Enter your query, example: how not cry when slicing onion or how to enter an Free Italian Sex Webcams?
Next usa shuttle launch Videos
- 1. First Space Shuttle Launch - STS-1 (1981)
- 2. Space shuttle launch HD
- 3. USA: SHUTTLE DISCOVERY READY FOR LAUNCH DESPITE MIR GLITCH
- 4. USA: SPACE SHUTTLE COLUMBIA LAUNCH
- 5. Space Shuttle Challenger STS-51L Launch And Explosion
First Space Shuttle Launch - STS-1 (1981)
STS-1 was the first orbital flight of NASA's Space Shuttle, launched on 12 April 1981, and returning to Earth 14 April. Space Shuttle Columbia orbited the Earth ...
User Comments
jonathan401
commented
on 27 Feb 2016
Meanwhile, while our nation's infrastructure crumbles, let's spend billions
of dollars on manned space flight, simply because it's neat-o. Oh, that's
right, I forgot, we got velcro out of it.. *facepalm*
VivaLaEmil1
commented
on 18 Mar 2016
+jonathan401 Why dont you say that about military, much more money go there but military also brought us many good things in our daily life... And I think there is only like 4% of the tax money going to space research etc in USA lol
Michi G
commented
on 04 Mar 2016
Space science also does a lot of research in medical and energy related issues. If you did a bit of research on your own (googling), you could figure it out by yourself how much bs your comment is. facepalm
jonathan401
commented
on 29 Feb 2016
+zudemaster What if we'd put all that money and research into alternative energy, medical research, and universal healthcare directly? I'd gladly trade all those technological conveniences for energy independence, sustainability, a cleaner environment, and better overall health. But hey, at least we showed those dang Russians who's boss..
Gagan Baath
commented
on 29 Feb 2016
+jonathan401 Meanwhile the idiot uses the internet, made possible through space exploration, to tell the world why space exploration is useless.
zudemaster
commented
on 28 Feb 2016
+jonathan401 Where would your internet be without the technology from the space program? Cell phones? Satellite TV? And those are just convenience items. Not to mention all of the medical research that has spun off from the space program. Facepalm............
riley Lyman
commented
on 22 Feb 2016
NASA fakery. Toy rockets with no passengers.
Cedrick Corrales
commented
on 14 Mar 2016
+riley Lyman can you please go to the next place of the SLS rocket and burn yourself under the engines you fucking retarded shit. earth wouldn't want a retard to replace a genius.
Gagan Baath
commented
on 29 Feb 2016
+riley Lyman You're the type of guy who believes space shuttles are fake, but the illuminati is definitely 100% real.
sam nofel
commented
on 30 Jan 2016
God may bless my beautiful nation the USA. long live the USA the greatest
nation in the world. peace....
Adam Borseti
commented
on 14 Mar 2016
+Audioquest56 Oh, is that it? LOL Well, it's always the safest at the center of the empire.
Audioquest56
commented
on 14 Mar 2016
+Adam Borseti Typical American centrist view of the universe.
Adam Borseti
commented
on 14 Mar 2016
+sam nofel Greatest nation on Earth? Care to explain how you came to that conclusion?
Guitarfollower22
commented
on 06 Feb 2016
+sam nofel except being ruined by Obama and if Bernie Sanders gets elected, well then RIP USA...
Waffles
commented
on 24 Sep 2015
Lie this was not the first true space ship, the Russians also had a space
shuttle which was actually used way before the use of ours.
Rubertoe
commented
on 09 Dec 2015
+DD Brock2 It was WAY more versatile since you can launch the boosters on their own (Zenit rocket), the rocket core with four booster and another stage on their own (Uragan, which would have been the most powerful rocket ever with a capability of170 tons to orbit) or the core stage with only two boosters on their own (Energia-M) so it had four possible configurations instead of one.
DD Brock2
commented
on 30 Sep 2015
+Simon Birk Energia was a self contained heavy lift rocket designed to launch a variety of payloads into space, not just Buran. The boosters were part of it's design, and were liquid fuel rockets, not solid fuel rockets like the STS. It was entirely expendable, though.Buran actually had a better payload capacity because it had no engines of it's own, but as you said, it wasn't as versatile as the US Shuttle. The Soviets sure didn't think so at any rate...
Simon Birk
commented
on 30 Sep 2015
+Simon Birk However I'm not really sure about it I haven't really read about the Buran recently so I'm pretty much going off of memory I'll go look it up now. Proof that the Space Shuttle is better than Buran: Buran has no beanie cap. :P
Simon Birk
commented
on 30 Sep 2015
+DD Brock2 The payload bay on the Buran was slightly larger though. However it wasn't nearly as well built. instead of having an external tank, the Buran was just attached to a huge rocket and its two boosters which if I'm correct I think were just four little attached boosters on the corners of the main one.
