It would solve some design flew, but I didn't think 70s-80s tech can do much for what they wanted from Shuttle. It is just too much for technology of its time.
We deserved it, but didn't get it because... politics. Might not have revolutionized spaceflight, but I bet things like Shuttle-Centaur and larger passenger capacities could have been realized, and a lot less time, money, and lives would have been wasted in the long term.
@@DOSFS I was in that camp for a long time, but looking back I think a fully-reusable TSTO was 100% doable. However, stringent USAF requirements and budgetary cuts made it all but impossible in practicality. But tech-wise, I think they could've pulled it off: a reusable first stage would have much less heating load the the Space Shuttle Orbiter, automated horizontal landing was sufficiently advanced so that the Buran was able to pull it off (with inferior Soviet electronics) in 1987, we already had incredible engines with the SSMEs, which was originally designed for a system like this.
Incredible. With your traditional use of realisms, including logos and scenery, this brings life to this amazing idea. Looking forward to seeing you show more of the many Shuttle concepts that never quite made it. (How about the Shuttle II with its crew abort system activating?)
Fun fact: Some of the later Phase B Shuttle designs could do everything our Shuttle could (including crossrange and payload size), while still being fully reusable. Too bad NASA couldn't afford the development of those... #FundNASA
@@justmoritz Not quite - for a blank slate design, SRBs are cheaper to develop, although there were plans for liquid fuel boosters later down the line. Too bad NASA couldn't afford those... #FundNASA
@@HalNordmann Sort of like the strap-on boosters on the Energia launch vehicle? I am not a fan of the former Soviet Union nor current Russia, but that design was really interesting.
@@robertodeleon-gonzalez9844 I suspect the soviet engineers knew how dumb the whole shuttle concept was, so they figured if they at least make the launch system something that can be repurposed and treat the orbiter itself as a payload (an overweight, oversized stupid payload) they wouldn't repeat ALL of NASA's mistakes.
@@iainbagnall4825 STS wasn't dumb at all - just simply the result of a ridiculous number of compromises necessitated by a ridiculous number of contradictory requirements
Your interpretations and final renders keep better and better every video! It's really nice to see these proposed vehicles (and some real life ones too) come to life. Keep up the great work Hazegrayart and I will keep watching!
I was wondering when you would do an animation of the DC3. Also I love how you combine these vintage concepts with real-world systems and events. I loved the ending where it was docked with an early 2000s era ISS.
I guess in the world of the video this would be THE shuttle, built to build space station freedom(pictured in the video, notice the lack of russian segments) which in our timeline was compromised into the ISS, and space shuttle system.
Oii, this animation is one of your best!! It looked super cool seeing the second stage keep flying away, and I could feel the weight and size during that landing.
That is sort of what it is. The engineer of this based the fuselage and wing design off the DC-3 because he said the propliner was perfect. I don't see much of a resemblance, but that's the story.
That would be the Xenumobiles that L. Ron Hubbard thought would transport Scientologists to Xenu’s planet. Look it up: his “spaceships” looked like DC-3s! 😆
This would have avoided issues with fuel tank foam damaging tiles and it would have been fully reusable. Great job with the animation as usual, Hazegrayart!
wow I really, really like this. Great work. I know these concepts have been arounds since the 1960s ( I was reading up on these heavy when I was a kid! ). Always seen the drawings, but you've really brought these to life. Fantastic work!
Great animation. But in general, there are many questions about reusable systems: 1. In this particular case, where to land the orbiter in the event of a takeoff failure (RTO). The lane is already occupied by the first stage. 2. The tail unit of the first stage should be spaced apart in width, as in the AN-225 "Mriya". Otherwise, it will be burned by the gases coming out of the nozzle at the moment the engines of the orbital ship are started. 3. The efficiency of a reusable system is lower than a disposable one. 4. The impossibility of creating a completely reusable system (a significant amount of action and testing is required before restarting). 5. The video repeats the takeoff according to the "Energiya-Buran" scheme - the orbital ship's engines do not work at the moment of launch from the ground, the orbital ship is the second stage.
You'll notice the orbiter engines didn't start until they had enough separation from the booster. This tail design is what the actual NASA concept looked like.
