Saturn Shuttle with Flyback Booster

[@LOLZfly3r]

The level of realism just gets better and better each video

[@ProvVFX]

Indeed, the realism of the first sequence is perfect!

[@fxcgi7725]

@@ProvVFX 45 second where is the smoke reflected in the water?

[@topiastanhuala5146]

Finally. The most kerbal of all rockets

[@topsecret1837]

Not even close. It was actually a seriously good idea, however.

[@davisdf3064]

The most aMeRiCAn rocket

[@_sans_oo1824]

*Heavy kerbal breathing*

[@owenrichards1418]

That is incredibly Kerbal for a 'real' design.

[@Nicolas-km8wr]

Actually no, the most kerbal thing he made is a nuclear rocket with boosters on booster on all sides

[@preacherno]

This is certainly a more believable evolution in the For All Mankind timeline. I’d love to see this one flying in season 2.

[@nls.135]

Season two is already over

[@niraj_dave]

@@nls.135 season 3..fingers crossed :)

[@MateusViccari]

This is certainly more believable than a regular shuttle going to the moon. But they will focus on Mars on season 3, so I guess it's gonna be some sort of nuclear powered spacecraft.

[@turtek12]

Yeah, they really threw plausibility out the window in season 2. It's a darn shame, because there's a lot of really neat concepts they could have played with. But why have that when we can watch the admiral's wife sleep with a cadet?

[@niraj_dave]

@@MateusViccari yes mars would be there..but moon stories still would take place hopefully unless they're completely changing the story..since they have decadal jumps

[@rune12358]

And one guy was supposed to glide that thing back. With a stick. Imagine the view at stage separation, with the second stage already lit and throttling up as you recede.

[@davisdf3064]

It's quite cursed the idea of having a pilot below a rocket staging, but at the same time, awesome

[@magnemoe1]

As you are in an ballistic trajectory high up in the atmosphere You will continue pretty far out. Yes you could fly it with jet engines

[@modelermark172]

I think the scariest part for the booster pilot would be the falling interstage that joined the shuttle's external tank to the S-1C stage. But it was still an incredible simulation!

[@rwboa22]

@@modelermark172 the original Saturn-Shuttle concept just saw an S-IC stage with a fixed interstage connected to a modified External Tank. Even if such was used, the interstage would most likely be jettisoned about 10-15 seconds after staging much like on a traditional Saturn V launch.

[@tae5216]

Actually it was on autopilot the entire time until they reached the HAC. However it would be someone’s greatest nightmare if all the autopilot computers failed

[@farcasdotpng]

I am at a loss for words. First of all, the animation is amazing and unreal, and second of all, the level of cursedness here is sooooo high. Like HOW.

[@topsecret1837]

It actually isn’t as cursed as you would think. Unlike the shuttle we got, this would have have abort modes at all stages of flight. Plus, it was possible to make the first stage of Saturn reusable to varying amounts. Some ideas had stage and a half designs like the Atlas, or literally turning the Saturn into gigantic glider that lands on a runway.

[@randycampbell6307]

@@topsecret1837 Slight correction, the Saturn Shuttle (specifically this design) did NOT have that many abort modes since the Shuttle/ET would not have the thrust-to-weight' to either pad abort or abort at low altitude nor could it generate enough thrust to pull away from a still running C1 stage that was still running. So it still had the same issues as the SRB's but everyone considered a 'liquid' fed booster to be safer. Unfortunately SRB's 'traded' to be cheaper than the needed development costs. (before the political necessity of shipping the SRB's all the way back to Utah and then back to Florida after every flight got tacked on)

[@davisdf3064]

It's actually quite cursed, as there is a pilot in the first stage. That poor pilot

[@topsecret1837]

@@randycampbell6307 Well they couldn’t simply abort with the ET on. And that is completely unnecessary if the only thing mounting the shuttle onto the Saturn itself was the ET anyway. So then it’s just a matter of detaching the shuttle from the Saturn/ET stack and gliding it to the runway like the Saturn itself. Also note with liquid rockets, particularly Saturn, they had the ability to shut down the engines on it at any time; luckily no flights needed to. Just shut the propellant valves and the engines flame out.

[@topsecret1837]

@@davisdf3064 Forgot about that, which is indeed quite cursed; the position of being in a cockpit sat down between the largest two stages ever built at the time, waiting for MECO and stage separation.

