Interesting. I know the daughter of Walter Kistler. I actually was able to meet him before he passed. I have a model of a weather satellite and the Apollo Lunar Module landed on the moon which I received from his daughter.
Scott, you should totally cover the "SASSTO" (Saturn Application Single Stage to Orbit), a really creative idea on how to use the Saturn V's fourth stage (the SIV-B) as an SSTO with not that many changes made.
Man, _no_ projects using NK rockets turned out well. One was a Soviet project well past their space-prime, one ran out of money, and one _exploded._ What's with that?
+Timothy McLean I feel dubious about that corellation. I have a strong feeling there's no good statistical data to suggest that the engines were the problem.
The Soyuz 2.1v actually still uses 1 NK-33 engine for its first stage. This Soyuz does not have the 4 strap on boosters, so it doesn't even resemble a Soyuz rocket. So far roscosmos has been lucky with this variant. However, the 2.1v has only flown a few times. So it's just a matter of time before before one of their remaining NK-33's explode on them.
Scott should do a video where he makes these rockets in KSP. Both designs are very kerbal. The K1 payload delivery system and payload door could be made using magic smoke robotics.
If going manned: KAS struts. Simply have your Kerbal go out and link the endpoints before reentry. If going unmanned: Quantum Struts. Once the door is closed, the endpoints are linked with an action group. In either case, the door/heat shield should be relatively rigid through reentry.
H Se if you press "C" to go into i.v.a view, you can use your mouse to move cockpit throttle to control the regular throttle, FYI only manned crafts have the I.V.A view.
now you see i've tried this on multiple occasions and it's never worked :( is there a specific point on the handle you have to drag? i always go for the center of the handle.
"It would be five years before SpaceX announced their plans for reusable rockets." Well… five years before they announced the plan that they successfully implemented. They'd already announced that they were going to attempt reusing Falcon 1 first stage using a parachute and ocean recovery.
Here's an article from 2011 about their 'new' plans for propulsive landings for anyone who's interested. It has a short summary of what went wrong with their parachute ideas. Basically just says that it didn't work. www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/09/falcon-rockets-to-land-on-thei.html
THANK YOU, the K-1 is too often forgotten when talking about reusable rockets, i'm amazed you haven't talked about it before. it's ggod to see quality coverage of the concept, from you, thanks Scott!
Yes but the first stage didn't survive reentry so they eventually looked into boost back on F9 and since the thrust to weight with one engine was low enough it was logical to look into landing under rocket power since it was already proven by the DCX and various vehicles by companies such as Armadillo and Masten.
Yea, they even attempted to recover two Falcon 9 first stages by parachute at the beginning of it's career. Edit:To clarify, the first two Falcon 9's all the way back in 2010 had parachutes on board, but were torn apart in the atmosphere before they could even deploy them. Here's an article from 2011 announcing the switch to rocket powered landings: www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/09/falcon-rockets-to-land-on-thei.html
You suggest that SpaceX sailed through its early stages with no funding problems. In fact, both SpaceX and Tesla had some very difficult early stages in terms of money. One more failed launch in its early days and SpaceX would probably no-longer exist. Now, however, they look set to completely take over the commercial space market. If BFR ever becomes a reliable platform then even foreign governments will think twice and consider using them to save on costs.
Rocketry is hard and expensive. I am sure they will get there eventually, but there are many factors that may mean it takes a long time or that plans change. Remember that just a few years ago, they had a completely different rocket design. But if BFR is successful and is fully reusable up over 10 flights per rocket, then despite its size it will be cheaper by an order of magnitude than anything else. The main problem will be finding enough people wanting to launch payloads as it can conceivably do a years inventory in a few flights.
Even now SpaceX is deep in the reds... after having gotten millions from Nasa and others. The story is kinda similar to Tesla - not original, overpriced, only government-support keeps it alive and still losing money.
