its possible to make one, you just have to get the balance correct.

​@@alexvives1335 I found it easier to make a Buran style shuttle in the end. The balance was less finicky.

Once you figure out how to line up the COMs and COTs through each stage it’s fairly straight forward. I did it in one single design iteration after I figured that out and I know $&#% all about physics 😂

@@thomitch1995 ofc it would, Buran and Energia are better.

@@machirim2805 none of that commie talk here, thank you very much

Unless you can make fuel at your deatination.

Thats why Apollo went off as a huge building size and returning could barely squeeze 3 folks inside.

It takes fuel to carry fuel to carry fuel to carry fuel to carry fuel to carry fuel ...

@i don’t know what to do here if you can make fuel at your destination you dont need to carry that .. so you save a lot of weight and complications. thats what SpaceX is trying to do developing fuel plants so a future mission to mars could had the fuel for the return trip allready on Mars.. same concept as used in the Martian where the MAV had a fuel plant processor wich made fuel during years on the surface from the atmosphere so they would not need to carry that fuel with them in the inbound flight

To carry more fuel you need a bigger rocket... The bigger the rocket the bigger engine you need to lift it... The bigger the engine the more fuel to feed it l... And so the cycle continues as a balance is hard to find

My question that noone ever answered is why did the orbiter have the massive dead weight of the main engines on it, if they could only be used until the external tank has been dropped? It would have made much more sense to put them right below the external tank and only give the orbiter engines that it could actually use while it is on its own. Interestingly thats exactly how Buran would have worked, so sad that it got cancelled.

@@Chuckiele I think there's a lot of weird things the shuttle did

@@Jaker788 yeah, but this is something that really bothered me, because it could have allowed the launch system to be used for other heavy payloads and would have made the orbiter more versatile and efficient.

@@Chuckiele I think it's because of the RS-25 being a cripplingly expensive engine so recovering them for reuse on the shuttle was done to try and reduce launch costs.

@@ezraprice6709 Well, the RS-25 was only designed to be this expensive because they knew it would be reused, it obviously would have been way cheaper if it was designed to be expended, but I thought making the external tank plus engines a proper reusable first stage would have made much more sense. Landing savely is obviously not easy but at least the engines would have to do that much of a reentry.

Well, you know.. Apple - the thieves of everything great.

*The God Emperor shifts uncomfortably on his throne.*

FOR THE EMPRAH!

US Space Marines. I dont believe I would be hearing that today

They should be called Astroines

@starshipeleven that thing flew pretty far for proto-plywood.

@starshipeleven STOVLSSTLO sea plane? :P

Don't forget the wing mounted machine guns that we wasn't in frame

@Chi Sam A comma after "impertinent", or none after "silly", would've been rhetorically norminal* . _______ * *norminal,* yes

@@muxite6035 It's an errorist attack, there's no reasoning with errorists x^))

That was my thought. I haven’t gotten around to watching the show yet but I did see someone had posted the sea dragon clip to UKposts awhile back. So I was confused when Scott started talking about a shuttle in the season 2 trailer. I was thinking didn’t they build a sea dragon? Why would you go from the sea dragon to the shuttle.

My question is how do these things work? Because today we have treaties about helping astronauts and nukes in space and all, but do these exist in the show?

Too much drama, not enough meat. The people that made this show have a very vague and romantic idea of what the Space Race entailed.

The Sea Dragon's biggest hurdle was development, after that it was supposed to be a cheap rocket, made from cheap parts. Why would they EVER go from it to clunky, expensive, accident prone craft? Appeal for casual spaceflight fans.

If they were to develop a reusable spacecraft it wouldn't have looked like Shuttle anyways. STS was a design by committee, NASA, USAF, NRO etc all had a say in it and the ended up with an inefficient design. In the show's setting they would have the funding and political clout to develop more mission oriented spacecraft that could better meet specific needs.

The main issue I have with that is the Seadragon could launch both the space shuttle (orbiter), and the payload It could launch four orbiters, and fit them all, all to low earth orbit The space shuttle becomes completely pointless

@@glauberglousger6643 gotta love hollywood 🫠

At least they gave it a mention so a non engineer would at least have to google it.

