Why Single Stage to Orbit rockets SUCK. The wacky history and future maybes of SSTOs

[@HeadHunterSix]

I'm such a lousy atmospheric pilot in KSP that for me, SSTO means "Straight Shot To Ocean"

[@iciclefox9901]

Same. Except mine don’t even get a straight shot.

[@michagrill9432]

LOL XD

[@cheddar2648]

Some of them I have to race off the end of the runway to get airborne haha

[@billykaelin6358]

Mine just blow up in the runway Edit: because Of floppy wings

[@The_Bird_Bird_Harder]

@@billykaelin6358 Mine blow up until I finally submit and vertical launch them from the VAB.

[@techsbyglebbagrov7470]

13:47 Well, there you have it, an SSTO (Single Stage To Ocean)

[@firopense]

China March 5b moment

[@silas-the-person3895]

Godd one

[@Draka721]

Valid point.

[@whaooo4480]

good one

[@stonegamessm1598]

You got me there

[@bificommander7472]

Make the rocket even taller, and the payload will start in orbit.

[@3dkinetic]

Best joke ever!

[@CascadianPatriot]

You mean a space elevator? ;)

[@palava8500]

Just use a different output nozzle

[@benriful]

@@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.

[@KrunkMunkey]

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.

[@t2hk_]

"WHY SSTOS SUCK!" KSP players: *cries in SSTO*

[@RealPyro88]

ssto's literally helped me build so much in space xD

[@traegoins6903]

@@RealPyro88 you mean you dont just abuse the mun launch site?

[@tylerjones-davis6269]

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

[@strigonshitposting793]

I only use SSTOs. I can’t do rockets.

[@apachers2807]

@@traegoins6903 Theres a... Mun launch site???

[@spaceman.sam.coniglio]

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.

[@carldavies4776]

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

[@hl_scientist1964]

When you detach the bottom stage and it hits the VAB

[@Myrddnn]

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.

[@thomastolan1477]

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!

[@10gamer64]

@@thomastolan1477 I agree with you, I would doubt that it cost that much money to repurpose it into a staged rocket.

[@bradensmith8006]

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

[@michaelmclean5823]

Braden Smith also one on nuclear thermal upper stages like NERVA plz

[@silas-the-person3895]

Yo anyone thinking that this was the inspiration to make the aerospike vid?

[@roderickreilly9666]

He did one on aerospikes

[@calebwaddell6948]

"The Saturn V has more separation events than dating teenagers." That one killed me lol🤣

[@SahajSpaceEX]

Haha I am 9 years old lol

[@f3p]

Sahaj SpaceEX Haha you’re too young to have a KZbin account

[@alexanderpadeyev5846]

Wow

[@itsmenachogaming9835]

Oh my gosh

[@shamsudeenma1928]

Doesn't it just have 3?? The PSLV rocket has 4 stage separations.

[@falconthebird5582]

Everyday Astronaut: SSTO’s suck! Matt Lowne: hold my flight goggles. No wait. Give them back.

[@BrowncoatInABox]

Lol

[@jya4676]

Yes Matt lowneeeeeee

[@littlegamer00]

Yep

[@gage2189]

WHISKEY

[@Gneisenau.]

I was gonna comment this

[@nickkurzy2246]

600 meter tall rocket: exists Kraken: "What foolish mortal has summoned me?"

[@starleighpersonal]

you mean foolish kerbal

[@TheRadioactiveBanana32]

Kraken is proper spelling

[@gamering2354]

Wat the heck

[@oliverssimanis8345]

There aren't any 600 m rockets but ok

[@ibz531]

Sia

[@plant5875]

*Matt Lowne is typing...*

[@arizonamidnight5294]

That first minute has to hurt oof

[@DrBotnus]

lol

[@anagraphical_angel]

Fly safe

[@adamsiekierski3133]

Latt Mowne?

[@Vulpyyy]

Lol

[@sickbailey21]

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

[@EverydayAstronaut]

Well shucks!! Thank you!!! 🙏🙏🙏

[@silas-the-person3895]

@@EverydayAstronaut hi tim love your content your so inspirational

[@ncdave4life]

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

[@testchannelpleaseignore2452]

Hes also wrong og Atlas was technically an SSTO, unless you count dropping engines as a stage.

