I want to live in the timeline where the Venturestar was funded/completed. I remember watching the old CGI previews of it when it was development and the hosts of those sci-tech shows saying "this is the future!" and it feels so wrong that it didn't happen.
WELL THEN GET RID IF POEPLE LIKE DICK CHANEY'S ASS AND WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET TO MARS AND BEYOND IT WAS POLITICS THAT IS THE REASON IT WAS NEVER COMPLETED IT WAS 70% THERE AND DICK CHANEY IS THE REASON ITS GONE ! IMAGINE THIS ALL THE RESOURCES WE NEED FORM STEEL TO WATER ALL THE WAY TO SOAP IS OUT THERE FLOATING IN THE ASTEROID FIELD AT THE EDGE OF OUR STAR SYSTEM. NOW IMAGINE IT BEING ILLEGAL TO MINE THE EARTH AND WE GET ALL OUR MINERALS FORM THERE, PLUS WE GET TO GET RID OF TOXIC WAST WITHOUT THE THREAT OF IT HURTING ANYONE OR ANYTHING, BUT YA LETS STAY IN LOW EARTH ORBIT AND MAKE IT WHERE ONLY 10% OF THE POEPLE ON THIS ROCK LIVE LIKE KINGS WHERE EVERYONE ELES WORKS LIKE DOGS NOW AREN'T WE SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO VOTE AND CHANGE THINGS TO HOW THE MAJORITY FEELS IS RIGHT...... DOES THAT SOUND RIGHT? I DIDNT THINK SO TAKE CONTROL OF OUR WORLD BY GETTING RID OF TOXIC POLITICIANS THAT ARE ONLY WORRIED ABOUT THERE OWN POCKETS.... EASIER SAID THAN DONE!
It’s too bad that the real Venture Star never came to fruition. When it was in development it was supposed to be the replacement spacecraft for the Space Shuttle fleet before they were all retired. Originally the Space Shuttle was intended to utilize aero spikes instead of the conventional rocket engines that were used. Thank you for posting this animation video! Perhaps it may inspire someone to actually build a full sized spacecraft that is self contained and is able to land on a runway as intended. Please have an excellent and awesome day! 🙂
I wish this was real because when I was a kid I remember this was such a big deal my dad got me two matchbox toys of it. NASA was really banking on it being the replacement shuttle too bad it didn't fly
just nine days away untill then second decade of our 21st century. We should more but gracious that is now and not then. It was said, "Baby steps are what we need" Having more to consider than just the moment I ponder with God what is to become of me. Fall back or advance, always a victim of circumstance. Excuse me if I seem irate but it pains me to concentrate. Tick tock, increments of a clock. Something we have no power to stop... I wish were my counselor... Everytime I think of something, everyone goes Quack, Quack, Quack! LoL! I love Adriana Lima! In all sincerity, I am amazed. This is so "Popular Mechanics" style awe! Since 1970 when I was 8 years old, I knew then that we are not alone. That beings from beyond were visiting our planet. But why not make contact? Why? That is more important to me than who we are... "We must not be enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. The misty chords of memory will swell again when soon touched by the better angels of our nature..."
@@cerebral3591 I never was given the numbers but the aluminum tanks were still too heavy. Engine efficiency is very important, but power to weight ratio has final say to go for flight test. The composite tanks were joined together and looked heavy. I'm thinking that insufficient testing prior to a manufacturing phase was a result of lobbying in Washington and a corrupt government giving a sure to fail contract to anyone.
@@forrestgumpv9049 Found a good article on it. "While the aluminum LH2 tank was much heavier than the composite tank in the skins, the joints were much lighter, which was where all the weight in the composite tank was, due to the multi-lobed shape of the tank requiring a large amount of surrounding structure, such as the joints. Ironically, the original design of the X-33 on the drawing board had the tanks made out of aluminum for this reason - but the cost played a factor for the potential customer base. Then the hammer blow, as despite the project now appearing to be back on track, with the move towards testing of the new LH2 tank, the much-respected former NASA director Ivan Bekey appeared in front of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science, at the US House of Representatives. His testimony on April 11, 2001, on NASA’s FY2001 budget request ‘Aero-Space Technology Enterprise,’ proved to be the final blow for the X-33 VentureStar. His address to US lawmakers stressed that the X-33 had to continue with composite tanks, thus making the project doomed to failure." From how it reads, it would have functioned in the end.
I worked on the X-33 for five years. Love seeing this, it would have been amazing to see it fly. This is the closest I’ll get. Thanks for making this! It’s beautiful. (Yes I know the difference between X-33 and VentureStar… 😊)
How wonderful! So sad it never quite hit that sweet spot, but it's still a piece of our Space Fight history. As someone who worked on it, do you think any of today's advances might have helped the project to fruition?
Back in the 90’s I was saving the Shop Cam from the x-33 floor and making a time lapse. How did it feel when Northrup-Grumman got the tank problem solved in 2003? Vindicated that it was doable or disheartened when it wasn’t restarted?
Technology for the composite tanks was not ready yet. Thebonded layers would weaken and sometimes let go altogether after thermal cycles (although they solved that problem a couple of years later). Elon musk will make it evident (or not) that stainless steel is the way to go, especially if you want it cheaper.
That was the scaled down, proof of concept, vehicle. Unfortunately, building a strong and light enough tank for it wasn't feasible back then and the current crop of propulsive landing rockets just smokes the Venturestar projections both in cost and specs.
@@i077 quote: "Unfortunately, building a strong and light enough tank for it wasn't feasible back then " well not entirely true. Because they had so much trouble with the composite H2 tanks for the X-33, the engineers actually decided to build AL-Lithium alloy tanks for the X-33 prototype, so that they could validate the rest of the system. And what happened? The AL-LI tanks turned out to be actually lighter than the planned composite tanks. But the program was cancelled anyway....
Interesting story my father was given the chance to fly the sim for the actual program. He first went on the glide path and he initiated the pitch up a little to late so he came short but on the second attempt he greased the landing pretty smoothly. I'm pretty sure the remains of the plane still exist but they are held by the US AIR FORCE so they cannot be accessed at this time. Would be neet to see at the AF Museum in Dayton. 😏
@@CeddyFeldmann it was the 33. It is still kept in a hanger on the afb. It may have been a program driven for nasa but it was being developed by Lockheed Martin. Being that the program was adjacent to other air force programs, it shouldn't be surprising that the two would have some friendly interactions.
This is epic! You did an awesome job tracking the Venture Star into real video. I do have a note with the exhaust plume since it's an aerospike it wouldn't expand out like that. At all altitudes the exhaust plume will be a nice straight stream once it exits contact with the surface of the spike, however, the thickness of the stream will increase with altitude until it reaches the thickness of the spike base where the exhaust exits the combustion chamber onto the spike surface. Nevertheless, this is an awesome job and I'm just a netpicking nerd, so one animator to another, awesome work!
