Space Shuttle Challenger Gold Silver Coin NASA Stars & Stripes Flag Trek Wars UK • £0.99 (2025)

Space Shuttle Challenger Gold Silver Coin NASA Stars & Stripes Flag Trek Wars UK 1 of 3Only 1 left — 3 watchers Space Shuttle Challenger Gold Silver Coin NASA Stars & Stripes Flag Trek Wars UK 2 2 of 3 Space Shuttle Challenger Gold Silver Coin NASA Stars & Stripes Flag Trek Wars UK 3 3 of 3

See More

Seller: anddownthewaterfall ✉️ (35,504) 99.8%, Location: Manchester, Take a Look at My Other Items, GB, Ships to: WORLDWIDE, Item: 316493582440 Space Shuttle Challenger Gold Silver Coin NASA Stars & Stripes Flag Trek Wars UK. April 23, 2024. United StatesIsrael. Decision to launch. The mission was originally scheduled for July 1985, but was delayed to November and then to January 1986. [3]: 10 The mission was scheduled to launch on January 22, but was delayed until January 28. Space Shuttle Challenger Commemorative Coin This is 3D Silver and Gold Plated Space Shuttle Challenger Coin to Commemorate the Disaster As you can see by the photos the coin is 3D layered One side is an image of the white and black Space Shuttle Challenger with its orange booster tank The back has an image of the astronauts in gold plating with their helmets silver plated Behing them is the United States of America Stars and Stripes Flag with the words "The Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster" & "January 28 1986" The coin is 50 mm x 25mm and weights just over 14 grams in Excellent Condition Sorry about the poor quality photos. the coin looks much better in real life Like all my Auctions Bidding starts a a penny with no reserve.. Bid Now Grab a Bargain! Would make an Excellent Gift or Collectable Keepsake Souvenir of very poignant space craft I always combined postage on multiple items and I have a lot of Similar items to this on Ebay so why not > Check out my other space themed items ! Bid with Confidence - Check My 100% Positive Feedback from over 30,000 Satisfied Customers Most of My Auctions Start at a Penny and I always combine postage so please check out my other items ! All Payment Methods in All Major Currencies Accepted. I Specialise in Unique Fun Items So For that Interesting Conversational Piece, A Birthday Present, Christmas Gift, A Comical Item to Cheer Someone Up or That Unique Perfect Gift for the Person Who has Everything....You Know Where to Look for a Bargain! ### PLEASE DO NOT CLICK HERE ### Be sure to add me to your favourites list ! If You Have any Questions Please Message me thru ebay and I Will Reply ASAP All Items Dispatched within 24 hours of Receiving Payment. Thanks for Looking and Best of Luck with the Bidding!! I have sold items to coutries such as Afghanistan * Albania * Algeria * American Samoa (US) * Andorra * Angola * Anguilla (GB) * Antigua and Barbuda * Argentina * Armenia * Aruba (NL) * Australia * Austria * Azerbaijan * Bahamas * Bahrain * Bangladesh * Barbados * Belarus * Belgium * Belize * Benin * Bermuda (GB) * Bhutan * Bolivia * Bonaire (NL) * Bosnia and Herzegovina * Botswana * Bouvet Island (NO) * Brazil * British Indian Ocean Territory (GB) * British Virgin Islands (GB) * Brunei * Bulgaria * Burkina Faso * Burundi * Cambodia * Cameroon * Canada * Cape Verde * Cayman Islands (GB) * Central African Republic * Chad * Chile * China * Christmas Island (AU) * Cocos Islands (AU) * Colombia * Comoros * Congo * Democratic Republic of the Congo * Cook Islands (NZ) * Coral Sea Islands Territory (AU) * Costa Rica * Croatia * Cuba * Curaçao (NL) * Cyprus * Czech Republic * Denmark * Djibouti * Dominica * Dominican Republic * East Timor * Ecuador * Egypt * El Salvador * Equatorial Guinea * Eritrea * Estonia * Ethiopia * Falkland Islands (GB) * Faroe Islands (DK) * Fiji Islands * Finland * France * French Guiana (FR) * French Polynesia (FR) * French Southern Lands (FR) * Gabon * Gambia * Georgia * Germany * Ghana * Gibraltar (GB) * Greece * Greenland (DK) * Grenada * Guadeloupe (FR) * Guam (US) * Guatemala * Guernsey (GB) * Guinea * Guinea-Bissau * Guyana * Haiti * Heard and McDonald Islands (AU) * Honduras * Hong Kong (CN) * Hungary * Iceland * India * Indonesia * Iran * Iraq * Ireland * Isle of Man (GB) * Israel * Italy * Ivory Coast * Jamaica * Jan Mayen (NO) * Japan * Jersey (GB) * Jordan * Kazakhstan * Kenya * Kiribati * Kosovo * Kuwait * Kyrgyzstan * Laos * Latvia * Lebanon * Lesotho * Liberia * Libya * Liechtenstein * Lithuania * Luxembourg * Macau (CN) * Macedonia * Madagascar * Malawi * Malaysia * Maldives * Mali * Malta * Marshall Islands * Martinique (FR) * Mauritania * Mauritius * Mayotte (FR) * Mexico * Micronesia * Moldova * Monaco * Mongolia * Montenegro * Montserrat (GB) * Morocco * Mozambique * Myanmar * Namibia * Nauru * Navassa (US) * Nepal * Netherlands * New Caledonia (FR) * New Zealand * Nicaragua * Niger * Nigeria * Niue (NZ) * Norfolk Island (AU) * North Korea * Northern Cyprus * Northern Mariana Islands (US) * Norway * Oman * Pakistan * Palau * Palestinian Authority * Panama * Papua New Guinea * Paraguay * Peru * Philippines * Pitcairn Island (GB) * Poland * Portugal * Puerto Rico (US) * Qatar * Reunion (FR) * Romania * Russia * Rwanda * Saba (NL) * Saint Barthelemy (FR) * Saint Helena (GB) * Saint Kitts and Nevis * Saint Lucia * Saint Martin (FR) * Saint Pierre and Miquelon (FR) * Saint Vincent and the Grenadines * Samoa * San Marino * Sao Tome and Principe * Saudi Arabia * Senegal * Serbia * Seychelles * Sierra Leone * Singapore * Sint Eustatius (NL) * Sint Maarten (NL) * Slovakia * Slovenia * Solomon Islands * Somalia * South Africa * South Georgia (GB) * South Korea * South Sudan * Spain * Sri Lanka * Sudan * Suriname * Svalbard (NO) * Swaziland * Sweden * Switzerland * Syria * Taiwan * Tajikistan * Tanzania * Thailand * Togo * Tokelau (NZ) * Tonga * Trinidad and Tobago * Tunisia * Turkey * Turkmenistan * Turks and Caicos Islands (GB) * Tuvalu * U.S. Minor Pacific Islands (US) * U.S. Virgin Islands (US) * Uganda * Ukraine * United Arab Emirates * United Kingdom * United States * Uruguay * Uzbekistan * Vanuatu * Vatican City * Venezuela * Vietnam * Wallis and Futuna (FR) * Yemen * Zambia * Zimbabwe and major cities such as Tokyo, Yokohama, New York City, Sao Paulo, Seoul, Mexico City, Osaka, Kobe, Kyoto, Manila, Mumbai, Delhi, Jakarta, Lagos, Kolkata, Cairo, Los Angeles, Buenos Aires, Rio de Janeiro, Moscow, Shanghai, Karachi, Paris, Istanbul, Nagoya, Beijing, Chicago, London, Shenzhen, Essen, Düsseldorf, Tehran, Bogota, Lima, Bangkok, Johannesburg, East Rand, Chennai, Taipei, Baghdad, Santiago, Bangalore, Hyderabad, St Petersburg, Philadelphia, Lahore, Kinshasa, Miami, Ho Chi Minh City, Madrid, Tianjin, Kuala Lumpur, Toronto, Milan, Shenyang, Dallas, Fort Worth, Boston, Belo Horizonte, Khartoum, Riyadh, Singapore, Washington, Detroit, Barcelona,, Houston, Athens, Berlin, Sydney, Atlanta, Guadalajara, San Francisco, Oakland, Montreal, Monterey, Melbourne, Ankara, Recife, Phoenix/Mesa, Durban, Porto Alegre, Dalian, Jeddah, Seattle, Cape Town, San Diego, Fortaleza, Curitiba, Rome, Naples, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Tel Aviv, Birmingham, Frankfurt, Lisbon, Manchester, San Juan, Katowice, Tashkent, Fukuoka, Baku, Sumqayit, St. Louis, Baltimore, Sapporo, Tampa, St. Petersburg, Taichung, Warsaw, Denver, Cologne, Bonn, Hamburg, Dubai, Pretoria, Vancouver, Beirut, Budapest, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Campinas, Harare, Brasilia, Kuwait, Munich, Portland, Brussels, Vienna, San Jose, Damman , Copenhagen, Brisbane, Riverside, San Bernardino, Cincinnati and Accra Space Shuttle Challenger disaster Article Talk Read Edit View history Tools Appearance hide Text Small Standard Large Width Standard Wide Color (beta) Automatic Light Dark Coordinates: 28°38′24″N 80°16′48″W Featured article From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Not to be confused with Space Shuttle Columbia disaster. Space Shuttle Challenger disaster Challenger's solid rocket boosters fly uncontrollably after the breakup of the external tank separated them from the shuttle stack. The remains of the orbiter and tank leave thin white contrails as they fall toward the Atlantic Ocean. Date January 28, 1986; 38 years ago Time 11:39:13 EST (16:39:13 UTC) Location Atlantic Ocean, off the coast of Florida Coordinates 28°38′24″N 80°16′48″W Cause O-ring seal failure in right SRB due to cold weather and wind shear Outcome Loss of Challenger and crew Teacher in Space Project and subsequent civilian shuttle spaceflights cancelled Shuttle fleet grounded for implementation of safety measures Construction of replacement orbiter Endeavour. Deaths F. Richard Scobee, commander Michael J. Smith, pilot Ronald McNair, mission specialist Ellison Onizuka, mission specialist Judith Resnik, mission specialist Gregory Jarvis, payload specialist Christa McAuliffe, payload specialist, teacher Inquiries Rogers Commission Report On January 28, 1986, the Space Shuttle Challenger broke apart 73 seconds into its flight, killing all seven crew members aboard. The spacecraft disintegrated 46,000 feet (14 km) above the Atlantic Ocean, off the coast of Cape Canaveral, Florida, at 11:39 a.m. EST (16:39 UTC). It was the first fatal accident involving an American spacecraft while in flight.[1][2] The mission, designated STS-51-L, was the 10th flight for the orbiter and the 25th flight of the Space Shuttle fleet. The crew was scheduled to deploy a communications satellite and study Halley's Comet while they were in orbit, in addition to taking schoolteacher Christa McAuliffe into space under the Teacher In Space program. The latter task resulted in a higher-than-usual media interest in and coverage of the mission; the launch and subsequent disaster were seen live in many schools across the United States. The cause of the disaster was the failure of the primary and secondary redundant O-ring seals in a joint in the shuttle's right solid rocket booster (SRB). The record-low temperatures on the morning of the launch had stiffened the rubber O-rings, reducing their ability to seal the joints. Shortly after liftoff, the seals were breached, and hot pressurized gas from within the SRB leaked through the joint and burned through the aft attachment strut connecting it to the external propellant tank (ET), then into the tank itself. The collapse of the ET's internal structures and the rotation of the SRB that followed threw the shuttle stack, traveling at a speed of Mach 1.92, into a direction that allowed aerodynamic forces to tear the orbiter apart. Both SRBs detached from the now-destroyed ET and continued to fly uncontrollably until the range safety officer destroyed them. The crew compartment, human remains, and many other fragments from the shuttle were recovered from the ocean floor after a three-month search-and-recovery operation. The exact timing of the deaths of the crew is unknown, but several crew members are thought to have survived the initial breakup of the spacecraft. The orbiter had no escape system, and the impact of the crew compartment at terminal velocity with the ocean surface was too violent to be survivable. The disaster resulted in a 32-month hiatus in the Space Shuttle program. President Ronald Reagan created the Rogers Commission to investigate the accident. The commission criticized NASA's organizational culture and decision-making processes that had contributed to the accident. Test data since 1977 demonstrated a potentially catastrophic flaw in the SRBs' O-rings, but neither NASA nor SRB manufacturer Morton Thiokol had addressed this known defect. NASA managers also disregarded engineers' warnings about the dangers of launching in cold temperatures and did not report these technical concerns to their superiors. As a result of this disaster, NASA established the Office of Safety, Reliability, and Quality Assurance, and arranged for deployment of commercial satellites from expendable launch vehicles rather than from a crewed orbiter. To replace Challenger, the construction of a new Space Shuttle orbiter, Endeavour, was approved in 1987, and the new orbiter first flew in 1992. Subsequent missions were launched with redesigned SRBs and their crews wore pressurized suits during ascent and reentry. Background Space Shuttle Main article: Space Shuttle Space Shuttle Challenger – assembled for launch along with the ET and two SRBs – atop a crawler-transporter en route to the launch pad about one month before the disaster The Space Shuttle was a partially reusable spacecraft operated by the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).[3]: 5, 195 It flew for the first time in April 1981,[4]: III–24 and was used to conduct in-orbit research,[4]: III–188 and deploy commercial,[4]: III–66 military,[4]: III–68 and scientific payloads.[4]: III–148 At launch, it consisted of the orbiter, which contained the crew and payload, the external tank (ET), and the two solid rocket boosters (SRBs).[5]: 363 The orbiter was a reusable, winged vehicle that launched vertically and landed as a glider.[4]: II-1 Five orbiters were built during the Space Shuttle program.[3]: 5 Challenger (OV-099) was the second orbiter constructed after its conversion from a structural test article.[4]: I-455 The orbiter contained the crew compartment, where the crew predominantly lived and worked throughout a mission.[4]: II-5 Three Space Shuttle main engines (SSMEs) were mounted at the aft end of the orbiter and provided thrust during launch.[5]: II-170 Once in space, the crew maneuvered using the two smaller, aft-mounted Orbital Maneuvering System (OMS) engines.[5]: II-79 When it launched, the orbiter was connected to the ET, which held the fuel for the SSMEs.[5]: II-222 The ET consisted of a larger tank for liquid hydrogen (LH2) and a smaller tank for liquid oxygen (LOX), both of which were required for the SSMEs to operate.[5]: II-222, II-226 After its fuel had been expended, the ET separated from the orbiter and reentered the atmosphere, where it would break apart during reentry and its pieces would land in the Indian or Pacific Ocean.[5]: II-238 Two solid rocket boosters (SRBs), built by Morton Thiokol at the time of the disaster,[6]: 9–10 provided the majority of thrust at liftoff. They were connected to the external tank, and burned for the first two minutes of flight.[5]: II-222 The SRBs separated from the orbiter once they had expended their fuel and fell into the Atlantic Ocean under a parachute.[5]: II-289 NASA retrieval teams recovered the SRBs and returned them to the Kennedy Space Center (KSC), where they were disassembled and their components were reused on future flights.[5]: II-292 Each SRB was constructed in four main sections at the factory in Utah and transported to KSC, then assembled in the Vehicle Assembly Building at KSC with three tang-and-clevis field joints, each joint consisting of a tang from the upper segment fitting into the clevis of the lower segment. Each field joint was sealed with two ~20 foot (6 meter) diameter Viton-rubber O-rings around the circumference of the SRB and had a cross-section diameter of 0.280 inches (7.1 mm).[3]: 48 The O-rings were required to contain the hot, high-pressure gases produced by the burning solid propellant and allowed for the SRBs to be rated for crewed missions.[6]: 24 [7]: 420 The two O-rings were configured to create a double bore seal, and the gap between segments was filled with putty. When the motor was running, this configuration was designed to compress air in the gap against the upper O-ring, pressing it against the sealing surfaces of its seat. On the SRB Critical Items List, the O-rings were listed as Criticality 1R, which indicated that an O-ring failure could result in the destruction of the vehicle and loss of life, but it was considered a redundant system due to the secondary O-ring.[3]: 126 O-ring concerns Diagram from the Rogers Commission depicting a cross-section of the solid rocket booster field joint Cross-sectional diagram of the original SRB field joint. The top end of the lower rocket segment has a deep U-shaped cavity, or clevis, along its circumference. The bottom end of the top segment extends to form a tang that fits snugly into the clevis of the bottom segment. Two parallel grooves near the top of the clevis inner branch hold ~20 foot (6 meter) diameter O-rings that seal the gap between the tang and the clevis, keeping hot gases out. Evaluations of the proposed SRB design in the early 1970s and field joint testing showed that the wide tolerances between the mated parts allowed the O-rings to be extruded from their seats rather than compressed. This extrusion was judged to be acceptable by NASA and Morton Thiokol despite concerns of NASA's engineers.[3]: 122–123 [8] A 1977 test showed that up to 0.052 inches (1.3 mm) of joint rotation occurred during the simulated internal pressure of a launch. Joint rotation, which occurred when the tang and clevis bent away from each other, reduced the pressure on the O-rings, which weakened their seals and made it possible for combustion gases to erode the O-rings.[3]: 123–124 NASA engineers suggested that the field joints should be redesigned to include shims around the O-rings, but they received no response.[3]: 124–125 In 1980, the NASA Verification/Certification Committee requested further tests on joint integrity to include testing in the temperature range of 40 to 90 °F (4 to 32 °C) and with only a single O-ring installed. The NASA program managers decided that their current level of testing was sufficient and further testing was not required. In December 1982, the Critical Items List was updated to indicate that the secondary O-ring could not provide a backup to the primary O-ring, as it would not necessarily form a seal in the event of joint rotation. The O-rings were redesignated as Criticality 1, removing the "R" to indicate it was no longer considered a redundant system.[3]: 125–127 [6]: 66 The first occurrence of in-flight O-ring erosion occurred on the right SRB on STS-2 in November 1981.[3]: 126 In August 1984, a post-flight inspection of the left SRB on STS-41-D revealed that soot had blown past the primary O-ring and was found in between the O-rings. Although there was no damage to the secondary O-ring, this indicated that the primary O-ring was not creating a reliable seal and was allowing hot gas to pass. The amount of O-ring erosion was insufficient to prevent the O-ring from sealing, and investigators concluded that the soot between the O-rings resulted from non-uniform pressure at the time of ignition.[3]: 130 [6]: 39–42 The January 1985 launch of STS-51-C was the coldest Space Shuttle launch to date. The air temperature was 62 °F (17 °C) at the time of launch, and the calculated O-ring temperature was 53 °F (12 °C). Post-flight analysis revealed erosion in primary O-rings in both SRBs. Morton Thiokol engineers determined that the cold temperatures caused a loss of flexibility in the O-rings that decreased their ability to seal the field joints, which allowed hot gas and soot to flow past the primary O-ring.[6]: 47 O-ring erosion occurred on all but one (STS-51-J) of the Space Shuttle flights in 1985, and erosion of both the primary and secondary O-rings occurred on STS-51-B.[3]: 131 [6]: 50–52, 63 To correct the issues with O-ring erosion, engineers at Morton Thiokol, led by Allan McDonald and Roger Boisjoly, proposed a redesigned field joint that introduced a metal lip to limit movement in the joint. They also recommended adding a spacer to provide additional thermal protection and using an O-ring with a larger cross section.[6]: 67−69 In July 1985, Morton Thiokol ordered redesigned SRB casings, with the intention of using already-manufactured casings for the upcoming launches until the redesigned cases were available the following year.[6]: 62 Picture of the seven crew members in flight suits and holding their helmets STS-51-L crew: (back) Onizuka, McAuliffe, Jarvis, Resnik; (front) Smith, Scobee, McNair.[9] Mission Main article: STS-51-L The Space Shuttle mission, named STS-51-L, was the twenty-fifth Space Shuttle flight and the tenth flight of Challenger.[3]: 6 The crew was announced on January 27, 1985, and was commanded by Dick Scobee. Michael Smith was assigned as the pilot, and the mission specialists were Ellison Onizuka, Judith Resnik, and Ronald McNair. The two payload specialists were Gregory Jarvis, who was assigned to conduct research for the Hughes Aircraft Company, and Christa McAuliffe, who flew as part of the Teacher in Space Project.[3]: 10–13 The primary mission of the Challenger crew was to use an Inertial Upper Stage (IUS) to deploy a Tracking and Data Relay Satellite (TDRS), named TDRS-B, that would have been part of a constellation to enable constant communication with orbiting spacecraft. The crew also planned to study Halley's Comet as it passed near the Sun,[4]: III-76 and deploy and retrieve a SPARTAN satellite.[10] The mission was originally scheduled for July 1985, but was delayed to November and then to January 1986.[3]: 10 The mission was scheduled to launch on January 22, but was delayed until January 28.[11] Decision to launch The air temperature on January 28 was predicted to be a record low for a Space Shuttle launch.[6]: 47, 101 The air temperature was forecast to drop to 18 °F (−8 °C) overnight before rising to 22 °F (−6 °C) at 6:00 a.m. and 26 °F (−3 °C) at the scheduled launch time of 9:38 a.m.[3]: 87 [6]: 96 Based upon O-ring erosion that had occurred in warmer launches, Morton Thiokol engineers were concerned over the effect the record-cold temperatures would have on the seal provided by the SRB O-rings for the launch.[6]: 101–103 Cecil Houston, the manager of the KSC office of the Marshall Space Flight Center, set up a conference call on the evening of January 27 to discuss the safety of the launch. Morton Thiokol engineers expressed their concerns about the effect of low temperatures on the resilience of the rubber O-rings. As the colder temperatures lowered the elasticity of the rubber O-rings, the engineers feared that the O-rings would not be extruded to form a seal at the time of launch.[6]: 97–99 [12] The engineers argued that they did not have enough data to determine whether the O-rings would seal at temperatures colder than 53 °F (12 °C), the coldest launch of the Space Shuttle to date.[6]: 105–106 Morton Thiokol employees Robert Lund, the Vice President of Engineering, and Joe Kilminster, the Vice President of the Space Booster Programs, recommended against launching until the temperature was above 53 °F (12 °C).[3]: 107–108 The underside of the orbiter wing and the SRB behind the structure of the service tower. The service tower has numerous icicles. Ice on the launch tower hours before Challenger launch The teleconference held a recess to allow for private discussion amongst Morton Thiokol management. When it resumed, Morton Thiokol leadership had changed their opinion and stated that the evidence presented on the failure of the O-rings was inconclusive and that there was a substantial margin in the event of a failure or erosion. They stated that their decision was to proceed with the launch. Morton Thiokol leadership submitted a recommendation for launch, and the teleconference ended.[3]: 97, 109 Lawrence Mulloy, the NASA SRB project manager,[6]: 3 called Arnold Aldrich, the NASA Mission Management Team Leader, to discuss the launch decision and weather concerns, but did not mention the O-ring discussion; the two agreed to proceed with the launch.[3]: 99 [6]: 116 An overnight measurement taken by the KSC Ice Team recorded the left SRB was 25 °F (−4 °C) and the right SRB was 8 °F (−13 °C).[3]: 111 These measurements were recorded for engineering data and not reported, because the temperature of the SRBs was not part of the Launch Commit Criteria.[6]: 118 In addition to its effect on the O-rings, the cold temperatures caused ice to form on the fixed service structure. To keep pipes from freezing, water was slowly run from the system; it could not be entirely drained because of the upcoming launch. As a result, ice formed from 240 feet (73 m) down in the freezing temperatures. Engineers at Rockwell International, which manufactured the orbiter, were concerned that ice would be violently thrown during launch and could potentially damage the orbiter's thermal protection system or be aspirated into one of the engines. Rocco Petrone, the head of Rockwell's space transportation division, and his team determined that the potential damage from ice made the mission unsafe to fly. Arnold Aldrich consulted with engineers at KSC and the Johnson Space Center (JSC) who advised him that ice did not threaten the safety of the orbiter, and he decided to proceed with the launch.[3]: 115–118 The launch was delayed for an additional hour to allow more ice to melt. The ice team performed an inspection at T–20 minutes which indicated that the ice was melting, and Challenger was cleared to launch at 11:38 a.m. EST, with an air temperature of 36 °F (2 °C).