[@Posttrip]

Growing up, I was fascinated by all the renderings of different configurations for the Shuttle. The two manned components, the orbiter and the fly-back booster were the most intriguing.

[@devindykstra]

Everyone's saying this looks like it was designed in Kerbal Space Program, but imagine what the world would have been like if the Space Shuttle never flew. People would say the same thing about its design.

[@greenbanana311]

Well, that's because kids don't have much imagination beyond KSP. Then, they get online thinking they're rocket scientists.

[@wallissimpson5414]

The space shuttle and Buran are like dumb KSP designs. Ha

[@imperialguard338]

yop

[@lostpony4885]

@@wallissimpson5414 hey leave Buran out of that, its rocket Energia has 100 ton orbital capacity without the optional orbiter, uses hydrox even in the boosters not SRB trash and the orbiter doesn't carry wasted rocket engines or need a chute on landing, basically proving the idea of shuttle is great, ours just sucked. I just learned all that so yay it was a great system and considering Buran the idea in this vid looks pretty good to me.

[@dsdy1205]

@@greenbanana311 way to sound incredibly bitter about young people trying to share an interest with you

[@bill_ruppert]

Wow. Wish they had done this. Also, fabulous job as always. Loved the helicopter blades.

[@tobattle]

Quite frankly these videos should be considered for the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum. Really well made.

[@FoundAndExplained]

im taking notes!

[@ADogNamedStay]

Y

[@kevinduliesco5468]

Lemme guess this will have a lot of likes in the near future

[@kevinduliesco5468]

Lemme guess this will have a lot of likes in the near future

[@ADogNamedStay]

@@kevinduliesco5468 meh, 33 so far.

[@ADogNamedStay]

I'll admit f&e, I will watch it the second it's available.

[@Northernlightshow]

With fictional alternatives like this, you can see how flawed the actual STS program was. Another awesome video, thanks.

[@topsecret1837]

The Saturn shuttle wasn’t fictional. It was a serious design stage of the shuttle that got shut down because Nixon cut, if not outright decimated NASA’s budget to a husk of its former self. Without the money to order more Saturn Vs or F-1 rockets, they needed a cheaper design. Thing is, this wouldn’t have been any more expensive then the design they ultimately chose, since they can reuse the Saturn V stages.

[@squirrelguy2195]

@@vablo7198 Reusable F-1s were seriously studied (the Saturn I-D stage and half proposal comes to mind) even before the Shuttle even got off the drawing board and to my understanding wouldn't have taken as much as you would think to pull off. Obviously, they wouldn't have been the same F1s that flew on the standard Saturn, but a modification to the design in order to be reusable. And considering that NASA figured out how to build the reusable Space Shuttle Main Engine, I don't think it would be a stretch for them to do so with a pre-existing engine design.

[@ablewindsor1459]

@@squirrelguy2195 Yes! I remember Reading this very point being hashed out in the pages of Aviation 'Leak' & Aerospace Weekly.....

[@randycampbell6307]

@@topsecret1837 NASA"s budget started being cut in 1966 and by the time Nixon got into office there was little public or Congressional support for an expanded space program. A major problem with using anything from the Saturn V was that the production had been shut down in the late 60s and Congress had not authorized funding to keep the production lines open so they were dismantled in 1968 and put into storage. Bringing them back on-line and the subsequent design and testing program would have been way more than Congress was going to allow for the Shuttle budget so this was never going to be possible.

[@randycampbell6307]

@@vablo7198 I know quite a few people who would argue this is actually 'saner' than Starship actually :)

[@datathunderstorm]

Totally blown away by the video and the accompanying very original and fitting sound track. It’s like I’m watching a documentary about the Space Program of a parallel Earth!

[@mased-v2j]

This would be so tail heavy, I can't imagine trying to fly this thing back to the launch site. It would make the space shuttle look like a fighter jet.

[@СоюзниксОкинавы]

Here is a cockpit at the nose and heat protection of nose (don't forget about stage separation!). BTW, you can just add ballast on the nose, why not for reusable vehicle?

[@DeepDeepSpace]

If you're using a Saturn V first stage for the first stage, the shuttle's external tank wouldn't have to be as big since the shuttle's main engines wouldn't have to ignite until after the first stage was jettisoned. Furthermore, the shuttle's main engines could be optimized for the upper atmosphere thus increasing the fuel efficiency.

