Did you mean ‘orbiter’ in the title?

no. episodes are launch, orbit, re-entry

@@RealEngineeringthen the first video was titled wrong

@Repent-and-believe-in-Jesusdude

@Repent-and-believe-in-Jesus huh

And that was mostly so the tank would reenter and break up, rather than leave space junk in orbit.

Yup but at that point they’re 99% of the way there so it doesn’t take much energy to to increase the periapsis.

Ever thought of using commas? It helps reading comments a lot and getting them right as well.

I believe this was explained in the video about the boosters and the take off system.

The tank clearly drops away from shuttle. How does the tank fall? It wasnt pushed down...

Nice profile pic

ISS

Can we get some on the Vostok, Voskhod and early NASA rockets?

I forgot I left that joke in there honestly, and laughed myself during review. I don't know why I delivered it so dryly

@@RealEngineeringthe dead pan delivery was the best part. I rewound to verify whether I’d heard it right!

I don't get it, how is it funny?@@RealEngineering

​@@norman_zplay on words from "as god intended"

thankx@@brrrrrr

While Russia had a beat-up old tractor from the 60s.

And, like everywhere else, the 80s tech stopped working while the older stuff kept trucking along.

​@@NitFlickwickokay boomer

It’s awesome, satellite engineering is hard enough for me!

@@Repent-and-believe-in-Jesus All hail the Great Green Arkleseizure! May he bless thee by bestowing his Holy Handkerchief! Atchoo!

What project? High school or NASA Engineer? :) What you wrote above might well fit for any science or a lot of engeneering projects. The general public knows close to nothing about what level of details science and technology is working on every day. Ask any PhD student about their projects, they will need a few paragraphs just to explain the question - as best as they can.

Amazing that we are capable of such things! Also the cooperation among teams of engineers cross-continents is simply..... I am lost for words!!

The choice of fused quartz for the windows was just absolute perfection. The materials science fan in me was awestruck-

true he said the other way in first vid.

@@Repent-and-believe-in-Jesus I guess Joseph didn't get to jettison his tank then, either.

lol @@Repent-and-believe-in-Jesus

@@MattExzy Mary really came up with the wildest cover story ever for cheating, and billions of people believed it lmao

Yeah caught that as well. I was like "Wait if you eject the MT and cut off the engines at the same time, then they would be on the same orbital trajectory" :)

0 atmosphere? Really that’s why it looks so weird? It doesn’t have anything to do with it being filmed in a pool???😂

I don't even know how to share this joke with my friends, but I love it!

I don't get it, how is it funny?

I don't get it, how is it funny?@@TukaihaHithlec

@@norman_z It's a play off of the phrase, "As god intended". Because Goddard has actually intelligent designers, it is more than just a play on words

@@beriukay Thank you

And a too small air lock room for space walks and hinges that lock with temperature differences. Not to mention the maintenance nightmare of the orbiter. Amazing!

​@@paddorseriously? How does that help anyone?

well, had EVERY single detail been thought out, there wouldn't had been 2 major disasters in human spaceflught history involving space shuttle

@@Snork086 how does what you're doing right now help anyone?

​@@paddorbro the space shuttle was designed in the 70s. It needed to be revised and re designed several times but never was. It was well ahead of Apollo but never got the attention it deserved. It languished and became obsikute.

Slightly biased because aero>space, but episode 3 is my favourite episode

​@@RealEngineeringwhat do you mean?

You CAN wait.

​​@@legitusername-zl7toHe slightly prefers flying vehicles to space vehicles.

And kudos to the engineers who created it!

The shuttle should never have been built as it was to be a giraffe when a horse was needed. It was the throwing of 250k lbs into orbit for a max payload of around 20k lbs...and then hauling most of that 250k lbs back down to Earth. What a waste! If a capsule was hoisted to orbit on top of a lightweight container, cutting off the weight of wings and wheels, the shuttle stack could have boosted well over 100k lbs to orbit on each launch as well as the external tank for construction materials. The presence of a capsule would have made the whole thing safer while reducing the wasted fuel and risk. With that kind of payload, the entire space station could have been lifted in 3-4 payloads and something larger than the Hubble could be panning the universe at the moment, with far more durable pointing elements and a greater capacity to restore for repeated images. And there is so much more that we could have done with those 133 launches, not to mention that we would probably have had 14 less casualties. 90% of weight to orbit as useful payloads as opposed to shuttle's 10% seems the brighter way to go. The occasional need for down-mass beyond the capabilities of the capsule could be met by putting a lifting body in the freight container. It could easily carry more down-mass than the shuttle and could be landed remotely with little to no risk to personnel. The shuttle was far more complex than it had to be, contributing massively to the cost and destroying the rapid reusability, making it mostly refurbishable at huge expense.

