Quoted: 200G is survivable… Kenny Brack did it at 214G…  Impact forces in Formula 1 and NASCAR crashes are typically in the 175-200G range www.kennybrack.com/pages/personal-info/2003.html

Yup... Survivable. But without immediate medical aid, the crew were effectively doomed. Their arms would have probably been completely fucked up based on what I know of the cabin arrangement and restraint systems, meaning that even if they were conscious (debatable) they were probably incapable of even getting out of their restraints in a cabin that was likely sinking into the ocean at an extremely fast rate. Even if they had theoretically managed to get out of their restraints (and they didn't), I don't see them being able to maneuver through the cabin or swim very well with numerous broken bones, internal bleeding or even partial paralysis. Lastly, they may not have even been able to get out of the cabin due to structural damage from the impact.

It really was a worst case scenario, and probably one of the ugliest flight disasters in history. The entire crew deserves the utmost respect for their sacrifice.


ETA: I should also point out that in my opinion, had they been wearing full pressure suits and equipped with parachutes (as they should have been), they might have survived. The odds would be incredibly low (as in, one in a hundred chance), but it would be plausible. Had they remained conscious, escape from the descending cabin, in the condition it was in, is theoretically possible.

That said, no one thought such a situation was even possible... A catastrophic failure of the SBRs followed by the external tank was supposed to tear the orbiter to shreds and leave no survivors... The cabin was not suppose to survive in a way that allowed escape (normally, the wings would render escape suicidal... There were no wings in this case). I don't completely blame NASA as this situation was completely unimaginable. But it's a case where "err on the side of crew survivability" might have saved lives.

Quoted: Very good post and accurate, except you're incorrect about 200g not being survivable... People have survived near that mark and, with medical aid and after the broken bones are healed, returned to normal life. I think it can be assumed most, if not all of them survived the impact and died a few minutes later, from the causes outlined above.

Well, perhaps I should have said "not very survivable".  You're entirely correct that people have endured that kind of force and lived, with prompt medical attention.

I will say that around here the scuttlebutt has always been that some survived the initial breakup and did not die until impact.  It's just shocking that NASA actually confirmed the first part of it at least.

And as I recall, Enterprise and Columbia had ejection seats, but Enterprise was obviously just a glider tester and Columbia's were removed.

Quoted: Quoted: 200G is survivable… Kenny Brack did it at 214G…  Impact forces in Formula 1 and NASCAR crashes are typically in the 175-200G range www.kennybrack.com/pages/personal-info/2003.html Yup... Survivable. But without immediate medical aid, the crew were effectively doomed. Their arms would have probably been completely fucked up based on what I know of the cabin arrangement and restraint systems, meaning that even if they were conscious (debatable) they were probably incapable of even getting out of their restraints in a cabin that was likely sinking into the ocean at an extremely fast rate. Even if they had theoretically managed to get out of their restraints (and they didn't), I don't see them being able to maneuver through the cabin or swim very well with numerous broken bones, internal bleeding or even partial paralysis. Lastly, they may not have even been able to get out of the cabin due to structural damage from the impact. It really was a worst case scenario, and probably one of the ugliest flight disasters in history. The entire crew deserves the utmost respect for their sacrifice. ETA: I should also point out that in my opinion, had they been wearing full pressure suits and equipped with parachutes (as they should have been), they might have survived. The odds would be incredibly low (as in, one in a hundred chance), but it would be plausible. Had they remained conscious, escape from the descending cabin, in the condition it was in, is theoretically possible. That said, no one thought such a situation was even possible... A catastrophic failure of the SBRs followed by the external tank was supposed to tear the orbiter to shreds and leave no survivors... The cabin was not suppose to survive in a way that allowed escape (normally, the wings would render escape suicidal... There were no wings in this case). I don't completely blame NASA as this situation was completely unimaginable. But it's a case where "err on the side of crew survivability" might have saved lives.