[@khoshekhthecat]

@@testchannelpleaseignore2452 that's... Exactly what staging is

[@Formula1st]

@@testchannelpleaseignore2452 that’s literally the definition if staging

[@MrSiamese315]

They need to stage a decoupler to lift up

[@khoshekhthecat]

@@MrSiamese315 that's like saying releasing launch clamps is staging

[@JosephJoboLicayan]

"It worked in Kerbal Space Program!" Said every engineer in history.

[@NittanyTiger1]

Does that include KSP with the RSS/RO mods?

[@mollymarsgal3377]

Joseph Jobo Licayan Theres an XKCD saying that. (Havent watched the vid yet, maybe it's in there lol)

[@jebediahkerman4251]

Not for me :(

[@Thefreakyfreek]

ssto in ksp is simple 2 long 1.25 meter tanks and a engine real life aint that eazy

[@angelainamarie9656]

"It worked with 1/10th the planetary size and orbital velocity"

[@crabnix]

"Maybe SSTOs don't suck. Maybe earth sucks."

[@sdrx903]

maybe we all suck

[@freddiemercurygaming4124]

Yes we all suck but god is everthing

[@CariagaXIII]

yes earth suck with gravity

[@vacastro1345]

@@CariagaXIII You understand it (;

[@kameron1290]

Kerbin for the win

[@SpottedHares]

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.

[@comicsansgreenkirby]

“air berating”

[@Wirgah]

Bowing

[@kitemanmusic]

he should have worked for Boeing. The pay was better.

[@giulio7918]

You still couldnt take of vertically most likely, because you need some airflow to get air breathing engines running

[@christerjackson9589]

@@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.

[@hempsellastro]

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.

[@karelpgbr]

Oh, wow, this tech sounds so cool! Go Skylon

[@stefannilsson2406]

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.

[@JohnDoe-vz7ff]

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.

[@CritikillACClaimed]

@@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.

[@JohnDoe-vz7ff]

@@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.

[@CritikillACClaimed]

@@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.

[@CritikillACClaimed]

@Gaming Champ Skylon Musk?

[@Amerak95]

Don't normally comment on KZbin videos but just wanted to say awesome video, 33 minutes of pure gold .Big fan of longer videos.

[@nemooxo]

Amerak same here!

[@subtopewdipie7575]

Gay

[@MrSiamese315]

Everyday Astronaut: this is why SSTO's are bad Matt Lowne: hold my wHiskey

[@fearfulgrot]

wHiskey not whiskey

[@MrSiamese315]

@@fearfulgrot thank you for making me come back to this comment, forgot it existed, now its my most liked comment

[@Liam_The_Great]

@@MrSiamese315 it has 18 likes

[@aplane9625]

Funny

[@BLASTxStingray]

@@Liam_The_Great *its now 113 do you like it?*

[@reactorfour1682]

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.

[@paurodriguezriera7979]

U don't have a refueling station at LKO? Bruh

[@ckdigitaltheqof6th210]

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.

[@sapientboxcreature8415]

I usually use SSTOs in KSP if I’m building a space station or ferrying crew to and from LKO

[@ckdigitaltheqof6th210]

@@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.

[@JohnnyZenith]

What about making a rocket so tall it's actually already in space?

[@markmaslach]

then the people who made it would have to be astronauts

[@SWRaptor1]

It's called a space elevator lol www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/people-are-still-trying-build-space-elevator-180957877/

[@markmaslach]

it also would not be a rocket lol

[@trimeta]

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.

[@anngo4140]

space elevator :D!

[@kathrynck]

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.

[@kathrynck]

@@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.

[@kathrynck]

@@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.

[@kathrynck]

@@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.

[@kathrynck]

@@the10thdimension hehe, sorry, must've spent too much time on political forums. "everyone should just do X" is a bit of a red flag ;)

[@Blaze6108]

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.

[@soup5344]

"It works in KSP" *presents real solar system mod*

[@Iknowhowbadthisnameis8828]

XDDDDD

[@jfrog5440]

Tim: "Two stages are better than one" Me: "Well one stage is better than none. LOL"

[@adamrezabek9469]

none is better than minus one

[@Draka721]

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!*

[@t.3465]

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

[@JayLeePoe]

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

[@MichaelClark-uw7ex]

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.

