@@timbermicka well you’re going to have the same inexperience with reusability after Ariane 6 as you would now. I just don’t understand why would you start development on a non-reusable rocket when you have the resources and proof that it would be smarter to go the reusable route…
This is really some beautiful work! If you zoom in during first stage separation and while the payload shroud is being jettisoned it looks about as real as you can get. At that altitude you can even see atmosphere between the launch vehicle and the ground just as you would with terrestrial based optics! Yes, the exhaust plume needs some work - that must really be difficult considering you didn't absolutely nail that - but given time I'm sure you'll figure it out. Thank you keep them coming they're very enjoyable. 👍
I would love to see this fly. I remember when this was being actively discussed a few years ago, the idea being it could be stuck on the bottom of A6 and its variants while other reusable options were being explored.
@@paulschlusser1085 It's a balance between mass, cost and the fuel needed to bring back the important bits. Falcon 9 needs to keep a certain amount of fuel in its tanks in order to land successfully. That limits the mass of what it can launch. and which orbits it can reach. Why you get Falcon 9 launched in expendable mode. The idea behind Adeline was, since you only need to bring back the really expensive bits, you don't need to account for the mass of the fuel tanks so you don't need as much fuel to get back as F9. Since it can fly and land on a standard runway by itself, it doesn't need to do a suicide burn, such as F9. This also gives it a much greater choice of landing sites, giving you more flexibility. There had been the idea that it could act as an extra stage for Ariane 6 and 7 with the ability to be scaled up or down, essentially being 'bolted on' to existing designs. The last I heard (So double check, the thinking seems to change over time) Adelne had been put back while ESA openly admits it's looking at other launchers for ideas it can be 'inspired by'. A7 may look more like F9 on steroids, or Starship, some combination with flyback stages or something else entirely.
@@paulschlusser1085 yeah, but. this brings back the expensive part (the engine), and throws away the cheap part (the tankage). I thought, "that's a neat idea for 20-30 years ago" but i see here that its not that old.
@@stevevernon1978 exactly. This idea debuted when grasshopper was already test flying or even possibly after the first f9 booster recovery. It was a half hearted response just in case reusability turned out to be a thing. Which unlike SpaceX, they didnt really believe. Disruption of entrenched industry in action.
@@paulschlusser1085 To be blunt. Europe's launcher industry is not set up for reusability at present. There are just not enough launches per year to keep it in business if it was 100% reusable. So the industry either builds several relatively cheap and capable launchers that are disposable or a small number of reusable launchers, that are less suited to ESA's needs while being so expensive you would bleed from your nipples just reading the price tag. ESA, while it prefers Arianespace launchers (There are *supposed* to be a wide variety to choose from, but that is another story), it has no problems with using launchers by different companies or nations. So yes, ESA does use SpaceX but not everyone's mission is something that can be launched on Falcon 9. Meanwhile Arianespace has quite happily said it is already designing A6's replacement to be reusable and that upgrades to A6 will feature reusable elements. This gives the European launcher industry time to adapt. Remember, when it's taxpayer's money, most organisations are less willing to just 'kick the tires and light the fires' to see what happens. (Although SpaceX is heavily funded by the American taxpayer through means that are, let's just say, in another country, there would be pointed questions raised asked about dodgy conenctions. But that's another story, that is a bit more sordid.)
@@tabascoraremaster1 Also the big white truck passes 3 times after vanishing in air 2 times. I think its footage of a real airport shown 3 times with a real bird.
This is fascinating, but not without precedent. In 1959, Revell made a model kit called the "HELIOS Nuclear Powered Lunar Landing Craft" based on a design proposed by Krafft Ehricke of CONVAIR's Astronautics Division. (HELIOS stood for "Heteropowered Earth-Launched Inter-Orbital Spacecraft.") Though the main focal point of HELIOS was the main nuclear engine that towed its crew module behind 1000 foot long cables; this ship was initially taken to 170,000 feet by a conventional, chemical-fueled stage that, after separation, would glide back to land on a runway with retractable landing gear for refurbishment and reuse. Though the HELIOS's first stage was crewed, and lacked the prop engines, the flight profile was VERY similar to what is shown here for Adeline. I know I asked before, but would you please consider making a video showing the flight of HELIOS, and for the Revell XSL-01 Moon Rocket designed by Ellwyn Angle in 1957? You already made a fine video depicting the Disney TWA Moonliner that was kitted by Strombecker, and is still available from Glencoe Models. The HELIOS and XSL-01 would make fine additions to this line.
