The MAKS Spaceplane: Multipurpose aerospace system (Russian: МАКС)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 сер 2020
- The MAKS (Multipurpose aerospace system) (Russian: МАКС (Многоцелевая авиационно-космическая система)) was a Soviet air-launched reusable launch system project that was proposed in 1988, but cancelled in 1991. An offshoot of the ENERGIA-BURAN program it had two RD-701 rocket tri-propellant engines based on RD-170 engine from the first stage of ENERGIA rocket and using an Antonov An-225 as a mobile launch platform
- Наука та технологія
This was in my opinion the most hearbreaking history of the late soviet space exploration. Gleb Lozino-Lozinsky always wanted to make a small spaceplane like an interceptor, but american space shuttle soaked into politics heads so they said to make something similar. But even then Lozino-Lozinsky secretly worked with small staff on his project "Spiral" until they were unvealed. I remember his interview from 30 years ago and even then he told that we don't need a shuttle because of its useless weight so we need to working on an air launch systems. Then came 1991. No money, no country, no future.
Shuttle really fucked up spaceplanes, dreamchaser will hopefully be what shuttle should have been
Эт точно!
Molochness too bad that can’t save Russia’s space program, the day they get Orel off the ground is the day I’ll have faith. They have so many good ideas and concepts but the money is just not there. I want nothing more but too see yensei or the fly back boosters fly
@Molochness Putin cares about his oligarchs. Space is of little interest to him.
They thought that the American Space Shuttle was secretly a millitary aircraft. They had a couple of reasons to believe this, including a Space Shuttle launch pad being built quietly in Vandenburg Air Force Base. If a shuttle launched from here, it would fly over all the major population centetrs of Russia faster than any missile system could. The reason I bring this up is funnily, one of the reasons they thought it was a weapons system, was actually because of bad bureaucracy on the part of the Americans. The Space Shuttle was built apart of NASA's Integrated Program Plan, which would have built on the technology and experience gained from the Apollo Program to create a permanent human presence in space. This would have included moon bases, giant space stations, nucear ferries and even missions to Mars. The Space Shuttle would play a role in these missions by allowing for heavy in space construction and large cargo capability, and up to 60 launches a year, allowing for all the material required in these plans to be delivered. The thing was, this was around the time where NASA had 5 percent of America's national budget. This wouldn't last long however, as Richard Nixon would soon cut NASA's budget down to what it is today, less than one percent of NASA's budget. As such, NASA couldn't go ahead with the Integrated Program Plan. They went to the Nixon Administration and gave told them that they could keep one program from the Integrated Program Plan, and gave them a set of choices. Nixon chose the Space Shuttle, but of course, without the such an ambitious plan that would require the heavy lifting and construction ability of the Space Shuttle, it was kind of useless (the Space Shuttle later found a use in the construction of the International Space Station, so all's well that ends well I guess).
However, without the context of the Space Shuttles intended purpose, it seemed rather suspicious to the Soviet Union. They had a vehicle capable of 60 launches a year, but thye didn't have anything in their plans that required such an amount of material to be launched into space. Also, the costs of the Space Shuttles development balooned from what was origionally intended, because of the unforseen complexity of refurbishment. This also looked suspicous to the Soviet Union, because it cost a lot more than expendable launch vehicles, even though it was supposed to serve as a cheaper alternative to expendable launch vehicles. Becuase of this, the Soviet Union were convinced that this was secretly a millitary vehicle, to the point that when the first Space Shuttle launched, the Soviet media chastised the Americans for milliterising space. The Soviets were so paranoid, that they got their space people to start constructing their own Space Shuttle, to match the millitary advantage of the Americans. However, they soon learned that there was no such advantage, and now they had a space launch vehicle that was kind of useless to them, especially since the refurbishment costs ballooned as with the American version.
I find it kind of funny, how the Soviets mistook the Americans failures for some sort of genius secret plan.
Edit: Also, funnily, the Soviet Buran Program created a better Space Shuttle than the Americans. It got rid of a lot of the issues, such as the useless weight of the engines once it was in orbit. Also, Buran was able to fly automatically, although to be fair, the reason the American Space Shuttle couldn't do that was because the astronauts on the design team didn't want to be replaced.