95% of the airframe was complete when it was cancelled for political reasons. Launchpad was done too. It was first supposed to demonstrate the use of composite fuel tanks. When that turned out difficult with materials way back then, they decided to use aluminium tanks until they got the carbon fiber ready. Congress cancelled it because it wouldn't fulfill its goal of testing composite technology. It's one of the sadder parts of space exploration history.
@@chrisediger2061 I don't know but the aerospike engine that was developed for it sits in a museum. And NASA did eventually get carbon fiber tanks working but the subscale X-33 and full scale Venture Star probably won't be restarted at this point and Lockheed won't do it by themselves without a clear customer and investor.
@@221b-l3t Rocket Lab proved through ten picture perfect flights of its Electron rocket that composite fuel tanks are feasible, at least for RP-1 and liquid oxygen. There is no reason why it coukd not have flown, even if the tanks were made of aluminum alloy. Yes, this almost certain to succeed vehicle was killed for political reasons, not because it wouldn't work.
Retired University professor here, come on Lockheed you've got the resources to keep this flying! It's time to give Elon Musk a true competitor!! Shame on NASA for the foolish bureaucracy!! I have a solid aerospace engineering background and offer my services free of charge!!
I appreciate your offer Dan even if Lockheed and NASA don't. Most likely what happened is a lack of drive and efficiency designing and building the spacecraft. I think everyone learned after Apollo was done your job is as well. But if you can drag it out and keep convincing them it will work (so you don't loose funding) you can take a 2 year project and make it last 10 if they want it bad enough. Besides, this isn't Russia. It's not like anyone get's thrown in prison or shot. I watched a Documentary that said NASA talked away 22 billion dollars without building 1 piece of the "United States Space Station". After that it became the International Space Station and we had several countries involved. The proposed Moon Mission NASA has planed is nothing more than an expensive reenactment of Apollo 8 since the first mission will be a flyby. Elon will be standing on the surface waving at them when they fly over!
Outstanding, and I echo the disappointment at cancellation of this program: I'm dismayed we can't do better than some sort of Apollo redux (with Soyuz solar panels), which is way behind schedule and over budget. I cringe every time we have to BUY rides from the Russians (sorry-once a Cold warrior...just don't trust them.) The biggest problem is we keep yanking the rug out from under NASA, changing their "priorities" every time a new administration takes office, and needs a JFK moment to distract everyone when poll numbers are down. Anyone ever have a boss that changes their mind about the "URGENT"? I welcome SpaceX, Blue Origin, et all, to the high frontier, but when NASA is given a clear goal, an appropriate budget to attain that goal, they do the US taxpayers proud. Given the return on investment over the decades and across manned, un-manned and science spin-offs, I consider NASA one of the few truly productive agencies of our government. I approved this message, and hell no, I'm not running for anything.
I would agree that there is a significant political component to the problem. But NASA has botched manned space flight and the Space Shuttle program was a disaster in every possible way for the US space program. Without its pie-in-the-sky projections of reusability and “low cost” we would probably be on Mars now.
I wish you were my counselor... Everytime I think of something everyone goes Quack, Quack, Quack! LoL! I love Adriana Lima! In all sincerity, I am amazed. This is so "Popular Mechanics" style awe! Since 1970 when I was 8 years old, I knew then that we are not alone. That beings from beyond were visiting our planet. But why not make contact? Why? That is more important to me than who we are... "We must not be enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. The misty chords of memory will swell again when soon touched by the better angels of our nature..."
@Christopher Guerin this vehicle was built by Lockheed Martin. The Lockheed engineers told NASA the spec material that NASA wanted for the fuel tanks wouldnt work they didnt listen and when the vehicle was launched there was an explosion in the tanks
It is official, I am obsessed with SSTO rocket spaceships!!!!!!!!!! All we need is a more efficient aerospike engine but the structural design of the Venturestar is magnificent in my opinion!
From what I understand, the issue that ended the project was carbon fiber tanks. As the ship was meant to be a technology demonstrator, the prospect of having to use aluminum tanks was unpopular, not to mention heavier. Instead we get 20 years of NASA trying and failing to develop a rocket. Fingers crossed on the current.
I was such a huge fan of the X-33 project, and followed it very closely for years. They even had a webcam up in the assembly building. Such an enormous shame the kevlar tanking couldn't be completed successfully using the technology of the time - because today that tank would be easy to make. What was the best about the X-33 though, was the XRS-2200 Linear Aerospike engine - arguably the greatest rocket engine ever made! Such a simple, non-gimbal design made it incredibly lightweight, incredibly simple, and 100% efficient at ALL altitudes - something no rocket has EVER achieved. Today it is mind-boggling that we don't have fleets of ships driven by aerospike engines. The bell nozzle is fully retarded, and is only efficient at a specific atmospheric pressure. BOOO!
I’ve been on that webcam a few times! Still have my Skunkworks badge from the project. Really nice to see people who remember our work. Cheers from New Orleans! 🥃
The explanation of the Venturestar does give the briefest of descriptions of its demise. The Venturestar rocketplane was a design of a smaller version called the X-33. The X-33 was built by Lockheed Martin in conjunction with NASA back in the 90's. The X-33 and the planned Venturestar used an innovative rocket design called the Linear Aerospike engine whick you can read all about on Wikipedia. Because of failures with the hydrogen fuel tanks the X-33 was canceled and the Venturestar never got off the drawing board. A couple of other companies later tried to make a go of it with a similar rocketplane design and the linear aerospike engine, but they couldn't even get to a test flight. Darrn and that video made it look so easy!
@@jaimeduncan6167 that is correct because of a political war between two IDOITS that think they know what's best for everyone when they where only thinking of themselves
Finally, some actually good video of this thing in flight. Also some of those classic shuttle camera angles Edit: I know this is an animation, but before this there was no render of this ship in operation
Really cool, realistic, detailed animation! I liked how the vehicle lurched upward on ignition (A little nod to the shuttle) And the rocket-cam view popping through clouds was also a nice touch. And the view from the ISS window. A little sound barrier vapor on the ascent would've also been cool, but again, really great video. A shame the program was cancelled. Wish we could have done all of that for real.
My mind was rejecting what my eyes saw. We're have gotten so used to seeing multiple stages that even though I knew there wasn't going to be staging I kept thinking why isn't there a MECO? I gotta say the flip as it approached the ISS was pretty cool too. All in all great stuff as always
What saddens me the most is it was 95% complete and if they would have just waited a few years, they would have been able to make the fuel tanks out of Carbon Fiber and fixed the center of gravity issue that sprang from the issues with the fuel tank’s composition. Ultimately bureaucracy killed what could have been our first SSTO, not engineering issues, they could have been solved. Such a shame. This is near cinema quality too, great job 👏
The particles have got to be much faster coming out of the engine, good sir. They are extremely fast in reality, and feel slow here. Otherwise, wonderful job on the FX. Like to also complement you on the reflection of the flame's brightness being flashed off the cloud we passed through in POV.
