Having worked on the avionics in my plane I got curious as to how the space shuttle would navigate itself thousands of miles through reentry to a pinpoint landing in the days before GPS was a thing.
Follow me on Twitter for more updates:
/ djsnm
I have a discord server where I regularly turn up:
/ discord
If you really like what I do you can support me directly through Patreon
/ scottmanley
As a NASA engineer for 38 years, I operated and maintained the TACAN and MSBLS ground systems for 110 of 135 missions. TACANs used by the Shuttle received extra precise calibration. We calibrated the MSBLS to autoland specifications providing the best guidance as possible for the pilot. Installing and maintaining the Shuttle ground systems at the Abort Landing Sites in Europe, Africa, and Pacific islands was the most fun part of the job. If you ever do a follow-up, make sure to mention the Shuttle Training Aircraft which flew with thrust reversers on to achieve the 20 degree glide slope. At the end of the program the STA’s used a Special Category I landing system at KSC for additional safety during training.
I’m old enuf to remember when MLS approaches were gonna be everywhere. I must have revised hundreds of Jepp plates with MLS. But in 50+ years of flying, 38 of them international on DC-8s & B-747s I never heard anyone get cleared for one. Used to see the shuttle trainers in ELP all the time, they practiced over White Sands & McGregor ranges.
So cool! Thank you for sharing
Thank you for sharing!
Ward Carroll covered the Shuttle Training Aircraft landings on his channel recently.
Wow, thank you a lot! That's so interesting and basically an unexpected, free extra to the video. ❤
if this is an elaborate 'the missile knows where it is' joke Imma flip
I thought that the missile only knew where it isn't.
The space shuttle knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows where it isn’t. By subtracting where it is from where it isn’t, or where it isn’t from where it is (whichever is greater), it obtains a difference, or deviation. The guidance subsystem uses deviations to generate corrective commands to drive the shuttle from a position where it is to a position where it isn’t, and arriving at a position where it wasn’t, it now is. Consequently, the position where it is, is now the position that it wasn’t, and it follows that the position that it was, is now the position that it isn’t. In the event that the position that it is in is not the position that it wasn’t, the system has acquired a variation-the variation being the difference between where the shuttle is and where it wasn’t. If variation is considered a significant factor, it too may be corrected by the onboard guidance computer. However, the shuttle must also know where it was. The shuttle guidance computer scenario works as follows: Because a variation has modified some of the information the shuttle has obtained, it is not sure just where it is. However, it is sure where it isn’t, within reason, and it knows where it was. It now subtracts where it should be from where it wasn’t, or vice versa. By differentiating this from the algebraic sum of where it shouldn’t be and where it was, it is able to obtain the deviation and its variation, which we call ‘error.’
You'll flip like a beginner stage KSP rocket?
I don't get it. Tell us the original joke about the missile!
I would love a video from Scott explaining that meme.
When asked how the Shuttle flew John Young was quoted as saying "It glides like a safe with the door left open!" 🤣 RIP John.
So that's where the "fly safe" comes from.
@@andrasbiro3007 you win the Internet for today.
The Shuttle had no abort system but , in theory, if it reached a sufficient altitude it could detach and perform an RLS--Return to Landing Site. Young was aked how that works and he answered, "i'ts simple, it only requires two miracles followed by an Act of God."
@@docjanosJohn Young was never short of a quip !
@@docjanos He also had a famous response to some NASA leaders who wanted to do an RTLS abort during a test flight just to see if it could be done, "We don't need to practice bleeding."
That's not flying, that's falling, with style.
Thank you Douglas Adams! 😆
Definition of an orbit.
Am I the only one who appreciates an expertly-applied Toy Story quote?
The orbiter has/had a natural glide ratio around 4 down for 1 forward. It literally cannot land unpowered, period. (Unless we include crashing. It's really good at that.) That's why it's called a flying brick. It's *better* than an actual brick but not really by much.
@@nateschultz8973 It's 25% better than an actual brick. Not an earth shattering number, but when you need those 25% it makes all the difference in the world.
I'm honestly amazed the space shuttle had such an incredible landing record. The only one lost during de-orbit was due to damage, not a problem with the re-entry and landing. Huge props to the pilots and the teams who calculated everything.
Yeah they were on self destruct mode on the way up but got their act together on the way down.