One of the deceased fell out of the crew compartment when they were raising it. (so possibly no longer restrained) Took them a while to find his remains.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 200G is survivable… Kenny Brack did it at 214G…  Impact forces in Formula 1 and NASCAR crashes are typically in the 175-200G range www.kennybrack.com/pages/personal-info/2003.html Yup... Survivable. But without immediate medical aid, the crew were effectively doomed. Their arms would have probably been completely fucked up based on what I know of the cabin arrangement and restraint systems, meaning that even if they were conscious (debatable) they were probably incapable of even getting out of their restraints in a cabin that was likely sinking into the ocean at an extremely fast rate. Even if they had theoretically managed to get out of their restraints (and they didn't), I don't see them being able to maneuver through the cabin or swim very well with numerous broken bones, internal bleeding or even partial paralysis. Lastly, they may not have even been able to get out of the cabin due to structural damage from the impact. It really was a worst case scenario, and probably one of the ugliest flight disasters in history. The entire crew deserves the utmost respect for their sacrifice. ETA: I should also point out that in my opinion, had they been wearing full pressure suits and equipped with parachutes (as they should have been), they might have survived. The odds would be incredibly low (as in, one in a hundred chance), but it would be plausible. Had they remained conscious, escape from the descending cabin, in the condition it was in, is theoretically possible. That said, no one thought such a situation was even possible... A catastrophic failure of the SBRs followed by the external tank was supposed to tear the orbiter to shreds and leave no survivors... The cabin was not suppose to survive in a way that allowed escape (normally, the wings would render escape suicidal... There were no wings in this case). I don't completely blame NASA as this situation was completely unimaginable. But it's a case where "err on the side of crew survivability" might have saved lives. One of the deceased fell out of the crew compartment when they were raising it. (so possibly no longer restrained) Took them a while to find his remains.

Good point, I had forgotten about that.

Quoted: until they hit the water maybe then they would be dead anyways. look at air liners every one dies and I don't think they would be going as fast as the shuttle would be from falling from so high.

Why would terminal velocity be any different?

Quoted: Quoted: Remember all the NASA jokes? No, I don't.  But I do remember watching Challenger blow up on live TV, in my morning History class (7th grade).  Fuck anyone that made jokes about that crew.

I was home that morning sick from school
I too shed some tears

To me it was the JFK assination of my generation.  Most people remember exactly where they were when it happened.  

Why wasn't the shuttle fitted with a parachute system?

Quoted: Quoted: I still remember crying when I watched it.... sally's parent's are watching... you hear their audio... everyone applauds the explosion- because they think it's a stage seperation that we've all seen before.... Yep, I was watching as it happened.  It was the worst feeling.  Also, I heard the sonic boom from Columbia in 2003.  I was reading my newspaper when my brother called and said to turn on the TV.  Just a minute or two earlier, I had heard the sonic boom and then on the TV were all those comet-like pieces of Columbia. I only hope that none of Challenger knew what happened, but Columbia, those folks had a pretty good idea what was going on.

Why do you say that
It appared that things happened very quickly
Dont think there was concern that things would go bad before they began reentry was there

Quoted: Why wasn't the shuttle fitted with a parachute system?

# and $

Quoted: Quoted: until they hit the water maybe then they would be dead anyways. look at air liners every one dies and I don't think they would be going as fast as the shuttle would be from falling from so high. Why would terminal velocity be any different?

air density.

but i think the explosion happened at 45k feet and the forward momentum maxed at 65k feet before they started to fall, so im sure the effect was minute.

like the guy that skydived from 100k+ feet was able to break the sound barrier in free fall as air density was much less at that altitude and thus a higher terminal velocity.

I cannot imagine the terror they experienced.

Quoted: I was in Mrs. Baucum's 6th grade math class, I bet you I could walk to the exact spot in the room where I was sitting even 20 years later.

I was home from school that day.  It is seared into my head.

the whole school went outside to watch it..we had pictures that day.
our school was a 20 minute ride if that from KSC..
i rmeber going wtf... and other kids running scared that itwould fall on us. teahcers crying and folks just in shock that it just happened.

and the jokes didnt take long and at 13 yrs old, we heard them all.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: until they hit the water maybe then they would be dead anyways. look at air liners every one dies and I don't think they would be going as fast as the shuttle would be from falling from so high. Why would terminal velocity be any different? air density. but i think the max height they reached was 65k so im sure the effect was minute. like the guy that skydived from 100k+ feet was able to break the sound barrier in free fall as air density was much less at that altitude and thus a higher terminal velocity.

Terminal velocity would decrease at lower altitudes. Just because it's falling from a higher altitude doesn't mean it will be going faster. All that determines terminal velocity is the force of gravity pulling down on the object (determined by its mass) and the force of drag pushing up on the object. These two will reach equilibrium, and the resulting speed is the objects terminal velocity.

Thus, as it falls into denser air, the force of drag increases, as a result the terminal velocity decreases.

How high you drop something from does not determine in any way, shape or form its terminal velocity.

The cabin could have been dropped from 100,000 feet or 5,000 feet, I'm sure it would have hit the water at the exact same velocity.

Quoted: Why wasn't the shuttle fitted with a parachute system?

How, exactly, would you purpose this be done?

Rig a parachute to the whole orbiter? That'd work great, considering to broke apart almost immediately after the SBR failed and tank disintegrated. Wouldn't have changed the outcome at all.

Just the crew cabin? That would be odd, since the crew cabin was not designed to separate from the rest of the orbiter.

