🚀 Install Star Trek Fleet Command for FREE now t2m.io/TheSpaceRace_STFC and enter the promo code BOOST to unlock a beginner station upgrade content pack with 300 Latinum, 100k Parsteel, 10k Tritanium, and so on. How to easily redeem the promo code 👉 stfcgift.com/
When Chinese went to space for the first time in 2003, Shenzhou 5, the lone pilot stayed in orbit for 21 hours, and after he got back to earth, he could barely stand, kind of walking limping. The next mission, Shenzhou 6, two pilots stayed in orbit for 4 days, and they could barely stand, but not really walk. Longer missions, 10-15 days, they cannot even stand. Soviets don't show much, but their pilots are always dragged out by others, not by themselves, and they are on some stretchers. So, how come only American walk out and jumping and running and standing on their feet, after their space missions? Moon mission, 12 days, they walk out and stood on their feet fine. Skylab 4 mission, 84 days in space, they got out of capsule on their own and walked out like soldiers. Space Shuttle, sometimes 15, 19 days in space, they march out as if they are ready to fight. Can you explain?
It sounds like there was no space plane between 2011 and Dreamcaser, whenever that may launch. But the military space plane x 37 launched in 2010, which is worth mentioning in a space plane video.
@@GetFitEatRight Airplane / spaceplane definition does not require it to be manned. Buran was not manned on its mission. Predator drones are airplanes and not manned.
SpaceX: provided NASA funding to develop Crew Dragon, has flown a bunch of manned flights Boeing: given the lion's share of funding, still can't build a functioning space capsule. Sierra: not provided any funding, going to beat Boeing to successful crewed missions anyways
Not true. Dream Chaser won $20 million from NASA in 2010 for commercial crew phase 1, then $80 million from NASA in 2011 for commercial crew phase 2, then $200 million from NASA in 2012. Ultimately NASA decided not to award SNC with the Commercial Crew contract in 2014, and went forward with Boeing and SpaceX. However, NASA awarded DreamChaster for Commercial Resupply 2 years later in 2016 with a contract to buy no less than 6 resupply missions. Also, Dream Chaser is loosely based off of NASA's HL-20 vehicle, so much of the early development and development costs was directly provided by NASA themselves.
@@straightpipediesel X-37: unmanned But the X-37 does present a conundrum about Boeing. Seems Boeing took a turn for the worse sometime After the X-37 was developed. First flight being in 2010.
@@SoloRenegade afaik starliner and the x-37 are managed by separate development groups, air force secrets and all that. the starliner development was basically on it's own. also there is so much sensationalism around it, starliner WILL get home safely and will continue to be used afterward, i don't believe i'll have to eat my words on that. by basically all standards the recent crewed test flight to the ISS was a success, with issues blown out of proportion by media
Interesting thought. The usefulness of that... ! A multitude. My mind still isn't wrapped around the size of the version1 Starship. I was raised in Mercury, Gemini and Apollo. I have seen Saturn V . I know how big that is. It's a big spacecraft. Starship is so much bigger that I am shocked by the Volume and Lifting Capabilities. Reusable. That's an economic paradigm shift. It will create the Space Transportation Industry like the DC-3 created the Air Transportation Industry. Space transportation will be economically viable, on it's own, as a profit making business. Four Dream Chasers. I can Feel that.
And four or five Starships with Superheavy boosters attached, would fit inside the volume of the Graf Zeppelin! We're heading for a time when something that big is assembled in orbit, with possibly a NERV engine in the back, as cruise liners to the planets.
The diagram is wrong, that is the ORBITAL MODULE of the Soyuz spacecraft. The REENTRY module is the bell-shaped module under the semi-spherical orbital module on top of it. The Service Module (Aggregat module in Russian parlance, equipment module) is the cylindrical section under the reentry module. Unlike the US spacecraft like Gemini and Apollo or even the new SpaceX Dragon or troubled Boeing Starliner, the Russian Soyuz is a three-module vehicle. The Orbital module contains docking hatches and equipment, as well as gear and stowage for machinery and supplies to be used during the mission in space. There is a hatch in the top of the reentry module below it that connects the two and allows cosmonauts to exit the reentry module into the orbital module once they are in space, and the orbital module is used strictly while the spacecraft is in orbit. The reentry module is where the crew rides into space and back to Earth at the end of the mission, and back before Soyuz went to various space stations, provided the living space while in orbit. The service module provides the propulsion and power generation systems of the spacecraft, with the solar panels and batteries that provide power to the other two modules in orbit, as well as the main engine and thrusters necessary for orbital maneuvers and rendezvous and docking maneuvers, as well as providing the retrofire thrust necessary to put the spacecraft on a course for reentry at the end of the mission. When Soyuz returns to Earth, the crew closes the hatch between the orbital module and reentry module, and the orbital module is depressurized and then jettisoned, to burn up in the atmosphere. The spacecraft performs retrofire to deorbit itself onto a course for reentry and then the service module is jettisoned off the back of the reentry module to expose the heat shield, just as would be done with Apollo, Gemini, Dragon, or Starliner. The capsule then reenters the atmosphere and burns off speed converting it to waste heat through the heat shield, slowing down sufficiently for air drag in the lower atmosphere to slow it further before deploying drogue parachute and then main parachute, and the final touchdown is softened by the landing rocket system once the heat shield is jettisoned off the bottom of the capsule during descent. Mercury capsules had a landing bag system which detached the heat shield and dropped it down on lanyards, with an inflatable "skirt" of tough rubberized flexible material drawing in air through one-way flaps, trapping that air between the base of the capsule and the heat shield when it landed in the water (or possibly on land in the case of and abort) softening the impact, as the air would compress and escape slower through/around the flaps which acted as check valves. Gemini was originally designed to land on land using runners and landing gear under an inflatable Rogallo flex wing, but this was deemed too complicated and risky and abandoned for the more typical parachute and water landing, with the capsule retaining a lanyard system that allowed it land more horizontally into the water, cushioning the blow of water landing versus splashing down with the large, blunt flattish rounded heat shield end hitting the water first, since it had no air bag system. Apollo was large and heavy enough that the impact of splashdown wasn't as fast or violent as the smaller spacecraft like Gemini or Mercury capsules, plus the parachutes were arranged to be off-center so the large flattish heat shield was at an angle as it splashed down, allowing it to "cut into" the water and softening the impact. Dragon was originally intended to land under landing rockets (the Super Dracos), hovering down to a ground landing on landing legs like the Falcon 9 first stages, but NASA deemed this too risky and ordered them to adapt it to a splashdown landing at sea, which SpaceX designed things to be reusable under this landing method. Starliner lands on land, using a system of inflatable landing bags around the periphery of the capsule, inflated after the heat shield is jettisoned while the spacecraft is still descending under parachute...
