Britain's Space Shuttle: The Multi-Unit Space Transport And Recovery Device Concept (Mustard)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 มี.ค. 2020
- Mustard, was a reusable launch system concept that was explored by the British Aircraft Corporation (BAC) during the mid-1960s.
Mustard was intended to operate as a multistage rocket, the individual stages comprising near-identical spaceplane modules. These planes, or stages, were hypersonic vehicles, capable of flying at speeds in excess of five times the speed of sound. Following a vertically-standing launch, each stage was to progressively separate during the ascent, after which they would individually fly back towards a suitable landing strip. The final spaceplane was to be capable of attaining such an altitude that it would be able to achieve a sub-orbital trajectory before also performing a controlled return. Following a conventional landing, all of the stages were intended to be reused multiple times. It was projected that Mustard was suitable for launching payloads weighing as much as 2,300 kg (5,000 lb) into orbit.The knowledge and expertise from Mustard was applied in various other avenues, the most prominent being the HOTOL spaceplane programme during the 1980s. - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![[TH] VCT Pacific Stage 2 - Playoffs Day 1 // GEN vs RRQ | TLN vs TS](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JhkzKOhvOps/mqdefault.jpg)
That’s actually kinda smart. The shuttle discards their boosters but the mustard uses other mustards as the booster making it easier to repair and making the launch cheaper by reusing the boosters.
Oh, the MUSTARD was even more clever than that. Because the docking gear could be adjusted, stacks of up to five units could be clustered, and additional pure rockets added to put satellites into higher orbits or even linear trajectories. The "tank"units had parts commonality with the "cargo" units to bring down costs, and could be used with smaller rockets mounted on them to launch small payloads into low orbits on their own.
The MUSTARD would have been a masterpiece of Lower Earth Orbit
But will the two discarded units land safely?
That was the point of it. But like many incredible British projects it never saw the light of day due to cuts!
My work....
Wow! Finally a video about this amazing concept. The MUSTARD was an example of the "triamese" design. The whole point is that it would use fuel crossfeed (called asparagus staging by KSP players). Initially, the two "upper" stages would draw all their fuel from the first stage, leaving their own tanks full. After the first stage separation, the third stage would draw all its fuel from the second stage, leaving its own tanks full. This staging scheme allows empty tanks to be dropped as soon as possible.
Fuel crossfeed was originally going to be included in the falcon heavy, but it was not included because the engineering challenges of moving tons of propellant per second between cores proved more trouble than they were worth, especially since falcon heavy wouldn't have been able to fit much extra payload mass in its small fairing.
But fuel crossfeed isn't necessarily impossible. The space shuttle did something close, feeding fuel from the external tank into the orbiter. If the engineering challenges can be overcome, the triamese design may still see use in the future, perhaps with aerospikes, unmanned first and second stages, and vertical propulsive landing.
Add to this: the concept of fuel crossfeed is actually first developed by Mikhail Tikhonravov for R-3 missiles, and the same fuel pumping problem is quickly realized; thus, instead, they created the concept of carrying-packet, which is to optimize the rockets in the side packet to use only the fuel they carry and then drop off once done. This carrying-packet is what evolved into the R7.
UK : Lemme introduce to you,
The Fully Reusable Super Omni Roket
*"THREESOME"*
Three'som the Bri'ish way.
I think the swinging 60s got to the designers. lol
I thought the british space shuttle was that top gear reliant robin space shuttle
UK industry actually working on this ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylon_%28spacecraft%29
MUSTARD blew my mind back in the late 60's. My favorite book was Rockets and Missles. Such promise. Then we got that cheap shuttle crap. Thank God for SpaceX!
Are you talking about the Gatland book?
@@Setebos y'know, it's been a while, but it was thin, hard-covered, perhaps goldish in color. It had space rockets like Sputnik and mercury, anti-sub, Bomarc and Nike, and MUSTARD really stood out to me. I'm 52 and grew up army, dad was the nutritionist at fort Deitrich and Walter Reed. He was a nutritionist for some space missions, I have seen photos in their album of me on John Glenn's knee. I wanted to stay and live at the Smithsonian, and was heartbroken to move back to chicago in '76.