They only used sea dragon for big cargo - Jamestown modules, mining equipment, etc. Possibly the second LSAM but the first one was sent on a Saturn V. Day to day supply was done by Titan rockets.

​@@glauberglousger6643the main issue with your idea is that the sea dragon wouldn't, and really couldn't have been human rated

I expected 4 SRBs instead of 2 and a direct ascent

@@TheAechBomb A Space shuttle heavy :)

Well, at 5:23, there are some neat ideas for More Boosters.

@@kangirigungi yeah :)

4 SRBs would only require some more support cross beams inside the inter-tank. The whole weight if the Shuttle stack is supported by the single inter-tank crossbeam and the two SRBs.

@@cabraham9838 I think that too even before watching this

They already did To the Nazi's

@@robertsutton8894 iron sky

@Geoff Canyon - Me too, from Coco Beach Florida, top of a 300 ft. high grain silo acroos the canel, 6½ miles from the blast. That was the closest spot to the launch out side of NASA. Even closer than the VIP observation bleachers @ the base. - How's that for unbelievable luck from someone from Chicago on a trip into history. I owe one to the man upstairs for indulging me on that one. Best view ever!

I mean, historically it was quite a draw, America went to the moon, and the Soviet Union did almost everything else, which also explains them giving up (among other things)

It would have been a blessing to NASA in the long run. Almost unlimited spending would follow.

And they also refuel in lunar orbit to make a slow down maneuver before reentry

I'm hollerin' 🤣

I'm imagining a couple of astronauts with guns hanging halfway out of the shuttle's cargo bay and doing a drive-by on a Russian space station at several kilometers per second.

@@timothymclean that's exactly what everyone was thinking 😄

I’d imagine Wagner Die Valkyrie is playing in their space suit helmets during the strafing run? Maybe Proud Mary in the battle zone arrival moment...

Canadarm better hold a katana to deal with those aliens

lmao, accurate

lmao, 'mott stanley'

aah mott stanley the youtuber who works as software engineer at microsoft and studied astrology instead of astrophysics.

All those extra launches costing billions more dollars rather than finding a cheaper solution.

Hmmmm I don't know if you have read Space by James Mitchener, it's worth the effort. One of the main characters is named Stanley Mott (the rambling wreck from Georgia tech). I wish they would remake the Mini series( based on the book from the 80s)

The Space Shuttle was conceived as a reusable "shuttle" for tranportation of humans and cargo to LEO. The plan was for it to be one component of Space Transportation System (ever wandered what STS stands for, eh?) and of course moon and beyond were definitely important destination of the STS. Just look up "Space Tug" on Wikipedia.

i mean it could have been a "we have this thing that works, lets make it do more." instead of a new design.

I could see the Space Shuttle being developed, but as the LEO truck it was meant to be to build space stations and perform other support missions; not for actual travel to the moon.

Kaleb - NASA was Origionally going to use DC-3 in the 1960's , modified and Outfitted for Space and Launched by Saturn Derived Launchers. DC-3 was a Perfect Airframe and it could Easily made AIRTIGHT. and the Metal Skin would be a Efficient HEAT Radiator.

@@markplott4820 This idea is delightfully insane.

Bring back the saturn V has just one problem that no one has figured out a solution. The engines were severely modified after building and there are no details or blueprints of it.

@@josealexandrereis Yeah, I wasn't actually proposing that, I was just trying to make a point.

"Well yes, but actually no"

@@josealexandrereis You can still operate a Saturn V with solid rocket motors. The SRBs have twice the thrust of a F-1, albeit with less thrust time but you can always add more solid fuel.

@@Edax_Royeaux I usually go with more struts

They both work for Apple so it isn't too far-fetched...

Which is odd, given that their actual technical advisor is an astronaut

@@cmdrvaneia1498 RE: "Which is odd, given that their actual technical advisor is an astronaut" Technical advisors on movies and TV shows are often NOT listened to. To the producers, "dramatic license" is more important and scientific and engineering accuracy.

@@spaceman081447 I mean yeah, it is more important to create a fun piece of media that the general audience is going to enjoy then make sure a bunch of nerds (myself included) don't have any problems with the logistics.

He wouldn't have lasted long after he told them de-orbit would melt the shuttle.

I am reminded of a very old saying, "Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story."

I mean he does work for Apple so...

