Lockheed's LS-200 Star Clipper Spaceplane a Space Shuttle alternative

Lockheed's Star Clipper was a proposed Earth-to-orbit spaceplane based on a large lifting body spacecraft and a wrap-around drop tank. Originally proposed during a USAF program in 1966, the basic Star Clipper concept lived on during the early years of the NASA Space Shuttle program, and as that project evolved, in a variety of new versions like the LS-200.
The LS-200 was very similar to the earlier version, it was smaller overall, The M-1 engines were replaced with the Space Shuttle Main Engines.

[@flowscape6768]

From a fellow cg artist, i complement you on the realism. From the camera shake, motion blur, focusing, to the black starless sky, fantastic work. Its often the little things that make or break an animation, your attention to detail maybe overlooked by the average viewer, but is appreciated from me knowing how much extra work you put into this. Bravo

[@devindykstra]

As an artist that normally loves to go overboard (super bright stars, lens flare, and bloom galore) I really appreciate their restraint.

[@Double_Vision]

From another fellow CG artist, this is quality work. I'd love to see a compositing breakdown for the ground-based telephoto angles shot through atmosphere. Really lovely work.

[@BryanBlock]

@@Double_Vision Yes! The haze effect with the bright engines is so realistic!

[@badrinair]

💯

[@Double_Vision]

@@reecesx In this instance the shake is true to life. Have you not seen how shaky even the NASA telephoto cameras get when trying to track a vehicle at that altitude whilst staying stable? Even the NASA Long Range Ascent Tracking Camera gets a shake at its maximum range, and that thing is the size of a car.

[@JUSTENization]

I worked on the actual X-33 demonstrator at Rohr Industries (Collins Aerospace now) 1998 in San Diego. Rohr got the contract for the thermo protection systems (composite leeward and metallic windward panels). I designed 12 of the 18 leeward composite panels; most engineering was done until we got a complete stop due to the oxygen tank tests failure. Venturestar, meant to replace the space shuttles, is officially dead. Although space shuttles were before my time, i personally thought it was a great piece of engineering, as a retired aerospace engineer, i salute to all my mentors. This video is very cool; that external tank would be way too heavy for those Aerospike engines. Salute to all engineers, past present and future! Learn from failures, never give up! ✈️ From San Diego with ❤

[@skateboardingjesus4006]

Beautifully done piece of work, and excellent attention paid to the subtleties that make it work. The descending shuttle SRB's at altitude sounds, we're also a nice touch for those overlapping frequencies. 👍

[@KellyStarks]

LOVE YOUR WORK!, All the cool stuff I dreamed of coming true as a young future aerospace engineer..and this was my second favorite of all the old designs!

[@lethargogpeterson4083]

What was your favorite, if I may ask?

[@KellyStarks]

@@lethargogpeterson4083 My favorite was the North American Star-Raker, the best of the ‘60’s designs for massive lift and high reusability, and ridiculously fast turn around. And for something much smaller, the FDL-5 mini shuttle with its swing out wings covering the landing gear. Seems like a elegant and simple little craft that would be easy to implement.

[@lethargogpeterson4083]

@@KellyStarks Thank you. I'll have to look those up.

[@JUSTENization]

I worked on the actual X-33 demonstrator at Rohr Industries (Collins Aerospace now) 1998 in San Diego. Rohr got the contract for the thermo protection systems (composite leeward and metallic windward panels). I designed 12 of the 18 leeward composite panels; most engineering was done until we got a complete stop due to the oxygen tank tests failure. Venturestar, meant to replace the space shuttles, is officially dead. Although space shuttles were before my time, i personally thought it was a great piece of engineering, as a retired aerospace engineer, i salute to all my mentors. This video is very cool; that external tank would be way too heavy for those Aerospike engines. Salute to all engineers, past present and future! Learn from failures, never give up! ✈️ From San Diego with ❤

[@lethargogpeterson4083]

@@JUSTENization I remember hearing about the X-33 and Venture Star as a young layman, and I thought it would be so cool. Thank you for your work.

[@danielcantwell12]

Amazing animation. I have never heard of this rocket so it is cool to learn about another shuttle alternate

[@wayneyd2]

You never heard of it because it don't exist.

[@davidgifford8112]

It was the original Space Shuttle concept before it was overtaken by politics and crazy USAF requirements.

