Right - The whole landing gear situation. I am as confused as you are and caught it before release, this is what I know. The plane ejected its side wheels, the ones on the wings, and then when it landed, as it had much less weight, it used the center landing gears (that were not ejected). hope that makes sense!
On take off, the wings would have been very heavy with Fuel (Need additional support) On landing, the wing tanks would be empty and weigh less (Not need additional support) ^This is likely the reason, why the landing wouldn't need the extra landing gear on the wings.
I find it very interesting that engineers decades ago reached the same dive-to-break-the-sound-barrier solution that I tend to use for space planes in KSP
@@1975KyleDavid Are you stupid? The use of the personal pronoun "I" was the completely correct thing to do grammatically in this situation. Go read a book
Knowing all those (or nearly) futuristic technologies exist today makes this even more saddening. I too wish this aircr... Space machine was built if only as proof of concept so we could have maybe reintroduced such a concept at a later date. Oh this hurts. Thank you so much I had no idea this aircraft was a thing, absolutely love your work 💖
I love the '70s artwork in this one. Reminds me of the amazing and so optimistic Usborne World of the Future books that we had in my primary school library back in the '90s.
@@jonnyq680 And how exactly do those politicians have anything to do with the materials needed to make this spaceplane design simply not existing yet ???
It does have great promise of cost efficiency in wing to thrust kamen ratio,, but remember, since this craft doesn't break into stages, it will require goiing into phases, like morphing wing spands, or it will be too bulky in high orbit and too slow in low thick atmospheres
@@ethiowisdom7721Deep space =/= upper atmosphere. Space planes aren’t simple when you realize that you need multiple types of engines, which means different fuel types. Not only this, but you also have to account for the dead weight of the fuel tanks and wings. There’s a reason why rockets break into segments. Nobody forbade spaceplanes. They’re just so hard to make, and even harder to make cost effective, that all SSTO programs have failed.
just the scale of these idea is mindboggling, The Space shuttle wasn't that big but imagine being asked to design something that would carry 15 times more payload every 6 days 😂
100 tons to orbit is about what the space shuttle launch stack lifts, but 80% of it was dead-weight of the orbiter space plane, lifting only 20 tons payload. That's about the same payload as the Saturn-V or the SpaceX Superheavy/Starship.
@@JFrazer4303 opens the question what would happen if we replace 65t with more payload. Less reusable, but more stuff. Still waiting for the moment they bring some satellite back to surface with the thing. Oh wait... Makes me thing we need a new reusable orbiter that is not only able to bring big things up there, but also at some point bring Hubble back down.
carrying those massive wings into orbit would sure take a lot of fuel! And a lot of area for faults to develop, and each trip has to be human qualified. SpaceX has the answer - as simple as practical and lots of payload.
@@DLWELD Starship has tons of issues - one of them literally, as it is too heavy to lift the proclaimed payload. Plus, even the SPS study acknowledged that the Star-Raker was the high-tech option, and primary lifter concept was two-stage winged.
As someone that's big into energy, it's so great to see someone that is willing to discuss the beautiful future, if everyone finally just got their stuff together.
I love how your videos are so compacted Entertaining and educational on such a resonable time,really great for people who don't have much time in their schedule,keep up the good work
Glad you like them! I really apprecate your loyalty over these last few months, especially through the lockdown :) i hope oneday we can have a proper chat in a stream :)
Microwave energy beams? I seem to recall Sim City or Sim City II having such a power plant system available in-game...along with the disaster of a misdirected beam causing massive fires in your city.
Hopefully we can figure out the SABRE engine concept so that we may one day make a single stage to orbit (SSTO) that makes sense to help act as a catalyst to the commercialization of orbital space visiting spin gravity space stations with labs for zero g ready and even hotels for space tourism. One can dream.
Crazy concept the Sabre engine. Why cool the incoming air? Why not cool the sram or ramjet engine? Since 1950's we now ramjets. Much more proven design
@@albertvanderheiden7419 "some unknown problem"? What the hell are you even talking about right now? Do you even now how these engines work? You sound like you have no idea.
I never quite understand why “big oil” and others in this situation wouldn’t simply buy the competition I.e. fund and profit from giant space solar array
There is no scenario proposed where we don't require the drilling of oil. Oil is used in everything, electricity and fuels are not going to replace oil, ever.
No, rather becuase this was a really naive project done by People that was to over optimistic or lacked the right knowlage. If you want to se oil industry and there supporters throw a fit.. just say nuclear
I just wanna say that the videos have been absolutely brilliant lately man. Your talent and work ethic is admirable but please please don’t feel pressured into making as many videos as you can. I don’t want you to feel burned out or overworked. Thanks again mate
A truly kerbal desing... The way the engines are placed, the cargo bay, the rocket and turbofan mixture, the shape of their wings and even the ascent path "go down to break the sound barrier" RSS SSTO
Calling it a Mach 7.2 Space Plane is like calling an SR-71 a Mach 0.8 plane. There is an extremely challenging difference between Mach 7.2 and orbital speed
@@sebastiaomendonca1477 they can go higher but why? crossing karman line is alreay space... they can go higher to 150 or 600... its space... nothing different. not much gravity... if they like from there they can go moon.
Gerry Anderson approved! Looking forward to more SPS/Shuttle concepts. To think such a radical, even fanciful industry was expected to be created entirely because Americans were afraid of nuclear energy.
Thank our leftists for that. Had we invested heavily in nuclear energy the entire world would have profited by getting safer, more efficient reactor designs. Due to the increased R&D budgets.
@@kdrapertrucker You seem to think that "leftists" opposed Nuclear Power when the problem was that the US chose to build impractical light water reactor designs. The Integral Fast Reactor Program ended as President Clinton & Senator Kennedy were behind ending the program, they are not exactly "leftists" & members of the GOP opposed the costs of the research as well...
