The all-eventful STS-93 launch

[Chris Bergin]

Please read through all of this thread for additional videos and information.


STS-114 Commander Eileen Collins' STS-93...on Columbia. Very eventful.

First the scrub right before main engine start:

CLICK HERE FOR VIDEO DOWNLOAD

And then the launch video. You can hear what's been said back and forth, but I'll post the transcript on the next post.

CLICK HERE FOR VIDEO DOWNLOAD

Video sources spaceflight.nasa.gov

[Chris Bergin]

Many thanks to poster Stardust for the help with this transcript.

Comm = Commentary
Collins = Lt. Col Eileen Collins (now a Col)
Unknown = Either Houston or Pilot Jeff Ashby
Houston = CAPCOM Scott "Scooter" Altman

Comm: Zero. We have booster ignition and lift-off of Columbia, reaching new heights for women and X-ray astronomy.

Collins: This is Columbia, we're in the roll, we've got a fuel cell (glitch) level one.

Houston: Roger roll Columbia, we're looking at.

Houston: Columbia, Houston, We'd like AC Bus sensors off, we're evaluating the fuel cell.

Pilot: And that's config, scooter - is given.

Pilot & H: Roger that Columbia. Looks like we had a transient on AC-1

Comm: Columbia had now heading down-range altitude of 3.8 mile and as we hear, all systems errr ok - throttling down at 67 per cent.

Houston: Columbia, Houston. We are critical to AC-2 on the centre engine, AC-3 on the right. We've lost DCU A on the centre and DCU B on the right.

Pilot: Copy that.

Houston: And Columbia, Houston, you are go with throttle up.

Collins: Columbia, go with throttle up.

Comm: All 3 engines are back at full throttle. Columbia is now 8 mile down range, altitude 14 mile.

Comm: Flight control team monitoring the electrical systems on board - again all three seem to be healthy, as are the hydraulic systems. We're approaching 1 minute 50 seconds into the flight. Standing by for burn out separation of the solid rocket boosters on the Orbiter. Columbia now has burned more than 2 million lbs of fuel (he said fuel!!) and weighs half of what she did at launch.

Comm: SRB separation is confirmed.

Houston: Columbia - Houston. Performance nominal.

Collins: Performance nominal.

Comm:............ and that reports that the performance of the launch has been as expected, again the electrical system officer at mission control reports that all electrical systems in good shape. Columbia is now 50 mile away from Kennedy Space Center at an altitude of 40 mile. Now travelling at 3200 mph.

Comm: Approaching 3 minutes into the flight, the next call will be shortly after 3 minutes, which will be a 2 engine call for the Transatlantic Abort Site at Benguerra in Morocco. Again all systems healthy, electrical systems, hydraulic systems and the 3 engines - are all at full throttle. There are no issues being tracked and all electrical systems are healthy aboard the Orbiter.

Houston: Columbia - Houston two engine Ben.

Collins: Two Engine Ben

Comm: Columbia can reach Benguerra in the event of a single engine failure, all three engines are still at full throttle. No issues are being reported by the flight control team, all is quiet. It appears that the electrical issue of earlier, appears to have been a sensor. All systems are healthy. Columbia is now 116 miles away from the Kennedy Space Center, at an altitude of 58 miles. Travelling now at almost 4500 mph.

[Space101]

Wow, I've not seen or heard of this before. I don't really understand what happened or how bad it was. Can anyone help on that?

[Tahii]

With that first video, they seemed to get the Orbiter Access Arm back to the orbiter very quickly - did they nearly evacuate Columbia?

[Stardust9906]

Space101 - 8/9/2005  7:18 AM

Wow, I've not seen or heard of this before. I don't really understand what happened or how bad it was. Can anyone help on that?

They lost engine controllers on two different engines due to a short circuit.  Since each engine has a primary and backup controller they were one failure away from loosing either of those engines.  This was also the flight that had a slightly early Main Engine Cut Off due to a fuel leak so it was a pretty eventful flight.

[Flightstar]

Tahii - 8/9/2005  5:06 AM

With that first video, they seemed to get the Orbiter Access Arm back to the orbiter very quickly - did they nearly evacuate Columbia?

No, but as safing is in works, that moves in place very fast in case the crew do have to bail.

[Flightstar]

Stardust9906 - 8/9/2005  5:08 AM

Space101 - 8/9/2005  7:18 AM

Wow, I've not seen or heard of this before. I don't really understand what happened or how bad it was. Can anyone help on that?

They lost engine controllers on two different engines due to a short circuit.  Since each engine has a primary and backup controller they were one failure away from loosing either of those engines.  This was also the flight that had a slightly early Main Engine Cut Off due to a fuel leak so it was a pretty eventful flight.

It was very close to a RTSL Abort.

[Stardust9906]

Here are the screencaps for this one.

[SRBseparama]

I've heard about this a few times but never seen or heard the video. Many thanks for this!

[Chris Bergin]

Soe extra videos:

CLICK HERE FOR VIDEO DOWNLOAD - For multiple angle views.

CLICK HERE FOR VIDEO DOWNLOAD - for superior sound quality of the events.

[Justin Space]

Sorry I'm not posting much, just can't stop going through these videos!

Was this as dangerous as it sounds, was there a danger of the engine actually blowing up?

[Flightstar]

Justin Space - 16/11/2005  6:26 AM

Sorry I'm not posting much, just can't stop going through these videos!

Was this as dangerous as it sounds, was there a danger of the engine actually blowing up?

There's always that danger on any launch, but in this case the danger was the SSMEs shutting down, or the need to do so. Given the stage of the ascent it would have been a RTSL Abort.