Maybe if not for the USSR falling apart they would decide that adding jet engines to Buran wasn't needed at all
This landing video shows just how good the pilots were. They make such tiny, perfect corrections to stay right on course. Of course, they also had the very best instrumentation, planning, and assistance from the ground.
@@chrisfrederick9934 The only difficult part of landing the shuttle was when you had the mains on the ground, the shuttle itself was stable and responded to inputs predictably. Dropping the nose on the ground at the right time to not stress anything out was all on the pilot, there was no instrumentation or guidance for it. Everything else was just a matter of following the course, then picking up the guidance pip on the hud, and finally watching the lights on the runway. Everything was set up specifically for the shuttle so there was no guesswork, but dropping the nose at the right time had to be precise and judged manually.
@@chrisfrederick9934 Nerves of steel but no nervousness. Ie if they botch the landing via under or over shoot, the shuttle breaks up and the landing is unsurvivable. It was calculated it could not even do a water ditch without a break up (for the case of booster fail during critical points in ascent).
Wow, I had no idea the shuttle had a max G rating of only 3G!! That's nuts. Reentry must have been very smooth though. Cheers Scott! 👍😎
My car can take more than 3G!!
Why is it "nuts?" It worked. What's wrong with you?
@@user-dh6bj2me5pnuts doesn’t necessarily mean something stupid or hair brained. It can be used more like that’s crazy or that’s shocking
@@user-dh6bj2me5p Nothing is wrong. It's nuts, because something that was orbiting the planet had smaller g-load tolerance than GA planes. That easily puts it into the "nuts" territory. It's unexpected.
@@flare242 The more I know about the science and engineering used back in the day the less impress and more disapointed I am by the actual one. Spacex is a joke compared to what they did back in the 60s
This has gotta be one of the most informative, objective, and entertaining spaceflight channels on KZhead. Thank you Scott!
Agree !!! Also , the shuttle was sexy looking !
Agreed!!! Scott does good work!
Sure it is!
Good overview Scott - as an ex Shuttle Approach and Landing instructor I’ll give you an Exceeds Expectation
Hey, it's Scott Manley we're talking about. I'd say "what we'd expect from you" would qualify better. Ofcourse, compared to other mortal beings, you're absolutely right.
Funny thing Scott, as a United States Submarine veteran, part of my weapons system was designed and manufactured by Singer Librascope. Singer had its hands in a lot of things nobody knows about!
Mattel made a lot of the plastic parts for M16s. Contracting gets pretty interesting.
Like a great many companies, Singer made a lot of stuff for the war effort. They excelled at making small, complicated, precision parts.
Singer made Colt ACPs in the second world war. They made only perhaps a thousand units but they were beautifully made and finished and command high prices today . Probably most are never fired to protect their value. At some point Singer was taken off to do other War work that required high precision -- likely bomb sights or something similar. The original Singer sewing machine man was a Russian Jewish chap who came from St Petersburg. He developed his base idea in Ru and then emigrated to the US of A. Tim Fidler.
Such as the Mk113 FCS I used to operate and repair.
@@F_Tim1961 Colt ACPs
Always good to know what we did before GPS in case GPS fails for whatever reason.
Well... airplanes can do that. You can't really use VOR/DME for your car or during hikes.
@@flare242 That's what paper maps were for. Don't know the last time I saw one.
You can use radio directions finding with handheld equipment to triangulate your position.
@JohnDoe-jh5yr I can't speak for other places but my local Walmart still has paper travel maps. Probably not a bad idea to have some on hand.
It's being spoofed by Russia it often doesn't work.
I got to see four or five shuttle landings when I flew out of Edwards in the 1990s. About a week before the landing NASA would set up the microwave transmitters on both sides of the long runway and about 4 days prior they would bring the G2 Shuttle landing trainer in to calibrate the system. Back then John Young was working at the astronaut office and he would personally fly the calibration flights. They would fly an approach culminating in a go around and then fly another from the other direction. Quite the airshow. The day of the landing the airport was shut down for about 4 hours (except for some final checks using the trainer) and no work would get done for the 45 minutes prior to landing as everybody went outside to watch. Depending on the wind direction, it was possible to observe the approach from very close to the runway and it was easy to hear the shuttle shoosh by. Quite the spectacle.
Loved the bit about centreline photos 😂
Gotta make sure the taxpayers get their monies worth 🤣
What’s wrong with you folks. The shuttle program was an abject failure run by super-bureaucrat NASA which murdered two crews by considering money not science. My wife tried out for Teacher-in-Space which turned out to be crew falling for several minutes into the ocean while their families stood in horror and tears in the grandstands provided for the asinine NASA.
@@georgedobler7490I agree, and it seems you have a personal grudge against this too.
The shuttle was one of those creations that at the same time, filled me with awe and amazement, and terror.
Thank you for this video. Many of us who had watched Shuttle from the very beginning, don't understand why many today have this dislike of it. A truly incredible vehicle. I feel videos like this will get a new generation of space enthusiasts to appreciate these complex and amazing machines. Thanks again.
People dislike the shuttle? It's one of the most badass things EVER! And that's coming from someone with a primary love for *sea* ships.
The visual landing aid (PAPI) was used on final approach. The outer glide slope was between 17 and 23 degrees, depending on vehicle weight returning from space. PAPI was placed at 7500' and 6500' from the end of the runway. The commander acquired the Ball/Bar after the flair maneuver at 6500'. The B/B helped commander maintain inner glide slope.
Landing checklist: Apply rudder as necessary. Pilot: Instructions unclear, applied both right and left rudder simultaneously.
Space shuttle takes a screenshot
@@sethwallack8089 Screenshot? looks more like a selfie to me.
In 1982, I was privileged to accompany one of my best friends, Tom, and his family to Edwards to watch his uncle, Col. Robert Overmyer, land STS-5. I spent hours wandering around in the wee hours of the morning, taking in sights like NASA's white U-2 and other stuff I'd only dreamed of seeing for myself. At ten degrees below zero, it was colder than I'd ever been in my life, and even with 8 layers of clothing I suffered, being born and lived in San Diego my entire life, so the memories are kinda' dimmed. Finally, as the sky brightened, came the double sonic boom, and we could see the distant speck we'd come to see. Eventually, as Columbia flared over the runway and began to settle toward the ground, Tom's brother shouts out "Hot damn! He remembered to put the wheels down!!!" Seems the good colonel had a nasty habit, while flying the simulator, of forgetting to deploy the landing gear! One of my last clear memories of the experience was just how interminably long the ship sat where she stopped, with several large fans blowing on her, as a precaution against the crew being exposed to the toxic fuel vapors. I understand that hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide are NOT the Breath of Spring to us air-breathers!
Cool story! I went to school with his daughter, Patty
Thanks for sharing your memories. I didn't know about the fans, but it makes a lot of sense. The Shuttle RCS system used those fuels, so it was probably wise to make sure there were no fumes or vapors left in the piping so that NASA didn't expose its crews to hazardous substances! It's amazing to look back and see how much we thought up and accomplished without smartphones and the internet.
I don't think the pilot puts the gear down, I think another crew member does that.
@@JoshuaTootell well **obviously** in this case! 🤣
@@HuntingTarg Yeah, I've been learning about all the various nitric compounds used in...let's call it "high energy chemistry"...lately, such as hypergolics and liquid fuels... It's amazing how ungodly nasty we can make *air* with the addition of a couple extra atoms and some energy!
The thought that this vehicle went to space and came back, and it did it multiple times over before I was even born with no comparable craft flying today, is just incredible and a great testiment to the ingenuity of the early spaceflight engineers, making it happen with what they had, and landing it every time regardless. Fantastic.
And did it with really shitty computers, compared to what we have today. The engineering and thought that went into the space shuttle is mind boggling. Right up to what was done for the Apollo program, which was done with even shittier computers. I.E. there were actual humans doing pipelined computations as a backup, in case the actual computer failed.
@@jeromethiel4323I'd say today's computers are pretty shitty compared to those ones. They might have more memory and be faster, but the quality and robustness is lacking. Also over-complication creates more things that can go wrong.
@@BrandyBalloonThis is just wrong, a genuine Arduino Uno is arguably far more reliable then all of the computers we brought into space during the Apollo and Space Shuttle programs. Atmel/Microchip makes a hardened space rated version that's even better. However, today's engineers seem to be far worse at engineering due to a failing of colleges across the US to convey engineering and instead are wasting credits by requiring crap like Film History, Philosophy, Gender Studies, and other worthless classes into an engineering degree. Not to mention the general politics issues at universities tend to drive out the old white greybeard engineers replacing them with some Indian woman who doesn't understand an opamp.
