Look up Ravn-X that the US Space Force is testing. It's technically a unmanned drone but all fighter jets will soon be unmanned drones. Also the Space Force has Partnered with the Air force and worked with Space X to develop the 6th generation fighter Jet, and they created a new type of engine for it. That tells me that they will be able to travel in lower space.
The Yunlong engine pre-cooler was just successfully tested 1 month ago, where it cooled high speed air flow from 1000 degrees Celsius to 0 in a few milliseconds. It’s a huge breakthrough and arguably the most challenging part of a spaceplane. Of course, the engine will not be ready until late 2020s and the first plane won’t fly until 2035, but it’s not really impossible. It is very much possible and projected to cut down cost by 90% compared to traditional rockets.
I feel like it would have been good opportunity to end with Skylon and reactions engines SABRE engine. It is trying to solve exactly that problem by being both and air breathing jet engine and a rocket engine at the same time. It has been in development for a while now showing some really promising results and has some serious backing behind it now
They also solved its biggest technical hurdle recently which was supercooling the hot intake air quickly in order to use the air as a fuel source. It is amazing the technological progress human beings can make when we dont just accept someone saying it cant happen.
I think they started getting funding from the US Military or DARPA so they can adapt their technology for military space planes with nuclear payloads or satellites
Lockheed X-33 demonstrated that it's a full ssto and the most advanced spacecraft at the time, using aerospike engine and 90% cheaper than the space shuttle, killed in the final moment by Ivan Bekey. Skylon from the UK successfully tested the cooling system for air-breathing engine at mach 5.5 and attempting to test the ssto spaceplane in 2025 (18 tons to LEO). Similarly lockheed SR-72 is also aiming for mach 6 using air-breathing engine but with a different purpose, as a successor of SR-71. USAF now need a powerful reconnaissance airplane again due to the threat of anti-satelite weapons.
Hey, I know I haven't commented in a while, but I want to thank you for continually and actively uploading high quality videos. When I subbed to your channel I was worried that like many others you'd just stop, but you've been keeping at it, so thank you.
There is a reason why planes even jets have a height limit. Even jets, one of the biggest advancements of humanity can't go to a height beyond its limit or it will fall and not function.
Jets use air pressure so higher you go less air their is to push. Rockets dont use air intake at all but are much less efficient at propulsion, hence the space -->rockets and atmosphere --> planes
The Srarraker solved these problems. It was a very large spaceplane proposed by Rockwell IIRC in the late 70's for building solar power sats and was horizontal t/o and landing. It solved the heat problem by re-entering empty and thereby having very low loading/heating on the huge wing. The wing was used to hold propellant. It used air breathing hydrogen fueled turboramjets with a little hydrogen oxygen rocket help to take off and switched to all rocket at Mach 6. It was to be flown to orbit multiple times a day from an airport. Actually the Starship could be a plane if the drag devices were instead wings and it had gear to land on a runway.
The most attractive thing about spaceplanes isn't whether they launch horizontally, but the fact of leveraging the extremely high ISP of an air breathing engine for gaining orbital speed, reserving rocket fuel for the orbital maneuvers.
I think the biggest advantage to spaceplanes that wasn't mentioned was the accessibility they provide to passengers. While it makes way more sense to use vertical-lift-off now, if we want to see the average person go to space we have to take into account that most people can't handle the extremely large G's of a rocket, especially when the rapid descent could pose a serious health risk (Apollo astronauts faced around 6-7 g's on descent, STS peaked at around 1.6 g's). That does mean, though, you'll be exposed to much more heating, so I think that's honestly the biggest obstacle to making spaceplanes and accessible space travel feasible
Well lift is needed but its not like the best plane is the plane with the most lift. F22 is probably considered reliable and manouvorable for its reputation
@@philipdrew10 * maneuverable * Yes, the goal is the generate the most lift possible, with the most maneuverability. That’s why the vertical stabilizers are set the way they are, movement and they generate lift, vectored thrust, the fuselage itself generates lift. Yeah, well 🤔, the best jet out there right now is the f-22, which generates the most lift….. sooo I guess… that means the generating the most lift makes the best fighter. And it’s been that way since the bf-109’s vs spitfires!
Do you think it could be possible with an aerospike engine and a specific flight path? Like: Get to an altitude of approx 20 km like an airplane -> Get to an angle of 20° -> Full engine power -> Keep tilting to get into orbit -> Orbit around earth -> (Maybe refuel in orbit to get to the moon)
@@LogicallyAnswered There is probably some elite physics that just doesn't allow it and reentry sucks. We have to find some super heat resistant lightweight material to deal with it. I just need to see an efficient SSTO in my lifetime otherwise I can't die peacefully.
Great video. I think you should´ve mentioned that the most important advantage of a space plane is that by not needing internal oxygen tank until it reaches significant height and speed is that it can be much lighter overall, at least in theory, and because of it a space plane could be single stage to orbit.
@@rohitwankhede9153 I'm pretty sure aerospikes don't use external oxygen from the atmosphere but they would give a used boost in fuel efficiency in other ways by having what is effectively a passively expanding nozzle to fit with the atmospheric pressure it's at.
Skylon will be much safer than Starship, so will probably not be developed until everyday people need to go to space, for finacial reasons, likely another at least 20 years or so.
