Star Raker: The SSTO concept that could have revolutionize Space travel

[@Hazegrayart]

Star Raker Takes off with 9 sets of landing gear and jettison 6 sets over ocean to be recovered

[@banjomutant]

Is this really the best possible design for this do you think? I thought that the point of ssto is to stay in one piece to reduce complexity as much as possible. Yes they can be recovered from the sea but its extra work. Imagine if the 747 had to do that every time

[@HALLish-jl5mo]

@@banjomutant Considering that the takeoff gear, and their requisite gear bays and hydraulics probably massed similar to the payload, it's a good idea. This is a vehicle that weighs almost 2000 tonnes on liftoff, using the 747 as reference and scaling up the mass of its landing gear, that would require around 100 tonnes of landing gear. Star raker had a payload of 90 tonnes to LEO. Basically dropping the landing gear gives you the entire payload capacity.

[@Radialguy]

I don't get then how it lands again?

[@HALLish-jl5mo]

@@Radialguy It only weighs a couple hundred tonnes empty of fuel and payload. The gear it drops isn't it's only landing gear, it's just the additional landing gear needed to support the weight of the fuel.

[@banjomutant]

@@Radialguy it doesn't drop all the gear, it puts some up, and puts them down again on landing. its much lighter on landing without full tanks and payload. It would have been nice for this video to show all that. Doesnt really leave much room for emergency landing after takeoff tho does it? could use some clarification on that.

[@TBone-bz9mp]

WHY CAN'T WE LIVE IN THIS TIMELINE?!

[@alonespirit9923]

Excellent Question for which I haven't yet found an excellent answer on either Google, Bing, or Duck Duck Go.

[@TBone-bz9mp]

@@alonespirit9923 It was the mullets wasn't it?

[@montigobear]

Maybe we have... an infinite number of times.

[@justmoritz]

Some multiverse versions of us do! I'm happy for yhem

[@davidwillard7334]

ARE YOU ! GOING TO PAY !! FOR IT !!??

[@MrHichammohsen1]

The arc of stations at the end is GORGEOUS! Thank you as usual.

[@piranha031091]

But if they're geosynchronous, they should stay stationnary!

[@chathuranirumeshika8314]

i. love

[@battleoid2411]

@@piranha031091 geosynch still moves somewhat, its not like they're anchored to that exact spot in space

[@dogmaticpyrrhonist543]

@@piranha031091 as far as I know, they wouldn't be geo orbits.

[@MrHichammohsen1]

@@piranha031091 This would be a lower altitude orbit maybe orbiting twice a day instead of once allowing better transmission and latency.

[@jammymcjammerson5318]

this is so beautiful, seeing the scale of the orbital solar farm and the peaceful stillness of everything in space. seeing the tankers with the star raker really blew my mind and made me wonder how many t models it would take to fill her back up lol.

[@jammymcjammerson5318]

@eggmanwi for in that dark of space, what dreams may come, when we have shuffled off this terrestrial coil...

[@fork9001]

@eggmanwi yep, space based solar will take a lot of fuel to maintain because of drag. If you do it all the way in geostationary orbit, could be possible but it’s probably more expensive than fusion

[@banjomutant]

The idea is not dead, several companies working on rocket planes, starting smaller and working up. Maybe one day this will be reality

[@fork9001]

@@banjomutant Skylon is the only fully fleshed out orbital SSTO spaceplane.

[@米空軍パイロット]

The only issue with space based solar is that it's never really explained why it needs to be done in the first place when earth-based power generation can get the same results for far cheaper.

[@mortified776]

Man, your animation just gets more and more lifelike and immersive. You really sell the dream!

[@nickoD509]

And the music is the icing on top!!

[@xanthosparashis8819]

Honestly this the most beautiful SSTO concept I have ever seen. Thank you.

[@trashman2125]

YES!!! I’ve been nearly obsessed with this behemoth of a space plane and I must say you’ve done an absolutely fantastic job!

