HOW TO USE THIS TOOL
The Significant Incidents & Close Calls in Human Spaceflight interactive tool is optimized for use with Firefox. To download Firefox, please visit:
GENERAL USAGE - Click or tap on any event for a pop-up with additional information. Click or tap the pop-up again to hide it.
DESKTOP TIPS - For best results, please use your browser's full screen mode:
Windows: Press F11.
Mac: Click the green Full Screen button in the upper-left corner of the browser window.
To zoom in/out:
Windows: Control-plus/minus to zoom in/out*
Mac: Command-plus/minus to zoom in/out*
TABLET/MOBILE TIPS - This site is optimized for desktops, but also functions on a tablet or phone. For best results on mobile devices, close pop-ups before repositioning the page or zooming in/out.
Source documents require Adobe Acrobat to view. Get Adobe Acrobat here:
Most of the source files contain bookmarks to help locate the relevant information.
Source documents labeled with a padlock are controlled and require NASA authentication to view.
*May cause formatting inconsistencies.
Abort Guidance System
Auxiliary Power Unit
Abort to Orbit
Russian Micropurification Unit (Russian)
Carbon Dioxide Removal System
Colony Forming Unit
Control Moment Gyroscope
Cell Performance Monitor
Compound Specific Analyzer-Combustible Products
Extravehicular Mobility Unit
Electrical Power System
Fuel Cell Monitoring System
Functional Cargo Block (Russian)
Flight Safety Office
Galley Iodine Removal Assembly
Guidance, Navigation, and Control
General Purpose Computer
Global Positioning System
Inertial Measurement Unit
International Space Station
Internal Thermal Control System
Launch Control Officer
Low Iodine Residual System
Loss of Crew
Loss of Vehicle
Minimum Duration Flight
Master Events Controller
Main Landing Gear
Micro-Meteoroid Orbital Debris
Marshall Space Flight Center
NASA Standard Initiator
Office of Safety & Mission Assurance (NASA HQ)
Protuberance Air Load
Precision Approach Path Indicator
Primary Avionics Software System
Pyrotechnic Initiator Controller
Partial Pressure of CO2
Reaction Control System/Subsystem
Remote Manipulator System
Russia or Russian
Return to Launch Site
Safety & Mission Assurance
Solid Fuel Oxygen Generator
Solid Rocket Booster
Condensate Water Processor Unit (Russian)
Space Shuttle Main Engine
Space Shuttle Program
Thermal Protection System
Loss of Crew
Crew Injury/Illness and/or Loss of Vehicle or Mission
Other significant ascent debris events have occurred on:
Late Release Orbiter Tyvek Covers
SRB Seal Events (1981-96)
Other significant STS TPS anomalies:
STS-6, 41B, 51G, 27*, 28, 40, 42, 45
*Most severe tile damage to date.
STS-107 (Columbia) 2/1/2003
Soyuz TMA-10 (14S)
Soyuz TMA-11 (15S) 4/19/2008
Apollo 12 11/24/1969
Soyuz TM-5 9/6/1988
Mir, 10/94, Crew: 6
*toxic byproducts released
Gemini 8 3/16-3/17/1966
Soyuz 1 4/23/1967
Soyuz 21 8/24/1976
Soyuz 33 4/12/1979
Apollo 11 7/21/1969
STS-114, 115, 118, 119, 124, 126
STS-116 and STS-125
Other SRB gas seal anomalies:
STS-2, 6, 41B, 41C, 41D, 51C, 51D, 51B, 51G, 51F, 51I, 51J, 61A, 61B, 61C, 42, 70, 71, 78
STS-51L (Challenger) 1/28/1986
Soyuz TM-9 2/11/1990
Related or Recurring event
Other Thermal Protection System Damage Events
In addition to the Thermal Protection System (TPS) damage on STS-1, STS-51D, and STS-107, the following Space Shuttle flights experienced TPS damage:
STS-6 (April 1983)
STS-41B (February 1984)
STS-51G (June 1985)
STS-27 (December 1988)
STS-28 (August 1989)
STS-40 (June 1991)
STS-42 (January 1992)
STS-45 (March 1992)
Additional information can be found in the reports linked below.
