Rockwell C-1057 "Breadbox" Space Shuttle Concept

[@colten1825]

what if.. shuttle... but sideways?

[@rwdavidoff]

That was basically the entire origin of this as a design among the design team, and the total extent of the effort beyond a drawing: The C-1057 design is on the lighter side of the effort. Al Kehlet persistently asked why our orbiters were several feet longer than the competitors. All the author knew was that ours were packaged tight and statically stable from hyper through subsonic flight. So, with a bit of innovation, the author turned the cargo bay 90 degrees and designed a 50-foot-long orbiter with a 60-foot-long cargo bay. H.A. Scott, AIAA 6.1978-1469 Space Shuttle Orbiter Configuration Case History (page 15)

[@gsmontag]

Payloads, particularly ones like Hubble, would have been effected quite a bit by the requirement to fly 90 degrees to their usual orientation. I don't think the big mirror could have handled the g-loading in that axis across the mirror rather than through the viewing axis.

[@UD503J]

Yeah I think this is what would have made Shuttle C and Shuttle Z much more appealing concepts.

[@imnotlettingyouseemyname]

​@@UD503J where can I find design Z? I'm unable to find anything referencing it.

[@jaypaint4855]

“The Space Shuttle is so unaerodynamic, you’d be better off flying the box that it came in” The box:

[@jantjarks7946]

Matches!

[@jmwoods190]

"A Flying Brick." -Clint Eastwood

[@clevergirl4457]

probably the wackiest of all the shuttle design concepts, i love it.

[@rwdavidoff]

Which makes sense because it was an in-joke by one team member annoyed at another, not a serious proposal: The C-1057 design is on the lighter side of the effort. Al Kehlet persistently asked why our orbiters were several feet longer than the competitors. All the author knew was that ours were packaged tight and statically stable from hyper through subsonic flight. So, with a bit of innovation, the author turned the cargo bay 90 degrees and designed a 50-foot-long orbiter with a 60-foot-long cargo bay. H.A. Scott, AIAA 6.1978-1469 Space Shuttle Orbiter Configuration Case History (page 15)

[@clevergirl4457]

@@rwdavidoff masterful trolling lol

[@bbartky]

@@rwdavidoffFascinating! Thank you for the background information about this design! 👏

[@VacMaster1991]

That thing has the aerodynamics of a cinder block.

[@HALLish-jl5mo]

It has the aesthetics of a cinder block, at subsonic speed I think it’s actually very aerodynamic. I can’t comment on supersonic.

[@VacMaster1991]

Seems like it would be obliterated at supersonic speed. Let alone orbital velocity. But idk.

[@pseudotasuki]

​@@VacMaster1991Do you mean orbital velocity? The Space Shuttle can't reach escape velocity.

[@memespeech]

@@VacMaster1991 penguins have perfect aerodynamics, believe it or not.

[@VacMaster1991]

​@@pseudotasuki. I meant orbital velocity. 17,500mph. Escape is like 25,000. I will change it.

[@thatGUYbehindthemask]

Glad to see the turbo encabulators worked properly.

[@philipmaxwell669]

And the retro tensioning snorknozels are spot on

[@stephenjohnhipple78]

To the ones who make these ideas into visions, this is one of the most amazing things i've ever seen. Thank you for presenting it.

[@modelermark172]

I've only seen artists concepts of the Rockwell C-1057 in orbit or landing, but never in launch configuration. Actually, until I just saw this excellent video, I never gave it too much thought. Though you note in the synopsis that ". . . integrating (the C-1057) with the ET and SRB's remained a mystery," I think that your design solution is as good as any that Rockwell engineers could have come up with. Thanks for sharing this with us! 290th Like.

[@longshot7601]

I didn't see any OMS pods. Was there another way that it was supposed to deorbit? I knew some engineers on Shuttle. They hated it because of the cost of everything. As a teenager I only saw a space ship. What they were saying really puts what SpaceX is doing into context.