[DaveS]

Flightstar - 16/11/2005  5:32 PM

 Given the stage of the ascent it would have been a RTSL Abort.

RTLS on an single engine? They were in the danger of losing two engines. I don't think that's possible since you have zero bank control on the vehicle after SRB seperation. I think that for the crew's own safety, ditching the orbiter would have preferred. Sure, it would have total loss of vehicle and payload but crew would still have been alive. Ditching the orbiter would have been much safer than trying a totally untested abort in the least optimal conditions.

But I could be wrong on the true capabilities of the shuttle system.

[Flightstar]

DaveS - 16/11/2005  11:33 AM

Flightstar - 16/11/2005  5:32 PM

 Given the stage of the ascent it would have been a RTSL Abort.

RTLS on an single engine? They were in the danger of losing two engines. I don't think that's possible since you have zero bank control on the vehicle after SRB seperation. I think that for the crew's own safety, ditching the orbiter would have preferred. Sure, it would have total loss of vehicle and payload but crew would still have been alive. Ditching the orbiter would have been much safer than trying a totally untested abort in the least optimal conditions.

But I could be wrong on the true capabilities of the shuttle system.

The issue was with one engine, if memory serves, with potentially a second engine. To ditch you have to perform the RTLS Abort and configure from there. You don't have to land, although if possible that is preferable.

[Justin Space]

Thank you for your answers. Very interesting and also sobering.

[Orbiter Obvious]

Bump, as this got a mention on the O2 leak being looked into on Discovery's STS-114. The mention was that Columbia did have a leak?

[DaveS]

Orbiter Obvious - 7/12/2005  7:06 AM

Bump, as this got a mention on the O2 leak being looked into on Discovery's STS-114. The mention was that Columbia did have a leak?

Columbia did not have LH2 leak in the aft engine compartment. It was determined that it was a bad sensor that registered bad data.

[Rocket Guy]

Columbia did not have LH2 leak in the aft engine compartment. It was determined that it was a bad sensor that registered bad data.

I believe you are thinking of the aborted first launch attempt at T-7 seconds due to hydrogen in the aft, which was a sensor problem. There was indeed a LH leak during ascent. It left Columbia 11 miles short of its target orbit.

[DaveS]

Ben: You're right. I was referring to the first launch attempt.

[STS Tony]

Anyone know how much of a leak, like was it anywhere close to the 100,000 scm? I ask as if it was then Discovery wasn't short, so the  reading of a leak might be wrong?

[DaveS]

The leak off H2 wasn't gaseous H2. It was LH2. So what was that Columbia's onboard computerss sensed the LH2 leak and compensated by using more LOX.

So a few seconds prior to planned MECO, the ECO sensors sensed that the LOX had gotten to that level where the ECO sensors is indicating "dry" instead of "wet".
So the computers automatically shut down the SSMEs prior to planned MECO leaving Columbia with a slight underspeed. This was well within the capabilities of the OMS.

[psloss]

DaveS - 16/11/2005  12:33 PM
RTLS on an single engine? They were in the danger of losing two engines. I don't think that's possible since you have zero bank control on the vehicle after SRB seperation. I think that for the crew's own safety, ditching the orbiter would have preferred. Sure, it would have total loss of vehicle and payload but crew would still have been alive. Ditching the orbiter would have been much safer than trying a totally untested abort in the least optimal conditions.

But I could be wrong on the true capabilities of the shuttle system.

There are several failures that could force an RTLS; obviously, main engine performance is a primary issue.  But there are other systems that could fail that would necessitate returning as soon as possible -- for example, a high crew-cabin leak rate or imminent loss of cooling capabilities.

For the 93 ascent, the problem was electrical/wiring; the way the main engine controllers are connected to the electrical busses (six controllers, three busses) provides for a good deal of redundancy.  Each engine has two redundant controllers; they are connected to different busses such that if a single bus fails, each engine still has an operating controller.  If an additional bus had failed, only one engine would have shutdown, but there would be no further redundancy.  (Of course, you're already down to a single bus at that point.)

For general background, this is THE public site for shuttle abort information (in my opinion):
http://www.theandyzone.com/launchzone/launchzone.htm

The RTLS reference:
http://www.theandyzone.com/launchzone/rtlsp1.htm

Philip Sloss

[psloss]

psloss - 8/12/2005  9:10 AM
For the 93 ascent, the problem was electrical/wiring; the way the main engine controllers are connected to the electrical busses (six controllers, three busses) provides for a good deal of redundancy.  Each engine has two redundant controllers; they are connected to different busses such that if a single bus fails, each engine still has an operating controller.  If an additional bus had failed, only one engine would have shutdown, but there would be no further redundancy.  (Of course, you're already down to a single bus at that point.)

Clarification on this: on the 93 launch, the short was on one phase of one bus (each bus has three phases); the bus was still functional, but the transient did knock the two MECs tied to it offline.

I still remember being out on the causeway for that launch (the first night launch I attended), which I've posted about elsewhere:
http://www.lupwa.org/Wanderings/July1999/19990723.asp

Philip Sloss

[Rocket Guy]

Let's clarify one thing here for those that may be be aware:

There were two, separate problems on STS-93 during ascent. There was an electrical short due to frayed wiring coming in contact with metal. And there was a a hydrogen leak, unrelated to the short. The leak was caused when a pin broke inside the oxygen injector and was shot out of the engine, impacted the side of the nozzle and caused a rupture in the hydrogen line there which leaked the rest of the way up.

