lighter weight to allow for heavier payloads due to the loss of gravity assist) were potentially less durable and more subject to failure; icing on the external tank and SRB seals was a greater concern due to unpredictable weather; acoustic vibrations/sound waves were a major issue because of the mountainous terrain and the proximity of structures to the launch pad (unlike at Kennedy, at Vandenberg the VAB and launch pad were integrated and the building was essentially to slide open at launch time); and I believe there was a concern about the possibility of liquid hydrogen exploding underneath the stack. I think there were some other issues mentioned, but those are the main ones I recall.

I believe one major difference as to the current operations is that they're unmanned (there's never been a manned launch into polar orbit by any country) and thus a greater level of hazard may be acceptable.

I've seen the $4 billion figure cited many times, and apparently it does not include the original construction for the aborted MOL program.

[kalvado]

The Soviets and Russians have been flying the Soyuz every year for over 50 years, and it carries three crew, and at least one Soyuz spacecraft is docked to the International Space Station (ISS) at all times for use as an escape craft in the event of an emergency.
The shuttle had far more capability and capacity but most of it wasn't needed for any practical missions.
Sometimes simpler may be better.

Not even that... Shuttle was supposed to be cheap space launch vehicle - and the only US space launch vehicle. Launching everything in a shuttle - and doing it for a fraction of competitor's price; running some science along the way - almost for free, launch paid for by satellite! - and building and maintaining SDI on military side would keep the thing busy.
Now costs started to climb after Challenger as problems were understood, very few satellites were actually launched by shuttle, and SDI was never deployed.
Two meaningful things Shuttle did were putting together ISS and servicing Hubble telescope.
But most of its career shuttle was a solution in search of a problem.  Since purpose of human space flight itself is not clear to begin, problems were hard to formulate. Same goes to ISS.

Some space analysts have posited that it would have been less expensive to launch a new telescope when the previous one needed major repairs, and also that it would have been less expensive to utilize a heavy lift expendable rocket to send up the components of the space station.

Very likely those would be cheaper option.. But whose two examples are pretty much the type of jobs Shuttle was designed for.  It turned out there are only that many of such jobs to be done, though

[Beltway]

I don't remember where I saw the article, but I recall it citing a number of factors–filament-wound SRBs (specified for lighter weight to allow for heavier payloads due to the loss of gravity assist) were potentially less durable and more subject to failure; icing on the external tank and SRB seals was a greater concern due to unpredictable weather; acoustic vibrations/sound waves were a major issue because of the mountainous terrain and the proximity of structures to the launch pad (unlike at Kennedy, at Vandenberg the VAB and launch pad were integrated and the building was essentially to slide open at launch time); and I believe there was a concern about the possibility of liquid hydrogen exploding underneath the stack. I think there were some other issues mentioned, but those are the main ones I recall.
I believe one major difference as to the current operations is that they're unmanned (there's never been a manned launch into polar orbit by any country) and thus a greater level of hazard may be acceptable.
I've seen the $4 billion figure cited many times, and apparently it does not include the original construction for the aborted MOL program.

I haven't seen the 25% loss rate, but that does sound high, and something that could be addressed in various ways if that was a concern.

This is what the Wikipedia article "Vandenberg AFB Space Launch Complex 6" has to say --

Eventually, on May 13, 1988, Secretary Aldridge then directed the Air Force to transfer space shuttle assets at Vandenberg to other organizations (specifically, the Kennedy Space Center) by September 30, 1989, the end of the fiscal year.  The work was completed 10 days early on September 20, 1989 when SLC-6 was placed in mothball status.

Several factors accounted for this:
-- The Challenger disaster made it clear that sole dependency on the shuttle was unwise;
-- SLC-6 would have generated more contaminated waste water than originally envisioned, necessitating an expensive treatment plant;
-- Further study showed more sound suppression water would have been needed, requiring upgraded water supply facilities;
-- Vehicle icing would have been more problematic than in Florida, and it was unclear how well SLC-6 facilities would handle that;
-- Blast protection of nearby occupied buildings was unsatisfactory and more construction would have been required to safeguard them;
-- Post-Challenger, the more confined SLC-6 launch area raised concerns of entrapped gaseous hydrogen causing a fire or explosion;
-- Large construction cost overruns, and
-- Independent audits found significant construction quality problems that would have been expensive to fix.

