The available evidence suggests quite the opposite on all those points. The main issue is that a spaceplane simply won't have "aircraft-like" operations - it's much more like a vertical take-off rocket with wings than an aircraft. And those wings eat payload fraction and hence costs.
And wings needed for HT are much different than those for HL.
Another aspect that is typically overlooked is that powered vertical landings literally burn engine life and thus impact reusability. A passive structure like a wing typically also poses far fewer failure modes and risks than an active one like a rocket engine.
Yes, orbiters (Shuttle and Buran) with large bays are payload fairings. Crews are not needed for them
Starship isn't going to be flying crew for several years and many scores of flights and will be proven. I have flown in helicopters, they don't have wings and gliding is not a given. I rather fly in a capsule than Shuttle or Buran,
Wrong, look in the mirror. And here:
Starships uses flight testing vs ground tests. Starship is doing the same thing as the N1, just cheaper. Don't have to build expensive test stands.
With modern avionics, there is no situation where jet engines would help. A go around is just not feasible.
Even if X-30 or Skylon worked, it doesn't mean that they would have aircraft-like operations or would be cheaper and safer.
It sounds obvious that SSTO will be lower cost and simpler but it's actually the opposite. TSTO is much simpler which drives lower up front development costs in particular. Then the higher payload fraction to orbit drives lower costs per kg.
The only thing that dictates multi-STO is the propulsion technology we currently have available. Imagine that some day soon someone invents something that outstrips chemical rocket propulsion significantly, both in terms of energy density, specific impulse, fuel mass required etc etc and thus making SSTO viable. At that point why would anyone choose TSTO? You can get rid of all the wastage, collection of spent stages (and all the associated costs), etc. I appreciate there's far more to it, but its just a few short steps from Concorde. Difficult to maintain, yes. Expensive, yes. Technically difficult, hell yes. A genuine step forward, yes. Will costs come down with technology maturity and development, of course.
Duh, nobody is arguing that. All this talk is wrt chemical propulsion. If what you state happens, then more than just space launch changes. Air vehicles in general and in space maneuvering changes drastically (short transit times).
I find that using childish language when in a discussion with your peers tends to reduce their opinion of your intelligence. And there I was thinking this forum was a place for mutual respect. I think I was about twelve the last time I belittled someone using"duh".
I've been thinking about this point recently with going through the HOTOL book. We're used to technology advancing as a general principle, but in some areas it doesn't change that much. e.g. I'm not sure anything has significantly changed for spacecraft structures from the 80s. Nothing like say a 20% mass reduction....
These concepts can produce concepts with lower take-off mass than conventional rockets from reduced fuel burn. But fuel is "cheap" and the air collection and wings etc. add quite a lot extra to the empty mass - which is the expensive bit. At some point you go full rocket and have negligible drag so this extra empty mass hurts in this phase.
CFRP tech was still reasonably immature in the 90s . Certainly for the likes of lightweight pressure vessel design which is what really doomed the X-33. Now consider that the 787 has a CFRP fuselage and when that entered service. So the tech has come a long way, but has taken a long time to achieve the performance necessary. Plus think of all the myriad other small improvements to other technologies that would no doubt be used. Continued shrinking of electronic components, HMI replaced with touchscreens etc. imagine what 30 years continued high investment into aerospikes might have led to.
No, not with chemical propulsion. It isn't ground operations and operating costs. The rocket equation says no. Can't get a mass fraction that makes an SSTO with a"viable" payload much less a reusable one. Once you start adding mass to allow for reusability, the mass fraction goes to crap.
Making silly statements tends to do the same for the poster
Thus my support for wet workshops.
Nope, Wet workshops are worse.
There is nothing that supports that claim. No engineering or data but again "hearsay, feelings and bias,"
again, no engineering or data to back that claim.
Wrong, there is no realistic material (other than unobtainium) that can help
That is so wrong. it is just silly to even say. it is just being a pointless contrarian.
wrong, there is no need for any propulsion upon entry. With current avionics, there is no scenario where engines are needed. It is impossible to have a velocity shortfall without an avionics failure and the same failure would prevent engines from helping. There is no capability for a go around. Wings and fuel load prevent that.
I agree there's been advancement on the CFRP side, but this isn't really making it lighter. It's more been about manufacturability, repeatability, robustness etc. Reality has turned out quite different to the predicted 15-20% savings back in the 80s.
