The Insane Engineering of the Space Shuttle

Get Nebula for 50% off with my link: go.nebula.tv/realengineering
Watch this video ad free on Nebula: nebula.tv/videos/realengineer...
Links to everything I do:
beacons.ai/brianmcmanus
Get your Real Engineering shirts at: standard.tv/collections/real-...
Credits:
Producer/Writer/Narrator: Brian McManus
Head of Production: Mike Ridolfi
Senior Editor: Dylan Hennessy
Animator: Eli Prenten
Animator: Stijn Orlans
Sound and Production Coordinator: Graham Haerther
Thumbnail: Simon Buckmaster
Head of Moral: Shia LeWoof
References:
Select imagery/video supplied by Getty Images
Thank you to AP Archive for access to their archival footage.
Music by Epidemic Sound: epidemicsound.com/creator
Thank you to my patreon supporters: Abdullah Alotaibi, Adam Flohr, Henning Basma, Hank Green, William Leu, Tristan Edwards, Ian Dundore, John & Becki Johnston. Nevin Spoljaric, Jason Clark, Thomas Barth, Johnny MacDonald, Stephen Foland, Alfred Holzheu, Abdulrahman Abdulaziz Binghaith, Brent Higgins, Dexter Appleberry, Alex Pavek, Marko Hirsch, Mikkel Johansen, Hibiyi Mori. Viktor Józsa, Ron Hochsprung

[@plackt]

Man, the interview segments with Bruce were so good. He seems like such a down-to-Earth guy, no pun intended.

[@linecraftman3907]

All astronauts are generally cool people. They have to be

[@LiamPattisonPhotography]

What a great guest hey? Hearing him talk about seeing the Earth for the first time and seeing how genuinely excited he was recounting that story... amazing.

[@nguyenquocbao1143]

@@LiamPattisonPhotography Cant blame him on that choking first mission, any man would be totally mesmerized...

[@Adrian-vd6ji]

yuk yuk yuk

[@vigilantcosmicpenguin8721]

Might be one of the best interviews with an astronaut I've ever seen. His stories are so genuine.

[@smartereveryday]

I enjoyed the discussion about the frangible nuts on the hold-down posts.

[@counterfit5]

"frangible nuts" should be your new "laminar flow"

[@danielfreifeldtaisen]

You should reproduce the setup in a mini rocket or rather mini shuttle. And then calculate nuts separation time while slow motion filming the whole thing. That would be a cool episode. Just seeing the Orbiter is sexy in itself.

[@matthewsaxman1028]

Best part was "yeah, the rocket doesn't really care if a few forget to blow, you're still going to space" 😆

[@caveman314]

@@matthewsaxman1028 Makes sense. Those solid rockets are gonna leave the pad no matter what ANYONE else has to say about it! :P

[@user-xs7sp9xp7z]

I love the fact that even if not all the nuts fractured,it didn't give a damn and ripped them of on its own 😂😂😂

[@joer1079]

My dad flew us out half way across the country to see the final space shuttle launch when I was like 13 and I’ll never forget it. It is absolutely mind blowing to see it fly off into space with your own eyes.

[@andrewreynolds912]

I wish I was their man I never got to experience it fly

[@TheLevitatingChin]

I saw challenger. Not a good memory.

[@dannonyogurt98]

Your dad knew what's up, hope you thank him for that opportunity.

[@anxiousearth680]

Must be nice to have a dad with super powers 😉

[@JimPekarek]

My first rocket launch was the Space Shuttle, when I was around 10 years old. I remember this brilliant light, and eerie silence for the longest time before this massive rumbling swept over us. You could feel it in your bones, the raw power of the thing. It shaped the trajectory of my life and made me the engineer I am today. If you have a child, I urge you to take them to see a rocket launch.

[@hopelessnerd6677]

It took enormous effort by a lot of people to make this thing fly. Just the sheer number of possible failures is almost overwhelming. Too bad it was so expensive to keep running. We've needed it several times since its retirement. Hubble needs it right now.

[@shubhamcweb]

Starship would be the savior

[@paulstewart6293]

Make a better one but not involving that fascho Musk.

[@ReasonX3]

It think it was more due to Columbia shuttle catastrophe the program was cancelled. Plus there were too few missions that required capabilities of space shuttles. As soon as ISS was finished, no one needed such large cargo bay. And yes, despite being reusable, the thing is still super expensive to fly and NASA budget was becoming lower and lower almost every year.

[@jzero90921]

@@paulstewart6293 Please defend yourself; Explain your reasoning for calling Elon Musk a fascist, and I'd also like to know your definition of fascism as well.

[@babyschuerman]

​@paulstewart6293 umh say what! (they aka NASA will never do anything this risky again so SpaceX is the only real option left for mankind in the near future )

[@fredthebulldog529]

Small correction - The solid rocket boosters the Space Shuttle *were* the largest ever flown at the time. However, the SLS had an upgraded version of Space Shuttle's solid booster which added sections, resulting in even greater thrust. So as of the first SLS launch, it took the cake.

[@TheMasterOfPureEpic]

He does mention human flight when he states this the second time, which is still technically correct.

[@fredthebulldog529]

If that is true that I must have missed the second reference to it and being manned space flight. Then yes, you're right.

[@CriticalRider]

We're used to mistakes in his videos, don't worry. Too much focus on pretty videos, not enough on research.

[@Kyle-gw6qp]

The video also implies that the sparky things light the engines, when they do not.

