Space shuttle lands on LA 

Zero. You dont list the name of the movie. Unless the title is "Space shuttle lands on LA" COME ON

The Core @@tazanteflight8670

@@tazanteflight8670 I am no them but "The Core"

The Core is my favorite movie.@@Roseneck12

-10/10 I feel robbed having watched this sinful scene. The rest of The Core is no better. A movie heavily dependent on science get's exactly none of it right.

i'm dead ☠

That would have taken a massive crane to lift out of there

@@aucoinroland9072 He said fly over, not land. The stadium is too small to make for a runway, so it would've just crashed otherwise, killing everyone there. Also, *would have taken. Sorry.

I bet the fans will be having the best flyover show the have seen in their life.

Must be a real stinker.

@@dorbie It's a Science FICTION movie, if you accept that its FICTION it's ok, certainly not the worst I've seen

@@davidorf3921 I like science in my science fiction to be grounded in reality, that's the point of it. Otherwise it's just fantasy fiction, which is OK, but sci-fi as a genre exists and is popular because of its futurism and potential plausibility. Clearly we have different standards. The real problem with his kind of Hollywood garbage is it starts with a director saying "I want the Space Shuttle to crash land in downtown LA." and works back from there. So you get a load of implausible fantastic nonsense to get to that point, and the more you know the more BS it is. Yes the rest of the movie is spectacularly worse, but a turd in a cesspool is still a turd. For you this swill might be entertaining, for me it's not & calling it science fiction doesn't excuse it, it just insults real science fiction.

@@dorbiei remember the waves of NASA based science fiction movies that we got for a while ten years ago. It was very boring to me. The Expanse was the series to get me back into it, since it was the most realistic thing around without being all “we could build it today if we wanted”. This movie, the Core, has a train made in a special heat-absorbing metal that can go down to the center of the Earth, it’s not the best movie, but it had some cool ideas and designs.

@@dorbie Can you not just sit there and enjoy the spectacle of a movie about a made up scenario? I mean, it is a sci-fi movie. They do not need to be realistic, in the slightest. Sure, its cool if there is some real science behind it but if not, who cares?

LOL I KNOW

I like that the sectional shown repeatedly shows all the friggin airports around and they just ignore them for the freeway…

@@davidkamerath7749 RIGHT THEY WERE COMING FROM THE WATER LIKE BEST OPTION IS DEF 07'S OR 06'S OF KLAX NOT THE FUCKING RIVER

or ontario, or ANYTHING but the river

​@@davidkamerath7749 Shuttle needed a special 15,000' runway to land on. Longest at LAX is 11,000'. Not that it makes the canal landing more realistic, but it at least tells you why the airports weren't considered.

It’s funny how i was doing some stunts on the LS canals earlier using a Mallard plane

I was waiting for someone to mention that

at least they landed close to the spawn point and can just call another plane to get out of there

What movie was this?

@@mediawarrior5957 The Core, 2003.

You do realize this isn’t a Hollywood thing, right? This type of quick response is clearly common during emergency airliner landings. Whenever a plane performs an emergency landing, firefighters and/or police/soldiers are always arriving right when the plane stops.

🤣

Nah, NASA has enough budget to pay for the Deluxe Express package.

That wasn't the fire department showing up. That's just the normal sound of the area

Lol

But first, he must Journey to the Center of the Earth on a Fantastic Voyage. ... ... ...I can dig it. Ba Dum, Tish.

@@dmadd4643Well you don’t know, what we can see, why don’t you…

Actually the shuttle enterprise was 70s 80s it retired when challenger and Columbia were entered into service

@@tylerbuckley4661Starship Enterprise

​@@tylerbuckley4661 he doesent mean THAT enterprise He means THE enterprise

I had the same thought 🤣🤣🤣

Sir you can't park there

I actually watched the space shuttle being towed by a Toyota pickup down exposition Blvd. Probably stalled in traffic?

damm throughout my 20 years spent at NASA I never knew the shuttle had a navigator. 😂😂

@@sidv4615 You should if you worked at NASA, their console is two rows down from the flight director next to guidance.

Wasn’t the shuttle crewed by civilians?

@@damienkramer yeppp. They were either ex-military or had always been civilians. But maybe in the movie it was a military mission

@@sidv4615 maybe, but I’m still not sure why they didn’t even mention an attempt at landing at LAX since a flight path that takes them from the coast over dodgers station (stadium) would place them not far from LAX

The shuttle glided so poorly that the test vehicle used to mimic it was a gulfstream 2 jet with the rear landing gear permanently deployed and the engines put in reverse!

how bad is it compared to the F-4 phantom

That's why Naval Aviators always made the best shuttle pilots ;)

@@AntonDVasiliev-ss1ie Should be way worse. The phantom had a glide ratio of 3:1. So for every 3 feet forward you go 1 feet down. The shuttle? It depends on the speed. While hypersonic it was 1:1, in supersonic flight (about 100k feet up) it was 2:1, and subsonic it is 4.5:1 So about 50% worse, than the F-4 phantom. It is not without reason, that all pilots had a firm belief, that a box in which the space shuttle could be placed into had a better glide ratio than the shuttle itself.

