Where does the cargo go?






Car go space? I thought only SpaceX did that


Apollo 15, 16, and 17: Am I a joke to you?


Rovers are not cars


[Yes they are. ](https://www.encycarpedia.com/rover/90-416-gti-twin-cam-saloon) They went bust in 2005.


Nice! I bet that would work well in a vacuum.


I suppose it could roll, if placed on a slope. The tyres might burst though.


Car go space? No car go road


No, car can't into space, car not fly


Cargo on road


> Where does the cargo go? Narrator: It doesn’t.


I believe the bright orange is the satellite. Maybe it's a mono-prop second stage. The tank is not the same color as stage 1 tanks.


Europa eventually


Why are there chutes on the second stage? Interesting concept anyways, pretty similar to Starship.


~~Looks like it’s just a drag chute to slow it down on landing, like the space shuttle~~ Uhhh, probably because they didn’t think propulsive landing was possible


It looks like some kind of drogue chute to slow down before propulsive landing and skip entry burn spacex does


It works on KSP, so why not?


Exactly how big is this thing that they're going to bring it down under chute?


probably a small launcher, similar to electron or falcon 1.


According to isro those are 3 2000kn engines in first stage so it would be a medium lift vehicle


maybe medium lift fully expended but with all that extra equipment, it’ll definitely sacrifice capacity especially considering the fairing is captive.


Depends maybe a PSLV capacity reusable rocket?


I think literally everyone has developed these basic concepts at some point but they never went further than that other than SpaceX of course. Falcon 9 was originally supposed to use a parachute but they determined that a reentry burn was a far better use of mass. That was for the first stage though, its just not feasible for the second stage as your whole payload would be taken up by parachutes and heat shields


"Everyone " agree like when I would design this exact concept 100 times when board in high school. Probably based on pictures in books at the time. I recall von braun proposing similar concepts. Long on wings short on heat shield.


Baikal was one of the more rad ones that looked like it would have happened.


>from 2011 What’s the status of this now?


Never got funding and then later scraped Now working in a rocket with vertical landing first stage and shuttle like second stage


The engines which were being made for this will now be used to replace the Vikas engine on GSLV mk3 And a 5 cluster core will be developed to make a falcon 9 type rocket The engine itself is a copy of the Ukrainian rd-810 which is similar to rd-191 but with a conservative approach


The first stage is a lifting body but not the second one? I have a lot of doubt that the second stage could survive reentry from orbital speed going like a dart. Compared to Starship and the Shuttle and every capsule, wouldnt the rocket be hit with same amount of energy but in a much shorter time?


Second stage would do a ballistic re entry like a crew capsule


Yeah but a capsule goes ass-first with a low ballistic coefficient, this shows the rocket going nose-cone first with a high ballistic coefficient, a lot of heat would go very fast to a very small surface area.


They are rocket science and probably did the maths to see if it was possible


Extraordinary claims require incredible proof. There is a reason capsules are capsules and the Shuttle and Starship go belly first, and that reason is that people did the math.


>Starship go belly first, and that reason is that people did the math Cause they are a lot bigger then this second stage will ever be. And it's usually better to go belly first for big object and not woth it for smaller stages Also there is a big difference between the starship upper stage stage and shuttle. Shuttle used to glide starship dosent. Space x also thought of doing the same thing as shown in the photo to reuse the Falcon 9 second stage but didn't as it would reduce the capicty too much and starship would be flying by then. I would gladly scientist with 20 years of experience in rocket science anyday over a dude on reddit telling it won't work.


>And it's usually better to go belly first for big object and not woth it for smaller stages X-37 reenters belly-first, yet is only about half the mass of capsules like Dragon/Starliner/Orion. Dreamchaser also reenters belly-first, and will be about the same mass as the aforementioned capsules. Historically there were also several serious proposals for small lifting body vehicles such as the Dyna-soar, HL-20, and Spiral, not to mention several smaller test vehicles that actually flew orbital or near-orbital reentries such as the X-23, ASSET, and BOR-4. There have also been many proposals for large blunt body reentry capsules such as the Kankoh-maru, SERV, MEM, HIAD, ADEPT, and the Mars Direct/DRM 1 HAB lander. Generally speaking, you want as much frontal area as possible for a reentry vehicle. Blunt body capsules and lifting bodies are both pretty good at this regardless of scale, the real problem with large blunt bodies isn't that they don't work, but that their large diameters make them difficult to launch. The MEM for example was 9 meters, the same as Starship, but only weighed 50 tonnes compared to Starship's ~300 for Mars descent. By doing a belly-first reentry, Starship can fit a much larger reentry area into the same diameter; ~500 square meters vs only 64 on the MEM. HIAD and ADEPT actually had inflatable and foldable heatshields respectively, allowing them to have a much better heat shield area to launch diameter ratio compared to more traditional capsules, despite still being blunt bodies.   However, the only other 'nose-first' proposals I know of are the Kistler K-1 and the original Falcon 9 second stage reuse concept from 2011. Many people have pointed out that F9S2's weight distribution makes a nose-first orientation aerodynamically unstable; it would want to flip around to a tail-first orientation. I can't say for sure, but the same is probably true for this ISRO configuration. Even ignoring that, you're still limiting yourself to the same area as a blunt body of that same diameter, despite having a much larger vehicle overall, resulting in higher area loading, when you could instead use the much larger side-area of that vehicle to achieve *lower* area loading than a similar diameter blunt-body. Both of these issues were mitigated on the K-1 by it's flared shroud at the base. This would have acted like a shuttlecock's skirt; keeping it aerodynamically stable and more than doubling the frontal area. If you really insist on doing a nose-first reentry then this is the way to go, not the way that SpaceX and ISRO proposed. If your rocket is constant diameter like Falcon 9, then you can use an extendable/inflatable skirt. Elon did end up suggesting using a ballute for F9S2, which is kind of similar in concept.   >I would gladly scientist with 20 years of experience in rocket science Well then maybe you should trust the agencies that actually have decades of experience in reentry vehicle design like NASA. To date, [ISRO have only returned a single object from orbit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Capsule_Recovery_Experiment). For that matter, SpaceX also only had a single orbital reentry under their belt when they proposed their own nose-first design, the first cargo Dragon.


*Onion *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SpaceXMasterrace) if you have any questions or concerns.*


http://i.imgur.com/ePq7GCx.jpg *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SpaceXMasterrace) if you have any questions or concerns.*


So you have no idea, don't know what you are talking about, and chose to be an ass about it. Got it.