[@СоюзниксОкинавы]

@@DeepDeepSpace Shuttle's engine has an almost maximum vacuum/upper atmosphere performance. And it's BTW, flyback booster have low delta-v, cause if this thing would have hish delta-v, it would be enable to operate without thermal protections/SpaceX's reentry burns/etc.

[@Finnv893]

It has bigger wings though. The shuttle can land with a sat in it and the 747 modified can land with a shuttle on it.

[@RideAcrossTheRiver]

RTLS abort as part of the flight program!

[@nikolamarkovic6054]

He ovo je SUUUUUPEEEER jer je napravljena ogromna ušteda pri povratku na ZEMLJU bez imalo utrošenog goriva = BRAAAAVOO ZA KONSTRUKTORE ALI I CIO TEEM NASA SVEMIRSKOG PROGRAMA BRAAAAVOOO I SVAKA VAM ČAAST i veeeliki pozdrav vama na ZEMLJI kao i onima u SVEMIRU u MEĐUNARODNOJ SVEMIRSKOJ STANICI🙋‍♂️

[@GunganWorks]

Can we take a moment to appreciate the attention to detail of adding the small bits of debris floating between the Shuttle and its external tank... Wow.

[@DragonSFS]

Good old kerbal nasa rocket concepts from the 60s-70s

[@NekoAerospaceSFS]

Yes

[@5000mahmud]

Imagine the pain of cleaning those F1 engines after they come back.

[@davisdf3064]

I'd say the Jupiter III is more kerbal

[@DragonSFS]

@@davisdf3064 A lot of NASA's shuttle-derived rocket concepts were kerbal, you have the srb-x and the shuttle-c for example

[@rwdavidoff]

@@5000mahmud "The engines of Apollo showed similar life. The F-1 was rated for 20 starts and 2250 seconds in total duration. Yet by replacing the liquid-oxygen pump impeller and the turbine manifold at 3500 seconds, test engines achieved as many as 60 starts and total durations of 5000 to 6000 seconds. The J-2 did even better, with a test engine running for 103 starts and 6.5 hours, without overhaul. "We never wore out an engine of the J-2 type," recalls Rocketdyne's Paul Castenholz, who managed its development. "We could run it repeatedly; there was no erosion of the chamber, no damage to the turbine blades. If you looked at a J-2 after a hot firing, you would not see any difference from before that firing. The injectors always looked new; there was no erosion or corrosion on the injectors. We had extensive numbers of tests on individual engines," which demonstrated their reliability. 6" Space Shuttle Decision, Chapter 6: history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/ch6.htm

[@sferrin2]

The Flyback 1st stage had 10 GE F101 turbofans. You might be interested in the GMR-29A (McDonnell Douglas. Would make a cool video.)

[@TimothyCizadlo]

There were also designs that would have relit one or more of the F-1s for a propulsive lob-retro trajectory.

[@roderickreilly9666]

This was actually seriously considered, and even the landing gear tires had been picked out.

[@thomaslocke3939]

Early on, this and some similar concepts were raised. With the technology of the time, the flyback booster would have a crew of 2. They went to the Solid Rocket Boosters because the initial costs were lower (but the operating costs would be higher) and because a weight overrun of less than 5% would leave them with no payload.

[@therealspeedwagon1451]

I feel like you should’ve put the main boosters on the second stage which is basically still the external fuel tank like how the Buran’s main rocket had it’s large engines on the main rocket and not carrying dead weight once it is in space.

[@kspencerian]

Effectively what SpaceX is developing today in many ways, minus the flyback, and with no capacity to leave Earth orbit. Very very well done.

[@ateslabattery115]

Uh, are you talking about Starship? Please don't be talking about Starship.

[@kspencerian]

@@ateslabattery115 I am speaking in the positive about Starship's potential ability. Shuttle-Saturn could've been a game changer, but this design suffered the same flaws as STS (complicated, time-intensive refurbishment of complex engines, TPS, no launch escape). Well, Starship so far hasn't an LES, either, but nothing is perfect.

[@ateslabattery115]

@@kspencerian sorry, I thought you were saying that Starship had no capacity to leave LEO; I was quite concerned (I suppose a single launch actually can't on its own, so you were right either way).

