What Was The Fastest Space Shuttle? The Answer Surprised Me!
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 05. 2023
- A question was asked, I had to answer.
Spaceplanes are the fastest 'aircraft', but which one flew fastest? There were 5 shuttles which flew multiple missions to different orbits and different reentry trajectories, so the entry speed has some variation, is there one that stands out above all the others to take the crown of 'fastest aircraft ever'?
Summary of all the space shuttle missions:
sma.nasa.gov/SignificantIncid...
Follow me on Twitter for more updates:
/ djsnm
I have a discord server where I regularly turn up:
/ discord
If you really like what I do you can support me directly through Patreon
/ scottmanley - Věda a technologie
I nominate Kilo Feet Per Second KFPS for the most indecisive unit. SI, Metric, Imperial? Yes...
Let’s add some Roman numerals and call it XXV kilo feet per second
Honestly if I were the guy in charge of the metric system, I'd have just used the existing foot and replace inches with decifeet and miles with kilofeet
@@ENCHANTMEN_ There was no existing foot. There were a dozen different feet plus hundreds of other non-feet measuring units.
@@ENCHANTMEN_ The point of metric isnt just the 10 system. It also standardizes different types of measurements, 1 cubic centimeter is equal to a mL for example. Also, 10,000 KM from the pole to the equator was its definition. Dude just wanted nice numbers.
@@ENCHANTMEN_yes!
I'd like to point out, Scott, that _Challenger_ in fact WASN'T the slowest shuttle. _Enterprise_ was, as she only reached whatever velocity the 747 carrying her reached. Sure, she never went to space, but she _was_ a Space shuttle, and she _did_ fly, so...☺
And she was a AIRCRAFT!
I agree that Enterprise was the slowest, but its top speed wasn't limited to the that of the carrier aircraft. After in-flight release from the 747, the Enterprise could accelerate by simply lowering the nose and gliding faster. The 747-shuttle combo certainly did not cruise at the 747's top speed.
This is wrong, his words were “the slowest REENTRY”, and that’s not reentry
You only need one word for the distinction: Orbiter.
I approve this nit-picking
“As long as it stops on the centerline, nobody will know…”
Scott, your pilot is showing :P
"You seem to have touched down left of centerline"
"Affirmative. And my first officer to the right of it"
11:21 "Unfortunately, Challenger could not be with us to accept the award tonight..." - big orbital OOOOF...
Yeah, I groaned a bit on that one
I have an eye witness story to tell about the STS-36 DOD mission of Space Shuttle Atlantis on February 28, 1990 that launched into that one-off 62 degree orbit inclination. I live in Machias, Maine (eastern Maine). That 62 degree orbit inclination launch sent the Shuttle and its expended External Tank directly over New Brunswick, Canada. I have a NASA “Space Shuttle News Reference” book that I’ve had since the early ‘80s. It’s loaded with information on anything and everything you’ve ever wanted to know about the STS system. From that reference book, I had access to information that allowed me to deduce that I should see an OMS rocket burn on board the Space Shuttle Atlantis at approximately 10 minutes and 40 seconds after the launch, facing N-NE from my location in Machias, Maine, looking at a 45 degree angle off the horizon, or halfway up the sky. That launch happened at 2:50:22 EST. I watched the launch on CNN. I started my stopwatch from the launch on CNN. At a minute before 3 AM, I stepped outside into my snow covered backyard, wearing a bathrobe and moccasin slippers on my feet. It was a star-studded moonless night in Machias, Maine. I faced New Brunswick, Canada (faced N-NE) and I watched the time progress on my stopwatch. On my stopwatch, at 10 minutes and 30 seconds, I looked halfway up the sky and took in a wide field of view, working my peripheral vision. At 10 minutes and 40 seconds, I had an OMS rocket burn of the Space Shuttle Atlantis appearing smack dab in the center of my field of vision. The size of this OMS rocket plume was about a peppercorn or a BB shot pellet held out at arms length. You could see the shafts of rocket exhaust shimmering in this OMS plume. This peppercorn sized OMS plume was moving across the sky at the speed of a satellite moving across the sky. I watched this OMS plume move across the sky for about 45 seconds, heading N-NE, heading away from me, until it disappeared from my view behind the trees on my horizon. I remember thinking how I could have watched it for a much longer time were it not for the trees on my horizon blocking my view.
