The NASA Rocket Everyone Forgets Exists
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ธ.ค. 2023
- The Scout rocket was developed be engineers at Langley and flew over 100 times from 1960 to 1994, and yet somehow people forget that it existed, eclipsed by Shuttle, Saturn, Titan, Atlas, Thor and Delta.
Follow me on Twitter for more updates:
/ djsnm
I have a discord server where I regularly turn up:
/ discord
If you really like what I do you can support me directly through Patreon
/ scottmanley - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![[UNCUT]"เศรษฐา" โดนบีบให้ลาออก เผยดีลลับ "ทักษิณ" ต้องต่อโปร ไม่งั้นเจอจุดจบ! I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XlH3k81dxmE/mqdefault.jpg)
"Off the shelf solid rocket motors".... I've searched ALL of MY shelves, and I still can't find ONE!
*OFF* the shelf. Look on the floor.
@@marcmcreynolds2827 😂
@@marcmcreynolds2827brilliant!
I can, they’re just small B and G motors.
@@marcmcreynolds2827😂
One interesting note is that the control system was a mechanical timers. When new launch vehicles were requested, there were no more mechanical systems available. To build new Scouts, they would have to be prequalified. The result was retirement!
Scott, I'm surprised, you missed one of the more fascinating uses of the Scout launcher, its one claim to fame in the early manned spaceflight program. People forget Mercury-Scout 1, that flew in November of 1961. Probably because it failed, lol. But it was designed to put a small test satellite into a Mercury orbit that would last for a few hours, and was equipped with the same radio and radar systems as a Mercury spacecraft, complete with simulated telemetry and command channels. Its purpose was to exercise the Mercury tracking network with a real spacecraft prior to flying a manned Mercury. As it turned out, MA-5 flew with its chimp passenger before MS-1 was able to be launched, so it proved out the Mercury network. It meant that the loss of MS-1 wasn't a real problem. However, I think it's good to remember that the Scout was, in fact, a Mercury launch vehicle. From a certain point of view. 🙂
As a Space Race Kid I did not forget.
Been involved with DoD and DOE projects in my career.
I believe it was Joe Rogan who started the nuclear testing in the Nevada against structures and soldiers was propaganda for Russian consumption. This is an uninformed blogger prospective. This data was clearly integrated in to AEC regs and DOE construction requirements.
And to think it was a Hollywood stunt omits the fact that the Russians conducted the same kind of testing in Kazakhstan desert.
Finally, what I postulate to people for the last +40 years of you believe our ICBMs of the 50 & 60's were reliable well I guess you did not have broadcast TV in the day or the Google or TH-cam machine in the modern era to actually see the documented footage of what the US Space program overcame to deliver a payload to space or orbit. At the time regardless of the fuel solid or liquid our rockets regardless of the base military rocket fell apart or exploded on the launch pad or in early flight. (Name it - Jupiter, Viking}={vanguard, Mercury-Redstone, Titan II , .... Atlas...) All designs from our ICBM inventory.
Understand that are human rated Space program rockets made our ICBMs extraordinarily reliable. This is why we should look at the Saturn and the f-series engines with awwwww.
Our bombers were the credible delivery system in the 50 & 60's not ICBMs.
And ablative heat shields for the weapon to survive re-entry was a 2 way street.
@@barrelmitt1544 I wonder however how much reliability mattered in terms of deterance. Obviously I'm not saying it didn't matter, but if say 30% of launches failed, that means 70% of the nuclear weapons are hitting their targets. Of course back then there weren't nearly as many missiles, and also if the reliability is extremely poor and only 1 out of 10 launches are successful that's much less of a deterance. But the usual clips showing failure after failure I suspect are not showing the full context. When I have some time I would like to go through the early launches and get a better idea of the failure rate for the different vehicles.