@@FlyNAA Of course I noticed. But in the event of a failure and an earlier launch, an accident is inevitable, especially since there is also a crew in the first stage. "Fool proof" is always preferred. In addition, a long delay when turning on the engines of the second stage is an unnecessary gravitational loss.
Besides tomorrow being payday I could not be more enthused. Ive been waiting for and begging you for this.for the longest time. Thank you! Thank you!.Thank.you! Thank you!
The launch system reminded me of the Starship, and if the DC3 actually made it into production, the BFR would have been inspired by this. Also the mirage effects, the lighting and everything else are very well done and the most realistic ones I've ever seen so far. Good job !
nice work....i wonder however, if they would have launched like this, or with the orbiter heads down during ascent, like STS did to unload the wings and for a more bearable environment for the crew.....
@@jimbodeek Well, a bit of extra ground infrastructure is simpler than hauling transfer gear up and down. Not to the extent of SpaceX's "catch arms" - they are just stupid - but the need for a carrier aircraft and lifting gear is an acceptable tradeoff.
@@jimbodeek the shuttle didn't need assistance to land. It had plenty of inertia to land anywhere it wanted to. The space shuttle was an absolute amazing technology of its time and some may not realize just how amazing it was for many years.
Hazegrayart….!!! 🤯🤯🤯 Dude…!!!! (Or Dudette?)…….You just keep blowing my mind with your “augmented” realism animations! Loving the deliberate blurring of the imaginary camera lens when zooming in closer to the Eagle 1 and it’s monster winged carrier. Did I mention you just fracking blew my (tiny little) mind……yet AGAIN?!!! Absolutely. Fracking. Brilliant….!!!
Very pleasant, good animation and art work. However, without a delta-shaped wing, I don't think neither the booster or the shuttle would have been able to land. Oh, good soundtrack too, it reminds me the one from the movie Interstellar, by Hans Zimmer.
Back in the 1960's Centuri model rocket company had a flying model of this concept. I built one and flew it. tThe booster and shuttle would separate and both would glide down in big circles. Lots of fun!
Would've probably been slightly less expensive then the actual shuttle, since it didn't use disposal launch systems though it probably wouldn't suffered from serious repair / refit costs.
It also would require a much shorter assembly time, as workers wouldn't have to spend weeks stacking SRB components when preparing the vehicle for launch.
Yes it was. Autopilot wasn't advanced enough in 1969/1970 to reliably perform the flyback. Other proposed early flyback boosters were also crewed for the same reason (E.G Saturn Shuttle, BAC Mustard) AFAIK the first proposed automated flyback boosters were for Energia in the late 1980s.
This would have been much safer and more capable than the shuttle we did end up getting because the payload bay has a larger volume, there are no fuel lines running through the heat shield during launch, and no pesky SRB's. The deadstick flyback first stage is just a cherry on top at this point. You could do less inspection because it doesn't reach full orbital velocity, slap another orbiter on top, fuel it up and launch again. Probably not quite at Falcon 9 level cadence but especially close for 1970s era technology
The payload bay on the DC3 Shuttle is actually smaller than on the TAOS Shuttle, the fuel lines through heatshield save engine mass, and there were plans to replace the SRBs on the Shuttle from the start. In addition, the DC3 had some serious heating issues and tended to stall after reentry.
Also, the stacking process wouldn't be as long with this design. They would just need to take the booster, mount it on the platform, mount the orbiter on the booster, attach the umbilical arms to the vehicles, and then roll the entire assembly out to the pad for launch.
For a shuttle that goes up vertically, assisted by rockets, I believe that having the back/aft landing gears close to the center of gravity doesn't make much sense since it won't need to pivot over it to take off from a runway, in theory, would make more sense having it at the edge, near the back of the craft to avoid tail strikes, but I think you followed existing blueprints, right? I wonder what was the original thought process behind it.
What NASA should have stayed with. The Shuttle never failed. The SRB failed and the Tank failed fatally damaging the Shuttle , but the Shuttle never failed.
NASA had no choice. They needed the Air Forces’s approval to pass it through Congress, and the Air Force needed a large payload bay. Turns out they never really needed it.
