🚀 go-pugleaf

-From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
-Subject: Re: SSTO vs. 2 Stage
-Date: 29 Dec 92 19:46:24 GMT
-Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA

-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.

-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. 

There's a very good argument for multistage rockets - it makes the mass
ratio much simpler to manage (see some of the books by Willy Ley).
Unfortunately, it also adds to the complexity and reliability problems of
the launcher, which is why we'd like to go to SSTO if we can. Thanks to
advances in technology, it may now be practical, and DC will be a great
breakthrough if it works. But that doesn't mean designers were foolish to
use multistage systems in the past - and some applications, such as direct
flight to the moon without refueling, will probably remain unattainable by
SSTO for a long time.

What Bruce is proposing is in part a way to save the situation if SSTO DC
turns out to be *not quite* practical, or if at some point we want to use
DC hardware to put large payloads into orbit without building a large DC.
His argument *supports* further development of DC.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov