17:54 Seeing the temp sensors that were the first indication of failure of Columbia brought a tear to my eye. The narrator so confidently discusses the temperature sensing positions, unknowingly foretelling this shuttle's fate. RIP STS-107
These videos make the 80s look like the 1950s, it didn't seem quite so backwards when I was experiencing it. I think its the music and the narrator style.
This video was retro the day it was made. Whoever approved the video editing and music made it seem like 1972, not 1982. The narration style was likely aimed at old Congress critters to approve more money, which was really needed.
STS-3: What a great Space Shuttle mission! Good old days when everything was great! ***** STS-3: 22 March 1982 ----- 30 March 1982 ***** Lousma & Fullerton
The never-ending word for space shuttle missions: routine! There is never a routine, we saw it later with the tragic accidents at Challenger and Columbia ... "Routine" = 14 deaths.
Thanks! It was an attempt to do bring together some of the good imagery that we have available today, and to do something with the onboard audio. As for fringe theories I don't really care - people are free to voice their opinions as long as they are respectful and civil towards others....
Yep, damn orange foam responsible for the hole in the leading edge of Columbia STS-107 ... Useless foam since the tanks remain under pressure until launch.
@@nolancain8792I mean there was no orbiter on sls to begin with But the foam being orange is actually a beneficial thing It cost and weighs less than a tank that’s painted
Anyone know if one of these shows exist for STS-4? Only ones I’ve seen after this are ‘Opening of new frontiers’ summarizing flights 1-4 and then ‘We Deliver’ for 5,6,7,8. Seems 1,2,3 all got standalone docs
NASA's tape list shows a "Sts-4 post flight press conference" but no complete mission documentary. The same for STS-5. There's a doc for the next one: "STS-6 The Complete Mission", but after that only press conferences. Hope it helps!
Excelente documentário. Porquê nas primeiras missões STS os ônibus espaciais não usavam o para-quedas para ajudar na desaceleração já na pista de pouso ??
A little leftover energy after saving the vehicle from an autoland software test that didn't go well. The computer brought it in too fast, didn't want to give control back to the crew on cue, and there was excess energy. They decided no more autoland after this.
@@MagicAl5F4781 I recall reading somewhere that that pitchup was done intentionally in an attempt to fully disconnect the autopilot. It was later too said that this maneuver actually wound up saving the vehicle too.
NASA envisioned 485 missions a year. 1985 had 9 missions, and that proved to be too ambitious (Challenger). The Space Shuttle was an experimental craft. Ironically , it's reusability made turnaround times between launches made even 10 flights a year a stretch.
Sorry, 485 missions a year? That's more than 1 a day. From what I've read the Shuttle was designed, for a fleet of 5 shuttles, to be able to launch once a week.
@@Tara19040 Less than week turn-around, with just a basic look around a rocket, moving into launch platform, refueling and ready to go on next day. Literally like it's some yoghurt delivery truck, and not a space vehicle with thousands of crucial elements to work perfectly... Of course even before start of designing and real assembly, these numbers, as well safety/accident figures, sounded astronomical and just *slightly* too positive. These were likely based on early concept thinking or what such reusable vehicle could be capable of in some future (more like decades ahead). Or some people were really bunch of sci-fi lunatics with good PR bureaucratic bullshit talk skills.
@@override7486 That's how you get stuff funded. Over promise. Look up shuttle reference mission 3b. A mission that the shuttle was designed for that in practice was totally impractical, but the politicians didn't know that and it meant that the Air Force could wave it around as a capability.
The overpromise and underdeliver of the Space Shuttle all originated with a lack of funding, and the Air Force’s development of the Titan III launch system to put payloads into orbit. NASA, to get more funding, took the space plane portion of Von Braun’s multiple element Space Transport System (which included two space stations, one orbiting Earth, the other, the Moon, a reusable lunar lander, and an Earth to Moon nuclear fission powered vehicle), and scaled it to an ungodly size to haul the types of satellites only the Titan III could carry. Those scope changes were why the SRBs became such a pivotal aspect, and why they were so casually slapped on to the external tank with mounting points jammed between the o-rings.
17:54 Seeing the temp sensors that were the first indication of failure of Columbia brought a tear to my eye. The narrator so confidently discusses the temperature sensing positions, unknowingly foretelling this shuttle's fate. RIP STS-107
These videos make the 80s look like the 1950s, it didn't seem quite so backwards when I was experiencing it. I think its the music and the narrator style.
Music-wise I’d say mid-70’s. The narrator was indeed of the old style the time this video was produced.
Yup. I think there trying to make us feel older than what we really are.
It looks (and sounds) like a 16mm transfer.
It’s exactly how it is, it was that long ago and you’re that old
This video was retro the day it was made. Whoever approved the video editing and music made it seem like 1972, not 1982. The narration style was likely aimed at old Congress critters to approve more money, which was really needed.
Man I LOVE the old school feel of this documentary!! The 60s sounding narrator, 70s music, looks like a 16mm film transfer. Love it!!
STS-3: What a great Space Shuttle mission! Good old days when everything was great! ***** STS-3: 22 March 1982 ----- 30 March 1982 ***** Lousma & Fullerton
The never-ending word for space shuttle missions: routine! There is never a routine, we saw it later with the tragic accidents at Challenger and Columbia ... "Routine" = 14 deaths.
