The Most Important Space Shuttle Mission Never Happened
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 พ.ย. 2020
- The Space Shuttle was a vehicle designed to do many things, and in a deal with the US Military it was redesigned to make it able to perform a very specific secret mission. The redesign radically changed the Shuttle from the early concepts to the actual design which we saw fly, but, before the shuttle even flew the secret mission had been abandoned.
Most of the details of this mission are in this document found by James Oberg (thanks!)
www.jamesoberg.com/sts-3A_B-DR...
The shirt is by Oaklandish:
www.oaklandish.com/products/o... - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
Sounds an awful lot like a plan to steal a Soviet spy satellite right out of its orbit while it's in a communication dead zone. I love it, space piracy is way cooler than normal piracy.
How would they be able to do that with a fixed payload size and mass requirement? The only practical way they’d be able to use the shuttle to retrieve a flying satellite is if they designed the satellite themselves to fit in the bay like Scott says in the remainder of this video.
America was gonna pull a clone wars hondo
That would be amazing. And no Kessler syndrome to boot!
@@topsecret1837 I am imagining a payload bay full of some kind of crazy lightweight gel-style material that the Canadarm presses the satellite into to hold it steady during re-entry. Probably still impractical, but the thought of pulling off a hostile satellite capture mission like this is too tempting to the imagination.
@@topsecret1837 no those problems could be overcome. if the heist target was smaller and lighter than the max payload you could trade things like fuel, weight, cost for uncertainty of the mission. especially of you are assuming more advanced tech by the time the heist would actually occur
I'm so glad Scott still uses KSP to demonstrate these maneuvers for all his videos
What else could you use?
Its the reference of course
@@About42hobos yes i use I
Manoeuvre
@@literallycanadian SimpleRockets 2
This mission would’ve been awesome to have had a movie based off of especially since the film could’ve portrayed the entire mission, in real time, all under around 2 hours.
Well we dont have this
but we have she-hulk!
Yes! That's exactly what I love about the film "Dr. Strangelove". It plays out in real time.
@@Keimzelleyeah but most of that movie is entertaining and interesting. A lot of this would just be waiting around, flipping switches and checking subsystems
@@tvre0 Nahhh. Intersperse some scenes of Mission Control, a lead in of the intel that led up to this, and that would be a pretty solid movie. Hell, you would even have some air to air hijinks ensue if you include an excuse for the shuttle to get intercepted during its flight envelope.
“We definitely want to grab it.”
“Wait a minute; we’re not talking about some stray pilot with a MiG, we’re talking about several billion dollars of Soviet state property. And they're going to want it back.”
Please tell me what this is from
@@awhahoo "The Hunt for Red October" if I'm not mistaken.
@@awhahoo Hunt for red october I think. Grabing a soviet missle submarine
We could give it back ... after a couple of months ... of thorough analysis.
Thanks guys!
All that was missing from the plan was a landing inside the calderra of a volcano
Yeah, but those tend to attract British spies.
Well done sir.
You mean launch and landing inside the caldera. And also that the shuttle should be a stealth shuttle.
I was thinking of a rendezvous with a submarine... that would have kept with the surreptitious aspect.
@@Tjalve70 just give an F-117 a few SSMEs and strap it to the orbiter stack, then you’re set!
I think it’s also worth mentioning in order to meet these USAF “requirements” the orbiter grew in size and complexity, the winged reusable booster grew with it. In order to control the spiralling development cost the booster was dropped reducing STS from reusable to “repairable” Along with it went any hope of reducing $/Kg price to orbit. Both accidents can be said to have stemmed from from that USAF requirement and the resulting design cascade.
It was not only the USAF. NASA also appreciated the idea of bigger cargo bay and bigger wings - greater crossrange also means bigger margin for error during landing, and you can carry up bigger satelites/stations.
Fun fact: Some of the "Phase B" shuttles (like the Rockwell NAR-161/B9U or the McDonnell Douglas design) had all the good features of the modern Shuttle - like the big crossrange or capable cargo bay - and still were fully reusable.
@@HalNordmann You mention they had the big crossrange OR the capble cargo bay, did they have both though? Maybe that's what finally axed the fully reusable booster. I mean, other than the fact that these were paper studies and who knows how the final would have turned out?