Stunning work as always! The best part of your channel is that you cover projects most have never heard about and visualize them on a professional level!
I second that.
The collapse of the Soviet Union really screwed up space for decades.
It killed progress by at least 20 years
Exactly, imagine your country after a nuclear catastrophe, losing 50 million inhabitants, 35% of the GDP, more than 100 thousand patents, and thousands of kilometers of territorial extension, all this from night to day. It's a miracle that Russia has faced it mostly alone... Buran and MAKS are wonderful projects that were born at the wrong time...
It had to happen though, the USSR was evil simply by virtue of being a massive intrusive government.
@@araujofi I really wish those projects had succeeded, imagine two shuttles rivaling each other
@Theodore Boomy,
The US was in a financial bind at that time and NASA was the single largest Governmental cost at that time.
It would have been interesting if the US had felt threatened enough to allow NASA to build the Space Shuttle that they wanted to build rather than the Dangerous ‘Experimental’ Craft that was deployed.
Imagine were how things would be if they had been able to develop the Space Shuttle that they had wanted to develop instead of the what we received!
I’ve always had the Highest Respected the Astronauts who risked their lives to fly on the Shuttle, as every launch from the Very First to the Last was classified as Experimental!
The rocket engine able to switch from kerolox to hydrolox on the fly would have been a revolution in spaceflight. Kerolox gets you to space, hydrolox gets you to orbit.
Mode 1.: LOX-RP1-LH
Mode 2.: LOX-LH
Interesting concept. Of course, it's a question of optimising overall specific impulse and structural volume and weight. The Soviets were way ahead of the Americans in engine design for kerolox, but not quite so much for hydrolox, where temperatures are a bit lower, but LH2 density is so much lower than hydrocarbons. However, I'm not so sure that even Mriya could carry a usefully heavy fully fuelled vehicle.
The tri-propellant engine is fascinating.
quad propellant if you include the jet fuel for the AN-225
@@Hyperious_in_the_air Isn't it's also kerosene?
Hyperious
I meant the RD-701 engine is designed to run on LOX and Kerosene/Hydrogen. The AN-225 also runs on kerosene but it doesn’t fuel the spaceplane’s engine, so not quad propellant.
@@deregapreyahvattaffdiff Molniya RD-701 uses RG-1 kerosene and oxygen. Antonov use classic kerosene
What's especially interesting is when you see how high the "kerosine mode" specific impulse was, because they were "spiking" it with hydrogen. So the two modes were *not* hydrogen and kerosine, but rather hydrogen and kerosine+hydrogen.
Amazing! Awesome! Absolutely love this channel!
Even jesus loves the MAKS!
Hey Jesus!
jesus christ, it's jesus christ
Sup jesus
Jesus
That's awesome)
ye
Скай, планируешь видосы про космические проекты? Энергия, МАКС, ТКС и др.?
Endeavour Конечно. Но это все позже, не дорос еще
@@SkyShips , давай растишку пей.
Какие люди случайно повстречались на просторах инета!)
This is a very interesting way of getting to space
Very doable
Strapping a space shuttle to a plane
No username, Don’t forget the huge full tank to feed the shuttle’s rocket engines.
Quite the interesting 🤔 concept.
Who’s looking at this?
Russia, the Brit.’s, Private???
It’s very kerbal
@@hedonistaesthetic828 The Soviets. Not trying to be offensive, but please read the description.
Fun fact: the MAKS spaceplane uses an engine that runs on three propellants. The engine in particular was the RD-701. How it works is that the engine uses all three propellants, which was kerosene, liquid hydrogen, and liquid oxygen on the thicker part of the atmosphere, but once it’s higher up where the air is thinner, it will only use liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. Kinda cool if you ask me
Wonderful video. Particularly your vision of RD-701 and shifting from Kerolox to Hydrolox.
It wasn't from kero-lox to hydro-lox, but rather from kero-hydro-lox to just hydro-lox. The specific impulse from adding hydrogen to the kerosine was amazing. (Allegedly.)