Individual parachutes for each member of the crew? This had been done on previous flights early in the program. I'm not really clear on if they had them for the Challenger disaster or not... Doesn't matter, the crew lost consciousness due to low pressure from the high altitude. Even if they had them, they didn't get a chance to use them. They may or may not have regained consciousness during the descent, but even if they did, there wouldn't have been time to get out by then.

What sealed their fate to absolute death was the lack of full pressure suits. Had they had them, they would have remained conscious after the cabin lost pressure (which probably happened just after the shuttle broke up), giving them critical time to react, formulate a plan and carry it out. Then and only then does if they had individual parachutes even come into play.

The odds would still have been stacked against them, but it would be plausible for some, or all of them to have escaped.


The crew were not equipped with pressure suits because no situation was theorized in which it would actually save their lives. It was felt it accomplished nothing and wasted weight. No one thought the crew compartment would survive a catastrophic failure of the solid rocket boosters and external tank on launch. Now we know better.

Quoted: ETA: I should also point out that in my opinion, had they been wearing full pressure suits and equipped with parachutes (as they should have been), they might have survived. The odds would be incredibly low (as in, one in a hundred chance), but it would be plausible. Had they remained conscious, escape from the descending cabin, in the condition it was in, is theoretically possible.

Ever worn even a simulated pressure suit? I have, you're not able to do a whole lot of stuff.

Plus, given the crew cabin's seperation and unaerodynamic shape, it was tumbling to the water, that'd throw everyone inside around and prevent even non-suit-wearers from exiting via the hatch.  Throw in a pressure suit and they're just as stuck as if they never unbuckled their harness.

There had been ejection seats on the early shuttle launches, they were removed prior to Challenger's last flight as they were excess weight (iirc, 750lb each) and would only save the 4 crewmembers on the flight deck, the others below would've been left to die.

Kharn

Quoted: until they hit the water maybe then they would be dead anyways. look at air liners every one dies and I don't think they would be going as fast as the shuttle would be from falling from so high.

Ever heard of terminal velocity?

Anyway, I saw this on the DVR last night and it was so sad.  Astronauts really do have some ginormous cojones.  

Quoted: Quoted: ETA: I should also point out that in my opinion, had they been wearing full pressure suits and equipped with parachutes (as they should have been), they might have survived. The odds would be incredibly low (as in, one in a hundred chance), but it would be plausible. Had they remained conscious, escape from the descending cabin, in the condition it was in, is theoretically possible. Ever worn even a simulated pressure suit? I have, you're not able to do a whole lot of stuff. Plus, given the crew cabin's seperation and unaerodynamic shape, it was tumbling to the water, that'd throw everyone inside around and prevent even non-suit-wearers from exiting via the hatch.  Throw in a pressure suit and they're just as stuck as if they never unbuckled their harness. There had been ejection seats on the early shuttle launches, they were removed prior to Challenger's last flight as they were excess weight (iirc, 750lb each) and would only save the 4 crewmembers on the flight deck, the others below would've been left to die. Kharn

The amount of tumbling is debatable. No reliable simulation of the cabins fall exists. Also, while it was certainly not an aerodynamic shape (a good thing, if it isn't aerodynamic it'll have more drag, thus a lower terminal velocity, thus more time for the crew), it was more or less symmetrical. Bad aerodynamics does not unnecessarily equal instability... Rocks have pathetic aerodynamics, and unsymmetrical, and yet tend to be pretty stable in freefall.

If the tumbling was sufficiently low enough to allow the crew any sort of movement, escape becomes plausible, despite the difficulties of pressure suits. As I said before, the odds are stacked against them, but it would be plausible. As opposed to having no pressure suits, which completely doomed them in this scenario.

Also notice I never made mention of the ejection seats. This is partially because, as you mentioned, it can only save four members of the crew (and there's a sort of "try to save everyone or die together" line of thinking among astronauts), also, I have concerns as to if they would even be functional in this scenario.

Quoted: Quoted: until they hit the water maybe then they would be dead anyways. look at air liners every one dies and I don't think they would be going as fast as the shuttle would be from falling from so high. Ever heard of terminal velocity? Anyway, I saw this on the DVR last night and it was so sad.  Astronauts really do have some ginormous cojones.

Someone else just said it, but there is no such thing as a constant terminal velocity. Every object has its own depending on its drag VS gravitational downward pull.

As a skydiver, I can fall as slow as 110 or so MPH by flying belly towards the earth and wearing a baggy jumpsuit. However, I have fallen as fast as 268 MPH by flying head down with nothing but a pair of tight sweat pants on.

Same weight, both jumping from around 12,000 ft, the only difference is changing my body position and clothes to reduce the amount of drag.