Awesome feedback on the particles. Also the point behind an aerospike is that the particles would never be that spread out. A rocket engine achieves maximum effectiveness if all of the hot particles are thrown directly away from the nozzle with as little spread as possible. An aerospike, unlike a traditional bell nozzle, can enjoy that kind of effectiveness at all altitudes and even in the vacuum of space. Traditional engine nozzles can only be tuned to throw the propellant straight out away from the craft at very particular atmospheric pressures. So at no point in the flight of an aerospike would I expect to see the engine output to be leaving in a dramatically spread out cone as it appears for most of the ascent here. Otherwise fantastic animation, great lighting, perfect camera angles. 👍
That's an issue with... I want to say ALL animations ive seen. Be it pre-renders like this or in video games. Nothing can ever depict the velocity of rocket exhaust properly. Wonder why.
Yeah, it seems that velocity in general tends to be an issue across the board in cgi of most media. There is an incoherence in terms of size and speed. They seem to have a hard time with momentum. Just look at Transformers for instance.
Until 0:40 i thought i was watching a Video from SciNews, wondering how i didn't know about this launch... I wasn't looking on the channel when i cloicked on the video in my subscibtion box :D But the sound at 0:40 was clearly the sound of a Space Shuttle Launch so i knew it wasn't real...
I don't understand why VentureStar in this video is doing a rotation and flies upside down. Space Shuttle is doing rotation to balance center of mass . The external tank must be "above" engines and upside down is only way it is possible But VentureStar has only internal tanks and most likely well balanced
I’d love to see a vehicle launch with aerospike engines and a single stage spaceplane would be a perfect use for them. Let’s hope it happens. Best wishes.
If I had the money and resources, I'd resurrect the VentureStar as a commercial spacecraft. But there would be a number of design changes made to it. New materials would be implemented in the construction of the fuel tanks to increase spacecraft safety and to reduce its overall weight. I would also design a crew module for the spacecraft that can fit into its payload bay, but it could be ejected in the event of an emergency at any time during flight.
2:55 while thats a nice visual of venture star flipping belly up, it most likely wouldn't have happened. the shuttle only did that after the Columbia disaster to make sure no tiles had been lost on assent due to debris from the ET falling and hitting it. venture-star did not have an ET from which debris could fall off onto the heatsheild. it was also uncrewed, so combine that with the lack of a chance anything hitting it on assent, this maneuver would've been a waste of precious maneuvering fuel.
@@DavidWillisSLS Well not as such a crew vehicle with a cockpit and all that. But a crew module could be carried in the cargo bay for a crewed version. The contract didn't actually require this but Lockheed added the capability as it wouldn't be true successor to Shuttle if it couldn't fly people. But it was designed to fly autonomously and had no traditional crew quarters like the Space Shuttle or Buran, which could actually fly itself but it did still have the classic crew compartment.
PBbbbffff! NASA has a 35 Year head start on SpaceX. To date Space X still has 0-Experience with sending human beings into space. Private Companies like Space X are almost certainly the future of launching payloads, but Human Beings are another matter altogether.
@@johnnyfavorite1194 We shall see. It all depends on what you base either oganization's success. SpaceX is also building off of everything NASA learned. If you read about how they were flying people in the mercury days, it was pretty sketchy. It was a necessary risk to take to develop the engineering however. These days, NASA has stalled, both from lack of funding and attitude on how best to explore. SpaceX launches a lot more frequently than NASA, and they are unmatched in reusable rocketry. In that respect, SpaceX has a "head start" on NASA. But again, these are two very different organizations who are not competing each other, but are in fact in a mutual relationship. I forsee that in the next decade, SpaceX will further revolutionize space, and NASA will have freedom to explore as they've only dreamed.
It is so cute, all these speculations "yeah the shadows are you know looks not real or too real and then there are these sparks that is obviously fx and stuff", that makes me wanna hug you all. So cute! Nice video. Beautiful world we're living
Yes i remember it to, project held back because something to do with fuel tanks had to be made with light composite material to save weight but they couldn't perfect it in time and it was cancelled, lots of parts are stored somewhere, Engine was to heavy and complicated to make as well.
@@bradleywasser2047 well as eith the main timeline they may not have checked until they lost a vehicle to it. The good thing is that Venture Star wouldn't have carried crew on most missions
Excellent, only one issue. You wouldn't have seen a flame, only a contrail. The Venturestar would have used only liquid hydrogen and Liquid oxygen as fuel.
SSTO REQUIRES hydrogen + oxygen -- can't use kerosene -- yet your video shows a kerosene burn. Look at the actual space shuttle footage. The flame should be pale blue -- almost invisible.
I'm not a NASA engineer but what little I do know is that there needs to be a lot of fuel to get something into orbit, and this thing doesn't look like it has the capacity.
The main idea of the X-33 is removing the need for huge multi stage rockets. The reason rockets are so large now isn't really because of the fuel in a sense, but the fuel each stage needs.
Another failure by bureaucracy. The insistence on a composite LH2 tank and attempting to use too many new unproven technologies in a single vehicle killed it.
It took a long time to accept it but SSTO is a pipe dream. Between 1G, the thickness of the atmosphere the Earth and the potential thrust of all known chemical propellants the rocket equation won't let it happen. Add in the reuse-ability weight penalty and it's clear why no one pursued it. The good ol' Atlas, shedding its booster engines after 2 1/2 minutes was as close as it got. It the planet was just a little bit smaller, with maybe .95G it could be done. Otherwise some kind of staging is necessary.
I've seen diagrams of the new space plane that had been going through testing at Groom Lake a few years back. This was from an employee there involved in security. The diagram looked pretty similar to this craft/the X-33. Cool.
I've heard that they launch out of Dugway, UT. This program was designed to be absorbed by the DoD black projects after claiming it was over budget upon completion.
I think we need a better replacement for the space shuttle. Space X multi-stage capsule is NOT as sexy as the shuttle was IMHO. I think a sexier vehicle to space would be a single-stage orbiter and lander of some kind.
VentureStar was a beautiful concept, and I would have loved to see it fly. (This simulation is a decent consolation prize at least.) The problem with the X-33, VentureStar and numerous other Single Stage To Orbit (SSTO) craft is that Tsiolkovsky's Rocket Equation is a harsh mistress and won't be denied. With any reasonably conceivable chemical rocket technology, the specific impulse (Isp), defined as Veq / g0, dictates that by using only a single stage, the cargo mass fraction will be tiny, if there's any margin left for it at all. Taking the main engines and tanks big enough to hold fuel for the entire ascent all the way to orbit with you is a killer penalty. There's a reason why every successful orbital rocket system has used at least two stages. (The possible exception to this being the early "inflatable" Atlas rockets where two of the three engines were jettisoned during the flight to make the vehicle light enough that the rest of it could make it to orbit. John Glenn rode one of these to become the first American to orbit the earth.) Happily, Spacex's Starship will be capable of carrying far heavier cargos to orbit, and be able to do it way more often while (like VentureStar) being fully reuseable. As a bonus, it'll do all that at a fraction of what an SSTO would cost. Still... I really would have loved to have seen VentureStar fly.