[@PC-nf3no]

It was an early concept that never made it past paper. However, in the early 2000's Lockheed actually developed the X33 pretty far into the Venture Star program. A SSTO composite lifting body using aerospike engines. An X33 frame was built at the Palmdale Skunkworks facility but was cancelled because the frame developed cracks during tank testing. The carbon composite issues were later worked out in other project developments but the X33 was already long since cancelled. Dream chaser and the air force's X37 long duration test vehicle is currently the only surviving spaceplanes from NASA's 2nd generation space plane projects

[@HalNordmann]

@@davidgifford8112 Don't talk about the USAF "requirements". NASA also wanted a large payload bay and crossrange capacity, and some of the Phase B Shuttle designs could fulfill these needs while still having the two-stage fully-reusable winged flyback design. But NASA sadly couldn't afford the development cost of these... #FundNASA

[@fuckYTIDontWantToUseMyRealName]

I'd never *heard* of it either, but I did grow up with a cast iron model in my toy box that I just called the "spaceplane." This video just solved a childhood mystery of mine.

[@djeudhdushrhfu3521]

Absolutely stunning animation

[@Grak70]

The attention to detail on the pressure rebound / Mach diamonds and how they change with altitude is especially impressive.

[@SpuNix-of7fr]

*At first i thought the thumbnail was a meme about the space shuttle until i actually clicked the video and read the tittle* Great work and realism!

[@guillaumefigarella1704]

Dude you never disapoint, always amazing stuff, i really hope we have enough weird proposed craft for you to keep making them forever!

[@ethangbb]

That external tank looks like something straight out of KSP

[@phoenix0166]

The entire thing looks out of ksp

[@ethangbb]

@@phoenix0166 The way the external tank is built makes it look like it’s a bunch of 3.75 meter orange tanks

[@fuzzyhead878]

You’ve watched the other videos on this channel, right?

[@ethangbb]

@@fuzzyhead878 of course I have

[@phoenix0166]

@@fuzzyhead878 yes

[@chrisholt5964]

Beautiful animation, really enjoyed the experience!

[@Nachi121-xs5gc]

3:26 is such a breathtaking and beautiful clip! and the legacy of the space shuttle can't be forgotten even if the star clipper is just an alternative space shuttle concept.

[@fXBorgmeister]

I love the slight wobble on the "tracking" shots. Really on the upward slope on the other side of uncanny valley. Great stuff.

[@somestarman892]

Another incredible animation that looks like reality. WAY TO GO

[@RocketRay]

I met a guy who worked on that. He said they went with a composite fuel tank that they knew wouldn't work to buy the time to write the avionics software. He also said it had so little control authority at launch that a light wind would push it into the launch tower. Lockheed gets contracts because they know who to go golfing with.

[@wkjeeping9053]

George Bush Sr didn't like wasting money on space travel. He thought it was a rediculis endever got this cancelled too

[@williamduffy1227]

Your points are valid but this isnt the X-33 VentureStar from the late 1990's. This was a Space Shuttle concept from the late 1960's.

[@grandicellichannel]

The landing sequence is top notch. I can't distinguish anymore a CGI work of yours from an actual clip... no joke! Bravo, as always! Every video of your is a step foreward in terms of realism... mesmerizing.

[@mikeloghry9521]

Thank You. I figured it was CGI. Nice

[@mothywood]

I’ve never seen any references to the Star Clipper’s stabilizers being actuated like this but I could have missed it somewhere. Lifting body designs generally rely heavily on their vertical stabilizers which makes me think they probably didn’t move. There are references to wings that were tucked inside the body that would rotate out, though. Beautiful animation.

[@JFrazer4303]

Vertical fins are a good thing.

[@jmstudios457]

i see stuff like this and think "we do truly live in a smooth brained timeline"

[@mathewferstl7042]

monke timeline

[@somebodyontheinternet8257]

Trust me this thing was a lot more smooth brained then the STS we got

[@HalNordmann]

Fun fact: Originally, the Space Shuttle had a two-stage fully-reusable winged flyback design but that was too expensive to develop on NASA's shoestring budget after Apollo. #FundNASA

[@dsdy1205]

@@HalNordmann That's not the whole story. The bigger picture is that USAF wanted to haul spysats to orbit with the Shuttle, necessitating a long payload bay. With the payload bay that long there would be no space left for internal fuel with the original 2-plane fully reusable design. Accomodating a long payload bay would either mean making the entire vehicle a lot larger whcih couldn't be done with the budget, or switching to external tanks and solids, which is what NASA did EDIT: Although of course the reason NASA had to follow USAF rrquirements was because they were helping to fund the program, so yeah, #fundNASA

[@HalNordmann]

@@dsdy1205 The USAF "requirements" weren't the problem. NASA also wanted the big payload bay and crossrange, since it allowed for a bigger mission flexibility. The particular length is probably USAF's work, but NASA also wanted to carry large payloads - it maybe could've been a bit smaller, but not by much (15m instead of 18m?). Fun fact: The US DoD space activites budget is about 3x the NASA one.