[@DeterBrian]

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???)

[@mayassf]

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

[@Markle2k]

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.

[@seanellis7563]

@@mayassf The main engine of the Roton was a "rotary aerospike" engine which is automatically variable with air pressure.

[@schallterrorist7127]

whats more fuel-expensive: starting from sea-level or starting from lets say 5000m? who's the smart one now?

[@falkenlaser]

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.

[@tarunantony1866]

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

[@Blaze6108]

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.

[@421Dungeon]

me:*builds SSTO* SSTO:so you have chosen, Ocean Single Stage To Ocean

[@sadiqahmed4143]

Submarines

[@freesbeedoggo8363]

( ! )[**Matt Lowne will remember that**]

[@MrAluntus]

Tim - yes, do a video on Skylon. Love that concept.

[@doggonemess1]

I always think the engines look like chocolate dipped bananas.

[@mikedrop4421]

It's a scam. It's smoke and mirrors to soak investors dry.

[@dubistverrueckt]

Really? Or is it just your romantic love for Musk talking?

[@5000mahmud]

@@mikedrop4421 The most vital component, the precooler, was recently tested successfully.

[@Veldtian1]

@@mikedrop4421 Actually in the full rich creaminess of TIME that will be what Elon's bulltwiggery is all about, re-doing 1969.

[@Ogma21]

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 !

[@thedroplett214]

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).

[@davidk1308]

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.

[@nguyentrinhquanganh1494]

Ogma 21 lmao, but you are quite right.

[@alt8791]

I mean, why would that be bad? Detonating 70 nuclear bombs in the span of 10 minutes? How could anyone _not_ love that idea?!

[@aaronclark4957]

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.

[@shawn.champagne]

"More separation events than dating teenagers" Accurate xD

[@JohnnyZenith]

Shawn Champagne What about making a rocket so tall it's actually already in space?

[@spudzillah_6175]

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

[@lewismassie]

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)

[@spudzillah_6175]

Lewis Massie dozens Manny we have no natural to do it even if we wanted to

[@gracefool]

It's actually possible using an active structure. Essentially you can hold up anything by shooting stuff at it. No joke.

[@cebi3103]

*posts this on a ksp discord server* *several people are typing*

[@manowartank8784]

The only ssto that could work: PROJECT ORION! Ride to space on NUKE EXPLOSIONS!

[@olivierdols5556]

now thats badass

[@iciclefox9901]

Only for chuck norris to use

[@cedriceric9730]

we can and we should!!!!!!,!

[@urielvogt8141]

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

[@ethancotton1549]

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

[@Celticway1]

One problem: in the ksp simulation, you used a conventional rocket. Most SSTO’s have a spaceplane design, for aerodynamics.

[@captaintai4013]

I was just about to say, SSTO is only useful if you're planning to return to earth and reuse the vehicle

[@bobjoebo8933]

With an Argus class SSTO you get over 15,000 Delta V. Almost 2x the ammount you got from the multiple stage rocket

[@camcam-uw5mx]

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

[@Damian-cilr2]

@@camcam-uw5mx XD

[@CreeperDude-cm1wv]

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

[@mfmees]

*Matt Lowne wants to know your location *

[@solomanwill1]

"The Saturn V has more separation events than dating teenagers." That one killed me lol🤣

[@GordonFreeman.]

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!!!

[@elonmuskfanpage4006]

SpaceX are holy!! (SpaceX, you are my everything too)

[@tenshi7angel]

SSTO makes more sense on Mars to be honest.

[@Known_as_The_Ghost]

There's no reason why we'd have to stick to the same strategy on different levels.

[@theenjeneer2493]

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

[@JamesIsbellUK]

Mars will need a runway! :P

[@GamingCentral80]

MEs61 The atmosphere is thinner

[@borisbuliak3626]

Joe Marley and less pull from gravity

[@Moohasha1]

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.

[@SuperSayinSolidSnek]

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.

[@Azuraerae]

@@SuperSayinSolidSnek ~~Don't use a Rocket~~ I think that, by SSTO, we generally mean *space planes*, and that wasn't really touched upon here.