@Trigger Troll Well, actually the left wing shadow *should* be strong in space since there's not a whole lot of air to scatter light off of so you wouldn't end up with ambient lighting from atmospheric scattering like you do on earth.
@Trigger Troll It could become a success if aerospikes can have their heat flow / buildup issues solved by 3D printing the engine to have channels inside optimised for shedding heat. As it stands though, aerospikes suffer from a buildup of heat as described in Everyday Astronaut's video about them.
🇺🇸 would have had the single most advanced, gorgeous, and glorious spacecraft in the solar system... But money and time conspired to reduce the Venture Star to a great “If Only”
Al Gore unveiled a scale model of Venturestar at a public event announcing the project in the summer of 1996. He called it the "Space Shuttle replacement".
Cleverly done. I've always tried to keep aware of space stuff. In watching this for a minute I kept thinking "how did I miss this?" Then the big "Naaaaaahhhh" hit me.
The concept just need adjustments, if the body demenstion were similar to the "British Space Shuttle" and it landed & took off under 200 feet high at runways or "Skycrane" style belly-booster hoovered 100 feet at landing pads (on light weight planets/moons). Because it was toi fatty heavy for a pure verticle in real life expense.
Very nice! I remember so looking forward to it and was pissed off when it was cancelled. I pretty much lost interest in spaceflight after that. But now we have SpaceX!
Hey! You left without me! I had a ticket! Seriously, as an earth based airliner, this would have done wonders for those overseas flights. Getting to various places on earth in minutes, instead of hours.
Really wanted to see those linear aerospikes at work. The biggest complaint was the small payload capacity. Had it been a full, airfoil body from tail to nose, it would have gained up to 40% internal space. Pointy is not necessary. It would have flown just as well, there would be more space for fuel and/or payload, it would be easier to offset the tail heavy problem and the width would be just as easy to shield for reentry. Rebuild this thing without the point and get those linear aerospikes dusted off. Yes, SpaceX can do the job well enough but this is so much cooler.
I want to live in the timeline where the Venturestar was funded/completed. I remember watching the old CGI previews of it when it was development and the hosts of those sci-tech shows saying "this is the future!" and it feels so wrong that it didn't happen.
Well once humanity figures out how to make black holes maybe you actually can live in that timeline
@@theliam3786 why is that needed for an ssto?
@@theliam3786 being able to fund an expensive and high tech SSTO ≠ being able to create fuckin black holes
WELL THEN GET RID IF POEPLE LIKE DICK CHANEY'S ASS AND WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET TO MARS AND BEYOND IT WAS POLITICS THAT IS THE REASON IT WAS NEVER COMPLETED IT WAS 70% THERE AND DICK CHANEY IS THE REASON ITS GONE ! IMAGINE THIS ALL THE RESOURCES WE NEED FORM STEEL TO WATER ALL THE WAY TO SOAP IS OUT THERE FLOATING IN THE ASTEROID FIELD AT THE EDGE OF OUR STAR SYSTEM. NOW IMAGINE IT BEING ILLEGAL TO MINE THE EARTH AND WE GET ALL OUR MINERALS FORM THERE, PLUS WE GET TO GET RID OF TOXIC WAST WITHOUT THE THREAT OF IT HURTING ANYONE OR ANYTHING, BUT YA LETS STAY IN LOW EARTH ORBIT AND MAKE IT WHERE ONLY 10% OF THE POEPLE ON THIS ROCK LIVE LIKE KINGS WHERE EVERYONE ELES WORKS LIKE DOGS NOW AREN'T WE SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO VOTE AND CHANGE THINGS TO HOW THE MAJORITY FEELS IS RIGHT...... DOES THAT SOUND RIGHT? I DIDNT THINK SO TAKE CONTROL OF OUR WORLD BY GETTING RID OF TOXIC POLITICIANS THAT ARE ONLY WORRIED ABOUT THERE OWN POCKETS.... EASIER SAID THAN DONE!
Well, why not message NASA about possible permission for recreating it?
It’s too bad that the real Venture Star never came to fruition. When it was in development it was supposed to be the replacement spacecraft for the Space Shuttle fleet before they were all retired. Originally the Space Shuttle was intended to utilize aero spikes instead of the conventional rocket engines that were used. Thank you for posting this animation video! Perhaps it may inspire someone to actually build a full sized spacecraft that is self contained and is able to land on a runway as intended. Please have an excellent and awesome day! 🙂
This might look good in season three of "For All Mankind"
I think pathfinder's kinda taken the role sadly :(
@@iantoevans1159 Season 3 seems to be set in the early 1980s. This could be ready for the in the 1990s.
They'll probably build a fleet of Pathfinder rockets
Oh my god Yes please
Nuclear venturestar…….
I wish this was real because when I was a kid I remember this was such a big deal my dad got me two matchbox toys of it. NASA was really banking on it being the replacement shuttle too bad it didn't fly
just nine days away untill then second decade of our 21st century. We should more but gracious that is now and not then. It was said, "Baby steps are what we need" Having more to consider than just the moment I ponder with God what is to become of me. Fall back or advance, always a victim of circumstance.
Excuse me if I seem irate but it pains me to concentrate.
Tick tock, increments of a clock. Something we have no power to stop...
I wish were my counselor... Everytime I think of something, everyone goes Quack, Quack, Quack! LoL! I love Adriana Lima!
In all sincerity, I am amazed. This is so "Popular Mechanics" style awe! Since 1970 when I was 8 years old, I knew then that we are not alone. That beings from beyond were visiting our planet. But why not make contact? Why? That is more important to me than who we are...
"We must not be enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. The misty chords of memory will swell again when soon touched by the better angels of our nature..."
I worked on this program. Weight was the problem, too heavy. Never able to overcome leaking of the composite tanks. Switch to aluminum but too late.
@@forrestgumpv9049 Didn't the aluminium tanks end up being lighter than the composite ones?
@@cerebral3591 I never was given the numbers but the aluminum tanks were still too heavy.
Engine efficiency is very important, but power to weight ratio has final say to go for flight test. The composite tanks were joined together and looked heavy. I'm thinking that insufficient testing prior to a manufacturing phase was a result of lobbying in Washington and a corrupt government giving a sure to fail contract to anyone.
@@forrestgumpv9049
Found a good article on it.