We had all forgotten about it, but for many years it was the go-to NASA launcher for small satellites. Interesting about UHURU, which was a sensationally successful X-Ray telescope, discoving such iconic objects as Cyg X-1, which was soon recognised to contain the first likely black hole from spectroscopy performed by Tom Bolton and others at the David Dunlap Observatory just outside Toronto. Her X-1 was another fascinating object, in this case a neutron star in a binary system, with various fascinating precession wobbles.
7:48 "but it was a bit more sub-orbital than they had hoped" 🤣
I remember back in the 80's having a subscription to National Space Society's (pre-Ad Astra) magazine. In the back of that month's issue, they had an article about Scout titled "The Rodney Dangerfield of Rockets". Still remember that almost 40 years later. Thanks for giving Scout some 'respect'.
My step-brother, Mike Howell, built a Scout for the National Association of Rocketry Annual Meet (NARAM-13) back in the early 1970s for which he placed 2nd in the Scale Model Rocket competition that year. As a somewhat younger competitive modeler myself, I was amazed at his skill and hoped I could match it someday.
Why scale it down? Full size uses standard solid motors like all the other models .
@@johndododoe1411 cause its massive lol, hed have to basically use nasa hardware at that point. on another note i miss launching model rockets, buying the SRBs from the local hobby store etc
@@johndododoe1411 Because in the 1970's there was still a lot of sensitivity to larger than 160 newton second thrust propulsion in a model rocket, primarily due to no liability documentation as we have today in the NFPA 1122, 1125 and 1127 frameworking, nor the airspace permission. Building and flying such a full scale rocket today is possible under our current FAR Part 101 system and launch license system, but back then it was not.
@@johndododoe1411 A Scout model entry in that time period (NARAM-13 = 1971) was probably in the 35-40 mm diameter range. I've built a few models of the ST-4 round seen at 6:02 which are about 60 mm in diameter and powered by an Estes D12 in the first stage.
NARAM-13 was by the way when Space Race-infused competition interest peaked for the National Association of Rocketry: There were about 700 applicants for the 350 slots. I believe that was the only NARAM which had to cap competition attendance.
Having a chunk of the disintergrating rocket crush the boss' car feels like a Simpsons joke
SpaceX fanboys forget where rapid prototyping and not being afraid of failures development approach comes from. Thanks for resurrecting yet another fascinating piece of history, Scott!
It's easy to forget how many launches it took to get where we are now, absolutely incredible.
I never forgot the Scout as it launched ANS (Astronomical Netherlands Satellite) in 1974, the first Dutch satellite. (I'm from the Netherlands).
Cool. I knew ANS. But not that it was launched by scout. I m also dutch but from the space shuttle era
Goed punt!
Scout was also "inspiration" behind ISRO's SLV and ASLV and earlier Agni series of missiles.
So in a very round about way it went Polaris to Agni with couple of civilian launchers in between.
And the first stage of the SLV-3 continues to fly as strap-on boosters for India's PSLV rocket.
Early on, USA was providing India with training and hardware for smaller suborbital solid fuel rockets. At some point, India requested assistance with building an orbital-class rocket. But the USA refused to transfer the technology, beyond pointing out that the design of the Scout was described in considerable details in open literature (NASA reports).
There was indeed a NASA document thick as a book, with the details on flight control algorithms and parameters for the Scout, aerodynamic coefficients, test flight data and other details. Of course, there were many, many technical challenges in making the actual hardware, but it was a good beginning. I think French assisted with the fuel technology and Germany with the guidance system, but Indian industry and engineers have done the bulk of the work.
@@cogoid "There was indeed a NASA document thick as a book, with the details on flight control algorithms" Yup, lots of details on what worked, what didn't and why, when to switch the gains on a particular stage's flight control system... one thing after another. Could probably save a North Korea years, though as it happened NK also had expert outside help (from India -- hmmm...).
I was going to say that, ASLV and SLV definitely took "inspiration" from Scout.
