Why Single Stage to Orbit rockets SUCK. The wacky history and future maybes of SSTOs
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 тра 2018
- Rockets are HUGE, complicated and expensive. As a matter of fact, the rocket that took humans to the moon, the Saturn 5, was 111 meters or 363 feet tall, and had more separation events than dating teenagers.
So why do rockets always split themselves into multiple parts. Isn’t that complicated and risky? Why throw so much away? I mean, there’s got to be a better way!!!
Well how about if rockets were only ONE stage? How awesome would that be? Well this idea isn’t new… it’s called single stage to orbit or SSTO and it’s often considered the holy grail of rocketry.
Well, today, I’m going to SMASH THAT HOLY GRAIL and explain why I think SSTO’s SUCK.
In order to drill this point in we’ll teach you all about the tyranny of the rocket equation and help you understand why every orbital rocket, well, ever is multistage.
Then we’ll take a stroll down SSTO history and look at some crazy designs that in some cases almost worked...
And not to be a huge downer, we will take a look at some SSTO designs that MIGHT actually work, including the Skylon spaceplane that uses the awesome SABRE hybrid engine.
Show your support and join our discord channel and subreddit by becoming Patron - / everydayastronaut
Follow my new Series on Facebook Watch with Space.com "Spacing Out!" - / spacingouteverydayastr...
Music by Everyday Astronaut - / everydayastronaut
Everyday Astronaut hats, prints, shirts and more at - everydayastronaut.com/shop/
SpaceX models by Oli Braun / oli_braun and his store - www.buzzspacemodels.com/ - Наука та технологія
Make the rocket even taller, and the payload will start in orbit.
Best joke ever!
You mean a space elevator? ;)
Just use a different output nozzle
@@CascadianPatriot I think technically it would be called a space "tower", but yes. The issue is you're still only at geo-sync speed and not orbital velocity.
To get to orbit a space elevator needs to be something like 40000 miles high so it's actually in tension instead of standing on the ground. Its top-most part needs to be at least in geo-sync orbit around the equator. A tower doesn't need this but has to be strong enough in compression and lateral stability to keep it upright.
Still an orbital tower at LEO would still be cheaper to launch from than any modern launch site. Also kinda cool to imagine stepping off a 100+km tower in space only to fall all the way straight down to earth.
"WHY SSTOS SUCK!"
KSP players: *cries in SSTO*
ssto's literally helped me build so much in space xD
@@RealPyro88 you mean you dont just abuse the mun launch site?
ssto's don't suck in ksp you don't need to cry about it even tho he says it sucks it dosent change a thiing
I only use SSTOs. I can’t do rockets.
@@traegoins6903 Theres a... Mun launch site???
"The Saturn V has more separation events than dating teenagers." That one killed me lol🤣
Haha I am 9 years old lol
Sahaj SpaceEX Haha you’re too young to have a UA-cam account
Wow
Oh my gosh
Doesn't it just have 3?? The PSLV rocket has 4 stage separations.
Everyday Astronaut: SSTO’s suck!
Matt Lowne: hold my flight goggles. No wait. Give them back.
Lol
Yes Matt lowneeeeeee
Yep
WHISKEY
I was gonna comment this
I'm such a lousy atmospheric pilot in KSP that for me, SSTO means "Straight Shot To Ocean"
Same. Except mine don’t even get a straight shot.
LOL XD
Some of them I have to race off the end of the runway to get airborne haha
Mine just blow up in the runway
Edit: because Of floppy wings
@@billykaelin6358 Mine blow up until I finally submit and vertical launch them from the VAB.
13:47 Well, there you have it, an SSTO (Single Stage To Ocean)
China March 5b moment
Godd one
Valid point.
good one
You got me there
Tim: "Two stages are better than one"
Me: "Well one stage is better than none. LOL"
none is better than minus one
The two stages: Just the two of us, we could make it if we tried! Just the two of us. *Just the two of us!*
In reality, 2 rockets are always going to be more expensive than one, and that is why many people are trying to make an SSTO airplane that takes off & lands on a runway
Everyday Astronaut: this is why SSTO's are bad
Matt Lowne: hold my wHiskey
wHiskey not whiskey
@@smitty7510 thank you for making me come back to this comment, forgot it existed, now its my most liked comment
@@MrSiamese315 it has 18 likes
Funny
@@Liam_The_Great *its now 113 do you like it?*
600 meter tall rocket: exists
Kraken: "What foolish mortal has summoned me?"
you mean foolish kerbal
Kraken is proper spelling
Wat the heck
There aren't any 600 m rockets but ok
Sia
"Maybe SSTOs don't suck. Maybe earth sucks."
maybe we all suck
Yes we all suck but god is everthing
yes earth suck with gravity
@@CariagaXIII You understand it (;
Kerbin for the win
1:01 _"Every orbital rocket -- well, ever -- is multistage."_
Only true on Earth. On the moon, every orbital rocket (ascent vehicle) is SSTO.
*EDIT:* As usual, you're way ahead of me. 29:15
Hes also wrong og Atlas was technically an SSTO, unless you count dropping engines as a stage.
@@testchannelpleaseignore2452 that's... Exactly what staging is
@@testchannelpleaseignore2452 that’s literally the definition if staging
They need to stage a decoupler to lift up
@@MrSiamese315 that's like saying releasing launch clamps is staging
As the guy who at one time was in charge of the Skylon airframe development, I can answer the point about skin heating?