[@darthg6505]

Bravo! Wonderful job! Love the history involved. Thank you!

[@daddylong69]

This is incredible. Amazing work.

[@spaceygamez]

Another cursed looking rocket. Great Job!

[@guilhermegoulart4199]

Amazing how things work so perfectly in CGI.

[@gloupot2140]

Si non la nasa n'existerait pas .

[@louisparker6553]

This is incredible. I wouldn't know this was fake if it wasn't on an artist page. This is amazing work

[@veryunusual126]

that v-shaped tank is incredible to look at 😲 and you are a talented guy 👍👍👍

[@StarshipFairing]

The plane looks really cool, external tanks are the definition of cursed 😅

[@phoenix0166]

The plane is hella W I D E

[@StarshipFairing]

@@phoenix0166 kind of like venturestar, but with a weird V shaped drop tank lol

[@phoenix0166]

@@StarshipFairing and bigass main engines lol. They just slap the f1 on the back or sumthin?

[@ethangbb]

@@phoenix0166 looks more like Vacuum Raptors than F-1s

[@phoenix0166]

@@ethangbb yeah that ones better

[@paulmichaelfreedman8334]

The Venture Star body was almost completed (2003) when the program was axed due to insurmountable debonding issues (at the time) with the carbon composite tank. The plan was to use an aerospike engine on it. There has been an aerospike development program and there was a working prototype, but soon the engineers realized that the aerospike engine is extremely hard to keep cool.

[@johnho7422]

Yes interesting - seems like this version has vacuum optimized conventional engine bells which would be an efficiency issue during take off. This is sort of a SSTO design with a disposable tank which makes it even possible (as true SSTO design - with no mass shedding - are not viable given earth's gravity well)

[@absalomdraconis]

Someone else pointed out that this design is actually older than Venture Star, I guess from the early stages of the original shuttle design process.

[@paulmichaelfreedman8334]

@@johnho7422 Aerospikes could have good use in deep space though. But aerospikes are also a lot heavier than traditional bell engines.

[@MildandLazyGuy]

X-33 tank unbonded in test at MSFC due to FOD in the lobe skin that failed. Program had already pivoted to aluminum lh2 tanks because there was no way a large enough tank for Venture Star could have been composite. Then large cost overruns on ISS caused multiple NASA X-programs including X-33 to be canceled to cover ISS.

[@helifanodobezanozi7689]

Venture Star was killed by Dick Cheney in favor of Aries I/V and the Constellation program.

[@Nutzer5246]

Love the reminicence to Space Odyssee. Fabulous work! ❤️

[@leslienordman8718]

Very nice! You spent a lot of effort making the CGI look quite realistic. I loved the "2001: A Space Odyssey"-like shot of the Clipper approaching the space station. It was a nice touch to include the Space Shuttle as a convenient point of reference to the Clipper's size. Great stuff, thanks!

[@olivergs9840]

Always a beautiful piece. Have you thought of animating Mcdonnell's Big Gemini idea? I think it had a lot of merit, and would love to see what it would have looked like in service

[@ccchhhrrriiisss100]

I agree. The top-loaded crew compartments (whether capsules or space planes) were ideal given how safe and "proven" they were. In the age of SpaceX, a returnable rocket system landing and being reused would be very helpful in creating low-cost space flight.

[@johnbockelie3899]

I had.a Dinky toy of this shuttle alternative years ago. You brought back memories. Tremendous animation you did.

[@tariqahmad1371]

Excellent animation as usual. That spaceplane looks so kerbal!

[@eloscuro704]

Now I have to go make this in Kerbal!

[@tariqahmad1371]

@@eloscuro704 lol

[@StephenMattison66]

Cool! INTENSE video, so well done, amazing score, helps a lot!

[@stevelee4653]

looks amazing,,.incredible work!!!

[@migram4190]

Contrails and max Q shockwaves is a must! Awesome work as always!

[@00bean00]

Heat distortion?