[@Seminal_Ideas]

I keep coming back to this one. Love watching it. A concept that deserved to become reality. I imagine this, and the Sea Dragon working together in an alternative late seventies NASA.

[@PhilipMReeder]

That was truly INSPIRED. I used to have a great book, "SPACE SHUTTLE: The First 100 Missions". It showed all of the various configurations thought of for a shuttle. First chapter is called Chapter One: Eugen Sanger. I used to draw a lot of spacecraft etc. but never thought of using a Saturn 1st stage modded as a return booster. We should have done that! Makes perfect sense. Love the wing tip RCS thrusters! Nice touch!

[@2150dalek]

Some alternate Earth timeline, this S-IC is ferrying Shuttles into orbit.

[@jimbodeek]

And by 2022, the vehicle is automated.

[@IvorMektin1701]

Thanks for posting this! Very doable with the F1-B and modern electronics.

[@jimbodeek]

Instead of being manned, however, the RS-1C would likely operate autonomously if we built it today.

[@hadorstapa]

The stresses on that interstage would be immense. And I think the roll manoeuvre would be tough with two massive sets of aerodynamic surfaces, and one set off-centre because of the tank-shuttle assembly. Might be better with an in-line shuttle on top?

[@randycampbell6307]

This was a very late entry into the problem of boosting the Shuttle off the pad and IIRC the actual design had the "Shuttle" hanging off in opposition to what we see here so having the Shuttle wings more 'in-line' with the Flyback Saturn wings. Yes an 'in-line' design was better but the whole point of the ET was that such a design made the Orbiter vastly larger, (and therefore more expensive and complex) due to having to carry the propellant internally.

[@fridaycaliforniaa236]

What I really like with those old projects that Hazy shows us is that after each video I try to do this in KSP (with many kabooms sometimes ^^).

[@generalyellor8188]

Why didn't this happen instead of the throw-away solid fuel boosters. We had the tech for this back then, right?

[@onyxzheng347]

That is the most stupid looking rocket I’ve ever seen. I love it

[@generalyellor8188]

Stupid? How? For the rest of us it seems extremely intelligent and far more practical and economical than what we really got with STS.

[@topsecret1837]

Better looking than the bird on a cooked turkey we got.

[@starsnipe-yp5hx]

@@generalyellor8188 sucka it looks like it would be destroyed at max q

[@rocketology1105]

This looks like the Boeing Saturn V shuttle RS-1C concept. Awesome work as always!

[@CountArtha]

What a loveable abomination: A Saturn V with delta wings.

[@jimbodeek]

Actually it's an S-1C (Saturn V first stage) with delta wings.

[@kevinmcgovern5110]

Coming fall 2021 to a theatre near you-Marooned 2: Saving Columbia…

[@TimothyCizadlo]

This video misses showing *how* the RS-1C would return to the cape. Most of the designs had either air-breathing engines, or performed a lob-retro burn on one or more of the main engines to bring the vehicle home.

[@randycampbell6307]

Yes there should be a set of 'jets' under the belly to provide flyback capability. And I don't think the F1 engine was every capable of being restarted (as Scott Manley pointed out in his latest questions video) due to the design so 'retro-lob' wasn't possible.

[@TimothyCizadlo]

@@randycampbell6307 While the *Historic* F-1 engines were incapable of restart, the engines themselves were relatively simple, and modifications for restart would have been possible. Certainly if they program is proceeding with a J-2S powered orbiter as shown here (no SSME program eating budgets).

[@astrosasha]

God I can’t imagine how an F1 in flight relight for the boost back would look.

[@TimothyCizadlo]

@@astrosasha It would look like starting an F-1, just like they did on the ground. only flying backwards like the Falcon 9 is when it starts the Merlin for lob-retro.

[@jimbodeek]

@@astrosasha It would probably need to be modified so it could airstarted.

[@squirrelguy2195]

The biggest missed opportunity in the history of the American Space Program. We would have got a shuttle and the Saturn V hardware would have been still been in service. They could have used the Flyback S-IC for other things other than the shuttle stack as well, making it a swiss army knife of a launcher that could have launched almost anything thrown at it.

[@genxlife]

One of the best of your videos! And I especially love the part where the booster flies back!

[@datathunderstorm]

Somebody please tell me, what is THAT inspirational music called? Love it…!!!