Post edit:
OMS is the Orbital Maneuvering System rocket engines and its fuels tanks that were housed in those two big ungainly-looking bulges on the back end, upper side of the shuttle orbiter, on either side of the rudder. Those two big ungainly-looking bulges were called “OMS Pods”.
After posting this eye witness story, I found a most interesting NASA document on the web titled “Space Shuttle Missions Summary” published in September 2011. In this document, on page “2-38” for mission STS-36, it shows that no “OMS-1” engine burn occurred at the ten and a half minute mark into the launch. And, that the first OMS burn in that launch didn’t occur until 32 minutes into the flight (the first OMS burn is designated “OMS-2” in this NASA document). I beg to differ with this information shown on mission STS-36 in this NASA document, because my eyes saw a rocket burn appear and move across the sky over New Brunswick, Canada at ten and a half minutes into the launch of mission STS-36, the shuttle Atlantis, on the morning of February 28, 1990.
SPACE SHUTTLE MISSIONS SUMMARY - September 2011
ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20110001406/downloads/20110001406.pdf
Post edit #2:
I’m just now realizing that the NASA doc I found and posted a link to here is the same NASA doc that Scott Manley is featuring and drawing data from in this video.
Duuuuude thats awesome
Damn cool story! My only cool one is a probable static fire near the KSC visitor center on March 1 2017.
Ahh, the details make the memories, cheers.
Me TOO!
Thanks for sharing.
Very well done!
I‘m pretty sure it is hard to come up with a more unimportant question, but you also complicated it so much it basically got hilarious.
No seriously you are unter the best CZcamsrs out there, just by being so friendly, funny but also over precise .
I hope my englisch is good enough to let that sound like a compliment.
It sounds like you are calling him a nut, but don't worry, it's all good, we need our nuts to correct Twitter errors and spend a weekend doing double differentiation.😸😸😸
It was good enough to sound like a compliment.
@@BrianHoff04 It was.
you mean compliment
Scott, this was 13 of the most riveting minutes of my life about information I never knew I wanted or needed 😂This was some proper space nerdery, and that's why you're still one of the best space educators out there!
Faster, Faster, until the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death.
Thats how I feel any time I ride a motorcycle/streetbike. Thats why I can NOT have one lol.
Is this a Hunter S Thompson quote? Definitely feels like him.
Whose quote is it?
or death overcomes the thrill of speed.
Allegedly this quote is by Thompson, about riding his motorcycle. Checks out. :D
Space Shuttle Enterprise is the best one, because it was the first, and few know of it's existence. I got to explore Enterprise at KSC when I went to Space Camp as a kid, it will always be my favorite!
Also for the name and how NASA was basically bullied into giving it that name by the most loyal and serious fan group 😅
🤔 I assume that by "few" you mean _a few hundred million._
She's now on USS Intrepid in NY if you want to go back
Enterprise was the first one I saw in person, because around 1986 they flew it in to Dulles Airport for eventual installation at what would become the National Air and Space Museum's Udvar-Hazy Center (still many years away from construction), and the carrier 747 made a few turns around the area before landing. For a while they had it just sitting out on the apron there. And I saw it at the museum eventually. Some time later, they swapped it out for Discovery (since they wanted the Smithsonian's "orbiter of record" to be one that had actually flown in space) and sent Enterprise to New York, and I saw it there too.
@nagualdesign I doubt even that many people could name Atlantis, Challenger, Columbia, Discovery, and Endeavor, the ones that actually flew to space.
Enterprise is the least known of the bunch.
We could also define it as the fastest human piloted winged vehicle. In that case the title would go to Space Shuttle Columbia which was manually flown all the way from orbit to landing by Joe Engle on STS-2.
It's a myth that STS-2's re-entry was flown manually. You can check out Joe Engle's interview on the JSC oral history project, he did put in some manual control inputs to get the vehicle closer to its operating limits. I think the idea of it being all manual was a shoddy Wikipedia article.
IF you take a look at the NASA reentry training handbook you find that there is actually not that much operational difference between a manual and an automatic reentry, since the Shuttle is fly-by-wire and totally dependent on digital GNC for all phases of flight.
Besides, every single Shuttle flight switched to manual during TAEM at the latest
I Thought This Was Gonna Be A Really Depressing Joke-
Even if the manual control thing were true, it's not necessary. Even with the autopilot engaged, the human in the left front seat is still in control of the vehicle.
