Subscription Center
Astronauts are even braver than you think. Here's a list of NASA's closest calls during the history of the agency's shuttle program
July 7, 2011 | 10
The launch of space shuttle Atlantis on November 26, 1985, would emerge as a haunting close call in the shadow of the Challenger disaster three months later....[More]
Several times during a space shuttle mission, controllers in Houston beam up instructions called a "state vector." The coordinates tell the spaceship exactly where it is above the Earth so it can make extremely precise docking, undocking and reentry maneuvers....[More]
When necessary in the past decade or so, NASA has ferried its astronauts to the space station aboard Russia’s Soyuz spacecraft (an option it will be stuck with after Atlantis ’s final launch and until the advent of mature commercial vehicles)....[More]
Technical glitches plagued the first launch of space shuttle Discovery .
After the crew of six (shown here participating in fire training exercises) climbed into the spacecraft for the third time at Launch Pad 39A, a fuel valve in one of the Discovery ’s three main engines failed to open four seconds before launch....[More]
The last thing you want when landing 100 tons of the most complex machine ever built by humans is a flat tire. Or a brake failure.
Both happened to the seven-person crew of the STS-51-D space shuttle mission when they landed at Edwards Air Force Base in California—with U.S....[More]
The space shuttle's thermal protection system is an armor of heat-resistant tiles that diverts super-heated plasma during reentry. And as NASA was forced to address with the loss of Columbia and its crew in 2003, damage to those tiles is a life-threatening situation....[More]
Space weather is a looming threat for any space flier. Even those cradled in a spacecraft within the Earth’s protective magnetic shield can feel the wrath of solar radiation storms....[More]
Hydrazine is a nasty fuel that smells like ammonia and can ignite spontaneously when exposed to air.
When the ninth space shuttle mission landed at Edwards Air Force Base in California, hydrazine leaked from an auxiliary power unit on the shuttle and caught fire—but no one at NASA knew until the next day....[More]
The space station’s four pairs of solar arrays, each close to a football field long end to end, provide all of the orbital laboratory’s electricity....[More]
Space above Earth is a lethal junkyard littered with countless scraps speeding by at tens of thousands of kilometers per hour. The trash runs the gamut from pieces of explosive bolts to farings from rocket nose-cones and, lately, bits of a satellite deliberately blown up by China....[More]
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
SETI Astronomer Jill Tarter Steps Down from Alien Hunt
Moonstruck: Tagalong Probe to Blast Moon in Search for Water
Is NASA Lost in Space or Aimed at Asteroid?
World Changing Ideas: 20 Ways to Build a Cleaner, Healthier, Smarter World
The Future of Space Exploration
Plenty of Targets for Robots Exploring the Final Frontier
Russian Rocket Failure Shouldn't Force Space Station Evacuation, NASA Tells Lawmakers
The Galileo Mission to Jupiter and Its Moons
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
10 Comments
Add CommentI’d like to add some tweaks to the writeups on two of these ten, that I was directly involved with:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this#6, Severe Tile Damage due to debris – I was the first person from the Space Shuttle Program Office to go to the lakebed post-landing and assess the damage. Weeks later when the official Incident Investigation Team made its report, they noted that the this debris damage issue was not going away, and officially recommended that a Debris Mitigation Manager be appointed in the Shuttle program office to make sure that never happened again. I was the person selected. However.......when I was promoted away to another job a year later, I was not replaced. My pleas with then Shuttle management that they needed to replace me because this issue of debris coming back and hitting the vehicle was not going to go away...in fact, left unattended, it would probably get worse – were ignored.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Columbia accident 14 years later – which not only cost lives, but billions of dollars – was likely directly a result of not having that single full-time position working over those years to constantly decrease the seriousness of the issue. This was not directly addressed in the official Columbia Accident Investigation Report. The CAIB report did note, however, that the Columbia accident did “(illustrate) the lack of institutional memory in the Space Shuttle Program that supports the Board’s claim...that NASA is not functioning as a learning organization.”
#8: Explosive Landing – was much more dangerous than this short report indicates. Firstly, it wasn’t just one of the 3 APUs (Auxiliary Power Units) that caught fire and was burning; it was two of the three. Second, it didn’t happen after landing – the fires were burning ever since the vehicle hit the atmosphere during entry and all the way thru landing, and continued burning until the two units detonated before the crew did their normal APU shutdown. Two simultaneous fires – the type of failure NASA normally does not consider ‘realistic’ - occurring inside the vehicle (under the tail), with no one really aware they were happening until long after, qualifies to me as the first real ‘close call’ of the program.