@@keithparker6520 Even if it isnt developed for everyday people, the military and high altitude R&D departments shall benefit from it on a periodical basis
People should also look for more nascent alternatives like elevators, projectile cannons, planes other than plain rockets ...only then can one expect strong movement in space
The other problem besides heat is starting mass verses ending mass and is actually somewhat related as heat shield tiles weigh something as well as all of that structure and engine mass you need to operate as an airplane in the atmosphere. This goes in concert with out of control complexity and associated mass. The most efficient rockets we have today can get something like 3% of their starting mass into LEO as payload. If anybody here has done rocket equations, and apparently not a single person here has besides me, a key factor in delta-v for rockets is starting mass verses ending mass. The thing is with airplanes is they are only efficient when you do a huge gear reduction and indeed modern jet liners designed for efficient operation have a huge bell at the back of the engine to slow down the air passing over the turbine blades so they can drive an even larger bypass fan in the front of the engine. At this, airliners would be more efficient if they had an even larger gear reduction while also having a straight through exhaust instead of a bell on the back, but this requires gears under high loads and thus more maintenance and so is usually not done. So yeah when you go on about how an airplane is so much more efficient, you are really only talking about an airliner that goes at subsonic speeds and at that maybe up to mach 0.7 or so at a 10 km or so altitude. Try to go higher and faster and these efficiency equations quickly melt down. Granted most jet liners go a little bit faster and once long haul airliners burn most of their fuel load a little bit higher, but they only go a little bit faster due to engine design trade-offs and a little bit higher on long haul planes because much of their potential payload capacity is used for fuel and that fuel is largely burned off before they go higher. Trying to go higher from the get go is generally not done because that would mean the plane could not carry anywhere near as much stuff and so you start running into the only thing you haul up to that altitude is fuel and structure to make it to that altitude. When you get into just hauling fuel and structure to a place and no payload, you stop doing anything useful and after a certain point the plane gets on the negative side of the drag curve as the engines produce less power and the effective airspeed decreases due to thinner air (less air density and it is effectively like you are flying slower from a lift standpoint) and stalls. An empty commercial airliner once did this whole let's see how high we can go thing with young pilots on board and they stalled the plane and overheated the engines leading to the engine cores seizing while going too slow. The plane ended up crashing, killing both pilots. Planes that fly significantly higher than airliners are designed to be almost all structure and engines with some fuel and almost no payload and at this are nowhere near being in space nor anywhere near orbital speeds. Another thing to consider about going fast is how hot do the engines get? It is not like you can just make engines run hotter because you want to go a little faster. Instead you end up with more complex engines to keep existing materials from getting above a certain temperature. At this heating with speed is a cubic factor. After a certain point you can't do that anymore, so maybe you run the engines for a few seconds because that is all you can do before they melt and still end up with a woefully inadequate result when talking about trying to make a space plane. The thing with rocket engines is you accelerate both the fuel and oxidizer and so instead of heating increasing at a cubic rate, it is a more or less constant heat load on the engines as you go faster and faster. The speed of the materials moving through the engine is low enough for a solution to work. This is a key gripe I have with all of these people going Skylon! Skylon! is keeping these engines cool as in doesn't melt or ablate away and efficient as in why didn't we just use a traditional rocket engine and forget all of this air breathing stuff that makes our vehicle heavier and thus hurt a key tenant of rocket equations. As far as I can tell from the equations is it is basically impossible to make any sort of meaningful gain and a whole lot easier to end up with something less efficient than a traditional rocket as trying to go for more and the engines just melt or ablate away. So yeah, try to model things with the equations that model each thing and put them all together for your design. I think you will see the equations that model something like Skylon show it to be a terrible idea as you add in all of this starting mass for an airplane body instead of a rocket body, heat shielding mass, heavy, complex engines that have to switch off most of the engine early on before getting something all that useful out of it as they equations you are relying on largely break down at a cubic rate, making it more dead weight you are hauling up to high speeds, and then balance against the weight you can get up to orbital speeds. You will quickly find you made yet another sub-orbital vehicle like what Richard Branson ended up with. Even Jeff Bezos was able to beat Branson in altitude capability and did it with a far simpler vehicle, which is a sad statement. The main place I have found where you can potentially get to a more efficient vehicle to orbit mass efficiency wise are rockets with somewhat more powerful engines. One limit is max-q where air friction limits the rocket's effective speed before the equations start melting down trying to go faster through that part of the lower atmosphere and the other is max G loading on your rocket and payload where you just can't practically do any more, especially if you are looking to haul people into space. As a rocket lightens its fuel load, it is capable of achieving high G loads, which is important for reducing hang time the rocket burns fuel to counteract while not doing anything useful beyond hanging. I have come up with some extra engine mass that effectively gets switched off mid way through a burn to keep G loading down should be lighter than the fuel burned fighting against gravity, granted you also scale back some to make it through max-q. With Elon Musk recently talking about more engines on both Starship and Superheavy, he is talking about this trade off where the engines will scale back more in parts of the flight, but there will be more total engine power to muscle through the parts of the flight where the fuel load is still heavy and there are not other limiting factors, allowing for this extra muscle to kick in and reduce hang time. It also provides better engine out capability. The thing is he is not going to say make shorter, lighter tanks with the same engine power as the current design to further reduce hang time because there is an upper bound of gains, plus there are a number of problems with trying to go for a higher max g-loading and going for higher speeds while still in the thicker part of the atmosphere. Expendable rockets actually go in the other direction of lower thrust to starting mass as they are often designed for max thrust throughout the burn instead of throttling back and the engines are expensive compared to the tank cost, so optimize around getting the most out of these engines in their one flight and waste due to hang time be damned. I think this is another place where going on about how Skylon is being done by the British is not as good as some make it sound. For one the British have the whole Brexit fiasco. Then you have that idiot prime minister to pick out one of a litany of idiotic things he has done was to go out of the way to get himself sick with COVID-19 and nearly died. Then there is the whole Harry and Megan deal where Megan is doing everything she can to undermine and rip apart the royal family and it is like why did you go out of your way to have this American woman and especially stick with her with all of the crap she has pulled and just let her throw the whole royal family under the bus? Back in the day the British broke with the Roman Catholic church just so the king could get a divorce, so it is not like the British are strangers to divorce. So yeah, um, the British haven't been making the best decisions as of late. Granted they are far from alone in bad decision making, but the point is attaching the British label to it doesn't make it any more credible these days.
your last paragraph is irrational drivel, regardless of brexit more funding has been put in and the average Brit does not care about the Royals or even know what they get up to. The research into the British Pre-Cooler has some serious big aerospace backers and the most resent and likely to be the first is the HVX program.
I wonder how the Rockwell StarRaker would have performed in development if they had gone with it instead of that x-30. Could it have been more realistic, or still failed?
Perhaps you should look into Reaction Engines and the Skylon project in the UK. They have viable space plane and engine design. It intakes its oxygen in the way up. And solves the temp issues. The Sabre engine is a marvel. This commentary is completely out of date.
@@erikals actually they have validated the sabre engine at their US test facility already and Rolls Royce has taken a stake in the company. Yes it's not a complete proven platform, but validating the engine air temperature conversion sustainably works, is a big deal.
