I nominate Kilo Feet Per Second KFPS for the most indecisive unit. SI, Metric, Imperial? Yes...
@audunrundberg9180 Жыл бұрын
Let’s add some Roman numerals and call it XXV kilo feet per second
@ENCHANTMEN_ Жыл бұрын
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
@mariusdragoe2888 Жыл бұрын
@@ENCHANTMEN_ There was no existing foot. There were a dozen different feet plus hundreds of other non-feet measuring units.
@wodthehunter8145 Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@CommentConqueror Жыл бұрын
@@ENCHANTMEN_yes!
@OmegaReaver Жыл бұрын
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...☺
@sealy3 Жыл бұрын
And she was a AIRCRAFT!
@kauffmanba Жыл бұрын
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.
@rogervanbommel1086 Жыл бұрын
This is wrong, his words were “the slowest REENTRY”, and that’s not reentry
@kargi42 Жыл бұрын
You only need one word for the distinction: Orbiter.
@kumoyuki Жыл бұрын
I approve this nit-picking
@fiveoneecho Жыл бұрын
“As long as it stops on the centerline, nobody will know…” Scott, your pilot is showing :P
@KernelLeak Жыл бұрын
11:21 "Unfortunately, Challenger could not be with us to accept the award tonight..." - big orbital OOOOF...
@justins8802 Жыл бұрын
Yeah, I groaned a bit on that one
@ser_igel24 күн бұрын
honestly not even orbital :(
@marianaldenhoevel7240 Жыл бұрын
"You seem to have touched down left of centerline" "Affirmative. And my first officer to the right of it"
@KanadianJay Жыл бұрын
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.
@wilboersma9441 Жыл бұрын
Duuuuude thats awesome
@alexlandherr Жыл бұрын
Damn cool story! My only cool one is a probable static fire near the KSC visitor center on March 1 2017.
@ooslum Жыл бұрын
Ahh, the details make the memories, cheers.
@tredogzs Жыл бұрын
Me TOO!
@rogerwilco2 Жыл бұрын
Thanks for sharing. Very well done!
@bradnarraway9141 Жыл бұрын
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!
@Mikado8 Жыл бұрын
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 KZfaqrs 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.
@martinda7446 Жыл бұрын
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.😸😸😸
@BrianHoff04 Жыл бұрын
It was good enough to sound like a compliment.
@martinda7446 Жыл бұрын
@@BrianHoff04 It was.
@DrWhom Жыл бұрын
you mean compliment
@SpecialEDy Жыл бұрын
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!
@Ganiscol Жыл бұрын
Also for the name and how NASA was basically bullied into giving it that name by the most loyal and serious fan group 😅
@nagualdesign Жыл бұрын
🤔 I assume that by "few" you mean _a few hundred million._
@BGerbs66 Жыл бұрын
She's now on USS Intrepid in NY if you want to go back
@MattMcIrvin Жыл бұрын
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.
@SpecialEDy Жыл бұрын
@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.
@eugenioarpayoglou Жыл бұрын
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.
@ppatin Жыл бұрын
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.
@giuliodondi Жыл бұрын
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
@AssistantCoreAQI Жыл бұрын
I Thought This Was Gonna Be A Really Depressing Joke-
@RCAvhstape Жыл бұрын
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.
@markrichards9646 Жыл бұрын
Flying brick… I like it.
@sirjohniv Жыл бұрын
Faster, Faster, until the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death.
@MattH-wg7ou Жыл бұрын
Thats how I feel any time I ride a motorcycle/streetbike. Thats why I can NOT have one lol.
@cheapscifi Жыл бұрын
Is this a Hunter S Thompson quote? Definitely feels like him.
@squidwardfromua Жыл бұрын
Whose quote is it?
@Agnemons Жыл бұрын
or death overcomes the thrill of speed.
@andrewfleenor7459 Жыл бұрын
Allegedly this quote is by Thompson, about riding his motorcycle. Checks out. :D
@RustyorBroken Жыл бұрын
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.