Timothy is on the right path. The full sized raptor hasn't even fired yet. The BFR plans that currently sit on the table are built around engine performance that hasn't actually been shown yet. The final raptor engine will shape the final BFR just like changes to the Raptor will result in new blocks of BFR. :)
In the red yes, but not at serious risk any more. They have established a reputation. It is NOT 'loosing money'. It is merely investing in the future. NOT the same thing. Also you seem to suggest that NASA and the US Government are subsidising it. That is not the case. They are purchasing services from it at discount rates relative to other providers.
NASA: "Alright guys the design is looking great I just have a few questions, why, for example, do we have 4 lead cannons in the second stage?" *The dedigners put down their pints of ale and look eachother in the eye* Captain eyepatch: "Arr the land lubber doesnt understand" Designer 1: "Arrr" Designer 2: "Yarr" *The designers laugh and agree* NASA: "Look guys the cannons have to go" *Captain eyepatch slams his hook hand on the table* "Listen 'ere laddy, the cannons go, I go"
Check the Wikipedia article. ATK was formed by a planned split from a division of Honeywell; Thiokol was its own company founded in 1929 as chemical research company. They had various associations before being acquired by ATK.
Parachutes and airbags seem like so much simpler of a technology to get a rocket back to earth. Presumably saving fuel for a suicide burn landing is less weight than the parachutes and airbags you need to land? Or less trouble then finding space for them in the fuselage of the rocket?
I don't think parachutes and airbags are neither simple nor reliable. To land a 25 ton rocket (about the dry mass of the F9 1st stage) at say about 3 m/s, you'd need something like a parachute of 250 m diameter -- about 50,000 square meters of fabric. That is *massive*. Heavy. And even if you get that to fly, you'll be trying to land a building-sized chunk of delicate machinery, and you don't know where exactly it will land, if it will stray off course because wind, you don't even know for sure if something will be damaged on impact. Because it's a collision in the end, it's just too random to predict. Too many variables for comfort. Saying that, if you had asked me, back in 2006, to predict what a reusable orbital vehicle would look like? While I certainly wouldn't have thought "parachute", I wouldn't have thought "suicide burn" either. That's just mental haha. I would have bet on a Baikal-style rocket instead. You know, booster with deployable wings. It just seems the sensible choice to me. And I would have lost miserably, of course, heh. I'm still in awe that SpaceX got it to work.
Scott, for a great "path not taken" story you should look up the Chrysler SERV, an alternate idea for a space shuttle that was radically different than the winged spaceplane concept.
That nose cone. I'm sitting here watching this vehicle going vertical waiting for a crane to come in and drop a encapsulated payload in a fairing on top of the rocket and all of a sudden it just launched. It's interesting though how they used that as the heat shield as it was. It's different and would have been innovative back then.
"Sometimes I wonder how the commercial space transportation field would be different if Kistler had managed to get the money for their launch vehicle?" More booms? I mean, those designs do seem very... kerbal. *BOOM*
Please make a video about *Zenith rocket family* and *SeaLaunch alliance.* It was a nice little rocket that could do everything Falcon 9 could do... For the same price, only 30 years earlier. Even Mr. Musk himself admits admiring this vehicle.
Awesome channel Scott. Every video is packed with interesting stuff! I am intrigued by the LP collection that appears in some videos. Any chance of a tour of that?
I think the Kistler K-1 would have been a way better step into reusable rocketry. Being able to expend all your fuel on launch, rapid turn around and full reusabitlity? Rocket powered landing is cool and all but having lug all that extra fuel with you seems a lot less attractive than this. Also of course, not needing to land at sea and have a base of operations out there you have to pay to maintain and staff is a pretty big upside to.
Not a lot of news that I have noticed, the engines are still in development and with some news of construction work at the rocket test site in Buckinghamshire and air flow test site in Colorado. How Skyon itself with go who knows but with interest from ESA and the UK government as well as DARPA in the US and some buy in from BAE, it looks like the SABRE engine at least will be developed and used by something.
hi scott, since we're on the topic of 'the path not taken', i wonder if you've read "the rocket company" by patrick stiennon? if yes, would you care to comment on their proposed reusable vehicle and business model? do you think something like that might have worked?
