UK space program? Yay or nay? Thanks for watching! Like and subscribe if you enjoyed this video 👍🏻 Follow me on social media, and join my Patreon: ❤ Patreon: www.patreon.com/sogal_yt?fan_landing=true 🐕 Instagram: instagram.com/sogal.yt/ 🏀 Twitter: twitter.com/SoGal_YT ⚽ Facebook Page: facebook.com/SoGal-104043461744742 🏖 Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/238616921241608 💥 Discord: discord.gg/amWWc6jcC2 🖖 My Star Trek Podcast: www.tribblespodcast.com/

@brianmason8059

Жыл бұрын

We don't really put a lot of money into our space programme. We tend to put money in other areas like welfare that gets 300 billion per year. In contrast NASA gets about 20 billion lol. If we put some of our welfare budget that's around 35% of our entire countries expenditure we would have a space programme far greater than even NASA

@HaiLsKuNkY

Жыл бұрын

The uk space industry is ran like a business, the uk puts money in only to extract profit. The uk has a small space program but it makes money and is one of the only space programs to turn a profit

@peterdrewer2574

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for the review of this video. You've drawn in some pretty good comments. For a great deal more of the the same have a browse through nasaspaceflight. It's a private space news site founded by a British journalist during the second shuttle return to flight period, hence the name. It has since expanded, comprehensively.. There are forum threads following just about any questions you might have, world wide. Also, they are fairly well curated.

@iatsd

Жыл бұрын

You would really like this - kzread.info/dash/bejne/on6Y1M6QgpDfdrA.html Assuming you know what Top Gear is/was. They take a Very British car and turn it into a Space Shuttle. A real actual space launch vehicle. But, being Top Gear, it doesn't go well. In case you *don't* know what Top Gear is, it's a long running car programme. It was the largest viewership car programme in the world back when this episode was done with ~85 million viewers each week. They were ... seldom very serious about their jobs. Hence, they decided to build a space shuttle using a complete POS car. 9 minute segment.

@AcidEric01

Жыл бұрын

we don't build rockets any more, But we do build satalite parts and have a good aerospace sector.

A new British space launch station is currently being built on the most northerly British island of Unst in the Shetland Isles. For smaller commercial rockets launching into low earth orbit. Lockheed Martin and some uk companies have committed to several launches. Exciting times ahead! 🙂

The UK is currently pursuing Hypersonic flight technology with Reaction Engines Ltd, which is looking to produce a single-stage-to-orbit re-useable vehicle, and also use the engines for hypersonic flight for military purposes. They partner with a number of other Companies, such as Rolls-Royce, Boeing and BAE Systems to get the technology developed. They're based just south of Oxford, about 25 miles west of London.

@montyzumazoom1337

Жыл бұрын

I’ve been following the Reaction Engines story for years after reading about Alan Bond’s Hotol design. Britain has always been known for its inventions and innovation. We have a lot of very clever people. But it’s the old, old, issue that keeps cropping up…that of government commitment and financing. We give most of our ideas away (often to the USA). Just think if we had really put everything into Hotol years ago whilst the real ”lash-up”halfway house design of the space shuttle had those terrible failures, we could have secured the satellite launch business in one swoop. Horizontal take off and landing is the best and most economical way to launch satellites into orbit, and pave the way for hypersonic passenger transport.

I think after London was used as the V2 rocket testing target Westminster decided future testing should preferably be done in a desert. On the other side of the world

When I worked for Rolls-Royce near Coventry they had rocket test silos that had been used for the Black Knight and other rocket programmes. The flexible fuel tanks developed for Blue Streak were incorporated into the US rockets

First powered flight by the Wright Brothers in 1903, then 54 years later, in 1957 the first rocket into space, then four year's later in 1961, the first manned rocket into space ... what an amazing achievement in the space of 58 years, mind blowing ... great video SoGal, more space stuff when you can.

@alanshave8010

Жыл бұрын

It was Nazi technology that got America into space.

@marksadventures3889

Жыл бұрын

Actually the first rocket into space was the V2 in the 40s.

@peterjackson4763

Жыл бұрын

Patrick Moore (British astronomer and record setting TV presenter) spoke to the first man to fly, the first man in space, and the first man on the moon, probably the only man to have done so.

We don't really have the room here for a safe big rocket launching area.

@brianmason8059

Жыл бұрын

Wr have so many small islands around uk that would be perfect for this as well as for Nuclear power plants

@glastonbury4304

Жыл бұрын

We do...stick it on the outer hebrides...

@jacobreisser8034

Жыл бұрын

Plenty of room in Scotland. They all seem to be in England anyway.

@glastonbury4304

Жыл бұрын

We have Spaceport Cornwall and Soaceport Shetland where we will launch rockets with satellites....

@DCMamvcivmEvony

Жыл бұрын

We are far from the equator so unsuitable as a launch location for much of the satellites that go into equatorial orbits. The space port supposedly being built in Scotland will be well placed for polar orbits which tend to be reconisance and imaging satellites.

