Plasma Turbojet Or Plasma Turbofan Engine... Which Is More Optimal For This Scifi SSTO?

[Spacescifi]

IRL the process would be more complex, but I wanted to simplify it for the sake of SSTOs being common in the scifi setting.

Engine Configuration: Spaceship with dual turbojet or turbofan engine (depends on which one is more optimal for the task) Each is attached to a straight wing off both sidewalls of the ship in the middle. The wings which can pitch rotate, thus rotating the engines as well. Choose whatever engine is best for the scifi scenario of landing, turbojet or turbofan? I read turbojet is best for highspeed but turbofans are very efficient at lower speeds using less fuel. Of course since this is scifi we are actually using plasma turbojets or plasma turbofans that both have sufficient power and won't melt from the heat while providing sufficient thrust.

Scifi ability: Although the ship lacks proper antigravity it does have gravity resistance which can be toggled on or off as needed. What that means is if the ship is already falling it will stop further accelerating from gravity, even though it will keep falling... just not with any added acceleration. Also if the ship ascends straight up and stalls engines in the air, at the point gravity should pull it back down it will just hover in place.

Low Geostationary Orbit: Possible thanks to pure fusion external pusher plate propulsion and gravity resistance hovering. Fusion external pulse propulsion is efficient enough to slow a vessel in orbit to geostationary orbit, and gravity resistance prevents the spaceship from falling down until it is toggled off. This also avoids the need for heat shielding since falling straight down is faster than a curved reentry trajectory and turbojet or turbofan engines would be employed to slow it as well... whichever works better for the task.

Main Question: If a 300 ton SSTO with the OP engines is falling from the karmin line (boundary of space, we can orbit closer due to gravity resistance), can I just rotate my turbojet or turbofan engines so their fighter jet petal style nozzles are pointed downward while the ship falls horizontal and engage the engines? Would it even work?

Since the ship is falling down and the turbojet or turbofan engines are sucking air down to shoot out as plasma as they are falling away from it?

I was thinking a better tactic would be to dive the ship headfirst, level out over land while flying, and once the landing spot is found fly straight up, stall the engines, flip the ship horizontal, flip the engines so the fans are vertical while the nozzles are downward, and finally engage the engines once more for a controlled descent.

So... which engine would work better for this?

Plasma turbojet or plasma turbofan?

Remember it's a scifi setting so they have the power generation figured out as well as not melting the engines from operating while providing sufficient thrust.

That said it still would not be good for them to do a fiery reentry, which is why SSTOs have a pusher plate at the rear for pure fusion external propulsion to slow for low geostationary orbit while gravity resistance keeps the ship aloft until it is ready to fall. The external pulse propulsion also propels the ship into space when air is too thin for turbojet or turbanfans to work.

Also I chose the fighter jet petal nozzles because they look cool, and they can thrust vector by tilting, as well as adjust to widen as the air thins in higher atmosphere.

 

Edited May 1 by Spacescifi

[Terwin]

I do not see either engine being useful on pusher-plate sized vessels.

Sub-sonic airliners need 10-20% of their mass in engines, and that would be totally inadequate for something as unaerodynamic as a pusher-plate vessel, and also would be far from sufficient for the types of speeds you would need for them to be useful.

 

Just use disposable solid boosters to get it to orbit and never let it land.

(Once the pusher plate is used, you never want it near people again, so landing would be a war-crime even if you use a parachute instead of nukes to slow down)

[Spacescifi]

24 minutes ago, Terwin said:

(Once the pusher plate is used, you never want it near people again, so landing would be a war-crime even if you use a parachute instead of nukes to slow down)

 

Why? Pure fusion bombs don't fave the same radioactive fallout as nukes do.

[Terwin]

17 hours ago, Spacescifi said:

 

Why? Pure fusion bombs don't fave the same radioactive fallout as nukes do.

Fusion does not have the same waste, but it still produces neutrons and thus neutron activates near-by materials(something reactors hope to use for lithium production) so the pusher-plate of either will quickly become radioactive and thus dangerous for proximity.

[Spacescifi]

7 hours ago, Terwin said:

Fusion does not have the same waste, but it still produces neutrons and thus neutron activates near-by materials(something reactors hope to use for lithium production) so the pusher-plate of either will quickly become radioactive and thus dangerous for proximity.

Ouch. I was unaware of that. I guess we will be second staging for all eternity except for places so hazardous it won't matter (lifeless worlds).