"While the aluminum LH2 tank was much heavier than the composite tank in the skins, the joints were much lighter, which was where all the weight in the composite tank was, due to the multi-lobed shape of the tank requiring a large amount of surrounding structure, such as the joints. Ironically, the original design of the X-33 on the drawing board had the tanks made out of aluminum for this reason - but the cost played a factor for the potential customer base.
Then the hammer blow, as despite the project now appearing to be back on track, with the move towards testing of the new LH2 tank, the much-respected former NASA director Ivan Bekey appeared in front of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science, at the US House of Representatives. His testimony on April 11, 2001, on NASA’s FY2001 budget request ‘Aero-Space Technology Enterprise,’ proved to be the final blow for the X-33 VentureStar.
His address to US lawmakers stressed that the X-33 had to continue with composite tanks, thus making the project doomed to failure."
From how it reads, it would have functioned in the end.
I worked on the X-33 for five years. Love seeing this, it would have been amazing to see it fly. This is the closest I’ll get. Thanks for making this! It’s beautiful. (Yes I know the difference between X-33 and VentureStar… 😊)
How wonderful! So sad it never quite hit that sweet spot, but it's still a piece of our Space Fight history.
As someone who worked on it, do you think any of today's advances might have helped the project to fruition?
Back in the 90’s I was saving the Shop Cam from the x-33 floor and making a time lapse. How did it feel when Northrup-Grumman got the tank problem solved in 2003? Vindicated that it was doable or disheartened when it wasn’t restarted?
Still sour they canceled it when it was like 75% done
D0D0BIRDIE XD More like 95 percent.
Space Nerd Just the fuel tanks they had issues with.
Technology for the composite tanks was not ready yet. Thebonded layers would weaken and sometimes let go altogether after thermal cycles (although they solved that problem a couple of years later). Elon musk will make it evident (or not) that stainless steel is the way to go, especially if you want it cheaper.
That was the scaled down, proof of concept, vehicle. Unfortunately, building a strong and light enough tank for it wasn't feasible back then and the current crop of propulsive landing rockets just smokes the Venturestar projections both in cost and specs.
@@i077
quote: "Unfortunately, building a strong and light enough tank for it wasn't feasible back then "
well not entirely true. Because they had so much trouble with the composite H2 tanks for the X-33, the engineers actually decided to build AL-Lithium alloy tanks for the X-33 prototype, so that they could validate the rest of the system. And what happened? The AL-LI tanks turned out to be actually lighter than the planned composite tanks. But the program was cancelled anyway....
Convincing CGI integration with real-life. Kudos to you!
YeA and the sounding looks in real life but its copied in the real rocket
Almost got me thinking it's real... Almost
@@andrejs9112 same lol
What cgi
@leonardimas1 those have less detail though, they simply make it all blurry, while this had more details
Interesting story my father was given the chance to fly the sim for the actual program. He first went on the glide path and he initiated the pitch up a little to late so he came short but on the second attempt he greased the landing pretty smoothly. I'm pretty sure the remains of the plane still exist but they are held by the US AIR FORCE so they cannot be accessed at this time. Would be neet to see at the AF Museum in Dayton. 😏
Was it the X-33 or the X-30? Because the 33 was a NASA thing and the 30 was the USAF one.
@@CeddyFeldmann it was the 33. It is still kept in a hanger on the afb. It may have been a program driven for nasa but it was being developed by Lockheed Martin. Being that the program was adjacent to other air force programs, it shouldn't be surprising that the two would have some friendly interactions.
AND YOUR POINT IS
@@charlestorruella8591 ?
This is epic! You did an awesome job tracking the Venture Star into real video. I do have a note with the exhaust plume since it's an aerospike it wouldn't expand out like that. At all altitudes the exhaust plume will be a nice straight stream once it exits contact with the surface of the spike, however, the thickness of the stream will increase with altitude until it reaches the thickness of the spike base where the exhaust exits the combustion chamber onto the spike surface.
Nevertheless, this is an awesome job and I'm just a netpicking nerd, so one animator to another, awesome work!
Hate to be pedantic, but it surely wouldn't be perfectly straight at all altitudes? You can never expand a gas to a perfect vacuum after all.
@@jeffvader811 Yeh It wouldnt be straight .... it would expand out Unless the spike was infinatly long
Nicely said
The plume would be almost transparent because Venture Star would've used hydrogen as well
@@Brixxter Also blue-ish, I think?
Now I feel sad that the Venturestar never went forward. That was awesome. Great video.
95% of the airframe was complete when it was cancelled for political reasons. Launchpad was done too. It was first supposed to demonstrate the use of composite fuel tanks. When that turned out difficult with materials way back then, they decided to use aluminium tanks until they got the carbon fiber ready. Congress cancelled it because it wouldn't fulfill its goal of testing composite technology. It's one of the sadder parts of space exploration history.
@@221b-l3t what happened to the 95% complete airframe? Did they scrap it out put it in storage somewhere?
@@chrisediger2061 I don't know but the aerospike engine that was developed for it sits in a museum. And NASA did eventually get carbon fiber tanks working but the subscale X-33 and full scale Venture Star probably won't be restarted at this point and Lockheed won't do it by themselves without a clear customer and investor.
@@221b-l3t That's really a shame that it got so far in development and then was shut down. Thanks for the info!
@@221b-l3t Rocket Lab proved through ten picture perfect flights of its Electron rocket that composite fuel tanks are feasible, at least for RP-1 and liquid oxygen. There is no reason why it coukd not have flown, even if the tanks were made of aluminum alloy. Yes, this almost certain to succeed vehicle was killed for political reasons, not because it wouldn't work.
Retired University professor here, come on Lockheed you've got the resources to keep this flying! It's time to give Elon Musk a true competitor!! Shame on NASA for the foolish bureaucracy!! I have a solid aerospace engineering background and offer my services free of charge!!
I appreciate your offer Dan even if Lockheed and NASA don't. Most likely what happened is a lack of drive and efficiency designing and building the spacecraft. I think everyone learned after Apollo was done your job is as well. But if you can drag it out and keep convincing them it will work (so you don't loose funding) you can take a 2 year project and make it last 10 if they want it bad enough. Besides, this isn't Russia. It's not like anyone get's thrown in prison or shot. I watched a Documentary that said NASA talked away 22 billion dollars without building 1 piece of the "United States Space Station". After that it became the International Space Station and we had several countries involved. The proposed Moon Mission NASA has planed is nothing more than an expensive reenactment of Apollo 8 since the first mission will be a flyby. Elon will be standing on the surface waving at them when they fly over!
Shame on Bush admin and Congress for canceling this.
Lockheed ain’t got money Elon has...neither does Northrop.
@@fukhue8226 they actually had 95% of the airframe done. It was cancelled due to political reasons.