Great animation, as always! Nice concept but, as a pilot, not sure those tiny rudders could give such a large fuselage the directional control to keep it on the runway centerline with some crosswind component present during landing. Propellers though, are innovative and could possibly scavenge some energy during descent to recharge the rocket first stage batteries, helping with drag as well along the way.
@paulschlusser1085 it's not just engines, but also avionics and other components. Cost-wise everything important is reused. They just discard a metal tube.
@@SkywalkerWroc Sure, some avionics worth a few 10's of thousands. But "just a metal tube"? There is a huge difference between refuelling a complete landed booster, vs building a new "tube", mating it (and all the sensor wiring, gas tight connections for fuel and such) to reused engines. We've moved on, as a world from "reusing rockets", to regularly re-flying "flight proven" boosters. Ask yourself, would you prefer to fly on a 747 that's just landed from a 14 hours flight from Sydney Australia a few hours ago, or a 747 that's just had it's fuselage and wings attached, but not yet been test flown? That's what we are talking about here. Any system that relies on parts getting disassembled violently in flight, then recovered and reintegrated is always going to be way, way more costly and risky than just re-flying the same integrated system over and over.
Blue Origin's New Glenn is the only rocket on the horizon that could take on the empire in rocketry that is the falcon family. That rocket will debut next year, maybe 2025, and it'll be another couple of years before Blue get's it fully up and running. But then you remember, SpaceX is making Starship...🥴
Yep. By a lot, as everything that's expensive in the first stage would be reused. To simply: they discard an empty metal tube and reuse engines, computer, gimbals, etc. But the final decision was to go for the #ArianeNEXT instead - one where even the empty metal tube would be reused.
That's the reason all these Space companies are going for re-usability. SpaceX showed it could be done and at significantly lower costs, so now everyone is jumping on the bandwagon. Before SpaceX, some companies were making 300+ million on launches, and now that their cash cow has dried up, they have to adapt or go under.
When that idea had been trialled, it was discovered that the gyroscopic effect of the spinning wheels made it difficult to control the aircraft, which is a Bad Situation when attempting to land. Tires are cheap in comparison.
Great animation as usual. Now I wonder: Now that Spacex is closing in n StarShip operations, wonder what the actual operation sequence will look. The stack launches, the StarShip does its thing while the Super Heavy is caught in mid-air. While it is back on the OLM being refilled, another StarShip rolls out on a transport roller to be hoisted by the chopsticks ontop of the booster... Is that accurate? Will the StarShip be caught by a different tower when it returns? Will it land on some other apparatus for offloading passengers/cargo? Will someone (Musk) sprinkle pixie-dust on the Cape and make it all happen by magic? Inquiring minds want to know.
Last time I heard, Starship was going to land like the Falcon 9 on its own legs. SpaceX had also purchased 2 oil rigs that were to be converted to launch/landing platforms but that plan was scrapped and the rigs sold. Also, they seem to be planning on maintaining Cape Canaveral as the primary operations site.
Realny funny concept. Why land a full first stage when you can ditch the tank and just land a stubby engine with wings instead. Props are weird too, I thought that everyone was ok with gliding spaceships and rocket parts to landing, must have something to do with silly EU regulations.
Depends how far downrange the stage separation happens and where the lading field is. There've been plenty of reusable winged rocket proposals that have "get you home" engines, but they've usually been turbojets or turbofans.
The Kourou Airport, where Adeline was planned to land, is too far to just glide the booster back. They also provided additional degree of control and allowed for a safe return even if the atmospheric conditions would change. also: lol @ anti-gravity devices.
The creators of that design at airbus seem to be living under a rock, like they have not seen the economics of falcon booster landings or its successor, starship super heavy.
Not really the worst in terms of extra mass. It's basically just a flyback version of ULA's vulcan SMART reuse and flyback boosters with jet engines (yes this is propellers I know) have been concepts since the 1960s. Adding mass to stage 1 is much less detrimental than adding it to stage 2 for instance
not really, wings at the bottom help with stability of the rocket too, a couple of propellers and their engines probably don't weight that much, and it achieves the main goal of saving expensive rocket engine.
![Chino Pacas - Modo Capone (with Drake & Fuerza Regida) [Video Oficial]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zjv8TQ0gBkg/mqdefault.jpg)
This was quietly cancelled around 5 or 6 years ago and now Arianespace are aiming for Falcon 9-style reusability after Ariane 6
They'll catch up eventually, go ESA!
That’s dumb that they would pursue ariane 6 when they could just go straight to reusability.
@@andrewdoesyt7787 They don't have any experience in reusability yet, so in the mean time it's better to use Ariane 6.
