Boeing Space Freighter Fully Reusable 420 Ton Payload Rocket Spaceplane

The Boeing Space Freighter was a 1970′s design fully reusable 420 Ton Payload Rocket System to construct the Solar Power Satellite Array to beam energy down to earth
Booster Wingspan 80 Meters
Height 154 Meters
Diameter 18.5 Meters
#boeing #nasa #ksp

[@noahdoyle6780]

Every submarine on that side of the planet: "What was *that*?!?"

[@Kelnx]

I wasn't a sonar guy, but yeah I'm guessing that would have been pretty loud for a really long distance.

[@GothDrossel]

I would like to point out they felt it needed to say the payload capacity was 420 tons

[@michaeldeierhoi4096]

There's no way that fat stubby shuttle look alike could get a 420 ton payload high enough to make orbit. Silly idea at best!!

[@vincentcleaver1925]

The orbiter would have been a million pounds...

[@GothDrossel]

@@vincentcleaver1925 DAMN thats heavy

[@judet2992]

Bro no one noticed the funni number😢

[@cubefish00]

2:11 The water looks awesome here! From the way the engines light up the ocean to the vibrations seen on the surface to the wet lens.... You've really outdone yourself this time!

[@datathunderstorm]

You took the words right out of my mouth 😊. I sincerely hope Hazegrayart is making a KILLING on the sci-fi TV series animation circuit with this level of talent. Visually, I can’t even tell it’s NOT real anymore, if not for the fact that I’m 61 years old and have always been a keen space exploration enthusiast - delighting in what virtually every nation sends up into space. Once again, Hazegrayart has literally blown my arguably “feeble” mind with this animation. I hope your talents are someday suitably employed in future series of “For All Mankind”…..(or was that Humankind? 🤔).

[@markmogk4814]

And nary a bit of steam...

[@johnk1639]

I was wondering why I’d never heard of this! Had me fooled.

[@nicholasscott6418]

Can you make another Rockwell International Star Raker video it was excellent.

[@xanthosparashis8819]

Yes! Please do another.

[@randycampbell6307]

Wonderful video! Can I suggest the NASA Langley "Spacejet" concept? Shuttle sized (orbiter/cargo) which used turboramjet "pods" to take off from a runway and fly to around Mach 4/5 before lighting off it's rockets and detaching the pods which flew back to a runway landing as did the Orbiter after the mission.

[@JoshuaThompson-sg1vy]

Qa45 44¹!aaåqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq❤

[@rocketman1969]

I remember watching a Scott Manley video on this... and now a full animation? Plus the quality, it's AMAZING!

[@RayMerkler]

Okay, that dunk in the water was a NICE touch, fellow citizen. Following you over the years has been a treat. :)

[@charlesblithfield6182]

It’s like the Thunderbirds in real life.

[@Sir_Uncle_Ned]

Yes, that liftoff looks obscenely slow, but keep in mind the sheer size of that thing that would undoubtedly make the Sea Dragon look like the Electron in comparison. And the way the water interacted with the camera was amazing, and really added to the immersion of the experience. No doubt this came from the extremely high "we can do anything" confidence of the Apollo era. Back when Boeing was actually competent. I wouldn't trust the Boeing of today with building a water bottle, never mind something this colossal.

[@kirkkerman]

The Space Based Solar Power study was a cut above even NASA's wildest dreams of the Apollo era, a return to the moon or an expedition to mars would have been a drop in the bucket compared to what this program would have costed, but it was still seen as worthy of at least speculative consideration thanks to the 70s oil crisis.

[@BartJBols]

@@kirkkerman It would have made fossil fuels obsolete the moment the first satellite came online.

[@keyboardt8276]

@@BartJBols no, space based solar doesn't produce that much power per satellite

[@BartJBols]

@@keyboardt8276 it produces roughly 4 times as much in space as it does on earth per sq meter of panel, and the scale this was planned would have meant a nuclear power plant added to the grid per launch. Just like the frist dreadnaught battleship made all ships before it instantly obsolete this would have been such a paradigm shift that fossil fuels simply could no longer compete, even if one sattelite could "maybe" barely power new york. Getting one sattelite up there would mean most of the risks and investment were over, its just a really big sattelite after that.