It's crazy that we just used to use a rocket once and leave it in the ocean and that we still often do. What a sad life a booster stage lives, even a completely successful launch means slamming into the ocean. Poor lil rockets :(
Scott I worked in the 3D animation Dept. for this type of thing. IT IS ALL SALES for investment, it is not real. I know people personally who ran these companies.
keep trying to find more like this. So that more rocket history get covered then the popular ones. I think you beat Curios Droid to this one. EDIT : Oh I almost forgot to thumbs up. bye
There's another development out there that I'd be interested in seeing your opinion on: Dream Chaser. It looks cool, the company is still in business and makes other things for various space programs, but I'm not sure if they'll go anywhere with their space plane.
SpaceX tried to use parachute on all of the Falcon 1 and the first couple of Falcon 9 launch. After trying that many times, they came to the conclusion the problem of using parachute from orbit is not doable.
K1 was aimed at LEO satellite constellations that have yet to come to the fore. Elon rightly aimed for GEO and ate Russia's lunch. I think the K1's not being designed for GEO launches would have kept it a interesting bit player leaving the market asking ... What we really need is a reusable rocket like the K1 with the performance of an Atlas V. A ... er ... Falcon 9!
One of my professors actually did outside consulting for rocketplane. He claims that he found a serious design flaw with the wing that ultimately killed the project.
That blunt heatshield nose on the upper stage seems very inefficient. I know it was necessary for re-entry, but how much drag would that shape generate compared with a more traditional nosecone?
Just about 3-5 weeks ago, I saw an email notification from YT about you doing a live stream on the topic. Probably I misunderstood the image or something. Too bad I didn't save that! Thanks for the lead about the Gemini one; I'll check that out.
I think the bigger problem was they'd already spent ~400million in investment money and new investors would get less potential value on their investment.
True that a movie can cost hundreds of millions, but that's only if that movie is pretty much guaranteed to make much more at the box office. Any business where you can double your investment in a year or so is a great business.
Muhammad > Fail! We love every launch but others prefer TV-shows. The live audience is not the masses and no advertiser wants to see a logo get blown up!
They are phasing out the older versions of the F9 first stages in favor of the block-5 version, which will be the definitive version and more rapidly reusable according to Elon/SpaceX.
You know, you say the NK-33 engines were the best in the world at the time of their production, and continued to be excellent engines 30 years later, but given what happened to every N1 rocket and the Antares, didn't every rocket with NK-33 engines fail/crash/blow up during its launch? Is that pure coincidence, or is the NK-33 engine actually flawed in some way?
This is the recurring story in private space at least since the 1980s. Entrepreneur with a vision founds a company, it's harder and more expensive than expected, investors don't want to back it, company runs out of cash and goes out of business. Again and again. Relatively few, like SpaceX, have won the government money and survived. I don't know if any have survived without government money, except maybe Blue Origin (more or less), but Bezos has a day job and they're not launching yet, anyway. But all of this is interesting, not just the rock stars like Musk.
Wow- I’m surprised to not have heard of this before! That rocket powered, reusable quad-copter thing is just wonderful. Great video, Scott!
Hazard-ish so can we expect to see it turning into reality on Kerbin? 😉
Hazard-ish WHY U NO UPLOAD VIDS
Ayyy Hazard-ish
its like something off of Thunderbirds or Captain Scarlet lol
Bruh thanks for spoiling the video
First, I heard SpaceX calls a new boat, Mr. Steve. Now you remind someone else used my last name. Can I get royalties from this?
Steve Kistler The boat is called Mr Stevens :P nice copyright dodge
You're both wrong. The boat is called Mr Steven.