No, they cannot be said to have stemmed from the Air Force decisions. Using that logic, we can say the idea to CREATE an orbiter of ANY kind led to the wrecks. Or the creation of NASA. Or the creation of the USAF. The spiraling of the USAF from the US Army Air Force, which it was a part to in past times. No...the first one was disregarding seasoned engineers advising that a launch could go forward and operate with an extremely high rate of nomility, IF the temperatures were not insignificantly warmer. The second disaster was hard to be avoided but could have been with subtle design changes. As for when the accident had already occurred, EXPERIENCED people who WERE concerned were ignored, including people who offered access to Hubble-like telescopes in different defense agencies in America in order to take a look at the damage on the orbiter. What kind of rescue mission would have/could have ensued will be unfortunately, forever unknown.
Fun fact.
Sometime in the mid-80s I worked for a company that was contracted to do the steel construction drawings to retrofit the Vandenberg Assembly Building for the space shuttle. We were given two sets of design drawings, had to sign nda's and we're not allowed to copy the designs in any way. We were only contracted to draw the service platforms that folded back out of the way of the launch vehicle so that the Assembly Building could be rolled back. The platforms were designed to fit the profile of the launch vehicle so they had lots of curves and strange angles in order to fold back into the building.
Fun times.
In the pics the VAB and the building opposite look like they're meant to fit together. Is there any chance this is true?
Awesome story!
Shame that it never use as it’s intended purposes.
@@donjones4719 They do fit together, or at least did when they were bult. The assembley building, mobile service tower and payload changeout structure would combine to envelope the entire orbiter and access tower.
I remember being in elementary school in the late 80s hearing sonic booms in Southern California, it was such a good time to be a kid and be interested in astronomy.
Much more recently (must have been 2009) I was outside when a flight was headed for Edwards, and it sounded like someone fired a shotgun twice nearby.
The Vandenberg shuttle facility looks a lot like the original KSC*
*KSC as in Kerbal Space Center
i think it was inspired
If it ain’t broke don’t fix it, especially when it comes to government. At least that used to be, rofl.
@@Ccs4646 sorry, meant KSC as in Kerbal Space Center, not Kennedy lol
Yeah - the one, which uses first stage of Energia rocket instead of solid rocket boosters
I've heard for years that the Military wanted a large cross-range capability for the Shuttle, but this is the first time that it's been explained to me what the hell that was about. Thanks.
Back in the late 90s I worked in a building at Vandenberg that had been part of the west coast Shuttle program. I was setting up a projector in a conference room that had curtains all around the walls, and my coworker said "check this out" and pulled back one of the curtains.
The whole wall was a giant magnetic scheduling white board with little shuttle figures marked with mission numbers, starting with STS-62-A in 1986. Nothing had been touched in close to two decades - someone had just pulled the curtains over it and forgotten it. The base had sad reminders like that everywhere, if you knew where to look. Short, stubby road signs and weird road embankments for wing clearance along the route the orbiter would have been towed, abandoned facilities, that sort of thing.
The cancellation of the program was devastating to the local economy and it took years to recover. It makes me happy to see SpaceX making such progress with manned space flight. There's been a lot of disappointment and heartbreak over the years.
“Shuttle 3B: The Most Important Scott Manley video that Never Happened”
How do you know that it Never Happened? LoL
???
yeah he deleted the video
I saw the notification for it too, something's should not be undone.
Yep saw that notification also
As we say in engineering, “looks good on paper...”
That launch at 0:18 is beautiful. I’ve never seen a lift-off video follow the shuttle upward like that.
It is computer animation , of course it is beautiful , too beautiful.
@@mikewallace8087 I don’t think it’s a computer animation. If you disagree, please let me know why you think that.
@@mikewallace8087 i dont know if youre reading these replies but what makes you think its a computer animation when you can go there and view the launches yourself. tracking cameras have existed since they were launching the saturn v's, if its that camera angle that has you so skeptical of its authenticity
It was sad that the program died. A lot of folks like myself put in a lot of effort. The one thing that came out of it was the deicing system that was installed as Vandenberg was further north and more likely to freeze. After the disaster, that system was moved to the cape. It was pretty clever you had two jet engines from an old martin Marrietta fighter program that did not win a final contract. The engines were in a blockhouse near the tower. the warm was ducted between the SRBs and external tanks. I was on the testing team for that one.