[@Globovoyeur]

@@BartJBols Before you commit to that, you should consider the conversion efficiency of solar cells at the time. Then factor in converting solar-panel output to microwaves, path loss to the surface, converting from microwaves to 60 Hz AC, distribution losses...

[@vincedunnell7292]

The biggest problem with this is going to be all the French fishermen waiting for the cooked fish to cache

[@daanvos194]

this shouldve debutet in for all of mankind

[@JarrodFrates]

One small issue is that the H-34 rotor tips are flexed downward in flight, while the real ones would flex upward. Other than that, this was a beautiful rendering.

[@DeputyNordburg]

The ship would also role over PDQ with such top heavy cargo and the stage separation was a bit unrealistic. But it was a very cool video.

[@dustinswatsons9150]

Don't forget the steam coming off of the ocean is really not existent

[@gabedarrett1301]

Remember when Boeing was at the cutting edge of technology? Today, Boeing is only popular because of the 737 crashes and the SLS, which is years behind schedule and ridiculously expensive.

[@pegasusted2504]

don't forget the complete travesty that is starliner. You would think after so many decades of working they would have their procedures and sustems in place to make sure any spacecraft has a correct clock and any of the other things they fucked up. If it was up to me boeing as a company would get nowhere near space ever again, they can't be trusted to not intentionally kill their passengers.

[@44R0Ndin]

Gee, its almost like building a rocket is hard or something. No excuse for the 737 thing tho.

[@HalNordmann]

@@pegasusted2504 They have built only rockets to date - not spacecraft. Some of their subsidiaries worked on Apollo, but that was years ago. Plus, don't act like Dragon didn't have any problems.

[@voidofspaceandtime4684]

@@HalNordmann the sls is just a rocket though. And they can't even do that. Don't try and act like a company receiving billions of dollars to do this job 'could be' doing it worse. Boeing is stunning in its incompetence and brain drain.

[@HalNordmann]

@@voidofspaceandtime4684 Well, if you only count the time between "design frozen" and "first flight", then SLS had less of a delay than the Falcon Heavy. Yet nobody points that out, since SpaceX is seemingly the sacred cow of the space community.

[@StarshipFairing]

Ahh… the good old giant fully reusable rocket concepts :D

[@davidstuckey9289]

Yes, not like those elegant modern designs from German feminists.

[@AnthemAnimation]

@@davidstuckey9289 I hate that I have to know about what you’re referencing

[@generalyellor8188]

@@davidstuckey9289 Loving rockets and hating women. Ah, to be eight years old again.

[@davidstuckey9289]

@@generalyellor8188 Did your parents have any children that lived? Seriously, Id point out why most rockets are pointy and no spheres or other ci-devant "female" shapes, but then you'd accuse me of mansplaining.

[@davidstuckey9289]

@@AnthemAnimation KZbin keeps nuking the comment with a direct reference, but look up the code phrase "A German feminist art group has revealed a vulva-shaped spaceship " on Google or Huffington Post. Or even the ESA website.

[@malone005]

Now we need the Space Shuttle II

[@citizenblue]

That's StarShip

[@epsilonalphaargo1948]

@@citizenblue I think he was referring to the NASA Langley Shuttle II concept from the late 80s.

[@citizenblue]

@@epsilonalphaargo1948 I'm not familiar; definitely gonna check it out!

[@Hueanaballofficial]

I like this Space plame. Because of the design, it looks like a larger but cuter version of the space shuttle.

[@bretthoffman2128]

So We got Ripped Off by the Space Shuttle Program, the first time. Now You want to do it again? I can get a bridge to sell you.

[@Vatsyayana87]

This was epic, you guys rock. P.S. You could hear the pain of those little landing gear on touch down lol

[@Horus2Osiris]

The weight of sufficient landing gear probably made the project croak...

[@Rebecca-xp7zw]

That is so amazing it's breathtakingly

[@briangarvey6895]

I wish I wish I wish I wish. 200% would be behind a Space Program like this.