@@Peter-cn4hm Challenger broke up after tumbling once the stack disintegrated when the External Tank broke up. The O-ring in the booster failed at liftoff but was sealed by detritus "gunk" from the solid propellant (usually alumina slag) temporarily bridging the gap where the incinerated O-ring was intended to seal the joint. When the Challenger stack flew through a wind shear at altitude, the additional loads/turbulence caused this alumina gunk to break free, allowing the leak to resume. The 5,000 degree exhaust of the SRB was forced through the leak by the 750+ PSI pressure inside the SRB, and rapidly began to blowtorch away the hardened steel casings (maraging steel casings like submarine hulls), enlarging the leak steadily in an unstoppable progression. Unlike a previous mission that had returned with an SRB leak that developed late in the burn, and resulted in a basketball-size hole burned in the joint, fortunately for that flight on the opposite side of the booster from the External Tank, the Challenger's booster leak was just above one of the aft struts and as the leak enlarged the flames rapidly impinged upon the strut and tank wall itself. The shuttle External Tank was just thin skinned aluminum covered with a spray-on foam insulation, with strategic thickening and strengthening in critical areas. The lower cylindrical section of the tank was filled with hundreds of thousands of gallons of liquid hydrogen, consumed by the main engines in the orbiter aft end. As the flames impinged on the tank wall, they rapidly burned away the foam and began heating the aluminum skin of the tank to the melting temperature. The leak also caused a drop in thrust in that SRB due to the pressure loss through the leak, which grew worse with time. The larger the leak got, the faster it grew. The larger the leak got, the more sideways thrust it also produced as the jet of hot flame out the side produced a sideways thrust on the stack that the orbiter engines had to correct for. As this condition worsened, the orbiter's main engines were gimballed sideways almost to their hard stop limits, trying to keep the shuttle flying straight against the side thrust of the leak the growing thrust imbalance between the two SRB's. This also greatly increased the side force exerted on the strut holding the aft end of the SRB straight and put those forces into the skin of the External Tank and its structures connecting it to the shuttle orbiter. Finally the forces exceeded the strength of the tank wall and in its heat-weakened conditions it gave way and ripped apart, the aft strut ripping away and the sheet aluminum ripping around the weld seam holding the 27.5 foot diameter aft dome on the back end of the tank, supporting the weight of the hundreds of thousands of gallons of liquid hydrogen in the tank being accelerated along with the shuttle stack towards orbit. The aft dome broke away, spilling the contents of the hydrogen tank instantly, and the structural integrity of the tank was suddenly gone as tank pressurization was lost. Rocket stages, including the external tank, operate like a soda can or car tire-- most of their strength comes from the pressure exerted on the walls of the tank by the contents of the propellant tank and the pressurization system which pressurizes the tank from the inside... the same way a thin rubber tire can hold up the weight of a vehicle, with only 30 PSI of air pressure inside making the wall of the tire stiff... but if the pressure is lost the wall of the tire instantly collapses "flat" under the weight. When the ET lost pressurization it lost all rigidity and simple collapsed and tore apart. As the leaking SRB broke free at the aft end, its thrust caused it to pivot around the ball and socket joint at the front end the transferred thrust into the cross beam of the ET, just below the ogive-shaped liquid oxygen tank. The nose of the SRB swung inward like a giant can opener and ripped through the lower side wall of the upper ogive LOX tank, rupturing it and causing the liquid oxygen to instantly be spilled out and pressurization to be lost in that tank as well. All this happened within about a second and the SRB's broke free of the now shredded External Tank, and flew free of the expanding vapor cloud caused by the unpressurized cryogenic propellants vaporizing and expanding in the near vacuum at altitude. The orbiter, engulfed in the cloud, would have ripped free of the shredded remains of the tank as well, and since the engines were pointed sideways to counteract the thrust of the SRB leak, it would have shoved the orbiter sideways as the engines burned out for lack of propellants. The orbiter wasn't designed to take the aero-loads of tumbling even in the thin air at altitude, and broke up in just a couple seconds. The SRB's flew free for a few seconds before their self-destruct system was commanded to destroy them from range safety officer control at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, who pushed the button to detonate a linear shaped charge along the length of the boosters to terminate their thrust. The remains of the shuttle coasted up to apogee and then fell back into the ocean and sank. The crew cabin was depressurized but mostly intact until impact with the ocean at about 200+ mph about a minute later. It sank in about 150 foot deep or so water and was located a few weeks after the disaster, mostly held together by the network of wiring surrounding the shattered crew cabin pressure hull.
8:20 More relevant to say: a lot had changed since 1981. As you mention, the shuttle was retired in part because it wasn’t worth upgrading. It was all 30 year tech.
Upgrading the Space shuttle would be no different than building a nuclear carrier, and the US in the 80s didn't build any. The US didn't start building the new class of carriers until the mid 90s, Oh and the last Enterprise carrier was actually upgraded at a cost of nearly 900 million dollars. For an extra 100 million, they could have upgraded the shuttle and its launch system
Cargo version needs the fairing because of the trunk module. SpaceX recently did get some DOD money to finally certify the XL fairing they've been promising for years, which will be more than enough to accommodate Dreamchaser.
It will never happen, especially after Bozo and Blue Origin sued the FAA and SpaceX. Sierra Space is getting most of its support and partnership from Bozo's wasted company and ULA
1. Gagarin's capsule still had to endure reentry. Ejecting at 7 km didn't have anything to do with that. It meant the Soviets could use existing ejection seat (including parachute) technology (for one person) rather than invent a larger parachute system for the entire capsule. 2. You got the Soyuz re-entry module wrong. It's the "middle" (bell-shaped) section, not the ball-shaped end part.
Using Blue Origin as an example is...amusing. The BO capsule does not reach high temperatures as it merely falls straight down again. You didn't mention that the goal is to get into orbit, key point here. SpaceX exists! 😛
@@halfeld I mean if the aliens are coming to invade and the best they can do is plop into the water off Sarasota or smack into the ground in the desert like a hot air balloon landing….well I’m a lot less intimidated I’ll say that.
First off, the Dream Chaser has to get off the ground and into space. So far, Dream Chaser is no different than Starliner, a giant paper weight wasting taxpayers money and constantly delayed
That is exactly correct, it is based on couple of NASA designs, that themselves are derived from the BOR-4. I think it is major oversight in the video. Another blunder is pointing to the orbital module of the Sojuz and calling it the entry capsule... Good production value, but they should fact-check more.
NASA insisted that Boeing had to be one of the two Commercial Crew Program contractors because of "experience". We've all seen how Boeing's "experience" is working out both on Earth and in space.
Boeing got infested with Bean Counter Mentality. The Engineers lost control and Corporate Types emphasized short term profitability . They got Infected By Douglas. Long term profitability requires that the stuff you build Works and doesn't Fall Apart or Crash. Once, Not that long ago, Boeing could do that. Once upon a time, so could Douglas. Boeing lost their Vision and Their Mission. Their Reputation too.
No mention of Soviet Project Spiral and its MiG-105 (which, ironically, inspired it all), NASA HL-20 (the direct ancestor of DreamChaser - NASA ceded its design to Sierra), X-20 DynaSoar, Northrop M2-F2, Northrop M2-F3, Northrop HL-10, Martin X-24A/B, Martin X-23 PRIME, not to mention X-37 A/B, the only actually flying of those, a military "mini-shuttle" military jumped to after abandoning Shuttle, which they ruined by their large down-mass and "single orbit return to launch site" requirements (the only purpose of which cold be to quickly snatch a Soviet satellite). There was also X-38, a proposed (and tested in atmospheric drops) ISS lifeboat.
Had to chuckle at this at first as it “implied” that Blue Origin was this & that but did mention Space X later on. Are you the same people who say that GM is the leader in EV’s.
I believe I heard Tenacity has been delayed and Vulcan will fly a mass simulator for her second flight to gain the ability to fly certain high profile payloads.
Sierra Space told ULA they weren't sure they could meet the deadlines for cert2. ULA went to Plan B, A mixt of ballast and experiments for better understanding of Vulcan Centaur. Cert 2 is a must for ULA's qualification for government/military missions.
2:05 "A month later NASA conducted a similar mission under Project Mercury. The only difference was re-entry. The Astronauts didn't eject from the craft but the capsule itself kept them contained safely (...)" I have several issues with that statement. Most importantly, the manner of landing was not the only difference. And IMO not even the most significant difference. The most significant difference was that Alan Shepard's first flight on Mercury-Redstone 3 was suborbital, whereas Gagarin's flight on Vostok 1 was fully orbital and longer. Also, the way the statement is worded gives the impression that the Mercury spacecraft could carried more than one astronaut, which is not the case.