I dont know the drag coefficient of the crew module but I would imagine the weight is that of at least a full sized SUV. Terminal for something that heavy would have to be 300 mph or more.

Quoted: Is this a photoshop?  I have never seen a picture of a shuttle on the pad at Vandenburg www.murdoconline.net/pics/slc6a-thumb.jpg

It's real, it's basically a mock-up.  Vandenberg was slated to be another launch site for the shuttles.  After Challenger, they scrapped that plan and all future launches were at Kennedy.  

Roger that.  The idea was, DOD would fly its shuttle missions due south from Vandenberg for insertion into polar orbits required for their (cough) payloads.  Plus, the Air Force would have total control of security at the launch site instead of sharing it with NASA-types.

Couldn't fly due north or south of Kennedy because of risks to population areas.  Lord knows, we wouldn't want to drop an SRB on Fidel, would we?  

I don't have the time to read through all 7 pages, I just wanted to mention that some years ago, there was an Air and Space Magazine article about the discovery of the crew cabin at the bottom of the Ocean. It was still in tact and NASA ruled that some of the Astronauts might have been alive when the cabin hit the water, and maybe even as it sank. I don't think anything could be proven however. I think I might have all of the old issues upstaires and when I get back today, I will try and find the article.

Quoted: Quoted: = I don't completely blame NASA as this situation was completely unimaginable. But it's a case where "err on the side of crew survivability" might have saved lives.

The Shuttle is the only manned US launch vehicle without an escape system… that was unforgivable. NASA were acutely aware rockets do go wrong, it's the nature of the beasts.

Quoted: Quoted: President Reagan's speech afterwards God damn. I don't agree with everything Reagan did, but he was a leader and a man who spoke eloquently and with sincerity. This country needs another leader like that.

Agreed.

I can not, to this day, watch that speech without a lump in my throat.  The man was an artist with the spoken word.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: = I don't completely blame NASA as this situation was completely unimaginable. But it's a case where "err on the side of crew survivability" might have saved lives. The Shuttle is the only manned US launch vehicle without an escape system… that was unforgivable. NASA were acutely aware rockets do go wrong, it's the nature of the beasts.

I agree. But I wasn't really referring to the complete lack of an escape system, but rather the fact they weren't wearing pressure suits.

No one would have guessed that would seal their fates. Lots of studies had said effectively no scenario existed in which a pressure suit would actually save the crews lives on launch.

The studies were wrong. They should have erred on the side of giving the crew a basic life support tool.

As I said earlier I've have copy of the accident report. Unfortunately all my books are still in storage from our move and I can't get to it right now. What follows is the best of my recollection.

The stacking of the SRB consists of mating the sections together. The SRB is made up of several sections and at the time each joint was sealed with a single o-ring and a thermal compound. Tolerances for fit are obviously required one of them being symmetrical roundness of the joint. There is an apparatus that can be used to adjust this tolerance to bring it into spec. The joint that failed was border line in terms of symmetry and had to be tweaked for it to fit. When the stacking of this section was completed the report stated that it was problematic at best. The o-ring is obviously not flame proof and is not expected to hold back hot gas, hence the use of the thermal compound.

At ignition, mainly due to the cold temp of the metal, exacerbated by the out of spec condition of the joint, an out of spec gap existed at the point of failure. Instead of the inner flange expanding into the outer flange, which normally would close the joint gap further, deforming the o-ring (from a round to oval shape) and establishing the seal necessary to prevent the migration of hot gases through the joint, there was a gap. The pressure of the hot gases were able to push thermal compound past the o-ring and allow hot gases to impinge directly on the o-ring. There gases were then able to migrate through the joint seal and exit the section joint. As the flow of hot gases continued through the gap thermal compound and the o-ring began to burn (the black smoke seen in the SRB picture above is this combustion product) allowing more gas to pass through the now enlarging gap in the section joint.

As the burn through continued the gap became a progressively larger hole allowing flame to be directed onto the lower strut that attached the SRB to the External Tank. As the strut was burned through the SRB came loose from the ET at this point. The SRB was then free to rotate out of referenced to the rest of the stack and impacted the ET. This ruptured the ET outer wall. As further rotation occurred the aft inner tank of the ET was also ruptured allowing the liquid hydrogen in the tank to exit and become exposed to the hot gases venting from the SRB burn through. The ignited liquid hydrogen began rapid combustion and the tank rapidly went to an over pressure state and ruptured. The force of this rupture also ruptured the liquid oxygen tank. Due to the lateral forces present on the stacked vehicle at point; the entire vehicle yawed away from the flight path and atmospheric pressures began to create over pressure conditions all over the vehicle. The vehicle did not explode as it commonly thought but disintegrated due to the over pressure conditions present as it deviated from the flight path.