Dave Huntsman
Commercial Space Development
NASA
#1: "...and NASA reported no anomalies even after retrieving the rockets from the ocean and inspecting them"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNASA has kept a lot of things out of the public eye, apparently now it is becoming okay to talk about them. As a postdoc at JSC I learned that some astronauts come back dehydrated so much as a result of headward fluid shifts in weightlessness that intravenous fluids have been administered to them so they could stand up and walk off the Shuttle. Yet NASA spent millions of dollars on an "emergency egress system" which these same astronauts would have been unable to use, apparently without any consideration or possibly any knowledge of the postflight orthostatic tolerance problem. What happens is that headward fluid shifts stimulate reflexes that tell the body it has too much blood in it, and it goes about the process of reducing its blood volume. Water and electrolytes are rapidly excreted by the kidneys in an attempt to compensate, but blood also contains cells and protein which cannot be reduced rapidly so they remain behind and become concentrated in blood. That concentration raises the osmotic pressure causing fluid to move into the blood from all the other body water compartments, keeping the reflexes activated until the whole-body dehydration is quite severe: astronauts typically return to earth dehydrated by 4% to 6% of their body weight, and some cosmonauts have returned dehydrated by 8% of their body weight. A doctor will call an ambulance and send you to the emergency room if you become dehydrated by 2% of your body weight, so the dehydration of astronauts is not trivial. This problem wasn't understood in the early days of the Shuttle program and for the first two flights neither commander nor pilot wore anti-G suits, after all a good fighter pilot can handle 4.5 G without a suit and just using Valsalva maneuvers to keep blood flowing to their brains, so why would they need G-suits when the Shuttle only produced 2.5 to 3 G on reentry(?) was the logic. The story I was told in all seriousness is that STS-2 came close to crashing on reentry when both pilot and copilot nearly passed out, and which was 'solved' by NASA requiring all astronauts to wear G-suits on reentry afterward, a documented fact. But you never heard that on the evening news either.
Karl Simanonok, Ph.D.
During my time at JSC in the early 90's there were still a few of the Apollo old-timers around, the ones who met JFK's goal of getting a man on the moon before the decade was out by working 30% overtime at no extra pay to make it happen. They were the real heros of the story and the ones I knew inspired and mentored me greatly. I became deeply saddened however to see their Apollo spirit absent among so many of the newcomers who exhibited no sense of shared goals and instead largely devoted their efforts to strengthening and expanding their little fiefdoms, quarreling over lab space constantly, backbiting and even sabotaging the work of their perceived competitors, one of them even tried to steal my primary research idea and call it his own, so it got pretty personal. I was told 'sorry' by his boss and 'NASA has no mechanism for regulating ethics' leaving me to fight the bastard on my own (I eventually won, but at some cost). So I figure it's a good thing NASA is retiring the Shuttle before the devolving attitudes there cause any more crashes. There is a lot to be learned from the Shuttle experiences, but unless more of NASA's dirty laundry is aired like this article just barely begins to scratch the surface doing, some of the most important lessons will be lost and the next generation of spacefarers may have to learn them all over again, and that would be a dirty shame.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKarl Simanonok, Ph.D.
I am confident that sts107 will eventually cause bitterness.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI remember #1 reported on the news dec 1985.It was reported as a close call.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisreally? how about this:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this*1. The US bank bailout exceeded the half-century lifetime budget of NASA. or *2. The US military spends as much in 23 days as NASA spends in a year - and that's when we're not fighting a war. or *3. The entire half-century budget of NASA equals the current two year budget of the US military.
I would rather have spent the money and gained the technology and knowledge from the space program then bailed a failing bank that shot itself in the foot. Oh and what good did the bail out do? Last I checked we are still in recession and the rich continue to get more rich as they buy up cheap assets.
So, before you try and "bash" NASA maybe you should do some research before posting what you did.
*Tweeted from @NeilTyson.
Just to clarify, the above post was to geojellyroll. Good day.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissomeone will complain about anything. I suggest Jelly Roll focus on celebrity tweets rather than stressing out on the subject of the exploration of Space.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is more to NASA than the Shuttle program - much more. A huge number of NASA folks are silently breathing a sigh of relief that now it is safe for science and robots to come back into the light.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarbon-based humans are not meant for space exploration. Our job on the evolutionary ladder is to construct our silicon-based descendants, who can be perfectly adapted to space. We've done a heckuva job evolving from lightning bolts & ammonia, but the very adaptions that brought us to this point make us unsuitable for the environments of space.
I doubt it will be the year 2043 predicted by Ray Kurzweil for the first sentient silicon life because we still don't know what that means. Will we make an Einstein, an Adolf Hitler, or a Sally Ride? But as we figure out how to stay alive on this planet, we'll sort out the constructs of intelligence and personality and make self-aware machines that can stand the rigors of space.
I am as proud as the next person to be a part of a race that produced the Space Shuttle. I am even more proud that we produced the two Martian rovers, Spirit & Opportunity, and the Hubble Space Telescope. To infinity, and beyond!
In reply to bender227: I like to compare NASA's budget to what our sociel programs spend. NASA said it would go to the Moon and build the shuttle, and did. HHS and HUD said they would alleviate poverty and fix the slums, and have not. And after forty years, nobody has shown me a single improvement traceable to defunding the Apollo Program and spending the money on "problems here on earth."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn reply to ssidner: Spirit and Opportunity are fabulous machines. But in six years they've done as much as two human geologists could do in a couple of days.
What is all too likely to happen is we will decide we no longer need our own manned space flight. We'll just contract it to the Russians and, later, the Chinese. But the money won't be spent on other science. It will be spent funding Lifestyles of the Selfish and Irresponsible. The money will simply disappear and we will get zero in return.