Flying brick… I like it.
"unfortunately Challenger couldn't be with us to accept the award tonight"
Too soon, Scott, too soon...
Normal people seeing a tweet: Meh...
Scott Manley seeing a tweet: i'm gonna make a spreadsheet and a video!
I love the excitement you can hear in Scott's voice because he gets to nerd out about space shuttles and win an internet argument at the same time. I love all the different details you actually have to take into account to determine the fastest aircraft!
As a kid I launched an SR71 rocket model. It flew up about 10 feet and leveled off. That would have been cool except that it was headed towards the picture window of the neighbor across the road. Luckily the motor ran out of fuel before it got to the window. That rocket-plane had the highest pucker factor ever.
I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE!!!! WHAT??? I also had a model rocket SR-71 and it did the same exact thing, the first time it ended up on the front porch of a house across the road a ways and just skidded to a stop like a foot from the huge window of their front door...It was crazy. I only flew it maybe 3 times and twice it went up, leveled off and shot away like it was actually flying. I had to shoehorn a bigger engine into it to get it to fly "right". Both times it leveled off it went completely opposite directions and not knowing which way it was going to go made it not worthwhile to me. But it was cool. With the bigger engine it flew like every other rocket and the vertical wing parts didn't take landing very well even with a 'chute. So yeah, didn't fly it but a few times.
I launched a Hawk SAM (basically a Big Bertha with a larger, heavier nosecone and delta fins) on a pad with a plastic rod (it was the only one open at the time). I hit the button, and the next thing I saw was the back end of the rocket as it flew away from me and straight downrange. Looked every bit like an Army-green ATGM coasting down the field.
@@ZboeC5 that's incredible! Must be some sort of flaw in the model design. Did you put the clay in the nose cone that came with the kit? I did. I only flew mine the one time.. forever grounded after that.
@@BogeyTheBear I also had a three stage rocket, Comanche I think, that only flew once..it launched, went up about 100 feet, flipped over, and flew straight down onto the sidewalk. It was badly mangled and was never issued a flight permit again.
@@RustyorBroken I can't remember honestly, but if it was included in the directions it probably was. My dad helped quite a bit on that one. I'll never forget the first time it nosed over about 10 feet in the air and took off though, I wish cellphones with cameras were a thing back then it would have made for one heck of a video.
"Challenger couldn't be with us to accept the award" Oof
Would be interested to see a video documenting differences between all of the shuttles and what/why things were changed throughout the life of a program
This video has sort of CGP Grey vibe to it - digging so much and correcting yourself so many times, dealing with a lack of documentation, love it
Now that you've loaded your spreadsheet, Scott, I would like to know which mission resulted in the most energy dissipated upon reentry. Just multiply the relative velocity by the gross vehicle mass (including returning payload).
You beat me to it Scott ... I WAS going to ask about Buran but you shortstopped me. Well done sir!
An episode filled with spreadsheets and charts....Adrian Beil from NSF would absolutely LOVE this !!!
Edit: Fixed a critical spelling error....!
Can confirm. Loved it!
@@LPAmdee holy crap.....I didn't think you'd actually respond to my comment......an sorry bout misspelling your name...Edit coming shortly!
@@johndoepker7126 Oh hey, yours is a familiar name to those of us who've watched far too many NSF streams-not that "too many" is possible! I've heard them read messages from you fairly often 😸👋
And hey Adrian, too! 😸
@@AndrewGillard !indeed
Gemini 11 went up to 739 nmi, so if they had kept the rogallo wing that might have held the record for the fastest winged vehicle (even though it wouldn't be winged when it reached its highest speeds)
So would Starship count if it comes back from the Moon or Mars?
Scott! You left yourself open to pedantry! Technically the shuttle did use parachutes to land!
Great video as always though man!
Ah, but didn't the space shuttles parachutes open after it had already touched the ground?
Its only used to stop faster, otherwise, if they had an infinite runway, it could definitely land itself
Used them to stop after landing surely….
parachute was added a decade after first flights, iirc
@@jamiehollywood7681 Yes, but, let us consider reentry and landing as the full bleed off of speed to facilitate a safe recovery of crew.