@ZboeC5 Жыл бұрын
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.
@BogeyTheBear Жыл бұрын
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.
@RustyorBroken Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@RustyorBroken Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@ZboeC5 Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@personzorz Жыл бұрын
"unfortunately Challenger couldn't be with us to accept the award tonight" Too soon, Scott, too soon...
@rnedisc Жыл бұрын
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!
@MrHichammohsen1 Жыл бұрын
Normal people seeing a tweet: Meh... Scott Manley seeing a tweet: i'm gonna make a spreadsheet and a video!
@johndoepker7126 Жыл бұрын
An episode filled with spreadsheets and charts....Adrian Beil from NSF would absolutely LOVE this !!! Edit: Fixed a critical spelling error....!
@LPAmdee Жыл бұрын
Can confirm. Loved it!
@johndoepker7126 Жыл бұрын
@@LPAmdee holy crap.....I didn't think you'd actually respond to my comment......an sorry bout misspelling your name...Edit coming shortly!
@AndrewGillard Жыл бұрын
@@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! 😸
@johndoepker7126 Жыл бұрын
@@AndrewGillard !indeed
@kauffmanba Жыл бұрын
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).
@Skvid Жыл бұрын
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
@Benaplus1 Жыл бұрын
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)
@thegreenguy55554 ай бұрын
So would Starship count if it comes back from the Moon or Mars?
@robertf3479 Жыл бұрын
You beat me to it Scott ... I WAS going to ask about Buran but you shortstopped me. Well done sir!
@carrotwine3649 Жыл бұрын
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
@Thayleon Жыл бұрын
"Challenger couldn't be with us to accept the award" Oof
@moisttowlette123 Жыл бұрын
Scott! You left yourself open to pedantry! Technically the shuttle did use parachutes to land! Great video as always though man!
@jamiehollywood7681 Жыл бұрын
Ah, but didn't the space shuttles parachutes open after it had already touched the ground?
@davisdf3064 Жыл бұрын
Its only used to stop faster, otherwise, if they had an infinite runway, it could definitely land itself
@JohnR31415 Жыл бұрын
Used them to stop after landing surely….
@NoNameAtAll2 Жыл бұрын
parachute was added a decade after first flights, iirc
@moisttowlette123 Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@lyricbread Жыл бұрын
1:30 Those shockwaves are absolutely incredible! 😮
@FireStormOOO_ Жыл бұрын
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.
@davebenhart4611 Жыл бұрын
This is the high quality research that I watch this channel for!
@Erasmuspipebagger1 Жыл бұрын
Excellent & In depth as always.
@williamchamberlain2263 Жыл бұрын
Scott gives us a free video to justify his "Well actually...." Awesome
@longlakeshore Жыл бұрын
"So I created a spreadsheet..." Total geek-out central! 😎
@webchimp Жыл бұрын
Needs a crossover with Matt Parker.
@TheWeakLink101 Жыл бұрын
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!
@4077Disc Жыл бұрын
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. :)
@sergey1519 Жыл бұрын
It actually technically rn has much higher relative velocity to Earth's surface
@BigDaddy-yp4mi Жыл бұрын
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.
@johndododoe1411 Жыл бұрын
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.
@jaimeduncan6167 Жыл бұрын
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.
@andrewday3206 Жыл бұрын
@@jaimeduncan6167 How are Spaceship 1 and Spaceship 2 not crewed vehicles that flew in space and landed with wings?
@simongeard4824 Жыл бұрын
@@jaimeduncan6167 Eh, I'd count Buran. It was crew-capable, even if it was uncrewed for its only flight.
@G0RSHK0V Жыл бұрын
@@jaimeduncan6167 Buran is CLEARLY a vehicle
@wxb200 Жыл бұрын
I've seen lots of Space Shuttle Videos, but the video of the Cloud Silhouette Shock Cones was pretty damn awesome!
