Test pilots are a different breed. Imagine joining a "digital fly by wire" NASA test program and being told "we're going to make your plane fly terrible in lots of different ways so we can figure out which ones are worst".
The size of their balls aside, I suspect people like them love figuring out complicated problems in general. And there was plenty of complicated to go around.
@@lordgarion514 Also certain personalities tend to end up as test pilots. Many famous test pilots from back in the day wouldn't pass a medical exam today.
As a glider pilot, I felt physically sick when I saw the oscilatting fly by wire test flight scene in this video. That must be absolutely terrifying to fly, because your intuition leads you to make the oscillation worse. You need to focus and think about how to control the thing, but if stuff gets out of hand you don't have the time for that. When shit hits the fan any human pilot relies on his muscle memory first, then his experience and then logic.
I once heard an air crash investigator say that "Oh shit!" was THE most frequent phrase heard on flight deck recorders just before impact. So those pilots DEFINITELY had their hands full with that shuttle at that point! And the guy with the "Let go of the stick Luke, use the Force!" advice needs a medal! Talk about calm under fire!
The Shuttle launch & reentry were flown by computer because they required precision far beyond human capabilities.. NASA disallowed the much easier computer landing so there could be no unmanned shuttle flights, & so deliberately unnecessarily risked human lives to haul groceries up & waste back at 10 times the cost of commercial boosters. NASA’s shuttle was the most dangerous, unaffordable & unreliable space vehicle in history.
One morning, going down our driveway to take my son to school, we saw the Shuttle on its 747 transport flying low (couple thousand feet) turning towards the Cape for a delivery from Edwards. We live about 90 miles away... and it was "cool" to see. We still talk about it sometimes.
@@teyton90 Yep. 25 or 30 seconds of it flying by low and slow. What a rush! Then it was gone. Never saw it again. But I still "believe" in it! It IS real!
Interesting that Shuttle's automated landing system took several iterations to get right. Makes it more amazing that the one flight of Buran was unmanned and landed successfully. I wonder what their development program looked like.
Buran had a whole test flight campaign for their automatic landing system, using the vehicle-integrated jet engines; while it only flew to space once, it flew (in the atmosphere) as part of its flight test campaign 24 times.
As Scott pointed out, he was forced to fight the computer for control in front of a crowd of VIPs. And it's not like a shuttle gets a second attempt. It'd get an aw shit out of me as well lol.
I love that detail of the simulator using a control-slaved camera filming a model of the area and feeding the images back to the simulator. Analogue solutions like these are always ingenious and often overlooked.
Amazing that the Shuttle would come down at a 20° (compared to 3° of an airliner) and yet be able to flare and hover like that over the runway and even need a parachute to timely complete rotation to the ground. Great coverage!
Its poor lift/drag ratio is partly due to its low aspect ratio wing. When within approximately 1/2 or 1/4 wing-span of the ground, the surface limits downwash angle and therefore erases much of the lift-induced drag. In short: ground effect improves efficiency.
I once spoke with a NASA astronaut. I asked him about the differences between piloting a military jet and the shuttle. He went over several differences. The most important difference, he explained, is that you only get ONE CHANCE to land the shuttle (even if something goes wrong). He said that this means that you're obviously making every effort to get it right -- but prepared for any number of possible issues.
There is an absolutely fantastic video describing how to land a Space shuttle - "How to Land the Space Shuttle... from Space" - on the "Space Scope" channel
@@MaxR. regular gliders can make couple of approaches and go-arounds (not last-second ones of course) due to their extremely high lift-to-drag ratio, especially with a ground effect (ua-cam.com/video/xTUkwP4noGY/v-deo.html )
I worked on the shuttle carriers. If memory is correct they had a turbulence problem with the horizontal stabilizer that caused a severe oscillation that left the 747 barely controllable. The fix was to put the vertical fins at the tips of the horizontal stabilizer. Took the oscillations right out. The shuttle carriers flew on Uncle Sams dime so they got JP-4 not JET-A. The first day of work the plane pulled in with this sweet smell and so unlike the airline aircraft I was used to. I love the smell of JP-4 in the morning.
When I saw the "For All Mankind" shuttle carrier without additional vertical fins on the rear stabiliser it just didn't look right. Both the shuttle carrier and the An-225 for Buran have them. Actually the An-225 has no central vertical stabiliser at all for plans around air launching boosters.
@7:30 I was ten-year-old kid when my family and I showed up at Edwards Air Base in 1977 to witness the first-ever flight of Space Shuttler. So many people showed up to watch the event, and it took lot of us hours to drive out of the base to the highway. That is one of few things in my life that I would not forget. The other was watching Concorde taking off at DFW airport in 1979 at full throttle with afterburners (DFW was only one that allowed the full throttle due to sparse developments surrounding DFW).
Hi Scott--Very Well Done! I got into the program about 1 year after these tests were completed. I'd like to make a note here if I may-- With the tail cone on, glide time was 5 1/2 minutes, with the tail cone off it was 2 1/2 minutes. Quite a change!
You read as important. You got into the program? My son has just joined the airforce, and he isn’t even flying. He’s an armament technician. I’m worried sick about him lol. I can’t imagine the things you have seen and experienced. Takes guts to do this, and I admire it immensely. Just a question, isn’t the cone supposed to facilitate, assist, in aerodynamics? Yet, it was 3 minutes quicker without the cone.
@@pommiebears Hi Pommie: Please understand, I didn't fly the vehicle. Thank you for the kind words, but nothing I did took any real 'guts'. The worst that can happen to a Test Conductor or Flight Director is that he/she might fall out of their chair. Regarding the tail cone--in the beginning of this program there was great uncertainty as to what flow over the base area of the vehicle would do. The presence of the engine bells greatly complicated this situation. And in fact one of the biggest reasons for the tail cone was due to uncertainty as to the 'dynamic environment' that the Orbiter base flow would induce to the 747 carrier aircraft. Since the flow over the Orbiter base also tended to flow over the 747's tail, there was FUD (that's space talk for 'Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt'...) as to how much this would influence the 747's yaw stability. After the 1st captive flight without the tail cone, the 747 crew was quoted as saying something to the effect of 'We don't want to do anything like that again!' I think there were structural modifications to the 747, as well as modifications to its flight control system after that. Wow: this stuff was a long time ago! Thank you very much.
This is a great example of why flight testing is so important to aircraft development. I'm always amazed at the amount of research you put in to these videos Scott. Great work as usual.
Do your due diligence Jeff, this is antique technology. OPERATION PAPERCLIP initiated the process of anti-grav propulsion. Admiral Byrd was beaten bad by the German hold out in Antarctica. Operation High Jump.
I met Fred Haise at Spacefest in 2016 and we talked for a long time. He was the nicest person you would ever want to meet. A perfect gentleman. He shared some great Apollo 13 memories.
I met him once too, at the "Apollo 11" movie. Very nice guy. He said the highlight of his career was doing the Shuttle test flights, because they proved that it could work.
I have a medallion made from the Enterprise for working on the Space Shuttle program. I worked on almost every Space Shuttle mission until the program ended in 2011. I drove to Florida from texas to watch the final launch. It was a bittersweet moment. I was happy to see the final launch but was sad to see that program end.
I worked the early days of the Space Shuttle program.....as I remember, Enterprise was intended fly to orbit, but during the time enterprise was being built it was discovered that the wings/tail were not strong enough to fly through the maximum dynamic pressure region of ascent flight. The Wings and Tail could not be made strong enough without costing a lot of payload to orbit capability, so Day of launch wind biasing was baselined. This required balloons to be launch several times prior to launch. The balloon data was sent to Rockwell in Downey, CA to run a flight simulation, and then structural loads to be estimated. These results was then briefed during the launch Go/No go decision meeting. I was also in the Downey control room during this last flight of Enterprise....I though he was going to stall....was not a pretty landing!
@@paulweston8184 just to correct your misunderstanding.... I was a glider pilot ..... gliders can stall too.... they have and if occurring near the ground a pilot can be severely injured or killed..... stalling means loss of enough lift that drag and gravity win and plane/glider can fall out of the sky
@@davidpearson5574 I apologize. I realize what you are saying now. I was under the impression that a stall occurs from the oxygen being too lean due to not enough air pressure on the intake. I wasn't thinking that it also applies to the wing when it stops producing lift. Sorry bout that.
@@paulweston8184 no apology necessary......in a perfect landing, whether glider or plane with motor , The plane is in a stall condition as it touches down...,anything different and it is a hard landing or worse
What a memory. I was 10 years old visiting my grandparents house. This was back when adults had complete control over the one television in the house, and they were not interested in space stuff. Fortunately, there was an eight in black & white set in the camper. I had the opportunity to watch the shuttle leave the back of the carrier aircraft, and do its landing. Very exciting, even on such a tiny screen.
I'm never gonna understand that, but I know it happens a lot. What the heck else would you rather watch on TELEVISION, for crying out loud, instead of your country's pinnacle of achievement?
Awesome stuff sir. I've worked for NASA since 1980 and love my job. These were exciting times at KSC. Scott, thanks for reminding me of those days. BTW, in the first launch, the External Tank (ET) was painted white, but it was the only one. The rest were the natural rusty orange color, which woodpeckers loved (As an aside, there was a guy on the launch tower whose job was, if he saw a woodpecker, to blast an air horn to scare the bird away.). Not painting the ET shaved between 600 to 800 lbs of useless weight. The extra weight wasn't that great in comparison to the total weight, but given that, to put 1 lbs. of payload in space, it took around 7 lbs. of fuel. That meant around 2.5 tons of fuel could be used for important things, and not transporting white paint into space.
