Wesley01

Why is a SSTO not useful today? My chief complaint is that it is because ever sinse beginning folks have though of a SSTO as using one single chemical rocket burn from start to finish and this simple is not very effiecnt at all. My idea is with the SSME like 25 years ago SSTO started to be feasable when you look at most effient three dimensional solution I am presently suggesting. I have done the figures and came up with a one million GLOW rocket seven percent empty bit over three percent useable payload thrust weight ratio 1.5/1 and nearly 10 kilometer/second burn out velocity too. Thanks

I understand what your saying and you can be right But I am getting a different story my figures comes from a different angle as a SSTO is not one stage but can be three stages in one. Wesley 01 Thank you.

Any rocket stage can be defined by the perotical burn for instance a chemical rocket engine like S/SM/E switching on then off again such as three times matches the definition for three stages even though the stages remain the vehicle. I have a design based on this principle please see this sound.wave@gm x. dotcom Wesley 01. SSTO seem to me as possible if you use S/SM/E (s) and this stage principle which means you can still use three stages like stages in today's rockets but keep them inside. I have done the numbers and they seem indicate a comparable good SSTO vehicle. Thank you. Wesley 01.