All my fabulous toys and books were lost to my families alcahol and drug addictions. I dont miss the things. I miss my family. And I dont blame the drugs or alcahol, they were symptoms, not really causes. But it sure has been fun remembering what led me to where I am now.
@@2012listo I've experienced similar unfortunate circumstances in which I was obliged to jettison some of my favored items, so you have my sympathies. Fortunately, my collection of Bono/Gatland books have been spared, and (mainly thanks to library sales over the years) I've managed to build upon it (never underestimate the value of library and/or used book sales).
@@Setebos books, and vinyl! My Herb Alpert and the Tijuana brass band collection is complete. Church sales, library sales, estate sales all call to my family to take cash and the wagon and get some historic tidbits overlooked by corpulent couch-surfing grandchildren. Enjoy it now; our grandkids might not care, either!
@@2012listo My Mom had a complete Herb Alpert collection (with the exception of the "Whipped Cream & Other Delights" album which she wouldn't allow in her house, for reasons known to Alpert aficionados).
Cool, so basically it's like a space shuttle with all winged boosters.
The three vehicles are the same design, theoretically interchangeable. The idea was to reduce costs by developing just one spacecraft, then using it either as a booster or an orbiter. Same maintenance procedures and facilities, same parts supply chain, etc. Good redundancy, a steady production rate with improvements incorporated on the production line, etc.
If built now, I imagine each vehicle could be flown with or without crew. No need to risk people in the booster role, nor even the orbiter on all missions.
Picture a collaboration between SpaceX and Sierra Nevada corporations. Merlin engines, etc. For the small to medium satellite market, a fully reusable system might be competitive.
Or, to get really imaginative, a India-UK joint program aimed at recovering space junk.
@@johnmothershead1690 That lifting-body stuff goes all the way back to the 50’s, these Brits were clearly just cribbing right off that work, and of course they were free to do so as well. Wouldn’t it be great to get the chance to ask some SpaceX fellows if they actually considered this very concept? Having three stages (not two) surely makes everything easier, but then again, the landing gear and everything... maybe they could use airliner parts or something. It’d be an awesome hack job and I’d sign up to help them with it in a red hot second.
The space shuttle concept wasn’t fully-reusable, but this concept was. Now whether it would or could actually work in real life, like weight-wise namely, I just don’t know.
@@craigrmeyer Actually, the original Space Shuttle had a two-stage fully-reusable flyback design, but that was too expensive to develop.
@@HalNordmann You're right. I've learned that the Space Shuttle story is WAY more interesting than I thought. I wonder if there's any reason why a multi-part fly-back architecture would be easier/cheaper today. Probably not, but a boy can still dream.
We British never have the money to match our ambitions.
This vehicle was extensively investigated especially the aerodynamics although no metal was ever cut on it.
A very interesting test glider was close to being built and I believe the design was essentially complete although again there was no money.
The outer vehicles pumped fuel to the orbiter so that when the second booster detached the orbiter had full tanks.
So many dafties missing the point - this is a historical concept from the UK in the early 1960's.
And then they decided to invite Islam in, should have gone to space. Will never get an opportunity again
@@jimmyjigz No they decided to invite the bankers, sell off real industry, and the upper crust all became stock brokers, while the people went on the dole and England lost its heritage of being the leader in technology and exploration to the US.
.....what's a Drafty?(oh dear I sound like a small child asking that)
@@jimmyjigz And some c;nt Richard Branson in our answer to our space program look what we become a third would country
When the Ctrl+D keys are stuck while designing a space plane
Seeing the RAF symbol on a spacecraft... kinda surreal
They're defending Earth from the space nazis
Mini-brain US: Let's stick a fuel tank to our space shuttle with two extra Solid boosters for extra thrust
Regular-brain Soviet Union: Let's stick a full-size rocket to our shuttle with four liquid boosters!
Galaxy-brain France: Let's stick a giant rocket to the bottom of our space shuttle!
Universe-brain UK: LET'S STICK THREE SPACE SHUTTLES TO EACH OTHER!!
to be fair france and the Soviets had a better ideas about how the resources should've been spent, if the USSR hadn't collapsed they'd have the Energia and Zenit rockets still..
