🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: sci.space
Article #6587

Re: SSTO vs. 2 Stage

#6587
From: Greg Moore
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 03:36
51 lines
2718 bytes
In article <ewright.725658384@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <18892@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes:
>
>>        We have been launching staged rockets for nearly half a century.  I
>>think the problems of staging, if not trivial, are solvable.  Certainly,
>>historical evidence indicates that staging is less of a technical challenge
>>than SSTO operation.
>
>Bingo!
>
>Okay, now we've gotten to the crux of the problem.
>
	Ayup, we have.  You want people either to lead, follow or get
out of the way.  Yet, when someone suggests a technique that MAY give
a five-fold increase in lbs to orbit, you immediately jump down
their throat.  Si I guess leading is not there, so I guess that leaves,
Following or getting out of your way.

>You simply do not understand the difference between a converted
>artillery rocket, which we have been launching for nearly half
>a century, and a single-stage-to-orbit *spaceship*.
>
>Saying that launch vehicles should be multistaged like ICBMs
>makes as much sense as saying that airplanes should be shaped 
>like cannonballs. 
>
	I don't know about cannonballs, but artillery shells and
airplanes tend to have similar shapes in their bodies.  But,
your analogy is only half meritted.  The reason DC-1 may be a lot
less expensive is due to a LOT of factors, only one of which is
related to staging costs.  And, if you approach the problem of
staging the same way DC-X is approaching some other problems,
you MAY find that it can be done cheap enough to merit the work.
If you don't, hey, they you go on.  Not every idea for a DC-1
follow-on will work.  Some will, some won't.  Let's give
it some time and find out what our needs are.  Perhaps we find for
whatever reason that 90% of our payload to orbit is about the
right size for DC-1, and the remaining 10% needs a lift capacity
of 8 times DC-1.  Well, in that case, economics dictates that
a DC-0 WOn't work.  But ther may be economic scenarious where
it does work.

	The biggest objection I have to DC-0 right now, is that 
I don't see a market for it.  That may change.  It depends on
if cheaper access to space prompts people to launch bigger payloads,
or more smaller ones.


>
>
>
Technical Details
Message-ID: <qf22l5c@rpi.edu>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!rpi!clotho.acm.rpi.edu!strider
References: <18892@mindlink.bc.ca> <ewright.725658384@convex.convex.com>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!rpi!clotho.acm.rpi.edu!strider
From: strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore)
Subject: Re: SSTO vs. 2 Stage
Message-ID: <qf22l5c@rpi.edu>
Nntp-Posting-Host: acm.rpi.edu
Organization: The Voice of Fate
References: <18892@mindlink.bc.ca> <ewright.725658384@convex.convex.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 03:36:34 GMT
Lines: 53