STS-6 Mission Report STS-41B MER Report STS-41B Mission Report STS-51G MER Report STS-51G Mission Report STS-27 MER Report STS-27 Mission Report STS-27 Close Call STS-28 Mission Safety Eval Record STS-28 MER Report STS-28 Mission Report STS-40 Debris, Ice, TPS Assessment STS-40 Mission Safety Evaluation STS-40 Mission Report STS-42 Debris, Ice, TPS Assessment STS-42 Mission Report
STS-1 | 4/14/1981 | Crew: 2 | Related or Recurring event
Right-hand main landing gear door warped due to entry heating.
On April 14, 1981 the right-hand main landing gear door warped due to entry heating. A forward facing step, a tile gap, a tile-to-filler bar gap and an inadequate flow restrictor resulted in excessive gap heating on the forward portion of the right main landing gear door. This excessive heating resulted in severe tile sidewall shrinkage (on four tiles), a charred filler bar, and a localized buckle in the door structure. The structure and Thermal Protection System on the door was refurbished, and the flow restrictor was modified to increase the effectiveness of the Thermal Protection System in the area of the main landing gear doors.
STS-51D | 4/19/1985 | Crew: 7 | Related or Recurring event
TPS burn-through on left outboard elevon.
The post-flight inspection of the Thermal Protection System (TPS) revealed that significant damage occurred during landing on April 19, 1985.
The outboard end of the left-hand lower outboard elevon had received significant heat damage, specifically the outboard forward corner of the elevon lower-honeycomb outer-face-sheet. This area was buckled and delaminated and had two small burn-through holes. The outboard elevon lower-leading-edge tile-carrier panel was completely melted under the outboard tile, and a hole was melted in the elevon-cove primary-seal support plate. Because of the damage the lower-outboard carrier-panel outermost tile fell onto the runway when the elevon was deflected upward after landing.
Evidence indicates that the entry plasma flow entered the inboard gap of the outboard tile, then progressed under the tile flowing outboard, where eventually the tile-attachment strain isolation pad was burned, allowing the tile to become loose. This allowed more plasma flow under the tile, resulting in the melting of the aluminum carrier panel, primary seal panel structure, and elevon honeycomb outer face sheet, as well as the melting of two tiles aft of the plasma entry point and two elevon sidewall tiles. The cause of the TPS and structural damage that occurred during descent has not been positively identified. The most probable cause is an out-of-spec step or gap in the lower wing surface forward of the elevon leading edge. It is believed that this flow path may have existed for the two previous flights, with progressive deterioration of the bond, but was not evident from outside inspection of this area during post-flight inspections.
A requirement was established to remove the outboard leading-edge carrier-panel on each side of all orbiters for detailed inspection after the next several flights. In addition, a more comprehensive detailed inspection of each outboard elevon/wing area was accomplished during the normal TPS post-flight inspections.
STS-107 (Columbia) | 2/1/2003 | Crew: 1 | Loss of Crew | Related or Recurring event
TPS damage from ascent debris strike resulted in loss of crew and vehicle on entry. Similar bipod ramp foam loss occurred on STS-7, STS-32, STS-50, STS-52, STS-62, and STS-112.
Damage to the Thermal Protection System from a debris strike on ascent resulted in the loss of crew and vehicle on entry on February 1, 2003.
At 81.7 seconds Mission Elapsed Time a piece of foam insulation from the External Tank (ET) left bipod ramp separated from the ET and struck the orbiter left wing leading edge in the vicinity of the lower half of reinforced carbon-carbon (RCC) panel #8, causing a breach in the RCC. During re-entry this breach allowed super-heated air to penetrate through the leading edge insulation and progressively melt the aluminum structure of the left wing, resulting in a weakening of the structure until increasing aerodynamic forces caused loss of control, failure of the wing, and break-up of the orbiter. This breakup occurred in a flight regime in which, given the design of the orbiter, there was no possibility for the crew to survive. (Similar bipod ramp foam releases prior to STS-107 occurred on STS-7, STS-32, STS-50, STS-52, STS-62, and STS-112.
Seven crew members were lost.
Vostok 1 | 4/12/1961 | Crew: 1 | Related or Recurring event
On April 12, 1961 ten seconds after retrofire, commands were sent to separate the Vostok service module from the re-entry module. The Vostok equipment module unexpectedly remained attached to the re-entry module by a bundle of wires. The two halves of the spacecraft began entry and experienced strong gyrations as Vostok 1 crossed over Egypt. At this point in the entry profile the wires connecting the modules broke, causing the two modules to separate. After the separation of the two modules, the descent module settled into the proper entry attitude and landed as intended.
Vostok 2 | 8/7/1961 | Crew: 1 | Related or Recurring event
On August 7, 1961 during entry it was discovered that lights on the control console in the cabin, which were powered from the instrument module, remained on. Because the lights were on, it was thought that separation of the two modules had not happened. However, the separation between the capsule and the instrument compartment had taken place. A multi-cable umbilical line between two compartments apparently failed to cut off. This likely explains why the crew member heard the separation jolt, but did not see the control lights go out. The electric current was still flowing to the control panel via umbilical cables. The two modules eventually separated when the cable burned through during entry.
Vostok 5 | 6/19/1963 | Crew: 1 | Related or Recurring event
On June 19, 1963 the Vostok service module failed to separate cleanly from the re-entry sphere resulting in wild gyrations until the heat of re-entry burned through the non-separating retraining strap.
Voskhod 2 | 3/19/1965 | Crew: 1 | Related or Recurring event
On March 19, 1965 a communication cable connecting the landing module with the orbital module failed to separate at the appropriate time, causing the two modules' common center of gravity to shift, causing the two modules to begin spinning around it. The spinning eventually stopped at an altitude of about 100 kilometers, when the connecting cable burned through and the landing module slipped free.
Soyuz 5 | 1/18/1969 | Crew: 2 | Related or Recurring event
During entry procedures on January 18, 1969 the connecting latches between the Descent Module (DM) and the Service Module (SM) of the Soyuz spacecraft failed to separate at the intended time as designed. The failure to separate led the Soyuz to undergo a “nose first” entry. During the entry, layers of the descent module shell peeled away due to heating and internal pressure. As a result of the heating, the connections between the DM and SM were broken and allowed the DM to return to the normal orientation. The DM survived the unplanned heating in the unshielded areas of the capsule.
Soyuz TMA-10 (14S) | 10/21/2007 | Crew: 3 | Related or Recurring event
During Soyuz TMA-10 entry on October 21, 2007, the Soyuz instrumentation and propulsion module (IPM) failed to properly separate from the descent module (DM). This resulted in a ballistic entry. The abnormal entry attitude(hatch-forward) during early descent caused excessive heating on the hatch and back shell of the descent module.
Soyuz TMA-11 (15S) | 4/19/2008 | Crew: 3 | Crew Injury (1) | Related or Recurring event
Ballistic, high g entry and landing over 400 km short of intended target.
During Soyuz TMA-11 entry on April 19, 2008, the Soyuz instrumentation and propulsion module (IPM) failed to properly separate from the descent module (DM). This resulted in a ballistic entry, higher g loads during descent, and the spacecraft landing more than 400 km short of the intended target. The abnormal entry attitude(hatch-forward) during early descent caused excessive heating on the hatch and back shell of the descent module. The recovery team's arrival at the landing site was delayed by approximately 45 minutes due to the off-target landing. One crew member was later hospitalized because of injuries sustained during entry and landing.
A Russian investigation into the cause of the DM/IPM separation system failure concluded that one of the five pyrotechnically actuated locks, which attach the Soyuz instrumentation and propulsion module to the descent module, failed to release at the proper time.
