Legitimate SSTOs we can use TODAY

[3_bit]

This is a thread to talk about SSTOs we have the technology for today....

Here's one I really like, the SASSTO: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_SASSTO

It's VTVL, but I think things like this are really worthwhile.

Another Idea I have is that we could use a reusable discarded 1st stage, that might fly to another continent to land (the biggest problem right now is that the 1st stage would need to turn around and fly back as it would be too far downrange to land, but we could instead say have a 1st stage from Kennedy Space Center land in Europe or Africa, eliminating the problem of an ocean landing. We would necessarily need much larger first stages to ensure it could make it, but the reusability would make it more cost-effective over many launches.

[Nuke]

im betting my ssto money on skylon. last time i heard anything they estimated they could have it ready in 12 years if the funding holds out.

[Kerbface]

im betting my ssto money on skylon. last time i heard anything they estimated they could have it ready in 12 years if the funding holds out.

I sure hope we can see Skylon completed, but even if they just finish the engines another project could use them as well.

[EatThePath]

Honestly, is SSTO really desirable? The advantages of staging, that I'm sure we've all experienced in KSP, are so dramatic that giving them up just for the ideal of simplicity seems... foolish.

Another Idea I have is that we could use a reusable discarded 1st stage, that might fly to another continent to land (the biggest problem right now is that the 1st stage would need to turn around and fly back as it would be too far downrange to land, but we could instead say have a 1st stage from Kennedy Space Center land in Europe or Africa, eliminating the problem of an ocean landing. We would necessarily need much larger first stages to ensure it could make it, but the reusability would make it more cost-effective over many launches.

You might be interested in SpaceX's re-usability concepts. they're currently working on a system where the first stage will fly back to the launch site under its own power, and do a powered landing. As I understand it, after stage seperation the first stage is so light that the amount of propellant needed to do this is actually amazingly small, so it's far less payload penalty then you would at first expect.

[Kilmeister]

If something truly is reusable then yes, it's worth investing in it. The concept of staging is wasteful by nature, but that's the only way so far we have found to achieve orbit. The concept of reusability is great, but so far it hasn't been realized. I'm confident we will be able to put that into practice some day. That was the intention of the shuttle program, which turned out that the shuttle wasn't really "Reusable" in the sense that it took more money to get it ready again for flight status than it was worth. But it was a very important first step in the advancement of reusable spacecraft.

[EatThePath]

If something truly is reusable then yes, it's worth investing in it. The concept of staging is wasteful by nature, but that's the only way so far we have found to achieve orbit. The concept of reusability is great...

The two aren't logically required to be exclusive, and SSTO doesn't necessarily imply reusability, though admittedly all the SSTO concepts I'm aware of aim for it. As I mentioned, SpaceX is working on launchers that if all goes well would be both staged and fully reusable.

[Nuke]

the shuttle was definately a learning expirience. it showed us what worked, what didnt (zomg the tiles!), and what kind of catastrophic failures it could suffer. if we could imporve the safety and reduce the refit cost of a shuttle-like system that would be awesome. even a 2 stage spaceplane on rocket with flyback for both stages would be awesome. i find that 2 stage launchers really work for me in ksp.

still i really think skylon is on to something. its certainly taking advantage of new engine technologies, new manufacturing techniques, and the like, when major space agencies are still playing it safe with established technology. i dont want to marginalize space-x either because they are also producing innovations that government agencies wouldn't be able to get away with because politics. if you do something and it reduced launch costs, you are doing it right.

[Thaniel]

the shuttle was definately a learning expirience. it showed us what worked, what didnt (zomg the tiles!), and what kind of catastrophic failures it could suffer. if we could imporve the safety and reduce the refit cost of a shuttle-like system that would be awesome. even a 2 stage spaceplane on rocket with flyback for both stages would be awesome. i find that 2 stage launchers really work for me in ksp.

still i really think skylon is on to something. its certainly taking advantage of new engine technologies, new manufacturing techniques, and the like, when major space agencies are still playing it safe with established technology. i dont want to marginalize space-x either because they are also producing innovations that government agencies wouldn't be able to get away with because politics. if you do something and it reduced launch costs, you are doing it right.

Good points (on ipad without keyboard, not efficient to single out any specific points). But, in a way, the shuttle was a partial SSTO, in a way. It atleast showed it's allmost usefull. The ET (big orange tank) did reach LEO, or would have if it was not deorbited controllable. So in a case where the shuttle itself would have been only it's cockpit with wings, and not separated, it would have been one stage, complete from earth to orbit. With reusable boosters.

So here's my take at that, I don't know if those boosters where economical sound to reuse or not, but I hope they where. The idea that was ditched due to budget and whatnot, for a crew launch vehicle on a single booster with a LF tank and engine as it's second stage, did have so e possibilities. So what if, they built something like that, for launching a simple capsule with crew and/or supplies for ISS or other uses, more or less as is planned, but instead of dumping the last tank, leave it in orbit, and use an unmanned tug to move it to a usefull place, where it can be used for construction. The remaining fuel in it will also come to good use, moving it.

i know that kind of reusability is frowned uppn by the high-ups at NASA, since it was dropped in it's inception when it was proposed early during the shuttles developement. One of the arguments was that it would require redesigning the tank and sarificing some capacity for the shuttles, and become another thing that could go wrong.

But that way, there would be reusability of all the parts involved, and still be a staged stack.

staging is not the same as not reusability, stupidity is.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

SSTO isn't that hard: Atlas style ballon tanks, and NK-33 engines should do it nicely (In fact a Titan II first stage could probably get itself to orbit). A SSTO with a useful payload fraction is much much more difficult. And becuase the payload fraction is always going to be small compared to staged rockets then the only real way to compete is with reusablility.

[Thaniel]

But, if the hull of the rocket itself that reaches space is reusable or can be repurposed on purpose, then the usefull payload fraction skyrockets.

[magnemoe]

If something truly is reusable then yes, it's worth investing in it. The concept of staging is wasteful by nature, but that's the only way so far we have found to achieve orbit. The concept of reusability is great, but so far it hasn't been realized. I'm confident we will be able to put that into practice some day. That was the intention of the shuttle program, which turned out that the shuttle wasn't really "Reusable" in the sense that it took more money to get it ready again for flight status than it was worth. But it was a very important first step in the advancement of reusable spacecraft.

Note, you can make an multi stage fully reusable rocket. Long term SpaceX plans involves this.

This design has the benefit that you don't have to carry all the mass to orbit and only the small upper stage has to be hardened to survive orbital reentry.

You also has the option to do more things, going to GEO or behind don't take the upper stage into orbit but increase the size of the transfer stage. You might want to launch this in south asia to give more landing spots in the pacific.

For heavier loads you might want to use an single use upper stage.

You can test this yourself in KSP, make an SSTO rocket, then something with two boosters who can land and a main stage, this has many times the cargo capacity of an SSTO.

My record is an huge main stage and four boosters who is dropped at 10km, this can take 180 ton to LKO. I could increase this if I did most of the circulating with an upper stage.