Is this an SSTO or TSTO?

[Vectura]

Video:

A couple of KVV pics (video coming soon):

Cargo bay closed:

Cargo bay open (and launch clamp removed):

Edited November 25, 2014 by Vectura

[Alshain]

At least two stage. SSTO = Never drop parts.

[NeMeSiS]

Well if you dont drop the boosters it is still an SSTO.

[Vectura]

It only drops the external boosters after circularizing, though. It doesn't stage until orbit is achieved (when the video has uploaded you'll be able to see from that).

Edit: Video uploaded, still processing

Edit 2: Video done

Edited November 25, 2014 by Vectura

[Hodo]

If it drops parts at any point before it has achieved a stable orbit, then it is not a Single Stage To Orbit craft.

It is that simple.

[Vectura]

Then it is an SSTO.

[psyper]

SSTO = Never drop parts.

Well not intentionally .... -.-

[Pecan]

The rockets are a SSTO but, not from the look of them, a resusable SSTO.

[Yellowburn10]

Yeah, the term is single stage to orbit, not single rocket to orbit. Sure, not all of it will be recovered, but if it got into orbit, THEN staged, it's still an SSTO.

[Alshain]

Well, I mean the way I would define it, if it drops the parts used to get to orbit, that's also not an SSTO. But I guess that's up for interpretation. The point is as Pecan says, it isn't completely reusable which means you will lose cost in parts, where a rocket or plane capable of reaching orbit, dropping nothing but payload, and returning safely to the KSC loses you nothing but fuel cost.

The original term SSTO was intended that way (on Earth) and that is usually how it is intended.

Simply put, I wouldn't call it an SSTO, I would call that a shuttle. But it's your plane, call it what you want.

Edited November 26, 2014 by Alshain

[Brotoro]

Single Stage To Orbit? Sure it is.

[Aragosnat]

Yeah. From one stand point it is a SSTO craft. But, if you wanted a 100% reusable craft. It clearly is not. Without adding moar to it to make it so number 1.

[magnemoe]

Well not intentionally .... -.-

As part of the reason to reach orbit it often to deploy stuff who might have multiple stages.

However the reason to take fuel tanks to orbit if you can not recover them confuses me.

That is unless they will be used for fuel storage or inteplanetary stages later.

[Aragosnat]

As part of the reason to reach orbit it often to deploy stuff who might have multiple stages.

However the reason to take fuel tanks to orbit if you can not recover them confuses me.

That is unless they will be used for fuel storage or inteplanetary stages later.

Yeah. HAve to agree with yu on that. Wish I realized I should have mention it too. If theboosters had a dockign port and probe to help prevent it being labled as debries. Then they should have had separtons to de-orbit them or at least enough that aero-braking can take them in to finish the de-orbit.

[Pecan]

...The original term SSTO was intended that way (on Earth) and that is usually how it is intended...

We should all remember the point is that staging is efficient if your objective is JUST to launch something into orbit.

So a SSTO design would simply be more expensive, although its construction is simpler.

Once you want to REUSE parts/costs then the situation is reversed - you want to avoid staging/discarding anything.

Ultimately that means for a disposable vehicle you stage as much as possible to optimise factors other than cost (like payload ratio).

For a shuttle, where only the lander is reusable, you stage the launch vehicle as much as possible to minimise the cost of disposed parts while also optimising for other factors.

For maximum reusability you don't want to stage at all, hence SSTO.

SSTO rockets are simple to make and fly but use a relatively large amount of fuel and are hard to land accurately.

VTVL SSTO jets are fairly easy to make and fly, are more fuel efficient but are still hard to land accurately.

SSTO Spaceplanes are intermediate-efficiency launch-vehicles but are harder to make and fly; their benefit is that they can land accurately.

[...this post is unfinished, but I have to go to work ...]

[mitsukaikira]

Single Stage TO Orbit.

Yup. It's an SSTO.

[LethalDose]

Does it really matter what you call it if it's able to do it's job?

