The problem is that the orange tank doesn't go to orbit. The fuel tank is ejected before circulation, then the shuttle uses the OMS engines, with internal hypergolic fuel, to circularize at apogee. Moving those OMS engines to the side of the crew cabin also places the crew in close proximity to the fuel, MonoMethylHydrazine, and Dinitrogen Tetroxide. If you watch shuttle landings, they have giant fans around the shuttle after landing, to protect the crew from the absurdly toxic fuel.
yeah that would be something to consider, I think it would still be manageable though, because the engines are still way behind where the crew would sit. It would still be possible to put the OMS engines in their original place. I didn't for my design because it can be tough to get the center of thrust right when mounting engines so high up
You could use the robot parts to have 3 tail fins that start equally spread out around the engine and then rotate into a plane configuration before re-entry
AAAAH... FINALLY!! Very nice first return (?) video😄👏 11:28 - 12:55 here you could have used the rotation capability of the docking ports! So that you don't have to sdock and dock again every time you need it... Anyway, a part from that, it's a very nice Shuttle design
Edit: use two or three smaller docking ports so when you dock, all three align together and it’s upright or 120 degrees of an offset so you don’t have gaff around with alignment since the docking port magnets do it for you!
@@Piolet1549 well, thanks. If only my P.C. had enough disk space for KSP along with the two others I play 😂. Then I could download your shuttle and edit it…either I way it’s really clever the ways you did it. Just every sing,e time I try to recreate those really good aircraft, it never looks right.
The other option is using the arrows on the docking ports to visually align the ports after docking. The ports get something like 15 degrees of rotation each
@@米空軍パイロット it’s easier for lesser experienced players (like me) to use the other method, but it’s good to know that the docking ports have a roll feature, too.
Now try redesigning the Buran, an already safer version of the space shuttle. Just take out the large engines, and place the shuttle higher up. You may have to shorten the space shuttle or use a ton of struts as that kind of design brings it’s own balance and stability issues.
Reminds me a lot of the USAF X37-B. Guess their engineers had similar thoughts on how to "fix" the shuttle lol (except for the detachable engine, that's just wild)
From 3:30 onwards... that would not qualify as a safe vehicle if it needs to undock and reconfigure in orbit. If redocking once in orbit isn't possible, then the orbiter wouldn't have any way to return while still being stable.
got this comment a few times, I think if for whatever reason the engines are not able to be redocked, you would still be able to detach the cockpit and land using a parachute. I would probably need to refine the design a bit to make that work (basically just add more heat shielding to the cockpit), but since the docking is done while the vehicle is still technically sub-orbital, I think you might be able to get away with this idea
@@Piolet1549 That would still be far more risky than what NASA came up with. With your craft, in the event of an abort before circularization, you will need to abandon the whole orbiter. If a real shuttle had to abort at the same time, it would be able to burn prograde and land, keeping the orbiter and any payload intact. The orbiter as-is is truly the best way to reuse everything as they required it - the orbiter, and main engines. If they only did not require to reuse every single of the orbiter main engines, the whole thing would had been much safer at slightly higher cost. Just put some chutes on the main engines and recover them. More refurb needed for each launch, but you aren't going to be carrying around dead weight once you are on orbit. I guess what I'm trying to say is, without a breakthrough in propulsion (giving us near-SSTO spaceplanes), the shuttle design is... not ideal in any scenario.
Yooo I came back to this channel after 4 years. So far I updated 4 different channels but thought I would come back to the channel which made me a space nerd all the way till I was 12, oh man life has changed. That was 5 years ago I was a space nerd. Just remembered u. Just wanna say, thx for making a kid’s childhood
I usually make a shuttle sandwich; shuttle in the middle with twin stabilizers on the wings and boosters located ventrally and dorsally. That way they can detach quickly and the path is clear to front and aft of the shuttle itself. And stability is easier to adjust by just moving the boosters forwards so the center of mass is front. Crew safety is a weakness I'm willing to accept.
