DARPA Hammerhead Space Shuttle Concept

DARPA studied modifying the current external tank design to be able to carry low-density payloads in a 25 or 35 ft (7.6 or 10.6 m) diameter fairing where the oxygen tank was currently. The Shuttle on average would only fly 66% of its payload capability but at nearly 100% of its payload volume. The external tank payload fairing would solve this problem. The oxygen tank would be redesigned as a cylindrical tank rather than conical and the clamshell payload fairing would be mounted directly on it. In this configuration, the orbiter would launch without any payload. These studies were eventually abandoned due to the fact that the new aerodynamic profile would make a Return to Launch Site (RTLS) maneuver impossible.
#nasa #spaceshuttle

[@usimp8338]

How realistic this looks is actually insane

[@Angry.General1461]

It looked real until it was viewed from the sky.

[@hamzahkhan8952]

it seems like he might have used actual space shuttle footage (edited ofc).

[@donnymcgahan1158]

Making men feel inadequate everywhere

[@lordplagus02]

That would be because most of it is real footage slightly edited and overlaid with real audio.

[@jasonbrown3632]

Yep, looks like a lot if real footage, a little overlay work, and some CGI to bring it all together... still very impressive

[@JustinLong1977]

Especially impressive that they launched Atlantis, but got Discovery into orbit.

[@laminat0996]

Also it shouldn't be upside down at the end of orbit insertion

[@davisdf3064]

​@@laminat0996 No, after SRB separation, the Shuttle rotates to be upright again.

[@Kerballistic]

I love the mixture between animation and real footage. Incredible!

[@dr4d1s]

Ah, what could have been. Its great to finally see this design come alive. Thanks Haze, you did a great job!

[@richard-mtl]

This is so well-done, superb work, totally believable.

[@iitzfizz]

This reminds me of the Austin Powers movie lol "Sir, it looks like a giant..."

[@Dronte75]

Given the characteristics of the Return to Launch Site (RTLS) maneuver I found that making it impossible was rather an advantage.

[@martinilopez1]

forget about impossible rtls... if somthing happens they re all dead

[@wilms2328]

My favorite Space Shuttle fact is that for the first test flight, the astronauts were asked to do RTLS. Even the certifiably insane testing pilots were like "dude hell no are you insane" and the plan was shelved

[@ShuttleEnjoyer]

Bro we can’t make u turns on American roads safely, why should they lol

[@JBM425]

⁠@@wilms2328 It was said that when engineer Konstantin Feoktistov proposed a way to fly three people in a one man Vostok cabin with no spacesuits and no ejection seat (instead using braking rockets under the parachute to cushion the last second before impact), they said “Who would be crazy enough to fly in this?” “I would.” And he put his money where his mouth was (or Korolyov “voluntold” him) and became a passenger on Voshkhod 1. Fast forward to 1981: perhaps they could have offered that engineer a seat on an RTLS test flight…

[@mr.normalguy69]

I wish my Hammerhead was that big 🥺

[@somestarman892]

And there it is…

[@brettteeter3461]

Haha, Hazegrayart. Amazing animation, as always. I notice however at liftoff the shuttle is “Atlantis” but once in orbit it is “Discovery”.

[@mpetersen6]

It's the James Bond Space Shuttle with rotating name plates.

[@randycampbell6307]

Great as usual, now to see the Aft Cargo Carrier in action :) One slight "mistake" the Shuttle launch call out is for Atlantis but the Shuttle is Discovery :)

[@oljimeagle6779]

The beginning pre launch was perfect...Love it

[@OnlyLightMatters]

The graphics quality is becoming insane, especially for the lift off sequence !

[@homesimcockpit1954]

You always do such fantastic work!!!

[@lantastic1]

Incredible attention to detail. Always amazing, you folks are true artists.

[@rainer9825]

Great video. Love the style (a normal day in a parallel universe). Would love to see more videos looking into the future (5-10 years, best case scenarios).

[@lewismassie]

Those last two shots were just incredible

[@rocketdyneF1]

So the Shuttle didn’t do anything in this configuration except to be used as a launch vehicle. It would have been easier and cheaper to use a disposable rocket.

[@jesusramirezromo2037]

Yhep, Lots of these projects where just excuses to justify the shuttle existing

[@Nighthawke70]

Talk about your super-expensive ferry job. One of the Dyna-Soar variants could easily be mated to the stack for flight control instead of the shuttle for jobs like this. The plus would be an increased payload weight limit. And the mini-shuttle could be a taxi to any manned stations in orbit.

