Boosters on the Boosters & Other Ideas For Improving Space Shuttles

The Space Shuttle began development in the 1970's and even before it flew for the first time engineers were developing new ideas to 'improve' the Space Shuttle hardware. Expanding its cargo envelope by putting payloads on the external tank, 'hammerhead' & 'lenticular' fairings, getting rid of the crew section, adding a massive passenger section and of course going full Xzibit and adding mini boosters to the regular boosters.
Most of these pictures come from a review paper published in 2004, after the Columbia disaster, but before Constellation was decided upon.
Shuttle Variations And Derivatives That Never Happened - An Historical Review
Carl F. Ehrlich, Jr. & James A. Martin

[@AsbestosMuffins]

"We gotta put a fairing on top of the shuttle!" ".....why don't we just build a rocket and leave the shuttle on the ground..." "Quiet! we're building shuttles, SHUTTLES not rockets now!"

[@samuelfischman6949]

monorail monorali monorail!

[@TheOwenMajor]

So the SLS....

[@attackofpandas5354]

Well you can still recover the engines, the avionics and have crew available for payload servicing

[@davidelliott5843]

Why does Shuttle have engines? The plumbing is complicated and it’s all dead weight to be manhandled back to Earth. Why not sit the orbiter on top of the fuel tank?

[@alfredtam3853]

the rs 25 were expensive and they wanted to reuse it

[@kirishima638]

The 76 seater version is for carrying troops. You know, for assaulting a super villain's space station.

[@Thumbsupurbum]

Just in case someone discovers oil in space.

[@thePronto]

@@Thumbsupurbum do you think there could be energy in space? The oil companies would certainly lobby against that. Unless...they were granted concessions via some mysterious process...

[@tribblier]

@@thePronto private oil companies are investing a fair chunk of money in sustainable energy, just because they use oil doesn't mean they don't want to find other viable energy sources

[@ericf5978]

@@bosstowndynamics5488 Do you realize that only about 40% of a barrel of oil goes to make fuel, the rest goes to make everything else in our modern life. The oil companies will be with us no matter if we come up with a free energy plan.

[@ericf5978]

@@bosstowndynamics5488 Well 40% would mean the world wouldn't have to buy oil from the terrorists supporting countries in the Middle East. Also oil paves your roads, ferterlizes your food, and a ton of other things. Your hemp isn't replacing oil anytime, ever.

[@enweave]

Pimp my shuttle: We've slapped a payload on top of your payload, so you can deliver while you deliver.

[@Czenda24]

Wow, that's a meme I haven't thought of in like 10 years.

[@jerry3790]

I need help remembering this reference

[@orion1591]

@@jerry3790 it's the pimp my ride meme where you have the picture of xzibit laughing

[@polygondwanaland8390]

Hey, you could get more payload on it if you moved the engines to the external tank and ditched the orbiter...

[@nomdemorte1302]

Yo dawg, I heard you like to go fast, so I put boosters on your boosters so you can put payload on your payload.

[@Rev03FFL]

I worked on the Shuttle and early Space Station designs in the 80's and 90's. There were two other ideas we looked at. One was to take the External Tank (ET) to orbit and use it as a shell for the space station, where the tanks would be vented and habitation constructed (a bit like Skylab). Another idea added 2 levels of habitation to the bottom of the external tank. Both required taking the ET to orbit though, and the problem with that is the OMS engines could not fire through the CG with the tank attached. And we discovered quickly that any talk of modifying the Shuttle itself was out-of-bounds.

[@dosmastrify]

I call bs. Where would you Put the tanks which reside inside the external tank

[@danielrichards9138]

You use the tanks themselves as the habitats, they already have proven to be able to hold pressure, just make the entry through access points from construction. The idea I submitted back in the early 80s was to use these tanks and build the station in a turos configuration but attach boosters to the bottom of the tank to make the transition to high orbit free of the shuttle but I never got any response from anyone about the submission, just chalked it up to airforce politics.

[@edwardboatman4554]

surely with slightly lower payload mass, the shuttle-and-tank would have enough delta-v to circularise, as I recall that the earlier plans for the shuttle had it take the tank to orbit, instead of detaching it just before, and circularising via oms.

[@EpicScandinavian]

Was putting the payload on a tower on top of the tank to raise the CG to a point that the engines could fire through discussed?