In actuality, NASA considered designs in which the engines were transferred to the Orbiter from the ET after reaching orbit - not realized due to financial/complexity concerns.
Glad to see you back! Also volumetric clouds looks so good. Can't wait till it's public. I know the patreon is only $4.50 buuuut Im a bit tight on $ this month. Can't wait for the release
main issue i would see with this design is that the wings are much higher up, so it could make the whole vessel tip over. (if you don't get what i'm saying try making any rocket and put big wings on your payload instead of the bottom of the rocket)
That was the biggest thing I was worried about when making this. That's why I added the 4 big tail fins to the bottom, to try to add as much lift at the bottom at possible. It ended up flying almost perfectly in KSP, which is obviously not real life tho. But yeah I agree, high wings is the biggest problem with the new design, probably could have made them a bit smaller and it would've flown better
If you were to do this in reality and not under the constraints of KSP parts i think some sort of retractable beams along the length of the main fuel tank could connect the engine and the orbiter, and when the orange tank needs to be jettisoned the beams could lengthen a few meters to provide clearance and small SRBs would move the tank out of the way so the beams could simply retract and connect the engine and orbiter without having to attempt a docking procedure while on a suborbital trajectory.
So I understand where you were going with this…but instead of the engines attaching to the shuttle and just becoming dead weight for the remainder of the flight (like they were in the OG shuttle) just make them a detachable pod (Vulcan style) and let them land right after launch, floating upright to protect them from the salt water. Then the Shuttle is more like Buran, while still being able to keep being reusable And the biggest issues with the Shuttle were the escape system (it didn’t have one, hence the Challenger disaster) and the heat shield (it took over 16 HOURS PER TILE to reuse it. And there were over 20 THOUSAND tiles) There was a Shuttle II design from Langley that would’ve solved most of the issues with the OG shuttle, but it was never funded past research stage, even though it would’ve solved both problems AND increased payload capacity with almost no changes to the SRBs or core tank
I'm so used to "Piolet" that I'm not sure what it might be a misspelling of! ;) ... Ah, now I know how to pronounce it. It's not "Pee-o-lay". >;) It should fly better, it's longer and has more control surfaces. I love the "dahdahdahdaaah" for testing! :) Nice test procedure too. Complexity note: having the fins diagonally for launch and orthogonal for landing might have been a bit complex in the 80s, but I'm guessing not too complex. The worst case is that it would need 2 avionics units, one for launch and one for landing. I think this might be the best alternative shuttle design I've ever seen, with the possible exception of the one which looked like 2 orbiters stacked on top of each other, but the lower one was robotic and full of fuel for launch. Aww! Matt loves collabs and has several times mentioned other KSP TH-camrs with tiny fanbases. He stopped doing regular Blunderbirds only because people were trying to game it. Then again, I suppose that's the problem: too many people would love his attention, including myself if I'm honest. :) Everybody: We need to be very careful to get our control surfaces docked in the correct alignment. Bradley Whistance: It flies better with the control surfaces slightly misaligned. He actually said that! XD Or he put it in on-screen text at least; it was in the Odyssey By Bill series. You are a very good player, Piolet. If I don't watch and comment too often it's because my health doesn't let me watch all the videos I'd like. Sweet spacecraft, sweet production! 👍
I'm using a preview build of a new update to EVE, its currently only available if you sign up for the creators patreon ($4.50 per month) Here is a link: www.patreon.com/blackrack/posts
I think electronics would not be a big problem at all when it comes to redocking the engine mount Instead securing connection in such way that it can survive reentry, that would be hard
It solved all the problems for what I know of from videos talking about the bad shuttle, BUT THE COST Here is the Shuttle 2.0 cost: 8:48 The shuttle was already bad at saving money, then this shuttle! Yes the safety and reusability, but still It’s not even a shuttle with a payload
Another intelligent (maybe) addition could be a chute attached to the engine in case you're unable to reattach the shuttle to the engine? idk I don't play KSP a lot lol
okay so here are my main problems: How the heck would you abort in flight? what if you had a problem, and with your vertical stabilizer on the engines, and you couldn't reenter? I want to see more investigations into abort modes
Your right that if you couldn't get the back bit docked up that you would probably be screwed. There might be a scenario where you could just detach the cockpit and see if it could survive entry and land with the parachute. That might work because there is heat-shielding on the bottom, but I'd have to test it
@@Piolet1549 If you tried that, it could impact the rest of the orbiter. Even if it cleared the orbiter, the command module would have incredibly funky aerodynamics and would probably flip and end up killing the entire crew.