[Launch Fan]

Cool site Philip! Personal launch experiences are very well recieved around these parts

[Andy L]

Enjoyed the description of the sound you get from a launch. A few of the personal videos of launches on here give a good impression, but apparently it's a lot more than even we can imagine.

[psloss]

Ben - 9/12/2005  11:42 AM

Let's clarify one thing here for those that may be be aware:

There were two, separate problems on STS-93 during ascent. There was an electrical short due to frayed wiring coming in contact with metal. And there was a a hydrogen leak, unrelated to the short. The leak was caused when a pin broke inside the oxygen injector and was shot out of the engine, impacted the side of the nozzle and caused a rupture in the hydrogen line there which leaked the rest of the way up.

Good point; here's a link to a transcript of Bill Readdy's testimony in the short term after the flight:
http://www.house.gov/science/readdy_092399.htm

(Excerpt from the transcript regarding the post pin ejection)

Post-landing inspection and detailed analyses revealed that the leak resulted from impact damage to the interior nozzle coolant tubes. The impact occurred when a main injector liquid oxygen post pin contacted 3 of the 1080 tubes (Figures 2, 3, 4). This engine’s main injector had 2 of the over 500 lox posts deactivated by a gold plated pin. STS-93 was the last planned flight of the older Phase II engines. The new and greatly improved Block II-A engines eliminate this failure mode.

The independent assessment team report made toward the end of '99 also has some more detail on both incidents:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/osf/siat.pdf

[Launch Fan]

One of my favourite threads, and given Rmathews has a related extra amount of info on the abort rational, I wanted to bump it.

[Jackson]

Yikes! This could have been scary. Didn't know it was Eileen in charge. She was a pro on this.

[Chris Bergin]

A couple of very interesting videos, courtesy of Philip Sloss.

CLICK HERE FOR VIDEO DOWNLOAD - Media Conference on how they reduced the weight of Columbia for this mission.

CLICK HERE FOR VIDEO DOWNLOAD - Media Conference on the reasons for the scrub just prior to main engine start.

[psloss]

For those who don't recognize the person featured in both videos, it is Grant Cates, who was the flow director for Columbia at the time.  (That's Ron Dittemore answering the first question.)

[Tahii]

Cheers for those media conference videos. Great source of information.

[Hotol]

I love it when Bill Harwood bullies Grant Cates into giving some data.

Cates tries to say he'll talk about it later and you can hear Bill and someone else saying they want to hear about it now and Bill saying "it's interesting!", to which Cates starts reading off data. Classic.

[psloss]

The details of the weight reduction were interesting to some people, which is why I presume Mr. Harwood pressed for the details in a countdown status briefing...it's the kind background detail that one would expect in the pre-flight briefings from JSC rather than a countdown briefing.  (Still, I'm glad he asked, since I missed a lot of the preflight proceedings until I got to Florida just before the first launch attempt.)

I think many of the people here would have been interested in this information at the time, but then again I don't know how many forums there were for this back in 1999.  (It wasn't as cheap to publish material as it is today.)  Mr. Harwood did the only story that I can recall to reference a good chunk of this information.  

[Pointman 7]

Great additions to this excellent thread. Interesting that they had to bring the weight down, but kept all the items such as the treadmill because of the CG.

[Zoomer30]

The had really 2 issues on that flight.  1 was the short circuit that casued the engine controllers to go out (lucky each engine has more than one).  The 2nd issue that was not known till later was that at engine start, a inector pin came out of the combustion chamber and hit the side of the nozzle.  this caused a hydrogen leak from the nozzle.  This casued that fuel to be "lost", so that MECO came a fraction of a sec early (you dont want to "run a SSME dry", that would casued turbopump failure).

Here is a pic from Wikipedia, shows the ship after landing, notice the ding in the nozzle wall on the lower right hand engine.  Wikipedia has the very high res version of this photo, shows at least 4 tubes were effected.  Just do a serch for SSME on Wikipedia.

[Shuttle>CEV]

Chris Bergin - 3/4/2006  4:53 AM

A couple of very interesting videos, courtesy of Philip Sloss.

CLICK HERE FOR VIDEO DOWNLOAD - Media Conference on how they reduced the weight of Columbia for this mission.

CLICK HERE FOR VIDEO DOWNLOAD - Media Conference on the reasons for the scrub just prior to main engine start.

The video won't load, how did the reduce Columbia's weight?

[DaveS]

Shuttle>CEV - 30/6/2006  12:39 AM

The video won't load,

Are your you have installed the DIVX(www.divx.com) codec?

[RHAnthony]

For anyone who hasn't yet, go to www.wikipedia.org and search for SSME to get that larger version of the SSME photo above.  It's a great photo, with LOTS of details!

[AstroRJY]

The calls are actually " Houston-Columbia, we're in the roll.."

and also the call both ways at about T+ 65-70 seconds is Go AT  throttle up, never go "with".

Not to be overly critical, great videos and liked reading the posts.

[Austin]

AstroRJY - 19/4/2007  5:57 PM

and also the call both ways at about T+ 65-70 seconds is Go AT  throttle up, never go "with".

Yes...media especially makes this mistake over and over again, of reporting the throttle up call as "go with throttle up."  Kind of tired of hearing it.  It is go AT throttle up.

[rdale]

Eh, with all the things the media can (and will) screw up on, "with" vs "at" are probably pretty safe to ignore ;> I really don't see the difference between those words in this context.

[psloss]

rdale - 21/4/2007  8:48 AM

Eh, with all the things the media can (and will) screw up on, "with" vs "at" are probably pretty safe to ignore ;> I really don't see the difference between those words in this context.