@@sheshankutty8552 A further example of such cross-pollination: Once the Scout had grown about as big as it could get (a 45"-diameter Algol instead of the original 40" one, better upper stages), what was left for increasing payload was to add SRMs as had been done going from SLV to ASLV. In one version (Eagle Scout?), the two SRMs would have been the same solids used by some of the Arianes (3, 44LP). But none of those augmented Scouts were ever built.
Thanks, Scott. I worked at LTV Missiles & Space Division in the late sixties and early seventies while they were a major contractor on the Scout. Although I never was involved with the Sount, many of my coworkers were.
🤓
I started my engineering career at LTV Missiles & Space Division and worked there from 1981 to 1990. Scout was still being launched during that time period and I remember the engineer who was working on the project telling me the missile was controlled by a timer which I found fascinating!
I think it's really cool to have people share such stories.
Always enjoy your videos Scott but this one hit very close to home for me. I worked the Scout program at LTV Missiles and Space Division as a technician and was at Wallops Island for the Gravity Probe A launch on 18 June 1976. It was a real treat being at the facility working around a live rocket. Somewhere around here I have pictures of the vehicle the day before launch. Interesting note is a large ball was used to plug the Base A nozzle. You can see pieces of it bouncing up in the air on some of the launch videos. I was in the blockhouse at launch and it did shake the floor. Some of the guys I worked with were present on the failed launch that damaged the sports car. They said it was customary to leave the blockhouse door cracked open so after the sequencer initiated the launch, the team could all run out and watch. As it was told to me, when the first ones got out and saw the fire and debris, they were very keen on getting back inside only to run into the stream of guys coming out that were unaware of the carnage. Thankfully none were injured.
Enjoyed the Scout video, brought back some good memories. I was the USAF test and launch lead for the MSTI-2 spacecraft and was on console in the blockhouse with the Loral and NASA team for the final Scout launch in 1994. Great group of people to work with and they took good care of our spacecraft. One correction: MSTI-2 was built by USAF personnel and Spectrum Astro contractors at the USAF's Phillips Laboratory on Edwards AFB, not by JPL. JPL built the bus structure for and co-managed design and development of the MSTI-1 satellite, but had primarily an advisory role in MSTI-2. The MSTI satellites were built for the Strategic Defense Initiative Office to evaluate infrared seeker technology for ballistic missile defense and to develop capabilities for faster, less expensive small technology demonstration satellites. Thanks for another interesting video.
When we were working in aerospace, this was perhaps the rocket my father and I were most connected with professionally. When NASM was still the new museum on the block, we were singular in just standing there and reminiscing about this "skinny" rocket. I think it was also the first model rocket I ever built. While I worked in support of and appreciated other rockets, ships, and payloads, I think I'll always consider Scout to be "my" rocket.
That "hotter" staging system sounds very Kerbal. Specifically chaining solid motors without stage separators and letting the exhaust from an upper stage burn away the lower stage.
Edit: Also, thank you for mentioning Orbital. Northrop has done them so incredibly dirty since the hostile takeover. They were the OG private spaceflight innovators, way beford SpaceX was even a gleam in Elon Musk's eye, and it's kind of painful to watch Northrop piddle around and do absolutely nothing with the rockets they designed and flew so successfully.
To be fair, most of Musk's ventures were successful or well on their way before they were a gleam in Musk's eye.
My father works for them (Orbital Sciences before the merger with ATK and now Northrop Grumman) and I've asked him about this. What he told me was that the reason Orbital stopped using the Pegasus was because they couldn't get any takers for it, however, they do have a couple in storage left so in theory they could be launched but the price keeps going up because having all the hardware to use them without it being used is expensive.
Orbital Sciences has the record for first private orbital launch vehicle on top of it being an airlaunched rocket.
@efulmer8675 My father has likewise been working there for a similar length of time, and he was under the impression that some of the satellites his group is working on were originally slated for those boosters but were moved to different launchers when Northrop bought them out.
When analysing their failures, they missed one key factor: it was only once they ditched the loafers and short sleeved shirts, and shifted to nicely ironed lab coats that they experienced success.