[@adammetzger4182]

Seems like some of the coolest ideas they had for the shuttle never even went anywhere.

[@rkr9861]

"So yeah, the former manager of the space shuttle program just popped onto my twitter post to make a comment..."

[@rayceeya8659]

OK the Lenticular Fairing is definitely the most Kerbal thing in this video. You got a video idea there Scott.

[@samsonguy10k]

I rather hope he tries most if not all of these in a stream.

[@NoNameAtAll2]

@@samsonguy10k I hope we see it on youtube

[@bonetonelord]

The most Kerbal way to implement it, of course, would be to have it sitting horizontally on top of the stack like we do in KSP. With enough thrust, anything'll fly.

[@Patchuchan]

A lenticular shape also can work well for a reentry vehicle so the Mars hab could make use of aerocapture.

[@pentagramprime1585]

If only Leonard Nimoy was here to do a Twitch stream with Scott.

[@smile768]

How many years of bad luck for breaking a 20M mirror?

[@samsonguy10k]

All the years.

[@dukenukem8381]

Yes

[@charleslambert3368]

How many years has it been since Saturn was cancelled?

[@Mishn0]

It's still only seven years of bad luck, but that luck is SOOOOOoooOOOOooOO bad, it seems like an eternity.

[@thePronto]

None?

[@user-gt4mx7od8n]

When Kerbal is not "kerbal" enough for real world

[@EriIaz]

Игорь Коптелов адд моар бустерс!

[@moosemaimer]

Moar boosters? No. *MOAR SHUTTLES*

[@stallfighter]

@@moosemaimer MOAR SOYUZES or MOAR N1s *EVEN BETTER*

[@pills-]

NASA was Kerbaling before Kerbal was a thing...

[@09sadi]

Like n1 rocket

[@williamblack4006]

The 76 seat shuttle payload bay crew module is from the SPS (Solar Power Satellite) program. It was intended to carry construction crew to orbit. SPS system's were to be enormous, several miles in length. At peak construction the program would have required thousands of astronaut/engineer's living and working in orbit. Scott, you should do a video on the old SPS program -- it was really rather amazing in terms of the scale of effort. NASA technical reports server has all the PDF studies -- amazing stuff.

[@mihailazar2487]

the enterprise version just warmed my heart knowing some engineers ACTUALLY considered doing something THAT ridiculous

[@davidf2281]

7:17 I am loving that Enterprise.

[@A.Lifecraft]

Trekkies be like "Yeah that first prototype that wont even go to space should bear the name Enterprise!" NASA-Engineer: "Ok guys, scrap that concept with the saucer section and the nacelles, the nerds are satisfied already!"

[@demizer1968]

Even though it wasn't shown in STO, detachable saucer section was always part of the ST universe.

[@lemdixon01]

If the payload Bay was empty, then they could have put a fuel tank in the payload Bay to use more of the external tank for payload.

[@unitedfools3493]

But where does the payload go then?

[@dsdy1205]

wait a second...

[@captainkiddoregon]

The payload would be where Kris Brooks pointed out.

[@gajbooks]

Why not just mount the shuttle propulsion module under the orange tank and eliminate the orbiter entirely? Oh wait...

[@donjones4719]

@@gajbooks Yes, and since it's basically using already developed parts, it will be sooo cost-effective. :|

[@stevierv22]

He missed the opportunity to answer you "Hey Stott, it was a good idea but we couldn't fly safe"

[@Eo_Tunun]

"Proposition for Enlargened Nose Internal Section" is what the modified booster projectshould have been called. ^^)

[@TheMrPeteChannel]

I'm the 35th like!

[@radaroreilly9502]

2:05 I don’t remember any hills like that at the cape, so that must be Vandenberg AFB at SLC-6

[@TheJorgSacul]

What do you mean-- I saw them all the time near Major Nelson's house in Cocoa Beach on I Dream of Jeannie :D !!!

[@EricHallahan]

Well, it _is_ a spy satellite...

[@ethanpoole3443]

Those aren’t hills, they’re waves!

[@dosmastrify]

Radar what you said at Hawkeyes funeral was beautiful

[@Torjus_]

When your teacher tells you "there are no stupid ideas".

[@babalonkie]

*Jebediah Kerman wants to know your location*

[@samrobinson9110]

...just ideas without sufficient government funding...

[@mennovanlavieren3885]

@@samrobinson9110 The SLS has enough government funding (just not enough time), so in which quadrant should that be placed?

[@sealpiercing8476]

... And I took that personally.

[@unitedfools3493]

I am SO dissapointed that they didn't use the giant dong version.

[@cmbaz1140]

Too manly

[@politedog4959]

Who wouldnt want Columbia to ride on a giant pen- errrr, external tank on her way to LEO?

[@matheussanthiago9685]

Jeff besos: now this looks like a jog for me

[@thePronto]

BO has just sent Scott a 'cease and desist' letter.

[@AttilaAsztalos]

Well... have you ever seen the rocket Flesh Gordon travels on? No, that's not a typo...

[@dutchuniverse]

That lenticular payload fairing NEEDS to be tested in KSP

[@artemkras]

+1

[@ReneSchickbauer]

"How to turn your space shuttle into a stretch limo". I swear, some of those proposals look exactly how Randall Munroe would design them... and he worked for NASA for a time. Hmmmm....

[@jeffpkamp]

As much as I loved the space shuttle, these examples just show that it was about like using a RV as your commuter vehicle. In the first example, it would be like using an RV to tow your commuter vehicle to work. Just stick the shuttle engines on the bottom of the external tank...

[@Edwardmodos]

...and Spaceballs

[@HalNordmann]

It was made to be a space pickup. The first concepts had a two-stage fully-reusable flyback design, but that was too expensive. It was also supposed to work alongside the Saturn rockets (they were going to lift heavy payloads, while the Shuttle would lift crew&supplies) but those were scrapped. Besides, there are multiple reasons for not just "moving the engines under the tank" : A) NASA wanted to reuse the expensive RS-25 engines B) As you can see with the SLS, it actually takes quite a bit of doing. You basically need to redesign the tank from scratch so it can handle the different loads.

[@user-mp3eq6ir5b]

"THE SPICE MUST FLOW!" (@ 2:30)

[@wierdalien1]

Stop

[@ceffydriver]

The spacing guild transporting a mighty shai hulud circa 10189 AG.

[@CausticLemons7]

Made me laugh, thanks

[@davidgifford8112]

From living through the period, the configuration that got the most traction was the STS heavy lift vehicle where the shuttle was substituted for a high mass payload, keeping the shuttle main engines (4 in some options) housed in a re-entry capsule.

[@demogorgonzola]

7:03 Yes, totally looks like Enterprise from Star Trek. ...and the Humback version - perfect for the 'Voyage Home' mission :)

[@nowhereman1046]

@2:08 With the mountains in the background, that is clearly a depiction of a Shuttle launch from Vandenburg AFB, not Kennedy Space Center, so yeah, spysat.

[@phoephoe795]

Its Kennedy Space Centre before all this global warming happened and sea levels rose.

[@arandomperson4718]

0:30 Left: shuttle Right: *s h u t t t t t t l e*

[@leeterthanyou]

S h u t t l e e l t t u S

[@nowhereman1046]

You left out a couple of interesting Shuttle upgrades, both of which were proposed in the 1990s. One involved Rockewell wanting to provide a totally automated orbiter kit that would allow the vehicle to not only fly back but be able to drop the landing gear and deploy the chutes without need for crew to press the buttons. The other, similar proposal would have seen the orbiter Enterprise taken back under NASA's control from the Smithsonian and then rebuilt as a fully spaceflight capable craft, with one special exception; there would be no provision for crew in the crew compartment so that OV-101 could carry an additional 7 tonnes of payload as an automated freighter for ISS. In fact, a team from Johnson Space Center and KSC went to Dulles to do actual full inspections of Enterprise to see what condition the airframe was in as part of the initial study!

[@Behindstage]

CG is one thing but you cant beat an artist paintings with these things.

[@unitedfools3493]

"... still haunts my dreams..." but it worked in Kerbal that's the important thing!

[@donjones4719]

I think that thumbnail may have been brilliant clickbait. Everyone in the space community clicked on it to Comment on how it was wrong. It even got Scott to make a vid about it, which brought a click cascade from his huge following.

[@brentkeller3826]

"It's a hammerhead" -Nasa "No, fam. It's a mushroom tip." -everyone else "Grrrr" -Nasa

[@VicAusTaxiTruckie]

No penis joke?

[@joeyknight8272]

@@VicAusTaxiTruckie that's the joke

[@gate7clamp]

Oh I’m sure the adult toy business would have had fun with that design

[@vikkimcdonough6153]

4:02 - That, plus many many many _many_ abort scenarios even with the stock shuttle configuration, could have been solved by the simple expedient of putting separation motors on the ET in order to assure its positive separation from the orbiter during an abort.

[@zzar0humanity]

How could you not talk about the Block II and Evolved Shuttle designs! Or the Aft Cargo Carrier for that matter. Or the low cost lunar proposal or propellant scavenging designs. Or the wide variety of ET stations. Soooooo much you can cover here. Definitely needs a part 2 i think.

[@PapiDoesIt]

It's a shame they didn't make the longer cargo version, but the biggest shame is that they stopped Apollo short.

[@wierdalien1]

Absolutely

[@pluto8404]

They had to cut apollo program short as modern computers were making its way to consumers and that would allow amateurs to analyze footage better and expose the moon landings as fake. Luckily they still have the fake moon landing set on display at the saturn v complex center at the kennedy space center.

[@stuffmorestuff6647]

@@pluto8404 lol

[@matheussanthiago9685]

@@pluto8404 bruh, do you even belive in moon?

[@roberthunter5059]

@@pluto8404 You're one of those sheep who believe in the moon?

[@xres1329]

The External Tank use for Space Station and bunches of it for Space Colonies was technically easy, almost costless but (maybe exactly because of these) swept under the rug. BTW: The original shuttle design was taking the tank to orbit which had minor retro thrusters using slush O2 and H2. This was cut to save cost, weight, etc.

[@martykarr7058]

I remember reading somewhere that there was a concept of building a space station from used orbiter tanks the way they did Skylab

[@bobmar9239]

Yes, the wet station concept.

[@johncrowerdoe5527]

@@bobmar9239 Very heavily popularized. They would essentially use spent external tanks as habitat sections to be retrofitted in orbit and combined like the later ISS modules.

[@eddolous]

About that passenger shuttle, can you make a video about the movie “Moonraker”?

[@NemoConsequentae]

I was humming The Blue Danube when that part came up...

[@AdmiralBob]

Or Airplane 2 for that matter.

[@RWBHere]

That proposal is pretty much what Elon Musk is proposing for his Moon and Mars landers. Maybe someone at NASA was thinking along similar lines over 40 years ago?

[@vector824]

There needs to be a KSP follow up video to this...

[@polygondwanaland8390]

The best part about Scott Manley talking about mirrors is Scott Manley pronouncing mirror.

[@TheOicyu812]

9:51 - I would have called this design the "Super Guppy" Space Shuttle.

[@cmdraftbrn]

was thinking the same thing.

[@idkimlikereallybored9533]

you mean SPACE guppy

[@brentholt1458]

Endeavour was built from a "5th orbiter kit" contracted while Atlantis was being completed. These were structural spares to repair a severely damaged orbiter or build a new one. They were able to finish OV-105 about 2 years earlier than would have been possible because of this.

[@craigrmeyer]

Holy crap this is fantastic. Scott you’re a national freaking treasure. Adopted.

[@EnderMalcolm]

7:10 I see that the USS Enterprise was already under research and development. This should be created in KSP.

[@darkguardian1314]

"By the year 2000, we'll have (insert hype here)..." I remember a few of the concepts, especially the 70 seat liner version to give everyday people a ride to orbit.

[@TechyBen]

You missed that those liquid boosters, had re-entry shrouds for the engine nozzles... to RETURN! :O

[@GRosa250]

It’s amazing how much thought was put into modifying the STS when it was never a very good system to begin with.

[@railgap]

At the Int'l Space Development Conference in Denver in uh, 85 or so, a very convincing paper and talk were given on using STS external tanks for all kinds of things, ranging from x-ray telescopes to station modules. Doing so would have required a few extra like hand-holds and tether anchor points being added inside and outside the tanks...

[@user-pc2tu6pr9z]

Great video Scott - The Shuttle had so much potential, if only the production line was kept open so the design could evolve and improve.

[@gonun69]

Why is there always an old design even more ridiculous than what I can come up with in KSP?

[@georgeghleung]

Because most of those examples are in cyrillic.

