Robert Truax was truly great.

Maybe.. in pre-computer modelling.

Poor whales tho.

@@candyjaywee yeah, in their defense they studied using artificial lakes

@@markododa Why not the US controlled "Great Lakes" that could be accessed much cheaper than buying up huge pieces of land for artificial lakes? The other option for artificial lakes would be to reclaim some ocean area, Holland style, a bit like their Ijseelmeer.

Too bad that when numbers come out NOT supporting Elon's and SpaceX antics, or are downright unavailable, cancerous, easilly triggerable Elon's fanbase cries bloody murder....

I love it too, so true

Could have happened. The Apollo Program killed a lot of more sustainable projects, because it sucked up pall funding, and then died of being way to expensive, killing all innovation for decades. Ironically, without the race to the Moon, space technology would likely be far more advanced today. Project Orion would have been by far the best. It didn't require any fancy tech, materials, or manufacturing, but could deliver insane payloads, and not just to LEO, but anywhere in the Solar System. It only needed advanced nukes, thousands per launch, but that apparently wasn't an issue.

The problem was they were actually TOO massive to work. Bono was one of the few to address the likely damage such large boosters would do during launch. He had his ROMBUS launch not from a normal launch pad but one situated in the middle of a bowl shaped concrete ring which would be partially filled with water at launch. In addition to a massive sound-suppression water spray system the standing water in the 'bowl' would take on a concave shape at launch due to the engines firing and that and the shape of the bowl would direct the sound upwards so sparing the Cape and surrounding area from massive over-pressure sound waves. As the ROMBUS rose the shape would change and gradually 'defocus' the sound allowing the vehicle to pass through without harm. (In theory anyway :) ) The Boeing "Big Onion" used and artificial lake for takeoff and landing for the same reason with several of these 'launch bowls' spread out along the shore and the LV floated and towed into position for launch or recovery. Vehicles like the NEXUS and AMPLV were suggested to be launched from offshore platforms but the distance needed for such huge vehicles was prohibitive. (It doesn't help that sound carries better over/through water either)

@@randycampbell6307 Meanwhile SpaceX is like "Fuck the Whales / Entirety of Texas anywhere near Boca Chica"

@@andrasbiro3007 Granted the fallout / radioactive emissions from a non orbital only Orion would be horrible

The concept of those "Generation Ships" was (and i guess is) a crazy possibility that could have been done with those simple yet giant Orion rockets! I wish we had more SciFi exploring the social aspects of all that besides the mess that "Ascension" was.

SLS block 2 will never fly. It is too expensive and Starship will probably be flying by then.

The new rockets will develop more thrust but may or may not beat the saturn in payload to leo. Definitely an amazing rocket for its time.

Next year the satn 5 will finally be beaten

@@EtzEchad Well, if they manage to build these raptor engines... Elon has been quite scared about that lately...

Actually, the USSR's Energia rocket was more powerful than Saturn V, and the Urugan derived from both Energia and the Buran Shuttle would have been fully reusable.

So just more communist lol those other things just describe communism

I almost died!! epic comment

Scott will be remembered for that one!

@@welchphilip I think this meant specifically spotty funding towards the UR concept. The USSR space program received enormous funding throughout, it employed the best and had an entire government ministry dedicated to it, linking up hundreds of dedicated R&D centers and factories all over the Union. Thing is, UR was a concept that Chelomei's space company pushed for, for DECADES, but despite having some defenders at the top, they always lost out the favor (and the BIG funding) to Korolev holding's solutions in the end. So that's what "no actual funding" means.

