Spaceplanes are the future

The spaceplanes are definitely coming!

This is a video I have been tinkering with for months and it feels good to finally have it finished. This is the most intensely edited video I have ever produced, and whilst I am happy with the results I think I have learned my lesson about the sheer amount of work involved.

Main video sources, used under fair use:

The impressively rendered clips of Skylon and VentureStar are from Haze Gray Art’s channel. Be sure to check out his work:

I also used footage from:

The render of the Starship and Superheavy on the cover screen is by CBURG. You can find his work here:

The beautiful landed Hotol and space terminal images are by Maciej Rebisz. You can find his work here:

[philbiker]

What about a two-stage space plane? The space plane can take off aboard something like the Stratolaunch - it wouldn't have to actually burn any fuel until it was already at 50K feet travelling at 600mph. That would save a LOT of fuel for the space plane itself. Both the Stratolaunch and the space plane could land at the same airport/spaceport.

Space Planes at this point are like Thorium based Molten Salt Reactors. A promising, perhaps inevitable, idea on paper with nobody willing to spend the money to make them real.

[thecheaperthebetter]

You've mentioned how much safer planes are than rockets a few times, and used that to postulate that spaceplanes must be safer than rockets... however I have to disagree. The reason rockets are so dangerous is their engineering tolerances can only be 1.5- 2 over the forces being applied to them, which means they are much more sensitive to minor faults. Spaceplanes, being SSTOs and with the extra complexity of the SABRE engine (for example) could very likely have much lower tolerances (especially since they entire air-frame is going to have to re-enter), this will make is just as dangerous, if not more dangerous than a 2 stage design that sacrifices bleeding edge performance for higher tolerances and lower payload. (something a spaceplane cannot afford to do)

[Amadeu.Macedo]

Outstanding and inspiring concept! Hopefully, some visionary billionaire will emerge to embrace it to render this dream a plausible reality...

[jeffmorris]

This video glosses over... a LOT of the reasons spaceplanes haven't been successful.

[nickhardy]

The problem with single stage space craft is that you have to get all that weight into orbit and back down again.
Which basically means that the payload you can take with you gets smaller.

The whole idea for two stage rockets is that you take a big rocket to get you up high enough, above the thickest atmosphere and then the second stage takes over but doesn't have to haul the mass of the first stage.

Anyway, that doesn't mean I don't like the video. It's been put together really nice. With great video and voice-over.

[rustyspace]

To be fair, Skylon is the only current project that would be even close to competing with Starship. We need a third billionare to adopt Skylon! ;)

[HeWhoX]

Spaceplanes are the future? Most likely if we mean an orbital flights. Guess, all future interplanetary flights will start from Earth orbit by another spacecrafts, able to fly only ‘orbit to orbit’ without landing. This feature allows them to use either nuclear or ionic/plasma propulsion, unfit for using in atmosphere but enable to reach a speed of tens km/ sec. Certainly, such spacecrafts will need a shuttle aboard for landing on the moon or Mars. The shuttles will differ. Lunar landing module will look like a kind of Peregrine, while a Martian one should be able to fly through Martian atmosphere. Maybe we call it a spaceplane one day also.

[jamesbohlman]

Imagine moving a 40-ft shipping container filled with tools and equipment to a job site on the moon, and then turning around days later to do it again.

[MX-Vette]

The skylon would be fine for orbital missions, but they would struggle to land or take off from other worlds with thin atmospheres.

[jobob]

TG, this is an outstanding video; perhaps one of the best I've seen explicating the importance and advantages of the spaceplane approach. I've spent my career developing turbine based combined cycle (TBCC) engines for use in aerospace planes, and arguing for the benefits of spaceplanes compared with traditional staged rocket approaches for space access (usually without a lot of success). You've done a great job laying out how the spaceplane approach benefits space launch through easier and less-costly logistics, and improved safety, which IMHO is a very significant but under-appreciated aspect of human spaceflight. Another aspect worth mentioning in that spaceplanes which use air breathing engines can reduce the required on-board propellant mass per unit payload mass. This is not currently appreciated by rocket launch architectures because the propellant costs are negligible compared with everything else. But in mature systems where the flight rates are an order of magnitude higher, recurring costs associated with propellants are a critical cost component, and transportation systems work very hard to reduce that cost. In any case, a great video, and I look forward to further products. And FWIW, if you're interested, here are some links to some TBCC systems under development by myself and my colleagues, for spaceplane applications:

[ZontarDow]

From what those like CSS have reported, there is now a company trying to bring about the Rockwell Star Raker off the ground.

[jarfmusic]

Neil Taylor from reaction engines was one of my lecturers and assessed my final year project. It shocks me how simple the Skylon concept is in terms of Aerodynamics but so difficult in terms of propulsion. And re-entry isn't even the hard bit - to get the TBCC thruster to work will be a feat in itself but seriously opens up opportunities in terms of what can and can't get into space.

It remind me about how the jet engine was simple in concept but never saw use until the later parts of WW2. Much of the time, an avenue is seen but there is so much auxiliary work intended for a a design that does not make is feasible at the moment.

Spaceplanes ARE the future, but we are limited by current design knowledge.

[koori]

Great video, SKYLON or its offspring will fly one day.

[thecaspeer]

I like how he uses the space shuttle as an example, whilst the space shuttle was acting the same as a space shuttle on a return trajectory

[seansargeant]

Very good video; I'm more of a sceptic on spaceplanes, but the case for Skylon is undeniable.

For the next couple years minimum, I don't expect them to take off, but once the first bases or colonies are set up the chance seems to drastically increase.

[andreabindolini]

Always thought that the ugly Superheavy/Starship will be a temporary solution and that air-breathing SSTO like HOTOL remain the solution of the future. Hoping that this future doesn't stay future forever.

[sdprz]

Great Quality video, don't stop uploading, Great potential here

[ro.zyipitoe]

Star Raker was the best that plane would've changed everything

[summerlakephotog]

You make a good case with a well-made video. One point though. The second Shuttle disaster was heat shield failure during re-entry. There is exactly the same risk in a space plane. Also Starship’s long term goal is orbital refueling for interplanetary trips not simply reaching orbit.

[oscar.ortroi]

Your content is amazing, I dont understand how you have so little views. I hope you keep this up!!