New Mars Forums

tahanson43206

Moderator

Registered: 2018-04-27

Posts: 19,360

FR-TSTO policy

FR-TSTO Fully Reusable Two Stage to Orbit

I asked ChatGPT4o to address the dilemma we are facing, in trying to envision and talk about a technology that only exists today in the form of the X-37b space plane, and it's Chinese counterpart. ChatGPT4o thought about the question, consulted it's training data and came up with a new term which you have the opportunity to introduce to the world, through our forum.

Introducing a New Term: Fully Reusable Two Stage to Orbit (FR-TSTO)

Introduction
As advancements in space exploration continue, the need for precise terminology becomes increasingly important. With the advent of fully reusable launch systems, it's time to introduce a term that accurately describes these innovative spacecraft.

Proposed Term: Fully Reusable Two Stage to Orbit (FR-TSTO)

Definition
FR-TSTO stands for Fully Reusable Two Stage to Orbit. This term describes a spacecraft system that:

• Uses two stages to reach orbit.

• Is fully reusable, with both stages designed to return safely to Earth for subsequent missions.

Examples of F R-T S T O Systems
1. SpaceX Starship and Superheavy
   

• Starship: The upper stage that reaches orbit and returns, landing vertically using retropropulsion.

• Superheavy: The first stage booster that returns to Earth and lands using retropropulsion.

2. Dream Chaser (with a reusable first stage)

3. Military Orbital Vehicles
   

• The US and Chinese military are developing spaceplanes that reach orbit and glide back to land.

• If launched on reusable boosters, they fit the FR-TSTO model.

Benefits of the Term

• Clarity: Clearly distinguishes from Single Stage to Orbit (SSTO) and traditional Two Stage to Orbit (TSTO) systems.

• Specificity: Emphasizes full reusability and the operational concept involving two stages.

• Innovation Acknowledgment: Recognizes the technological advancements enabling fully reusable systems.

Conclusion
The term Fully Reusable Two Stage to Orbit (FR-TSTO) provides a precise and descriptive label for these advanced spacecraft systems. It reflects the direction of modern space exploration, highlighting the capability to reach orbit without discarding any components. By adopting this term, we can better describe and discuss these groundbreaking developments in space technology.

(th)

SpaceNut

Administrator

From: New Hampshire

Registered: 2004-07-22

Posts: 29,431

Re: FR-TSTO policy

currently the starship fits into this type of rocket. Also, a carrier plane and rocket would also fit this as well. Then again, the Space Launch Initiative (SLI) was 2 planes doing a rocket plane design.

Here a list of tsto not reusable rockets
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-stage-to-orbit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_Initiative

tahanson43206

Moderator

Registered: 2018-04-27

Posts: 19,360

Re: FR-TSTO policy

For SpaceNut re new Forum....

Thanks very much for providing this new opportunity for NewMars members to contribute to what I am hoping will be a robust collection of topics about the systems that are in development.

To the best of my knowledge, we do not currently have a system that qualifies for this topic, but the military X-37b could qualify if it flies on a Falcon Heavy and all lift elements are landed safely.

However, the trend lines seem favorable, so this new forum is available for NewMars members to track each vehicle.  My concept for this forum is that each design would get it's own topic.

(th)

SpaceNut

Administrator

From: New Hampshire

Registered: 2004-07-22

Posts: 29,431

Re: FR-TSTO policy

Should we move the space x BFR/starship to this new forum?

There are also 2 other versions that proceeded this version that is being worked on currently.

edit update

Yes, the Facon 9 and its heavy version are a 2-stage rocket, but the second stage is replaced and not recovered on any launch as its expended.

tahanson43206

Moderator

Registered: 2018-04-27

Posts: 19,360

Re: FR-TSTO policy

For SpaceNut .... let's hold off ... there are NO systems that meet the requirements of this topic.

Let's welcome new systems into the topic when they are working.

Starship is close!  If it flies and lands the vehicle next month it would qualify.

If it fails to land the vehicle, then we can just wait a bit longer.

Update .... It seems to me we might want to wait until the system actually flies both components a second time.

The qualification to show in this topic is reusability of each stage.  Just landing both stages is not proof the system is fully operational.

(th)

tahanson43206

Moderator

Registered: 2018-04-27

Posts: 19,360

Re: FR-TSTO policy

For SpaceNut ....

This is an entire forum dedicated to a very important new technology.

While I have recommended holding off on creating topic for systems that are in development, I also recognize our members will be interested in ideas that are floated for systems that might qualify.

Let's think about how we might like to set things up, before we make a lot of topics.

Anyone can create a topic already, so one option is to just let our members create topics as they are inspired.

(th)

RobertDyck

Moderator

From: Winnipeg, Canada

Registered: 2002-08-20

Posts: 7,929

Website

Re: FR-TSTO policy

Should I post old proposals? In 1968 NASA published requirements for Shuttle. At that time it was required to be fully reusable TSTO, carry 7 astronauts and 11 metric tonnes of supplies for a space station. No cargo bay door because it would be used for supplies and internal equipment only. Construction would be done with a big dumb rocket, Saturn 1B or its replacement. It was expected to be a piloted fly-back booster and lifting body orbiter. In 1969 two contractors submitted bids.

Lockheed: Shuttle LS A - based on X-24A

McDonnell Douglas Corporation: Shuttle MDC A - based on HL-10

Last edited by RobertDyck (2024-05-30 20:49:02)

tahanson43206

Moderator

Registered: 2018-04-27

Posts: 19,360

Re: FR-TSTO policy

For RobertDyck re #7

Thanks for contributing these interesting historical proposals....

And thanks for asking ... This is a brand new forum, with a lot of upside potential.

Providing future readers with a wealth of historical examples would be part of the mix...

I vaguely recall those proposals ... they must have reached the public somehow.

The key is that the original design was for the fully reusable capability. 

Since we do not yet have ** any ** systems that qualify, I think a historical topic about this design would be valuable for study.

Thanks again for asking!

Please feel free to create a topic for this proposal.

Posts can link to any historical resources that our members can find.

(th)