XxDeathSquadxX as in Mr. Steven from Basil Brush?? I sure hope so!
No, Its Mr Stevens who runs the deathstar canteen.
If you can get Royalties for that, China should get Retroactive Royalties for Paper, Gunpowder & Ceramics.
Interesting. I know the daughter of Walter Kistler. I actually was able to meet him before he passed. I have a model of a weather satellite and the Apollo Lunar Module landed on the moon which I received from his daughter.
The downside to the NK-33 engine is that it gets it's performance from being cursed by Satan, and it exacts that toll on any rocket using it.
charwhick lmao good one!
I know, just use it on missiles which explode anyway. Take that, Satan!
they're cursed by the SS-18?
No, them blowing up at launch would be the act of God.
don't mess with MIRVs
Scott, you should totally cover the "SASSTO" (Saturn Application Single Stage to Orbit), a really creative idea on how to use the Saturn V's fourth stage (the SIV-B) as an SSTO with not that many changes made.
Man, _no_ projects using NK rockets turned out well. One was a Soviet project well past their space-prime, one ran out of money, and one _exploded._ What's with that?
+Timothy McLean
I feel dubious about that corellation. I have a strong feeling there's no good statistical data to suggest that the engines were the problem.
Well, duh. But that doesn't mean that we can't point out the weird coincidences and get all superstitious about it.
waves hands: WoOoOooooOOoO!!!111!~~
:)
That's a bit more plausible.
The Soyuz 2.1v actually still uses 1 NK-33 engine for its first stage. This Soyuz does not have the 4 strap on boosters, so it doesn't even resemble a Soyuz rocket. So far roscosmos has been lucky with this variant. However, the 2.1v has only flown a few times. So it's just a matter of time before before one of their remaining NK-33's explode on them.
Scott should do a video where he makes these rockets in KSP. Both designs are very kerbal. The K1 payload delivery system and payload door could be made using magic smoke robotics.
+Friday Harlowe the biggest issue would be keeping the heat sheild from flopping around during re-entry due to not having a easy way to lock.
If going manned: KAS struts. Simply have your Kerbal go out and link the endpoints before reentry.
If going unmanned: Quantum Struts. Once the door is closed, the endpoints are linked with an action group.
In either case, the door/heat shield should be relatively rigid through reentry.
I’m new to KSP. How can I adjust throttle with my mouse pointer? Thanks.
H Se if you press "C" to go into i.v.a view, you can use your mouse to move cockpit throttle to control the regular throttle, FYI only manned crafts have the I.V.A view.
now you see i've tried this on multiple occasions and it's never worked :( is there a specific point on the handle you have to drag? i always go for the center of the handle.
Rapid Unplanned Disassemblies are awesome to watch
Well now you actually have to make that one launch vehicle in KSP.
I love your use of 'unplanned rapid disassembly' lol gets me everytime.
H
Wow those NK engines are cursed.
Robert Willis uh... did you not hear about that whole N-1 rocket, where the engines would ya know. Fail in flight
Great last name by the way.
@@ThePrimalEarth Those were NK-15, their predecessors. NK-33 N-1 has never flown.
Everything about that rocket screams 90's and gives me horrific sweats.
Gotta love these 90s render graphics. I wonder what time it to to render them back in the day.
I'm just surprised that a game today like KSP can do better visuals in real time (with visual mods like realplume and EVE)!
Alex Siemers I think I have read that the first Toy Story was like 1 terabyte in raw data. Which was a lot back then.
So what kind of dynamic pressure does this absolutely flat top of the rocket experience in flight?
The dynamic pressure doesn't depend on the shape of the rocket. The actual stagnation pressure does, but that's not quite the same thing
"It would be five years before SpaceX announced their plans for reusable rockets."
Well… five years before they announced the plan that they successfully implemented. They'd already announced that they were going to attempt reusing Falcon 1 first stage using a parachute and ocean recovery.
