Baikal Heavy Test Flight with Flyback Boosters
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 жов 2021
- The Baikal booster was a proposed reusable flyback booster for the Angara rocket family based on the Angara Universal Rocket Module in 2001. It was designed by the Molniya Research and Industrial Corporation, reusing the flyback and control system for the reusable Buran orbiter.
- Наука та технологія
I literally yelled WHAT when the fairing deployed
I do get it though
It's how the Russians will militarize space.
russian tesla
@@AndrewTubbiolo yes
@@AndrewTubbiolo Russia already for decades propose in UN to deny militarization of space. Whole world supported, even China joined. But US against and blocks this resolution. It is meanness to blame good guys in crimes of bad guys.
Hazegrayart is always showing us that other reality with all the cool toys we'll never get.
I nearly fell out of my chair when the fairing peeled back to reveal the tank with the little cosmonaut waving out of the drivers seat. Applause sir!
How ironic that Russian Tank is right now, almost as if Hazegrayart knew something we didn’t 😳🤔🤣🤣🤣👍🏾
Nevertheless, jokes aside, the great sense of humour displayed in these otherwise very serious animations is always highly appreciated 😁👍🏾
The folding wings are insanely cool. I absolutly love the concept of fly-back booster. So cool to have a rocket powered by basically spaceplanes. The German Liquid Fly-back booster concept would even have had a Super-heavy version with 5 fly-back boosters! Imagine the stage separation on that.
Too much weight for landing gear, wings and extra engine on the front, the idea will never be more useful and beneficial than SpaceX vertical landing;) I think it will forever remain, as concept only;)
@@antontaranenko8824 Ukrainian, I want to tell you that this is a delusion. Their weight will be no more than the lattice rudders of Sergei Belotserkovsky installed on the rocket stages of Falcon 9. In addition, by reducing the number of required rocket engines, it is also possible to reduce the weight of the rocket. Instead of 9 engines installed on the Falcon 9 rocket, you can put 4, 5 or 6 rocket engines.
@@antontaranenko8824 Good point. But I think only landing the engine block as in the ADELINE concept might work.
@@antontaranenko8824 Plus, on orbital vehicles wings help reduce thermal loads on the vehicle (no need for cryofuel inside to land, larger surface area).
Time traveler: Moves a chair
Entire timeline:
Me: goes to Dallas 1963, saves JFK from Oswald
JFK: Cancels Apollo and offers joint mission to the Soviets, soviets accept.
Me:……
I mean, I’m not complaining.
@@TBone-bz9mp **they begin project orion for joint Mars mission**
russia going after the roadster with the T14. Perfect
This video has one hell of an Easter egg😂 The critical info here is that some news outlet claimed the T14 Armata MBT can operate on the marsian surface.
And if it has a fully electric drive train, and a battery, it probably could for at least a limited time before the heat built up to a level that would not let things operate. The issue is that if you're relying on convection for cooling on Mars (like most air-cooled radiators on Earth do), you're gonna need to spin those radiator fans a heck of a lot faster. At least the atmosphere will be quite a bit colder, which will help things. But the better idea is to instead rely on radiative cooling, just like they do in space. The atmosphere is so thin that making a radiator that cools via emitting IR photons (like the radiators on the ISS) is a good idea, instead of just transferring the heat to the atmosphere (like the radiator in an automobile).
You'd still have to deal with the quite significant waste heat output of the engine in that case. Doable, yes,but it would look more like a pile of radiators and less like a tank, and you'd only have to shoot it once and run away to disable it as it would overheat easily if you punctured a radiator.
SpaceX: Has reusable boosters
Russia: has flyback boosters
SpaceX: sends a car to space
Russia: sends T-14 to space
NASA launch AI equipped, flight capable Abrams, the brigade is born!
Unsure how accurate it is but I'm going to say, _Payload so very Russian!_
NASA sends armed drones to Mars.
Yeah well only one of these are reality.
@@patman0250 That’s unfortunate, because it would be amazing to see a T-14 in spaace!
Fly back boosters are just something to behold, absolutely love them! These animations are incredible, keep up the hard work! 😁🤙🏽
I absolutely did not expect that payload
Incredibly satisfying as always.
You have a great sense of humor in your choice of a ballast payload! 🤣
Roscosmos should pay you for your work!
My thought about this video is just
"A Rocket sending a tank to space, with Fly Back booster that somehow can fly like a plane"
…thats exactly what the video is.
Lol! Did not expect the Armata
NOBODY expects the ARMATA!
I really like the Baikal system... I liked it ever since i found out about it in early 2000s... Its a shame it was not done, even though Russians built and i hear actually tested 1 booster... they also presented with concept at MAKS. Baikal is the actual booster with wings, its seems to be a spin-off from ENERGIA 2 booster concept.