[@yumazster]

The poor booster pilot.... Great risk and not even going to orbit. This aside the long shots around the launch pad and the landing stripe are just amazing 👍

[@maxi4251]

Everyone Gangsta until you find out the booster is manned It turns out that Soviet Energia II is a much more humanitarian idea as it is unmanned

[@phoenix0166]

I legit just now noticed

[@jimbodeek]

Maybe he'll get a shot on a future mission, depending on the crew rotation.

[@JBM425]

Your animations never cease to amaze!

[@topsecret1837]

Could you do a compilation of Saturn V MLV variants and Nova Mars rocket designs from Grumman and Martin Marietta? This was one of many wacky ideas.

[@dalethelander3781]

NOVA was Von Braun's first heavy-lift design. He wanted NASA to bypass the Moon and go straight to Mars. I don't think that would've ended well.

[@topsecret1837]

@@dalethelander3781 Nova was a name for a number of gigantic rocket designs projects. The first one was solely Braun’s brainchild, in the mid-50s. Over time this morphed into what would be concepts for moon rockets, most modular based on a fuel tank with an F-1 engine on the bottom, others an extension of Saturn rockets, like the C-8, also known as the Nova 8L. The rockets I’m talking about were after them. The 1963 Apollo follow on concepts, which was given to General Dynamics and Martin Marietta as they had lost the contracts toward Apollo. They had to develop a rocket system able to put 300 tons or more into LEO. Some even managed 500 tons with partial reusability. Arguably the most powerful rockets ever contemplated, even more powerful than Sea Dragon. The interesting bit is that while General dynamics tried building 2-1/2 stage designs with engines of dramatically increasing size, Martin Marietta went truly exotic. They experimented with configurations that involved Toroidal plug nozzles, full/partial reusability, air augmentation, and so on. As a result their designs were better performing, but the most exotic was not to come online in their proposal until 1980 (this was considered in 1963 mind you). The funding required to construct the entire system of many variants being scaled up continuously and perhaps working concurrently with Saturn MLV designs would have busted the American purse, even without getting directly involved in Vietnam.

[@dalethelander3781]

@@topsecret1837 Ambition, no political will.

[@topsecret1837]

@@dalethelander3781 Agreed completely on that, albeit belated

[@Vulkanlandsternwarte]

Thanks, great work, you deserve your own TV series

[@brasidas33]

Wish we could have seen more of that initial Shuttle concept! Beautiful animation! The initial Shuttle design looks state-of-the-art today and appears bigger than the final design.

[@yallowrosa]

Nice ... its is a step ahead while SpaceX is a step behind (it loses the second stage in space)

[@mortallychallenged]

Absolutely incredible! The Saturn nostalgia really brings it to life

[@jimbodeek]

0:52 Houston, roll program!

[@vicroc4]

Roger roll!

[@youmad7068]

Would love to see you make a Star Raker, for me it is one of coolest spacecrafts ever imagined!

[@robst247]

Stunning! I would have loved to see the Shuttle going all the way to LEO. Some in-cockpit views would have been great, too. Amazing work -- can't wait to watch the next one.

[@ScienceRules118]

I’d love to see your take on some alt-history rockets - in particular some of the ones from Eyes Turned Skywards and Right Side Up: A History of the Space Transportation System.

[@TBone-bz9mp]

Found the AH.commer!

[@koharumi1]

Sea Dragon?

[@TBone-bz9mp]

@@koharumi1 Roar

[@kirkkerman]

It'd be pretty awesome to see the launch of Space Station Enterprise from Boldly Going!

[@VhenRaTheRaptor]

This is very Right Side Up. Pretty sure this study was referenced for Right Side Up.

[@Chris.Davies]

What the shuttle should have looked, and been powered like.

[@greenbanana311]

I love the attention to detail here, everything contextually appropriate besides the launch audio from Apollo 11.

[@fuffoon]

Great work. That was beautifully rendered.

[@randycampbell6307]

Wonderful and detailed (the engine plume expansion was great) as always

[@andreabindolini7452]

I find the concept of a gliding booster much more elegant than the propulsive landing method pursued by SpaceX. Probably the penalty in weight is worse, though.

[@RipskyOfficials]

Its such a beauty...

[@elconquistador932]

I've always been interested in the Apollo Applications Program. There were some really great ideas for existing hardware and infrastructure. Shuttle put an end to that. We would have already had manned orbital Venus and Mars missions among many other feasible plans.