It seems like the spaceplane concept has a wealth of unrealised benefits, but the pseudo-spaceplane shuttle quashed them for the foreseeable future.
THE PAYLOAD BAY IS THE SIZE IT IS FOR ONE AND ONLY ONE REASON......IT WAS DESIGNED TO CARRY THE REACTOR FROM A NUKE SUB INTO SPACE...FOR STAR WARS POWER SOURCE.....
I agree. In retrospect the shuttle seems like a big waste.
@@dennissmith6783 A big waste? It inspired the world for 4 decades. New 2020 TV commercials are still based off of STS that retired almost 9 years ago. Its Main Engines and Booster Engines have been improved and made more powerful and will fly for years to come. NASA spending is TINY, on average less than 1/2 a penny on every federal budget dollar. Defense spending in a single year is more money than NASA has been budgeted over the last 62 years since its inception in 1958.
@@hoghogwild in my opinion the shuttle was kind of a problematic vehicle from the get go. Either that or NASA kind of threw out safety as a priority. All the years spent dumping money into and not to mention the setbacks due to the safety issues I mentioned was the waste. In my opinion the time, money, effort, + lives would have been better spent on some other launch system.
@@dennissmith6783 I agree that the Shuttle was problematic from the get go. I dont think that continuing to improve a vehicle over its lifetime is a waste. NASA could only do what it was instructed to do. IMO The problem today is the general public being to averse to adverse conditions, we all die, people need to realize that. The Challenger incident really changed the course of the Shuttle Program.
The most important mission was the one that blew the comet back in 1998.
I mean technically that was two missions
Bruce Willis will always be remembered as diehard man. No surrogate could ever replace him. He had a sixth sense about him and an unbreakable will. While he had no death wish he was very much the Red blood we needed not shattering like glass. Shall the tears of the sun remember him as the fifth element. After Armageddon.
No, it was the 2000 mission to defuse and then deorbit the six nuclear missiles in the old Soviet satellite
@@pizzajona cmon now that was just a weather satellite!
@@pizzajona ikonic mission, one would say
Many Soviet satellites from that era, particularly military ones, were equipped with self destruct charges to prevent them from landing in enemy territory due to a misaligned de-orbit burn or whatever. So, if they had actually tried to use the Shuttle to snag a high value Russian spacecraft, it could have resulted in a very tragic outcome.
Yeah, that thought occurred to me while I was watching the video, what if they did that?
Maybe send up a Navy EOD technician as a Payload Specialist… 🤔😬
Appreciate all the research you do for these videos Scott
Think I saw a proposal for this in the documentary "You Only Live Twice", narrated by Sean Connery.
Yeah, but there I think they replaced Vandenberg w/ a volcano.
I imagine the main point of this plan was just as a safeguard, in case a reconnaissance satellite captured information deemed critical to a war effort or for national security, and there was some issue where they couldn't get the film back or communicate with it anymore.
Or space warfare... I believe that's around the time of the star wars programme. (No. It's not that star wars)
@@aemrt5745 Film wasn't obsolete for spy satellites. A KH-9 Hexagon could image the entire Soviet Union 4 times over before running out of film. Film-return satellites were a considerably better "search systems" capable of taking images of large areas, whilst the KH-10 Kennan were considerably better at taking detailed, on-demand images of specific things. There was no way an elector-optical satellite could store or transmit the amount of information a film-based satellite could collect.
Wasn't that sort of short notice recon still the SR-71's job?
@@Broken_Yugo Not over the USSR, no. The US stopped flying spy planes over the USSR after Gary Powers was shot down in 1960. The SR-71 didn't fly until 1964.
@@Broken_Yugo By the late 70's the SR-71's ability to penetrate soviet airspace and not get shot down was questionable, missile tech was pretty formidable by then.