ALL of the consepts craft in this video isn't a fuel saver, Raven( 9:50) just needed mass adjustment and the ability to fold wings of orbit bulk parking, the military ground to ground (9:00) needed a 2 stage, where the adjacent rockets to slide out as a skycrane *pelt* , no canister explosion danger, parachute second stage land, avoiding a 2 full round trip escape vessel

- The *Saturn Nova* was designed be some 50% larger than the "5" was. - It was the original rocket slated to put a man on the moon with a; direct to moon & back Command (no rendezvous) rocket but it also required an additional upper stage. - What most people don't know is that the *real* reason von Braun *reluctantly* opted for the LEM rendezvous method was that the first stage of the *NOVA* was too big to make at the rocket building plant & would have cause a serious time delay & additional expence of building a huge new manufacturing plant & larger 8 F-1 rocket motor clusters testing stands in Huntsville AL. Putting the entire Kennedy; "Man on the moon before the decade was over!" mandate in jeopardy! - So we got to the moon first & on time with a smaller rocket but gave up a 4 manned post Apollo LEM that would have then used the NOVA's extra power for the "Moon Rendezvous" method later in a next step moon base building program. - You have to remember that von Braun didn't give a rats ass about the moon. For him,, It was always about going to Mars. And his up graded NOVAsl could have sent an *Apollo 8* styled manned 3 ship fleet mission to orbit Mars with stacked to modified *NERVA-RIFT* powered *SkyLabs* by *1984* (1 extra, double stacked, supply Sky Lab to remain in Mars orbit for docking future landing missions in1988). - So we won the Space Race folks! But lost out on what now would have been historicly past manned Mars missions. All because a building was *too small!* ......

@@mydogbrian4814 probably a bit if a money issue as well 🤔

I initially read BDB as Big Dick Booster

@@thisisyourusernameondrugs9373 Thinking with the other head, i see

Send the idea to Elon after Starship

@gay bowser Playing too muck Kerbal eh? I did the same

@@thisisyourusernameondrugs9373 You're telling me it means something other than this?

Agreed

The serie was amazing until they came up with the space shuttle

@@lorisperfetto6021 the finale also.

As in the designs using 8 Segment Solid Rocket Boosters, or 8x 5/5.5 Segment Solid Rocket Boosters on a single rocket?

How is it a screw up Boeing has been paid for alot more than a decade and still lots to come a perfect project by their parameters

@@alanrickett2537 I'm guessing, you're a government employee.

Boeing has deliberately screwed US tax-payers -- not "the pooch". The entire company is immoral and corrupt with the blessings of US Senators who receive large campaign contributions in return. How very sad ☹️

@@alanrickett2537 The sls is taking longer than expected, and is costing much more than expected. Its a similar situation with starliner

Tweakscale is for capitalist pigs.

It's called "The Aurora Tree", and it is from NASA's APOD: Astronomy Picture of the Day. Give that a search.

@@Double_Vision Thanks!

there isn't 69 though :(

@Locut0s - von Braun was my longtime celebrity hero. You need to see his Disney made ion powered fleet trip to Mars from way back. It'll blow your mind! - Say,,, are you sipping yours tru a straw? (Hic)...

12:19 "...it looked like a Proton that just kept on adding stages and tanks after it should have stopped." Point supported.

We also don’t use it anymore for various reasons and the shuttle wasn’t designed for long distance space missions.

Other way around, the Boeing "Space Freighter" was designed from the work done on the Shuttle Orbiter.

STS was a compromise between NASA and DoD to be able to steal a Soviet spy satellite and take it back to Edwards/Groom Lake. NASA wanted a crew ferry to send people to work on things launched on Saturn Vs, DoD wanted massive crossrange landing capability to grab a spysat and bring it back on one orbit, and then Nixon cancelled the Saturn program. And once it was built, the Air Force conveniently forgot about it and never used that capability. And fourteen people died because it was kind of a crap design.

@@randycampbell6307 Well regardless. Using the same craft to leave earth especially a manned craft then require it to land back on earth is incredibly stressful for the craft and incredibly dangerous for the crew. Space craft should stay in space. Then you send the human crew, fuel, and a separate lander which can be different depending on where it’s to land say Earth, Mars, the Moon. Sure way more expensive but allows for much more versatility and modifications.

@@DeliveryMcGee Crap design? Only 2 failures out of how many flights?