Once NASA or some other entity figures how how to build a working Warp drive now that they've figured out that it can actually be built; we will probably be able to get into space ezpz.
Space planes should have sliding wings , and while on rentry it should revolve around its axis for even heat distribution. It would be rocket with wings .
Its "impossible" because people generally dont use multiple stages on a plane for space. With enough stages you could (ALMOST definitely). But then you wonder why would we do that and not just build a cheaper rocket
A Taxi to space-stations should work very much like an interceptor (MIG 25) space plane design is driven by physics, and cost efficiency, eventually time will sort out these issues.
I think that might’ve been canceled. Either way though, I’m not saying space planes are impossible as I’m sure they will happen. Im simply saying that they’re nearly impossible or extremely difficult.
Watched the whole thing and still don’t get it. 7:50 you can get high up by not launching vertically, just fly normally, slowly without generating heat. After that, launch your rockets to get up to Mach 33. Like the Virgin Galactic method with carrier plane Eve and rocket plane VSS Unity. Virgin Orbit goes higher for satellites. Landing like a glider is a huge benefit compared to parachutes or rocket landings.
@@LogicallyAnswered “Yet the aircraft could not fly too low, or it would face limits set by aerodynamic flutter.” I guess thats why VG has a carrier plane. For the low flight. And then the feathering system on the glider for descent. So it works and could go orbital.
there's a larger and more subtle problem with space planes, and it's a problem that can be observed in airplanes too... they take too damn long to develop! compare Skylon's development to the rate at which SpaceX churns out new Starship prototypes with new design changes, or even look at how long it's taking Boom to develop a supersonic airliner, or Aerion which unfortunately ran out of money trying to develop just a supersonic business jet because the process was so long and expensive rockets are just simpler, and that might come with the downside of people making jokes about them looking like flying grain silos, but it comes with the advantage of shorter and cheaper development timelines
All we have to do is invent a revolutionary propulsion system, one based on particles, either fusion, antimatter or something we can't imagine yet, the current technology is similar to driving from city to city in a golf cart.... That runs on liquid gold.....
It sounds like you just saw the thumbnail and commented. Even if you read the title, you would know that I said that it's nearly impossible meaning that its extremely difficult, but not impossible.
I think we should go back to the Space Shuttle approach: up like a rocket, down like a plane. Plus I think the SABER engine currently in development is really promising.
Saying that cancelled NASA projects was a "waste" or "money thrown away" - no - that is garbage. NASA is a research organisation, and it must supply US industry with whatever it knows - for free. NASA money gets paid to people. It doesn't get set on fire. It employs tens of thousands of researchers, and it pushes the boundaries with its projects - which are high risk, high reward things. Now - when the risks cause the project to fail, that is a good thing. It means NASA learned a shit-ton, which can now be applied to the next project, in a standing on the shoulders of giants kind of way, so that NASA continues to advance aerospace knowledge and technology. NASA is one of the greatest investments the USA ever made, and each dollar spent on NASA returns many more dollars to the economy. If the USA were smart, they'd triple the budget right now, and use NASA to exert dominance over space technology and the aerospace industry - all over again!
i don't believe people should give up on something just because there are a few problems on the way. There is always a solution you just have to take a step back. @JoDaF
@@LogicallyAnswered Don't be sad. I really appreciate the choice of topic, space planes are really cool and really complicated. No wonder no one ever made one, yet. In order to understand why that's it, one has to understand several concepts in different realms of engineering. Very difficult topic to cover.
I love how you specifically said "Annual risk of an american dying in an airplane crash" it does not matter if the rest of us die in a plane crash ha,I guess the rest of us are expendable.
Starship is not a successful rocket. vertical launches expend far too much fuel, and the environmental impact of many vertical launches of heavy lift vehicles is extreme. Getting to LEO using less fuel is what we want. Space planes will happen. Just don't hold your breath.
I hate logic, i hate physics Just throw me in the fantasy world where my brain can be use fully, with no limit Wouldn't that be nice? Oh gosh i can even feel it already
I'm a little surprised, you should know that the description of lift you gave was not fully correct. The glaring mistake is that lift is not generated because "air has a longer distance to travel over the top." A wing that is a flat plate can generate lift if at an angle of attack. It doesn't have to do with the distance.
Don't forget that until just a handful of years ago everyone just KNEW it was impossible to re-use a rockrt booster. Of course a spaceplane is impossible. Just don't book hard money on it.
We arent there yet for planes. We would need better metallurgy in order to construct the planes out of material that can withstand reentry or more efficient AND powerful engines so we could maintain suborbital speeds during reentry.
I think we're already there we just need someone to put all the theoretically and physically proven pieces of tech together to make it happen. That and a huge pocket.
Can’t the MiG-31 go to the stratosphere or something? If you remove the weapons, add in a oxygen capsule so the fuel works in space, it could probably go even farther
as a layman, couldn't you just use jet engines in atmosphere while carrying oxidizer with you, then switch to mixing the jet fuel with the oxidizer once you get high enough? i imagine it would weigh less then just using oxidizer and rocket fuel all the way up right?
Sooo, the X-15 that got the edge of space at M- 5, could not switch to rocket engine and go outside the atmosphere into space? And why would THAT be "impossible" physically?? That would mean shuttling cargo into outer space a cheap proposal, and environmentally good
The explanation you provide for the lift created by aircrafts wings, although very commonly found in litterature, is, if not wrong, at least only partial. If this was the main reason for aircraft lift, they would not be able to fly upside down, since in that case, the wings would create a force downwards and add up to gravity to pull the plane to Earth.
And when was the last time that you saw a commercial airplane fly upside? To my knowledge, only fighter jets or other aircraft who have a thrust to weight ratio of close to 1 or above 1 can fly upside down, vertically, and stuff like that. I could be wrong though.
@@LogicallyAnswered There are several points to address : 1/ Since the video addresses spaceplanes, commercial aircrafts are just not a very good example. Yes for commercial aircraft, the Bernouilli effect (what you explain in the video) is quite large, but still it not the only contribution to wing lift. 2/ Spaceplanes would have wings which geometry would be very different from a Boeing or Airbus, with different constraints, requirements and flight characteristics. 3/ Aircrafts have been flying upside down for more than a century and in flight conditions where thrust to weight ratio was always way below 1. You don't need a thrust to weight ratio above 1 to fly upside down.