@@craigrmeyer Thank you, Craig, for the comment. I think I knew this some years ago. By the way, I wish to see this engine in KSP, maybe as an extension for the Real Engines or Soviet Engines.
Maxim Sinitsa The Wiki article has some performance data, at least at sea level. So that’s something to go on. As for how to do a tri-propellant machine in KSP I have no idea.
@@craigrmeyer I saw some configs and discussions in one of the KSP-related forums (don't remember the name) but I wasn't interested in such things. I wish to have a physical model and not only a rough approximation of the real engine. I think that the main problem is a rarity of the engine: although being made in metal it wasn't tested in space. Its performances, however, are outstanding.
Rockwell did a study for the USAF in the early 80's for a very similar concept called the Space Sortie Vehicle. The carrier aircraft was a heavily modified 747 and the external tank was a bit longer, but otherwise virtually identical to MAKS. It never left the drawing board, of course.
MAKS was built into prototype and made flight test. The An-225 was already built then for the Buran.
@@Argentvs are you shure with this? As far i know the maks gets only a partial mockup
@@renanfeitosa101 The mockup was the prototype, it didn't flew alone, it was carried for flying tests. Not as a full machine.
The SSV seems a bit crazier. The An-225 has a split tail which works really well for a design like this, but the 747 does not. It seems both dangerous (if engines fail to ignite), and aerodynamically unsound (the Shuttle Carrier 747 needed modifications to its tail due to carrying the shuttle on its back).
A number of sketches seem to show a 747 with a different tail, but this seems like it would greatly hinder development, as it would need 2 new vehicles
Thank you for bringing this up! The Space Sortie Vehicle (www.thespacereview.com/article/1608/1) was a wild idea. It involved stuffing the carrier 747 with LOX and LH2 tanks, and adding a SSME engine to the tail, so they could release the SSV as fast, high and pitched-up (~60 deg from horizontal!) as the 747 could possibly manage without breaking. Holy crap just imagine if HazeGrayArt made a video of *that* (hint-hint).
Sadly, once again, air-launching just never ends up a good idea in actual practice, especially if you have to throw away a disposable external tank from the orbiter also. But WOW what a spectacle.
Love this channel. Every video is a treat.
i somehow feel like the engines would not light when the spacecraft was so close to the carrier aircraft -- even if the fuselage didn't get barbecued, the acoustic energy would almost certainly shatter more fragile elements like the tailplane
You're right. They'd probably have to drop/throw the MAKS off the Antonov, and then try to light it once the Antonov was at least 10-20-30-40-50 meters away. If the MAKS couldn't light then they'd have to drop the loaded fuel tank and then land the MAKS like a glider. Fancy footwork!
I'm sure the rear structure of Antonov would be coated with pure Stalinium, able to withstand direct impingement of rocket exhaust.
@@vibrolax ah yes, stalinium. right next to unobtainium on the periodic table.
Would there be that much acoustic energy at that high altitude? ( no atmosphere)
@@shellybelly9205 The rocket engines are shaking, so the metal structures are shaking also.
i love the small attention to details in the background during the take off sequence. that sukhoi afterburner trying to keep up with maks was a nice touch.
Thanks for ultra-wide format!
I disagree :)
I found the looks ov it quite peculiar from the start: small, with a sloped underbelly, stuby wings and a penguin like beak.
Probably one of the favorite designs I've researched
Very cool animation
You really nailed the sound dub!!!!! Everyone is talking about the animation which is obviously great, but the sound is exceptional too.
The amount of work put into this! Thank you! I imagined the separation moment differently but overall the video looks super real.
I love seeing the fighter accelerating before launch to attempt to keep up with the shuttle.
Apologies for not digging through your videos sooner. I subbed and followed for your SpaceX stuff, but your content and the conceptual stuff is amazing! Good luck getting your 100k subs buddy, it's well deserved.
Love your bids. You do great work and do a great job at illustrating these often forgotten concepts.
Молодец, зачёт!
Благодарю за уделённое время!
Желаю всем хорошей жизни!
God, these renderings look so realistic! Awesome job!
Would the rocket have been ignited right on top of the Antonov like that?? Jeez, those pilots would have to have nerves of steel.