[@rwdavidoff]

@@longshot7601 It was an in-joke and not seriously designed in details: The C-1057 design is on the lighter side of the effort. Al Kehlet persistently asked why our orbiters were several feet longer than the competitors. All the author knew was that ours were packaged tight and statically stable from hyper through subsonic flight. So, with a bit of innovation, the author turned the cargo bay 90 degrees and designed a 50-foot-long orbiter with a 60-foot-long cargo bay. H.A. Scott, AIAA 6.1978-1469 Space Shuttle Orbiter Configuration Case History (page 15)

[@longshot7601]

@@rwdavidoff Ah ha. Engerneering humor. I wish I had recognized it. I guess the engineers took the comments of lifting bodies being streamlined bricks and ran with it.

[@LG-ct8tw]

The little details that kill, the ground camera's focus adjustments , dripping condensation on the on board lens etc I keep watching it over to look for more.

[@mf1ve]

So much detail in this one - love it!

[@JimmyBlether]

What a contraption of a shuttle, I love it

[@lebaillidessavoies3889]

"OK , let's flatten this space shuttle with a steam roller"

[@jaderpereira1889]

lindo demais

[@NebulaIsTaken]

Dude the way the smoke looks on liftoff looks crazy realistic. Amazing work

[@milchael]

It's probably a comp. So it's real footage with a CGI rocket. But maybe I am mistaken. No matter whats right, hazegrayart is a master at his craft

[@rjgreen91]

I remember watching shuttle launches with my grandma. Rest her soul 😢

[@AlanRogers250]

Hubble was a nice touch, not just a generic satellite. Bravo.

[@PiDsPagePrototypes]

Imagine the torsional loadings on the mirror, to launch it sideways... and that off-center mass distribution on launch!

[@CoolKid-qk7tl]

Shuttle already flies like a brick in our timeline, but this is something else

[@fmagarik]

You even got the pressure waves during liftoff! Awesome

[@siliconshaman]

Harry Scott, unintentionally designing the worlds ugliest shuttle concept that could work.

[@TaeSunWoo]

I swear those guys just be cooking up anything in R&D

[@AlcidesBan]

Thanks a lot for this one!!! I bugged you a couple of times for this particular design. Amazing work as always. I'm going to see several times. I'd love to see it landing 😉

[@Eidolon1andOnly]

I can't see how that configuration with the boosters and fuel tank could possibly be stable during liftoff. The shuttle itself doesn't even look like it would be stable in re-entry. Super cool design and awesome rendering job. Almost hard to tell the footage isn't real at times.

[@FatovMikhail]

lol, it requires one more shuttle on the other side for the launch. and i see it falling like a paper stripe on re-entry

[@rwdavidoff]

It was an in-joke in the design team and not actually a fully considered design, I think a lot of the "it was surprisingly stable" stuff is people playing telephone from what was a moderate-effort in-joke in the design team: The C-1057 design is on the lighter side of the effort. Al Kehlet persistently asked why our orbiters were several feet longer than the competitors. All the author knew was that ours were packaged tight and statically stable from hyper through subsonic flight. So, with a bit of innovation, the author turned the cargo bay 90 degrees and designed a 50-foot-long orbiter with a 60-foot-long cargo bay. H.A. Scott, AIAA 6.1978-1469 Space Shuttle Orbiter Configuration Case History (page 15)

[@jantjarks7946]

Imagine the cargo being heavy on one and very light on the other side. Fun times. 😂

[@mikenowland2739]

Amazing ! Thank you for your effort doing these simulations.

[@1teamski]

If only Hollywood could have the talent to pull this off.....but they don't. This looks so real!

[@paulgrove1407]

What in the Scooby Snacks were they smoking?

[@JZsBFF]

Purple haze?

[@rwdavidoff]

They were smoking in jokes, it wasn't serious: The C-1057 design is on the lighter side of the effort. Al Kehlet persistently asked why our orbiters were several feet longer than the competitors. All the author knew was that ours were packaged tight and statically stable from hyper through subsonic flight. So, with a bit of innovation, the author turned the cargo bay 90 degrees and designed a 50-foot-long orbiter with a 60-foot-long cargo bay. H.A. Scott, AIAA 6.1978-1469 Space Shuttle Orbiter Configuration Case History (page 15)

[@jordanhodgkins8164]

Haze I’ve been busy with life.. nice to see your amazing videos again 🤜🏻🤛🏻 🚀

[@funnynerdyme]

i loved the shot flying trough the debris, great work as always

[@ThomasGrillo]

Nicely done! Excellent CG compositing! Thanks for sharing. :)

[@CarlosO.Santacruz]

Very Cool! Can't wait to see the 'breadbox's' re-entry and landing, on solid ground, ala Space X's returning rocket boosters, now THAT would be a sight to see... !