The hydrogen peroxide rocket is a very simple but effective design. it works by passing the concentrated hydrogen peroxide over a silver catalyst which causes it to disassociate into high temperature steam and oxygen. In some applications this can give the thrust you need. The power can be boosted by adding a hydrocarbon fuel such as kerosene which burns giving added thrust. As stated in the video a variant of this design was used in the Me163 rocket fighter during WW2. The Blue Steel Stand Off Bomb (Cruise Missile) that was carried by the RAF's Vulcan and Victor V Bombers to deliver nuclear weapons used a Hydrogen Peroxide / Kerosene rocket motor. (I have vivid memory of Vulcan bombers on (very) low level training flights passing overhead during the mid/late 1960's with the Blue Steel missile clearly visible semi recessed into the bomb bay) I personally think the cancellation of Black Knight was a huge mistake, it could have been a means of retaining a stake in what was to become the now very important small launcher market and encouraged the development of larger more powerful launchers as well. Britain still has an important role in the space business that includes building commercial and scientific satellites, but we are the only country to have developed an independent launch ability and then given it up.

@trikky2.2

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for the insight :) I am a bit younger but remember some talks about setting up a ' launch ' site up in scotland a few decades ago. In some ways I agree that we should have stuck with our own launch capabilities, however I also think we were right to concentrate more on the technologies behind them and contribute that way. Not sure what happened to Prometheus-2 that was supposed to be launched this summer from Cornwall. I remember about a decade ago there was an indepedant group trying to reach the KarMan Line ( about 100 Km ) with a rig that consisted of 3 high altitude helium balloons lifting a platform that held a rocket. When the balloons were about to burst then the rocket would fire, was an interesting idea but did not follow up on it :)

@tonym480

Жыл бұрын

@@trikky2.2 posted 19th feb 23, Hi Trikky2, just seen an item by Scott Manley on KZread in which he mentions a, sadly now cancelled, Canadian project to launch into space using the Balloon/Rocket combo similar to what you mention above. If you are not familiar with Scott, his channel is well worth a look. He is a Scottish space scientist who lives and works in California and does regular space news rounds ups and space science videos. Highly recommend to anyone with an interest in space stuff 👍

The UK is a small island, that has been built on for thousands of years. This means we don't have the massive areas of spare lands needed to safely launch and crash space rockets. Australia is still mostly empty, its a central desert with most people living around the edges

@xcastille6161

Жыл бұрын

Well France manage to do it in Guyana

@brianmason8059

Жыл бұрын

Should do it in Birmingham. Can't cause much damage there tbh

@jhdix6731

Жыл бұрын

It's also about climate. Launches are planned way in advance and chances of a clear sky on any given day are much better in Australia than anywhere on Britain.

@alwynemcintyre2184

Жыл бұрын

@@xcastille6161 but france probably uses guyana for the same reasons England does, no safe place in france

The UK has had a very successful and wide-ranging Space Program since 1963 using just one small blue Police Box...

There was an `Irish` space program too! A feature on it has been produced by Spike Milligan and another U.S KZreadr "The Electric Beard" has reviewed/reacted to it.

"Black Arrow". Beautiful British name as Al Murray would say

My dad worked on the project, then called Blue Streak. It successfully launched a satellite and my brother dad and I were stick figures stencilled in the side, it's still up there!

@SoGal_YT

Жыл бұрын

Nice!

Cumbria/Northumbria site at Spade Adam was our nuclear deterrent in early 60s At age 10 our school trip coach, on its way to Hadrian's Wall, took a wrong turning and we ended up at the gates of our nuclear base. We were very politely told the driver had made a mistake and to turn back with instructions to where to make the correct turning. Thank all the gods we weren't in the US - we'd probably all have been machine gunned😁 Even the Vulcan appearing overhead didn't alarm any of us. We were all well used to seeing the 'tin triangle' on training exercises. Good job British armed forces are renowned for their restraint!😀

@SoGal_YT

Жыл бұрын

I doubt you would have been machine gunned, lol.

I have been to where they did the static tests and they have rebuilt the control room but they did it all in cardboard even down to the coats hanging up and rifles leaning against the wall, it is amazing to see.

Great video, those rockets used to drive on that little truck right past our house. All that technology and progress. It's like anything after 1970, we stopped progressing lol

The UK space industry is currently greater than ever with Sutherland Spaceport in Scotland and the virgin orbit launcher along with One Web to rival Starlink

For a small country with 5 million people, New Zealand is now in the list of countries with a viable space program... Rocket Lab and their Electron rocket is up and running now launching from Mahia on the east coast of the North Island. It's amazing how fast technological advances have come from needing major economies down to even small countries having the technological capabilities.

Spade Adam in Cumbria was the rocket test centre, my dad was at Woomera and Spade Adam often though based in London and the old De Haviland works in Hertfordshire.

Whilst some in the comments suggest that the UK is too small / crowed for rocket launching that is not strictly true. Check out the Sutherland Space port (Just 12hr drive from London) or the Shetland Space Centre (24hr Drive/Ferry from London)

Rocket launches are more fuel efficient the closer you do it to the equator, so Australia was actually better situated than Cape Canaveral.