Would have been real easy to have designed an expendable upper stage for larger and heavier payloads. Bet you could have launched 50 ton 7m station modules that way by emanating the orbiter.
The actual Douglas mini-shuttle is renamed the Boeing X-37b with the newest heat tiles . . . could originally hold up to 9 astronauts and was to be used to shuttle to and lifeboat from including emergency re-entry if required from ISS.
Great Animation. The sound design is especially good in particular. But can anyone explain to me what the throttle up thing means? Did they actually increase the throttle on ascent or is it just a is the throttle ok kinda situation?
The computer throttled the main engines down about 30 seconds after launch to reduce aerodynamic stress as speed was increasing. Once the shuttle had passed Max Q a minute or so in flight and stresses were dropping off due to the atmosphere thinning, the computers throttled the engines back up. These times were programmed in advance and issued by software. The call of "go" was just confirmation to proceed at that point, like you said.
Great animation! Not sure of the in line vertical tails for both the booster and DC3 though. The booster would more probably have been a V-tail affair.
This is what the original concept looked like. You'll office in the video that they had enough vertical separation to avoid burning the tail, before orbiter engine start.
If the wings on the first stage craft could fold, it would take away many burden of drag during pure zenith lift-off, also with option to reduce volume of space inside, like an all full load chamber, converting eventually back to wing glide form to earth surface land. Fascinating part, if the first stage could fuel load enough to reach orbit velocity parking, and the second stage had mini sets of vertical vector rockets to land in low gravity realms, they would be feasible in size ratio to replace the SpaceX Starships objectives. That's NO Relaunch & fuel required.
WAIT, that first stage has a cockpit? What year is this Concept from?? Because havving such a HUGE flyingmachine manned, damn. Extremely cool animatiom. Amazing work
The orbiter has the black tiles on its underside. The booster, on the other hand, does not have any tiles because it’s only meant to handle the stresses of suborbital flight.
Appropriate that this video came-out on the first day of "NASA's Memorial Week." If Max Faget (the NASA designer of the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo capsule concepts) had had HIS way - and if the DOD had NOT insisted that the Shuttle had to carry Keyhole recon satellites, and have 1100-1200 nautical miles crossrange for landing - THIS is what the Shuttle would have looked like! And we wouldn't have had the Challenger and Columbia disasters.
It’s missing the flyback burn, belly-first booster reentry and then diving nose down to switch from free fall (stall) to proper gliding. These short straight wings are not designed to go all the way from hypersonic to supersonic to subsonic glide like the shuttle’s delta wings n
Great work as usual, wish there was focus on other nations besides USA and Russia involving rockets. There is India, Iran, North Korea, South Korea, etc...
The Space Shuttle we needed, but didn't deserve. Would've revolutionized spaceflight 40 years early.
It would solve some design flew, but I didn't think 70s-80s tech can do much for what they wanted from Shuttle. It is just too much for technology of its time.
We deserved it, but didn't get it because... politics. Might not have revolutionized spaceflight, but I bet things like Shuttle-Centaur and larger passenger capacities could have been realized, and a lot less time, money, and lives would have been wasted in the long term.
Man politics really have get in every way..
@@DOSFS At east it didn't have multi-segment SRBs, so it would have been much safer.
@@DOSFS I was in that camp for a long time, but looking back I think a fully-reusable TSTO was 100% doable. However, stringent USAF requirements and budgetary cuts made it all but impossible in practicality. But tech-wise, I think they could've pulled it off: a reusable first stage would have much less heating load the the Space Shuttle Orbiter, automated horizontal landing was sufficiently advanced so that the Buran was able to pull it off (with inferior Soviet electronics) in 1987, we already had incredible engines with the SSMEs, which was originally designed for a system like this.
Incredible. With your traditional use of realisms, including logos and scenery, this brings life to this amazing idea. Looking forward to seeing you show more of the many Shuttle concepts that never quite made it. (How about the Shuttle II with its crew abort system activating?)
I noticed the individual engine gimbal working together to stabilize the areodynamicly challenged payload and I was like: "yup this guy gets it."
The JSC Shuttle II concept would be awesome to see animated
This is close to the Orion concept we see in 2001
@@rundownpear2601 Yes! That shuttle II was a very cool design!
I have to recreate that in KSP some day.