[@DavidPagan]

@@Kyle-gw6qp That's not what he said though. He said the sparks are there to ignite any latent gaseous hydrogen below the engines immediately prior to ignition.

[@TerminusCodex]

I've been hoping for years now that you would do an episode on the shuttle, amazing work as usual!

[@gooseface2690]

Fib!!!

[@colonelarmfeldt8572]

Really happy to see this one come out, and so soon after the video on the F-16 too. A video on the Saturn V or Voyager probes would be very interesting.

[@diadlo13]

At 3:26 you got open and close loop backwards. It enters CLOSED loop when it starts to monitor itself to make adjustments. An open loop system is when no feedback is taken into account by the controller. In an open loop its a one way street nothing comes back. In a close loop control signals are sent out and the data that is gathered comes back to the controller forming a closed loop.

[@SangheiliSpecOp]

was thinking about that too. I can hear the transition between open to closed loop when I cold start my mustang lol

[@cokebottles6919]

I got to watch a test fire of one of the solid boosters while standing next to an astronaut at the closest safe distance in Utah once, one of the coolest experiences of my life. It's absolutely mind blowing how violent and powerful it was, I could feel the rumble in my chest making each breath feel like it was vibrating out of me.

[@Mumbamumba]

That's awesome!

[@linecraftman3907]

It is actually a lot of shockwaves hitting you, the interaction between still air and very fast gas flow makes them. It also makes the crackling

[@baskierkels7067]

I have seen thousands of KZbin videos but this is one of the best made in my opinion. The animations/renderings are amazing..

[@JoeyP946]

check out "real science" as well, it's similar videos to this but then about animals

[@lovelyhippo7826]

Every time I watch a video from your team, I am reminded that TV documentaries are no longer the gold standard in educational/inspirational content. That award goes to you for sure. Good job!

[@JoshuaC923]

I remember a time where we could only get such quality from cable tv, Discovery channel use to be so inspiring, now we are fortunate to have KZbin channels that produce such high quality documentaries.

[@MaeLSTRoM1997]

@@JoshuaC923 TV documentary channels sold their soul to advertisers

[@scottmiller2591]

I was one of the engineers who developed and tested the space shuttle. Thanks for the walk down memory lane.

[@damian_groovy_boys_drummer_man]

That’s really cool thank you for you’re work

[@Benson_aka_devils_advocate_88]

What do you think of the SpaceX "test it to destruction" method for building rockets? From one perspective it makes sense when building something that just can't fail when used for its intend purpose. Especially when the cargo includes people. But I'm guessing it isn't the best way to go about doing it.

[@scottmiller2591]

Testing is good - but it's no replacement for good design. You can't test in good design.@@Benson_aka_devils_advocate_88

[@granitecat1]

Musk and Spacedeath are frauds!! @@Benson_aka_devils_advocate_88

[@CarlosAM1]

​@@Benson_aka_devils_advocate_88 Why not? Each approach is different but effective. NASA tested SLS tanks to failure too, it's just that spacex takes that idea and cranks it up to a thousand percent. Kinda like what the soviets did.

[@LMacNeill]

The Space Shuttle was *SUCH* a big deal when I was a kid. I was 11 years old when the first one was launched in 1981. The reusability factor was very heavily played up in the media, because up to then, only the tiny little crew module ever came back from any space missions. My family went on vacation to Florida in 1982 (or maybe it was ' 83?), and we took a tour of the Kennedy Space Center. I remember watching a demonstration where a technician heated up a piece of one of the Space Shuttle's thermal tiles, using a blowtorch, to the point where it was red hot -- then he picked it up with his bare hands!! That stuff was AMAZING!!! I'm sure future episodes of this series will cover the incredible engineering behind those tiles. Definitely looking forward to those!

[@Gunthrek]

Born in '83 and the space shuttle was a fixture for most of my life. It will always be my favorite spacecraft!

[@chrisf1147]

I’m only 5 minutes into this video, and I am certain this is an absolute masterpiece of a production. Nobody has ever combined the casual and understandable kind of explanation that the astronauts use, with state of the art graphics and visuals that complete the whole idea in such a beautiful way. Thank you for making this content for all of us to enjoy, and even more importantly you are inspiring the new generations with it as well.

[@sicstar]

Just wanna say i love your videos, the production quality and explanations are top notch and you are an excellent narrator too.

[@threeuniquefingers]

“Reusable” is an overstatement. Its more in line with “refurbish-able”😂

[@ChrisFranklin.2260]

I've personally met many shuttle astronauts, and just like this guy they are all incredibly passionate about the program and their experiences, but also humble. Love hearing these guys talk about it. Amazing video, looking forward to the rest of them.

[@Snowmunkee]

Fantastic video, I'm so happy to see from this channel. More space videos!

[@victorleina2147]

I grew up reading about the space shuttle. Had forgotten how badly I loved it. This video brought back fond memories of my childhood. Made me hopeful again haha. Great video man.

[@rocketspaceflightvideos]

At 2:34 you made a series of small mistakes. The liquid hydrogen does not go from the tank to the channels, it goes from the low pressure turbine, to the high pressure one, to the nozzle. What happens is, The low pressure turbine is densing it up a little, in preparation for the powerful one, which then pushes the fluid through the channels to heat up and expand, then the expanded gasses drive the small turbine, and then the gasses drive the preburners. Surprising that you made this mistake despite the graph shown in the video has it written otherwise, but nonetheless amazing quality video, exceptional effort put in.