[@youterminettore]

Ready for the Museum! Old fashion ship. Expensive and ancient concept.

[@YSekiai]

I can't believe a space shuttle of this shape could enter the atmosphere at hypersonic speeds. 😅🌎🌠 However, it is very unique and I really enjoyed the video.💕

[@AccAkut1987]

It probably could do that pretty well, as blunt objects have a much easier time (shock front and resulting plasma keep more distance to the airframe than on pointy objects).

[@GeorgeEllis-q1u]

You left out re-entry and landing, the most telling aspect of this design.

[@jim2lane]

Oh, I would love to see an animation of this bad boy during reentry and landing 😉

[@stevenanticknap6966]

I thought I had seen all the shuttle derivatives. Nope, this one surprised me.

[@grandicellichannel]

Legend says the favourite workplace meal for Cape Canaveral's engeneers is a sandwich of Bread Shuttle filled with delicuous slices of Chrysler Onion Booster. 👌🏼

[@nhhfdyhvdfghh]

😮😳😯 Wow! The Space Shuttle was a grandiose human endeavor! But even more crazy ideas were never realized!

[@vegasflyboy67]

Well done. It looked very realistic.

[@vosa8268]

Perfect Machine. Perfect work in the world Perfect team in the world Perfect Mission. Thank you very much 290624.

[@JLCra87]

Dang. I wanted to see what the creator thought the re-entry of this thing would look like.

[@groovetrippin]

Amazing skill set whoever made this video

[@michaelbowers7400]

That very different neat stuff happy summer all.

[@Allan_aka_RocKITEman]

Great video, Haze...👍

[@cvbabc]

Great video - it looks so real! I humbly suggest you add a short, rotating view of the spacecraft at the end of videos like this one, so we can see it up close.

[@isarbasroh9778]

i can show this to my sister and she would think this was real, well done on this video

[@olripper2700]

When it comes back from space, does it come back as toast? 😮

[@Yukihuru]

美しい打ち上げ映像。 ただ、やはりSSは縦型の方がデザイン的には安定しますね。

[@MiguelCedeno-ek1km]

Cómo hace para poner tanta calidad al vídeo para que se vea realista 😮 3:14 porque no se ven las estrellas en el espacio

[@youownittakeit]

great job, thank you

[@skeefiez11]

love these, however wouldn't the overall weight imbalance and center of gravity towards the bottom/lower 3rd of the launch vehicle cause more effort to be needed/used once the boosters are separated??

[@nhhfdyhvdfghh]

🤔

[@rwdavidoff]

Probably, which was fine because the design was an in-joke sketched out between members of the design team and not serious proposal with analysis: The C-1057 design is on the lighter side of the effort. Al Kehlet persistently asked why our orbiters were several feet longer than the competitors. All the author knew was that ours were packaged tight and statically stable from hyper through subsonic flight. So, with a bit of innovation, the author turned the cargo bay 90 degrees and designed a 50-foot-long orbiter with a 60-foot-long cargo bay. H.A. Scott, AIAA 6.1978-1469 Space Shuttle Orbiter Configuration Case History (page 15)

[@headforscience]

The Graphics in this video are by far the best you've ever done. Can you remake the Star Raker Video?

[@ballreal3]

thats unsettling

[@B0aws]

Thats liftof was... so great!

[@bpnn2428]

It feels like engines should be in one line. And the crew cabin should be wide, so every astronaut has a window in front.

[@Lopez_rc]

Beautiful animation! Like it

[@caryrichardson43]

Amazing animation!

[@SVanHutten]

In the Bizarro World, the Shuttle is a sideways-cargo bay lifting body. Great animation!

[@steveengleman9257]

How do you do it?! Your graphics look so real!! Great video!

[@rolandjollivet38]

Very nice, but your sound is too 'near' at 1:20 and onward///

[@the_new_project]

Wow. Impressive video.

