ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL SPACE DIVISION 1975 PROMO FILM SPACE SHUTTLE & APOLLO-SOYUZ PROJECT 68804

[@ionhunter]

That "Nav Star" thingy will never catch on.

[@johncashwell1024]

Very forward looking info in this film; discussing how the new, but as yet unlaunched, GPS Satellite System will help small planes, boats, ships, airliners, etc. to navigate with great accuracy and even help land-vehicles, hikers, hunters, etc. to navigate using small, inexpensive receivers. Sometimes, though somewhat rare, visions of the future actually come to fruition.

[@muzaaaaak]

So much that I know where I am when I’m lost. Irony.

[@marspp]

This is great. A PROPER documentary... informative and interesting video shots of detail I’ve never seen before and narrated simply and effectively. None of the modern nonsense of having a semi-celebrity walking round and oohing and ahhing and repeating what someone has said to them. I wish documentaries were still like this.

[@erickabdel]

look! A pengwin!

[@sassyfrass4295]

Ole school!

[@steveshoemaker6347]

The right stuff....WOW...Thanks very much...!

[@scottphillips7108]

Blast from the past... Good 'ole Rockwell...

[@intel386DX]

I just love those paintings!

[@jaminova_1969]

I've watched a Shuttle launch. It was amazing!

[@DagoRuiz]

Such a great video! Shuttle Video Highlights: 1:28 - Command Module 1-11 2:21 - Apollo-Soyuz, ending non-reusable boosters 2:43 - Graphics and details for first reusable Orbiter 3:23 - Lift off and Flight Details 4:35 - Cargo Bay Dimensions 5:00 - Space Lab 5:25 - Orbiter Landing Details 6:03 - Orbiter Mock-up, Full Scale in Downey 6:24 - Benefits of using the Shuttle Orbiter 7:15 - Construction and Final Assembly 10:00 - Internal Electronics and Subsystems 11:15 - Orbiter Flight Simulation Complex 12:18 - Kennedy Space Center 12:34 - NAVSTAR GPS details en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System 15:03 - Closing Remarks

[@michaelmccarthy4615]

Only those sideburns give away the age of this film...

[@johncashwell1024]

I know! I love seeing those older 'cats' with hairstyles from the late '50s to early '60s still wearing the greasy hairdo but adding sideburns to the mix in the mid '70s. My grandfather was still sporting that style in the early '80s!

[@sassyfrass4295]

nope, its CGI don'tcha know! filmed by Kubrick.

[@csmith9684]

Don't know why but i love these type of docs. (old style) no flash, no acting, just the facts

[@1FelixTheCat]

How ironic that just a few hours before watching this, I was using my 1975 rockwell tablesaw that has a fence which takes 4 minutes of adjustment just to rip lumber correctly.

[@emilpetersen3365]

This was such an amazing video. I dont know how or why, but the narrators voice made me so calm and relaxed I almost fell asleep. Not becouse it was boring, but his voice...felt amazing to listen to.

[@allgood6760]

Thank you👍🇳🇿

[@JeffreyOrnstein]

Great stuff!

[@atomsmash100]

Hard to believe Rockwell is essentially completely gone. Broken into pieces and sold off.

[@daveinstlouis]

At the end of Close Encounters of the Third Kind when they're at Devils Tower Rockwell is figured prominently.

[@gregorymalchuk272]

I wonder which division inherited the engineering designs of the Star-Raker.

[@keeganyocum3300]

@@gregorymalchuk272 Boeing would be the one to go to.

[@keeganyocum3300]

@@gregorymalchuk272 Boeing Bought out the Space and Defence division.

[@MichaelBreen.]

2:33 The "milk stool" launch pad.

[@almostfm]

It always looked strange to me, but it actually made sense. They'd decomissioned LC 34, where the Saturn IB was launched, and since the second stage and the CSM were the same as the third stage and CSM on a Saturn V, they just had to modify all the connectors for the first stage, and get the rocket up high enough to use the existing connectors for the rest of the rocket.

[@batman_2004]

This is way more informative than today's $hitty documentaries.