[@0whitestone]

This was really cool! I would like it if you made one on the shuttle itself, on the systems and engineering to make it work, and the crane arm too. I've always heard it's the most complex piece of hardware ever engineered, I'm sure there's a gold mine of challenges to discuss.

[@TheMasterOfPureEpic]

If you sign up for nebula, episode 2 of the shuttle is already online. I assume, hopefully soon, they will come to KZbin.

[@DanMess]

Thank you so much to the entire team for this video. What an incredible production that allows us to feel closer to this engineering masterpiece.

[@samuelcarvalho3691]

Such a great in depth but yet simplified video! The top quality with the animations and transitions make it very enjoyable to watch.

[@hunterhalo2]

What a super well made video. I've been a space nerd and fan of Apollo/Shuttle since I was a kid and I learned a TON on this video. Thanks for making these.

[@squirrelmaster4926]

Watched the first one launch ( columbia ) when i was 8 yrs old, it fueled the imagination of my 8 yr old former self . Was heart broken when challenger and columbia were lost , then again when the program was cancelled. Truly an Awe-ing program, so many first, i feel privileged to have been able to witness it all.

[@ARWest-bp4yb]

I was 14 when Columbia first launched, I stayed home from school and watched it with my 89 year old grandfather.

[@keenan4389]

Absolutely love the incredible animations and engineering principles that you show. Thanks!

[@wildekek]

I learned so much from your detailed animations. Thank you Bruce, these first hand experiences mean a lot.

[@bensboats]

Without a doubt one of the best videos I've seen of the Space Shuttle! Loved the aspects of real footage merged with animations. I saw STS 132, Atlantis' second-to-last mission in person from Kennedy Space Center in 2010... Years later, I visited the space center again and walked the same pathway around Atlantis where you interviewed Bruce. Seeing that amazing vehicle up close was an unforgettable experience. Good work!

[@philbarrett3739]

Amazing insights from Bruce that I've never even thought about previously let alone heard before.

[@OliverMilligan-ov1sy]

Thank you for all the amazing content

[@tap9095]

At 3:20 should that be closed loop control?

[@warpedfusion]

I thought the same thing. Probably just a small oversight.

[@leniterfortis4832]

It is so cool that you got Bruce to do an interview for the video. Every second he was on was fantastic.

[@mykromacro4599]

Thank you for explaining my favourite piloted space system without dumbing it down like the popular science documentaries are required to do. Despite being a lifelong Shuttle junkie (with two live launches, and one landing at Edwards AFB) I was impressed with the depth of details you've revealed - well done to the team who put this together. Keep up the great work of saving the IQ level on KZbin! 😊

[@starfighter7293]

Do you know the anime Space Brothers? Highly recommend watching it!

[@mykromacro4599]

@@starfighter7293 Had a look but can't see the relevance to this.

[@starfighter7293]

@@mykromacro4599 they explain a lot about astronauts and I thought about the space shuttle as well but I'm not sure anymore.

[@ironbolt2678]

The Shuttle was something I was amazed as a child and dreamed about flying one. That obviously did not happen and I did not even see one launch with my very own eyes. Thank you for bringing back the excitement I felt about this amazing machine.

[@Koeliebalie]

Another GREAT video! I grew up with the space shuttles in the 90's and early 2000's. On a visit in Florida I actually saw the last Space Shuttle just after landing. Love your videos as always, would love an Insane Engineering video on the Cybertruck or Starship!

[@EoinH100]

Fantastic Episode Brian and Team. Level of detail you guys went to in unbelievable!

[@eskanderx1027]

Awesome breakdown! Hope you'll make the one about Buran and Energia after the second part🤞🏼

[@carltonleboss]

That would be sick.

[@ecomotive6158]

The Space Shuttle was an engineering marvel but also a death trap just by its overall design concept. Its amazing that a single one of the daredevils that rode it made it back alive, let alone hundreds. Its a true testimonial to the skill and dedication of all the people that worked on it.

[@OneNationUnderGod.]

Both shuttles that were lost were due to human error, not design flaws. It wasn't a death trap.

[@pauldietz1325]

The problem with the shuttle wasn't that it was dangerous, it's that it was too expensive. If it had been 10x cheaper and just as dangerous, they would have continued to use it. The biggest regret of the shuttle should be all the cheap expendable launchers that could have been developed much earlier. Arthur Schnitt's Minimum Cost Design methodology dates back to the 1960s. These could have evolved to partially reusable systems like the Falcon 9 earlier than F9 appeared.

[@CarlosAM1]

​@@OneNationUnderGod. And that's PRECISELY why they are death traps. In a rocket a million things have to go right for it to work, if one goes wrong and you have no way to escape the rocket then you are dead. Columbia was a random piece of foam that fell from the external tank, no human could have prevented it.

[@HiyuMarten]

Completely fantastic video, great explanation and interview, thank you for this!

[@gregor_man]

This is a sensational, enormous video! I've never seen such perfect graphical illustrations, I've got a plenty of new informations, although I saw a lot of space technics videos. Thank you!

[@DavidF3]

1:39 The SLS SRB's are larger and more powerful than the ones that were used for STS. Not to mention Aerojet 260.

[@Txloganc]

THANK YOU

[@FastSloth87]

He should have said: "The two largest solid rockets ever flown till then..."