The sequence of events progressed, the vehicle became enshrouded in a cloud of burning hydrogen and oxygen. As vehicle breakup continued various components of the vehicle separated ending finally in a rupture of the OMS tanks. This can be see in the final burst of orange flame, from the mixing of the monomethyl hydrazine fuel and nitrogen tetroxide oxidizer present in the OMS system. At this point the vehicle was rapidly breaking up and continued to breakup for the next several seconds.

In video of the accident the SRBs can be seen intact and still burning as they exit the cloud of burning gases. They continued to burn and assume ballistic flight until destroyed by the range safety officer initiated destruct command.

As a result of the accident a redesign of the section joints was made. Tolerances were tightened, both initial and final, with the addition of a second o-ring being made. The out of round spec in particular was addressed with the use the fitting apparatus tolerances of particular note. Where before a section may have been tweaked to bring it into spec; now criteria has been established for entry criteria. A section not meeting roundness symmetry entry criteria is rejected and not used.

The redesign and implementation are available at the full detail link present on the NASA web site. As I previously stated the first part of the report is no longer in print and is not present on the NASA web site. I have recollected to the best of my ability the substance of that part of the report. It goes into much greater detail, obviously, than I am capable of recollecting. An actual time line sequence the Challenger event was part of the report as well as documentary photographs of the vehicle. There are no photographs of the crew present in the report and as far as I know none were ever taken, again for obvious reasons.

Sorry for the long post but hopefully this will help understanding what took place that morning. There was no finger pointing in the report. Nobody in particular was laid to blame.  The vehicle was launched with a problematic section joint in the right side SRB after the stacked vehicle cold soaked in abnormally low Florida temperatures. Had NASA waited a few days until the vehicle came out of cold soak things could possibly have been different. NASA admits that numerous delays and a desire to get the Teacher in Space program underway created a go mentality which did not help. Whether this is the root cause of the accident is impossible to say. In combination with the faulty section joint and cold soak condition of the stacked vehicle it certainly did not help.

ETA: There were a few posts between the time when I started the above and posting it. Something that need to be understood and was/is understood by everyone involved in the shuttle. The Solid Rocket Boosters are just that, they are Solid Rockets. Once they are ignited there is no shutting them off until all the fuel is consumed or they are separated from the vehicle and destroyed. This is the reason solids were not used for manned vehicles until the shuttle. However there was no other way to reach the thrust values needed to get the shuttle off the ground.

At main engine startup the entire vehicle sways approximately seven feet. The main engines are started in a stagger sequence 6.6 seconds before SRB ignition. 3 seconds before SRB ignition they are throttled up to liftoff position. Once the SRB are ignited the vehicle has to be launched as the temperatures produced by them will literally burn the entire launch pad up. The water spray that is turned on at main engine ignition has nothing to due with anything other than providing some kind of thermal shielding to the lower gantry and concrete blast tunnel.

For those of you who have been watching the Discovery channel series. Take note of the video of the Gemini launches. You can see umbilical hoses being ripped off and flying through the air. The launch gantry is literally burned up and had to be re-built between launches. So do the Space Shuttle gantry.

Once the SRBs are started the vehicle is leaving the pad. There is no way to stop it. As soon as the SRB start the vehicle is released. There is no going back or do overs. Its a done deal. If it wasn't in just a matter of seconds the SRB would begin to burn everything below them away. I cannot even fathom the accident that would result if there were to be a latch failure at SRB ignition that kept the vehicle on the pad.

For those of you bitching about the the lack of escape you need to understand that space shuttle is like any of the other vehicle used before. First of all its BIG and heavy. Anything that would pull the crew cabin away from the stacked vehicle would be so large and heavy the vehicle would never get off the ground. As much as I hate to make reference to the Wiki there is actually a pretty good run down of the abort sequences there. Take particular note of the ICES  that was installed post-Challenger. After you've read and understand what is involved with actually getting out of the crew cabin ask yourself if it would have made any difference.

I think Alan Shepard said it best, When they were finally ready to launch the Redstone, and him having to piss into his suit because the delay was so long, he said, "Dear Lord, please don't let me fuck up." And then it was all business. The men and women who fly into space know and understand the risk. All the bitching and whining will never change the fact that launching into space is a perilous and dangerous business. And given half a chance everyone of you would getting into vehicle knowing that this just might be the one that augers in.

Cheers.

From the NASA report. The front fusalage was intact all the way to the ground. The lower right picture is a very clear shot of the cabin.





Hurtling out of the fireball at 78 seconds (left) are the Orbiter's left wing (top arrow), the main engines (center arrow) and the forward fuselage (bottom arrow). In the photo below [bottom right], it plummets Earthward, trailed by smoking fragments of Challenger




Av.