Major error at 6:07 - you stated there were four operational shuttles; Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, and Endeavour. WTF happened to Atlantis? You know, the one hanging from the ceiling at KSC?
The orbiter of the space shuttle (the actual "space plane") was not the issue, and it is one of the most reliable spacecrafts in spaceflight history. The problem with the space shuttle was they put the orbiter next to the giant orange fuel tank during ascent instead of on top. During launch, the fuel tank would drop foam onto the orbiter causing damage to its thermal tiles AND there was no "launch escape system" to safely propel the orbiter away from the launch vehicle in case of a malfunction with the boosters and/or fuel tank. If the orbiter sat on top of the fuel tank, 14 astronauts would never have lost their lives and we would still be using the orbiters today (albeit, with updated parts and systems)
Another problem with the STS orbiter is that it was designed to bring whole satellites back to Earth for repair, a feature almost never used. It was penny-wise and pound-foolish to skip modularity in satellite designs.
@@steveschunk5702 I agree. If NASA had simply pursued a "Dyna Soar" type shuttle instead of a behemoth, we would still be using space planes for Earth orbital missions today. Unfortunately, Von Braun and others simply could not imagine propulsive landings. Their 1950s mindset pervaded the reusability thinking well into the 90s. Starship is much more like the McDonnell-Douglas DC Clipper design. it is useful to note that recoveries from cis-lunar or interpanetary distances and speeds are not suitable for winged craft.
That would require those Shuttle engines be located elsewhere - don't want to shoot fire from above the fuel tank. Eh - is was built to fulfill a lot of differing objectives, and that made it more complex and expensive.
Mr. Eustace needs a better promotional team…I keep up with this kind of thing quite a bit, though apparently not quite enough, as I had never heard of his feat. Thanks for sharing that information!
A total of 14 space shuttles were built. The other 8 went to USAF, now under control of USSF. The launch vehicle was updated to eliminate the solid rocket boosters.
Well, Boeing is a major defence contractor that spends unthinkable amounts of money on lobbying plus a ton of ex military and agency members working for them and on the board. Not to mention all the congress members and other government employees that hold Boeing stock. It's no wonder they got the contract.
@@soley651 No one ever meets the deadline, and they're almost always years past due. Can't decide to sue just one now. But the fact is, SpaceX has gotten more done since Musk founded it, than literally the entire worldwide space industry combined. In other words, SpaceX gets shit done.
The loss of the Space Shuttle was a huge setback I think. Despite its problems every time I see footage of the Shuttle it just leaves me amazed at what we can do and what an amazing feat of engineering Nasa accomplished. Spaceplane is the way forward. Great work Sierra Space. The inflatable Space module is incredible. I grew up as a boy watching the Apollo missions and it so fired everyone's imaginations for an exciting future. 👍👍
The original plan was a larger winged booster so that the vehicle was 100% reusable. But budget cuts forced the external tank booster rockets combo. I was always curious if NASA got the funding for that if we'd still have a second generation shuttle running right now?
Seeing the spaceshuttle within the indoor exhibit at Kennedy Space Center is a mesmerizing experience. Capsules mignt work but spaceplanes give me the rizz frfr.
With reusable rockets (i.e. Rockets that can land) is there even a point to a spaceplane? On the other hand arguably Starship is a spaceplane ... it's got wings.
My goodness, so much space goodness going on these days! Looks like we're going to see the 5th test flight of Starship & Booster, I can hardly wait to see it! Too bad about the Falcon 9 having that hard landing, coming back from its 23rd mission, but it is so amazing that Space X has been able to keep re-using its rockets time after time, I imagine there's tons of money being saved, which can be redirected to other projects. I so look forward to your Saturday broadcasts Marcus, because they are the best, most informative yet entertaining source of all space-related goodness going on in the world! Good on you mate!
Errors in presentation: 1. USSR/Russia fly cosmonauts, not astronauts. 2. The return capsule of Soyuz is the center module, not the upper module. 3. Capsules are no longer single-use only. SpaceX capsules are reusable. 4. Yuri Gagarin did not eject from the capsule while in space. He reentered in the capsule and ejected at an altitude of 7 km. So many errors makes this a poor presentation.
Also let’s not forget the CNES/ESA Hermes space plane in all this and also the “paper” space planes swing developed by the U.K. in the 1960’s until the US quietly put a stop to it and the U.K.’s own indigenous satellite launchers
Can't wait to see this one fly, it will be so exciting to have the fourth capsule capable of re-entry and as it proves reliability to become the fourth capsule from America that can bring people to space. Maybe one day they can have Dragon, Starliner, Dream chaser and Orion all in space simultaneously.
Felix baumgartner Is NOT the only person to have skydived/jumped from a balloon around that crazy altitude. Heck off the top of my head I can think of 2 others. Joe Kittinger who did it first in the late 1950s/early 1960s while running tests for the US Air Force and that Google executive Alan Eustace who did it after Felix and who beat Felix’s record. I think there was a few others kinda close to them like 20,000-50,000 feet away both for USA and Soviet Union but the 3 that went the highest were those guys. Btw Joe the guy that did it first was the guy that helped Felix and was the guy on the radio during his deal. Felix was smart and found the only guy who had done it that high up and asked him to help and give all the knowledge. He’s the old guy in the video they always showed in the command center when Felix did his attempt. His full name was Joseph William Kittinger II he past away in 2022 at 94 years old. The man was a national treasure a hero. You should watch the docs on him! It’s sad he’s not famous and well known. Not only are his records in the 50s and 60s epic but his studies helped all future astronauts!
I met Mr Kittinger at the National Aviation Hall of Fame induction in 2000, at Wright Field. The night before the Induction in Dayton, there was a VIP reception and dinner at the museum for inductees, members and their designated guests. He was 1997 inductee and my wife and her cousin talked to him about operation high man for about 45 minutes, WOW! Very cool watching him CAPCOM for Felix.
But why? Unless I’m missing something we are nowhere near controlling any noticeable amounts of antimatter, and the only thing that antimatter propulsion would do is conver more mass energy than nuclear… So you should just fund nuclear or laser propulsion that would give most the that would be hypotheticaly be attractive but could theoretically be designed sometime in the next 50 years…
Imagine running in a waist deep pool. Then run up a gentle ramp making the water more and more shallow. Your running speed increases dramatically. Then turn around and run that hard into the water.
The Soyuz has there modules. The aft modules with the solar panels is the service module, unpressurized. The forward spheroid is the "orbital module" which is detached before reentry. The middle capsule-shaped module is where the astronauts are seated during launch and reentry. (Your line points to the disposable orbital module, but your voice narration is discussing the reentry capsule during that animation.
Gagarin absolutely returned inside an enclosed capsule, he only bailed out after reentry, at 7 kilometers (about 23,000 feet) because the capsule didn't yet have the ability to land safely.
One of the design considerations for SpaceX starship was that it wanted to address a problem that dogged the space shuttle. The problem was that the complex shape of the space shuttle meant that every single heat shielding tile had a unique shape so there were thousands and thousands of unique he shield Tiles! SpaceX starship design took advantage of natural symmetry of its bullet shape to vastly simplify heat shield design. I’m pretty sure that dream chaser will face the same issue.
I love how they are using Blue Origin for the opening shots and diagrams. Yes, they reached space. BUT...they have yet to achieve orbit or orbital speed.