The SR-71 used a conventional aircraft monocoque where the skin was the aeroshell and the load bearing structure and the fuel tank wall. With Skylon these three functions are separated. The outer skin which gets hot has expansion joints every 30 cm, this aeroshell is thermally isolated from the load bearing titanium truss structure, which then supports the separately insulated propellant tanks.
On the way up the high temperature regime is short enough that heat soak is not problem, on the way down although the low ballistic coefficient keeps the maximum temperature lower than the Shuttle the down side is that Skylon is in the high temperature regime longer and heat soak requires control. This excess heat is mopped up with 100 kg of liquid hydrogen from the orbital tanks.
Oh, wow, this tech sounds so cool! Go Skylon
*Matt Lowne is typing...*
That first minute has to hurt oof
lol
Fly safe
Latt Mowne?
Lol
"It worked in Kerbal Space Program!" Said every engineer in history.
Does that include KSP with the RSS/RO mods?
Joseph Jobo Licayan Theres an XKCD saying that. (Havent watched the vid yet, maybe it's in there lol)
Not for me :(
ssto in ksp is simple 2 long 1.25 meter tanks and a engine real life aint that eazy
"It worked with 1/10th the planetary size and orbital velocity"
me:*builds SSTO*
SSTO:so you have chosen, Ocean
Single Stage To Ocean
Submarines
If the X-33/Venturestar actually made it to production, it would have been a gigantic leap, and could have possibly changed spaceflight. It sucks it was just 4% from being completed.
But then, as Elon said, if the design takes too long to design, then the design is wrong.
I agree, and the thing is, it still had the payload of the space shuttle while being only a small amount larger. I think that it was a acceptable design, AND most problems have been solved. Btw, the aero spike’s problems were mostly solved for that specific model
The design stage was basically finished, NASA even came up with alternate solutions to the last few sticking points (EG the infamous composite fuel tank). The government just decided to cut funding at some point for highly suspect reasons. It wasn't a design issue.
Thanks for the respectable discussion of the DC-X Project. I was on that team. Re-usability concepts were advanced dramatically during that program, and several team members later joined Blue Origin and SpaceX.
The only thing that stopped the DC-XA project was funding. And an engineer who forgot remove a safety pin to allow the fourth landing gear to drop. There were two previous "incidents" on the pad, which required extensive repair. That is what experimental vehicles are about: learning from mistakes, and getting better for the next test.
Of the three companies competing for the X-33 project in 1996, only McDonnell Douglas had a working, flying prototype. Rockwell blew the dust off a 1960's-era rocketplane paper project, and Lockheed Martin threw every advanced, barely (or not) tested tech into their proposal. Lockheed Martin won because of politics. McDonnell Douglas was losing military contracts, and eventually accepted a buy-out from Boeing.
Seem to recall the Mcdonnell Douglas proposal for X 33 had an SSME for the main engine and RL 10s to perform the landing? All off the shelf.. All perfectly practical and yet nasa went for least viable concept... Now idiots are playing with kerbal and stretching virtual rockets and trying to sell it as science... Can't say how much I wanted you guys to win it at the time
When you detach the bottom stage and it hits the VAB
I was putting in some control systems at the St. Louis plant when Boeing bought them out. I saw them launch something from the airport runway that was out of sight in under thirty seconds. Still don't know what that was.
DC-XA may not have been able to be a true SSTO, at least not economically, but add a low energy (i.e. easily recovered and reused) lower stage, or tether capture in orbit, and the Delta Clipper becomes completely cost effective!
@@thomastolan1477 I agree with you, I would doubt that it cost that much money to repurpose it into a staged rocket.
"It works in KSP"
*presents real solar system mod*
XDDDDD
Looking back now, I feel like my SSTO program really hindered me from going far in the Kerbol system. It takes a good chunk of time to design, build, and test SSTOs to the point where I never went above LKO at one point.
U don't have a refueling station at LKO? Bruh
Tim doesn't give good examples to bash SSTO, 27:04 SR-71 flew at very long cruise angle flight in thin atmosphere, heat is not a major issue if your climbing higher atmosphers, SSTOL needs a wing flight to the kamen, at the peak, convert to FULL rocket exirtion afterburn, FAR more fuel saver as the second action is of a smaller rocket fuel storage in low grav&air flight, cruising to the exo orbit. this is a slower travel versus rocket. YET, versus the T-minus weather delays, most would still not be waiting on count down in future weather modern events, Tim keeps bashing SSTOL, because he needs to kiss up to rocket engineers traditional aura, including famouse ones.
I usually use SSTOs in KSP if I’m building a space station or ferrying crew to and from LKO
@@sapientboxcreature8415 you'll get it, the SSTO or SSRT&VL, needs to go through a *phase* versus *stage* morph form changes during air & gravity layers of climbed atmospheres. To avoid those, lift-mass(with wings), weight ( collapsing bulkiness), and terminal thrust velocity ( transitions from jet, compression vac, to space engine).
The Jet-Ramjet-Rocket thrust convertion. Slower trip sequal up, but consider that to reality scrubb T-minus future weather issuies of pure money burn verticle express, you'll get greater fuel save.
Even if your taking up MASSIVE station barely unfolded, its just a *blimp* - wing form, before wing-craft, the vhigh balloons lift, then to re-compress & burn into engine fuel continued elevation lift up effect, before exo rocket eas.
While I get your point, it seems a bit unfair and misleading to say SSTOs suck because we can't build one using existing technology designed for multi-stage rockets. Your experiments in Kerbal included just adding more fuel and more rocket engines to the fuselage of a multi-stage rocket. Some of the concepts for SSTOs (ex, Skylon, Space One), are radically different than just a traditional rocket with more fuel and more engines.