@@jamesrobert4106 Well, one of my strong points, probably the strongest, is my overwhelming abundance of palpable humility, and I take great pride in that. 😏
I can only imagine what these early fly by wire systems felt like. After thousands of hours in traditional planes, my first A320 sim lesson was rough; I was constantly chasing the plane. My second flight was perfect after I really took home that "less is more" when flying those. In a normal plane, you're used to constantly working to keep the airplane where you want it, especially in slower flight; you learn to feel the plane and almost react before the plane even starts rolling left because of some turbulence. In FBW, and particularly the airbus, it's quite the opposite. You use the controls to tell the airplane where you want it to go. It's super easy to create PIO (pilot induced oscillation) if you're trying to fly it like a regular plane. This is partially because there's a bit of a lag between you and the flight controls. So what you perceive as the plane getting pushed in a left roll, the airplane already knows and is doing something and then it sees your input to roll right and it thinks, ok he wants to go right, so suddenly you're over to the right instead of level. Granted I am NOT a test pilot and I'm sure these guys knew quite well what to expect. But in a traditional plane that might have some aerodynamic quirk, you kind of learn the feel quickly and go, ok, that's what I'm dealing with. Where in FBW, you're left with the classic question: what is it doing now? Or why is it doing that?
That is why the suggestion was to let go of the stick. The control system does not have enough authority to meet any input. Humans tend to update twice per second in a "dead beat" fashion leading to a 1 Hz oscillation. An impatient human will try to generate a faster response by larger input.
Flying a FBW flight control airplane is more like “flying” a spacecraft. Very different than a conventional jet as much of the aerodynamic feel and feedback you get from a conventional flight control system is absent.
Funny that you found it so difficult. Did you have a type rating on another aircraft before? When I was in a 320 sim, it felt as stable as it gets. I can’t follow your PIO observations at all. I do see what you mean by it feeling a bit sluggish, but then again you can yank it full nose-up (or rather max G) with very little force.
I was fortunate enough to be related to an astronaut and got to witness his first launch live. I got to go to another but there was an issue with one of the main engines at T-9 seconds and they had to postpone the launch for like 2 weeks and we couldn't stay in Florida to wait so we had to go home. But he is retired now and in the astronaut hall of fame. I really miss the Space Shuttle!!
Knowing someone in the Space Industry is soooo special. We saw the maiden voyage of Challenger from on base at KSC, just wow... and we saw Hurley pilot the last Shuttle Flight! We watched one of these drop test basically "live". My father was one of the techs at IBM Owego that physically built the circuit boards for the Flight Computers for all of the Space Shuttles including Enterprise. Dad worked for the father of NASA / SpaceX Astronaut Doug Hurley who lead the project for Columbia STS-1, to which Dad did contribute his craftsmanship. Dad was also a Core Memory Specialist which the Space Shuttle used for "NVRAM". Challenger's Core Memory was eventually returned to his lab in a tank of deionized water, for forensics. Years before Enterprise, Dad was the IBM DDAS Telemetry Network Controller in the Firing Room for Apollo 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, and Skylab 2, 3, and 4. Dad can actually be seen in the recent CNN film "Apollo 11" in # FiringRoom1 at his DDAS Console as the camera glides by: # ProjectApolloFilm
I wish I could have seen a Shuttle launch, and it truly is an iconic marvel of engineering. On the other hand, I'm also glad for multiple reasons that it was retired.
@@EclipseClemens Random question: Mind if i recommend you, a random fellow Science-Fan, some Education-Channel and Science-Channel, just because the Learning never ends and for no other reason?
I love how calm he was with that "ah shit" on the bad landing. It was like he dropped a pen rather than messed up the landing that could have ended worse than it did.
The "forgotten shuttle", Pathfinder, was used to measure clearances and mounting brackets so that Enterprise wouldn't be damaged. Made of steel, fiberglass, and plywood, it didn't actually have a name until it was rebuilt as a display vehicle. It is currently on display at the Huntsville Space and Rocket center.
Makes sense. I was wondering why they were using actual shuttle construction when basically a foam and plywood would give same results (except weight testing)
Great to hear some discussion of the orbiter and orbiter/carrier wind tunnel testing. For work I regularly go to one of the wind tunnels where a fair number of the small scale tests were done throughout the shuttle's lifetime, and a lot of the models are just sitting out in the basement there. Always a good time to just walk down there and take in the history.
That was cool to see the Link simulator! I was in high-school at the time of these test flights, and now I am a senior level systems engineer for Link (recently acquired by CAE USA).
Very interesting video. I recall watching the Enterprise test flights as kid and thinking the future had arrived. 40 odd years later, I am watching SpaceX build arms to catch Starship Booster and thinking the future has arrived.
What a great presentation, Scott. I was an engineering student at SFSU back then and we visited Singer Link and saw the simulator. What a monster machine! I think the artists at George Lucas' Skywalker Ranch were inspired by that Singer Link simulator when they designed tanks walking on stilts for the opening battle scene. The audio from that bouncy landing sounded like my first solo landing in a Cessna. My youngest son, who is an airline pilot and my CPI, had a great laugh and then made me do it again.
@Edward Summey, I have gotten to see this exhibit at Johnson Space Center and really enjoyed it. Not just a great display and chance to see what the system would look like going down a runway, but really cool as you get to walk through the upper and lower decks of the mock-up, as well as the entire length of the aircraft fuselage. Really cool exhibit.
@@storm14k I would normally agree, but with the exhibit being outdoors, it’s best that it isn’t a real orbiter. Of course, with it being in Houston, I would absolutely love an enclosed/climate-controlled exhibit like they did with the SaturnV, but then “it wouldn’t look as impressive” from the street.
@@hunterwylie6969 oh I agree 100% that it couldn't be outdoors. The Smithsonian as I understand it threatened to take that Saturn 5 if they didn't enclose it. Houston wasn't prepared at all but I feel everyone should have worked to put a plan together given the significance the city played in that era.
I remember watching this landing live on TV, and we all held our breath after that first bounce. It was pretty exciting to see. Really enjoyed hearing what you dug up about this test and Enterprise itself.
Given how fast that shuttle must be going when it touches down, I think it’s a great landing. I fly a C150 and if I’m even a tiny bit faster than my normal landing I’ll bounce too.
To be fair, a lot of fighter jets are aerodynamically worse than a brick, but fly because even a brick can fly, if you strap a big enough engine to it.
@@SeanBZA Israeli F-15 lost a wing in a midair. Solution was to accelerate to 300+ kts and have body + deflective lift take over for the missing wing. At that point the remaining wing was just an aerodynamic fuel can and the plane was flying on thrust, body lift, and the independent control tail planes and rudders. And the topper: he successfully landed it crossing the threshold at 300kts. For truly the most extreme case of a flying engine with a few control fins attached, check out the F-104.
All these decades after the fact and I’m still learning about the Shuttle. Am still gritting my teeth every time I think about the Star Trek dopes who forced NASA to name the prototype Enterprise knowing it would never make it to orbit. Great work, Scott. Thanks for this.
Some years ago I visited the Enterprise in New York. It was my first. And the most tear jerking... Had watery eyes the whole time. Saw the others later and loved it every time. They all have their special features.
Great video Scott! It might have been a flawed machine, but there’s something about a space shuttle orbiter that stirs the soul. Phenomenal piece of kit whose influence on a young space fan is the reason I’m probably watching this video today.
The Shuttle program held a big personal interest for me as a young teen, and throughout its life. My BIL worked on improvements to the C-130 tail, which lead to the design team for the main booster guide fins on the Saturn V. I had a brother in Air Force flight flight training, and I later attend college as an AFROTC Pilot rated cadet. Historically, I followed all the designs on WWII and Korean War aircraft, as I was an advanced math student from early age (college degree was in Mathematics), so I followed the Shuttle designs with interest. Few people recall that the NASA engineers used the earliest 'lift body' data from the wingless M2F2 aircraft, which had been propelled by being hauled down a runway by big V8 hotrodded Chrysler! I think the Century series Fighters provided gross examples of problems using ailerons vs rudders on how to turn an aircraft for final approach (the Shuttle wouldn't survive an episode of the deadly "saber dance"). When the Vietnam War ended, I signed out of the flight program; I had gotten too tall for fighters cockpits, but lived on through flight with the mathematics.
It's a shame they never got to launch the shuttle from Vandenberg. There was no chance I'd ever get to make a trip to Florida to see it launched, but I might have been able to see a west coast launch.
I was so upset that I didn't get to hear the final sonic boom when it flew over on the last shuttle mission. I was inside a power plant and couldn't hear anything but machinery
@@LoanwordEggcorn I was on the lakebed when Young and Crippen landed. I can not tell you the worries for the heat shield tiles during the comm blackout. I still have one of the Pepsi commemorative soda cans from that day.
I got to see a couple of day launches close up-ish (7-8 miles) when I lived in Orlando for a while. Deafening, feel it in your bones roar. One night launch I watched from a bridge in Orlando. 50 miles away and it still lit up like daytime before it hit clouds. I'd love to go see the full stack Big Fu...um...Starship...launch.
@@LoanwordEggcorn I never got to see the landings but I'm close enough (about 130 miles as the crow flies) that we got to hear the sonic boom when it came in to Edwards from the north
Awesome video! I love the shuttles and was sorry to see them shut down. But I learned a lot I never knew before. I wondered why Enterprise never flew...now I know! Thank you for a great video.
This brings back many memories. I was in the AF from '78- '82, stationed at Norton AFB as part of the 1835th EIS. Arriving TDY at Edwards in Summer '79 I got to witness many, many test flights of the 747/Shuttle coming on and off runway. I used to marvel at the skill it took to do touch and goes there. My groups job was to install commo, metro, video and data cabling across Edwards for the glide tests onto Rogers Dry Lake. We spent months out there working on that. It was a turning point of my life actually. I was part of a mission, working with a bunch of great people with a time line that had to be met. We pulled this off a few months ahead of schedule. Some of the work we did was right along the active runways. I remember watching the transport combo taking off etc maybe 300 feet away from where we were working. Also slews of the coolest planes I've ever seen. NASA stuff, old F-102's, 106's, A-7's, modified B-52's. It was just a real source of excitment for a young country boy. Great video as always!!
Great video! The development and early years of the shuttle program are very interesting to me. The fact that they got this working 40 years ago continues to impress me! What an accomplishment.
There are photos online backing up the fact that lettered onto one of the rear support pylons on the carrier aircraft was the following instruction: "Attach orbiter here, black side down."
12:45. OMG! I know Charlie Bolden!! What a wonderful guy. Lived here in Houston and was active in our neighborhood community for years in 3rd Ward. He became head of NASA later.