Excellent, concise report, Scott. Thanks!- Dave Huntsman
I love the Scout rocket a hot rod of a rocket launched from Kenya.
Scott, thanks for the great video about Scout and all the film and video that was included.
This brings back memories. I think Estes or Century had a rocket model called the Scout, only loosely based on the real thing. It was my favorite out of dozens of model rockets I built. This brought some of those memories back from the depths.
I had so much fun building and launching Estes and Centurion rockets in the late 60’s and early 70’s. And spent bucketloads of time reading their catalogs over and over again, daydreaming. I can still remember the swish of the launches and the smell of the propellant. What a fantastic time that was. Throw in the Apollo missions to study, read about and watch and the excitement level was off the charts
@@F1fan007 Yup, a long family road trip in the back of the station wagon just didn't seem so long if there was an Estes catalog to keep me company (and there always was). Some pleasure center in my brain was reliably activated regardless of how many times I went through the thing.
Thanks for this one, Scott. I've been waiting for you to cover the Scout series.
Thanks Scott it never fails to amaze me how much I learn watching your videos I had tiny pieces of the story but nothing that tied them together we used those satellites to update the SIMS system on board.
Very good overview over that system and tying it into the rest of rocket history, very useful, thanks!
Fascinating! Thanks for the history lesson, Scott! 😃
Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊
And happy holidays!
Fascinating. I thought I knew all the rockets that had been developed in the early days, but can honestly say that Scout is new to me. Awesome!
Check of the Pressure Fed Astronaut's "Know Your Rocket" series. He's one of the few sources to trust on TH-cam (even Manley was in the MuskCult for a while)
That staging mechanism is genius because if the rocket fails it’s in less pieces if it separated then failed to ignite. Looks cool to!
Love the abrupt videos endings. Always catches me off guard 😄
Great video, Scott.
2:30 "backronym" - hadn't heard that one before, luv it.
I liked the information on the scout rocket. I really enjoyed this one. 👍🚀😊
Thank you so much for talking about the San Marco program :D
I had a feeling I had heard the name of that rocket before...
Fun fact, the ASI (Italian space agency) is still operating a ground station in Kenya for equatorial launches and more
You might have seen the footage of the JWST opening its solar array after deployment...
What is interesting about the San Marco program is that the Scout rockets were actually launched by Italy, not by the U.S. It was part of a collaboration with NASA, after the Italian technicians received training they conducted their first launch at Wallops so that NASA technicians could oversee the launch. All of the remaining launches were conducted from their offshore platform in Kenya. This made Italy the third country to launch its own satellites after the Soviet Union and the U.S. By the way contrary to what the Wikipedia article says, the San Marco platform was not provided by an Italian oil company, it was a U.S. Army surplus self-elevating pier barge, according to a 1971 NASA history document. Although configuration of the barge into a launch platform was done in Italy.
Awesome series Scott. I'm curious whether any of the Scout research fed into the later SRB development for STS, or whether the STS SRBs had a different lineage?
The Titan III's SRBs are closest in design terms to what got hung from the STS -- an order of magnitude bigger than Scout's Algol for one thing.
When the money for STS was approved by Congress, NASA took one last look at alternatives, such as an Orbiter on top of the Saturn S-IC first stage. Another alternative was liquid boosters in place of the solid booster approach which ended up being chosen. Better performance, but deemed as likely being too fragile for even a water touchdown... plus there was all that Titan experience working in favor of the solid booster option. The refurbishment problems NASA ended up having even with the relatively sturdy steel-case solids proved that to be a good decision.
That's like an ironic scene out of a movie, where debris from a doomed rocket would crash into some warehouse and damage some admin's sports car.
Not just a movie scene; remember, one of Falcon 1’s failures crashed into a shed on the island!
GPS IIR-1 launched on a Delta II in 1997. Just above the launch pad one of the SRMs failed and the vehicle exploded spectacularly, raining debris and burning propellant down all over Cape Canaveral AFS. There is video. Several parked cars were hit by chunks of burning solid rocket fuel. Imagine explaining that to the insurance company.
