On 2016-09-27 21:10, Henry Spencer wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2016, Rand Simberg wrote:
... If and when SSTO achieves the operational advantages (=
cost reductions) that it's capable of in principle, there will be ways
to boost its performance, or augment it with other systems, to deal
with missions that are beyond its unaided capabilities.
I don't think that refueling a launch system on orbit would be cost competitive with a pure in-space orbit-transfer system; far too much parasitic mass.
It probably wouldn't be competitive with such a system that already
existed. However, it might be of some use as a temporary measure in
the absence of such a system, given that development takes more time
and money than flying already-existing hardware a few extra times.
As I said, SSTO makes sense for high traffic to low inclination, but not as a general-purpose launcher.
If the SSTO is sufficiently cheaper than the "general purpose
launcher" (whatever that is), people will find ways to enhance it, or
supplement it with auxiliaries, to add the missing capabilities.
Insisting that it must be considered in isolation, rather than as part
of a system, is a relic of the artillery-rocket mindset.