[@badrinair]

Simply fantastic

[@Kkj657]

Great! Could you do Starship 3 next? (The one 150m long 9 m wide)

[@doggonemess1]

That is one fugly spacecraft. But great video! Is the launch at the beginning a comp of an actual shuttle launch and your model, or all CG? Either way, well done.

[@mhonella]

You are my hero.

[@KellyStarks]

Someone was following BURNELLI design concepts. .. but for hypersonic reentry craft?!!

[@JFrazer4303]

Google for lenticular re-entry vehicles. Also the 1950s Horton "Wingless".

[@tadecker82]

It's nothing "new" about the design. It's just a cross between a "lifting body" design and "blended wing body" design, both from the 1950s and 1960s. Of course, BOTH of those designs are severely speed-limited because the same drag aspects that give the designs lift, would also act as a giant air brake during acceleration. The question would be at what point during launch would the catastrophic failure occur? 1. The craft would tear off the mounts to the fuel tank 2. The craft would be torn apart during the initial boost 3. The craft would create so much drag that the entire assembly wouldn't achieve escape velocity

[@JFrazer4303]

Then it's funny that everyone who's looked at lifting fuselage body planes have said lesser wetted area and drag for the same or better internal volume, better L/D and payload and range, and lower landing speed with much more benign stalling characteristics.

[@cakirismail78]

I think it will enter the atmosphere with a bellyflop like a Starship. Why was the Rockwell C-1057 "Breadbox" not made? I think there will be maximum drag at supersonic speeds because it is not pointed. This means maximum dynamic pressure. is not it?

[@voraz.]

Best liftoff smoke ive seen

[@ThatOpalGuy]

hilarious, actually, and just as dangerous

[@Vehrec]

Wouldn't the cockpit and the crew area's structural needs cut into the payload bay because they're so flush with the leading and trailing edges of it? Where would the EVA airlocks be located, and why are the insides of the payload bay door reflective instead of radiators?

[@GottTS]

Reentry and landing would be nice to watch 😀!

[@ScopeAerospace-k2p]

3:30 hubble space telescope v2?!?!?

[@kiwigurn]

Love it. Sicko

[@memonk11]

How do you adjust the rear view mirrors?

[@skrape99]

Payloads developed to fly in this thing probably would not be able to be flown on other lifters, and vice versa - they would have to be built to take lateral loads at takeoff, vs the axial loads of a "normal" rocket... we could have wound up with a square Hubble...

[@DragonSFS]

How come I only see this now lol

[@josephsuda6559]

A design that would make Jack Northrop proud!

[@隆アンド]

斬新なデザイン！ 大気圏内滑空時は如何ですかね?!

[@user-dave56]

Just a thought: how about a re-entry sim?

[@mpetersen6]

Was this proposal dated April 1st

[@rwdavidoff]

Basically, yes: The C-1057 design is on the lighter side of the effort. Al Kehlet persistently asked why our orbiters were several feet longer than the competitors. All the author knew was that ours were packaged tight and statically stable from hyper through subsonic flight. So, with a bit of innovation, the author turned the cargo bay 90 degrees and designed a 50-foot-long orbiter with a 60-foot-long cargo bay. H.A. Scott, AIAA 6.1978-1469 Space Shuttle Orbiter Configuration Case History (page 15)

[@LDTV22OfficialChannel]

This is the most cursed shuttle proposal I've ever seen.

[@SB5SimulationsFerroviairesEEP]

Merci du partage! Stéph.

[@Skoran]

Hoping for a Matt Lowne recreaction :D. Crazy design.

[@venusiancreative1774]

I love the weird spacecraft ideas NASA has had!

[@bosatsu76]

Okaaayyy... Why? What's the advantage here. More glide surface on the return?

[@akizeta]

No animation of re-entry and landing? I am disappoint.

[@penguin44ca]

I don't ever recall seeing this concept in the books.

[@vincentpribish5103]

no landing!?