Rocket launch facilities require large spaces and fuel remnants as well as debris from exploded rockets might crash into the ground or endanger people. Also, the UK is far away from the Equator, which increases the amount of energy needed to reach an orbit. It's for this reason that most US launch facilities are in Florida, the soviet/russian ones in Kazakhstan and the european ones in French Guyana.

regarding Australia: For reasons of rocket physics, a good site for rocket launches has these characteristics: a) situated on the western shore of a great ocean (as rockets always go east after launch.) b) situated at low lattitudes, that is close to the equator (as the earth moves fastest at the equator, this gives the rocket the highest starting velociiy) And as a bonus: c) stable, sunny weather As Great Britain doesn't have any of these characteristics, they had to find another place to launch their rockets - and apparantly they settled on Australia. (North-Eastern Australia I would assume, due to a) and b) ). Nowadays, the European Space Agency launches its rockets from French Guyana, on the north-eastern coast of South America (which is very close to the equator and therfore a great launch site). For similar reasons, US rockets are launched from southern Florida, which is the best spot for launching in mainland USA - even though not as close to the equator as you would ideally wish for. And also for the same reason, Russia starts from Baikonur in Kasachstan, which is pretty far south (for Russia) and a very empty country. Plus of course, the Russians are not as concerned about civilian casualties as western countries are. So they see less of a problem in having their rockets go over land after launch.

Regarding the plumes... all liquid fuel engines produce plumes that are semi-transparent and that have that "tendril" shape.. it's just that the ones on the Balck arrow are thinner because the engine diameter is smaller. Plus, the "diamond" shape is caused by the interaction of the supersonic exhaust gases with the atmosphere. The surrounding air basically contains the plumes that want to expand, and this creates a repeating shock wave pattern.. thus the diamond shape

You're back and you're looking fantastic, SoGal! Britain has long had astronautical ambitions, but not quite the budget, to pursue an independent space program(me). You asked why we went to Australia for testing. One reason is because Australia is part of the Commonwealth (it shares our monarch) so there is a long history of cooperation and friendship between their government and ours. Another more practical reason is that Australia has much more open space for missile testing. If you ever visit the UK, it will strike you how closely packed everything is, and that we have no deserts, whilst Australia has deserts aplenty and a much lower population density, making it far better for rocketeering. That being said, our current UK government - elected in 2019 - has been working on development of a space port, albeit in Scotland which has a lower population density than England. Sadly there seems to be little thirst for space exploration here in the UK: at this precise moment the overwhelming majority of people are focussed on the cost of living, energy and climate crises - so it suits us to hitch rides with other space agencies - though the recent events between Russia and Ukraine have dulled any enthusiasm for sending our astronauts up via Soyuz, I daresay. We shall have to see how things unfold, though it's fair to conclude that having got a foot through the door of space exploration, you can bet on seeing the UK reaching for the stars in future!

That was interesting. I knew about Blue streak, but not this continuation programme. That rocket fuel was used by the Germans to power the Messerschmit 163 rocket plane. Very fast, but deadly to operate. It killed more German pilots than allied airmen. The fuel was highly corrosive, so you didn't want to crash land with any on board. Australia has several advantages as a test site. 1 if anything goes wrong, there is no one nearby to get hurt. UK is far too crowded. 2 for the same reason, it is easier to keep things secret. Any one hanging around would be spotted in such an isolated place.. 3 when you launch a rocket, the closer you are to the equator, the more kick you get from the earth's spin to see it on its way. UK is too far north. Note USA launches from Florida, not Michigan. France launches from French Guyana in South America, not just outside Paris. The British space programme at the moment works on the satellites and payloads, rather than the launch vehicles. As the guy in the video said, cooperation with US has not been very successful, as they want to hold all the cards and don't want to share expertise. We were doing quite nicely with our European allies until Brexit arrived, and some idiots suggested we could do it all by ourselves. Not sure we are going to get very far in the near future. Back in the 60s there were several advanced technical projects that were scrapped before they could deliver fruit, mainly due to short sighted govts, but also to lack of money. A little more ambition, we could have gone further. Interesting video Sarah. Thanks for posting it.

Great video, the Black Arrow was a marvel of a rocket at it's time. It had a first stage diameter of two meters, a total length of 13 meters and a lift off mass of 18130 Kg. It could put a 135Kg satellite in a 220 Km orbit, or a 102 Kg satellite in a 500 Km orbit. It is really a shame that the program was terminated so soon. The competition at the time was the US Scout, that was a solid propellant four stage rocket. The scout had a first stage diameter of 1.01 meters, was up to 25 meters long and it's lift off mass was 17850 Kg. It could put a 122 Kg satellite in a 185 Km orbit or a 30 Kg satellite in a 300 Km orbit. The French developed the Diamant (Diamond) rocket with a first stage diameter of 1.34 meters, was from 18.5 up to 23.5 meters long, based on the version and it's lift off mass was 18400 Kg. It could put a 150 Kg satellite in a 200 Km orbit. The first stage of the Diamant had liquid propellants N2O4/UDMH and the other two stages had solid propellants. The Diamant missile program was also terminated after 12 launches in favor of the much larger multi national European launcher Ariane, whose latest version is the current Ariane 5, with Ariane 6 under development, by the European Space Agency. Ariane 6 will be available in two versions depending on the required performance: Ariane 62 with two strap-on boosters, and Ariane 64 with four. Ariane 62 can launch payloads of approximately 4500 kg into a geostationary transfer orbit or 10 300 kg into low Earth orbit. Ariane 64 can launch payloads of approximately 11 500 kg into a geostationary transfer orbit and 20 600 kg into low Earth orbit. At over 60 meters tall, Ariane 6 will weigh almost 900 metric tons when launched with a full payload - roughly equivalent to one and a half Airbus A380 passenger airplanes. For the development of Ariane 6, ESA is working with an industrial network of more than 600 companies in 13 European countries, including 350 small- and medium-sized enterprises, led by prime contractor ArianeGroup. Since part of my university studies were in Aerospace Engineering, you really hit a string with this video.