18:20 We have nearly infinite power right here on the ground, nuclear energy. A lot of wastes can be made into or eventually decay into other nuclear fuels.
when i watched this video i thought this would be a channel with a few million subs but when im watching this you have 110k more people should subscribe u have awsome vids
One of the concept pictures looks like the stabilizing wing gears are the ones that get jettison and is only used when it has cargo for takeoff then land with the centralized gears like how the U2 has a bicycle Landing gear configuration yet has ejectable wing gear for taxi and takeoffs.
A wide wing craft is very handy to manage with low fuel cost in heavy gravity & thick atmosphere realms, however, such a craft needs to morph into a very smaller or wing-free form to exceed friction & drag at very high velocity, the way wings did below the Kamen to offer a heavy craft, lift. 66% of a rockets zenith fuel burn exponential potential, is curbed by air treminal velocity, plus mass gravity, at just the first 60miles kamen up, ssme supression issue for blades propel & wings above the kamen, the is key to unlocking super fuel SSTO savings. The only thing that will replace these task requirements, is a fuel form rocket engine that will last for a very very long time ( energy thrust engines).
@@WolfeSaber9933 I'm not a "flat earther." I'm just saying Spaceplane boosters are a dumb concept. A reusable rocketship must maximize its fuel-mass fraction to allow for sufficient dV to orbit and to land the rocketship. In other words, a rocketship must be a cylinder. Preferably a fat cylinder. Airplanes are flat compared to a rocketship, even if it's the Guppy. There's a reason that there's no flyback spaceplane boosters, but instead we have a cylindrical flyback booster called "Falcon9" that lands on a tail of fire as God and Heinlein intended. czcams.com/video/DLVsvXVPIrQ/video.html And soon, the fully reusable SpaceX Starship will take Falcon9's place. czcams.com/video/7CZTLogln34/video.html
@@rboosterman9944 You think all planes are flat, flat Earther? Also the jet engines a spaceplane could bypass the first stage booster of a rocket. I have came up with my own spaceplane proof of concept. The use of a B-1B bomber. High fuel capacity and decent cargo capacity makes it perfect for a convention into a spaceplane. Just add rocket engines, more powerful jet engines, RCS, and a heat shield, and you are okay. Also I heard a square shape is better in liquid movement.
@@WolfeSaber9933 "Also I heard a square shape is better in liquid movement." I'm looking forward to Coca Cola and PepsiCo adopting your square DVD case soda container design to replace its bottles and cans. I won't hold my breath for that however. You have your silly "proof of concept," I have actual rocketships landing as God and Heinlein intended. On video: czcams.com/video/DLVsvXVPIrQ/video.html czcams.com/video/7CZTLogln34/video.html czcams.com/video/lXgLyCYuYA4/video.html
@.58 seconds astronauts/ pilots have the requisite lights on the inside of the their helmets which do a great job of lighting the actors face but would just blind you make make getting any work done a lot tougher.
@@foxgaming76yt24 0:15 He said 12 engines, but I caught that there were 13 engines, plus two additional auxiliary engines on top, so actually 15. In the video it also looks like only 10 are on.
Please do a vid on the HOTOL and Skylon spacecrafts, those have fascinated me for years. Their SABRE engine is really cool. People always talk about US and Russian space technology, but very little about European space tech.
So many wonderful occupations that would have been realized. Sure there would have been tragic happenings. But they have and will occure anyway. It's just one of the cost of progress.
Studies show that planes flying through the beam have microwaves bounce off aluminum. Geese loitering in the beam would need several hours to see their blood temp rise a quarter of a degree. The biggest problem is that it would take over a large part of the TV spectrum of RF frequencies.
Your content has been getting better and better. I used to like this channel. I still do but I used to too! Seriously, I turned on notifications so I'll stop being 3 days late to everything.
Better yet, the DC-X, DC-Y (which was killed in favor of the fantastical Lock-Mart proposal for the X-33) and ultimately, a huge SSTO VOTVL cargo lifter. The Lock-Mart proposal was graft & fraud, pure and simple.
@@leebenson4874 Wave drag forms when a shockwave and supersonic airflow interact with changes in an aircraft's shape. That's why most transonic and supersonic aircraft try to be as slender and uniform as possible
The voice over has several errors and some (grating) mispronunciations. I had to give up after a few minutes. To much "gee-whiz" bullshit and oversimplifications.
The British have built an engine that is near testing in flight, after successful ground tests. The aircraft is called the Skylon. There's plenty of videos on YT you can watch about it.
@@davidhollenshead4892 Definitely the engines on the Skylon will be the secret sauce. They need to drastically drop the inlet temperature in a matter of microseconds before it reaches the combustion chamber. Otherwise yeah, this plane reminded me a lot of the Skylon. And I'm still hoping Skylon can get it going. Right now our only hope is SpaceX. Everything else is business as usual using 1960's tech. Except for Blue Origin. They're using 1972 tech. They will never catch SpaceX. I wouldn't mind a duopoly for the near future. SpaceX and Skylon. Maybe there are some applications where Skylon makes more sense. I don't know. But until Skylon gets some real traction, SpaceX is going to eat everyone. With the new Starship, they're looking at launching payloads to the Moon (much higher than low Earth orbit) for about $30/kg. Two things to keep in mind here. 1. A kg is twice as heavy as a pound. 2. That's in 2021 money. If they could do this for $30/kg back in 1979, that would be more like $200/kg today due to inflation. SpaceX is destroying everyone, but I still want to see Skylon beat the odds. C'mon Skylon.
I applaud the research that went into this video and am very impressed with the overall production value. All and all it’s a fascinating look at what might have been. Great work!
There was some text stating it was unclear if the same landing gear was used at take off. The take off gear would need to be much stronger than the landing gear. The difference in fuel weight would mean relatively light landing gear could be used for landing. The heavy gear is dropped after take off and the light gear is used for landing.