I believe he addressed that in a q&a with "most of my time in making a video is spent searching for images to use" so the answer is "the internet with lots of patience"

Even more spectacular close up - just not safe.

Assembling it in orbit over a period of years and then firing it up in space would make more sense, imo. Seeing those blasts from hundreds or thousands of miles up would be just as impressive.

@@paulrockatansky77 it's sad because on of the good points of Orion was the amazing lift off to orbit capability.

Larry Niven's Footfall ought to get a mention - great fiction - spoiler alert: the Orion launch just destroys the manufacturing plant and the surrounding town.

@@ayushsharma8804 Earth-based Orion launch attempts made sense in the 1960s, when both USA and USSR tested nukes to their hearts' content. Back then, I don't think anyone would've batted an eyelid at a few dozen nuclear explosions in quick succession, considering the Soviets had detonated the Tsar Bomba early in the decade. Now we have the START treaties in effect, and the environmental implications are considerable (nuclear fallout, etc.).

That's not really true...historically, roads and railroads, as well as large ships were developed without a market right at hand. They were betting on expansion creating a market that would sustain their model and give them a tidy profit. I'd say that since the railroad, and then the highway, and then the cargo ship basically built the entire 20th century...It works.

- To my knowledge the early 60's 4 stage Scout X-1 sounding rocket put a dinky little satellite into LEO several times.

Japan's SS-520-5 weighs a little under 3 tons at launch, is about 31 feet in height, 20 inches diameter and successfully placed a 4kg cubesat into low Earth orbit on its maiden launch 3 Feb 2018

I mean - no matter how you put it it would be modern technology. I'm sure all of them woild basically be possible but doubt some of them would've been feasible with 60s-70s technology.

Just as I’d like to see all WW2 Concept designs tested and made, some of them (Habakkuk) were insane

@@glauberglousger6643 I so wish Habakkuk was real

I can't but wonder if it had some connection to the James Bond story "Moonraker."

@@HuntingTarg You're not the first to wonder, but I can't remember the answer. I think it might be in one of Scott's older videos where he built a Star Raker in KSP, but I might be thinking of something else.

I don't think Sea Dragon would've been very bad for aquatic life. Nowhere near as much energy involved. It would also have been done in deep water.

I would AGREE in saying the greatest _non-nuclear_ rocket. A vehicle based on _PROJECT ORION_ would have been the greatest _nuclear_ rocket.

You could actually play little league baseball minus the outfield in the first stage engine bell.

Image all the fish floating to the top of the ocean from the continuous explosion from that giant rocket engine, the fishing boats would be in a race from the safety exclusion zone as soon as been cleared to collect up all those fish's.

@@drmosfet >>> _"WIN - WIN!"_ 😊😊😊

Hopefully not. All time is a lot of time.

good idea

Because nearly all of the leadership in Space 2.0 are grifters.

That truly was hilarious. The helicopters literally looked like Saturn V first stages with propellers installed.

The tip of the blades would have been supersonic even at the minimum speed

Ooh! I'd forgotten about the ramjet helicopter thing. I read about it years ago. :D

Most of that is to do with how the VAB at the Cape is constructed. Of course, there is the TeamVision Jupiter III concept which just says "Hey we're gonna need a bigger building, that's fine, right?"

I do have a soft spot for the MLV designs, they could’ve been perfect for the Apollo Applications Program

Is there actually an interesting read to read up on this stuff or do you mean browsing the web?

Thrust to weight plays a role here. If you roughly approximate that rocket parts and fuel have a certain average density, then an engine with a given footprint and thrust to weight ratio can only support a limited height of "rocket stuff" above it. I guess with current thrust to weights this comes out to 100m

There is only one reason to build "skinny" and that is tool or transportation limits. There are some aerodynamic reasons, but at scale those start to matter much less. Girth beats length...even in engineering.

Nope

~1800 metric tons but close enough

Daaamn that's like 2 of yo mamma ;)

@@danielculver2209 and a fraction of yours.

