35 Years ago today - Columbia STS1

35 Years ago today - Columbia STS1

Author
Discussion

Eric Mc

Original Poster:

121,779 posts

264 months

Dog Star

16,079 posts

167 months

Tuesday 12th April 2016
quotequote all
Blimey! I remember that day well, I couldn't watch it on tv as I was on a school trip in the south of France.
The only information I could see was a newspaper in Nimes going on about the "navette".

Stedman

7,213 posts

191 months

Tuesday 12th April 2016
quotequote all
Fanastic

rufusruffcutt

1,539 posts

204 months

Tuesday 12th April 2016
quotequote all
I know it had its flaws, but it was an amazing machine. Thanks for posting the link Eric.

Eric Mc

Original Poster:

121,779 posts

264 months

Tuesday 12th April 2016
quotequote all
It was an incredible, if massively flawed, piece of kit.

Simpo Two

85,148 posts

264 months

Tuesday 12th April 2016
quotequote all
14 fatalities out of 355 astronuats is 3.94%, or about 1 in 25. Not odds I'd go for.

Eric Mc

Original Poster:

121,779 posts

264 months

Tuesday 12th April 2016
quotequote all
Not good, was it. And after 2003, NASA was acutely aware that as long as they kept launching it, they were bound to lose another and its crew.

drdino

1,142 posts

141 months

Tuesday 12th April 2016
quotequote all
Very interesting read, thanks!

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 12th April 2016
quotequote all
Simpo Two said:
14 fatalities out of 355 astronuats is 3.94%, or about 1 in 25. Not odds I'd go for.
And yet, i'd jump on it tomorrow if i had the chance!

(risk isn't absolute eh ;-)

Flooble

5,565 posts

99 months

Tuesday 12th April 2016
quotequote all
To be fair to the vehicle though, it was 2 vehicle failures out of 135 missions. The fact it carried seven crew (rather than 2 or 3 on the other launch vehicles) makes it look somewhat worse than it was.

Soyuz (the capsule) had 2 failures in 11 missions, killing 4. While since then it has been unblemished, it has not yet reached 135 missions, so if it had been a 7-person capsule it would have the same number of fatalities.




bitchstewie

50,781 posts

209 months

Tuesday 12th April 2016
quotequote all
Always wondered if the ejector seats worked in space.

Flooble

5,565 posts

99 months

Tuesday 12th April 2016
quotequote all
bhstewie said:
Always wondered if the ejector seats worked in space.
What ejector seats? The ones they took out the shuttle after the first four missions?

bitchstewie

50,781 posts

209 months

Tuesday 12th April 2016
quotequote all
Flooble said:
bhstewie said:
Always wondered if the ejector seats worked in space.
What ejector seats? The ones they took out the shuttle after the first four missions?
Yes, well I didn't know it was four so thanks for that but the ones that were there for testing.

I'd assume there was some technical mechanism that would stop you firing them whilst in orbit.

Flooble

5,565 posts

99 months

Tuesday 12th April 2016
quotequote all
I think the technical mechanism is probably "I don't want to die".

The in-atmosphere envelope for using them was pretty limited; no use to Colombia even if they had been retained (too high, too fast, too hot) and Robert Crippen wasn't expecting to survive an ejection during ascent either (SRB plume would burn you up): http://www.space.com/11350-space-shuttle-pilot-bob...

Is that the question you were asking?

Edit: Just seen you mentioned "in orbit". Not sure what you would expect the astronaut to do after ejecting from the spacecraft in orbit - their pressure suits would not have been able to keep them alive.

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 12th April 2016
quotequote all
I was in my room in my halls of residence and remember it as though it was yesterday.

bitchstewie

50,781 posts

209 months

Tuesday 12th April 2016
quotequote all
I get that, read that interview before smile I mean literally, technically, cold hard factually was there anything to stop them firing them in space.

Strange thing to wonder, but something I always wondered smile

Flooble

5,565 posts

99 months

Tuesday 12th April 2016
quotequote all
bhstewie said:
I get that, read that interview before smile I mean literally, technically, cold hard factually was there anything to stop them firing them in space.

Strange thing to wonder, but something I always wondered smile
Unfortunately I'm not qualified to say. Although I can see no reason explosive bolts and rockets would not work in space ...

Eric Mc

Original Poster:

121,779 posts

264 months

Tuesday 12th April 2016
quotequote all
Explosive bolts and other pyrotechnics are used in the vacuum of space all the time. Indeed, it is how stages are separated, shrouds are jettisoned etc.

As for the Shuttle's ejector seats, they would have been "safed" once they got into orbit and then made live again as part of the pre de-orbit burn preparations prior to re-entry.

As has been mentioned, the ejection seats fitted on the Shuttle's first four flights could only be used in a very narrow range of circumstances. It was assumed that any use during launch would be fatal. The only "window" where they could be used safely was if the Orbiter had some control problems in the last five or so minutes of glide flight prior to landing.

The suits worn by the crews in early Shuttle missions were aircraft pressure suits (not space suits) and were actually very similar to the suits worn by SR-71 and U-2 pilots. They would protect the crew if the cabin depressurised for any reason, but they could not be worn in the vacuum of space. They didn't have an independent air supply for start, not having any sort of backpack life support system.

For later Shuttle flights, the crews wore only lightweight flight suits and motor cycle style crash helmets. After the Challenger accident, they reverted to proper pressure suits for launch and re-entry.

Simpo Two

85,148 posts

264 months

Wednesday 13th April 2016
quotequote all
Flooble said:
To be fair to the vehicle though, it was 2 vehicle failures out of 135 missions. The fact it carried seven crew (rather than 2 or 3 on the other launch vehicles) makes it look somewhat worse than it was.
That's true. Did it really need seven I wonder?

rxtx

6,016 posts

209 months

Wednesday 13th April 2016
quotequote all
I was there, aged 8, my parents took us to Florida for two weeks and the trip was designed so we'd watch the launch on April 10th, when it was scheduled. Unfortunately it was delayed, we flew back on the 11th so we missed it. I still have the books from the space centre.

Had I seen that I would have gone back to watch the last one.