perhaps either side mounting or having propellant inside shuttle and a reusable booster like super heavy or new Glenn would be a better system would be a more effective system Also use JNSQ, it’s better
11:28 Apparently I forgot you can rotate docking ports in KSP... I was gone so long I forgot how to play the game lol
xD
last time i tried that feature i summoned the kraken, so don't worry you ain't missing much
Bro forgot the controls
This actually looks like ISRO's concept shuttle
also, what engines did you use for the core stage booster?
When the world needed him the most, he returned.
:)
commenter try to be original challenge (impossible)
@@AeonExploration I don’t care if it’s been used before, it fits the video
The problem is that the orange tank doesn't go to orbit.
The fuel tank is ejected before circulation, then the shuttle uses the OMS engines, with internal hypergolic fuel, to circularize at apogee.
Moving those OMS engines to the side of the crew cabin also places the crew in close proximity to the fuel, MonoMethylHydrazine, and Dinitrogen Tetroxide. If you watch shuttle landings, they have giant fans around the shuttle after landing, to protect the crew from the absurdly toxic fuel.
yeah that would be something to consider, I think it would still be manageable though, because the engines are still way behind where the crew would sit. It would still be possible to put the OMS engines in their original place. I didn't for my design because it can be tough to get the center of thrust right when mounting engines so high up
they are kerbals, they can drirnk all the monomethyhydrazine and dinitrogen tetroxide and come out fine.
@@Piolet1549 you kind of removed the steering on the nose wheel, by making it a large gear....
@@theairacobra No kidding. I once saw Jeb eating a plutonium sandwich!
@@johnadler6987 one I sat jeb on a twin boar and sent him to orbit, the mission failed so I think he drank all the LFO
Okay, I love this rocket design. It’s a lot more safer and the centre of mass is in the middle this time. Love the SLS+STS mixup.
Thanks, glad you liked it!
St+ls
all the different seperation stuff makes it more complex and thus increases cost and chance of failiure.
same
You could use the robot parts to have 3 tail fins that start equally spread out around the engine and then rotate into a plane configuration before re-entry
good idea, hadn't thought of that
AAAAH... FINALLY!!
Very nice first return (?) video😄👏
11:28 - 12:55 here you could have used the rotation capability of the docking ports! So that you don't have to sdock and dock again every time you need it...
Anyway, a part from that, it's a very nice Shuttle design
Oh wow big brain move... I've been gone too long I forgot how to play the game lol
Thanks for noticing, made a pinned comment
@@Piolet1549 you are welcome... Hope it will be useful 😁
Edit: use two or three smaller docking ports so when you dock, all three align together and it’s upright or 120 degrees of an offset so you don’t have gaff around with alignment since the docking port magnets do it for you!
that's actually really smart... good idea!
@@Piolet1549 well, thanks. If only my P.C. had enough disk space for KSP along with the two others I play 😂. Then I could download your shuttle and edit it…either I way it’s really clever the ways you did it. Just every sing,e time I try to recreate those really good aircraft, it never looks right.
The other option is using the arrows on the docking ports to visually align the ports after docking. The ports get something like 15 degrees of rotation each
@@米空軍パイロット it’s easier for lesser experienced players (like me) to use the other method, but it’s good to know that the docking ports have a roll feature, too.
@@RailsofForney Yeah. I think it got added recently. You right click the port and you can rotate the craft that they are attached to.
you seriously did a better space shuttle, a much better one, he didn't even forgot an abort sequence, im just impressed, such an underrated channel
Now try redesigning the Buran, an already safer version of the space shuttle. Just take out the large engines, and place the shuttle higher up. You may have to shorten the space shuttle or use a ton of struts as that kind of design brings it’s own balance and stability issues.
