TeeGee

WHY was this never built??? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SERV 50 ton payload AND SSTO AND fully reusable. What was NASA thinking?

She was the next step up from the Delta-V (the previous model).

Here was one of my older SSTO's from last year: And yes, that is an Lv-N in the turbojet. She makes 120km apoapsis on airbreather alone, circularizes with LV-N with tons of fuel to space. NOTE: I kept the oxidizer and liquid fuel lower because one doesn't need soo much fuel to make orbit and do all ur orbital maneuvers. U can increase the fuel to full if you want, I just wanted to show u what this craft can do. I also made an SSTO heavy lifter that can life 60 tons of weight on airbreathers. I won't post it as my own because it is heavily influenced by another persons creation, I just wanted to see if I could improve on his/her design.

This is EPIC! Awesome!

What's the max payload of the KSO? I couldn't even get 9 tons into orbit..

After using the 12 cluster of 48's on an orange tank + large reaction wheel, I broke Kerbins sphere of influence by ascent alone before running out of fuel! That's incredible! Now I can see why people use clusters as opposed to larger rocket engines..

Ok, 12 engine 48-7S and 1 orange tank = break KSOI

I'm going to try that. I need to design an adapter that will house 12 48-7S and see if that truly is the superior option. So given that option, which engine rocket cluster is the best at each level of atmosphere? I assume the aerospike engines are number 1. I want to design a rocket cluster that is optimized for each stage as best the game can allow. Would you guys wan't to play along? I am open to any and all suggestions and opinions. Please feel free to post your cluster designs and performance as you wish! I am very interested in seeing your designs!

Have u tried a de-orbit burn using the MONOPROP? It should work.. I'm guessing that launching with the fuel pod is adding monoprop weight unnecessarily to ur orbiter, and that's why you are running out of fuel prematurely. But a more likely situation is that your space station is in too high of an orbit. But if I were you, I'd either: 1) Use monoprop to make orbit changes 2) carry more fuel That's all assuming that you are using optimal ascent profiles for the shuttle itself. You should only be using the OMS to circularize the spacecraft, don't use the SSME's, they weren't designed for that.

Hello, I've been screwing around KSP recently and have been trying to figure out when using a larger bell rocket engine would be better than clustering smaller, higher ISP engines. I've been using the skipper and comparing it to single, and double LV-T30's. I created a rocket with a single LV-T30 that is SSTO with enough fuel to burn to deorbit with payload weight of only a large reaction wheel and 1 OKTO2. The Engine config = 1 LV-T30 and 1 X200-32 fuel tank. Then I added the next step tank of x200-8 and the thing couldn't get off the launch pad. I then DOUBLED the fuel tanks and clustered the T30 in doubles (I had 2xT30's and 2xX200-32's). The rocket had the exact same performance as the singles (1 T30 and 1 X200-32) with equal payload! Then I removed the 2 x T30 and added a Skipper liquid. The 2xt30's OUTPERFORMED the Skipper with equal payload mass. I am very intrigued by all of this and was wondering what the OPTIMAL rocket configuration is for each rocket engine and their lifting capability. Ultimately, I want to create a chart that shows me what engines in what configuration are best to lift mass X or Y.

In case anyone was wondering.. S-IVB = 119,900 kg That mass alone = waaay beyond the payload capacity for the shuttle. BUT Empty weight was 9,559 kg So assemble the S-IVB, CM and LEM together in the shuttle and refuel it in space.

.....Oh yeah. My bad I forgot about that. What if the shuttle gave it a translunar nudge and the CM burned the rest of the way? And didn't the S-IVB help circularize the craft during staging? Take away that fuel and see what's left (mass wise).

??? Why would the shuttle need a S-IVB when its payload weight = 55, 000 lbs? That's well over the weight of the sum of both the LEM and the CM+SM together.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy "Although not a part of the initial Falcon Heavy design, SpaceX is doing parallel development on a reusable rocket launching system that is intended to be extensible to the Falcon Heavy, first to the booster stage and ultimately to the second stage as well. Early on, SpaceX had expressed hopes that both rocket stages would eventually be reusable.[42] More recently, in 2011, SpaceX announced a funded development program to build and fly a reusable launch system that will ultimately bring a first stage back to the launch site in minutes  and a second stage back to the launch pad, following orbital realignment with the launch site and atmospheric reentry, in up to 24 hours  with both stages designed to be available for reuse within "single-digit hours" after return.[43] As of February 2012, design is complete on the system for "bringing the rocket back to launchpad using only thrusters."[43] The reusable launch system technology is under consideration for both the Falcon 9 and the Falcon Heavy. It is particularly well suited to the Falcon Heavy where the two outer cores separate from the rocket much earlier in the flight profile, and are therefore both moving at a slower velocity at the initial separation event.[43] As of March 2013, the publicly announced aspects of the SpaceX reusable rocket technology development effort include an active test campaign of the low-altitude, low-speed Grasshopper vertical takeoff, vertical landing (VTVL) technology demonstrator rocket,[44][45] and a high-altitude, high-speed Falcon 9 post-mission booster-return test campaign whereâ€â€beginning in late-2013, with the sixth overall flight of Falcon 9â€â€every Falcon 9 first stage which was instrumented and equipped as a controlled descent test vehicle to accomplish propulsive-return over-water tests.[41] SpaceX has indicated that the Falcon Heavy payload performance to Geosynchronous transfer orbit (GTO) will be reduced by addition of the reusable technology, but would fly at much lower launch price. With full reusability on all three booster cores, GTO payload will be 7,000 kg (15,000 lb). If only the two outside cores fly as reusable cores while the center core is expendable, GTO payload would be approximately 14,000 kg (31,000 lb).[46] Falcon 9 will do satellites up to roughly 3.5 tonnes, with full reusability of the boost stage, and Falcon Heavy will do satellites up to 7 tonnes with full reusability of the all three boost stages," [Musk] said, referring to the three Falcon 9 booster cores that will comprise the Falcon Heavy's first stage. He also said Falcon Heavy could double its payload performance to GTO "if, for example, we went expendable on the center core." If the entire craft becomes reusable, then I would bow down to the falcon heavy as far superior to the space shuttle.