Quoted: From the NASA report. The front fusalage was intact all the way to the ground. The lower right picture is a very clear shot of the cabin. img.photobucket.com/albums/v240/avalon01/v1p34.jpg Hurtling out of the fireball at 78 seconds (left) are the Orbiter's left wing (top arrow), the main engines (center arrow) and the forward fuselage (bottom arrow). In the photo below [bottom right], it plummets Earthward, trailed by smoking fragments of Challenger Av.

And the crew was alive when those photos were taken.

Quoted: From the NASA report. The front fusalage was intact all the way to the ground. The lower right picture is a very clear shot of the cabin. Hurtling out of the fireball at 78 seconds (left) are the Orbiter's left wing (top arrow), the main engines (center arrow) and the forward fuselage (bottom arrow). In the photo below [bottom right], it plummets Earthward, trailed by smoking fragments of Challenger Av.

Av,

If you have your copy handy, could you copy the time line out of the report and post it. I know its many pages long but would really help people understand just what happened.

cheers,

Here it is in PDF format:

STS 51-L Sequence of Major Events



Another quote from the report:

[18] The Flight of the Challenger The events that followed lift off were brief: Launch Time Event - 6.6 sec. Space Shuttle engines ignition O sec. Solid Rocket Booster ignition + 7 sec. "Roll program." (Challenger) "Roger, roll, Challenger." (Houston) + 24 sec. Main engines throttled down to 94% + 42 sec. Main engines throttled down to 65% + 59 sec. Main engines throttled up to 104% + 65 sec. "Challenger, go at throttle up." (Houston) "Roger. Go at throttle up." (Challenger) + 73 sec. Loss of signal from Challenger From lift off until the signal from the Shuttle was lost, no flight controller observed any indication of a problem. The Shuttle's main engines throttled down to limit the maximum dynamic pressure, then throttled up to full thrust as expected. Voice communications with the crew were normal. The crew called to indicate the Shuttle had begun its roll to head due east and to establish communication after launch. Fifty-seven seconds later, Mission Control informed the crew that the engines had successfully throttled up and all other systems were satisfactory. The commander's acknowledgment of this call was the last voice communication from the Challenger. There were no alarms sounded in the cockpit. The crew apparently had no indication of a problem before the rapid break-up of the Space Shuttle system. The first evidence of an accident came from live video coverage. Radar then began to track multiple objects. The flight dynamics officer in Houston confirmed to the flight director that "RSO [range safety officer] reports vehicle exploded," and 30 seconds later he added that the range safety officer had sent the destruct signal to the Solid Rocket Boosters. During the period of the flight when the Solid Rocket Boosters are thrusting, there are no survivable abort options. There was nothing that either the crew or the ground controllers could have done to avert the catastrophe. .

Av.

Quoted: And the crew was alive when those photos were taken.

Explosion occurred at 73 seconds.

Those photos were at 78 seconds.  

Av.

Thanks much, AV

Hey is the whole report out there in PDF or is this just something you have?

I got to poking around and realize that I made a mistake on the the original design of the field joint and that there were two o-rings but in a different flange design. I recall isn't always what it should be! Age is catching up I guess.

Quoted: Quoted: Remember all the NASA jokes? No, I don't.  But I do remember watching Challenger blow up on live TV, in my morning History class (7th grade).  Fuck anyone that made jokes about that crew.

damn we are the same age. I remember it also in 7th grade English. Maybe you were right down the hall from me.

Quoted: During the period of the flight when the Solid Rocket Boosters are thrusting, there are no survivable abort options. There was nothing that either the crew or the ground controllers could have done to avert the catastrophe. .

But lets not let that get in the way of slamming NASA for having no Wyle-E-Coyote jet packs or escape pods or rocket gliders installed.

Quoted: Quoted: During the period of the flight when the Solid Rocket Boosters are thrusting, there are no survivable abort options. There was nothing that either the crew or the ground controllers could have done to avert the catastrophe. . But lets not let that get in the way of slamming NASA for having no Wyle-E-Coyote jet packs or escape pods or rocket gliders installed.

I think they are more at fault for having a totally inadequate pressure suit when nearly all of their previous launches had them. Hell U2 Pilots have them. And to get right down to it, there were enough warning signs against launching to begin with. Ultimately it never should have left the pad.

Spaceflight is not without risks and these criticisms are in hindsight. Overall NASA has a great safety record and I for one and very proud of them and their accomplishments. I have a tremendous amount of respect for what they do and wish our government would invest more into them.

of the pictures of the forward fuselage how much of the fuselage is it supposed to be? from the nose going back how far? it doesn't look like a very big section from what I'm seeing

Quoted: of the pictures of the forward fuselage how much of the fuselage is it supposed to be? from the nose going back how far? it doesn't look like a very big section from what I'm seeing

It's from the nose, to just behind the crew cabin, right where the cargo bay would have been attached.  It was intact.  You can also clearly recognize the wing in those pictures, and the flaps and airelons (sp) are still attached as well.