A good retrospect here, but a couple things to note: 1. Columbia broke apart on reentry. It did not explode. 2. Dream Chaser has been around a long time and was the original lifeboat for the ISS. I believe it was moth-balled due to budget cuts. I like the thing too and was bummed when they shelved it. To see such a cool design really be used would be great! Rooting for this one.
And, incredibly, the FX of the launch scene in Moonraker have held up rather well... and it was BEFORE the first actual manned flight! (The orbital scenes, not so much. ;P)
I really enjoyed that this Space Shuttle depicted did not need to have the payload bay doors open when on-orbit. They must have solved that heat radiation problem since 2011.
So far, Dreamchaser reinvented Space Shuttle's delays 😅 Not that I'm against them - I LOVED Space Shuttles, cried when Venture Star was Cancelled and I wish to see cargo and passenge r versions of Dreamchaser flying to ISS and I understand that they didn't receive any funding since CrapLiner was chosen by NASA instead. Just I'm kinda annoyed when it was announced that they won't make it till their scheduled launch 😢
My last video before this one I thought about bringing the shuttle back but updated with today's technology. And then I found this video. Shuttle reinvented. How bout that.
Space shuttles make way more sense than the capsules imo. And the three story inflatable modules, if they're deemed safe and work correctly, could make a bigger, better space station achievable, as well as surface habitats on the moon and mars.
Somewhere I'd read that the Americans love to over-engineer their space tech while the Russians have prefered to find the simplest solutions possible in order to minimize complexity and risk (and presumably cost), which is why the Soyuz has proven to be such a reliable workhorse for decades. Yeah, it's a single use vehicle, but they "roll them off the assembly line like Ford trucks". And while splashdowns eliminate a great deal of the cost/complexity/risk associated with the Shuttle, it must be a tremendous hassle having to deploy ships at sea in order to collect the returning astronauts (who go from the danger of getting torched to the danger of drowning). In this day and age of advanced tech and manufacturing processes, you'd think that astronauts could now simply and safely glide back down from space to any airport, and then take a short walk across the tarmac (or ride a van) for a post-flight medical examination. Yay Dreamchaser!!! (Dang shame that Buran never got to really prove itself. 😞)
2020: finally the dream chaser will launch 2021: finally the dream chaser will launch 2022: finally the dream chaser will launch 2023: finally the dream chaser will launch 2024: finally the dream chaser will launch 2025: finally the dream chaser will launch 2026: JUST LET THE DREAM *FLY*
It will be interesting to see how quickly Sierra Space can leverage their Cargo Only Spaceplane technology to build a man-rated spaceplane. My prediction is 5-7 years to first flight, due to the difficulties of satisfying NASAs post-Shuttle man rating requirements. I think the service module will be required to generate abort thrusts during launch so that the Dream Chaser can separate from an exploding booster.
🚀 Install Star Trek Fleet Command for FREE now t2m.io/TheSpaceRace_STFC and enter the promo code BOOST to unlock a beginner station upgrade content pack with 300 Latinum, 100k Parsteel, 10k Tritanium, and so on. How to easily redeem the promo code 👉 stfcgift.com/
You should have started the video at 08:50
You just missed 100% Soviet origin of Dream Chaser cosmoplan
When Chinese went to space for the first time in 2003, Shenzhou 5, the lone pilot stayed in orbit for 21 hours, and after he got back to earth, he could barely stand, kind of walking limping.
The next mission, Shenzhou 6, two pilots stayed in orbit for 4 days, and they could barely stand, but not really walk.
Longer missions, 10-15 days, they cannot even stand.
Soviets don't show much, but their pilots are always dragged out by others, not by themselves, and they are on some stretchers.
So, how come only American walk out and jumping and running and standing on their feet, after their space missions?
Moon mission, 12 days, they walk out and stood on their feet fine.
Skylab 4 mission, 84 days in space, they got out of capsule on their own and walked out like soldiers.
Space Shuttle, sometimes 15, 19 days in space, they march out as if they are ready to fight.
Can you explain?
@@a.v.gavrilov Did he skip the US's "lifting bodies" designs too - the ones that the Soviets looked at and improved upon.
That game is a money pit.
It sounds like there was no space plane between 2011 and Dreamcaser, whenever that may launch. But the military space plane x 37 launched in 2010, which is worth mentioning in a space plane video.
Its an unmanned drone. Its not exactly a plane.
@@GetFitEatRightdreamchaser is too
@@GetFitEatRight Airplane / spaceplane definition does not require it to be manned. Buran was not manned on its mission. Predator drones are airplanes and not manned.
@@GetFitEatRightthis is like saying any rocket that doesn't have people in it is not a rocket
@@lucasmarianosanchezdauria4264 Dreamchaser is designed to move people as well, but needs testing first to certify.
On your Soyuz graphic, you have the Orbital module marked as the Entry module, which is actually in the middle...!
Facts are really difficult to pin down, especially since the Soyuz has only been flying since the 1980's.
There are so many things wrong in the graphics… I had to stop watching.
@@AnonymousFreakYT yea... truly terrible
SpaceX: provided NASA funding to develop Crew Dragon, has flown a bunch of manned flights
Boeing: given the lion's share of funding, still can't build a functioning space capsule.
Sierra: not provided any funding, going to beat Boeing to successful crewed missions anyways
Boeings Money Laundering operation is booming though.
Not true. Dream Chaser won $20 million from NASA in 2010 for commercial crew phase 1, then $80 million from NASA in 2011 for commercial crew phase 2, then $200 million from NASA in 2012. Ultimately NASA decided not to award SNC with the Commercial Crew contract in 2014, and went forward with Boeing and SpaceX. However, NASA awarded DreamChaster for Commercial Resupply 2 years later in 2016 with a contract to buy no less than 6 resupply missions. Also, Dream Chaser is loosely based off of NASA's HL-20 vehicle, so much of the early development and development costs was directly provided by NASA themselves.
Boeing X-37 has entered the chat.
@@straightpipediesel X-37: unmanned
But the X-37 does present a conundrum about Boeing. Seems Boeing took a turn for the worse sometime After the X-37 was developed. First flight being in 2010.
@@SoloRenegade afaik starliner and the x-37 are managed by separate development groups, air force secrets and all that. the starliner development was basically on it's own. also there is so much sensationalism around it, starliner WILL get home safely and will continue to be used afterward, i don't believe i'll have to eat my words on that. by basically all standards the recent crewed test flight to the ISS was a success, with issues blown out of proportion by media
Fun fact: 4 'folded' Dreamchasers would theoretically fit in a v1 Starship fairing. I haven't yet run the numbers on v2 Starhip.
Interesting thought. The usefulness of that... ! A multitude. My mind still isn't wrapped around the size of the version1 Starship. I was raised in Mercury, Gemini and Apollo. I have seen Saturn V . I know how big that is. It's a big spacecraft. Starship is so much bigger that I am shocked by the Volume and Lifting Capabilities. Reusable. That's an economic paradigm shift. It will create the Space Transportation Industry like the DC-3 created the Air Transportation Industry. Space transportation will be economically viable, on it's own, as a profit making business.
Four Dream Chasers. I can Feel that.
And four or five Starships with Superheavy boosters attached, would fit inside the volume of the Graf Zeppelin!
We're heading for a time when something that big is assembled in orbit, with possibly a NERV engine in the back, as cruise liners to the planets.
@@daleeasternbrat816 Nothing was created by the DC-3 that wasn't already there.
@@pirosszirom8998well except profitable non-subsidized aircraft operations. I think it’s a fitting comparison.
@@foximacentauri7891You got it.