[@chrisinshaw4813]

Nice work, It would be interesting to see it the external fuel tank configuration is really viable. I would also like to see the main engines replaced with an aerospike configuration like was supposed to be on the Venturestar.

[@zenzen9131]

As a lesson learned from the Columbia disaster I think that with any new shuttle design that it should sit on top of its booster and fuel tanks so that no ice/debris can fall back onto its surface and cause damage. The design in this video makes the possible ice launch damage worse and not better.

[@judet2992]

2:20 Great attention to detail with the changing engine brightness signaling throttle for tank separation!

[@classicalvintagecollector]

Very impressive. I have never heard of this ship, which made me doubt if it actually existed, but your cg was so realistic I began to read the comments. Stunning realism!

[@pca1235]

The space shuttle used a large external tank, but it also used 2 large solid rocket boosters. If the LS-200 Star Clipper is using similar technology, then it too would have required the use of booster rockets if it wasn't using the more advanced and more efficient aerospike rocket engine.

[@caav56]

Star Clipper had lower payload capacity, than TAOS we've got, so it might've not needed the boosters even with just RS-25.

[@cabanford]

Your flight physics are better than anything Holleywood manages to bring out ⭐👍

[@red5589]

thanks for sharing your work. Realism is incredible.

[@NicolaFaccioliniTv]

Congratulations from Italy People!

[@SolarWebsite]

I thought, no way this wild ET design was real. I googled it... and this wild ET design was real. Amazing.

[@spparodi]

The Shuttle was the “falling brick”, this is the falling cinder block. You made the block land gracefully. Wow. Just wow!! 🏆🏆🏆

[@basfinnis]

They get better and better. Amazing stuff 😘

[@mrbruce307]

great editing...excellent work...thank you

[@OvineAviation]

This is incredible. The only critique I have is that with the Shuttle docked as it was, there would not be any usable docking ports on ISS for the vehicle use. Keep up the beautiful work.

[@tw4982]

The ISS has four ports; a visitor, a resupply/trash, a rescue,..and a spare. All Russian. The matching collar would be a part on the shuttle, so to adapt.

[@RCAvhstape]

Also would expect the Clipper's cargo bay doors to be open in order to use the radiators, same as STS shuttle.

[@stuartyoung4182]

I didn't know that the original 1960s Star Clipper concept continued to evolve during the early Shuttle era, into the LS-200, which would have used SSMEs. I was initially assuming that Star Clipper would have replaced the Shuttle in an "alternate space history" - so was confused when I saw a "real" historical Shuttle already docked at the ISS: now I understand! Perhaps the Star Clipper's wrap-around tanks would have been safer than OTL Shuttle: shedding foam might have cleared the Orbiter, or might have hit it at less direct angles, etc. Awesome CGI, as usual!

[@deanlawson6880]

Wow! What a seriously great video! Certainly looks like a great and plausible design to me!

[@F-35-Usa]

d

[@Bugatti12563]

Beautiful, Thanks for your skills.

[@roberthughes6981]

This design has been in the works for the last 8 years. The problem with the lifting body they solved with those two canards on the side, their Nacell like and design. But the v shaped style lifting fuel tank,. I'm impressed.

[@jbrost100]

Originally proposed during a United States Air Force program in 1966, the basic Star Clipper concept lived on during the early years of the NASA Space Shuttle program, and as that project evolved, in a variety of new versions like the LS-200. Although the Star Clipper design did not progress far in the Space Transportation System (STS) program, it had an enormous effect on the emerging Space Shuttle design

[@badrinair]

What a beautiful piece of work. The detail of the shadow on the tanks as the craft climbs up is beautiful. Hard to believe that engineers did design something like this. I wonder what happens to the external fuel tank?

[@iIllya_schk_2007]

External tank destroyed in re-entry

[@raymondclark1785]

I always thought they should have had angled flanges at both ends. Bolt them end to end and soon they would form the first ring of a space station

[@RCAvhstape]

ET falls into the sea. What's left of it, anyway, as it will be very close to the end of the main engine burn when it is jettisoned and therefore very high and going very fast.

[@rbm307]

Incredible work!!!

[@Lilmiket1000]

Man that is really cool looking. For a second I was having trouble figureing out if this was real or not haha. I heard of the clipper but never seen it and definitely didnt hear bout it being built. I thought for a second I had missed something huge!