[@user-jt5vm3mi1w]

no it isn't

[@cbspock1701]

Who is the narrator? The voice sounds familiar

[@seanparola]

If only space was real.

[@carlosaltamirano7806]

don ramon spacesystem repair 15:24

[@Darthenator]

@1:01 The camera stays perfectly still without any movement from the earth while the two spacecraft float towards it. Something fishy there

[@TaxPayingContributor]

That is the finest 1975 CGI technology available. Good eye. We demand more from our illusions.

[@TaxPayingContributor]

They are both paintings for one thing. There was never a third person view of Soyuz-Appolo docked.

[@cybercat1531]

Oogly Woogly Boogly

[@mikearthut781]

@@TaxPayingContributor fake ass bullshit.

[@gunfuego]

lol ever heard of a mock up?

[@erik_griswold]

Who is the narrator please?

[@user-jt5vm3mi1w]

SPACE FORCE

[@golden_gloo]

"America may never be thrust into space by non reusable boosters"

[@laurentdespeyroux1764]

At 2'35 ! Wrong for all the Americans that flight with the Soyuz but it's possible that SLS and CST-100 will never flight crewed !

[@lukestrawwalker]

Yep LOL:) Shuttle was just too compromised to ever work as advertised. They invented the numbers to sell it politically and get the money approved to build it, but all the numbers they used to sell it were basically wrong, totally incorrect assumptions that "looked good" and "validated their case". Had the original shuttle design by Max Faget been built with a fully reusable flyback liquid booster and the "fluffy" orbiter carrying internal fuel (no external tank) with a metallic "hot structures" heat shield been built, it *might* have worked as advertised. Unfortunately the gubmint didn't want to spend the money required to build that shuttle system and NASA had to go hat in hand to the Air Force and team up with them and get them to finance what they couldn't afford to build any shuttle AT ALL. Of course then "Air Force Requirements" came into play and ruled out the totally reusable orbiter-- The Air Force demanded "once around" polar launches out of Vandenberg and other goofy stuff that the shuttle ended up actually NEVER ONCE FLYING and it ended up totally compromising the design. The Faget orbiter didn't have the cross-range for the once around mission, and the large internal fuel tanks only left room for a small payload bay; the AF demanded the 15x60 foot payload bay to fit huge photo recon spy sats in there, and they demanded the cross-range for once-around polar orbit missions. That required switching to the huge delta-winged glider with the fragile thermal protection system tiles instead of the more robust metallic heat shield Faget had envisioned, and going to a disposable External Tank for the propellants to make room for the enormous payload bay. The Solid Rocket Boosters were about the only way to make a "reusable" booster that wasn't a flyback booster, and was touted as much cheaper to develop and operate than a liquid propellant flyback booster. Wrong again. It was proven that basically the SRB's cost SO MUCH to retrieve, refurbish, reload with propellant in Utah, transport back to the Cape and store and stack that it would have been cheaper to just build new ones for ever flight using a disposable design like spiral filament wound casings. I read shuttle studies from back then where they were projecting costs for the ET to be down around $23 million dollars within a few years, and that they could get them down to about $10 million with a high enough flight rate. Just pure imaginary numbers. The Mathematica Study that NASA used to justify the shuttle had ridiculously low turnaround times and VASTLY underestimated the amount of refurbishment and the orbiter between flights, and gave ridiculously low flight costs of about $10 million per flight IIRC at 50+ flights a year (one shuttle launch per week basically! LOL:) Even at the time people in the space business were saying there would be NO payloads to justify that kind of launch rate; NASA took a "build it and they will come" mentality and put forth all kinds of wide-eyed science fiction projects to justify their imaginary flight rates, from constructing massive space stations of every type and kind in space via shuttle, to building O'Neill cylinder space habitats miles long for colonists to live in space, rotated to produce artificial gravity on the inside surface, to miles-wide space power plants, basically enormous floating solar farms to collect solar energy, convert it to microwave radiation, and beam it down to an enormous desert (or remote location) microwave antenna on Earth which would then convert it into electrical power... The Air Force was just as pie in the sky, with their plans to sneak up and grab enemy spy satellites or send astronauts to photograph and measure them to determine their capabilities, or even spray paint the lenses on their cameras to blind them in space sabotage operations. Of course all this would have done is cause the Soviets to do the same thing to our satellites; once that can of worms is open you never close it again. The Soviets realized from the numbers published in the open literature that the shuttle was a joke that it would NEVER realize the cost savings that were being touted as reason to build it. They commissioned the head of their National Science Academy, Mystislav Keldysh, to analyze the shuttle design and figure out what it was REALLY for. After careful analysis, drawing upon the Air Force's demand for "once around" polar launches out of Vandenberg, he concluded the shuttle could be a first strike nuclear bomber-- launching south out of Vandenberg, jettisoning its special ASRB disposable non-recovered SRB's required for the polar launches off the coast of Baja, entering orbit off the coast of Chile and disposing of its External Tank in the Southern Ocean off the coast of Antarctica, overflying the south polar region, and flying northward over the Indian Ocean and approaching the Soviet heartland from the SOUTH, it could open its payload bay and eject a couple dozen thermonuclear warheads in hypersonic reentry vehicles, which could hit most of the major targets in the Soviet Union minutes later, as the shuttle closed its payload bay, performed retrofire, and then reentered over the North polar region and flew back down to a landing at Edwards Air Force Base in California 90 minutes after liftoff, using the Air Force's demanded cross-range capability. When he presented his findings to the Soviet leadership, they ordered that their own shuttle system be built to counter the US capability, which was the shuttle Buran which flew in the mid-80's, once, unmanned, and landed itself automatically back in Kazakhstan. It wasn't cost effective so they never flew it again, just as the US shuttle wasn't cost effective, but NASA put all its eggs in the shuttle basket was was stuck with it. Even when Challenger blew up not five years into the shuttle program, due to the SRB O-ring problem, and the shuttle had already proven the fact that it could NEVER achieve the ridiculously overestimated flight rates, quick refurbishment times, and vastly underestimated cost goals, the decision to keep the shuttle was made and we were stuck with it for another 25 years. It took the loss of 14 astronauts and 2/5 of the shuttle fleet to FINALLY reveal what an aging and fragile system it was, and to provide the impetus to FINALLY retire the thing. It basically held us back for 30 years. Later! OL J R :)