Spearka I just want to know if it could have worked. 3 stages is better than the conventional 2, but that’s also a lot of wings and wheels and heat shielding and stuff too.
Basically Zenith flyed up to 2017, when it finally was cut because of post-USSR Ukranians-Russians friendship. While Buran never was meant as something more than political stuff - these spaceplanes are too heavy at means of structure to be useful until You don't need to return tens of tonnes from orbit to Earth per week.
Dammit, that was superb! A excellent visualisation of the system that matched HOTOL and SkyLon for imagination and ambition. Now if only they'd built it...
Sadly, inflation and a general.anntipathy towards aerospace engineers made Britain lose its lead with this.
At the time of the seventh version, it would have cost as much to build a three-unit MUSTARD launcher as the UK governmemt took as cigarette tax for two years. Now, it would cost several billion, though the entire system would be recoverable.
And as the head of Hawker Siddeley said in the 1960s- " Many people in governmemt claim the trouble with this country is that too many people are 'too clever by half'. I suspect the real trouble is that too many people in charge are too stupid by three quarters".
They could've beatin Skylon of its attempted SSToL, with a combo *SSTo3L* tactic, they would simply need a transition fuel *phase* vesus 'stage' break. By doing a Runway takeoff, *Jet-to-Ramjet-than pure*r ocket fuel sequsl. A slower start up to orbit, thus faster than any T-minus future weather scrubbs. As well, save massive fuel near the low thick air & greater mass ratio gravity altitudes of Trop, Strat & bottom Mesosphere.
This is very close to the original design for the original shuttle, before they butchered it to save money, and actually caused the cost of every launch to escalate completely out of control. The original shuttle was supposed to be completely reusable like this one. Outstanding design.
The Space Shuttle was the result of too many agencies with different goals invading the design and engineering process.
@@BrokenLifeCycle I agree absolutely. When each new administration gets to undo what the previously did,the most basic projects become boondoggles. Not to mention the major ones. There's a reason we haven't been back to the moon in 50+ years,or to mars,which was supposed to happen in the 1980s. Killing people over oil is a much better expenditure of our national capital.
@@jefferyclark2114 The main reason why a fully reusable Space Shuttle was not built was because Congress would not allocate to NASA the budget required to develop and build such a vehicle.
@@EricIrl very sad indeed.
@@jefferyclark2114 They were reflecting the national mood at the time, as politicians tend to do. The public felt they had spent enough money on grand space gestures with Apollo and didn't want that level of spending to continue. Developing a fully reusable system would probably have cost as much as the Apollo programme did.
What a awesome concept, can't wait to do this in ksp
Do you ever get the feeling that people jump to conclusions? I was always told to read the exam paper before answering the questions. I trained as a structural/stress engineer at British Aircraft Corporation at the Warton site where these studies were made. The idea that the engineers who did the studies did not know their onions is a bit far fetched. It was a long time ago 55+ years and within the limitations of mid 60's technology and scant budget they did the best they could. One deep regret I have as a retired engineer was not being able to go on the hindsight engineering course - we always had many brilliant engineers who were obviously graduates. In this case 55+ years of hindsight. PS anyone running the course -will be up for it!
Voyager 1 and 2 are reported as having impossible speeds ?
I can't wait until the British come out with their new breakthrough in space travel: The Kinetic Energy Tensile Converted Helium Universal Propulsion (KETCHUP) System.
Sadly though. Britain cut the mustard.
couldn't
Schrodinger's Mustard. Both cut and can't cut at the same time.
ahhhhhhhhhhh I see someone picked up the British Secret Projects Book
I bought it 3 years ago. Those books are awesome. I own the French Secret Projects Fighter Jets. The book is worth $900+ USED.
@@6lemans10 where can I buy them for cheaper or find a PDF?
Shoulda called it "The English Threesome". It woulda gotten built then.
Thanks for making this video and keeping me entertained while I'm social distancing/self quarantining.
Another phenomenal animation! Keep up the amazing work!