[@AnthemAnimation]

Phenomenal video, the part with the camera dipping in the ocean is especially cool!

[@paulhaynes8045]

The waves going over the camera was a nice touch - bet you enjoyed making that bit!

[@davidbeers5949]

Wow it's amazing how they can push two of those off with just one of them having all those engines and no external tanks or solid rocket boosters. These people need to make a video of them flying that all over the world under the Golden gate bridge and any other place that their imagination can come up with.

[@3216100]

Aww, the space shuttle swallowed a bee, the poor thing

[@fernandoqueirozpopovic7024]

jesus christ man the music when it starts to lift the spaceplane in the launch position is just devestatingly epic the bass drop esspecialy

[@ashemgold]

Beautifully rendered. This lift vehicle would answer a lot of questions and solve a lot of problems. LET'S DO IT !!

[@bretthoffman2128]

What For? We can use the money, Spent on Something Like This, For many other Problems on Earth. The Space Shuttle, was a White Elephant, even the Soviets said it was Obscenely Expensive, that was a Rip Off. Where are We Going to Go in Space? We Don’t Have, the Technology, to even Contemplate Going to the Nearest Star. We Don’t even Know if it’s Possible?

[@TheKeenTribe]

420? Goodness that's high!

[@jm131719]

BRAVO!! Well done.

[@_K3PLR]

If this thing was real we could have had affordable space tourism by now.

[@colinberg3342]

Holy frick, you’re from spitter

[@_K3PLR]

@@colinberg3342 yes

[@swimsterx]

More space travel innovation videos that will NEVER come to fruition.

[@AcapulKero]

Wow! So real. You should make a real movie!

[@longtsun8286]

Excellent work.

[@ptonpc]

Imagine living in a world where this was commonplace.

[@andrew32155]

Unfortunately, a lot of the "need" driving the work that went into all these aggressive, & reusable HLV concepts was the overall movement for orbital solar power stations & beamed microwave power. Which itself was a product of believing doomerism and that the entirely artificial/political OPEC energy crisis that began in the 1970s was "the new normal" or otherwise going to be the status-quo forevermore. And the orbital SPS push never really had a chance of going anywhere in reality. Technically, economically, or politically. In the end, it mainly served as a "bright shiny object" distraction that kept the "smart people" from agitating for terrestrial nuclear power. Incentivized by the "Think of all the other stuff we could do in space!"-factor it implied, while ignoring the huge WHAT-IF the US actually went for it. No deliberate conspiracy theories required. Unfortunately, stuff like that just works out like that organically all on its own often enough.

[@GerardHammond]

That landing was epic! Well Done!

[@quitegonejim1125]

Awesome! Love the camera with the waves splashing over it! Great job! 😁

[@Aexorzist]

Always love your videos

[@Oleg.S.]

Эффект погружения камеры в воду, хорошо придумал.

[@ATSF854]

this is amazingly well done. space factories of the future dont seem too far off now

[@JohnIwaszko]

one word, Beautiful!

[@walterbatista7594]

The return of the Space Shuttle?, hopefully it will come true soon ❤

[@HalNordmann]

Was waiting for this design - much better than Starship, not just in payload but in efficiency too, and with realistic technology assumptions. I still like the smaller 120t to LEO design more, as eventually did the makers of the original study. Minor correction though - there wasn't any expendable interstage in the original design, instead the booster had a retracting nose to cover the upper stage engines.

[@The_O]

Why exactly would this be more efficient than Starship? It's got a lot of engines on the second stage, a lot of wing structure to carry and a lot of landing gear to carry around in orbit.

[@HalNordmann]

@@The_O The orbiter has still got less engines than Starship's first stage, and it is understandable for a design this big. And winged designs are surpringly efficient in fuel/payload ratio. For comparison, one other SPS HLLV design built on the same principles as this one has 120t to LEO (same as Starship promises, and more than it can actually carry), yet only 4000t mass when fully fueled - less than simply the fuel mass of Starship! That is without any weight-saving tricks like common bulkheads, with technology from the 70's and a 22t mass reserve - apparently, aluminium construction/winged flyback is a pretty efficient design! Additionally, Starship is also hauling around atmospheric engines that it only uses for the final landing. If you're landing on Earth, might as well use the atmosphere to your advantage - so, wings. Landing gear can't be much heavier than the one on Starship - especially since it lands a lot more gently and with a lower landing mass.