I was in 6th Grade, watching it in class.  We were all sitting there stunned, watching that cloud swell up, when the teacher across the hall burst into the room crying.  Then we all started crying.

I've never had flashbacks before, but when I woke up in Feb of 03, flipped on the news and saw the Columbia comet-trails....I was 12 years old all over again.  I swear I could hear some of my classmates sobbing around me ....

By the time Challenger launched, they had become so so commonplace that my Jr High school no longer monitored coverage of shuttle launches.

The principal announced what had happened during my lunch period. Everything fell silent for a minute and then went right back to normal. I heard what he said, but refused to believe it on some level. It wasn't until I got home that afternoon and saw the footage that the reality hit me. I was absolutely dumbfounded.

I remember Reagan's speech. I was grateful to have a President who could speak so eloquently about such a horrible event. Even in the midst of a national tragedy, he made you feel as thought everything was going to be alright, while still remembering those who had died. The man had a real gift.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: During the period of the flight when the Solid Rocket Boosters are thrusting, there are no survivable abort options. There was nothing that either the crew or the ground controllers could have done to avert the catastrophe. . But lets not let that get in the way of slamming NASA for having no Wyle-E-Coyote jet packs or escape pods or rocket gliders installed. I think they are more at fault for having a totally inadequate pressure suit when nearly all of their previous launches had them. Hell U2 Pilots have them. And to get right down to it, there were enough warning signs against launching to begin with. Ultimately it never should have left the pad. Spaceflight is not without risks and these criticisms are in hindsight. Overall NASA has a great safety record and I for one and very proud of them and their accomplishments. I have a tremendous amount of respect for what they do and wish our government would invest more into them.

OK, so they would have been conscious and alive until they hit the water and died, instead of being unconscious and alive when they hit the water and died.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: = I don't completely blame NASA as this situation was completely unimaginable. But it's a case where "err on the side of crew survivability" might have saved lives. The Shuttle is the only manned US launch vehicle without an escape system… that was unforgivable. NASA were acutely aware rockets do go wrong, it's the nature of the beasts.

It was also the first launch vehicle to be launched manned for its first flight.  Guess they were a bit confident.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: During the period of the flight when the Solid Rocket Boosters are thrusting, there are no survivable abort options. There was nothing that either the crew or the ground controllers could have done to avert the catastrophe. . But lets not let that get in the way of slamming NASA for having no Wyle-E-Coyote jet packs or escape pods or rocket gliders installed. I think they are more at fault for having a totally inadequate pressure suit when nearly all of their previous launches had them. Hell U2 Pilots have them. And to get right down to it, there were enough warning signs against launching to begin with. Ultimately it never should have left the pad. Spaceflight is not without risks and these criticisms are in hindsight. Overall NASA has a great safety record and I for one and very proud of them and their accomplishments. I have a tremendous amount of respect for what they do and wish our government would invest more into them. OK, so they would have been conscious and alive until they hit the water and died, instead of being unconscious and alive when they hit the water and died.

Its highly doubtful they were conscious when they hit the water.

Quoted: Quoted: During the period of the flight when the Solid Rocket Boosters are thrusting, there are no survivable abort options. There was nothing that either the crew or the ground controllers could have done to avert the catastrophe. . But lets not let that get in the way of slamming NASA for having no Wyle-E-Coyote jet packs or escape pods or rocket gliders installed.

I don't slam NASA for the shuttle, since the nature of the thing precludes many escape systems.  But I do slam them a bit for Challenger, since they allowed politics and schedule pressure override safety issues.  As others have pointed out, traveling to space is never routine or safe, but NASA was far too complacent pre-Challenger.

I do find fault with the shuttle's design, which was not what NASA originally proposed, but rather is the result of budget cuts, the political situation at the time and the lack of public support post-Apollo.  As it was originally designed, the shuttle would have been much safer and likely cheaper to operate as well.  The SRB's were only included after a series of budget cuts forced NASA to do away with the original booster system.  The fragile thermal tiles are another example--NASA needed the support of the Air Force to keep the shuttle alive, and the Air Force demanded a larger cross-range.  This led to to a much larger wing, which increased the size of the vehicle, which meant the redesign of the thermal protection system.  

But at the end of the day, it's our fault as a country.  If we want NASA's mission to continue, we should give them the money to do it properly.  

Quoted: of the pictures of the forward fuselage how much of the fuselage is it supposed to be? from the nose going back how far? it doesn't look like a very big section from what I'm seeing

See the two windows on the cabin? The break was just behind them. The photo shows the cords that attach to the cargo bay trailing the cabin.