Apollo 12 | 11/24/1969 | Crew: 3
Harder than normal splashdown knocked loose a camera. The camera knocked lunar module pilot unconscious.
Due to a harder than normal splashdown on November 24, 1969, a camera broke free from the window bracket and struck the lunar module pilot on the forehead. The crew member was unconscious for five seconds after the injury and required sutures following retrieval.
STS-9 | 12/8/1983 | Crew: 6
A. Two APUs caught fire during rollout.
B. GPC failed on touchdown.
C. Incorrect flight control rechannelization on rollout.
A) During rollout on December 8, 1983 two Auxiliary Power Units (APUs) caught fire. Six minutes and fifty seconds after the orbiter landed, APU-1 shut down automatically due to a turbine-underspeed condition. Four minutes and twenty-four seconds later, a detonation occurred in APU-1, along with simultaneous automatic shutdown of APU-2, also the result of a turbine-underspeed condition. Fourteen minutes and forty-two seconds after APU-2 shutdown, a detonation occurred on APU-2. Post-flight examination of the orbiter aft compartment revealed fire damage to both APUs and minor shrapnel damage. Post-flight analysis indicated that both APU failures were the result of stress-corrosion cracking in the injector stems of both APUs, which resulted in leakage of hydrazine and subsequent fire/explosion events. The injector stems were subsequently redesigned to reduce susceptibility to corrosion by chromizing the stem, and to reduce material stresses by making changes in the installation processes.
B) Also during landing on December 8, a General Purpose Computer (GPC) failed on touchdown and an incorrect flight control rechannelization occurred on rollout. Due to a failure on orbit, GPC 1 was powered down prior to entry (creating an off-nominal configuration), and the remaining GPCs (2, 3, 4, and 5) were configured for entry landing. During landing rollout, GPC 2, which had previously failed on orbit but was recovered prior to entry, failed again at nose-wheel slap down.
C) The crew reacted with procedures for computer loss in a nominal configuration with GPC 1 active and nominal Flight Control System channel assignments. The crew's execution of GPC 2 malfunction procedures in this off-nominal GPC string configuration resulted in the loss of the remaining two redundant flight control strings. This was not a problem on the runway, but could have resulted in loss of control in flight.
STS-51D | 4/19/1985 | Crew: 7
Right brake failed (locked up) causing blowout of inboard tire and significant damage to outboard tire.
On April 19, 1985 the right brake on the orbiter failed, causing the blowout of an inboard tire and significant damage to an outboard tire. A crosswind of about 8 knots, gusting up to 12, resulted in extra brake energy on the right brake while returning to and holding the runway centerline during rollout. The number 3 stator on both the inboard and outboard right main landing gear (MLG) brakes broke into several pieces, causing both brakes to lock during rollout. The inboard right brake locked at 20.6 knots and 113 feet, before the orbiter stopped and the outboard right brake locked for the last 5 feet of rollout. The right MLG inboard tire burst 33 feet after the inboard brake locked. Eleven of 16 cord layers were worn through before the tire burst. The right MLG brakes failed and locked due to thermal soak-back when the number 3 stators broke.
The corrective action includes the following standard procedures to prevent heat soak-back:
1. Brake-on velocity between 140 and 120 knots.
2. Deceleration rate between 8 and 10 ft/sec2.
3. Deceleration rate reduced to 6 ft/sec2 at 40 knots. If brake-on velocity exceeds 140 knots, continue 8 to 10 ft/sec2 deceleration.
STS-137 | 6/1/2011 | Crew: 7
Brief fire observed between the left main landing gear tires during runway rollout.
