The 100/10/1 Rule.
"Danny Deger" wrote in message
...
"Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer)" wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 20:46:23 -0600, kT wrote:
However, one can argue that the expendable SSTO approach puts almost an
order of magnitude more mass into orbit, which is what I am suggesting.
Has anyone ever put anything into orbit with a single stage? I know
we've managed SSTS, Single Stage To Space, but I don't think we've
managed SSTO.
I don't think so. SSTO requires engines for efficent than we have and
requires fuel tanks lighter than we have. Both of these technologies need
to be developed to make a SSTO space craft. NASA tried to develop these
technologies a few year ago and failed in both. I don't know if there is
even a concept out there to make SSTO possible.
I stand corrected on this. An expendable SSTO is very feasible. The X-33
had problems in large part because it also was attempting to do an
atmospheric entry. The entry requirement added a lot of mass to the system.
Danny Deger
|