[@roqua]

21:01 um-biblical, or umbilical? j/k Great vid as usual, always love the content.

[@grndkntrl]

I'm glad I'm not the only one to have noticed this! 🤣

[@anthonyfrench3169]

I just now discovered this series! Thank you for this lovely series. I never knew about twang.

[@napynap]

I've never seen this subject explained so well. Thank you for this!

[@minemasterSAM]

Been hoping you’d make a video about this ship!

[@digigarb]

Very interesting! Also didnt know the solid rockets had thrust vectoring. Amazing! Thought vectoring was all done by the orbiter motors all these years!

[@vigilantcosmicpenguin8721]

Really cool to see an interview like this on the channel. I know you mentioned you're trying to take a new direction with your content and I think this is definitely the right one to take.

[@ronaldpm]

Great video. The renders of the space shuttle are so beautiful. Thanks for creating this for us to enjoy for free.

[@EmilienGosselin]

3:18 Isn't it the opposite ? I think "Open Loop" means there is no sensor feedback to control the engine, just a constant setpoint for valve opening, etc

[@69InchLemur]

Yes you are correct

[@MK-tt5xy]

Came to post this. He meant Closed Loop.

[@joliv015]

Could you do a video on Linear Accelerators? I currently am an intern in the area and the few I know I find it amazing. I already knew a few on MRI and your video on it gave me more interest in the area even further.

[@klnsbl]

a linear accelerator is basically just an unfurled electric motor. not sure if that’s enough material to make an entire video out of

[@joliv015]

​@@klnsbl the machine still have a lot of adjustments do be made to deliver the right amount of radiation to the patient. Not to mention the mathematics needed to do an rapid arc treatment, where the MLC (MultiLeaf Colimator) where the blades that colimates the irradiated fotons on the patient have to generate an treatment geometry for each angle of rotation, and how this works with the treatment plan is just absurd.

[@joliv015]

@@klnsbl kzbin.info/www/bejne/aaGwla14gsaBY8Usi=psdEDE9fIQpsBwGf

[@randomknowledgeperson2872]

always excited for a space video. keep up the great work dude

[@SpaceShuttleHistorian]

I am so happy and inspired that you released this video. Very well done!!

[@knowledgeisgood9645]

The solid boosters of the SLS are larger than those of the Shuttle (one more segment).🤨

[@Rold.Y]

how about we get an episode about the insane documentaries we get for free by you? I am always surprised by the quality of the videos you give to us for free!

[@LuisSierra42]

The insane engineering of Real Engineering

[@TheKarstrasse]

This is by far the best video on space shuttles. Thank you so much for this

[@jonathonspears7736]

I have loved space ever since i was a kid. Videos like this fill me will that sense on wonder like i am a kid again. There is something so special about these machines, the engineering, and the people involved that i can't put into words. Had the honor of meeting one of the Apollo engineers down in Huntsville. My biggest dream is going to space one day even if its the last thing i ever do.

[@hai-duynguyen8429]

You really gotta hand the conceptualizations and validation of this design and operation during a time when you only had one shot to get such a behemoth off the ground. Not to take credit away from SpaceX's iterative approach to optimize resusability, engineers during this era really had to stretch the capabilities of their mathematics and understanding of materials and how this integrated entirely. For me, a strong fan of SpaceX, the renewed interest of space wouldn't have relit if you didn't have engineering of this feat to show of what is capable when great minds come together. Truly impressive.

[@bensemusx]

Iterative design is how rockets started. SpaceX isn’t the first to do it. With how incredibly bloated the costs of the Shuttle became I wouldn’t really champion its design mantra. The SLS was designed the same way and costs even more while reusing shuttle hardware.

[@vishalthescientist]

The Space Shuttle's engineering is truly insane, and underrated.

[@DOSFS]

While Space Shuttle has its flaws, its engineering achievement can't be overstated!

[@Shadowboost]

It may be the most complex machine ever made

[@VG_164]

​​@@ShadowboostI mean, if it was (which I doubt) Energia-Buran would automatically be more complex seeing seeing as it's effectively an upgraded version of the Space Shuttle with more complex architecture (like using advanced liquid booster for example rather than "simple" SRBs)

[@martonandorka]

It is not underrated. Everybody consider the Shuttle the most well engineered vehicle ever.

[@VG_164]

​@@martonandorka The Space Shuttle is anything but "well engineered". It's an incredibly complex vehicle but the engineering choices made in the design are straight up terrible. Just a white elephant design born from the demands of politicians.

[@tonicgamer8587]

Man tank you for your vids you really put a lot of effort to make those high quality vids explaining in detail Thank you

[@anyfeckinusername]

Excellent video. Excellent research, presentation & animations. I’ve watched countless space shuttle videos over the years, and there are very few where I learn as much as I did in this one.

[@cwbh10]

I think at 3:20 you mean closed loop engine control :)

[@Ojisan642]

I was in first grade when astronauts John Young and Robert Crippen launched in STS-1, the first orbital flight of the Space Shuttle. It had never been tested before! Those two men took a tremendous leap of confidence, not ever having seen a space shuttle launch successfully before. No humans before or since that day were bold enough to fly a completely untested spacecraft. Incredibly brave or incredibly crazy, either way it was incredible to watch. Me and my best friend were glued to the tv that day and I’ll never forget those two names.

[@daexion]

Many likely have, they are just in programs that cannot be talked about publicly.