Here's an article from 2011 about their 'new' plans for propulsive landings for anyone who's interested. It has a short summary of what went wrong with their parachute ideas. Basically just says that it didn't work.
www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/09/falcon-rockets-to-land-on-thei.html
The comments on this article are gold!
I had to go to the wayback machine to see it but was totally worth it.
Insane.
THANK YOU, the K-1 is too often forgotten when talking about reusable rockets, i'm amazed you haven't talked about it before. it's ggod to see quality coverage of the concept, from you, thanks Scott!
Didn't SpaceX also experiment with parachutes on the Falcon 1?
Yes, there's a picture of Elon standing on a F1 interstage with three boxes for the parachutes.
The fuel needed turns out to weigh less than the chutes would. So they went that route.
Yes but the first stage didn't survive reentry so they eventually looked into boost back on F9 and since the thrust to weight with one engine was low enough it was logical to look into landing under rocket power since it was already proven by the DCX and various vehicles by companies such as Armadillo and Masten.
Yea, they even attempted to recover two Falcon 9 first stages by parachute at the beginning of it's career.
Edit:To clarify, the first two Falcon 9's all the way back in 2010 had parachutes on board, but were torn apart in the atmosphere before they could even deploy them. Here's an article from 2011 announcing the switch to rocket powered landings: www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/09/falcon-rockets-to-land-on-thei.html
Falcon 9, actually. Here's the photo: media.vanityfair.com/photos/58d548eb0920c94abb9619e9/master/w_1920,c_limit/elon-musk-AI-04-17-01.jpg
6:29 - _Please_ tell me their plan was to actually use a Learjet with a rocket strapped to it.
and from today on, i can say that im no longer a student but an aerospace engineer :) thanks for the great content!
Do a video on the X-33, the grasshopper of the 90s!
Love seeing my hometown El Segundo come up randomly places since we're one of the largest aerospace cities in the world
That frontal payload bay and heat shield seems to be doing a lot of things at once.
You suggest that SpaceX sailed through its early stages with no funding problems. In fact, both SpaceX and Tesla had some very difficult early stages in terms of money. One more failed launch in its early days and SpaceX would probably no-longer exist. Now, however, they look set to completely take over the commercial space market. If BFR ever becomes a reliable platform then even foreign governments will think twice and consider using them to save on costs.
Timothy Whitehead Anyone who still thinks SpaceX cannot do BFR hasn't been paying attention!
Rocketry is hard and expensive. I am sure they will get there eventually, but there are many factors that may mean it takes a long time or that plans change. Remember that just a few years ago, they had a completely different rocket design. But if BFR is successful and is fully reusable up over 10 flights per rocket, then despite its size it will be cheaper by an order of magnitude than anything else. The main problem will be finding enough people wanting to launch payloads as it can conceivably do a years inventory in a few flights.
Even now SpaceX is deep in the reds... after having gotten millions from Nasa and others.
The story is kinda similar to Tesla - not original, overpriced, only government-support keeps it alive and still losing money.
Timothy is on the right path. The full sized raptor hasn't even fired yet. The BFR plans that currently sit on the table are built around engine performance that hasn't actually been shown yet. The final raptor engine will shape the final BFR just like changes to the Raptor will result in new blocks of BFR. :)
In the red yes, but not at serious risk any more. They have established a reputation. It is NOT 'loosing money'. It is merely investing in the future. NOT the same thing. Also you seem to suggest that NASA and the US Government are subsidising it. That is not the case. They are purchasing services from it at discount rates relative to other providers.
So they lost the 'Kessler Run' even before it begun :P
Sonnenrad it's a play on words, so yeah "Kessler"
I only see one silly user here, and it's you.
The quad rocket looks quite interesting.
I worked for George. He was a fascinating guy to know.
Learjet with rocket engines? I'll take 10.
I don’t have time to watch this whole video right now, but o came here to say I read the title as “The Keister K-1”.