@ichinichisan Жыл бұрын
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!)
@philipkudrna5643 Жыл бұрын
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!
@kauffmanba Жыл бұрын
Well, it was a good exercise for him to take a break from flight training.
@Trek001 Жыл бұрын
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
@michaelmize1155 Жыл бұрын
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?
@JEBavido Жыл бұрын
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.
@DarkPhoenixDack125 Жыл бұрын
I love the silly, mathematical, mechanical videos that you make. It also made my day that I have the Lego Discovery on my shelf!
@nathnich Жыл бұрын
I just googled it, but the Stardust return capsule at 28,000 mph is the fastest return vehicle ever. That's pretty crazy.
@4077Disc Жыл бұрын
Osiris Rex, due back at the end of September this year, will beat it by a solid measure.
@GaryBleck Жыл бұрын
@@4077Disc Only if we are limiting to earth’s atmosphere. The sun has an atmosphere and Parker Solar probe got in it. 😉
@nathnich Жыл бұрын
@@GaryBleck It's not using aerodynamic resistance to maneuver though or experiencing significant drag.
@trolleriffic Жыл бұрын
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.
@vibrolax Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@lxcien4867 Жыл бұрын
another reason to love the shuttle that won this one (i had to change it not to spoil)…
@weekiely1233 Жыл бұрын
You spoiled it😢
@lxcien4867 Жыл бұрын
@@weekiely1233 oh sorry
@weekiely1233 Жыл бұрын
@@lxcien4867 dw I was memeing
@TheManLab7 Жыл бұрын
2:52 Thats so cool. Just look how much thrust there is to flex everything.
@IMBlakeley Жыл бұрын
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.
@Darkskynet Жыл бұрын
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.
@juliasophical Жыл бұрын
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.
@SoloRenegade Жыл бұрын
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.
@TheEvilmooseofdoom Жыл бұрын
@@SoloRenegade I think the main distinction (at least for the shuttle) is that one is employed TO land the other employs one AFTER landing.
@SoloRenegade Жыл бұрын
@@TheEvilmooseofdoom doesn't matter, they are all parachutes.
@stargazer7644 Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@MrPere94 Жыл бұрын
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
@DaveInPA2010 Жыл бұрын
“…Unfortunately Challenger couldn’t be with us to accept the award tonight…”? Ouch. Too soon.
@mirrenboarish Жыл бұрын
This is the level of research and dedication that everyone should dedicate to the things they post as fact
@tarlneustaedter Жыл бұрын
For slowest, wasn’t there an ATO (abort to orbit) that ran a slower re-entry?
@gordonrichardson2972 Жыл бұрын
Yes, STS-51-F (Spacelab2), but this wasn't the lowest re-entry.
@Deltarious Жыл бұрын
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
@trolleriffic Жыл бұрын
X-15 can't take off under its own power and spends most of its flight as a glider though.
@GrapeFlavoredAntifreeze Жыл бұрын
It’s actually emotional seeing how much older the Columbia and Challenger photos are at 0:21
@redwalsh87 Жыл бұрын
This is the most Scott Manley video ever, love it!!
@suprememaxpayne Жыл бұрын
Does a manhole cover have wings? Just asking
@davisdf3064 Жыл бұрын
Perhaps if it melted into a wing shape
@patrickchase5614 Жыл бұрын
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.
@nikolatasev4948 Жыл бұрын
SpaceX launches geostationary satellites which have 0 deg inclination.
@martinda7446 Жыл бұрын
What?
@jaimeduncan6167 Жыл бұрын
@@nikolatasev4948 yes, but that does not mean the space shuttle reached that inclination, let alone the altitude of geostationary satellites.
@jaimeduncan6167 Жыл бұрын
He means that the Space shuttle could do.
@patrickchase5614 Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@pendexwelding Жыл бұрын
Videos like this are why I love your channel so much.