[@vagatronics]

2:20 Me in 50 years when my grand kids keep landing with their aucubierre drive spaceship on my lawn on Mars.

[@cowmoo5596]

kek

[@martintomes2296]

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 !

[@RedPuma90]

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).

[@mattwehner]

that Rotary Rocket is just hilarious. I worked in Mojave last summer and saw the thing everyday since it's on display there

[@Diani4629]

how cool would it have been to watch it go those test pilots must have had balls of steal :)

[@1224chrisng]

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.

[@nathanreeves9408]

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.

[@bnbcraft6666]

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

[@LazerCut]

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. kzbin.info/www/bejne/sHu4aquDodxsl5o (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 🙂)

[@flynnbryant2589]

Thanks for the long video! Could you do more like this?

[@pjvanvliet3129]

agree. But now I'm "late" for work

[@seasong7655]

Yes talk more about skylon!

[@BenVeenstra]

Yes! That looks like a good video :)

[@erm482]

Yeah please

[@DisorderedArray]

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.

[@JM-us3fr]

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.

[@starlight2098]

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.

[@samposyreeni]

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.

[@dancohen3099]

You get on work with that, let me know when it's working and I'll tell NASA to contact you okay 👍

[@helplmchoking]

Sure, wrap that in a light fairing and you've got a solid rocket motor lol That's all they really are

[@Blaze6108]

So kinda light a caseless round?

[@dapeach06]

I'm still so sad about VentureStar. Those aerospike engines are so cool

[@herbertkeithmiller]

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.

[@ifandbut]

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.

[@rudamachoo]

indeed... and the nasa management killed it as well, they were doing well with the aluminium tanks check curious droid vid on it =) kzbin.info/www/bejne/sJaxqqeDbK-Xj7s

[@tobifoong8025]

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...

[@thulyblu5486]

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"

[@theuncalledfor]

+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.

[@mikicerise6250]

The best Kerbal SSTO designs are basically like the skylon plane. They fly first like a supersonic jet and then like a rocket.

[@Mike-oz4cv]

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.

[@TheGreyhoundGames]

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.

[@TheVergile]

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.

[@Squodgamullis]

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...)

[@dannyb9223]

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.

[@ryandempsey4830]

Skylon would have been great in the 80s/90s, but now Starship has rendered it essentially irrelevant.

[@dubistverrueckt]

Care to explain your groundless pro-Musk cheer leading?

[@PArabinddeep]

@@ryandempsey4830 Starship still needs 6 refuelling in LEO before proceeding to Mars or Moon. So how is it better than any of current rockets?

[@terryjagers4671]

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

[@Link2edition]

Reason to keep working on SSTOs: Rule of Cool

[@fraserhenderson7839]

Dude! Bummer! I hope the crew survived. That was the worst Saturn 5 disaster I ever saw!

[@g2g591]

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.

[@captt2779]

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.

[@loremipsum7873]

“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.

[@loremipsum7873]

@Det Nine Yes the point of a holy grail is that it is difficult to obtain.

[@meckhardt2112]

@@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.

[@haraldhimmel5687]

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.

[@Veldtian1]

@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.

[@AldorEricsson]

@@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.

[@Rocketsong]

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.

[@MrKokva]

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

[@sickbailey21]

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.

[@IllumTheMessage]

Agree!

[@tony_5156]

irk good boi

[@aaalllooozzz9116]

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.

[@patrikj]

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...

[@quoniam426]

@@patrikj Plus the nuke made a small acceleration deceleration that applied a force in the spacefraft equivalent to gravity.

[@matsv201]

@@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

[@iri2be]

*Sniff* But.... It works in KSP!

[@BandidoDescalzo]

Hehehe. You said sniff butt :-)

[@terribleatmosphere6172]

Downloads ksp builds ssto lol

[@bcubed72]

If orbital velocity were 2300m/s IRL, SSTO would work fine here, too. That's X-15 territory.

[@WilliamAshleyOnline]

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.

[@TacgnolSimulacrum]

I'm a little disappointed you didn't mention the SSTO that we could have built decades ago: Project Orion.