STS-134 landed on June 1, 2011. During analysis of the post-landing imagery, a fire was briefly observed during the rollout period, located between the left Main Landing Gear tires shortly after the drag chute was jettisoned. Detailed visual inspections, material analysis, and landing gear systems tests were performed in an effort to determine the root cause of the fire. However, no definitive root cause could be determined. The fire may have been operational, because the commander applied the brakes in excess of recommended deceleration rates, especially at the lower speeds, resulting in the shortest landing rollout on a concrete runway surface since the drag chute had been used. The excessive braking may have generated higher than normal temperatures within the brake.
Soyuz TM-5 | 9/6/1988 | Crew: 2
Two de-orbit attempts failed. Crew confined to DM due to OM being jettisoned prior to 1st de-orbit attempt. Crew prevented erroneous firing of SM separation pyrotechnics.
Two de-orbit burn attempts failed and nearly led to the loss of the crew. The crew was confined to the descent module due to the orbital module being jettisoned prior to the first deorbit attempt. The first deorbit burn was prevented by a sensor glitch which disappeared after seven minutes, and then the burn started. However, the crew manually shut down the burn after three seconds.
A second burn two revolutions later occurred on time for six seconds, then stopped, and the crew manually restarted the burn. However, after an additional 60 seconds it was cut off by the autopilot. The crew manually interrupted the command sequence shortly before the descent/equipment module separation pyros were to have been fired, preventing an erroneous firing. The main cause of the crew's problems was acknowledged to be a combination of incorrect actions of the crew commander and mission control personnel.
SpaceShipOne Flight 11P | 10/31/2014 | Crew: 1
Left main landing gear collapsed.
A nominal landing pattern was flown on December 17, 2003. However, touchdown caused the left main gear to collapse, and the vehicle rolled to a stop off the runway in the soft sand.
Related or Recurring event
In addition to the three overheating/fire events on the ISS and the two significant events on Mir in 1997 and 1998, other overheating/fire events also occurred on:
Mir (October 1994) (A)
STS-40 (June 1991) (B)
STS-35 (December 1990) (C)
STS-28 (August 1989) (D)
STS-6 (April 1983) (E)
Salyut 7 (September 1982) (F)
Salyut 6 (1979) (G)
Salyut 1 (June 1971) (H)
Information on these events is contained in the reports below.
Gemini 8 | 3/16-3/17/1966 | Crew: 2 | Emergency De-orbit | Loss of Mission
Stuck thruster caused loss of control and led to 1st U.S. emergency
During the Gemini 8 flight from March 16 – 17, 1966 a stuck thruster, number 8, which controls roll, caused a loss of control and rapid spin rate of the capsule that could have led to the crew losing consciousness. To counter the effects the stuck thruster was turned off and the re-entry control system had to be used to stabilize the capsule. Use of the re-entry control system led the Gemini safety group to declare an end to the mission, which led to the first United States emergency de-orbit. The thruster apparently short circuited while attached to the Agena target vehicle.
Soyuz 1 | 4/23/1967 | Crew: 1 | Loss of Mission
Failures in attitude control and electrical power systems resulted in a loss of mission. The launch of the intended docking target, Soyuz 2, was scrubbed.
After achieving orbital insertion on April 23, 1967 the left solar array of the Soyuz 1 spacecraft did not deploy, causing the spacecraft to receive only half of the planned solar power. Despite the solar array failure, the crew member attempted to maneuver the spacecraft. The attempt was unsuccessful because of interference between the reaction control system exhaust and the ion flow sensors.
The failure of the solar array to deploy also prevented the cover of the sun and star sensor from opening, preventing attitude control for crucial maneuvers such as spin stabilization and engine firings. The failures on Soyuz 1 prevented the launch of Soyuz 2, which had been scheduled to rendezvous and dock with Soyuz 1, causing the Soyuz 1 mission to be ended early.
Due to the failures with the control systems, the cosmonaut had to manually control the spacecraft for the critical de-orbit burn and entry while also managing the power supply of the crippled vehicle. (See also Soyuz 1 entry event)
Soyuz 21 | 8/24/1976 | Crew: 2
Separation from Salyut failed; ground command succeeded in opening latches.