The orbital scene with the new shepard😂
Honestly not sure if the animator was trying to make a joke there or just got confused... It looks good and I'm glad someone found it kind of funny
@@TheSpaceRaceYT At least Blue Origin reached orbit in an animation 🙂
@@TheSpaceRaceYTLol, thats funny
Came down here to point that out , glad someone said it first, The Irony and sarcasm of it is just chef's kiss.😂😂👌
Because the animator coloured it pink, it's obvious sarcasm was intended.
Funny how you choose New Sheppard as a kind of orbiting vehicle, while it in reality, just makes very high jumps.
New Shepard has never orbited
The diagram is wrong, that is the ORBITAL MODULE of the Soyuz spacecraft. The REENTRY module is the bell-shaped module under the semi-spherical orbital module on top of it. The Service Module (Aggregat module in Russian parlance, equipment module) is the cylindrical section under the reentry module.
Unlike the US spacecraft like Gemini and Apollo or even the new SpaceX Dragon or troubled Boeing Starliner, the Russian Soyuz is a three-module vehicle. The Orbital module contains docking hatches and equipment, as well as gear and stowage for machinery and supplies to be used during the mission in space. There is a hatch in the top of the reentry module below it that connects the two and allows cosmonauts to exit the reentry module into the orbital module once they are in space, and the orbital module is used strictly while the spacecraft is in orbit. The reentry module is where the crew rides into space and back to Earth at the end of the mission, and back before Soyuz went to various space stations, provided the living space while in orbit. The service module provides the propulsion and power generation systems of the spacecraft, with the solar panels and batteries that provide power to the other two modules in orbit, as well as the main engine and thrusters necessary for orbital maneuvers and rendezvous and docking maneuvers, as well as providing the retrofire thrust necessary to put the spacecraft on a course for reentry at the end of the mission.
When Soyuz returns to Earth, the crew closes the hatch between the orbital module and reentry module, and the orbital module is depressurized and then jettisoned, to burn up in the atmosphere. The spacecraft performs retrofire to deorbit itself onto a course for reentry and then the service module is jettisoned off the back of the reentry module to expose the heat shield, just as would be done with Apollo, Gemini, Dragon, or Starliner. The capsule then reenters the atmosphere and burns off speed converting it to waste heat through the heat shield, slowing down sufficiently for air drag in the lower atmosphere to slow it further before deploying drogue parachute and then main parachute, and the final touchdown is softened by the landing rocket system once the heat shield is jettisoned off the bottom of the capsule during descent. Mercury capsules had a landing bag system which detached the heat shield and dropped it down on lanyards, with an inflatable "skirt" of tough rubberized flexible material drawing in air through one-way flaps, trapping that air between the base of the capsule and the heat shield when it landed in the water (or possibly on land in the case of and abort) softening the impact, as the air would compress and escape slower through/around the flaps which acted as check valves. Gemini was originally designed to land on land using runners and landing gear under an inflatable Rogallo flex wing, but this was deemed too complicated and risky and abandoned for the more typical parachute and water landing, with the capsule retaining a lanyard system that allowed it land more horizontally into the water, cushioning the blow of water landing versus splashing down with the large, blunt flattish rounded heat shield end hitting the water first, since it had no air bag system. Apollo was large and heavy enough that the impact of splashdown wasn't as fast or violent as the smaller spacecraft like Gemini or Mercury capsules, plus the parachutes were arranged to be off-center so the large flattish heat shield was at an angle as it splashed down, allowing it to "cut into" the water and softening the impact. Dragon was originally intended to land under landing rockets (the Super Dracos), hovering down to a ground landing on landing legs like the Falcon 9 first stages, but NASA deemed this too risky and ordered them to adapt it to a splashdown landing at sea, which SpaceX designed things to be reusable under this landing method. Starliner lands on land, using a system of inflatable landing bags around the periphery of the capsule, inflated after the heat shield is jettisoned while the spacecraft is still descending under parachute...
Ok Sir, if you know so much, what happened to Challenger?
@@Peter-cn4hm Challenger broke up after tumbling once the stack disintegrated when the External Tank broke up. The O-ring in the booster failed at liftoff but was sealed by detritus "gunk" from the solid propellant (usually alumina slag) temporarily bridging the gap where the incinerated O-ring was intended to seal the joint. When the Challenger stack flew through a wind shear at altitude, the additional loads/turbulence caused this alumina gunk to break free, allowing the leak to resume. The 5,000 degree exhaust of the SRB was forced through the leak by the 750+ PSI pressure inside the SRB, and rapidly began to blowtorch away the hardened steel casings (maraging steel casings like submarine hulls), enlarging the leak steadily in an unstoppable progression. Unlike a previous mission that had returned with an SRB leak that developed late in the burn, and resulted in a basketball-size hole burned in the joint, fortunately for that flight on the opposite side of the booster from the External Tank, the Challenger's booster leak was just above one of the aft struts and as the leak enlarged the flames rapidly impinged upon the strut and tank wall itself. The shuttle External Tank was just thin skinned aluminum covered with a spray-on foam insulation, with strategic thickening and strengthening in critical areas. The lower cylindrical section of the tank was filled with hundreds of thousands of gallons of liquid hydrogen, consumed by the main engines in the orbiter aft end. As the flames impinged on the tank wall, they rapidly burned away the foam and began heating the aluminum skin of the tank to the melting temperature. The leak also caused a drop in thrust in that SRB due to the pressure loss through the leak, which grew worse with time. The larger the leak got, the faster it grew. The larger the leak got, the more sideways thrust it also produced as the jet of hot flame out the side produced a sideways thrust on the stack that the orbiter engines had to correct for. As this condition worsened, the orbiter's main engines were gimballed sideways almost to their hard stop limits, trying to keep the shuttle flying straight against the side thrust of the leak the growing thrust imbalance between the two SRB's. This also greatly increased the side force exerted on the strut holding the aft end of the SRB straight and put those forces into the skin of the External Tank and its structures connecting it to the shuttle orbiter. Finally the forces exceeded the strength of the tank wall and in its heat-weakened conditions it gave way and ripped apart, the aft strut ripping away and the sheet aluminum ripping around the weld seam holding the 27.5 foot diameter aft dome on the back end of the tank, supporting the weight of the hundreds of thousands of gallons of liquid hydrogen in the tank being accelerated along with the shuttle stack towards orbit. The aft dome broke away, spilling the contents of the hydrogen tank instantly, and the structural integrity of the tank was suddenly gone as tank pressurization was lost. Rocket stages, including the external tank, operate like a soda can or car tire-- most of their strength comes from the pressure exerted on the walls of the tank by the contents of the propellant tank and the pressurization system which pressurizes the tank from the inside... the same way a thin rubber tire can hold up the weight of a vehicle, with only 30 PSI of air pressure inside making the wall of the tire stiff... but if the pressure is lost the wall of the tire instantly collapses "flat" under the weight. When the ET lost pressurization it lost all rigidity and simple collapsed and tore apart. As the leaking SRB broke free at the aft end, its thrust caused it to pivot around the ball and socket joint at the front end the transferred thrust into the cross beam of the ET, just below the ogive-shaped liquid oxygen tank. The nose of the SRB swung inward like a giant can opener and ripped through the lower side wall of the upper ogive LOX tank, rupturing it and causing the liquid oxygen to instantly be spilled out and pressurization to be lost in that tank as well. All this happened within about a second and the SRB's broke free of the now shredded External Tank, and flew free of the expanding vapor cloud caused by the unpressurized cryogenic propellants vaporizing and expanding in the near vacuum at altitude. The orbiter, engulfed in the cloud, would have ripped free of the shredded remains of the tank as well, and since the engines were pointed sideways to counteract the thrust of the SRB leak, it would have shoved the orbiter sideways as the engines burned out for lack of propellants. The orbiter wasn't designed to take the aero-loads of tumbling even in the thin air at altitude, and broke up in just a couple seconds. The SRB's flew free for a few seconds before their self-destruct system was commanded to destroy them from range safety officer control at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, who pushed the button to detonate a linear shaped charge along the length of the boosters to terminate their thrust. The remains of the shuttle coasted up to apogee and then fell back into the ocean and sank. The crew cabin was depressurized but mostly intact until impact with the ocean at about 200+ mph about a minute later. It sank in about 150 foot deep or so water and was located a few weeks after the disaster, mostly held together by the network of wiring surrounding the shattered crew cabin pressure hull.