[@jamesowens7176]

If you don't mind nuking the launch site every time ;-)

[@VincentRiquer]

James Owens you're being picky...

[@JFrazer4303]

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.

[@Infernal_Elf]

My thought too fantastic project that got killed of by politics and concern of some fallout.

[@legostarstorm]

Project Orion required boosters to launch

[@keanumack3944]

Awsome!!! 34 minutes of Everyday Astronaut

[@mayankshrivastava3554]

Let's get rid of the atmosphere and gravity of Earth. You can't? Looks like we'll stick to #teammultistage

[@davemanmartin]

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!

[@wojtek4p4]

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.

[@mraagh8779]

It can be done. Edit config files

[@dumbeh]

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

[@BradleyG01]

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

[@reignpagaran740]

The temptation to dislike is incredible... but I can't do it. You're too right.

[@thechickenmaster6543]

@@tinldw idk what the Big Friendly Rocket has to do with this but i suggest you dont badmouth him too much because it is a rocket

[@tauttechminusmanagedmusic3778]

SSTO's require variable geometry engines. Fixed geometry engines can't do SSTO for all the reasons in this video. Aerospike, however, is certainly more than possible.

[@politonno2499]

I have made an SSTO rocket family in KSP, wich all are missiles that works with Vector engines and it lands with parachutes.

[@K7L3-93]

@@politonno2499 How much can it carry to LEO?

[@stainlesssteelfox1]

Unlike the SR-71, Skylon's tankage is separate from it's skin. A framework of struts holds the skin outside, and the fuel tanks are able to freely move over the inner surface as the skin and struts expand. They thought of that.

[@wardedthorn6523]

I think his point was that there's always some unforeseen difficulty, and he worries that the same will haplen to the Skylon. Hopefully not, though!

[@titter3648]

Or why not use the heat to pump fuel? Letting liquid hydrogen out to a skin-layer tank where it evaporates and expands to be preassurized by the heat, and then go into the engine with no extra pumping, and at the same time the constant hydrogen evaporation and expantion in the skin-tank will keep the skin temperature in check.

[@stainlesssteelfox1]

@@titter3648 They're already using the liquid hydrogen to chill the incoming air via a helium intermediate cooling loop. It's already being heated up by that.

[@SkashTheKitsune]

600 meter tall rocket, I think the most concerning factor of that is a light breeze

[@EeekiE]

SSTO's are cool because ("in theory") you just add fuel and change oil filters. Reusable multi-stage stuff ticks all those boxes while being even cooler in my opinion. It's re-usability that pressurises my tanks, not single stage.

[@shamux4043]

I honestly don't want to know what pressurizes your tanks.

[@scoddri7392]

"think of a booster as a *catapult* ..." Ah, a degenerate...

[@notkiwibird]

Scoddri yes, trebuchets are much better

[@theguh728]

Its trebuchets or nothing!

[@aerojetrocketdyners-2538]

*cries in ballista*

[@fuzkek9135]

Orion Nuclear Pulse Rocket disagrees. #TeamNuclear

[@amirabudubai2279]

A nuclear pulse SSTO can get into orbit, but do you really want to set off that many nuclear bombs on earth? There is a nuclear jet concept that might work(with another system to get it from ballistic trajectory to orbit), but you still have the risk of a rocket exploding and spreading waste. Unless we master fusion, current nuclear power is just to risky to send to space on a large scale.

[@TheVergile]

yeah, maybe. but nowadays if we were to build sth like this you can be sure it wouldnt be built on earth, but in orbit.

[@Kelnx]

I think the Orion concept should be revisited. First, the ideal scenario is to build a modular Orion-like craft in orbit. You are correct that using NPP to get from Earth to Orbit, even small nuclear implosions, is a bad idea. So SSTO is simply not the way to do it. Second, the original Orion design was for building a massively heavy spacecraft with a crew of 200 out of mid-20th century materials. We can now build large craft using modular designs and modern polymers, carbon fiber, graphites, light steels, etc. Meaning the size of the craft could be scaled up, or the speed of the craft could be a much higher % of c. Even better, an unmanned craft could be far lighter and far faster, for the purposes of exploration. So, not an SSTO thing, but definitely a way of achieving interstellar travel within our local group in the timeframe of 1-3 human lifespans. As far as nuclear (fission) power goes, outside of NPP, any large scale spacecraft would best benefit from a nuclear reactor for energy production, specifically one with HEU fuel. It's simply too useful, especially when you get further from the Sun and the inverse square law starts to really kill solar power production.

