Sign in to follow this  
Vectura

Is this an SSTO or TSTO?

Recommended Posts

Video:

A couple of KVV pics (video coming soon):

Cargo bay closed:

KmCPUaX.jpg

Cargo bay open (and launch clamp removed):

jiK5JyW.jpg

Edited by Vectura

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least two stage. SSTO = Never drop parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Vectura

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Alshain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...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 ...]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Best,

-Slashy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Pecan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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, B) 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this