I kinda hope for Vulcan's SMART reuse
@@timbermicka well you’re going to have the same inexperience with reusability after Ariane 6 as you would now. I just don’t understand why would you start development on a non-reusable rocket when you have the resources and proof that it would be smarter to go the reusable route…
wondered what this was going to look like..back then-they never bothered with a good animation but this one is really good. thanks for doing it.
How about doing a video about the first, fully reusable, single stage to orbit rocket, Thunderbird 3?
This is really some beautiful work! If you zoom in during first stage separation and while the payload shroud is being jettisoned it looks about as real as you can get. At that altitude you can even see atmosphere between the launch vehicle and the ground just as you would with terrestrial based optics! Yes, the exhaust plume needs some work - that must really be difficult considering you didn't absolutely nail that - but given time I'm sure you'll figure it out. Thank you keep them coming they're very enjoyable. 👍
I would love to see this fly. I remember when this was being actively discussed a few years ago, the idea being it could be stuck on the bottom of A6 and its variants while other reusable options were being explored.
But why? I mean, you could just, I dunno, land the entire booster intact? Must be possible in 2023, surely?
@@paulschlusser1085 It's a balance between mass, cost and the fuel needed to bring back the important bits. Falcon 9 needs to keep a certain amount of fuel in its tanks in order to land successfully. That limits the mass of what it can launch. and which orbits it can reach. Why you get Falcon 9 launched in expendable mode.
The idea behind Adeline was, since you only need to bring back the really expensive bits, you don't need to account for the mass of the fuel tanks so you don't need as much fuel to get back as F9. Since it can fly and land on a standard runway by itself, it doesn't need to do a suicide burn, such as F9. This also gives it a much greater choice of landing sites, giving you more flexibility.
There had been the idea that it could act as an extra stage for Ariane 6 and 7 with the ability to be scaled up or down, essentially being 'bolted on' to existing designs.
The last I heard (So double check, the thinking seems to change over time) Adelne had been put back while ESA openly admits it's looking at other launchers for ideas it can be 'inspired by'. A7 may look more like F9 on steroids, or Starship, some combination with flyback stages or something else entirely.
@@paulschlusser1085 yeah, but. this brings back the expensive part (the engine), and throws away the cheap part (the tankage). I thought, "that's a neat idea for 20-30 years ago" but i see here that its not that old.
@@stevevernon1978 exactly. This idea debuted when grasshopper was already test flying or even possibly after the first f9 booster recovery. It was a half hearted response just in case reusability turned out to be a thing. Which unlike SpaceX, they didnt really believe. Disruption of entrenched industry in action.
@@paulschlusser1085 To be blunt. Europe's launcher industry is not set up for reusability at present. There are just not enough launches per year to keep it in business if it was 100% reusable. So the industry either builds several relatively cheap and capable launchers that are disposable or a small number of reusable launchers, that are less suited to ESA's needs while being so expensive you would bleed from your nipples just reading the price tag.
ESA, while it prefers Arianespace launchers (There are *supposed* to be a wide variety to choose from, but that is another story), it has no problems with using launchers by different companies or nations. So yes, ESA does use SpaceX but not everyone's mission is something that can be launched on Falcon 9.
Meanwhile Arianespace has quite happily said it is already designing A6's replacement to be reusable and that upgrades to A6 will feature reusable elements. This gives the European launcher industry time to adapt.
Remember, when it's taxpayer's money, most organisations are less willing to just 'kick the tires and light the fires' to see what happens.
(Although SpaceX is heavily funded by the American taxpayer through means that are, let's just say, in another country, there would be pointed questions raised asked about dodgy conenctions. But that's another story, that is a bit more sordid.)
Really nice, thought the landing sequence looked a bit more realistic on 2x speed but that’s just me. Excellent work, as usual!!
2x speed to not notice how the cgi Bird flies the exact same route 3 times ?
@@tabascoraremaster1 Also the big white truck passes 3 times after vanishing in air 2 times. I think its footage of a real airport shown 3 times with a real bird.
This is fascinating, but not without precedent. In 1959, Revell made a model kit called the "HELIOS Nuclear Powered Lunar Landing Craft" based on a design proposed by Krafft Ehricke of CONVAIR's Astronautics Division. (HELIOS stood for "Heteropowered Earth-Launched Inter-Orbital Spacecraft.")
Though the main focal point of HELIOS was the main nuclear engine that towed its crew module behind 1000 foot long cables; this ship was initially taken to 170,000 feet by a conventional, chemical-fueled stage that, after separation, would glide back to land on a runway with retractable landing gear for refurbishment and reuse.