[@iamarokotmanson]

@@HalNordmann VTHL or HTHL? Which do you prefer?

[@HalNordmann]

@@iamarokotmanson Both are pretty good. VTHL is simpler to do since it is closer to traditional rocketry, but HTHL has operational advantages like simpler aborts. Both are still better for LEO lifting than VTVL in my opinion.

[@dsdy1205]

@@HalNordmann I mean, the point about Starship hauling around atmo engines applies to wings, no? Also you assume that Starship will be landing on Earth, so argue for wings. But Starship isn't always landing on Earth.

[@braderickson9996]

Sigh,...I find myself happy and then sad watching these past few videos. What we could have done in space with a fleet of these.

[@menotyou1234]

Not fully reusable, I saw an adapter ring that was ditched in orbit...

[@scottn7cy]

Amazingly beautiful!

[@sasquatchishere7453]

Loved the water going over the camera. That was awesome! Keep up the great work.

[@jhaarni]

Incredible work!

[@fordlower2527]

SpaceX in ages 1970-1980

[@thebaccathatchews]

"Yo dawg, I heard you like space shuttles..."

[@sbroggie]

Great animation. ❤

[@Infoexpo2015Tksitoexpo]

Wonderful! I love this solution.

[@peterloohunt]

Fantastic stuff!

[@IbocC64]

Good thing this was only a concept. If they can't even get a little capsule in to space with people on board for 4 times the price of SpaceX can you imagine what a debacle this would have been?

[@kurthanson4106]

Fantastic... Magnificent.

[@Allan_aka_RocKITEman]

Great video!

[@martinilopez1]

flawless!

[@therichieboy]

Your landing shots are so good!

[@justoldog]

The technology of Wakanda never fails to amaze me.

[@Lamprolign]

Very, very, nice work. I love these "what might have been" videos.

[@chrisrigoni]

amazing dude!!

[@karlkastor]

the glowing water at the launch is extremly cool

[@erridkforname]

420 ton payload. N i c e. No really tho that is alot we can do with a 420 ton payload

[@Eidolon1andOnly]

Technically it had a 425 tonne payload, but 420 sounds better.

[@BrianOuellette19]

God this is amazing.

[@FinnardoDeCaprio]

420 Ton Payload? Nice!

[@macebobkasson1629]

Ah, some new tricks. Well done.

[@ajds]

Gorgeous

[@vidyasagar.a.j5169]

Fabulous video

[@MM22966]

"It's pretty, Colonel, very pretty. But will it fly?"

[@nolancain8792]

When Discovery and Atlantis finally fell for each other.

[@feyaia]

Nice, but the water would be throwing up so much super-heated steam that you would see nothing until the ships emerged. Also, Shuttle required huge SRB's. The lift shuttle could never hold enough fuel to reach separation altitude.

[@44R0Ndin]

Shuttle (and the upper payload carrying vehicle in this video) is hydrolox, the booster is probably kerolox. That means you get a lot more thrust for the same weight of fuel, even if you get less delta-V, which is actually a good thing in the lower atmosphere. Even better, because it's Kerolox, the fuel is much denser, making it practical to carry the fuel without using drop-tanks. Keep in mind that this booster shuttle is probably much larger than the S-IC used as the first stage of the Saturn-V rocket. Each one of those engines is probably an F-1 derived design. So, it's absolutely monstrously huge, and so is the upper one. That means that they'd probably be able to carry enough fuel, tho they might need a nuclear rocket engine on the upper stage to get to geostationary orbit where those solar power satellites were. Or they could haul up a nuclear space tug that would then ferry payloads up to geostationary.

[@HalNordmann]

@@44R0Ndin The studied SPS lifters used methane-oxygen first stage, hydrogen-oxygen second stage, and a solar-electric tug for shipping from LEO to GEO.