[@LennardA320]

Is this real or fantastic CGI? But this wing with a wingbox for payload it is a mini shuttle that can deliver payloads in LEO and reentering and fly back as a wing? Looking at this mini shuttle and comparing with the Space shuttles, this thing can't fly very big things in space like the shuttle could with its enormous cargo bay. So is this not a littlebit overpowered 2 full SRB's and a big liquid fuel tank for just a relativity tiny telescope? Isn't this also just possible all within a Falcon 9 what is just much less hardware for getting something in space?

[@JFrazer4303]

Equal cargo space with lesser empty weight, better gliding and lower landing speed

[@hermannabt8361]

But why?

[@rwdavidoff]

Because one of the engineers was annoyed at another engineer complaining the designs they were actually studying seriously were a little longer than the other design firm's, and wanted to make a joke of it: The C-1057 design is on the lighter side of the effort. Al Kehlet persistently asked why our orbiters were several feet longer than the competitors. All the author knew was that ours were packaged tight and statically stable from hyper through subsonic flight. So, with a bit of innovation, the author turned the cargo bay 90 degrees and designed a 50-foot-long orbiter with a 60-foot-long cargo bay. H.A. Scott, AIAA 6.1978-1469 Space Shuttle Orbiter Configuration Case History (page 15)

[@S1nwar]

you sure they wouldnt have put the engines next to each other linearly instead of the triangle config?

[@jimroberts3009]

Great CGI/AI animation. I can understand why some people think this is real.

[@bryanbryan2968]

This looks a lot like the dustpan I built in shop class in 7th grade.

[@joeh.3135]

Re-entry models with respect to tumbling would be interesting

[@tperk]

Actually looks slightly better than what we ended up with 😂

[@rollertoaster812]

When I saw the thumbnail of this video, at first I thought it was a very late April Fool's joke

[@rwdavidoff]

It basically was: The C-1057 design is on the lighter side of the effort. Al Kehlet persistently asked why our orbiters were several feet longer than the competitors. All the author knew was that ours were packaged tight and statically stable from hyper through subsonic flight. So, with a bit of innovation, the author turned the cargo bay 90 degrees and designed a 50-foot-long orbiter with a 60-foot-long cargo bay. H.A. Scott, AIAA 6.1978-1469 Space Shuttle Orbiter Configuration Case History (page 15)

[@jmf5246]

Siting that far down on the main tank is insane

[@richardm.newlands2417]

It would actually make the stack more aerodynamically stable.

[@jollygreenjoi]

brave little toaster... IN SPACE!

[@therealdefoma]

Is this Blender or insanely heavily modded KSP?

[@MiG-25IsGOAT]

Thank god its a concept

[@Lord_Merterus]

MY BELOVED

[@dunodisko2217]

No way someone actually took the time to design this. “Hey, the shuttle works but lets make it *thicc* to it gains the aerodynamics of a loaf of bread.”

[@rwdavidoff]

It was one of the engineers from the project clowning around with one of the other engineers, basically: The C-1057 design is on the lighter side of the effort. Al Kehlet persistently asked why our orbiters were several feet longer than the competitors. All the author knew was that ours were packaged tight and statically stable from hyper through subsonic flight. So, with a bit of innovation, the author turned the cargo bay 90 degrees and designed a 50-foot-long orbiter with a 60-foot-long cargo bay. H.A. Scott, AIAA 6.1978-1469 Space Shuttle Orbiter Configuration Case History (page 15)

[@JFrazer4303]

​@@rwdavidoff None of why is to say it couldn't have been a serious proposal with good thinking about how it could work.

[@JFrazer4303]

Probably lower loading and re-entry heating and better crossrange and lower landing speed. Every part of it produces lift, no static non-lifting drag. Many lifting fuselage airplane designs have lesser wetted area and equal or greater useful volume, and less structural weight and better L/D and payload and range than a tubular static drag fuselage.

[@rwdavidoff]

@@JFrazer4303 Could it have been? Maybe, but it wasn't and we know it wasn't because the person who drew it wrote down in a published paper that it wasn't. (You can also tell it's not very serious by its near total absence from any documentation of major studied options for thirty-five year before Fantastic Plastic made a model kit of it in 2007.)

[@JFrazer4303]

@@rwdavidoff Plenty of other options for competition to the Shuttle we got were not studied further. One source is not enough to say that this one wasn't considered by a designers to be realistic. It wasn't completely unknown until the model kit came out.