STS-1: The First Space Shuttle Mission, April 12-14, 1981
Vložit
- čas přidán 16. 07. 2017
- Space Shuttle Columbia launched on the first Space Shuttle mission on April 12, 1981, a two-day demonstration of the first reusable, piloted spacecraft's ability to go into orbit and return safely to Earth. This 2-minute, 43-second video depicts the historic launch, in-orbit activity by astronauts John Young and Bob Crippen, and the vast crowds who witnessed the landing on Runway 23 on Rogers Dry Lake at Edwards Air Force Base, CA, on April 14,1981.
After years of testing of Columbia and training the astronauts in simulators, the orbiter lifted off into space from the Kennedy Space Center on Florida's east coast, boosted by seven million pounds of thrust supplied by its solid-propellant rockets and liquid hydrogen fueled engines. The flight, one of four orbital flight tests by Columbia, served as a two-day flight demonstration of the first reusable, piloted spacecraft's ability to go into orbit and return safely to Earth.
Columbia carried as its main payload a developmental flight instrumentation pallet with instruments to record pressures, temperatures, and levels of acceleration at various points on the vehicle during launch, flight, and landing. In flight, Young and Crippen tested the spacecraft's on-board systems, fired the orbital maneuvering system for changing orbits, employed the reaction control system for controlling attitude, and opened and closed the payload doors. One of many cameras aboard -- a remote television camera -- revealed some of the thermal protection tiles had detached from the orbiter during launch.
As Columbia re-entered the atmosphere from space at Mach 24 - 24 times the speed of sound - after 36 orbits, aerodynamic heating built up to over 3,000 °F. But at 188,000 feet and Mach 10, mission commander John W. Young and pilot Robert L. Crippen radioed that the orbiter was performing as expected.
Energy management on descent and landing the shuttles without power, and therefore without the weight penalty of additional engines and fuel, was based on previous experience with the X-15 rocket planes and the piloted lifting bodies that also landed without power at NASA's Flight Research Center, later named the Dryden Flight Research Center. NASA Dryden and Edwards Air Force Base had also hosted the approach and landing tests of the shuttle prototype Enterprise in 1977 and had tested the computers used for the shuttles' flight control systems in the F-8 Digital Fly-By-Wire aircraft, which also contributed to the solution of a dangerous pilot induced oscillation that occurred on the final approach and landing test. - Věda a technologie
Look at John Young's astronaut strut, as he inspects his craft after the spaceflight :) He's got the right stuff, alright! Godspeed, Captain Young.
Ah, that new orbiter smell.
This is such a wonderful sight! Can you imagine the feeling those two jet pilots had being asked to escort the shuttle in and not forgetting the crew on the shuttle as well. Such a great post.
I was nearly 14 when Columbia was first launched. I saw her final flight many years later.
The Shuttle was originally scheduled to fly in March 1979. But technical problems delayed it by 2 years and it was the most complicated spacecraft ever built. Still, the delays were less long than those for Starliner, which will not make a single flight until next year in March, at the very earliest, 4 years after it was scheduled to fly.
I remember it flying over Australia and we were watching this little blip go over, then we watched it land on TV I was 11 years old, brings back memories, I'm watching that show for all mankind,so I thought I'd check it out😂😂😂
Very nice! 👍🚀
geebus that rocket is big.
This was peak USA
Apollo was peak USA.
With this landing, and beating the prick Soviets in the Olympics in hockey, I knew the awful Carter era was really over and we'd win the Cold War.
Well✋️
That thing looked like it was going to roll all the way to Reno.
Columbia disintegrated in Earth atmosphere killing all 7 crew
That is sad
About 22 years later yes
We are the best in the world.
couldn't nasa make a shuttle that collects sun light energy and once in a while deos a burst of energy that move it forward?
not enough funding
If you're talking about in space, there are Solar Sails which use energy from the sun to move spacecraft.
Solar electric propulsion is a thing. NASA tried it with their Dawn space probe, if I recall correctly. Unfortunately, NASA is too tied up with rewarding big defense contractors in order to really innovate in this regard.
@@JarrodBaniqued More its not viable. To make solar sails viable you need a MASSIVE extremely thin solar sail and a comparatively tiny payload. The James Web Space Telescope has had enough problems with its own unfolding stuff and that'd be a mere fraction of the unfolding necessary for a solar sail. However, NASA does use solar power to power ion thrusters with use electric charge ti change Xenon into energetic ions that get magnetically propelled out of the rear of the craft. Extremely high specific impulse but extremely extremely low thrust (like the amount of force it takes to hold up a piece of paper).
TiberTiberius That’s what I meant by “solar electric propulsion”.
The “electric” comes from the ion thrusters being hooked up to solar panels, as you explained.
I think it’s more viable in the inner Solar System. Outside, probes to the ice giants would be the perfect testbed for a Kilopower-style reactor connected to a Hall effect thruster like NEXT.
I'm at school rn lmao
Hm,them could make an inhabited station at geosynhronous obrite(40000 km) with detectors of space radiation,greenhouse,telescope and wiht an opportunity to redirect an asteroids,what could an exist thousands years.Sad.
I'm still disheartened by the tragic loss of our beloved Columbia shuttle & i totally blame NASA for it as well as the challanger disaster both mission accidents could have been avoided god damm them all .there supposed to be prefect not like Russia blowing up shit every 5 sec.
1, yes challenger could've been avoided but not columbia, as when the foam struck the wing, it was actually hard to see the damage. the reason for it was because the side hatch, was used for crew egress and ingress, and the crew bay was open most of the mission, so they didn't see it. it also wasn't nasa's fault for challenger as well, as the government was pushing the launch dates along (because of the many delays leading up to the launch)
In addition, the United States space program has had more astronauts die in space exploration than any other country. In Russia, every crewed vehicle had an abort system. Also, do you think you would have done a better job inspecting over a half a million moving parts?
This is a jet powered space shuttle, that's why stop the program after people found out it was a fake glider!
No
there is no jet exhaust, if it was a real jet-powered shuttle you would see some pretty big heat waves behind it, the shuttle was massive and heavy. the jet engine that would have had to power it would have been really big, and besides. where are you going to put it without people noticing it?
Lmao wot
Okay, if its jet powered, where's the air intake?
And if that's the case, why hide the fact its jet powered?
Why would they even make it fake in the first place…