HELL YEAH HES BACKKKKKK
i still remember when you didnt even have 500 subs, its very epic to see how much youve grown
love you dude
He’s returned! And just in time for KSP2 too :) welcome back Piolet!
Almost like the timing is intentional ;)
Reminds me a lot of the USAF X37-B. Guess their engineers had similar thoughts on how to "fix" the shuttle lol (except for the detachable engine, that's just wild)
Real, the engine one is SOOOOO wild...
From 3:30 onwards... that would not qualify as a safe vehicle if it needs to undock and reconfigure in orbit. If redocking once in orbit isn't possible, then the orbiter wouldn't have any way to return while still being stable.
got this comment a few times, I think if for whatever reason the engines are not able to be redocked, you would still be able to detach the cockpit and land using a parachute. I would probably need to refine the design a bit to make that work (basically just add more heat shielding to the cockpit), but since the docking is done while the vehicle is still technically sub-orbital, I think you might be able to get away with this idea
@@Piolet1549 That would still be far more risky than what NASA came up with. With your craft, in the event of an abort before circularization, you will need to abandon the whole orbiter. If a real shuttle had to abort at the same time, it would be able to burn prograde and land, keeping the orbiter and any payload intact.
The orbiter as-is is truly the best way to reuse everything as they required it - the orbiter, and main engines. If they only did not require to reuse every single of the orbiter main engines, the whole thing would had been much safer at slightly higher cost.
Just put some chutes on the main engines and recover them. More refurb needed for each launch, but you aren't going to be carrying around dead weight once you are on orbit.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, without a breakthrough in propulsion (giving us near-SSTO spaceplanes), the shuttle design is... not ideal in any scenario.
welcome back dude, and a great video, seems like you you've improved!
thanks!
Yooo I came back to this channel after 4 years. So far I updated 4 different channels but thought I would come back to the channel which made me a space nerd all the way till I was 12, oh man life has changed. That was 5 years ago I was a space nerd. Just remembered u. Just wanna say, thx for making a kid’s childhood
thanks
@@Piolet1549 :)
I usually make a shuttle sandwich; shuttle in the middle with twin stabilizers on the wings and boosters located ventrally and dorsally. That way they can detach quickly and the path is clear to front and aft of the shuttle itself. And stability is easier to adjust by just moving the boosters forwards so the center of mass is front. Crew safety is a weakness I'm willing to accept.
Not a bad idea, sandwiching the shuttle would def help with the stability, but yeah crew safety would be the toughest part
In actuality, NASA considered designs in which the engines were transferred to the Orbiter from the ET after reaching orbit - not realized due to financial/complexity concerns.
Glad to see you back! Also volumetric clouds looks so good. Can't wait till it's public. I know the patreon is only $4.50 buuuut Im a bit tight on $ this month. Can't wait for the release
Yeah they are awesome, can't wait until everyone gets a chance to try them out
THE KING IS BACK!
You should build a space station using this system! Better yet ditch the SRB’s for a super heavy SpaceX style system.
Space station could be fun
I know this was 3 months ago but the Blunderbirds joke was used in the Starship Hubble rescue mission.
Nice video dude, you sure have improved alot! Your planing, executing. So much👌 Hope your doing well, and drink your water
Thanks, really appreciate it!
0:27
He says one of its biggest issues is safety as he flies it upside-down…
Probably added an instruction manual if I had to guess.
i aM tHe woRdS gReaTeST PilOt
You’re back yayyyyyyyyyy!!!! You should fix the Saturn v its not fully reusable.
:)
main issue i would see with this design is that the wings are much higher up, so it could make the whole vessel tip over. (if you don't get what i'm saying try making any rocket and put big wings on your payload instead of the bottom of the rocket)
That was the biggest thing I was worried about when making this. That's why I added the 4 big tail fins to the bottom, to try to add as much lift at the bottom at possible. It ended up flying almost perfectly in KSP, which is obviously not real life tho.