[3]: 17 Launch and failure Further information: Timeline of the STS-51-L mission Liftoff and initial ascent The Space Shuttle immediately following liftoff, from the viewpoint near the right SRB. Gray smoke is apparent around the SRB. Gray smoke escaping from the right-side solid rocket booster At T+0, Challenger launched from the Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39B (LC-39B) at 11:38:00 a.m.[3]: 17 [4]: III–76 Beginning at T+0.678 until T+3.375 seconds, nine puffs of dark gray smoke were recorded escaping from the right-hand SRB near the aft strut that attached the booster to the ET.[3]: 19 [4]: III-93 It was later determined that these smoke puffs were caused by joint rotation in the aft field joint of the right-hand SRB at ignition.[6]: 136 The cold temperature in the joint had prevented the O-rings from creating a seal. Rainfall from the preceding time on the launchpad had likely accumulated within the field joint, further compromising the sealing capability of the O-rings. As a result, hot gas was able to travel past the O-rings and erode them. Molten aluminum oxides from the burned propellant resealed the joint and created a temporary barrier against further hot gas and flame escaping through the field joint.[6]: 142 The Space Shuttle main engines (SSMEs) were throttled down as scheduled for maximum dynamic pressure (max q).[4]: III–8–9 [13] During its ascent, the Space Shuttle encountered wind shear conditions beginning at T+37, but they were within design limits of the vehicle and were countered by the guidance system.[3]: 20 Plume Space Shuttle challenger in-flight with an anomalous plume of fire from the side of its right solid rocket booster Plume on right SRB at T+58.788 seconds At T+58.788, a tracking film camera captured the beginnings of a plume near the aft attach strut on the right SRB, right before the vehicle passed through max q at T+59.000.[13] The high aerodynamic forces and wind shear likely broke the aluminum oxide seal that had replaced eroded O-rings, allowing the flame to burn through the joint.[6]: 142 Within one second from when it was first recorded, the plume became well-defined, and the enlarging hole caused a drop in internal pressure in the right SRB. A leak had begun in the liquid hydrogen (LH2) tank of the ET at T+64.660, as indicated by the changing shape of the plume. The SSMEs pivoted to compensate for the booster burn-through, which was creating an unexpected thrust on the vehicle. The pressure in the external LH2 tank began to drop at T+66.764 indicating that the flame had burned from the SRB into the tank. The crew and flight controllers made no indication they were aware of the vehicle and flight anomalies. At T+68, the CAPCOM, Richard O. Covey, told the crew, "Challenger, go at throttle up," indicating that the SSMEs had throttled up to 104% thrust.[note 1] In response to Covey, Scobee said, "Roger, go at throttle up"; this was the last communication from Challenger on the air-to-ground loop.[13] Vehicle breakup Challenger is enveloped in flaming liquid propellant after rupture of the liquid oxygen tank At T+72.284, the right SRB pulled away from the aft strut that attached it to the ET, causing lateral acceleration that was felt by the crew. At the same time, pressure in the LH2 tank began dropping. Pilot Mike Smith said "Uh-oh," which was the last crew comment recorded. At T+73.124, white vapor was seen flowing away from the ET, after which the aft dome of the LH2 tank fell off. The resulting release of all liquid hydrogen in the tank pushed the LH2 tank forward into the liquid oxygen (LOX) tank with a force equating to roughly 3,000,000 pounds-force (13 meganewtons), while the right SRB collided with the intertank structure. These events resulted in an abrupt change to the shuttle stack's attitude and direction,[15] which was shrouded from view by the vaporized contents of the now-destroyed ET. As it traveled at Mach 1.92, Challenger took aerodynamic forces it was not designed to withstand and broke into several large pieces: a wing, the (still firing) main engines, the crew cabin and hypergolic fuel leaking from the ruptured reaction control system were among the parts identified exiting the vapor cloud. The disaster unfolded at an altitude of 46,000 feet (14 km).[13][3]: 21 Both SRBs survived the breakup of the shuttle stack and continued flying, now unguided by the attitude and trajectory control of their mothership, until their flight termination systems were activated at T+110.[3]: 30 Post-breakup flight controller dialogue View along the computers banks in the mission control center and a flight controller sitting in front of a terminal Jay Greene after Challenger's breakup At T+73.191, there was a burst of static on the air-to-ground loop as the vehicle broke up, which was later attributed to ground-based radios searching for a signal from the destroyed spacecraft. NASA Public Affairs Officer Steve Nesbitt was initially unaware of the explosion and continued to read out flight information. At T+89, after video of the explosion was seen in Mission Control, the Ground Control Officer reported "negative contact (and) loss of downlink" as they were no longer receiving transmissions from Challenger.[13] Nesbitt stated, "Flight controllers here are looking very carefully at the situation. Obviously a major malfunction. We have no downlink." Soon afterwards, he said, "We have a report from the Flight Dynamics Officer that the vehicle has exploded. The flight director confirms that. We are looking at checking with the recovery forces to see what can be done at this point."[13] In Mission Control, flight director Jay Greene ordered that contingency procedures be put into effect,[13] which included locking the doors, shutting down telephone communications, and freezing computer terminals to collect data from them.[6]: 122 Cause and time of death A trapezoidal gray section of the shuttle among several plumes of smoke and vapor against the blue sky The forward section of the fuselage after breakup, indicated by the arrow The crew cabin, which was made of reinforced aluminum, separated in one piece from the rest of the orbiter.[15] It then traveled in a ballistic arc, reaching the apogee of 65,000 feet (20 km) approximately 25 seconds after the explosion. At the time of separation, the maximum acceleration is estimated to have been between 12 and 20 times that of gravity (g). Within two seconds it had dropped below 4 g, and within ten seconds the cabin was in free fall. The forces involved at this stage were probably insufficient to cause major injury to the crew.[16] At least some of the crew were alive and conscious after the breakup, as Personal Egress Air Packs (PEAPs) were activated for Smith[17]: 246 and two unidentified crewmembers, but not for Scobee.[16] The PEAPs were not intended for in-flight use, and the astronauts never trained with them for an in-flight emergency. The location of Smith's activation switch, on the back side of his seat, indicated that either Resnik or Onizuka likely activated it for him. Investigators found their remaining unused air supply consistent with the expected consumption during the post-breakup trajectory.[17]: 245–247 While analyzing the wreckage, investigators discovered that several electrical system switches on Smith's right-hand panel had been moved from their usual launch positions. The switches had lever locks on top of them that must be pulled out before the switch could be moved. Later tests established that neither the force of the explosion nor the impact with the ocean could have moved them, indicating that Smith made the switch changes, presumably in a futile attempt to restore electrical power to the cockpit after the crew cabin detached from the rest of the orbiter.[17]: 245 On July 28, 1986, NASA's Associate Administrator for Space Flight, former astronaut Richard H. Truly, released a report on the deaths of the crew from physician and Skylab 2 astronaut Joseph P. Kerwin:[16] The findings are inconclusive. The impact of the crew compartment with the ocean surface was so violent that evidence of damage occurring in the seconds which followed the disintegration was masked. Our final conclusions are: the cause of death of the Challenger astronauts cannot be positively determined; the forces to which the crew were exposed during Orbiter breakup were probably not sufficient to cause death or serious injury; and the crew possibly, but not certainly, lost consciousness in the seconds following Orbiter breakup due to in-flight loss of crew module pressure.[16] Pressurization could have enabled consciousness for the entire fall until impact. The crew cabin hit the ocean surface at 207 mph (333 km/h) approximately two minutes and 45 seconds after breakup. The estimated deceleration was 200 g, far exceeding structural limits of the crew compartment or crew survivability levels. The mid-deck floor had not suffered buckling or tearing, as would result from a rapid decompression, but stowed equipment showed damage consistent with decompression, and debris was embedded between the two forward windows that may have caused a loss of pressure. Impact damage to the crew cabin was severe enough that it could not be determined whether the crew cabin had previously been damaged enough to lose pressurization.[16] Prospect of crew escape Further information: Shuttle ejection escape systems, Post-Challenger abort enhancements Unlike other spacecraft, the Space Shuttle did not allow for crew escape during powered flight. Launch escape systems had been considered during development, but NASA's conclusion was that the Space Shuttle's expected high reliability would preclude the need for one.[3]: 181 Modified SR-71 Blackbird ejection seats and full pressure suits were used for the two-person crews on the first four Space Shuttle orbital test flights, but they were disabled and later removed for the operational flights.[4]: II-7 Escape options for the operational flights were considered but not implemented due to their complexity, high cost, and heavy weight.[3]: 181 After the disaster, a system was implemented to allow the crew to escape in gliding flight, but this system would not have been usable to escape an explosion during ascent.[18] Recovery of debris and crew Immediately after the disaster, the NASA Launch Recovery Director launched the two SRB recovery ships, MV Freedom Star and MV Liberty Star, to proceed to the impact area to recover debris, and requested the support of US military aircraft and ships. Owing to falling debris from the explosion, the RSO kept recovery forces from the impact area until 12:37 p.m. The size of the recovery operations increased to 12 aircraft and 8 ships by 7:00 p.m. Surface operations recovered debris from the orbiter and external tank. The surface recovery operations ended on February 7.[19] On January 31, the US Navy was tasked with submarine recovery operations.[20]: 5 The search efforts prioritized the recovery of the right SRB, followed by the crew compartment, and then the remaining payload, orbiter pieces, and ET.[20]: 16 The search for debris formally began on February 8 with the rescue and salvage ship USS Preserver, and eventually grew to sixteen ships, of which three were managed by NASA, four by the US Navy, one by the US Air Force and eight by independent contractors.[20]: 4–5 The surface ships used side-scan sonar to make the initial search for debris and covered 486 square nautical miles (1,670 km2) at water depths between 70 feet (21 m) and 1,200 feet (370 m).[20]: 24 The sonar operations discovered 881 potential locations for debris, of which 187 pieces were later confirmed to be from the orbiter.[20]: 24 The field joint of a solid rocket booster on the deck of a ship with a large hole in it Right SRB debris showing the hole caused by the plume The debris from the SRBs was widely distributed due to the detonation of their linear shaped charges. The identification of SRB material was primarily conducted by crewed submarines and submersibles. The vehicles were dispatched to investigate potential debris located during the search phase.[20]: 32 Surface ships lifted the SRB debris with the help of technical divers and underwater remotely operated vehicles to attach the necessary slings to raise the debris with cranes.[20]: 37, 42 The solid propellant in the SRBs posed a risk, as it became more volatile after being submerged. Recovered portions of the SRBs were kept wet during recovery, and their unused propellant was ignited once they were brought ashore. The failed joint on the right SRB was first located on sonar on March 1. Subsequent dives to 560 ft (170 m) by the NR-1 submarine on April 5 and the SEA-LINK I submersible on April 12 confirmed that it was the damaged field joint,[20]: 42 and it was successfully recovered on April 13. Of the 196,726 lb (89,233 kg) of both SRB shells, 102,500 lb (46,500 kg) was recovered, another 54,000 lb (24,000 kg) was found but not recovered, and 40,226 lb (18,246 kg) was never found.[20]: 44 On March 7, Air Force divers identified potential crew compartment debris, which was confirmed the next day by divers from the USS Preserver.[20]: 51 [21] The damage to the crew compartment indicated that it had remained largely intact during the initial explosion but was extensively damaged when it impacted the ocean.[19] The remains of the crew were badly damaged from impact and submersion, and were not intact bodies.[22] The USS Preserver made multiple trips to return debris and remains to port, and continued crew compartment recovery until April 4.[20]: 51 During the recovery of the remains of the crew, Jarvis's body floated away and was not located until April 15, several weeks after the other remains had been positively identified.[21][23] Once remains were brought to port, pathologists from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology worked to identify the human remains, but could not determine the exact cause of death for any of them.[22][16] Medical examiners in Brevard County disputed the legality of transferring human remains to US military officials to conduct autopsies, and refused to issue the death certificates; NASA officials ultimately released the death certificates of the crew members.[24] The IUS that would have been used to boost the orbit of the TDRS-B satellite was one of the first pieces of debris recovered.[20]: 51 There was no indication that there had been premature ignition of the IUS, which had been one of the suspected causes for the disaster.[3]: 50 Debris from the three SSMEs was recovered from February 14 to 28,[20]: 51 and post-recovery analysis produced results consistent with functional engines suddenly losing their LH2 fuel supply.[19] Deepwater recovery operations continued until April 29, with smaller scale, shallow recovery operations continuing until August 29.[20]: 51 On December 17, 1996, two pieces of the orbiter were found at Cocoa Beach.[25] On November 10, 2022, NASA announced that a 20-foot (6 m) piece of the shuttle had been found near the site of a destroyed World War II-era aircraft off the coast of Florida.[26][27][28][29][30] The discovery was aired on the History Channel on November 22, 2022.[31] Almost all recovered non-organic debris from Challenger is buried in Cape Canaveral Space Force Station missile silos at LC-31 and LC-32.[32] Funeral ceremonies On April 29, 1986, the astronauts' remains were transferred on a C-141 Starlifter aircraft from Kennedy Space Center to the military mortuary at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware. Their caskets were each draped with an American flag and carried past an honor guard and followed by an astronaut escort.[33] After the remains arrived at Dover Air Force Base, they were transferred to the families of the crew members.[33] Scobee and Smith were buried at Arlington National Cemetery.[34] Onizuka was buried at the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific in Honolulu, Hawaii.[35] McNair was buried in Rest Lawn Memorial Park in Lake City, South Carolina,[36] but his remains were later moved within the town to the Dr. Ronald E. McNair Memorial Park.[37][38] Resnik was cremated and her ashes were scattered over the water.[39] McAuliffe was buried at Calvary Cemetery in Concord, New Hampshire.[40] Jarvis was cremated, and his ashes were scattered in the Pacific Ocean.[41] Unidentified crew remains were buried at the Space Shuttle Challenger Memorial in Arlington on May 20, 1986.[34] Public response White House response Duration: 4 minutes and 19 seconds.4:19Subtitles available.CC President Ronald Reagan's Speech on Space Shuttle Challenger, January 28, 1986 President Ronald Reagan had been scheduled to give the 1986 State of the Union Address on January 28, 1986, the evening of the Challenger disaster. After a discussion with his aides, Reagan postponed the State of the Union, and instead addressed the nation about the disaster from the Oval Office.[42][43] On January 31, Ronald and Nancy Reagan traveled to the Johnson Space Center to speak at a memorial service honoring the crew members. During the ceremony, an Air Force band sang "God Bless America" as NASA T-38 Talon jets flew directly over the scene in the traditional missing-man formation.[44] A group of spectators at a funeral President Reagan and First Lady Nancy Reagan (left) at the memorial service on January 31, 1986 Soon after the disaster, US politicians expressed concern that White House officials, including Chief of Staff Donald Regan and Communications Director Pat Buchanan, had pressured NASA to launch Challenger before the scheduled January 28 State of the Union address, because Reagan had planned to mention the launch in his remarks.[45][46] In March 1986, the White House released a copy of the original State of the Union speech. In that speech, Reagan had intended to mention an X-ray experiment launched on Challenger and designed by a guest he had invited to the address, but he did not further discuss the Challenger launch.[46][47] In the rescheduled State of the Union address on February 4, Reagan mentioned the deceased Challenger crew members and modified his remarks about the X-ray experiment as "launched and lost".[48] In April 1986, the White House released a report that concluded there had been no pressure from the White House for NASA to launch Challenger prior to the State of the Union.[45] Media coverage Nationally televised live coverage of the launch and explosion was provided by CNN.[49] To promote the Teacher in Space program with McAuliffe as a crewmember, NASA had arranged for many students in the US to view the launch live at school with their teachers.[49][50] Other networks, such as CBS, soon cut in to their affiliate feeds to broadcast continuous coverage of the disaster and its aftermath.[51] Press interest in the disaster increased in the following days; the number of reporters at KSC increased from 535 on the day of the launch to 1,467 reporters three days later.[52] In the aftermath of the accident, NASA was criticized for not making key personnel available to the press.[53] In the absence of information, the press published articles suggesting the external tank was the cause of the explosion.[52][54] Until 2010, CNN's live broadcast of the launch and disaster was the only known on-location video footage from within range of the launch site. Additional amateur and professional recordings have since become publicly available.[55][56][57] Engineering case study The Challenger accident has been used as a case study for subjects such as engineering safety, the ethics of whistleblowing, communications and group decision-making, and the dangers of groupthink.[58] Roger Boisjoly and Allan McDonald became speakers who advocated for responsible workplace decision making and engineering ethics.[12][59] Information designer Edward Tufte has argued that the Challenger accident was the result of poor communications and overly complicated explanations on the part of engineers, and stated that showing the correlation of ambient air temperature and O-ring erosion amounts would have been sufficient to communicate the potential dangers of the cold-weather launch. Boisjoly contested this assertion and stated that the data presented by Tufte were not as simple or available as Tufte stated.[60] Reports Rogers Commission Report Main article: Rogers Commission Report The Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident, also known as the Rogers Commission after its chairman, was formed on February 6.[3]: 206 Its members were Chairman William P. Rogers, Vice Chairman Neil Armstrong, David Acheson, Eugene Covert, Richard Feynman, Robert Hotz, Donald Kutyna, Sally Ride, Robert Rummel, Joseph Sutter, Arthur Walker, Albert Wheelon, and Chuck Yeager.[3]: iii–iv The commission held hearings that discussed the NASA accident investigation, the Space Shuttle program, and the Morton Thiokol recommendation to launch despite O-ring safety issues. On February 15, Rogers released a statement that established the commission's changing role to investigate the accident independent of NASA due to concerns of the failures of the internal processes at NASA. The commission created four investigative panels to research the different aspects of the mission. The Accident Analysis Panel, chaired by Kutyna, used data from salvage operations and testing to determine the exact cause behind the accident. The Development and Production Panel, chaired by Sutter, investigated the hardware contractors and how they interacted with NASA. The Pre-Launch Activities Panel, chaired by Acheson, focused on the final assembly processes and pre-launch activities conducted at KSC. The Mission Planning and Operations Panel, chaired by Ride, investigated the planning that went into mission development, along with potential concerns over crew safety and pressure to adhere to a schedule. Over a period of four months, the commission interviewed over 160 individuals, held at least 35 investigative sessions, and involved more than 6,000 NASA employees, contractors, and support personnel.[3]: 206−208 The commission published its report on June 6, 1986.[3]: iii–iv Black-and-white photo of a group of individuals at the Kennedy Space Center with the rocket garden behind them Members of the Rogers Commission arrive at Kennedy Space Center The commission determined that the cause of the accident was hot gas blowing past the O-rings in the field joint on the right SRB, and found no other potential causes for the disaster.[3]: 71 It attributed the accident to a faulty design of the field joint that was unacceptably sensitive to changes in temperature, dynamic loading, and the character of its materials.[3]: 71 The report was critical of NASA and Morton Thiokol, and emphasized that both organizations had overlooked evidence that indicated the potential danger with the SRB field joints. It noted that NASA accepted the risk of O-ring erosion without evaluating how it could potentially affect the safety of a mission.[3]: 149 The commission concluded that the safety culture and management structure at NASA were insufficient to properly report, analyze, and prevent flight issues.[3]: 162 It stated that the pressure to increase the rate of flights negatively affected the amount of training, quality control, and repair work that was available for each mission.[3]: 177 The commission published a series of recommendations to improve the safety of the Space Shuttle program. It proposed a redesign of the joints in the SRB that would prevent gas from blowing past the O-rings. It also recommended that the program's management be restructured to keep project managers from being pressured to adhere to unsafe organizational deadlines, and should include astronauts to address crew safety concerns better. It proposed that an office for safety be established reporting directly to the NASA administrator to oversee all safety, reliability, and quality assurance functions in NASA programs. Additionally, the commission addressed issues with overall safety and maintenance for the orbiter, and it recommended the addition of the means for the crew to escape during controlled gliding flight.[3]: 198–200 During a televised hearing on February 11, Feynman demonstrated the loss of rubber's elasticity in cold temperatures using a glass of cold water and a piece of rubber, for which he received media attention. Feynman, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, advocated for harsher criticism towards NASA in the report and repeatedly disagreed with Rogers. He threatened to remove his name from the report unless it included his personal observations on reliability, which appeared as Appendix F.[61][62] In the appendix, he lauded the engineering and software accomplishments in the program's development, but he argued that multiple components, including the avionics and SSMEs in addition to the SRBs, were more dangerous and accident-prone than original NASA estimates had indicated.[62][63] US House Committee report The US House Committee on Science and Technology conducted an investigation of the Challenger disaster and released a report on October 29, 1986.