More videos like this please. I want to hear about all the other proposed launch systems. You're right, this one does hurt the most. on par with the Venture Star debacle.
When I found my fascination to flying objecs (especially Airplanes, but also kites, boomerangs, hot air balloons... everything that moves through the air) as a 6-8 YO boy arund 1980, I read about hypersonic planes for my first time. It was called the "Sänger Projekt" and looked at least realistic than this one. Since then, around 4 decades and countless other hypersonic projects are gone. Graphics of of the projects are 3D and UHD now, but hypersonic planes are still not existing. Remember: back then, one passenger plane at least traveled in supersonic speed. (The Concorde flew 1969 - 2003)
I caught up and decided "hey, if the Space Freighter is fictional, I can make my own too" and with the H1B1 and convert it into the JU-990, this time I made my lore for it
Probably a secondary set of landing gear, much smaller and lighter than the takeoff set I’m guessing. The vehicle would be substantially lighter on landing after the payload was released and the majority of fuel burned. But what happens with an early in-flight abort after landing gear ejection but before payload release?
Strangely enough, the Nazis had designed several early jet and rocket planes that took off with wheels that fell from the plane as it took off. The recovery was usually on skis, skids or belly landings. Larger space planes will need to have return gear that can be deployed in a standard fashion, since the plane would be considerably lighter on the return trip and can use long standard runways..
"There's no shortage! I don't bee-lieve there's a shortage!" Derps have always been derping, they just seem a lot more abundant in this age of the interwebs.
👍I like these hypothetical space program videos. I thought I knew already all alternative space crafts, which either have been subject of a feasibility study or have been already planed... this one went completely under my radar. 😉
Your videos are really well done. I really appreciate your efforts. Hope this is still occurs in the future or some version of it. Think of the possibilities!
Really loving how your videos keep getting better and better! Just want to comment on one thing, you mentioned the high gamma low alpha re-entry profile of the space shuttle, but even for a space nerd that was a bit of technobabble!
The wing loadig on re entry was much lower than the shuttle and the heat build up also very much lower. So the material to build it with should not be an issue.
20 years later, even with Elon's things, we still need a form of SSTO if we want to both build stuff in orbit, and in the futur explore the stars. Yes SSTO's require a lot of external help (like runways and support on the ground and maybe in the air) but at the end of the day if we want to do any serious space-wise we WILL need a lot in investments anyway.
It's the alternate history where oil prices don't drop. For example Iran-Iraq war spreading over the entire region and affecting then 2/3rds of world oil supply. Bush family political power would be curtailed, and in general tons of developments would have gone differently.
That's just an aux. undercarriage like the U2 has. This still has more landing gear near the centerline of the craft. The aux. undercarriage is only needed when the thing is fully fueled and loaded with cargo, when it returns to earth for landing, it's much much less massive (no cargo, almost or completely out of fuel) so it only needs the main landing gear in the nose and the middle of the craft. Probably wouldn't even land all that fast compared to something like an airliner, since it has MASSIVE wings and when it's landing it's mostly empty fuel tanks and an empty payload bay.
The absolute cheapest way to orbit would be a Space Elevator. A 300 some mile theater that you climb up with a cabin around the outside of the theater. Star trek made an episode about this. The theater can be tensioned by a counter weight on the fare end of it. This would use the least amount of energy to orbit once it is built. However the design challenges would be enormous.
Imagine if the oil crisis continued on a bit longer. We might've had a much smaller problem with emissions. Also, this thing looks seriously cool - too bad it wasn't developed.
You are worried about emissions, yet you want a spaceplanes that would emit more emissions in one mission then al. The cars in the country do in 15 years.
@@kdrapertrucker It was supposed to run on hydrogen and oxygen - which create harmeless water. They would likely be gained by electrolysis, creating a nice feedback loop - the more SPS arrays you build, the more water you can electrolyse, which means you can run more launches...
@@HalNordmann Thermal runaway would negate the gains. The satelittes would be another heatpump for the climate. Consumption of this free energy would have skyrocketed as well. IIRC, 4% of the world, uses 25% of the resources...less consumers, less pollution/crisis is the NWO solution. And it will work. That's the math.
It was actually a really bad idea. Single stage to orbit is a horribly inefficient way to get to orbit. Putting solar panels in space is a really really expensive way to get energy.
Your opinion vs Rockwell, and against NASA and everyone else in the industry who looked into SSPS. All arguments against SSPS use red herrings, ignorance of the concepts, and ignore the scale of the resource and long time scales.
@@kellymartin8090 probably because it was lighter on landing, it could get by with just the outrigger and nose wheels. Jettisoning the heaviest part of the gear after takeoff meant it wouldn’t have to carry the weight of the heavy gear all the way to orbit.
If it is ditched after takeoff it isn't landing gear, it's takeoff gear. Many planes in WW2 had extendable landing skids and took off on wheeled dollies.
@@kellymartin8090 For takeoff you want low friction and low rolling resistance. For landing you want higher friction to act as brakes to scrub off airspeed rapidly. The requirements are contradictory. It makes sense to have really good wheels that allow a heavy aircraft to take off and leave the weight of that gear behind. Landing can then be done on a lightweight skid which can pop out of the airframe in the final approach. Skids need no brakes and need not be strong enough to carry the full weight of the fuel.
Really interesting video, thanks! Just for the record, IMHO, though I certainly appreciate the time and effort involved in doing the conversions, I think you can just stick to metric without alienating many of us (speaking as an American). The conversions are just awkward, especially given that the sizes quoted are so large as to be almost incomprehensible either in standard or metric. Conveying size to your audience is important though, so relating something like "500,000 kg" could be possible if you compare it to, say, the max takeoff weight of an A380 (544,000kg according to a quick google search, I'm not an expert!). Still astronomically huge, but far more relatable. Either way, thanks again, really enjoyed this.