I’ve been looking for years for any picture of the shuttle simulator. Finally you showed a few seconds of it. I remember in Southern California they had two stationary shuttle flight decks simulators nose to nose. One of them would be hooked up to a camera on a gantry in the room. I remembered the near as big as a football field. I believe on the floor was a model of Florida. Edwards Air Force Base would’ve been on the wall. And the ceiling was the alternate landing site in Puerto Rico. They would actually fly a camera in the room on gantries. So detailed you could actually crash through building models in in the Florida model. All I n the days before electronic flight simulators. I believe the 4 shuttle computers were only 16k of Memory. Three working to check each other’s work and a fourth one to be brought online if one was found faulty. I was starting to think I was crazy because I’ve never been able to find a picture of the mechanical simulator. They also had a Shuttle arm simulator
The display on the Intrepid is amazing, you get to walk under the shuttle, they have an itty bitty Soyuz capsule underneath, and you really get a sense of just how amazing the shuttle was, payload wise.
6:10, wait SOMEONE needs to make a full video on that 70s flight simulator, it sounds awesome! I wonder if they kept the whole map and camera system somewhere? I really want to see what does it look like inside the cockpit in high quality, there's barely any infos about it on the Internet
@@SeanBZA Yeah but the one shown in the was a plane simulator for training airliner pilots, not a Space Shuttle simulator, so there might be a chance it wasn't scrapped yet
@@dotancohen LOL, first thing I thought was that you were joking and meant the Kerbal Space Center ! 😅😅 before I remembered the Kennedy Space Center initials 😆
I worked on that simulator and the camera model. Lord that was many years ago. ISS simulator is simple by comparison. No flight controls. Now the Shuttle simulator is going in the Lonestar Flight Museum in Houston.
Are you referring to the shuttle motion base simulator in building 5 at the Johnson Space Center? I flew that several times without formal training. I landed perfectly most of the time but other times I descended too quickly and impacted the air strip too hard (probably ‘crash’). I worked many years in building 5 and 35 where the fixed and motion base simulators were. Those huge buildings were filled with computer consoles. I imagine a cell phone has similar computing capabilities.
@@MovieMakingMan Yes, I work in Bldg 5 (35 no longer exists) from the late 70's up to the present. Now where the SMS MB was is the Starliner simulator but it isn't being used anymore. The ISS simulator is upstairs in a new part of the building. The Artemis simulator is a fixed base trainer where the SMS FB used to be.
@@MovieMakingMan I worked for a string of contractors as the contract was rebid or projects started. Link -> CAE Link -> Hughes Training -> United Space Alliance -> Lockheed Martin -> Leidos -> SGT -> KBR All the same job, just a different badge.
@ I wore many hats too. When contracts ended I transferred to another company. I worked for Northrop, Bendix, WDY, McDonald Douglas and Boeing. I worked in many buildings like building 9 (Manipulator Development facility) as an engineer, building 7 as a designer/draftsman, building 29 as a test conductor & suit subject, building 260 (technician & suit subject), offsite as an engineer and later I created a video production facility for McDonald Douglas where I made mission overview videos. I miss working with so many great people.
Your videos are so informative and interesting. I have no idea how you keep creating these interesting topics, even with your wide range of knowledge. Absolutely a pleasure, thank you so much, Scott.
I never before considered that the shuttles might have been designed by Vogons, but when you think about the bureaucracy inherent in any government agency, such as NASA, it all makes so much sense.
I have 2 memories of Enterprise. The first was standing on a chair in a packed room at college to watch the maiden flight of a Space Shuttle, in August 1977 (thanks for clarifying the date). My second memory was of being at the Paris Air Show in 1983, and seeing Enterprise and the SCA take off from Le Bourget airport. The two craft were touring Europe, and they were leaving for Rome.
Greetings from germany. I remember us, a bunch of very young gliderpilots, to write to NASA to please let us fly the space shuttle in 1983. Obviosly to no avail...
I remember several times with Enterprise: 1. Stacking Enterprise with inert SRBs and ET in the VAB and doing rollout tests to Pad 39A. 2. Stacking Enterprise out at VAFB and rolling it on the road (that was a nightmare as the road was tight and had some interesting turns. 3. Testing the leading edge panels following the Columbia accident (that was a sad time!)
A few years ago I got to see Shuttle Enterprise at the Intrepid Air and Space Museum and its the only shuttle ive seen in person and it was amazing to see. I'd always wondered what it had been used for. I didn't expect to find out today, but its amazing to be able to look at the video and say "hey ive seen that in person" Thanks so much for the video
What’s always striking is to see the enterprise, and then see any of the other shuttles. The real ones look like they’ve been to hell and back, while enterprise looks completely clean.
I thought I'd share the story of the day I spent landing the orbiter over and over again. In the late 90's I was working as a jr. systems administrator in a research lab at JSC that had built an out-the-windows simulator that had been used to help develop the recent glass cockpit upgrades for the shuttle. They were running some tests on the simulator and needed someone to pilot the thing to make sure it was working and fine-tune the displays, so I got tapped. I had never seen the simulator run before, and no one told me how to operate it. It included a full-sized cockpit mock-up and several projectors that ran out-the-window visuals on an at-the-time state of the art SGI supercomputer. So I sat in an accurate-to-scale cockpit flying the orbiter with a joystick and a bunch of glass-cockpit controls. The simulation started somewhere high over Florida, which I figured out by pointing the nose down until I could see the coastline. But the simulation kept restarting before I could get anywhere near the ground. Since I couldn't figure out how to land it, I started trying Immelman's, barrel rolls, etc., out of frustration. (Shout out to the original 'Ace-of-Aces' game books) It turns out the orbiter was not highly maneuverable. Finally, someone came over and said 'what are you doing', to which I replied something like 'I don't know', and they said 'here, keep the dot in the cross-hairs'. Ah Ha! A Head-Up Display! So after several more tries, I managed to start landing it, or getting close, although it helped when I was shown a few other controls, like the one to lower the landing gear. But I eventually managed to even get the landing flare down. When that got old, I got bored and tried a few other things, like doing a belly landing without deploying the landing gear, and actually managed to find a flaw in the simulator, because if I glided in smoothly enough, I could get the runway going over my head before the sim stopped. Apparently, it hadn't occurred to anyone that someone would be crazy enough to land without deploying the gear first, so the simulator didn't count touchdown as happening until the virtual wheels, which were still tucked into the body of the virtual orbiter, met the surface of the runway. So they had to go back and update the simulator to fix that. As a result of all of this, I could honestly claim in my list of useless life skills that, in an emergency, I could probably actually land the orbiter if I had to...
I attended a talk given by James Doohan (Scotty) at Carleton University in the early 80s. According to him the letter writing campaign that got the test shuttle named Enterprise did not do fans any favours. NASAs plan had been to name the second shuttle Enterprise which would have made it the first shuttle to fly.
This is true. NASA wanted the first shuttle in space to be called Enterprise. Several engineers were publicly very pissed about the name change. NASA was basically ordered to change the name, even when they explained the rational behind waiting using the name Enterprise.
Random question: Mind if i recommend you, a random fellow Science-Fan, some Education-Channel and Science-Channel, just because the Learning never ends and for no other reason?
I use to work at J.S.C. on the Space Shuttle Simulators in the early 80s and we often tried to land the Shuttle but never once came close! It was a brick with wings and you had to anticipate your control movements way before your natural instincts. As you might expect, the Astronauts made it look easy. :o)
I replied to your comment but it got deleted. I worked for awhile in buildings 5 and 35 on the fixed and motion base simulators. I ‘flew’ the motion base several times and landed successfully half the time. A couple of times I descended too quickly and hit the runway too hard (probable crash). I went on to work as a test conductor, engineer, designer, suit subject and then I created a video production facility so I could make video programs on Space Shuttle and Space Station missions. I was in building 5 walking toward motion base when a fellow engineer walked up to me telling me the Challenger just blew up. I was in shock. I worked with astronauts training in the different facilities at the Johnson Space Center so I got to know many of them.
Yup, the ferry flights used the shorter front attach struts to save fuel as it holds the Orbiter Vehicle at 3º AOA, while flight/glide test used longer from struts to maintain a 6ºAOA. Even so, the 5,500 N mile no payload range still decreases down to 1000 nautical miles with an orbiter on the SCAs back..
@@awuma Yes, but only during the Approach and Landing Tests(ALT), OV-101-Enterprise was indeed placed at the lower 3ºAOA for the SCA/Orbiter Vehicle ferry flights. Enterprise had the honour of being the only Orbiter Vehicle to be carried in both the ferry(3º) and the ALT mission(6º). SCA/Enterprise flew from USA/CAN to Europe in the lower "ferry position".
@@utoothheartyeight The entire Shuttle program was cutting edge technology for the time, with thousands of engineers working on it. An amazing technical achievement. Unfortunately some in the government thought it was an airliner, and pushed for too high a flight rate while ignoring engineering safety concerns.
One of my favorite memories is being at the cape when Columbia came back on the 747, we were at what they called the spaceport USA then and they announced it on the PA, everyone looked up and clapped as it flew by on approach.
All I have to say is wow, Scott, you continue to amaze me with your subject matter. Great SpaceX coverage, but then you throw in this amazing content. Please keep it up.
This was very interesting… for the life of me until a few years ago I never knew that the shuttle started back in the 70’s. I was also little then too, being 10 in 1978 it’s not something I was ever really exposed to back then.
Brings back memories. Worked mission coverage for Enterprise ATL flights at Edwards. Our photo tracking mount shot one of the landing views that Scott showed. The cameras spooled through hundreds of feet of 35mm film on that mission. We had some excellent movies to review before handing over to NASA. What an exciting time, full of promise for a new era in space travel.
@@mapesdhs597 hi, we didn't have the capability to duplicate film. thus, when we turned the film over to contractors/NASA that was the last we saw of it. for video tapes, we were able to make duplicates. some of us got our own personal screening of historic/famous/original flight videos (on youtube). used in Six Million Dollar Man intro, the M2-F2 tumbling sequence was shot by our guys during actual crash. also less famous F4 flat spin with ejection. we played a very small part in some big flight programs. it was an honor to have a part...