[64]: i The committee, which had authorized the funding for the Space Shuttle program, reviewed the findings of the Rogers Commission as part of its investigation. The committee agreed with the Rogers Commission that the failed SRB field joint was the cause of the accident, and that NASA and Morton Thiokol failed to act despite numerous warnings of the potential dangers of the SRB. The committee's report further emphasized safety considerations of other components and recommended a risk management review for all critical systems.[64]: 2–5 NASA response SRB redesign In response to the commission's recommendation, NASA initiated a redesign of the SRB, later named the redesigned solid rocket motor (RSRM), which was supervised by an independent oversight group.[3]: 198 [4]: III-101 [65] The redesigned joint included a capture feature on the tang around the interior wall of the clevis to prevent joint rotation. The space between the capture feature and the clevis was sealed with another O-ring. The capture feature reduced the potential of joint rotation to 15% of that which had occurred during the disaster. Should joint rotation occur, any rotation that reduced the O-ring seal on one side of the clevis wall would increase it on the other side. Additionally, heaters were installed to maintain consistent, higher temperatures of the O-rings.[6]: 429–430 The RSRM was first tested on August 30, 1987. In April and August 1988, the RSRM was tested with intentional flaws that allowed hot gas to penetrate the field joint. These tests permitted the engineers to evaluate whether the improved field joint prevented joint rotation. Following the successful tests, the RSRM was certified to fly on the Space Shuttle.[4]: III-101 Space Shuttle modifications In addition to the SRBs, NASA increased the safety standards on other Space Shuttle program components. The critical items lists and failure modes for the SSMEs were updated, along with 18 hardware changes. The maximum thrust of the SSMEs was limited to 104%, with 109% only allowed in an abort scenario.[4]: II-172 The landing gear was updated to improve its steering and handling abilities while the Space Shuttle was landing.[4]: III-101 NASA implemented an escape option in which the astronauts would jettison the side hatch and extend a pole out of the orbiter; they would slide down the pole to avoid hitting the orbiter as bailed out before they activated their parachutes. The orbiter's software was modified to maintain stable flight while all of the flight crew left the controls to escape.[4]: III-103 This escape method would not have saved the crew in the Challenger disaster, but was added in the event of another emergency.[4]: III-102 Safety office In 1986 NASA created a new Office of Safety, Reliability, and Quality Assurance, headed by a NASA associate administrator who reported directly to the NASA administrator, as the commission had specified.[3]: 199 [18][66][67] Former Challenger flight director Greene became chief of the Safety Division of the directorate.[68] After the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster in 2003, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) concluded that NASA had not set up a "truly independent" office for safety oversight.[69]: 178–180 The CAIB concluded that the ineffective safety culture that had resulted in the Challenger accident was also responsible for the subsequent disaster.[69]: 195 Teacher in Space The Teacher in Space program, which McAuliffe had been selected for, was canceled in 1990 as a result of the Challenger disaster. In 1998, NASA replaced Teacher in Space with the Educator Astronaut Project, which differed in that it required the teachers to become professional astronauts trained as mission specialists, rather than short-term payload specialists who would return to their classrooms following their spaceflight. Barbara Morgan, who had been the backup teacher for McAuliffe, was selected to be part of NASA Astronaut Group 17 and flew on STS-118.[4]: III-116 Return to flight Further information: Space Shuttle program and STS-26 The projected launch schedule of 24 per year was criticized by the Rogers Commission as an unrealistic goal that created unnecessary pressure on NASA to launch missions.[3]: 165 In August 1986, President Reagan approved the construction of an orbiter, which would later be named Endeavour, to replace Challenger. Construction of Endeavour began in 1987 and was completed in 1990, and it first flew on STS-49 in May 1992.[70] He also announced that the program would no longer carry commercial satellite payloads, and that these would be launched using commercial expendable launch vehicles.[71] These commercial payloads were reallocated from the Space Shuttle program to end the dependence on a single launch vehicle and limit the pressure on NASA to launch crewed missions to satisfy its customers.[72] The Space Shuttle fleet was grounded for two years and eight months while the program underwent investigation, redesign, and restructuring. On September 29, 1988, Discovery launched on STS-26 mission from LC-39B with a crew of five veteran astronauts.[73] Its payload was TDRS-3, which was a substitute for the satellite lost with Challenger. The launch tested the redesigned boosters, and the crew wore pressure suits during the ascent and reentry. The mission was a success, and the program resumed flying.[74] Legacy A portion of the Challenger's fuselage hanging vertically, displaying the American flag. Fragment of Challenger's fuselage on display at the Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex In 2004, President George W. Bush conferred posthumous Congressional Space Medals of Honor to all 14 crew members killed in the Challenger and Columbia accidents.[75] An unpainted decorative oval in the Brumidi Corridors of the United States Capitol was finished with a portrait depicting the crew by Charles Schmidt in 1987. The scene was painted on canvas and then applied to the wall.[76] The "Forever Remembered" exhibit at the Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex opened in July 2015 and includes a display of a 12-foot (3.7 m) section of Challenger's recovered fuselage. The exhibit was opened by NASA Administrator Charles Bolden along with family members of the crew.[4]: III-97 A tree for each astronaut was planted in NASA's Astronaut Memorial Grove at the Johnson Space Center, along with trees for each astronaut from the Apollo 1 and Columbia disasters.[77] Seven asteroids were named after the crew members: 3350 Scobee, 3351 Smith, 3352 McAuliffe, 3353 Jarvis, 3354 McNair, 3355 Onizuka, and 3356 Resnik. The approved naming citation was published by the Minor Planet Center on March 26, 1986 (M.P.C. 10550).[78] In 1988, seven craters on the far side of the Moon, within the Apollo Basin, were named after the astronauts by the IAU.[79] The Soviet Union named two craters on Venus after McAuliffe and Resnik.[80] The landing site of the Opportunity Mars rover was named Challenger Memorial Station.[81] Plaque at TRW's Space Park honoring the Challenger crew. Its maiden flight and this final one had carried their TDRS satellites. Several memorials have been established in honor of the Challenger disaster. The public Peers Park in Palo Alto, California, features the Challenger Memorial Grove including redwood trees grown from seeds carried aboard Challenger in 1985.[82] Schools and streets have been renamed to include the names of the crew or Challenger.[83][84][85] In 1990, a 1/10 scale replica of Challenger in liftoff position was erected in Little Tokyo district of Los Angeles, California.[86] Challenger Point is a mountain peak of the Sangre de Cristo Range.[87] The McAuliffe-Shepard Discovery Center, a science museum and planetarium in Concord, New Hampshire, is named in honor of McAuliffe, a Concord High School teacher, and Alan Shepard, who was from Derry, New Hampshire.[88] The crew's families established the Challenger Center for Space Science Education as an educational non-profit organization.[89] An American flag, later named the Challenger flag, was carried aboard the Challenger. It was sponsored by Boy Scout Troop 514 of Monument, Colorado, and was recovered intact, still sealed in its plastic container.[90] Onizuka had included a soccer ball with his personal effects that was recovered and later flown to the International Space Station aboard Soyuz Expedition 49 by American astronaut Shane Kimbrough. It is on display at Clear Lake High School in Houston, which was attended by Onizuka's children.[91] The 1986 motion picture Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home was dedicated to the crew of the Challenger with an opening message which stated "The cast and crew of Star Trek wish to dedicate this film to the men and women of the spaceship Challenger whose courageous spirit shall live to the 23rd century and beyond..."[92] In media Books In the years immediately after the Challenger disaster, several books were published describing the factors and causes of the accident and the subsequent investigation and changes. In 1987, Malcolm McConnell, a journalist and a witness of the disaster, published Challenger–A Major Malfunction: A True Story of Politics, Greed, and the Wrong Stuff. McConnell's book was criticized for arguing for a conspiracy involving NASA Administrator Fletcher awarding the contract to Morton Thiokol because it was from his home state of Utah.[6]: 588 [93] The book Prescription for Disaster: From the Glory of Apollo to the Betrayal of the Shuttle by Joseph Trento was also published in 1987, arguing that the Space Shuttle program had been a flawed and politicized program from its inception.[6]: 588–589 [94] In 1988, Feynman's memoir, "What Do You Care What Other People Think?": Further Adventures of a Curious Character, was published. The latter half of the book discusses his involvement in the Rogers Commission and his relationship with Kutyna.[6]: 594 [95] Books were published long after the disaster. In 1996, Diane Vaughan published The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA, which argues that NASA's structure and mission, rather than just Space Shuttle program management, created a climate of risk acceptance that resulted in the disaster.[6]: 591–592 [96] Also in 1996, Claus Jensen published No Downlink: A Dramatic Narrative About the Challenger Accident and Our Time that primarily discusses the development of rocketry prior to the disaster, and was criticized for its reliance on secondary sources with little original research conducted for the book.[6]: 592 [97] In 2009, Allan McDonald published his memoir written with space historian James Hansen, Truth, Lies, and O-Rings: Inside the Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster, which focuses on his personal involvement in the launch, disaster, investigation, and return to flight, and is critical of NASA and Morton Thiokol leadership for agreeing to launch Challenger despite engineers' warnings about the O-rings.[98][6][99][100] Film and television The ABC television movie titled Challenger was broadcast on February 25, 1990.[101] It stars Barry Bostwick as Scobee and Karen Allen as McAuliffe. The movie is critical of NASA and positively portrays the engineers who argued against launching. The movie was criticized by the widows of Smith, McNair, and Onizuka as an inaccurate portrayal of events.[102] A BBC docudrama titled The Challenger Disaster was broadcast on March 18, 2013. It starred William Hurt as Feynman and portrayed the investigation into the causes of the disaster.[103] A film directed by Nathan VonMinden, The Challenger Disaster, was released on January 25, 2019, depicts fictional characters participating in the decision process to launch.[104] The four-part docuseries Challenger: The Final Flight, created by Steven Leckart and Glen Zipper, was released by Netflix on September 16, 2020. It uses interviews with NASA and Morton Thiokol personnel to argue against their flawed decision-making which produced a preventable disaster.[105] The first episode of the Australian television drama The Newsreader, broadcast on August 15, 2021, depicts the disaster from the perspective of the television industry, specifically the journalists and crew within, and of, an Australian television newsroom at the time; a co-lead character's hosting of a newsflash weaving in with an overarching background storyline about the shift in news presentation from serious to that of allowing emotion into its delivery.[106] The first episode of Season 6 of the television drama series This Is Us, titled "The Challenger"[107] features the incident of the explosion in 1986 in the flashback scenes. See also Spaceflight portal flag United States portal flag Florida portal icon 1980s portal Criticism of the Space Shuttle program Normalization of deviance Engineering disasters List of spaceflight-related accidents and incidents PEPCON disaster Notes The RS-25 engines had several improvements to enhance reliability and power. During the development program, Rocketdyne determined that the engine was capable of safe, reliable operation at 104% of the originally specified thrust. To keep the engine thrust values consistent with previous documentation and software, NASA kept the originally specified thrust at 100%, but had the RS-25 operate at higher thrust.[14]: 106–107 References Lotito, Jennifer. "3 Leadership Lessons From The Challenger Space Shuttle Disaster". Forbes. Archived from the original on January 28, 2024. Retrieved January 28, 2024. "Challenger explosion was 38 years ago today; Naples' readers recall event". Naples Daily News. Archived from the original on January 28, 2024. Retrieved January 28, 2024. Rogers, William P.; Armstrong, Neil A.; Acheson, David C.; Covert, Eugene E.; Feynman, Richard P.; Hotz, Robert B.; Kutyna, Donald J.; Ride, Sally K.; Rummel, Robert W.; Sutter, Joseph F.; Walker, Arthur B.C.; Wheelon, Albert D.; Yeager, Charles E. (June 6, 1986). "Report of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident" (PDF). NASA. Archived (PDF) from the original on October 18, 2020. Retrieved July 13, 2021. Jenkins, Dennis R. (2016). Space Shuttle: Developing an Icon – 1972–2013. Specialty Press. ISBN 978-1-58007-249-6. Jenkins, Dennis R. (2001). Space Shuttle: The History of the National Space Transportation System. Voyageur Press. ISBN 978-0-9633974-5-4. McDonald, Allan J.; Hansen, James R. (2009). Truth, Lies, and O-rings: Inside the Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster. University Press of Florida. ISBN 978-0-8130-4193-3. Archived from the original on October 2, 2021. Retrieved July 19, 2021. Heppenheimer, T.A. (1998). The Space Shuttle Decision: NASA's Search for a Reusable Space Vehicle (PDF). NASA. SP-4221. Archived (PDF) from the original on August 12, 2021. Retrieved July 19, 2021. "The history of the flawed joint". IEEE Spectrum. 24 (2): 39–44. 1987. doi:10.1109/MSPEC.1987.6448025. ISSN 0018-9235. S2CID 26828360. Archived from the original on August 5, 2021. Retrieved August 6, 2021. Tonguette, Peter. "'Ohioans in Space' painting features Neil Armstrong, John Glenn, Jim Lovell, Judith Resnik". The Columbus Dispatch. Archived from the original on January 28, 2024. Retrieved January 28, 2024. Dunbar, Brian (August 7, 2017). "STS-51L Mission Profile". NASA. Archived from the original on May 5, 2017. Retrieved November 3, 2021. Broad, William J. (January 28, 1986). "24-Hour Delay Called for Shuttle Flight As Wind And Balky Bolt Bar Launching". The New York Times. Archived from the original on July 16, 2021. Retrieved July 13, 2021. Berkes, Howard (February 6, 2012). "Remembering Roger Boisjoly: He Tried To Stop Shuttle Challenger Launch". All Things Considered. NPR. Archived from the original on April 30, 2015. Retrieved July 27, 2021. Harwood, William (2015). "STS-51L". CBS News. Archived from the original on June 11, 2021. Retrieved July 29, 2021. Baker, David (2011). NASA Space Shuttle: Owners' Workshop Manual. Somerset, UK: Haynes Manual. ISBN 978-1-84425-866-6. Barbree, Jay (January 1997). "Chapter 5: An eternity of descent". NBC News. Archived from the original on September 23, 2020. Retrieved October 31, 2020. Kerwin, Joseph P. (July 28, 1986). "Joseph P. Kerwin to Richard H. Truly". NASA. Archived from the original on January 3, 2013. Retrieved August 2, 2021. Mullane, Mike (2006). Riding Rockets: The Outrageous Tales of a Space Shuttle Astronaut. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-0-7432-7682-5. Archived from the original on June 12, 2020. Retrieved December 31, 2018. "Implementation of the Recommendations of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident, Recommendation VII". NASA. June 1987. Archived from the original on February 24, 2021. Retrieved August 3, 2021. O'Connor, Jr., Edward A. (June 6, 1986). "Volume 3, Appendix O: NASA Search, Recovery and Reconstruction Task Force Team Report". Report of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident. Archived from the original on March 1, 2021. Retrieved August 5, 2021. "Space Shuttle Challenger Salvage Report" (PDF). Department of the Navy. Direction of Commander, Naval Sea Systems Command. April 29, 1988. Archived (PDF) from the original on September 1, 2021. Retrieved July 19, 2021. Barbree, Jay (January 25, 2004). "Chapter 6: Raising heroes from the sea". NBC News. Archived from the original on June 5, 2019. Retrieved August 9, 2021. Isikoff, Michael (March 10, 1986). "Remains of Crew Of Shuttle Found". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on February 11, 2021. Retrieved August 9, 2021. Schmidt, William E. (April 20, 1986). "All Shuttle Crew Remains Recovered, NASA Says". The New York Times. Archived from the original on July 15, 2021. Retrieved August 9, 2021. "Shuttle Crew Said to Have Survived Blast". The Washington Post. November 12, 1988. Archived from the original on August 18, 2020. Retrieved August 11, 2021. "Shuttle Challenger debris washes up on shore". CNN. December 17, 1996. Archived from the original on August 6, 2016. Retrieved July 15, 2021. "Divers discover Challenger space shuttle debris". BBC News. Archived from the original on November 11, 2022. Retrieved November 11, 2022. Dunn, Marcia (November 10, 2022). "Section of destroyed shuttle Challenger found on ocean floor". AP News. Archived from the original on November 10, 2022. Retrieved November 10, 2022. Bardan, Roxana (November 10, 2022). "NASA Views Images, Confirms Discovery of Shuttle Challenger Artifact". NASA. Archived from the original on November 11, 2022. Retrieved November 11, 2022. Diaz, Jaclyn (November 11, 2022). "A piece of the wrecked 1986 Challenger space shuttle was found off Florida's coast". NPR. Archived from the original on November 13, 2022. Retrieved November 13, 2022. Evans, Greg (November 10, 2022). "Long-Missing Space Shuttle Challenger Wreckage Found On Ocean Floor By History Channel Filmmakers, Nasa Confirms". Deadline Hollywood. Archived from the original on November 13, 2022. Retrieved November 13, 2022. Television, Hearst (November 11, 2022). "Artifact from Space Shuttle Challenger found on ocean floor, NASA confirms". Houston Chronicle. Archived from the original on November 13, 2022. Retrieved November 13, 2022. Peralman, Robert Z. (June 29, 2015). "NASA Exhibits Space Shuttles Challenger, Columbia Debris for First Time". Space.com. Archived from the original on August 13, 2021. Retrieved August 13, 2021. Schmidt, William E. (April 30, 1986). "Bodies of Astronauts Flown to Delaware". The New York Times. Archived from the original on June 28, 2021. Retrieved July 15, 2021. "Space Shuttle Challenger Memorial". Arlington National Cemetery. 2021. Archived from the original on June 28, 2021. Retrieved July 15, 2021. "National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific". National Cemetery Administration. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. April 23, 2021. Archived from the original on January 26, 2021. Retrieved July 15, 2021. Clendinen, Dudley (May 18, 1986). "Astronaut Buried in Caroline; 35-Year 'Mission' is Complete". The New York Times. Archived from the original on August 29, 2021. Retrieved July 15, 2021. "Dr. Ronald E. McNair Memorial". SC Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism. 2021. Archived from the original on July 1, 2021. Retrieved July 15, 2021. "Ronald E. McNair Memorial Park". South Carolina Picture Project. 2021. Archived from the original on July 1, 2021. Retrieved July 15, 2021. "Some Fear Learning How Loved Ones Died : Crew Discovery Upsets Shuttle Kin". Los Angeles Times. March 16, 1986. Retrieved February 11, 2024. "McAuliffe's Grave on a Hillside Overlooks City Where She Taught". The Los Angeles Times. May 2, 1986. Archived from the original on July 15, 2021. Retrieved July 15, 2021. "Looking back: Greg Jarvis' dream remembered". Daily Breeze. January 28, 2011. Archived from the original on July 15, 2021. Retrieved July 15, 2021. Lucas, Stephen E.; Medhurst, Martin J. (2008). Words of a Century: The Top 100 American Speeches, 1900–1999. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-516805-1. "Address to the Nation on the Explosion of the Space Shuttle Challenger". Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. January 28, 1986. Archived from the original on March 22, 2021. Retrieved July 29, 2021. Weintraub, Bernard (February 1, 1986). "Reagan Pays Tribute to 'Our 7 Challenger Heroes'". The New York Times. p. A1. Archived from the original on February 1, 2017. Retrieved February 12, 2017. Boyd, Gerald M. (April 4, 1986). "White House Finds no Pressure to Launch". The New York Times. Archived from the original on August 11, 2021. Retrieved August 11, 2021. Hunt, Terence (March 13, 1986). "NASA Suggested Reagan Hail Challenger Mission in State of Union". Associated Press. Archived from the original on August 30, 2021. Retrieved August 24, 2021. Logsdon, John M. (2018). Ronald Reagan and the Space Frontier. Springer. p. 283. ISBN 978-3-319-98962-4. Archived from the original on February 4, 2021. Retrieved November 21, 2020. Reagan, Ronald (February 4, 1986). "Address Before a Joint Session of Congress on the State of the Union – 1986". Ronald Reagan Presidential Library & Museum. Archived from the original on July 19, 2021. Retrieved July 19, 2021. Escobedo, Tricia (March 31, 2016). "When a national disaster unfolded live in 1986". CNN. Archived from the original on August 27, 2021. Retrieved August 27, 2021. Wright, John C.; Dale Kunkel; Marites Pinon; Aletha C. Huston (Spring 1989). "How Children Reacted to Televised Coverage of the Space Shuttle Disaster". Journal of Communication. 39 (2). International Communication Association: 27. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1989.tb01027.x. Harwood, William (January 27, 2016). "Reporters remember Challenger coverage". Spaceflight Now. Archived from the original on March 3, 2024. Retrieved July 22, 2024. Harwood, William (1986). "Voyage into History; Chapter Six: The Reaction". Archived from the original on May 4, 2006. Archived by the Internet Archive on May 4, 2006. Reinhold, Robert (January 29, 1986). "The Shuttle Explosion; At Mission Control, Silence and Grief Fill a Day Of Horror Long Dreaded". The New York Times. Archived from the original on June 9, 2021. Retrieved July 19, 2021. Browne, Malcolm W. (January 29, 1986). "How could it happen? Fuel Tank Leak Feared". The New York Times. Archived from the original on August 30, 2021. Retrieved August 30, 2021. Stevonec, Timothy (January 28, 2014). "Challenger Disaster Home Video Surfaces After 28 Years". The Huffington Post. Archived from the original on February 1, 2017. Retrieved September 12, 2021. Stevonec, Timothy (May 1, 2012). "New Challenger Video: Rare Footage Of 1986 Disaster Uncovered". The Huffington Post. Archived from the original on December 23, 2018. Retrieved September 12, 2021. Luscombe, Richard (February 4, 2010). "Challenger space shuttle disaster amateur video discovered". The Guardian. Archived from the original on July 12, 2021. Retrieved September 12, 2021. Boisjoly, Russell P.; Curtis, Ellen Foster; Mellican, Eugene (April 1989). "Roger Boisjoly and the Challenger Disaster: The Ethical Dimensions". Journal of Business Ethics. 8 (4). Springer: 217–230. doi:10.1007/BF00383335. JSTOR 25071892. S2CID 144135586. Archived from the original on August 27, 2021. Retrieved August 27, 2021. Berkes, Howard (March 7, 2021). "Remembering Allan McDonald: He Refused To Approve Challenger Launch, Exposed Cover-Up". Obituaries. National Public Radio. Archived from the original on August 2, 2021. Retrieved August 27, 2021. Robison, Wade; Boisjoly, Roger; Hoeker, David & Young, Stefan (2002). "Representation and Misrepresentation: Tufte and the Morton Thiokol Engineers on the Challenger" (PDF). Science and Engineering Ethics. 