DD Brock2
commented
on 30 Sep 2015
+Waffles "It did have more boosters tho" That's comparing apples to oranges. The Soviet Energia rocket was a totally different launch system. The orbiter didn't have any engines like it's US counterpart, and may have actually been a better idea.Look, all I'm saying is do some reading on the subject, because it is obvious to anyone who has read up on this that you haven't.
DD Brock2
commented
on 30 Sep 2015
+Simon Birk No, indeed it wasn't. Buran was designed primarily for military applications.
Waffles
commented
on 30 Sep 2015
It did have more boosters tho
Simon Birk
commented
on 29 Sep 2015
+DD Brock2 Buran and wasnt nearly as flexible in terms of flight path and engine dependency.
Waffles
commented
on 29 Sep 2015
+DD Brock2 wutever keep thinking that
DD Brock2
commented
on 29 Sep 2015
+Waffles Lucky for me I am right. Facts are funny that way...
Waffles
commented
on 29 Sep 2015
All i hear is bla bla bla im right bla bla bla
DD Brock2
commented
on 29 Sep 2015
+Waffles You need to check.your facts. It is a matter of historical record the Soviets began development on their shuttle as a direct response to the US Shuttle, and in fact they obtained the plans for the Space Shuttle through a very early form of "internet espionage", if you will.The Soviet program began in 1974, two years after the US program finalized the design. Columbia began construction in 1975, five years before the Soviet shuttle ( which you still haven't given the name for).You really want to keep going?
Waffles
commented
on 28 Sep 2015
But still explain why the Soviets began construction on their shuttle in 1980 but ours was not commissioned until 1981. They had their design laid out a whole year before we even commissioned our space shuttle.
DD Brock2
commented
on 28 Sep 2015
+Waffles umm, no, the Soviet shuttle didn't fly until the late 80's, and then only once. Pop quiz, what was the Soviet shuttle called?
Eliran Cohen
commented
on 28 Sep 2015
+Waffles moron ... that wasn't a space shuttle, space rockets are not space shuttles, shuttles can go back to earth and then being relaunched, Russians did not have any kind of shuttle at the time.
Space shuttle launch HD
"Atlantis" is on service NASA of 26 years. The ship was put into operation of NASA in April, 1985, and the first flight made in October, 1985 for the Ministry of ...
USA: SHUTTLE DISCOVERY READY FOR LAUNCH DESPITE MIR GLITCH
English/Nat Officials of the U-S space agency NASA said on Monday they're ready to launch the Space Shuttle Discovery for a final link up with Russia's Mir ...
USA: SPACE SHUTTLE COLUMBIA LAUNCH
English/Nat U-S space shuttle Columbia blasted off into history at 12:31 am local time (0431 GMT) on Friday, successfully lifting off after two previous delays this ...
Space Shuttle Challenger STS-51L Launch And Explosion
On January 28, 1986 despite the warnings of engineers not to launch in freezing temperatures, NASA management chose to launch Space Shuttle Challenger.
User Comments
Pablogonzae
commented
on 26 Feb 2016
Do you erase every comment in spanish?
Martin Bentura Vecinday
commented
on 10 Apr 2016
+Pablogonzae estoy aqui por tu video :V
jhon perez
commented
on 07 Mar 2016
+Pablogonzae he tio pablo te cache jejeje saludos :3
Adolf Hitler
commented
on 28 Feb 2016
que dices Pablo ?!ti tengo un buen ingles jajaja saludos
BNSF1995
commented
on 12 Feb 2016
Alright, let me clear something up: there was NO explosion. From a layman's
perspective, it looks like one, but some research will show that the stack
didn't explode, it disintegrated.
Basically, it went like this: the burn-through causes the ET to rapidly
lose pressure, and caused a strut failure, while also ripping the lower
part of the tank open, essentially spilling its contents. The left SRB
pulled free from the ET, and threw the entire stack broadside into the
airstream. A *MACH-2* airstream. Abnormal g-forces pushed Challenger and
the ET beyond stress tolerance, and tore them apart. Yes, there are a few
flashes visible, but by then, the deed was done.
Had there been an explosion, it would've been fiery, there would've been a
shock wave, a loud bang would smash windows over a several-mile radius, the
SRBs would not have escaped unharmed and likely fueled the explosion, and
the crew would be vaporized or at least their remains would be burned
beyond recognition. An explosion of the shuttle also likely would have put
an end to the program, or at least keep the other shuttles grounded longer
and lead to the Shuttle-C actually being developed.
