XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, sci.space.policy, sci.physics   
   From: tkoenig@netcologne.de   
      
   Jeff Findley  schrieb:   
   > In article ,   
   > tkoenig@netcologne.de says...   
   >>   
   >> Jeff Findley  schrieb:   
   >>   
   >> > We've had this debate a long, long time ago in the sci.space newsgroups.   
   >> > The fact is that there are many stages which are theoretically capable   
   >> > of performing SSTO with minimal payload.  No one has ever done it   
   >> > because the cost to get that payload into orbit is typically higher than   
   >> > it would be if you just used a smaller TSTO (or higher number of   
   >> > stages).  In other words, it just makes no sense to fly a disposable   
   >> > SSTO.   
   >>   
   >> There are also other considerations to take into account.   
   >>   
   >> One of them is mechanical. A first stage flying with a much smaller   
   >> payload than the current second stage + actual payload would   
   >> have much lower mass towards the end of the burn, resulting in   
   >> higher acceleration and higher mechanical stress.  Buckling could   
   >> be something that needed to to be guarded against, as could be   
   >> outright failure due to compression stress.   
   >   
   > That's a solved problem.   
      
   It is a problem which can be solved, at a possible cost to   
   performance (added mass).   
      
   I doubt it has been solved for all of the "many stages" you   
   mentioned.  That would have been counterproductive to the   
   primary mission, and would probably have been regarded as   
   an error.   
      
   Can you elaborate which stages this was solved for, how, why,   
   and where you got the info from?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)