@@RCAvhstape Indeed, Scott did a video on that one a few years back:
th-cam.com/video/ey-bbM7m1L8/w-d-xo.html
@@RCAvhstape It was most or all of the dozens of launch personnel's vehicles. Several of those private companies paid up, though at least one called it an "act of God" and didn't. I believe NASA covered anyone who got the cold shoulder from their private insurer (not certain).
A friend whose truck burned/melted gave me a twisted shard from the airframe, pretty Delta blue primer on the outside and very thin cork on the inside.
This brings back memories. Back in the 70s I built the Estes Scout LTV. It was of mixed construction, including half-round dowel rods, cast plastic parts, and standard cardboard tubes. I rather liked it.
It's a fascinating part of space history, thanks 👍
After few years of following I am still disappointed how the subscriber's count is not 16.4M or higher already. Extremely valuable content.
Wow, thanks for this. I like to think that as a space race kid I'm more up on this stuff than most, but this was all new to me. Just shows to go you.
The best thing about Scout was its 4 stages meant it was the only chance you had of beating the Saturn V at Top Trumps
Great Job 👍
Wow, thanks for today's learning experience, Scott! While I was certainly aware of the existence of Scout I thought it was suborbital only.
I watched a scout launch from SLC-5 while I was working on SLC-6 (shuttle time period). The launch was nice to see!
Scott how did you find these videos. I tried everything and you found more videos than I could.
Yay!! He mentioned NACA! That was the program my grandfather was in as an accountant. Later when NASA formed he became an outside contractor and did the taxes for the Apollo crews. NACA was cool.
I knew about Scout from one of those kids' books about aerospace when I was little, I had no idea they were still operating them into the 90s.
Scout was offered to the British Government for free if they stopped developing Black Arrow - needless to say, the offer was withdrawn once Black Arrow was cancelled.
Yes, the US screwed the British once again on that one. Eventually we will learn.
Actually the offer was to launch “for free” by NASA. It was the free part that withdrawn.
Black Arrow died of its own failures and budgetary woes. It took a year to build a single vehicle, 2 of its 4 launches failed, and British satellites of that period took even longer to build than the launch vehicle, leading to the question of why build rockets when there was no payload to launch. And money being poured into BlackArrow took away funds for satellite development. Thus the Government finally concluded it was wiser and cheaper to just buy a ride on Scout when ever it was needed.
@@Spectator1959 2 out of the first 4 launches failing is good going for a new launch vehicle back then. Falcon 1 had its first three launches fail.
@@Dog.soldier1950 Yes - I didn't make that clear
I wondered why my Estes LTV Scout said “Italia” on it.
That was a prized rocket of mine in the 70s.
Great memories - I had a Scout model rocket.
Me: "there's not that many acroyms when you get to know it
Scott:"NACA DE SABA NASA SRB BRB BFG LASER BFR SPACESHIP"
Good one, thank you.
Moral of the story: never mess with some rich dude's sports cars.
Finally some love for solid motor sat launchers!
Scott=- I was at the SAGE launch at Wallops shooting for Model Rocketeer magazine
The launch happening just as a winter storm headed our way ( which eventually shut down the eastern US for a week or two).
The countdown was going just as flurries began falling began falling between the Press Site and the launcher...2 miles away.
FYI Two miles of white snow flurries in front of a white rocket in front of a white overcast sky makes for unexciting photographs.
Scott, you should do a video on the SPRINT missile. Unbelievable performance.
Absolutely. The obstacles that had to be overcome to make that little beast work.
Zero to hypersonic in a few seconds? It would make an interesting interceptor.
The Sprint missile breaks my physics brain. The speed of rockets is hard to feel, but the breakneck acceleration of Sprint is hard to fathom.
@@suserman7775 Leaves launcher, achieves multiple mach instantly, all while making 90-degree turns. With 1970 technology. Head-busting indeed.