[@tbranch227]

It's gorgeous! Too bad we don't have anything like this doing launches

[@PetesGuide]

Starship was fully stacked last night for the first time using the tower arms, so we’re close to something similar-can’t wait for the real belly flop!

[@icaleinns6233]

Beautiful animation! Love the work done here! But the drop tanks in front of the vehicle itself would be more than a little problematic in real life. Pretty sure I wouldn't put my neck on the line for that concept.

[@F-35-Usa]

l

[@jesse4042]

wow I had to come down to comments to find out if this was an actual video or CGI. Well done!

[@andrewvogel5344]

Amazing work! My eyes couldnt tell most of it apart with reality.

[@F-35-Usa]

a

[@dbneptune]

Hey, I didn’t know that this thing existed and got the idea of a spaceplane tucked into an external fuel tank before watching this! If this was a real concept then I must be doing something right!

[@JBM425]

I wonder how the crew would feel being literally surrounded by fuel tanks instead of being on top of them?

[@galadato7425]

Fr it would be safer then the shuttle 1

[@BrokenLifeCycle]

At the very least, it's all liquid propellant so they can shut it down in the event of an emergency, unlike SRBs. Doesn't change the issue of being surrounded by propellant, though, and the exposure of the TPS to potential falling debris like ice and foam.

[@HalNordmann]

@@BrokenLifeCycle Fun fact: From the beginning of the Space Shuttle program, there were plans for a replacement liquid fuel boosters on it, unfortunately NASA couldn't afford the development cost of these... #FundNASA

[@charliem989]

@@galadato7425 You're kidding right? What do you think happened to the Challenger? The fuel tank exploded, that it was "on top of".

[@runer007]

The thing which made me think that it was an animation, was the level of perfection. Somewhat, if it had been more imperfect, I would not have suspected that it was an animation. Amazing job though.

[@robertlaskey8509]

I had the GI Joe shuttle complex when I was a kid!

[@fuzzyhead878]

When you allow parts clipping in KSP.

[@phoenix0166]

You don’t?

[@fuzzyhead878]

@@phoenix0166 Depends.

[@phoenix0166]

@@fuzzyhead878 I always do lol

[@sciencecompliance235]

@@fuzzyhead878 If it would make sense in reality or there is a limit on part variants, I tolerate clipping. If it doesn't seem feasible, I don't allow clipping.

[@fuzzyhead878]

@@sciencecompliance235 Exactly

[@zzar0humanity]

Also @hazegray Id love to see the Shuttle Block IIs/Evolved Shuttle/Shuttle II designs rendered one day. They all had the common trait of abortable crew compartments with their own wings and engines, but how they handled payloads, ETs, and boosters were very different

[@F-35-Usa]

z

[@JFrazer4303]

Better off having separate vehicles for cargo & crew. Cargo can go up in Shuttle -C.

[@user-mb6rk8in4f]

Beautiful, just fantastic!

[@markdouglas2626]

Had me fooled for a while thought it was a new aircraft, excellent CGI 👍

[@nolancain8792]

That thing could land as a boat if it wanted.

[@phoenix0166]

I can’t unsee it

[@peterrees6346]

Fun animation. I remember doing stories about this and delta clipper in the 90s. It was part of NASAs SST (single stage to orbit) and RLV (reusable launch vehicle) design initiative. From memory the original vehicle was to have a linear aerospike engine and there was no external tank. Which is all pertinent to Elon’s recent announcement of a 50% power upgrade for Starship. Is he shooting for single stage to orbit?

[@caav56]

From what I see, Elon wants a TSTO with a very high payload capacity to get Starlink going at full capacity ASAP and claim market for as much heavy launches as possible.

[@simonhenry7867]

​@@caav56including market that doesn't exist now by making $/kg cost a half or quarter what it is now. In fact would spacex SS be the final nail in the space plane coffin?

[@christopheschwartz7374]

Des images pleines de réalismes et formidablement très réussi! j'Aurai cru que c'était du direct, bravo pour cette vidéo remarquable...

[@AndresMujica]

incredible! looks super real!

[@Tydirium5240]

It looks so weird I love it

[@menguardingtheirownwallets6791]

The pieces of insulating foam that will be coming off that orange oxygen tank will pepper a thousand holes into the ceramic heat shield of that spaceplane. Now if they use tungsten alloy heat shields that are layered over each other like scales on a fish, then that won't be a problem.

[@randycampbell6307]

Lockheed baselined a "hot-structure" vehicle with in integral titanium alloy heat shield they'd been pitching from the early '60s.