Ah ok, the video was mainly about why it’s so hard to go from what we have today, which is commercial airplanes, to space planes. That’s why I brought up commercial airplanes. Thanks for the info!
A single stage plane to orbit is as difficult as a single stage rocket to orbit. If rockets were limited to one stage we would have never made it to the moon. Good thing Virgin Orbit (747 launch) and Seria Space (winged space ship) didn't give up.
Starship will need to pass the same hurdle as a space plane when it comes to heating. The heating issue has more to do with re-usability, you could make a disposable space plane. Heating during ascent is not as grave an issue as during re-entry. A space plane is dumb due to the mass issue.
They are possible, it's just bloody hard to properly build one that decently works. However, there is a engine that we've developed in recent times that doesn't need oxygen to power it. Hell it doesn't need combustion, but it's so over looked as a option. Because, it's so weak by the science community. Even though we already have the tools to make it more powerful than what it is now. I'm of course talking about ion engines. All you need to power one is air, and electricity. The atmosphere is air, and we know how to bottle air. The most known powerful battery that we can create is basically a nuclear reactor. The same one powering perseverance, or was it curiosity? Speaking of nuclear, once in space, one could switch to nuclear powered rockets on the space craft. Who says that we can't hybridize space crafts? Especially in away that allows use of 2 different types of engines. In the end it isn't about weather, or not if it is impossible, but weather, or not we have the technology. One thing about technology is that technology now is a stepping stone for technology later.
Space plane will prove itself in the near future...
That would be awesome!
Only on LEO and even then VTVL is probably gonna take over.
I’m holding my breath….
Just need more powerful engine and a more efficient power source
Look up Ravn-X that the US Space Force is testing. It's technically a unmanned drone but all fighter jets will soon be unmanned drones. Also the Space Force has Partnered with the Air force and worked with Space X to develop the 6th generation fighter Jet, and they created a new type of engine for it. That tells me that they will be able to travel in lower space.
I never thought about it before i just found a solution they should attache one rocket to the plane then i realized it is already done.
Meet the bell x-1
That’s literally KSP’s solution. Even SSTOs are basically rocket planes that can travel between planets
No one has done a double stage rocket to a plane, could be worth looking into
@@philipdrew10 not worth looking into at all, that’s just a rocket that doesn’t have the luxury of negligible air resistance
@@johncorn7905 Unless your a kid then dont stress. But why so confident about rockets and jets? Shouldnt just say random shit
I hope the experimental oblique wave detonation engine gets somewhere. I think that could be the key to spaceplanes if it works as expected.
Something like project aurora concept?
The Yunlong engine pre-cooler was just successfully tested 1 month ago, where it cooled high speed air flow from 1000 degrees Celsius to 0 in a few milliseconds. It’s a huge breakthrough and arguably the most challenging part of a spaceplane.
Of course, the engine will not be ready until late 2020s and the first plane won’t fly until 2035, but it’s not really impossible.
It is very much possible and projected to cut down cost by 90% compared to traditional rockets.
Nah it is
Coming from China I highly doubt that is true or it freezes and if it does work as advertised I bet good money it was stolen from reaction engines.
Making a spacecraft using Made In China parts sounds like a fundamentally flawed idea.
@@nickkorkodylas5005 idk man. China historically had a higher launch success rate than America did.
@@thomaszhang3101 _>historically_
You misspelled "ironically".
if isaac newton didn't discovered gravity. we could've achieved space by jumping.
oh noes... Newton would like a word with you about conservation of momentum and the affect of deflecting a mass of air
I feel like it would have been good opportunity to end with Skylon and reactions engines SABRE engine. It is trying to solve exactly that problem by being both and air breathing jet engine and a rocket engine at the same time.
It has been in development for a while now showing some really promising results and has some serious backing behind it now
They also solved its biggest technical hurdle recently which was supercooling the hot intake air quickly in order to use the air as a fuel source. It is amazing the technological progress human beings can make when we dont just accept someone saying it cant happen.
I think they started getting funding from the US Military or DARPA so they can adapt their technology for military space planes with nuclear payloads or satellites
Hopium fool
SABRE has had recent successes. I think they only have to pass integration tests now.
Lockheed X-33 demonstrated that it's a full ssto and the most advanced spacecraft at the time, using aerospike engine and 90% cheaper than the space shuttle, killed in the final moment by Ivan Bekey. Skylon from the UK successfully tested the cooling system for air-breathing engine at mach 5.5 and attempting to test the ssto spaceplane in 2025 (18 tons to LEO). Similarly lockheed SR-72 is also aiming for mach 6 using air-breathing engine but with a different purpose, as a successor of SR-71. USAF now need a powerful reconnaissance airplane again due to the threat of anti-satelite weapons.
We need smarter leaders and smarter VOTERS!!
There is actually a space plane in development called skylon.
With it's lack of funding I doubt it will ever get out of development tho maybe it'll prove me wrong.
Hey, I know I haven't commented in a while, but I want to thank you for continually and actively uploading high quality videos. When I subbed to your channel I was worried that like many others you'd just stop, but you've been keeping at it, so thank you.
Thank you for you sustained support man!
Same
I think s spaceplane is just a more elegant solution than blasting massive quantities of fuel out the back of a rocket.
Hope it don’t end up like the commercial super sonic plane ✈️ accident . The damage by the planes on the houses .
Love these Space Vids :D
Glad to hear that man!
@@LogicallyAnswered all of your are very detailed and logically answered
Probably we need to find a new path for physics to solve the problem...
There is a reason why planes even jets have a height limit. Even jets, one of the biggest advancements of humanity can't go to a height beyond its limit or it will fall and not function.
Yep, high speeds and altitude don’t go well with regular jets.
Jets use air pressure so higher you go less air their is to push. Rockets dont use air intake at all but are much less efficient at propulsion, hence the space -->rockets and atmosphere --> planes
The Srarraker solved these problems. It was a very large spaceplane proposed by Rockwell IIRC in the late 70's for building solar power sats and was horizontal t/o and landing. It solved the heat problem by re-entering empty and thereby having very low loading/heating on the huge wing. The wing was used to hold propellant. It used air breathing hydrogen fueled turboramjets with a little hydrogen oxygen rocket help to take off and switched to all rocket at Mach 6. It was to be flown to orbit multiple times a day from an airport.