The Air Force officially terminated the space shuttle program at Vandenberg on December 26, 1989.  The estimated cost for the discontinued program was $4 billion.

[1995hoo]

I wish I could remember where I saw the 25% figure. I don't believe it was from NASA; I recall it being based on outside analysis. If I can find it, I'll post a link, but it won't likely be any time prior to at least this weekend. January was a slow month at work, but February is going to be busier.

[US71]

I was heading to class on the bus.  When I got to the bus stop, someone at the stop, a stranger, told me.  I went through the day but kind of in shock.  Before then, the United States never lost an astronaut on a space mission, and it had been 19 years since the loss of any astronaut (the Apollo 1 fire in a training exercise).  I thought we'd learned enough and were careful enough not to have those kinds of accidents.

We came darn close with Apollo 13.  Mission Control pretty much pulled of a miracle getting the crew back home.

[Beltway]

I wish I could remember where I saw the 25% figure. I don't believe it was from NASA; I recall it being based on outside analysis. If I can find it, I'll post a link, but it won't likely be any time prior to at least this weekend. January was a slow month at work, but February is going to be busier.

Here is a good article, it seems to contain the points on my previous post.  There were definite safety issues given how compact were the launch pad and preparation and fuel storage facilities.  The Air Force would have administered the facility, and not NASA.  There were plans for at least a dozen polar orbit shuttle missions.
https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-space-shuttle-s-military-launch-complex-in-californ-1710303170

[post Challenger]  "This left the Air Force and the Defense Department to re-think their planned reliance on the costly and seemingly unreliable Shuttle for heaving critical and very expensive spy and communications satellites into orbit.  The truth is that the Shuttle's capability to provide anywhere near the number of flights that the program had promised was largely in question long before the loss of Challenger.  With all this in mind, the decision was made to put SLC-6 on caretaker status and by 1989 the Pentagon's Shuttle Program was officially shuttered."

So for launch capacity issues alone the shuttle was deemed inadequate.

There never has been a manned polar orbit mission ... I wonder if there would be any need for such a mission?

[kalvado]

There never has been a manned polar orbit mission ... I wonder if there would be any need for such a mission?

If you think about it...
-Shuttle was supposed to become the only launch vehicle. Unmanned capability was winding down.
-Flying from Florida, default orbit inclination was 28 degrees. There were modifications to the craft to enable 51 degree launches (to match russian capability for ISS launches - they cannot launch anything on less than 51)
-28 degree doesn't go over USSR, or most of Europe.
-Spy satellites mus cover entire planet.
Which adds up to some requirements...

[Beltway]

There never has been a manned polar orbit mission ... I wonder if there would be any need for such a mission?

If you think about it...
-Shuttle was supposed to become the only launch vehicle. Unmanned capability was winding down.
-Flying from Florida, default orbit inclination was 28 degrees. There were modifications to the craft to enable 51 degree launches (to match russian capability for ISS launches - they cannot launch anything on less than 51)
-28 degree doesn't go over USSR, or most of Europe.
-Spy satellites mus cover entire planet.
Which adds up to some requirements...

Yes, back then, KSC presented problems for polar launches, from the article --
"Such a flight path would send the Shuttle over populated areas during launch, traveling over an area ranging from South Carolina to the Great Lakes.  The Shuttle's boosters would drop somewhere near Brunswick, Georgia, and its main tank would end up whipping around the globe over Russia and China, and ending up in the Indian Ocean... Hopefully."

Launching to the south would take it entirely over Florida down to the Keys before it flew over any water body.

My question was more about aside from the shuttle-only idea, and aside from the shuttle itself, and mostly about today and going forward.

[kalvado]

Yes, back then, KSC presented problems for polar launches, from the article --

As far as I'm aware, Florida in general and KSC in particular were not relocated since those days...

My question was more about aside from the shuttle-only idea, and aside from the shuttle itself, and mostly about today and going forward.

Crazy idea to begin with. First, radiation - significant in polar areas due to configuration of magnetic field. Even for polar flying aircraft.
Second, once around flight - and more than that, and there is no way to land on launch site - would stress bodies too much; imagine going 3g-force at launch to 0 g orbit to 2-3g landing - and piloting that landing! - in less than 2 hours.
Last, but not the least.. Too short for anything useful other than deploying payload.