The next step outward is a step backwards???

[Sofaspud]

ECSNorway wrote:

---

Two words, ladies and gentlemen.




Lifting. Body.

I'm failing to understand your point.

A lifting-body design is all well and good, but to reach orbit it still requires thrust. Further, as the atmospheric density decreases, the amount of lift
generated follows suit, requiring more thrust to maintain altitude.

It is still not fuel-efficient enough to justify the enormous expense of SSTO designs.

Now, you could argue that a lifting-body design, coupled with some sort of acceleration mechanism (linear magnetic catapult, for example), and taking
advantage of ramscoop velocities, *could* be a viable, relatively fuel-efficient method of reaching orbit -- and further, the lifting body design would in
theory make for safer, easier landings upon reentry.

But then you're faced with other problems, such as safety and reliability of the catapult, what happens if a bird or a suicidal teenager wanders onto the
track, and so on.

I'm failing to see other scenarios where a "lifting body" is the solution, and the two here aren't really options at the moment.

--sofaspud
--"Listening to your kid is the audio equivalent of a Salvador Dali painting, Spud." --OpMegs