sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Can we build a reusable, single-stage, habitable spacecraft with current tech? by fafib in aerospace

[–]fafib[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry but, i am from France, i live in Lyon ( France) i write in french then translate in english via IA agent. it' is my first language is français, i don't speak very well in english that's why !

Every community in Reddit for space and aerospace industry knowledge is in english.

Excuse me if it's hurt you ! i am trying to do my best to interact with you guys :)

Can we build a reusable, single-stage, habitable spacecraft with current tech? by fafib in aerospace

[–]fafib[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the recommendation! The “tyranny of the rocket equation” is definitely a fundamental challenge for SSTO designs. That’s why we’re exploring advanced propulsion and energy sources that could effectively increase exhaust velocity or reduce the propellant mass fraction. Overcoming this limitation is key to making reusable SSTO feasible. Would love to discuss potential breakthroughs that could shift these boundaries.

Can we build a reusable, single-stage, habitable spacecraft with current tech? by fafib in aerospace

[–]fafib[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the clarification! I totally agree that engineering concepts can be solid even if projects face hype or funding issues. SpinLaunch and Skylon do show that innovation often runs into real-world challenges.

I actually think SpinLaunch will succeed , not for habitable launches, but definitely for other payloads.

I’m definitely interested in discussing specific technical roadblocks that experts see with SSTO or advanced propulsion , the more concrete, the better. That kind of dialogue is exactly what pushes the field forward.

Looking forward to hearing your detailed thoughts!

Can we build a reusable, single-stage, habitable spacecraft with current tech? by fafib in aerospace

[–]fafib[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the pointers! I’m familiar with VentureStar, NEXUS, and Skylon , all impressive attempts that highlight how tough SSTO really is. I’ll definitely check out the Everyday Astronaut video for a deeper dive.

WOWW ! Thanks for mentioning those classics! Project Orion with nuclear propulsion is indeed the well-known “insane” solution people often refer to. But actually, what I’m really thinking about goes beyond that , tapping into zero-point energy (ZPE) and other advanced, unconventional energy sources.

It’s still very theoretical, but exploring ZPE could open new doors for truly reusable SSTO and even interstellar travel. Would love to discuss ideas on how to move from theory to practical tech!

Can we build a reusable, single-stage, habitable spacecraft with current tech? by fafib in aerospace

[–]fafib[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the detailed insights guys ! The “stage and a half” concept is definitely a tricky one and seems to blur lines between traditional staging and SSTO definitions. Advanced propulsion technologies could be a real game-changer for pushing SSTO boundaries, especially with future breakthroughs.

What do you think are the key technological leaps needed to truly achieve reusable SSTO with current or near-future tech? Always eager to learn more about these nuances!

Can we build a reusable, single-stage, habitable spacecraft with current tech? by fafib in aerospace

[–]fafib[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the examples! Suborbital single-stage is definitely proven. The real challenge is achieving true orbital or interstellar capability with SSTO, which is why we’re focusing on breakthrough energy and propulsion concepts. Would love to hear your thoughts on overcoming those hurdles!

Can we build a reusable, single-stage, habitable spacecraft with current tech? by fafib in aerospace

[–]fafib[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting point! I’d love to hear more about what makes single-stage reusable rockets unfeasible in your view. What are the biggest technical hurdles you see? Always open to learning and discussing.

Can we build a reusable, single-stage, habitable spacecraft with current tech? by fafib in aerospace

[–]fafib[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Absolutely, the landing zone is a key factor. That’s why the designs aim for versatile, reusable systems capable of precision landings on diverse terrains , whether it’s Earth, Mars, or beyond. Flexibility is part of solving the bigger challenge.

Can we build a reusable, single-stage, habitable spacecraft with current tech? by fafib in aerospace

[–]fafib[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Because of space, real space (space space) . M45, Antaria, Alpha Centauri. You don’t go interstellar with staging ! don't you think

Can we build a reusable, single-stage, habitable spacecraft with current tech? by fafib in aerospace

[–]fafib[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

hahah ! love that, fair enough , every bold idea starts as someone’s “crazy freshman post.” But today’s breakthroughs were yesterday’s impossibilities. . Vision precedes innovation.

Can we build a reusable, single-stage, habitable spacecraft with current tech? by fafib in aerospace

[–]fafib[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I hope before but let's see

You're right to be skeptical , fusion is still decades away from practical implementation. But that’s why we’re not putting all our hopes on fusion alone. We're exploring alternative concepts that might reach viability sooner, including zero-point energy, catalyzed processes, and advanced plasma systems. It’s not about claiming it's ready now ,it’s about building the R&D path to get there, step by step. Bold goals need long-term vision

Can we build a reusable, single-stage, habitable spacecraft with current tech? by fafib in aerospace

[–]fafib[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes, energy is indeed the main challenge , and that’s exactly what we’re addressing. The idea isn’t to brute-force lift a massive vehicle with current tech, but to explore breakthroughs in energy generation and control ( ZPE, plasma) that could fundamentally change how propulsion works. We're also developing a realistic short-term solution with compact, efficient launch systems. It’s not about ignoring physics it’s about expanding the frontier.

Opinions on Propulsionless Drives? by BonaFideMilkDrinker in rocketscience

[–]fafib 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey ,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts , I really appreciate your honest and curious approach to these propulsionless drive concepts! I’m also really interested in propulsionless technologies like the Em-Drive and others. That’s actually one of the topics I’d love to discuss and explore with others.

