The death of space planes and SSTO now because of re-usuable rockets?

[Spiceman]

I think SSTO has been overtaken by the advent of reusable 1st stages, but I think space planes could still have a future because they can land in far more inhabited (and uninhabited) places than a Starship ship can.

Whether there is a market for that is another discussion, but it is still an advantage that space planes have over purely powered-landing stages.

Take, for instance, the recent crew that had some kind of medical issue after landing. I know the crews are monitored, screened, in great physical shape, etc, but how often do you hear about someone planetside in the same condition who suddenly dropped dead, like what happened to one of my mentors?

When you think about it, it's really surprising there has not been a serious medical issue to a crew member that required a low-G reentry like Dream Chaser provides, vs the hazard of a higher G ballistic capsule reentry.

I think the idea has been ruined by space station Freedom 35 years ago (and  NASA). NASA credo for "lifeboats" was back then that lift reentry and horizontal landings might be smoother for injured astronauts. Except nobody was fooled by the truth - that NASA was trying to justify a winged successor of the winged Shuttle.
Proof on the pudding: after a bazillion of studies, the ISS lifeboat became... Soyuz.

[JAFO]

I think SSTO has been overtaken by the advent of reusable 1st stages, but I think space planes could still have a future because they can land in far more inhabited (and uninhabited) places than a Starship ship can.

Whether there is a market for that is another discussion, but it is still an advantage that space planes have over purely powered-landing stages.

Starships are going to be landing on uninhabited remote Mars, landing in remote places will be easier for Starship than an aerospace plane.   A small concrete pad is far cheaper than a 2 mile runway in any event.

Also check the acceleration profile of the recent landings in the Indian Ocean.  No excessive G loads other than the toppling over.

Not quite. As was shown by Flight 6, you also have to have an area you can dump Starship in the event of a malfunction, which is going to be a pretty big area considering the fireball and wind drift of the smoke/burned fuel.

There's also the problem of leftover fuel and safing the vehicle, DC was designed to be able to land at any runway without the risk of hazmat. Little more hazardous than a Sled, nowhere near as bad as Shuttle.

[InterestedEngineer]

I think SSTO has been overtaken by the advent of reusable 1st stages, but I think space planes could still have a future because they can land in far more inhabited (and uninhabited) places than a Starship ship can.

Whether there is a market for that is another discussion, but it is still an advantage that space planes have over purely powered-landing stages.

Starships are going to be landing on uninhabited remote Mars, landing in remote places will be easier for Starship than an aerospace plane.   A small concrete pad is far cheaper than a 2 mile runway in any event.

Also check the acceleration profile of the recent landings in the Indian Ocean.  No excessive G loads other than the toppling over.

Not quite. As was shown by Flight 6, you also have to have an area you can dump Starship in the event of a malfunction, which is going to be a pretty big area considering the fireball and wind drift of the smoke/burned fuel.

There's also the problem of leftover fuel and safing the vehicle, DC was designed to be able to land at any runway without the risk of hazmat. Little more hazardous than a Sled, nowhere near as bad as Shuttle.

Where does DC dump in the event of a malfunction?

[JAFO]

I think SSTO has been overtaken by the advent of reusable 1st stages, but I think space planes could still have a future because they can land in far more inhabited (and uninhabited) places than a Starship ship can.

Whether there is a market for that is another discussion, but it is still an advantage that space planes have over purely powered-landing stages.

Starships are going to be landing on uninhabited remote Mars, landing in remote places will be easier for Starship than an aerospace plane.   A small concrete pad is far cheaper than a 2 mile runway in any event.

Also check the acceleration profile of the recent landings in the Indian Ocean.  No excessive G loads other than the toppling over.

Not quite. As was shown by Flight 6, you also have to have an area you can dump Starship in the event of a malfunction, which is going to be a pretty big area considering the fireball and wind drift of the smoke/burned fuel.

There's also the problem of leftover fuel and safing the vehicle, DC was designed to be able to land at any runway without the risk of hazmat. Little more hazardous than a Sled, nowhere near as bad as Shuttle.

Where does DC dump in the event of a malfunction?

Like a wing (flipper?) breaking off? Heck of a lot more failure points in a powered landing vs a winged one, how would you compare the number/severity of failure points?

[InterestedEngineer]

I think SSTO has been overtaken by the advent of reusable 1st stages, but I think space planes could still have a future because they can land in far more inhabited (and uninhabited) places than a Starship ship can.

Whether there is a market for that is another discussion, but it is still an advantage that space planes have over purely powered-landing stages.

Starships are going to be landing on uninhabited remote Mars, landing in remote places will be easier for Starship than an aerospace plane.   A small concrete pad is far cheaper than a 2 mile runway in any event.

Also check the acceleration profile of the recent landings in the Indian Ocean.  No excessive G loads other than the toppling over.

Not quite. As was shown by Flight 6, you also have to have an area you can dump Starship in the event of a malfunction, which is going to be a pretty big area considering the fireball and wind drift of the smoke/burned fuel.

There's also the problem of leftover fuel and safing the vehicle, DC was designed to be able to land at any runway without the risk of hazmat. Little more hazardous than a Sled, nowhere near as bad as Shuttle.

Where does DC dump in the event of a malfunction?

Like a wing (flipper?) breaking off? Heck of a lot more failure points in a powered landing vs a winged one, how would you compare the number/severity of failure points?

Well, aluminum backed heat shields for one.  I seriously doubt the DC was going to be Stainless Steel.

Second, powered landings happen every day in the airline business, and short of a Scully, lack of power rarely makes it.

[JAFO]

I think SSTO has been overtaken by the advent of reusable 1st stages, but I think space planes could still have a future because they can land in far more inhabited (and uninhabited) places than a Starship ship can.

