Re: How big would an SSTO be?

A least inert and thus composite SSTO (minimal LEO) is perhaps doable
as something less than 30:1.

However, Sylvia Skylon must like sleeping with Yids and the Third
Reich at the same time.

Most of these silly Yiddish rusemasters and of their pro Third Reich
minions that are apparently much like herself and so many others of
her continual naysaying and disinformation perpetrating kind, as such
couldn't possibly appreciate the all-inclusive truth or even that of a
good ET if it were stuffed up their Skylon infomercial spewing butts.

BTW, you folks seem as though rather unusually dumbfounded, when in
fact we've always taken notice as to how these Old Testament thumping
farts haven't provided any of those specific hard numbers. You should
ask them; why not?

As it stands there's nothing of the most advanced and least inert fly-
by-rocket (that's not even reusable), that can accomplish much better
than 2/3 of the payload per ratio of your Skylon's tarmac mass, and
that's supposedly fully reusable and entirely passenger safe to boot.

Without a reaction formulated fuel that's offering a whole lot better
energy density than LOx/LH2, or having such complex engines of less
inert mass than conventional rocket engines, along with an entire SSTO
composite airframe of minimal aerodynamic drag that's less inert
massive than your basic rocket shell and infrastructure, whereas such
there's no way of accomplishing that proposed 12 tonnes to LEO within
a 280 tonne tarmac GLOW unless safety is not addressed and/or those
nifty reusable factors excluded, especially when a spendy one way TSTO
+ 3rd or kicker LEO ticket to ride of 36:1 is currently about as good
as it gets.

Len is being honest and otherwise constructive as to what's
potentially doable as long as the R&D time, cost and various human
risk factors (including multiple terrestrial pollution considerations)
are not an issue.
-
Brad Guth

.

Quantcast