But yeah I agree, high wings is the biggest problem with the new design, probably could have made them a bit smaller and it would've flown better
@@Piolet1549 now try a bigger version in KSS/RSS with some realistic mod
I worked up something similar, but without the recoverable engines feature. I call it "Shuttle on a Stick".
nifty
lol you are not dead!!! welcome back
thanks!
that shuttle is actually way better
thanks
Guess who's bacc, bacc a friend, piolets bacc, tell a friend
:)
Such a cool video. I can't explain how but it really appealed to me. So cool to imagine this irl
nice to see you back!
thanks!
This is actually a really cool design! Reminds me of the MAKS design mixed with Buran and turned backwards.
If you were to do this in reality and not under the constraints of KSP parts i think some sort of retractable beams along the length of the main fuel tank could connect the engine and the orbiter, and when the orange tank needs to be jettisoned the beams could lengthen a few meters to provide clearance and small SRBs would move the tank out of the way so the beams could simply retract and connect the engine and orbiter without having to attempt a docking procedure while on a suborbital trajectory.
5:50 yes, two "little" srbs
So I understand where you were going with this…but instead of the engines attaching to the shuttle and just becoming dead weight for the remainder of the flight (like they were in the OG shuttle) just make them a detachable pod (Vulcan style) and let them land right after launch, floating upright to protect them from the salt water. Then the Shuttle is more like Buran, while still being able to keep being reusable
And the biggest issues with the Shuttle were the escape system (it didn’t have one, hence the Challenger disaster) and the heat shield (it took over 16 HOURS PER TILE to reuse it. And there were over 20 THOUSAND tiles)
There was a Shuttle II design from Langley that would’ve solved most of the issues with the OG shuttle, but it was never funded past research stage, even though it would’ve solved both problems AND increased payload capacity with almost no changes to the SRBs or core tank
Should make the space shuttle its own separate payload, when you don't have to support a chungus payload bay things get a lot lighter
glad to see you back!
Thanks!
The man has returned.
:)
I'm so used to "Piolet" that I'm not sure what it might be a misspelling of! ;) ... Ah, now I know how to pronounce it. It's not "Pee-o-lay". >;)
It should fly better, it's longer and has more control surfaces.
I love the "dahdahdahdaaah" for testing! :) Nice test procedure too.
Complexity note: having the fins diagonally for launch and orthogonal for landing might have been a bit complex in the 80s, but I'm guessing not too complex. The worst case is that it would need 2 avionics units, one for launch and one for landing.
I think this might be the best alternative shuttle design I've ever seen, with the possible exception of the one which looked like 2 orbiters stacked on top of each other, but the lower one was robotic and full of fuel for launch.
Aww! Matt loves collabs and has several times mentioned other KSP TH-camrs with tiny fanbases. He stopped doing regular Blunderbirds only because people were trying to game it. Then again, I suppose that's the problem: too many people would love his attention, including myself if I'm honest. :)
Everybody: We need to be very careful to get our control surfaces docked in the correct alignment.
Bradley Whistance: It flies better with the control surfaces slightly misaligned.
He actually said that! XD Or he put it in on-screen text at least; it was in the Odyssey By Bill series.
You are a very good player, Piolet. If I don't watch and comment too often it's because my health doesn't let me watch all the videos I'd like.
Sweet spacecraft, sweet production! 👍
Holy shit, I was just ‘bouta fall asleep and saw his announcement in the Discord server.
:)
You're making me want to try my hand at making my own version of this challenge.
What version are you using for Eve and which config? Scatterer?
I'm using a preview build of a new update to EVE, its currently only available if you sign up for the creators patreon ($4.50 per month) Here is a link: www.patreon.com/blackrack/posts
It’s nice to see you back
Reminds of Von brauns 1950s space plane rocket, I think we have gone full circle and I love it.