[@bronson2585]

Just commenting for the algorithm 💯

[@dcb1138]

WOW... I always thought this was the best proposal for the shuttle. Powerful old tech and new.

[@jimbodeek]

Plus, it builds on the experience that the team already had with the Saturn V's first stage.

[@TBone-bz9mp]

Can I request a render of the Grumman H-33 proposal?

[@Oldtricksmadenew]

... well Dang Hazegrey. You continue to amaze

[@czerwonylis8258]

This is the most "cursed" rocket i've ever seen.

[@myleswbrown]

Ok.

[@topsecret1837]

How is it cursed?

[@czerwonylis8258]

@@topsecret1837 each part was taken from a different rocket. See the cursedrockets from Ksp.

[@davisdf3064]

To make it even more cursed, there was supposed to be a pilot on the first stage, so it could fly back.

[@czerwonylis8258]

@@davisdf3064 good point

[@wpatrickw2012]

I like this concept because NASA could have made the whole program cheaper by developing the orbiter first with an expendable first stage from the existing Saturn V. After the orbiter was flying, the could work on the fly back stage.

[@caav56]

Or start work on the reusable first stage with expendable second and get Falcon 9 equivalent all the way back then.

[@badrinair]

That was just magic. THe atmospheric distortion , the plume expansion and all was fantastic. Still not fully reusable. The orange tank has to be dumped.

[@jimbodeek]

Eh, that's an acceptable trade-off.

[@stevenjaz6358]

Had to change my original comment. You are probably too young to remember what a truly bad program the “Space Shuttle was. Two of the five vehicles lost with 14 people dead. NO escape systems. Just politics. Your video is great.

[@ablewindsor1459]

Love the film era artifacts flickering on the image.......

[@wafflehidraulico193]

Even if this is illegal in this timeline, it is really cool

[@johannestetzelivonrosador7317]

Me: mom, can we have starship? Mom: we have starship at home Starship at home:

[@TheSpaceEngineer]

m8 this aint starship

[@johannestetzelivonrosador7317]

@@TheSpaceEngineer I know it's a joke

[@HalNordmann]

Thing is, this would've been way safer than Starship. It doesn't need working engines to land, it can glide.

[@Seminal_Ideas]

My go to video just to relax and feel good. I've been fascinated by this project for decades. In my alternative universe, it'd enter service in 1976 and have the bicentennial "Spirit of 76" written on it.

[@rockets_everywhere7543]

First, and this is beautiful

[@mingerone]

That was soo friggin' awesome :) Well done.

[@AndrewTubbiolo]

I thought I was the only one who remembered these old STS concepts.

[@djtumble6911]

Holy Crap!! Sound, details, real vid. I will return.

[@felixh.90]

Ah yes stick a Space Shuttle without SRBs on top of a Saturn V first stage with wings.

[@Munky0426]

At least it doesn't closely resemble a scaled-up billionaire's penis! 😂

[@magnificentmuttley2084]

Fantastic work. You have a great future in the film industry, if you don’t already!!!

[@NebulaIsTaken]

When you try to recover all the parts of your rocket in Kerbal

[@saltycadet5904]

Its sad how underrated this channel is

[@matthewblack7206]

Fantastic animation; as usual. Your work is legend.

[@nerd20fromdiscord]

He should be hired for every sci fi movie animation

[@datathunderstorm]

How do we know he wasn’t already responsible for all those designs in “For All Mankind”……if not, why not?!! 😉

[@extralargemcfries9891]

SRBs not reusable enough? Just grab an S-1C, strap some wings on it, and have someone fly it back home.

[@ziggurat-builder8755]

Wow. Amazing music choices there!!!

[@ratzfatz78]

Really nice video. I like it 👌 Do you know the name of music

[@Helloverlord]

Adding more risky parts to a overcomplicated risky aparatus always make sense...

[@Realclassicaltexan]

NICE WORK, greatest animation I've seen.

[@Aexorzist]

Would be nice to get some size reference like people or cars on the runway for that landed Saturn V shuttle. That thing would have been unbelievably huge.

[@moddien1]

if you played ksp for years and then been given a real cgi tool - awesome work. really enjoyed watching this!