1) Loved the payload :)
2) My favorite scissor-wing flyback concept. One (minor) nitpick that I'd point out, (but not very hard as it's only mentioned I think in one report specifically but is shown in some but not all illustrations) is that it turns out the swivel point of the wing is actually NOT at the "empty" CG and the wing has to translate about 4 to 6 feet 'backwards" before locking into place due to this issues.
As always though the video and animation work are superb and fantastic!
Проорал с "Теслы-14"
Welcome to the official kerbal space program in real life channel, with the best cgi you'll see in a while.
The only imprecision I noticed in this animation is: once the side boosters completed a job, they just fell to the sides. Actually, in Soviet and Russian space technology, they do a "крест Королёва" ("Korolev's crisscross"). So as not to hook the launch vehicle, they are given lateral acceleration, and they diverge, tumbling. Otherwise, everything is perfect.
Those are only applies to Soyuz Rocket family 🗿
for a moment I thought the booster was with a helicopter propeller
Like Roton?
@@caav56 y
I've been waiting to see this design for a long time. I wish someone would do a physical flyback booster.
I know, right? Compared to things such as SpaceX self-landing boosters, it obviously adds some weight and some possibilities of failure, varying from the wing failing to unfold to control surface issues. But the design is theoretically much more flexible, since the landing location doesn't need to be precisely at the end of it's trajectory. Also, if there's some trouble at the landing point, it can theoretically land elsewhere.
I think the reason some soviet/russian designs intended to go this way is that the terrain in Russia varies a lot over distances, and can be very rough, so it's not always ideal to try and land the booster at the location where it's going to fall. With this, you can alter it's path, and have it touch down safely at just about any airfield.
I love wings-and-wheels. A Small/Stacked Heavy-lift Vehicle from NASA's SPS study had similar payload to Starship, yet only 4000t mass when full (less than simply the mass of fuel for Starship)! And that is even with some mass reserve! Apparently, winged flyback/aluminium construction is a pretty efficient design!
Awesome. Your work is on a higher plane of reality than all the others.
хахаха))))))) оригинальный стеб на полезную нагрузку)))) респект автору!!!)))))
"Ну что ещё отправить в рекламный полёт могут эти русские!" 😂👍
@@nhhfdyhvdfghh неужели в танке сам Рогозин ☝😁
@@nhhfdyhvdfghh .. maybe "aurus"? ))
@@user-rw4hb2no7f у Рогозина всегда есть его личный заместитель - робот FEDOR ☺️
@@user-rw4hb2no7f в обмимку с роботом Федором
Ngl, Russia didn't really learn from the concept of the Uragan Rocket which also had flyback boosters.
But, nice animation and a fantastic payload lol
How can there be a failure with something that was never created? Therefore, it is too early to speculate about whether it would have failed or not
@@kovalsky4971 Sure thing. I just realized that they were never tested
The rocket itself (energia) was a success (at least in terms of lifting payloads) but the flyback boosters where never built, although I imagine at least some aerodynamic testing was done to look at their viability.
@@hydrogen5624 BTW, Energia launch vehicle was unable to launch payload into orbit, so all her payloads, such a Polus and Buran was sefpropelled and need to launch their engines to reach the orbit. Polus also failed to do this.
@@user-mc5oh2pl7t I agree. I meant that the energia rockets' stages didn't fail, but the payload stage did for the Polus
I think the flyback booster concept is underrated
The audio in these videos enhance the visuals so much it’s insane
Stunning animation. If only Russiaspace put as much care and attention to detail into their efforts, they might have something as beautiful as this.
Corruption is the biggest problem at this time... really sad actually, they can do much more.
Angara: hold my beer !!
If you could get over the extra mass penalty of the flight kit it should even make upper stages recoverable.
@@WrongDemographic They go too high and too fast. That's a proper reentry then. Conducting a halfway stable, aerodynamic gliding reentry from orbit or a high altitude/high velocity suborb is no small feat at all.
For that design, sure, but it's obviously possible. Added benefit is the low mass to volume ratio. Certainly harder, though.
You are the best!!!!!!
This is beautiful.
Gorgeous animation as usual! The payload killed me lmao xD
The mythical LFBB: Liquid-fuelled Fly-Back Booster.
Awesome.
But your amazing skills often show us things that never were - which is a little sad!
Beautiful animations as always👍🏻
Awesome! Can't decide which I like better, your videos of real systems or the conceptual stuff. It all rocks. Great job.
Beautiful work!
Now that’s excellent concept..thumbs up.
magnificent work
Очень круто! Классная работа, как всегда.