One reason that NASA gave up on flying the Shuttle from SLC-6 is, ironically, part of what makes the Delta 4 launches so vusually exciting, as shown in this video. You know how that fire prior to the Delta 4 launch is the ignition of excess hydrogen that actually singes the foam insulation on the lower part of the Delta first stage? After the Challenger disaster, it became known that SLC-6 had a problem with excess hydrogen building around that pad. Those pre-ignitors that you saw on Shuttle launches from KSC Pad 39A/B that fire off at T-minus 10 seconds were sufficient to handle the amount of excess hydrogen at those Apollo-era pads, but apparently there was way too much hyrdogen pooling around the base of the SLC-6 pad as designed. It would have required extensive engineering to fix the problem. NASA and DoD at some point decided that there were just too many issues to resolve to safely launch Shuttles from Vandenberg (and the need for three Shuttles flying from KSC meant that Atlantis had to fly from KSC until Endeavour came on line), and the project was abandoned.
I know I'm two years late... but how can gaseous hydrogen, the lightest element, pool anywhere?
I've always heard of mission 3A - launch to the south, deploy a satellite, land immediately - as the cross-range design driver, but I don't think I'd never heard of 3B. It's hard to imagine that actually working. Do the plans talk about launch windows? Not only would there be the usual orbital plane constraint, I'd think the phase angle would require a very narrow, if not instantaneous, window. How often would it ever have been possible?
I also assume this all would require the lighter external tank, and the lighter SRB casings that never got built.
You're right that the launch window would be ridiculously tight. However, as far back as Gemini 11, direct-ascent rendezvous was a proven part of the space playbook, which by its very nature requires seconds-long launch windows; lunar aborts would also involve direct-ascent rendezvous as well.
While the lighter tank and SRBs would have definitely helped with performance, lifting a nearly-empty Orbiter into a 220 km apoapsis while minimizing leftover fuel would be feasible with stock hardware, especially considering that the Shuttle doesn't burn through all of its fuel in a nominal ascent, anyways.
did anyone else get the Shuttle 3B noti?
Yea I got it and Scott privatize it
Yep
The privatization of space...videos.
Yep
What noti?
What a coincidence! I was reading about the influence of the military on the Space Shuttle design in Rowland White's book Into The Black today!
THE PAYLOAD BAY IS THE SIZE IT IS FOR ONE AND ONLY ONE REASON......IT WAS DESIGNED TO CARRY THE REACTOR FROM A NUKE SUB INTO SPACE...FOR STAR WARS POWER SOURCE.....
So, fly an Abort Once Around (AOA) profile, while keeping the crew workload up around borderline manic... "Fly Safe" indeed, Scott! Makes me wonder if they considered a TAL and just fly a straight in approach to Norway.
Also, killer bookshelf.
The way he says, "Hello,it's Scott Manley" makes my day
"Hullo" :3
I remember the plans to launch from Vandenberg, but never knew rapid satellite recovery was their goal. As ever, Scott, thank you for such an informative episode.
Watching the shuttle land in person, it needed every bit of those wings!
It dropped like a brick (after a double sonic boom).
Nothing like hearing about my dream spaceship as a kid on my birthday. Thanks for posting Scott!
My uncle works out at Vandenberg and when he was giving me a tour of the Base he said that after Challenger blew up someone came out to examine SLC-6 and said that if the shuttle had launched, the sound would have been amplified by the canyon, come back and damaged the building.
"I'm Scott Manley -- get designed to fly in a particular way, then never do it!"
One of the managers I helped with a proposal back when I started at SSL (now Maxar) almost flew on the shuttle. He was slated to fly on the next shuttle mission, but the Challenger disaster ended military operations like his. I've asked him what the mission/payload was (he was a payload specialist) but I've never seen someone so tight-lipped before. It was cool to see photos of him suited up at the Nuetral Buoancy Lab. I can't imagine being so close to being able to fly, all the prep work, the training, just for it to never happen. Thanks @Scottmanley for sharing details like this. I've always wondered what it would take to capture a GEO satellite (or a large LEO or HEO). Could you do an indepth/Kerbal demonstration of why capturing a payload with unknown weight and bringing it back to earth would be a challenge like you mentioned breifly in the video?
a "Kerbal demonstration" would be fantastic.
This story was SO FUN! What an epic space mission they were planning for.
I still remember seeing the Vandenberg shuttle launch infrastructure, in person, in the latter 80s. The whole base was amazing.