@@warped-sliderule I'm glad you were able to be a part of it. I wonder though if NASA kept all the film; probably not, often at the time its potential future appeal might be hard to imagine, bit like the way original tapes of old TV shows were often thrown away.
Hey Scott, Star Trek debuted the year I was born, 1966, nigh on 10 yrs to the day later Shuttle Enterprise was rolled out, 1976, thx for the memory recall!
In 2011 we just arrived home (we live in the country) I overheard the news saying they are showing the path of the last orbit of the last flight of a space shuttle which was the Atlantis. I saw the path was literally going to be right above our residence. It was due to fly by in a few minutes. I yelled for my son to come out with me and we waited, not knowing if we would see it. Then I saw the lights fly right over, still up pretty high but plenty enough to get a good look and usually hear the plane/jet engines. As it flew over we were in shocked and couldn't believe we got to see it and a little sad it would be the last. As we watched I kept waiting for the sound of the jets, as we've heard thousands off times before but then it hit me: it's just a glider. It was so strange not to hear the delayed sound of any engines. It's a moment in my life that my son nor I will never forget.
a great illustration of what proper engineering development looks like - some people will call this slow and meticulous approach "old school", but one does not simply fly to the moon straight from the drawing boards
Thank you for a wonderful and educational look at the Space Shuttle. Great work. Cheers. I always wonder who the people are that give these videos a thumbs down.
I agree about the thumbs down thing, sometimes I'd genuinely like to know what it was they didn't like, but I doubt those who do that ever post a rationale, which is a pity.
Nice video, but you still short-changed Enterprise's contributions to the Shuttle program. Before the official decision had been made to not use Enterprise for spaceflight, it was taken (as was the original plan) to Marshall Spaceflight Center where it was mated to the first complete Shuttle launch stack and then put through a series of grueling vibration tests that simulated phases of launch to see how the stack performed structurally. By the time that was completed in 1978, it'd been decided that STA-099 would be converted to OV-099 Challenger and Enterprise would be used for fit checks and other duties before being retired. Enterprise was ferried across country to Kennedy, rolled into a Processing high bay and then to the VAB to be mated to another inert launch stack, and then rolled out to LC-39-A for a series of fit and other tests, including a practice countdown with John Young and Robert Crippen. After this, it was returned to Palmdale, but many of her components were removed for use on other orbiters to save money and then after a bit of cosmetic work, sent off in1983 and 1984 for a major world tour across the Atlantic to Europe and the U.K.. Following that, in 1985, it was sent for the fit checks in Vandenburg and then sent to the Smithsonian. After Challenger, Enterprise got used for a series of runway arresting system tests. But it is interesting that NASA tried for many years to downplay and deny they ever had any intent to use Enterprise for spaceflight. And you could do an entire video on that alone, including on her initial planned missions that were tentatively scheduled for July 1981 to deploy Intelsat V satellite and retrieve the Long Duration Exposure Facility . You can still find copies of the official NASA Shuttle flight manifests that list Enterprise on it.
The biggest give away that it was meant to go to space is it was named OV-101 instead of STA-XXX like Challenger originally was. It is a shame that its importance will always be downplayed since it never got its retrofit.
@@hellelujahh there were improvements to the orbiter design after Columbia such that it made more financial sense to build up a new orbiter (Endeavour) from spare parts than to strip down and retrofit Enterprise.
@@jasonosmond6896 I may have been a little unclear, but my question refers to the part of Thomas's comment towards the end, where he says NASA has been downplaying and denying their original intent to eventually use Enterprise for spaceflight. I never knew that, so I'm curious why they'd feel the need to deny. The reasoning behind not upgrading Enterprise is perfectly sensible like the video explained (and you repeated in your reply), so why deny changing their mind?
@@hellelujahh Because it was a huge publicity hit for them that the one Shuttle orbiter named after the legendary starship Enterprise wasn't going to orbit after all was too much for the PAO, so they decided that rewriting history was better. For the longest time you couldn't get them to admit to it and there were many NASA and spaceflight publications that would repeat ad-nausem that Enterprise NEVER was intended for spaceflight until people like Dennis R. Jenkins (read his excellent books on the Shuttle program!) started reminding them that Enterprise was at one time in the launch manifest. There was a great article a few years back where a copy of the 1977-78 launch manifests were published with Enterprise still boldly on it!
"Enterprise had gone to places in the flight envelope that no Shuttle had gone before."
Very smooth, Mr. Manley.
you might say it had boldly gone where no shuttle had gone before.
@@ascii892 aaaaand ya ruined it
had me laughing for a good minute
Let history never forget the name Enterprise
And most logical, Mr. Manley .
Test pilots are a different breed. Imagine joining a "digital fly by wire" NASA test program and being told "we're going to make your plane fly terrible in lots of different ways so we can figure out which ones are worst".
The size of their balls aside, I suspect people like them love figuring out complicated problems in general. And there was plenty of complicated to go around.
@@lordgarion514 Also certain personalities tend to end up as test pilots. Many famous test pilots from back in the day wouldn't pass a medical exam today.
As a glider pilot, I felt physically sick when I saw the oscilatting fly by wire test flight scene in this video.
That must be absolutely terrifying to fly, because your intuition leads you to make the oscillation worse. You need to focus and think about how to control the thing, but if stuff gets out of hand you don't have the time for that. When shit hits the fan any human pilot relies on his muscle memory first, then his experience and then logic.
@@221b-l3t
Yeah, thrill seeking adrenaline junkies with above average intelligence probably shouldn't be flying planes.
@@AntonFetzer Indeed! Most videos I've seen where the aircraft did that ended in an orange fireball.
I once heard an air crash investigator say that "Oh shit!" was THE most frequent phrase heard on flight deck recorders just before impact.
So those pilots DEFINITELY had their hands full with that shuttle at that point!
And the guy with the "Let go of the stick Luke, use the Force!" advice needs a medal! Talk about calm under fire!
Les Hemmings I heard the most frequent phrase was "Oh f*ck!" Not that it makes much difference.
The Shuttle launch & reentry were flown by computer because they required precision far beyond human capabilities.. NASA disallowed the much easier computer landing so there could be no unmanned shuttle flights, & so deliberately unnecessarily risked human lives to haul groceries up & waste back at 10 times the cost of commercial boosters. NASA’s shuttle was the most dangerous, unaffordable & unreliable space vehicle in history.
rolled about laughing on the use the force Luke bit..
@@warrenwhite9085 I once read that an astronaut described the Shuttle as a "Butterfly riding a Bullet".
That's how I recover the Su25 in DCS lol. Just let go of the stick, the aircraft knows how to fly better than me haha.
It never fails to amaze me seeing the shuttle on top of a 747. It just looks like it shouldn't be possible. Brilliant engineering
One morning, going down our driveway to take my son to school, we saw the Shuttle on its 747 transport flying low (couple thousand feet) turning towards the Cape for a delivery from Edwards. We live about 90 miles away... and it was "cool" to see.
We still talk about it sometimes.
@@sproctor1958 jesus, what an experience. you were chosen
@@teyton90
Yep.
25 or 30 seconds of it flying by low and slow. What a rush!
Then it was gone. Never saw it again. But I still "believe" in it!
It IS real!
Is this technically a biplane?
@@googee3 🤣
Interesting that Shuttle's automated landing system took several iterations to get right. Makes it more amazing that the one flight of Buran was unmanned and landed successfully. I wonder what their development program looked like.
Very simple: In Mother Russia you don't land Buran, Buran lands you.
Buran had a whole test flight campaign for their automatic landing system, using the vehicle-integrated jet engines; while it only flew to space once, it flew (in the atmosphere) as part of its flight test campaign 24 times.
Buran had half a little of vodka. Russian way to calm down the nerves.
Copy & Paste?
@@plane_guy6051 yea they did the entire automated orbital flight perfectly the first try, but the landing, oh no they probably lied about that
"Ah shit"
Not what you wanna hear from your test pilot
_Any_ pilot.
I suspect it happens a fair amount though. I mean they're testing for a reason.
@@tarmaque Specially if you are onboard...
As Scott pointed out, he was forced to fight the computer for control in front of a crowd of VIPs. And it's not like a shuttle gets a second attempt. It'd get an aw shit out of me as well lol.
😭😭
Kind of smooth landing for a brick tbh...
Ground effect is a helluva drug
For a brick, it flew pretty good.
@@SpartanNat A very gracious fall 😁 (for most of the way at least)
The ship hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't.
After it's double sonic boom, it fell like a brick the time I was there.
The most dangerous thing on the runway would be a stray alligator.
I love that detail of the simulator using a control-slaved camera filming a model of the area and feeding the images back to the simulator.
Analogue solutions like these are always ingenious and often overlooked.
Especially true in battleship fire control; they were works of art
Which timestamp?
i don't get what you mean
Like old Hollywood, running simulations before computers caught up required a lot of imagination and creativity.
Mercury Rectifiers!
Amazing that the Shuttle would come down at a 20° (compared to 3° of an airliner) and yet be able to flare and hover like that over the runway and even need a parachute to timely complete rotation to the ground. Great coverage!
And yet on tv it looks like the approach of a commercial airliner. The shuttle broke laws of physics
Ground effect.
@@allthingsbing1295 No it didn't.
@@Quicksilver_Cookie english not your first language huh bud
Its poor lift/drag ratio is partly due to its low aspect ratio wing. When within approximately 1/2 or 1/4 wing-span of the ground, the surface limits downwash angle and therefore erases much of the lift-induced drag. In short: ground effect improves efficiency.
Having done a bunch of glider landings, that looked pretty darn good, particularly given the landing speed
I was gonna say, I've bounced a Cessna 172 way higher than that.
A flying manhole cover. He did great.
@@TheScoobysteve Same. Multiple times!
same!
Glider pilot here, too: plus the scary glide ratio, poor manouvrability, and a long final from space! Hats off and a deep bow.
If memory serves the first Flying Manhole Cover was both unmanned and extremely hypersonic.
Steve Rogers and I: "I understood that reference!"
And nuclear bomb powered if I recall...
