Видео

This idea was shown to President Nixon, but he was flabbergasted at the cost. No way he could sell it to Congress. So we ended up with our Space Shuttle. This was mentioned in the book Truth, Lies, And O-Rings, about the Challenger disaster.

The External Tank was originally to be reused. IMO Big mistake in not doing that.

I agree on all counts. I suggest the book "Space Shuttle: The History of the National Space Transportation System The First 100 Missions" by Dennis R. Jenkins.

Still waiting for the 10km one...

EVEN IF THE STRUCTURE WAS BUILT USING CARBON NANOTUBES WOULDN'T SAID STRUCTURE COLLAPSE UNDER IT'S OWN WEIGHT ? ? ?🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔

BUILD THE PYRAMID AT CYDONIA ON MARS ! ! !

BUILD THE PYRAMID AT CYDONIA ON MARS ! ! !

I think you might have overdone the vintage film effect. Don’t do that again.

The mainframe computers used by NASA during the apollo missions could do hundreds of thousands of operations per second and had megabytes of memory. Even when Falcon 1 was launching, we had smartphones that could comfortably outperform those apollo era supercomputers. We have no trouble today fitting the computing power needed to land a rocket on the rocket. That would not have been the case in 1972, when NASA were thinking about what happens next. That IMHO was the fundamental bottleneck. The fundamental reason Falcon has been such a resounding success is partly that it's reusable so they get to see what parts were only just good enough, but also because they can put astronaughts on a freighter, so people don't go near a new untested rocket design. Early unmanned rockets never had to hit anything much of a target, the only rocket that really needed to be accurate was the luner lander, and that was human controlled. Yes they had guidance computers, but they were still piloted. The unmanned rockets just had to hit orbit.. and earliest efforts to get a mission to the moon managed to miss. I very much doubt they could hit a runway or a landing pad in 1972 without a pilot.

Do a video on the Lockheed LS-200 Starclipper its a super cool space shuttle alternative and theres not many videos on it unfortunately

I began work as an engineer at Grumman aerospace in 1979. I was put on the shuttle wing program, which was well under way. While searching for some data one day, i came across a bunch of advanced design studies created prior to approval of the shuttle program that proposed many configurations for shuttle stacks including above a traditional booster such as you describe. I was 22 yrs old.

ok this channel is alive

Can you please tell me the names of the two background musics you added at the start ? ( from 0:00 to 1:05, from 1:06 to 2:01 )

The F-1 engines were around 80% the cost of the S-1C. Since these engines were not reusable, it made recovery of the booster less viable. What really killed the rly back booster however was that the Astronaut Office insisted any fly back booster be manned which would have drove up the cost even farther killing the concept of flying back any booster

What mic are you using?

And we got the STS. Instead. LOL

Excellent video.

Given what’s NASA has been doing withe the twin boondoggles of SLS and Starliner, good thing the Taxpayers didn’t get swindled back then. Thank you bean counters.

Even if Watergate hadn't happened, Richard Nixon is the worst president in Modern American history. 1. He selected the space shuttle program over the exploration with the Saturn 5. 2. He took us off the gold standard 3. He canceled the Molten Salt Reactor program. (Kirk Sorenson TED talk) 4. He wasted money and lives in Vietnam All these decisions are now proven to be wrong. Elon Musk, Kirk Sorensen and Thomas Sowell are the visionaries of a future for all mankind.

Not "S-eye-C" but S-ONE-C" (S-IC) Second stage was S-II, and third stage S-IVB. Or is this computer narration?

Man being Human reted... Souls and such the whole stack has to be certified.

I think was a sensible concept; Not sure any external tank covered with the absurdly flimsy foam insulation would then be needed.

Russia 🇷🇺 could never have been first to the moon Russias moon program was plagued with problems not to mention the person who was in charge of the Russian moon program ended up dead there was no way Russia could have beaten us Americans 🇺🇸 to the moon first.

you lost me with the title. Why was it "insane"? There were plenty of concepts out there how to make Shuttle work, some more far-fetched than others, but strapping it to a big dumb booster was not that far-fetched and certainly not "insane". Using solid rockets was certainly much more insane than utilizing flight proven hardware from the Apollo program

A cautionary tale of the perils of shortsightedness. Great question; "What if?"

Dang, I wish we could have seen this in "For All Mankind" ...

Not "S eye C" stage, it was the "S one C" stage!

I just want to point out that 60s and 70s film and video did not have that amount of "floater debris" by a long shot. Try the 1920s matey.

While the Shuttle-Saturn would've prevented a Challenger-type accident, it probably would not have prevented what destroyed Columbia, if only because the orbiter in the Shuttle-Saturn in most configurations would still be riding on the side of an external tank all the way on top of the S-IC stage, and that means that there would still be hazards, like ice or insulation foam that could break off and damage the orbiter's thermal protection system.

How they get get satellites to stay in orbit

You lost me at “Saturn Vee”

👍👍👍❤❤❤🚀🚀🚀

Nixon, the answer is always Nixon.

S-One-C.

You call this an insane idea in the video title. Having your crew compartment directly next to a massive tank of fuel with no launch escape system is insane, and that’s what we ended up with.

ARGH. Every excuse to kill SI-C/Shuttle was then vastly worse under the bean counters' alternative. **headdesk** The only dumber space decision was the UK throwing away its orbital rockets.

How do you know it didn't make it?

The Saturn V as a first stage for the shuttle was just one of MANY configurations studied for the shuttle. It is not necessarily any better than other proposals. The shuttle was attached to an external tank in this scenario, so foam shedding could still have been an issue.

Greed, political-pork and cowardice are the reasons.

4:06 The S-IC booster is S-One-C, not S-eye-C. Just so ya know. Like the S-IVB is the S-four-B.

Why the heck we didn't do it??? . Politics and money in early 70' and Nixon had no interest in space program .that's why!!! Space race was over! The NASA budget was drastically cut!!! THANKS TO NIXON!

The Saturn V booster wasn’t reusable

The Insanity part is what they actually gave us to use as a safe system. They should have done this right from the get-go butt of course being a government bureaucracy the idea of giving all their buddies jobs

Canceling the Saturn V entirely and going with all new clean sheet designs was a mistake

Are you not aware of Skylab?

It’s up to private companies mostly now, and they’re honestly doing better

Now we’ve got absolute spammers who think the moon landing was fake

And now they’ve just cancelled Viper🤦

Japan?!?! A country that doesn't grow its population will do this?!?! Lol forget...

How cute to think Space X will actually deliver on their promises. Silly.