You're still limited by the rocket equation in the end. Besides that, being able to optimize engines for sea level and for vacuum is reason enough to have two stages, beyond the other advantages.
@@ATSaale ~~Don't use a Rocket~~
I think that, by SSTO, we generally mean *space planes*, and that wasn't really touched upon here.
"More separation events than dating teenagers"
Accurate xD
Shawn Champagne What about making a rocket so tall it's actually already in space?
JohnnyZenith that's a space elevator and that has a hug issue because it would have to be 300,000 feet and most airliner curse at about 30,000 feet even the Sr 71 never went above 200,000 feet
It would actually have to be waaay longer than that, out to geostationary orbit in order to hold itself up. You're talking 36,000km (100 million feet)
Lewis Massie dozens Manny we have no natural to do it even if we wanted to
It's actually possible using an active structure. Essentially you can hold up anything by shooting stuff at it. No joke.
one of my uncles worked for Bowing as an engineer, when i was younger i once asked him about using air berating rockets for space planes. he told me that if you had the capacity to make reusable and sufficiently powerful air breathing rockets then you wouldn't waste the effort making a space plane, you would just slap them on as a stage one boosters.
“air berating”
Bowing
he should have worked for Boeing. The pay was better.
You still couldnt take of vertically most likely, because you need some airflow to get air breathing engines running
@@giulio7918 Well that really depends on the engine, most to all airliners use APU's (auxiliary power unit) which is like a mini jet that generates power.
Now you can start a jet engine using power, thing is you can't exactly just store that much power in a jet like it is nothing, hence the APU.
Also jet technology is quite far away from vertically lifting a rocket, even then you would need to ditch them since jet engines cannot operate in space.
Okay, so how about taking the staging concept to its absolute extreme: a constantly shedding booster, entirely consumed as fuel. It'd have an internal tensegrity structure which supports it and the payload, made entirely of combustible metal interwoven with oxidiser and further solid fuel. It'd be engineered to self-form the combustion chamber, perhaps with some electrochemical guidance and feedback. Every centimetre it burned, it'd shed off its outer lining, minimizing weight at every chance.
You get on work with that, let me know when it's working and I'll tell NASA to contact you okay 👍
Sure, wrap that in a light fairing and you've got a solid rocket motor lol That's all they really are
So kinda light a caseless round?
One problem: in the ksp simulation, you used a conventional rocket. Most SSTO’s have a spaceplane design, for aerodynamics.
I was just about to say, SSTO is only useful if you're planning to return to earth and reuse the vehicle
With an Argus class SSTO you get over 15,000 Delta V. Almost 2x the ammount you got from the multiple stage rocket
Yeah he took a rocket completely designed to be staged and tried to rough and dirty it into a ssto. Might was well slap another 1000hp on an 18 wheeler and pit it up against f1 cars surely it would compete
@@camcam-uw5mx XD
There is more too it to. The plane design allows the space craft to take off with a twr of less than one, which means a smaller engine. As they also have wings they are much better suited for flying horizontally, and could actually build up more speed in the atmosphere. That last bit isnt very helpful if your using plain rocket engines, but jet engines are another story. Jet engines have a much larger specific impulse than rocket engines, but need to be in an atmosphere to work. As such the more of your orbital speed built up with jet engines the less fuel you have to carry
you seem to really be in your stride these days man and still feel like your content gets better nearly every time you put something up. Appreciate the upload bro
Well shucks!! Thank you!!! 🙏🙏🙏
@@EverydayAstronaut hi tim love your content your so inspirational
You should do a video on aero spikes or hybrid engines or just propulsion systems in general. Great video! One of my favorites by you so far
Braden Smith also one on nuclear thermal upper stages like NERVA plz
Yo anyone thinking that this was the inspiration to make the aerospike vid?
He did one on aerospikes
The main reason, as far as I know, that ssto's are so viable in ksp is because heating is far less severe and air-breathing engines are extremely efficient compared to closed-cycle engines. Due to this, it is just far more efficient in that game to get to near orbital velocity in the atmosphere using air-breathing engines and using lift for support, then just use a closed system rocket to get that final kick into full orbit. Basically, the Skylon approach.
"14:22 A lot taller. Hehe, hehe~"
*Insert PP Joke here*
haha you said here
pp joke
Don't normally comment on UA-cam videos but just wanted to say awesome video, 33 minutes of pure gold .Big fan of longer videos.
Amerak same here!
Gay
2:20 Me in 50 years when my grand kids keep landing with their aucubierre drive spaceship on my lawn on Mars.
kek
Yay for Skylon! Apart from the technical challenges (of which there are many) Skylon's biggest hurdle is likely to be funding. Us Brits are not great at funding spacecraft, sadly.
But even if the rest of the spaceplane does not get built, I can see the engine being completed & being used by someone like Boeing. This is probably why they recently gave some funding.
Hey you guys launched one whole rocket with a satellite in the 70s, which ain't much but it's something, but skylon would be badass tho
First time I saw Skylon, I was struck my how similar it is in shape and proportion to the Orion shuttle from 2001: A Space Odyssey.
When you hear the word ssto, you usually think about a space plane... not a space rocket. If you are trying to make a ssto it is way more efficient if you build a plane and use air breathing engines to get up to high altitude, then you light a rocket engine and fly to orbit.
Theoretically, but in reality you need to worry about; thermal tiles to protect the plane on re-entry; having light enough fuel tanks; the extra mass that an air breathing engine (which is always lower thrust to weight) will take up on your spaceplane, etc.