Actually the Starship could be a plane if the drag devices were instead wings and it had gear to land on a runway.
The most attractive thing about spaceplanes isn't whether they launch horizontally, but the fact of leveraging the extremely high ISP of an air breathing engine for gaining orbital speed, reserving rocket fuel for the orbital maneuvers.
You can get hybrid engines that can switch between an intake and a liquid Oxygen tank
I think the biggest advantage to spaceplanes that wasn't mentioned was the accessibility they provide to passengers. While it makes way more sense to use vertical-lift-off now, if we want to see the average person go to space we have to take into account that most people can't handle the extremely large G's of a rocket, especially when the rapid descent could pose a serious health risk (Apollo astronauts faced around 6-7 g's on descent, STS peaked at around 1.6 g's). That does mean, though, you'll be exposed to much more heating, so I think that's honestly the biggest obstacle to making spaceplanes and accessible space travel feasible
The f22 is truly the most advanced mind blowing aircraft when it comes to lift generation. Nearly Everything on that jet was made to generate lift.
It was one of the greatest piece of engineering.
Well lift is needed but its not like the best plane is the plane with the most lift. F22 is probably considered reliable and manouvorable for its reputation
@@philipdrew10 * maneuverable *
Yes, the goal is the generate the most lift possible, with the most maneuverability. That’s why the vertical stabilizers are set the way they are, movement and they generate lift, vectored thrust, the fuselage itself generates lift.
Yeah, well 🤔, the best jet out there right now is the f-22, which generates the most lift….. sooo I guess… that means the generating the most lift makes the best fighter.
And it’s been that way since the bf-109’s vs spitfires!
@@5777Whatup You might be getting terms confused, lift is literally upwards force so just overcoming the weight of the plane. Thrust is for speed
@@5777Whatup A plane with too much lift is bad you would just continually increase altitude. Not arguing just saying :)
Do you think it could be possible with an aerospike engine and a specific flight path? Like: Get to an altitude of approx 20 km like an airplane -> Get to an angle of 20° -> Full engine power -> Keep tilting to get into orbit -> Orbit around earth -> (Maybe refuel in orbit to get to the moon)
That could be possible on the way up, but we would still have a large surface area to deal with during reentry.
@@LogicallyAnswered There is probably some elite physics that just doesn't allow it and reentry sucks. We have to find some super heat resistant lightweight material to deal with it. I just need to see an efficient SSTO in my lifetime otherwise I can't die peacefully.
@@LogicallyAnswered ok i suggest taking tips from starship for this
@@itstimetomakelol6650 well technically starship is a ssto but only from Mars as from earth it requires superhevy
@@rohitwankhede9153 true mainly the retractable wings to reduce the surface area.
Great video. I think you should´ve mentioned that the most important advantage of a space plane is that by not needing internal oxygen tank until it reaches significant height and speed is that it can be much lighter overall, at least in theory, and because of it a space plane could be single stage to orbit.
Ah yes, that’s true if you use both jet engines and rocket engines.
@@LogicallyAnswered ya especially with advanced engine tech like aerospikes
@@LogicallyAnswered although I am not sure how much of an advantage they would provide
@@rohitwankhede9153 I'm pretty sure aerospikes don't use external oxygen from the atmosphere but they would give a used boost in fuel efficiency in other ways by having what is effectively a passively expanding nozzle to fit with the atmospheric pressure it's at.
It always seems impossible until it's done
Sounds rather optimistic
No not really.
You don’t need a space plane but a spaceship that can take off like a plane and leave earths orbit and re enter and land just as smooth as one.
Hmm there’s a British concept of a space plane and it seems that it can really work
The SKYLON!
I suspect the sabre engine will find more use by the military for ultimate high altitude engagements than for skylon.
Skylon will be much safer than Starship, so will probably not be developed until everyday people need to go to space, for finacial reasons, likely another at least 20 years or so.
@@keithparker6520 Even if it isnt developed for everyday people, the military and high altitude R&D departments shall benefit from it on a periodical basis
People should also look for more nascent alternatives like elevators, projectile cannons, planes other than plain rockets ...only then can one expect strong movement in space
great video! very good explained
Thank you!
People in 1900 building a plane is impossible:
People in 2024: why building..
Damm, their great gramps must be rolling in graves.
The other problem besides heat is starting mass verses ending mass and is actually somewhat related as heat shield tiles weigh something as well as all of that structure and engine mass you need to operate as an airplane in the atmosphere. This goes in concert with out of control complexity and associated mass. The most efficient rockets we have today can get something like 3% of their starting mass into LEO as payload. If anybody here has done rocket equations, and apparently not a single person here has besides me, a key factor in delta-v for rockets is starting mass verses ending mass.
The thing is with airplanes is they are only efficient when you do a huge gear reduction and indeed modern jet liners designed for efficient operation have a huge bell at the back of the engine to slow down the air passing over the turbine blades so they can drive an even larger bypass fan in the front of the engine. At this, airliners would be more efficient if they had an even larger gear reduction while also having a straight through exhaust instead of a bell on the back, but this requires gears under high loads and thus more maintenance and so is usually not done. So yeah when you go on about how an airplane is so much more efficient, you are really only talking about an airliner that goes at subsonic speeds and at that maybe up to mach 0.7 or so at a 10 km or so altitude. Try to go higher and faster and these efficiency equations quickly melt down. Granted most jet liners go a little bit faster and once long haul airliners burn most of their fuel load a little bit higher, but they only go a little bit faster due to engine design trade-offs and a little bit higher on long haul planes because much of their potential payload capacity is used for fuel and that fuel is largely burned off before they go higher. Trying to go higher from the get go is generally not done because that would mean the plane could not carry anywhere near as much stuff and so you start running into the only thing you haul up to that altitude is fuel and structure to make it to that altitude. When you get into just hauling fuel and structure to a place and no payload, you stop doing anything useful and after a certain point the plane gets on the negative side of the drag curve as the engines produce less power and the effective airspeed decreases due to thinner air (less air density and it is effectively like you are flying slower from a lift standpoint) and stalls. An empty commercial airliner once did this whole let's see how high we can go thing with young pilots on board and they stalled the plane and overheated the engines leading to the engine cores seizing while going too slow. The plane ended up crashing, killing both pilots. Planes that fly significantly higher than airliners are designed to be almost all structure and engines with some fuel and almost no payload and at this are nowhere near being in space nor anywhere near orbital speeds.
