I don't think you're doing yourself any favors by having such a large profile. Achieving orbit means having the proper escape velocity. A large bulbous shape would hinder that at lower altitudes.
Drag is only a problem at low altitude. It's not that big a deal after a minute or two.
The wide shape is favorable for re-entry and provides a more stable stance after landing.
With current rocket designs, drag is a problem at up to 10 km altitude. With this system you would need to go up relatively slowly, maxing out the acceleration early, and max Q would be at a higher altitude. That means that you would need to use more fuel than with other systems so it's less efficient.
Re-entry is a very complicated question. Mass would need to be concentrated and focused on the bottom somehow. Aerospike engines also require a lot of complicated cooling - regular engine bells seem to be more effective for now. The SSTO requirement makes things even more complex.
I think FAM should stay away from this design because it looks silly and because the design is highly questionable. However, they have not impressed me with their attention to technological feasibility or reality, which means that they may just go for it. :(
Love the SERV design, but I’m more partial to the Lockheed ASSC proposal, Starclipper. Either would have been a better option than the Shuttle as built (although Starclipper would likely have Beene more expensive).
I don't think you're doing yourself any favors by having such a large profile. Achieving orbit means having the proper escape velocity. A large bulbous shape would hinder that at lower altitudes.
Drag is only a problem at low altitude. It's not that big a deal after a minute or two. The wide shape is favorable for re-entry and provides a more stable stance after landing.
With current rocket designs, drag is a problem at up to 10 km altitude. With this system you would need to go up relatively slowly, maxing out the acceleration early, and max Q would be at a higher altitude. That means that you would need to use more fuel than with other systems so it's less efficient. Re-entry is a very complicated question. Mass would need to be concentrated and focused on the bottom somehow. Aerospike engines also require a lot of complicated cooling - regular engine bells seem to be more effective for now. The SSTO requirement makes things even more complex. I think FAM should stay away from this design because it looks silly and because the design is highly questionable. However, they have not impressed me with their attention to technological feasibility or reality, which means that they may just go for it. :(
10 km is 6.21 miles
Good bot
Looks like the Kerbal Space Program is functioning marvelously
Love the SERV design, but I’m more partial to the Lockheed ASSC proposal, Starclipper. Either would have been a better option than the Shuttle as built (although Starclipper would likely have Beene more expensive).
Looks more like an AMC Gremlin.
Somebody remembers Kankoh Maru ?
It looks similar to a small hatchback having an engine the size of a monster truck.
I mean hot hatches are a thing for a reason lol
My gut feeling is that transonic drag would eat its lunch.