Always a pleasure to watch these.
*TANKS IN SPACE!*
Another great animation - well done. I came for the backing soundtrack to the animation - I wasn’t disappointed…!!! 😃👍
Beautiful animation.
Tanks for another great video!
You should post your stuff on NSF Forum, a lot of people there would appreciate it.
Space tanks!.. Yes!!!.. 😁🤓
Nice work!
_"TANKS For The Memories..."_
😊😊😊
That tank was a nice touch 👌
Fine until the weird tank bit! I wonder how the US would react to that? OK, it's just a tank in space, but, on the other hand , it's a TANK in space!! I like the way the Russians seem to have solved the reentry problem with no heat shield too....
The fly-back boosters are on a similar flight path to the center core of the Falcon Heavy rocket, or something even more gentle.
Yes, heat is an issue, but it's not coming back from anywhere near orbital speed so the need for a "shuttle-like" heat-shield is eliminated. Certain areas do need protection with thermally resistant coatings and the like, but the heat load is much less when you're just coming back from like mach 5 instead of mach 25.
have you animated the Yenisei rocket? if not, you *really* need to. it's a beautiful rocket that has pretty unique staging.
Isn't that the stack of 6 Soyuz core stages as side boosters around a central one?
"They told me this was a training mission, now I'm invading the Moon?!"
Just beautiful. Absolutely beautiful.
2:50
*HARDBASS INTENSIFIES*
Interesting idea... of course the added mass of the wing and the landing gear on the boosters means less DV for the launch. Not sure how that compares to the extra mass that SpaceX uses with their landing legs and the fuel they have to reserve for landing. Maybe they are about equivalent. But the re-usability of both ideas is probably the bigger factor as far as cost savings. you said this was proposed by Baikal back in 2001... was it an abandoned concept or it is still a possibility?
Baikal abandoned.
Falcon 9's legs have weight about only 2 tons.
BTW, Falcon 9's boosters utilize some fuel to fight with re-entry speed, that can save weight, cause you wouldn't need a thermal shield.
Actually Russia have 2 announced reusable rocket: Amur-SPG, known as Soyuz-7 (Amur - is a russian river, SPG mean LNG), and Irkut (Also name of russian river).
Soyuz-SPG is actually Falcon 9, but with 5 engines on first stage and LNG as fuel. 10,5 tons payload in reuse mode. Launch - 2026.
Irkut was announced not much time ago. First information we get in October of this year. It's 3 stage rocket, with payload of 384 in reuse mode. BTW, third stage is something like Rocket Lab Photon, so it can be launched far away enough.
Set against that is the fact that this concept has a lot more flyback range, so it wouldn't need an expensive fleet of drone ships to recover it at sea for higher-energy launches. The trade-offs are complex and fascinating.
@@MrHws5mp It's have no thermal protection or re-entry burn ability, so it won't be able to fly very high AND far away, so it would be easier to do flyback maneuver.
In other hand, it have no ability to do a booster-back maneuver, and it would be hard to stop this thing fly far away from a launch site. And it can destroy all advantages in gliding abulity.
BTW, this thing have a very heavy nose.
@@MrHws5mp Had not thought about the drone ship expense ... true.
@@user-mc5oh2pl7t true... if they don't boost back or do reentry slowing ... it would have ot land way downrange somewhere.
Could you do the Small/Stacked Heavy-lift Vehicle from NASA's SPS study? It has similar payload to Starship, yet only 4000t mass when full (less than simply the mass of fuel for Starship)! And that is even with some mass reserve! Apparently, winged flyback/aluminium construction is a pretty efficient design!
Can you give me a link?
BTW, is this hydrogen-utilizing launch vehicle?
@@user-mc5oh2pl7t I found it in NASA Technical Memorandum 58238 relased in 1981, titled Satellite Power System: Concept Development and Evaluation Program, Volume VII - Space Transportation. In particular, I refer to the Small Stacked variant (described on page 28), with a 12.5m diameter and a 112m height. Methane - oxygen first stage with six 8323kN engines, hydrogen - oxygen second stage with six RS-25s, carrying 130t in a 11x14m payload bay. Probably the closest thing to Starship ever imagined, but much more efficient.
"Apparently, winged flyback/aluminium construction is a pretty efficient design!"
It's a non-existent design.
@@rboosterman9944 Non-existent, yes - but so thoroughly studied you could easily take that data and build a rocket out of them. And as I said, it also had a lot of extra mass piled on, just as a safeguard in case something turns out worse than expected.
@@HalNordmann
"but so thoroughly studied you could easily take that data and build a rocket out of them."
Easily? 🤣
If it's so easy, why couldn't anyone actually build a spaceplane booster for over 60 years?