The problem with testing alaunch system is that you need a lot of flattish empty space around it for when (not if) it crashes or blows up. The UK doesn't have much space like this and what there is available is probably either assigned for farming or military use. So, as a commonwealth country, Australia would fit the bill nicely and I assume they would get something out of it.

Although Britain has left the EU, it is still an active partner in the European Space Agency (ESA). ESA is a major player in both the International Space Agency and the Artemis moon programme. The ESA provides the Service Module for the Orion spacecraft.

Woomera is in a massively remote location away from people who take pictures or potential people getting injured. Its is still used today with a new runway and facilities for testing of new drones etc. As far as i know slots can be booked by companies to use the facility. Its used by people from AUS, UK, USA and many other companies (probably korean and japanese etc). Bascially all allied forces, as its so remote and easy to keep the tests secret.

@InquisitiveBaldMan

Жыл бұрын

For scale, the protected test area is the size of Alabama..... Nasa have use it, Jaxa recently landed samples there from probes, Australia has also been testing hypersonic missiles there.

@williambranch4283

Жыл бұрын

Remote Australian areas have superior security for real hush hush ...

Two launch pads were built for the blue streaks at what is now RAF Spadeadam, you can still see them today. Along with an underground bunker, to watch the launches in safety. There are also large concrete structures where the rocket engines were tested and the cooling ponds. A blue streak rocket lies on it’s side outside the stations headquarters.

With a nuclear warhead💄 it would be a weapon worthy of a James Bond movie😁. The only thing missing is a stunning blonde with her finger on the launch button

@alansmithee8831

Жыл бұрын

@Pedro Hernandez. Peroxide blonde?

@PeDr0.UY131

Жыл бұрын

@@alansmithee8831 😄👍

This was interesting, never knew about this space program. Fly little Prospero, fly!

Me 163 komet was the fastest fighter of ww2 but had a bad reputation with accidents during takeoff and landing with explosions killing lots of its pilots and didn’t have a good success rate against American bombers because it was too fast to shoot them down easily but there are some amazing stories from test pilots that flew it like Hanna Reitsch and the only allied pilot to fly one under its own power Erich (winkel) Brown.

@peterjackson4763

Жыл бұрын

Eric (Winkle) Brown flew more types of planes that anyone else ever has. He spoke German so was sent to collect German air technology at the end of WW2. He arrange a flight on a Me 163 in a hurry to beat the ban he was certain would come. Here he is talking about it - kzread.info/dash/bejne/l4yAxbeEcpDQp9Y.html

The liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen engines of the space shuttle produced a similarly clean exhaust, however the solid fuel boosters produced a very dirty exhaust. The Delta IV rocket is a purely liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen rocket, so that produces a clean exhaust. SpaceX's new Raptor engine uses liquid methane and liquid oxygen, which also produces a very clean exhaust.

@marvintpandroid2213

Жыл бұрын

The delta IV rocket plumes are red because the rocket nozzles use ablative cooling and the carbon that is eroded from the nozzles glows in the heat.

@mxlexrd

Жыл бұрын

@@marvintpandroid2213 Thanks, I was wondering that.

Spadeadam, Cumbria was the basic site for Blue Streak. The area is highly restricted now basically Area 52 and is run by the Royal Navy. There's more to the story of the cancelation of the programme mainly due to the British Labour Party licking up to the USSR, they even gave them a jet engine as a present developed by them into the MIG21. The UK then went big style into satellites and are world leaders in the field, now the UK government are looking to go back into the space programme.

NASA used liquid oxygen and kerosene for the Saturn V rockets, the shuttle used SRB, solid rocket boosters, which believe it or not use rubber as the fuel! The shuttle also had liquid oxygen and kerosene engines on the main body.

Liquid propellant rockets uses liquid oxygen and either kerosene, ethanol, gasoline, hydrogen or methane as fuel. The resulting rocket fumes is mostly water vapor with some CO and CO2 (like in other fires).

Not only the UK doesn't have an area for testing, the best way to fire a rocket is sideways not vertically. So the nearer the equater you are the better. Hence why USA uses florida. UK in the South is 51° North. Northern Australia is much nearer the equater

The real reason is before the space program started, the us asked the UK to use the many islands the UK owned for air and navel forces as part of the deal the us agreed to share all information from space with the UK as there was no space program at the time the us thought it was a good deal and agreed so the UK did not need a space program. don't forget, all us space missions have UK technology, even the James web telescope.

Basically The UK land mass is not large enough to hide something that could not be built underground out of sight. A site large enough to launch satellites above ground would be found and attract the normal protestors and media very quickly. A space craft and all the associated paraphernalia would be seen from the nearest road no matter how remote the location in the UK.

We can't manage to generate enough electricity here never mind get a rocket into space. All the best 🇬🇧.

The video was a great find Sarah, I didn’t know about this project at all. Rather a shame that Ted Heath cancelled the project in what looked like a purely political move to get French approval for the UK to join the Common Market. These days UK involvement in space is limited to the construction of satellites although there are plans for spaceports which would launch satellites and manned missions into space one day.

UK is overall too densely populated for launch sites, l suspect. Similar area to Oregon, (England similar in area to Alabama), UK documented population approaching combined total of California and Texas.