[@habadabibi8836]

Idk, tungsten is kinda really heavy

[@keithbrown2458]

Wow just incredible well done

[@beyondblueaerospacecorpora1621]

Well, we sat through that whole video. Well done.

[@albuquerquepioy7071]

Still better than Boeing.

[@danBKA5864]

Was this project technologically feasable at the time it was conceived? I could imagine that today they could scale down those massive fuel tanks. I'm curious

[@TiaguinhouGFX]

@@FrogsIsGood Some day we'll have crafts capable of lifting off, entering space, getting to another planet and landing, all in one stage.

[@robertkerby2581]

Loved it! Well done!

[@mavi5477]

Such a BEAUTIFUL vessel.

[@maxkonig559]

Hope you get me wrong, but it looks like a joke to me. Having the fuel tank covering the whole front of the ship is a disaster waiting to happen. To have the fuel tank move out of its way in time when going over thousands of miles per hour doesn't seem plausible.

[@karmapolice247]

the spaceship is powered by how repulsed the earth is at its existence.

[@Outandaboutwithpoggy]

And I thought it was real and wondered why I had not seen this in the media, very well done

[@abundantYOUniverse]

That is really fantastic thanks!

[@brianhale3678]

Could the fuel tank re-enter and be reused?

[@lewismassie]

It was disposable like the Shuttle ET

[@brianhale3678]

@@lewismassie thx.

[@brianhale3678]

I always leave this comment Wherever I Go. How do you get to hell? Very simple: claim that you're innocent. How do you get to heaven? Very simple: Admit that you're not Innocent, you're guilty and ask for mercy. How to know if you're guilty or not? Simply: Compare your life to the Ten Commandments God gave you in the Bible. Everyone agrees that if people followed the ten commandments there would be no need for governments or police. Do not lie. Do not steal. Do not commit adultery. Do not insult God by using his name as a cuss word. There are six more but let's just leave it at that. How many lies have you told in your life? Have you ever taken anything that didn't belong to you? Jesus said, if you look at a women lustfully you've already committed adultery in your heart with that woman. How many times a day do you do that? Do you use God's name as a cuss word? Would you do that with your own mother's name? If you answer these questions honestly you know that you're guilty. God can justly punish you and send you to hell. Ask him for mercy. His name is Jesus. It's as simple as this, The Ten Commandments are called the moral law. You and I broke God's laws. Jesus paid the fine. The fine is death. Ezekiel 18:20 - "The soul who sins shall die. That's why Jesus had to die on the cross for our sins. This is why God is able to give us Mercy. Option A. You die for your own sins. Option B. Ask for mercy and accept that Jesus died for you.

[@phoenix0166]

@@brianhale3678 where the hell did this come from?

[@brianhale3678]

@@phoenix0166 where did biscuits come from?... a creator. Where did the creator come from? He has always existed from eternity to Eternity. It's somewhat difficult to imagine the idea of infinite time. But it's super easy to imagine Infinite Space... what's the edge look like a big wall that says "this is the edge of the universe"... What's on the other side of the wall? We know that God has always existed? Because the universe exists and the universe could not have created itself? The most famous philosopher and history Aristotle figure this out 2,300 years ago.

[@HowToSpacic]