In that context, the space shuttle required a drogue chute to assuredly and confidently achieve 0 relative velocity and recovery. Technically it is a parachute assisted reentry.
This is all in the sense of pedantic silliness and technicality.
We all know what Scott meant, and it still is true.
1:30 Those shockwaves are absolutely incredible! 😮
"So I created a spreadsheet..." Total geek-out central! 😎
Needs a crossover with Matt Parker.
Scott gives us a free video to justify his "Well actually...."
Awesome
I imagine the speeds get much smaller if you take "like a plane" to mean glide ratio >> 1... or even just > 1. First part of re-entry is definitely more brick-like than plane like even with wings.
This is the high quality research that I watch this channel for!
Excellent & In depth as always.
Imagine being so wrong on the internet that Scott Manley makes a video about it! 😂 awesome video Scott, great to see the breakdown and a winner!
Ingenuity, the tiny helicopter on Mars, checks all your boxes for aircraft and had much higher relative velocities when leaving Earth or entering Mars.
I recognize this is a ridiculous, pedantic exception, but i couldn't resist. :)
It actually technically rn has much higher relative velocity to Earth's surface
I've seen lots of Space Shuttle Videos, but the video of the Cloud Silhouette Shock Cones was pretty damn awesome!
In the slow entry category, we should not ignore the Burt Rutan planes: SpaceShip 1 and 2. They too went to space and landed as airplanes. Note that I'm aware thar an SS2 was lost in atmospheric trials and the new one got a new individual vessel name.
I believe he is estimating the speed based on his calculations, taking into account the height. In any case, I truly believe that the competition should be among crewed vehicles only. You know the others are not vehicles, with that Buran is out.
@@jaimeduncan6167
How are Spaceship 1 and Spaceship 2 not crewed vehicles that flew in space and landed with wings?
@@jaimeduncan6167 Eh, I'd count Buran. It was crew-capable, even if it was uncrewed for its only flight.
@@jaimeduncan6167 Buran is CLEARLY a vehicle
Only _Enterprise_ would've surprised me. 😆
(But then, I didn't spend hours slaving over a hot spreadsheet, forming and testing hypotheses. Good job researching!)
Videos like this are why I love your channel so much.
Thanks. Glad to see you getting back to explanatory physics videos!
Another hilarious video by our idol Scot, who seems to have too much time for embarking on all these investigations and research and even bedsheets of excel calculations just to find out the fastest Space-Shuttle. And shout out for even able to make a compelling and exciting video about this with changing favorites and a worthy winner! One of the best videos lately!
Well, it was a good exercise for him to take a break from flight training.
I just googled it, but the Stardust return capsule at 28,000 mph is the fastest return vehicle ever. That's pretty crazy.
Osiris Rex, due back at the end of September this year, will beat it by a solid measure.
@@4077Disc Only if we are limiting to earth’s atmosphere. The sun has an atmosphere and Parker Solar probe got in it. 😉
@@GaryBleck It's not using aerodynamic resistance to maneuver though or experiencing significant drag.
The fastest atmospheric entry was the Galileo probe to Jupiter which impacted Jupiter's upper atmosphere at 106,000mph (47 km/s). It experienced decelerations of 350G and its heatshield was exposed to temperatures of over 15,000K.
@@trolleriffic I watched Galileo leave earth aboard "Atlantis" from the causeway in Melbourne in October 1989. This time the launch delay worked in my favor.
Fascinating stuff! Thanks, Scott! 😊
Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊
As always I like the research and sheer enthusiasm behind Scott's videos.
another reason to love the shuttle that won this one (i had to change it not to spoil)…
You spoiled it😢
@@weekiely1233 oh sorry
@@lxcien4867 dw I was memeing
Worked on the STS and Ares Programs for 22 years at KSC and I seem to remember the Long Duration Exposure Facility when it was retrieved as being a “Bear” to wrestle down safely with more then the usual number of tires blowing up on the Landing Strip. How was the greater mass affecting speeds and control?
I love the silly, mathematical, mechanical videos that you make. It also made my day that I have the Lego Discovery on my shelf!
Excellent video as always! Thank you👍🏻
Hello Scott, first of all thanks for the videos you are doing and your efort to translate speeds from imperial to international. But could you also edit them on the screen to be read? Also you are missing some convertions at the end. Cheers :D
STS 36 launched a Misty - AFP-731 in this case - as well as a few other little goodies
Although there is some debate over if it actually failed a while later or not due to debris spotted in the orbit
I love when you do videos about the shuttle!!