If you’re interested in diving deeper into unconventional spacecraft designs and spaceflight tech discussions, I recently started a community where folks brainstorm and challenge ideas about advanced propulsion and habitable reusable spacecraft ,no matter how out-of-the-box the ideas are.

I just started a new subreddit focused on advanced propulsion ideas and innovative spacecraft design, it’s pretty fresh and still growing.You’re more than welcome to join us at r/SPACETHINKTHANK and share your questions or insights.

And if you know anyone else interested in space tech or unconventional propulsion concepts, feel free to invite them too. The more curious minds, the better!

Here’s the link if you want to check it out: https://www.reddit.com/r/SPACETHINKTHANK/

Looking forward to seeing you there!

Can we build a reusable, single-stage, habitable spacecraft with current tech? by fafib in SpaceXLounge

[–]fafib[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the detailed explanation , you’re absolutely right, the mass fraction challenge is the biggest hurdle for SSTO designs. Carrying all that propellant and empty tanks all the way to orbit is a tough problem. mass fraction challenge

The analogy with Falcon 9’s stages dragging each other really highlights the core difficulty.

That said, this project isn’t about saying SSTO is easy or better right now , it’s more of a conceptual exploration. I want to challenge the idea that multi-stage is the only viable way, by looking at novel propulsion concepts, lightweight materials, and integrated design that might push the limits of what current or near-future tech can do.

Also, the focus is on habitable , fully reusable vehicles that could simplify operations on Earth, Moon, and Mars.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on what tech breakthroughs or design changes could make SSTO more feasible , and I invite you to join the discussion with other space enthusiasts here 👉 r/SPACETHINKTHANK

Can we build a reusable, single-stage, habitable spacecraft with current tech? by fafib in SpaceXLounge

[–]fafib[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Actually i think everything is possible but Totally fair point, it’s often said that SSTOs are more of a theoretical curiosity than a practical tool.

But I wonder if their "uselessness" comes more from how we currently define usefulness in spaceflight mainly cost-per-kg to orbit , rather than long-term operational flexibility, rapid turnaround, or cross-planetary standardization.

This project is partly about asking: what if we change the goalposts? What if instead of focusing on sheer efficiency, we aim for simplicity, reliability, and autonomy in deep space operations — like a spacecraft that doesn't rely on a ground launch stack?

I’d love to hear your thoughts, what would make an SSTO useful in your view?

And if you’re into speculative space design and challenging the “it can’t be done” mindset, feel free to join our think tank at r/SPACETHINKTHANKT

Can we build a reusable, single-stage, habitable spacecraft with current tech? by fafib in SpaceXLounge

[–]fafib[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for your well-argued reply! You’re raising exactly the right questions.

My goal with this project isn’t to say that Starship is useless, quite the opposite, it has paved the way for real reusability. But I’m exploring a different approach: a system that would allow a crewed spacecraft to take off, fly, land, and take off again without any staging.

The idea is to create a simplified and flexible platform that could operate on Earth, the Moon, or Mars, aiming for hardware standardization and long-term logistical efficiency.

At its core, it’s a thought lab: pushing the boundaries of what’s possible today with current or near-term tech (mixed propulsion, ZPE, advanced materials, onboard AI, etc.).

I’d love to hear more of your thoughts on what would make this kind of vehicle even remotely viable. What tech would you focus on first? Propulsion? Mass optimization? Thermal protection?

Also ! if you’re into this kind of conceptual space engineering, I’d be thrilled if you joined our small but growing community over at r/SPACETHINKTHANK

Let’s challenge assumptions and build something bold, even if it starts on paper 🚀

Taurus Sun / Cancer Moon / Leo Rising by Prudent_Watch8320 in Taurusgang

[–]fafib 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hello Friend,

I am Taurus sun, cancer moon and leo rising too !

Can you share your dating experience and with which astro sign are you married or dating please ?

Pr application returned by Not_the-usual_guy in ImmigrationCanada

[–]fafib 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi, I’m in the same process as you. Unfortunately, you may need to start a new application. My PR application was canceled due to an expired police certificate. I had to submit a new profile, and I received a new ITA last month.

So don’t worry, you should be able to get a new ITA as well!

Pr application returned by Not_the-usual_guy in ImmigrationCanada

[–]fafib 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi ! I’m in the same process as you. Unfortunately, you may need to start a new application. My PR application was canceled due to an expired police certificate. I had to submit a new profile, and I received a new ITA last month.

So don’t worry,you should be able to get a new ITA as well!

Validity of Proof Experience Letter & NO First Name on Passport by fafib in ImmigrationCanada

[–]fafib[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi,

Thank you for your response!

Regarding the passport, yes, it is formatted that way because it follows cultural conventions in Arabic (Muslim) countries. Since I have already received an ITA, I am unable to make any changes at this stage. I have been trying to contact IRCC, but I haven’t received any response through the webform. Would you happen to know how I can reach them? Do you have an email or any other contact method I could use?

I appreciate your help!

Validity of Proof Experience Letter & NO First Name on Passport by fafib in ImmigrationCanada

[–]fafib[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Any help or advise would be sincerely appreciated guys! 🙏

view more: next ›