Contents

Talk:Two-stage-to-orbit

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Aviation This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion not met Engineering Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Rocketry High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RocketryWikipedia:WikiProject RocketryTemplate:WikiProject RocketryRocketry articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Spaceflight High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Technology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Why is TSTO so special

[edit]

Answering "what" is the easy part. "Why" takes actual thought.

I hope today's anonymous editor will tell why a google search for "two stage to orbit" produces 950 results, while "three stage to orbit" generates only 18. What accounts for the 50 fold difference? Why is TSTO so special? Mackerm 08:03, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm, well I finally saw this talk function, only a month later. :)

I think there are three main reasons why TSTO is more commonly thought about than thre stage to orbit.

Firstly, the logistical problems which are annoying with two stages are horrible with three. If you have a 2:1 ratio of first stage to second stage, then the first stage comes down less than 500KM downrange of the launch site; that's managable. It also never reaches very high velocities. With three stages, you're mostly done fighting gravity and atmosphere when the second stage ignites, so it will come down far further away, and you have to put real thought into handling the heat of re-entry. It especially makes alternating polar and equatorial orbits extremely hard, given the same launch site.

Secondly, TSTO is 'good enough.' Assume we can build an SSTO with current technology - which isn't settled, but I'm prepared to believe it. It would need to be around 10% structural mass, and would have structural tolerance margins of between 10% and 25%. Given the same technology, it's fairly trivial to handwave that you can build a TSTO which is 20% sstructural mass and has 100% margins. 100% margins are the norm in commercial aviation; you just stopped talking about a cutting edge research project and started talking about a relatively routine aviation project (well, not quite because the difference between nominal and maximum loading is different between spacecraft and aircraft, but it's roughly correct.)

Thirdly, three stage to orbit would also have to be called TSTO, and since aerospace engineers are only capable of thinking in anacronyms... :)

I'm not too sure how to put any of this onto a page, though. Jamougha

I think the history section should be removed as it is because it hase nothing to to with the topic of this article. While the 14th-century Chinese rockted was a two stage rocket, it did not archive orbit, and therefor is not a two-stage-to-orbit rocket. 78.94.53.130 (talk) 09:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Backendgaming:: As you added this text, I would like to hear your view on whether this should stay in the article or not. 78.94.53.130 (talk) 10:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Used twice but not defined. D=Dual ? (to allow TSTO for Triple?) Propose changing to TSTO. - Rod57 (talk) 08:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would Falcon 9 (not Heavy, seeing heavy would be more of a 3STO) and Blue Origin be considered as (partial) Reusable TSTO? George Leung (talk) 06:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]