[@44R0Ndin]

I agree with using the #TeamNuclear hashtag, but I have a different technology in mind, that has zero pollution if it doesn't blow up. There are two engines that I can think of that are usable: LANTR, Lox-Augmented Nuclear Thermal Rocket. Nuclear Lightbulb. Closed cycle Gas Core Nuclear Rocket engine. Both of these are easily capable of SSTO operation, and the Nuclear Lightbulb has a solid wall between the nuclear stuff and the propellant stuff so there's no radiation in the exhaust (still need a radiation shield for the crew, that's a lot of neutrons and gamma rays).

[@tyson31415]

#TeamNotKillTheEarth disagrees with your disagreement.

[@YuriYoshiosan]

"14:22 A lot taller. Hehe, hehe~" *Insert PP Joke here*

[@seanwaddell2659]

haha you said here

[@CardZed]

pp joke

[@thealover]

Even though I love SSTO's, I still love you Tim. Of course, I only love them in vanilla KSP ;=;

[@Fireheart318]

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)

[@maxcchiru]

We need something in KSP: an Aerospike version (both Linear and Radial) of the R.A.P.I.E.R. Engine... Adjusts for Atmospheric Pressure and needs less Oxidizer

[@kojeb]

• ChristianO5 that kinda sounds op ngl

[@DestaniKitchen]

Is that even possible hmm??

[@matrixarsmusicworkshop561]

it consumes way too much fuel... Like, its WAY more efficient to just stuck 2 jet engines and 1 rocket than the rapiers/rapier .-.

[@bjooo]

It's midnight I'm in my bed, I see a 30min long brand new vidéo of Tim, I click

[@kerbonautics5217]

bjooo same situation here

[@jujuyee2534]

Same bro

[@cmbarrett65]

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.

[@Smokeybear69420]

When I first saw this video pop up in my feed I avoided it like the plague and everything to do with everyday astronaut. I didn't want someone smashing my dreams of an SSTO. But I eventually curiosity got the better of me and I watched it. After I thought about it for a while I have to agree with you. While SSTOs might be viable in the future with better technologies, right now reusable rocketry is the best way to go rather than attempt to achieve a somewhat unrealistic holy-grail as you put it. I am so glad I watched this video, cause I love your channel and I go to it for inspiration and learning all the time.

[@ChrisJohnsonHome]

Same! That's how I feel about FTL ... Our dreams are not always supported by the physics. "What's the point in space travel without an SSTO and FTL??"

[@salvadordollyparton666]

"Get off my lawn, you darn kids with your ssto's." 🤣🤣🤣

[@alexanderstrandh4566]

What?

[@drdoomgoat38]

😎😍😍😍

[@alexsherwood7080]

Smartest rocket: build it so high it starts in orbit

[@dannygroom3327]

Hey, or what about a rocket so tall it starts in space, or even better one so tall it starts in space.....?

[@russbg1827]

More like a space elevator.

[@KOZMOuvBORG]

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

[@adamrezabek9469]

both thease usecases reqires big reusable rockets, but not necessray SSTO. For example, somethink like SS/SH will work.

[@HACKINGMADEFUN]

I thought the video was too long. I started watching and i forgot how quickly 30 minutes went. Great video as always💙

[@sgtdonkeyman]

what’s ur point

[@skyvenrazgriz8226]

Well using a carier vehicle to start from high up makes sence. I mean a plane should be as save as a booster to start from, the whole x program used it in the early stages. And about piloting... I thing computers got this, these days, we wouldnt put a pilot on space x boosters to steer them...

[@EagerSpace]

The problem with carrier vehicles is that they don't get you very high or very fast, so you don't get that much benefit. Even if you can build something that is SR-71 fast and can carry a decent-sized second stage, the altitude and velocity will be significantly lower than what you get from a Falcon 9 first stage (SR-71 3500 km/hr @ 25KM, Falcon 9 6000 km/hr @ 75 KM).