Yet another reason why NASA should be able to set its own agenda and budget without direct congressional dictation.
NASA needs to start running drugs like the CIA. You could get a great slush fund going selling "moon dust"
No government agency has that ability. Even the CIA has to go through Congress for funding. Hence why Congress has the "power of the purse".
@@alexdhall I believe the NRO sets its own budget as part of defence spending
NASA certainly would benefit from being able to avoid congressional pork-barrelling when it comes to budget time.
Tbh so could a lot of other Govt departments (DOD I’m looking at you)
Last time I was this early, this video was called *Shuttle 3B*
That feel when youre watching a Scott Manley video and see he posted a video 5 seconds ago.
Feels good fam.
I know right
And the video already has views, so you're not the first one 😢
Thanks for your research and time presenting various interesting happenings in space. Useful and educational.
After reading the book "Riding Rockets" by Shuttle astronaut Mike Mullane (he's at 11:40, front row, second from left) I was aware of some of the details for the high-inclination mission and polar orbit mission plans. Viewing your own TH-cam videos plus Amy Shira Tietel's "Vintage Space" ones added more background, plus what I've read just being a spaceflight fan since the 1960s made me aware of the military influence on the shuttle's design and capabilities. But I'd never heard the specific details you bring up here, especially for the ambitious "B" mission. *_Thanks, Scott!_*
Thanks Scott! amazing as always!
Excellent summary, I remember back in 1970s looking forward to VAFB launches so I don't have to leave my home state California. I also had the idea to buy an Amtrak ticket so the train will go through Vandenberg when the Shuttle is launched. Obviously that would never happen and Shuttle SLC6 was cancelled. I think those big delta wings do give orbiter more margin for emergency landings and those stubby wings like the X15 would need unobtainium materials for heat shield. I remember in 1970s all the talk about how Shuttle can be used to service satellites or bring them back to earth. However, I can now see in hindsight the Soviets were fuming at prospect such a vehicle can be used to steal their satellites.
Also in 1970s I visioned the orbiter returning will fly through the aurora borealis and astronauts get to see a spectacular lightshow like the special effects like that 70s TV show "Buck Rogers in the 25th Century"
Super interesting Scott. I enjoyed the valuable information regarding the motivations for the shuttle design. Thanks!
I love that KSP is not only an awsome game or simulator but it's also a great tool to demonstrate allot of this crazy spacecraft stuff that you talk about.
Can you make a video on why they plan on scrapping the space station instead of replacing the aging modules?
i can do that in one word. MONEY
Backwards compatibility. A lot of the ISS systems date back to Space Station Freedom, there's a lot that was made to support the Shuttle, both of which are obsolete.
I'm good with moving to a clean slate, making decisions fresh for the next 40 years.
I remember Mike Mullane talking about how a version of this had nearly come to fruition but the destruction of challenger put a stop to that. If I recall right, the initial flight was supposed to be STS-62A.
He had some nice descriptions of the views from the high inclination orbit they eventually flew on STS-36.
Love these history lessons. With all the iterations, it’s amazing that the Shuttle ever flew at all. Maybe one of those instances when cost plus was actually beneficial. Nice presentation.
I worked for six years of my aerospace career in Santa Barbara on Earth sciences satellites and was an enthusiastic bicycle commuter while I worked there in a town that loves bicycles. The time that I joined the Solvang Century (100 mile) bike ride, when it had the rare privilege of crossing through the Vandenburg base instead of around it, I was informed to look for a set of specific cuts into the sloped sides of a two lane road climbing portion to get to the top of the main mesa for the base. The 3 mile long runway for landing the shuttle, (extended a mile beyond most large transport and military runways) was atop that mesa and the widening of the cut that the road up to it had been just enough to clear the wings of the shuttle as it was returned to SLC-6. That launch complex was considered an "unlucky" one by those I knew who worked there, including the man I bought my recumbent bike from. Lockheed lost at least a couple of those Taurus launches before they gave up that program.
I would have loved to take that bike tour
I've read that if they ever had launched space shuttles there, each launch would have started brush fires in the surrounding hills. Did Titan 4 launches do that? I wouldn't think those would be much different.