@SupremeRuleroftheWorld Жыл бұрын
This is the best "SOMEBODY IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET!" Video i have seen in a long time.
@kaltenstein7718 Жыл бұрын
Kilo Feet per second is just a terrible unit of measurement
@zebo-the-fat Жыл бұрын
I like mega furlongs per fortnight!
@davisdf3064 Жыл бұрын
Indeed, he should have measured it by kilofootballcamps !
@stargazer7644 Жыл бұрын
@@zebo-the-fat Damn, I came here to say exactly this.
@MattH-wg7ou2 ай бұрын
There's a video on YT called "Cursed units" thats hilarious. By Joseph Newton.
@RubenKelevra Жыл бұрын
12:28 so if parachutes are not allowed for landing, how is the Space Shuttle the winner?
@juliasophical Жыл бұрын
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.
@johnladuke6475 Жыл бұрын
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.
@roycsinclair Жыл бұрын
The slowest for lifting body would likely be the one where they towed it behind a car.
@kenhelmers2603 Жыл бұрын
Tons of research there Scott, well done lad, well done.
@junkaccount8302 Жыл бұрын
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).
@aspuzling Жыл бұрын
But the Shuttle has engines. It's just when your speed is already Mach 25, you don't really need to turn them on.
@genericguy6382 Жыл бұрын
Deploy the OMS engines
@davisdf3064 Жыл бұрын
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.
@genericguy6382 Жыл бұрын
@@davisdf3064 No, the original post he responded to was talking about planes
@davisdf3064 Жыл бұрын
@@genericguy6382 Yes, but then he decided to talk about aircraft in general
@HeisenbergFam Жыл бұрын
Only the bravest souls will willingly go into a spaceship and risk their lives for space exploration
@gordoncordon9779 Жыл бұрын
That is in Russia, in the west they have silly "safety regulations"
@usncahill Жыл бұрын
The fourth column of the old shuttle data sheets has VI on it under the heading "Launch..., Landing..." with numbers like 25k fps
@ICKY427 Жыл бұрын
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.
@longboardfella5306 Жыл бұрын
Me: that’s a trivial question to answer. Me 13 mins later: ahh that’s why it’s called rocket science
@weschilton Жыл бұрын
Wow Scott, that was a magnificent effort you put in for this! Congratulations to Discovery--my second favorite shuttle! (runs away laughing!)
@rayceeya8659 Жыл бұрын
My favorite will always be Endeavor. The youngest and the one built from all the spare parts left over from the OG program.
@merky6004 Жыл бұрын
I saw Columbia first and third landing. 3rd I Used my 8” telescope. That’s was odd but I managed it. We waited til the crew left and they hauled it away. Leaving on the road out my buddy and noticed we could see the landed shuttle close (ish). Right through the chain link. One chance! So I pulled over and quickly set up the scope. 8” scope is a hell of a monocular. We took turns. I saw people in the cabin flipping switches. Cool. Then I heard my friend go, “Ahem.” I look behind and see a no-small line of hopeful shuttle watchers. They’d seen us and pulled over. Hell Yah! So we let people watch the shuttle up close as much as they wanted. So Columbia was my favorite.
@kuningas7 Жыл бұрын
Starship and SLS might be more powerful but Space Shuttle still has the most exciting launch sequence.
@joh5417 Жыл бұрын
Such a Scott Manley classic :)
@MattH-wg7ou2 ай бұрын
That WB-57 footage was great!
@forrestmorrisey Жыл бұрын
**no one, absolutely no one** Scott: so I plugged all this information into my spreadsheet
@understandingautism1389 Жыл бұрын
I love when you do videos about the shuttle!!
@Thomas..Anderson Жыл бұрын
As always I like the research and sheer enthusiasm behind Scott's videos.
@pcman312 Жыл бұрын
I love that this is basically a video about being nerd sniped by someone on the internet.