@@everettlwilliamsii3740 considering what they had to deal with in regards to the requirements from both the engineers and the military, they did what they could. It still plays a major role in our history. For what came out of the entire project, I still think they did very well and showed what could be done when so many requirements had to be met.

Hell yeah

Just as the great philosopher Buzz Lightyear once said

​@DontReadMyProfilekysPicture.273

No, no, no. I think you meant ''There's snakes in my boots''

@@user-ts6tz8zk2rnope he didn’t mean that

I don't get it, how is it funny?

​@@norman_zits a play on words. Taking the religious phrase of "as God intended" and changing it to Goddard, who was essentially the inventer of rocket boosters. Referring to him as the god of space flight

@@NoobMicesters Thank you for the explanation

I don't get it, how is it funny?

When was the last time you saw a video solely on cats?

@@JK_Clark What is your point? My point is UKposts should promote more science and educational videos instead of vapid garbage like SSSniperWolf. And to answer your question, I watched this video a few months ago: ukposts.info/have/v-deo/cHmeqJh_i45qyJc.html

I'm am trying my best to not label these as episode 1,2,3 because that tends to result in some very poor performance, so the titling is a little goofy. The three episodes are launch, orbit, and reentry.

@@RealEngineering In that case, can you at least change the name in a couple of months, when there will be less engagement? "For the future"?

@@Venthe I will likely just post the entire 1 and half hour documentary this time next year as a single episode.

Now if only we could arrange for the children to survive.

All the data acquired with the shuttle makes me wish they try another go at a new shuttle

I'm playing KSP2 with this in the background lol

wait until you can build your own shuttle

@@vkdaninja4735 I actually just built my first two hours ago lol

Everyday Astronaut has a lot of rockets and space related videos (he does more about the technical stuff like rocket engine cycles), give it a watch

​@@ryndrssnAs an Everyday Astronaut fan, I agree

Fake-ass NASA

NASA stuff is easy. They make a lot public. For planes it's more difficult and I rely on my knowledge about planes and interviews with experts more often. One of the reasons we won't see an episode about the F-22. Simply not enough info available to make it worthwhile imo

​@@RealEngineeringThank you

if my simple understanding is up to par, even assuming that the fuel tank is a simple hollow cylinder, the propellants are kinda hazardous after all, sensors and scrubbing equipment required to make it safe for activities would add extra weight, which itself is already a very scarce commodity for space flights.

@@wytfish4855 Liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. The idea was to have an excess of oxygen. The followup mission would install a fuel cell to provide power. The fuel cell would combine hydrogen and oxygen to create water. The followup mission would also bring liquid nitrogen to combine with the oxygen to create air (79% nitrogen, 21% oxygen). The power from the fuel cell would be used to heat the nitrogen/oxygen mixture until it turned into gas. The remaining liquid oxygen and nitrogen would be stored in tanks strapped to the outside as reserve. The new tank design would have one end of the oxygen tank and external shell flanged for removal and installation of internal parts fllowed by an airlock module. The tanks would be tethered to each other and spun for gravity simulation. Spinning in Earth’s magnetic field would generate electricity long term. Orbital manuevering would be provided by electron guns. NASA took one look, realized they could make it work if they Apollo level support, decided it wasn’t worth the risk, and shelved the idea.

ikr too bad we are worried about cost and so many other things now

@@lol-em6bj well, back then we didn't care about safety as much as we do now, the amount of close calls and failures in early rocketry is insane.

@@thomaswijgerse723 yep

Bah, beat me to it.

I don't get it, how is it funny?

@@norman_z Robert Goddard is considered by many as the American father of modern rocketry. " As God intended"

Thank you@@mrarby9780

it's just waste and senseless time, which humanity worked for; to represent the world, that no one can go out of this matrix! Truth only makes it possible! Freedom to all!

Also the most deadly and pointlessly expensive space vehicle ever made.

@@shanent5793 is that supposed to be a reply to me complimenting RealEngineering, or are you just shouting gibberish into the wind? And whatever you think you mean, you're just wrong. Not everything has to be a conspiracy.

Hypergolic.

@@b43xoit Thank you

He did say “with enough fuel” - like an infinitely heavy amount of fuel? :-)

The name of that craft is the Orbiter or Orbit. It's not called the Space Shuttle