4 ms·

It was somewhat eerie to hear the “stage 1 throttle up” then abort just after that.. reminded me of the “go for throttle up”.. some of you may know what I’m tak

by xt00 7y ago

It was somewhat eerie to hear the “stage 1 throttle up” then abort just after that.. reminded me of the “go for throttle up”.. some of you may know what I’m taking about.. I’m glad these guys will have an abort system available and testing in flight like this was awesome.. good job spaceX

nrb 7y ago
For anyone unfamiliar: "go at throttle up" was the final communication to/from Space Shuttle Challenger during launch of mission STS-51-L moments before it tragically exploded, resulting in the loss of all crew. The Space Shuttle did not have a launch abort system. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDnABgxUeV4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDnABgxUeV4
- JshWright 7y ago
  Just a little more detail, the "throttle up" had nothing to do with the anomaly, it just happened at that stage in flight.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- LeoPanthera 7y ago
  > The Space Shuttle did not have a launch abort system. Challenger did not. Later shuttle launches included the "Inflight Crew Escape System", or ICES. https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/shutref/escape/inflight.html https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/shutref/escap...
  - Teknoman117 7y ago
    ICES was not a launch abort system. It was a way for the astronauts to bail out of the shuttle after re-entry if they weren’t going to be able to land the shuttle safely. The only shuttle to ever was anything resembling a launch abort system were the first few flights of Columbia. It had ejection seats for the pilot and commander. However, later statements by NASA and the astronauts said that using them probably would’ve resulted in the death of the astronauts due to descending through the extremely hot exhaust of the launch.
- zipwitch 7y ago
  Challenger did not explode. The key events of the disaster took place over about three seconds. A leak of high-temperature gas in the right solid rocket booster damaged the external stack of solid rocket boosters and external fuel tank. The damage to the external tank caused it to come apart, and resulted in a fireball from the released liquid oxygen and hydrogen. The solid rocket boosters broke free of their mountings as the disaster unfolded. The Challenger orbiter momentarily survived both the fireball and external tank failure. But those events made it impossible to keep the orbiter correctly oriented. The loss of proper orientation while travelling ~1000mph meant Challenger was hit with very high stress forces, far beyond anything it was designed to survive, and swiftly broke apart. Shortly afterward, the Range Safety Officer remotely detonated both solid rocket boosters, which had survived the disaster mostly intact and were careening out of control. More detail at Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster#January_28_launch_and_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disas...
  - nrb 7y ago
    It did indeed explode in the literal sense: rapid decomposition of the launch vehicle. I suppose it is worth mentioning that it did not "explode" in the sense people normally understand though: a blast of rapid combustion of fuel.
    - Klathmon 7y ago
      IIRC the word "explosion" has a very specific meaning in this context. I remember reading that the SpaceX AMOS-6 failure was specifically NOT an explosion even though it really looked like one to a layperson.
      - mr_toad 7y ago
        Even SpaceX refers to that as an explosion. Technically it was a deflagration, not a detonation, but energetic deflagrations are a type of explosion.
  - fourseventy 7y ago
- wilg 7y ago
  This is a good opportunity to plug the under-the-radar TV movie from a few years ago about Richard Feynman and the Challenger investigation. Slightly hard to find digitally but it's the first "episode" here: https://smile.amazon.com/The-Challenger-Disaster/dp/B00GQUM7PO https://smile.amazon.com/The-Challenger-Disaster/dp/B00GQUM7... William Hurt does a great job in it and its pretty interesting! (Be careful because there's also a worse seeming/rated movie with the same name that came out recently.)

by xt00 7y ago

nrb 7y ago

For anyone unfamiliar: "go at throttle up" was the final communication to/from Space Shuttle Challenger during launch of mission STS-51-L moments before it tragically exploded, resulting in the loss of all crew. The Space Shuttle did not have a launch abort system. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDnABgxUeV4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDnABgxUeV4

JshWright 7y ago
Just a little more detail, the "throttle up" had nothing to do with the anomaly, it just happened at that stage in flight.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
LeoPanthera 7y ago
> The Space Shuttle did not have a launch abort system. Challenger did not. Later shuttle launches included the "Inflight Crew Escape System", or ICES. https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/shutref/escape/inflight.html https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/shutref/escap...
- Teknoman117 7y ago
  ICES was not a launch abort system. It was a way for the astronauts to bail out of the shuttle after re-entry if they weren’t going to be able to land the shuttle safely. The only shuttle to ever was anything resembling a launch abort system were the first few flights of Columbia. It had ejection seats for the pilot and commander. However, later statements by NASA and the astronauts said that using them probably would’ve resulted in the death of the astronauts due to descending through the extremely hot exhaust of the launch.
zipwitch 7y ago
Challenger did not explode. The key events of the disaster took place over about three seconds. A leak of high-temperature gas in the right solid rocket booster damaged the external stack of solid rocket boosters and external fuel tank. The damage to the external tank caused it to come apart, and resulted in a fireball from the released liquid oxygen and hydrogen. The solid rocket boosters broke free of their mountings as the disaster unfolded. The Challenger orbiter momentarily survived both the fireball and external tank failure. But those events made it impossible to keep the orbiter correctly oriented. The loss of proper orientation while travelling ~1000mph meant Challenger was hit with very high stress forces, far beyond anything it was designed to survive, and swiftly broke apart. Shortly afterward, the Range Safety Officer remotely detonated both solid rocket boosters, which had survived the disaster mostly intact and were careening out of control. More detail at Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster#January_28_launch_and_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disas...
- nrb 7y ago
  It did indeed explode in the literal sense: rapid decomposition of the launch vehicle. I suppose it is worth mentioning that it did not "explode" in the sense people normally understand though: a blast of rapid combustion of fuel.
  - Klathmon 7y ago
    IIRC the word "explosion" has a very specific meaning in this context. I remember reading that the SpaceX AMOS-6 failure was specifically NOT an explosion even though it really looked like one to a layperson.
    - mr_toad 7y ago
      Even SpaceX refers to that as an explosion. Technically it was a deflagration, not a detonation, but energetic deflagrations are a type of explosion.
- fourseventy 7y ago
wilg 7y ago
This is a good opportunity to plug the under-the-radar TV movie from a few years ago about Richard Feynman and the Challenger investigation. Slightly hard to find digitally but it's the first "episode" here: https://smile.amazon.com/The-Challenger-Disaster/dp/B00GQUM7PO https://smile.amazon.com/The-Challenger-Disaster/dp/B00GQUM7... William Hurt does a great job in it and its pretty interesting! (Be careful because there's also a worse seeming/rated movie with the same name that came out recently.)