Fun fact: Some of the later Phase B Shuttle designs could do everything our Shuttle could (including crossrange and payload size), while still being fully reusable. Too bad NASA couldn't afford the development of those... #FundNASA
@SFS TRACKS Quite literally even here. The reason for SRBs were always the MIC's need to be involved in the program. Political decision.
@@justmoritz Not quite - for a blank slate design, SRBs are cheaper to develop, although there were plans for liquid fuel boosters later down the line. Too bad NASA couldn't afford those... #FundNASA
@@HalNordmann Sort of like the strap-on boosters on the Energia launch vehicle? I am not a fan of the former Soviet Union nor current Russia, but that design was really interesting.
@@robertodeleon-gonzalez9844 I suspect the soviet engineers knew how dumb the whole shuttle concept was, so they figured if they at least make the launch system something that can be repurposed and treat the orbiter itself as a payload (an overweight, oversized stupid payload) they wouldn't repeat ALL of NASA's mistakes.
@@iainbagnall4825 STS wasn't dumb at all - just simply the result of a ridiculous number of compromises necessitated by a ridiculous number of contradictory requirements
Your interpretations and final renders keep better and better every video! It's really nice to see these proposed vehicles (and some real life ones too) come to life. Keep up the great work Hazegrayart and I will keep watching!
I was wondering when you would do an animation of the DC3. Also I love how you combine these vintage concepts with real-world systems and events. I loved the ending where it was docked with an early 2000s era ISS.
I guess in the world of the video this would be THE shuttle, built to build space station freedom(pictured in the video, notice the lack of russian segments) which in our timeline was compromised into the ISS, and space shuttle system.
Also note the name of the Orbiter is visible in the shot... It's called "Eagle I".
Wonder if they would have named the booster vehicles too?
@@Duhya The russian segments are clearly visible in the video, with a docked Soyuz spacecraft.
@@Duhya this is not how freedom was gonna look like this is the old iss
The tv series "For All Mankind" also makes use of vintage designs, such as the Sea Dragon.
Oii, this animation is one of your best!! It looked super cool seeing the second stage keep flying away, and I could feel the weight and size during that landing.
Just from reading the title, I thought this was gonna be the DC-3 plane being turned into a space shuttle concept lol.
That is sort of what it is. The engineer of this based the fuselage and wing design off the DC-3 because he said the propliner was perfect. I don't see much of a resemblance, but that's the story.
@Jpegimations You aren't the only one. I did too, followed quickly by "Huh?"
So, as clickbait, the title did its job.
Some glue in the panels I'm shure it will handel it DC-3 have seen worse
Frankly I’m disappointed
That would be the Xenumobiles that L. Ron Hubbard thought would transport Scientologists to Xenu’s planet. Look it up: his “spaceships” looked like DC-3s! 😆
Your work is always brilliant, my friend! Thanks for another great one!
I remember this concept from a library book I borrowed in the third grade. Very exciting idea. Cool to see it.
Oh my god, thank you for finally doing this! Amazing work as always!
Why are these so realistic? I love these
This is a brilliant design, no wonder the German SpaceLiner has such a similar design, great minds think alike.
Great ideal! The idea of using a "fully reusable launch vehicle two-stage-to-orbit spaceplane" is feasible. Great video!
This would have avoided issues with fuel tank foam damaging tiles and it would have been fully reusable.
Great job with the animation as usual, Hazegrayart!
Estes had a cool rocket called the Orbital Transporter, it was cool, booster was huge and the shuttle was smaller, cool concept.
Kudos to the render on the landing spacecraft, looks hyper realistic.
This channel is so underrated, amazing content
Probably my favorite shuttle concept.
Simply fantastic. The stuff dreams are made of.
weird that you used 4 or 5 five times in a row the fx sound with a plane passing by (landing moment).. you always take care of every detail.
wow I really, really like this. Great work. I know these concepts have been arounds since the 1960s ( I was reading up on these heavy when I was a kid! ). Always seen the drawings, but you've really brought these to life. Fantastic work!
Thanks for some incredible work, bringing what might have been to life!
Great animation. But in general, there are many questions about reusable systems:
1. In this particular case, where to land the orbiter in the event of a takeoff failure (RTO). The lane is already occupied by the first stage.