[@theblah12]

A while ago I found a small picture book (probably from around the early 70's) that had a concept for a shuttle that was a two stage vehicle with a large flyback booster. Basically it looked like an orbiter piggybacking on top of another larger orbiter. As far as I can tell this was a fairly early concept that was scrapped due to cost concerns, but did the concept ever re-emerge after the shuttle had been built? It struck me that the vehicle looked remarkably like SpaceX's Starship, if the two stages were attached and landed horizontally, and looked like a much more elegant solution then the actual shuttle that needed two SRBs, an external tank and oribiter just to get into orbit. Maybe even the kind of design that could have made the shuttle affordable? Who knows. At the very least it seamed better then some of the other shuttle concepts that just seam to be adding more stages and more complexity to the design, when the vehicle really needed less.

[@HalNordmann]

The two-stage flyback design was the original Space Shuttle concept, but it was too expensive to develop. Ironically, it would be probably cheaper to run than the design we got.

[@sheevpalpatine80]

I believe the "pre-wing streaks" are called leading edge root extensions.

[@CatTheRoundEarther]

Thank you The Senate

[@miroslavmilan]

@2:30 - Is it just me or does the Shuttle seem completely superficial in this use case scenario? 🤔 If you remove it - congratulations, you’ve just invented a rocket again 🤣

[@DrewLSsix]

Except the shuttle houses the main engines, removing that means the boosters will have to lift everything including a fuel tank that's not losing any fuel.

[@jesusmora9379]

@@DrewLSsix but why does it need people onboard?

[@randomnickify]

@@jesusmora9379 to pilot it, they were not automated.

[@jmackmcneill]

That is part of the larger problem that the shuttle was *always* a useless dead end, and any attempt to make it better would logically lead back to conventional rockets

[@nutsackmania]

​@@jmackmcneill lol you are an idiot

[@stephenwevans]

I love those old concept paintings. I wonder if making NASA art was a good living?

[@RoxxieT]

There are so many of these on old fighter jet projects as well. They must have had a lot of artists... All seems to be CGI now, of course.

[@GrasshopperKelly]

Definitely some "You only live twice" stuff going on here...

[@AsbestosMuffins]

funny, I was thinking Moonraker and its ridiculous marines-in-space delivering shuttles

[@aleverettes2789]

You know Scott is not letting this one go

[@YukonK9]

I still don't know how you find all these crazy dead space concepts lol

[@samsonguy10k]

Library of Congress is a good start. Once anything hits Freedom of Information Act expiration, it goes there.

[@kellywu4061]

Hi there Yukon :D

[@theophrastusbombastus8019]

Or NASA forums. Once I found a Delta IV Heavy proposal that strapped the same SRB of the medium versions to all three the cores, very kerbal idea. Scott should make a video on that too.

[@chriskerwin3904]

@@theophrastusbombastus8019 That's just part of Boeing's Delta IV evolution for EELV, The next step was an 8.4 meter core that could be ganged up, Atlas V did the same thing with phase II stretching the core from 3.8 to 5.0 meters and adding a second rd-180.

[@linecraftman3907]

Check out shuttle derived launch vehicles

[@chris-hayes]

8:03 SpaceX's point-to-point transport 50 years early

[@holo_val]

It won't take another 50 years before it goes the forgotten way of these shuttle concepts as well.

[@ilyachaplygin8573]

4:42 This concept is pretty similar to soviet Energia, which aside from launching Buran also was aimed to launch huge payloads like 37 meters long "Polyus" spacecraft at the side of a central fuel tank instead of placing payload on top of a rocket. But in Energia the central tank had its own engines, so it was a self-sufficient rocket capable of flying by its own rather that just a booster for Buran.

[@danielrichards9138]

In the early 80s I submitted a proposal to use the external tanks as sorce material for building a Taurus style space station, years later I ran into a man who had worked in the design team for the shuttle and our conversation got around to this aspect and he told me.that they had been tossing around that idea to no avail due to the lack of technology to accomplish the task at that time along with the expense. He said it was quite close to being a working mission but just fell short.

[@theophrastusbombastus8019]

Little known story is the fact that the telescope built from the external tank was a cover story the air force created to hide their super secret GUNDAM PROJECT

[@ChadSimplicio]

Thanks for giving me flashbacks of the Bond movie, "Moonraker."

[@ckeithmartin9525]

I remember a shuttle-c concept that just used the fuselage with out the wings tail and crew cabin to put heavier SDI payloads in orbit

[@TheTeKuZa]

This video: How to improve space shuttle? Me: Buran. This video: How to improve boosters? Me: Energia.