I think the issue is that, yes, "the media" has no clue what the difference between "with" and "at" in this context; however, there's a pretty big difference between being at the bottom of the throttle bucket and being past the bucket altogether.

The media probably also doesn't understand that the throttling is normally automatic and doesn't require an active command; if they had a case with an engine or engines with stuck throttles -- especially in the bucket -- I believe the communications would be different.

[AstroRJY]

You've got it exactly right

[AstroRJY]

Right on.  Remember after Challenger exploded, they journalists kept saying the last " command" radioed was "Mission Control telling Commander Scobnee to go to full power".  It's just irritating.


As laste as 2004 there was a documentary, I beleive done by the National Geographic channel that profiled the STS-107 Columbia mission and portrayed it as though "go for auto-sequence start" at T- 31 sec. was actually the astronauts " turning over control" to the computers.  Then when they were showing the launch scenes, the narrator actually said that  mission control "radios the command to go at throttle up.  The  command will boost the shuttle's escape velocity to 7,500 mph.  (They literally said seventy-five hundred...not seventeen thousand, five hundred...) the  speed necessary to reach orbit."  I was yelling at the TV!  Documentarys are supposed to be as accurate as possible,  right?  And we should strive for accuracy here too and help each other fill in gaps.

[MKremer]

AstroRJY - 23/4/2007  2:38 PM

Right on.  Remember after Challenger exploded, they journalists kept saying the last " command" radioed was "Mission Control telling Commander Scobnee to go to full power".  It's just irritating.

Yup, but remember most of the Press (and, unfortunately, most of the ignorant Public) is conditioned via the Hollywood scifi movies.... as an example:

A view from "the spaceship" hurtling toward a planet, getting closer and closer every second... the planet is rapidly covering the whole screen.

Ground Control: "Fireball XL-5... you are go retros and landing."

FB XL-5: "Copy Control. Starting descent."

XL-5 CO: "You heard him, begin retros and descent."

XL-5 Pilot: "Roger, Commander. Starting retro-fire now."

::: lots of SFX flames as the spaceship decelerates and starts to descend to the ground ::::


The above is how most of the press/public still thinks about spaceflight. So, when hearing "Go at throttle-up", most all of them consider that a command rather than just a timeline status marker announcement.


Actually, I think something like a "Throttle-up is go" announcement to the Shuttle would have overall been less confusing (or at least less misinterpreted).

[Austin]

psloss - 21/4/2007  6:00 AM

I think the issue is that, yes, "the media" has no clue what the difference between "with" and "at" in this context; however, there's a pretty big difference between being at the bottom of the throttle bucket and being past the bucket altogether.

The media probably also doesn't understand that the throttling is normally automatic and doesn't require an active command; if they had a case with an engine or engines with stuck throttles -- especially in the bucket -- I believe the communications would be different.

Exactly!!

[John2375]

It's "Columbia, go AT throttle up"
They're not telling them to do anything with the throttles -it' sjust a checkpoint. . like the roll=program call - they're not telling them to initiate the roll, it's just a verification that they're all on the same page.. and a communications check too.
They're go at throttle up
They're 2-engine Moron
They're single-engine press-to-ATO
these are all checkpoints along the ride uphill..

[rdale]

And go "with" throttle up means the shuttle is okay and will automatically be going "with" the throttle up. As mentioned before, means the same thing to the public, so feel free to get upset about something they really do mess up with!

[madmardy]

John2375 - 25/4/2007  8:42 PM


They're 2-engine Moron
They're single-engine press-to-ATO
these are all checkpoints along the ride uphill..

Quite wrong read the nasa site for once

[AstroRJY]

Nice videos but  the "transcript" isn't too slick and has several errors.

[AstroRJY]

Chris Bergin - 7/9/2005  10:26 PM

Many thanks to poster Stardust for the help with this transcript.

Comm = Commentary
Collins = Lt. Col Eileen Collins (now a Col)
Unknown = Either Houston or Pilot Jeff Ashby
Houston = CAPCOM Scott "Scooter" Altman


Comm: Zero. We have booster ignition and lift-off of Columbia, reaching new heights for women and X-ray astronomy.

Collins: This is Columbia, we're in the roll, we've got a fuel cell (glitch) level one.

Houston: Roger roll Columbia, we're looking at.

Houston: Columbia, Houston, We'd like AC Bus sensors off, we're evaluating the fuel cell.

Pilot: And that's config, scooter - is given.

Pilot & H: Roger that Columbia. Looks like we had a transient on AC-1

Comm: Columbia had now heading down-range altitude of 3.8 mile and as we hear, all systems errr ok - throttling down at 67 per cent.



Houston: And Columbia, Houston, you are go with throttle up.

Collins: Columbia, go with throttle up.

Comm: All 3 engines are back at full throttle. Columbia is now 8 mile down range, altitude 14 mile.

Comm: Flight control team monitoring the electrical systems on board - again all three seem to be healthy, as are the hydraulic systems. We're approaching 1 minute 50 seconds into the flight. Standing by for burn out separation of the solid rocket boosters on the Orbiter. Columbia now has burned more than 2 million lbs of fuel (he said fuel!!) and weighs half of what she did at launch.

Comm: SRB separation is confirmed.

Houston: Columbia - Houston. Performance nominal.

Collins: Performance nominal.

Comm:............ and that reports that the performance of the launch has been as expected, again the electrical system officer at mission control reports that all electrical systems in good shape. Columbia is now 50 mile away from Kennedy Space Center at an altitude of 40 mile. Now travelling at 3200 mph.