2. The tail unit of the first stage should be spaced apart in width, as in the AN-225 "Mriya". Otherwise, it will be burned by the gases coming out of the nozzle at the moment the engines of the orbital ship are started.
3. The efficiency of a reusable system is lower than a disposable one.
4. The impossibility of creating a completely reusable system (a significant amount of action and testing is required before restarting).
5. The video repeats the takeoff according to the "Energiya-Buran" scheme - the orbital ship's engines do not work at the moment of launch from the ground, the orbital ship is the second stage.
You'll notice the orbiter engines didn't start until they had enough separation from the booster. This tail design is what the actual NASA concept looked like.
@@FlyNAA Of course I noticed. But in the event of a failure and an earlier launch, an accident is inevitable, especially since there is also a crew in the first stage. "Fool proof" is always preferred. In addition, a long delay when turning on the engines of the second stage is an unnecessary gravitational loss.
You're getting better at this dude. Keep it up!
OMG, Brilliant, ABSOLUTELY BBRILLIANT. One of the BEST Ideas I have ever seen so far.
Just stunning.. love your animations!
Thanks so much for all the good videos on this channel. You are such a blessing!!!!
Besides tomorrow being payday I could not be more enthused. Ive been waiting for and begging you for this.for the longest time. Thank you! Thank you!.Thank.you! Thank you!
The launch system reminded me of the Starship, and if the DC3 actually made it into production, the BFR would have been inspired by this. Also the mirage effects, the lighting and everything else are very well done and the most realistic ones I've ever seen so far. Good job !
Wow. That's an amazing piece of CGI? Not sure what to call it but it's amazing. You can even see the rockets vectoring. Very cool!
Loved the captions you put in explaining what’s happening in real time.
This is an amazing animation! Great job! It seems a lot more clever than the space shuttle. It may even of had ejection seats...
nice work....i wonder however, if they would have launched like this, or with the orbiter heads down during ascent, like STS did to unload the wings and for a more bearable environment for the crew.....
Excellent. Extremely realistic. I think I even saw some tiles falling off :-)
One of the parachute lines snapped I just noticed that😮
I think this is going to haapen in near future......well wish you to get 100k subs soon😊😊
Amazing, feels like I'm watching something out of 'Thunderbirds'.
5...4...3...2...1
Thunderbirds are GO!
FAB
So fucking cool, the visuals and realism are outstanding here. This and the Rockwell/General Dynamics proposal are my favorite shuttle designs tbh
Unlike the shuttle we got, this one doesn't just... "fall with style". It uses jet engines so it can actually FLY back to a runway landing.
The jet engines were found out to be unnecessary - too much weight for too little benefit. Gliding gets you to runway as well.
@@HalNordmann Yeah... But it also means that as a glider, the orbiter would need assistance should it land at someplace other than its launch site.
@@jimbodeek Well, a bit of extra ground infrastructure is simpler than hauling transfer gear up and down. Not to the extent of SpaceX's "catch arms" - they are just stupid - but the need for a carrier aircraft and lifting gear is an acceptable tradeoff.
The space shuttle was proposed originally to have engines but clearly became unfeasible because of the weight
Buran had jet engines I believe
@@jimbodeek the shuttle didn't need assistance to land. It had plenty of inertia to land anywhere it wanted to. The space shuttle was an absolute amazing technology of its time and some may not realize just how amazing it was for many years.
Thanks for this genious animation in pictures & sound (incl. heli in the beginning...).
Awesome work as always! Thanks!
You deserve atleast 5 million subs wow
This is kind of starship style! Would any of these old shuttle replacement concepts have actually worked well?
Wonderful! Now I'm just waiting for: Part II - The Reentry.
My favourite shuttle concept
To me this needs to be next generation spaceship especially with plans to go moon we will need to craft that compete with spacex starship
Hazegrayart….!!! 🤯🤯🤯
Dude…!!!! (Or Dudette?)…….You just keep blowing my mind with your “augmented” realism animations!
Loving the deliberate blurring of the imaginary camera lens when zooming in closer to the Eagle 1 and it’s monster winged carrier.
Did I mention you just fracking blew my (tiny little) mind……yet AGAIN?!!!