Is This Nikko?
commented
on 01 Mar 2016
+BNSF1995 The shuttle was at 65,000+ feet, that's equivalent to 18+ km from Earth, or 11+mi from Earth. A space shuttle uses liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen as fuel whilst the boosters use kerosene (I think). The explosion would not have been big enough to create a shockwave. However, your theory can be valid. A shockwave, as it travels through air, creates loud cracks or snaps. Even if the "crack" did not make it to the ground, it should have at least given off some conventional sound. Unless, the heat and the air stopped the linear wave of a shockwave.
Todd Jones
commented
on 06 Feb 2016
Could this have been a conspiracy? Notice how the camera zooms directly
into the space shuttle seconds before the explosion as if in an attempt to
let everyone get a close up view.
Is This Nikko?
commented
on 02 Mar 2016
+Todd Jones Yeah.
Todd Jones
commented
on 01 Mar 2016
No I get that totally you completely missed the point I was making. That most likely I'd the case but I just simply found it coincidental that the cameraman would just happen to give us that closeup angle the second the shuttle explodes.
Is This Nikko?
commented
on 01 Mar 2016
+Todd Jones OR because the cameraman was doing his job in providing the audience a proper and better view of Space Shuttle Challenger ascending into orbit. Whichever one is more rational...
Eli S. Ramirez
commented
on 17 Jan 2016
Hehe sorryyy but ACCESS DENIEEED. Hahaha. You can't pass the dome. The
earth is flat and noone can go to outer space. There is the evidence.
hahaha
Is This Nikko?
commented
on 01 Mar 2016
+Eli S. Ramirez Lmao I don't get your logic. You believe that NASA lies. Yet you think that NASA will actually release this on TV? That is, if the Earth is actually flat. A kangaroo is a lot reasonable than your logic mate.
Eli S. Ramirez
commented
on 17 Jan 2016
+Brandon Luco I follow science. What I dont follow is the stupid NASA propaganda. This are not my own assumptions. Is been tested by real people that the earth is flat and you can't go in to outer space. There are no satelites in spaces, no mars, no jupiter, and much less there is a mercury. There is not one real picture of any of this planets or any real picture of the earth from outer space. And you are the one Who lacks the intelligence to question the so called "experts". You don't have the guts to ask questions based on your observations. How can the sun rays make a triagle when clouds cover the sun if the sun is so far away? That effect could not be posdible if the sun is 93,000,000 miles away. Connect your eyes with your brain. Cant you see how close the sun is? When you get in to an altitude of 60 miles the sun is visible everytime. The earth never moves. Go watch the videos your self. Stop watching the made up pictures by nasa. Go watch the real deal. A person throwing a ballon with a camera and from a certain altitude the ballon explodes because of the dome.
Brandon Luco
commented
on 17 Jan 2016
+Eli S. Ramirez Honestly I beg of you to stop making your own assumptions, it's obvious you don't follow science. If you followed science you would know there is no solid proof of a god, we live on a spherical planet, the moon is evidence of how all large satellites and planets can only be round so maybe try looking up for once. People like you hold back science, you make up bullshit and state it as fact when you clearly lack the critical intelligence to make such an assumption. Stop, stop, stop making shit up to appease your fantasy world, no matter how much you believe your own bullshit it still will never ever ever be true because facts are facts, deal with it.
Eli S. Ramirez
commented
on 17 Jan 2016
+Brandon Luco Hahaha Which evidence? The many pictures of NASA of the world which none of them are equal? Go check for your self all the different pics they have that all of them have differences. The continents have many sizes depending on the pictures. Go watch your little video and check the video for the things im telling you. The rocket never goes straight up, they always decline till they are almost horizontal. Then, once they get to a certain altitude they stop transmiting. Is all a fake. They cant go pass the dome hahaha. God wont let them. Everytime this idiots launch a rocket, God is laughin at them all tbe time.
Brandon Luco
commented
on 17 Jan 2016
The proof is there, the world is round, stop denying the real truth so you can live in your strange fantasy land. Tomorrow you should watch the SpaceX rocket launch and watch their rocket breakthrough your invisible "dome".
Eli S. Ramirez
commented
on 17 Jan 2016
+Brandon Luco I understand your denial. This is,to much truth for you. Such reality could turn you crazy if you are not strong enough to accept the facts.
Eli S. Ramirez
commented
on 17 Jan 2016
+Brandon Luco There is not one NASA rocket video showing any rocket flying straight up to space. All rockets start declining from a certain point and once they get to a certain altitude they cut the transmission. If they go straight up they know the rocket will explode once it hits the dome.
Eli S. Ramirez
commented
on 17 Jan 2016
+Brandon Luco No my friend. I think you are the one that still has his cables connected to the matrix. Look the empirical evidence first and then you can talk.
Brandon Luco
commented
on 17 Jan 2016
+Eli S. Ramirez Holy shit you've been wearing the tin foil for a little too long buds.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on fsaved.com.
Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Already have an account? Sign in to comment