🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <71781@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:
>>>In the history of spaceflight, that has seldom been the case.
>>
>>True, but that has far more to do with the design process we use for
>>spacecraft. Shuttle is the most complex vehicle ever built according
>>to NASA PR (I have no idea just why NASA thinks that is worth boasting
>>about). There is no reason to think that building for simplicity won't
>>work. That is why everybody who has studied the problem believes that
>>a SSTO can be built either now or in the near future. Even NASA internal
>>assessments say it can be done.
>>
>>  Allen
>
> That it can be done, I am more or less with you. (But I fully expect
> a design problem or two to slow things down...) That it can be done
> at the price you quote, that's another story. Say I'm from Missouri.
> Show me.
> 
> -Brian
>  



I believe in point of fact, that is the whole point of the DC-Y.
DC-X will prove the operations and technology.  DC-Y will push the
envelope to LEO, and test the new engines.  DC-1 is then production.

Given the low cost of the DC-X,Y test program, we should be advocating
the completion of the test program.  If it succeeds,  then we should
all feel good.  if it costs too much,  we should head back to the
drawing boards.  God knows,  maybe HTHL is the way to go for cheap
space flight and gary gets to say "I told you so"  1x10(6) times.




My gut feel, is that SSTO will always be cheaper then Stacked rockets.
Now if there is some way to get useful payload to orbit in an SSTO,
we will see.







.