[@banjomutant]

build it one day... stranger things have happened...

[@RollWithTheChanges]

So I'm not the only one yippee

[@StaK_1980]

Absolutely LOVE the Star Raker design! It's a shame it didn't go anywhere. At least Haze Grey here helps us imagine things!

[@banjomutant]

maybe once we are at the point where engines are advanced enough, some ambitious billionaire will give this a go. Its so cool, an absolutely massive Concorde with a load of rockets on it! =) i know the modern wisdom is that wings on spacecraft are dumb, but i do see advantages in being able to have plane style functionality as well, as shown in the video. it looks too big for most airports tho. There are people right now building (much smaller) rocket planes, starting much smaller obviously. Check out dawn aerospace, prob others im not aware of yet. maybe if it works out for them something like this will be their "BFR" type project.

[@steffeneilers8530]

@@banjomutant The wings only give you cross-range capability, Starship is better in most ways (only drawback is launch infrastructure, but Rockwell engineers assumed H2 would be available by then on every airport) and it even works in the real world, now (kinda)

[@Infinite_Maelstrom]

@@banjomutant Radian Aerospace is another one you might like :)

[@banjomutant]

​@@steffeneilers8530 ​ Thanks for the replies. Radian looks super cool, didnt know about it! BIG rocketplanes - Im learning about these - is there any value in these as a super high altitude hypersonic transport, that goes high enough to avoid the sonic boom problem? Is this kinda thing the ultimate intercontinental transport of the future? if we are ever going to have super fast transport, I imagine it would be something a bit like this, using airport infrastructure for convenience, and with a normal takeoff and landing style. Is starship the future of passenger transport?, i remember from the starship passenger video, of them having to go out to a spaceport at sea first, cos it doesnt use airports, which is a journey in itself. and from the videos of starship prototype landing flip, im not sure many passengers would want to land like that, it looks like a bit of a code-brown landing honestly. Maybe thats not the final design tho, havent checked in on spacex recently.

[@steffeneilers8530]

@@banjomutant If youre high enough for sonic booms, you're too high for oxygen. Starships fixed costs are probably too high for anyone but the DoD and would-be Concorde flyers. Can't bring down costs of running oil drilling platforms that far.

[@tjjddssss]

At first I was like: oh a tiny satelite station how cute! Then when I actually saw the sheer size of it I'm astonished. It's huge, absolute gargantuan of a station.

[@tariqahmad1371]

First! Watched “found and explained” and Scott Manley’s episodes on it. Truly the more fascinating spacecraft that could’ve been made with 70s/80s tech. And a good opportunity missed.

[@rexmann1984]

There's a reason we didn't build it wasn't feasible at the time. It was a pipe dream.

[@montigobear]

@@rexmann1984 So was von Braun's Cargo Rocket. Hello Starship.

[@Argentvs]

@@rexmann1984 it was technically possible but economically impractical. Like we could send people right now to Proxima B but the cost would be larger than the entire world GDP. A star raker was possible to build and work, but it would cost more than the entire USN fleet.

[@HALLish-jl5mo]

@@Argentvs The engines weren't possible at the time. Hell, the entire design has error bars on its weight depending on predictions of technological development over the next 2 decades. This could not have been built in the 70s, it's a design the 70s thought could be built by 2000.

[@carlosandleon]

it couldn't have been made

[@alonespirit9923]

Dang, man, what an interesting future we could have had.

[@AndrewTubbiolo]

We could not do that in the 20th cen.

[@jackturner3867]

@@AndrewTubbiolo yeah we could have, easily too

[@AndrewTubbiolo]

@@jackturner3867 Not easily at all. The core for the air-turbo-ramjet used up to mach 5 only just now is becoming viable 50 years later.

[@AndrewTubbiolo]

That's L5 dreamin' right there. Right out of the 70's.