I read about M.U.S.T.A.R.D as a kid. The engines were based upon the Atlas design, 3 units were chosen as the 2 outer lifting bodies would pump their remaining fuel into the central unit for orbital insertion. The 2 outer units then gliding back to earth as sub orbital hyper sonic transports, calculating they could do a London to Sydney run in 4 hours. Lack of Government vision, money, commitment and probably told to stop it by the Americans. Most of the design work would end up at NASA where it went into the Space Shuttle Program. SARO in the Isle of White held a lead over US rocketry through the 50's, 60's and early 70's with it's more powerful/efficient HTP engines installed in the Black Knight, Blue Streak & Black Arrow. Black Arrow was one of the most economical launch systems ever designed at just £10 Million from design, build & launch. it was killed off in 1971 by the heath government.
Lack of money was one factor, and the other was that a joint project with Europe was politically more favoured by the government of the day.
Really good video. Amazing how many concepts you keep on bringing to life with these videos.
The MUSTARD would have been a beautiful thing!
"I used the space shuttles to launch the space shuttles"
They could just plant one shuttle on top of the the heavy booster. Problem solved. Or.. just use Starship which is dominant in every way.
@@EddyKorgo perfect. Add more complexity and so more things to go wrong AS WELL as more cost to developing a booster when just using a few of the exact same vehicle works fine.
As the starship , I explained this is an earlier comment. Redundancy between different launch providers is essential. If we rely on just starship , then if something goes wrong with starship we're screwed. Also , having multiple groups in competition drives development.
Lolz! I know, they could've used convertion switch from jet porpulstion to full rocket converstion and saved fuel & craft mass. At a runway.. Now It was like a kid in a rocket wagon cart being pushed by two other kids & gets out to push an empty cart.
You're depictions are gorgeous...camera shake, real-world views, sound design, music. So fantastically fun and cinematic to watch.
Imagine naming your spaceship "mustard"
After some reflection, the key thing keeping this interesting is that it's a way to add a *third* stage to a reusable orbital rocket scheme.
This is actually pretty clever. The tank for the US Space Shuttle was disposable, which always annoyed me. This would solve that.
This channel is SO underrated! this is so cool
Monty Python Space Agency (MPSA)
With all the landing strips on Mars this wins hands down.
I second that opine!!
Really cool stuff.
Now this is kerbal af
the uk: *three take it or leave it*
1965 British Aeronautical Company concept MUSTARD. 2-outer vehicles would transfer fuel to the core to achieve orbit, The 3 space planes would have been built on same jig to lower production cost as well as achieving 100-reusability
Brilliant concept, the 3 vehicles were the same, saving costs. Outer units transferred fuel. I loved this as a child.
Outer units probably wouldn't transfer fuel, the inner unit would have a lower throttle for the duration of the trip. To be honest this design is quite limiting and grossly overcomplicated. The airframe is so massive and complex, it negates any weight savings a glide return would enable.
Simple solution: more engines, higher specific impulse, booster that lands, 2nd stage that can be refuelled on orbit. Aka starship. It's also pretty close to being real 😉
@@cpowerbpower3339 unfortunately, it's also pretty close to being 60 years late - compared to this.
(To be certain, the Starship/Super Heavy is a more capable design by far - but don't forget that even the Apollo Program had not begun when this was first being developed.)
@@Infinite_Maelstrom 60 years work, and nothing to show for it but a neat CGI clip.
@@cpowerbpower3339It was cancelled in '67. This is done by a fan. Sorry, I can't quite read your tone, hopefully I have answered appropriately.
@@Infinite_Maelstrom oh nothing aggressive, either way this would have been cool. space flight is spaceflight :)
These are really amazing man! I consider myself a bit of a space superfan, but I'd never heard of this concept. It's pretty neat.
Me too, I think I only ever saw it in an old textbook once - like old enough the ISS was still only a concept...
@@widget3672 It was totally unknown to me and, being myself from the UK, I thought I had a good understanding of the complete history of our aerospace activities so far, what sparse efforts there were. Hopefully, if the Hebridean/far north spaceport pans out, we'll do more in the future. We always were hamstrung by lack of range access and safe launch corridors.
@@noecarrier5035 Somebody who actually knows something about how difficult it is for the UK to launch anything from home. The only launch corridor is north or retrograde. However, if you've never heard of this, your knowledge isn't that good and most of what is around about the British Aerospace sector is complete bollocks anyway. Bar WWI, the British have never been world leaders in aerospace and have been at best on a par with anybody else for very short periods (basically introduction of the Jet Engine).