The X-37 has been flying for awhile now. We just don't know what it's doing.
The x37 is not crewed, and. Cannot be made to be crewed
8:20 More relevant to say: a lot had changed since 1981. As you mention, the shuttle was retired in part because it wasn’t worth upgrading. It was all 30 year tech.
But I think the main issue was that having the shield below any cryogenic tank was a naive concept, no?
Upgrading the Space shuttle would be no different than building a nuclear carrier, and the US in the 80s didn't build any. The US didn't start building the new class of carriers until the mid 90s, Oh and the last Enterprise carrier was actually upgraded at a cost of nearly 900 million dollars. For an extra 100 million, they could have upgraded the shuttle and its launch system
@@thomaswakefield6889 but it was still the same concept. The same flawed concept. Right?
@@halfeld That is right. The space shuttle was flawed and not worth saving. The newer space planes that sit on top of the rocket are better.
So many things wrong with this.
The Orbiter was upgraded continuously throughout the program.
We need to put that thing on a falcon 9
Sounds like a great idea, but the faring issue stopped it
@@vincentcleaver1925don’t use a fairing. Also, note that the manned version will never use a fairing
Cargo version needs the fairing because of the trunk module.
SpaceX recently did get some DOD money to finally certify the XL fairing they've been promising for years, which will be more than enough to accommodate Dreamchaser.
It will never happen, especially after Bozo and Blue Origin sued the FAA and SpaceX. Sierra Space is getting most of its support and partnership from Bozo's wasted company and ULA
@@Matched32Gaming just to land on a runway?
1. Gagarin's capsule still had to endure reentry. Ejecting at 7 km didn't have anything to do with that. It meant the Soviets could use existing ejection seat (including parachute) technology (for one person) rather than invent a larger parachute system for the entire capsule.
2. You got the Soyuz re-entry module wrong. It's the "middle" (bell-shaped) section, not the ball-shaped end part.
Using Blue Origin as an example is...amusing. The BO capsule does not reach high temperatures as it merely falls straight down again. You didn't mention that the goal is to get into orbit, key point here. SpaceX exists! 😛
SpaceX wasn't mentioned because it has no future
Cringe af 🤪
Flying home and landing on a runway is so much more civilized than plopping into the ocean.
How about hitting the ground... softly... ish?
@@halfeld I mean if the aliens are coming to invade and the best they can do is plop into the water off Sarasota or smack into the ground in the desert like a hot air balloon landing….well I’m a lot less intimidated I’ll say that.
Go make a space plane then you fucking cunt
First off, the Dream Chaser has to get off the ground and into space. So far, Dream Chaser is no different than Starliner, a giant paper weight wasting taxpayers money and constantly delayed
@@thomaswakefield6889 yeah yeah. Starship should have every contract we get it..
Didn't Scott Manley make a video about how this was based on an old soviet design rather than the space shuttle.
That is exactly correct, it is based on couple of NASA designs, that themselves are derived from the BOR-4. I think it is major oversight in the video. Another blunder is pointing to the orbital module of the Sojuz and calling it the entry capsule... Good production value, but they should fact-check more.
XB flying wing variant like in the maker of the 6 million dollar man and director in the Movie Marooned used.
no, it's based upon a string of earlier US designs, which precede the Soviet designs
@@SoloRenegade you should watch scott manleys video.
@@martinmatola688 they also used new shepherd as an orbital capsule
NASA insisted that Boeing had to be one of the two Commercial Crew Program contractors because of "experience". We've all seen how Boeing's "experience" is working out both on Earth and in space.
Boeing got infested with Bean Counter Mentality. The Engineers lost control and Corporate Types emphasized short term profitability . They got Infected By Douglas.
Long term profitability requires that the stuff you build Works and doesn't Fall Apart or Crash. Once, Not that long ago, Boeing could do that. Once upon a time, so could Douglas.
Boeing lost their Vision and Their Mission. Their Reputation too.
If it's Boeing, I ain't Going
Yet they’ve managed to create the best selling airliner ever
@@nonbigbrain9662 Cigarettes sell well. Doesn't make them safe.
@@HK-oc3pn well this is different airlines wouldn’t buy an aircraft that had warnings all the time about it
No mention of Soviet Project Spiral and its MiG-105 (which, ironically, inspired it all), NASA HL-20 (the direct ancestor of DreamChaser - NASA ceded its design to Sierra), X-20 DynaSoar, Northrop M2-F2, Northrop M2-F3, Northrop HL-10, Martin X-24A/B, Martin X-23 PRIME, not to mention X-37 A/B, the only actually flying of those, a military "mini-shuttle" military jumped to after abandoning Shuttle, which they ruined by their large down-mass and "single orbit return to launch site" requirements (the only purpose of which cold be to quickly snatch a Soviet satellite).
There was also X-38, a proposed (and tested in atmospheric drops) ISS lifeboat.
X38 was originally supposed to fly on the Shuttle Orbiter.
The wings folded (just like Tenacity) so it would fit inside the 15x60 payload bay
...And Soviet BOR-4, Father or Dream Chaser
@@a.v.gavrilov Ah, yes, that one was a more direct "inspiration" than the older MiG-105.
There is no need to mention anything soviet as they are irrelevant
Had to chuckle at this at first as it “implied” that Blue Origin was this & that but did mention Space X later on.
Are you the same people who say that GM is the leader in EV’s.
You left Atlantis out of your space shuttle list.
who cares
I believe I heard Tenacity has been delayed and Vulcan will fly a mass simulator for her second flight to gain the ability to fly certain high profile payloads.
Sierra Space told ULA they weren't sure they could meet the deadlines for cert2. ULA went to Plan B, A mixt of ballast and experiments for better understanding of Vulcan Centaur. Cert 2 is a must for ULA's qualification for government/military missions.
Yes. I heard the same thing a week or two ago.
And it looks like the Far Scape which is awesome.
The way 4RA displays stats and info, makes deciding bets so much easier!
2:05 "A month later NASA conducted a similar mission under Project Mercury. The only difference was re-entry. The Astronauts didn't eject from the craft but the capsule itself kept them contained safely (...)" I have several issues with that statement. Most importantly, the manner of landing was not the only difference. And IMO not even the most significant difference. The most significant difference was that Alan Shepard's first flight on Mercury-Redstone 3 was suborbital, whereas Gagarin's flight on Vostok 1 was fully orbital and longer. Also, the way the statement is worded gives the impression that the Mercury spacecraft could carried more than one astronaut, which is not the case.
Major error at 6:07 - you stated there were four operational shuttles; Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, and Endeavour. WTF happened to Atlantis? You know, the one hanging from the ceiling at KSC?