[@reserva120]

I was a paid up member:) .. L5 and O’Neil!:)

[@iliketrains0pwned]

It's projects like this that made me become an aerospace engineer in the first place

[@professordanfurmanek3732]

The transition between air-breathing and non air-breathing propulsion is indeed a formidable challenge. Look what wonderful benefits can be had!!

[@reubenmitchell5269]

at the point where the turbojets performance start to drop at 70000 feet or so, light the rockets and turn off the jet engines. If they both used Hydrogen as was the plan, or Methane as would be the best option now, it should work.

[@CheesyMez]

@@reubenmitchell5269 its not that simple sadly, firstly youre gonna need loads of engines to carry enough fuel to reach orbit. Then you have to factor in that vacuum optimised engines work poorly in atmosphere, and atmosphere engines are very inefficient in space. Two stage spacecraft really seem to make the most sense.

[@gort5583]

@@CheesyMez Wonder if they had been able to use the same engines for both atmo and space by having jet engines that can do both. I think the British were working on such an engine. That way no extra weight and the jets could use their adjustable nozzles to allow for space and atmo use. While staged rockets and throw away stages work and Elon has at least made them more reusable, this is certainly a beautiful looking concept.

[@noahdoyle6780]

With that takeoff roll, this has to be a Republic product. Also, SSTO to geosync is *insane*.

[@iamarokotmanson]

It's an SSTO to LEO, a transfer vehicle brings the payload to GEO

[@sankang9425]

Yeah SSTO to GEO isn't happening with chemical engines. Physics doesn't permit that!

[@davidmiller9267]

This is what the Space Shuttle was originally conceived to be. Instead we got a pickup truck with wings strapped to a couple of disposable rockets. And they tended to blow up a lot. Decades of wasted NASA funding without much payback. On the other hand this is beautifully done. Thank you!

[@KellyStarks]

Yes!! My favorite of the old great launcher concepts of the 60’s and 70’s. Annoying it’s never remembered except occasionally for its proposed work on SSPS (which it could do so economically it completely blew away the O’Neil/L-5 concept to build them from space materials). A craft able to deliver large scale cargo to orbit for about 1/1000th the cost of present day launchers, using best in class 1960’s tech should be getting a lot more attention!! Thanks for finally doing it!! 8)

[@Arae_1]

I think the reason it doesn't get as much attention is that it got about as far as all the other crazy designs from that era

[@KellyStarks]

@@Arae_1 I’ld argue against the crazy bit. It certainly wasn’t as weird or uncomfortable iffy in some ways like Dc-X and the other vertical lander designs. But yes. It never got built. Then again neither did O’Niels of solar power sats, which every space advocate seems to know.

[@Arae_1]

@@KellyStarks that's definitely an interesting perspective on the idea I think maybe it didn't get as much attention because it wasn't as crazy as some of the other designs

[@KellyStarks]

@@Arae_1 That’s a thought. It was just a basic aero space freighter. I notice a LOT of space advocates assume space is so hard and expensive you need some wild exotic concept to make it practical. The idea that a simple set up like this could support a thousand fold cost reduction to orbit (with a large market to drive the economy of scale), just doesn’t seem believable to them. But some wild complicated cutting edge tech thing, they believe or get more excited by.

[@MarsFKA]

Single stage to orbit is one thing, when that orbit is less than a few hundred kilometres up, but single stage to geosynchronous orbit is a completely different ball game. That massive spaceplane has to carry enough fuel to climb another 35,000 kilometres. Also, that sharp nose and those slender wing tips are going to get burned off during re-entry - every time. Great animation, all the same.

[@simongeard4824]

Feels dubious calling it SSTO when it has to stop for gas on the way up. Sure, you've got one vehicle taking off and reaching orbit... but it's not doing it without an entire squadron of tankers in support.