Such a shame this was never built, could've jumped start a second space race and possibly make a huge leap towards even more advanced alternative energy designs.
Right - The whole landing gear situation. I am as confused as you are and caught it before release, this is what I know.
The plane ejected its side wheels, the ones on the wings, and then when it landed, as it had much less weight, it used the center landing gears (that were not ejected). hope that makes sense!
On take off, the wings would have been very heavy with Fuel (Need additional support)
On landing, the wing tanks would be empty and weigh less (Not need additional support)
^This is likely the reason, why the landing wouldn't need the extra landing gear on the wings.
Like a U2, basically.
@@RRRob. not exactly as the landing gear of the U-2 is linear. And they need the side gear so it doesn't tip over
@@wingman3212 I thought the U-2’s outrigger wheels dropped out during takeoff, and were reinserted after landing?
@@RRRob. that is true. But it is because the main landing gear is linear/inline and the wings need support so it don't just tip over
I find it very interesting that engineers decades ago reached the same dive-to-break-the-sound-barrier solution that I tend to use for space planes in KSP
I was goingto say, this looks like one of my KSP creations..
This must have been written by a computer program because of using the pronoun "I" as if it's a possessive pronoun.
@@1975KyleDavid Are you stupid? The use of the personal pronoun "I" was the completely correct thing to do grammatically in this situation. Go read a book
@@1975KyleDavidwhat.....
My grandfather was a Lead Scientist at Rockwell for decades. I wish he was still around to ask him about his!
My grandpa and dad were both engineers at Rockwell
Why. It's easy math. No computers needed.
All you need is a slide rule!
and know how to use it
@@mikesmith1290 Or ants.
Respect
Knowing all those (or nearly) futuristic technologies exist today makes this even more saddening.
I too wish this aircr... Space machine was built if only as proof of concept so we could have maybe reintroduced such a concept at a later date. Oh this hurts.
Thank you so much I had no idea this aircraft was a thing, absolutely love your work 💖
I love the '70s artwork in this one. Reminds me of the amazing and so optimistic Usborne World of the Future books that we had in my primary school library back in the '90s.
Yes I remember!
@@FoundAndExplained Those books were so rad. I found the Star Travel one on Amazon. Just waiting for it to arrive.
Remembering the old L5 society, and the real 4th industrial revolution, space! Everytime I turn the news today all I can do is cry.
I love those books as well used to spend hours dreaming of the exciting future in them im ready for that future!
This is a great example of the nice things we can't have *tear*
God Bless Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Diane Feinstein and all the nice people who know better than we do how to run our lives.
@@jonnyq680 And how exactly do those politicians have anything to do with the materials needed to make this spaceplane design simply not existing yet ???
U could allways pin ur Hope's on skylon tho If it ever flys I would be surprised
@@jonnyq680 Now that's funny!
Not sure an "orbital microwave cannon" would be all that nice.
Wow the animations keep on getting better with every episode
Agreed. Just when you think it can not get any better, BOOM, he does it again!
It does have great promise of cost efficiency in wing to thrust kamen ratio,, but remember, since this craft doesn't break into stages, it will require goiing into phases, like morphing wing spands, or it will be too bulky in high orbit and too slow in low thick atmospheres
Space plane is very simple thing for our time BUT somebody or something forbid them. Even the old Russian fighter jet MIG-31 can flay up to deep space
@@ethiowisdom7721Deep space =/= upper atmosphere. Space planes aren’t simple when you realize that you need multiple types of engines, which means different fuel types. Not only this, but you also have to account for the dead weight of the fuel tanks and wings. There’s a reason why rockets break into segments. Nobody forbade spaceplanes. They’re just so hard to make, and even harder to make cost effective, that all SSTO programs have failed.
just the scale of these idea is mindboggling, The Space shuttle wasn't that big but imagine being asked to design something that would carry 15 times more payload every 6 days 😂
100 tons to orbit is about what the space shuttle launch stack lifts, but 80% of it was dead-weight of the orbiter space plane, lifting only 20 tons payload.
That's about the same payload as the Saturn-V or the SpaceX Superheavy/Starship.
@@JFrazer4303 opens the question what would happen if we replace 65t with more payload.
Less reusable, but more stuff.
Still waiting for the moment they bring some satellite back to surface with the thing. Oh wait...
Makes me thing we need a new reusable orbiter that is not only able to bring big things up there, but also at some point bring Hubble back down.
The wings are massive for something meant to fly that fast
1960s material science, certainly later versions would be less bulky
I mean where else would the fuel go?
carrying those massive wings into orbit would sure take a lot of fuel! And a lot of area for faults to develop, and each trip has to be human qualified. SpaceX has the answer - as simple as practical and lots of payload.
I think if the leading edge is swept back enough, it could have really large wings while still flying fast.
@@DLWELD Starship has tons of issues - one of them literally, as it is too heavy to lift the proclaimed payload. Plus, even the SPS study acknowledged that the Star-Raker was the high-tech option, and primary lifter concept was two-stage winged.
Cool video space travel better develop fast I got places to visit like Uranus
Its pretty easy to go there. Its must be clean tho
I think it’s extremely dangerous and impossible to get to Uranus.
The 60s called, they want their joke back.
@@jamesphelan2520 ah okay here you go.
We won't go anywhere...only our dusty and lethal neighbour...
Saw an artist impression of the Star Raker in a UK newspaper. I've been fascinated by this craft ever since.
As someone that's big into energy, it's so great to see someone that is willing to discuss the beautiful future, if everyone finally just got their stuff together.
I love how your videos are so compacted
Entertaining and educational on such a resonable time,really great for people who don't have much time in their schedule,keep up the good work
Glad you like them! I really apprecate your loyalty over these last few months, especially through the lockdown :) i hope oneday we can have a proper chat in a stream :)
@@FoundAndExplainedwhat a sweet comment.