Comm: Approaching 3 minutes into the flight, the next call will be shortly after 3 minutes, which will be a 2 engine call for the Transatlantic Abort Site at Benguerra in Morocco. Again all systems healthy, electrical systems, hydraulic systems and the 3 engines - are all at full throttle. There are no issues being tracked and all electrical systems are healthy aboard the Orbiter.

Houston: Columbia - Houston two engine Ben.

Collins: Two Engine Ben

Comm: Columbia can reach Benguerra in the event of a single engine failure, all three engines are still at full throttle. No issues are being reported by the flight control team, all is quiet. It appears that the electrical issue of earlier, appears to have been a sensor. All systems are healthy. Columbia is now 116 miles away from the Kennedy Space Center, at an altitude of 58 miles. Travelling now at almost 4500 mph.

Let me clean up this transcript and fix the bugs in it for you.  There are a couple thigns printed that were not said, a couple thing s ommitted that were said, and a few that are simply misunderstood because of the sound quality of the crew communications with the  launch noise in this tape.  This is timed to have the T=zero at 1:01 into the video.

-01:00 KSC PAO Lisa Malone: T  minus 1 minute and counting.

-00:53 Columbia will be launched on an easterly trajectory on a 28.45 degrees inclination to the equator.

-00:45 T minus 45 seconds.

-00:40 Less than 1 minute away now from the 95th space shuttle launch.  

-00:35 T-35 seconds.  

-00:30 T-30 seconds.

-00:30 GLS: GLS go for auto-sequence start.

-00:25 NTD: 25 seconds.  
-00:20 NTD: 20
-00:20 KSC PAO: T minus 20 seconds.
-00:15 NTD: 15.
-00:15 KSC PAO: T minus 15.

-00:12 KSC PAO: 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, we have a GO for enigne start, zero, we have booster ignition and lift-off of Columbia reaching new heights for women and X-ray astronomy.

+00:09 CDR: Houston, Columbia's  in the roll, we've got a fuel cell pH, number 1.

+00:13 CAPCOM: Roger roll, Columbia, we're looking at it.

+00:26 CAPCOM: Columbia-Houston we'd like AC bus sensors off. We're evaluating the fuel cell.

+00:35 CAPCOM: Columbia--

+00:35 PLT: And that's complete, Scooter.

+00:36 CAPCOM: Roger that Columbia, looks like we had a transient on AC-1.

+00:43 JSC PAO Kyle Herring: Columbia's now headed downrage, altitude 3.8 miles

+00:50 And as we hear all systems okay, looks good onboard.

+00:56 Three engines throttling down, all at 67 percent.

+01:00 CAPCOM: Columbia, Houston. We are critical to AC-2 on the center engine, AC-3 on the right. We've lost DCU A on the center and DCU B on the right.

+01:12 PLT: Copy that.

+01:13 CAPCOM: And Columbia-Houston, you are Go at throttle up.

+01:17 CDR: Columbia; Go at throttle up.

 
+01:19 JSC PAO: All 3 engines are back at full throttle.

+01:23 Columbia's now 8 miles downrage, altitude 14 miles.  

+01:32 The flight control team is monitoring the electrical systems on board, again all 3 fuel cells appear to be healthy, as do the hydraulic systems.

+01:42 We're approaching 1 minute 50 seconds into the flight, standing by for  burnout and separation of the Solid Rocket Boosters on the orbiter.

+01:53 Columbia now has burned more than 2 million pounds of fuel and weighs half of what IT did at launch.

(SRB sep early at +01:58?? according to the clock on this video...)
+02:07 SRB separation is confirmed.

+02:16 CAPCOM: Columbia-Houston, perfromance nomnial.

+02:20 CDR: Performance nominal.

+02:22 Kyle Herring: That report that performance thus far  in the launch phase  has been as expected.  Again, the electrical systems officer (EECOM) here in Mission Control reports that all electrical systems are in good shape. Columbia's now 50 miles away from the Kennedy Space Center at an altitude of 40 miles,

+02:37 Now traveling 3,200 miles per hour.

+02:44 Approaching 3 minutes into the flight, the next call will be shortly after 3 minutes, which will be a 2-engine call for the  transatlantic abort site at Ben Guerir in Morrocco.  Again all sysems healthy, the hydraulic systems, electrical sytems, and 3 engines are at-- are all at full throttle, no issues that are being tracked, again all electrical systems are healthy aboard the orbiter.

+03:14 CAPCOM: Columbia-Houston,  2-enigne Ben.

+03:18 CDR: 2-enigne Ben.

+03:19 Kyle Herring: Columbia can reach Ben Guerir now in the event of a single engine failure, again all 3 are still at full throttle and there are no issues being reported by the flight control team, all is quiet.  It appears that the electrical issue early on appears to have been a sensor. All sysems are again healhty. Columbia is 116 miles away from the Kennedy Space Center at an altitude of 58 miles

+03:43 Traveling now almost 4,500 miles per hour.

[aftercolumbia]

MKremer - 23/4/2007  2:29 PM

Actually, I think something like a "Throttle-up is go" announcement to the Shuttle would have overall been less confusing (or at least less misinterpreted).

Nope...it's the same no matter how you put it.  I do know the sorts of commands like, "no action on the [whatever] message" does happen every now and then.  One of L2's big long massive videos has a master alarm, which is triggered every now and then by a pressure fluctuation during SSME hydraulic repressurization (IIRC.)  "Throttle-up is go" sounds like something you'd say before the engines are throttled up.

[AstroRJY]

Thanks.  What vids are on L2?  I've tried to  register for it once or twice a while back  but didn't complete it.