I've read the only way most people can ever see the launch sites is from Amtrak on the railroad that goes along the cliffs. Or you can sail along that coastline, but that's often a dangerous place to sail. (rocky cliffs, rough seas and weather, and fog)
2:02 "This large payload bay meant the orbiter no longer had room for massive fuel tanks." The cargo bay size wasn't really the issue, there were plenty of integrated fuel tank designs with the 15ft x 60ft payload bay such as the 1971 North American Rockwell's NAR-161 design.
Yeah! I like the NAR-161/B9U concept - although it maybe has too long nose. Same with the McDonnell Douglas one. Shame that NASA never had the money to develop a proper two-stage fully-reusable flyback Shuttle.
It’s amazing how much say the department of defense had over the final design of the space shuttle
The military always have final say, especially when they're providing significant funding.
Ive been waiting for this video from you for years
Truly epic stuff!! Learnt something new today
About Shuttle secrets...did you know that, if for any reason, the shuttle could not land on Kennedy Space Center, the next runway ir could use is that of the Las Américas International Airport in Santo Domingo?
For more than 4 decades the hangars with all the signalling equipment, fire trucks, access trucks, even an operating little hospital with operation rooms and isolation areas are still there on the airport.
Even to date, that area is treated as a don't ask-don't tell part of the Airport, commonlly known as "Los americanos".
NASA choose the Las Americas airport due to the lenght of it's runway, about 11,500 ft (almost 4 km), which can fit all really big airplanes flying right now, even the Antonov 224 and Airbus A 380.
Hey Scott! Great content!
Hiya Scott. Boy, I tell ya, if we ever caught up for a beer and chat about the things you bring to us on TH-cam, we would need a brewery! I absolutely love what you do and present. Thanks so^10 much!!!
Awesome I was hoping after your tweets that we were getting a video out of this! Very cool. Lots of us have been familiar with the cross range requirement metrics, but this being the actual linchpin mission is fascinating, provides amazing context, and is also kind of a bummer. Undoubtably there would have still been major issues with the Orbiter systems and go fever, but it might have at least helped alleviate some of the foam strike issues and the need for giant pieces of fragile reinforced C-C.
The crazy part about this is that this one mission type takes less than one hour. That’s a shorter space mission than most Falcon 9 missions. By the time a falcon deploys payload in a particular orbit, the space shuttle was already gliding back to a runway.
Interesting clip. Now was that a shot of the Long Duration Exposure Facility (LDEF) about 6 minutes in (when conveying what capture / retrieval would look like)? If so, pretty cool - That was a 30 by 14 foot unmanned lab that ended up in orbit for a very long time...
I'm also really intrigued about this.
I love the intro, didn't had to skip any. keep up awesome work ;) Best regards from Lietuva
Always learning. Thx!
That reference mission is the entire program's tragedy - it made it unnecessarily complex and expensive. A telling story is how Soviets reacted when they got the data on its' capabilities: they never believed that the entire system is getting essentially sabotaged simply for a sinlge-orbit reconnaissance mission and decided that the reasons are more sinister, namely - an orbital nuclear bombing mission.
I think it is a travesty that your Expanse books are not all placed next to each other in sequential order on your bookshelf.
He rereads I guess...
Who thinks Scott should do a guided tour of his bookshelf, with comments and recommendations?
I visited Enterprise at the Intrepid Museum in NYc a number of years ago. While going through the exhibit with a docent talking to the group I heard people talking about how big the shuttle was and why did it look so different than the early models they had on display. I said to the docent “tell them why it got so much bigger” and he smiled and the. Told them how the DoD requirements forced a lot of changes to the design.
Excellent stuff bro
Shuttle 3B D:
😂
i dont get it. could some1 explain
@@aukk8300 i'm sure someone can
I have to
suspect that in a couple decades or so the whole space plane/shuttle concept might make a return. After all, that is sort of what Starship is aiming for.
starship isn't so much a spaceplane as a reusable self-landing capsule
@@TheAechBomb I consider it either a capsule with integrated service module, or a landable second stage. But neither of those definitions really encompass the whole thing...