[@TheVergile]

nice in theory for tiny payloads, but the whole thing becomes exceedingly complicated once you try to move any kind of payload into orbit like this. Introducing a million new points of failure just to gain a few additional kilograms to orbit just isnt worth it.

[@justanotherintrovert1012]

Kerbal space program still loves SSTOs

[@vanguard3844]

Tim: I think SSTOs SuCK Matt lowne: We need to talk Me: oh dang he screwed

[@mikaxms]

So why don't you test the Skylon in KSP (real solar system)?

[@EverydayAstronaut]

Because it’s not yet flying 🤷‍♂️ I mean it works in theory sure... I was mostly trying to illustrate the tyranny of the rocket equation in KSP, not try and recreate an analogue for all SSTO concepts

[@Markus-zb5zd]

But yeah, for a future of SSTOs an air breathing engine breakthrough is neccesary.

[@GregEwing]

There is a lot of people that would argue with the works in theory part. Supersonic air intakes are HARD, and always have a lot of drag. Mach 6 is almost hypersonic and is like 100x harder and much much more drag. Every single SSTO using some form of air breathing always propose air intake drag figures that are pure magic and fantasy. Spaceships are not airplanes and you can't armwave away the thermodynamics of supersonic airflow.

[@GregEwing]

KSP is awesome. But it is utterly terrible (read 1000% wrong) at aerodynamics.

[@ultimatesteve9647]

It's a lot better than it used to be. Pre 1.0 the aero was pretty bad but now it's pretty good unless you're trying to actually design something.

[@PATTHECATMCD]

You are correct, a successful SSTO is going to have to use a different method of propulsion than rockets. New technology required. Likely radical design in shape too.

[@LORDVADER357]

It will be like millenium falcon.

[@carldavies4776]

Nope we just need to push existing engineering a little more

[@LORDVADER357]

@@carldavies4776 It must be like millenium falcon. Whole new level of technology is required. UART engines. Spaceship will look and perform like aircraft. Mars colonization require nothing less than star destroyer from star wars sci fi. And moon manned mission nothing less than millenium falcon. A lot more pushing is required but is doable. Its possible.

[@daraphairphire]

SSTOs are ideal for landing on a planet then return to the orbital station without leaving any valuable parts such as the engine of any stages. Their not that great for going to space and then returning.

[@arshawitoelar7675]

Though isn't that a lander, like the LEM but in 1 stage?

[@fattyMcGee97]

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

[@DroningaboutNW]

Dude it was eady to make all 33 mins Tim. You made it golden from minute 1 on

[@TheDaveNY]

I’m on team SSTO. I agree that we don’t yet have the technology to make it viable. However, with a little bit of advancement in materials, propulsion, aerodynamics, and physics, it can be possible and even viable within a decade. Since these 4 disciplines are currently being researched simultaneously, I think we can have huge advancements in short amounts of time. I believe SSTOs will fly regularly and uneventfully in my lifetime.

[@honkhonk8009]

its already possible. Its just that no one wants to put the effort into it. Also with spaceXs system, ssto are kinda useless now.

[@Quickshot0]

I think the potential heat issue you see for the Skylon probably already has solutions for it. For instance, the military of various major powers around the world have now been working on Scramjets for decades and those operate at at least as high a speed as Skylon does in air breathing mode, and some aim much faster. I haven't heard of leaking issues in the officially known test vehicles the USA used. And there are signs that at least some of these nations are getting closer to mass production as well, which would imply they're close or have reached a practical level already for materials that can handle the heat. Secondly, Skylon uses an engine design that gives fairly high thrust to weight ratios. This means it shouldn't be staying at these speeds for all that long, thus giving less time to heat up. (The moment they reach speed, they'd switch to rocket mode to climb and accelerate further after all) Thirdly the fuel is extremely cold (being liquid hydrogen) , which should allow them to use it to cool the exterior surface of the craft to an extent, it seems plausible that they could counteract major heating problems with that, especially as this is exactly what they're doing to keep the engine from melting as well. Of course, even if the above is all true, it's still not the same as having built an actual functional plane yet. But the recent joining of several commercial partners is giving me the suspicion that either they're now willing to take a larger risk due to SpaceX, or that with the cooler design for the engine now showing promise that it will work in the real world, that the risks aren't as large any more. (It's also worth noting the Skylon project is in a sense an extension of the Hotol project, which failed for various reasons, but I believe a major one was that they at the time couldn't make a good enough engine which thus the SABRE in theory resolves) ---- On a side note, a reusable SSTO in theory should have a faster turn around then a two stage reusable rocket. Which would let you more quickly recover capital costs and thus reduce overall running costs.(Because you don't have to put the two parts together constantly and the extra complications and risks this inevitably brings with it) Still SSTO only really work if you can some how get sufficiently high ISP, otherwise the mass fraction just isn't good enough to compete with a multi-stage system. (Or if you can cheat yourself out of not needing to carry a lot of the fuel)