[@davisdf3064]

​@@simongeard4824 It is an SSTO because it reaches orbit, it going to Geosynchronous orbit, or even landing back is actually not necessary to be an SSTO at all

[@simongeard4824]

@@davisdf3064 The point was that it *can't* reach orbit unassisted... it's essentially adding and removing stages mid-flight in the form of a dozen tankers worth of refueling.

[@davisdf3064]

@@simongeard4824 it can reach orbit unassisted, it needs help to go further than that

[@JFrazer4303]

The video creator dreamed that part. The stations would be built in LEO and boosted up. Ion engine tugs, or maybe magnetic sails.

[@braderickson9996]

Now...THIS...is the future I wished I could have seen. Was not aware gear dropped away after liftoff. Nor the fact it needed in-air refuelling. And...that it could get to GEO. (guessing that was what the refuelling was for) I did see the Scott Manley video he did on this plane a bit back. I remember seeing this concept in a book from the early 80's. Could see this plane being used in conjunction with O'Neil's High Frontier plans.

[@rocketcello5354]

Yeah, the plane was too heavy fully fueled, so there was that set of gears that would drop-off and Parachute down for reuse.

[@HalNordmann]

It didn't go to GEO - using a single vehicle for everything is just stupid * cough * Starship * cough *. It went to LEO, and a ion-powered space tug shipped the payload into GEO.

[@caav56]

@@HalNordmann I presume the idea with Starship is that while it's bad at doing stuff other than being cheap ride from Earth to space (and back), it can do it *now* , instead of having to wait for specialized vessels for each individual task. In fact, it pairs up great with them - use Starship to deploy tugs to space and then just get fully-loaded Starship to LEO, transfer cargo to the tug and deorbit Starship back, speeding up the operations.

[@HalNordmann]

@@caav56 It can't do it now - it hasn't flown yet, and hasn't shown anything apart form blowing up and once repeating the DC-X test flight. Plus, if you are funding a fully reusable heavy lifter and a project to use it on, a different vehicle to act as a space tug Is just a footnote. And even just for LEO lifting, Starship is brutally inefficient (one of the studied SPS lifter designs has 120t payload, yet less mass than simply the fuel for Starship), and maybe it even can't do those promised 130t - I have done some math on it, and the reused payload on Starship is something like 60-80t.

[@caav56]

@@HalNordmann Which one of SPS lifters? And Starship has a massive advantage of being actually in production. Original figures for Venture Star looked good too, before hitting reality of troubles with multi-lobe composite tanks and aerospike component base (I believe the XRS-2200 never received electro-actuated valves and ceramic piping, which were supposed to reduce its mass to the originally-projected levels), then having the project getting abandoned entirely. The DC-X(A) comparison's not entirely fair too, as DC-X(A) never attempted an in-flight engine restart. About the "footnote" - well, the fully reusable heavy lifter's a good start to anything. LEO is a halfway to anywhere anyway. P.S. Kinda wonder, if the mentioned theoretical expendable Starship (pretty much bare tanks and payload adapter, no landing gear, expendable fairing, I believe also no SL Raptors) can be remade into dedicated space tug by adding solar panels, retanking interface and crycooler for keeping propellant and oxidizer liquid long-term.

[@scottlowther9967]

Great video but Star Raker would *not* go to geosynchronous, only low Earth orbit. It would drop off its payload at a LEO construction facility where small bits of the SPS would be constructed and *then* moved to geosynchronous, likely through the use of massive banks of ion engines.

[@williamblack4006]

Spot on Scott -- been a long time, hope you are well. William.

[@AndrewHillis_2024]

I LIKE THE 'STAR RAKER' LET'S BUILD IT ! ! !

[@centaur1a]

Just imagining the shear size of planes, the runway, fuel/refueling plane,orbiting satellites, etc. Remembering theses were interesting concepts of going to space and beyond when the Apollo program were in full swings of not only to the moon but to Mars and earth space station, and a Moon base with living colonies work too. Now…

[@KellyStarks]

I love the sense of scale. These 300 foot ships look like decorative ornaments on the frame they are docking to in space. We’ll never build SSPS’, but we will be building factories, cities, hell maybe ships some day, this big.