Not that I'm aware. From what I've seen the AN would have done a parabola maneuver and released MAKS at the apex as it dove away at which point the smaller orbital maneuvering engines would have fired to settle the propellant and then the main engines kick on and the MAKS begins pitch-up. Launching a space-plane from the top of an aircraft is probably the most dangerous method of 'air-launch' since most designs have little inherent lift with their overall mass. (The MAKS has essentially zero at the point of launch and drops like a bomb till the main engines reach full power and it pitches up. The only reason the AN is 'falling' faster is because at the moment of launch it is in a power dive to try and clear the area :) )
@@randycampbell6307 - You really think the vehicle would've had enough control authority between release and main ignition? I cant imagine this thing not just tumbling the moment its released if the gimbals arent up.
the noise alone would most likely destroy the carrier and kill the crew
If I remember the opening scene from "Moonraker" where a Space Shuttle is stolen by firing the main engines from atop the 747 carrier plane, the 747 is destroyed. I doubt the 225 would survive this launch.
@@motokid6008 When released it's essentially falling in a free-fall arc. Between the control surfaces and the orbital rocket motors (the shape of the whole vehicle played into this) they figured it would have enough stability between release and main engine start. One way to find out :)
Thanks for the awesome flights of imagination brought to visual life
Thank you
You really capture the energy involved in these launches.
You just keep getting better and better.
I presume the Rockwell "Space Sortie Vehicle" scheme -- like a MAKS but where the carrier 747 also had a SSME Shuttle engine on it to push it to a 60 degree attitude angle -- would be an awesome video, but also a *ton* of work to put together. Just saying. ;)
Superb rendering!
Nice CGI, looks real. Good Job.
Awesome work😉
This may be your best work yet
big like from Max from Russia :-)
I once made this in KSP and got 1.7k subs out of nowhere. People gotta be very interested in this project. Too bad it's scrap metal now.
I'm one of those subs! ^^
l watched your MAKS in ksp
Я еще один из тех, кто посмотрел твое видео, это было эпически круто. Ты сподвиг пересмотреть отношение к русскому космосу 80 х. Как жаль, что действительно великолепные проекты хороня тглупые люди в своих политических дрязгах. По факту у нас был многоразовый корабль еще в 80х и если бы целью мира было развитие и дружба, то путешествие на марс или спутники газовых гигантов уже бы было действительностью для всего человечества. Мне так жаль, что мрак средних веков все еще тянет многих в пучину небытия.
1:45 is really breathtaking!
Man the soviets had some really cool ideas.
I love your channel soo much
Soviet russia had some great engineers
I just wish they flew half of their proposed projects. A lot of them are really cool.
Yes.
Yeah german engineers lol
@@novakane8722 Lozino Lozinski (the general constructor of "Buran" and "Spiral'") was Russian.
UKRAINIAN engineers
Спасибо автору за МАКС
Бред сивої кобили.
@@user-zf4to7qy9r Твой бред
Очередной мультик и ничего более.
на аппарате написано "МОЛHNЯ", господи, разберитесь с русским языком чтоли, если делаете нормальные ролики...
Чего блин илон маск мрию с бураном спёр чтоли
I love how the MAKS speeds up faster than it's carrier instantly. that achievement makes me want to cry about how far us humans have gotten to date
Love it!! Beautiful video! Please add some telemetry in the future!
Great work, i love your videos.
amazing as always
Very epic
Je suis stupéfait, très réussi! Merci pour ce partage encore un fois remarquable! Un abonné de France...
Cool as hell! Beautiful animation. 🤩😍
That's a really nice concept , the space station wasn't expected at all but made all the doubts clear . Maybe not the flying plane but a rocket itself will propel it one day and go to Mars with the same components and ideas . This was really really really crazy thinking . Hands off to you!
This was a Soviet design that was under development when they collapsed
You deserve so many more subscribers
That launch reminds me of the cold open to Moonraker, where they hijack a Shuttle off its carrier.
Cool animation, this has to be the most efficient way to get to space.
Фантастика которую у нас украли...
Класс! Спасибо!
Impressive machine!
