Article View: sci.space
Article #6665Re: SSTO vs 2 stage
From: Bruce Dunn
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 03:30
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 03:30
27 lines
1587 bytes
1587 bytes
> Retarding SSTO, Edward V. Wright writes:
>
> Advances in technology, perhaps, but hardly recent advances. The old
> Saturn S-IVB stage could've been turned into a SSTO launcher, with a
> payload the size of a Gemini spacecraft. The "unattainable mass ratio"
> is nothing more than an aerospace legend.
>
This somewhat confuses the issue, in that it tends to imply that the
technology necessary to build a DC-1 was available a generation ago. The
S-IVB derivative would be a ***non-reusable*** SSTO, which is a different
animal than a ***reusable*** SSTO. In order to recover your hypothetical
S-IVB vehicle, you will have to add equipment for recovery and landing,
including a retrofire system, heat shielding, parachutes (or the fuel and
throttable engines for a powered descent), landing gear (or waterproofing of
all systems), etc. The extra mass will kill your payload.
What is really hard is not making an SSTO, but making a "RRSSTO" or
Recoverable Reusable Single Stage to Orbit which has enough payload to
justify its costs (however accounted for).
--
Bruce Dunn Vancouver, Canada Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<19045@mindlink.bc.ca>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!rsoft!mindlink!a752Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: sci.space Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!rsoft!mindlink!a752 From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) Subject: Re: SSTO vs 2 stage Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 03:30:01 GMT Message-ID: <19045@mindlink.bc.ca> Sender: news@deep.rsoft.bc.ca (Usenet) Lines: 27