@@richardvernon317 The adults are talking. Be quiet.
I have had a book titled "Spaceships" written by Robert A. Goehlich (published by Apogee Books in 2005) since my childhood that covers reusable launch vehicles that were either in development, had achieved operational status, or had been abandoned. MUSTARD was one of the concepts listed. It's nice to see a piece of my childhood visualized in such a manner!
I've also been waiting for a video about this!
Initially, I thought that this video was a collaboration with the TH-cam channel, "Mustard."
Great animation! Could you maybe do some Constellation videos (Ares I, Ares V) or some other Shuttle-derivatives? I'd love that
Next I want the jamaican space program
Cool Runnings
Rasta rockets
Rocket gain thrust from burning weed
This concept was desgined in the 1960s it's was called MUSTARD .en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAC_Mustard
When you stick three venture stars together
UK realising Mars Has not been colonized yet
UK: *M I N E*
Plans and ideas are worthless if you don't do anything. This is why I love Spacex. They are doing it. Spacex is the future of space travel.
No, they aren't worthless! SpaceX is doing stuff to quickly, which led to the explosion-inplosion-explosion of the SN1, as they want to do stuff to quickly.
And without concepts, no rocket would exist, the StarShip has been a concept for a long time.
@@Torukoseki using the word" "to" when it should be "too" is damned annoying.
Spacex isn't unique to having never realized concepts, ever heard of FalconX, FalconX Heavy, FalconXX, Mars Colonial Transporter (MCT), and Interplanetary Transport System (ITS)? and those are just a few of the publicly known concepts, internally they have many more concepts which were not pursued for better or for worst.
@@odysseyvoyager2354 Spacex is still doing much more than everyone else.
@@saltyfox7056 Blowing up stainless steel one after the other? I can show video footage of that.
Show me a video of a succesfull SpaceX starship launch please ... You said they are doing it.
For all mankind should use this cool idea for a new space shuttle.
Three spaceplanes strapped on to each other?This is so KSP!😂
"We don't have any boosters? Then strap another rocket to it!"
I don't know about that... KSP players generally don't go with anything so complicated as recoverable winged boosters, because it's too hard to control multiple vehicles at once. The game engine tends to encourage either massively-disposable side-boosters, or massive SSTO designs that can be recovered in one piece.
It’s a smart idea though.
People keep calling this simple, but is really isn't. SpaceX thought building Falcon Heavy out of three Falcon 9s would be straightforward, but what they found was that the core stage has to withstand some crazy loads that a Falcon 9 can't handle. So the core stage of Falcon Heavy looks like a Falcon 9, but it's structurally beefed up. This concept would suffer similar issues. The middle vehicle would likely need much stronger structure than the outer vehicles.
Derek Mitchell Surely you’re right, but who says that’s the show stopper? The center machine also has the payload and the “full speed” heat shield and is therefore very different for that reason also, etc. Still I wonder if it’s just too heavy to work at all, given the Space Shuttle experience, even if each of the three craft ended up substantially different from each other.
I think that such issues would have been taken into consideration by the British Aircraft Corporation engineers in the nearly ten years the project was worked on. Just as people on average lived as long as we do now in the past, people back then, where on average just as smart and not a few were smarter than average.
Man, this is so freakin good. Top notch again, dude.
If you want to know more about this design, British Secret Projects 5: Britain's Space Shuttle by Dan Sharp covers the work done by English Electric (and later BAC) on the predecessors to MUSTARD and the development of MUSTARD itself.
A
Great to see someone actually cover the BAC MUSTARD. Keep up with the great content 👍
sandwich shuttle, nice
Love your animation! Both for its high realism, and your illustrating forgotten old designs.
Hope to see you do a Star-Raker or Star-Clipper. ;)
I swear this is the most Kerbal design I have ever seen
I was thinking that exact same thing.
@@2dollarbill3 MOAR -BOOSTERS- PLANES
Even UR700 isn't that crazy...
Damn, landing the staging modules, fN brilliant! For a second there, thought the Brits used the aero spike where the X-33 failed.