On August 24, 1976 separation from Salyut failed. Prior to the latches being fully open, the latches gave a false ‘open' indication, leading to the premature firing of the Soyuz separation thrusters and jamming the latches partially open. The Soyuz remained loosely attached to the station until ground control was able to send commands to the latches, forcing them open.
Soyuz 33 | 4/12/1979 | Crew: 2 | Loss of Mission
Main engine anomaly caused final rendezvous abort.
On April 12, 1979 during docking attempts the crew aboard Salyut 6 reported flames shooting sideways from the main engine, toward the backup engine, at the time of the shutdown. The docking was canceled and the Soyuz crew prepared to return to Earth. (See Soyuz 33 entry event)
STS-99 | 2/2000 | Crew: 6
High bacterial count in postflight sample after GIRA installed to removed iodine.
During the February 2000 flight, a high bacterial count of 160 colony forming units (CFUs)per 100 ml was discovered in a post-flight sample after the Galley Iodine Removal Assembly was installed to remove iodine. The level should have been less than 100 CFUs/100 ml.
Apollo 11 | 7/21/1969 | Crew: 2
Engine arm circuit breaker knob broke off. Circuit breaker successfully reset allowing ascent.
On July 21, 1969 while preparing for extravehicular activities, the engine arm circuit breaker broke, probably due to an impact from the oxygen purge system. A felt tipped pen was used to successfully depress the circuit breaker when needed. Circuit breaker guards were installed on Apollo 12 and subsequent vehicles to prevent the oxygen purge system from impacting the circuit breakers.
Late Release Orbiter Tyvek Covers
During the ascent phase of:
STS-114 | 7/26/2005
STS-115 | 9/9/2006
STS-118 | 8/8/2007
STS-119 | 3/15/2009
STS-124 | 7/31/2008
STS-126 | 11/14/2008
The Tyvek covers for the reaction control system jets released later than intended. The late release resulted in the Tyvek reaching a higher velocity than designed, thus posing a higher risk of damage to the orbiter.
Tyvek covers were used to keep rain water and other debris out of the reaction control system jets while the shuttle was on the launch pad.
STS-116 | 12/10/2006 | Related or Recurring event
STS-125 | 5/11/2009 | Related or Recurring event
Debris from the flight vehicle or the launch facility poses a risk to all crewed space launches.
Other significant ascent debris events have occurred on:
On December 10, 2006, during ascent, booster trowelable ablative (BTA) around the solid rocket booster (SRB) left hand aft booster separation motor (BSM) nozzle liberated and was seen striking the bottom of the orbiter shortly after SRB separation began. The root cause of the observed debris liberation was determined to be stress buildup in the thermal protection system (TPS) and BTA closeout configuration at the aft BSM exit cone. The failure mechanism that produced the forward transport of the BTA was a hinging effect on the liberated BTA coupled with plume expansion at altitude, which projected the debris forward to where it struck the orbiter.
The BTA closeouts around the aft BSM nozzles were modified to eliminate the failure mechanism that caused the forward debris transport as well as limit the size and release angle of BTA liberated at SRB separation.
On May 11, 2009 during ascent the Wing Leading Edge Impact Detection System (WLEIDS) recorded two impacts on the starboard chine, which was confirmed by video imagery analysis.
Damage detected during on-orbit inspection was below the damage tolerance threshold.
STS-95 | 10/29/1998 | Crew: 7 | Related or Recurring event
Drag chute door separated during launch and impacted main engine bell.
On October 29, 1998 during the main engine ignition sequence, the drag chute panel fell away from the vehicle. Video of the launch confirmed the drag chute door detached three seconds prior to liftoff and hit the engine nozzle of Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) 1.
The remains of the door were found during a post-launch pad inspection, revealing that at least one aluminum shear pin used to attach the door sheared. The root cause of the shearing was a combination of the high pressure environment caused by SSME ignition and a low margin hinge pin. The drag chute door struck the nozzle of the center main engine but did not do any appreciable damage to the engine or vehicle. Concerns about the status and condition of the chute contained in the drag chute compartment resulted in the decision not to deploy the chute during landing.
