SHUTTLE POWER EARLY 1980’S NASA SPACE SHUTTLE DOCUMENTARY PRODUCED BY ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL XD31814

[@scratchdog2216]

Born '65. Shuttle was the next big thing. Big promises. It was a good era though. Tested a lot of stuff related to practical space business. Put up plenty of hardware. Inspired countless.

[@talon262]

Ahh, Mario Machado... in the 70s and 80s, if you wanted a newscaster type (he was already a journalist and presenter before and during his acting career) to narrate films like this or to be an exposition dispenser (as he was in Blue Thunder [playing himself], Rocky III, and all three original RoboCop movies), he was the one you got.

[@JohnSmith-zw8vp]

This might be the Mandela effect but I could've sworn I saw this documentary or a similar one (early 2000s college days) but remembered it being narrated by the NFL Films guy John Facenda (aka The Voice of God)

[@Pwj579]

This makes me cry. What an amazing course we were on back then. We were supposed to be on Mars in early 2000s ! Instead we wasted $$$Billions in Iraq , Afghanistan and other minor conflicts….

[@drupiROM]

We also lost most of our imagination and our ability to dream.

[@JohnSmith-zw8vp]

And we haven't even been back to the moon in over 50 years.

[@SteadySteve1024]

Love your video's

[@thomasgoodwin2648]

@1:42 Note that the external tank is painted white. It was left the natural orange of the insulation on later flights to save the extra weight of the paint. As a consequence, if the full shuttle stack was out for long periods in the sun, it would lose it's color a bit, sort of an anti tan. ✌😊👍

[@kesslerrb]

The ending credits have a simulated launch sequence with the painted tank. There are some clips of landing tests of Enterprise but I think this video was produced prior to any STS launches.

[@billbresnahan9949]

About 15 years ago I was involved in reprogramming the test stands for the shuttle fuel cells. 3 of them were used on a shuttle. The fuel cells were built and tested at UTC power in CT. We had 500 engineers and only about 50 real workers who assembled the cells. The test stands could test every function and rotate and position the fuel cell to imitate a real liftoff. A test lasted 24 hours actually simulating a liftoff and mission. There were 3 Allen Bradley PLC5/40’s handling everything. They actually programmed the PLC’s to do calculus calculations which is a damn tricky thing to do with a 5/40 but it worked.

[@diandian9827]

Too bad the documentary didn't cover some of the early prototype designs which were not used. Still, a great piece of space history.

[@donaldparlett7708]

It was a great idea but it was unattainable. Extremely dangerous with plenty risks as we lost 2 of them over the years and I bet you there were plenty of times of close calls that we don’t know about.

[@zzaakkp]

NASA is actually pretty open about their close calls en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-27#Tile_damage en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-93#Problems_during_ascent

[@fletchb2937]

The shuttle itself wasn't as dangerous as the lackadaisical attitude at NASA that "routine" space flight brought with it. Remember, that no space shuttle was ever lost due to a problem with the orbiter itself.

[@dentalnovember]

The defects present in the Rockwell turbo encabulator led to overwhelming sidefumbling within the shuttle program.

[@cameronjournal]

It's rather sad that the Shuttle never lived up to its hype and its hope. As it turns out the Soyuz program was/is more successful for getting back and forth quickly and easily. That all being said, the idea of a space plane is pretty cool.

[@jeshkam]

More successful? According to whom? Besides, Buran is nearly a direct copy of NASA's space shuttles.

[@daveweiss5647]

The Dreamchaser is about to launch and shpuld be a successful version... and the Buran would have been an even better version of shuttle... if it worked as advertised... who knows. But cost and safety wise it's sad to say Soyuz was probably better.

[@jeshkam]

​@@daveweiss5647How can you tell it was better cost or safety-wise if the Soviets never bothered to and will probably never release any data whatsoever?

[@daveweiss5647]

​@jeshkam the shuttle itself had no rocket engines and could carry more cargo while being able to fly with shorter turn around and less maintenance and the eventual plan was for it to be fully reusable, the bosters would have pop out wings and would glide down and Land on a runway, etc...

[@jeshkam]

@@daveweiss5647 Yes, I've known all these obvious facts many years now. You still did not answer my question though.

[@jeshkam]

RIP Alan Hawkshaw.

[@JohnSmith-zw8vp]

This might be the Mandela effect but I could've sworn I saw this documentary or a similar one (early 2000s college days) but remembered it being narrated by the NFL Films guy John Facenda (aka The Voice of God)

[@selectooldave]

600,000 labor hours to re-use a shuttle each time. Not really cost effective but the idea was there.

[@ethericbliss23]

Hahahahah!!! @06:41 Lady: ..."Did they say ACTION? Oh, man! Hurry, now, sweep FAST!!!" Man: "Okay, okay! I go, I go...!!!" Jeesh... WHAT weren't They thinking...??

[@renebernays5774]

it's all so hilarious

[@marmaly]

Rediculous complexity which failed ro achieve reusability goals. Would have been much better off without it. Would have been better off adapting Apollo rocket for orbital flights.

[@PunaSquirrel]

1:44 ...or maybe not 🤔

[@jfchonors8873]

Turnaround in 2 weeks? Well that never happened

[@michaelbizon444]

The shuttle was a large step backward from the Saturn/Apollo spacecraft. All the promised capabilities never came close. And after losing one in 86' each launch was as expensive as a Moonshot. The Russians had it right, produce reliable boosters at scale for cost savings. Musk did one better make a completely reusable booster.

[@0ned]

All COINTELPRO, the US Navy worked with Thomas Townsend Brown on electrogravitics in the 1940s, scrapped the whole program "officially."

[@Mark.R_]

I was told the requirements for the military version added a lot of unnecessary complexity. Such as the large wings to give it the ability to takeoff and land without orbiting, also the ability to perform a polar orbit. None of which were ever used. None of the military Shuttles were built and there were only a handful of initial military missions.

[@geemanbmw]

They even had a military mockup version of Project Orion a small scale version of course and it scared the beejesus out of Kennedy who said NO WAY!!

[@coclementsjr]

Shuttle was boondoggle. Especially when they turned every launch into a PC media event. Should have seen the omen in Challenger.

[@Mark.R_]

@@geemanbmw A local bank announced a plan to update all their IT systems, they initially called it Project Orion. On social media I asked what happens if it blows up and everyone is contaminated from the fall out. I got no reply, but a few months later it had a new name :-) Nothing has blown up, except the budget. Last I heard it has cost over 1.2 billion and still climbing.

[@ethericbliss23]

"Posthumanism" much?? Maybe...!? Probably?? DEFINITELY!!! Just wished we'd seen this sooner. : )