@@linuxguy1199 Rofl, you think an engineering degree has Gender studies and film history in it? You believe to much nonsense you read on the internet.
@linuxguy1199 Just surprised you didn't blame "Woke" too
Neat! Way more detail than I've seen in all the various documentaries I've watched over the last few decades.
The shuttle was so beautiful. Probably the best landing coverage and explanation I've seen!
This is a lovely companion video to the marvel that is Bret’s “How to land a Space Shuttle … from Space”! (anyone who has not see that yet is in for a treat!) Thank you, Scott, for always being interesting, fact laden yet entertaining!
Wait, the PAPI is 20 degrees? Oh, wait, it's a flying brick, I almost forgot.
More like graceful falling than actual flying.
As i recall the rate of descent up til the final part of the landing approach was near that of terminal velocity for a freefalling person. Edit: rewording my statement because my less than optimal choice of words seems to be triggering everyone's pedantry. Carry on 🫡
@@razorfett147mad monkeys going into space and back.
@@razorfett147It makes sense, you *want* the shuttle to take on as much energy as possible during that final, because you're gonna need the extra speed to have any hope of sustaining level flight for the landing.
@razorfett147 It was falling at an angle rather than soaring like an angel.
TACAN is a bit more different than the VOR system, for starters, TACAN is UHF, VOR is VHF. VOR also has a more complex antenna arrangement as there can be different types of modulation involved, both phase and space. TACAN, with that different antenna design, has the capability for both Ground and Air transmitting stations, we primarily used Air to Air for Air Refueling vectoring. The biggest issue with TACAN is it is a beacon (here I am!) for friend OR foe. Great video Scott, Thanks again!!!
TACAN is DME with the silent periods filled with the encoded direction signal.
Great video! A key part of the navigation system was "Drag H" (also known has drag altitude), which was used to estimate the Shuttle's altitude starting around 230,000 ft altitude down to 85,000 feet when the air data system kicked in. Drag altitude was a pseudo-sensor that estimated altitude by using drag information measured by the IMUs. Based on the amount of drag, a corresponding altitude could be estimated by using a look-up table from an atmospheric model. It wasn't very accurate but that wasn't its purpose. The purpose was to bound any big IMU biases that would lead to huge navigation errors before TACAN was acquired. Drag altitude was a critical part of the entry navigation system, but it is often overlooked.
This is a nice addon to hilarious Bret Copeland's "How to land a Shuttle" stand-up routine. Yeah, i know, TECHNICALLY it might not be one, but i laughed a lot.
Scott. I worked on the D5 missile. I was working on antenna systems for the first flight test missile. There definitely was a GPS system in 1982. It was only available for military uses then.
In 1982 only 6 GPS satellites had been launched, with one already retired. They'd need a lot more than that for reliable use with quick position fixes.
Great Scott, I get to see a video by you as soon as it's uploaded. Must be my lucky day.
People sure love to shit on the shuttle as this terrible space vehicle, but the more I learn about the technologies powering it, the more respect for it I develop. Has to be one of the most impressive engineering achievements of the 20th century.
Shuttle was the Bugatti of space travel. It's only problem was high cost to launch and maintenance, something SpaceX will realize soon with Starship.
Yeah, ridiculously impressive. Really stupid design requirements.
Shuttle was a bodge of Lego, Mechano and Sticklebrix all held together by extremely intelligent mathematicians and software writers. The two failures were caused by managers pretending a something was all fine & good when it clearly was not.
As impressive as an F1 car engine is in terms of engineering, you don't take it out for daily errands.
@@05DonnieB Most people dumping on NASA now are immature ignorant Musk fan boys with no concept of how hard things were in the time before GPS with so many other obstacles to surpass during 1960s to 1980s.
When I lived in Japan I had friends that were stationed at Yokota airbase on the edge of Tokyo. I got to go out on the flight line with them one time and I noticed the planes were hardly using any runway. When I asked why they had such a long runway they explained it was an alternate for the shuttle. That would have been a site to see. Imagine the shuttle landing in Tokyo with Mount Fuji in the background.
It would have made for cool pictures, although it would have made international news. I would rather have seen an incident like that than the two full-loss mission failures that happened.