@MicrowavedAlastair5390 Жыл бұрын
Now reading through the summary of shuttle missions, found this puzzling comment: -Second time a bat attempted to fly into space on Space Shuttle ET [external tank]; coincidentally Koichi Wakata was on both flights. There is no prior mention of any similar incident. Wikipedia has saved the day. The first bat left when it became apparent that something dangerous occurred, NASA assumed the second bat would do the same, but it probably had a broken wing, and is presumed to have been shaken off and killed in the exhaust plumes.
@vibrolax Жыл бұрын
The 47% of Challenger's recovered remains accepts the slowest entry award from Its resting place in a silo at LC31 at Canaveral Space Force Station.
@KevinJaako Жыл бұрын
Never pick a fight with a man who’s good with spreadsheets.
@BrowncoatInABox Жыл бұрын
Why do I love Scott Manley, he does math that he doesn't need to do just to win an internet argument. That's why
@dhouggy Жыл бұрын
Thanks. Glad to see you getting back to explanatory physics videos!
@kinexkid Жыл бұрын
40 seconds in, I see the answer in the bottom right. Might as well stop it there. Jokes aside, I love when lighthearted pedantics turn into learning something new!
@scottmanley Жыл бұрын
That's what you think.....
@deadpin Жыл бұрын
Yo... that video from return to flight really is awesome footage! @1:10
@MobiusPeverell Жыл бұрын
I cannot understand how a literal rocket scientist could tolerate using so horrid a unit as "kilofeet per second."
@mikebridges20 Жыл бұрын
Scott Manley: the man for which all space nerds say "this guy's a space nerd!" I humbly bow before your Excel nerdiness...
@comet1062 Жыл бұрын
Another fantastically Nerdy vid Scott!! Loved it. My only question is…Dreamchaser?
@tonybaloney3726 Жыл бұрын
Excellent video as always! Thank you👍🏻
@Nethershaw Жыл бұрын
8:52 That is one intimidating spreadsheet, and I've played *EVE.* Barely even any styling. Just stone cold vectors. Sir, you are a madman, and I salute you. Also, DISCO wins. ❤
@Jtnimagery Жыл бұрын
This was an amazing 13 minutes of my life following along with your nerdy research journey. Especially loved the concluding sentences!
@douglaspeale9727 Жыл бұрын
This video needs to be included as an example in the definition of "Nerding out".
@davidioanhedges Жыл бұрын
So the faster aircraft ever is a glider .... This is why I love the Shuttle .... ....I also love the Buran ... that it's one flight, completely automated (something the Shuttle couldn't do) ... nearly beat the Shuttle's record is just icing on the cake ...
@joyl7842 Жыл бұрын
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.
@dsdy1205 Жыл бұрын
That's not heat shimmer, that's the wingtip vortex trailing off the Shuttle's wings distorting the light
@davidcartee2 Жыл бұрын
"But still, had to sure" 9:30 My kind of dude right there.
@lewismassie Жыл бұрын
Very cool that Scott has found that shuttle document. It's my favourite
@StrykerFox Жыл бұрын
You got me excited there for a second there
@methylmike Жыл бұрын
intensely good content mr manley
@squelchstuff Жыл бұрын
The record for fastest winged mammal goes to Space-Bat (STS-119) of course.
@witchdoctor6502 Жыл бұрын
Yay! Discovery! I don't know why, but I'm happy with the result :D
@user-lv7ph7hs7l Жыл бұрын
I'm glad, Discovery is my favourite. Only rocket launch I ever saw was STS 103 to service Hubble, Scott Kelly's first flight.
@CookingWithCows Жыл бұрын
"without deploying parachutes".. wildly gestures at the chutes at the tail of the space shuttles
@Somerandom1922 Жыл бұрын
Before watching it, my guess is that it's whichever shuttle serviced Hubble. I expect that's the highest orbit (although I could be wrong) and so it'd be the fastest when deorbiting. Edit: Dang, I didn't consider inclination!