[@Sir_Uncle_Ned]

I would be so happy to see a space station large enough to dwarf this leviathan like your imagined solar power station. That would mean we have reliable capacity to get so much of anything to orbit to build that out. Realistically it would be manufactured in place with a local on-orbit welding area to assemble segments or an array of 3D printers with the Star Rakers delivering feedstock for said printers. Metal powder laser-based additive manufacturing already exists, the only trick would be getting the powder to settle, but I suppose a simple tether based centrifuge would do the trick.

[@HalNordmann]

Delivering prefabricated beams is simpler.

[@UncleManuel]

And of course Scott Manley did a detailed video about this mindboggeling project. Everything is supersized (yes, these solar stations would have been THIS large!) and the USA (government + NASA) did a detailed study of what it would take to actually build this crazy stuff. Well, the findings are not really a shocker: too complex, too expensive, too the-needed-technology-hasn't-been-invented-yet. 😜✌️

[@Eo_Tunun]

Yep, but we need that space plane.Even if only just because.

[@davidstuckey9289]

Perhaps so But then, the same objections and barriers applied to the great cathedrals of Europe when they were first mooted. They went ahead and built them anyway, learning what techniques they didn't have, pausing when they lacked money or materials, and applying what techniques they knew. And they built them. For whatever their motivations, those people had long term vision, beyond the next election, or the next fiscal quarter or the next paycheck. Like those who plant trees they will never see mature, they expected others to benefit from their work. That sort of thinking was in short supply in the Seventies, and we are seeing the damage from it now. Fortunately, we never lost it completely, and it may help us yet.

[@KellyStarks]

No, the report found with the Star-Raker or other alternatives proposed it would be far easier and cheaper then expected. But the SSPS idea wasn’t cost competitive.

[@Albtraum_TDDC]

@@KellyStarks SSPS?

[@KellyStarks]

@@Albtraum_TDDC Space Solar Power Satellites. I.e. the orbital solar platforms to produce the power and beam it down to earth. It was all to expensive compared to normal power sources.

[@kevintang2605]

This has just surpassed all levels of craziness. How does this thing land without the expendable landing trolleys?

[@alonespirit9923]

Spending about 1.33 minutes in Google will answer your question by finding a relevant entry titled "Star-Raker (1978)" on a blog named No Shortage of Dreams.

[@Jeffersonian1]

According to one old article online, it would land at sea. The hull shape seems to support this, flying-boat style, though a different article shows images of more conventional landing gear.

[@renanfeitosa101]

there was no runway that would support the landing so they decided to land it on the sea

[@caav56]

@@Jeffersonian1 Different versions, maybe? I've read of it using low-mass retractable landing gear, only capable of supporting dry weight of the plane.

[@Jeffersonian1]

@@caav56 That does make sense, and would also explain the number of wheels on the gear that was jettisoned.

[@StringfellowHawke197]

The main problem that I see with this design is that the giant wings would overheat and melt away during re-entry. You would need a way to retract them until you have slowed down quite a bit after re-entry.

[@PaulZyCZ]

Imagine where a humanity would have been, had such space planes been realized.

[@constantineshaman3336]

That SSTO be like: boooooiiii, i don't need any landing gear, let's shoot it off at the start off flight to reduce mass. I don't know how i'll manage to comeback after, but i really don't give a fuck.

[@JohnChristianSBalla]

Yeah lol I was gonna comment a similar comment

[@barometricfunk]

I'm curious if anyone has re-examined the engineering challenges behind Star Raker recently and determined if we had either solved them or are close to solving them...or are still a ways off. It's worth looking into.

[@ThatSlowTypingGuy]

Astronomers: Starlink is making the sky too bright! SSTO Program: Hold my beer.