@@yes_head 8m ko

@@yes_head Wouldn't the extra delta-v from a full ET leave it plenty of gas left to slow down a lot before entry, even after boil-off?

Yes, and Columbia was supposedly in lunar orbit when the solar storm hit. Yet no worries about how the crew or the hardware would respond.

Scott: how to fly to the moon .... "You don't"

Patrick's Music The heat shield tile would probably not withstand the reentry of 40.000 km/h.

Wroger Wroger Well, still several of the tiles came lose already at the first Journey.

More like: "This is how but you probably shouldn't also who ordered the char broiled shuttle crew?"

Wroger Wroger So, No tiles have come lost during the latent flights?? Go Ask NASA and Don’t forget to Ask them if a Shuttle would survive a Moon Journey.

I thought the same thing, especially since they just about could have hung onto the external tank all the way to orbit

"Prelude to space" features this, and a "shuttle" too. It was written in the early 1950's! The shuttle makes many missions to orbit to leave fuel tanks, then carries up a smaller lunar module "empty", this then fuels in orbit and heads to the moon. In an amusing "of it's time" moment, they say the big shuttle can stay in orbit "until the crew run out of cigarettes"!

My first thought was "some kind of Earth orbit rendezvous, only reentry would be a problem at the end." Unless there was some kind of reverse injection burn prior to reentry, which would vastly increase the fuel requirements. I imagined docking with a new tank rather than hauling the existing one, but similar idea.

@@worldcomicsreview354 Earth-orbit rendezvous, usually with the reentry vehicle being hauled to the lunar surface and back, was definitely the preferred idea in most of the early articles from von Braun and such. It'd work but there's a lot of complexity. Seems like more recent plans for a revival of the Moon program combine EOR *and* LOR, to bring the launch requirements down a bit.

태선우TaeSunWoo That was an Ytterly silly movie and the ”gravity assist” scene was totally stupid. You can’t accelerate around Moon, to get ”gravity assist”

@@YDDES 1 it was a joke. 2 you can gravity assist around the moon

That is actually the part of the movie that (sort of) makes sense. It is not enough to get where the asteroid is at the right time. You need to match speeds with it to land. The lowest delta-v way to do that is to do something similar to an Apollo 13 style free return hyperbola around the Moon so you're going the same direction as the asteroid, THEN match speeds (provided you have enough time and the Moon is in the right place). Also, obviously the US shuttle and the Russian space station were obviously more advanced (then-near-future) models than the ones actually orbiting above the theaters.

For the tiles they might do a multi-pass setup where they intentionally skip off the atmosphere a few times and then do a reentry to the ground, but the Shuttle tiles weren't perfectly reliable so that might need some handwaving to make work completely.

They probably dock with a space station, before re entry

​@@chrisw443If the space station manufactures & stores fuel, that would make sense in order for the shuttle to have enough delta-V to do a deorbit burn; but then it would need enough delta-V in order to do a holmann transfer burn in order to dock with the space station in the first place.

​@@efulmer8675 What's really handwavium is both countries having the tax revenue to have a sustained space race; Between the space race, the arms race, domestic underproduction, and international 'influence operations,' the USSR's economy went belly-up.

Honestly, with thicker tiles and a better bonding adhesive, they might have pulled it off with a 'multi-pass' approach as suggested above.

i saw it :)

I was it, very cool

So maybe it's flying TO the Moon in that shot? Nah, what am I thinking. That show looks so dumb, there's no way the people behind it could possible realize that spaceships don't have to fly nose first.

Not necessarily. I think it's preparing for insertion burn. Woudn't it also be bad if debris destroyed the engines?

@@thick45 while it would be bad, destroying the engines is far less of an issue than destroying the cabin. The three RS25s were just dead mass in space, and if the OMS was damaged, they could always send up another shuttle to rescue the crew.

Oh hey Jared! Enjoyed your new vid

Your videos are awesome, keep them coming! I would like to see what you could animate in the way of rockets :D

Hey you! Stop right their! Have a nice day! :)

2 kings collide

Hey Jared

I think they still carry cargo, but only comparatively light cargo and small amounts of it, as the M16's came with the marines on a shuttle mission.