8 (1): 59–81. doi:10.1007/s11948-002-0033-2. PMID 11840958. S2CID 19219936. Archived (PDF) from the original on August 23, 2021. Retrieved July 12, 2021. Boffrey, Philip M. (June 7, 1986). "Amid Disputes, Shuttle Panel Finally Forged an Agreement". The New York Times. Archived from the original on August 24, 2021. Retrieved August 24, 2021. Feynman, R.P. (June 6, 1986). "Personal Observations on Reliability of Shuttle". Report of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident. Vol. 2. Appendix F: NASA. Archived from the original on May 5, 2019. Retrieved August 26, 2021. Feynman, Richard P. (February 1988). "An Outsider's Inside View of the Challenger Inquiry" (PDF). Physics Today. Archived (PDF) from the original on August 17, 2021. Retrieved August 26, 2021. "Investigation of the Challenger Accident; Report of the Committee on Science and Technology, House of Representatives" (PDF). US Government Printing Office: US House Committee on Science and Technology. October 29, 1986. Archived (PDF) from the original on August 13, 2021. Retrieved August 26, 2021. "Report to the President: Actions to Implement the Recommendations of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident" (PDF). NASA. July 14, 1986. Archived (PDF) from the original on February 24, 2021. Retrieved July 19, 2021. "NASA's Actions to Implement the Rogers Commission Recommendations after the Challenger Accident". NASA. July 18, 2000. Archived from the original on March 5, 2021. Retrieved September 2, 2021. Harwood, William (July 8, 1986). "NASA safety office established". UPI. Retrieved March 18, 2024. "Jay H. Greene" (PDF). Oral History Project. NASA. July 12, 2004. Archived (PDF) from the original on June 24, 2021. Retrieved September 2, 2021. Gehman, Harold; Barry, John; Deal, Duane; Hallock, James; Hess, Kenneth; Hubbard, G. Scott; Logsdon, John; Logsdon, John; Ride, Sally; Tetrault, Roger; Turcotte, Stephen; Wallace, Steven; Widnall, Sheila (August 26, 2003). "Report of Columbia Accident Investigation Board" (PDF). NASA. Archived (PDF) from the original on April 13, 2021. Retrieved January 11, 2022. Ryba, Jeanne (April 12, 2013). "Space Shuttle Overview: Endeavour (OV-105)". NASA. Archived from the original on May 20, 2017. Retrieved October 5, 2021. Abramson, Rudy (August 16, 1986). "Reagan Orders Shuttle, Limits NASA Mission". The Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on September 2, 2021. Retrieved September 2, 2021. Wilford, John Noble (May 25, 1986). "Reagan is reported near decision to approve a new Space Shuttle". The New York times. Archived from the original on November 10, 2021. Retrieved November 10, 2021. Logsdon, John A. (1998). "Return to Flight: Richard H. Truly and the Recovery from the Challenger Accident". NASA. Archived from the original on February 24, 2021. Retrieved July 27, 2021. Mars, Kelli (September 28, 2018). "30 Years Ago: STS-26 Returns Shuttle to Flight". NASA. Archived from the original on May 26, 2021. Retrieved September 2, 2021. "Congressional Space Medal of Honor". NASA. April 28, 2006. Archived from the original on February 20, 2011. Retrieved July 19, 2021. "Brumidi Corridors Murals". Architect of the Capitol. 2021. Archived from the original on August 31, 2021. Retrieved July 19, 2021. Mikati, Massarah (May 7, 2019). "Memorial Grove at Johnson Space Center offers tribute to late astronauts". Houston Chronicle. Archived from the original on July 19, 2021. Retrieved July 19, 2021. "Minor Planet Circulars/Minor Planets and Comets" (PDF). Minor Planet Center – Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory. March 26, 1986. pp. MPC 10457–10586. Archived (PDF) from the original on July 27, 2021. Retrieved July 30, 2021. Byrne, Charles (2014). The Far Side of the Moon A Photographic Guide. Springer Science. ISBN 978-1-4899-8806-5. OCLC 1244446759. Archived from the original on January 28, 2024. Retrieved June 27, 2022. Schmemann, Serge (February 2, 1986). "Soviet Union to name 2 Venus craters for Shuttle's women". The New York Times. Archived from the original on October 25, 2021. Retrieved October 25, 2021. Jet Propulsion Laboratory. "Space Shuttle Challenger Crew Memorialized on Mars". NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). Archived from the original on September 3, 2022. Retrieved November 8, 2023. "Peers Park". City of Palo Alto, California. January 14, 2021. Archived from the original on July 19, 2021. Retrieved July 19, 2021. Levine, Jay (June 27, 2018). "Challenger Crew Recognized With Monument". NASA. Archived from the original on July 25, 2021. Retrieved July 25, 2021. McCarthy, Kathy (April 28, 1986). "Challenger Astronaut Remembered in Hometown". Associated Press. Archived from the original on November 7, 2022. Retrieved July 25, 2021. Dodson, Andrew (January 19, 2019). "School named after astronaut Christa McAuliffe remembers Challenger explosion". MLive. Archived from the original on July 25, 2021. Retrieved July 25, 2021. "Space Shuttle Challenger Monument (Los Angeles, California)". Astronaut Ellison S. Onizuka Memorial. 2021. Archived from the original on April 27, 2021. Retrieved April 27, 2021. "Challenger Point". Geographic Names Information System. United States Geological Survey, United States Department of the Interior. August 31, 1992. Retrieved July 15, 2021. "About". McAuliffe-Shepard Discovery Center. 2021. Archived from the original on April 27, 2021. Retrieved April 27, 2021. "About Us". Challenger Center for Space Science Education. 2019. Archived from the original on October 6, 2021. Retrieved November 3, 2021. Garmon, Jay (January 24, 2006). "Rising from the ashes". Tech Republic. Archived from the original on July 12, 2021. Retrieved July 19, 2021. Malinowski, Tonya (June 29, 2018). "NASA astronaut Ellison Onizuka's soccer ball that survived the Challenger explosion". ESPN. Archived from the original on August 20, 2021. Retrieved July 19, 2021. "Star Trek IV The Voyage Home (1986)". Musings From Us. January 25, 2011. Archived from the original on February 2, 2022. Retrieved January 28, 2022. Tomayko, James E. (June 1987). "Challenger: A Major Malfunction". Aerospace Historian. 34 (2). Air Force Historical Foundation: 139. JSTOR 44524264. Archived from the original on October 5, 2021. Retrieved October 5, 2021. Hallion, Richard P. (June 1987). "Prescription for Disaster: From the Flory of Apollo to the Betrayal of the Shuttle". Aerospace Historian. 345 (2). Air Force Historical Foundation: 151. JSTOR 44525431. Archived from the original on October 5, 2021. Retrieved October 5, 2021. Shair, Frederick H. (June 1989). "What Do You Care What Other People Think? Further Adventures of a Curious Character". American Scientist. 77 (3). Sigma Xi: 267–268. JSTOR 27855729. Archived from the original on October 5, 2021. Retrieved October 5, 2021. Weick, Karl E. (June 1997). "The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA". Administrative Science Quarterly. 42 (2). Sage Publications: 395–401. doi:10.2307/2393925. JSTOR 2393925. Archived from the original on October 5, 2021. Retrieved October 5, 2021. Roland, Alex (January 28, 1996). "Large Craft Warnings". The New York Times. Archived from the original on October 5, 2021. Retrieved October 5, 2021. Atkinson, Joe (October 9, 2012). "Engineer Who Opposed Challenger Launch Offers Personal Look at Tragedy". NASA. Archived from the original on August 2, 2021. Retrieved September 1, 2021. Pomeroy, Steven (October 2010). "Truth, Lies, and O-Rings: Inside the Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster". Technology and Culture. 51 (4). The Johns Hopkins University Press: 1038–1040. doi:10.1353/tech.2010.0077. JSTOR 40928051. S2CID 109441993. Rubinson, Paul (2010). "Truth, Lies, and O-rings: Inside the Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster". The Florida Historical Quarterly. 88 (4). Florida Historical Society: 574–577. JSTOR 29765138. Archived from the original on October 6, 2021. Retrieved October 6, 2021. O'Connor, John J. (February 25, 1990). "To View; Arrogance in the Name of Liftoff?". The New York Times. Archived from the original on September 7, 2021. Retrieved September 7, 2021. Zurawik, David (February 25, 1990). "Turning Tragedy into Entertainment, 'Challenger' Invades Survivors' Private Grief". Tulsa World. Archived from the original on June 2, 2021. Retrieved September 7, 2021. "The Challenger". British Broadcasting Corporation. 2021. Archived from the original on April 18, 2019. Retrieved October 5, 2021. Baldoni, John (January 28, 2019). "The Challenger Disaster: A Dramatic Lesson In The Failure To Communicate". Forbes. Archived from the original on September 13, 2021. Retrieved September 13, 2021. Chaney, Jen (September 16, 2020). "Challenger: The Final Flight Unpacks a Moment of American Hope and Heartbreak". Vulture. Archived from the original on September 2, 2021. Retrieved September 2, 2021. Lucas, Michael (August 15, 2021). "Three, Two, One...". The Newsreader. Series 1. Episode 1. ABC Television. "The Challenger". This Is Us. Series 6. Episode 1. January 4, 2022. NBC. External links Wikimedia Commons has media related to Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. Rogers Commission Report NASA webpage (crew tribute, five report volumes and appendices) Report to the President by the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident public domain audiobook at LibriVox Complete text and audio and video of Ronald Reagan's Shuttle Challenger Address to the Nation Space Shuttle Challenger Tragedy on YouTube – video of shuttle launch and Reagan's address Challenger: A Rush to Launch on YouTube, an Emmy Award-winning documentary about flight STS-51-L and what caused the Challenger explosion 7 myths about the Challenger shuttle disaster: It didn't explode, the crew didn't die instantly and it wasn't inevitable MSNBC.com CBS Radio news bulletin of the Challenger disaster anchored by Christopher Glenn from January 28, 1986: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4 Videos of the disaster NASA video recording showing the breakup on YouTube video from Winter Haven, Florida on YouTube from a plane leaving from Orlando International Airport on YouTube 8 film recorded at the Kennedy Space Center on YouTube at the Kennedy Space Center on YouTube vte STS-51-L Space Shuttle Challenger disaster STS-51-L Mission Patch Main articles Space Shuttle ChallengerTimeline of STS-51-L Crew picture Crew Dick ScobeeMichael J. SmithJudith ResnikEllison OnizukaRonald McNairGregory JarvisChrista McAuliffe See also Rogers Commission ReportSpace Shuttle Solid Rocket BoosterTDRS-BChallenger flagChallenger (1990 film)The Challenger Disaster (2013 film)Challenger: The Final Flight (2020 documentary miniseries) vte Space Shuttle Challenger (OV-099) Flights STS-6STS-7STS-8STS-41-BSTS-41-CSTS-41-GSTS-51-BSTS-51-FSTS-61-ASTS-51-L Status Out of service - Challenger disaster (destroyed) - January 28, 1986 (STS-51-L) Related Rogers CommissionSTS-61-FSTS-61-MChallenger flagThe Dream Is Alive (1985 documentary)Challenger (1990 film)When We Left Earth: The NASA Missions (2008 documentary miniseries)The Challenger Disaster (2013 film)Challenger: The Final Flight (2020 documentary miniseries) vte Space Shuttle program Space ShuttleList of missionsList of crews Components OrbiterSolid Rocket BoosterExternal tankMain engineOrbital Maneuvering SystemReaction control systemThermal protection systemBooster separation motor Orbiters EnterpriseColumbiaChallengerDiscoveryAtlantisEndeavour Add-ons Spacelab (ESA)Canadarm (CSA)Extended Duration OrbiterRemote Controlled OrbiterSpacehabMulti-Purpose Logistics Module Sites Launch Complex 39 ABSpace Launch Complex 6Landing sites Shuttle Landing FacilityAbort landing sites Operations and training Missions (canceled)CrewsMission timelineRollbacksAbort modesRendezvous pitch maneuverShuttle Mission SimulatorShuttle Training Aircraft Testing Inspiration (design)Pathfinder (simulator)MPTA (engine test article)Approach and Landing Tests Disasters Challenger disaster (report)Columbia disaster (report) Support Crawler-transporterMate-Demate DeviceMobile Launcher PlatformNASA recovery shipOrbiter Processing FacilityShuttle Avionics Integration Laboratory (SAIL)Shuttle Carrier Aircraft flightsShuttle Training AircraftSTS-3xx Special Deutschland-1Getaway SpecialJournalist in Space ProjectTeacher in Space ProjectShuttle-MirHitchhiker Space suits Extravehicular Mobility UnitShuttle Ejection Escape SuitLaunch Entry SuitAdvanced Crew Escape Suit Experiments Freestar experimentsInflatable Antenna ExperimentSpartan Packet Radio ExperimentShuttle pallet satelliteWake Shield Facility Derivatives Saturn-ShuttleMagnumShuttle-Derived Heavy Lift Launch VehicleJupiterShuttle-CShuttle-CentaurAres IIVVLibertySpace Launch SystemOmegA Replicas Independence Related Space Shuttle design process studied designsInertial Upper StagePayload Assist ModuleInternational Space StationCriticismRetirementConroy VirtusHail Columbia (1982 documentary)The Dream Is Alive (1985 documentary)Challenger (1990 film)Destiny in Space (1994 documentary)Columbia: The Tragic Loss (2004 documentary)Hubble (2010 documentary)The Challenger Disaster (2013 film)Challenger: The Final Flight (2020 documentary miniseries)Space Shuttle AmericaRendezvous: A Space Shuttle SimulationSpace Shuttle ProjectShuttleSpace Shuttle: A Journey into SpaceSpace Shuttle Mission 2007Orbiter Space Flight SimulatorWhen We Left Earth: The NASA Missions Authority control databases Edit this at Wikidata National United StatesIsrael Other NARA Categories: Space Shuttle Challenger disaster1986 disasters in the United States1986 in Florida1986 in spaceflight1986 industrial disastersAccidental deaths in FloridaAviation accidents and incidents in the United States in 1986Destroyed spacecraftDisasters in FloridaExplosions in 1986Gas explosions in the United StatesSpace accidents and incidents in the United StatesMarine salvage operationsHistory of Brevard County, FloridaJanuary 1986 events in the United StatesPresidency of Ronald ReaganSpace Shuttle program Space exploration Article Talk Read Edit View history Tools Appearance Text Small Standard Large Width Standard Wide Color (beta) Automatic Light Dark From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "Space Exploration" redirects here. For the company, see SpaceX. For broader coverage of this topic, see Exploration. Buzz Aldrin taking a core sample of the Moon during the Apollo 11 mission Self-portrait of Curiosity rover on Mars's surface Part of a series on Spaceflight History History of spaceflight Space Race Timeline of spaceflight Space probes Lunar missions Mars missions Applications Communications Earth observation Exploration Espionage Military Navigation Settlement Telescopes Tourism Spacecraft Robotic spacecraft Crewed spacecraft Space launch Spaceport Launch pad Expendable and reusable launch vehicles Escape velocity Non-rocket spacelaunch Spaceflight types Sub-orbital Orbital Interplanetary Interstellar Intergalactic List of space organizations Space agencies Space forces Companies Spaceflight portal vte Space exploration is the use of astronomy and space technology to explore outer space.[1] While the exploration of space is currently carried out mainly by astronomers with telescopes, its physical exploration is conducted both by uncrewed robotic space probes and human spaceflight. Space exploration, like its classical form astronomy, is one of the main sources for space science. While the observation of objects in space, known as astronomy, predates reliable recorded history, it was the development of large and relatively efficient rockets during the mid-twentieth century that allowed physical space exploration to become a reality. Common rationales for exploring space include advancing scientific research, national prestige, uniting different nations, ensuring the future survival of humanity, and developing military and strategic advantages against other countries.[2] The early era of space exploration was driven by a "Space Race" between the Soviet Union and the United States. A driving force of the start of space exploration was during the Cold War. After the ability to create nuclear weapons, the narrative of defense/offense left land and the power to control the air became the focus. Both the Soviet and the U.S. were fighting to prove their superiority in technology through exploring the unknown: space. In fact, the reason NASA was made was due to the response of Sputnik I.[3] The launch of the first human-made object to orbit Earth, the Soviet Union's Sputnik 1, on 4 October 1957, and the first Moon landing by the American Apollo 11 mission on 20 July 1969 are often taken as landmarks for this initial period. The Soviet space program achieved many of the first milestones, including the first living being in orbit in 1957, the first human spaceflight (Yuri Gagarin aboard Vostok 1) in 1961, the first spacewalk (by Alexei Leonov) on 18 March 1965, the first automatic landing on another celestial body in 1966, and the launch of the first space station (Salyut 1) in 1971. After the first 20 years of exploration, focus shifted from one-off flights to renewable hardware, such as the Space Shuttle program, and from competition to cooperation as with the International Space Station (ISS). With the substantial completion of the ISS[4] following STS-133 in March 2011, plans for space exploration by the U.S. remained in flux. The Constellation program aiming for a return to the Moon by 2020[5] was judged unrealistic by an expert review panel reporting in 2009.[6] Constellation ultimately was replaced with the Artemis Program, of which the first mission occurred in 2022, with a planned crewed landing to occur with Artemis 3.[7] In the 2000s, China initiated a successful crewed spaceflight program while India launched the Chandrayaan programme, while the European Union and Japan have also planned future crewed space missions. The two primary global programs gaining traction in the 2020s are the Chinese-led International Lunar Research Station and the US-led Artemis Program, with its plan to build the Lunar Gateway and the Artemis Base Camp, each having its own set of international partners. History of exploration See also: History of astronomy, Discovery and exploration of the Solar System, Timeline of space exploration, Timeline of first orbital launches by country, and Outer space § Discovery V-2 Rocket in the Peenemünde Museum First telescopes The first telescope is said to have been invented in 1608 in the Netherlands by an eyeglass maker named Hans Lippershey, but their first recorded use in astronomy was by Galileo Galilei in 1609.[8] In 1668 Isaac Newton built his own reflecting telescope, the first fully functional telescope of this kind, and a landmark for future developments due to its superior features over the previous Galilean telescope.[9] A string of discoveries in the Solar System (and beyond) followed, then and in the next centuries: the mountains of the Moon, the phases of Venus, the main satellites of Jupiter and Saturn, the rings of Saturn, many comets, the asteroids, the new planets Uranus and Neptune, and many more satellites. The Orbiting Astronomical Observatory 2 was the first space telescope launched 1968,[10] but the launching of Hubble Space Telescope in 1990[11] set a milestone. As of 1 December 2022, there were 5,284 confirmed exoplanets discovered. The Milky Way is estimated to contain 100–400 billion stars[12] and more than 100 billion planets.[13] There are at least 2 trillion galaxies in the observable universe.[14][15] HD1 is the most distant known object from Earth, reported as 33.4 billion light-years away.[16][17][18][19][20][21] First outer space flights Model of Vostok spacecraft Apollo CSM in lunar orbit MW 18014 was a German V-2 rocket test launch that took place on 20 June 1944, at the Peenemünde Army Research Center in Peenemünde. It was the first human-made object to reach outer space, attaining an apogee of 176 kilometers,[22] which is well above the Kármán line.[23] It was a vertical test launch. Although the rocket reached space, it did not reach orbital velocity, and therefore returned to Earth in an impact, becoming the first sub-orbital spaceflight.[24] First object in orbit The first successful orbital launch was of the Soviet uncrewed Sputnik 1 ("Satellite 1") mission on 4 October 1957. The satellite weighed about 83 kg (183 lb), and is believed to have orbited Earth at a height of about 250 km (160 mi). It had two radio transmitters (20 and 40 MHz), which emitted "beeps" that could be heard by radios around the globe. Analysis of the radio signals was used to gather information about the electron density of the ionosphere, while temperature and pressure data was encoded in the duration of radio beeps. The results indicated that the satellite was not punctured by a meteoroid. Sputnik 1 was launched by an R-7 rocket. It burned up upon re-entry on 3 January 1958. First human outer space flight The first successful human spaceflight was Vostok 1 ("East 1"), carrying the 27-year-old Russian cosmonaut, Yuri Gagarin, on 12 April 1961. The spacecraft completed one orbit around the globe, lasting about 1 hour and 48 minutes. Gagarin's flight resonated around the world; it was a demonstration of the advanced Soviet space program and it opened an entirely new era in space exploration: human spaceflight. First astronomical body space explorations The first artificial object to reach another celestial body was Luna 2 reaching the Moon in 1959.[25] The first soft landing on another celestial body was performed by Luna 9 landing on the Moon on 3 February 1966.[26] Luna 10 became the first artificial satellite of the Moon, entering in a lunar orbit on 3 April 1966.[27] The first crewed landing on another celestial body was performed by Apollo 11 on 20 July 1969, landing on the Moon. There have been a total of six spacecraft with humans landing on the Moon starting from 1969 to the last human landing in 1972. The first interplanetary flyby was the 1961 Venera 1 flyby of Venus, though the 1962 Mariner 2 was the first flyby of Venus to return data (closest approach 34,773 kilometers). Pioneer 6 was the first satellite to orbit the Sun, launched on 16 December 1965. The other planets were first flown by in 1965 for Mars by Mariner 4, 1973 for Jupiter by Pioneer 10, 1974 for Mercury by Mariner 10, 1979 for Saturn by Pioneer 11, 1986 for Uranus by Voyager 2, 1989 for Neptune by Voyager 2. In 2015, the dwarf planets Ceres and Pluto were orbited by Dawn and passed by New Horizons, respectively. This accounts for flybys of each of the eight planets in the Solar System, the Sun, the Moon, and Ceres and Pluto (two of the five recognized dwarf planets). The first interplanetary surface mission to return at least limited surface data from another planet was the 1970 landing of Venera 7, which returned data to Earth for 23 minutes from Venus. In 1975 the Venera 9 was the first to return images from the surface of another planet, returning images from Venus. In 1971 the Mars 3 mission achieved the first soft landing on Mars returning data for almost 20 seconds. Later much longer duration surface missions were achieved, including over six years of Mars surface operation by Viking 1 from 1975 to 1982 and over two hours of transmission from the surface of Venus by Venera 13 in 1982, the longest ever Soviet planetary surface mission. Venus and Mars are the two planets outside of Earth on which humans have conducted surface missions with uncrewed robotic spacecraft. First space station Salyut 1 was the first space station of any kind, launched into low Earth orbit by the Soviet Union on 19 April 1971. The International Space Station is currently the largest and oldest of the 2 current fully functional space stations, inhabited continuously since the year 2000. The other, Tiangong space station built by China, is now fully crewed and operational. First interstellar space flight Voyager 1 became the first human-made object to leave the Solar System into interstellar space on 25 August 2012. The probe passed the heliopause at 121 AU to enter interstellar space.[28] Farthest from Earth The Apollo 13 flight passed the far side of the Moon at an altitude of 254 kilometers (158 miles; 137 nautical miles) above the lunar surface, and 400,171 km (248,655 mi) from Earth, marking the record for the farthest humans have ever traveled from Earth in 1970. As of 26 November 2022 Voyager 1 was at a distance of 159 AU (23.8 billion km; 14.8 billion mi) from Earth.[29] It is the most distant human-made object from Earth.