Shuttle Classes

[James Brown]

Nothing, if you read the thread

Oor

 

[TtTOtW]

To shuttle is to transport. Via any method or vehicle. You can put wheels ( or a rocket engine) on a box and call it a shuttle. Last time I checked they weren't putting SRB's on the buses though.

Have a quick glance at Blazer's quote in my signature.

Also, you get 3 levels of efficiency.
1) SSTO. Efficiency sucks. But easily reusable.
2) Space Shuttle. Efficiency sucks, but nowhere near as much as an SSTO due to boosting, thus you can get a bigger payload to orbit for a much higher payload to launch mass ratio. Reuse takes work but can be done. Requires actual engineering either way.
3) Rocket. Very efficient in terms of payload to launch mass, and even more so if not reused.

Thus an SSTO and a Space Shuttle has a clear distinction from one another.

 

[TtTOtW]

Also the good Lieutenant has made my point clearer regarding overlapping tanks with one another. I see no point in any further explanation.

 

[bobbblair123]

Have a quick glance at Blazer's quote in my signature.

Also, you get 3 levels of efficiency.
1) SSTO. Efficiency sucks. But easily reusable.
2) Space Shuttle. Efficiency sucks, but nowhere near as much as an SSTO due to boosting, thus you can get a bigger payload to orbit for a much higher payload to launch mass ratio. Reuse takes work but can be done. Requires actual engineering either way.
3) Rocket. Very efficient in terms of payload to launch mass, and even more so if not reused.

Thus an SSTO and a Space Shuttle has a clear distinction from one another.

Kinda like, oh, I don't know, cars, trucks, vans? I guess I'm fixated on shuttle as verb. You've obviously spent some effort on this subject.

 

[Mars Pathfinder]

*eats pop corn in the little corner*

 

[bobbblair123]

Also the good Lieutenant has made my point clearer regarding overlapping tanks with one another. I see no point in any further explanation.

I like recessed engines. I agree on lapping tanks. It's just a cheat to get around build grid size. Ok for looks but not competition.

 

[bobbblair123]

*eats pop corn in the little corner*

"Moar gOoPs"

 

[Mars Pathfinder]

"Moar gOoPs"

Yeet gOoPs

 

[Horus Lupercal]

Requires actual engineering either way.

Re-useable rockets and single-stage spaceplanes would like to know why you think they haven't been actually engineered.

Thus an SSTO and a Space Shuttle has a clear distinction from one another.

Difficulty isn't a distinction or a definition. Considering they never got the SSTO spaceplane to work and fully re-useable rockets still aren't a thing, I'd say STS was the easy option out of the 3.

I see no point in any further explanation

Ha of course not, because he agrees with you. Since you don't agree with his other conclusions and thus will still tender further explanation as to why he's wrong. Still don't see the underlying issue behind it.

 

[TtTOtW]

No two people agree on EVERYTHING.

 

[Marmilo]

So, you're saying if you give a SSTO space plane any random booster, it's suddenly a shuttle? It won't be a lot harder to reuse, really...

 

[TtTOtW]

Yes

 

[TtTOtW]

Its capacity to orbit or its range is significantly increased.

 

[Marmilo]

But an inneficient shuttle still is a shuttle, and there can be a more efficient SSTO...

 

[TtTOtW]

SSTOs are inherently payload to launch mass inefficient. ESPECIALLY in SFS where we have neither jet engines, nor lift. A shuttle performs better in all regards. It can reserve more cargo space in the same craft due to being boosted. And the payload ratio is much higher, even including a full booster of any size.

 

[Horus Lupercal]

So, you're saying if you give a SSTO space plane any random booster, it's suddenly a shuttle? It won't be a lot harder to reuse, really...

Yes

You must've missed this then.

If I taped a 2 dollar firework to VentureStar and lit it with the main engines, would that count?
It is still providing thrust assistance. And can still be discarded. Hell, it even uses solid fuel.
So is there a minimum percentage thrust requirement? Or is it done from overall mass? ΔV increase? I'm curious.

How big does the booster have to be before your spaceplane becomes a space shuttle...?

SSTOs are inherently payload to launch mass inefficient. ESPECIALLY in SFS where we have neither jet engines, nor lift. A shuttle performs better in all regards. It can reserve more cargo space in the same craft due to being boosted. And the payload ratio is much higher, even including a full booster of any size.

VentureStar used neither jet engines, nor lift, instead using aerospike engines which gave a better all round ISP performance than SRBs and RS-25s. And efficiency doesn't make something a thing. Or is SLS less of a rocket because it is less efficiency than a Saturn V?
And again where is the line? What mass to payload fraction separates an SSTO spaceplane and a Space Shuttle...?

 

[TtTOtW]

What mass to payload fraction separates an SSTO spaceplane and a Space Shuttle...?

It is not the ratio. It is the layout. Which tends to lay in different places on the ratio scale so that a norm is formed.

 

[Horus Lupercal]

It is not the ratio. It is the layout. Which tends to lay in different places on the ratio scale so that a norm is formed.

So what is the layout? How big does everything need to be? What is acceptable? Or can I just put a 2 dollar firework underneath VentureStar and call it a shuttle?
And if not, why not.

 

[TtTOtW]

Sure do that. It'll increase thrust at liftoff, hence reduce time spent under gravity at th most demanding point of the flight in terms of the thrust vs gravity tug of war.

 

[Horus Lupercal]

Sure do that. It'll increase thrust at liftoff, hence reduce time spent under gravity at th most demanding point of the flight in terms of the thrust vs gravity tug of war.

Then you'll be happy with calling VentureStar a shuttle?

And you got that back to front. The gravity tug of war is almost a constant until you get to high altitudes. Low altitudes, you lose more via air resistance, which a 2 dollar firework will have a negative effect on because it increases thrust (meaning you accelerate quicker, which squares drag faster) and it increases the launch systems drag co-efficient, hindering its flight.

 

[SM84CE]

TtTOtW
You forgot SM84CE class: Powered by a crap ton of ions, and framed by batteries.


/me hides

 

[Horus Lupercal]

You forgot SM84CE class:

You mean the class that makes comments and hides for absolutely no reason whatsoever...?

 

[SM84CE]

You mean the class that makes comments and hides for absolutely no reason whatsoever...?

uhhhh..... guilty as charged...

 

[Mars Pathfinder]

TtTOtW
You forgot SM84CE class: Powered by a crap ton of ions, and framed by batteries.


/me hides

SM84CE: hides

No one: hides