Thanks for this video Scott.
For anyone wondering as I was:
The chutes that are deployed behind the Shuttle when it lands on the tarmac, those are not parachutes. That is a drogue parachute, also called a drag chute, drag parachute, drogue chute, or braking parachute.
Also, Discovery didn't have one on STS-48. Endeavour was the first shuttle to have a braking chute, and it was first used on its maiden flight, STS-49. Only after that were the older shuttles retrofitted with drag chutes.
You are SO wrong, and you provided the proof yourself.
"those are not parachutes. That is a drogue parachute, also called a drag chute, drag parachute, drogue chute, or braking parachute."
Drogue PARACHUTE
Drogue CHUTE (chute is short for parachute)
Drag PARACHUTE
Drag CHUTE (chute is short for parachute)
Braking PARACHUTE
So they are in fact parachutes in every way, both in name and function.
@@SoloRenegade I think the main distinction (at least for the shuttle) is that one is employed TO land the other employs one AFTER landing.
@@TheEvilmooseofdoom doesn't matter, they are all parachutes.
@@SoloRenegade It isn't a parachute that lowers it to the ground in the sense that Scott mentioned it you pedantic little troll. It isn't deployed until AFTER the Shuttle is on the ground. And not all of the Shuttle flights even had them installed.
Kilo Feet per second is just a terrible unit of measurement
I like mega furlongs per fortnight!
Indeed, he should have measured it by kilofootballcamps !
@@zebo-the-fat Damn, I came here to say exactly this.
There's a video on YT called "Cursed units" thats hilarious. By Joseph Newton.
This is the most Scott Manley video ever, love it!!
2:52 Thats so cool. Just look how much thrust there is to flex everything.
For slowest, wasn’t there an ATO (abort to orbit) that ran a slower re-entry?
Yes, STS-51-F (Spacelab2), but this wasn't the lowest re-entry.
It's not entirely accurate to say that 28.5 deg is "the lowest inclination you can get from Florida". If you have a _lot_ of excess delta-V you can execute an plane change burn at the orbital node. The only time I can recall that being done was for IXPE, and it basically reduced the 15t LEO payload capacity of F9 to 330 kg.
SpaceX launches geostationary satellites which have 0 deg inclination.
What?
@@nikolatasev4948 yes, but that does not mean the space shuttle reached that inclination, let alone the altitude of geostationary satellites.
He means that the Space shuttle could do.
@@nikolatasev4948 Yes, you can much more efficiently reduce inclination while transferring to a higher (and lower-orbital-velocity) orbit like GEO than you can in LEO.
My eyes crossed, and I got dizzy when you mentioned spherical trigonometry, but I think I’ll be all right in a bit. Thanks for all the info.
Thanks, Scott for that in-depth investigation.
Does a manhole cover have wings? Just asking
Perhaps if it melted into a wing shape
Disagree with your initial premise as it's a definition problem: The original tweet does not say aircraft, it says "plane'. I contend that to qualify as a 'plane' it must be a powered aircraft, as we call unpowered aircraft gliders. During the time it is going fast AF, while acting as a plane, in atmosphere, it's not ever powered, and I don't think it can reasonably meet the definition of plane. I think the X-15 is a much better candidate for a manned craft, and of course my heart *really* lies in *air-breathing* manned craft, so when (if) we ever get those SABRE engines flying I'd probably favor those the most
X-15 can't take off under its own power and spends most of its flight as a glider though.
This was an amazing 13 minutes of my life following along with your nerdy research journey. Especially loved the concluding sentences!
Thanks for the insight!
12:28 so if parachutes are not allowed for landing, how is the Space Shuttle the winner?
The space shuttle did not always use a drag chute (in fact STS-49 was the first time it used one), and did not require one if it had sufficient runway. And when it did use it, it didn't deploy the parachute to land, it landed first, then deployed the braking chute once its already on the ground to slow down. So in no case was it used for landing, just for braking after landing, and much of time it didn't use it at all.
The definition of plane is powered flight. Therefore the space shuttle is a glider, not a plane, however by the same definition the sr-71 is not the fastest and it would instead be the x-15 as it was powered flight. Therefore everyone was wrong, and the fastest plane is the x-15 (Details matter).