@@bbgun061 Yeah, it's something new. But Shuttle is certainly the closest comparison... a re-usable vehicle that uses aero surfaces to steer itself during reentry, deploying payloads via a bay rather than a fairing, etc. And Starship also has some of the same problems as the Shuttle... it's relatively heavy compared to a conventional design, so despite having more power behind it than a SaturnV, it can't reach the moon... not until they figure out orbital refueling...
Dreamchaser, if all the smoke around the program I've been shown is correct, will not take a decade to manned flight.
It is a real shame that is the Space Shuttle never fulfilled its promises. The original two-stage fully-reusable flyback design could've fulfilled them, but there wasn't enough money for its development. A "pound wise, penny foolish" problem.
And BTW, the bigger wings weren't as much of a military's idea as some may think - NASA was already thinking about them for better gliding. Even with bigger wings, the Shuttle was a flying brick with a 1:1 glide ratio - you can't go much lower and still be controllable. Some of the "Phase B" shuttles (like the Rockwell NAR-161/B9U or the McDonnell Douglas design) had all the good features of the modern Shuttle - like the big crossrange or capable cargo bay - and still were fully reusable.
Thanks Scott. Have a great trip :)
Always fantastic!
I know the space program has aways worked with the military, but this is 🤯
My favourite rocket the Delta IV Heavy.
I've been cutting back on TH-cam lately, but Scott Manley is always worth my time
One of the missions planned to be after Challenger's ill fated launch was originally supposed to be the first manned polar launch from Vandenberg, it was supposed to be an NRO payload and would have been designated STS-62A. I don't know if they were actually going to use the single orbit mission profile though.
"I'm Mott Scanley - sly fafe..."
Hi Mott. I'm Varth Dader and I am four yather.
actually I'm Mick Stann, but we don't talk about my name.
i'm scott manley, no i'm spartacus, no i'm spartaCUS, NO I'M SPARTACUS.
I just had an aneurysm
Safe Fly - Manely Scott I'm
The mission that never happened... Or did it?
Great video Scott! Love how in depth you get on this. I'm curious if you have any information on NASA possibly having plans for a bigger shuttle fleet past the original 4 that flew?
There were some plans for more orbiters - indeed, there even were plans for "Evolved Shuttle" involving an ejectable crew deck, wingtip fins and liquid fuel boosters - but all of them were too expensive.
Great video!
Is it possible to do an EVA from a Crew Dragon capsule?
No. Even the shuttle couldn't without carrying a component in the payload bay to allow it.
I’ve taken poops longer than this mission
Hopefully you mean duration and not actually length travelled?
The long left turn to the West Coast looks like the most difficult maneuver in aviation history.
The Large Space Telescope (later named Hubble) was originally planned to have a 3 meter (120”)
mirror and to launch on an unmanned expendable vehicle. After the Shuttle was funded the LST was shrunk down to 2.4 meters (94”) so it would fit into the Shuttle payload bay. That reduced the telescope’s light gathering power almost by half and resolution by about a quarter had it been built to its original planned size.
Why this video was private?
I think Scott needed to change something. The title and thumbnail wasn't changed just now
glitch in the matrix. it happens when they change something
Shuttle 3B
I live in an Air Force town, and honestly, sonic booms are really no big deal. I don't know why folks would be upset by them. We are more disturbed by artillery range practice at the local base.
But presumably depends on weight and speed of supersonic object. Shuttle Orbiter weighted about 100,000 kg, which is three or four times the weight of an F-35A. And initially came in super fast - about Mach 25 or something. Could still be supersonic over populated US coming in to land. So probably pretty loud. Not to mention annoyed beeping of captured Soviet satellite stowed inside!
Great video. The headline to perhaps capture in another video: this 3b scope creep caused the shuttle to go from a safer top of booster launch to the dangerous side of booster/tank design. This ultimately was the major factor in both the Challenger and Columbia catastrophes.
The bigger wings weren't as much of a military's idea as some may think - NASA was already thinking about them for better gliding. Even with bigger wings, the Shuttle was a flying brick with a 1:1 glide ratio - you can't go much lower and still be controllable. Some of the "Phase B" shuttles (like the Rockwell NAR-161/B9U or the McDonnell Douglas design) had all the good features of the modern Shuttle - like the big crossrange or capable cargo bay - and still were fully reusable.