[@AndrewHillis_2024]

THIS 'STAR RAKER' IS THE VEHICLE THAT NASA SHOULD HAVE BUILT INSTEAD OF THE 'SPACE SHUTTLE' ! ! !

[@Julius_Hardware]

Superb. IMO the only fault was not using "Journey into Space" from Moonraker, but Wagner will do.

[@sunspot42]

I was totally thinking Moonraker. Or the music from You Only Live Twice...

[@alduriel19]

It's the best one You have made. Love Star Raker concept, bur You blew me away with solar space station and ring in the end.

[@X-JAKA7]

The Star Raker is basically the space shuttle on steroids.

[@solitaregames]

*Sees the space plane drop the landing gears* "Huh, seems they not planning to land this thing back."

[@caav56]

It has a much flimsier (and lighter) onboard landing gear, only capable of supporting plane with no fuel or cargo loaded.

[@scotts2070]

Awesome. Can't get enough if your videos

[@ronjon7942]

If I was clueless about aerospace, I’d easily assume this was real. Nice work, man.

[@timothymaher5328]

Awesome how the very first shot and the approach to the solar satellite look so much like the original illustrations.

[@HowToSpacic]

I certainly did not expect to see all the landing gear just fall off

[@HowToSpacic]

@eggmanwi I’m actually not sure. I don’t think that would have been the case on the final vehicle because it was supposed to land and takeoff several times a day like a plane so dropping the gear would make turn around times a bit lower

[@caav56]

@@HowToSpacic I suppose the airports were presumed to stock up several sets of takeoff gears for Star Rakers (they're also reusable, deploying chutes after getting jetissoned for recovery).

[@Infinite_Maelstrom]

@@HowToSpacic It had a smaller set of gear that retracted. It didn't need to support its fully fuelled mass when landing, so it dropped the unnecessary weight. If it ever went into production, that might have been changed; but on the other hand the me163 did something similar, so it's not unheard of.

[@stocky9218]

Finally my favourite space plane, absolutely awesome

[@Nighthawke70]

The SPS constellation could easily do double or triple duty, as commsats, and/or habitable space platforms, eliminating the massive amounts of the clutter we have in orbit now..

[@carlosandleon]

we really don't have that much clutter. You underestimate the emptiness of space

[@Nighthawke70]

@@carlosandleon In vacuum and zero gravity, it only took one paint chip moving at high speed to put a crater the size of a cantaloupe in a Lexan window. Shuttle CHALLENGER had that happen to them. I can not imagine the damage anything else weighing more than a few grams on anything less substantial.

[@_MaxHeadroom_]

Can't even begin to imagine how many of these it would take to build just one of the power stations just by looking at the scale of them

[@paulm.newitt3246]

No words. Your work just brings a sense of awe and wonder....and hope. Thank you.

[@리정우-w3g]

For all mankind s3 vibes chillin

[@SpacemanTarian42]

This is the most beautiful video I've seen on KZbin ever.

[@AnthonyDDean]

Rocket advocates will never let this happen.

[@deltaVelocity_]

Star Raker, my beloved

[@JimWattsHereNow]

Love seeing all these concepts come to life. Excellent work.

[@rocketman1969]

This is so cool, I liked how the landing gears just fell off!

[@MarsStarshipCaptain]

then how to land?

[@FastSloth87]

@@MarsStarshipCaptain The sea.

[@Infinite_Maelstrom]

@@MarsStarshipCaptain It has smaller, retractable gear. The ones that fall off are only needed to support the weight of the fuel on takeoff. @FastSloth87 no, that would damage its heatshield tiles.

[@gregsonwoods]

If Kubrick made an ad for Rockwell International.

[@lantastic1]

Another brilliant rendering and animation. Well done, thank you.