With rocket launches it's a matter of Goldilocks Zone... 1 - close to the equator (preferably between the tropics); 2 - in an uninhabited region (in the theoretical main flight path); 3 - and a stable climate. The UK may have some places where in theory it's good on being uninhabited, but the climate's shyte and toooo far North. Cape Canaveral fulfils everything, with a passing grade to a stable climate, given the tropical storms.

Great video,the old rocket testing facility at St.Catherines on the Isle of Wight is still largely there.but is closed now

The UK did have a launch site where rockets were tested right on our coastline back in the 1960s.

@Markus117d

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, But those tests didn't involve an actual launch of anything on the scale of black arrow as far as i know, Deemed to much risk of a rocket failing and landing somewhere with a lot of people..

Black Arrow was launched from Woomera more for safety reasons I suspect. If a rocket went out of control it would be less likely to hit any populated areas. You might want to check out Jodrell Bank which was the world's first permanment radio telescope site

The problem with converting a military rocket program to a commercial rocket program is obvious. With the military rocket program, cost per launch is no object. With a commercial rocket program, cost per launch has to be minimized. Usually one has dual-use ... the military pays for the development, and that cost isn't passed onto the commercial program, which only pays for production ... or maybe to a favorable ally, you get a subsidized price even on the production cost. Anyway, a hard trick. My last rocket program was the Martin Marietta Commercial Titan in the late 80s. You can see a picture of it in Wikipedia. I had a prior involvement I didn't know until years later. My great-grandfather's ranch was "eminent domained" by the US, to make way for the White Sands missile range after WWII.

Our own technological advances after WW1 like new airplanes, ships, and even the new "Tanks" soon found a major stumbling block, S . . . which was that successive governments could not look far enough ahead to see what the future might bring. So little to no funding was ever offered by them or their ministries . . . It then either came down to private companies attempting to solve things, or they may have had patrons or sponsors sometimes to help with some funding. The company Supermarine winning the Schneider Trophy 3 times - and then basically developing the all metal Spitfire off their own bat until the prototype then impressed them enough to order it. The same happened with the all wood Mosquito for DeHavilland. And not forgetting Frank Whittle either - who could well have had aircraft with jet engines being built and already flying (with such support) possibly even before WW2 began . . . But as I said, governments and ministries were always very short-sighted, until they were proven wrong, and too late. (The actual tech specs of his engines were then given away to the US for free by our government with no reciprocal arrangements from them being returned.) Our ship designers were also usually way ahead of others from the 1800's until perhaps around WW1 when the first iron-clad Dreadnought Battleship was built. Even Barnes Wallis found it hard to get backing for any of his ideas, so had to try and solve everything himself. The R 100 airship, aircraft designs (Wellington) and then The Bouncing Bomb (Hi-ball), and then after that his huge earthquake bombs to penetrate U-Boat pens, etc . . . Only when Hawker finally created a working prototype of the Harrier Jump Jet did the Air Ministry show some interest ad then placed an order for them . . . So, as you can see - the intelligence and ability has always been here to progress - it's just that Government's don't have the ability to look very far forward and try to help them fund and create it. Ted Heath by the was was just a French-lover and would have given them anything they wanted while he was in power to the UK's detriment. It was also why in latter years we ended up being screwed by the EU for so much . . . and that we still are being screwed by similar governments now who still can't make a complete clean break from it . . .

We test things like rockets and atomic bombs in Australia. It's big, empty and most of the animals aren't cuddly (twice).

There was no UK space agency until fairly recently. It was only set up in 2010. So, there was no genuine "UK space programme" in the 1960s and 70s- just a number of disjointed projects with quasi-military or scientific purposes. Regarding testing rockets, the UK did not have any launch sites cpabale of handling long range missiles or space launches so actual flight testing of these missiles was carried out at the test range in Woomera Australia. Static testing of rocket engines could be carried out in the UK and there was a dedicated test site near The Needles on the Isle of Wight. A full size replica of the Black Arrow rocket is on display at the museum at Sandown Airport on the Isle of Wight. Regarding rocket fuels, there are two main types of rockets, liquid fueled and solid fueled. For most space applications, liquid fuels are preferred because the flow rates and thrust levels can be controlled by a throttle system unlike with solids, which are, in effect, big fireworks which, once lit, cannot be turned off. Liquid fuels for rockets are varied. The important point is that rockets usually have to operate in the vacuum of space, so they need to carry their own oxygen supply as oxygen is essential for combustion. There are two ways a rocket can store oxygen. One way is to store it in a chemical bond, such as in the hydrogen peroxide as described in the video. Another way is to liquify pure oxygen by cooling it to around -219 degrees C. This is what is referred to as "cryogenic". The problem with these cryogenic fuels is that they want to boil off all the time so the rocket needs to be topped up constantly as the liquid oxygen keeps evaporating. That is why you see steam clouds constantly venting from rockets on the pad. Hydrogen Peroxide is storable as a liquid at normal temperatures so does not "boil off" constantly, making fueling the rocket and storing the fuel easier. The down side is that these chemical "oxide" type fuels are volatile and can also be corrosive and poisonous - so they are dangerous to handle. These chemical bond type fuels are referred to as "hypergolic". As far as NASA is concerned, they have used all sorts of rockets which use all sorts of fuels. They used large solid boosters on the Shuttle and the Titan III and 4 family as well as the new SLS/Artemis. They used various liquid fueled rockets which some times use liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen (such as the Shuttle's main engines or the Centaur upper stage) and they have also used liquid oxygen and RP1 (kerosene) as in the first stage of the mighty Saturn V. The central core of the Titan rocket (as used for the Gemini missions and some unmanned space probes) used hypergolic fuels.

for the UK to set of a rocket, as rockets do not go straight up but at an angle it would have to cross either southern Island or one of our European neighbours. If it blew up over another country it would cause a diplomatic incident. As for taking of from Australia, you are reminded that the Australian country is and was at that time and still is a member of the commonwealth and the queen is head of state there along with a number of countries who still respect the commonwealth.