[@northMOFN]

You'd have a pretty funky looking Dyna-Soar with three Shuttle main engines tied to its behind, might not glide so well on the way home!

[@Nighthawke70]

@northMOFN cute. It'd use one OMS pod for final boost, orbital changes, and to go home.

[@randycampbell6307]

@@Nighthawke70 But you also need to have the three main engines for it too work at all. Possibly better if they'd ever had a recoverable Shuttle C design where the main engines would be attached to a recoverable pod

[@thomasafb]

great work on an obscure idea. the Twang would have looked scary with such a large ET

[@KellyStarks]

Damn your good at this. I loved a lot of these shuttle derived concepts. Hanging oversized one way cargo out on the tank had some significant pluses … though getting rid of the tank afterwards before it started making a debris cloud would be a (likely manageable) issue.

[@just_archan]

You get better and better each video... And i was sure that it can't be possible to be better before❤

[@humbertothebeliever2443]

The lift-off hadme totally fooled. I can see that real footage was incorporated smoothly with CGI. Still awesome.

[@RealAndySkibba]

That booster looks like a massive.. Johnson! Stop looking outside at the rocket that looks like a...Willy! Strike one.

[@dougthebigdp314]

Wow, this knocked my socks right off. You do such great with the what ifs

[@ThePixelated_kris]

Oh god what did the space shuttle do to your socks 😮

[@AndrewDasilvaPLT]

Thank you for your work.

[@aretorta]

These ideas reinforce the idea that the shuttle was little more than an expensive set of engines with wings.

[@jcskyknight2222]

I mean there could be a purpose here, you could have a chance to do a final check on the payload, maybe manually deploy fragile equipment, or even assemble something on orbit. Very edge case scenarios though, and probably easier to launch crew after to service it in space if need be.

[@therichieboy]

Nice. I was just watching your N1 work on Terran Space Academy's feed and then this pops up!

[@mackjsm7105]

Getting better and more realistic looking dude!!!

[@oldgoat142]

Excellent! Nicely done!

[@Allan_aka_RocKITEman]

Great video, as always...👍

[@tonyconnolly1797]

Great video. However the commentry is about Atlantis but the shuttle is labled Discovery.

[@steveb6616]

Great video. Big issue with this system though, external fuel tank was usually jettisoned at 70 nautical mile altitude and minimal orbit insertion altitude is 100 nautical miles. Not enough fuel to haul the tank up that high to launch a satellite.

[@northMOFN]

If memory serves, to ensure the ET ended up disposed properly somewhere around the Indian Ocean, it was released on a path that was just barely short of orbit, with the apogee above the atmosphere and the perigee inside; the Shuttle would use a significant fraction of its OMS fuel to round it out. The Shuttle's capacity to orbit is actually slightly HIGHER if you carry the ET all the way to orbit, because you can do the whole thing with the main engines. But the question then becomes, how do you safely deorbit the ET?

[@bbartky]

@@northMOFNNice summary! And your question about what do with the ET in orbit is important since China has the same issue with the second stage of the Long March (LM) 4, which they use to launch modules for their space station. Basically, the second stage goes all the way into orbit and since it’s empty they have no way of controlling where it deorbits. My understanding is they are not going to correct the issue and will just phase it out when LM 9 and 10 vehicles come online.

[@benjaminshropshire2900]

One option for ET disposal is to put the apogee well above the target orbit and the perigee just low enough to deorbit in a few laps. The shuttle (or in this setup) cargo gets kicked off either at apogee (where a small burn will kick the perigee up a lot) or as it goes past the target altitude (where where a direction change can circularize the orbit). If you care where the ET lands, even a small amount of RCS would allow punching it's perigee down a bunch. I'm guessing the reason that was never done is that it would likely have very large unknowns on where exactly the ET comes down and the zone of possibility basically has to include the US south from Florida to California.

[@IanValentine147]

Amazing mix of real and CGI!

[@Agent77X]

It is about time we go back to the cutting edge of rocket technology again!😊

[@LemniscateBiscuit]

Absolutely aerodynamic.

[@WolfeSaber9933]

Several rockets have a wider nose than body design.

[@LemniscateBiscuit]

@@WolfeSaber9933 Yes. I know that.

[@jvfdvdfvxdfwxf]

You are a real GENIUS!

[@alexanderx33]

This is why we need oregami satellites. And blow-up habitats. When your sitting on a tank filled with liquid, the payload needs to be denser to match the optimim diameter.

