First 2 shuttle missions lost

The first shuttle mission explodes (as Challenger).
The second breaks up on reentry (like Columbia).
Could the Shuttle program recover from this? Or would it be ended? If ended, what would be America's future in space?
 
Hmm.. interesting..

Just checking some articles on STS1, and there were some problems with some of the tiles coming off due to the pressure waves from the SRBs.. maybe the scenario could be reversed?

We could have had a situation where STS1 burns up on re-entry, and STS2 (if launched in winter) has an SRB burn-through similar to STS 51-L.

In the resulting accident reports, huge concerns would probably surface as in OTL - you can't avoid the fact that the way the orbiter is stacked just adds to the danger!

It would be a huge cost (and an embarrassing about-face) if NASA had to go back to Apollo-style launches for manned spaceflight, and heavy-lift expendable rockets for the huge payloads that the Shuttle was to have launched (space telescope etc), but in the mid-80s the USA was still technically in a space race with the USSR.

Even though the USA got to the moon first, the Soviets had some impressive achievements with the Salyut space stations - and the next-generation Mir was in production. (Not to mention Energia/Buran). No way would NASA just abandon the Shuttle and replace it with nothing.
 

Yes on STS-1 an overpressure wave from the SRB ignition dislodged a number of tiles, most noticeably on the front of the OMS pods and were visible when the crew opened the cargo bay doors. Luckily nothing on the critical parts of the Orbiter was dislodged and it returned safely. In response to this NASA installed the Sound Suppression Water Sytem at the launch pads to overcome the pressure wave.

STS-2 IIRC suffered a fuel cell failure requiring an early return home. NASA had bet the farm on the Shuttle so had either of these missions been a crew loss then the Shuttle may have been written off as a turkey there and then.
 
Top