[@phoule76]

this is hilarious that it's still bothering you, and inspiring so much content! I'm reminded of a stray pixel on a Super Mario Bros. box that still haunts graphic designers to this day.

[@RCAvhstape]

8:10 James Bond called, he wants his Moonraker pictures back.

[@sulljoh1]

Scott, you're obsessed with that image! I think we need to find the artist so you can interview him 😂

[@jimsilsby3841]

8:20 Anyone else remembering how nerve-wracking a launch was when it was just seven astronauts in a shuttle?

[@michaelcomisse9478]

I love love love when you do vids on things that were concepts but never made it to real life. Please do more please :)

[@sjTHEfirst]

I remember one that had a 4 pack of engines on the ET to put it in orbit and then they would clean out the ET and use it as part of a space station. It may have also been a stretch version of an ET.

[@paulhaynes8045]

Can't understand how I missed this one - the only drawback to your frequency of posting, I guess! Really good video - interesting and laugh-out-loud funny. Scott finally says what we've all been thinking for years!

[@pyalot]

This feels like a documentary from an alternate future where Nasa went full Kerbal 😂😂😂

[@timskeav]

10:12 kind of resembles that x37 mini shuttle they keep sending up

[@odysseyvoyager2354]

It looks to me like a lifting body configuration, which would make it look more like Dream Chaser.

[@christianbuczko1481]

Buzz aldrin wrote a scifi book "encounter with tiber" which has another idea on modding the tanks, by adding a booster to bump it to orbit, then using it to build the space station by emptying them to space, and having them converted for accomidation ect. He also goes into orbital mechanics to great detail and its the only scifi which is actually realistic about future space exploration.

[@Anvilshock]

Hahaha, hilarious how they felt it necessary to point out "

[@M4RC90]

Just like on the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft where it says "Attach Orbiter Here, Black Side Down"

[@Anvilshock]

@@M4RC90 Only that those folks who made that documentation were probably dead serious about it.

[@kirleyq1394]

This is my new favorite channel 😃

[@bdh985]

Lots of people still doubt RTLS was even possible anyways. I would love to see an in-depth analysis of the RTLS scenario on this channel if you ever get the chance, I find the subject very interesting.

[@jimsteele9261]

Estes used to make a model rocket based on one of the really early shuttle concepts. The orbiter rode on the back of a manned carrier powered by scramjets.... or in this case a c6-5. :) fun stuff.

[@guzmaekstroem]

5:56 - How can you not talk about those engine shields that are able to close in reentry? Those also look awesome. Great vijeeo anyway. Thanks.

[@MrHws5mp]

Solution to the stretched-tank-coming-back-at-the-Orbiter problem: fit a pair of small, all-moving, symmetrical-aerofoil fins to the front of the tank. While the tank's attached, these fins free-stream into the airflow and so have zero aerodynamic effect. When the tank is jettisoned however, a pair of pyrotechnic devices fire which lock the fins into a pitch-down configuration, over-compensating slightly for the pitch-up effect of the tank extension and ensuring clean separation.

[@hebl47]

Adding boosters to boosters. Now that's full Kerbal territory. Good job!

[@RCAvhstape]

STS gets dumped on a lot, but had they stuck with it and developed some of these various upgrades and spin-offs, I think the whole sidestacked/reusable SSME system would've proved very versatile. Even as it flew, the straight up STS configuration managed well over a hundred missions and accomplished a lot of stuff. There certainly was nothing like the Space Shuttle before, so considering everything they did was pretty much the very first time ever, it's not really fair to hate on it so much. As for Wayne Hale complaining about the abort options on the stretch ET, there are ways to engineer around that.

[@appropinquo3236]

What they should've done from the start was mount the shuttle on top of an SLS-like core stage with side boosters (as a bonus they might have been able to keep using Saturn V stages for the shuttle). That would've eliminated many of the safety problems (ignoring the lack of abort scenarios). There are very good reasons for why the shuttle is one of only two spaceplanes to ever be mounted on the side of a booster.

[@RCAvhstape]

@@appropinquo3236 Studies were done looking at using Saturn hardware as part of the STS booster system. There's a ton of documentation out there about the development of STS if you dig for it.

