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

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.

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.

Haha I am 9 years old lol

Sahaj SpaceEX Haha you’re too young to have a RU-vid account

Wow

Oh my gosh

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

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???

China March 5b moment

Godd one

Valid point.

good one

You got me there

you mean foolish kerbal

Kraken is proper spelling

Wat the heck

There aren't any 600 m rockets but ok

Sia

Lol

Yes Matt lowneeeeeee

Yep

WHISKEY

I was gonna comment this

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?*

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

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"

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

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

That first minute has to hurt oof

lol

Fly safe

Latt Mowne?

Lol

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.

Submarines

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

XDDDDD

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

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.

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.

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.

Well shucks!! Thank you!!! 🙏🙏🙏

@@EverydayAstronaut hi tim love your content your so inspirational

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.

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

“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.

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!

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?

Amerak same here!

Gay

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?

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

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

kek

haha you said here

pp joke

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

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?

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.

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

@@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.

+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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?!

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

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).

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 =) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-zeNytM7JdYY.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...

Scoddri yes, trebuchets are much better

Its trebuchets or nothing!

*cries in ballista*

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

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.

@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.

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.

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

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.

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

More like a space elevator.

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

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

but goddamnit youd be dropping down from the sky with style.

​@@barren514 Either one works well, except for with EA every rocket for the first 6 months would explode for a different reason, each time with paying customers on it. With Apple, you'd get the same failure 1 out of 5 times, and they would never do anything to fix it, claiming that the design is "perfect".

@@barren514 Reentry heatshield DLC

@@44R0Ndin "you're holding the rocket controls wrong" ... thanks Apple! :D

you forgot to buy the thunderbolt adapter so you cant plug in the 2nd stage. But here, buy this bluetooth engine and use it to levitate the main stage upwards ;D

bjooo same situation here

Same bro

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