God as someone who's doing an study as aircraft technician and having a lot of subjects about aerodynamics and stuff this is just an amazing video!
Pro tip: Always give masses in Tonnes.
Thanks. Because for such heavy masses, trying to calculate such a high number is tiresome.
Microwave energy beams? I seem to recall Sim City or Sim City II having such a power plant system available in-game...along with the disaster of a misdirected beam causing massive fires in your city.
Or boiling internal organs.
@@Nordlicht05 What? No, no, no, the documentary Batman Begins tells me human water is not subject to microwaves like sewer water is....somehow.
Fun fact, Reagan's also the reason you have to include imperial measurements, he ended the transition to metric.
I remember highway signs with miles and kilometers and then they disappeared in the early 80s
@David Sasquatch Reagan had a similar concept called the X-30 NASP that was also cancelled
Fun fact, the United States doesn't use Imperial units, it uses the US Customary System and that's calibrated in metric.
My brain hit a tree when you said: "Breaking the sound barrier at mach 6, ..."
Sound barrier is around 700 to 750 mph so he was way off the shallow end.
Making the Kessel Run in less than twelve Mach’s.
Don't you break successive barriers at each Mach level?
@@shauljonah6955 Mach 6 is faster then the speed of sound though?
ramming speed from home to k-mart!
Hopefully we can figure out the SABRE engine concept so that we may one day make a single stage to orbit (SSTO) that makes sense to help act as a catalyst to the commercialization of orbital space visiting spin gravity space stations with labs for zero g ready and even hotels for space tourism. One can dream.
How many days would you want to spend in zero-G realistically?
Crazy concept the Sabre engine. Why cool the incoming air? Why not cool the sram or ramjet engine? Since 1950's we now ramjets. Much more proven design
@@albertvanderheiden7419 cooling the incoming air makes it more dense, it's basically adding another compression stage.
@@MrTaxiRob I will be stunned if air at mach 5 slows down,purified and then burn in rocket chamber and not stall out due to some unknown problem.
@@albertvanderheiden7419 "some unknown problem"? What the hell are you even talking about right now? Do you even now how these engines work? You sound like you have no idea.
This is by far the best Found and Explained Video I know! Great Job!
"Why was it never built?"
Because big oil would have thrown a fit and every single oil lobbyist would fall over themselves to stop this, that's why.
very true!
I never quite understand why “big oil” and others in this situation wouldn’t simply buy the competition I.e. fund and profit from giant space solar array
There is no scenario proposed where we don't require the drilling of oil. Oil is used in everything, electricity and fuels are not going to replace oil, ever.
No, rather becuase this was a really naive project done by People that was to over optimistic or lacked the right knowlage.
If you want to se oil industry and there supporters throw a fit.. just say nuclear
Oil is more than just fuels. Even if we stopped using fossil fuels tomorrow, a myriad of technologies and pharmaceuticals are still dependent on oil.
I just wanna say that the videos have been absolutely brilliant lately man. Your talent and work ethic is admirable but please please don’t feel pressured into making as many videos as you can. I don’t want you to feel burned out or overworked. Thanks again mate
A truly kerbal desing...
The way the engines are placed, the cargo bay, the rocket and turbofan mixture, the shape of their wings and even the ascent path "go down to break the sound barrier"
RSS SSTO
Calling it a Mach 7.2 Space Plane is like calling an SR-71 a Mach 0.8 plane. There is an extremely challenging difference between Mach 7.2 and orbital speed
virgin galactic proved that its possible.
@@Knightfire66 Virgin Galactic's spacecraft don't go orbital, they barely cross Mach 3. Its a completely different thing to orbital spaceplanes
@@sebastiaomendonca1477 they can go higher but why? crossing karman line is alreay space... they can go higher to 150 or 600... its space... nothing different. not much gravity... if they like from there they can go moon.
@@sebastiaomendonca1477 ok ure right... dammn this dude fooled me... xD it was free fall and not real
This is a time when the sea dragon would have a use
I personally prefer a hybrid concept: think, "Star Raker seaplane".
@@mikkelhpanda yes lol
You could probably use the sea dragon to put a space port in space then use the planes to go to the space port
Gerry Anderson approved!
Looking forward to more SPS/Shuttle concepts. To think such a radical, even fanciful industry was expected to be created entirely because Americans were afraid of nuclear energy.
The technological world is slowly awakening to the fact that wherever they go, Gerry Anderson got there first!
Thank our leftists for that. Had we invested heavily in nuclear energy the entire world would have profited by getting safer, more efficient reactor designs. Due to the increased R&D budgets.
@@kdrapertrucker You seem to think that "leftists" opposed Nuclear Power when the problem was that the US chose to build impractical light water reactor designs. The Integral Fast Reactor Program ended as President Clinton & Senator Kennedy were behind ending the program, they are not exactly "leftists" & members of the GOP opposed the costs of the research as well...
@@davidhollenshead4892 its more dumb hippies
@@kdrapertrucker don't confuse misinformed environmentalism with leftism, Adolf.
18:20 We have nearly infinite power right here on the ground, nuclear energy. A lot of wastes can be made into or eventually decay into other nuclear fuels.
when i watched this video i thought this would be a channel with a few million subs but when im watching this you have 110k more people should subscribe u have awsome vids
Yes, it would be fantastic to see a space series from you! I can't wait!!!
One of the concept pictures looks like the stabilizing wing gears are the ones that get jettison and is only used when it has cargo for takeoff then land with the centralized gears like how the U2 has a bicycle Landing gear configuration yet has ejectable wing gear for taxi and takeoffs.
"There's no shortage. I don't BELIEVE there's a shortage."
There's never been a shortage of those type of people.
As there’s never been any shortage of people swallowing governement ”information” like it was candy...