When the PRC claims their hypersonic missiles (somewhat akin to Pershing II capability) are more advanced than anything the USA has, I think "They only missed being first by 40-60 years".
Notable Sprint notes:
Supposedly it got hotter on the outside than the inside. Does that mean the combusting solid propellant was actually cooling the airframe?! : )
High burning rate was achieved in part by "staples with one end bent up ninety degrees" set into the propellant during casting, to facilitate heat transfer. How do people think of these things?
The motors remained stable/flyable into the 1990s (e.g. KITE-2), unlike Spartan boosters which became unstable and had to be destroyed in place at their storage locations.
When all is said and done, a defensive ballistic missile shield is a losing game in terms of cost to implement vs cost to overcome. First Eisenhower, then Kennedy and later Nixon more or less understood this. Reagan...
I draw launch vehicles as a hobby. It was fun doing research on the Scout vehicles. It would have been nice if this video existed at the time.
Playing enough RSS-RO has taught me that Algol is a lovely piece of hardware. I often use one or even two of them bolted together to form a SECOND stage for a three-stage launcher with a liquid first-stage booster.
The car burned in the shed looks like a MG, could be wrong. Another great informational video by Scott. Keep up the great work!!!
I was thinking an Aston-Martin, but it could very well have been a MG. Little British car of some sort regardless.
Yes its a MG A @@vicroc4
@@tbjtbj7930 Have a friend who has a collection of MGs, I'm kinda surprised I didn't recognize it.
5:27 when the going back to the drawing board was literal.
Scott you could do some really great documentaries on all this stuff.
Also while the people involved are still alive
I saw several Scout launches at Vandenberg AFB. Those things were *fast.*
the minute I saw the title I knew it was about Scout. Thank you so much!
The first thing I think of when I see the Scout is the rocket that crashed into KLA in the Thunderbirds episode Ricochet! I suppose said rocket probably drew some inspiration from the Scout, and maybe even had some kitbashed Scout model parts included in it.
Wow, I've just been to London Science museum yesterday, where they have the Scout rocket on display! Right next to the Arrow
Is it true that sounding rocket comes from the maritime term sounding like? I read that like a sounding line that was used to measure ocean depth, a sounding rocket is used to measure the atmosphere, hence the name.
Yes.
For the record, that sports car is an MGA. Beautiful little roadster.
Hello, I've been trying to find the outro music, it says ECLIPSIO on the video, but I can't find any track or creator by this name, can you help me please?
Thank you
It's a pity the Scout is no longer in service.
There's a Blue Scout on display outside the Strategic Air Command & Aerospace Museum. IIRC the placard explains one of its uses was to lift a radio relay on a suborbital trajectory for use in case the satellite network was compromised.
Could spin stabilisation fix thee propellant hammer problem if the tank was able to be emptied from spinning
I was looking right at one at the Science musuem in London, yesterday (sunday)
"hotter staging" made me laugh! 😂
I think the Bull Creek air museum in WA has one of these on display
My favorite opening is still the X-Wing when you were out of the country. 👍👍
Wasn't directly part of anything smaller than a Tarus launcher. During the Starwars Era we used (Black Brant) and during the very early years of Ball Brothers Research Corp they used smaller launchers possibly Scouts for Solar Pointing missions.
We forget Scout because it was small. It's human nature to care about the big stuff more than the little things.
Cool, have to admit i do not remember if i had heard of Scout before.
NASA’s main current sounding rocket, the Canadian Black Brant, is usually boosted with one or more military surplus solid rocket motors, similar to Scout.
I’d never heard of the scout rocket, even though my Father worked on the launch and guidance systems of Polaris and Trident from 64 to 97.
You should discuss the “weather trace” rocket launches from Egglin AFB.
Ooo, excellent!