I think you'll find that unlike Australia and the USA, the UK lacks space, especially for testing rockets

NASA used liquid oxygen and kerosene fas their rocket fuel. The cryogenics you've heard about was used to produce the liquid oxygen (LOX requires a temp below −183 °C (−297.4 °F; 90.1 K) ) and is a lightish blue in colour. The Space shuttle used liquid oxygen and either kerosene or liquid hydrogen (the big orange tank) of course the shuttle also had the solid rocket booster there had a mixture of Ammonium Perchlorate Composite Propellant (APCP), these provide a proxy 85% of the thrust required of shuttle lift off as you know they where jettisoned at approx 24 nautical miles when the main shuttle engines did the rest of the work. Edward Heath has a massive cross to bear in the state of British engineering and manufacturing, lots dumped and canceled and given away all so Ted could get us in to the common market.

This Video rather simplifies the history there was much more going on. Black Arrow’s primary justification was to keep British rocket experts sharp at a comparative low cost (but clearly not low enough). The reason the Government thought they needed rocket experts was more to do with an ability to analyse other people’s efforts, i.e. intelligence, rather than a belief UK would ever make British built rockets. Hydrogen peroxide was used by NASA in the same period, for example it was used in the control thrusters of the Mercury spacecraft. The British used hydrogen peroxide in many of their operational miliary systems, had learned how to handle it, and were happy to use it. America tended to use nitrogen tetroxide and that ended up as the room temperature oxidant of choice there. There are pros and cons with both chemicals. What I was told by people on the project about the change of name for Puck is a bit more prosaic. It was the perfect name - ”I'll put a girdle round about the earth” - but, rather late in the day, someone worked out the obvious headlines particularly if it failed. So, the name was changed to Prospero because it was safer from a public relations point of view The real kicker here is that the first two stages of the Black Arrow could be mounted on the Blue Streak to create a rocket with more performance than Europa. So, the argument that Britain could not afford develop a larger launcher does not hold up, because in real life the British taxpayer ended up paying for just that.

Black Arrow wasn’t Britain’s first foray into space. At the end of WW2 Britain conducted Operation Backfire which involved testing V2 Rockets and the intention to build manned rockets based on a modified V2 design. However budgets were tight and the country virtually bankrupt so it didn’t go ahead

Britain isn't developing rockets any more, but it is building, or going to build a launch fascility for commerical rockets in Northern Scotland - this will be suitable for northern bound launches into polar orbits and would, if it gets built, be the first launch facility in Europe

roger the chalkboard drawing , am i missing something , whats that all about ?😆

@SoGal_YT

Жыл бұрын

This short video explains it all :) kzread.info/dash/bejne/fXqkr8NtgcqYaLg.html

Yep the Americans promised they'd share with the UK if we gave them all our research, but low and behold America once they had all the British research refused to share anything...basically how America was built on other countries research and brains...money speaks as they say!!...

Very interesting video I am 55 but have not heard of this

When launching large rockets massive amounts of water is sprayed under the launcher to protect the structure from the massive amounts of heat generated. The white cloud as it is turned to steam. There is exhaust smoke also but not all of it is pollution.

@EricIrl

Жыл бұрын

Not just heat protection. It's main purpose is noise attenuation. Sonic shock waves from the exhaust can seriously damage the pad structure. The water helps dampen that down.

I feel I must add, during early space trials, the Russians launched a rocket that the west lost track of. Good job Newark boys school was monitoring it and able to provide its coordinates. Newark school is in Leicester. You ask about our interest and involvement, many things go on under the radar, so its hard to have an opinion.

@tonym480

Жыл бұрын

This is true 😃

UK is the only country that had a working space program and voluntarily gave it up.

It was interesting that McMillan, on the grounds of safety based Polaris on the Firth of Clyde - an area not exactly known for Conservative voters.

There's a couple of launch sites currently being developed in scotland, one on the mainland and one further north on shetland. UK was involved with the european space agency and projects like gallileo satnav netowrk but sadly that fell foul of the post brexit purge of everything to do with europe

@charlestaylor9424

Жыл бұрын

And one in Cornwall. The Prestwick one is at a colocated airport, 40 miles away is Glasgow which builds more satellites than any other city in Europe. They all have one thing in common, a launch path straight over the Atlantic.

@johnegerszeghy9818

Жыл бұрын

@Andy Brown. Britain is still a major member of the European Space Agency as it’s separate from the EU.

The only country to develop a working orbital rocket and then scrap it. TSR2 comes to mind.

@alansmithee8831

Жыл бұрын

@Marvin T P Android. Never mind, there are always car parks to develop.