[@HeWhoX]

I have no doubts, orbital future belongs to space shuttles . Most likely, they don’t replace heavy Starships or SLS but successfully complement each other. By the way, Skylon project, developed by Britons, is very interesting and could minimise both time and expenses required for building the plane.

[@01_SPACE_C0WB0Y]

I think things like starship make sense for payloads and such but spaceplanes need to be how we transport people to and from space.

[@HeWhoX]

@@01_SPACE_C0WB0Y Hope, you've read my comment above.That's what I said.

[@Mr_Lukasgrim]

What program did you used for this animation? Or where did you get the models?

[@KaleiBizness]

4:30, Wow! That space station is bigger than I expected. Bigger than the Resolute!

[@scottn7cy]

Excellent work as always!

[@planetsec9]

>5:48 >astronomers disliked that For real though beautiful video, epic sense of scale

[@geoffreyporter6373]

The funny thing, is that the farm's in a GEO orbit, so it would just be a singular dot, just remember where its position is in the sky, and cancel that dot out.

[@nankinink]

also, having the tech to build such station, earth observatories would be so old tech. space observatories would be no-brainer

[@patrickradcliffe3837]

I think if this design had ever moved passed the paper stage the shape would have significantly changed to a more blended wing and body shape.

[@JFrazer4303]

It is. Fuel and oxidizer are almost all in the thick blended wings.

[@jaypaint4855]

Your renders are getting better

[@CountArtha]

I do wish this magnificent machine had existed. The only one that makes me more melancholy is VentureStar.

[@okeefenokeetheseventeenth2200]

There is another space plane concept, by ESA. I saw those illustrations inside one of the NASA groups on Facebook. Small group about NASA, 165 members or so. But excellent articles. That ESA craft is a flying wing where he entire hull acts like a wing, but it still has two winglets at the back that can change their position. I would love to see animations of that concept.

[@mig4868]

That satellite is indescribably massive.

[@davisdf3064]

It isn't a satellite, it was part of a proposed power station to power the US with solar power

[@maddiekits]

​@@davisdf3064 I mean its still technically a satellite :p

[@davisdf3064]

@@maddiekits Technically, yes! lol

[@MultiTapen]

This is so beautiful ......

[@collonellbenered8088]

the way the sattellite get's ever bigger is ust amazing!

[@DamplyDoo]

I'm glad i subbed to this channel

[@redsun9261]

Wow KSP 2 graphics is so good

[@MrSupercar55]

Awesome! Man, I wish this existed in real life.

[@jimrohrich2625]

Magnificent work.

[@scubajotaro]

Surely riding on a massive wheeled sled on takeoff would be a better solution than jettisoning 6 pairs of gear after takeoff. Imagine a giant sled that conforms to the shape of the underbelly, with a bunch of gear underneath it. Star Raker begins taking off, it pulls the sled along with it with no more effort than it would if the landing gear were attached. Then once the lift force is high enough Star Raker just lifts off of the sled and the sled continues down the runway, stopped by airbags, wires, or just comes to a stop over a long distance. Star Raker would still have those 3 sets of landing gear that it does in this video's design, but with the sled approach they could be kept stowed the entire time and only deployed on landing. They could probably even be designed to be lighter, or less impactful on the heatshield if they only needed to be deployed, and not automatically re-stowed.

[@reubenmitchell5269]

yes I agree, or even better a powered sled (like a maglev) to give it a little push start

[@msbealo]

At 1:35 i said to myself, you've got to get rid of those wheels... oh wow. Literally.

[@Gibson99]

Nothing against you haze gray, but isn't refueling after takeoff kind of a second stage? At the very least it's stretching the definition of "single stage", or just good old fashioned cheating. Awesome animations as usual. Heat distortion in the exhaust was on point!

[@chingompiew1]

That was so pretty. Subscribed!

[@MattMcIrvin]

The Star Raker would not actually go to geosynchronous orbit, would it? Usually these system designs had OTVs of some sort to get stuff to geosynchronous orbit.