[30] Targets of exploration Starting in the mid-20th century probes and then human mission were sent into Earth orbit, and then on to the Moon. Also, probes were sent throughout the known Solar System, and into Solar orbit. Uncrewed spacecraft have been sent into orbit around Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Venus, and Mercury by the 21st century, and the most distance active spacecraft, Voyager 1 and 2 traveled beyond 100 times the Earth-Sun distance. The instruments were enough though that it is thought they have left the Sun's heliosphere, a sort of bubble of particles made in the Galaxy by the Sun's solar wind. The Sun The Sun is a major focus of space exploration. Being above the atmosphere in particular and Earth's magnetic field gives access to the solar wind and infrared and ultraviolet radiations that cannot reach Earth's surface. The Sun generates most space weather, which can affect power generation and transmission systems on Earth and interfere with, and even damage, satellites and space probes. Numerous spacecraft dedicated to observing the Sun, beginning with the Apollo Telescope Mount, have been launched and still others have had solar observation as a secondary objective. Parker Solar Probe, launched in 2018, will approach the Sun to within 1/9th the orbit of Mercury. Mercury Main article: Exploration of Mercury A MESSENGER image from 18,000 km showing a region about 500 km across (2008) Mercury remains the least explored of the Terrestrial planets. As of May 2013, the Mariner 10 and MESSENGER missions have been the only missions that have made close observations of Mercury. MESSENGER entered orbit around Mercury in March 2011, to further investigate the observations made by Mariner 10 in 1975 (Munsell, 2006b). A third mission to Mercury, scheduled to arrive in 2025, BepiColombo is to include two probes. BepiColombo is a joint mission between Japan and the European Space Agency. MESSENGER and BepiColombo are intended to gather complementary data to help scientists understand many of the mysteries discovered by Mariner 10's flybys. Flights to other planets within the Solar System are accomplished at a cost in energy, which is described by the net change in velocity of the spacecraft, or delta-v. Due to the relatively high delta-v to reach Mercury and its proximity to the Sun, it is difficult to explore and orbits around it are rather unstable. Venus Main article: Observations and explorations of Venus Venus was the first target of interplanetary flyby and lander missions and, despite one of the most hostile surface environments in the Solar System, has had more landers sent to it (nearly all from the Soviet Union) than any other planet in the Solar System. The first flyby was the 1961 Venera 1, though the 1962 Mariner 2 was the first flyby to successfully return data. Mariner 2 has been followed by several other flybys by multiple space agencies often as part of missions using a Venus flyby to provide a gravitational assist en route to other celestial bodies. In 1967 Venera 4 became the first probe to enter and directly examine the atmosphere of Venus. In 1970, Venera 7 became the first successful lander to reach the surface of Venus and by 1985 it had been followed by eight additional successful Soviet Venus landers which provided images and other direct surface data. Starting in 1975 with the Soviet orbiter Venera 9 some ten successful orbiter missions have been sent to Venus, including later missions which were able to map the surface of Venus using radar to pierce the obscuring atmosphere. Earth Main article: Earth observation satellite First television image of Earth from space, taken by TIROS-1 (1960) Space exploration has been used as a tool to understand Earth as a celestial object. Orbital missions can provide data for Earth that can be difficult or impossible to obtain from a purely ground-based point of reference. For example, the existence of the Van Allen radiation belts was unknown until their discovery by the United States' first artificial satellite, Explorer 1. These belts contain radiation trapped by Earth's magnetic fields, which currently renders construction of habitable space stations above 1000 km impractical. Following this early unexpected discovery, a large number of Earth observation satellites have been deployed specifically to explore Earth from a space-based perspective. These satellites have significantly contributed to the understanding of a variety of Earth-based phenomena. For instance, the hole in the ozone layer was found by an artificial satellite that was exploring Earth's atmosphere, and satellites have allowed for the discovery of archeological sites or geological formations that were difficult or impossible to otherwise identify. Moon Main article: Exploration of the Moon Apollo 16 LEM Orion, the Lunar Roving Vehicle and astronaut John Young (1972) The Moon was the first celestial body to be the object of space exploration. It holds the distinctions of being the first remote celestial object to be flown by, orbited, and landed upon by spacecraft, and the only remote celestial object ever to be visited by humans. In 1959 the Soviets obtained the first images of the far side of the Moon, never previously visible to humans. The U.S. exploration of the Moon began with the Ranger 4 impactor in 1962. Starting in 1966 the Soviets successfully deployed a number of landers to the Moon which were able to obtain data directly from the Moon's surface; just four months later, Surveyor 1 marked the debut of a successful series of U.S. landers. The Soviet uncrewed missions culminated in the Lunokhod program in the early 1970s, which included the first uncrewed rovers and also successfully brought lunar soil samples to Earth for study. This marked the first (and to date the only) automated return of extraterrestrial soil samples to Earth. Uncrewed exploration of the Moon continues with various nations periodically deploying lunar orbiters. China's Chang'e 4 in 2019 and Chang'e 6 in 2024 achieved the world's first landing and sample return on the far side of the Moon. India's Chandrayaan-3 in 2023 achieved the world's first landing on the lunar south pole region. Crewed exploration of the Moon began in 1968 with the Apollo 8 mission that successfully orbited the Moon, the first time any extraterrestrial object was orbited by humans. In 1969, the Apollo 11 mission marked the first time humans set foot upon another world. Crewed exploration of the Moon did not continue for long. The Apollo 17 mission in 1972 marked the sixth landing and the most recent human visit. Artemis 2 is scheduled to complete a crewed flyby of the Moon in 2025, and Artemis 3 will perform the first lunar landing since Apollo 17 with it scheduled for launch no earlier than 2026. Robotic missions are still pursued vigorously. Mars Main article: Exploration of Mars Surface of Mars by the Spirit rover (2004) The exploration of Mars has been an important part of the space exploration programs of the Soviet Union (later Russia), the United States, Europe, Japan and India. Dozens of robotic spacecraft, including orbiters, landers, and rovers, have been launched toward Mars since the 1960s. These missions were aimed at gathering data about current conditions and answering questions about the history of Mars. The questions raised by the scientific community are expected to not only give a better appreciation of the Red Planet but also yield further insight into the past, and possible future, of Earth. The exploration of Mars has come at a considerable financial cost with roughly two-thirds of all spacecraft destined for Mars failing before completing their missions, with some failing before they even began. Such a high failure rate can be attributed to the complexity and large number of variables involved in an interplanetary journey, and has led researchers to jokingly speak of The Great Galactic Ghoul[31] which subsists on a diet of Mars probes. This phenomenon is also informally known as the "Mars Curse".[32] In contrast to overall high failure rates in the exploration of Mars, India has become the first country to achieve success of its maiden attempt. India's Mars Orbiter Mission (MOM)[33][34][35] is one of the least expensive interplanetary missions ever undertaken with an approximate total cost of ₹ 450 Crore (US$73 million).[36][37] The first mission to Mars by any Arab country has been taken up by the United Arab Emirates. Called the Emirates Mars Mission, it was launched on 19 July 2020 and went into orbit around Mars on 9 February 2021. The uncrewed exploratory probe was named "Hope Probe" and was sent to Mars to study its atmosphere in detail.[38] Phobos Main article: Exploration of Phobos The Russian space mission Fobos-Grunt, which launched on 9 November 2011 experienced a failure leaving it stranded in low Earth orbit.[39] It was to begin exploration of the Phobos and Martian circumterrestrial orbit, and study whether the moons of Mars, or at least Phobos, could be a "trans-shipment point" for spaceships traveling to Mars.[40] Asteroids Main article: Exploration of the asteroids Asteroid 4 Vesta, imaged by the Dawn spacecraft (2011) Until the advent of space travel, objects in the asteroid belt were merely pinpricks of light in even the largest telescopes, their shapes and terrain remaining a mystery. Several asteroids have now been visited by probes, the first of which was Galileo, which flew past two: 951 Gaspra in 1991, followed by 243 Ida in 1993. Both of these lay near enough to Galileo's planned trajectory to Jupiter that they could be visited at acceptable cost. The first landing on an asteroid was performed by the NEAR Shoemaker probe in 2000, following an orbital survey of the object, 433 Eros. The dwarf planet Ceres and the asteroid 4 Vesta, two of the three largest asteroids, were visited by NASA's Dawn spacecraft, launched in 2007. Hayabusa was a robotic spacecraft developed by the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency to return a sample of material from the small near-Earth asteroid 25143 Itokawa to Earth for further analysis. Hayabusa was launched on 9 May 2003 and rendezvoused with Itokawa in mid-September 2005. After arriving at Itokawa, Hayabusa studied the asteroid's shape, spin, topography, color, composition, density, and history. In November 2005, it landed on the asteroid twice to collect samples. The spacecraft returned to Earth on 13 June 2010. Jupiter Main article: Exploration of Jupiter Tupan Patera on Io The exploration of Jupiter has consisted solely of a number of automated NASA spacecraft visiting the planet since 1973. A large majority of the missions have been "flybys", in which detailed observations are taken without the probe landing or entering orbit; such as in Pioneer and Voyager programs. The Galileo and Juno spacecraft are the only spacecraft to have entered the planet's orbit. As Jupiter is believed to have only a relatively small rocky core and no real solid surface, a landing mission is precluded. Reaching Jupiter from Earth requires a delta-v of 9.2 km/s,[41] which is comparable to the 9.7 km/s delta-v needed to reach low Earth orbit.[42] Fortunately, gravity assists through planetary flybys can be used to reduce the energy required at launch to reach Jupiter, albeit at the cost of a significantly longer flight duration.[41] Jupiter has 95 known moons, many of which have relatively little known information about them. Saturn Main article: Exploration of Saturn Saturn has been explored only through uncrewed spacecraft launched by NASA, including one mission (Cassini–Huygens) planned and executed in cooperation with other space agencies. These missions consist of flybys in 1979 by Pioneer 11, in 1980 by Voyager 1, in 1982 by Voyager 2 and an orbital mission by the Cassini spacecraft, which lasted from 2004 until 2017. Saturn has at least 62 known moons, although the exact number is debatable since Saturn's rings are made up of vast numbers of independently orbiting objects of varying sizes. The largest of the moons is Titan, which holds the distinction of being the only moon in the Solar System with an atmosphere denser and thicker than that of Earth. Titan holds the distinction of being the only object in the Outer Solar System that has been explored with a lander, the Huygens probe deployed by the Cassini spacecraft. Uranus Main article: Exploration of Uranus The exploration of Uranus has been entirely through the Voyager 2 spacecraft, with no other visits currently planned. Given its axial tilt of 97.77°, with its polar regions exposed to sunlight or darkness for long periods, scientists were not sure what to expect at Uranus. The closest approach to Uranus occurred on 24 January 1986. Voyager 2 studied the planet's unique atmosphere and magnetosphere. Voyager 2 also examined its ring system and the moons of Uranus including all five of the previously known moons, while discovering an additional ten previously unknown moons. Images of Uranus proved to have a very uniform appearance, with no evidence of the dramatic storms or atmospheric banding evident on Jupiter and Saturn. Great effort was required to even identify a few clouds in the images of the planet. The magnetosphere of Uranus, however, proved to be unique, being profoundly affected by the planet's unusual axial tilt. In contrast to the bland appearance of Uranus itself, striking images were obtained of the Moons of Uranus, including evidence that Miranda had been unusually geologically active. Neptune Main article: Exploration of Neptune The exploration of Neptune began with 25 August 1989 Voyager 2 flyby, the sole visit to the system as of 2024. The possibility of a Neptune Orbiter has been discussed, but no other missions have been given serious thought. Although the extremely uniform appearance of Uranus during Voyager 2's visit in 1986 had led to expectations that Neptune would also have few visible atmospheric phenomena, the spacecraft found that Neptune had obvious banding, visible clouds, auroras, and even a conspicuous anticyclone storm system rivaled in size only by Jupiter's Great Red Spot. Neptune also proved to have the fastest winds of any planet in the Solar System, measured as high as 2,100 km/h.[43] Voyager 2 also examined Neptune's ring and moon system. It discovered 900 complete rings and additional partial ring "arcs" around Neptune. In addition to examining Neptune's three previously known moons, Voyager 2 also discovered five previously unknown moons, one of which, Proteus, proved to be the last largest moon in the system. Data from Voyager 2 supported the view that Neptune's largest moon, Triton, is a captured Kuiper belt object.[44] Pluto Main article: Pluto § Exploration The dwarf planet Pluto presents significant challenges for spacecraft because of its great distance from Earth (requiring high velocity for reasonable trip times) and small mass (making capture into orbit very difficult at present). Voyager 1 could have visited Pluto, but controllers opted instead for a close flyby of Saturn's moon Titan, resulting in a trajectory incompatible with a Pluto flyby. Voyager 2 never had a plausible trajectory for reaching Pluto.[45] After an intense political battle, a mission to Pluto dubbed New Horizons was granted funding from the United States government in 2003.[46] New Horizons was launched successfully on 19 January 2006. In early 2007 the craft made use of a gravity assist from Jupiter. Its closest approach to Pluto was on 14 July 2015; scientific observations of Pluto began five months prior to closest approach and continued for 16 days after the encounter. Kuiper Belt Objects The New Horizons mission also did a flyby of the small planetesimal Arrokoth, in the Kuiper belt, in 2019. This was its first extended mission.[47] Comets Main article: List of missions to comets Comet 103P/Hartley (2010) Although many comets have been studied from Earth sometimes with centuries-worth of observations, only a few comets have been closely visited. In 1985, the International Cometary Explorer conducted the first comet fly-by (21P/Giacobini-Zinner) before joining the Halley Armada studying the famous comet. The Deep Impact probe smashed into 9P/Tempel to learn more about its structure and composition and the Stardust mission returned samples of another comet's tail. The Philae lander successfully landed on Comet Churyumov–Gerasimenko in 2014 as part of the broader Rosetta mission. Deep space exploration Main article: Deep space exploration This high-resolution image of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field includes galaxies of various ages, sizes, shapes, and colors. The smallest, reddest galaxies, are some of the most distant galaxies to have been imaged by an optical telescope. Deep space exploration is the branch of astronomy, astronautics and space technology that is involved with the exploration of distant regions of outer space.[48] Physical exploration of space is conducted both by human spaceflights (deep-space astronautics) and by robotic spacecraft. Some of the best candidates for future deep space engine technologies include anti-matter, nuclear power and beamed propulsion.[49] The latter, beamed propulsion, appears to be the best candidate for deep space exploration presently available, since it uses known physics and known technology that is being developed for other purposes.[50] Future of space exploration Main article: Future of space exploration Concept art for a NASA Vision mission Artistic image of a rocket lifting from a Saturn moon Breakthrough Starshot Main article: Breakthrough Starshot Breakthrough Starshot is a research and engineering project by the Breakthrough Initiatives to develop a proof-of-concept fleet of light sail spacecraft named StarChip,[51] to be capable of making the journey to the Alpha Centauri star system 4.37 light-years away. It was founded in 2016 by Yuri Milner, Stephen Hawking, and Mark Zuckerberg.[52][53] Asteroids Main article: Exploration of the asteroids An article in science magazine Nature suggested the use of asteroids as a gateway for space exploration, with the ultimate destination being Mars. In order to make such an approach viable, three requirements need to be fulfilled: first, "a thorough asteroid survey to find thousands of nearby bodies suitable for astronauts to visit"; second, "extending flight duration and distance capability to ever-increasing ranges out to Mars"; and finally, "developing better robotic vehicles and tools to enable astronauts to explore an asteroid regardless of its size, shape or spin". Furthermore, using asteroids would provide astronauts with protection from galactic cosmic rays, with mission crews being able to land on them without great risk to radiation exposure. James Webb Space Telescope Main article: James Webb Space Telescope The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST or "Webb") is a space telescope that is the successor to the Hubble Space Telescope.[54][55] The JWST will provide greatly improved resolution and sensitivity over the Hubble, and will enable a broad range of investigations across the fields of astronomy and cosmology, including observing some of the most distant events and objects in the universe, such as the formation of the first galaxies. Other goals include understanding the formation of stars and planets, and direct imaging of exoplanets and novas.[56] The primary mirror of the James Webb Space Telescope, the Optical Telescope Element, is composed of 18 hexagonal mirror segments made of gold-plated beryllium which combine to create a 6.5-meter (21 ft; 260 in) diameter mirror that is much larger than the Hubble's 2.4-meter (7.9 ft; 94 in) mirror. Unlike the Hubble, which observes in the near ultraviolet, visible, and near infrared (0.1 to 1 μm) spectra, the JWST will observe in a lower frequency range, from long-wavelength visible light through mid-infrared (0.6 to 27 μm), which will allow it to observe high redshift objects that are too old and too distant for the Hubble to observe.[57] The telescope must be kept very cold in order to observe in the infrared without interference, so it will be deployed in space near the Earth–Sun L2 Lagrangian point, and a large sunshield made of silicon- and aluminum-coated Kapton will keep its mirror and instruments below 50 K (−220 °C; −370 °F).[58] Artemis program Main article: Artemis program The Artemis program is an ongoing crewed spaceflight program carried out by NASA, U.S. commercial spaceflight companies, and international partners such as ESA,[59] with the goal of landing "the first woman and the next man" on the Moon, specifically at the lunar south pole region by 2024. Artemis would be the next step towards the long-term goal of establishing a sustainable presence on the Moon, laying the foundation for private companies to build a lunar economy, and eventually sending humans to Mars. In 2017, the lunar campaign was authorized by Space Policy Directive 1, utilizing various ongoing spacecraft programs such as Orion, the Lunar Gateway, Commercial Lunar Payload Services, and adding an undeveloped crewed lander. The Space Launch System will serve as the primary launch vehicle for Orion, while commercial launch vehicles are planned for use to launch various other elements of the campaign.[60] NASA requested $1.6 billion in additional funding for Artemis for fiscal year 2020,[61] while the Senate Appropriations Committee requested from NASA a five-year budget profile[62] which is needed for evaluation and approval by Congress.[63][64] As of 2024, the first Artemis mission was launched in 2022 with the second mission, a crewed lunar flyby planned for 2025.[65] Construction on the Lunar Gateway is underway with initial capabilities set for the 2025-2027 timeframe.[66] The first CLPS lander landed in 2024, marking the first US spacecraft to land since Apollo 17.[67] Rationales Main article: Space advocacy Astronaut Buzz Aldrin had a personal Communion service when he first arrived on the surface of the Moon. The research that is conducted by national space exploration agencies, such as NASA and Roscosmos, is one of the reasons supporters cite to justify government expenses. Economic analyses of the NASA programs often showed ongoing economic benefits (such as NASA spin-offs), generating many times the revenue of the cost of the program.[68] It is also argued that space exploration would lead to the extraction of resources on other planets and especially asteroids, which contain billions of dollars worth of minerals and metals. Such expeditions could generate a lot of revenue.[69] In addition, it has been argued that space exploration programs help inspire youth to study in science and engineering.[70] Space exploration also gives scientists the ability to perform experiments in other settings and expand humanity's knowledge.[71] Another claim is that space exploration is a necessity to humankind and that staying on Earth will lead to extinction. Some of the reasons are lack of natural resources, comets, nuclear war, and worldwide epidemic. Stephen Hawking, renowned British theoretical physicist, said that "I don't think the human race will survive the next thousand years, unless we spread into space. There are too many accidents that can befall life on a single planet. But I'm an optimist. We will reach out to the stars."[72] Arthur C. Clarke (1950) presented a summary of motivations for the human exploration of space in his non-fiction semi-technical monograph Interplanetary Flight.[73] He argued that humanity's choice is essentially between expansion off Earth into space, versus cultural (and eventually biological) stagnation and death. These motivations could be attributed to one of the first rocket scientists in NASA, Wernher von Braun, and his vision of humans moving beyond Earth. The basis of this plan was to: Develop multi-stage rockets capable of placing satellites, animals, and humans in space. Development of large, winged reusable spacecraft capable of carrying humans and equipment into Earth orbit in a way that made space access routine and cost-effective. Construction of a large, permanently occupied space station to be used as a platform both to observe Earth and from which to launch deep space expeditions. Launching the first human flights around the Moon, leading to the first landings of humans on the Moon, with the intent of exploring that body and establishing permanent lunar bases. Assembly and fueling of spaceships in Earth orbit for the purpose of sending humans to Mars with the intent of eventually colonizing that planet.[74] Known as the Von Braun Paradigm, the plan was formulated to lead humans in the exploration of space. Von Braun's vision of human space exploration served as the model for efforts in space exploration well into the twenty-first century, with NASA incorporating this approach into the majority of their projects.[74] The steps were followed out of order, as seen by the Apollo program reaching the moon before the space shuttle program was started, which in turn was used to complete the International Space Station. Von Braun's Paradigm formed NASA's drive for human exploration, in the hopes that humans discover the far reaches of the universe. NASA has produced a series of public service announcement videos supporting the concept of space exploration.[75] Overall, the public remains largely supportive of both crewed and uncrewed space exploration. According to an Associated Press Poll conducted in July 2003, 71% of U.S. citizens agreed with the statement that the space program is "a good investment", compared to 21% who did not.