@@JohnDoe-vz7ff All of this can be avoided when we figure out nuclear fusion...
Imagine being able to slow down so much that you don't need to re-enter at extreme speeds.
@@CritikillACClaimed Well not really. If you slow down that much you will end up re-entering at an unacceptable angle and the g-forces will be far too high to survive.
@@JohnDoe-vz7ff That will happen if you slow down to 0, then just leave gravity to do the rest.
What I'm saying is, if we discover incredibly efficient ways to harness fusion energy as propellant, we could have enough to do what we want, include slow down 0m/s and re-enter at *controlled* speeds due to constantly slowing down.
If NASA had insane Delta-V, they would use the method 100% of the time. But the re-entering is required because they don't have enough energy to slow down enough, simple.
@Gaming Champ Skylon Musk?
What about making a rocket so tall it's actually already in space?
then the people who made it would have to be astronauts
It's called a space elevator lol
www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/people-are-still-trying-build-space-elevator-180957877/
it also would not be a rocket lol
Side-note: this would actually be slightly different from a space elevator, because a space elevator is a tension-based object (that is, it's a string that's being tugged on at both ends to keep it stable), while a space tower would be a compression-based object (that is, it's a pile of stuff that's pushing together to maintain its structure). No substance we know of is strong enough under compression to allow for a space tower.
space elevator :D!
600 meter tall rocket, I think the most concerning factor of that is a light breeze
Reason to keep working on SSTOs: Rule of Cool
( ! )[**Matt Lowne will remember that**]
The only ssto that could work: PROJECT ORION!
Ride to space on NUKE EXPLOSIONS!
now thats badass
Only for chuck norris to use
we can and we should!!!!!!,!
Instead of having to trow away your plane after every flight you have to trow away the planet after each flight? Way to go! xD
technically that would be a multiple stage rocket cos of the seperate explosions, but it's still better than the ones we use today XD
Matt Lowne: hold my Whisky
0:15-0:20 is why i NEVER pull the stages apart unless it's over a bed, or i do it in reverse order
*Matt Lowne wants to know your location *
"The Saturn V has more separation events than dating teenagers." That one killed me lol🤣
I am always amazed how many smart people seem to not realize getting to orbit is all about velocity, not altitude... (looking at you especially Roton, WTF were you thinking???)
Well the benefit to the Roton is it's able to just have a vacuum engine (or at least something that only has to preform well in the upper atmosphere) I guess
It might be a good way to lift off the surface of Venus. A bell nozzle optimized for 90 Earth atmospheres wouldn't have much of a expansion ratio. A balloon might work better.
@@mayathomas8934 The main engine of the Roton was a "rotary aerospike" engine which is automatically variable with air pressure.
whats more fuel-expensive: starting from sea-level or starting from lets say 5000m?
who's the smart one now?
If I remember correctly though, there was a simple version of the moon program but they opted for the complex model because they liked it more. The idea was that a simple program has very few high risk events, where as the complex model spreads the risk over many events that can be dealt with at a lower risk basis.
The Roton bears a marked resemblance to the DC-X. This is of course, because a bunch of the DC-X engineers went on to found the Rotary Rocket company. By the end, they had given up on using the rotor on takeoff, it would have been used only for aerobraking, and auto-rotation on the way down. After Rotary folded, most of those guys went over to X-COR.
Some other DC-X guys went over to Pioneer Rocketplane, which was planning to do in-flight refueling at 50,000 ft like a USAF bomber.
None of these schemes promised large payloads though. It was probably a coin flip if the DC-1 would have had a positive payload to LEO. They were chasing reusability, fast turnaround, and could have been very competitive for small scientific payloads. (Falcon 1 class payloads). But most important would be learning how to operate these vehicles.
*posts this on a ksp discord server*
*several people are typing*
2 stages with 100% recovered parts is going to be the way to go.
Space-X is a great example. A venturestar/x-33 style with a pair of cheap solid boosters (with parachutes/airbags, and no Orings!) to address the weight budget would work very well too. Or a SSTO with a ground based rocket-sled ramp that gives you your first 100m/s for free.
True SSTO is entirely dependent on slightly better materials & slightly more efficient engines/fuel. It wouldn't take a huge leap to become viable.
@@the10thdimension Not even fusion needed, just nuclear heated chemical rocket fuel would do it. But you'd need a safe reactor, on a rocket, which don't always have pristine safety hehe.
The problem with fusion is that it's TOO powerful. We can do fusion bombs, but harnessing it as a slow fizzle (like nuclear reactors do with fission)... is a really huge problem for fusion. We've gone from 60 years of fusion being "just 20 years away", to now saying "just 15 years away" (probably for the next 60 years). Or if we're lucky maybe that will scale and it'll only be 15 years away for 45 years ;) hehe
If the space-x starship/bfr combo works ("if", and I get that the first few launches are not super likely to work entirely, but if they get that system perfected) then it'll kinda shut down the SSTO discussions for a long time. Just by the sheer size & weight capacity of their system. If you cut the wings off, you could almost fit the space shutting inside starship's payload bay. If it works, if it's safely recoverable... it'll change human access to space by an order of magnitude in terms of size/weight/cost.
I think the X-33 was the most realistic SSTO idea. To do it now though it would be competing with starship. And recoverable 2-stage to orbit could lift much more. Eventually having both options would be desirable.