[@chrisbrowning360]

This is your best video yet! I'm a pretty big spaceflight buff, but I learned a huge amount of new and incredibly interesting stuff from this vid 👍

[@TechyGamesCurlyfries]

Just a quick mention, fantastiv video and detail is insane. I love it. I did spot however that you spoke about endevour on the pad @0:31 but showed atlantis in the animation.

[@iNachoNinja]

Can’t get over the pronunciation of column 😂

[@JohnBurgundy66]

I like the extra “i” in aluminum for that as well. 😂😂

[@iNachoNinja]

@@JohnBurgundy66 it’s not an extra I, that’s how it’s spelt in English.

[@L_Train]

MIT has free lectures called Aircraft Systems Engineering right here on KZbin. Each one is a discussion of designing the different components of the shuttle, told by the people who actually designed or worked on it. They are great listens for anyone interested.

[@peterfireflylund]

And the leader of the course is a former shuttle astronaut. It is a fantastic course!

[@L_Train]

@peterfireflylund that's right, how could I have forgotten that?

[@planetsec9]

The animations and graphics in this video are SOO GOOD, this is why I love this channel

[@nicolazanini5902]

honestly, maybe one of the best vids here! Great job!

[@thomdullaart2617]

I think there is a mistake at 3:20. It is supposed to be a closed loop not open.

[@oliverfalco7060]

The space shuttle is one of the coolest things humans have made! Does anyone here remembers the Cowboy Bebop chapter were the Space shuttle appears?

[@tallestliver7853]

That episode was fire

[@Christiaan-qj8fi]

These animations are beautiful!! Great stuff as always.

[@acefox1]

0:37 I just visited the Endeavour in LA yesterday. Absolutely amazing spaceship!

[@ARWest-bp4yb]

STS truly was some insane engineering, computers were still fairly primitive in the early 70s when they started designing it so I suppose the engineers were still using slide rules. Side note, the wife and I were in Florida recently and got to see Atlantis at KSC. We had already seen Discovery at the Smithsonian but Atlantis was almost close enough to touch!

[@counterfit5]

I should go see all the ones on the East Coast

[@thethirdeve5089]

what an epic series, crazy content. Could you do an extremely detailed video about starship at one point? Also explain the general stuff of the gound systems

[@linecraftman3907]

I think it's too early for starship. It's not done yet and a lot can change

[@guille____]

man what an awesome video. Also the interview bits were excellent

[@MaeLSTRoM1997]

I just watched the full tour of the space shuttle on nebula, and it was absolutely awesome. I'm jealous Brian got a private tour from the guy who actually flew on missions on the shuttle, and I'm very glad I could witness that private tour as a video. Highly recommend watching his videos on nebula

[@VG_164]

I can appreciate the space shuttle for the immense amount of work that went into to it and it's unique capabilities but damn I can say I'm glad we don't use it anymore. In the end it was an incredibly expensive flying death trap effectively designed by the demands of ignorant politicians that was barely refurbishable, much less reusable. Arguably the single biggest reason why we have been stuck in LEO since the Apollo era. I wish they at least had gone the Soviet Energia-Buran route and made an independent super heavy lift rocket that could also launch other payloads than simply the space shuttle (Plus those nice nice liquid boosters).

[@loka332]

9:18 “colyum”? Which accent pronounces “column” as “kol-yum”?

[@NOM-X]

Best explained version of the Shuttle launch with the mechanical explanation of how it works. I learned something new, and will comprise on that. Great job, and next should be SH/SS. Again, great job. Watched the video twice. Keep it up, and looking froward to the next video. - NOM

[@tungsten2009]

I stayed up late for once and got rewarded with a video by my favourite channel on my favourite topic. I should do this more often.

[@larrywalsh9939]

23:50 - "umbiblical"

[@johnf1628]

For it's originally designed purpose, the Shuttle program largely failed. But what NASA accomplished and engineered was nothing short of absolutely amazing. The Shuttles were a *huge* part of my childhood dreams. They were awe inspiring, bigger than life, and just beautiful to look at. I was at STS 133 and Discovery's final launch. It was both incredible and saddening. When the Shuttles were retired, that huge part of childhood was gone. I miss the old girls.

[@arullgodwin4729]

Can you explain, what it was originally designed for?

[@johnf1628]

@@arullgodwin4729 You can Google it and read up but, essentially they were to deliver multiple payloads into space every year. It's where the nickname "space truck" came from. The costs were supposed to be offset by the amount of launches intended each year. Unfortunately, costs, maintenance, and far fewer launches than originally intended made it anything but efficient. Instead of a couple dozen launches per year, there would be maybe 1 or 2.