The story I got is the shuttle flew like a cow, upon reentry it flew like a drunken cow

it was on the ground in this scene however. might nit be able to fully retract but it should be able to collapse in under the weight of the shuttle if whatever locks the gear is unlocked

@@randomstuff-cu4of if you look at the final scene it was standing with landing gear fully extended again, so it would've had to retract then redeploy for the 'science' to be accurate

@@randomstuff-cu4of I don't think it was possible to unlock the gear from the cockpit.

Fun fact, this is also entirely bullshit. They were retractable, just not in flight. The shuttle was rated for 100 flights. The landing gear was indeed retracted each time, obviously. The main deployment method is hydraulic. One cylinder to release the latch, another to push them down. No way to unlock it in flight. Should they lose hydraulic the gear also had a pyrotechnic charge to blow the latch and gravity used to pull them down. To stow them, it requires additional steps. Namely, releasing the booster spring. Which cannot be done from the cabin. This scene is pure crap. Especially when we see the shuttle with the gear extended at the end. A proper landing would be set it up over the ocean and the crew to all bail out. A landing like this would never be attempted.

@@skylerjr2648 While there is a brief shot showing them traveling east over the ocean, a few cuts later they are traveling south, flying at low altitude over the stadium. This doesn't really make sense, but whatever. At some point before the stadium show, an ocean landing became impossible. Had the production picked a non costal city, it would have been impossible even outside continuity errors. Clearly the point of the scene is that an ocean ditching wasn't possible, which leaves them with this, or a crash. Bailing out 5-6 of the 7 crew is still something I'd have done, but there was no autopilot. This was the pilots only hope.

A new fly over

Well he’s probably fucked from the hypergolic fuel that shuttle uses for RCS.

@@RappinPicard well... it's only cancer in a few decades time right?? nothing wrong with getting to live the high life meanwhile....

More like within hours because the RCS system uses MMH and NTO and it’s really toxic just in general. Not in a “you’ll get cancer in 20 years,” but like “you will need to go to the hospital right away.”

@@RappinPicard Only if it leaks, or if the pilot was using the RCS to help brake. Vacuum does not leave residue of liquids on surfaces, nor does reentry. I know Boeing was a contractor for the Shuttle but in those days their shit didn't leak.

"oh and my co-workers left me for dead, so I quit" Seriously, they did ditch him to save themselves. I would yell at them, then quit, if I was in his place.

Foreshadowing maybe...

The movie assumes the Endeavour was set to land at Edwards AFB, not KSC. Edwards itself is just outside of Los Angeles (near Palmdale/Lancaster) What it would have done is give the automatic navigation a false bias, pointing the craft at the wrong angle when doing its deceleration burn. Change the angle of the burn, you change the flight path. And since the burn takes place on the other side of the planet, it doesn't take more than a foot or two of delta-V to get the path to shift from Edwards to Los Angeles.

Ackchyually 🤓

@@k1productions87 the shuttle has a huge cross range capability, you would have to royally screw up entry to be that short of edwards, a magnetic field shift would not do this

@@nikelinq2899 assuming you catch it in time. By the time they realized where they were, they were already at 15,000 ft. The "flying brick" absolutely cannot recover from that. Especially not with a 100-150 ft/s descent rate

@@k1productions87 they still have more than enough energy to make it to a runway, or ditch into the ocean as per procedure

Pretty sure he’s thinking if they lose the tail they lose air brakes

Its entertaining but not accurate. The shuttle has a large cross range capability (upwards of 1000km), several redundant guidance systems. you would have to ROYALLY fuck up to be that short of Edwards (as in somehow bleeding all of your velocity and altitude ) there are many runways it can land on (its minimum safe distance is 8530.184ft, or 2600 meters)

Oh its a line I use quite often whenever I fly, LOL

I read your comment just as he said that

Just like watching the "Mighty Mo" drift in Battleship... Complete BS, but oh, so much fun to watch...

Yeah, some films, like this and 2012, are just good escapes no matter the BS depicted.

​@@k.chriscaldwell4141 being an escape movie is why it did not land at LAX, diversion to a long runway is no where near as fun as the car chase river in LA.

Kirk is in the back with spock

He was also the CEO of the robot company in I, Robot.

​@@cashewnuttel9054and the voice of "Overlord" in MW3

Really though can't we throw Cincinnati, Kansas City, or Phoenix a little bit of love.

And Paris, France.

@@edhanson8214 that's right the Eiffel Tower always seems to be in harms way too

This is one of the few movies where Rome gets its chance at destruction

If it's another country it only ever happens in the capital city.