Using the wings, they could have a much shallower Re entry glide path reducing the heat load. Between this and an upgraded TPS, it could be possible. However, more practical would be the shuttle remaining in LEO with a lunar ferry craft

It was a great one.

Fuel ferries, I think that would probably be better then fuel fairies.

@@poopkiler2768 Given the continuity error, probably fairies.

Depends who has to milk the fairy :)

@@randomnickify Shit just went from 0 to 100 real quick.

@@poopkiler2768 idk. A waive of the wand and your tanks are magically refilled

Or worse, "fuel furries". º__º

it would be fun to know what science advisors they have. Probably don't need that many I guess.

@@snuffeldjuret they have at least 1 former shuttle Astronaut I believe

@@snuffeldjuret probably as bad as the people who mess up badges on military uniforms in movies (my navy dad, NAVCOM always rants on this lol)

Honestly if you are a professional science fiction writer then you already know better than to let things as trivial as physics get in the way of a good story.

@@Marinealver I feel there is a balance; the expanse's "extra speed" to make transit more sensible (like kerbal's scaling) is ok. technobable, and sharknado level of rediculous is bad. That's my take at least.

yeah it just seem kinda lazy. it makes sense that the Apollo would be very similar to the real thing, but after that its chaos theory, everything could be completely different.

A good use for the shuttle in a lunar programme would be as... well, a shuttle, to ferry astronauts from a translunar space tug to Earth's surface and back. ;)

@@mikicerise6250 accept Space Shuttle isn't at all what would be proposed as a shuttle, rather the fueling system for what would was originally the Earth-Moon shuttle in the STS proposal.

Even the wacky Chrysler shuttle would have made a little more sense

Yeah, esepcially with Sea Dragon in the S1 ending stinger, woudl have loved for the show to show more alternative proposals and show the deviations from real

You could as well hire Scott to help you make things make sense ;)

Well they have actual NASA astronauts as advisors on this show.

AHAHAHAHHAHAA MAN YOU TOLD HER OFF HUH?

Are you sure that was not a shirt for the movie " Airplane 2 " ?

I think you mean Mun

It's theoretically possible, biggest challenge other than fuel or reentry protection would be landing and takeoff from the lunar surface. Could a plane-like vehicle take off horizontally in a lunar environment? It's very different design from anything built to date, even SpaceX's Starship. If successful though, Starship would have a big rival (as it could land on ordinary runways rather than specially built landing pads and towers).

I always had a ridiculous idea of placing the Apollo modules in the cargo bay of the shuttle. I think a video on that was already done and explains why it won't work.

@@EstorilEm lol

Thunderbird 1 a plane-like vehicle needs air for the wings to have lift. There is no air on the Moon. So no.

You probably don't need a Sea Dragon to send a reactor to the moon, unless the thing already has the reactor shielding on it. Sure you wouldn't want to be next to a newly built and fueled reactor on a trip to the moon without it's shielding, but reactors really aren't all that radioactive inside until the control rods are withdrawn for the first time. Until that time, the only radiation the thing would be putting out is that from natural radioactive decay, and that's a tiny fraction of the radiation of an active reactor. So you can transport the newly constructed reactor with the control rods all the way in, with no/minimal shielding, so long as it's an unmanned rocket. Once it gets to the Moon, you bury it in the deepest hole you're capable of digging, as far from the habitat as the power cables will reach. Long power cables are much lighter than bringing all that heavy reactor shielding with you all the way from Earth. Of course, sending earth-moving equipment to the Moon might very well need a Sea Dragon.

@@44R0Ndin I assume they'd launch a fully ready-to-go reactor, rather than an IKEA box of parts to assemble on site. Maybe the rods are stored separate, but honestly probably easier to just have a fully ready to plug-and-go system rather than risk trying to assemble something that critical in space suits and low-gravity, while the Russian are lurking around in the hills.

@@TheGeekyDudeFromWI That's what I took away from it being a sea dragon too. It'd allow the whole thing to be launched together. Rather like when in Kerbal you build a big contraption and just throw the budget out the window and pack it into a massive fairing.

@@44R0Ndin You can design earth-movers specific to moon which would mean they could be a lot less structurally rigid, hence lighter.

Lol! “It would be an awful shame if anything should happen to your boosters wouldn’t it...”

Scott Manly: Your Space Show has broken the Laws of Physics.