Best animation I've seen so far for that particular concept. 👍
Порадовал👍
э дааа
The iss animation is super cool👍👍
Usual quality and interesting subject - many thanks.
The only one of these I've seen where the rocket takes off from on top of the carrier - in every other example, they are dropped from underneath. We need an Everyday Astronaut or Scott Manley comparison video explaining why they are mostly dropped!
It allows for gravity to separate the mothership from the rocket. When you release from the top, the mothership has to push -1g in a dive in order to separate sufficiently from the ballistic payload before it lights its engines; the scheme as presented in this video would probably destroy the mothership.
@@dsdy1205 - Yeah thats what I was about to mention that setup looks sketchy as hell and would've cooked the Antonov.
Enterprise flew in drop tests from the top of a 747. But no rocket motors were aboard.
Wow, very interesting launch. I am guessing it could work well
To the admin or community member? What is the music at the beginning? I was a symphonic percussionist and it sounds familiar.
Логично в сопровождение МИГ 31 или МИГ 25 поставить, но не СУ 27.
Super good!
Great animation!
They light the main engines *while it's still attached to the carrier plane?* How do they plan to compensate for the strain on the connecting points and the heat load on the aircraft fuselage? Better still roll authority with those tiny wings is going to be virtually nil. Are they planning to use onboard thrusters or variable thrust for the main engines to keep the stack from spinning around its long axis?
I think main engines were gimbaled.
Awesome video... Now i wish scott manely to make a video on MAKS and explain the details and history about it :D
Great work
The collapse of the Soviet Union was the single worst thing to ever happen to space exploration
The USSR gave up on an actual Moon Landing a good couple of years before the US actually put a man on the moon.
Most people don’t really understand just how much it cost!
It maxed out at 8% of the US GDP!
@@hedonistaesthetic828 Thats just entirely untrue. The only thing that stopped the soviets from getting a man on the Moon first was the constant in-flight failures of the N1 rocket. Its not that they gave up, just that it wasnt working.
Mendonça & TALope,
The USSR Never Gave Up its work or investment in space.
{You can now ignore the rest of this or see how we learned about this & the results of there stepping back while the US continued to spend more than most people realize}
After the US, in the early 70’s, gave up on the last couple of planned Moon missions & drastically cut NASA’s funding {which help lead to the Space Shuttle debacle}, as they had reached their goal, they cut the spending; as at that level (Apx. 8% of GDP) it {along with the cost of Vietnam & ‘The War on Poverty’) was just to much for the US to continue spending on. (It also helped lead to the Stagflation of the 70.’s).
While the Soviet’s continued to invest in space, they actively stopped working towards landing a man on the Moon, and up until the Collapse of the Soviet System (do to an unsustainable economic system) they proceeded to turn their efforts towards LEO and Aeronautics, mainly Military.
Of’ Course none of this was ever officially or even within the USSR acknowledged.
The Only Way that we know now, that the Soviet Union had Formally stopped and redirected there efforts, was that during a very few short years after the Collapse of the USSR the West gained a temporary, and unprecedented access to numerous internal Documents, Communications & Paper’s from the Soviet Era.
At that time, many in the West recognized that this access was unlikely to continue for long and spent almost more time simply copying the archives available to them as actually Researching what was available during that short period.
It is from those Documents that (among many other things) it latter came to light of the shift in the USSR’s priorities!
Don’t take this draw back from landing a man on the moon, or the changes in the Soviet’s Shift in their Priority’s in any way as an Abandonment of their interest in or continued investment in Space;
It was simply a recognition that
for them, at that time, it was simply unsustainable.
They would let America continue to spend in this (to them) Over the Top manner while they redirected their more Limited funds in those areas they perceived as being of greater importance in the Cold War.
Something that did pay off very well for them in, particularly military, Aerospace Aeronautics.
You can now go back to Your regular programming.
I remember that this was the first video I watched from this channel
A little nitpick: all Soviet/Russian space station modules used the basic Salyut/Almaz configuration with a very obvious feature of having two parts of different diameters. Originally, the larger part was sized to fit a Earth-facing telescope/camera, and the other was smaller to accommodate various external stuff like antennas, while still fitting into a simple cylindrical fairing. Everything from '71 Salyut-1 to Mir modules to yet to be launched Nauka/MLM ISS module uses this form.