A wide wing craft is very handy to manage with low fuel cost in heavy gravity & thick atmosphere realms, however, such a craft needs to morph into a very smaller or wing-free form to exceed friction & drag at very high velocity, the way wings did below the Kamen to offer a heavy craft, lift. 66% of a rockets zenith fuel burn exponential potential, is curbed by air treminal velocity, plus mass gravity, at just the first 60miles kamen up, ssme supression issue for blades propel & wings above the kamen, the is key to unlocking super fuel SSTO savings. The only thing that will replace these task requirements, is a fuel form rocket engine that will last for a very very long time ( energy thrust engines).
I can see the Saab at 0:31, keep up the good content man!
it was easier to film both episodes on the same day, so forgive me for being lazy.
I caught that too. Real nice touch.
We need Space planes. They have great potential.
Space planes don't work because a plane is flat and rocketships are fat.
@@rboosterman9944 Not all planes are flat, flat Earther.
@@WolfeSaber9933 I'm not a "flat earther."
I'm just saying Spaceplane boosters are a dumb concept.
A reusable rocketship must maximize its fuel-mass fraction to allow for sufficient dV to orbit and to land the rocketship.
In other words, a rocketship must be a cylinder. Preferably a fat cylinder.
Airplanes are flat compared to a rocketship, even if it's the Guppy. There's a reason that there's no flyback spaceplane boosters, but instead we have a cylindrical flyback booster called "Falcon9" that lands on a tail of fire as God and Heinlein intended.
czcams.com/video/DLVsvXVPIrQ/video.html
And soon, the fully reusable SpaceX Starship will take Falcon9's place.
czcams.com/video/7CZTLogln34/video.html
@@rboosterman9944 You think all planes are flat, flat Earther? Also the jet engines a spaceplane could bypass the first stage booster of a rocket. I have came up with my own spaceplane proof of concept. The use of a B-1B bomber. High fuel capacity and decent cargo capacity makes it perfect for a convention into a spaceplane. Just add rocket engines, more powerful jet engines, RCS, and a heat shield, and you are okay.
Also I heard a square shape is better in liquid movement.
@@WolfeSaber9933
"Also I heard a square shape is better in liquid movement."
I'm looking forward to Coca Cola and PepsiCo adopting your square DVD case soda container design to replace its bottles and cans. I won't hold my breath for that however.
You have your silly "proof of concept," I have actual rocketships landing as God and Heinlein intended. On video:
czcams.com/video/DLVsvXVPIrQ/video.html
czcams.com/video/7CZTLogln34/video.html
czcams.com/video/lXgLyCYuYA4/video.html
I don't know what you're talking about but it sounds cool.
@.58 seconds astronauts/ pilots have the requisite lights on the inside of the their helmets which do a great job of lighting the actors face but would just blind you make make getting any work done a lot tougher.
Can you catch all the mistakes in this video? haha oh the joys of a quick production turnaround :)
i don't think president al gore was a mistake. i'm cereal.
Well I know I didn't catch anything
you set those limits yourself
....and a kg is 2.2 lbs so the cost would follow...or metric users get a 50 % discount :)
@@foxgaming76yt24 0:15 He said 12 engines, but I caught that there were 13 engines, plus two additional auxiliary engines on top, so actually 15. In the video it also looks like only 10 are on.
Please do a vid on the HOTOL and Skylon spacecrafts, those have fascinated me for years. Their SABRE engine is really cool. People always talk about US and Russian space technology, but very little about European space tech.
So many wonderful occupations that would have been realized. Sure there would have been tragic happenings. But they have and will occure anyway. It's just one of the cost of progress.
Thank you, this was very interesting!
The satellite power system was in Simcity 2000 and it would occasionally misfire and incinerate part of your city.
Doh! I wondered about that irl w this project.
Studies show that planes flying through the beam have microwaves bounce off aluminum. Geese loitering in the beam would need several hours to see their blood temp rise a quarter of a degree.
The biggest problem is that it would take over a large part of the TV spectrum of RF frequencies.
Ive been waiting for either you or mustard channel guy to cover the star raker awesome vid thank you.
i fear im taking all the best topics :) maybe we can do a collab
Your content has been getting better and better. I used to like this channel. I still do but I used to too! Seriously, I turned on notifications so I'll stop being 3 days late to everything.
A Video on the "X-33 / VentureStar" SSTO would be great as well !
Better yet, the DC-X, DC-Y (which was killed in favor of the fantastical Lock-Mart proposal for the X-33) and ultimately, a huge SSTO VOTVL cargo lifter.
The Lock-Mart proposal was graft & fraud, pure and simple.
Even the Boeing Space Freighter was a good idea.
I just love the quantity of your videos and also without compromising the quality ..👍
Thank you so much 😀
They promised us Star Trek but instead we're getting The Hunger Games.
After watching a number of videos on your channel,I always wondered if there is an alternate universe where these aircrafts,spacecrafts were produced
President Al Gore? In your dreams. My hamster is more relevant.
Your hamster is smarter than the West Texas village idiot we got.
"Wave drag? What the heck is 'wave drag'?" - Rockwell International
I think Wave Drag is the result of a Supersonic Shock Wave when it hits a move object.
@@leebenson4874 Wave drag forms when a shockwave and supersonic airflow interact with changes in an aircraft's shape. That's why most transonic and supersonic aircraft try to be as slender and uniform as possible
When did humanity get so stupid? Google it. Hell even Wikipedia has the right answer. It's like spoon feeding monkeys
@@richardscathouse It's a joke man, calm down.
Thanks for the "For All Mankind Season 3" Trailer at the beginning!
📺 An hour-long documentary 🚀
0:16 are we just gonna ignore that he said 12 engines while the plane in the video has 13 (or 15 if the 2 above are engines too)
There is quite a few booboo's in the voice over as far as technical details are concerned.
The voice over has several errors and some (grating) mispronunciations. I had to give up after a few minutes. To much "gee-whiz" bullshit and oversimplifications.
