From: bondage@frontiernet.net   
      
   Russell Wallace wrote:   
   >   
   > On 9 Jan 2004 07:57:30 GMT, James Logajan  wrote:   
   >   
   > >Depends on the objective. If one's intent is a SSTO _and_ SSTE (Single   
   > >Stage to Earth) RLV then I'd expect a designer would not want to deal with   
   > >the problems of de-orbiting a behemoth.   
   >   
   > Can someone remind me why SSTO is considered a good idea? The Space   
   > Shuttle spends ~75% of its (fairly impressive) lift capacity on   
   > hauling dead weight to orbit that just gets immediately deorbited   
   > again; for an SSTO the figure would presumably be even worse. What's   
   > the corresponding advantage?   
      
      Greatly simplified operations, coming from not having to pick up and   
   return (or replace) all the pieces, refurbush where needed, and   
   re-intergrate them. Full checkout of one set of engines before launch   
   commit, rather than count on successful staging, and ignition at   
   altitude of 'upper stage' engines. Assorted other things we unspokenly   
   take for granted where aircraft are involved. Few vehicles of *any* kind   
   weigh less than their payloads...   
      
      The above should not be taken to assume I have a problem with a small   
   winged TSTO, though....   
      
      
   --   
      
      You know what to remove, to reply....   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)