Whether there is a market for that is another discussion, but it is still an advantage that space planes have over purely powered-landing stages.

Starships are going to be landing on uninhabited remote Mars, landing in remote places will be easier for Starship than an aerospace plane.   A small concrete pad is far cheaper than a 2 mile runway in any event.

Also check the acceleration profile of the recent landings in the Indian Ocean.  No excessive G loads other than the toppling over.

Not quite. As was shown by Flight 6, you also have to have an area you can dump Starship in the event of a malfunction, which is going to be a pretty big area considering the fireball and wind drift of the smoke/burned fuel.

There's also the problem of leftover fuel and safing the vehicle, DC was designed to be able to land at any runway without the risk of hazmat. Little more hazardous than a Sled, nowhere near as bad as Shuttle.

Where does DC dump in the event of a malfunction?

Like a wing (flipper?) breaking off? Heck of a lot more failure points in a powered landing vs a winged one, how would you compare the number/severity of failure points?

Well, aluminum backed heat shields for one.  I seriously doubt the DC was going to be Stainless Steel.

Second, powered landings happen every day in the airline business, and short of a Scully, lack of power rarely makes it.

Surely you can't be serious? I don't think you can compare landing a FBW airliner with air breathing engines that have been running the entire flight and can go around for another try or glide to a landing (see Gimli Glider) to a SpaceShip that requires everything to be working exactly right on the first try.


What do they call 220,000# of unpowered metal hurtling to earth?

[InterestedEngineer]

Surely you can't be serious?

I am serious, and don't call me Surely

[Spiceman]

Surely you can't be serious?

I am serious, and don't call me Surely

It's an entirely different kind of rocket; altogether !

It's an entirely different kind of rocket...

[catdlr]

Surely you can't be serious?

I am serious, and don't call me Surely

It's an entirely different kind of rocket; altogether !

It's an entirely different kind of rocket...

But that's not important right now

[Spiceman]

... what is it ?

[Crispy]

... what is it ?

I'm not sure. I've never seen one before - nobody has - but I think it's a *white* hole.

[StraumliBlight]

Sidereus Space are developing their EOS rocket, which is a 4.2 m long fully reusable SSTO, that can launch 15 kg into LEO!

Multiple static fires and production models can be viewed on Instagram and Linkedin.

https://twitter.com/SidereusD/status/1636382227469856768

[edzieba]

Oh look, it's Son of Bricklifter!

[Asteroza]

Oh look, it's Son of Bricklifter!

You'd think in a game of billionaire egos, one of them would have funded a Mockingbird demo by now, just for the bragging rights.

[thespacecow]

https://twitter.com/AviationWeek/status/1861436283114881400

Check 6 Revisits: Hypersonic Hopes—The Legacy Of The X-30 Orient Express

[Mr. Scott]

I once heard a saying that every dumb idea comes back around every 7 years.

Last time I had heard about SSTO was around 2006 ish +/-.  I think I heard Mark Lewis speak about hypersonics around 2013 +/-.  It’s always fun to watch/listen to hypersonics folks come up with who’s to blame for the lack of success.

So let’s see here:
1999
2006
2013
2020
2027

Yeah maybe a few years from now.  It’s a bit more out of cycle right now.  This must mean Aviation Week has run out of stories - perhaps due to bad times at Boeing.

Reusable vehicles are in the same category of SSTO showing little to no progress.  Steel just burns so well at high Mach numbers.

Fascinating.

[gaballard]

A high ballistic arc - that's the thing. Outside the atmosphere. Why is it so hard to figure ? think of a Shuttle Abort Once Around. Takes 1h30 at 7.8 km/s.

CameronD : please stop being condescending and patronizing. The tone you use is quite irritating. 

I do know about aerial refueling dangers, thank you. But they do not apply to the concept.

The simple explanation is that the idea is half-baked and non-physical.

Trust me, it is not. I've weighed the pros and cons of that scheme for some time. Looking for things that could derail it.

What happens if the refueling fails and both vehicles have an uncontrolled ballistic reentry?

[edzieba]

A high ballistic arc - that's the thing. Outside the atmosphere. Why is it so hard to figure ? think of a Shuttle Abort Once Around. Takes 1h30 at 7.8 km/s.

CameronD : please stop being condescending and patronizing. The tone you use is quite irritating. 

I do know about aerial refueling dangers, thank you. But they do not apply to the concept.

The simple explanation is that the idea is half-baked and non-physical.

Trust me, it is not. I've weighed the pros and cons of that scheme for some time. Looking for things that could derail it.

What happens if the refueling fails and both vehicles have an uncontrolled ballistic reentry?

Why would it be uncontrolled? At least one of the vehicles would be conducting a downrange entry in a nominal transfer scenario anyway.
One vehicle would be entering where it would have been expected to enter (the one that would be offloading its propellant) to be recovered nominally or near-nominally (depends on whether the design choice for that contingency is made to offload excess propellant during descent, or to build a recovery capability that can handle the extra downmass) and the other would be entering at the same location where it would be prudent to locate additional hardware for such a very expectable contingency.

[woods170]

https://twitter.com/AviationWeek/status/1861436283114881400

Check 6 Revisits: Hypersonic Hopes—The Legacy Of The X-30 Orient Express

Eeeww... The X-30 National Aero Space Plane. That idea was, like every other SSTO space plane, so bad.
The artist's impressions and models were nice though. One of my co-volunteers at NRM added a few NASP images to the archives just weeks ago. See below and enjoy.

Edit: the bottom most image was added in early December 2024 and shows the McDonnell Douglas concept for NASP.

[Asteroza]

Ah yes, the X-30, the "just trust me bro" marque hypersonic program leading to so much sunk cost fallacy...