I guess I was not supposed to see that too...
@@GBooth Gee I like that kind of talk
8:23 ah yes, my favorite space vehicle concept, the S.S. Pacific Princess
Is that so? Personally, I prefer the SSN-23 USS Jimmy Carter for my orbital cargo delivery.
I'm sure Boeing and big oil worked really hard to kill this excellent concept craft.
Thank you Found And Explained I was wating for a video about this space plane, I love your videos, they have unique content on youtube, great work !!
The British have built an engine that is near testing in flight, after successful ground tests. The aircraft is called the Skylon. There's plenty of videos on YT you can watch about it.
However, it is not clear if the engine & its cooling system are practical, yet...
@@davidhollenshead4892 Definitely the engines on the Skylon will be the secret sauce. They need to drastically drop the inlet temperature in a matter of microseconds before it reaches the combustion chamber.
Otherwise yeah, this plane reminded me a lot of the Skylon.
And I'm still hoping Skylon can get it going. Right now our only hope is SpaceX. Everything else is business as usual using 1960's tech.
Except for Blue Origin. They're using 1972 tech. They will never catch SpaceX.
I wouldn't mind a duopoly for the near future. SpaceX and Skylon. Maybe there are some applications where Skylon makes more sense. I don't know.
But until Skylon gets some real traction, SpaceX is going to eat everyone.
With the new Starship, they're looking at launching payloads to the Moon (much higher than low Earth orbit) for about $30/kg.
Two things to keep in mind here.
1. A kg is twice as heavy as a pound.
2. That's in 2021 money. If they could do this for $30/kg back in 1979, that would be more like $200/kg today due to inflation.
SpaceX is destroying everyone, but I still want to see Skylon beat the odds. C'mon Skylon.
They haven't built the engine, just some parts, despite decades of development...
pure vaporware. Not a completed static mock-up engine, let alone a firing test engine.
10:12 Shouldn't $55 per pound should be $121 per kg? Else you're getting double the payload for half the price lol
Do you have two tens for a five?
Would love to see an hour version of these designs!
I applaud the research that went into this video and am very impressed with the overall production value. All and all it’s a fascinating look at what might have been. Great work!
Love the channel. I'd love to see the other concepts and a few of the shuttle ideas as well. Sea Dragon would be interesting too.
More spaceplanes please!
I want to live in this alternate history.
likewise!
Too bad you haven’t covered any of the other rocket designs mentioned. You did ok on this one👍
If it dropped its landing gear after taking off how would it land?
I think he meant the part that supported the huuuuge payload to distribute the weight to the surface same as a 747/C-5
It would land effortlessly , at the scene of the crash.
There was some text stating it was unclear if the same landing gear was used at take off.
The take off gear would need to be much stronger than the landing gear. The difference in fuel weight would mean relatively light landing gear could be used for landing.
The heavy gear is dropped after take off and the light gear is used for landing.
More videos like this please. I want to hear about all the other proposed launch systems. You're right, this one does hurt the most. on par with the Venture Star debacle.
When I found my fascination to flying objecs (especially Airplanes, but also kites, boomerangs, hot air balloons... everything that moves through the air) as a 6-8 YO boy arund 1980, I read about hypersonic planes for my first time. It was called the "Sänger Projekt" and looked at least realistic than this one. Since then, around 4 decades and countless other hypersonic projects are gone. Graphics of of the projects are 3D and UHD now, but hypersonic planes are still not existing.
Remember: back then, one passenger plane at least traveled in supersonic speed.
(The Concorde flew 1969 - 2003)
I caught up and decided "hey, if the Space Freighter is fictional, I can make my own too" and with the H1B1 and convert it into the JU-990, this time I made my lore for it
How does it land if it drops its landing gear on take off? 🤔
That's exactly what I was wondering.
Probably a secondary set of landing gear, much smaller and lighter than the takeoff set I’m guessing. The vehicle would be substantially lighter on landing after the payload was released and the majority of fuel burned. But what happens with an early in-flight abort after landing gear ejection but before payload release?
It only jettisons the outer set of wheels, leaving three land gear to land on...
Strangely enough, the Nazis had designed several early jet and rocket planes that took off with wheels that fell from the plane as it took off. The recovery was usually on skis, skids or belly landings. Larger space planes will need to have return gear that can be deployed in a standard fashion, since the plane would be considerably lighter on the return trip and can use long standard runways..
this was the only action done to decrease weight for the space flight
This looks like something that would start spinning around its Y-axis even before reaching space in Kerbal Space Program.
I bet there's an app for that!
Thanks so much for covering the Star Raker ! Such a fascinating example of far-out thinking - love the designs from this era 👍🍻
Thank you. The drawings were wonderful.
When I saw the Space Freighters beside the Saturn V, it was HUUUGE
This man’s on a roll. Hella based.
"There's no shortage! I don't bee-lieve there's a shortage!"
Derps have always been derping, they just seem a lot more abundant in this age of the interwebs.
👍I like these hypothetical space program videos. I thought I knew already all alternative space crafts, which either have been subject of a feasibility study or have been already planed... this one went completely under my radar. 😉
Your videos are really well done. I really appreciate your efforts. Hope this is still occurs in the future or some version of it. Think of the possibilities!
The engine arrangement really reminded me of another rockwell aircraft: The XB-70
Really loving how your videos keep getting better and better! Just want to comment on one thing, you mentioned the high gamma low alpha re-entry profile of the space shuttle, but even for a space nerd that was a bit of technobabble!
Emperor Palpatine: "Unlimited Power!" Also Emperor Palpatine: "Sorry, wrong video."
The wing loadig on re entry was much lower than the shuttle and the heat build up also very much lower.
So the material to build it with should not be an issue.
The wing going up carried fuel in the lifting volume. Coming down, it was all empty lifting volume.