[@dsdy1205]

I know they say that rockets look phallic, but this really takes it to another level

[@ajds]

Beautiful

[@terencewong-lane4309]

*Spectacular*

[@gokhanpalabiyik]

Great video! I hope, one day, you will make a "Shuttle orange tank nose Moon station" video!

[@krox477]

Great work it looks real

[@Hykje]

Looks like that shuttle is trying to compensate for something.

[@cesar_br5848]

Microphone-shaped rocket 😔🤭😂

[@illustriouschin]

Ive never seen a microphone that looked like that.

[@ptonpc]

Ahh my sweet summer child :D

[@Chris.Davies]

FYI: The fuel turbopumps for the Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) were about the size of a big block V8 engine, but they produced as much power as 40 diesel locomotives. And, if you put the inlet into an average sized family swimming pool, and pointed the outlet straight up, it would empty the pool in 11 seconds, and pump a column of water 50,000 metres into the air.

[@mpetersen6]

Perfect reason for developing either a reusable engine module or an expendable one. Develop a carrier frame that the engine module mounts to and carties the weight of the hammerhead and cargo. That would likely save a lot on totally redesigning the External Tank. Plus Shuttle C should have been pursued for heavy lift at the time.

[@baywenber6921]

awesome!

[@modelermark172]

Nice job, Hazegrayart! The DARPA Hammerhead is legitimately ugly, along the lines of a Blue Origin ship, or the rocket from "Austin Powers." (Unlike the Team Vision Jupiter III Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicle, which in my opinion has a very businesslike, purposeful look to it.) But if Hammerhead could have worked as presented, then why not . . . ? Since the Shuttle wouldn't carry any internal payload, if the ET could have been equipped with SSMEs, then why even use a manned Shuttle, (unless an onsite Payload Specialist was needed?) Thanks for posting this. 470th like.

[@benjaminshropshire2900]

Wouldn't that just be the ~$2B/launch (in addition to R&D) SLS? The whole shuttle program would have been a lot more successful if it hadn't turned into a "solution for every problem looking for a problem to actually solve." (Well, technically it was highly successful, at paying the constituents of the people who voted for it.)

[@TruckingToPlease]

It was the proposed idea IN 1977 of releasing the external tank in LEO vice reentry, we, as a global society, would have enough structural material for a geodesic globe for a space station mount.

[@daanvos194]

Shouldve sticked to saturn v Thank you nixon

[@MichaelWinter-ss6lx]

Yes, and the smaller Saturn-IIB. Was used at the end for Apollo to LEO. 🚀🏴‍☠️🎸

[@gearheadgregwi]

The Shuttle was sold as such a pancea to all our problems. We put all our eggs in one basket and it was too late to go back to Saturn when we realized it was garbage. Thank God we have both SLS and Starship. Don't ever bet on one system again.

[@illustriouschin]

This really helps to highlight the insanity of insisting on using the spaceshuttle.

[@SorinSilaghi]

Exactly. It was complex enough as it was.

[@WolfeSaber9933]

A sample of what NASA wanted to do with the shuttle.

[@dr4d1s]

Maybe it's because I grew up with the Shuttle but this doesn't seem any more weird than a usual STS mission. Remember when they used to fly fully fueled upper stages in the Shuttle's payload area? Remember the times the shuttle crew manually grappled and brought down malfunctioning satellites (granted shuttles were designed to do that but no one has ever done it before, or since)? Yeah, those were kinda insane but putting a cargo area on the ET seems like a good way to get more volume into orbit. Who knows, if the Shuttle kept shuttling, we would have gotten this upgrade. Granted it still would have been cheaper to launch most all payloads on an expendable rocket.

[@albr4]

Yes it's really weird, why would you need a plane to return to earth when you could just use a parachute? if I were to design a spacecraft which had a payload bay and robotic arm I would simply make a cylindrical bay beneath a standard conical command module, and on re-entry the capsule will seperate from the bay to unveil the heatshield and then either have the payload bay return seperately with it's own parachute or just make it cheap enough to allow it to burn up in the atmosphere. imo one of the main advantages of space travel is that you don't need to deal with aerodynamics and wings since there's no atmosphere in space so it seems counterproductive to make a space craft that can also fly in atmosphere. (after a quick google it seems the whole point is that it can bring stuff back down inside the payload bay but you could still just make seperate return bay with heatshielding and parachutes)

[@ghostfox657]

​@@albr4 Why destroy your perfectly good service module? Just keep it sitting in orbit untill you need it for next time, then all you need to throw into orbit is the crew and some life support. Surly that would be cheaper and simpler?

[@kargandarr]

It is strange that a sim would show one of the older model of shuttles still in use there since they were all supposed to be decommissioned years ago.