LOL yeah that "fly safe" had a very ominous tone to it ;)

Noted. Since now it's topic-appropriate, I'd be a helluva lot more inclined to follow Scott's commands if he carried, oh, I dunno... an assault rifle.

A bit late, but the trainer thing you are talking about is probably called a LLTV (lunar landing test vehicle). It is designed to basically teach astronauts how to land the lunar module. And yes all of this was already mentioned in the show

Was you surprised to find out he doesn't do what you ask him to do?

@@IOwnThisHandle Tbh I couldn't care less, I got Scott doing it so I'm happy.

@@billy4734 You didn't get Scott to do anything at all. You're powerless. This wasn't your idea at all.

Yep. Definitely wouldn't have been as much of an issue if it skipped off the atmosphere. Having the aerodynamic control capability that the shuttle provided would make it an option that simply wasn't on the table for Apollo.

You'd run into the multiple passes through the van-Allen belts problem again I think.

My knowledge of orbital mechanics is mostly acquired from playing KSP, so this reply is mostly guesswork, but I believe the problem with that is that there isn't a feasible trajectory to return from the moon that would allow a more gentle re-entry unless the vehicle started out to overshoot the Earth, then burned retrograde in order to be captured into Earth orbit, then burned again to lower its periapsis into the upper atmosphere. This approach has some problems. First the vehicle would need delta V in hand to perform the initial Earth orbit capture maneuver and again to lower its periapsis. Even assuming it had enough fuel to do this, if its engines failed to re-ignite for the initial capture burn, the vehicle would overshoot Earth and either be lost in deep space or get stuck in an extremely elongated elliptical orbit. Simply grazing the upper atmosphere on its first approach would have the same result. ie if the approach was shallow enough not to overheat the heat shield tiles, it wouldn't be steep enough to slow the vehicle enough to capture it into orbit and it would skip off the atmosphere and be lost in deep space. This is why Apollo was designed to come back from the moon direct to a fast+hot re-entry. Because it was cheaper simpler and more reliable to build a capsule capable of surviving a hot re-entry than it would have been to send enough fuel all the way to the Moon and back that the CSM could have used to perform an Earth orbit capture maneuver leading to a lower speed re-entry from low Earth orbit. tl;dr. Anything's possible if you have enough Delta V and are confident your engines will light when needed, but unlike KSP, where you can easily fast forward through multiple highly elliptical aerobraking orbits, your Kerbals will put up with anything and losing a crew and vehicle is a minor inconvenience, real astronauts want to get back home as quickly, safely and reliably as possible.

@@Andrew-Kerr It would be _literally impossible_ for skipping off the atmosphere on a lunar return trajectory to send the shuttle into deep space; at worst, it would have ended up on an elliptical orbit that would still intersect the atmosphere on the next pass, and would still eventually have braked down to a low orbit. When you're returning from the moon, you've _already_ been captured into Earth orbit (given that _the Moon is in Earth orbit)._

They’d pass through the van allan belt too many times, and it would take too much time

A cute 'in your face deniers' demonstration, that the film of Apollo astronauts on the moon was not faked.

I like that those flaws are there. It shows that it's not as easy to fake as some people claim.

@@gaydonaldtrump it's funny you call em lazy and then lazily assume they're landing the shuttle

@@darth856 If a bunch of youtube commenters get those easily I'm sure a decent production crew would too, if they just bothered to pay attention.

@@gaydonaldtrump sci-fi show has one detail about movement "THIS SHOW IS SO LAZY"

SpaceX - hold my BEER.

starship? BUT it has not wing, it has aerobreaks. And lunar lander version will not have them and it will not have sea level engine. EDIT: and it will not have thermal protection. So basically nothing. Edit 2: I am really stupid. This is not about starship, this is about space shuttle

Actually the RS25 engines are not optimized for sea level, the nozzle is as big as it can get before flow separation would destroy it. You can see the over expansion on some engineering cameras

@@Jaker788 also, it uses cool trick with changing its shape, so it can be realy big without flow separation

It's perverse.

One heck of an evocative image for sure. I don’t think we can get a happy ending out of that.

@@ryanrising2237 nothing good can come of it...