Absolutely. Fracking. Brilliant….!!!
Well done as always, love your content.
Very pleasant, good animation and art work. However, without a delta-shaped wing, I don't think neither the booster or the shuttle would have been able to land. Oh, good soundtrack too, it reminds me the one from the movie Interstellar, by Hans Zimmer.
Back in the 1960's Centuri model rocket company had a flying model of this concept. I built one and flew it. tThe booster and shuttle would separate and both would glide down in big circles. Lots of fun!
Would've probably been slightly less expensive then the actual shuttle, since it didn't use disposal launch systems though it probably wouldn't suffered from serious repair / refit costs.
It also would require a much shorter assembly time, as workers wouldn't have to spend weeks stacking SRB components when preparing the vehicle for launch.
Gawd, would love to see this in season 3 of "For All Mankind".
How did you bring in the scenery- google earth data?
Awesome work- very very nice
Amazing how the name, Shuttle, makes more clear sense. Good name choice.
as usual, very visionary work
Imagine the SpaceX Starship carrying the Dynasoar on top.
Thst would be awesome
I Am Really NOT Sure Which Is Better, 'Off-Line' Design OR 'In-Line' Design For A Shuttle Vehicle ? ? ?
Very cool! Love the content from this channel!
Was the booster crewed? It looks like there was a cockpit of sorts but I couldn't quite make it out.
Yes it was. Autopilot wasn't advanced enough in 1969/1970 to reliably perform the flyback.
Other proposed early flyback boosters were also crewed for the same reason (E.G Saturn Shuttle, BAC Mustard)
AFAIK the first proposed automated flyback boosters were for Energia in the late 1980s.
@Grassy Ranks i think it would be astronauts that pilloted planes before.
Amazing work.
Tremendous work. Keep it going.👏👏
Brilliant as always.
These are so good!
Beautiful work Sir.
une des meilleur vidéo, en terme de qualité!
This would have been much safer and more capable than the shuttle we did end up getting because the payload bay has a larger volume, there are no fuel lines running through the heat shield during launch, and no pesky SRB's. The deadstick flyback first stage is just a cherry on top at this point. You could do less inspection because it doesn't reach full orbital velocity, slap another orbiter on top, fuel it up and launch again. Probably not quite at Falcon 9 level cadence but especially close for 1970s era technology
The payload bay on the DC3 Shuttle is actually smaller than on the TAOS Shuttle, the fuel lines through heatshield save engine mass, and there were plans to replace the SRBs on the Shuttle from the start. In addition, the DC3 had some serious heating issues and tended to stall after reentry.
Also, the stacking process wouldn't be as long with this design.
They would just need to take the booster, mount it on the platform, mount the orbiter on the booster, attach the umbilical arms to the vehicles, and then roll the entire assembly out to the pad for launch.
Amazing very realistic! nice simulation, the step befor electric lift to space...
For a shuttle that goes up vertically, assisted by rockets, I believe that having the back/aft landing gears close to the center of gravity doesn't make much sense since it won't need to pivot over it to take off from a runway, in theory, would make more sense having it at the edge, near the back of the craft to avoid tail strikes, but I think you followed existing blueprints, right? I wonder what was the original thought process behind it.
The launch engines on both the DC3 and the booster would have been firing for launch. Nice animations.
Very cool
THIS was the shuttle system we were sold on... in the early 1970s!
No. it was the system Richard Nixon was sold on.
Besides the cross-range thing, given hindsight, did this have a decent chance of working out, if tried?
I remember seeing these depicted in Bob McCall paintings back in the 70's, only he had them taking off from runways....
What NASA should have stayed with. The Shuttle never failed. The SRB failed and the Tank failed fatally damaging the Shuttle , but the Shuttle never failed.
NASA had no choice. They needed the Air Forces’s approval to pass it through Congress, and the Air Force needed a large payload bay.
Turns out they never really needed it.
Would have been real easy to have designed an expendable upper stage for larger and heavier payloads. Bet you could have launched 50 ton 7m station modules that way by emanating the orbiter.