[@BigDaddy-yp4mi]

The ONLY reason the shuttles were manufactured....in the end.....was to ferry spy satellites for the Air Force on behalf of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, The Defense Intelligence Agency, CIA, NSA, etc. This biggest projected ones could be reduced only to the diameter of their primary mirror, hence the diameter of the shuttle bay was fixed to this measurement. Length-wise was done as well. What did the spy satellites look like? Hubble. They looked very, VERY similar to the Hubble telescope. In fact, the scientists did so well that the government literally gave them the semi-finished mirror to construct an astronomical telescope. We all know how the final polishing went! One interesting stipulation on being given the hardware for Hubble: They were NEVER to point it at Earth under any circumstances or for any reason. There are thought to be a dozen and a half (18!!!) optical visible light telescopes orbiting Earth presently or in the past that are as good as or even better than Hubble. Hexagon, Corona, Zenit, Misty, Crystal, the list goes on. Then came Keyhole 11. They've kept the name and done upgraded blocks rather than call it a new name. It's thought this is because the basic layout of Hubble is what is used for the primary component, the mirror. All the add-ons, filters, electronics, etc., can be upgraded over time without changing the satellite 'bus,' which is the basic design everything attaches to. The bus doesn't change and is limited by launch vehicle. The stuff you put on or bolt to the bus changes with the times as technology gets better. But, Keyhole 11 came out in the mid 70's and they are thought to be pretty much on par with Hubble at that point and only got better. From Wikipedia: "KH-11s are believed to resemble the Hubble Space Telescope in size and shape, as they were shipped in similar containers. Their length is believed to be 19.5 meters, with a diameter of up to 3 meters (120 in).[5][23] A NASA history of the Hubble,[24] in discussing the reasons for switching from a 3-meter main mirror to a 2.4-meter (94 in) design, states: "In addition, changing to a 2.4-meter mirror would lessen fabrication costs by using manufacturing technologies developed for military spy satellites". It's a fascinating read on the Keyhole-11's. But it's been said by several NASA past administrators and various military leaders that the shuttle's purpose for getting all the money needed to design it and fly it (remember, it was nearly a $1Billion expenditure every time that thing lifted from the launch site, adjusted for today's inflation!) was it because the various government agencies needing high-fidelity optical space surveillance and the best way to get satellites up there without ever being seen was the shuttle. Just seeing the size of the surveillance satellite telescope can tell you LOADS of information about it, and there was no rocket that could sent it and wouldn't be until 2004. That's when the Delta IV Heavy rocket came online and shortly after the Space Shuttle Program was cancelled. The Delta rocket was much cheaper than a space shuttle operation, fewer people knew anything (always a plus with the spy agencies), and it was inherently safer than the shuttle- with pretty much zero risk to human life getting the satellite to space. But I digress, you should really read this page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-11_KENNEN

[@orionSpacecraft]

@@arullgodwin4729 cheap way for nasa/airforce to access space by replacing traditional expendable rockets. The reason why it has big rings was to give it extra cross range capabilities in a hypothetical spy satellite retrieval mission. Obviously, this never happened and neither did the phasing out of expendable rockets

[@1981Frederick]

first time i see a such good descriptionand visualisation of the solid propelant booster

[@Skybird_]

A brilliant video, with quite amazing production values. I’m sorry I can only give you one like. This deserves many, many more- bravo 👏

[@keilerbie7469]

By far the most insane thing about the STS were the politics that ruined the program...

[@controlfreak1963]

Should be called "Insanely stupid engineering of the space shuttle". Responsible for the most deaths in space travel (14). Was supposed to be "reusable" and turned into a cash cow for Boeing/Lockheed because it had to be almost completely rebuilt after each flight. Costs kept development of a replacement from happening for decades. This thing used core memory for most of it's lifespan which was technology from the 60's. The space shuttle was a stupid boondoggle that pushed back space travel for the majority of my life (60yo). We retired the program with no replacement. If it wasn't for SpaceX, we would still be buying rides from the Russians.

[@TheOwenMajor]

So what would have you done then? It's easy to criticize with the benefit of hindsight. SpaceX is currently designing a super heavy launch vehicle that has almost all of the same conceptual issues as the Shuttle. Elon's directives that heat tiles and flame diverters have been shown to be baseless, and SpaceX still needs to figure out how to keep the tiles from falling off during flight. SpaceX is amazing, but their successful design, the Falcon 9, is a comparatively simple medium launch vehicle, which can only lift a fraction of what the Shuttle could.

[@planetsec9]

@@TheOwenMajor You mean the flame diverters that worked flawlessly on IFT-2 which proved they didn't need to dig a giant flame trench, those flame diverters?

[@TheOwenMajor]

@@planetsec9 You retconning the concrete tornado? I was referring to Elon declaring that flame diverters weren't needed, and then they dug a crater... and then installed a flam diverter.

[@bensemusx]

@@TheOwenMajorthe tiles SpaceX are using are 95% identical hexagons. The shuttle didn’t have a single duplicate tile. That is the criticism of its heat shield. This made working on it extremely time consuming and costly. SpaceX also is able to use steel vs aluminum so their heat shield is much lighter as the steel needs much less protection.

[@TheOwenMajor]

@@bensemusx And like 30% of those tiles are currently coming off during launch. Meaning even if IFT-2 made it to orbit, it would have been destroyed on reentry.

[@LTV_inc]

This is the best documentary I’ve ever seen. I was fresh out of college when John and Bob rode Columbia for the first time. I was a simple engineer. I made parts for these things and I truly believe I grew up in the best time in America. We cared. 😊

[@user-xs7sp9xp7z]

I love how complex yet simple this is

[@wolpumba4099]