Scott Manley: We're gonna talk about space shuttle history...
Scott Manley: talks about the history of the space shuttle
Me: wait, it's not a secret mission called "History"?
Shuttle Orbiter "History", the one that could have been.
So are you saying it never happened, or that it "never" happened? Mmmm? (wink, wink)
i feel like it would be damn hard to hide something launching from Vandenberg
@@cdw2468 Your're right. I was just musing about the possibility.
It never never happened
Once upon a time my office brought the set-up of Vandenberg AFB for the shuttle to my attention. Your video certainly brought up some happy memories.
I hope you have a Happy Thanksgiving Day celebration with your family and friends.
As much as the newer designs may be safer than the shuttle, there's just something about the look of the shuttle which is particularly special. It's a great symbol of space travel. I hope some day we get another spacecraft that looks as good as it did (but preferably one that's safer).
It is a real shame that is the Space Shuttle never fulfilled its promises. The original two-stage fully-reusable flyback design could've fulfilled them, but there wasn't enough money for its development. A "pound wise, penny foolish" problem.
And BTW, the bigger wings weren't as much of a military's idea as some may think - NASA was already thinking about them for better gliding. Even with bigger wings, the Shuttle was a flying brick with a 1:1 glide ratio - you can't go much lower and still be controllable. Some of the "Phase B" shuttles (like the Rockwell NAR-161/B9U or the McDonnell Douglas design) had all the good features of the modern Shuttle - like the big crossrange or capable cargo bay - and still were fully reusable.
I see this design as creating a lot of government pollution.
also literally......
I miss those beautiful birds. They were more than just a spacecraft. They were a symbol, an icon.
They were a symbol, an icon, a disaster waiting to happen....
@@fuccasound3897 Yeah, I get that. The airframes were worn out and there were other problems.
Still, I think there's a place yet for a spaceplane design with that kind of capability. Maybe someday there will be a new generation able to do things like service satellites much farther out.
@@rylian21 i agree with you. i think a spaceplane mounted on top of the boosters rather than beside the boosters and fuel tanks would be a start. The shuttle design was pushed in a particular design direction by military requirements.
@@fuccasound3897 Mounting "on the side" makes sense when you think about it - you need less engines, since the orbiter's engines fueled from the lifter can help along. Besides, a reusable lifter can't have pieces falling off, unlike the ET - so no risk of TPS damage.
@@HalNordmann Not when it comes to crew safety, crew right next to all that fuel. If there is an abort situation on take of it is likely crew will die. mounting on top of the boosters means the crew can be rocketed away from the failing /exploding main boosters. The shuttle did have pieces that '"fell off" - i.e. the boosters and fuel tank. Best space plane design is the Reaction Engines design, using their SABRE engine. See what you mean about the less engines thing but it's not a good reason, in my opinion, to compromise crew safety. ( what is ET and TPS?)
If you read up on the various books on the Hubble and it's evaluations prior to repair you'd find that the intel agencies were already flying telescopes of equal power and size (the investigators discovered the solar panel 'twang' problem when the Hubble transited day-night cycles from them). The Shuttle was designed to be that large (and risky) specifically to service a fleet of Hubble size recon platforms. Hence all those 'secret launches' in the early 80s as those payloads were deployed.
Sorry to sound repetitive, but this channel rocks.
Really enjoy the content and share it regularly
"The shuttle design we all know and... love"
There was an awkward pause there Scott
This really highlights the utter stupidity of government management.
As a sequel to Space Camp this would be an interesting plot.
'I'm Scott Manley; Fly Safe and with a rapid rendezvous.'
You have to wonder, if 3B was never needed, would the shuttle have been more or even less reliable?
Orbits specified in nautical miles scare me.
well its the US so they just use random units to confuse anyone else
Pressures in PSI and temperatures in degrees Rankine... * shudders *
If the shuttle had been iterated better, we'd have gotten a LOT more use of out them. 2-3 batches of ships pre-CAD were just not sufficient to learn the ways to do things.
It's 3am over here in Poland and i can't stop watching your videos ....
They should bring out a drug recipe for your vids !
Love to listen to your voice.
Thank you so much !
Upload safe.
LLAP.