Wasn’t it on top of a shaft with a nuclear bomb at the bottom? Lmaoooo
Very expensive to fuel though, there's always trade offs...
@@codymoe4986 Also was a single use vehicle, and definitely was not going to be used again, even if you did manage to find it.
I once spoke with a NASA astronaut. I asked him about the differences between piloting a military jet and the shuttle. He went over several differences. The most important difference, he explained, is that you only get ONE CHANCE to land the shuttle (even if something goes wrong). He said that this means that you're obviously making every effort to get it right -- but prepared for any number of possible issues.
There is an absolutely fantastic video describing how to land a Space shuttle - "How to Land the Space Shuttle... from Space" - on the "Space Scope" channel
...as with every glider. Every glider pilot knows that there is just one landing
No option to abort the landing and fly around for another go. No option to eject. One shot one landing.
@@MaxR. regular gliders can make couple of approaches and go-arounds (not last-second ones of course) due to their extremely high lift-to-drag ratio, especially with a ground effect (ua-cam.com/video/xTUkwP4noGY/v-deo.html )
@@dylantowers9367 They could eject during all the ALT with Enterprise and for teh first 4 test missions, STS-1 through STS-4.
I worked on the shuttle carriers. If memory is correct they had a turbulence problem with the horizontal stabilizer that caused a severe oscillation that left the 747 barely controllable. The fix was to put the vertical fins at the tips of the horizontal stabilizer. Took the oscillations right out. The shuttle carriers flew on Uncle Sams dime so they got JP-4 not JET-A. The first day of work the plane pulled in with this sweet smell and so unlike the airline aircraft I was used to. I love the smell of JP-4 in the morning.
Were you the guy responsible for the "attach orbiter here" placard?
@@FlyNAA Don't forget the 'Black side down' part.
Smells like... victory!
When I saw the "For All Mankind" shuttle carrier without additional vertical fins on the rear stabiliser it just didn't look right. Both the shuttle carrier and the An-225 for Buran have them. Actually the An-225 has no central vertical stabiliser at all for plans around air launching boosters.
You gotta be careful with JP-4 tho!
@7:30 I was ten-year-old kid when my family and I showed up at Edwards Air Base in 1977 to witness the first-ever flight of Space Shuttler. So many people showed up to watch the event, and it took lot of us hours to drive out of the base to the highway. That is one of few things in my life that I would not forget. The other was watching Concorde taking off at DFW airport in 1979 at full throttle with afterburners (DFW was only one that allowed the full throttle due to sparse developments surrounding DFW).
Mansion airport in England also allowed full throttle for the same reasons.
Lucky! The Concorde and Shuttle were very similar. Both were outdated, and yet ahead of their time. A fatal crash and high costs retired both.
Hi Scott--Very Well Done! I got into the program about 1 year after these tests were completed. I'd like to make a note here if I may--
With the tail cone on, glide time was 5 1/2 minutes, with the tail cone off it was 2 1/2 minutes. Quite a change!
You read as important. You got into the program? My son has just joined the airforce, and he isn’t even flying. He’s an armament technician. I’m worried sick about him lol. I can’t imagine the things you have seen and experienced. Takes guts to do this, and I admire it immensely.
Just a question, isn’t the cone supposed to facilitate, assist, in aerodynamics? Yet, it was 3 minutes quicker without the cone.
@@pommiebears Hi Pommie: Please understand, I didn't fly the vehicle. Thank you for the kind words, but nothing I did took any real 'guts'. The worst that can happen to a Test Conductor or Flight Director is that he/she might fall out of their chair. Regarding the tail cone--in the beginning of this program there was great uncertainty as to what flow over the base area of the vehicle would do. The presence of the engine bells greatly complicated this situation. And in fact one of the biggest reasons for the tail cone was due to uncertainty as to the 'dynamic environment' that the Orbiter base flow would induce to the 747 carrier aircraft. Since the flow over the Orbiter base also tended to flow over the 747's tail, there was FUD (that's space talk for 'Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt'...) as to how much this would influence the 747's yaw stability. After the 1st captive flight without the tail cone, the 747 crew was quoted as saying something to the effect of 'We don't want to do anything like that again!' I think there were structural modifications to the 747, as well as modifications to its flight control system after that. Wow: this stuff was a long time ago! Thank you very much.
This is a great example of why flight testing is so important to aircraft development. I'm always amazed at the amount of research you put in to these videos Scott. Great work as usual.
Do your due diligence Jeff, this is antique technology. OPERATION PAPERCLIP initiated the process of anti-grav propulsion. Admiral Byrd was beaten bad by the German hold out in Antarctica. Operation High Jump.
I met Fred Haise at Spacefest in 2016 and we talked for a long time. He was the nicest person you would ever want to meet. A perfect gentleman. He shared some great Apollo 13 memories.
I met him once too, at the "Apollo 11" movie. Very nice guy. He said the highlight of his career was doing the Shuttle test flights, because they proved that it could work.
You gotta love that AGC controlled F-8 with the DSKY hanging off to the side. I always have a chuckle with that.
I knew about the AGC F-8, but had no idea about the DSKY in there!
That would have to be the last time NASA ever operated an AGC?
@@nzoomed I'd have to double check with Mike but I think this is correct.
@@CuriousMarc would be interesting to find out. I didn't think any were used past the Skylab era!
Could you explain those abbreviations? Google won’t give me any useful answers.
I have a medallion made from the Enterprise for working on the Space Shuttle program. I worked on almost every Space Shuttle mission until the program ended in 2011. I drove to Florida from texas to watch the final launch. It was a bittersweet moment. I was happy to see the final launch but was sad to see that program end.
I worked the early days of the Space Shuttle program.....as I remember, Enterprise was intended fly to orbit, but during the time enterprise was being built it was discovered that the wings/tail were not strong enough to fly through the maximum dynamic pressure region of ascent flight. The Wings and Tail could not be made strong enough without costing a lot of payload to orbit capability, so Day of launch wind biasing was baselined. This required balloons to be launch several times prior to launch. The balloon data was sent to Rockwell in Downey, CA to run a flight simulation, and then structural loads to be estimated. These results was then briefed during the launch Go/No go decision meeting. I was also in the Downey control room during this last flight of Enterprise....I though he was going to stall....was not a pretty landing!
@@paulweston8184 just to correct your misunderstanding.... I was a glider pilot ..... gliders can stall too.... they have and if occurring near the ground a pilot can be severely injured or killed..... stalling means loss of enough lift that drag and gravity win and plane/glider can fall out of the sky
@@davidpearson5574 I apologize. I realize what you are saying now. I was under the impression that a stall occurs from the oxygen being too lean due to not enough air pressure on the intake. I wasn't thinking that it also applies to the wing when it stops producing lift. Sorry bout that.
@@paulweston8184 no apology necessary......in a perfect landing, whether glider or plane with motor , The plane is in a stall condition as it touches down...,anything different and it is a hard landing or worse
So much respect for the unreal amount of math, engineering and good organisation to make all that work back then
And the balls on those pilots. Those guys had to be living their dream
Not to mention a fair chunk of luck :)
And all that math was done by people
What a memory. I was 10 years old visiting my grandparents house. This was back when adults had complete control over the one television in the house, and they were not interested in space stuff. Fortunately, there was an eight in black & white set in the camper. I had the opportunity to watch the shuttle leave the back of the carrier aircraft, and do its landing. Very exciting, even on such a tiny screen.
I'm never gonna understand that, but I know it happens a lot.
What the heck else would you rather watch on TELEVISION, for crying out loud, instead of your country's pinnacle of achievement?
@@devilsoffspring5519 probably watching All in the family like everyone was back then 🤣😂
"Flying manhole cover." That was a side-splitter! Well done, Scott.
You know you're going to be flying a steep glide path vehicle when the trainer has to have thrust reversers engaged for practice landings.
I'm crying! 🤣🤣😂🤣
No nukes required.
The flying manhole cover got to space though! Well, maybe..
I'm sure Gulfstream was thrilled to find out about NASA's mods.
Awesome stuff sir. I've worked for NASA since 1980 and love my job. These were exciting times at KSC. Scott, thanks for reminding me of those days.
BTW, in the first launch, the External Tank (ET) was painted white, but it was the only one. The rest were the natural rusty orange color, which woodpeckers loved (As an aside, there was a guy on the launch tower whose job was, if he saw a woodpecker, to blast an air horn to scare the bird away.). Not painting the ET shaved between 600 to 800 lbs of useless weight. The extra weight wasn't that great in comparison to the total weight, but given that, to put 1 lbs. of payload in space, it took around 7 lbs. of fuel. That meant around 2.5 tons of fuel could be used for important things, and not transporting white paint into space.
That’s amazing, thank you for sharing!
Did you ever chat to Mulloy about cold O rings?
@@jamesrobert4106 I'm not that important.
@@Urroner But you were likely more competent.
@@jamesrobert4106 Well, one of my strong points, probably the strongest, is my overwhelming abundance of palpable humility, and I take great pride in that. 😏
I can only imagine what these early fly by wire systems felt like. After thousands of hours in traditional planes, my first A320 sim lesson was rough; I was constantly chasing the plane. My second flight was perfect after I really took home that "less is more" when flying those. In a normal plane, you're used to constantly working to keep the airplane where you want it, especially in slower flight; you learn to feel the plane and almost react before the plane even starts rolling left because of some turbulence. In FBW, and particularly the airbus, it's quite the opposite. You use the controls to tell the airplane where you want it to go. It's super easy to create PIO (pilot induced oscillation) if you're trying to fly it like a regular plane. This is partially because there's a bit of a lag between you and the flight controls. So what you perceive as the plane getting pushed in a left roll, the airplane already knows and is doing something and then it sees your input to roll right and it thinks, ok he wants to go right, so suddenly you're over to the right instead of level. Granted I am NOT a test pilot and I'm sure these guys knew quite well what to expect. But in a traditional plane that might have some aerodynamic quirk, you kind of learn the feel quickly and go, ok, that's what I'm dealing with. Where in FBW, you're left with the classic question: what is it doing now? Or why is it doing that?
That is why the suggestion was to let go of the stick.