[Radioheaded]

AstroRJY - 12/5/2007  6:23 PM

Thanks.  What vids are on L2?  I've tried to  register for it once or twice a while back  but didn't complete it.

Only the gem of the STS-115 re-entry from de-orbit burn to wheel stop... That alone is worth the price of "admission"    

[Martin FL]

Radioheaded - 12/5/2007  6:40 PM

AstroRJY - 12/5/2007  6:23 PM

Thanks.  What vids are on L2?  I've tried to  register for it once or twice a while back  but didn't complete it.

Only the gem of the STS-115 re-entry from de-orbit burn to wheel stop... That alone is worth the price of "admission"    

And the MCC overview of this very launch! With all the background talk between the guys in Houston during this dramatic launch with the graphics and the calls such as "Yikes. We don't need anymore of these!"

Really fascinating how they worked through this one. And yes the STS-115 camcorder through re-entry video is awesome And there's a lot more too.

L2 is easy to join. Just fill out the form with your payment and that's it. Just click on the link at the end of this page: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/L2/

[AstroRJY]

I don't recall anything unusual happening during the STS-115 launch?  But thanks I will check that out at some point soon.  The re-entry video sounds interesting but  I mainly am fascinated by launches from every single angle.  

[Jackson]

AstroRJY - 12/5/2007  8:58 PM

I don't recall anything unusual happening during the STS-115 launch?  But thanks I will check that out at some point soon.  The re-entry video sounds interesting but  I mainly am fascinated by launches from every single angle.  

Like the seven super hi res STS-116 engineering camera launch videos, from all manner of angles of the launch, maybe? That's on there too.

The STS-115 master alarms were during re-entry, not launch.

[Radioheaded]

The videos are merely the icing on the cake!  There's enough documentation to keep you busy for months....  May I suggest a 2 month subscription (only 19.99, and that's what got me hooked) to sample the wealth of information residing there.  I think you'll be pleasantly surprised

[psloss]

AstroRJY - 12/5/2007  9:58 PM

I don't recall anything unusual happening during the STS-115 launch?

Martin is referring to the STS-93 launch -- the L2 video covers the ascent from the MCC point of view.

[Chris Bergin]

Thanks for the kind words about L2. We're very proud if it and all thanks to the sources.

Here's a short clip of the L2 STS-93 video (over 90meg) that people are speaking about here.

[AstroRJY]

Wow sounds like it must have been a high-stress launch in the MOCR.  Kind of like a bad simulation almost.

[Austin]

Astro -- trust me my friend, you would absolutely LOVE L2.  I can say this based on the little that I know of you already.  And it's true -- $19.99 is a small price for a certified space buff such as yourself to pay.  I subscribed months ago and only wish that I had done so earlier.  It's awesome!

[AstroRJY]

Yeah I'll subscribe this week I'm just careful about ordering with my debit card online.  I don't do credit cards at all.  Sounds liek there's archives of great audio and video there I'd enjoy.  Meanwhile I wish I had the technology at home to upload these old VHS tapes of the launches I've transcribed.  Shuttlesource posted  a couple of mine but he has 7 or 8 more that should be showing up there sooner or later.  He's a tad slwoer to update his site but I'm  watching for them.

[Austin]

AstroRJY - 13/5/2007  1:15 PM

Yeah I'll subscribe this week I'm just careful about ordering with my debit card online.  I don't do credit cards at all.  Sounds liek there's archives of great audio and video there I'd enjoy.  Meanwhile I wish I had the technology at home to upload these old VHS tapes of the launches I've transcribed.  Shuttlesource posted  a couple of mine but he has 7 or 8 more that should be showing up there sooner or later.  He's a tad slwoer to update his site but I'm  watching for them.

Very nice.  You won't be disappointed.

[Jason Davies]

Chris Bergin - 13/5/2007  1:28 PM

Thanks for the kind words about L2. We're very proud if it and all thanks to the sources.

Here's a short clip of the L2 STS-93 video (over 90meg) that people are speaking about here.

That clip is stunning, shows how much those JSC guys have to deal with in those intense eight minutes. This thread should be moved to Historical as this mission was far more eventful than I knew.

[James Lowe1]

Jason Davies - 14/5/2007  11:07 PM

That clip is stunning, shows how much those JSC guys have to deal with in those intense eight minutes. This thread should be moved to Historical as this mission was far more eventful than I knew.

Good idea.

[STSFan10]

That is a cool clip. Does booster and the others have their own little MCC teams too? It seems the backroom (Main Engines) is speaking to Booster, and Booster then speaks to Flight?

[Jorge]

STSFan10 - 15/5/2007  5:20 PM

That is a cool clip. Does booster and the others have their own little MCC teams too? It seems the backroom (Main Engines) is speaking to Booster, and Booster then speaks to Flight?

Yes. Each MCC front room (FCR) position has positions in the back room (MPSR) to support them. The MPSR controllers generally only make calls to their FCR controllers rather than directly to Flight.
--
JRF

[Tony T. Harris]

Jason Davies - 14/5/2007  11:07 PM

That clip is stunning, shows how much those JSC guys have to deal with in those intense eight minutes.

It's a collective team effort. You've got to see another part of it there.

[George CA]

Great thread. Was this the most eventful ascent of 'recent' times, or are there others which have a number of dramatic moments?

[Pete at Edwards]

There was one where they were four seconds away from a booster failure, but seperation occured before failure, I once heard.

[Stowbridge]

Pete at Edwards - 21/5/2007  11:01 AM

There was one where they were four seconds away from a booster failure, but seperation occured before failure, I once heard.

Really???