He confuses fuel with oxidant. HTP is an oxidant and a very potent and condensed one. It has been developed into higher percentages which are even more efficient, but these have handling problems (it eats many metals and burns any skin exposed to the fumes). The actual fuel was kerosene, pretty much like the stuff that airliners burn. The UK currently leads the world in hybrid rockets, which use HTP (liquid) oxidizer with solid fuel - this gives the controllability of a liquid-fueled rocket without the risk of storing liquid oxygen and hydrogen in close proximity to each other. it is controlled by how much HTP is pumped through a catalyst pack into the chamber lined with the solid fuel, which (it has been found) is best made from something very much like the butyl rubber from which bicycle tyres are made. this is used to line the inside of the lower/rear 2/3rds of the rocket body with a chamber up the middle, with the HTP being injected at the top/front. This fuel is textured to give the best HTP/exhaust flow and maximise reactive surface area. If the 1,000mph car "Bloodhound" ever manages to get funding to complete it, it uses one of these engines along with an EJ200 Eurofighter Typhoon turbojet. A Cosworth ex-Formula 1 engine design (they now use V6s, this is the older V8) drives the HTP pump, which gives an idea of how fast HTP needs to be supplied to the catalyst pack and solid fuel for maximum performance. The part from the catalyst pack rearwards, containing the fuel, is a cartridge which can be just dragged out and replaced, while the vehicle is replenished with HTP and fuel for the pump, fresh braking parachute packs, and other general checks, then turn the car around within the hour specified for a return run in the reciprocal direction to establish a record. The design and build were complete and the track in S Africa even cleared (nothing in the US is long enough) when the project ran out of funding. Unless more can be found soon, it looks unlikely to be possible in time for the original driver/pilot, Wing Cdr Andy Green OBE, current holder of the world speed record (763.165mph/Mach 1.02) in the twin Rolls Royce Spey Mk 205 (uprated Phantom F4K engines) powered Thrust SSC (15th Oct 1997) and the only man ever to achieve undisputed and proven supersonic land travel, to still be active, and it is rather difficult to find alternatives with supersonic driving on their record to replace him. The project manager for Thrust SSC and Bloodhound was Richard Noble OBE, the previous record holder (633.468mph) for which he used Thrust 2, powered by a single RR RB 146 (Avon302C) sourced from an English Electric Lightning, in 1983. This means he has been involved in every world land speed record for nearly 40 years, plus another near 13 years preparing to take it, starting in 1970 when he decided to take the record back for Britain. Andy Green also holds the world diesel-powered land speed record, powered by twin JCB444 LSR 5L 4-cylinder two-stage turbo intercooled engines (one driving each axle, with no mechanical connection between them), at 350.092mph. If they can get the tyres for it, Andy reckons they have another 100mph in the bag - it never even reached top gear, as it was limited by the rubber. Jermy Clarkson will have heart failure if they get 450mph out of a diesel!

There were several reasons to launch from Australia: 1. they were doing nuclear tests in Australia. The UK just doesn't have a big empty spot where you can detonate a nuke for fun. 2. When it comes to putting stuff into orbit, you want to be as close to the equator as possible to benefit from the Earth's rotation. That's why the French launch from French Guiana.

@EricIrl

Жыл бұрын

The benefit of having a launch site on or near the equator only really helps if you want the satellite to orbit near to the equatorial plane of the earth. Many satellites, especially military ones, have a north south path (they orbit from pole to pole in many cases). For those types of missions, the main criteria for the launch site is ensuring the ascent path does not cross populated areas. Scotland works well for launches heading north.

Whats east of Cape Canaveral? Water. Whats east of the UK ? France (who wouldn't appreciate the brits dropping expended rockets on them) Whats east of Woomera? Desert

We didn’t have the order Isle of Wight for engine testing there was another bigger engine test made in Scotland but England is not a very big country if anything like this goes wrong so Australia was a bigger and more open country haven’t seen his chat for ages he wasn’t very well last time I heard thanks Michael

UK is primarily involved in satellite manufacture. There are plans for a couple of "space ports" but we will never be a major player in the rocket launching business. Just my personal belief, but I see the future in raw materials, manufacturing and possibly power generation; that is where would prefer the UK concentrate its activities and leave launches to Elon et al.

Testing rockets in Woomera, Australia is a good idea. The UK and Australia have a good relationship - unless it comes to cricket or rugby, then the deal is OFF= lol. (I am British and my sister is Australian - we have our spats, but we are family!) UK is very densly populated, but Woomera is miles away from anywhere. Sensible to launch from Woomera. After all, you wouldn't launch EXPERIMENTAL rockets (carrying tons of flammable materials) in Central Park, New York. The consequences of a malfunction could be devastating!

I had never heard of this rocket before and it's really interesting to see the different path that Britain took compared to the US. I knew that hydrogen peroxide was used in German experimental rocket planes in WWII, which were usually more dangerous to the pilot than his target, but I had no idea it was used in a post-war rocket. A British company is currently working on a single-stage-to-orbit rocket plane launch system with some really cutting-edge technology in the engines. Another example of the UK taking a less travelled road into space, maybe? I hope their project is successful. I'd love one day to board a plane at an airport and ride it directly into space.

@EricIrl

Жыл бұрын

The Me163 was "experimental". It was an operational interceptor.

They had to test in Australia because it is closer to the equator, sparsely populated and surrounded by ocean - unlike Britain. NASA uses liquid oxygen and kerosene for the Saturn V, and liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen for the space shuttle.