When are we going to hear about the CONESTOGA - 1???
I like that they planned to launch it from the edge of the Grand Canyon. Cool!
Who's the badass with the eye patch?
A Space Pirate obviously!
NASA: "Alright guys the design is looking great I just have a few questions, why, for example, do we have 4 lead cannons in the second stage?"
*The dedigners put down their pints of ale and look eachother in the eye*
Captain eyepatch: "Arr the land lubber doesnt understand"
Designer 1: "Arrr"
Designer 2: "Yarr"
*The designers laugh and agree*
NASA: "Look guys the cannons have to go"
*Captain eyepatch slams his hook hand on the table*
"Listen 'ere laddy, the cannons go, I go"
^this joke gave me cancer
Bad bobby!
Fascinating video to watch on a holiday!
The Kistler Rocket looks like it would've had the Aerodynamics of a desk
Orbital was purchased by ATK, which was originally Thiokol(before even that a Honeywell division), to form Orbital ATK.
And now OATK belongs to Northrup/Grumman.
amindofiron I was gonna say the same thing 😊
Check the Wikipedia article. ATK was formed by a planned split from a division of Honeywell; Thiokol was its own company founded in 1929 as chemical research company. They had various associations before being acquired by ATK.
HuntingTarg I could have worded that better but I was going for brevity.
I like the Kistler design by far the most. (More than Starship.) Well - except the chutes of course...
Rapid Unplanned Disassembly, fantastic phrase.
Parachutes and airbags seem like so much simpler of a technology to get a rocket back to earth. Presumably saving fuel for a suicide burn landing is less weight than the parachutes and airbags you need to land? Or less trouble then finding space for them in the fuselage of the rocket?
I don't think parachutes and airbags are neither simple nor reliable. To land a 25 ton rocket (about the dry mass of the F9 1st stage) at say about 3 m/s, you'd need something like a parachute of 250 m diameter -- about 50,000 square meters of fabric. That is *massive*. Heavy. And even if you get that to fly, you'll be trying to land a building-sized chunk of delicate machinery, and you don't know where exactly it will land, if it will stray off course because wind, you don't even know for sure if something will be damaged on impact. Because it's a collision in the end, it's just too random to predict. Too many variables for comfort.
Saying that, if you had asked me, back in 2006, to predict what a reusable orbital vehicle would look like? While I certainly wouldn't have thought "parachute", I wouldn't have thought "suicide burn" either. That's just mental haha.
I would have bet on a Baikal-style rocket instead. You know, booster with deployable wings. It just seems the sensible choice to me.
And I would have lost miserably, of course, heh. I'm still in awe that SpaceX got it to work.
Hotel?
I'm Scott Manley, fly safe!
Scott, for a great "path not taken" story you should look up the Chrysler SERV, an alternate idea for a space shuttle that was radically different than the winged spaceplane concept.
Good thing we have KSP to test all of this now
Makes me miss the X-32 and X-33 even more.
That nose cone. I'm sitting here watching this vehicle going vertical waiting for a crane to come in and drop a encapsulated payload in a fairing on top of the rocket and all of a sudden it just launched. It's interesting though how they used that as the heat shield as it was. It's different and would have been innovative back then.
"Sometimes I wonder how the commercial space transportation field would be different if Kistler had managed to get the money for their launch vehicle?"
More booms?
I mean, those designs do seem very... kerbal.
*BOOM*
@Robert Willis Even if everything goes well, there will still be booms... sonic booms, as the spacecraft decelerates.
Please make a video about *Zenith rocket family* and *SeaLaunch alliance.*
It was a nice little rocket that could do everything Falcon 9 could do... For the same price, only 30 years earlier.
Even Mr. Musk himself admits admiring this vehicle.
Nice video! It very sad that all of that projects are not alive now. SpaceX need serious reusable competitors.
Awesome channel Scott. Every video is packed with interesting stuff! I am intrigued by the LP collection that appears in some videos. Any chance of a tour of that?