The control system does not have enough authority to meet any input. Humans tend to update twice per second in a "dead beat" fashion leading to a 1 Hz oscillation.
An impatient human will try to generate a faster response by larger input.
Flying a FBW flight control airplane is more like “flying” a spacecraft. Very different than a conventional jet as much of the aerodynamic feel and feedback you get from a conventional flight control system is absent.
Funny that you found it so difficult. Did you have a type rating on another aircraft before? When I was in a 320 sim, it felt as stable as it gets. I can’t follow your PIO observations at all. I do see what you mean by it feeling a bit sluggish, but then again you can yank it full nose-up (or rather max G) with very little force.
I was fortunate enough to be related to an astronaut and got to witness his first launch live. I got to go to another but there was an issue with one of the main engines at T-9 seconds and they had to postpone the launch for like 2 weeks and we couldn't stay in Florida to wait so we had to go home. But he is retired now and in the astronaut hall of fame. I really miss the Space Shuttle!!
Knowing someone in the Space Industry is soooo special. We saw the maiden voyage of Challenger from on base at KSC, just wow... and we saw Hurley pilot the last Shuttle Flight!
We watched one of these drop test basically "live". My father was one of the techs at IBM Owego that physically built the circuit boards for the Flight Computers for all of the Space Shuttles including Enterprise. Dad worked for the father of NASA / SpaceX Astronaut Doug Hurley who lead the project for Columbia STS-1, to which Dad did contribute his craftsmanship.
Dad was also a Core Memory Specialist which the Space Shuttle used for "NVRAM". Challenger's Core Memory was eventually returned to his lab in a tank of deionized water, for forensics.
Years before Enterprise, Dad was the IBM DDAS Telemetry Network Controller in the Firing Room for Apollo 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, and Skylab 2, 3, and 4. Dad can actually be seen in the recent CNN film "Apollo 11" in # FiringRoom1 at his DDAS Console as the camera glides by: # ProjectApolloFilm
@@johnboze Wow!! That is impressive. I would be curious to know more about the forensics that was done on the Challenger computer.
I wish I could have seen a Shuttle launch, and it truly is an iconic marvel of engineering.
On the other hand, I'm also glad for multiple reasons that it was retired.
@@IstasPumaNevada It was an amazing experience to be honest. I couldn't believe how loud it was and how fast it disappeared.
@@johnboze bless him
That near tail-strike actually caught my breath in my throat.
Timestamp?
@@LoanwordEggcorn 11:22
@@kaelwd Thanks much. I see it now.
yeah, saw that. reminded me of ksp
Is it not a tail-strike? I thought for sure...
"For a brick, he flew pretty good" -sgt Johnson
Hype for Halo infinte
Excellent reference
@@EclipseClemens Random question:
Mind if i recommend you, a random fellow Science-Fan,
some Education-Channel and Science-Channel, just because the Learning never ends and for no other reason?
@@loturzelrestaurant sure
@@EclipseClemens Cool.
I love how calm he was with that "ah shit" on the bad landing. It was like he dropped a pen rather than messed up the landing that could have ended worse than it did.
The "forgotten shuttle", Pathfinder, was used to measure clearances and mounting brackets so that Enterprise wouldn't be damaged. Made of steel, fiberglass, and plywood, it didn't actually have a name until it was rebuilt as a display vehicle. It is currently on display at the Huntsville Space and Rocket center.
Makes sense. I was wondering why they were using actual shuttle construction when basically a foam and plywood would give same results (except weight testing)
ah yes, OV-98, my favourite
Great to hear some discussion of the orbiter and orbiter/carrier wind tunnel testing. For work I regularly go to one of the wind tunnels where a fair number of the small scale tests were done throughout the shuttle's lifetime, and a lot of the models are just sitting out in the basement there. Always a good time to just walk down there and take in the history.
That was cool to see the Link simulator! I was in high-school at the time of these test flights, and now I am a senior level systems engineer for Link (recently acquired by CAE USA).
Very interesting video.
I recall watching the Enterprise test flights as kid and thinking the future had arrived. 40 odd years later, I am watching SpaceX build arms to catch Starship Booster and thinking the future has arrived.
took its time getting here though thanks to the pigs at the trough and the senators with there jobs in my state attitude.
thank god for spacex
Newsflash - the future is always almost here.
Nah, I thought we would have had flying cars by the year 2000. Were behind, companies like Space X are just playing catch up.
Since Musk knows how ro make money doing space, YES the future HAS finally arrived
Its enough that it lands.. coming from that high up! Don't judge it by its landing.
As long as everyone gets to walk away, it's a success to pretty much every one.
Exactly!
@@Roonasaur Not if the orbiter is damaged
Nowadays that nothing....SpaceX lands rockets...
What a great presentation, Scott. I was an engineering student at SFSU back then and we visited Singer Link and saw the simulator. What a monster machine! I think the artists at George Lucas' Skywalker Ranch were inspired by that Singer Link simulator when they designed tanks walking on stilts for the opening battle scene.
The audio from that bouncy landing sounded like my first solo landing in a Cessna. My youngest son, who is an airline pilot and my CPI, had a great laugh and then made me do it again.
I am just at awe how those brave man tested those things putting everything on the line, to advance our quest to be explorers. Thank you.
Flight deck was equipped with ejection seats during the test program. Those were removed when they started having people fly on the lower deck.
@@tymoteuszkazubski2755 Sure was, but still you can't always eject- you hear it good at the sound of the test pilot.
The carrier aircraft is on display at the Space Center in Houston with a mock-up space shuttle. It is a great display.
@Edward Summey, I have gotten to see this exhibit at Johnson Space Center and really enjoyed it. Not just a great display and chance to see what the system would look like going down a runway, but really cool as you get to walk through the upper and lower decks of the mock-up, as well as the entire length of the aircraft fuselage. Really cool exhibit.
Houston should have at least gotten Enterprise for display.
@@storm14k I would normally agree, but with the exhibit being outdoors, it’s best that it isn’t a real orbiter. Of course, with it being in Houston, I would absolutely love an enclosed/climate-controlled exhibit like they did with the SaturnV, but then “it wouldn’t look as impressive” from the street.
@@hunterwylie6969 oh I agree 100% that it couldn't be outdoors. The Smithsonian as I understand it threatened to take that Saturn 5 if they didn't enclose it. Houston wasn't prepared at all but I feel everyone should have worked to put a plan together given the significance the city played in that era.
I remember watching this landing live on TV, and we all held our breath after that first bounce. It was pretty exciting to see. Really enjoyed hearing what you dug up about this test and Enterprise itself.
Fascinating history of Enterprise. Thank you.
Given how fast that shuttle must be going when it touches down, I think it’s a great landing. I fly a C150 and if I’m even a tiny bit faster than my normal landing I’ll bounce too.
Yep! Same in my grob G115
Honest comment!
they just have higher standards then, this is why theyre integral to history and youre just a pilot
its absolutely awful for them
"it's not a fighter jet, it's a flying brick on approach" LMAO
To be fair, a lot of fighter jets are aerodynamically worse than a brick, but fly because even a brick can fly, if you strap a big enough engine to it.
@@SeanBZA and the Right Control systems even a brick can fly ;)
@@SeanBZA Israeli F-15 lost a wing in a midair. Solution was to accelerate to 300+ kts and have body + deflective lift take over for the missing wing. At that point the remaining wing was just an aerodynamic fuel can and the plane was flying on thrust, body lift, and the independent control tail planes and rudders. And the topper: he successfully landed it crossing the threshold at 300kts.
For truly the most extreme case of a flying engine with a few control fins attached, check out the F-104.
One of the best videos you’ve made. That was enthralling.
I read in “Into the black” that the bounce actually gave the landing gear team info that they couldn’t capture from the previous landings
"Non-destructive testing."
still it was not intentional I don't imagine
Great book, all of Mr White's are worth a read!
All these decades after the fact and I’m still learning about the Shuttle. Am still gritting my teeth every time I think about the Star Trek dopes who forced NASA to name the prototype Enterprise knowing it would never make it to orbit. Great work, Scott. Thanks for this.
Growing up in the 70's and 80's we followed Apollo and the Space Shuttle programs, and visited Johnson Space Center often. Thanks for the details
Some years ago I visited the Enterprise in New York. It was my first. And the most tear jerking... Had watery eyes the whole time. Saw the others later and loved it every time. They all have their special features.
Nice software/hardware development story. Shows the importance of knowing your hardware’s interaction with the outside world.
Great video Scott! It might have been a flawed machine, but there’s something about a space shuttle orbiter that stirs the soul. Phenomenal piece of kit whose influence on a young space fan is the reason I’m probably watching this video today.
It certainly did stir the soul. My wife was in tears with emotion after watching Atlantis launch. Absolutely breath-taking.
The Shuttle program held a big personal interest for me as a young teen, and throughout its life. My BIL worked on improvements to the C-130 tail, which lead to the design team for the main booster guide fins on the Saturn V. I had a brother in Air Force flight flight training, and I later attend college as an AFROTC Pilot rated cadet. Historically, I followed all the designs on WWII and Korean War aircraft, as I was an advanced math student from early age (college degree was in Mathematics), so I followed the Shuttle designs with interest. Few people recall that the NASA engineers used the earliest 'lift body' data from the wingless M2F2 aircraft, which had been propelled by being hauled down a runway by big V8 hotrodded Chrysler! I think the Century series Fighters provided gross examples of problems using ailerons vs rudders on how to turn an aircraft for final approach (the Shuttle wouldn't survive an episode of the deadly "saber dance"). When the Vietnam War ended, I signed out of the flight program; I had gotten too tall for fighters cockpits, but lived on through flight with the mathematics.
I remember the shuttle on back of that 747 flying over where I lived when I was a kid. Very cool seeing it fly over.
I will always cherish the memories of the anticipation of the launches and landings as a young kid, never missed them. Excellent video, thank you.
It's a shame they never got to launch the shuttle from Vandenberg. There was no chance I'd ever get to make a trip to Florida to see it launched, but I might have been able to see a west coast launch.
Hopefully you got to see some landings at Edwards.
I was so upset that I didn't get to hear the final sonic boom when it flew over on the last shuttle mission.