When I worked as Air Traffic Controller we occasionally received AFTN paper NOTAMs regarding delays in Lajes AFB, Azores, due to a possible diversion from the Space Shuttle. When they expired we threw them away. Nowadays I regret so much not having kept one of them! 😐
@@duartesimoes508 I worked in airfield management in the Air Force and we'd issue those NOTAMs😂 I was at Cannon AFB and we were an alternate for the shuttle a couple of times while I was there. That would be a cool one to keep though
Great video as ever Scott, stuff I've always wondered about in the back of my mind. Can't imagine the relief when they got 3 wheels on the ground. I used to work with Wii accelermoters and quickly learned you can't reliably integrate them, as in you can't just sum the outputs together over time and expect good predictions on location and orientation. They're just capacitors on springs plus some discrete maths at the end of the day.
The Wii Remote had to put up with G forces that would overwhelm the shuttle.
Excellent, detailed, information laden, yet concise video! As an electrical engineer and pilot, and a radio and space fan from my teens, I understood the operation of a VOR, but the illustrations at 5:44 really sums it up very clearly. Thanks !
It seems like so much effort in your videos is put into finding hard-to-find footage & photos of historical events/equipment/etc. I really appreciate that
I was so waiting for you to mention 'the shuttle know were it is and where it isnt' :D
Make sure the Shuttle roll-out comes to a stop on the center line. Good advice! Neat to hear about the older navigation technologies.
Great recap! I used to know all of this back in the day and it was wonderful seeing it again
Scott, I understand and from everything you say . On the other hand, there is a whelks chance in a supernova I could hand figured it out . I saw two shuttles. I still get teary eyed. Never stop. Never stop.
Favourite fun tidbit on shuttle landings, for me: around the time it hits the entry interface it still is going around mach 26, but also 26 kts IAS. :p
Great video Scott… love the details! Learned a lot.
Absolutely fantastic stuff Scott. Thanks.
There is a game F-sim - a very precise simulator for the Shuttle landing. Highly recommend. Thanks for explaining here many aspects which I was always taken as “given”.
Sometime in the 80s a software company released a shuttle simulator. It was, for the time, amazingly advanced, with features like interactive buttons and switches (yup...just like DCS). Due to computer mice still being weird, wingding toys, *all* the cockpit switches were bound to keyboard commands, often in nested sets (first keybind got you to the right area of the panel, second keybind actually flipped the switch). It was incredibly complex, amazingly immersive for the time, and had a near-vertical learning curve. Or would have, if it had had even a half-decent manual or tutorial. Which it didn't. I managed to stick several launches - easy because crew input is minimal - and orbital insertions, but I never managed a de-orbit, never mind an actual landing. Something always glitched, forcing me to manually enter the parameters...and with no manual to go from...🤷♂️
I worked Shuttle for several years on the thermal protection system and I can tell you that thing was covered in antennas, mostly beneath the TPS on the underside. I never knew what all of them were for, but when they malfunctioned we had to crunch tiles off so the vehicle techs could get to them. If you haven't done so already, you ought to do a video on the star tracker system. It was impressive for its time.
I was mentioning the other day that knowing what your orbit is and where you are exactly is something we take for granted when playing KSP. It's really mind boggling trying to understand how you figure these things out for real.
A truly impressive mix of technologies and techniques. Thanks for posting this, Scott.
Always interesting. Thanks, Scott.
It feels good just to watch the whole process of shuttle landing. Scott providing colour commentary
Great vid, as always. The comments in your earlier "Top Gun pilot lands space shuttle" short pointed me to Bret's well explained video "How to land the space shuttle from space", which covered a few new items (to me) overlapping with this, like the descent energy management cone-shaped volume.
Fascinating indeed! Thanks, Scott! 😊 Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊
I grew up in Brigham City, Utah, which is basically a bedroom community for Thiokol (Northrup Grumman now after like 30 name changes) where the SRBs were made. Learning this part of Space Shuttle operation makes me feel like a kid again. Thanks, Scott. Fly safe and stay zesty.
Some of the best pilots I'm sure! No "go around" with this winged brick. Good info!
wow... i never knew they did a spiral before the final approach. I knew about the s-turns to bleed velocity, but other than that i always imagined it to be a straight shot from orbit to the runway.
A straight-in from orbit would be very unforgiving if the energy was too low for any reason. The final turn was a flexible way of burning off excess energy just in time for the final approach, which meant the shuttle could carry extra airspeed/altitude for a safety margin. It's a clever design.