Yeah it kinda does, didn't notice that
it is actually a nice design, it kinda reminds me of the vulcan engines strat, but yes the point is saving the engines
Nice to see an upload again
thanks
Very interesting design! Good content 👍
I think electronics would not be a big problem at all when it comes to redocking the engine mount
Instead securing connection in such way that it can survive reentry, that would be hard
Fair point, you'd have to have some really strong connecting mechanism that is also heat-shielded
You didn’t fix it you made it more aerodynamically unstable and structurally vulnerable
He finally releases something.
crazy right?!
3:56 What mod did you use to Autostrut all of those parts together?
It solved all the problems for what I know of from videos talking about the bad shuttle,
BUT THE COST
Here is the Shuttle 2.0 cost: 8:48
The shuttle was already bad at saving money, then this shuttle! Yes the safety and reusability, but still
It’s not even a shuttle with a payload
Welcome back from your hiatus sir
Thanks, glad to be back!
AYYYYYY, he's back!
:)
Return of the king.
:)
Nice to hear you again
Thanks!
): I cant wait for the volumetric clouds...
ikr, they're insane
looks so much like that lego rocket
I should sue them for copyright infringement
That's actually a very nice design...
Thanks!
Lovely video, it is very inspiring and makes me want to play more KSP!
There he is. He's still alive
:)
You can rotate docking ports now in the stock game.
yep I have the worlds biggest brain lol. Just made a pinned comment addressing this, thanks for letting me know
I would do a one big fairing like the new Dreamchaser has instead of 2 purpouse engine block.
the legend has returned
:)
The return of the king!!!
:)
Me:
Piolet: yo guys long time no see
Me: thought the notifications weren't working tf were you??
I was... places
Another intelligent (maybe) addition could be a chute attached to the engine in case you're unable to reattach the shuttle to the engine? idk I don't play KSP a lot lol
the starship piolet has returned
:)
The cursed rocket man has returned.
:)
I thought this was going to be another starship video because of the thumbnail lmao
lmao
He’s BACK
:)
looks like my assasination plan didnt go that well
I'm like James Bond, sneaky sneaky
You're the most underrated ksp youtuber
Thanks!
He’s back!
:)
Finally, he has returned with the milk
lmao
He's alive!
:)
finally you're back!
:)
im surprised Nintendo hasn't copyright striked the video yet seeing as this guy is using alot of mario galaxy 1/2 music
YOU ARE ALIVE!!!!
:)
The legend has returned.
:)
So its a Shuttle attached to an SLS core stage
SLTS
basically...
You are back
:)
He’s back, he’s finally back! Our banana god has returned!
BANANANANANANANA
Vaun Braun is proud
:)
okay so here are my main problems: How the heck would you abort in flight? what if you had a problem, and with your vertical stabilizer on the engines, and you couldn't reenter? I want to see more investigations into abort modes
Your right that if you couldn't get the back bit docked up that you would probably be screwed. There might be a scenario where you could just detach the cockpit and see if it could survive entry and land with the parachute. That might work because there is heat-shielding on the bottom, but I'd have to test it
@@Piolet1549 If you tried that, it could impact the rest of the orbiter. Even if it cleared the orbiter, the command module would have incredibly funky aerodynamics and would probably flip and end up killing the entire crew.
Thanks you are back 😭😭😭🙌🙌🙌
:)
Hi Piolet!
This is basically a very cool video! :P
thanks!
when you combine apollo with shuttle
pretty much...
HES BACK BACK AGAIN
piolet upload piolet upload
:)
Use Cormorant Aeronology bro its the most goated space shuttle mod
40 years too late
yup lol
Cool Rocket!, But The Only Problem I Saw Is That Its 2x That Expensive
Yeah thats kinda the problem with any NASA design... too expensive!
Looks like my current career play needs one.
cool
To quote A rock:"......................"
10 years later
:)
@@Piolet1549 amazing vid
He baccccc
:)
The messiah has returned
:)
This Video was abrasive to watch.
perhaps either side mounting or having propellant inside shuttle and a reusable booster like super heavy or new Glenn would be a better system would be a more effective system
Also use JNSQ, it’s better