The orbiter of the space shuttle (the actual "space plane") was not the issue, and it is one of the most reliable spacecrafts in spaceflight history. The problem with the space shuttle was they put the orbiter next to the giant orange fuel tank during ascent instead of on top. During launch, the fuel tank would drop foam onto the orbiter causing damage to its thermal tiles AND there was no "launch escape system" to safely propel the orbiter away from the launch vehicle in case of a malfunction with the boosters and/or fuel tank. If the orbiter sat on top of the fuel tank, 14 astronauts would never have lost their lives and we would still be using the orbiters today (albeit, with updated parts and systems)
Another problem with the STS orbiter is that it was designed to bring whole satellites back to Earth for repair, a feature almost never used. It was penny-wise and pound-foolish to skip modularity in satellite designs.
@@steveschunk5702 I agree. If NASA had simply pursued a "Dyna Soar" type shuttle instead of a behemoth, we would still be using space planes for Earth orbital missions today. Unfortunately, Von Braun and others simply could not imagine propulsive landings. Their 1950s mindset pervaded the reusability thinking well into the 90s. Starship is much more like the McDonnell-Douglas DC Clipper design.
it is useful to note that recoveries from cis-lunar or interpanetary distances and speeds are not suitable for winged craft.
That would require those Shuttle engines be located elsewhere - don't want to shoot fire from above the fuel tank. Eh - is was built to fulfill a lot of differing objectives, and that made it more complex and expensive.
Gotta appreciate how 4RA handles recalculations, always fair and quick
Felix Baumgartner wasn't the only exception. His record for the highest space dive was broken in 2014 by Alan Eustace.
Mr. Eustace needs a better promotional team…I keep up with this kind of thing quite a bit, though apparently not quite enough, as I had never heard of his feat. Thanks for sharing that information!
I wanna see a crewed version of this. It’s so cool.
Love how 4ra keeps adding new features, always something exciting to check out.
I love it for pure unrealistic reason, that it makes me dream of doing a space shuttle landing again!
A total of 14 space shuttles were built. The other 8 went to USAF, now under control of USSF. The launch vehicle was updated to eliminate the solid rocket boosters.
The tech behind 4ra's betting is top notch, bets go through so smooth
Sierra Space should have gotten the contract given to Boeing. Like SpaceX, they'd already have a working and veteran vehicle.
Well, Boeing is a major defence contractor that spends unthinkable amounts of money on lobbying plus a ton of ex military and agency members working for them and on the board. Not to mention all the congress members and other government employees that hold Boeing stock. It's no wonder they got the contract.
LEGO could have had a working capsule by now.
Space x should get sued considering they didn't meet any of the deadline by years
@@soley651
No one ever meets the deadline, and they're almost always years past due.
Can't decide to sue just one now.
But the fact is, SpaceX has gotten more done since Musk founded it, than literally the entire worldwide space industry combined.
In other words, SpaceX gets shit done.
Gotta appreciate how 4ra keeps everything transparent, betting feels safe and fair.
I got to watch 2 shuttles launch and one land. Never forget.
4ra's bet recalculations never disappoint, transparency and speed
The loss of the Space Shuttle was a huge setback I think. Despite its problems every time I see footage of the Shuttle it just leaves me amazed at what we can do and what an amazing feat of engineering Nasa accomplished.
Spaceplane is the way forward. Great work Sierra Space. The inflatable Space module is incredible.
I grew up as a boy watching the Apollo missions and it so fired everyone's imaginations for an exciting future. 👍👍
Gotta love how 4ra manages to keep every bet feeling fresh and fair, they know how to run a game.
When i first seen the space shuttle i didn't really think much of it but now i realize that quality & simplicity is everything
The original plan was a larger winged booster so that the vehicle was 100% reusable. But budget cuts forced the external tank booster rockets combo. I was always curious if NASA got the funding for that if we'd still have a second generation shuttle running right now?
I've been a fan of the concept of Dream Chaser since 2020. It's amazing to see how far it has come
It hasn’t “come” anywhere except in talk like this video. Zero launches, as in 0.
Excited for the Farscape program to get started. DC-100 is a perfect module for that gravity slingshot test.
Seeing the spaceshuttle within the indoor exhibit at Kennedy Space Center is a mesmerizing experience. Capsules mignt work but spaceplanes give me the rizz frfr.
What a time to be alive!
Mark Sirangelo is my mentor, maybe one day I’ll get to see the dream chaser in person, that’s my dream
I was so enamored with the space shuttle as a kid. Its sad and also exciting thats it's become a relic of history in my lifetime.
With reusable rockets (i.e. Rockets that can land) is there even a point to a spaceplane? On the other hand arguably Starship is a spaceplane ... it's got wings.
7:15. No. The round bubble on the front is not the Entry Capsule. It's the cone shaped in the middle. The bubble one is the orbital module.
You left the retro package on the Mercury capsule. It is jettisoned before reentry (yes, I know about John Glenn. That was an "anomaly.")
What I like about 4RA? They actually care about giving us fair chances unlike others.
My goodness, so much space goodness going on these days! Looks like we're going to see the 5th test flight of Starship & Booster, I can hardly wait to see it! Too bad about the Falcon 9 having that hard landing, coming back from its 23rd mission, but it is so amazing that Space X has been able to keep re-using its rockets time after time, I imagine there's tons of money being saved, which can be redirected to other projects. I so look forward to your Saturday broadcasts Marcus, because they are the best, most informative yet entertaining source of all space-related goodness going on in the world! Good on you mate!
2:06, That wasn't really a similiar mission as it didn't even make it to orbit, it was a suborbital mission.
More rockets!! More spaceplanes!! More exploration!!
MOAR
I love how 4ra handles verification, so quick without any fuss
Blue Origin is an entertainment company. Not a rocket company or space exploration company
Blue Origin hasn't explored anything more than how to waste people's money
Errors in presentation:
1. USSR/Russia fly cosmonauts, not astronauts.
2. The return capsule of Soyuz is the center module, not the upper module.
3. Capsules are no longer single-use only. SpaceX capsules are reusable.
4. Yuri Gagarin did not eject from the capsule while in space. He reentered in the capsule and ejected at an altitude of 7 km.
So many errors makes this a poor presentation.
Yes it will look good in a museum just like the Shuttle
Also let’s not forget the CNES/ESA Hermes space plane in all this and also the “paper” space planes swing developed by the U.K. in the 1960’s until the US quietly put a stop to it and the U.K.’s own indigenous satellite launchers
They need a version that does not require payload fairings. You do not want to negate return to Earth advantages with launch disadvantages.
Placing bets on 4ra is just a few taps away, tech makes it super simple
Can't wait to see this one fly, it will be so exciting to have the fourth capsule capable of re-entry and as it proves reliability to become the fourth capsule from America that can bring people to space. Maybe one day they can have Dragon, Starliner, Dream chaser and Orion all in space simultaneously.
6:10 Totally forgot Atlantis
no one cares
@@williamcase426 at least 8 people do
Space Shuttle *ATLANTIS* flew 33/missions, and even serviced Hubble.
How'd you miss her?
no one cares
@@williamcase426
You care enough to reply.
So apparently you do.
@@lordgarion514 nope
@@williamcase426 average goofy ahh terminator pfp user
Felix baumgartner Is NOT the only person to have skydived/jumped from a balloon around that crazy altitude. Heck off the top of my head I can think of 2 others. Joe Kittinger who did it first in the late 1950s/early 1960s while running tests for the US Air Force and that Google executive Alan Eustace who did it after Felix and who beat Felix’s record. I think there was a few others kinda close to them like 20,000-50,000 feet away both for USA and Soviet Union but the 3 that went the highest were those guys. Btw Joe the guy that did it first was the guy that helped Felix and was the guy on the radio during his deal. Felix was smart and found the only guy who had done it that high up and asked him to help and give all the knowledge. He’s the old guy in the video they always showed in the command center when Felix did his attempt. His full name was Joseph William Kittinger II he past away in 2022 at 94 years old. The man was a national treasure a hero. You should watch the docs on him! It’s sad he’s not famous and well known. Not only are his records in the 50s and 60s epic but his studies helped all future astronauts!