Shuttle Maximum payload: 55,250 lb (25,060 kg) LEM: Mass, gross: 10,300 lb (4,700 kg) CM: Mass: 12,250 lb (5,560 kg) ... I don't get it. Here's what I would have done. 1) Advance the thermal tile protection system to use larger sheets, which would make it far easier to maintain. 2) Obviously overhaul the CPU to meet modern standards 3) Make the craft far more modular 4) Contract the part development to private suppliers, make them compete for the contracts and offer incentives for improvements. 5) Add a damn crew ejection system!! Ex: Abort = shuttle flight deck separation from the rest of the craft and land in water with parachutes.

Well how about this... Shuttle takes up the LEM and lander module in the cargo bay and launches it in LEO. Release the capsule in LEO and send it to Luna to perform a normal mission akin to Apollo. Since we have the ISS, the CM and lunar lander can rendezvous with it on the return trip and refuel to go again. I don't understand why we need to retire the shuttle if it is considered a heavy lift system that can do this. I think of the shuttle as a reusable LEO delivery system that can be used to launch ANYTHING that can fit in its cargo bay. All we needed to do was update the technology and get rid of those stupid SRBs and replace them with liquid engines. And if we wanted full reusablity, shield the external fuel tank and fit it with parachutes for recovery. I don't understand why the shuttle program was used in such a limited way.

Sorry! I didn't find a thread that discussed this. Could you direct me to it?

Oh I know that, but still, out of interest I decided to calculate the cost of producing a shuttle vs a rocket in Kerballand. The SRB's were the biggest mistake in the shuttle program. They should be been liquid rockets because liquid rockets are safer, have a higher payload lifiting capability AND are easier to maintain. The only problem is that they are more expensive. And because of this money concern, 8 people died.

I agree. Bad movie. Re-allocating resources to the poor in Elysium would have been a waste of resources. Why? Because there are too many of them. And if they cured all of the cancers and illnesses, there'd be even MORE of them... leading to further strains on the Earth. As a world where overpopulation was obviously an issue, wouldn't we devote more resources to the productive individuals on Elysium as opposed to squandering it on the unproductive? BUT if the people on Elysium were just rich because they owned a coporation that made, say jeans, then NO they don't deserve the resources. Nor do the actors in Hollywood or the CEO's of non vital consumer products. If Elysium was for the best and brightest of humanity that were crucial in developing sciences that could improve our society, then yeah sure they were justified. But if it was only for the rich, then screw them.

I understand that the craft did not carry enough delta v after reaching LEO to go to the moon, but if we were to supply extra fuel for the craft, say put an extra tank in the cargo bay and refuel the vessel in ORBIT... would it be able to make an LEO to Lunar orbit and back again? If so, why then did we not launch a shuttle mission with an extra fuel tank, and a Lunar Lander in the cargo hold for a Lunar excursion? Is it because NASA did not think it worthwhile to go back? Wasn't the whole point of building the ISS so that we could refuel spacecraft in LEO before travelling to further planetary bodies in our solar system? And yes I know that reentry would have been a problem for the shuttle as well, BUT if we aerobrake at higher altitudes and take multiple passes through atmosphere to slow the craft down to rational reentry velocities, I don't see why the shuttle could not have made the trip home safely even with its current thermal protection system.

Turnaround time for a space shuttle was 2 months. The problem was the number of people required to work on the shuttle during that time... which I believe was around 9,000 workers. The only things that were maintained were the thermal tiles and SSME engines. Everything else was ready to go, she just needed fuel and a crew.

I wonder if squad should put maintenance costs into the game, especially for SSTO's. The more complicated the vehicle, the higher the maintenance costs and the longer the turnaround. If that is put into play, the player may be forced to use simpler low tech rockets to get things into orbit vs using high tech ones that are reusable.

FAST CLAP!!! You have become one of the elite. I only know 1 other person who has build a payload carrying SSTO to Duna and Laythe and he had a 1000 part vessel to do so. The only question I have is, how heavy was the payload that went to Duna? I've given up trying to build a legitimate craft that can carry payloads without resorting to intake clipping/stacking AND no engine nacelles that feed oxygen from directly ported intakes. That's my ultimate goal is to build an SSTO that can carry payloads, and are built plausibly. Ex: Fuel tanks = fuel tanks and nothing else is inside them. No intake clipping (obviously) and no intake stacking No airbreathing engines without nacelles. No nacelle is without air intakes. All air intakes must feed directly into the engine. That's what I am trying to do right now..

Rocket with lift ability = KSO is 25850 kerbal dollars. ALL of it is expendable rocket. I don't understand how a partially reusable space vehicle with the lifting capability of a shuttle can't possibly be CHEAPER in the long run than an expendable rocket. In KSP world, the KSO is initially more expensive at 47350 vs expendable rocket 25850 (both minus payloads). So for the KSO to justify its cost, all it needs to do is launch TWICE. The LRB and Orbiter come back, only the orange tank is destroyed. For the expendable system, NOTHING comes back. Not a very justifiable expense if you ask me. The cost far outweighs the expense of using expendable rockets as a payload delivery system, at least in Kerbal world.