I, like most of you, am an advocate of mass popular utilization and
occupation of
space. I wanted to do my part and try to write articles on the subject
for magazines
and such. Of course to write articles one needs facts and to find these
facts I needed
to read anything I could get my hands on. I wanted to get info on the
Delta Clipper
specifically since that seemed so promising and I wondered why it was
abandoned and not
finding much useful info on the web I proceded to a local scientific
bookstore and found
a book on the SSTO(single stage to orbit) concept called "Halfway To
Anywhere"
By a man named G. Harry Stine.
This book told me everything I wanted to know about the Delta
Clipper.
It also told me something quite horrible also. WE COULD HAVE BUILT A
SSTO BACK IN 1971!
What? That can't be right! Sadly it is and Mr. Stine goes into all the
details
why it could have been done and cheaply and why and who blocked
development of SSTOs.
Who was the culprit? Why no one else but NASA of course. To many of
you this is old
news but it was news to me. To make a long story short, NASA only
exists to keep
people in NASA employed and that means lots of paper studies and badly
designed
pork-project vehicles such as the Shuttle which I like to call "the
Bradley Fighting
Vehicle of the Sky". Why I call it that ahs a lot to do with the
Bradley and why
You are better off going naked onto a battlefield then riding in the
Bradley.
The Delta Clipper worked so well because those who built it wanted
results
and a Cheap SSTO to carry passengers and cargo into orbit. The Delta
itself was
a test vehicle but it would have lead to a woring SSTO. Why there is no
DC-XA2
and why NASA sucks donkey shit is detailed in the book.
The book is full of lovely facts and isn't just some guy's opinions.
likely to get angry
like I did when you learn that, far from being technically difficult or
expensive,
SSTO vehicles could be built now! and cheap access to space is possible
now!
with technology that has been around a while! and NASA lies!!!
Buy the book or borrow it from the library.
Darkstar
> This book told me everything I wanted to know about the Delta
> Clipper. It also told me something quite horrible also. WE COULD
> HAVE BUILT A
> SSTO BACK IN 1971! What? That can't be right! Sadly it is and Mr.
> Stine goes into all the
> details why it could have been done and cheaply and why and who blocked
> development of SSTOs.
within reach (even for 1970s technology), but until someone does it we
should assume it's marginal. The big danger with SSTO is that the mass
fractions are so large that very small growth in dry mass can
completely eat your payload mass, leaving you with an SSTO with no
payload.
On the other hand, the original Atlas was a DNSSTO (Damn Near SSTO),
dropping only two engines on the way to orbit, and that was 1950s
technology. The real challenge is doing SSTO and reusability. Nobody
seems interested in an expendable SSTO, which to me seems like a very
logical intermediate step.
......Andrew
SSTO is hard, and Stine is an optimist. I happen to think SSTO is
within reach (even for 1970s technology), but until someone does it we
should assume it's marginal. The big danger with SSTO is that the mass
fractions are so large that very small growth in dry mass can
completely eat your payload mass, leaving you with an SSTO with no
payload.
On the other hand, the original Atlas was a DNSSTO (Damn Near SSTO),
dropping only two engines on the way to orbit, and that was 1950s
technology. The real challenge is doing SSTO and reusability. Nobody
seems interested in an expendable SSTO, which to me seems like a very
logical intermediate step.
Well, His economic analysis of markets and what might "fly" seemed on the money.
A reusable SSTO would allow fast transport between cities at an affordable cost.
If you had to throw away part of or all of the ship that would be bad.
An expendable satelite delivery system with one stage would be cheaper than the shuttle
but still much more expensive than a fully reusable SSTO.
It seems to me, from what I have read so far, that SSTOs can be done with existing
technology with a large enough payload. Stine did point out that with a fully reusable
ship you don't need to blow your wad in one shot and you don't need a huge payload bay.
It is an engineering problem.
He convinced me that reusable SSTOs are the way to go. It LOOKS so far that the math works out so far. A lot depends on the structure and the simplicity of the design.
It would be even better if there was more work on reusable rocket engine designs as well
as methods to get higher exaust velocities which would cut down on the amount of fuel you
need. The aerospike nossle looks really good if they can get it to work.
Thats my opinion anyway.
Darkstar
> On the other hand, the original Atlas was a DNSSTO (Damn Near SSTO),
> dropping only two engines on the way to orbit, and that was 1950s
> technology. The real challenge is doing SSTO and reusability. Nobody
> seems interested in an expendable SSTO, which to me seems like a very
> logical intermediate step.
was the important thing, so to me an intermediate step meant a fully
reusable *two* stage to orbit. I still think that TSTO would be a
good idea to pursue. But an expendable SSTO? that might be a
wonderful way to approach the problem from the other direction. Any
reason both can?t be done? What are the advantages of expendable SSTO
(aside from advancing technology towards the fully reusable SSTO that
we all want)?
Xenophile (who wants SOMETHING!)
This had never occurred to me. I had always assumed that reusability
was the important thing, so to me an intermediate step meant a fully
reusable *two* stage to orbit. I still think that TSTO would be a
good idea to pursue. But an expendable SSTO? that might be a
wonderful way to approach the problem from the other direction. Any
reason both can?t be done? What are the advantages of expendable SSTO
(aside from advancing technology towards the fully reusable SSTO that
we all want)?
I thought about a reusable two stage spaceship too. Although I would perfer a
SSTO. I imagine a spaceship sitting on the head of "lifter" VTOL rocketship.
The lifter will land back at the launching spaceport for a fast turnaround
and the spaceship will land wereever it was ment to go. Its kinda like 2 delta clipper
type vehicles with one standing on the other's head. I wonder if the FFA will want the
bottom one piloted.
The problem with expendable vehicles is that the cost of the vehicle becomes
part of the shipping cost each time. With a reusable vehicle you only need worry about the fuel costs, maintenance costs, and pilot salaries(if there is a pilot).
The costs of running reusables are much like the costs of running airplanes or ships
(boat type and not space type). You can pay for the ship over several launches
and thus your launching fees to a customer will be much smaller.
If you don't plan on ever coming back a multistage rocket is much better and cheaper
than a SSTO since an SSTO would require advanced rocket designs to make it work well.
Advanced equals expense. The multistage rocket is a mature technology and quite
dependable assuming you want to throw the rocket away when you are done. The problem is
costs. The cost of the ship is added to the launching fee. On the plus side, to be
fair, you can launch huge payloads into space with a multistage rocket and give
said payloads a high delta-v. If the stages were reusable and landed themselves after
you used them then you have lower operating costs again.
Darkstar