@@Nyx42112 He ain't coming back from that one

@@ThePhantomRocket But you keep coming back for these two blubber bimbos of moms we have

Still hasn't flown yet, and I'm doubting it ever will.

@@anzaca1 surely they spent years developing a rocket that will never fly. Are you dumb?

Surely if it works and they find the need, they'll go for the original starship design that's almost twice as big (mass) featured in the start of this video?

@@Tiwack01 that would be really interesting, why did they chose the scaled down version, do you know?

They could go with triple-booster Starship Heavy, if they need about x3 payload. There is no demand for such beasts in the foreseeable future, though (about 1000 ton max payload to LEO in expendable config!!!). Smaller and simpler way to launch occasional heavy and/or oversized payloads is to have an expendable version of the upper stage, with traditional fairing.

@@denysvlasenko9175 that would be sick

Nope. The tanks could be proportionally lighter because the internal volume is expanding faster than the perimeter. Thus less tank is needed per pound of propellant.

Could they be thin walled, with internal stays ? I don't know , just an idea

The tanks would have to be somewhat thicker at the bottom, simply because of the higher head-pressure. But the needed hoop-strength is constant for diameter. A pressure of 20 bar for a 5 meter wide tank would remain 20 bar for a 50 meter tank; and, say ~4mm steel remains 4mm. The steel required is 10 times greater (for a given height), but the volume enclosed is 100 times. Could such a booster perform on balloon-stiffnes alone? If so, having a one-use design starts to make sense, as long as you're not doing crew-rated launches, but rather just throwing materiel into LEO.

@@dillonvandergriff4124 I don't think this is how pressure vessels work. As the radius increases, the curvature decreases, and to have the tension strength high enough for the pressure, the walls need to be thicker. Even before anyone starts using propellant.

pressure vessel mass ratios remain constant regardless of the size, you can check out the derivation why on the Wiki page for pressure vessels. What this means is that the mass ratio of a huge rocket at a certain pressure can be exactly the same as for a small vehicle at the same pressure. It's just that the pressure in this case is pretty low for a rocket

Fun fact: One of the Heavy-lift Vehicles from NASA's SPS study (the Alternate Design at 10:31) has similar payload to Starship (120t), yet only 4000t mass when full. Which is less than simply the fuel mass of Starship (a 20% boost), and even with some mass reserve! Apparently, aluminium construction/winged flyback is a pretty efficient design!

I love winged flyback!

scaling down rockets tends to destroy their economicality; Rocket Lab discovered this the hard way and are now scaling up to an F9 scale rocker

Just the thing is, there's no market at all for commerical super heavy lift

yet!

Can u give me car?

Fun fact: One of the Heavy-lift Vehicles from NASA's SPS study (the Alternate Design at 10:31) has similar payload to Starship (120t), yet only 4000t mass when full. Which is less than simply the fuel mass of Starship (a 20% boost), and even with some mass reserve! Apparently, aluminium construction/winged flyback is a pretty efficient design!

@@HalNordmann Agreed. Personally, that's what the space shuttle should have been.

@Hal Nordmann Could you just stop spamming?

@@ImieNazwiskoOK It's hard to silence a fool.

Congress wont let them

I'm sort-of weirdly surprised and unsurprised at the same time. It looks like a big coincidence but it's probably not. If ol' Musky's parents named him after that and told him so, it would have a big influence on him.

Flexing is a factor of how skinny is the rocket and due to the starships diameter it is less skinny than the Falcon 9

the fact that it's made of steel that will be really cold at launch makes it far, far more structurally strong than most rockets.

@@carljohan9265 that's a misleading way to think about structures and materials. If the material is stronger, you take less of it.

These 2 stages meeting at the middle aren’t even connected.

@@gehtdichnixan4704 I'm referring to the fact that steel becomes stronger at cryogenic temperatures, ergo the temps it's propellant will be when it's fueled up.