SpaceX had always talked about reusability. The Falcon 1 had parachutes. I followed them religiously since just prior to their first launch and crash.
To answer the question at the end of the video: Me and my friend both know you are Scott Manley. I think most viewers know since you tell us often!
I’m surprised I never heard of this till now.
I think the Kistler K-1 would have been a way better step into reusable rocketry. Being able to expend all your fuel on launch, rapid turn around and full reusabitlity? Rocket powered landing is cool and all but having lug all that extra fuel with you seems a lot less attractive than this. Also of course, not needing to land at sea and have a base of operations out there you have to pay to maintain and staff is a pretty big upside to.
Anything new on Skylon recently? or has that flown off of the map?
Not a lot of news that I have noticed, the engines are still in development and with some news of construction work at the rocket test site in Buckinghamshire and air flow test site in Colorado. How Skyon itself with go who knows but with interest from ESA and the UK government as well as DARPA in the US and some buy in from BAE, it looks like the SABRE engine at least will be developed and used by something.
It's still moving along, slowly.
Ferociously?
I wonder the same things sometimes but how things would've turned out of the venturestar X-33 program was continued.
hi scott,
since we're on the topic of 'the path not taken', i wonder if you've read "the rocket company" by patrick stiennon? if yes, would you care to comment on their proposed reusable vehicle and business model? do you think something like that might have worked?
What a branch of engineers, what a flying-beer-bottle!
It's crazy that we just used to use a rocket once and leave it in the ocean and that we still often do. What a sad life a booster stage lives, even a completely successful launch means slamming into the ocean. Poor lil rockets :(
Sam Harkins #RocketLifesMatter
Has SpaceX drawn on Kistler's experience in reusable rockets, or was that a totally separate thing?
Very interesting. Thank you.
Scott I worked in the 3D animation Dept. for this type of thing. IT IS ALL SALES for investment, it is not real. I know people personally who ran these companies.
7:28 that eye scared the shite out of me
keep trying to find more like this.
So that more rocket history get covered then the popular ones.
I think you beat Curios Droid to this one.
EDIT : Oh I almost forgot to thumbs up. bye
Heh, Wikipedia has this video linked on the K1 launch vehicle page. Awesome
2:22 Wow! That type of launch pad on the edge of a cliff/tranche/crater looks familiar! :) Certainly I saw it elsewhere :)
How much does the Kistler weigh when fully rendered?
The rocket starting with a K makes it especially kerbal lol
HULLO back atcha hope u doin good manly Scot!
It would interesting if someone could recreate this in KSP, or at least just the landing air bags. It's a very interesting design.
So what happened to Mr Kistler and all his engineers? Where are they now?!
They're still on linkedin, probably because they haven't updated their profiles.www.linkedin.com/company/rocketplane-kistler/
"Rapid unplanned disassembly"
There's another development out there that I'd be interested in seeing your opinion on: Dream Chaser. It looks cool, the company is still in business and makes other things for various space programs, but I'm not sure if they'll go anywhere with their space plane.
Hullo, It's scott munley! it looks like we will have alot of fun, because of the reusable spacecraft in the title. oh no, is this the space shuttle?
Talk about the fairing. Here we are in 2021 with Rocket Lab showing the same thing.
Well... I know you're Scott Manley. Does that help?
I remember seeing Kistler's Flying Four Poster Rocket Bed in a Popular Mechanics magazine and thinking that was rather inelegant a design..
SpaceX tried to use parachute on all of the Falcon 1 and the first couple of Falcon 9 launch. After trying that many times, they came to the conclusion the problem of using parachute from orbit is not doable.
Are we going to see some Kistler Space Program?
It's a shame they never made it.
I was gonna ask
Is it possible that one day u could do a video about air refueling on KSP?
The last time I was this early there was no expensive car in space XD
Don't give up your day job.