[Gary]

Tony T. Harris - 17/5/2007  9:51 PM

Jason Davies - 14/5/2007  11:07 PM

That clip is stunning, shows how much those JSC guys have to deal with in those intense eight minutes.

It's a collective team effort. You've got to see another part of it there.

I know a lot of companies that spend a small fortune hiring in consultants to tell them to work as a team - they should just show this video.

[shuttlepilot]

Pete at Edwards - 21/5/2007  6:01 PM

There was one where they were four seconds away from a booster failure, but seperation occured before failure, I once heard.

Please give us source of this information  

[Chris Bergin]

shuttlepilot - 25/5/2007  8:33 PM

Pete at Edwards - 21/5/2007  6:01 PM

There was one where they were four seconds away from a booster failure, but seperation occured before failure, I once heard.

Please give us source of this information  

I believe it was on a Columbia documentary, as I've heard that too, but never did find out which launch it was.

[psloss]

Chris Bergin - 26/5/2007  11:35 AM

shuttlepilot - 25/5/2007  8:33 PM

Pete at Edwards - 21/5/2007  6:01 PM

There was one where they were four seconds away from a booster failure, but seperation occured before failure, I once heard.

Please give us source of this information  

I believe it was on a Columbia documentary, as I've heard that too, but never did find out which launch it was.

IIRC, it was STS-8...

Edit: Not sure if that's what Pete is referring to, but the STS-8 incident was noted in a previous thread here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=5659&mid=92025

[Pete at Edwards]

psloss - 26/5/2007  2:05 PM

Chris Bergin - 26/5/2007  11:35 AM

shuttlepilot - 25/5/2007  8:33 PM

Pete at Edwards - 21/5/2007  6:01 PM

There was one where they were four seconds away from a booster failure, but seperation occured before failure, I once heard.

Please give us source of this information  

I believe it was on a Columbia documentary, as I've heard that too, but never did find out which launch it was.

IIRC, it was STS-8...

Edit: Not sure if that's what Pete is referring to, but the STS-8 incident was noted in a previous thread here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=5659&mid=92025

Thanks, that must be the one.

[Chris Bergin]

psloss - 26/5/2007  8:05 PM

Chris Bergin - 26/5/2007  11:35 AM

shuttlepilot - 25/5/2007  8:33 PM

Pete at Edwards - 21/5/2007  6:01 PM

There was one where they were four seconds away from a booster failure, but seperation occured before failure, I once heard.

Please give us source of this information  

I believe it was on a Columbia documentary, as I've heard that too, but never did find out which launch it was.

IIRC, it was STS-8...

Edit: Not sure if that's what Pete is referring to, but the STS-8 incident was noted in a previous thread here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=5659&mid=92025

Nice one Philip. Missed that thread, but that answers my question too.

[Flightstar]

Yes, STS-8 was a close call.

sts-93 was probably the first time that the plt has got to speak to houston so early during the launch. During a normal launch the cdr takes most of the calls

[Pete at Edwards]

Speaking of cool insights to MCC: http://www.space-multimedia.nl.eu.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2422&Itemid=2

[Launch Fan]

A mix of the two would be amazing, but I don't think they have more than one TV camera in the MCC?

[Chris Bergin]

I've never seen more than one or two in there, but that's understandable.

[psloss]

Pete at Edwards - 10/6/2007  5:01 PM

Speaking of cool insights to MCC: http://www.space-multimedia.nl.eu.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2422&Itemid=2

These became standard replays beginning with RTF, particularly the major events in the ascent and entry shifts.  The editing has gotten a little more aggressive; for example for RTF (STS-114), they ran the whole sequence from "go for auto-sequence start" through first stage.

[Maverick]

I think anything that shows the MCC guys in the heat of battle is a very good idea. Maybe on from the LCC would be good too!

[Chris Bergin]

Speaking of booster...

http://jobsearch.usajobs.opm.gov/getjob.asp?JobID=59248731&TabNum=1&rc=3 - and it's worth up to $130K a year too!

[Seattle Dave]

Interesting! That's not bad money.

[Stowbridge]

Launch Fan - 10/6/2007  10:21 PM

A mix of the two would be amazing, but I don't think they have more than one TV camera in the MCC?

They have CCTV type cameras for NASA TV, but rarely more than one actual handheld TV camera.

[Terry Rocket]

Chris Bergin - 13/5/2007  1:28 PM

Thanks for the kind words about L2. We're very proud if it and all thanks to the sources.

Here's a short clip of the L2 STS-93 video (over 90meg) that people are speaking about here.

Don't suppose there's a way to listen to that loop during the launch?  :cool:

[Chris Bergin]

Terry Rocket - 8/8/2007  2:33 PM

Chris Bergin - 13/5/2007  1:28 PM

Thanks for the kind words about L2. We're very proud if it and all thanks to the sources.

Here's a short clip of the L2 STS-93 video (over 90meg) that people are speaking about here.

Don't suppose there's a way to listen to that loop during the launch?  :cool:

Sorry, no.

[Carl G]

I'll settle for another video later on

[jcopella]

Maverick - 11/6/2007  12:08 AM

I think anything that shows the MCC guys in the heat of battle is a very good idea. Maybe on from the LCC would be good too!

I don't think the LCC team is quite as crisp as the MCC crew.  Although in fairness to the KSC folks, the MCC guys spend a LOT more time training -- as they should.  The KSC launch team generally has one training run per processing flow (S0044) and then TCDT (S0017 -- which isn't really very effective training, to be quite honest).  I have no idea how many training runs the MCC front room folks do, but I'm sure it's a lot more than one per flow.