You hit on one of the problems of Democratic Contries and changes in Government, when R&D programmes start to get too expensive for the economic climate at the time they get scrapped, as did the TSR 2 aircraft or at best mothballed and then forgotten about. The replacement for the now ageing Polaris Nuclear Submarine launched Nuclear Missile system is very controversial and may also get scrapped leaving the UK without a home Nuclear deterrent.

The UK is too small in land area to safely use as a rocket launch site. Noise would also be a major problem. The USA had size and a large economy on it's side for a successful and large scale spave industry.

Uk space program definitely!! As many people driving for space as possible. A huge amount of problems down here can be solved. Biological techniques in zero gravity are very promising right now plus the resources and room to expand are virtually limitless. We have out grown this world, time to move on.

If you want a laugh, 'Vic and Bob - Geordie Astronauts Compilation' on KZread sums up the UK space project.

Hello SoGal and Roger. Launching rockets is easier near the equator to achieve equatorial orbit. UK is as north as Alaska. Also Europe is densely populated, so not like the Australian desert if there was a problem. The smaller satellites made possible by modern technology mean you can have them in polar orbits as you can have several. This means smaller launchers are now viable from remote west Scottish islands and UK can get back in the race. Leaving the EU has also reversed the need to work with countries like France, though I was told on a previous reply that there is still cooperation. France launches from French Guyana which is a part of France in South America, not a colony. I commented before that it would make for a good reaction video.

If there was a technical fault with the fully fueled Me 163 "Komet" , such as a ruptured pipe fitting, the rocket fuel would douse the unluck pilot, melting away at his living flesh.

Sadly the UK hasn't contributed much space agency wise, But has become a major centre of satellite design and construction...

The fuel used by NASA in the space shuttle was liquefied hydrogen.😉👍

@EricIrl

Жыл бұрын

Correct, with liquid oxygen as the "oxydiser". Both the oxygen and hydrogen were contained in the huge orange tank. However, most of the thrust during the first thee minutes of flight came from the solid rocket boosters.

10:02 Looks like 7.62x54R cartridge.

We should never forget that it was the Germans who invented rocket technology and scientists were taken either to the US or USSR after WWII. Then of course Britain had invented the turbojet engine, courtesy of Frank Whittle. Testing a rocket in the UK is not really practical, as if anything went wrong, it was most likely to hit a populated area. There is not a lot of space between our villages and towns.

@EricIrl

Жыл бұрын

Please note that rocket technology was not "invented by Germans". Solid rockets go back to the early middle ages and were invented in China. The first successful liquid fueled rocket was fired by Robert H Goddard, an American. The US had a very active series of rocket programmes from the late 1920s. Where the Germans differed was that the Nazis were prepared to put large amounts of resources into their rocket programmes - chiefly because they were stupid. The American preferred to put greater resources into producing traditional engines and weapons as they knew that's what needed to be done to win the war. When the war was almost over, only then did they decide to put more resources into rocketry - and obtain the data acquired by the German programmes if they could - and prevent the knowledge from falling into Soviet hands..

The United Kingdom Space Agency is an executive agency of the Government of the United Kingdom, responsible for the United Kingdom's civil space programme. Annual budget: £469 million (2019/2020) Chief Executive: Paul Bate Headquarters: Swindon Founded: 1 April 2010

I follow Curious Droid's channel, he has the most horrendous taste in shirts which in itself is a very British thing. One very popular company is called Shite Shirts because their shirts are...you guessed it Shite. Although I might add that Mr Shilo's shirt, although shite, is not a Shite Shirt,

Might be worth looking at documentaries about Britain's independent development of the atom and hydrogen bombs.

HTP is unstable. It's similar to what Kursk had in it's test torpedo when it exploded.

The UK is heavily involved in the design and build of satellites

You could cal this a tue puck up :)

You could launch a rocket from the UK, but the trouble is that thr optimal direction to launch a rocket, to take advantage of the Earth's spin is eastward. What's east of Florida is the Atlantic ocean, and what's east of Baikanour is vast empty stretches of more of the USSR. What's east of the UK is just more of Europe - notably Eastern Europe. And, no-body wanted the possibility of accidetanlly dropping a rocket on densly populated areas there - especially during the cold war.

British politicians given half a chance couldn’t find their way out of a plastic bag no paper bag we have been good for the environment all seriousness unfortunately not they don’t seem very keen to do anything apart from cause chaos. Thanks Michael

Plus’s we were still recovering from WW11

14:44 Roskosmos makes money.

A very British Space PROGRAMME...

The U.K. are world leaders in satellite technology, the government recently bought out another leading satellite company. We had a leading role in the European satellite programme and were a large contributor to the cost of the programme. They have tried to freeze us out following Brexit but they need the expertise of our scientists in order to compete with the Elon Musk’s Starlink Programme.

WWII broke the UK 🇬🇧 so we didn't have the funds for a proper rocket club. We flirt with rocket technology and there have been bases in the UK on the Isle the Wight off the English South Coast and bear Sutherland in Scotland. This is what happens when you're in the pocket of the US and have been WWII. There was talk of a space base in Sutherland Norh coast in Scotland. It would be a commercial enterprise more than military or government based, for launching small satellites- there was even talk of Elon Musk being involved 🤔 🙄 not sure about that.

After WWII Britain was in front on the space race, but decided to do other things instead, the NHS,etc

Fuel : Oxidant: different things NASA uses liquid oxygen and kerosene (jet fuel) thte liqid oxygen needs crryogenic tech. peroxide systems use the oxygen and hydrogen from braakdown of H2o2. I think