But attention to detail here is amazing - frost on the An-225 tail camera, one of Sukhois going full afterburner on MAKS separation in order to catch several more seconds of close look, _Unity_ module of the small joint station...
If it’s Hazegrayart then it’s a guarantee of a well done and interesting video.
Great workaround, piggy back ride up to the limits of atmosphere dependant propulsion, then use a disposable fuel tank to cover the rest of the distance. The fuel operates differently at that altitude so it's a simpler system but by combining different methods, it makes the process more efficient in a way. Instead of having rocket stages to break inertia, you start off at greater speed and altitude in lower atmospheric pressure. The entire craft is lighter at it's starting point .It's less technical than space x, but it's very resourceful and seems reliable in a way. Cool stuff.
Awesome vid. What a strange concept.
Someone must have been VERY in love with this concept. The render pays better attention to detail than most I've seen. I don't comment much on other renders, but this one was extremely well done until they got up to high altitude, complete with image reflection in the aircraft wings and photo realistic lighting (not to mention the weather effects that would have been very accurate if they'd added a lot more speed and motion blur to it). At the highest altitude right before mother ship separation the lighting was off for both the atmosphere and the mother ship, the clouds were inaccurate, and the reflections went away - although at that altitude there wouldn't have been much beyond simple reflections of the other craft in scene when looking down. Quality fell off after that (ex.: the engine exhaust plume did not expand anywhere close to as far as it would have in a vacuum, lighting was way, way off due to a extreme lack of directional source and lack of severe extra-atmospheric contrast), but that only means it dropped back down the the quality that is more typical of other renders.
And wheels of the mother plane are not rotating.
Amazing
One of the later versions of the proposed HOTOL used a similar way to launch.
I love this animation! Would you mind sharing the STL files for the MAKS spaceplane and external tank? Thanks!
Tnx
I really wished this thing was real. This is my favorite spacecraft/space plane of all time.
RIP Antonov An-225
Well, you will not get away with lighting off two rocket motors while still attached to the Antonov.
It’s good to see the space race is picking up pace../
Super 👌👌👌👌👌
R.I.P. An-225
Good animation
sublime
Still a better movie than Star Wars, the Rise of Skywalker
Wow like a plane sim game
All else aside, this is one of Hazegrayart’s highest resolution and realistic animations yet
I was waiting for this.
AMAZINGNES!!!
It's cool!👍
wow even a block for orchestra was in the design.
I worked on Interim HoToL and on one trip to Molniya got to meet Gleb Lozino Lozinskii (I was an all-too-fresh engineer and barely knew who he was).
This is lovely work on an utterly bonkers launch 'vehicle'.
It's pretty good. Definitely looking forward to seeing more 3D models in your videos.
But I also have some things to point out.
The thrust vector seems to not be pointing through the center of mass, which would make the spacecraft spin IRL.
In the spacecraft release clip, the MAKS spacecraft starts moving forwards, whilst the engines point a bit down. It would crash into the An-225.
Plume expansion in upper atmosphere. Your animations are lacking it. It did change color though, a bit abruptly. I'm not sure if that should happen or not.
In the opening clip, the An-225's engines look weird. Like some really crappy scale model kit. It's hard to explain. Also, the antonov is drifting on the runway :'D
Calm down mate it’s only an animation
@@strigonshitposting793 I am calm. I'm not being hostile or anything. Just pointing out some small things that'd improve the animation. But I guess you can't say anything on the internet without upsetting someone...
@Katniss Upsetting? I was just saying how you shouldn’t be expecting so much out of an animation.
@@strigonshitposting793 Yes, upsetting. That was the impression I got from your reply.
Nice!
I love it
Are you using blender? (if not theel what program/programs) i'm just curious.
try to ask the author via email....
How do you fire rocket engines that close without causing significant damage to the aircraft below?
Top marks on the vid guys
The Soviet Union had some crazy ambitious plans to go to space. It's sad history went the way it went.