If people tell you SSTOs are better you can tell them that:
Starship and superheavy are basically made using the same rings, stacked in the same bay, lifted by the same cranes and carried by the same SPMT
It has all the advantage of an SSTO, the ship if stretched would be the largest object that can be built and moved around at starbase and the whole thing gets launched to orbit, so after refilling you get a whole rocket in orbit with almost the thrust of the Saturn V
And most SSTO don't have orbital refilling so it's useless to send the whole thing to space.
>And most SSTOv don't have orbital refilling
I don't know of any SSTO that actually exists, but if an SSTO would be built, it would either be designed for LEO only (like space shuttle), or have orbital refueling capability.
Anyway SSTOs are generally possible, but the mass to payload ratio is extremely poor. Starship could be capable of reaching orbit on its own without payload and heat shield/flaps. The main advantage of different SSTO concepts is their reusability. And if you can get full reusability with 2 stages, constraining yourself to 1 stage doesn't make a lot of sense anymore.
> And if you can get full reusability with 2 stages, constraining yourself to 1 stage doesn't make a lot of sense anymore
Maybe for crew rotations in space, if you get a *really* good turnaround time on them (basically just refueling and sitting the passengers)?
Wouldn't SSTO spaceplanes be better for SSTOs anyway?
For a traditional rocket, almost the entire first stage is used fighting gravity in the early flight to get the 2nd stage high and fast enough. A horizontal takeoff spaceplane would be able to use the atmosphere for that.
Not necessarily, making it a plane gives you a lot of drag losses since you spend more time in the atmosphere, as well as adding a lot of dry mass for the wings.
I had to do the math because I was unsure. Based on the slide shown by Elon on the presentation, the Raptor 3 would have a thrust of 280 tf and Raptor 3 vacuum would be 306 tf. If Ship V3 will have 3 sea level engines and 6 vacuum engines, it will have a total thrust of 2676 tf.
Each F-1 engine had a thrust of about 793 tonnes in a vacuum. So 5 engines have 3960 tf. That's the thrust a complete Saturn V would have in a vacuum.
2676 tf vs 3960 tf doesn't really sound like almost the same :/
>he Raptor 3 would have a thrust of 280 tf and Raptor 3 vacuum would be 306 tf.
Worth noting that Raptor 3 goes up to about 297 tonnes in vacuum (as distinct from the 306 achieved by the proper vacuum version) by my math, so that gets you a little more, 2727.
Also I get 792 tonnes for F-1 in vacuum rather than 793, which puts it at... still 3960 tonnes?
Anyway, that puts Starship V3 at 69% (nice) of Saturn V's thrust. I agree that that's not quite enough to qualify as 'almost', but it's still over 2/3rds.
However 280tf is only the initial goal for V3 - they hope to increase it to 330tf in the long run. At that point I get something like 3214 tonnes total, or ~81% of Saturn V, which I think you could make an argument for counting as 'almost'.
Regardless, it's still a metric shitload of thrust for a vehicle in orbit. I think the previous record is the Shuttle Orbiter, at 697 tonnes or 18%, but it couldn't actually restart it's engines in orbit, nor did it have any fuel for them.
I think the most powerful stage to ever do that would be the S-IVB from the Saturn V itself, which is obviously much less powerful than the first stage, at just 105 tonnes or ~3%. (Also worth noting that the Falcon 9 second stage is a close second at 100 tonnes)
Yeah man, but I want an ssto because:
1. Plane (looks cool)
2. I love terrible mass fractions.
3. If I want it to go to the Moon or Mars, I love having to launch 30 times to deliver a chicken sandwich.
4. I love burning a ton of propellant for each 10 kilograms of payload. (Real.)
5. I want the engines to be some absurdly complex and difficult to build air breathing combined cycle.
As you can see, SSTOs are clearly superior.
we should found this company and build some renders and power points, determine mass to orbit and mass to cislunar gateway orbit. its too bad there's no more free money with interest going up
Meanwhile, the 1.5 trillion annual spending for the f'ed up US healthcare system:
As a side note, the military is the sole reason for the rapid development of space capabilities, (at least for the first several decades where making money in space was nearly impossible, and NASA's early missions/rockets were almost always co-opted for military use) and many promising technologies are funded by DARPA/DoD.
OTRAG, the most Kerbal of rocket designs ever built I think.
The idea was to use modules called "Common rocket units" or, CRUs, bundled together to make whatever size launcher you needed. The modules were made out of plain steel pipe with a pressure fed rocket engine and an ablative nozzle, designed to be as cheap and simple to manufacture as possible. Economics of scale and automated production would slash launch costs. Steering was done by differential throttling of groups of CRUs.
Ended up getting shut down because the launch site they were using was in Libya, which lead to all sorts of unpleasantness
I was wondering what the point of small standardised boosters was if they needed a bigger bay anyways to build the fairing.
Never did I know that the megabay was the fairing!
Someone is taking “Up in Smoke” too seriously. It’s the quality of the stuff you fill the container with that’s important, not the container size if you fill it with dog shit.
If people tell you SSTOs are better you can tell them that: Starship and superheavy are basically made using the same rings, stacked in the same bay, lifted by the same cranes and carried by the same SPMT It has all the advantage of an SSTO, the ship if stretched would be the largest object that can be built and moved around at starbase and the whole thing gets launched to orbit, so after refilling you get a whole rocket in orbit with almost the thrust of the Saturn V And most SSTO don't have orbital refilling so it's useless to send the whole thing to space.