[@ooppiiee]

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.

[@jaratt85]

Aerospike engines are really the only option for a true SSTO rocket platform. They are the only thing that are just as efficient at any altitude, the only limiter would be weight and having fuel that can withstand space if you need to relight it.... which is where things like TEB come in. The space plane idea of taking off on any runway and then climbing to altitude and somehow overcoming gravity is never going to work until we have engines that don't run on liquid or gas fuels but run on a clean fission reactor or something. The amount of fuel required to go from the ground to high altitude and the heat generated on the skin of the plane would make it a no go. It'd have to be WAY too huge to hold all the fuel and then it'd just be empty weight as your fuel got low. (look at how much fuel the SR71 guzzled and how it had to cope with heat at Mach 3+ and because it was so hot and flew so high it had to have a specially made fuel called JP7 and had to use TEB to light it's after burners... it also had special engines that were part conventional jet part ram jet) Now the plane carried aloft under the wing of another plane like the X15 and then launching to space would work, but that's not SSTO. (don't talk to me about the Virgin program I think it's fake)

[@MichaelClark-uw7ex]

You still need reaction mass, even an ion engine uses reaction mass. You will need to carry that mass, no way around it.

[@Allan_aka_RocKITEman]

Tim has now done a vid on Aerospikes.

[@bruhmoment9413]

Those binoculars you are wearing are the same type I had as as a kid.

[@Jonassoe]

Imagine a civilization living on a much smaller planet somewhere out there, routinely launching reuseable SSTO's. Basically ever since they discovered flight, which would have been early because you don't need that much lift on their planet.

[@remliqa]

I would also like to imagine a civilisation that is much more advanced than us but still haven't achieved spaceflight at all due to living on a high gravity planet.

[@EricDec]

What about a civilization that just doesn't care. Most discoveries about aviation have been made in the US and in Europe. Without those places, mankind would have evolved into a non-flying civilization.

[@hush6149]

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!

[@petersmythe6462]

"This rocket was *revolutionary.* " October revolutionary.

[@robotbob1860]

*Loads rifle with Communist intent*

[@miro302]

@@robotbob1860 don't forget to postpone it for 1 month, but don't bother renaming

[@jannikn1606]

@@miro302 You are aware that for the Russians the October Revolution was in October, just not for the rest of us because they used a different Calendar than the western world back then.

[@ordukargath2844]

Soviet anthem intensifies.

[@Solstice42]

This was good - how about a SSTO based on a linear mass driver built on Earth?

[@richardcaldwell6159]

I've pondered putting an accelerator on a mountain so the rocket engine starts up at lower atmospheric pressure and further from Earth's center. But the alternative, piggybacking on a plane, is easier and more flexible.

[@technicallydifficulties7094]

Matt Lowne wants to - *know your location*

[@nicolamccabe3017]

Hello

[@Kataclysm113]

one thing you missed, most functional ssto vehicles in ksp have more than one type of engine, and switch to more appropriate ones based on the conditions as the flight goes on, which is the smart thing to do instead of adding more fuel or more identical engines. that being said, as it breaks down, an ssto is still less efficient than a multi stage craft, because assuming you break it down and remove the variables by giving both the same engines, and activating them at the same altitude, and assuming every stage is reusable and not factoring in maintenance costs, the staged vehicle is more efficient because it doesnt have to carry the extra dry weight of the previously used engines and the fuel tanks that supplied them.