Got to see a Scout Launch at Vandenberg around 1993. Left the pad quick
I have a copy of the very last scout launch countdown checklist - good memories
Me too! I was in the blockhouse as the Spacecraft Console Monitor for both MSTI launches. MSTI-1 and MSTI-2 were challenging work but some of the most interesting times in my career.
This question is out of left field but I’m sure you know the answer: Can a propeller driven plane go faster than the speed of sound??????? Thanks.
Yes, but it’s terribly inefficient and jets are better in that regime.
using all solid rocket boosters definitely seems like working harder not smarter but sometimes thats whats needed.
It's also aesthetically pleasing rocket, slender and tall.
Italy doesn't forget!
Well, no, Italy at large definitely did. Italian _rocket fans_ don't. There are literally dozens of us!
Italy of course went on to build significant hardware for later European space efforts, as well as for the International Space Station.
Italy was the third country to launch its own satellites, after the USSR and U.S. They literally launched the Scout rockets themselves after receiving prior training from NASA.
There are some interesting artefacts going on with the old video footage: it looks like the even/odd frame artefacts of interlaced video, but the blocks are much larger. Does anyone know what causes these? Is this some kind of high tech even/odd movie camera system?
I'm curious what your take on the recent @smartereveryday speech video is. It's really good IMO.
5:20 "DANG-IT JIM!!!!"
Bruh! I love Scott playing Juno: New Origins!😀
Coz I'm JNO player too!🚀
Scott talking about Scout rocket , is it just me...! 😂😂
Did the Polaris have a cover over the missile tube? It looks like it from when you see them launch, I think the Trident has the same but never been able to find an answer, I guess this is as good a place to ask as any.
All submarine launched rockets currently are sealed even when the tube doors are opened. When launched, a gas generator over pressurizes the tube, both propelling the rocket towards the surface AND provides an envelope of gas enveloping the rocket, sort of like a bubble. When it pops out of the water, the missile is actually, mostly dry. When the missile starts to fall back to the water, the first stage is ignited for its journey.
Scout was wonderful
Would love to hear your reaction to Destin’s presentation at the American Astronautical Society.
NASA already has alternatives to Starship in the pipeline, so that "bravery" he won't shut up about is moot.
@@David-wc5zl Having alternatives to Starship wasn’t the point. Having unnecessary complexity on an already monumentally challenging and complex task/mission was the point (among other things). Requiring multiple launches, whether done by Starship or something else, is one of those unnecessary complexities.
First time I read anything about a Pegasus launch was way back in the late 80's or 90's when one was launched from an F-15. Haven't heard much about the concept since. Makes sense to use a large aircraft as your First Stage.
Pegasus was too large to fly from an F-15. The first few flights were from a NASA B-52 before Orbital acquired and modified the L-1011 that they would call "Stargazer."
F-15 was the launch platform for "ASAT" satellite interception weapon tests.
The Pegasus rocket is unique and its a shame that its basically died.
@efulmer8675 You can blame Northrop for that. They bought Orbital ATK and basically killed everything they were doing except the stuff they had government contracts for.
@@vicroc4 Northrop is still looking for customers for their last two Pegasus rockets but yeah both my dad and I were surprised Orbital ATK got bought out so quickly.
And oh yeah, Northrop's logo makes me die inside.
“I’ll just park my brand new MGA in this building that isn’t used.”
"Rockets aren't LEGO" people when NASA sticks together four different solid motors:
So with Solid motors... did it accelerate like a mad thing ???
I understood that the high acceleration was the reason why they didn't become the goto system for orbital launches.
And that Liquid fuelled rockets were much gentler on their payloads...
Yes/No ?
The ascent was more energetic, but not exceedingly so. The peak acceleration was at the burnout of the stages and was around 9 g's. The average acceleration was much lower.
Liquid systems can run into problems of their own when things like pogo happen. Even the Saturn V had its moments.
@@cogoid
LOL 😄
I don't think I would enjoy being on a rocket doing 9G.
"Hotter staging" is a good term, but I prefer "didn't unlock decouplers on the tech tree yet staging"