[76] Human nature Space advocacy and space policy[77] regularly invokes exploration as a human nature.[78] Topics Main articles: Space science and Human presence in space Spaceflight Main articles: Spaceflight and Astronautics Delta-v's in km/s for various orbital maneuvers Spaceflight is the use of space technology to achieve the flight of spacecraft into and through outer space. Spaceflight is used in space exploration, and also in commercial activities like space tourism and satellite telecommunications. Additional non-commercial uses of spaceflight include space observatories, reconnaissance satellites and other Earth observation satellites. A spaceflight typically begins with a rocket launch, which provides the initial thrust to overcome the force of gravity and propels the spacecraft from the surface of Earth. Once in space, the motion of a spacecraft—both when unpropelled and when under propulsion—is covered by the area of study called astrodynamics. Some spacecraft remain in space indefinitely, some disintegrate during atmospheric reentry, and others reach a planetary or lunar surface for landing or impact. Satellites Main article: Satellite Satellites are used for a large number of purposes. Common types include military (spy) and civilian Earth observation satellites, communication satellites, navigation satellites, weather satellites, and research satellites. Space stations and human spacecraft in orbit are also satellites. Commercialization of space Main article: Commercialization of space The commercialization of space first started out with the launching of private satellites by NASA or other space agencies. Current examples of the commercial satellite use of space include satellite navigation systems, satellite television and satellite radio. The next step of commercialization of space was seen as human spaceflight. Flying humans safely to and from space had become routine to NASA.[79] Reusable spacecraft were an entirely new engineering challenge, something only seen in novels and films like Star Trek and War of the Worlds. Great names like Buzz Aldrin supported the use of making a reusable vehicle like the space shuttle. Aldrin held that reusable spacecraft were the key in making space travel affordable, stating that the use of "passenger space travel is a huge potential market big enough to justify the creation of reusable launch vehicles".[80] How can the public go against the words of one of America's best known heroes in space exploration? After all exploring space is the next great expedition, following the example of Lewis and Clark.Space tourism is the next step reusable vehicles in the commercialization of space. The purpose of this form of space travel is used by individuals for the purpose of personal pleasure. Private spaceflight companies such as SpaceX and Blue Origin, and commercial space stations such as the Axiom Space and the Bigelow Commercial Space Station have dramatically changed the landscape of space exploration, and will continue to do so in the near future. Alien life Main articles: Astrobiology and Extraterrestrial life Astrobiology is the interdisciplinary study of life in the universe, combining aspects of astronomy, biology and geology.[81] It is focused primarily on the study of the origin, distribution and evolution of life. It is also known as exobiology (from Greek: έξω, exo, "outside").[82][83][84] The term "Xenobiology" has been used as well, but this is technically incorrect because its terminology means "biology of the foreigners".[85] Astrobiologists must also consider the possibility of life that is chemically entirely distinct from any life found on Earth.[86] In the Solar System some of the prime locations for current or past astrobiology are on Enceladus, Europa, Mars, and Titan.[87] Human spaceflight and habitation Main articles: Human spaceflight, Bioastronautics, Effect of spaceflight on the human body, Space medicine, Space architecture, Space station, Space habitat (facility), and Space habitat (settlement) Crew quarters on Zvezda, the base ISS crew module To date, the longest human occupation of space is the International Space Station which has been in continuous use for 23 years, 307 days. Valeri Polyakov's record single spaceflight of almost 438 days aboard the Mir space station has not been surpassed. The health effects of space have been well documented through years of research conducted in the field of aerospace medicine. Analog environments similar to those one may experience in space travel (like deep sea submarines) have been used in this research to further explore the relationship between isolation and extreme environments.[88] It is imperative that the health of the crew be maintained as any deviation from baseline may compromise the integrity of the mission as well as the safety of the crew, hence the reason why astronauts must endure rigorous medical screenings and tests prior to embarking on any missions. However, it does not take long for the environmental dynamics of spaceflight to commence its toll on the human body; for example, space motion sickness (SMS) – a condition which affects the neurovestibular system and culminates in mild to severe signs and symptoms such as vertigo, dizziness, fatigue, nausea, and disorientation – plagues almost all space travelers within their first few days in orbit.[88] Space travel can also have a profound impact on the psyche of the crew members as delineated in anecdotal writings composed after their retirement. Space travel can adversely affect the body's natural biological clock (circadian rhythm); sleep patterns causing sleep deprivation and fatigue; and social interaction; consequently, residing in a Low Earth Orbit (LEO) environment for a prolonged amount of time can result in both mental and physical exhaustion.[88] Long-term stays in space reveal issues with bone and muscle loss in low gravity, immune system suppression, and radiation exposure. The lack of gravity causes fluid to rise upward which can cause pressure to build up in the eye, resulting in vision problems; the loss of bone minerals and densities; cardiovascular deconditioning; and decreased endurance and muscle mass.[89] Radiation is an insidious health hazard to space travelers as it is invisible and can cause cancer. When above the Earth's magnetic field spacecraft are no longer protected from the sun's radiation; the danger of radiation is even more potent in deep space. The hazards of radiation can be ameliorated through protective shielding on the spacecraft, alerts, and dosimetry.[90] Fortunately, with new and rapidly evolving technological advancements, those in Mission Control are able to monitor the health of their astronauts more closely utilizing telemedicine. One may not be able to completely evade the physiological effects of space flight, but they can be mitigated. For example, medical systems aboard space vessels such as the International Space Station (ISS) are well equipped and designed to counteract the effects of lack of gravity and weightlessness; on-board treadmills can help prevent muscle loss and reduce the risk of developing premature osteoporosis.[88][90] Additionally, a crew medical officer is appointed for each ISS mission and a flight surgeon is available 24/7 via the ISS Mission Control Center located in Houston, Texas.[90] Although the interactions are intended to take place in real time, communications between the space and terrestrial crew may become delayed – sometimes by as much as 20 minutes[90] – as their distance from each other increases when the spacecraft moves further out of LEO; because of this the crew are trained and need to be prepared to respond to any medical emergencies that may arise on the vessel as the ground crew are hundreds of miles away. As one can see, travelling and possibly living in space poses many challenges. Many past and current concepts for the continued exploration and colonization of space focus on a return to the Moon as a "stepping stone" to the other planets, especially Mars. At the end of 2006 NASA announced they were planning to build a permanent Moon base with continual presence by 2024.[91] Beyond the technical factors that could make living in space more widespread, it has been suggested that the lack of private property, the inability or difficulty in establishing property rights in space, has been an impediment to the development of space for human habitation. Since the advent of space technology in the latter half of the twentieth century, the ownership of property in space has been murky, with strong arguments both for and against. In particular, the making of national territorial claims in outer space and on celestial bodies has been specifically proscribed by the Outer Space Treaty, which had been, as of 2012, ratified by all spacefaring nations.[92] Space colonization, also called space settlement and space humanization, would be the permanent autonomous (self-sufficient) human habitation of locations outside Earth, especially of natural satellites or planets such as the Moon or Mars, using significant amounts of in-situ resource utilization. Human representation and participation See also: Space law Participation and representation of humanity in space is an issue ever since the first phase of space exploration.[93] Some rights of non-spacefaring countries have been mostly secured through international space law, declaring space the "province of all mankind", understanding spaceflight as its resource, though sharing of space for all humanity is still criticized as imperialist and lacking.[93] Additionally to international inclusion, the inclusion of women and people of colour has also been lacking. To reach a more inclusive spaceflight some organizations like the Justspace Alliance[93] and IAU featured Inclusive Astronomy[94] have been formed in recent years. Women Main article: Women in space The first woman to go to space was Valentina Tereshkova. She flew in 1963 but it was not until the 1980s that another woman entered space again. All astronauts were required to be military test pilots at the time and women were not able to join this career, this is one reason for the delay in allowing women to join space crews.[citation needed] After the rule changed, Svetlana Savitskaya became the second woman to go to space, she was also from the Soviet Union. Sally Ride became the next woman in space and the first woman to fly to space through the United States program. Since then, eleven other countries have allowed women astronauts. The first all-female space walk occurred in 2018, including Christina Koch and Jessica Meir. They had both previously participated in space walks with NASA. The first woman to go to the Moon is planned for 2024. Despite these developments women are still underrepresented among astronauts and especially cosmonauts. Issues that block potential applicants from the programs, and limit the space missions they are able to go on, include: agencies limiting women to half as much time in space than men, arguing that there may be unresearched additional risks for cancer.[95] a lack of space suits sized appropriately for female astronauts.[96] Art See also: Space art § Art in space Artistry in and from space ranges from signals, capturing and arranging material like Yuri Gagarin's selfie in space or the image The Blue Marble, over drawings like the first one in space by cosmonaut and artist Alexei Leonov, music videos like Chris Hadfield's cover of Space Oddity on board the ISS, to permanent installations on celestial bodies like on the Moon. See also Spaceflight portal Main article: Outline of space exploration Discovery and exploration of the Solar System Spacecraft propulsion List of crewed spacecraft List of missions to Mars List of missions to the outer planets List of landings on extraterrestrial bodies List of spaceflight records Robotic space exploration programs Robotic spacecraft Timeline of planetary exploration Landings on other planets Pioneer program Luna program Zond program Venera program Mars probe program Ranger program Mariner program Surveyor program Viking program Voyager program Vega program Phobos program Discovery program Chandrayaan Program Mangalyaan Program Chang'e Program Private Astrobotic Technology Program Living in space Interplanetary contamination Animals in space Animals in space Monkeys in space Russian space dogs Humans in space Astronauts List of human spaceflights List of human spaceflights by program Vostok program Mercury program Voskhod program Gemini program Soyuz program Apollo program Salyut program Skylab Space Shuttle program Mir International Space Station Vision for Space Exploration Aurora Programme Tier One Effect of spaceflight on the human body Space architecture Research station – Facility for scientific research Space observatory – Instrument in space to study astronomical objects Space archaeology flexible path destinations set Recent and future developments Commercial astronauts Artemis program Energy development Exploration of Mars Space tourism Private spaceflight Space colonization Interstellar spaceflight Deep space exploration Human outpost Mars to Stay NewSpace NASA lunar outpost concepts Other List of spaceflights Timeline of Solar System exploration List of artificial objects on extra-terrestrial surfaces Space station Space telescope Sample return mission Atmospheric reentry Space and survival List of spaceflight-related accidents and incidents Religion in space Militarisation of space French space program Russian explorers U.S. space exploration history on U.S. stamps Deep-sea exploration Arctic exploration Criticism of space exploration References "How Space is Explored". NASA. Archived from the original on 2 July 2009. Roston, Michael (28 August 2015). "NASA's Next Horizon in Space". The New York Times. Retrieved 28 August 2015. "NASA Created". HISTORY. Retrieved 27 April 2023. Chow, Denise (9 March 2011). "After 13 Years, International Space Station Has All Its NASA Rooms". Space.com. Connolly, John F. (October 2006). "Constellation Program Overview" (PDF). Constellation Program Office. Archived from the original (PDF) on 10 July 2007. Retrieved 6 July 2009. Lawler, Andrew (22 October 2009). "No to NASA: Augustine Commission Wants to More Boldly Go". Science. Archived from the original on 13 May 2013. ""What We Need Now is Urgency": Looking Back at Artemis After 5 Years - AmericaSpace". www.americaspace.com. 26 March 2024. Retrieved 9 May 2024. King, C. C. (2003). The History of the Telescope. Dover Publications. pp. 30–32. ISBN 978-0-486-43265-6. A. Rupert Hall (1996). Isaac Newton: Adventurer in Thought. Cambridge University Press. p. 67. ISBN 978-0-521-56669-8. Angelo, Joseph A. (2014). Spacecraft for Astronomy. Infobase Publishing. p. 20. ISBN 978-1-4381-0896-4. "STS-31". NASA. Archived from the original on 15 August 2011. Retrieved 26 April 2008. "How Many Stars in the Milky Way?". NASA Blueshift. Archived from the original on 25 January 2016. "100 Billion Alien Planets Fill Our Milky Way Galaxy: Study". Space.com. 2 January 2013. Archived from the original on 3 January 2013. Conselice, Christopher J.; et al. (2016). "The Evolution of Galaxy Number Density at z < 8 and Its Implications". The Astrophysical Journal. 830 (2): 83. arXiv:1607.03909v2. Bibcode:2016ApJ...830...83C. doi:10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/83. S2CID 17424588. Fountain, Henry (17 October 2016). "Two Trillion Galaxies, at the Very Least". The New York Times. Retrieved 17 October 2016. Lira, Nicolás; Iono, Daisuke; Oliver, Amy c.; Ferreira, Bárbara (7 April 2022). "Astronomers Detect Most Distant Galaxy Candidate Yet". Atacama Large Millimeter Array. Archived from the original on 17 July 2022. Retrieved 8 April 2022. Harikane, Yuichi; et al. (2 February 2022). "A Search for H-Dropout Lyman Break Galaxies at z ∼ 12–16". The Astrophysical Journal. 929 (1): 1. arXiv:2112.09141. Bibcode:2022ApJ...929....1H. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac53a9. S2CID 246823511. Crane, Leah (7 April 2022). "Astronomers have found what may be the most distant galaxy ever seen – A galaxy called HD1 appears to be about 33.4 billion light years away, making it the most distant object ever seen – and its extreme brightness is puzzling researchers". New Scientist. Retrieved 8 April 2022. Pacucci, Fabio; et al. (7 April 2022). "Are the newly-discovered z ∼ 13 drop-out sources starburst galaxies or quasars?". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 514: L6–L10. arXiv:2201.00823. doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slac035. Buongiorno, Caitlyn (7 April 2022). "Astronomers discover the most distant galaxy yet - Unusually bright in ultraviolet light, HD1 may also set another cosmic record". Astronomy. Retrieved 7 April 2022. Wenz, John (7 April 2022). "Behold! Astronomers May Have Discovered The Most Distant Galaxy Ever – HD1 could be from just 300 million years after the Big Bang". Inverse. Retrieved 7 April 2022. M.P. Milazzo; L. Kestay; C. Dundas; U.S. Geological Survey (2017). "The Challenge for 2050: Cohesive Analysis of More Than One Hundred Years of Planetary Data" (PDF). Planetary Science Vision 2050 Workshop. 1989. Planetary Science Division, NASA: 8070. Bibcode:2017LPICo1989.8070M. Retrieved 7 June 2019. Williams, Matt (16 September 2016). "How high is space?". Universe Today. Archived from the original on 2 June 2017. Retrieved 14 May 2017. "V-2 rocket (MW 18014) became the first human-made object in space on June 20, 1944". Our Planet. 20 June 2022. Retrieved 11 July 2022. "NASA on Luna 2 mission". Sse.jpl.nasa.gov. Archived from the original on 31 March 2012. Retrieved 24 May 2012. "NASA on Luna 9 mission". Sse.jpl.nasa.gov. Archived from the original on 31 March 2012. Retrieved 24 May 2012. "NASA on Luna 10 mission". Sse.jpl.nasa.gov. Archived from the original on 18 February 2012. Retrieved 24 May 2012. Harwood, William (12 September 2013). "Voyager 1 finally crosses into interstellar space". CBS News. Archived from the original on 13 November 2013. Retrieved 1 February 2019. "Voyager – Mission Status". Jet Propulsion Laboratory. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Retrieved 1 January 2019. "Voyager 1". BBC Solar System. Archived from the original on February 3, 2018. Retrieved September 4, 2018. Dinerman, Taylor (27 September 2004). "Is the Great Galactic Ghoul losing his appetite?". The space review. Retrieved 27 March 2007. Knight, Matthew. "Beating the curse of Mars". Science & Space. Retrieved 27 March 2007. "India becomes first Asian nation to reach Mars orbit, joins elite global space club". The Washington Post. 24 September 2014. Retrieved 24 September 2014. "India became the first Asian nation to reach the Red Planet when its indigenously made unmanned spacecraft entered the orbit of Mars on Wednesday" Park, Madison (24 September 2014). "India's spacecraft reaches Mars orbit ... and history". CNN. "India's Mars Orbiter Mission successfully entered Mars' orbit Wednesday morning, becoming the first nation to arrive on its first attempt and the first Asian country to reach the Red Planet." Harris, Gardiner (24 September 2014). "On a Shoestring, India Sends Orbiter to Mars on Its First Try". The New York Times. Retrieved 25 September 2014. "India Successfully Launches First Mission to Mars; PM Congratulates ISRO Team". International Business Times. 5 November 2013. Retrieved 13 October 2014. Bhatt, Abhinav (5 November 2013). "India's 450-crore mission to Mars to begin today: 10 facts". NDTV. Retrieved 13 October 2014. "Hope Mars Probe". mbrsc.ae. Mohammed Bin Rashid Space Centre. Archived from the original on 25 July 2016. Retrieved 22 July 2016. Molczan, Ted (9 November 2011). "Phobos-Grunt – serious problem reported". SeeSat-L. Retrieved 9 November 2011. "Project Phobos-Grunt". YouTube. 22 August 2006. Retrieved 24 May 2012. Wong, Al (28 May 1998). "Galileo FAQ: Navigation". NASA. Archived from the original on 5 January 1997. Retrieved 28 November 2006. Hirata, Chris. "Delta-V in the Solar System". California Institute of Technology. Archived from the original on 15 July 2006. Retrieved 28 November 2006. Suomi, V.E.; Limaye, S.S.; Johnson, D.R. (1991). "High winds of Neptune: A possible mechanism". Science. 251 (4996): 929–932. Bibcode:1991Sci...251..929S. doi:10.1126/science.251.4996.929. PMID 17847386. S2CID 46419483. Agnor, C.B.; Hamilton, D.P. (2006). "Neptune's capture of its moon Triton in a binary-planet gravitational encounter". Nature. 441 (7090): 192–194. Bibcode:2006Natur.441..192A. doi:10.1038/nature04792. PMID 16688170. S2CID 4420518. "Voyager Frequently Asked Questions". Jet Propulsion Laboratory. 14 January 2003. Archived from the original on 21 July 2011. Retrieved 8 September 2006. Roy Britt, Robert (26 February 2003). "Pluto mission gets green light at last". space.com. Space4Peace.org. Retrieved 26 December 2013. Green, Jim; Stern, S. Alan (12 December 2017). New Horizons Kuiper Belt Extended Mission (PDF). 2017 AGU Fall Meeting. Applied Physics Laboratory. pp. 12–15. Archived from the original (PDF) on 26 December 2018. Retrieved 26 December 2018. "Space and its Exploration: How Space is Explored". NASA.gov. Archived from the original on 2 July 2009. Retrieved 1 July 2009. "Future Spaceflight". BBC. Archived from the original on 22 April 2009. Retrieved 1 July 2009. Forward, Robert L (January 1996). "Ad Astra!". Journal of the British Interplanetary Society. 49: 23–32. Bibcode:1996JBIS...49...23F. Gilster, Paul (12 April 2016). "Breakthrough Starshot: Mission to Alpha Centauri". Centauri Dreams. Retrieved 14 April 2016. F, Jessica (14 April 2016). "Stephen Hawking, Mark Zuckerberg, Yuri Milner Launch $100M Space Project Called Breakthrough Starshot". Nature World News. Lee, Seung (13 April 2016). "Mark Zuckerberg Launches $100 Million Initiative To Send Tiny Space Probes To Explore Stars". Newsweek. Retrieved 29 July 2019. "About the James Webb Space Telescope". Retrieved 13 January 2012. "How does the Webb Contrast with Hubble?". JWST Home – NASA. 2016. Archived from the original on 3 December 2016. Retrieved 4 December 2016. "JWST vital facts: mission goals". NASA James Webb Space Telescope. 2017. Retrieved 29 January 2017. "James Webb Space Telescope. JWST History: 1989–1994". Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, MD. 2017. Archived from the original on 3 February 2014. Retrieved 29 December 2018. "The Sunshield". nasa.gov. NASA. Retrieved 28 August 2016. "NASA: Moon to Mars". NASA. Archived from the original on 5 August 2019. Retrieved 19 May 2019. NASA administrator on new Moon plan: 'We're doing this in a way that's never been done before'. Loren Grush, The Verge. 17 May 2019. Harwood, William (17 July 2019). "NASA boss pleads for steady moon mission funding". CBS News. Retrieved 28 August 2019. Foust, Jeff (27 September 2019). "Senate appropriators advance bill funding NASA despite uncertainties about Artemis costs". SpaceNews. Retrieved 23 February 2023. Fernholz, Tim (14 May 2019). "Trump wants $1.6 billion for a moon mission and proposes to get it from college aid". Quartz. Retrieved 14 May 2019. Berger, Eric (14 May 2019). "NASA reveals funding needed for Moon program, says it will be named Artemis". Ars Technica. Retrieved 22 May 2019. Success and Preparation. Retrieved 14 May 2024 – via www.youtube.com. Zamora, Briana R.; NASA (13 May 2024). "Forward Progress on Gateway, Humanity's First Lunar Space Station". SciTechDaily. Retrieved 14 May 2024. Foust, Jeff (22 February 2024). "Intuitive Machines lands on the moon". SpaceNews. Retrieved 14 May 2024. Hertzfeld, H. R. (2002). "Measuring the Economic Returns from Successful NASA Life Sciences Technology Transfers". The Journal of Technology Transfer. 27 (4): 311–320. doi:10.1023/A:1020207506064. PMID 14983842. S2CID 20304464. Elvis, Martin (2012). "Let's mine asteroids – for science and profit". Nature. 485 (7400): 549. Bibcode:2012Natur.485..549E. doi:10.1038/485549a. PMID 22660280. "Is Space Exploration Worth the Cost? A Freakonomics Quorum". Freakonomics. freakonomics.com. 11 January 2008. Retrieved 27 May 2014. Zelenyi, L. M.; Korablev, O. I.; Rodionov, D. S.; Novikov, B. S.; Marchenkov, K. I.; Andreev, O. N.; Larionov, E. V. (December 2015). "Scientific objectives of the scientific equipment of the landing platform of the ExoMars-2018 mission". Solar System Research. 49 (7): 509–517. Bibcode:2015SoSyR..49..509Z. doi:10.1134/S0038094615070229. ISSN 0038-0946. S2CID 124269328. Highfield, Roger (15 October 2001). "Colonies in space may be only hope, says Hawking". The Daily Telegraph. London. Archived from the original on 25 January 2004. Retrieved 5 August 2007. Clarke, Arthur C. (1950). "10". Interplanetary Flight – An Introduction to Astronautics. New York: Harper & Brothers. Launius, R. D.; Mccurdy, H. E. (2007). "Robots and humans in space flight: Technology, evolution, and interplanetary travel". Technology in Society. 