[@Trinitycore0720]

“I know this look wrong and even wronger when you remember that the space shuttle uses female pronouns” -Scott Manley

[@ptonpc]

"You there! Stop sniggering at the back!" I can see why it was considered but it seems to me like it was a solution looking for a problem.

[@jasondworkin6597]

Pity the audio referenced both Atlantis and Discovery

[@acarrillo8277]

Hazegrayart at 2:12 through 2:17 you can see though the gap in the mesh between the cargo bay and the outer hull on the starboard side.

[@marcelofaraujo]

Did you create the shock waves and the smoke/steam? That is crazy! I cant tell anymore if it is real or not.

[@FatovMikhail]

what's the point in sending shuttle up with empty cargo bay? only if by coincidence you need to bring something back down. still it's easier to send the shuttle with a regular payload and send this outfit separately on something like atlas-5

[@randycampbell6307]

Because there wasn't supposed to BE an Atlas V. All US launches were to go onto the Shuttle except some very small ones for the Scout. Part of the reason that the Soviets, Europeans and Chinese managed to get footholds in the launch market was that US LV manufacturers were essentially shutting down production because the Space Shuttle was aimed at being the only US launch vehicle in order to reach the flight numbers set for the Shuttle. Challenger stopped that idea in it's tracks but the LV manufactures has to revamp their launch vehicles (how you went from the Atlas III to the Atlas V) and restart production

[@lextacy2008]

Legend has it the orange tank is still orbiting today

[@PolarBearMVG]

This is nearly the same as the previous shuttle program which lost half of its fleet in two separate, unforgettable catastrophes. Too expensive and too dangerous IMHO.

[@Fummy007]

At this point why even have the shuttle? you could take off the engines and guidance system and attach it to the rocket and... thats just the SLS

[@whatthefunction9140]

I remember watching this live as a kid

[@rcwillett9613]

Moving the cargo off of the shuttle would afford them to downsize and change the role of the shuttle. The shuttle now becomes an option when they feel the need to send technicians with the payload.

[@orionSpacecraft]

This is something that you would expect to see in GTA VI because of the obvious innuendo

[@2150dalek]

Reminds me of the space craft in James Bond 'Dr. No'.

[@richardm.newlands2417]

The Return to Launch Site (RTLS) manoeuvre was always impossible...

[@JBM425]

Not necessarily, but in simulations they could not consistently or reliably bring it back to KSC.

[@owenrichards1418]

At 02:07, that is just gorgeous

[@designsinorbit]

This is the first time I've been fooled. Until the first sky shot.

[@jeo228]

I like how Atlantis magically becomes Discovery, lol

[@4DCResinSmoker]

Does that Falak looking rocket run off of AA or AAA ? Jokes aside, great video!

[@centaur1a]

Interesting concept. Launching two crafts looks great, but the cost can add up very quickly. Too bad.

[@jesusramirezromo2037]

They wouldn't have launched two craft, The shuttle payload bay had to be empty for this to work

[@keithbarkwood8102]

Now also use the fuel tank as a kinetic bombardment platform, and you really get the HAMMER in Hammerhead.

[@Fatpumpumlovah2]

error in windows on heads down view, wouldnt be reflecting earth what so ever.

[@c9brown]

Why would the external fuel tank have a wider profile at the top rather than just being taller. You sometimes see wider profile payloads on skinnier rockets because the payload is physically wider, but for a fuel tank, seems it would be more aerodynamic to just make it taller.

[@simongeard4824]

The bit at the top *is* the payload. As the text says, this was proposed for payloads too large to fit the Shuttle cargo bay, so the Shuttle is launching empty and the payload is attached to the top of the external tank.

[@GreenJimll]

I especially like how it was Atlantis launching but they changed over to Discovery on orbit. 🙂

[@benjaminshropshire2900]

I wonder if the fairings could have been dropped like most booster do nowadays?

[@diogoduarte4097]

The guys at DARPA had a little too much cocaine when they had this concept. If you are doing this, might as well just use a cargo SLS. If you need astronauts for deployment or something, use an Apollo style reentry capsule under the payload, inside the faring. This makes the shuttle pointless dead weight.

[@randycampbell6307]

One of the NASA (Astronaut Corps) goals of the Shuttle program was based on having a crew on every flight. Part of the reason we never got a Shuttle C or a main engine recoverable pod.