[@MeBeTheDB]

Great motion tracking ... but -- did you purposely leave off the CO2 spindrift clouds on purpose ..? 1) If you render it again, take note there should be some extended vapor trail when the space craft punches through clouds. 2) When the big, ORANGE SUPPORT TANK unlatches from the Shuttle, since you did have SOUND (great by the way) of the SPACECRAFT roaring into space ... 3) You might consider using a major sounding latch and add some 'gypsum effect' (Like in the film, SILENT RUNNING - 1971) to when there's separations ... and from one CGI'r to another, if I may, always remember, amigo .... ... the Dog or the God is in the minutia of details. D.A.

[@glenn_r_frank_author]

Reading up on this concept... It seems that even with flying back the booster, the F-1 Engines would have to be removed and replaced. Not sure why... were the F-1s only one time use items?

[@SpacemanTarian42]

I assume so. None of the Apollo hardware would have been designed for reflight. I doubt the engineers would have even thought of it at the time. The F-1 would probably have quite a few things making it non-reusable.

[@glenn_r_frank_author]

@@SpacemanTarian42 I guess that is the main reason it was not even tried... seems the rest of the first stage, through it would be usable would not be as big a deal as saving and reusing the engines. I guess refurbish-able SRBs sounded like a better and cheaper idea, although they could never know it would lead to the Challenger disaster.

[@nhhfdyhvdfghh]

Прекрасная идея 1970-ых о многократно взлетающих и садящихся по самолётному ракетных модулях. Какие перспективы и радужные ожидания она сулила! И с какой грустью глядя этим идеям вслед в итоге мы тихонько вернулись к простым ракетам-свечкам, даже в самом новейшем случае их многократной попытки применения. Будем надеяться, что может быть эти идеи просто опередили своё время и ещё проявят своё преимущество (экономическое и технологическое).

[@solarissv777]

какое преимущество? Необходимость тащить крылья, или выдерживать поперечные нагрузки? В чем вообще преимущество перед ступенями с реактивной посадкой (которые вполне исправно работают и даже доставляют людей в космос, в том числе при повторном использовании)? Касательно того, что было показано здесь, мне, например интересно, где они собирались садиться (при старте с мыса), вот вообще не факт, что такая бандура сможет спланировать назад.

[@crgkevin6542]

Excellent work as always!

[@hiredgun05]

If NASA had built this an updated shuttle would likely be flying. The shuttle program would have been made affordable. Fly it. Bring it home. inspect it. Gas it up. Fly it again. Reuseability with quick turn around is the new key to moving forward. Great video!

[@fromnorway643]

NASA would also have kept the infrastructure for the Saturn V, enabling them to launch much larger payloads and construct a space station much faster.

[@jimbodeek]

@@fromnorway643 And with the station, they would lay the foundation for the in-orbit assembly of spacecraft bound for other destinations, such as Mars or even the moons of the outer planets.

[@abcqer555]

Jesus, you killed those graphics and animations

[@GalaxyRise1]

I believe there was actually a proposed design for the shuttle stack that had kerolox tanks and 3 F-1 Engines under the shuttle external tank.

[@jredden1047]

The booster needs to be flipped 180 to counter some of the effects of the center of lifts placement. This would make the spacecraft more stable during its gravity turn.

[@jtjames79]

Foam strikes intensify!

[@МихаилЗадорожный-й1ю]

На сколько я помню, отмена программы спэйсшатл была в том числе и из-за отсутствия системы спасения на некоторых участках полёта (короче, при аварии на взлёте, спасти экипаж невозможно). Тут всё тоже самое...

[@TheLux2077]

your videos never disappoints 👏👏

[@FishHive]

This would have been so awesome if there were a Saturn Shuttle! Great concept!

[@fansofER]

Incredibly well produced! Bravo!

[@simsportschannel]

if they used a Saturn 5... why the external tank? Would not seem necessary to me

[@fromnorway643]

Saturn V's first stage - and the modified version seen here - was insufficient to accelerate the shuttle to orbital speed. If you wanted to avoid the shuttle's external tank, you would need to include Saturn V's second stage as well and place the shuttle on top of that.

[@steeledarren1973]

Your videos are Mega mate !! 👌👍👏

[@SpacemanTarian42]

I am the only one that has noticed the inconsistency with shuttles livery. I'm not gonna complain though because the full teal did look pretty cool. Very nice video.

[@matthewb1973]

That first stage glider was going to be huge! 😳