1960s ideas were so much fun.
Beautiful. I love the landing shot at sunset. And what an interesting concept.
Teamwork makes the dream work.
So basically it's like the Falcon Heavy, except that the boosters are piloted back instead of being landed autonomously.
skyhook animation ?
Yo dawg I heard you liked shuttles
GOD THAT LANDING WAS B U T T E R
“So how’s it going to launch?”
Britain: with other versions of itself as boosters
“Oh ok.........wait what??”
태선우TaeSunWoo with nozzle bell engines or possibly Aerospiked
Super great video. I can’t imagine how much work that was. I’m not so sure how “boosters” perhaps weighing nearly what the orbiter weighs would work. But it was ahead of its time. And only the Brits would name a space launch system “Mustard.” 🧐
Eh, with modern tech the boosters can all be pretty light. I'd say the design does indeed cut the mustard.
The US equivalent was the trimease booster. The theory is that you design only one base spaceship, the complication is that you compromise the design of both the booster and the spaceship.
The MUSTARD would have been a masterpiece!
very cool way of overcoming the self landing problem, have pilot in every stage!
That certainly does not look very cost effective nowadays with vertical landing rocket controlled by computer but back in the days a 100% reusable spacecraft was super innovative, actually it still is to this day
Brits in Space. How awesome that would have been.
I remember this project when I was a kid in the sixties, if you read British Secret Projects 5 by Dan Sharp you'll see we had the technology and the expertise but not the money, some of the people on the project went on to the space program with NASA and later onto HOTOL in the 80's and Skylon
Britain has some bloody great engineers and still does. Politicians ... Not so much. They seem to think spending more money getting the Americans to do things is a better idea than doing it ourselves.
@@admiralsoyuz9776 It seems we can waste money by the bucketload when we want to - but not on the future but on attempts to bring back the olden days.
I live in the UK and Ive not heard of anything like this, must be one of Boris"s secrets
We could've had the first man in Space in the 1950s or 1949, through a rocket called Megaroc, which was ten years ahead of its time
This vehicle was designed by the British Aircraft Corporation in the mid '60s and cancelled in 1970.
I can see why this was never done. Too much could go wrong, considering launching three birds at once, to put one single satellite into orbit. Too much overkill, too much to go wrong.
Same thing with normal shuttle
This really was a great concept. Such a heartbreaker we never got to see it in real life. Therefore I especially appreciate your animating so nicely here.
Just one criticism: The wiki page says/suggests that all three of these units (quietly) glided to their respective landings.
Great video! Always look forward to seeing more from this channel!. And what a beast that system would have been.The payload capacity didn't look very great though, unless there was another payload bay behind the one that was open. Good stuff.
Beautifully rendered, thanks.
That middle shuttle is getting it from both sides
They are still working out where to put the pub and store surplus tea and biscuits.
*tea and biscuits intensifies
And everyone back in time for afternoon tea... Nice idea and clever animation...
The Royal Air Force is going into space now! 🇬🇧
Hahahahaha good one!
Well with America creating it's own Space Force you can bet that in the near future Britain will create it's very own "Royal Space Force".
Why does the first stage need heat shields?
@@mbgamer3189 . Excuse me but it is not: Britain; it is: Great Britain.
@@anthonypeterson5618 The three units were intended to be identical. In other words, a vehicle could be a booster on one mission, and theoretically the orbiter on the next. The idea was that developing one vehicle design would be more cost effective. It's really not that different than many Russian designs or Falcon Heavy/Delta Heavy/etc, except for the horizontal landing capability.
If the idea were resurrected today, given modern drone technology I imagine each vehicle would be able to fly manned or unmanned.
It's really not that far-fetched IMHO.
Now, if you combine this concept with the X-33 design.....
Imagine if Britain built a Buran type shuttle with reusable rockets
I could almost take that for real at the start - except that the flame is perhaps too bright? Having seen an Apollo launch I remember it as more orange, with pale violet shockwaves near the venturi. Great animation though! (But then I don’t know what fuel is used here.)
Different engines and different fuel types can have varying colors and brightnesses.