*Summary* *Intro* - 0:00 Sponsored by Nebula. - 0:02 Episode 2 available for viewing with a sign-up link in the description. - 0:14 Spring evening, 1992: Endeavor Space Shuttle's maiden flight, at Cape Canaveral, Florida. - 0:30 Crew ready for a daring orbital rendezvous and rescue mission. - 0:40 Bruce Melnick was aboard; mission to rescue a satellite not designed for human contact. - 0:53 Satellite in a faulty 800-mile orbit due to a failed unmanned rocket's second stage. - 1:08 Crew's mission: to manually attach a new second stage to the satellite. - 1:18 Shuttle's launch involved 3 liquid fuel rocket engines, held back by 8 explosive bolts. *Shuttle design and launch* - 1:40 Features two massive solid rocket boosters, the largest ever made. - 2:25 Shuttle's main engines fueled by liquid hydrogen, with intricate engineering processes. - 3:01 Solid rocket boosters ignited upon main engines reaching 90% thrust. - 4:46 Boosters are 45 meters long, filled with a rubbery fuel-oxidizer mix. - 5:11 Ignition system involves a chain of solid rocket motors for rapid combustion. - 5:39 Several safety mechanisms in place for the arming sequence. - 6:14 Hold down posts and explosive bolts (frangible nuts) secure the Shuttle during ignition. - 6:52 Stud hang-ups (frangible nuts not fracturing correctly) addressed in STS-126 redesign. - 7:55 Solid rocket boosters provide immense thrust, initially met with concern for crewed missions. - 8:30 Once ignited, solid rocket boosters cannot be stopped until fuel is expended. - 9:00 Solid rocket boosters' thrust profile managed by internal cavity shapes. - 9:52 Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters' unique design for controlled thrust. - 11:03 Nozzles capable of thrust vectoring for steering during ascent. - 11:39 Space Shuttle's aerodynamic surfaces reduce stress and drag, inactive in controlling ascent. - 11:49 Launch sequence detailed with specific technical steps and safety precautions. - 11:49 Space Shuttle reaches significant speed shortly after takeoff. *Ascent Dynamics* - Roll Programme Initiation (11:55): Initiated through asymmetric thrust vectoring of solid rocket boosters' nozzles, using actuators in the aft skirt. - Hydraulic Actuators (12:05): Two hydraulic actuators per nozzle enable movement in pitch and yaw. - Space Shuttle Maneuver (12:10-12:17): Performs a 180-degree turn and pitches 12 degrees off a straight-up trajectory for orbital heading and reduced dynamic pressure on wings. - Launch Pad Design (12:28-12:47): Space Shuttle launch orientation due to pad design for Saturn V; roll program simpler than building a new launch pad. - Breaking Sound Barrier (12:49-13:08): Shuttle exceeds sound speed, silencing rocket engines; air noise likened to a train in a tunnel. - Solid Rocket Boosters' Quiet Phase (13:25-13:36): Diminishing noise as SRBs near fuel depletion, two minutes into flight. - SRB Separation Process (13:39-14:22): Lower chamber pressure triggers separation, assisted by thrust vectoring system and orbiter commands; SRBs attached at four points, detached with explosive bolts and separation motors. - Experience of Booster Separation (14:34-15:18): Loud bang, fireball-like visual effect, followed by view of space. - SRBs Post-Separation (15:22-15:41): SRBs ascend, then descend with parachutes for ocean recovery. *Orbiter's Journey* - Orbiter's Second Stage (15:46-16:14): Smooth 'electric drive' phase, engines throttled back at three Gs for structural integrity. - External Tank Design and Compromises (16:19-17:50): Non-reusable, structurally integral, bearing significant loads; aluminum skin reinforced with rings and stringers, covered in insulation foam. - Liquid Oxygen Tank Placement (18:16-19:20): On top of external tank for stability, gravity center above pressure center. - Intertank Structure (19:33-20:02): Load-bearing, with a hidden beam and attachments for SRBs and orbiter. - Fuel and Oxidizer Flow (20:03-21:55): Large pipes for liquid oxygen and hydrogen, with anti-vortex baffles, running outside the hydrogen tank to orbiter connections. - Ullage Pressure Maintenance (21:24-22:12): Essential for tank structural integrity, using gases tapped off from fuel lines and heat exchangers. *Post-Launch Procedures* - 22:31 The Space Shuttle's umbilical connections included data and electrical connections and a liquid hydrogen recirculation connection for engine chill down before launch. - 22:44 The main engine cutoff process is triggered by a predetermined velocity or low fuel and oxidizer levels, detected by sensors in the liquid hydrogen and oxygen tanks. - 23:14 An extra 500 kilograms of liquid hydrogen ensures fuel-rich engine cutoff, avoiding damage from oxidizer-rich shutdowns. - 23:39 After main engine cutoff, the external tank separates from the orbiter, which then becomes weightless. Closing the umbilical doors is critical for reentry. - 24:47 The external tank, not reused unlike other shuttle components, tumbles back to Earth and breaks up in the atmosphere. - 25:09 Astronauts take pictures of the external tank after separation to check for abnormalities. - 26:47 The Space Shuttle was a reusable spacecraft with features like sleeping quarters, life support, airlocks, and orbital maneuvering systems. - 26:56 The episode is part of a series on the engineering of the Space Shuttle, with future episodes covering other mission stages and stories from astronaut Bruce's missions. - 27:00 Nebula offers lifetime memberships and exclusive content, including series on logistics and engineering topics. *Glossary* *Ullage:* the amount by which a container falls short of being full. Disclaimer: I used the transcript and ChatGPT4. I described the method in a comment under this video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mIfHZJqgq7Wjack&lc=Ugz5WMDmqbHQXGVYUVN4AaABAg.9yJXOPwYK2a9yJ_Q-xgvIG

[@bigbossimmotal]

And right around 9 minutes in is when I realize that a Collie Yoom of fuel is meant to be Column.