Anything replacing the Space Shuttle... would have been better than the Space Shuttle
Outstanding, and I echo the disappointment at cancellation of this program: I'm dismayed we can't do better than some sort of Apollo redux (with Soyuz solar panels), which is way behind schedule and over budget. I cringe every time we have to BUY rides from the Russians (sorry-once a Cold warrior...just don't trust them.) The biggest problem is we keep yanking the rug out from under NASA, changing their "priorities" every time a new administration takes office, and needs a JFK moment to distract everyone when poll numbers are down. Anyone ever have a boss that changes their mind about the "URGENT"?
I welcome SpaceX, Blue Origin, et all, to the high frontier, but when NASA is given a clear goal, an appropriate budget to attain that goal, they do the US taxpayers proud. Given the return on investment over the decades and across manned, un-manned and science spin-offs, I consider NASA one of the few truly productive agencies of our government.
I approved this message, and hell no, I'm not running for anything.
If I had the Billions, I would buy a couple of them for Australia. A single stage vehicle? Oh, yes.
I would agree that there is a significant political component to the problem. But NASA has botched manned space flight and the Space Shuttle program was a disaster in every possible way for the US space program. Without its pie-in-the-sky projections of reusability and “low cost” we would probably be on Mars now.
I wish you were my counselor... Everytime I think of something everyone goes Quack, Quack, Quack! LoL! I love Adriana Lima!
In all sincerity, I am amazed. This is so "Popular Mechanics" style awe! Since 1970 when I was 8 years old, I knew then that we are not alone. That beings from beyond were visiting our planet. But why not make contact? Why? That is more important to me than who we are...
"We must not be enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. The misty chords of memory will swell again when soon touched by the better angels of our nature..."
@Christopher Guerin this vehicle was built by Lockheed Martin. The Lockheed engineers told NASA the spec material that NASA wanted for the fuel tanks wouldnt work they didnt listen and when the vehicle was launched there was an explosion in the tanks
It is official, I am obsessed with SSTO rocket spaceships!!!!!!!!!! All we need is a more efficient aerospike engine but the structural design of the Venturestar is magnificent in my opinion!
The future that never was, and a big part of my childhood. Thanks for bringing it to life!
From what I understand, the issue that ended the project was carbon fiber tanks. As the ship was meant to be a technology demonstrator, the prospect of having to use aluminum tanks was unpopular, not to mention heavier. Instead we get 20 years of NASA trying and failing to develop a rocket. Fingers crossed on the current.
I was such a huge fan of the X-33 project, and followed it very closely for years. They even had a webcam up in the assembly building. Such an enormous shame the kevlar tanking couldn't be completed successfully using the technology of the time - because today that tank would be easy to make.
What was the best about the X-33 though, was the XRS-2200 Linear Aerospike engine - arguably the greatest rocket engine ever made! Such a simple, non-gimbal design made it incredibly lightweight, incredibly simple, and 100% efficient at ALL altitudes - something no rocket has EVER achieved.
Today it is mind-boggling that we don't have fleets of ships driven by aerospike engines. The bell nozzle is fully retarded, and is only efficient at a specific atmospheric pressure. BOOO!
If they didn't cancel this we would of had cheap access to space already.
@@blexxy5861 Would have. Would've.
I’ve been on that webcam a few times! Still have my Skunkworks badge from the project. Really nice to see people who remember our work. Cheers from New Orleans! 🥃
Agreed. The time for SSTOs is long overdue. Landing bell nozzle rockets is just a band-aid solution.
The explanation of the Venturestar does give the briefest of descriptions of its demise. The Venturestar rocketplane was a design of a smaller version called the X-33. The X-33 was built by Lockheed Martin in conjunction with NASA back in the 90's. The X-33 and the planned Venturestar used an innovative rocket design called the Linear Aerospike engine whick you can read all about on Wikipedia. Because of failures with the hydrogen fuel tanks the X-33 was canceled and the Venturestar never got off the drawing board.
A couple of other companies later tried to make a go of it with a similar rocketplane design and the linear aerospike engine, but they couldn't even get to a test flight.
Darrn and that video made it look so easy!
I saw it at Plant 42 while I was in the Air Force in 1999. It was a half scale vehicle under construction and never finished.
Love the X-33 and VentureStar designs. Such a shame they were never realised 🙁
Absolutely beautiful work, as usual. Bravo Hazegrayart!
The worse part is why they were never realized.
@@jaimeduncan6167 that is correct because of a political war between two IDOITS that think they know what's best for everyone when they where only thinking of themselves
Finally, some actually good video of this thing in flight. Also some of those classic shuttle camera angles
Edit: I know this is an animation, but before this there was no render of this ship in operation
Lewis Massie its an animation
Yes I know what this channel does
Lewis Massie well your comment made it pretty confusing
Yeah I know
It's a really good animation
This looked so real! Quite naughty of you to fool me for a few moments.
Straight outta buck Rogers amazing video thanks for sharing 🚀🚀🚀🌠🌠🌠🌙🌙🌙
I was fooled for a few moments as well. So don't feel too bad :) It was very authentic looking
@The Real Slim Brady It's to show what it could've been, idiot.
Really cool, realistic, detailed animation! I liked how the vehicle lurched upward on ignition (A little nod to the shuttle)
And the rocket-cam view popping through clouds was also a nice touch. And the view from the ISS window.
A little sound barrier vapor on the ascent would've also been cool, but again, really great video.
A shame the program was cancelled. Wish we could have done all of that for real.
My mind was rejecting what my eyes saw. We're have gotten so used to seeing multiple stages that even though I knew there wasn't going to be staging I kept thinking why isn't there a MECO? I gotta say the flip as it approached the ISS was pretty cool too. All in all great stuff as always
there would have been a meco as soon as it got to orbit so you must be thinking of meco and then stage separation
What saddens me the most is it was 95% complete and if they would have just waited a few years, they would have been able to make the fuel tanks out of Carbon Fiber and fixed the center of gravity issue that sprang from the issues with the fuel tank’s composition. Ultimately bureaucracy killed what could have been our first SSTO, not engineering issues, they could have been solved. Such a shame. This is near cinema quality too, great job 👏
The particles have got to be much faster coming out of the engine, good sir. They are extremely fast in reality, and feel slow here. Otherwise, wonderful job on the FX.
Like to also complement you on the reflection of the flame's brightness being flashed off the cloud we passed through in POV.
Awesome feedback on the particles. Also the point behind an aerospike is that the particles would never be that spread out. A rocket engine achieves maximum effectiveness if all of the hot particles are thrown directly away from the nozzle with as little spread as possible. An aerospike, unlike a traditional bell nozzle, can enjoy that kind of effectiveness at all altitudes and even in the vacuum of space. Traditional engine nozzles can only be tuned to throw the propellant straight out away from the craft at very particular atmospheric pressures. So at no point in the flight of an aerospike would I expect to see the engine output to be leaving in a dramatically spread out cone as it appears for most of the ascent here.