29 (3): 271–282. doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2007.04.007. "NASA "Reach" Public Service Announcement for Space Exploration". NASA. 31 March 2012. "Origin of Human Life – USA Today/Gallup Poll". Pollingreport.com. 3 July 2007. Retrieved 25 December 2013. Koren, Marina (17 September 2020). "No One Should 'Colonize' Space". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2 November 2020. Weibel, Deana L. (12 July 2019). "Destiny in Space". American Anthropological Association. Archived from the original on 31 October 2020. Retrieved 2 December 2020. year = 2002| last1 = Gregory | first1 = Frederick | last2 = Garber | first2 = S.J. | book = Looking Backward, Looking Forward: Forty Years of U.S. Human Spaceflight| pages = 73–80 |title=Making Human Spaceflight as Safe as Possible year = 2002| last1 = Aldrin | first1 = Buzz | last2 = Garber | first2 = S.J. | book = Looking Backward, Looking Forward: Forty Years of U.S. Human Spaceflight| pages = 91–100 |title=Apollo and Beyond "NASA Astrobiology". Astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov. Archived from the original on 28 September 2015. Retrieved 24 May 2012. "X". Aleph.se. 11 March 2000. Retrieved 24 May 2012. "Fears and dreads". World Wide Words. 31 May 1997. Retrieved 24 May 2012. Atkins, William (27 April 2007). "Scientists will look for alien life, but Where and How?". iTWire. Archived from the original on 14 October 2008. Retrieved 24 May 2012. "Astrobiology". Biocab.org. Archived from the original on 12 December 2010. Retrieved 24 May 2012. Ward, Peter (8 December 2006). "Launching the Alien Debates". Astrobiology Magazine. Archived from the original on 23 October 2020. Retrieved 25 December 2013. "Astrobiology: the quest for extraterrestrial life". Spacechronology.com. 29 September 2010. Archived from the original on 14 July 2012. Retrieved 24 May 2012. Doarn, CharlesR; Polk, Jd; Shepanek, Marc (2019). "Health challenges including behavioral problems in long-duration spaceflight". Neurology India. 67 (8): S190–S195. doi:10.4103/0028-3886.259116. ISSN 0028-3886. PMID 31134909. S2CID 167219863. Perez, Jason (30 March 2016). "The Human Body in Space". NASA. Retrieved 11 November 2019. Mars, Kelli (27 March 2018). "5 Hazards of Human Spaceflight". NASA. Archived from the original on 28 April 2022. Retrieved 6 October 2019. "Global Exploration Strategy and Lunar Architecture" (PDF) (Press release). NASA. 4 December 2006. Archived from the original (PDF) on 14 June 2007. Retrieved 5 August 2007. Simberg, Rand (Fall 2012). "Property Rights in Space". The New Atlantis (37): 20–31. Archived from the original on 15 December 2012. Retrieved 14 December 2012. Durrani, Haris (19 July 2019). "Is Spaceflight Colonialism?". The Nation. Retrieved 2 October 2020. "Website of the IAU100 Inclusive Astronomy project". Archived from the original on 22 December 2021. Retrieved 8 January 2022. Kramer, Miriam (27 August 2013). "Female Astronauts Face Discrimination from Space Radiation Concerns, Astronauts Say". Space.com. Purch. Retrieved 7 January 2017. Sokolowski, Susan L. (5 April 2019). "Female astronauts: How performance products like space suits and bras are designed to pave the way for women's accomplishments". The Conversation. Retrieved 10 May 2020. Further reading Launius, R.D.; et al. (2012). "Spaceflight: The Development of Science, Surveillance, and Commerce in Space". Proceedings of the IEEE. 100 (special centennial issue): 1785–1818. doi:10.1109/JPROC.2012.2187143. An overview of the history of space exploration and predictions for the future. External links Wikiquote has quotations related to Space exploration. Wikimedia Commons has media related to Space exploration. Library resources about Space exploration Resources in your library Resources in other libraries Building a Spacefaring Civilization Archived 22 May 2019 at the Wayback Machine Chronology of space exploration, astrobiology, exoplanets and news Archived 29 September 2020 at the Wayback Machine Space related news Space Exploration Network NASA's website on human space travel NASA's website on space exploration technology Archived 13 July 2023 at the Wayback Machine "America's Space Program: Exploring a New Frontier", a National Park Service Teaching with Historic Places (TwHP) lesson plan The Soviet-Russian Spaceflight's History Photoarchive The 21 Greatest Space Photos Ever Archived 27 December 2010 at the Wayback Machine – slideshow by Life Magazine "From Stargazers to Starships", extensive educational web site and course covering spaceflight, astronomy and related physics We Are The Explorers, NASA Promotional Video (Press Release Archived 26 January 2021 at the Wayback Machine) Recent Advancement in Space technology and satellite technology 2024 Archived 7 February 2024 at the Wayback Machine vte Space exploration Benefits Future Topics Astronomy Deep space exploration Space colonization Space research Spaceflight Human Uncrewed Exploration targets Asteroids Comets Earth Moon Jupiter Mars Human mission Phobos Mercury Neptune Pluto Saturn Uranus Venus History List of spaceflight records Timeline of Solar System exploration Timeline of space exploration Space agencies China CNSA Canada CSA ESA India ISRO Japan JAXA United States NASA Russia Roscosmos United Arab Emirates UAESA Category Outline vte Exploration of the Solar System Timeline of Solar System exploration Exploration of Mercury Venus Moon Mars Jupiter Saturn Uranus Neptune Pluto Artificial objects On extra-terrestrial surfaces Moon Venus Mars Titan Deep-space missions Heliocentric orbit Leaving the Solar System Lists Solar System probes Minor planets and comets visited by spacecraft Missions to minor planets Missions to comets Landings on extraterrestrial bodies Objects at Lagrangian points Space exploration outline timeline vte Spaceflight lists and timelines Timeline of spaceflight General Space exploration outline timeline Spacecraft Spaceflight records Space Race Rocket and missile technology Human spaceflight General Crewed spacecraft timeline by program Spaceflights 1961–1970 1971–1980 1981–1990 1991–2000 2001–2010 2011–2020 2021–present Soviet Russian Vostok and Voskhod Soyuz Mercury Gemini Apollo Skylab Shenzhou Gaganyaan Spacelab Artemis Civilian spaceflight Orbital Suborbital Salyut Expeditions Spaceflights crewed uncrewed Spacewalks Visitors Mir Expeditions ESA Spaceflights crewed uncrewed Spacewalks Visitors ISS Expeditions ESA Visiting Spaceflights crewed uncrewed Spacewalks Visitors Deployed Tiangong Expeditions Crewed Spaceflights Spacewalks Shuttle Crews Missions Rollbacks People Astronauts by name by year of selection Apollo Gemini Mercury Chinese Asian European Cosmonauts women Muslim Arab African American Ibero-America Space scientists Space travelers by name by first flight by nationality billionaires timeline by nationality Spaceflight-related human fatalities EVA 1965–1999 2000–2014 2015–present Cumulative spacewalk records Longest spacewalks Spacewalkers Solar System exploration Timeline Interplanetary voyages Landings on other planets rovers artificial objects Objects at Lagrange points Probes active orbiters leaving the Solar System lunar probes Missions to the Moon Timeline of satellites Sample-return mission Mars Earth-orbiting satellites Communications satellite firsts CubeSats PocketQube Earth observation satellites Timeline of first Earth observation satellites Geosynchronous orbit GOES GPS Kosmos Magnetospheric NRO TDRS USA Vehicles Orbital launch systems Comparison Sounding rocket list Spacecraft uncrewed crewed heaviest Upper stages Sounding rocket Small-lift launch vehicle Medium-lift launch vehicle Heavy-lift launch vehicle Super heavy-lift launch vehicle Launches by rocket type Ariane Antares Atlas Atlas LV3B Atlas LV3C Black Brant Electron Delta DM-19 Delta 1 Delta II Delta III Delta IV Heavy Delta IV Medium Delta IV Falcon 9 and Heavy 2010–2019 2020–2022 GSLV H-II and H3 Kosmos Long March Minotaur Proton PSLV R-7 (including Semyorka, Molniya, Vostok, Voskhod and Soyuz) Scout SLS Starship Thor and Delta Thor-Agena Thor DM-18 Able Thor DM-18 Agena-A Thor DM-18 Thor DM-21 Agena-B Titan Tsyklon V-2 tests Vega Vulcan Zenit Launches by spaceport Satish Dhawan Agencies, companies and facilities Communications satellite companies comparison Private spaceflight companies Rocket launch sites Space agencies Spacecraft manufacturers Other mission lists and timelines First orbital launches by country First satellites by country NASA missions Constellation missions Timeline of first images of Earth from space Timeline of longest spaceflights Timeline of private spaceflight Related topics vte ... in space Biology Human The human body Hygiene Locomotion Medicine Neuroscience Psychology Psychological and sociological effects Sex Sleep Non-human Animals Cats Dogs Frogs Fruit flies Mice Primates Tortoises Extraterrestrial life Microorganisms Plants Astrobotany STS-39 in Earth orbit Environment Climate Corrosion Debris Dust Magnetosphere Weather Weathering Society Advertising Alcohol Archaeology of Earth of items in space Art Burial Colonization Economy Mining Trade Ethics Exploration Food Law Military Music Religion Christmas Selfies Tourism Voting War Women Technology Human spaceflight Accidents Architecture Farming Food Carbonated drinks Toilets Writing Other technologies Logistics Manufacturing Mining Power Batteries Nuclear Solar for Earth for spacecraft Radar Telescopes Weapons Outer space portal vte Public-sector space agencies Africa Pan-African and Pan-Arab RASCOM Arabsat National Algeria ASAL Egypt EGSA NARSS Ethiopia ESSTI Ghana GSSTC Nigeria NASRDA South Africa SANSA Americas North America Canada CSA United States NASA United States NESDIS OSC United States FAA/AST United States FCC United States USSF United States USSPACECOM United States NRO Latin America and the Caribbean ALCE Mexico AEM Argentina CONAE Bolivia ABE Brazil AEB DCTA INPE ITA Colombia CCE Venezuela ABAE IVIC Asia Pan-Asian APSCO Central Asia Kazakhstan KazCosmos1 Russia Roscosmos1 SRI VK Turkmenistan TNSA1 East Asia China CNSA SASTIND CASC CALT CAST CCF CGWIC PLAASF CASIC Japan JAXA ISAS Japan JSS Japan NICT North Korea NATA South Korea KASA KARI KASI South Korea SaTReC Taiwan TASA South Asia Bangladesh SPARRSO India ISRO 2 Antrix Corp DoS NRSC India DSA Pakistan SUPARCO Southeast Asia Indonesia LAPAN Malaysia MYSA Philippines PhilSA Singapore SSTL Thailand GISTDA Vietnam VNSC Southwest Asia Armenia ArmCosmos1 Azerbaijan MAKA1 Bahrain NSSA Iran IRIAF Iran NEHSA Iran ISA ISRC Israel ISA NCSR Saudi Arabia SSA KACST-SRI Syria SSA2 GORS Turkey TUA TÜBİTAK UZAY United Arab Emirates UAESA (MBRSC) Europe Pan-European CEN/CENELEC CEPT ETSI Eurocontrol ECAC ESA ECSS ESRTC EAC ESRIN ECSAT ESAC ESOC ESTRACK Guiana Space Centre EUMETSAT EUTELSAT IGO ESO EU and EEA European Union DG DEFIS European Union EUSPA European Union EU SatCen European Union EASA European Union BEREC Austria ALR 2 Belgium BelSPo BIRA-IASB Bulgaria SRTI2 Czech Republic CSO2 Denmark DTU Space Estonia ESO1 France CNES2 France AAE CdE Germany DLR2 Greece HSC Hungary HSO2 Italy ASI Luxembourg LSA Lithuania LSO1 Netherlands SRON Netherlands NSO Norway NSC Poland POLSA2 CBK PAN UKE KRRiT ORO ULC Portugal PTSPACE Romania ROSA2 Spain INTA Catalonia AEC Spain EAE Spain AEE Sweden SNSA Other Armenia ArmCosmos1 Azerbaijan MAKA1 Belarus BSA1 Kazakhstan KazCosmos1 Russia Roscosmos1 SRI VKO Switzerland SSO Turkey TUA TÜBİTAK UZAY Ukraine SSAU1 United Kingdom UKSA 2 Oceania Australia ASA CSIRO New Zealand NZSA World CCSDS CEOS COSPAR IPDA Cospas-Sarsat GEO GSC IADC ICSMD IMSO ISECG ISS MCB ITSO Intersputnik ODCWG United Nations ITU-R United Nations UNCOPUOS United Nations UNOOSA Former United Kingdom BNSC North Korea KCST Japan NAL Japan NASDA Soviet Union SSP Soviet Union Interkosmos See also: Timeline of first orbital launches by country 1 Preceded by the Soviet space program 2 Preceded by Interkosmos participation vte Solar System The Sun, the planets, their moons, and several trans-Neptunian objects Sun Mercury Venus Earth Mars Ceres Jupiter Saturn Uranus Neptune Orcus Pluto Haumea Quaoar Makemake Gonggong Eris Sedna Planets and dwarfs Terrestrials Mercury Venus Earth Mars Giants Gas Jupiter Saturn Ice Uranus Neptune Dwarfs Ceres Orcus Pluto Haumea Quaoar Makemake Gonggong Eris Sedna Moons Earth Moon other near-Earth objects Mars Phobos Deimos Jupiter Ganymede Callisto Io Europa all 95 Saturn Titan Rhea Iapetus Dione Tethys Enceladus Mimas Hyperion Phoebe all 146 Uranus Titania Oberon Umbriel Ariel Miranda all 28 Neptune Triton Proteus Nereid all 16 Orcus Vanth Pluto Charon Nix Hydra Kerberos Styx Haumea Hiʻiaka Namaka Quaoar Weywot Makemake S/2015 (136472) 1 Gonggong Xiangliu Eris Dysnomia Rings Jovian Saturnian (Rhean?) Charikloan Chironean Uranian Neptunian Haumean Quaoarian Small Solar System bodies Comets Damocloids Meteoroids Minor planets names and meanings moons Planetesimal Planetary orbit-crossing minor planets Mercury Venus Earth Mars Jupiter Saturn Uranus Neptune Trojans Venus Earth Mars Jupiter Trojan camp Greek camp Saturn Moons Uranus Neptune Near-Earth objects Asteroid belt Asteroids Ceres Vesta Pallas Hygiea active first 1000 families PHA exceptional Kirkwood gap Centaurs Neptune trojans Trans-Neptunian objects Kuiper belt Cubewanos Plutinos Detached objects Sednoids Scattered disc Oort cloud Hills cloud Hypothetical objects Fifth giant Nemesis Phaeton Planet Nine Planet V Planet X Subsatellites Theia Tyche Vulcan Vulcanoids Exploration (outline) Colonization Discovery astronomy historical models timeline Space probes timeline list Human spaceflight space stations list programs Mercury Venus Moon mining Mars Ceres Asteroids mining Comets Jupiter Saturn Uranus Neptune Pluto Deep space Formation and evolution Star formation Accretion Accretion disk Excretion disk Circumplanetary disk Circumstellar disc Circumstellar envelope Coatlicue Cosmic dust Debris disk Detached object EXCEDE Exozodiacal dust Extraterrestrial materials Sample curation Sample-return mission Frost/Ice/Snow line Giant-impact hypothesis Gravitational collapse Hills cloud Hill sphere Interplanetary dust cloud Interplanetary medium/space Interstellar cloud Interstellar medium Interstellar space Kuiper belt Kuiper cliff Molecular cloud Nebular hypothesis Oort cloud Outer space Planet Disrupted Migration System Planetesimal Formation Merging stars Protoplanetary disk Ring system Roche limit vs. Hill sphere Rubble pile Scattered disc Lists Comets Possible dwarf planets Gravitationally rounded objects Minor planets Natural satellites Solar System models Solar System objects by size by discovery date Interstellar and circumstellar molecules Related Double planet Lagrangian points Moonlets Syzygy Tidal locking Outline of the Solar System Solar System portal Astronomy portal Earth sciences portal Solar System → Local Interstellar Cloud → Local Bubble → Gould Belt → Orion Arm → Milky Way → Milky Way subgroup → Local Group → Local Sheet → Virgo Supercluster → Laniakea Supercluster → Local Hole → Observable universe → Universe Each arrow (→) may be read as "within" or "part of". vte Spaceflight General Astrodynamics History Timeline Space Race Records Accidents and incidents Space launch Space policy Australia China European Space Agency European Union India Japan Russia Soviet Union United States Space law Outer Space Treaty Rescue Agreement Space Liability Convention Registration Convention Moon Treaty Space warfare Space command Space force Militarisation of space Private spaceflight Billionaire space race Applications Astronomy Earth observation Archaeology Imagery and mapping Reconnaissance Weather and environment monitoring Communications satellite Internet Radio Telephone Television Satellite navigation Commercial use of space Space launch market competition Space architecture Space exploration Space research Space technology Space weather Human spaceflight General Astronaut commercial Life-support system Animals in space Bioastronautics Space suit Extravehicular activity Overview effect Weightlessness Space toilet Space tourism Space colonization Space diving Programs Vostok Mercury Voskhod Gemini Soyuz Apollo Skylab Apollo–Soyuz Space Shuttle Mir Shuttle–Mir International Space Station Shenzhou Tiangong New Shepard Artemis Health issues Effect of spaceflight on the human body Space adaptation syndrome Health threat from cosmic rays Space psychology Psychological and sociological effects Space and survival Space medicine Space nursing Space sexology Spacecraft Launch vehicle Rocket Space capsule Orbital module Reentry capsule Service module Spaceplane Robotic spacecraft Satellite Space probe Lander Rover Self-replicating spacecraft Space telescope Spacecraft propulsion Rocket engine Electric propulsion Solar sail Gravity assist Destinations Sub-orbital Orbital Geocentric Geosynchronous Interplanetary Interstellar Intergalactic Space launch Direct ascent Escape velocity Expendable and reusable launch systems Launch pad Non-rocket spacelaunch Spaceport Ground segment Flight controller Ground station Pass Mission control center Category Portal vte Space missions by destination Planets Mercury Venus Mars Outer planets Jupiter Saturn Uranus Neptune Others The Sun The Moon lunar probes Minor planets Comets Orbiters Extraterrestrial orbiters Mars orbiters Objects in heliocentric orbit Authority control databases: National Edit this at Wikidata United StatesJapanIsrael Categories: Solar SystemSpace explorationSpaceflight Mankind’s greatest disasters Thomas Frey //August 24, 2015// twitter facebook linkedin pinterest email (Editor’s note: This is the second of two parts. Read Part One.) We’ve had countless examples of disasters happening throughout history, even when our best and brightest were involved in the decision-making. Here are 10 of the world’s worst disasters, with many still being cleaned up. 1.) Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant – On March 11, 2011, a nuclear meltdown of three of the plant’s six nuclear reactors was caused when the plant was hit by a tsunami triggered by a massive 9.0 earthquake. The following day, substantial amounts of radioactive material was released, creating the largest nuclear incident since Chernobyl. Over 300,000 people had to be evacuated. 2.) The Disappearance Of The Aral Sea – One of the largest lakes in the world, that once covered 26,000 square miles, between Kazakhstan in the north and Uzbekistan in the south, has been shrinking since the 1960s because of water diversion for Soviet irrigation projects. Satellite images taken in August 2014 showed the eastern portion of the Aral Sea is completely devoid of water, and is now referred to as the Aralkum desert. 3.) Space Shuttle Challenger – On Jan. 28, 1986, the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded in the air over Cape Canaveral, Florida. Disintegration began after an O-ring seal in a solid rocket booster failed at launch. All seven people onboard were killed. 4.) Pacific Garbage Patch – The Pacific Garbage Patch is a vortex in the Pacific Ocean that has collected marine debris like plastic, chemical sludge and other garbage. It extends over a large area, but much of the detritus is trapped below the water. Estimates of its size range from 70,000-15,000,000 square kilometers. Predicted by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists in a 1988 paper, researchers have since discovered other huge concentrations of oceanic trash vortices in both the North Atlantic and the Indian Ocean. 5.) Sinking of the Titanic – Going down on its maiden voyage from England to the United States in 1912, the Titanic was known as the unsinkable ship. With no small amount of boasting, the ship was specifically designed to make the long journey to America with no possible chance of sinking. 6.) B-2 Stealth Bomber Crash – In 2008, on a practice flight in Guam, America’s most expensive jet was destroyed when faulty sensors caused it to pitch up on takeoff, stall and crash, according to the Air Force. The B-2 stealth bomber, only one of 21 in existence at the time, cost $1.4 billion. 7.) Exxon-Valdez – In 1989, an Exxon oil tanker was on its way to California when it hit the reef near Prince William Sound off the coast of Alaska. The tanker spilled over 760,000 barrels of oil into the water off the Alaska coastline. 8.) Space Shuttle Columbia – The Space Shuttle Columbia was destroyed in February of 2003, just six minutes before it was scheduled to land. All seven people onboard were killed. 9.) Hindenburg Explosion – The Hindenburg disaster took place on Thursday, May 6, 1937, as the German airship caught fire and was destroyed during its attempt to dock in Lakehurst, New Jersey. 36 people died in this explosion. 10.) Bhopal Disaster – Considered the worst industrial accident in history, on December 2, 1984 at the Union Carbide pesticide plant in Bhopal, India, over 500,000 people were exposed to methyl isocyanate gas and other chemicals. The toxic gas filtered into several of the shantytowns surrounding the plant. The government of India reported 558,125 injuries, with estimates of over 16,000 deaths. The list above could easily be extended to include other catastrophes like Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Deepwater Horizons, Hurricane Katrina, Love Canal and countless more. The Black Hat Backlash It’s not reasonable to think that we will somehow reach an era of being disaster-free. Machines wear out, computers break down, and even our best attempts at making a fail safe system will eventually fail. Add in a few earthquakes and nature’s own mechanisms for disrupting things when we least expect it, and we get a sense as to how fallible our future will be. So who will be left to pick up the pieces? Just us lowly humans. With our growing imbalance between the super rich and the super poor, a more likely scenario will be a scaling up of techno-stealth warfare of the clandestine kind, with black hat technologies used to disrupt our systems, industries, and government in unusual ways. In case you’re not familiar with the term, “black hat” refers to hackers intent on being disruptive, malicious and stealing for personal gain. Until now, black hat hackers have been limited to the programming world. But that’s about to change. Black hat drones, black hat robots, black hat car crashers and black hat data manipulators will soon be entering our vocabulary. One slightly deranged psycho-bot can easily be a thousand times more destructive than a single suicide bomber today. Even in a society filled with cameras, tracking technology and data trails as wide as a barn, every new generation of techno-hacker has devised ways of masking their path of destruction. Final Thoughts NPR recently created a fascinating interactive website posting the likelihood of certain professions disappearing. On the high end of the spectrum, they predict telemarketers have a 99 percent chance of one day being totally replaced by technology, with cashiers, tellers and drivers all coming in with at 97 percent. The jobs with the lowest potential of being overtaken by technology include mental health and substance abuse social workers. They have a 0.3 percent chance according to the data. Occupational therapists also rank at 0.3 percent, while dentists, surgeons and nutritionists appear pretty safe at just 0.4 percent. That said, even the researchers that conducted this study for NPR admit that their estimates are rough and likely to be wrong. History is filled with jobs that no longer exist. Whether it was pinsetters for bowling alleys, milk deliverymen, lamplighters, or switchboard operators, technology has a way of changing the work we do. The biggest risk we face is in alienating the same people that will have to come in later to clean up after all the messes we make. Related Content Brazil moves to block X nationwide Brazil moves to block X nationwide RIO DE JANEIRO (AP) — A Brazilian Supreme Court panel on Monday unanimously upheld the decision of one of it[...] September 2, 2024 FEMA FEMA approves funding to fight Front Range fires The Federal Emergency Management Agency has authorized the use of federal funds to help with firefighting cost[...] July 31, 2024 ColoradoBiz parent acquires Virginia Business ColoradoBiz parent acquires Virginia Business GREENSBORO, N.C. — BridgeTower Media, the parent company of ColoradoBiz magazine and the authoritative sourc[...] July 31, 2024 3D-Printed Housing Underway in Greeley 3D-Printed Housing Underway in Greeley The “printing” of walls for a Northern Colorado housing development got underway May 30, as Alquist 3D, a [...] June 12, 2024 Loveland Foundry Rebuilds Jackie Robinson Statue After Theft in Kansas Loveland Foundry Rebuilds Jackie Robinson Statue After Theft in Kansas As he coats a mold of Jackie Robinson with wax, metalsmith Alex Haines reflected on the extra importance of a [...] May 26, 2024 Blonde woman holding a beer in Holiday Brewing Co. brew room. Golden-Based Brewery, Holidaily Brewing Co. Expands to Pacific Northwest with New Distribution Deal Golden-based Holidaily Brewing Co. announced on Tuesday a statewide distribution agreement in Oregon and Washi[...] April 23, 2024