Though the HELIOS's first stage was crewed, and lacked the prop engines, the flight profile was VERY similar to what is shown here for Adeline.
I know I asked before, but would you please consider making a video showing the flight of HELIOS, and for the Revell XSL-01 Moon Rocket designed by Ellwyn Angle in 1957? You already made a fine video depicting the Disney TWA Moonliner that was kitted by Strombecker, and is still available from Glencoe Models. The HELIOS and XSL-01 would make fine additions to this line.
Another great rocket concept video!
Certainly an intriguing design.
Great animation, as always! Nice concept but, as a pilot, not sure those tiny rudders could give such a large fuselage the directional control to keep it on the runway centerline with some crosswind component present during landing. Propellers though, are innovative and could possibly scavenge some energy during descent to recharge the rocket first stage batteries, helping with drag as well along the way.
Only Airbus could come up with a reusable launch system and _STILL_ somehow turn that into designing another plane lol
Not really. Ideas for a fly-back reuse were floating for decades. See: Russian Baikal or DLR's FLBB.
Airbus know planes, play to your strengths.😊
@@SkywalkerWroc Technically, this is fly back engines. I mean recovering the WHOLE booster - way too hard.
@paulschlusser1085 it's not just engines, but also avionics and other components. Cost-wise everything important is reused. They just discard a metal tube.
@@SkywalkerWroc Sure, some avionics worth a few 10's of thousands. But "just a metal tube"? There is a huge difference between refuelling a complete landed booster, vs building a new "tube", mating it (and all the sensor wiring, gas tight connections for fuel and such) to reused engines. We've moved on, as a world from "reusing rockets", to regularly re-flying "flight proven" boosters. Ask yourself, would you prefer to fly on a 747 that's just landed from a 14 hours flight from Sydney Australia a few hours ago, or a 747 that's just had it's fuselage and wings attached, but not yet been test flown? That's what we are talking about here. Any system that relies on parts getting disassembled violently in flight, then recovered and reintegrated is always going to be way, way more costly and risky than just re-flying the same integrated system over and over.
Beautiful design. Such a shame that it never made it to production!
I think it’s still in development
@@lukamarko1037 It's not. Airbus built a scale model, applied for funding, but didn't the money asked and abandonned the project.
@@SkywalkerWroc My bad then.
What caught my attention was those spatula-like control surfaces. Wonder how it should have worked, exatly
I like the rudders, never seen this concept before 🧐
Whoah! That's some Kerbal-level engine recovery.
Nice vid as always
This really helps appreciate SpaceX and what they've done with reuseability. They are like 20 years ahead of anyone else at this point.
Blue Origin's New Glenn is the only rocket on the horizon that could take on the empire in rocketry that is the falcon family.
That rocket will debut next year, maybe 2025, and it'll be another couple of years before Blue get's it fully up and running.
But then you remember, SpaceX is making Starship...🥴
^ mandatory SpaceX post under very video about anything-spaceflight. Now that we're done with that BS, can we get back on topic?
@@SkywalkerWroc OP's comment isn't really off topic though...
but i get what you mean.
Can we stop mentioning SpaceX
@@ArcXDZWhy?
Marvellous!
So imaginative! Excellent!
It is would be unique and serene to see this again in my eyes.
이것은 평온할 것입니다.
I love this design cause the glider engine unit thing is SO STUBBY. It makes the space shuttle look like a Concorde
Excellent work. However, this design appears to be overly complex.
Amazing work !!!!
AMAZINGNES!!!
Airbus: So imagine a reusable flyback booster…
Arianespace: Hmm, idunno.
Airbus: …except we half-ass it.
Arianespace: Now you have my attention.
Go ESA!
Wasn't the ADELINE-modified Ariane 6 still supposed to have those solid-fuel boosters?
That landing sequence looked so real... it was real, wasn't it? I believe it is time for you to make movies. At least a television show with puppets!
An airplane like reuseable first stage. I could not see any faults the first time watching it --- so in other words it is quite good.
Well done.
Can you please make something about soviet crewed mars landing please
I like where your at but who says the rocket has to break apart?
When an unmanned drone "rollz in zee hay" with NASA's Supper Guppy cargo plane.
This is CG, right?
I don't think even Airbus design would be able to land with such a figure and wing to wing ratio.
Nice pusher prop audio...sounds just like a B-36 on runup.
*I ❤️ TURBOPROPS*
Would this have reduced launch costs?