As a precautionary measure, two subsequent missions used a solid closeout panel bolted over the drag chute compartment and did not utilize the drag chute. All flights following these missions used Inconel instead of aluminum as shear pin material.
STS-124 | 5/31/2008 | Crew: 7 | Related or Recurring event
Pad 39-A flame trench suffered significant damage causing about 3,500 refractory bricks to be blown away from the flame trench wall.
On May 31, 2008 during the launch of STS-124, the Pad 39-A flame trench suffered significant damage causing about 3,500 refractory bricks to be blown away from the flame trench wall. The bricks scattered away from the flame trench beyond the pad perimeter fence. This debris could have damaged the vehicle or the launch complex.
Pad generated debris is a concern for any spaceflight, due to the potential for debris to travel in a manner that can damage the vehicle or the launch complex.
STS-93 | 7/23/1999 | Crew: 5
At T+5 a short on AC1 Phase A resulted in loss of SSME1 Controller A and SSME3 Controller B.
SSME3 H2 leak: early LOX depletion and shutdown.
STS-93 encountered two close-call events.
STS-114 | 5/26/2006 | Crew: 7
Bird strike on External Tank.
Loss of foam from External Tank PAL ramp.
TPS gap filers protruding. Removed during third mission EVA.
Missing O-ring resulted in ejection of one of two NSIs, compromising the ET forward
separation bolt function and damaging secondary structure and a thermal blanket.
STS-114 encountered four close-call events.
STS-1 | 4/12/1981 | Crew: 2
SRB ignition pressure wave caused TPS and structural damage.
During the April 12, 1981 launch of STS-1, a higher than expected solid rocket booster ignition pressure wave caused damage to both the thermal protection system and structure.
Other SRB Seal Events | Related or Recurring event
SRB gas sealing anomalies have also occurred on:
STS-2 November 12, 1981
STS-6 April 4, 1983
STS-11 (STS-41B) February 3,1984
STS-41C April 6,1984
STS-41D August 30, 1984
STS-51C January 24,1985
STS-51D April 12, 1985
STS-51B April 29, 1985
STS-51G June 17,1985
STS-51F July 29, 1985
STS-51I August 27, 1985
STS-51J October 3, 1985
STS-61A October 30, 1985
STS-61B November 26,1985
STS-61C January 12, 1986
STS-42 January 22, 1992
STS-71 June 27, 1995
STS-70 July 13, 1995
STS-78 June 20, 1996
STS-51L (Challenger) | 1/28/1986 | Crew: 7 | Loss of Crew | Related or Recurring event
SRB seal failure.
On January 28, 1986 a combustion gas leak developed in the right solid rocket motor aft field joint shortly after solid rocket booster ignition. The resulting hot gas plume exiting the joint impinged upon the SRB lower attachment strut and adjacent external tank structure weakening the structure to the point of failure.
Seventy-four seconds into flight, the Space Shuttle Challenger broke up.
All seven crew members were lost.
Soyuz TM-9 | 2/11/1990 | Crew: 2
DM insulation torn loose on ascent; contingency EVA repair.
During the docking of Soyuz TM-9 on February 11, 1990, the TM-8 crew aboard Mir noticed three of the eight descent module's thermal blankets had partially detached near the heat shield during ascent. This raised five concerns:
A rescue mission with a cosmonaut aboard Soyuz-TM 10 was considered, but not executed. The temperature of TM-9 was stabilized by the Mir directing it into alignment with the sun.
Four months later, the Kristall module (90-048A) arrived with the special tools needed to repair the decent module. Cosmonauts were able to secure the blankets out of the sensor's line of sight after an EVA longer than seven hours. The success of the EVA led to a nominal entry upon mission completion.
Related or Recurring event
Service/Descent Module (1961-2008)
TPS Entry Events (1981-2003)
LANDING & POSTLANDING