Thanks! It was an attempt to do bring together some of the good imagery that we have available today, and to do something with the onboard audio. As for fringe theories I don't really care - people are free to voice their opinions as long as they are respectful and civil towards others....
Exactly. They wanted to push this ''keyword'' routine down our throats but the Shuttle was an experimental vehicle through and through!
The first orange tank launch.
Yep, damn orange foam responsible for the hole in the leading edge of Columbia STS-107 ... Useless foam since the tanks remain under pressure until launch.
@@rigolonzinbrin thankfully there’s nothing to really damage on the SLS.
@@nolancain8792I mean there was no orbiter on sls to begin with
But the foam being orange is actually a beneficial thing
It cost and weighs less than a tank that’s painted
Fun Fact: Columbia got alot of sand stuck in its tiles on this day and sand was stuck in its tiles up until the infamous STS-107 and Sally Ride @12:57
Sally Ride was not on STS-107.
@@robadams5799 I know,I was pointing out Sally Ride at minute 12:57
GOOD VIDEO!!!☺
Astronaut: I don't feel good 🤮
Doctor: I recommend food
Astronaut: 🤨
STS was awesome.
20:53 XD
What makes me sad, is the Shuttle (orbitor) itself has never failed. The components surrounding it, however, did.
Exactly! Many people don't get it... The orbiter(spacecraft) itself was perfect, in every single mission! The greatest machine ever!
Anyone know if one of these shows exist for STS-4? Only ones I’ve seen after this are ‘Opening of new frontiers’ summarizing flights 1-4 and then ‘We Deliver’ for 5,6,7,8. Seems 1,2,3 all got standalone docs
NASA's tape list shows a "Sts-4 post flight press conference" but no complete mission documentary. The same for STS-5. There's a doc for the next one: "STS-6 The Complete Mission", but after that only press conferences. Hope it helps!
Excelente documentário.
Porquê nas primeiras missões STS os ônibus espaciais não usavam o para-quedas para ajudar na desaceleração já na pista de pouso ??
They didn’t have them yet it was only after the construction of Endeavour that they were used
I wonder what ever happened to Todd, the student researcher.
Hey look trains!!!! 3:44
Special thanks to everyone’s favorite railroad
The ATSF (or just Santa fe)
20:56 Hair brush? The astronauts have no hair, they're bald. LOL
24:54 Darn I wish I knew the name of this song, it’s cool to listen to!
Look up the old early 1980s Kenner Star Wars commercials... I believe it's the same song. Question is which was it used for first.
Couldn’t find it anywhere
20:55 He could've used it ti brush the back, tho 😆
17:50 the face in the cloud under Columbia’s tail.
and today USA start the engines again.
👍👍👍
STSR
26:27 the wheelie
A little leftover energy after saving the vehicle from an autoland software test that didn't go well. The computer brought it in too fast, didn't want to give control back to the crew on cue, and there was excess energy. They decided no more autoland after this.
@@MagicAl5F4781 I recall reading somewhere that that pitchup was done intentionally in an attempt to fully disconnect the autopilot. It was later too said that this maneuver actually wound up saving the vehicle too.
@@MagicAl5F4781I think I can make something call NASA got talent, Columbia would definitely win first place
@@MagicAl5F4781I still want to believe the orbiter was just flexing on us
NASA envisioned 485 missions a year.
1985 had 9 missions, and that proved to be too ambitious (Challenger). The Space Shuttle was an experimental craft. Ironically , it's reusability made turnaround times between launches made even 10 flights a year a stretch.
Sorry, 485 missions a year? That's more than 1 a day. From what I've read the Shuttle was designed, for a fleet of 5 shuttles, to be able to launch once a week.
@@Tara19040 Less than week turn-around, with just a basic look around a rocket, moving into launch platform, refueling and ready to go on next day. Literally like it's some yoghurt delivery truck, and not a space vehicle with thousands of crucial elements to work perfectly...
Of course even before start of designing and real assembly, these numbers, as well safety/accident figures, sounded astronomical and just *slightly* too positive. These were likely based on early concept thinking or what such reusable vehicle could be capable of in some future (more like decades ahead). Or some people were really bunch of sci-fi lunatics with good PR bureaucratic bullshit talk skills.
@@override7486 That's how you get stuff funded. Over promise. Look up shuttle reference mission 3b. A mission that the shuttle was designed for that in practice was totally impractical, but the politicians didn't know that and it meant that the Air Force could wave it around as a capability.
The overpromise and underdeliver of the Space Shuttle all originated with a lack of funding, and the Air Force’s development of the Titan III launch system to put payloads into orbit.
NASA, to get more funding, took the space plane portion of Von Braun’s multiple element Space Transport System (which included two space stations, one orbiting Earth, the other, the Moon, a reusable lunar lander, and an Earth to Moon nuclear fission powered vehicle), and scaled it to an ungodly size to haul the types of satellites only the Titan III could carry.
Those scope changes were why the SRBs became such a pivotal aspect, and why they were so casually slapped on to the external tank with mounting points jammed between the o-rings.
*Reads Title* Wait this isn't Linkin Park....
Algorithm.