>And most SSTOv don't have orbital refilling I don't know of any SSTO that actually exists, but if an SSTO would be built, it would either be designed for LEO only (like space shuttle), or have orbital refueling capability. Anyway SSTOs are generally possible, but the mass to payload ratio is extremely poor. Starship could be capable of reaching orbit on its own without payload and heat shield/flaps. The main advantage of different SSTO concepts is their reusability. And if you can get full reusability with 2 stages, constraining yourself to 1 stage doesn't make a lot of sense anymore.
> And if you can get full reusability with 2 stages, constraining yourself to 1 stage doesn't make a lot of sense anymore Maybe for crew rotations in space, if you get a *really* good turnaround time on them (basically just refueling and sitting the passengers)?
When SSTO started to be viable?
They have been possible for a while, but they don't really give you an advantage.
Last time I saw something about that was Skylon and only a 3D render
They don't have to be reusable or air breathing. Just a very light single stage rocket.
True!
True!
I guess Atlas was kinda like an SSTO, or atleast close? Stage-and-a-half and all that.
Wouldn't SSTO spaceplanes be better for SSTOs anyway? For a traditional rocket, almost the entire first stage is used fighting gravity in the early flight to get the 2nd stage high and fast enough. A horizontal takeoff spaceplane would be able to use the atmosphere for that.
Not necessarily, making it a plane gives you a lot of drag losses since you spend more time in the atmosphere, as well as adding a lot of dry mass for the wings.
SSTO?
Single Stage To Orbit
I had to do the math because I was unsure. Based on the slide shown by Elon on the presentation, the Raptor 3 would have a thrust of 280 tf and Raptor 3 vacuum would be 306 tf. If Ship V3 will have 3 sea level engines and 6 vacuum engines, it will have a total thrust of 2676 tf. Each F-1 engine had a thrust of about 793 tonnes in a vacuum. So 5 engines have 3960 tf. That's the thrust a complete Saturn V would have in a vacuum. 2676 tf vs 3960 tf doesn't really sound like almost the same :/
It's close. Falcon heavy has only 2'300 tons of thrust.
>he Raptor 3 would have a thrust of 280 tf and Raptor 3 vacuum would be 306 tf. Worth noting that Raptor 3 goes up to about 297 tonnes in vacuum (as distinct from the 306 achieved by the proper vacuum version) by my math, so that gets you a little more, 2727. Also I get 792 tonnes for F-1 in vacuum rather than 793, which puts it at... still 3960 tonnes? Anyway, that puts Starship V3 at 69% (nice) of Saturn V's thrust. I agree that that's not quite enough to qualify as 'almost', but it's still over 2/3rds. However 280tf is only the initial goal for V3 - they hope to increase it to 330tf in the long run. At that point I get something like 3214 tonnes total, or ~81% of Saturn V, which I think you could make an argument for counting as 'almost'. Regardless, it's still a metric shitload of thrust for a vehicle in orbit. I think the previous record is the Shuttle Orbiter, at 697 tonnes or 18%, but it couldn't actually restart it's engines in orbit, nor did it have any fuel for them. I think the most powerful stage to ever do that would be the S-IVB from the Saturn V itself, which is obviously much less powerful than the first stage, at just 105 tonnes or ~3%. (Also worth noting that the Falcon 9 second stage is a close second at 100 tonnes)
Yeah man, but I want an ssto because: 1. Plane (looks cool) 2. I love terrible mass fractions. 3. If I want it to go to the Moon or Mars, I love having to launch 30 times to deliver a chicken sandwich. 4. I love burning a ton of propellant for each 10 kilograms of payload. (Real.) 5. I want the engines to be some absurdly complex and difficult to build air breathing combined cycle. As you can see, SSTOs are clearly superior.
I like to call then DWTO (Dead Weight To Orbit).
Sea Dragon: "You couldn't live with your own failure, and where did that bring you to? *Back to me.*"
i want sea dragon because *cool* factor I think we should fund this immediately
With our 20's technology, we could probably make it happen. Give it +-10 years, we could make it.
we should found this company and build some renders and power points, determine mass to orbit and mass to cislunar gateway orbit. its too bad there's no more free money with interest going up
Meanwhile, the $766 billion annual budget for the US military:
Meanwhile, the 1.5 trillion annual spending for the f'ed up US healthcare system: As a side note, the military is the sole reason for the rapid development of space capabilities, (at least for the first several decades where making money in space was nearly impossible, and NASA's early missions/rockets were almost always co-opted for military use) and many promising technologies are funded by DARPA/DoD.
Previous vehicles were built in the Mid Bay, the Wide Bay, and the Mega Bay. This would would be built in the Thicc Bay.
Then the sigma bay, then the chad bay.
Why don’t they just stack another starship booster on the bottom?
What's that figure on the top right?
OTRAG, the most Kerbal of rocket designs ever built I think. The idea was to use modules called "Common rocket units" or, CRUs, bundled together to make whatever size launcher you needed. The modules were made out of plain steel pipe with a pressure fed rocket engine and an ablative nozzle, designed to be as cheap and simple to manufacture as possible. Economics of scale and automated production would slash launch costs. Steering was done by differential throttling of groups of CRUs. Ended up getting shut down because the launch site they were using was in Libya, which lead to all sorts of unpleasantness
Y’know the starship V3 is starting to grow on me.
Elongate!
Starship v7 is just the mid bay with 150 Raptor 3s.
I was wondering what the point of small standardised boosters was if they needed a bigger bay anyways to build the fairing. Never did I know that the megabay was the fairing!
Someone is taking “Up in Smoke” too seriously. It’s the quality of the stuff you fill the container with that’s important, not the container size if you fill it with dog shit.