The entire crew cabin broke away cleanly.

Av.

Quoted: Quoted: Remember all the NASA jokes? No, I don't.  But I do remember watching Challenger blow up on live TV, in my morning History class (7th grade).  Fuck anyone that made jokes about that crew.

I was in high school here in Texas.  I knew Amy Onizuka, Ellison's daughter.  We ran around with a lot of the same crowd.  As hard as it would be to lose a parent, it is different to lose them in front of the whole world.
I remember watching it live.
In 2003 we heard the Columbia breaking up overhead, and we are rught under the dispersal pattern for the wreckage.  Several pieces landed pretty close.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The G-forces from the impact weren't nearly enough to kill a healthy individual. just so i'm clear, you'e stating that hitting water at 200+ MPH isn't nearly enough to cause BFT death? i think perhaps you should reconsider this statement, since hitting water at 110mph will kill you virtually every time.  in the annals of skydiving, there are only a few examples of survival from a terminal velocity impact, and those involved highly-yielding surfaces like a 20' snowbank (siberia), and viscous mud flats (florida).  at high speed, hitting water is very similar to hitting dirt. I think he meant the g-forces from the initial disintegration of the orbiter. Correct, the first part of my post refers to the impact of the pressure wave from the explosion.

ok--that makes more sense.  though i must say that i've never heard someone use the term "impact" in this way (WRT the pressure wave).  i agree that the breakup itself was probably insufficient to kill the crew.

Quoted: Quoted: of the pictures of the forward fuselage how much of the fuselage is it supposed to be? from the nose going back how far? it doesn't look like a very big section from what I'm seeing img.photobucket.com/albums/v240/avalon01/shuttle_endeavour.jpg See the two windows on the cabin? The break was just behind them. The photo shows the cords that attach to the cargo bay trailing the cabin. The entire crew cabin broke away cleanly. Av.

OK..That and a few other pics from another thread give me better perspective on how big the piece in the photo actually was...the highest I've ever been was 40,000ft .....I can't imagine falling from 60,000+

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: During the period of the flight when the Solid Rocket Boosters are thrusting, there are no survivable abort options. There was nothing that either the crew or the ground controllers could have done to avert the catastrophe. . But lets not let that get in the way of slamming NASA for having no Wyle-E-Coyote jet packs or escape pods or rocket gliders installed. I don't slam NASA for the shuttle, since the nature of the thing precludes many escape systems.  But I do slam them a bit for Challenger, since they allowed politics and schedule pressure override safety issues.  As others have pointed out, traveling to space is never routine or safe, but NASA was far too complacent pre-Challenger. I do find fault with the shuttle's design, which was not what NASA originally proposed, but rather is the result of budget cuts, the political situation at the time and the lack of public support post-Apollo.  As it was originally designed, the shuttle would have been much safer and likely cheaper to operate as well.  The SRB's were only included after a series of budget cuts forced NASA to do away with the original booster system.  The fragile thermal tiles are another example--NASA needed the support of the Air Force to keep the shuttle alive, and the Air Force demanded a larger cross-range.  This led to to a much larger wing, which increased the size of the vehicle, which meant the redesign of the thermal protection system.   But at the end of the day, it's our fault as a country.  If we want NASA's mission to continue, we should give them the money to do it properly.

Amen.  Nasa needs to thrive, rather than limp along.

.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: During the period of the flight when the Solid Rocket Boosters are thrusting, there are no survivable abort options. There was nothing that either the crew or the ground controllers could have done to avert the catastrophe. . But lets not let that get in the way of slamming NASA for having no Wyle-E-Coyote jet packs or escape pods or rocket gliders installed. I think they are more at fault for having a totally inadequate pressure suit when nearly all of their previous launches had them. Hell U2 Pilots have them. And to get right down to it, there were enough warning signs against launching to begin with. Ultimately it never should have left the pad. Spaceflight is not without risks and these criticisms are in hindsight. Overall NASA has a great safety record and I for one and very proud of them and their accomplishments. I have a tremendous amount of respect for what they do and wish our government would invest more into them. OK, so they would have been conscious and alive until they hit the water and died, instead of being unconscious and alive when they hit the water and died.

That is a very short sided position but yes. (which is is likely some were conscious the whole way down anyway)

However if you take into consideration depressurization could happen in a otherwise non catastrophic situation where the entire shuttle doesn't shatter, it makes sense to have them. Which is why they have them now.

Quoted: However if you take into consideration depressurization could happen in a otherwise non catastrophic situation where the entire shuttle doesn't shatter, it makes sense to have them. Which is why they have them now.

I agree.