I met Mr Kittinger at the National Aviation Hall of Fame induction in 2000, at Wright Field. The night before the Induction in Dayton, there was a VIP reception and dinner at the museum for inductees, members and their designated guests. He was 1997 inductee and my wife and her cousin talked to him about operation high man for about 45 minutes, WOW! Very cool watching him CAPCOM for Felix.
Exactly! Came to the comments to say that Joe Kittinger had done it first, but you knew of more instances. Thanks for the thorough answer.
Antimatter propulsion needs funding
Give us the warp drive!
But why? Unless I’m missing something we are nowhere near controlling any noticeable amounts of antimatter, and the only thing that antimatter propulsion would do is conver more mass energy than nuclear… So you should just fund nuclear or laser propulsion that would give most the that would be hypotheticaly be attractive but could theoretically be designed sometime in the next 50 years…
anti- gravity machines already flying since 1938 by Nazis before WW2 and after in 1946 by US Navy.
@@georgesmith4768 you are absolutely right , and in case we are looking for long interstellar journeys antimatter would more effective
Dude
You realise creating the tiniest amounts of anti matter costs a fortune?
Not to mention containment 😊
What a beautiful little ship.
So excited for this project to launch and complete its journey mission! Wow this is similar to Space Force dreamcaser
Once that thing actually makes it in to orbit I'll believe it, that have been in development for a hell of a lot of years
I always enjoy watching those videos. Thank you for this great job!
Dream Chaser should be a big part of future space travel
Imagine running in a waist deep pool. Then run up a gentle ramp making the water more and more shallow. Your running speed increases dramatically. Then turn around and run that hard into the water.
Smaller is better. The plane will be more robust structurally. Very cool.
The Soyuz has there modules. The aft modules with the solar panels is the service module, unpressurized. The forward spheroid is the "orbital module" which is detached before reentry. The middle capsule-shaped module is where the astronauts are seated during launch and reentry. (Your line points to the disposable orbital module, but your voice narration is discussing the reentry capsule during that animation.
Gagarin absolutely returned inside an enclosed capsule, he only bailed out after reentry, at 7 kilometers (about 23,000 feet) because the capsule didn't yet have the ability to land safely.
7:20 the middle part of the sojus ist the landing capsule not the front sphere.
One of the design considerations for SpaceX starship was that it wanted to address a problem that dogged the space shuttle. The problem was that the complex shape of the space shuttle meant that every single heat shielding tile had a unique shape so there were thousands and thousands of unique he shield Tiles! SpaceX starship design took advantage of natural symmetry of its bullet shape to vastly simplify heat shield design. I’m pretty sure that dream chaser will face the same issue.
I love how they are using Blue Origin for the opening shots and diagrams. Yes, they reached space. BUT...they have yet to achieve orbit or orbital speed.
A good retrospect here, but a couple things to note: 1. Columbia broke apart on reentry. It did not explode. 2. Dream Chaser has been around a long time and was the original lifeboat for the ISS. I believe it was moth-balled due to budget cuts. I like the thing too and was bummed when they shelved it. To see such a cool design really be used would be great! Rooting for this one.
Dream Chaser is needed and should be launched sooner than later.
We must fly the Dream Chaser
Funny choice of graphics in the intro. Bezo's Blue Origin, despite it's hilarious phallic resemblance, doesn't even count as an orbital spacecraft.
Blue Origin is a joke
Exciting to see the space shuttle evolving into its original concept: a space taxi, not a space truck.
Except this has zero design lineage to the Shuttle. It's based of the much older X-20 (1950s), which evolved into the HL-20.
Felix red bull isn't the only guy to do that, someone broke his record shortly afterwards
I haven't seen space shuttle special effects since Moonraker! 😆
And, incredibly, the FX of the launch scene in Moonraker have held up rather well... and it was BEFORE the first actual manned flight! (The orbital scenes, not so much. ;P)
I really enjoyed that this Space Shuttle depicted did not need to have the payload bay doors open when on-orbit. They must have solved that heat radiation problem since 2011.
Don’t let perfection get in the way of ‘good enough”.
Just won with 4ra last week, their odds made it so easy.
So far, Dreamchaser reinvented Space Shuttle's delays 😅
Not that I'm against them - I LOVED Space Shuttles, cried when Venture Star was Cancelled and I wish to see cargo and passenge r versions of Dreamchaser flying to ISS and I understand that they didn't receive any funding since CrapLiner was chosen by NASA instead. Just I'm kinda annoyed when it was announced that they won't make it till their scheduled launch 😢
Funny you used Blue Origin as your example which cannot even reach orbit.
blue origin is just a fancy carnival ride for rich people
the new crewed type looks a lot with the lockheed martin proporsal for a CEV
Well done, now I can’t wait.
My last video before this one I thought about bringing the shuttle back but updated with today's technology. And then I found this video. Shuttle reinvented. How bout that.
Space shuttles make way more sense than the capsules imo. And the three story inflatable modules, if they're deemed safe and work correctly, could make a bigger, better space station achievable, as well as surface habitats on the moon and mars.
Somewhere I'd read that the Americans love to over-engineer their space tech while the Russians have prefered to find the simplest solutions possible in order to minimize complexity and risk (and presumably cost), which is why the Soyuz has proven to be such a reliable workhorse for decades. Yeah, it's a single use vehicle, but they "roll them off the assembly line like Ford trucks". And while splashdowns eliminate a great deal of the cost/complexity/risk associated with the Shuttle, it must be a tremendous hassle having to deploy ships at sea in order to collect the returning astronauts (who go from the danger of getting torched to the danger of drowning). In this day and age of advanced tech and manufacturing processes, you'd think that astronauts could now simply and safely glide back down from space to any airport, and then take a short walk across the tarmac (or ride a van) for a post-flight medical examination. Yay Dreamchaser!!! (Dang shame that Buran never got to really prove itself. 😞)
Soyuz doesn't do splashdowns, it generally lands somewhere in the middle of the Kazakh steppe.
2020: finally the dream chaser will launch
2021: finally the dream chaser will launch
2022: finally the dream chaser will launch
2023: finally the dream chaser will launch
2024: finally the dream chaser will launch
2025: finally the dream chaser will launch
2026: JUST LET THE DREAM *FLY*
true
How a video about space planes turned into a history lesson from 65 years ago.
A bunch of Dream Chasers, better than one space shuttle.
There was not just one shuttle.
@@filonin2 I know, I mean an active fleet all working at the same time.
@@rodneylee4026kinda like an active fleet of Shuttle Orbiters, like we had??
It will be interesting to see how quickly Sierra Space can leverage their Cargo Only Spaceplane technology to build a man-rated spaceplane. My prediction is 5-7 years to first flight, due to the difficulties of satisfying NASAs post-Shuttle man rating requirements. I think the service module will be required to generate abort thrusts during launch so that the Dream Chaser can separate from an exploding booster.
Very smart "we finished the space station, no need for a space shuttle anymore..."
7:18 That’s not the entry capsule. Thats the orbital module.
whoa dude
X37 has shown the usefulness of a space plane
Man that Mercury retro pack must have been tough as nails to survive those temps eh? 😉
I just feel much better and optimistic knowing that Boeing is not involved.
Boeing needs to learn to fly in the atmosphere first before they go outside it