• Condition: In Excellent Condition
• Options: Commemorative
• Certification Number: Space Shuttle
• Fineness: 0.01
• Grade: Ungraded
• Material: Metal
• Certification: Uncertified
• Colour: Gold
• Year of Issue: 1986
• Currency: Space Shuttle
• Features: Commemorative
• Country/Region of Manufacture: United States
• Variety: Space Shuttle
• Country of Origin: United States

• Motor Cycle Silver Coin Old Super Bikes Speed Way Racing Red Black Europe Helmet

  £0.01 1 Bid 1d 20h

• £5.99 0 Bids 1d 19h

• Donald Trump Silver Coin United States of America MAGA USA Flag Putin Russia Old

  £5.99 1 Bid 1d 20h

• 9/11 Bin Laden Dies Gold Coin Terrorist United States of America God Bless Retro

  £0.01 1 Bid 1d 20h

• £0.01 1 Bid 1d 20h

• Auschwitz Nickle Silver Coin Holocaust Poland World War II Israel I Jews Krakow

  £2.21 4 Bids 1d 19h

• Pioneer Space Explorer Silver Gold Coin Earths Location Naked People NASA Retro

  £9.99 Buy It Now 4d 16h

• Pioneer Silver Coin NASA Space Exploration Satellite Jupiter Saturn Planets USA

  £14.99 Buy It Now 13d 16h

• Oasis Ticket Gold Bar Autograph Noel Gallagher Liam Pop Music Rock n Roll Brit

  £9.99 Buy It Now 20d 18h

• Bruce Lee See Through Glass Silver Coin Dragon Signed Hong Kong Martial Arts UK

  £9.99 Buy It Now 20d 18h

• Donald Trump Kim Jong Un Silver Coin President Supreme Leader Joe Biden American

  £0.01 0 Bids 1d 19h

• Christmas Wishes Silver Coin Father Christmas Santa Stocking Filler Tree Magical

  £5.99 0 Bids 1d 19h

• Mike Tyson Gold Coin World Heavyweight Championship Belt Boxing Fury Jake Paul

  £5.99 0 Bids 1d 18h

• NASA MARS Rover Landing Coin Space Program Bronze Sci Fi Science Moon Red Planet

  £9.99 Buy It Now 23d 18h

• Donald Trump World Putin Russia Ukraine Peace I Silver Coin II III Old Cold War

  £9.99 Buy It Now 11d 18h

• Usyk Gold Coin Signed Tyson Fury Mike Oleksandr Autograph Ukraine Russian War UK

  £14.99 Buy It Now 13d 16h

• 1988 Marshall Islands $5 - Space Shuttle Discovery USA Commemorative Coin Cover

  £14.23 Buy It Now 11d 19h

• Donald Trump Gold Coin Manhattan New York City United States of America Man USA

  £0.01 1 Bid 3d 18h