@@AdrianColley it is, no doubt 😀 makes total sense after Scott showed it, exactly for the safety reasons. Nevertheless i've never seen it mentioned anywhere and all shuttle landings i've watched only showed the last minutes of final approach and touchdown. I've always wondered how they can calculate it that precisely. Then i learned about the s-turns and was happy with that explanation. I never thought the shuttle had enough authority to glide actual circles/spirals.
@@CherryGSremember, space shuttle's attitude thrusters use poisonous fuel hence cannot be fired during final approach
Nice overview of the details. Thank you.
Thanks Scott! Your videos are so great. Regards from Copenhagen Denmark
I wish Scott makes a video on how he researches this stuff for his videos. I mean does he know so much off the top of his head he just knows exactly where to look for information, does he spend countless hours pouring over documentation for every video, does he have a team _xD? Every video is really impressive in technical detail and in scope of information.
Man after seeing the Starship launch I really wish there was some good external footage of the shuttle during reentry, this video pretty much has every piece of existing footage that's available and its all just old camcorder footage from inside the cockpit
Unfortunately, NASA has basically always been of the opinion that external engineering cameras are useless.
THANK YOU Scott! This video was way more entertaining and educational than any movie I've seen in the last year! 💯
Amazing. Thank you for putting this together.
So, how did buran do their automated landing back then? Does any documentation exist?
In Soviet Russia, Buran fly you. 😂
While I vaguely remember Scott doing an overview video of Buran-Energia, I think it's a fair bet that a lot of the documentation and test articles on Buran were lost after the USSR had a collapse of economy and industry, so; "...the world may never know."
Olde Shuttle Tech was amazing
The STS program gave Americans many of the technologies they enjoy today.
No joke
Quite stunning really for what was essentially early 1970’s technology.
Aerospace tech from the 50’s through the 70’s was completely mind blowing. It is difficult to comprehend how smart these designers were.
@@nsh1980gmail The people who built the Saturn V, Apollo, LEM, etc, did so with slide rules and graph paper. They got so good at putting people on the moon, that they even gave them golf clubs and buggies to play with. Now you have people with all the data from Gemini, Mercury, Apollo, STS, ISS, etc...using essentially super computers, with far better material science advances, CNC, etc...making tin cans explode and spin out of control to their demise. NASA built a WELL MAINTAINED nature preserve around their launch site, SpaceX built a launch site around a nature preserve with endangered species, that they regularly burn down, pollute, deafen mammals, etc. NASA worked for the taxpayer money they were given, with results. SpaceX enriches it's owner, via the tax payer dollars he gains profit from...while destroying more Starships in 3 flights, than the STS program lost in well over 100. This is before the 'starship' is even human rated, let alone cargo rated.
I love your videos. Always on point, no bullshit, no wasting our time.
I worked with Singer Kearfott back in the day on those inertial nav systems. Also with Litton Industries (which was the other big player in inertial navigation). Those were very accurate systems.
I wonder how Buran landed only 5m away from its touchdown point completely "alone"... :)
even more curiously with strong winds they didnt account for during that day. what a feat for a first (and sadly only) flight.
gotta give it to the soviets they can pull off some cool stuff from time to time. along with the Buran came the An-225.
Ward Carroll's video the other day (in response to one of your tweets on this subject) says the Shuttle nose wheel just falls when the speed bleeds off enough, the pilot isn't trying to keep it up or down. As you didn't address this point I'm going to assume the A/V for that segment was already done and you weren't going to fix it (or re-assert it). The video URL I'm referring to ends with watch?v=iht2byly_Ts , for anyone wondering.
I made a comment on Ward's video about this. He also left out the 'ouch' comment from the crew when the wheel touched down.
Great vid. Cheers, Scott.
Sounds like 1 scary landing to me. Great video Scott.
"Discovery." "Yes, Houston?" "Roll perception check!"
I went to outer space once in the shuttle and shared a beer with my friend Dr. Leon Cream.
Great video as always!
Awesome presentation, Scott
There are 4 lights....
With brains and math, unlike SpaceX.
When they had only flown with humans onboard they definitely needed a lot of that.
Another great video, Scott...👍
Knew a lot of people in the Shuttle program. Shuttle was quite a craft. It's cool seeing the old film coming out lately. Thanks for the upload.