I was inside a power plant and couldn't hear anything but machinery
@@LoanwordEggcorn I was on the lakebed when Young and Crippen landed. I can not tell you the worries for the heat shield tiles during the comm blackout. I still have one of the Pepsi commemorative soda cans from that day.
I got to see a couple of day launches close up-ish (7-8 miles) when I lived in Orlando for a while. Deafening, feel it in your bones roar. One night launch I watched from a bridge in Orlando. 50 miles away and it still lit up like daytime before it hit clouds.
I'd love to go see the full stack Big Fu...um...Starship...launch.
@@LoanwordEggcorn I never got to see the landings but I'm close enough (about 130 miles as the crow flies) that we got to hear the sonic boom when it came in to Edwards from the north
That real cockpit audio was absolutely brilliant.
Thanks so much for sharing.
Awesome video! I love the shuttles and was sorry to see them shut down. But I learned a lot I never knew before. I wondered why Enterprise never flew...now I know! Thank you for a great video.
This brings back many memories. I was in the AF from '78- '82, stationed at Norton AFB as part of the 1835th EIS. Arriving TDY at Edwards in Summer '79 I got to witness many, many test flights of the 747/Shuttle coming on and off runway. I used to marvel at the skill it took to do touch and goes there.
My groups job was to install commo, metro, video and data cabling across Edwards for the glide tests onto Rogers Dry Lake. We spent months out there working on that. It was a turning point of my life actually. I was part of a mission, working with a bunch of great people with a time line that had to be met. We pulled this off a few months ahead of schedule.
Some of the work we did was right along the active runways. I remember watching the transport combo taking off etc maybe 300 feet away from where we were working. Also slews of the coolest planes I've ever seen. NASA stuff, old F-102's, 106's, A-7's, modified B-52's. It was just a real source of excitment for a young country boy.
Great video as always!!
That F-8 footage looked SKETCHY! Wow. These pilots were made of something else.
They were intentionally inducing oscillation probably
I assume they had a "make everything normal again" button they could press.
They had to be only a few inches from a tailstrike.
Great video! The development and early years of the shuttle program are very interesting to me. The fact that they got this working 40 years ago continues to impress me! What an accomplishment.
There are photos online backing up the fact that lettered onto one of the rear support pylons on the carrier aircraft was the following instruction: "Attach orbiter here, black side down."
And I have those photos. Taken at the Edwards AFB Air Show back in 1999 or so.
12:45. OMG! I know Charlie Bolden!! What a wonderful guy. Lived here in Houston and was active in our neighborhood community for years in 3rd Ward. He became head of NASA later.
wow this footage is outstanding to see the space shuttle lift right off the plane like that just f****** awesome
I’ve been looking for years for any picture of the shuttle simulator. Finally you showed a few seconds of it.
I remember in Southern California they had two stationary shuttle flight decks simulators nose to nose. One of them would be hooked up to a camera on a gantry in the room. I remembered the near as big as a football field. I believe on the floor was a model of Florida.
Edwards Air Force Base would’ve been on the wall. And the ceiling was the alternate landing site in Puerto Rico. They would actually fly a camera in the room on gantries. So detailed you could actually crash through building models in in the Florida model. All I n the days before electronic flight simulators. I believe the 4 shuttle computers were only 16k of Memory. Three working to check each other’s work and a fourth one to be brought online if one was found faulty.
I was starting to think I was crazy because I’ve never been able to find a picture of the mechanical simulator.
They also had a Shuttle arm simulator
The display on the Intrepid is amazing, you get to walk under the shuttle, they have an itty bitty Soyuz capsule underneath, and you really get a sense of just how amazing the shuttle was, payload wise.
6:10, wait SOMEONE needs to make a full video on that 70s flight simulator, it sounds awesome! I wonder if they kept the whole map and camera system somewhere? I really want to see what does it look like inside the cockpit in high quality, there's barely any infos about it on the Internet
No, likely got scrapped, along with the rest of the Apollo era hardware, or taken apart and used for other projects.
@@SeanBZA Yeah but the one shown in the was a plane simulator for training airliner pilots, not a Space Shuttle simulator, so there might be a chance it wasn't scrapped yet
Yes, the map still exists! It is on display at KSP, on the wall. You would need someone to point it as it is easy to miss. I saw it in 2018.
@@dotancohen LOL, first thing I thought was that you were joking and meant the Kerbal Space Center ! 😅😅 before I remembered the Kennedy Space Center initials 😆
They have the map in a video with Tom Scott on the Objectivity youtube channel.
I worked on that simulator and the camera model. Lord that was many years ago. ISS simulator is simple by comparison. No flight controls. Now the Shuttle simulator is going in the Lonestar Flight Museum in Houston.
Are you referring to the shuttle motion base simulator in building 5 at the Johnson Space Center? I flew that several times without formal training. I landed perfectly most of the time but other times I descended too quickly and impacted the air strip too hard (probably ‘crash’). I worked many years in building 5 and 35 where the fixed and motion base simulators were. Those huge buildings were filled with computer consoles. I imagine a cell phone has similar computing capabilities.
@@MovieMakingMan Yes, I work in Bldg 5 (35 no longer exists) from the late 70's up to the present. Now where the SMS MB was is the Starliner simulator but it isn't being used anymore. The ISS simulator is upstairs in a new part of the building. The Artemis simulator is a fixed base trainer where the SMS FB used to be.
@ We must’ve ran into each other then. I worked there the same time you did. Did you work for NASA or contractors? Thanks for the reply!
@@MovieMakingMan I worked for a string of contractors as the contract was rebid or projects started. Link -> CAE Link -> Hughes Training -> United Space Alliance -> Lockheed Martin -> Leidos -> SGT -> KBR All the same job, just a different badge.
@ I wore many hats too. When contracts ended I transferred to another company. I worked for Northrop, Bendix, WDY, McDonald Douglas and Boeing. I worked in many buildings like building 9 (Manipulator Development facility) as an engineer, building 7 as a designer/draftsman, building 29 as a test conductor & suit subject, building 260 (technician & suit subject), offsite as an engineer and later I created a video production facility for McDonald Douglas where I made mission overview videos. I miss working with so many great people.
Your videos are so informative and interesting. I have no idea how you keep creating these interesting topics, even with your wide range of knowledge. Absolutely a pleasure, thank you so much, Scott.
That digital fly-by-wire footage would be what I look like flying just about anything in KSP
Reminds me learning to fly remote control aircraft all on my own
Many of my KSP spaceplanes tend to have a more definite and vertical descent.
if you're playing with keyboard, it's that, either full on or off, so yeah
The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't.
I never before considered that the shuttles might have been designed by Vogons, but when you think about the bureaucracy inherent in any government agency, such as NASA, it all makes so much sense.
Sounds like a sentence from a Dan Brown novel.
Holy shit I was "like" #42
@@SteveCircuits only if you spell "Dan Brown" "D-o-u-g-l-a-s A-d-a-m-s"
Another excellent production Scott - thank you. I am glad that the Shuttle hasn't been totally lost to history. Cheers.
Another beautiful video thank you Scott.
I have 2 memories of Enterprise. The first was standing on a chair in a packed room at college to watch the maiden flight of a Space Shuttle, in August 1977 (thanks for clarifying the date). My second memory was of being at the Paris Air Show in 1983, and seeing Enterprise and the SCA take off from Le Bourget airport. The two craft were touring Europe, and they were leaving for Rome.
Greetings from germany. I remember us, a bunch of very young gliderpilots, to write to NASA to please let us fly the space shuttle in 1983. Obviosly to no avail...
I remember several times with Enterprise:
1. Stacking Enterprise with inert SRBs and ET in the VAB and doing rollout tests to Pad 39A.
2. Stacking Enterprise out at VAFB and rolling it on the road (that was a nightmare as the road was tight and had some interesting turns.
3. Testing the leading edge panels following the Columbia accident (that was a sad time!)
A few years ago I got to see Shuttle Enterprise at the Intrepid Air and Space Museum and its the only shuttle ive seen in person and it was amazing to see. I'd always wondered what it had been used for. I didn't expect to find out today, but its amazing to be able to look at the video and say "hey ive seen that in person" Thanks so much for the video
What’s always striking is to see the enterprise, and then see any of the other shuttles. The real ones look like they’ve been to hell and back, while enterprise looks completely clean.
I thought I'd share the story of the day I spent landing the orbiter over and over again. In the late 90's I was working as a jr. systems administrator in a research lab at JSC that had built an out-the-windows simulator that had been used to help develop the recent glass cockpit upgrades for the shuttle. They were running some tests on the simulator and needed someone to pilot the thing to make sure it was working and fine-tune the displays, so I got tapped. I had never seen the simulator run before, and no one told me how to operate it. It included a full-sized cockpit mock-up and several projectors that ran out-the-window visuals on an at-the-time state of the art SGI supercomputer. So I sat in an accurate-to-scale cockpit flying the orbiter with a joystick and a bunch of glass-cockpit controls.
The simulation started somewhere high over Florida, which I figured out by pointing the nose down until I could see the coastline. But the simulation kept restarting before I could get anywhere near the ground. Since I couldn't figure out how to land it, I started trying Immelman's, barrel rolls, etc., out of frustration. (Shout out to the original 'Ace-of-Aces' game books) It turns out the orbiter was not highly maneuverable. Finally, someone came over and said 'what are you doing', to which I replied something like 'I don't know', and they said 'here, keep the dot in the cross-hairs'. Ah Ha! A Head-Up Display! So after several more tries, I managed to start landing it, or getting close, although it helped when I was shown a few other controls, like the one to lower the landing gear. But I eventually managed to even get the landing flare down.
When that got old, I got bored and tried a few other things, like doing a belly landing without deploying the landing gear, and actually managed to find a flaw in the simulator, because if I glided in smoothly enough, I could get the runway going over my head before the sim stopped. Apparently, it hadn't occurred to anyone that someone would be crazy enough to land without deploying the gear first, so the simulator didn't count touchdown as happening until the virtual wheels, which were still tucked into the body of the virtual orbiter, met the surface of the runway. So they had to go back and update the simulator to fix that.