[@golden_gloo]

@@lukestrawwalker I really respect your willingness to reply in all this detail (probably one of the longest comments I've ever decided to read through).

[@lukestrawwalker]

@@golden_gloo Thank you!! I realize it was a long read, but these things ARE complicated and it just doesn't do the subject justice trying to shave it all down to a sound bite... It's like just getting the icing and not the cake. IMHO too much stuff is dumbed down and reduced to sound bites, and a person cannot truly make intelligent decisions or have a mature understanding of ANY subject based on such limited and often slanted or cherry picked information. SO I always strive to present not only the conclusion but the why and how it came to be that way... Thanks again for a nice comment!!! OL J R

[@Semper_Iratus]

The program came at a great human cost.

[@daveinstlouis]

True but it's pretty much a given in exploration. I watched the Challenger blowup on TV while at work ...I was in tears, but I was (and still am) such a space geek that I knew we had to learn what happened, make changes where needed and move on. One of my "bucket list" items was to get a ride on the Concorde (never happened) but another item is to see humans walking on Mars before I die. NASA's funding is always a roller coaster so I'm hoping private company's can pick up the slack and get us there.

[@scottl.1568]

B-1B 😅

[@AlexR2648]

The high pitched background noise makes this almost unwatchable

[@FutureSystem738]

AlexR2648 WTF ..? Get a new speaker.

[@AlexR2648]

@@FutureSystem738 perhaps you're too old to hear it.

[@intel386DX]

@@AlexR2648 do not listen on the headphones, but on a speakers

[@PepereDupre]

Fake space

[@albclean]

Fake post

[@jairofthecosmos5022]

Fake post

[@jairofthecosmos5022]

Fake post