XD has been used by cringeworthy children since 2008...so they're cringeworthy adults now.
Joe maybe oh boo hooo, some one used a combination of letters I don't like! Better write a comment devaluing their joke.
crusadin' all day long !
haha, cool story.
K1 was aimed at LEO satellite constellations that have yet to come to the fore. Elon rightly aimed for GEO and ate Russia's lunch. I think the K1's not being designed for GEO launches would have kept it a interesting bit player leaving the market asking ... What we really need is a reusable rocket like the K1 with the performance of an Atlas V. A ... er ... Falcon 9!
They could have made it difficult for SpaceX if they kept the costs down SpaceX would not have had the money to pursue their Mars rockets.
One of my professors actually did outside consulting for rocketplane. He claims that he found a serious design flaw with the wing that ultimately killed the project.
WOW even more advanced than the falcon 9
Great video, keep it up!
Rocketplane... amazing.
I wonder if some ex Kistler people ended working for Spacex as F9 ended up using a similar boost back method.
This one guy looks like he is ready to pilot the metal gear
The problem with the Kistler K-1 was that before Elon Musk said something, NASA was pouring money down a black hole on this.
Why not deploy airbags for spacex fairings to keep it float and don't touch water. While using parachute to slow its decent?
Thanks for using Metric!
That blunt heatshield nose on the upper stage seems very inefficient. I know it was necessary for re-entry, but how much drag would that shape generate compared with a more traditional nosecone?
Oh, of course! I should have thought harder about that one ha. Thanks.
I rember Kistler as they wanted to use Woomera....
Ok, Matt lowne Should make a Rocketplane in his new Science mode save!
Hi Scott! A few weeks ago, you did a live stream about artificial gravity using Kerbal Attachment System. Could you please post a recap? Thanks!
Years ago maybe, I performed the Gemini artificial gravity experiment, joining 2 vessels by a tether and spinning them in circles
Just about 3-5 weeks ago, I saw an email notification from YT about you doing a live stream on the topic. Probably I misunderstood the image or something. Too bad I didn't save that! Thanks for the lead about the Gemini one; I'll check that out.
*a Hollywood movie costs around 260 million ...hillarious that company could not get 200 mill to get into space=horrible idea*
I think the bigger problem was they'd already spent ~400million in investment money and new investors would get less potential value on their investment.
True that a movie can cost hundreds of millions, but that's only if that movie is pretty much guaranteed to make much more at the box office. Any business where you can double your investment in a year or so is a great business.
let's put advertisement and sponsor for every launch, there is so much audiences engagement every rocket show.
Muhammad Fanriado that's idiotic. Advertising doesn't create revenue, and in a generation or two it will entirely cease to work at all.
Muhammad > Fail! We love every launch but others prefer TV-shows. The live audience is not the masses and no advertiser wants to see a logo get blown up!
Any insights as to why Spacex only used the booster twice in their last launch?
They are phasing out the older versions of the F9 first stages in favor of the block-5 version, which will be the definitive version and more rapidly reusable according to Elon/SpaceX.
You know, you say the NK-33 engines were the best in the world at the time of their production, and continued to be excellent engines 30 years later, but given what happened to every N1 rocket and the Antares, didn't every rocket with NK-33 engines fail/crash/blow up during its launch? Is that pure coincidence, or is the NK-33 engine actually flawed in some way?
This is the recurring story in private space at least since the 1980s. Entrepreneur with a vision founds a company, it's harder and more expensive than expected, investors don't want to back it, company runs out of cash and goes out of business. Again and again. Relatively few, like SpaceX, have won the government money and survived. I don't know if any have survived without government money, except maybe Blue Origin (more or less), but Bezos has a day job and they're not launching yet, anyway. But all of this is interesting, not just the rock stars like Musk.
Can you do a moon Lagrange point insertion on Kerbel?
The Second design is straight from ksp :D
You give a guy with an eye patch a rocket? That won't end well