20 years later, even with Elon's things, we still need a form of SSTO if we want to both build stuff in orbit, and in the futur explore the stars.
Yes SSTO's require a lot of external help (like runways and support on the ground and maybe in the air) but at the end of the day if we want to do any serious space-wise we WILL need a lot in investments anyway.
What's wrong with fully-reusable TSTOs?
Amazing vaporware. I wonder how much was spent on this concept knowing it was never going to actually be feasible.
Everyone: Sky Raker
Ace Combat Fans: Ark Bird
Was plausible up to the moment you mentioned Big Al.
It's the alternate history where oil prices don't drop. For example Iran-Iraq war spreading over the entire region and affecting then 2/3rds of world oil supply. Bush family political power would be curtailed, and in general tons of developments would have gone differently.
1 tiny design oversight. With the under carriage jettisoned on take off. How would it land?
That's just an aux. undercarriage like the U2 has. This still has more landing gear near the centerline of the craft.
The aux. undercarriage is only needed when the thing is fully fueled and loaded with cargo, when it returns to earth for landing, it's much much less massive (no cargo, almost or completely out of fuel) so it only needs the main landing gear in the nose and the middle of the craft.
Probably wouldn't even land all that fast compared to something like an airliner, since it has MASSIVE wings and when it's landing it's mostly empty fuel tanks and an empty payload bay.
The absolute cheapest way to orbit would be a Space Elevator.
A 300 some mile theater that you climb up with a cabin around the outside of the theater. Star trek made an episode about this.
The theater can be tensioned by a counter weight on the fare end of it.
This would use the least amount of energy to orbit once it is built.
However the design challenges would be enormous.
I’m a fan of the really perfect working technology!
Imagine if the oil crisis continued on a bit longer. We might've had a much smaller problem with emissions. Also, this thing looks seriously cool - too bad it wasn't developed.
You are worried about emissions, yet you want a spaceplanes that would emit more emissions in one mission then al. The cars in the country do in 15 years.
@@kdrapertrucker It was supposed to run on hydrogen and oxygen - which create harmeless water. They would likely be gained by electrolysis, creating a nice feedback loop - the more SPS arrays you build, the more water you can electrolyse, which means you can run more launches...
@@HalNordmann Thermal runaway would negate the gains. The satelittes would be another heatpump for the climate. Consumption of this free energy would have skyrocketed as well.
IIRC, 4% of the world, uses 25% of the resources...less consumers, less pollution/crisis is the NWO solution. And it will work. That's the math.
President Al Gore! Imagine where we’d be now if those stupid chads had fallen off.
Almost as funny as "president Hillary Clinton!"
Unfortunately Americans would rather have Dr Evil (Bush)
@@andrewmiller4573 the Iraq war cost an estimated 1.9T US dollars.
loved the super technical talk disclaimer at the bottom left corner helped me feel a little less lost
Please make more videos similar to this. Please make more detailed videos. I thoroughly enjoyed this video.
Well made! :-)
Thank you! Will do! two videos a week
Amazing! I really wish this became a reality. *sad rocket noises*
It was actually a really bad idea.
Single stage to orbit is a horribly inefficient way to get to orbit. Putting solar panels in space is a really really expensive way to get energy.
Your opinion vs Rockwell, and against NASA and everyone else in the industry who looked into SSPS.
All arguments against SSPS use red herrings, ignorance of the concepts, and ignore the scale of the resource and long time scales.
So it ditches the landing gear after take off and yet it lands miraculously on a runway using a landing gear???
as i mention in the video, as far as i can work out it has a seperate landing gear for landings
Then why drop the landing gear at all? Makes no sense.
@@kellymartin8090 probably because it was lighter on landing, it could get by with just the outrigger and nose wheels. Jettisoning the heaviest part of the gear after takeoff meant it wouldn’t have to carry the weight of the heavy gear all the way to orbit.
If it is ditched after takeoff it isn't landing gear, it's takeoff gear. Many planes in WW2 had extendable landing skids and took off on wheeled dollies.
@@kellymartin8090 For takeoff you want low friction and low rolling resistance. For landing you want higher friction to act as brakes to scrub off airspeed rapidly. The requirements are contradictory. It makes sense to have really good wheels that allow a heavy aircraft to take off and leave the weight of that gear behind. Landing can then be done on a lightweight skid which can pop out of the airframe in the final approach. Skids need no brakes and need not be strong enough to carry the full weight of the fuel.
This is such a great video, about what is essentially a humanitarian project we need more than ever. Please release more videos
OIl: *Gets a little expensive*
NASA: "A'ight time for a ring of big ass orbital powerplants supplied by huge spaceplanes"
Really interesting video, thanks! Just for the record, IMHO, though I certainly appreciate the time and effort involved in doing the conversions, I think you can just stick to metric without alienating many of us (speaking as an American). The conversions are just awkward, especially given that the sizes quoted are so large as to be almost incomprehensible either in standard or metric. Conveying size to your audience is important though, so relating something like "500,000 kg" could be possible if you compare it to, say, the max takeoff weight of an A380 (544,000kg according to a quick google search, I'm not an expert!). Still astronomically huge, but far more relatable. Either way, thanks again, really enjoyed this.
Investing in crypto now should be in every wise individuals list, in some months time you'll be ecstatic with the decision you made today.
Most intelligent words I've heard.
I wanted to trade Crypto but got discouraged by the fluctuations in price
@@jackcastillo2381 That won't bother you if you trade with a professional like Mr Travis Scott
I heard that his strategies are really good
@@stephengraham3062 My first investment with Mr Travis Scott earned me profit of over $250,530 US dollars, and ever since then he has been delivering
Such a shame this was never built, could've jumped start a second space race and possibly make a huge leap towards even more advanced alternative energy designs.
“There’s no shortage. I don’t BELIEVE there’s a shortage.”
God. People never change, do they?