Uk

Totalmente de acuerdo

Also a massive waste in terms of space exploration. We could have spent way less on space trucking and much more on hardware to reach other celestial bodies.

⁰

@@randbarrett8706 Eh, it was a needed thing, it was a gateway vessel to the concept of re-use.

It looks oddly satisfying.

This is one of the most crazy moments in human history. The SOUND the VISUALS. insane

@@ryans6280 Facts!

​@@ryans6280 3:19

I completely agree. one of the most beautiful things to see

same here

Well, maybe Low Earth Orbit, anyway.

Not greatest, but definitely the coolest.

The X-15 and the A-12 were WAY cooler.

@@vibratingstring mmm arguably.

@@vibratingstring yeah I worked at the air and space museum where there was an X15 and also at Udvar Hazy where there was an SR71. I can tell you from everyday personal experience seeing them. Both those airplanes are fantastic, but neither of them takes your breath away like Discovery or the Concorde does.

@@vibratingstring the X15 doesn’t even remotely compare, it’s a pipe with stubby wings and tiny cockpit. Discovery has all her heat blankets all burned up from all the times she flew in space, it’s a whole other league.

Something I never hear anyone mention, do you get to hear the 2 sonic booms as it takes off? On landing I had some co-workers in Tampa mention how the shuttle landing would scare the crap out of them because the shuttles sonic booms would be close by

Disco's launch was clear - the last two didn't have great weather.

Watching it in person was amazing. I live about 8 hours away, and made it a bucket list item to catch the last launch of each shuttle.. I achieved it. The camera cannot accurately capture the glowing color of those SRB's as they propel the shuttle to space.

Except maybe the final challenger launch. But we don’t talk about that one…

Yess i love the time of starting engine😢

I liked Challenger.

@@VoodooDangerbird rip challenger crew

any particular reason?

​​@@NOOBSLAYER-cw3gd because it failed, duh

​@user-xl2px8hr2l Challenger was the workhorse of the Shuttle fleet back then. In many ways it was also NASA's favourite. The high flight rates it went through probably meant if any shuttle was going to go first, it would have been Challenger.

what is a truster ? this is nothing but CGI for your te lie vision all lies and bull shit

They had one of the highest gimbal ranges out of any engine. This was needed to prevent the pitching effect of offset thrust (because the center of mass was at the tank, not the orbiter, the engines would spread and pitch inward heavily to control the Shuttle's pitch.)

привет ты что-то опоздал, видео вышло 11 лет назад 😀

It was epic

Now the next generation of rocketeers have successfully made reusable self landing boosters. I'd say that's way cooler than reusable splashdown solid rocket boosters and a 100 ton space truck

Shuttle's RS-25 engines were not a totally new concept/design. They were based on the Apollo Saturn V upper stage engines, the J-1 from Rocketdyne with modifications for shuttle operations. The Solid Rockets were based on the Voyager and Viking spacecraft Solid Rockets Motors that were recycled from the 1960s Gemini B/MOL program. NASA as it should tends to build from what they know to reduce costs as they should. The only exception was the shuttle body itself. It was totally scrapped to go back to Apollo staged core concepts for deep space exploration as the space EXPLOITation promise during the shuttle years ended up being a nothing-burger because they couldn't get the reusability costs down and flight frequency up to the promised levels.

they used the old analog TV cameras back then. it wasn't until the early 2000s that the High def widescreen cameras began to be used.

Need to borrow a sweater?

I think it was burning magnesium?

its called CGI on your TE LIE VISION NASA means to decieve in hebrew all lies

They're like a small solid fuel rocket or a firework. They're intended to burn off any hydrogen spills and prevent them pooling under the shuttle and possibly exploding.

​@@attilalako9491 Luckily for us, science keeps progressing no matter what idiots like you say.

@@attilalako9491 Thanks for confirming that you don't speak or head Hebrew. LOL. Another hard fail, bro. Not a good look.

There's an incredible book of an astronaut that has an entire chapter dedicated to describing the feeling of launching. It goes into detail about how awe inspiring it is to gaze up at a skyscraper-sized beast, lit up under spotlights and venting clouds of gasses, and thinking about the incredible and terrifying notion of riding that beast.

They were sister shuttles.

The international space station isn't build by one launch. Several parts are sent by 40 rockets and they are connected together in space just like lego blocks

​@@KarminsLynn Matt Lowne once made a ksp video where he did that

Piece by piece!

That''s oxygen venting to chill the engine, conditioning it for the flight.

This never changed. Space X was made to improve what NASA started.

The critical change happened with the 2006 Bush Space Policy redirecting NASA to SCRAP the shuttle concept and return to low-earth AND deep space exploration through staged rockets, a far more proven technology. Obama, Trump, and Biden have updated, but essentially doubled and tripled down on each other. It was a bipartisan effort to undue the 1970 shuttle decision and return to Apollo technology. Underfunded as the space shuttle was, NASA is now in danger of taking too long and being outclassed by SpaceX spacecraft...although SpaceX still has to prove themselves before that happens.