[@williamcampbell9859]

go away

[@williamcampbell9859]

AI-ass muppet

[@stocriderj]

I love the space shuttle. too bad they discontinued it btw quit arguing in replies and go do something else with your life, nobody is gonna see your message anyways

[@Snowmunkee]

I did too, but I understand why they did. It's was just too expensive and didn't update to new technology well

[@harryvlogs7833]

Not really was a huge waste of money and was a death trap as you could not abort it

[@markrix]

It was a neat concept, failed at everything else and it was a deathtrap. Even the Soviets version was superior in many regards. They should have make block 2 that was more like the x37b or dream chaser.. but nasa cant do anything wo going over 🕜💲

[@channonlegier9761]

They haven't. It just looks different now. 😊

[@eurkedal]

​@@channonlegier9761In what way do you mean? SLS since it reuses components?

[@AluminumOxide]

This is by far the best intimate engineering video behind my favorite space transport system ever!

[@MayorMcC666]

going into detail about how the internal shape of the solid rocket booster works was something i wasn't expecting! great stuff.

[@BartJBols]

Do the Buran too, its arguably the better orbiter system, even if funding dried up before it could prove itself.

[@TheOwenMajor]

How was the Buran better? It was an inferior rip-off of the shuttle. The Buran didn't replace the biggest reason the Shuttle was designed for, reusability, particularly the main engines. And also due to it's inline stack design, it couldn't take advantage of the insanely light main tank design of the Shuttle.

[@alexsv1938]

​@@TheOwenMajorThe Buran, while strikingly similar to the US Shuttle was not a copy, as the Soviets barely had any information on the US Shuttle in the first place. As for reusability of the engines? Glushko was probably more in touch with the capabilities of the US Shuttle than NASA, disbelieving their claims of driving costs and making space more accessible, reason why he did not bother with reusable Shuttle engines, except for the provision of jet engines to increase the range after reentry and to offer a modicum of safety to reach the airfield. Instead, he created 3 systems compared to the US's one. The Energia heavy lifting rocket, able to place 100 tons into orbit. The Block A boosters that could be recovered and reused. And Buran. This design was inherently safer than the US one, their choice of kerosene Instead of hydrogen meant less boiloff and longer times in space, (30 days to the US's 18) had better automation systems (could fly to orbit and return to land with no human input as it successfully did so) There's many other small details that make the Buran-Energia system superior to the US Shuttle one.

[@bensemusx]

@@TheOwenMajorit was much cheaper. It used safer liquid boosters. It was autonomous. The rocket and plane were independent systems so if the plane wasn’t needed for a mission you still had an incredibly powerful traditional heavily lift rocket. The shuttle reused its engines but it was so expensive to refurbish the STS that it ended up being pointless. Now SLS is using those engines at about $140 million a pop. You could buy four Falcon Heavy launches for just the cost of the SLS engines.

[@TheOwenMajor]

@@alexsv1938 Lol. "he Buran, while strikingly similar to the US Shuttle was not a copy" I know, they copied what they had, which was the aerodynamic model. That was straight stolen. They didn't copy the fuel systems or the engines because they couldn't. "reason why he did not bother with reusable Shuttle engines," It's because the fuel transfer system was more complex then what they could manage. "The Energia heavy lifting rocket, able to place 100 tons into orbit. The Block A boosters that could be recovered and reused. And Buran." No he didn't the boosters never flew, the Energia launched once and failed. The Buran had a single launch. "their choice of kerosene Instead of hydrogen meant less boiloff and longer times in space, " Lol what? The Shuttle used the Hyndron by the time it made orbit, unless you are talking about the fuel cells.

[@TheOwenMajor]

@@bensemusx "it was much cheaper." No it wasn't. In fact the Buran was so expensive it may have led to the breakup of the Soviet Union. " It was autonomous." It was, but the Soviets traditionally liked autonomous systems, and the US liked pilot-controlled systems. It was also developed a decade later.

[@MattHaleUK]

"Umbiblical"?

[@blahblahsaurus2458]

21:00 😆 maybe it's called that because it's like the two stone tablets on which the ten commandments were written.

[@nirbhay_raghav]

It is named after the biological umbilical which feeds the baby with oxygen and food (fuel) until they come out and use their own systems. Rockets are fed fuel and oxidizer and power while on the launch pad by these umbilicals. Once off the ground their systems take over.

[@blahblahsaurus2458]

@@nirbhay_raghav yes, it's just that RE accidentally pronounced it "umbiBlical" with a second B.

[@Lakshay70]

Incredible video👏👏👏, would you make a part 2 on reentry and glide down to runway?

[@corey7276]

What a legendary machine. Thanks for covering it on your channel

[@jthespartan]

Dude I already pay for premium. I don't want to sign up for Nebula. Streaming services are like mix tapes in the 90's. Everyone has one.

[@jthespartan]

You guys are are always talking about how youtube does you dirty and you don't make enough money. If it wasn't for youtube you wouldn't have had a platform to begin with. I'll buy some merch or something but I don't need another thing siphoning my credit card.

[@gerardomartinez7184]

This is an amazing video. Im very curious where you got those drawings from showing the various details of the propellant lines and booster diagrams. Those are really clean looking scans and hard to come by.

[@dhmacher]

The production value and the technical content of this video is just *chef's kiss*.

[@Gav_Jam]

These animations are world class. Amazing work thanks i learned a lot