Ok, that was badass
As an old paratrooper, and the legacy of the American Airborne, of that Greatest Generation, bummed it wasn’t an homage to the C-47s aka DC-3’s.
c'Est aussi vrai que nature. Un travail pointu et remarquable de détail! Bravo pour le contenu de cette vidéo... Un abonné de France.
The best of ALL worlds was the Saturn 5 1st stage booster concept with reusable winged landing
The actual Douglas mini-shuttle is renamed the Boeing X-37b with the newest heat tiles . . . could originally hold up to 9 astronauts and was to be used to shuttle to and lifeboat from including emergency re-entry if required from ISS.
Great Animation. The sound design is especially good in particular. But can anyone explain to me what the throttle up thing means? Did they actually increase the throttle on ascent or is it just a is the throttle ok kinda situation?
The computer throttled the main engines down about 30 seconds after launch to reduce aerodynamic stress as speed was increasing. Once the shuttle had passed Max Q a minute or so in flight and stresses were dropping off due to the atmosphere thinning, the computers throttled the engines back up. These times were programmed in advance and issued by software. The call of "go" was just confirmation to proceed at that point, like you said.
Great animation! Not sure of the in line vertical tails for both the booster and DC3 though. The booster would more probably have been a V-tail affair.
This is what the original concept looked like. You'll office in the video that they had enough vertical separation to avoid burning the tail, before orbiter engine start.
I’m pretty sure the carrier plane rear landing gear in the video didn’t have enough tires.
Superb Superb Superb Idea. Congrats. Maybe european space plane Hermes next time???
It's been a while since the last shuttle-related animation. Why not do the Grumman H-33 next?
If the wings on the first stage craft could fold, it would take away many burden of drag during pure zenith lift-off, also with option to reduce volume of space inside, like an all full load chamber, converting eventually back to wing glide form to earth surface land.
Fascinating part, if the first stage could fuel load enough to reach orbit velocity parking, and the second stage had mini sets of vertical vector rockets to land in low gravity realms, they would be feasible in size ratio to replace the SpaceX Starships objectives. That's NO Relaunch & fuel required.
WAIT, that first stage has a cockpit?
What year is this Concept from?? Because havving such a HUGE flyingmachine manned, damn.
Extremely cool animatiom. Amazing work
Great video! I didnt notice a heat shield on the shuttle, might be a steamy reentry
The orbiter has the black tiles on its underside.
The booster, on the other hand, does not have any tiles because it’s only meant to handle the stresses of suborbital flight.
Tonight, on "The Way it Should Have Been"
Fun fact, this was actually a flying model rocket kit offered by Centuri Model Rockets in the early 1970s, kit KC-6 Space Shuttle
What happened to Centuri? Were they bought out by Estes?
Aww yeah - The LFBB - Liquid Fly Back Booster the shuttle should have had.
Or rather, that Apollo should have developed into. :P
Appropriate that this video came-out on the first day of "NASA's Memorial Week."
If Max Faget (the NASA designer of the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo capsule concepts) had had HIS way - and if the DOD had NOT insisted that the Shuttle had to carry Keyhole recon satellites, and have 1100-1200 nautical miles crossrange for landing - THIS is what the Shuttle would have looked like!
And we wouldn't have had the Challenger and Columbia disasters.
I'm sure that even if we had the DC-3, there would still be orbiters bearing the names Columbia and Challenger.
Is Eagle 1 a nod to Space: 1999?
I remember a long long time ago that the model rocket company Centuri had a similar shuttle.
That was cool!
Please, make a video about a UR-700A, with RD-270 engines on UDMH and N²0⁴. Day 1
I don’t know if you’ve read the “World engine” series by Stephen Baxter, but it would be really cool to see the crash of this booster recreated
It’s missing the flyback burn, belly-first booster reentry and then diving nose down to switch from free fall (stall) to proper gliding.
These short straight wings are not designed to go all the way from hypersonic to supersonic to subsonic glide like the shuttle’s delta wings n
Great work as usual, wish there was focus on other nations besides USA and Russia involving rockets.
There is India, Iran, North Korea, South Korea, etc...
out of curiosity, ist there a reason why you used Daytona beach international as the landing site, and not the shuttle landing facility?
It was just much less expensive to use a foam covered tank and SRB than a hard shell liquid fuel engine gas tank drone.