[WololoW]

Your craft is an SSTO, but it is not an SSTOL. Many people talk about SSTO's but are actually meaning SSTOL's as they care about a fully reusable craft.

SSTOL = single stage to orbit and landing

[Pecan]

...Many people talk about SSTO's but are actually meaning...

It's got to be one of the most misused terms in KSP, if not elsewhere. "Sub-orbital SSTO", "SSTO to Eeloo", etc. are other oxymorons that spring to mind. Generally people seem to mean 'Spaceplane' but since that precludes things without wings we might just be best using the name "Reusable launch-vehicle".

*Sigh* if only it were possible.

[LethalDose]

It's got to be one of the most misused terms in KSP, if not elsewhere. "Sub-orbital SSTO", "SSTO to Eeloo", etc. are other oxymorons that spring to mind. Generally people seem to mean 'Spaceplane' but since that precludes things without wings we might just be best using the name "Reusable launch-vehicle".

*Sigh* if only it were possible.

Well, the misuse of the term isn't helped by your posts including your very very literal interpretation of the term. When anyone else other than you uses the term SSTO, they're referring to a vehicle that can go from the surface to orbit, and then make a controlled return to the surface at a planned location without staging. It just so happens 99% of these are spaceplanes.

[GoSlash27]

It achieved stable orbit without dropping any parts. Whatever else it may or may not be, it *is* an SSTO.

Best,

-Slashy

[GoSlash27]

Well, the misuse of the term isn't helped by your posts including your very very literal interpretation of the term. When anyone else other than you uses the term SSTO, they're referring to a vehicle that can go from the surface to orbit, and then make a controlled return to the surface at a planned location without staging. It just so happens 99% of these are spaceplanes.

I disagree. I have made all sorts of different kinds of SSTOs (and I refer to them as such) that execute all manner of missions once they've achieved orbit. Some of them are spaceplanes, some vertical lifters. Some fully reusable, some not. Heck, one of 'em doesn't use any fuel at all!

If it gets to orbit without dropping any parts, it's an SSTO.

Cheers,

-Slashy

[WololoW]

Well, the misuse of the term isn't helped by your posts including your very very literal interpretation of the term. When anyone else other than you uses the term SSTO, they're referring to a vehicle that can go from the surface to orbit, and then make a controlled return to the surface at a planned location without staging. It just so happens 99% of these are spaceplanes.

You literally just described SSTOL, not SSTO... Jus sayin. Also, its best to not put words into peoples mouths or assume that you know what 'anyone else other than you' refers to when they say SSTO. Literal definition is Single Stage To Orbit, no more no less.

[Pecan]

Well, the misuse of the term isn't helped by your posts including your very very literal interpretation of the term. When anyone else other than you uses the term SSTO, they're referring to a vehicle that can go from the surface to orbit, and then make a controlled return to the surface at a planned location without staging. It just so happens 99% of these are spaceplanes.

Edited November 27, 2014 by Pecan

[GoSlash27]

As others have hinted already, the very, very literal interpretation is what I intend: If it sheds parts on the way up it isn't a SSTO, if it does much more than coming back after it's gone up it isn't a SSTO.

I have no interest in helping the term to be misused, which is why I point you towards correct definitions. I may fail, but that doesn't mean "SSTO to Laythe" or "Sub-orbital SSTO" is correct.

Which part of "Single Stage To Orbit" is hard for you? If it's that you want a name for your spaceplanes, how about "Spaceplanes"?

And, yes, I'm still a) wrong in my definition, thinking it'll be impossible to get people (not you; general population) to even think about what they're saying, let alone say what they're thinking. Doesn't stop me trying.

Pecan,

The issue I see is that you are "a) wrong in your definition".

It doesn't matter what a vehicle does after achieving orbit in order to qualify as an "SSTO". It merely has to achieve orbit without dropping parts. It could de-orbit, remain in orbit, or leave the system entirely. It's still an SSTO by definition.

Best,

-Slashy