Today's Fact: In 1997, a man in Colorado was struck by lightning and survived, only to be struck by lightning again six years later and also survive.
Shocking fact ⚡
Resistance gained against: death
Fun (related) fact: the first shuttle test landing almost didn't make it to the runway (and bounced a bit when it did)!
Roy Sulivan claimed 7 lightning strikes between 1942 and 1977. Bit more than 2.
Jeez….Thor really had it out for him.
Great Story. Great shots. Learn Shuttle stuff everyday. Cheers Scott
Keep it up! I learn a lot from you!
Very interesting! Thanks, Scott.
So exciting. Love how you do those videos Scott ❤🚀👩🚀
Thank you very much! Super interesting again! I have already seen some videos about the shuttle landing procedure and have learned some very interesting facts. By the way: the Singer building was the first skyscraper in NYC. And the only one that was unfortunately demolished. Very tragic! The history of the Singer company is super exciting. One of the first successful companies worldwide.
That was really fascinating, thanks!
Nicely done Scott. Excellent explanation of how they got that bird home pre GPS.
Good show Scott on digging all of that up.✅ Always have wanted to be on one of those “Reentry to Landing” phases, not really interested in all the rest of the mission. 😎
I think a we used to use an MLS approach into mammoth flying the dash 8. Crazy. Also the flare cure in our heads up display functioned vary similar! another Great video Scott!
EXCELLENT. Thanx for posting.
Scott,you rock! Peace
Thanks for uploading
As a fellow pilot, I thank you Scott for this video. Never seen the side-by-side video of external vs HUD before, and it is really cool and informative. Thanks! I got to watch two shuttle landings in-person at Edwards from the public viewing area back in the day... it was really cool to be there, and the shuttle's incredible approach angle was jaw-dropping. (the shuttle landings were even cooler than witnessing Mike Melville fly Space Ship One up and back from Mojave... and that was pretty damn cool in itself)
Great video, thank you for breaking this all down for us
thank you scott great information cheers from melbourne australia
Very interesting video! Thank you!
It's a testament to the intense training they did that they never had a landing accident, but it's still a crazy way of doing it!
I really appreciated the point about doing landings manually to get real-situation experience and not trusting the computer. The same argument was made against terminating the Orbiter program on America's experience curve with manned spaceflight and spacewalks, and arresting the performances of the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds during C0VlD. The higher degree of expertise & skill that is required to do something, the faster it is lost after it stops being done.
Many years ago we flew approach and mock landing at the shuttle runway at KSC, we weren't allowed to touch down but got about 10 ft off the runway and flew down it. Such a cool experience.
What an amazing piece of human ingenuity!
Wow. Incredible content. Thank you.
Thank you again for a wonderful video!
Strongly recommend playing with the F-SIm space shuttle landing sim for mobile. Takes a lot of practice not to blow every damn tire when the "brick" hits the runway. For old people like me, F-SIm has the original Edwards AFB strip as well as Kennedy, and once you've mastered the basics it'll throw weather and/or faults at you.
When I got to watch a shuttle land at Edwards AFB, it passed overhead 8000' up with a sonic boom, then it flew a long downwind leg before turning base & final to land. Awesome!
I play a lot of DCS and learned a lot of this stuff during my years with it. TACAN/ILS etc. My favorite way to play was to fly during inclement weather and at night and use my instruments to get me to the runway with no visibility. I have also had many successful glide landings with no fuel. It's really fun to stick a perfect landing using just your instruments and with your head looking down rather than out of the cockpit.
It's fair to say that the Space Shuttle was the most capable and complex space vehicle ever. The ability of the United States to design, build and fly the Shuttle in just ten years using '70s technology is nothing short of astonishing. You could easily argue that it was a greater achievement than even Apollo. We went from John Glenn flying the little Mercury capsule in 1962 to a 100 ton winged orbiter just 19 years later. Completely amazing. On thing on the HAC... NASA documentation calls them heading alignment cylinders, not cones.
I was always 'impressed' that in about the same time it takes to descend an airliner from (roughly) 40,000 feet the Shuttle descended from 10X! that high (i.e. 400,000 feet!!). There was obviously a lot going on in that short time-frame and it had to be very precisely planned and accomplished. Thanks for the explanations. Loved the pov landing video.
20deg glide slope😳 Now to put this into practice this in KSP. Cheers Scott awsome video