[@jesusramirezromo2037]

Hell, Even Shuttle C would be more sensible than this, This just makes most of the shuttle dead weight, and ads risks to the unnecessary crew This proposal, combined with the engine truss mount version of Shuttle C would probably work ok enough, But at that point just stick the engine block on the fuel tank itself

[@randycampbell6307]

@@jesusramirezromo2037 Shuttle C for the most part was still looking at reusing the engines. The problem with it was it didn't fulfil the unwritten requirement of "must fly a crew on every mission" from the Astronaut Corps.

[@jesusramirezromo2037]

@@randycampbell6307 Not every version of shuttle C, One version was just the engines on a plate, without the fuselage Not much info on it, Ive seen it just be called HLLV

[@randycampbell6307]

@@jesusramirezromo2037 If it's the one I'm thinking of it was part of a "Safety Shuttle" patent that was done by a single engineer which moved the orbiter to a mount FORWARD of the tank on girders but also had a cargo-only version. The initial studies were done by Rockwell before the Shuttle even flew. Keep in mind that the idea was to reuse as much of the system as possible and at the time the RS25's were NOT expendable. Again your biggest issue is a big part of NASA wanted every flight to be manned and that drove a lot of the decisions made.

[@montreal67]

🥂!

[@robertevans6481]

This is a very cool! Yes use the fuel tank as extre cargo. But i am no rocket scientist,but it look like it could (have happen). But the world will never know.....

[@stephenbyrne2170]

I thought this design of space shuttle was retired from service.

[@pobis381]

What they need a hammer to break the GLASS CEILING??

[@johnbuchman4854]

No OMS burn to get Shuttle into orbit?

[@Kemulnitestryker]

You never disappoint

[@brianv1988]

Not bad graphics using real video mixed with VFX it's basically how big movies do it if that's how he did it

[@mrnoob2514]

Bro imagine if it had fired a huge laser bruh

[@MichaelWinter-ss6lx]

This is what we should have continued the Saturn rockets for. The smaller Saturn-IIB would have been sufficient for this specific job. The point is, they were just starting to get much cheaper, and you dont need astronauts to release cargo. Another bad thing was the solid boosters on the shuttle. They were never supposed to be used on crew launches. Thats why ESA demanded liquid boosters for Ariane-5, planned for a mini shuttle. NASA realized too late that its oversized shuttle wont take off. Developement of liquid boosters is too expensive, so shuttle ended up with actually non-human-rated boosters. If anything goes wrong, solid boosters cant turn off. Once ignited, they burn till their done. Thats why they never should have been used for human missions. 🚀🏴‍☠️🎸

[@randycampbell6307]

Truthfully you CAN actually throttle and even shut off a solid but it's not easy and the only company that patented any ideas was Aerojet who did not get the SRB contract. The basic Shuttle design called TAOS (Thrust Assisted Orbital Shuttle) always planned to use SRB's because they were felt to be cheaper to develop and field than LRB's and Thiokol put an enormous amount of pressure on NASA to chose their SRB design through Utah state. The Thiokol boosters were also very rough running and while a more smooth propellant mix was known to exist it would have required a lot of changes to the factory which Thiokol didn't want to make.

[@ThePixelated_kris]

DARPA pe#1$ head concept

[@Angry.General1461]

It looked real until it was viewed from the sky!

[@simongeard4824]

It's like they looked at Shuttle and set out to build a more conventional rocket... and missed horribly.

[@CalvinMaclure]

This thing is an insult to the unique glory that was the Shuttle... XD

[@somedude4805]

A hammer is not what comes to mind when one sees the "head" of that rocket...

[@samsimons6774]

And, Phallus1 is on its way.........

[@brettparker2288]

so what does this actually do?

[@movedtoSFS]

The payload would be in the fairing and not the payload bay. Once the payload was released, the shuttle arm would then grab it and then dispoe the ET. Unless if the shuttle was recovering something, the payload bay would usualy be empty.

[@F-Man]

👀👀

[@angerissues69626]

Incredible how space exploration is going backwards back to Apollo like rockets. Well except spacex they seem to celebrate each time they blow up a star ship mock up. First at 4 min then 8 min maybe next time will be 16 min

[@jesusramirezromo2037]

Apollo is superior to the shuttle in everyway The shuttle grounded NASA to LEO, and draiend their budget Starship will be the same for SpaceX

[@ShiroVK870]

still looks expensive just for low earth orbit.

[@alvinvida1282]

This concept shuttle sure reminds me of the one from the Harley Quinn Animated series.. the one used by Lex Luthor.. 😁

[@M167A1]

Johnson Space Center

[@treashurehunter800]

This was the unused footage they made before they cancelled that space program.LOL😅

[@johnfloyd2551]

Looks like.....