As a result of all of this, I could honestly claim in my list of useless life skills that, in an emergency, I could probably actually land the orbiter if I had to...
My father was a shuttle astronaut and I had never heard 90% of this -- what a great video!
I attended a talk given by James Doohan (Scotty) at Carleton University in the early 80s. According to him the letter writing campaign that got the test shuttle named Enterprise did not do fans any favours. NASAs plan had been to name the second shuttle Enterprise which would have made it the first shuttle to fly.
Human mobs once again showing their unparalleled intelligence. xD
Even more ironic, if NASA had named this one Constitution, then the later Enterprise would actually be a Constitution-class too...
This is true. NASA wanted the first shuttle in space to be called Enterprise. Several engineers were publicly very pissed about the name change. NASA was basically ordered to change the name, even when they explained the rational behind waiting using the name Enterprise.
what a shame
Random question:
Mind if i recommend you, a random fellow Science-Fan,
some Education-Channel and Science-Channel,
just because the Learning never ends and for no other reason?
Thank you soo much Mr. Manley for all those very interesting videos!
I have never seen the footage of Enterprise attached to test rockets. That was the like a piece of space candy for me!
I use to work at J.S.C. on the Space Shuttle Simulators in the early 80s and we often tried to land the Shuttle but never once came close! It was a brick with wings and you had to anticipate your control movements way before your natural instincts. As you might expect, the Astronauts made it look easy. :o)
I replied to your comment but it got deleted. I worked for awhile in buildings 5 and 35 on the fixed and motion base simulators. I ‘flew’ the motion base several times and landed successfully half the time. A couple of times I descended too quickly and hit the runway too hard (probable crash). I went on to work as a test conductor, engineer, designer, suit subject and then I created a video production facility so I could make video programs on Space Shuttle and Space Station missions. I was in building 5 walking toward motion base when a fellow engineer walked up to me telling me the Challenger just blew up. I was in shock. I worked with astronauts training in the different facilities at the Johnson Space Center so I got to know many of them.
Very cool tidbit about the longer attachment pylons for the test flights to achieve the required AOA. I never knew that.
Yup, the ferry flights used the shorter front attach struts to save fuel as it holds the Orbiter Vehicle at 3º AOA, while flight/glide test used longer from struts to maintain a 6ºAOA. Even so, the 5,500 N mile no payload range still decreases down to 1000 nautical miles with an orbiter on the SCAs back..
I noticed it immediately in the video. The "Enterprise" really did poke up higher. Never noticed it before, though.
@@awuma Yes, but only during the Approach and Landing Tests(ALT), OV-101-Enterprise was indeed placed at the lower 3ºAOA for the SCA/Orbiter Vehicle ferry flights. Enterprise had the honour of being the only Orbiter Vehicle to be carried in both the ferry(3º) and the ALT mission(6º). SCA/Enterprise flew from USA/CAN to Europe in the lower "ferry position".
I did a lot of work on Enterprise, from simulator design to rollout, and Vandenberg fit checks.
...and?
@@utoothheartyeight The entire Shuttle program was cutting edge technology for the time, with thousands of engineers working on it. An amazing technical achievement. Unfortunately some in the government thought it was an airliner, and pushed for too high a flight rate while ignoring engineering safety concerns.
PIO in an experimental aircraft is frightening enough, but to have the flight computer adding to the chaos is slightly terrifying.
“Any landing you walk away from is a good one, Any landing where you can use the craft again is a great one”
One of my favorite memories is being at the cape when Columbia came back on the 747, we were at what they called the spaceport USA then and they announced it on the PA, everyone looked up and clapped as it flew by on approach.
All I have to say is wow, Scott, you continue to amaze me with your subject matter. Great SpaceX coverage, but then you throw in this amazing content. Please keep it up.
Enterprise: "I lead others to a treasure I cannot possess."
I'm just glad you didn't choose to boldly split infinitives that no man has split before. Thanks for another informative video!
Great Scott! Another great video Scott, I have never seen this information before...great stuff for us pilots...
This was very interesting… for the life of me until a few years ago I never knew that the shuttle started back in the 70’s. I was also little then too, being 10 in 1978 it’s not something I was ever really exposed to back then.
I was there for the MERCURY-7. Your teachers and your parents FAILED YOU.
Brings back memories. Worked mission coverage for Enterprise ATL flights at Edwards. Our photo tracking mount shot one of the landing views that Scott showed. The cameras spooled through hundreds of feet of 35mm film on that mission. We had some excellent movies to review before handing over to NASA. What an exciting time, full of promise for a new era in space travel.
Just curious, did NASA keep you guys informed of what happened to all the film?
@@mapesdhs597 hi, we didn't have the capability to duplicate film. thus, when we turned the film over to contractors/NASA that was the last we saw of it. for video tapes, we were able to make duplicates. some of us got our own personal screening of historic/famous/original flight videos (on youtube). used in Six Million Dollar Man intro, the M2-F2 tumbling sequence was shot by our guys during actual crash. also less famous F4 flat spin with ejection. we played a very small part in some big flight programs. it was an honor to have a part...
@@warped-sliderule I'm glad you were able to be a part of it. I wonder though if NASA kept all the film; probably not, often at the time its potential future appeal might be hard to imagine, bit like the way original tapes of old TV shows were often thrown away.
That film of the F8 Crusader is _terrifying._
Yeah no kidding, that test pilot was probably not enjoying some of that craziness!
@@laprepper My money says he had to land and spit out bits of underwear that got sucked all the way up in.
Those pitch oscillations at 11:46 are absolutely 100% Kerbal
Of all the Scott Manley videos, I think that this is the most Kerbal.
Hey Scott, Star Trek debuted the year I was born, 1966, nigh on 10 yrs to the day later Shuttle Enterprise was rolled out, 1976, thx for the memory recall!
In 2011 we just arrived home (we live in the country) I overheard the news saying they are showing the path of the last orbit of the last flight of a space shuttle which was the Atlantis. I saw the path was literally going to be right above our residence. It was due to fly by in a few minutes. I yelled for my son to come out with me and we waited, not knowing if we would see it. Then I saw the lights fly right over, still up pretty high but plenty enough to get a good look and usually hear the plane/jet engines. As it flew over we were in shocked and couldn't believe we got to see it and a little sad it would be the last. As we watched I kept waiting for the sound of the jets, as we've heard thousands off times before but then it hit me: it's just a glider. It was so strange not to hear the delayed sound of any engines. It's a moment in my life that my son nor I will never forget.
Very interesting to hear about the refinement of the fly-by-wire system. That was an aspect previously unknown to me.
"A Flying Manhole Cover"
I'm gonna be laughing because of that for a good long while.
Im a simple man, i see a video of scott and i hit the like button before even watching it. Watching it now tho. ^^
a great illustration of what proper engineering development looks like - some people will call this slow and meticulous approach "old school", but one does not simply fly to the moon straight from the drawing boards
Thank you for a wonderful and educational look at the Space Shuttle. Great work. Cheers. I always wonder who the people are that give these videos a thumbs down.
I agree about the thumbs down thing, sometimes I'd genuinely like to know what it was they didn't like, but I doubt those who do that ever post a rationale, which is a pity.
@@mapesdhs597 I was thinking it’s possibly a fat finger issue but there are so many anti space anti science out there, who knows
Nice video, but you still short-changed Enterprise's contributions to the Shuttle program. Before the official decision had been made to not use Enterprise for spaceflight, it was taken (as was the original plan) to Marshall Spaceflight Center where it was mated to the first complete Shuttle launch stack and then put through a series of grueling vibration tests that simulated phases of launch to see how the stack performed structurally.
By the time that was completed in 1978, it'd been decided that STA-099 would be converted to OV-099 Challenger and Enterprise would be used for fit checks and other duties before being retired. Enterprise was ferried across country to Kennedy, rolled into a Processing high bay and then to the VAB to be mated to another inert launch stack, and then rolled out to LC-39-A for a series of fit and other tests, including a practice countdown with John Young and Robert Crippen.
After this, it was returned to Palmdale, but many of her components were removed for use on other orbiters to save money and then after a bit of cosmetic work, sent off in1983 and 1984 for a major world tour across the Atlantic to Europe and the U.K..
Following that, in 1985, it was sent for the fit checks in Vandenburg and then sent to the Smithsonian. After Challenger, Enterprise got used for a series of runway arresting system tests.
But it is interesting that NASA tried for many years to downplay and deny they ever had any intent to use Enterprise for spaceflight. And you could do an entire video on that alone, including on her initial planned missions that were tentatively scheduled for July 1981 to deploy Intelsat V satellite and retrieve the Long Duration Exposure Facility . You can still find copies of the official NASA Shuttle flight manifests that list Enterprise on it.
The biggest give away that it was meant to go to space is it was named OV-101 instead of STA-XXX like Challenger originally was. It is a shame that its importance will always be downplayed since it never got its retrofit.
Would you happen to know why the intent to use Enterprise for spaceflight has later been denied by NASA? That's puzzling to me.
@@hellelujahh there were improvements to the orbiter design after Columbia such that it made more financial sense to build up a new orbiter (Endeavour) from spare parts than to strip down and retrofit Enterprise.
@@jasonosmond6896 I may have been a little unclear, but my question refers to the part of Thomas's comment towards the end, where he says NASA has been downplaying and denying their original intent to eventually use Enterprise for spaceflight. I never knew that, so I'm curious why they'd feel the need to deny. The reasoning behind not upgrading Enterprise is perfectly sensible like the video explained (and you repeated in your reply), so why deny changing their mind?
@@hellelujahh Because it was a huge publicity hit for them that the one Shuttle orbiter named after the legendary starship Enterprise wasn't going to orbit after all was too much for the PAO, so they decided that rewriting history was better.
For the longest time you couldn't get them to admit to it and there were many NASA and spaceflight publications that would repeat ad-nausem that Enterprise NEVER was intended for spaceflight until people like Dennis R. Jenkins (read his excellent books on the Shuttle program!) started reminding them that Enterprise was at one time in the launch manifest.
There was a great article a few years back where a copy of the 1977-78 launch manifests were published with Enterprise still boldly on it!