[@lonnieholcomb2078]

These all are very cool videos thanks for making them

[@piotrd.4850]

Name one reason it hasn't made it to "For All Mankind" wnd we got ridiculous shuttle instead.

[@maddiekits]

Its too aspirational to be reasonably believable, too pretty, too free neoliberal bureaucracy nonsense. Or they are just waiting till their finale season 😜

[@crpyrce]

That star rakerussy looks interesting!

[@jae0204]

I always surprise that cold-war made every monster reasonable projects

[@andremoreira9404]

Bravo!

[@kahlrhoam6769]

Excellent work! What a immense scale, very reminiscent to me, of the sci-fi artwork we enjoyed in the 70s. Very Ralph McQuarry. 👏

[@HalNordmann]

Could you do some of the VTHL TSTO space freighters next? Fun fact: One of the studied designs had similar payload to what Starship is proclaiming to be able to lift (120t), yet only 4000t mass when fully fueled - less than simply the fuel mass of Starship! That is with technology from the 70's, very conservative numbers, no weight-saving tricks like common bulkheads and with a 22t mass reserve! Apparently, aluminium construction/winged flyback is a pretty efficient design!

[@rboosterman9944]

Hal Nordmann can't tell the difference between the spacecraft (the payload) and the booster itself.

[@dsdy1205]

hey I've seen this one before

[@王闻]

Next video------Boeing Space Freighter，PLEASE!!!!

[@TheAndrew3777]

Super super super ❤️ ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️

[@TheMemeDynamics]

Wish those things were real...

[@danigomez1343]

this is actually possible but very expensive to manufacture.

[@Doctor9078]

Amazing work as always! I'd love to see your take on the Saturn V 4XU, it's an absolutely wild concept.

[@michaelsalzer4362]

A beautiful "What if" aeronautic video

[@JoeBurgerCinematicUniverse]

Now that is one big solar panel

[@MrCateagle]

Along the same in-flight refueling route used here, I'd love to see your take on the Black Horse concept.

[@JohnChristianSBalla]

Why did they detach the landing gears?

[@caav56]

Takeoff wheel set's too heavy to get into orbit. There's also a retractable landing gear, which is light, but can't hold up the fully-fueled plane.

[@SB5SimulationsFerroviairesEEP]

Jolies images virtuelles! Stéph.

[@Driftwood-Cove]

This might be my favorite Hazegrayart yet!

[@YaBoiNicho]

It's finally here!

[@ВЛАДИМИРЗАЙЦЕВ-о7ц]

Фантастика. Гости из будущего... ❤

[@WolfeSaber]

I really like the concept the vehicle uses.

[@myleswillis]

Awesome video but I just think she is rolling a touch too fast at 1:30 for a craft of that immense size.

[@aaronsmith8073]

That would be extremely awesome (and loud) on take off!

[@seth7wilson]

Dropping the landing gear at launch is cleaver weight shedding, but how would it land? SSTOs were always too tedious to pull off in Kerbal, so I have an aversion to them in general.

[@Zerogur]

Maybe it had another set of landing gear that's was too weak to support a fully fueled craft?

[@besttimes3248]

Parachutes & Skids.

[@JebHoge]

I wondered about a seaplane landing.

[@Zerogur]

@@JebHoge Me too, but I found a drawing of this thing that shows internal landing gear.

[@Infinite_Maelstrom]

@@Zerogur Yes, a set of smaller retractable gear.

[@ryccoh]

They could barely keep the space shuttle in one piece entering the atmosphere, how would this thing fare??

[@ianmathwiz7]

The large lifting body design means more surface area, which means lower reentry temperatures. I think.

[@JFrazer4303]

Less loading due to the huge thick empty wings.

[@davidwillard7334]

The Escape ! Plane ! When the Time ! Comes !

[@pricelessppp]

Always making excellent CGI!