[@44R0Ndin]

@@HalNordmann News to me, I thought it was kerolox first stage, and that they would use a nuclear thermal rocket for the LEO to GEO trip. Happy to be corrected tho.

[@HalNordmann]

@@44R0Ndin Kerolox was also thought about, but the study was during an oil shortage. They used methane because it was thought to be cheaper to obtain in sufficient quantities.

[@andypc14]

Very cool - 4:22 is impressive - wish I could do that with my drone😁👍

[@gregsonwoods]

Amazing.... again.

[@Agent77X]

Boeing has done a good job with designing and building the 420. Rumor is it been flying in space for over 10 years now!😊

[@user-wp6qm3ec4i]

Das is fantastic!

[@nankinink]

this one looks like an angry big boi, i love it

[@nerd20fromdiscord]

imagine the fuel costs tho, also it droped a fairing so technically not 100% reusable

[@bc1969214]

what were the plans for the fairing, was it recovered by a ship? Jettisoning it to me looked like for aerodynamic reasons for the flyback.

[@SebastianSchleussner]

*Interstage, and yes, it would have made it impossible to fly nose first through the atmosphere (hypersonically to boot). No idea if they meant to recover it.

[@44R0Ndin]

Doesn't seem like it would be out of the question to recover the interstage, similarly to how Falcon 9 has fairings that can be fished out of the water (with only a small cold-gas RCS and a parachute to make them land intact in the water), simply by nature of how lightweight and large they are (if it was a wing, it would have a wing loading not unlike that of a high altitude sailplane).

[@MrMiszardo]

Now that's a flying brick!

[@Peter-cx6bt]

Masterpiece. I'm talking about the quality of your work. Good that you mentioned that it's a concept form the 70's because in 2022 Boeing could not achieve this. After the Apollo program, NASA became a milk cow for Boeing.

[@SHONNER]

Cool CG.

[@ti994apc]

If Boeing believed in themselves, they would have developed this product not expecting the government to pay for it. If it truly was fully reusable, Boeing would have profited beyond their dreams.

[@nikthefix8918]

FAB Scott!

[@ablewindsor1459]

To think we might be in orbit around Pluto by now constructing new multiple ban telescopes this year......ah! Ah! YIKKERS what we have missed.

[@cosmosplayidn2844]

Legends 🔥

[@dustinnance3163]

This is way too cool! If only we had a couple more Elon musk’s and a lot less bureaucracy, we could actually do this

[@RossComputerGuy]

The music gives me some Portal 2 vibes

[@Paul_85-]

This is literally the best and most cost effective way to do this.

[@DragonSFS]

I remember seeing this in a scott manley video, and he made kinda a funny comment about the design

[@DragonSFS]

That being said, this is perhaps the funniest rocket design they came up with

[@MattMcIrvin]

Once again, it's unlikely that any of these giant heavy-lift concepts would be docking directly with a solar power array under construction--they were just to get to low earth orbit, and the station would be up in geosynchronous orbit. So you'd have some kind of exo-atmospheric tug for making that transfer.

[@chriswilliams3084]

0:59 I heard the inspiration for this evolved in the designer's mind when his dog started sniffing the ass of his other dog. Seriously though, you did a great job with this. Well done.

[@s1n4m1n]

I doubt Boeing could execute on this project.

[@kingofaesthetics9407]

The Boeing we have today is very different from the Boeing back in 1970 when this design was drafted.

[@Round_Slinger]

Yeah and they'd make sure to leave a couple of wrenches and screws laying around inside of the fuselage.

[@bc1969214]

@@kingofaesthetics9407 that's what I was thinking. Back then they were the contractor for Saturn V first stage.

[@davidstuckey9289]

@@Round_Slinger You're thinking of North American Aviation. A dropped wrench was the issue with the Apollo 1 fire

[@HalNordmann]

The Boeing who made the blueprints for this was the same Boeing that made the original 737 and 747 and the Saturn V first stage, remember that.