But the Shuttle has engines. It's just when your speed is already Mach 25, you don't really need to turn them on.
Deploy the OMS engines
Scott was talking about the fastest aircraft, not the fastest plane, hell, if a blimp could reach mach 56 while in atmosphere, it would be the fastest aircraft.
@@davisdf3064 No, the original post he responded to was talking about planes
@@genericguy6382
Yes, but then he decided to talk about aircraft in general
Very cool that Scott has found that shuttle document. It's my favourite
Dang Scott. That's a LOT of work and math to prove someone wrong not for the sake of 'beating' them but rather to prevent the spread of misinformation. I salute you, sir.
Only the bravest souls will willingly go into a spaceship and risk their lives for space exploration
That is in Russia, in the west they have silly "safety regulations"
Always so creative! You're the best!
Tons of research there Scott, well done lad, well done.
Such a Scott Manley classic :)
Wow Scott, that was a magnificent effort you put in for this! Congratulations to Discovery--my second favorite shuttle! (runs away laughing!)
This nerdy content is exactly why I'm here 😂 another amazing video, Scott!
Thanks for all this info that i had no idea that I needed to know, that I now know!
It’s actually emotional seeing how much older the Columbia and Challenger photos are at 0:21
I do recall when the the shuttle program was just starting up a friend was a competitive glider pilot. These folks would try for highest altitude / flight duration / distance etc and he remarked well the shuttle wins them all now.
Thank you for sharing getting your geek on.
Yo... that video from return to flight really is awesome footage! @1:10
The fourth column of the old shuttle data sheets has VI on it under the heading "Launch..., Landing..." with numbers like 25k fps
Great down the rabbit hole math video, thanks Scott!
intensely good content mr manley
I'm glad, Discovery is my favourite. Only rocket launch I ever saw was STS 103 to service Hubble, Scott Kelly's first flight.
Another fantastically Nerdy vid Scott!! Loved it. My only question is…Dreamchaser?
Interesting to see the issues on each of the STS sheets,, this is worthy of an episode in itself!
“…Unfortunately Challenger couldn’t be with us to accept the award tonight…”?
Ouch.
Too soon.
Yay! Discovery! I don't know why, but I'm happy with the result :D
that meme format is incredible -nice use 👏
Epic over complication as required by the gods 🙌🏻🤣 Thanks for this, Scott!
You are awesome, thank you 😊
You got me excited there for a second there
That WB-57 footage was great!
I love that this is basically a video about being nerd sniped by someone on the internet.
Scott Manley is the best! Crown to him! 😊
Great, now I need to know this information for all kinds of other categories of vehicle. Scott, you need to do a video series on the fastest/slowest of...
-lifting-body space capsules
-non-lifting-body space capsules
-first stages
-second stages
-sub-orbital capsules
-sub-orbital flights
-completely non-space, all-atmosphee flights
I frankly don't care if we can just google the information, I want this Scott Manley style overanalysis.
The slowest for lifting body would likely be the one where they towed it behind a car.
this is the biggest "umm akshualy" ive ever seen and i love it. although personally i think "fastest plane" should be something that gains its speed exclusively IN atmosphere.
Excellent analysis! I agree that your pilot training is showing a bit :).
What an amazing discovery!
2:37 You can see the heat from re-entry distorting the air. The Space Shuttle has no engines for use inside the atmosphere on descent, so that is just pure heat resonating from it. Awesome footage.
That's not heat shimmer, that's the wingtip vortex trailing off the Shuttle's wings distorting the light
NEEEEERDD!!
And I love it!!! Thank you!
This is the level of research and dedication that everyone should dedicate to the things they post as fact
If there are difficulties determining actual speeds, I wonder if using the G-loading at altitude could be useful. With a sorta standard profile, each shuttle will interface at differing speeds as your excellent excel skills displayed. I'm trying to find the words to ask if a mission returning a satellite would be heavier, have higher wing loading, and possibly carry more speed down to an aerodynamic flight altitude... if you follow. So a shuttle not doing a braking S-turn but experiencing the highest level flight deceleration-load on descent would be going fastest lowest.
Great video Scott!!!
My favorite is the Buran. I hope you considered it.
This is the best "SOMEBODY IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET!" Video i have seen in a long time.