And then, in only a few years, Elon Musk built his reusable booster that lands as God and Heinlein intended.
Great animation❤
"There is a Starcomrade waiting in the sky, he like to come and meet us but..."
every time I hear that angelic music, I get goosebumps
also space tank lol, just like ksp
Great video as always!
My only critique is that the liftoff audio was a little odd. There didn't seem to be any engine noise.
2:21 Falcon Heavy Vibes.
The animation is great, but the payload joke is the icing of the cake. That design with the flyback boosters was begging for it!
I was like “A TANK!?” and showed the tank to my cousin. Looks like Russia is battling aliens now :D
nice animation
I love concept
Mesmerizing animation!
As long as those aero control surfaces and landing gear are heavier than 4 grid fins, however, we'll never see this IRL.
4 grid fins and fuel for the suicide burn
@@74Cosmo74 Good point, thanks.
And the fuel reserve for propulsive landing is pretty big. The Falcon 9 needs 3% of the entire fuel supply to land on a barge, and 10% to return to launch site. However, wings allow flyback basically for free, while only having about the mass penalty of offshore landing.
And every writer in Hollywood is like "Take notes! TAKE NOTES!!!" 😁😁😁
Seriously, when the fairing dropped I had to laugh out loud - this was a good one!👍
Got the moment of fairing jettison is such a good and funny reveal
I swear you are single handedly rivaling NASA level animations
Tank as payload .. That's cool. !!
Graphics and physics feels like very early Flight Sim games
LMAO Tank to space 🤣
its a shame they never had the control systems and engines to make it work. The added weight of the wings made them all but unusable.
AMAZINGNES!!!
This certainly gives me meaning to the term, _"Space Cannon"._
😊😊😊
quite nice: animation
Ambos tipos de reutilización (aterrizaje propulsivo o alas) tiene ventajas; por ejemplo el aterrizaje con alas permite gastar todo el combustible (pero desventajas como la disminución de la carga útil por el peso muerto de las alas o trenes de aterrizaje), mientras que el aterrizaje propulsivo está limitado a no gastar todo el combustible para el aterrizaje, pero tiene ventajas como el mantener su peso real sin casi nada de peso adicional (solo patas de aterrizaje o a veces paracaídas).
Ojalá lo lleven a cabo
Was expecting flyback boosters to go bomb Voronezh. Other than that- great video:)
ракета "энергия" второй версии, тоже должна была садиться на аэродром.
Smooth 💘🌟👋
Aw man, glitches at 2:28, the exhaust plume in the right and then left frame disappears briefly in succession. Wonder what caused that one.
Now land the tank, using the music "Radar Rider" (from the movie scene which helped inspire the space Tesla).
ksp 2 looks amazing with Ray tracing
The main problem with a fly-back booster is the cost of development. It's incredibly complex compared to what SpaceX did with F9. And while you're ironing out all the kinks, every time you lose a booster you also lose a complete jet aircraft. It would be a lot of money.
The F9 self-landing was also very expensive to develop - the costs were just not visible to public.
@@HalNordmann No.Not close to the level of developing a fly-back booster.
@@NameNotAlreadyTaken2 Why not? The unit cost is slightly bigger, yes - but since you don't do incredibly risky "suicide burns" or rely on complex pieces of hardware (engines) instead of well-understood aerodynamics, you don't need to replace your test units as often. The Space Shuttle was developed with only one flyable prototype, and launched and landed perfectly on the first attempt.
@@HalNordmann The aerodynamics of fly-back boosters are not well understood, like at all. It's not riskier. Quite the opposite.
@@NameNotAlreadyTaken2 The Space Shuttle flew to orbit and back in a much harsher regime than flyback boosters, 134 times, never failing due to something in aerodynamics not being understood. NASA was researching transsonic airflows and exotic aerodynamics even before it was officially founded (as NACA back then), since aeronautics is also part of their mandate. Is that not enough experience?
Yay 10 seconds early
Get this guy to top comments.
Мило)
The video was amazing as always but the payload was literally out of the 🌎.
Im assuming you use blender to make these animations, would you consider either making videos, or a side channel showing how you made them, or giving a tour of the files
Love it.. the ONLY thing I would change.. the the unnecessary SHAKING..
Where did the tank comefrom?
of course they fly a tank out to space
Niice
Hazegrayart should do a video about the Zeus nuclear electric spacecaraft
Il fallait y penser... Placer un T14 Armata en orbite!
Didn’t expect tank
Супер пупер все должно быть именно так
and where is the thermal protection?
Imagine this landing on your local airport
CARRYING A T14 ARMATA THATS OVERKILL
2:52 nice