The whole "living on mars" thing is fairly far fetched. Far more downsides than upsides. But if starship works well, it'll be like the printing press or the automobile, but for space. Von Braun had it right though, the moon is the first big step. There's actually good reasons to go there. It's full of rare elements, and even helium 3 (which we'll need for fusion ...eventually). Going to mars would be hard, and of minimal value apart from the photo ops & general exploration. But the moon, that'd actually be super useful on an advancement of civilization level.
If mars still had a molten core to give it a magnetosphere, to keep the atmosphere from blowing away in solar wind... then mars would be a LOT more interesting to establish a permanent presence on.
@@the10thdimension I mean. Eventually, yeah, in a broad sense. But it's kinda like a cave man saying "if we want to use glocks we're going to have to stop using these lousy pointed sticks". There's a lot of steps between, which don't necessarily fulfill themselves, and isn't necessarily being denied you by some mean tribal chief. ;)
In the meantime, the pointy sticks are quite useful.
@@the10thdimension Well, if stone axes are better, that will happen organically. Top-down authoritarian approaches cripple rather than accelerate advancement. Because it uses the brains of everybody, instead of just the brain of the ideologue in charge. Humans will observe what works better and figure it out (assuming it really does work better, often that's more a twinkle in the mind of the ideologue in charge than a reality).
There are _sometimes_ things which are better but would require a "getting over the hump" sort of process before the benefit would be apparent though. That's where it can be good to have "socialist sprinkles" as a garnish ;) As well as the ability to repeal stuff if it doesn't pan out.
But by and large, letting individual exceptionalism _excel_ provides the blueprint for advancement.
@@the10thdimension hehe, sorry, must've spent too much time on political forums. "everyone should just do X" is a bit of a red flag ;)
I've always had this weird idea that you could use two Venture Stars coupled belly-to-belly with fuel crossfeed, basically using one as a first stage. That would give you the advantages of everything.
In general, I think once materials science advances enough, it will make sense to move away from tube-shaped rockets and into lifting bodies, as that would allow you to skip retropropulsion for landing and save massively on delta-v. If you're willing to have large interstages you could even stack them.
Tim: I think SSTOs SuCK
Matt lowne: We need to talk
Me: oh dang he screwed
Well done video. I agree with your assessment: until we have some material breakthroughs, reusable stages are the most efficient solution. SSTOs or horizontal launch from a carrier aircraft might help reduce turn-around time and ground facilities, though, so still worth pursuing IMHO. And the experimentation helps develop and test new technologies, even if the project vehicle doesn't pan out. I, for one, would like to see the aerospike engine developed, whatever vehicle it propels. I think that could be a game changer. The Skylon engines are pretty impressive and could make SSTO a reality. Loved the presentation.
Don't mean to be rude but there is a SSTO project that should work very well ! However, for mysterious reasons, nuclear explosions in all layers of the atmosphere is quite unpopular... Yes I am looking at you Project Orion !
out in space is ok, but on escape trajectories, and very high orbits. otherwise, you will destroy the electric grid across entire continents with the EMP(see the starfish prime effects).
EMPs actually wouldn't be a problem as long as you're ~270 km away from the area. The nukes are in the kiloton range or less, much smaller than what they need to be to cause large scale power outages. A bigger problem would be fallout from the launchpad, which afaik can be largely countered using a graphite pad I believe, and that if you launch somewhere remote enough, the nuclear material from the bombs should dissipate enough to be a minor cleanup (At least where nuclear energy is concerned). Really, the biggest problems are political, societal, and the fact you're essentially banging your head on a desk. thousands of times.
Pulse propulsion in the form of using high powered lasers to fuse/fission deuterium/uranium pellets would be superior, but could only be used in space.
Ogma 21 lmao, but you are quite right.
I mean, why would that be bad? Detonating 70 nuclear bombs in the span of 10 minutes? How could anyone _not_ love that idea?!
SSTO makes more sense on Mars to be honest.
There's no reason why we'd have to stick to the same strategy on different levels.
tenshi7angel that’s the plan for starship it’s gonna use the superheavy booster to get of earth but when it’s on mars it will we full SSTO
Mars will need a runway! :P
MEs61 The atmosphere is thinner
Joe Marley and less pull from gravity
"SSTOs suck"
Every KSP player who made a solar system wide SSTO: *cries in rapiers*
Also making an SSTO is a lot harder than just removing stages u ignoramus
ssto's don't suck in ksp you don't need to cry about it even tho he says it sucks it dosent change a thiing
When we get SABER's, this video will become irrelevant. Also, who makes an SSTO look like a conventional rocket? SSTO's are normally spaceplanes.
@@MechJeb42 thats true
@@MechJeb42 SSTO spaceplanes are only that feasible in KSP because orbital velocity is not much higher than the Mach regime in which RAPIERs work, so you can gain a substantial fraction of orbital velocity just using airbreathing. On Earth, even SABER engines top off at only 20% of orbital velocity, the rest has to be made up for with rocket thrust, and airbreathing methods that work at higher velocities are fraught with issues. Thus for Earth, it's much less obvious that a spaceplane is the way to go, especially since the craft is already going to heavily rely on rocket fuel anyway, and it's not immediately clear what benefit wings will add to such a launch system.
Why cant we just build a giant rail gun and just shoot our satellites into space.
Subscribed! I've been playing KSP and following space expl. for years but you still said stuff that helped me understand better. Thanks and keep up the great work!
Tim - yes, do a video on Skylon. Love that concept.
I always think the engines look like chocolate dipped bananas.
It's a scam. It's smoke and mirrors to soak investors dry.