[pr1268]

AstroRJY - 23/4/2007  2:38 PM  Right on.  Remember after Challenger exploded, they journalists kept saying the last " command" radioed was "Mission Control telling Commander Scobnee to go to full power".  It's just irritating.   As laste as 2004 there was a documentary, I beleive done by the National Geographic channel that profiled the STS-107 Columbia mission and portrayed it as though "go for auto-sequence start" at T- 31 sec. was actually the astronauts " turning over control" to the computers.  Then when they were showing the launch scenes, the narrator actually said that  mission control "radios the command to go at throttle up.  The  command will boost the shuttle's escape velocity to 7,500 mph.  (They literally said seventy-five hundred...not seventeen thousand, five hundred...) the  speed necessary to reach orbit."  I was yelling at the TV!  Documentarys are supposed to be as accurate as possible,  right?  And we should strive for accuracy here too and help each other fill in gaps.  

Even worse, CNN's scrolling captions across the bottom of the TV screen during the STS-107 coverage stated that "...The Shuttle was traveling 23 times the speed of light when it broke apart..." (emphasis mine).  In CNN's defense, this wasn't a documentary but live TV journalism (which is fast-paced and high-stress from what I gather).

My sincerest condolences to the families of the STS-107 astronauts.

[Rob in KC]

That was a caption writer making a mistake. Happens.

[luke strawwalker]

pr1268 - 5/12/2007  3:26 PM

 

Even worse, CNN's scrolling captions across the bottom of the TV screen during the STS-107 coverage stated that "...The Shuttle was traveling 23 times the speed of light QUOTE]

Gee.... that's almost Warp 5 (Warp 4.79 to be precise Captain)..... OL JR:)

[Captain Scarlet]

Worse was some dumb astronomer on BBC after Columbia, saying they only had one Shuttle left and it was stranded at the ISS!

[ShuttleFan75]

Having seen the MCC video to this on L2, this has to be the most dramatic ascent ever, well apart from 51L

[psloss]

ShuttleFan75 - 13/12/2007  6:08 PM

Having seen the MCC video to this on L2, this has to be the most dramatic ascent ever, well apart from 51L

Don't forget about 51-F.

[violin1238]

All I Know is that I lost a bit of confidence in Columbia's ability to fly after that launch, which I watched on NASA TV.

[MKremer]

violin1238 - 7/2/2008  8:39 PM

All I Know is that I lost a bit of confidence in Columbia's ability to fly after that launch, which I watched on NASA TV.

Why would you think that? The Shuttle main engines have nothing to do with the rest of the orbiter itself, even if an engine has a problem. They are replaced with newly refurbished and tested engines after each mission. The engines aren't a permanant part of any orbiter (much like the FRCS and OMS pods as well).

[Lawntonlookirs]

Flightstar - 8/9/2005  8:48 AM

Tahii - 8/9/2005  5:06 AM

With that first video, they seemed to get the Orbiter Access Arm back to the orbiter very quickly - did they nearly evacuate Columbia?

No, but as safing is in works, that moves in place very fast in case the crew do have to bail.

This is going back to the very begining of this thread shen they had the Shut down of the engines.  A question is how long would it have taken them to evacuate, with no white room crew and straped in?

[Seattle Dave]

They'd have to do their best to get out and then make a dash for the escape buckets.

[Firestarter]

Lawntonlookirs - 21/4/2008  2:49 PM

Flightstar - 8/9/2005  8:48 AM

Tahii - 8/9/2005  5:06 AM

With that first video, they seemed to get the Orbiter Access Arm back to the orbiter very quickly - did they nearly evacuate Columbia?

No, but as safing is in works, that moves in place very fast in case the crew do have to bail.

This is going back to the very begining of this thread shen they had the Shut down of the engines.  A question is how long would it have taken them to evacuate, with no white room crew and straped in?

White room crew is mainly to strap them in. They help strap them out on a scrub, but if there was a big problem, they would evac themselves.

[AndrewSTS]

Anniversary bump.

[JAFO]

Chris Bergin - 26/5/2007  11:35 AM

shuttlepilot - 25/5/2007  8:33 PM

Pete at Edwards - 21/5/2007  6:01 PM

There was one where they were four seconds away from a booster failure, but seperation occured before failure, I once heard.

Please give us source of this information 

I believe it was on a Columbia documentary, as I've heard that too, but never did find out which launch it was.

IIRC, it was STS-8...

Edit: Not sure if that's what Pete is referring to, but the STS-8 incident was noted in a previous thread here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=5659&mid=92025

Broken link.. ..

[catdlr]

The Space Shuttle's Lucky Escape

May 24, 2024
Use code PRIMALSPACE at the link below to get an exclusive 60% off an annual Incogni plan. https://incogni.com/primalspace

Have you ever wondered how sheer luck and miraculous circumstances can save a mission from disaster? In this video, we delve into the Space Shuttle Columbia's treacherous journey, where a fuel leak and electrical failure almost led to catastrophe. Discover how two major problems unexpectedly canceled each other out, allowing the Shuttle to complete its mission against all odds. We'll take you inside the payload bay, explore the engineering challenges, and reveal the tiny objects that caused these huge issues. Be sure to watch until the end to enter our next giveaway and see how this incredible story unfolded!

Short on time? Feel free to skip ahead in this video using the chapter links below.
 
00:00 Space Shuttle Columbia's Lucky Escape
00:50 Space Shuttle Columbia Payload
01:57 Space Shuttle Columbia Launch
04:26 Space Shuttle Columbia Disaster
05:40 The Problem That Saved the Space Shuttle