Another thing to consider about going fast is how hot do the engines get? It is not like you can just make engines run hotter because you want to go a little faster. Instead you end up with more complex engines to keep existing materials from getting above a certain temperature. At this heating with speed is a cubic factor. After a certain point you can't do that anymore, so maybe you run the engines for a few seconds because that is all you can do before they melt and still end up with a woefully inadequate result when talking about trying to make a space plane. The thing with rocket engines is you accelerate both the fuel and oxidizer and so instead of heating increasing at a cubic rate, it is a more or less constant heat load on the engines as you go faster and faster. The speed of the materials moving through the engine is low enough for a solution to work. This is a key gripe I have with all of these people going Skylon! Skylon! is keeping these engines cool as in doesn't melt or ablate away and efficient as in why didn't we just use a traditional rocket engine and forget all of this air breathing stuff that makes our vehicle heavier and thus hurt a key tenant of rocket equations. As far as I can tell from the equations is it is basically impossible to make any sort of meaningful gain and a whole lot easier to end up with something less efficient than a traditional rocket as trying to go for more and the engines just melt or ablate away.
So yeah, try to model things with the equations that model each thing and put them all together for your design. I think you will see the equations that model something like Skylon show it to be a terrible idea as you add in all of this starting mass for an airplane body instead of a rocket body, heat shielding mass, heavy, complex engines that have to switch off most of the engine early on before getting something all that useful out of it as they equations you are relying on largely break down at a cubic rate, making it more dead weight you are hauling up to high speeds, and then balance against the weight you can get up to orbital speeds. You will quickly find you made yet another sub-orbital vehicle like what Richard Branson ended up with. Even Jeff Bezos was able to beat Branson in altitude capability and did it with a far simpler vehicle, which is a sad statement.
The main place I have found where you can potentially get to a more efficient vehicle to orbit mass efficiency wise are rockets with somewhat more powerful engines. One limit is max-q where air friction limits the rocket's effective speed before the equations start melting down trying to go faster through that part of the lower atmosphere and the other is max G loading on your rocket and payload where you just can't practically do any more, especially if you are looking to haul people into space. As a rocket lightens its fuel load, it is capable of achieving high G loads, which is important for reducing hang time the rocket burns fuel to counteract while not doing anything useful beyond hanging. I have come up with some extra engine mass that effectively gets switched off mid way through a burn to keep G loading down should be lighter than the fuel burned fighting against gravity, granted you also scale back some to make it through max-q. With Elon Musk recently talking about more engines on both Starship and Superheavy, he is talking about this trade off where the engines will scale back more in parts of the flight, but there will be more total engine power to muscle through the parts of the flight where the fuel load is still heavy and there are not other limiting factors, allowing for this extra muscle to kick in and reduce hang time. It also provides better engine out capability. The thing is he is not going to say make shorter, lighter tanks with the same engine power as the current design to further reduce hang time because there is an upper bound of gains, plus there are a number of problems with trying to go for a higher max g-loading and going for higher speeds while still in the thicker part of the atmosphere. Expendable rockets actually go in the other direction of lower thrust to starting mass as they are often designed for max thrust throughout the burn instead of throttling back and the engines are expensive compared to the tank cost, so optimize around getting the most out of these engines in their one flight and waste due to hang time be damned.
I think this is another place where going on about how Skylon is being done by the British is not as good as some make it sound. For one the British have the whole Brexit fiasco. Then you have that idiot prime minister to pick out one of a litany of idiotic things he has done was to go out of the way to get himself sick with COVID-19 and nearly died. Then there is the whole Harry and Megan deal where Megan is doing everything she can to undermine and rip apart the royal family and it is like why did you go out of your way to have this American woman and especially stick with her with all of the crap she has pulled and just let her throw the whole royal family under the bus? Back in the day the British broke with the Roman Catholic church just so the king could get a divorce, so it is not like the British are strangers to divorce. So yeah, um, the British haven't been making the best decisions as of late. Granted they are far from alone in bad decision making, but the point is attaching the British label to it doesn't make it any more credible these days.
your last paragraph is irrational drivel, regardless of brexit more funding has been put in and the average Brit does not care about the Royals or even know what they get up to. The research into the British Pre-Cooler has some serious big aerospace backers and the most resent and likely to be the first is the HVX program.
I wonder how the Rockwell StarRaker would have performed in development if they had gone with it instead of that x-30. Could it have been more realistic, or still failed?
Perhaps you should look into Reaction Engines and the Skylon project in the UK. They have viable space plane and engine design. It intakes its oxygen in the way up. And solves the temp issues. The Sabre engine is a marvel. This commentary is completely out of date.
well, they need to prove it first. No Skylon yet.
@@erikals actually they have validated the sabre engine at their US test facility already and Rolls Royce has taken a stake in the company. Yes it's not a complete proven platform, but validating the engine air temperature conversion sustainably works, is a big deal.
@@douglasnorth4703 Cool stuff, crossing fingers :)
We need to assemble the space plane in orbit. Leave it at space station and just return to earth in Crew capsule.
Great work on this video! Interesting voice over too like someone whispering over my shoulder (?)
This whole video seems like one of the slickest appeals to futility I’ve ever seen
Once NASA or some other entity figures how how to build a working Warp drive now that they've figured out that it can actually be built; we will probably be able to get into space ezpz.
correction > Quantum Drive :)
@@erikals won't work all lieies they would have used it already they are desperate to leave this dieing planet
Him: planes can not go to space
Virgin galactic: am I a joke to you
This is not Space. It’s just very high up.
@@willsmovies8330 wrong
It can't reach orbit, so is really just a thrill ride.
@@jimgrant4578 also wrong
how is SpaceX reducing cost to orbit in any meaningful way? Their prices /Kg are similar to the Russians, last I asked them for a quote.
The whole idea is to use less propellant. Pretty amazing that you didn't mention that.