Look at the Space Shuttle main engines, and compare it to the Saturn Engines, or even the Space Shuttle Boosters.
Fule was supposed to be LH2 + LOX
Fantastic job as always!
So much talent in the British aircraft industry back then. The English Electric team were on a par with Lockheed. I can just imagine the first launch being covered by Raymond Baxter and an enthusiastic BBC.
Space sandwich... I ididn't know that launch architecture even existed. It's so weird.
Anyway you're video is awesome as always! :D
EDIT: 2:21 you even added atmospheric distorsion. Hollywood please hire this guy
Jorge Juan González
I don’t think any launch architecture existed for the MUSTARD, also even though it’s depicted similarly to the Space Shuttle, I.e a launch platform for satellites, it was never intended as anything other than a military reconnaissance program.
This is an awesome channel... *and this concept: is one of the most crazy I've yet seen. When it began launching with the 3 craft sandwiched together, i was thinking that isn't gonna work??!*
Then i looked at the name:
Of course, the one most applicable...mustard.
😂😂😂
It’s seems the Brits still have their sense of humor!
@@alphagt62
🤷♂️. Well.... uh, what can i say?!
Be well, brother.
☀️😎☀️🇺🇸
Leigh Garfield I’ll check it out! Sounds interesting.
@alphagt62 I've seen a couple docu shorts on the skylon craft concept...
in my opinion, it looks and sounds OUTSTANDING, employing a hybrid ramjet engine that uses the oxygen in low and mid atmosphere to gain speed and altitude, then once at very high altitude i believe it uses rocket motors to ascend the rest of the way into space.
I'm certainly not an expert, so i most definitely recommend looking it up for yourself.
@Leigh Garfield that is a great comment, that skylon concept is really cool looking.
*i hope the Brits succeed here, and look forward to following the progress.*
Take care...
☀️😎☀️🇺🇸
There was a Convair proposal for the US shuttle that used a similar "triamese" configuration: airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/model-space-shuttle-general-dynamics-convair-fr-4-2-stage-triamese-concept/nasm_A19740727000
I think Convair's had pop-out wings for the final glide.
Part of the idea is that by making the booster and orbiter vehicles identical, you save on design and development costs, though the downside is that they can be less specialized.
(Convair was an absolute firehose of wildly ambitious and sometimes strange unbuilt spacecraft concepts, by the way--you could run a whole channel like this just on their stuff.)
That one looked more realistic until tiny wings shown up. Or they meant landing at subsonic speeds.
MUSTARD was based on the Douglas ASTRO concept but refine to use three identical vehicles instead of two dissimilar ones. The Convair came along after MUSTARD info had been published and ALLEGEDLY was carefully crafted to avoid infringing BACs patents.
Magnificent - great work
Looks like something out of KSP
Time to open the KSP
yes
This is really really really cool and Innovative. I have never seen anything like this before! Ten Thumbs up!
Brexit is good you can see all ready the greatness coming back to the UK
@@seansands424 lol 😂
Beautiful as always!
So THAT'S how baby shuttles are made.......
Paint it green, and you have Thunderbird 2. The real one, from 1965. No doubt.
Britain needs to "catchup" with their space program
Reaction Engine & SKYLON enough said!! The reaction engine a hybrid jet/rocket engine that runs off hydro-zine (fixed Me163 Komet Fuel) that lowers the temperature of air entering the engine past Mach 2.3 (friction makes it to hot to combust) that has seen it tested to Mach 5 in the US in February. It is also claimed that the "engines freezers" are able to liquefy some of this air... and store it in the free space within the fuel tank left by the burnt fuel. In English, SKYLON will take off from a conventional runway and make it's liquid oxygen for space flight as it climbs through the atmosphere to to escape velocity. Gen John W Raymond of Trump's New Space Force, let slip in his first briefing the US had access to technology to build Mach 5 Hyper-Sonic/Space transports. Given bugger all money from the Government...again. Mr Bond formerly of the HOTOL project have since moved from Wharton outside of Manchester that is coincidentally where they built the Taranis Drone "that is apparently Global and can reach speeds of mach 5..." then BAE/Rolls Royce partners in both projects swept those statements under the table along with it's AI "hunter/killer" flight capabilities.
th-cam.com/video/kdNUFaNEDAc/w-d-xo.html .the engine.
th-cam.com/video/r6vgdgif374/w-d-xo.html .the lifting body....needs ZeroX from Thunderbird's as the into music.