It was Washington Dulles, but thanks for playing.

To bad the Endevor has to be in that commie controlled shithole.

The sonic booms would have occurred at a far higher altitude than shown when over the stadium.

That’s actually addressed at 2:34 in the video.

Maybe twice that speed

When the Shuttle drops to subsonic, the shock wave pulls ahead of it. If the Shuttle is high enough, the boom will be heard by a listener as the Shuttle passes overhead. If you watched the coverage of the first Shuttle landing the sonic boom was heard by the observers as the Shuttle was making its final approach.

You say that as if it.. actually happened?

Only on Airplane, lol!

Striker!!!

I think it was already "kind of crashed"!?!

When "hydroplaning at 300 knots" is your current best option you just might

Bruce Greenwood. Excellent actor.

Putting aside the absurd science in this movie (which I do enjoy), this scene in particular is my favourite.

It's a movie, enjoy it.

Especially since the venting hydrazine probably would have killed him a few seconds later.

@@cmalberts true but remember this is a Hollywood bs movie where the land of lies happens on a set if that were me on that scaffolding I would have many skid marks in my undies plus a major heart attack in real life to worry about some chemical I would have be already toast lol

@@cmalberts Why would they vent hydrazine? I know Boeing was a contractor, but in those days their stuff didn't leak.

@digitalnomad9985 historically the shuttle couldn't be approached on foot or exited for at least 30 minutes after wheels stop until the scene had been ventilated

@@cmalberts only a movie but I remember that the shuttle had to be decontaminated before the crew could leave it

The Core. It's a disaster movie. Wonderfully cheezy😊

Is the gear an actual one time deploy or do you just mean on the ground

@@nefarioulyte9996 I mean per flight. The refurbishment team were the only ones who could put the gear back in the fuselage I believe. The wear and tear on these machines is insane.

LA-X is to small, also due to the earths magnetic field, it screwed up all instruments, making them off course.. but in reality.. due to the events of September 11, 2001, the crew was not allowed to film at LAX. The scene was therefore rewritten with Endeavour landing in the L.A. River.

@@duomaxwell2293 dodger stadium to lax is maybe 14 miles as the crow flies...at 300 knots and 15,000 feet they could have ditched in 20 feet of water at el segundo

Probably should have tried for Edwards, might had enough to reach Palmdale.

@@shepardbook if they were dropping at 300 knots and 15,000 feet at dodger stadium and barely made the LA river.....el segundo was a better chance...the San Gabriel mtns (average 10,000 feet plus ) were between chavez ravine and edwards afb

LAX wasn't ever an official alternate or emergency landing site - probably because Edwards and Vanderburg AFB's are both so close by, far less busy, and designed for shuttle landings - indeed, the first shuttle landing from orbit happened at Edwards AFB. There's not much to hit and plenty of open space in the middle of the desert on a dry lake bed, after all. That said, all but one of LAX's runways are at least 3KM long, which is the minimum distance needed - so it would be absolutely possible. One does wonder why they didn't consider Hollywood-Burbank: its runway is only 500m short, and they could have used the chute. But, then again, no one ever gives Burbank the love it deserves.

The runway is too short, and the space shuttle is a brick that makes it a stretch to say that it glides. They would have gained way too much speed to drop down fast enough to attempt a landing at LAX even before considering the runway length. It just isn't feasible to even consider it.

@@OfficialMageHDWhile I agree that LAX is unsuitable as a shuttle landing site, it’s competition was the LA river. Given the choice, I know which one I’d feel most confident making a controlled crash at. Range might have been a problem though. They cross Dodger stadium flying south (in spite of approaching LA from the west???) and land around 7th street, 3 miles away. LAX is 12.8 miles away, and poorly lined up.

Shuttle was supposed to be able to land at Vandenberg AFB just outside of LA. Real question is why it took until they were 100ft off the ground to notice they were in the wrong place.

The only option would be line it up over the ocean and the crew to bail out. Ditch it. LAX is such a clusterfuck that trying to clear a runway is a challenge of it's own. It's unlikely it had a good angle to line up any airport, even LAX. Too much risk. Saying the shuttle glides is giving it too much credit. It really is just falling with so much horizontal velocity that it falls forward. You re-enter the atmosphere with the correct angle or you bail. It has to be within 1 or 2 degrees of perfection. You have very little course correction once in the atmosphere.

they had already by passed a landing vector for the flying brick that is the shuttle based on speed and trajectory as soon as they confirmed downtown LA to get LAX. The Space Shuttle flies as a glider during reentry and landing so there is no way to "go around" to bleed speed and altitude

Whoaaa. So you mean to say that a movie about a group of people using a giant drill to dig into the earth’s core and launch nukes into it is unrealistic? I’m shocked.

See my comment about the REAL incident during the filming of Airport in 1970.