[@jantoleu8392]

I wonder what would be more economical, using the wings and the landing gears to make a horizontal landing or using the rest of the rocket fuel to make a vertical landing? Both options involve spending more fuel to lift the additional load to the orbit.

[@dsdy1205]

It depends on whether you intend to scale up the same launch vehicle. Propulsive landing dead-weight scales linearly with vehicle mass, while winged landing deadweight scales quadratically.

[@CraftYourDreamLB59]

I believe horizontal landing is more economical and safer, gliding back to a runway without relighting engines sounds easier and less prone to failure etc than vertical, propulsive landing, which are impressive but more things can go wrong.

[@jantoleu8392]

@@dsdy1205 And there is most obvious need to have massive wings and landing gears for horizontal landing opposite to having only landing gear for vertical landing for a rocket (booster). Moreover, Elon Musk invented his way to nullify that need for a landing gear. In short time we will see if it works.

[@silentbrain7451]

Amazing

[@TheAndrew3777]

Super jeszcze tańsze niż obecnie Fallon HV. Andy 🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟

[@StasIeroglif]

Что штаты хорошо научились делать , так это хорошую компьютерную графику , выглядит очень реалистично

[@gountzas]

The N1 explosion was the biggest non nuclear explosion ever and that rocket was measly a fraction of the size of this monster, I don't wanna think how much bigger the explosion of this rocket would be in case of failure

[@valerie80yearsago90]

3:30 looks similar to that awesome footage we got from space X some time ago of Falcon 9 during StageSep from ground stations. If that was the origin for the idea that’s sickkkk!

[@_K3PLR]

I think it is, haze has overlayed his CG onto actual launch footage before

[@davidstuckey9289]

It's basically the same as a staged rocket, except the "stages' in this case are winged flyers. Winged flyback stages have been considered for years, but not used primarily because of cost or engineering complications; SpaceX with their returnable stages still have the issue of overthrust to deal with, so even they aren't ideal.

[@valerie80yearsago90]

@@davidstuckey9289 overthrust? Mind explaining?

[@paulhaynes8045]

@@valerie80yearsago90 the booster has too much thrust to hover - hence the 'suicide burn' when it lands.

[@valerie80yearsago90]

@@paulhaynes8045 ahhh right! It can only be throttled down to 40% I thought. Also, any fuel you waste not going anywhere is well, fuel wasted. Alike BO’s New Sheppard.

[@christopheschwartz7374]

Très réussi pour le lancement des navettes. Belle réalisation avec des images incroyablement stupéfiante de réalité! c'Est du travail d'orfèvre et de minutie ça vaut un Oscar de la fiction! Bravo. Un abonné de France.

[@davidstuckey9289]

A mon goût, j'aimerais voir Haze Grey faire une représentation du Nord/SNECMA Transporteur Aerospatiale en mission. Peut-être y a-t-il une tendance à se concentrer sur les efforts américains, britanniques et russes ici, non ?

[@gerstmanndavid]

The graphics are great! But consider that the Space Freighter could deliver it's payload much easier on the outside of the structure than from inside the structure and it would be much safer.

[@dayvancowboi9135]

ambitious for sure, now that we have fairly cheap light efficient solar cells the whole space based solar power seems somewhat more feasible. At the time the cost of the rocket development and of actually making those solar panels would have been obscene, and they would have had awful efficiency to boot.

[@themini_b]

Given Boeing's recent track record (i.e. starliner) I wouldn't be convinced Boeing could feasibly pull anything like this off even if given a trillion dollars and 30 years to complete it.

[@HalNordmann]

The Boeing that proposed this was the same Boeing that made the original 737 and 747, mind you.

[@johnmurphy5689]

This was the Boeing before McDonnell Douglas silently took over the company in the 1990s, so they would've easily built and completed this thing in 5-10 years with the proper funding.

[@InskyJedburgh]

The most astronomical part of this concept is how much it would cost if Boeing was the one that made it.

[@cameronh3260]

Would need the militarys budget to make it

[@HalNordmann]

The Boeing who made the blueprints for this was the same Boeing that made the original 737 and 747 and the Saturn V first stage, remember that.