Yep. By a lot, as everything that's expensive in the first stage would be reused. To simply: they discard an empty metal tube and reuse engines, computer, gimbals, etc. But the final decision was to go for the #ArianeNEXT instead - one where even the empty metal tube would be reused.
That's the reason all these Space companies are going for re-usability. SpaceX showed it could be done and at significantly lower costs, so now everyone is jumping on the bandwagon.
Before SpaceX, some companies were making 300+ million on launches, and now that their cash cow has dried up, they have to adapt or go under.
@@kamxam1384 This was designed before SpaceX reused even a single rocket, yet alone proved any cost-decrease.
touchdown is good
no fuel consumption
On landing, shouldn’t you design the wheels to match air speed so when they land it’s not so traumatic to the rubber ?
When that idea had been trialled, it was discovered that the gyroscopic effect of the spinning wheels made it difficult to control the aircraft, which is a Bad Situation when attempting to land. Tires are cheap in comparison.
Great animation as usual. Now I wonder: Now that Spacex is closing in n StarShip operations, wonder what the actual operation sequence will look. The stack launches, the StarShip does its thing while the Super Heavy is caught in mid-air. While it is back on the OLM being refilled, another StarShip rolls out on a transport roller to be hoisted by the chopsticks ontop of the booster... Is that accurate? Will the StarShip be caught by a different tower when it returns? Will it land on some other apparatus for offloading passengers/cargo? Will someone (Musk) sprinkle pixie-dust on the Cape and make it all happen by magic? Inquiring minds want to know.
Last time I heard, Starship was going to land like the Falcon 9 on its own legs. SpaceX had also purchased 2 oil rigs that were to be converted to launch/landing platforms but that plan was scrapped and the rigs sold. Also, they seem to be planning on maintaining Cape Canaveral as the primary operations site.
Could you do a #HyperionSSTO Video ?
Hyperion: The Fully Reusable SSTO! ruclips.net/video/zCnEVKu2oA8/видео.html
@Hazegrayart → Great video...👍
*EDIT:* Those wingtip control services look...interesting.
Se isso for real MDS....
Complex design for a reusable engine, not reusable rocket
Realny funny concept. Why land a full first stage when you can ditch the tank and just land a stubby engine with wings instead.
Props are weird too, I thought that everyone was ok with gliding spaceships and rocket parts to landing, must have something to do with silly EU regulations.
Depends how far downrange the stage separation happens and where the lading field is. There've been plenty of reusable winged rocket proposals that have "get you home" engines, but they've usually been turbojets or turbofans.
Wowie
Isn’t this basically the space shuttle?
Or just do SMART
I’ll bet they (Airbus) get theirs off the ground before Boeing ever will…
This concept has been abandoned decade ago.
Never gonna happen😭
you never know...
@@clevergirl4457 It was already cancelled.
@@SkywalkerWroc oh.
thats the goofiest design ive ever seen
Too bad the concept was declared dead and waits for an American start-up to be revived.
Unnecessary wings, propellers and landing gear just because they dont beliebe in vertical landing^^
A lot of added complexity for a primitive idea
Elon Musk vs NASA
But... Why propellers?
Why not just use some anti-gravity devices? Like the one used on those Black flying triangles
The Kourou Airport, where Adeline was planned to land, is too far to just glide the booster back. They also provided additional degree of control and allowed for a safe return even if the atmospheric conditions would change.
also: lol @ anti-gravity devices.
@@SkywalkerWroc i mean, if you learn one thing from the Space Shuttle Program: it's nice to have some Engines
Because anti-gravity devices don't exist.
Black Flying triangles or TR-3b have never been built
Propellers actually exist
The creators of that design at airbus seem to be living under a rock, like they have not seen the economics of falcon booster landings or its successor, starship super heavy.
the themis concept looks a lot more feasible than this.
This concept began in 2010, five years before the first Falcon 9 landing and long before that proved itself extremely reliable.
"they have not seen the economics of falcon booster landings"
Only SpaceX knows how economic it is.
this seems dumb, so much extra weight and complexity
look up Themis, seems so much more feasible.
It looks cool though
Not really the worst in terms of extra mass. It's basically just a flyback version of ULA's vulcan SMART reuse and flyback boosters with jet engines (yes this is propellers I know) have been concepts since the 1960s.
Adding mass to stage 1 is much less detrimental than adding it to stage 2 for instance
This actually adds far less weight than powered VTVL back to the launch site does.
not really, wings at the bottom help with stability of the rocket too, a couple of propellers and their engines probably don't weight that much, and it achieves the main goal of saving expensive rocket engine.
Really ? IS this what Europeans space agency think of reusable rocket LOL