Ah yes. The majestic Ţ̶̢̢̨̨̨̨̧̛̛̛̛̛̛̛͔̲͇͎̜͇͇̜̲̫̖̣̱̳̹̮̫̦̫̳̮̬͕̫̹̜̯̬̬̝̦̞̫̣̝̺̰͕͕͚̹̤͙̠̲͎̲̞̭̣̦̭̗͕̙̮̹̻̼̯͍̪͚̘̤͈̎̎̊̔̄̽͒̔̍͒͌͋̈́̈͒͋̄̏̾͌̃̈́̐͊̆͛̂̓͋͊̿́̏̄͊̐̽̈̀͐̍͋͑̓̅̔̔̾̍͋̓̈́̎̅̌̌͌͐̏̈́͛̅͐͗̈͐͐͊̍͐̏̏͗́̉́̄͌͂̔̅̈́̊̄͌̃͋̌̄͋͊̏̅̃̑̂͋̉͊͌̇͗̋́͊̇̏̈́̊̔̂̑̈́͒̈́̀̾̀͊̿̒̀̃̈̈́̃̈́̽̈́̓͌͛̋̿̊̈́̓͑̐͒̇͑́̓̋̋̕͘̕̕͘͘̕̕͘̕͘͜͜͜͠͠͝͠͠͝͝͝͝͠͝͝͝͝ͅͅŖ̵̡̡̨̨̡̨̢̨̧̨̡̨̡̡͉̹̪̼̻͉̪̱̭̩̗̠̟̞̖͈̜̝̞̣̣͚̙̯̜͇̯͉̪̤͉̮̣͈̜̼͇̹̝͇̙̘͕̠̟̗͉͈̩͍͙̞̗͕̗͕̝͉̯̥̠͕̻̝̱̺̳͎̗̫͈̞͕̯̟̹̮̮͙̟̤̜̺̠͈̮͕̞̖̻̰̻̻̮̜̲̞̝̗͉̼̜̣͈̝̰̥̝̪̘̥̻̣̱̣͙̦̻̺̠̰͕̳̯̯̺̥͉̠̩̒̈́́̔̔͐̌͐̓̆̿̌̽̏̕͜͜͜͜͜ͅͅͅĮ̵̨̧̧̡̡̛̛̗̥̪̞͈̝͚̹̬̣͙͇͈̻̞̘̻̼͕͍͕͖͙̮̠̯̠̱͖͈͉̩̖̪͉̫̩̖͕̯̝̳̣͕͔̜̹̹̳̘͕̣̟̠̥͎̙͇͖͕̳͙̞̱̹̽̌̉̎͌̔̀̍̑̌͐́͑̏͂̐́̃̋̾̾̀̀̿̎̎͗̒͂͌̆́̈́͌͗̈́̐̇̇̏̔̊̋̇̿̋̐̍̓̎̏́́͆̓̏̂̈́̉̽̽̍͂̊͆̾̈́̄̋͑̑̀̕̕͘̚̚̚͜͝͝͝͝͝͝͝͝Â̴̧̢̨̡̡̡̧̨̨̢̛̛͉̖̘̯̟͍͙̳̰̹̙̘͓͇̼͚̹͈͉̖͖͖̰̺̝̠̫̱͖͇͎̤̰̙̯̣͉͙̯̝͕͇̮̤̗̦̹̲̩̟̠͕͓̼̹̪̰͈̲̤̰͔̤̬̹̤̦̦̤͍̤̪͇̱̬͉͉͙̬̜̟͖̭̮̯̭̯̤̼̠̼̹͔͇͍̭̻͎̩̬͔̺̖̜̗͉͖̝̳̹̗̙͔̺̞̥͖̜͉̦̯̜̭̟͇̯͙̝̗̞̜͖̰͚̠̙̞̥̞͖̣̗̝̹͎̰̣̫̯̝̝͓̙̙̲̼͇̙̭̤͚͓̖̪̥̱͔̣̌̀̉̉́̌̉̑̈͆̓̏̋̓͛̔̈́̈́̇̏̓̀̒̉́̀́̽͒̊͋̚̕̕̚͜͜͠͝͝͝͝͝ͅͅͅN̷̨̡̢̧̡̛̛̗͙̙͓͇̦̝̙̹͈̜̪̥͚͇̮͕̤̞͉͈̣̹̲̰̪̭̖͍̪̦̬̠͙̣̯̗̱̖̲̫͔̹̠͎̟̯̲̝͎̣̣͚̤͚͂̇̈́͌̌͐̅͛̇̓̈́̀̓͑̎̎́̈́̽̏̇͒̍̓̈́͊͑̿̿͂̾̒̓͂̋̅̓̔̆́̄͋̂̆̽͗̓̅̀̀̍̏̿͌̇̆̓̂̏͆͋̎̓̇͛͊̀̈́̽́̔́̔̈̒̔̈̍̏͆͛͗̌͛̿̋̋͒̐̈̅̍͘̚̕̕͘̚͝͠͝͝͝G̵̢̧̡̢̨̢̢̡̧̡̨̛̪͓̲̣͙͈͔̝̗͕̦̻̬̲̰͈̠̜̥̭̯͔͖̼̻̙̬͈̲̜̳̩͇̰̙͇̫̲̝̞͖̰͓̰̤̺̪̟̱̩̘͓̱̬͇͈͖̩̫̯̤̙͍̮̗̯͓̻̜̞͋̈́͑̈́͊̇͊͆̌̂́̑͗̚̚̕͘͜͜͝ͅͅͅL̸̨̡̧̨̨̢̛̛̛̛͇̱̭͙̦̝̠̘͈͎̭̞̺͚͙̫̘͙͓̹̳̲̤͓̼̹̭̰̤̹̮̦̫̳͇͔̘̲̭̙̫̰̿́̉̎̎̎͂̈́̈́́̀̀̿͌̈́͛̀͆́̉̔́͗͑͂̿̈́̒̍̌̔̔͆̊͑̋͒̾̎̏͗̈̇͗͆̑̋̽͆̓̈́̽̇̈̀͆̉̍̋̽̓́̈̿͒̇̈́̐̄̐͊̄̎͐̎̈̋̒̌̽̓͂̅̈́̈̃̿͌̿̌̄̉̃̑̏̾̿́̈̏̄̍̀̈́͊̇̾́̃͊́͒̒̀̍̋̋͋̔̿͆̐͑͛̉̽̍͒͑̐͗̉̎͐̀̒̇͑̍̑̀̐̉̆̕̕͘̚͘̕̕̕̚͝͠͝͠͝͝͝͠ͅͅͅȨ̶̧̧̡̢̢̡̢̧̢̢̨̢̨͇̞͇̲͓̞̜͖̮̖̰̤̼̱̳̠̲̤̬͈͉͚͓͚͔͉̠͉̞̹͚̙̬̭̺͇̳̖͕̼̜̘̖͖̬̹̰͈̖̘̘̮̖͓̫̹͔̥̠̙͖̰̝̮̮̱͈̹̗̰̖͖͙̺̤̬͖̲̦̻̘͔̜̠͍̹͇̝̹͕̤̝͈̠̼̤͂̔̏́̑͋̊͑͛̈͋̇̈́̈̆͊̑̔̍̅̒͑̀̀̓̾̅̉̋͛͗̎̏̉͑̓̅̍̀͑̈́̅̃̉̈́͑̋͛͂̏̾͒̇̍̓̊̇̿͐́̈́͒̒̐͛̑̃̄͗̌͂͗͋̑͋̔͆̀̒̄̾̇̍͌́̽̍̉̋͌̀̔̀́̓̓̎̊̽̀̑̓͌̅̇̍͒̓͂́̒̾̄͋̍̈́͑̓́̊̅̒̒͂͑̐̍͐̒̈́͊́͒͆͛̎͐̽̚̚̚̕̕͘͘͘͘͜͝͝͝͝͝͠͝͠͠͝͝͝͠͝͝͝͝ͅͅͅ.