Really? Or is it just your romantic love for Musk talking?
@@mikedrop4421 The most vital component, the precooler, was recently tested successfully.
@@mikedrop4421 Actually in the full rich creaminess of TIME that will be what Elon's bulltwiggery is all about, re-doing 1969.
uses Kerbal Space Program to make an argument about SSTOs
- half an hour later -
"Spare me your Kerbal SSTO designs - 'It works in Kerbal Space Program' is not a real argument"
+Thulyblu
That's because a lot of the designs might not be possible to build in real life. They would be structurally unsound, or unreasonably heavy.
Or alternatively, they don't work in Realism Overhaul.
KSP is amazingly realistic in a lot of ways, but that's kinda only by video game standards. It's far from perfect, and a lot of things that are possible in real life are impossible in KSP, and vice versa.
It's amazing for teaching the basics of orbital mechanics on an intuitive level, though.
The best Kerbal SSTO designs are basically like the skylon plane. They fly first like a supersonic jet and then like a rocket.
IIRC SSTO rockets/planes are not really feasible in KSP with Realism Overhaul. However, in the stock game it’s relatively easy to have SSTO rockets and planes.
Michael K Yeah Scott Manley explains it best in Galileo Conquest when he notes how the SR-71's Mach 3 speed is actually a good percentage of the way to orbital speed on Kerbin. Kerbin when you compare the sizes is actually smaller than even our moon by a drastic amount, so of course it would not scale to Earth's standards.
every tool has its uses. things it can do and things it cant. Showing the result of the rocket equation? KSP is the right tool. Explaining the difficulties and years of research needed to actually build a super complicated design? Not the right tool. Just because a screwdriver cant solder your wires doesnt mean you should discount its ability to attach screws.
I want to know the history of this man's spacesuit. Did he make it? Did he get it from surplus cosmonauts? So neat!
Despite their (cargo) limitations, SSTOs could be useful for specialty missions, like when they used the shuttle to repair/upgrade the Hubble telescope.
Or to send crew to something that was sent up prior by other (heavy lift) rockets and been assembled by robots to reduce risky EVAs
both thease usecases reqires big reusable rockets, but not necessray SSTO. For example, somethink like SS/SH will work.
that Rotary Rocket is just hilarious. I worked in Mojave last summer and saw the thing everyday since it's on display there
how cool would it have been to watch it go those test pilots must have had balls of steal :)
I would have to imagine the gyroscopic forces from the rotary blade must take it's toll. Frankly, helicopters in general might as well be the mutant hybrid between an aeroplane and a blimp zeppelin.
Basically aerospike designs didn't cross over because the space race died, lockheed lost the contract, and the cost of rocket fuel is the least expensive component of the whole operation (and a superior engine design just saves lot on the fuel, ultimately).
So basically, there is absolutely 0 market incentive to create superior options, more likely a financial hazard to even attempt. May as well just put all the investors money in the fuel tank
Granted, the fuel itself is cheap but the hardware to lift that fuel is where the expense is, so it is only logical that by reducing the amount of fuel you need to lift by utilizing multiple stages, reusing part or all of the booster and increasing engine efficiency result in substantial cost savings.
And that is why for now, multi-stage rockets give the best bang for the buck.
thanks for making these! Iove going back and touching up on the basics!
Seriously? You’re not even going talk about Star Raker which honestly is probably the most promising SSTO payload wise and design wise that was only scrapped because the project it was designed for was incredibly ambitious (city-sized space solar array). Also it just looked freaking cool!
HEH...working at LEGO and actually working on the Apollo model makes me proud seeing U having and using it in exchange for entertainment and knowledge Im getting back from this channel !!! Thanks Tim !
I also have one and I must say: amazing work. My only complaint are that the engine bulges and fins at the back of the rocket aren't as realistic as I would like, but otherwise: perfect. Had a blast building it (it's huuuge).
I'm still so sad about VentureStar. Those aerospike engines are so cool
Muad'dib2288 I agree I think the failure of the project was primarily due to mismanagement. If I remember correctly it was the inability to manufacture a composite liquid oxygen tank that halted the program. I think this was done prematurely.
No, the failure of the project was due to the budget cuts by Bush. Had to cut money from NASA so he could get us into another useless war. If NASA got 1/10th the budget the military got we would have had SSTO by 2010.
indeed... and the nasa management killed it as well, they were doing well with the aluminium tanks
check curious droid vid on it =)
ua-cam.com/video/zeNytM7JdYY/v-deo.html
I saw that .. previously .. just wondered why don't some "billionaire" use all that almost completed tech and finish it off and get it going...
Even if we never see skylon - the first stage of engine testing has already been completed and that test facility you mentioned is for the second phase of testing.
In other words - we may not see the proposed SSTO, but the engines are there and good to go
I've been watching all your videos since before this time, but these days it's still really weird to go back and see you in the orange suit! I'm glad you outgrew it. Still, this video is worth a re-watch. Keep up the good work!
Thanks for the long video! Could you do more like this?
agree. But now I'm "late" for work
Dude! Bummer! I hope the crew survived. That was the worst Saturn 5 disaster I ever saw!
Fraser Henderson thatd be a manually triggered (the autoabort having been disabled for staging) abort just at the end.of LES (the little tower ontop of the capsule) capability. Survivable but not fun.
The main reason I like SSTOs is because there's less space junk left behind when they're used.
Simple bolts being thrown into orbit due to stage seperations have caused damage to many sattelites, the international space station, and could potentially ruin future missions.
The less crap we put into our planets orbit, the better.
