Re: X-33 (was Re: NASA HONORS LEGENDARY ASTRONAUT VANCE BRAND)
- From: Pat Flannery <flanner@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 09:11:14 -0600
Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
What would be the advantage (i.e. point) of an expendable SSTO?
Greater simplicity and reliability by eliminating staging and the second stage engine start? I don't know if I've ever seen one proposed, although something along the lines of an evolved Atlas (lightweight balloon tank structure) might be able to pull it off with some usable payload. It certainly seems a lot more doable that a reusable SSTO because you don't need a TPS or recovery system - wings or chutes - and so save a lot of weight.
Pat .
- References:
- Re: NASA HONORS LEGENDARY ASTRONAUT VANCE BRAND
- From: Andre Lieven
- Re: NASA HONORS LEGENDARY ASTRONAUT VANCE BRAND
- From: Pat Flannery
- Re: NASA HONORS LEGENDARY ASTRONAUT VANCE BRAND
- From: Andre Lieven
- X-33 (was Re: NASA HONORS LEGENDARY ASTRONAUT VANCE BRAND)
- From: Henry Spencer
- Re: X-33 (was Re: NASA HONORS LEGENDARY ASTRONAUT VANCE BRAND)
- From: Andre Lieven
- Re: X-33 (was Re: NASA HONORS LEGENDARY ASTRONAUT VANCE BRAND)
- From: Chuck Stewart
- Re: X-33 (was Re: NASA HONORS LEGENDARY ASTRONAUT VANCE BRAND)
- From: Andre Lieven
- Re: X-33 (was Re: NASA HONORS LEGENDARY ASTRONAUT VANCE BRAND)
- From: Jorge R. Frank
- Re: X-33 (was Re: NASA HONORS LEGENDARY ASTRONAUT VANCE BRAND)
- From: Pat Flannery
- Re: X-33 (was Re: NASA HONORS LEGENDARY ASTRONAUT VANCE BRAND)
- From: Jonathan Silverlight
- Re: NASA HONORS LEGENDARY ASTRONAUT VANCE BRAND
- Prev by Date: Re: CEV Payload
- Next by Date: Re: spacesickness (was Re: NASA HONORS LEGENDARY ASTRONAUT VANCE BRAND)
- Previous by thread: Re: X-33 (was Re: NASA HONORS LEGENDARY ASTRONAUT VANCE BRAND)
- Next by thread: Re: X-33 (was Re: NASA HONORS LEGENDARY ASTRONAUT VANCE BRAND)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