[@CallsignAegis]

Yes

[@LDTV22OfficialChannel]

The shuttle is a wedge.

[@vitalylesindorf640]

Прекрасная картинка! Я сначала подумал,что это - реальные съемки.

[@user-ow4tv8od5y]

Они так же и на луну слетали

[@adambaudelaire3365]

Really nicely done

[@Ithirahad]

You forgot to render the foam bits coming off the ETA and hitting the leading edge heat shielding tiles

[@DARTXX]

🇨🇴🇨🇴🇨🇴🇨🇴

[@vazap8662]

Right so, as a CG supervisor I can tell this is obviously CG.. but why doesn’t it say so anywhere in the intro?

[@robertnitsche8410]

This brought a tear to my eye, thinking what could have been.

[@glencmac]

EXCELLENT WORK

[@phoenix0166]

It’s a derpy X-33

[@palletcolorato]

That is amazingly realistic!

[@alanrogers7090]

That was great, congratulations.

[@rossr100]

Wow, that is very cool. Great video

[@jeanpierre8465]

Almost got me.... It's so good .... I had to watch it twice....👌👌

[@lonnybush5612]

Very cool! The first Run About.

[@reginaldhughley9308]

Excellent CGI animation and the design of the Star Clipper Shuttle is a beautiful aerodynamic lifting body design. It reminds me of a scaled up version of the experimental X-24 lifting body rocket planes that NASA tested in the late1960s thru the mid-1970s I can totally envision such as space plane be part of a two stage to orbit vehicle like the planned Space-X Starship.

[@M2M-matt]

This concept is growing on me!

[@justinneese4449]

Loved it! So cool to see something that never flew, fly! Still could have used a chase plane for the landing shots ;)

[@YannR34]

Very well done, It let's few places to improvement. 👍

[@johnmanderson2060]

Impressive CGI ! 🤩 Congratulations 🎉

[@zobop]

Fantastic as always! Would love to see you depict a spaceplane to orbital tether system sometime! 😀😀😀

[@user-ht1ku4kk2g]

Это мультик.