Otherwise fantastic animation, great lighting, perfect camera angles. 👍
That's an issue with... I want to say ALL animations ive seen. Be it pre-renders like this or in video games. Nothing can ever depict the velocity of rocket exhaust properly. Wonder why.
Yeah, it seems that velocity in general tends to be an issue across the board in cgi of most media. There is an incoherence in terms of size and speed. They seem to have a hard time with momentum. Just look at Transformers for instance.
Brian Haddad the aerospikes I think were made to do that so it could control pitch and roll like with gimbal thrusters
@@motokid6008 I think the only thing I've seen able to do it is the effects of the nuclear salt water rocket in ksp far future tech
The scene where you can see the aerospikes was slightly crappy, but I am a big fan of this channel. High quality content!
Until 0:40 i thought i was watching a Video from SciNews, wondering how i didn't know about this launch... I wasn't looking on the channel when i cloicked on the video in my subscibtion box :D But the sound at 0:40 was clearly the sound of a Space Shuttle Launch so i knew it wasn't real...
Excellent work on the 3D models and the animation.
The Thunderbirds theme song was in my head while watching this...
The Enterprise theme was in my head - this ship features in the opening credits briefly.
I don't understand why VentureStar in this video is doing a rotation and flies upside down.
Space Shuttle is doing rotation to balance center of mass . The external tank must be "above" engines and upside down is only way it is possible
But VentureStar has only internal tanks and most likely well balanced
Well, they good news is that without x-33, we have SpaceX. X-33 would have made accessing space too cheap for SpaceX to justify its existence
I’d love to see a vehicle launch with aerospike engines and a single stage spaceplane would be a perfect use for them. Let’s hope it happens. Best wishes.
I think landable boosters that are reusable have rendered SSTO obsolete, at least for now.
Who needs reality when we have awesome things like this that are even better?
Fantastic video, but this $hit will never fly
Like our religious fictions
dude i remember a long time ago thinking this was real. phenomenal job
До каких высот развились технологии! Чудо просто, а не компьютерная графика.
Nice animation. So sad that the Aero-Spike Engine is not further developed 😔😔.
I’m doing some 3D animation on my channel but yours are at another level ! Amazing to think what this could have been !
If I had the money and resources, I'd resurrect the VentureStar as a commercial spacecraft. But there would be a number of design changes made to it.
New materials would be implemented in the construction of the fuel tanks to increase spacecraft safety and to reduce its overall weight.
I would also design a crew module for the spacecraft that can fit into its payload bay, but it could be ejected in the event of an emergency at any time during flight.
2:55
while thats a nice visual of venture star flipping belly up, it most likely wouldn't have happened. the shuttle only did that after the Columbia disaster to make sure no tiles had been lost on assent due to debris from the ET falling and hitting it. venture-star did not have an ET from which debris could fall off onto the heatsheild. it was also uncrewed, so combine that with the lack of a chance anything hitting it on assent, this maneuver would've been a waste of precious maneuvering fuel.
It would have carried passengers but as cargo, like in the Skylon concept. Basically a pressurized module in the payload bay.
@@221b-l3t are you sure? i dont rember it being a crew vehicle..
They have more than enough fuel when approaching the space station. It would take much either to do a simple flip.
@@DavidWillisSLS Well not as such a crew vehicle with a cockpit and all that. But a crew module could be carried in the cargo bay for a crewed version. The contract didn't actually require this but Lockheed added the capability as it wouldn't be true successor to Shuttle if it couldn't fly people. But it was designed to fly autonomously and had no traditional crew quarters like the Space Shuttle or Buran, which could actually fly itself but it did still have the classic crew compartment.
One of the best versions of aerospace CGI, I have a degree in digital communications and graphic alteration, you did a fantastic job
The coolest spaceplane of all time.. thank you for this video
Well, since the X-15 at least! 😉
Nice design to inspire Spacex!!!
All I can say is, I'm glad SpaceX caught the ball that NASA dropped.
PBbbbffff! NASA has a 35 Year head start on SpaceX. To date Space X still has 0-Experience with sending human beings into space. Private Companies like Space X are almost certainly the future of launching payloads, but Human Beings are another matter altogether.
@@johnnyfavorite1194 We shall see. It all depends on what you base either oganization's success.
SpaceX is also building off of everything NASA learned. If you read about how they were flying people in the mercury days, it was pretty sketchy. It was a necessary risk to take to develop the engineering however.
These days, NASA has stalled, both from lack of funding and attitude on how best to explore.
SpaceX launches a lot more frequently than NASA, and they are unmatched in reusable rocketry. In that respect, SpaceX has a "head start" on NASA.
But again, these are two very different organizations who are not competing each other, but are in fact in a mutual relationship.
I forsee that in the next decade, SpaceX will further revolutionize space, and NASA will have freedom to explore as they've only dreamed.
@@johnnyfavorite1194really ? M*ron
Is it a rocket? Is it a shuttle? No, it's a flying penguin!
It is so cute, all these speculations "yeah the shadows are you know looks not real or too real and then there are these sparks that is obviously fx and stuff", that makes me wanna hug you all.
So cute!
Nice video. Beautiful world we're living
Yes i remember it to, project held back because something to do with fuel tanks had to be made with light composite material to save weight but they couldn't perfect it in time and it was cancelled, lots of parts are stored somewhere, Engine was to heavy and complicated to make as well.
I love how you got the R bar maneuver in here. I wonder if they still would have done that since falling ice wouldn’t have been a problem.
Well, it might get a little iffy at the base of the vehicle on liftoff, what with all the acoustic reflection and all that.
@@dsdy1205 that’s a good point. The safe thing would’ve been to just check every time so I bet they would’ve still done it
@@bradleywasser2047 well as eith the main timeline they may not have checked until they lost a vehicle to it. The good thing is that Venture Star wouldn't have carried crew on most missions
Excellent, only one issue. You wouldn't have seen a flame, only a contrail. The Venturestar would have used only liquid hydrogen and Liquid oxygen as fuel.
Woa that animation is amazing.
Tho the plume kinda gave it away, not that I'm complaining.
Conclusion of the VentureStar programme: A very bad SSTO can be an excellent TSTO!
It took me quite a while to realize that this is a montage ;)
SSTO REQUIRES hydrogen + oxygen -- can't use kerosene -- yet your video shows a kerosene burn.
Look at the actual space shuttle footage. The flame should be pale blue -- almost invisible.
Damn, knew as soon as I saw the Aerospike fire up this wasn’t real. But dang we’re so close.
Venture star is something truly capable to do space travel
Wow the attention to detail
Now THAT thing would have been awesome! Love the animated camera work.
wow this video looks so real its like a leak from alternative reality! amazing work
I'm not a NASA engineer but what little I do know is that there needs to be a lot of fuel to get something into orbit, and this thing doesn't look like it has the capacity.