LOL, the ad that played up before the video started was virgin galactic
Hmmm, I wonder why
@@LogicallyAnswered are you interested in what spacex is doing with starship in Boca Chica
Absolutely! I’m waiting for that orbital test flight
@@LogicallyAnswered ayy, same. How long have you been interested, since the beginning?
Since may 2020
Exact explanation at an exact time !!!
Love you guys 👦❤
If you can get there by plain (with lift from air on wings) then it hardly seems like space.
True
What is making it seem impossible is conventional physics.
Turning an airplane into a space plane ironically makes it even less reliable than a rocket.
@@pïnnedbyLogîcallyAnswered No problem! I’ll redirect all my spam mail atcha!
I am still entirely convinced that space planes are a good idea.
Space planes should have sliding wings , and while on rentry it should revolve around its axis for even heat distribution. It would be rocket with wings .
Lol not gonna lie this is just how the windows 11 video ended up not aging well😹🕴🏿⚰🕴🏿😂😂
Its "impossible" because people generally dont use multiple stages on a plane for space. With enough stages you could (ALMOST definitely). But then you wonder why would we do that and not just build a cheaper rocket
Yea but why dont we start working on spaceplanes instead of blowing up rockets
Damn, the explanation is super neat. Well covered. 👍
Hiii... To u.. Hari from America 😁
Hey Deva
Unfortunate that assuming I am not mistaken, the word "scramjet" was not said once. This is a video about spaceplanes.
The earth might flood again,so we need to be nuclear powered jumbo jets to water the moon.
Chima is developing a suborbital Rocket Plane
A Taxi to space-stations should work very much like an interceptor (MIG 25) space plane design is driven by physics, and cost efficiency, eventually time will sort out these issues.
Because, they're using the wrong engines to try, and achieve a space plane... Also, isn't that called a shuttle?
This was very useful thanks
How about skylon?
I think that might’ve been canceled. Either way though, I’m not saying space planes are impossible as I’m sure they will happen. Im simply saying that they’re nearly impossible or extremely difficult.
@@LogicallyAnswered yes agree
Watched the whole thing and still don’t get it. 7:50 you can get high up by not launching vertically, just fly normally, slowly without generating heat. After that, launch your rockets to get up to Mach 33. Like the Virgin Galactic method with carrier plane Eve and rocket plane VSS Unity. Virgin Orbit goes higher for satellites. Landing like a glider is a huge benefit compared to parachutes or rocket landings.
Ah but that leads to another problem which is flutter. Page 244 and 245 explain it well.
history.nasa.gov/sp4232.pdf
@@LogicallyAnswered “Yet the aircraft could not fly too low, or it would face limits set by aerodynamic
flutter.” I guess thats why VG has a carrier plane. For the low flight. And then the feathering system on the glider for descent. So it works and could go orbital.
a hybrid jet to ramjet to scramjet to rocket will be the future. this will be so efficient & cheap that this will even be used for long haul aviation.
This is the problem that the skylon space plane using the sabre engine proposes to solve.
there's a larger and more subtle problem with space planes, and it's a problem that can be observed in airplanes too...
they take too damn long to develop!
compare Skylon's development to the rate at which SpaceX churns out new Starship prototypes with new design changes, or even look at how long it's taking Boom to develop a supersonic airliner, or Aerion which unfortunately ran out of money trying to develop just a supersonic business jet because the process was so long and expensive
rockets are just simpler, and that might come with the downside of people making jokes about them looking like flying grain silos, but it comes with the advantage of shorter and cheaper development timelines
All we have to do is invent a revolutionary propulsion system, one based on particles, either fusion, antimatter or something we can't imagine yet, the current technology is similar to driving from city to city in a golf cart.... That runs on liquid gold.....
Technically Florine works as an Oxidizer
Maybe you should do a video about how it's IMPOSSIBLE to launch and land a rocket. Oh wait! You can't do that because it is POSSIBLE!
Perhaps you should call your channel "Illogically Answered."
It sounds like you just saw the thumbnail and commented. Even if you read the title, you would know that I said that it's nearly impossible meaning that its extremely difficult, but not impossible.
I think we should go back to the Space Shuttle approach: up like a rocket, down like a plane. Plus I think the SABER engine currently in development is really promising.
It's more expensive. Spacex usable rocket tech is way better
@@ErenYeager-yc2do What do you think I meant with "up like a rocket"
Saying that cancelled NASA projects was a "waste" or "money thrown away" - no - that is garbage. NASA is a research organisation, and it must supply US industry with whatever it knows - for free. NASA money gets paid to people. It doesn't get set on fire. It employs tens of thousands of researchers, and it pushes the boundaries with its projects - which are high risk, high reward things. Now - when the risks cause the project to fail, that is a good thing.
It means NASA learned a shit-ton, which can now be applied to the next project, in a standing on the shoulders of giants kind of way, so that NASA continues to advance aerospace knowledge and technology.
NASA is one of the greatest investments the USA ever made, and each dollar spent on NASA returns many more dollars to the economy. If the USA were smart, they'd triple the budget right now, and use NASA to exert dominance over space technology and the aerospace industry - all over again!
Nothing is impossible. Simple as that..
Never thought we’d get a man on the moon, but we did. Spaceplanes may surprise you. You never know
I hope rockets become as safe as airplanes.
They won't ever be
It will never be because what a rocket engine generates is pretty much a controlled, continuous explosion.
i don't believe people should give up on something just because there are a few problems on the way. There is always a solution you just have to take a step back. @JoDaF
It's not, engineers always keep trying to find a way, the problem is when the idiots providing the money pull out the funding at the smallest hiccup.
That's the worst explanation of Bernoulli's principle and why airplanes can't go to space 😅Otherwise great content!
😢
@@LogicallyAnswered Don't be sad. I really appreciate the choice of topic, space planes are really cool and really complicated. No wonder no one ever made one, yet. In order to understand why that's it, one has to understand several concepts in different realms of engineering. Very difficult topic to cover.
Thanks Carlo!
I have a doubt ... so why don't virgin galatic take and developed the plane rocket of nasa x15 and x 30 ... is it some diff system in usa
That can also reach that just definition line of space ... so why not perfect that tech that from scratch
They could, and I'm sure they did take heavy inspiration from those projects.