Yes
Sadly, everyday astronaut doesnt even care about this
He doesnt think of what could happen to our planet
I'm still salty about the VentureStar.
“I will destroy that holy grail”
*proceeds to elaborate on what makes SSTOs a holy grail*
Yes it’s difficult to do well that’s the point; to cleverly engineer around the circumstances which preclude their development.
@Det Nine Yes the point of a holy grail is that it is difficult to obtain.
@@loremipsum7873 The point of a holy grail is that it is useful. Difficult sure, but the usefulness is far more important.
Engineering is about making the right compromises to get what you need to do done as well as possible, whatever that means. It just so happens that developing an SSTO compromises a lot for vary little.
A full flow engine like what SpaceX is working on is considered a holy grail, not simply because it is difficult, but because it has clear advantages and the math is behind it.
It gets a whole lot harder when earth isnt the size of kerbin. Even if you manage to pull it off you will lose a lot of payload capacity.
@Det Nine No they're not, look at the Soviet Shuttle program, genius and proven far superior to the US one yet allowed to die.
@@Veldtian1 In case you didn't know, they were throwing away an entire non-reusable superheavy rocket (Energia) to put that shuttle into orbit. And it only flew once and never delivered any payload. Fail to see how it was "proven" to be superior to anything.
Awsome!!! 34 minutes of Everyday Astronaut
IDK why but the awesome SABRE jet/rocket engines remind me of the KSP RAPIER engines. they operate similarly in the way they are used.
Just discovered this wonderful channel and subscribed. At 27:15 it was reported that the SR-71 expanded 60 cm (!) at top speed. The CTE of titanium is about 8.5 x 10^-6 per degree C, and the delta T in the 300-400 degree C range would put the expansion much lower than 60 cm for the ~33 m long plane.
Yes talk more about skylon!
Yes! That looks like a good video :)
Yeah please
For sure the S.A.B.R.E engine is really interesting and is much more imminent than the Skylon spaceplane. Plenty of non orbital vehicles could employ the technology.
There's one other downside to skylon that he didn't mention. Ultimately its goal was to make space launches reusable and therefore cheaper, but it seems SpaceX beat them to the punch already. SpaceX's hover mechanic will also be much better tested and reliable by the time Skylon gets off the ground. As cool as Skylon is I think SpaceX is the way to go. At least until space elevators.
I too would love to see more about Skylon. It's a really awesome vehicle concept and could make space seriously affordable, reliable and even more comfortable with its relatively leisurely ascent profile.
I thoroughly enjoyed this video. I discovered this channel looking for info about spacex and im so glad I did. Oh and I really like the longer videos, please keep it that way!!!
SpaceX are holy!! (SpaceX, you are my everything too)
Why do people think this wouldn’t be sufficient or possible? Back in the 50s people thought that landing on the moon was impossible and the technology we have now would seem outlandish, but look at us now
Everyday Astronaut: "SSTOs suck"
Matt Lowne: "What foolish mortal dares challenge me!"
Do a whole video on Skylon? Yes, please! I'm a huge fan of Reaction Engines. I know that you didn't have the space in this video to discuss the pre-cooler, but to this armchair enthusiast the pre-cooler is THE technology that will allow a continuous transition from subsonic to hypersonic to orbital velocity.
As for air-frame cooling, I think I heard former CEO Alan Bond say that Skylon's skin would be actively cooled. I can't remember the exact quote, otherwise I'd post it here.
I must admit that Reaction Engines' progress has been excruciatingly slow, but some characteristically idiotic actions taken by the British Government in the 1980s really didn't help. (I don't know why, but ever since the end of WWII British governments have been steadfastly hell-bent on squashing any hint of British innovation in aviation. But I digress...)
If you're looking for a material that can handle high heats, look up Ceramic Matrix Composites. They are being used in current-gen jet engines. They are a third the weight of nickel super-alloys, AND can handle 500 degrees F more heat. Jet engines are using it more and more... the only limiting factor is it's quite expensive. So it's hard to say if they'd want to build a whole plane's exterior surface out of it.
Skylon would have been great in the 80s/90s, but now Starship has rendered it essentially irrelevant.
Care to explain your groundless pro-Musk cheer leading?
@@ryandempsey4830 Starship still needs 6 refuelling in LEO before proceeding to Mars or Moon. So how is it better than any of current rockets?
Yes please do a video on Skyline, its all about the air cooler technology which Alan Bond & Co have now broken through....cooling 1,000degC heat in milli seconds
Let's get rid of the atmosphere and gravity of Earth.
You can't?
Looks like we'll stick to #teammultistage
We can get rid of the atmosphere if we put our best people on it. Where's the new director of NASA, I have a proposal to make SSTO's great again!
But... if there isn't any atmosphere why not create a large stationary facility using electromagnetic accelerators? I mean... SSTOs are cool, but what about using no stages?
Yes, I realize you'd still need an OMS.
It can be done. Edit config files
What about the spaceplane ssto design that partially uses lift generated by the wings, air breathing and rocket fuel engines, and horizontal velocity to get into orbit
I find it amusing that the closest crewed spacecraft we ever built to an SSTO was Mercury-Atlas. (It wasn't quite, since it dropped some of its rocket engines early in the ascent, and while the remaining stage made it all the way to orbital velocity, only the Mercury capsule came back and none of it was reusable.)
The main issue is that multi stage space craft only makes sence if you have alot of materials to make the stages from. So now when we dont really travel between planets or moons, its not as viable. But when we really start traveling in space, we will need to have single stage space craft. We will most likely move to only that in the future. Like 100 years in the future maybe more.