This is an amazing animation...you are truly talented.
Amazing logistics! Take three things capable of independently flying and strap them together and launch them all at once, fuel tank to fuel tank to fuel tank.
What could possibly go wrong.?
Boy when the British go, they go big.
Boom butta boom butta boom!!!
TeaPartyActivist lol
I suppose there doesn't have to be connections between the fuel tanks. The two outside ones lift the triplet until they exhaust their fuel and the center one ignites it's rocket late in the launch. I like the concept that the re-usable "boosters" are capable of being used as "upper stage" orbital vehicles when needed. Only one vehicle to design, just build a bunch of them. Each one can be tested on sub-orbital flights before using them as boosters or orbiters. I see a bit of genius in this idea!
This can be don in kerbal space program
KayakerMagic - Ever hear the expression “putting all your eggs in one basket”?
Let’s say the probability of one space shuttle Failing catastrophically is one in ten launches, a 90% probability of success. So the chance of three launching successfully is 0.9 x 0.9 x 0.9 = 0.729 or a 729% chance of success. And if any one of those blew up, because of the design they would all blow up.
Bottom line, numbers a side, The more parts, any one which of that can cause catastrophic failure, the more likely that failure will occur.
@@TeaPartyActivist On the other hand, with MUSTARD you only have to test and prove one vehicle, whereas with the Shuttle, you had to test and prove the orbiter AND the tank AND the SRBs. MUSTARD had no SRBs (cause of one Shuttle loss) and no foam tank insulation (cause of the other shuttle loss). Would it have hit development problems? Probably. Would it have solved them? Possibly. We'll never know 'cos it was never funded, but in general, Space Is Hard for everybody.
100% reusability, but is not as efficient as SpaceX today not 100% yet. But still keep with SpaceX, cause near future will be 100% with BFR. Not even considering the difference in payload, but for sure is cool animation, and would be great to have it real too.
Technicly, this design might be more efficient than that steel can thing.
And i woudlnt say near future. Rather late 20s.
@@_mikolaj_ I don't thing so, you are only thinking about the surface, but you have 3 times the motors, for 3 ships, 3x the parts that cover and function each one, wings, more body surface. You need to see more than just the material. If you go deep, you will see, Elon musk avoid the need of surface treatment, the ceramic part that protect other type off material when used, to protect from burning on reentry. etc. etc. etc. Because this are 3 complete ships. Would be so much heavy, for a fraction of the payload. All the body of 2 this ships would be only for fuel, and the third one, the one that goes to space, have a minor space near cabin with a mini satellite. You see it in the final of the video. The rest was fuel.
@@_mikolaj_ And 2022 is near future. 2020 is now, and it will only do a test flight.
@@Climberfx steel can thing was joke with bit of personal opinion, not saying that steel is worse. But those planes use entire fuel. Only ∆v decrease comes from wings wich seem to be fuel tanks.
@@_mikolaj_ Still, 3x surfaces time, versus less volume. Because it is not a cylinder, plus 3x equipment control, engines, because they are 3 veicules. you sure going that way? For sure TWR increases when burn fuel, but Delta V is a fix thing from start, it only decreases after start up the rocket man. Go play KSP a little more...
That landing scene is beautiful.
Not sure about using 3 craft... But I like their shuttle design...very unique.
The idea was that the two boosters would pump fuel into the orbiter during the takeoff phase. That way, the engines could be fired on all three stages, but the orbiter would still have a full fuel tank after booster separation. A very efficient method, in theory.
3 for the price of 1
Us British love a bargain 😂
We will be back in the space race soon 😁🇬🇧👍
Still only 1, the other 2 land back without going into orbit
@@ScootyPuffJrSux they had to self isolate 😂😂😂
Skylon coming along
Could you imagine the terminal at that spaceport? Pilots delayed because they arrived too late to be at the top of a stack.
Edit: If managed poorly, it'd be the spaceflight equivalent of gridlock.
Wow, great to be using this.
I am excited for this