[@toreyweaver9708]

Number 11641 as why I love Scott Manley, "Hi this is Scott Manley and this spaceship rendering still haunts my dreams" 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 you and me both... YOU AND ME BOTH

[@dmitrynagorny4100]

Probably my most favorite part of Space Race is all this cool ideas on both sides.

[@geodkyt]

The humpback proposal made me chant out loud: "Guppies... in... SPAAAAACE!!!"

[@brendancrawford3985]

I once heard a rumour of a plan to use the External Tanks as part of the structure of the Freedom space station.

[@jaredkennedy6576]

Gotta love the Lexx style triple fairing opening.

[@Cby0530]

I screamed upon seeing the lenticular fairing.

[@anarchyantz1564]

I guess when they thought about adding the vibration enhancement after the hammerhead fairing it was one step too far....

[@jackee-is-silent2938]

That crewed saucer design reminded me more of "Lost in Space"....

[@TobyRobb]

This was great. Gave me lots of new design techniques. I would love to see a video on low Delta V maneuvers / versus time in space when considering manned modules. Thanks for the great content. I'm Toby Robb.

[@peterxyz3541]

The engine-only with tiny wings is cool 👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼

[@alexfedorov6816]

Boosters that are mounted on boosters and are to be dropped shortly after launch are essentialy a Jet-Assisted TakeOff (JATO) system for Space Shuttle! And passenger variant of SS happened to remind me about the "SHUTTLES" clip made by Pleix Films (available on KZbin).

[@disruptive_innovator]

Kinda would have liked to see the Reusable Booster Land Recovery Catamaran get put into action. Reminds me of an old scifi toy I had as a kid.

[@floydlooney6837]

5:35 - Almost the Dream Chaser right there

[@SuperQBoi]

@ 10:14 That looks like the X37b but it has crew capabilities!

[@kopfauftischhau216]

It would have been really interesting to see a shuttle 2.0 . The biggest problem with the shuttle was IMO that they hadnt any chanced to apply the lessons learned from building it. Yes, they improved certain factors, but with they had the opportunity to just start new, with a giant budget, they could have build something amazing. I am pretty sure, that the spacecraft to airplane method is the future. I dont think that rocket powered landings are going to be common for manned vehicles simply due to the fact, that there is no fail safe if the engines fail and being very limited to where it can land (e.g. the starship is not going to land well on anything that isnt flat).

[@deltaVelocity_]

The long shuttle is actually kind of pretty.

[@arandomperson1525]

1:54 imagine the jokes if that actually flew Like damn did your mom order something in the space station

[@DexterBanks5555]

I can say “ Scott Manley” the same way Scott Manley says it! It’s eerie!

[@greggv8]

Mount the main engines in a fixture directly under the big tank. Mount four SRBs around the big tank. Mount a space station module on top of the tank, as massive as a fully loaded Shuttle. Launch the whole thing into orbit. The big tank would of course be modified as needed to mount the extra pair of SRBs, the engines beneath, and the station on top. Places in the sides of the hydrogen and oxygen tanks could have reinforcing rings welded in during assembly. When in orbit, tap the remainder of the H and O for running through power cells to get some electricity and produce some water. Some of the oxygen could be used to replenish breathing air. That would be done while separately launched crews are moving in and getting things set up. External fittings for mounting hatches, docking ports etc would be packed inside the station module. They'd go on the outside of the big tank where the reinforcing rings are. Once mounted, cut out the tank skin inside the ring and external fitting. The big tank would become a huge 'basement' to expand into. Could have had a station with more volume than ISS put into orbit in a single launch. Every crew launch for a long time to come could carry new additions to go into or onto the big tank. But instead of using all the material and volume of the external tanks, they were all tossed into the oceans. Just lofting them into orbits high enough to be stable, but out of the way, would have preserved a valuable resource, even if they would just at some point be cut up for scrap to feed an orbiting recycling furnace.

[@tariqahmad1371]

@Scott Manley have you ever watched Isaac Arthur

[@phaseed]

Forgot the fly back boosters with 3-4 upgraded SSMEs on each boosters and 2 f100 PW jets to fly them back with short shuttle like wings on each one. Eliminate Solids altogether they were very seriously considered in the 90's also a concept with modified RD170's. I have the artist concept somewhere in my house.? I worked at Pratt on the SSME turbo pumps and RD180 co-production programs..Best Regards Edward.