"think of a booster as a *catapult* ..."
Ah, a degenerate...
Scoddri yes, trebuchets are much better
Its trebuchets or nothing!
*cries in ballista*
*Sniff* But.... It works in KSP!
Hehehe. You said sniff butt :-)
Downloads ksp builds ssto lol
If orbital velocity were 2300m/s IRL, SSTO would work fine here, too. That's X-15 territory.
"Yeah, I'm pretty experienced in ksp, I have mods that make it more realistic and much harder." -Everyday astronaut
Also Everyday astronaut- Doesn't know what the kraken or space planes are
I'm convinced he was too lazy to build a spaceplane.
I freakin LOVE staging! Both visually and principally awesome to shed the spent stage!
Man, the rotary rocket. That was a crazy concept. It was great knowing some of the people who worked on that project, they really inspired my choice to get into engineering.
I think SSTO's that go straight up like a rocket are doomed to fail because of the tyranny of the rocket equation as you say. But for SSTO's like the Skylon there might be a shot. One major advantage in taking off horizontally is that the Thrust to Weight Ratio can be lower than 1 as the wings would provide lift. Also if using a combined cycle engine like the SABRE you can get alot of that deltaV for a relatively cheap amount of fuel as you're using the airbreathing part in the atmosphere and jet engines have WAY better ISP than rocket engines. There are stil major technological challenges with heat generation and functional combined cycle engines tho. I actually did a Skylon replica in KSP RO a while back. Granted the engines aren't similar, but the core idea is the same. ua-cam.com/video/zJU9xMlw9a8/v-deo.html
(I actually have a fixed version with correct engines but I haven't been able to record it as I'm studying, guess what, aerospace engineering in the UK 🙂)
An ssto would be useful for individual use in a far off futre when many people would have spacecraft. If your car had to split into pieces it would be a nightmare.
I think it's still worth pursuing SSTOs, because of the knowledge gained by building them.
We went to the moon not because of economics. It was about science, politics, and even a bit of philosophy. We went there to show it was possible, and that humanity could achieve more than we could dream before. The idea of one-upping the Soviets certainly helped. And in the process we learnt a lot about physics, materials, engineering and astronomy.
Even if the first SSTOs aren't practical, building them could further our understanding of engineering and spaceflight, and make space flight easier down the line.
i was so looking forward to this! love the 33 min video! also a big thank you for not portraying russia in a bad way in your videos :D
When talking about space exploration its pretty hard to shit on russia, they've been the backbone of even the americans getting to space lol.
Agree!
irk good boi
I'm a little disappointed you didn't mention the SSTO that we could have built decades ago: Project Orion.
If you don't mind nuking the launch site every time ;-)
James Owens you're being picky...
A ship they wanted to build starting in the early '60s, would take off from Jackass Flats, Nevada (which was already nuked on a regular basis). It would go out the the moons of Saturn and drop off an exploration base and crew. Back to Mars orbit to drop another base, and back to Earth orbit with 1300 tons payload. A single stage.
Freeman Dyson said he figured that the fallout from maybe a dozen such ships would add maybe 3% to what was already being blown into the atmosphere back then.
My thought too fantastic project that got killed of by politics and concern of some fallout.
Project Orion required boosters to launch
Probably multi stage for the next 20 -50 years in my opinion but air breathing plasma jet engines , battery advancements and our increasing love for hybrid technology could see us using a single stage that uses no fuel until at the edge of the atmosphere where air is too thin then boosters kick in to get it that last of the ways there without the added air resistance or pressure. Maybe idk just a hopeful peep into the possible future
This may be a really stupid question but is there any consideration for getting rid of the first stage in favor of something like an electromagnetic launch system? My guess is that it is impractical but figured it was worth the ask...
Even though I love SSTO's, I still love you Tim. Of course, I only love them in vanilla KSP ;=;
RCS Build Aid and Kerbal Engineer Redux are great should-be-vanilla mods. They show you where your COM should be when you've used up all your fuel and how RCS will balance (RCSBA), and show you stats like mass, resources, and thrust to weight ratio as well as adding a customizable instrument panel (KER)
It's midnight I'm in my bed, I see a 30min long brand new vidéo of Tim, I click
bjooo same situation here
Same bro
Makes me so sad, and a little angry that the " leaders " of this country cancel funding for things like the VentureStar. It was a good price and was ground breaking. But then the talkingheads fund other programs that are so much more expensive and seem to be wasteful ( cough, cough, SLS )
Hey Tim, are those rocket models handmade or you buy from anywhere? If it's a product, can you show me where can we find it?
"Get off my lawn, you darn kids with your ssto's." 🤣🤣🤣
What?
😎😍😍😍
The most famous Ssto AND also the most famous rocket in history is the Moon rocket from "Tintin destination Moon" not because it's real, but because it was so inspiring.
That used a chemical engine for atmospheric ascent and then a nuclear engine in space, didn't it? So it was a single stage, but captured the idea of using different engines in the atmosphere and in space...
@@patrikj Plus the nuke made a small acceleration deceleration that applied a force in the spacefraft equivalent to gravity.
@@patrikj IF I remember it correctly.... It was nuke all the way. Actually listened to a book form of it yesterday when I was driving because of my kid
Is there any estimate of timeframe when Skylon could deliver payload to ISS?
The biggest reason SSTO didnt work was engine("plane takeoff" + rocket engine) but this design solves it.
Love your channel very educational 👍👍👍