The SABRE Engine it's a gane changer and SCRAMJET and Plasma Electruc jet Engine it Will the future
If we build a tether system in orbit, we can do spaceplanes no problem
Hypothetically could we build space planes on the moon in the future? And i guess only land on small moons?
I love how you specifically said "Annual risk of an american dying in an airplane crash" it does not matter if the rest of us die in a plane crash ha,I guess the rest of us are expendable.
Tf you talking about?? Then what do i have in my garage? Been planning to build an spaceship that travels through dimensions all in my backyardd!!
Starship is not a successful rocket. vertical launches expend far too much fuel, and the environmental impact of many vertical launches of heavy lift vehicles is extreme. Getting to LEO using less fuel is what we want.
Space planes will happen. Just don't hold your breath.
I hate logic, i hate physics
Just throw me in the fantasy world where my brain can be use fully, with no limit
Wouldn't that be nice?
Oh gosh i can even feel it already
Saaaaaaaame
nuclear powered space planes would be the start of starship level exploraiton craft design.
You seem to know a lot about physics and economics.
Is your course in college major in physics minor in economics?
Aerospace engineer, but nothing to do with economics haha
@@LogicallyAnswered wow i see. Your content are amazing bro. Thank you for keeping us inform.
I'm a little surprised, you should know that the description of lift you gave was not fully correct. The glaring mistake is that lift is not generated because "air has a longer distance to travel over the top." A wing that is a flat plate can generate lift if at an angle of attack. It doesn't have to do with the distance.
GET IT? THEY ARE... ASTRONOMOICALLY CHEAPER?!? .... *ahem*
You are getting good
Don't forget that until just a handful of years ago everyone just KNEW it was impossible to re-use a rockrt booster. Of course a spaceplane is impossible. Just don't book hard money on it.
It is not impossible.
Why not use electric propulsion and xenon fuel. Also carbon composite shield
Space planes have been build and are certainly practical using "ramjet" technology engines.
"Too Bad, I did it on KSP"
thanks for explaining all the reasons why we have troubles leaving the planet, gravity is a bitch once it gets hold of ya !!!!
We arent there yet for planes. We would need better metallurgy in order to construct the planes out of material that can withstand reentry or more efficient AND powerful engines so we could maintain suborbital speeds during reentry.
I think we're already there we just need someone to put all the theoretically and physically proven pieces of tech together to make it happen.
That and a huge pocket.
@@dawn-ish We need another Elon Musk or Henry Ford to bring together the pieces and do it.
@@neeljavia2965 Indeed
Can’t the MiG-31 go to the stratosphere or something? If you remove the weapons, add in a oxygen capsule so the fuel works in space, it could probably go even farther
This channel is good but should stick to business only
And this is completely plausible
as a layman, couldn't you just use jet engines in atmosphere while carrying oxidizer with you, then switch to mixing the jet fuel with the oxidizer once you get high enough? i imagine it would weigh less then just using oxidizer and rocket fuel all the way up right?
The space shuttle 💀
Sooo, the X-15 that got the edge of space at M- 5, could not switch to rocket engine and go outside the atmosphere into space? And why would THAT be "impossible" physically?? That would mean shuttling cargo into outer space a cheap proposal, and environmentally good
The explanation you provide for the lift created by aircrafts wings, although very commonly found in litterature, is, if not wrong, at least only partial. If this was the main reason for aircraft lift, they would not be able to fly upside down, since in that case, the wings would create a force downwards and add up to gravity to pull the plane to Earth.
And when was the last time that you saw a commercial airplane fly upside? To my knowledge, only fighter jets or other aircraft who have a thrust to weight ratio of close to 1 or above 1 can fly upside down, vertically, and stuff like that. I could be wrong though.
@@LogicallyAnswered There are several points to address :
1/ Since the video addresses spaceplanes, commercial aircrafts are just not a very good example. Yes for commercial aircraft, the Bernouilli effect (what you explain in the video) is quite large, but still it not the only contribution to wing lift.
2/ Spaceplanes would have wings which geometry would be very different from a Boeing or Airbus, with different constraints, requirements and flight characteristics.
3/ Aircrafts have been flying upside down for more than a century and in flight conditions where thrust to weight ratio was always way below 1. You don't need a thrust to weight ratio above 1 to fly upside down.
Ah ok, the video was mainly about why it’s so hard to go from what we have today, which is commercial airplanes, to space planes. That’s why I brought up commercial airplanes. Thanks for the info!
A single stage plane to orbit is as difficult as a single stage rocket to orbit. If rockets were limited to one stage we would have never made it to the moon. Good thing Virgin Orbit (747 launch) and Seria Space (winged space ship) didn't give up.
no, since planes don't need to carry all their fuel.
Starship will need to pass the same hurdle as a space plane when it comes to heating.
The heating issue has more to do with re-usability, you could make a disposable space plane. Heating during ascent is not as grave an issue as during re-entry. A space plane is dumb due to the mass issue.
New tech could make reentry easier. Stuff like Magneto Hydro-Dynamic (MHD) flow control.
Extremely sloppy narration
They are possible, it's just bloody hard to properly build one that decently works.
However, there is a engine that we've developed in recent times that doesn't need oxygen to power it.
Hell it doesn't need combustion, but it's so over looked as a option. Because, it's so weak by the science community.
Even though we already have the tools to make it more powerful than what it is now.
I'm of course talking about ion engines. All you need to power one is air, and electricity.
The atmosphere is air, and we know how to bottle air.
The most known powerful battery that we can create is basically a nuclear reactor. The same one powering perseverance, or was it curiosity?
Speaking of nuclear, once in space, one could switch to nuclear powered rockets on the space craft.
Who says that we can't hybridize space crafts? Especially in away that allows use of 2 different types of engines.
In the end it isn't about weather, or not if it is impossible, but weather, or not we have the technology.
One thing about technology is that technology now is a stepping stone for technology later.
You'd need an x-wing fighter.
Wings cannot work the way you describe or planes could not fly inverted, which many can.
Mat lowne would be disapointed 😢
Just a suggestion
I think you should put your videos on schedule so more people will be notified
It is on schedule haha. Monday Wednesday and Friday 3 pm eastern.
@@LogicallyAnswered Ouh, i see
Well good job keep grinding you'll 100k real soon
@@pïnnedbyLogîcallyAnswered that name fooled me for a bit