I know right, like another comment pointed out, it's perverse

@Alpha Centauri [this is fiction] it could be refueled at the lunar orbital station. With that extra fuel, it could slow down so much that it would be safe for it to safely re-enter earth's atmosphere

Doctor who reference incoming.

@@diverguy3556 his tinfoil hat may have overheated his brain.

So it's bad at science and fiction, in that it gets science wrong, but being bad at fiction means it's factual? Disregarding that issue, Isn't that like 95% of science fiction?

aserta The second season failed at that. But hey it’s a tv show yeah know.

@@pricelessppp We don't know it's failed yet, no one's seen it.

Is the show actually bad from a storytelling point of view?

@@Mastikator I don't think so. It gets a little muddled in interpersonal drama instead of the space side of things, but I think it's a solid show.

Some early space craft used wood for an ablative heat shield. Modifying the orbiter with an extra layer of heat shield should not be that difficult. Just costs mass. If using external fuel tanks refueled in orbit you have some mass to spare.

Now we need a "Could Buran get to the moon?" video

Me neither 😂

I tried a direct push but i am 6th?? How fast can a man be!?

I thought this was an ad for a game for a second...

Always

Nobody cares.

In KSP you could do that and slowly reduce your apoapsis or you can use a lot of extra fuel to inject back in to low earth orbit after which the re-entry would be as normal.

But it makes sense in terms of alternate timeline, the shuttle they used could be different but look the same. Doesn’t have to be 1:1 with the one we used until 2011, could have secret design and flight profile differences. Same with season 1, the Apollo csm for Apollo 21 onwards might not be the Block 2 CSM.

+Jay Polasek; Who are you and why do you keep commenting that.

the advantage was the huge fucking payload bay. but why not just launch everything in a single giant fairing without the need of the extra fuel to send it back ?

In terms of small space plane, a common argument (which is used as a Scenario in the Japanese manga "Space Brothers") is: If someone is injured, their body cannot sustain the high amount of G's, and a spaceplane entry in theory have much less G. Granted, during that scenario, they ended up transit from moon to ISS in an Orion capsule and then do tele-surgery, but I think it's an emergency surgery to stabilize the patient (sharpeniel injury on Moon) before the actual transit back to Earth

You just described me watching Sharknado.

surprise seeing you here, now go make more videos >:)

Did your dad work for NASA?

@@Nostradamus_Order33 probably for apple

Tell me about it, even Kubrick had that part figured out in 68

@Jay Polasek Yeah, I initially forgot to specify the props department. Im sure someone there has been reading it and been suffering disappointment from their coworkers.

Nyrath/Atomic Rockets has his own issues. The guy knows a lot about science, but virtually nothing about military tactics or technology. I got into a long email exchange with him years ago where I argued space fighters are not as useless as he made them out to be and he eventually started arguing in favor of AI controlled ballistic missiles that were basically space fighters in all but name. If you're talking about the rifle props, they're fine. They'd likely function. Someone even had the bright idea to paint them white for helping with the heat.

@@matchesburn I have to disagree a bit on the rifle props. I do agree they would function but definitely not to the extent or performance you get on earth. The white paint would only help with reflecting heat away from the furniture and does not help with cooling the actual weapon system like the barrel or the action. The white furniture is actually quite insulated and separate from the heat emitting parts of the rifle. So they would probably experience severe overheating issues faster than they would if they were in atmosphere. There there's the issue with aiming. I see no way they can actually use their scopes without resting the rifle against their helmets.

@@HCFyD they could have a smart scope and have the camera feed into a screen in their helmets

If we went to the moon in 1969, why can't we do it anymore?

@@GM-lj8ct Budget constraints

G M we Will, as soon as we have figured out metods to ”harvest” ice at the poles. What’s the Hurry?

@@YDDES No, we won't. The moon can't be traveled to. It is a light in the firmament, not a rock in space. That's why we haven't been back - we never went.

G M From where have You got those hilarious idéas? From the ancient goatherds, sittning around the campfire, fantasizing about the universe? Of course, we can travel in space and have been to the rock, called Moon, that falls around Earth.

They bought ar-15 pattern rifles. Most likely the M-4 variant

Myhn !?

Mün. As in KSP.

And when you meet someone shamed jebediah you automatically think their last name is Kerman

My first tought after thumbnail was: Scott must have seen it

Agreed