The main idea of the X-33 is removing the need for huge multi stage rockets. The reason rockets are so large now isn't really because of the fuel in a sense, but the fuel each stage needs.
That was really awesome. I thought it was real for about half a minute. Great job!
NASA should just make this already. The technology is ready and they already have the plans for it.
Another failure by bureaucracy. The insistence on a composite LH2 tank and attempting to use too many new unproven technologies in a single vehicle killed it.
It took a long time to accept it but SSTO is a pipe dream. Between 1G, the thickness of the atmosphere the Earth and the potential thrust of all known chemical propellants the rocket equation won't let it happen. Add in the reuse-ability weight penalty and it's clear why no one pursued it. The good ol' Atlas, shedding its booster engines after 2 1/2 minutes was as close as it got. It the planet was just a little bit smaller, with maybe .95G it could be done. Otherwise some kind of staging is necessary.
0:30 nobody gonna talk about how it looks like a huge penguin sat there?
Loved every second. This is once again amazing work.
I've seen diagrams of the new space plane that had been going through testing at Groom Lake a few years back.
This was from an employee there involved in security.
The diagram looked pretty similar to this craft/the X-33.
Cool.
I've heard that they launch out of Dugway, UT. This program was designed to be absorbed by the DoD black projects after claiming it was over budget upon completion.
I can only wish it succeeded as a black project. It just seems possible now.
Fantastic work as always!
I think we need a better replacement for the space shuttle. Space X multi-stage capsule is NOT as sexy as the shuttle was IMHO. I think a sexier vehicle to space would be a single-stage orbiter and lander of some kind.
Excellent
Time Traveler: *(moves table)*
The timeline:
You had me fooled, I thought it was real and wondered how they kept this a secret.
This was fun. Thanks for the looksee
На какой минуте взрывается?
Шучу )
Но демонстрация работы клиновоздушного двигателя хороша))
VentureStar was a beautiful concept, and I would have loved to see it fly. (This simulation is a decent consolation prize at least.) The problem with the X-33, VentureStar and numerous other Single Stage To Orbit (SSTO) craft is that Tsiolkovsky's Rocket Equation is a harsh mistress and won't be denied. With any reasonably conceivable chemical rocket technology, the specific impulse (Isp), defined as Veq / g0, dictates that by using only a single stage, the cargo mass fraction will be tiny, if there's any margin left for it at all. Taking the main engines and tanks big enough to hold fuel for the entire ascent all the way to orbit with you is a killer penalty. There's a reason why every successful orbital rocket system has used at least two stages. (The possible exception to this being the early "inflatable" Atlas rockets where two of the three engines were jettisoned during the flight to make the vehicle light enough that the rest of it could make it to orbit. John Glenn rode one of these to become the first American to orbit the earth.)
Happily, Spacex's Starship will be capable of carrying far heavier cargos to orbit, and be able to do it way more often while (like VentureStar) being fully reuseable. As a bonus, it'll do all that at a fraction of what an SSTO would cost. Still... I really would have loved to have seen VentureStar fly.
Awesome to see this spaceship going into space and descending!!! loved the video!
Awesome job, just one minor critique. The engine exhaust would be a very pale blue, almost clear.
Did anyone else notice that the white wave tops along the beach aren’t moving?
NASA does not allow waves during launches in order to maximize pad stability. The vibrations could affect the spacecraft's initial trajectory.
@@TheRealLaughingGravy BONK !!! :D
@Trigger Troll Well, actually the left wing shadow *should* be strong in space since there's not a whole lot of air to scatter light off of so you wouldn't end up with ambient lighting from atmospheric scattering like you do on earth.
@Trigger Troll It could become a success if aerospikes can have their heat flow / buildup issues solved by 3D printing the engine to have channels inside optimised for shedding heat. As it stands though, aerospikes suffer from a buildup of heat as described in Everyday Astronaut's video about them.
Damn you! This is just TOO good.
They could've put forward pointing camera's to capture the entire journey to outer space and fly around and let us see earth in its entirety
Shuttle Style "Flip and check for heat tile damage" Nice Touch!
so good, I'm having a hard time telling if its real. I believe the craft never made it to orbit.
They never made it to testing at all. Lockheed's could not get early gen composite tanks built.
They should have at least completed and run the test program on the X-33. Even if they had to use the Aluminum LH2 tank.
If only, ah well the world turns and we’ve gone another way
🇺🇸 would have had the single most advanced, gorgeous, and glorious spacecraft in the solar system... But money and time conspired to reduce the Venture Star to a great “If Only”
Woohooo ⭐️
Al Gore unveiled a scale model of Venturestar at a public event announcing the project in the summer of 1996. He called it the "Space Shuttle replacement".
He also said he invented it!
This was supposed to be built 10 years ago and what do they do? Come out with a CGI video!
This animation wasn't made by Lockheed martin...
Cleverly done. I've always tried to keep aware of space stuff. In watching this for a minute I kept thinking "how did I miss this?" Then the big "Naaaaaahhhh" hit me.
Такого корабля в реальности Не! Это Фейк Ньюс!!!
The concept just need adjustments, if the body demenstion were similar to the "British Space Shuttle" and it landed & took off under 200 feet high at runways or "Skycrane" style belly-booster hoovered 100 feet at landing pads (on light weight planets/moons). Because it was toi fatty heavy for a pure verticle in real life expense.
This is probably some of your best yet :D that shot of final approach with the shadow visible on the marsh is 👌👌👌
Lol! Gotta love the little tire chirps at the end!
Wish they would have solved the fuel tank and engine weight concerns. Would have been a neat spacecraft.
The aerospike engine was sent to the black project file.
Very nice! I remember so looking forward to it and was pissed off when it was cancelled. I pretty much lost interest in spaceflight after that. But now we have SpaceX!
VentureStar maybe would be able to start properly with the other VentureStar docked with it like a Space Shuttle
Added to the long list of what could have been had those in power not decided they didn't care or couldn't make a buck off the program somehow.
Hey! You left without me! I had a ticket! Seriously, as an earth based airliner, this would have done wonders for those overseas flights. Getting to various places on earth in minutes, instead of hours.
That was a very realistic looking animation
Really wanted to see those linear aerospikes at work. The biggest complaint was the small payload capacity. Had it been a full, airfoil body from tail to nose, it would have gained up to 40% internal space. Pointy is not necessary. It would have flown just as well, there would be more space for fuel and/or payload, it would be easier to offset the tail heavy problem and the width would be just as easy to shield for reentry. Rebuild this thing without the point and get those linear aerospikes dusted off. Yes, SpaceX can do the job well enough but this is so much cooler.
Cool video. They should quit playing around and actually build an SSTO
Aerospike engines are awesome -- in theory