/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11994943
Not you're thinking like a Max Faget.

>>11847620
>The idea that you can have a larger shuttle for the first stage is ludicrous
I disagree. The first stage shuttle wouldn't need any payload bays which would significantly decrease the relative dry mass required.

>>11731272
I wonder what made NASA scrap the winged upper stage on top of a winged booster concept. I know NASA went for the SRBs because they had to improve the lift off thrust to be able to carry heavier payloads, but what made NASA change to the winged upper stage with an external tank?

>>11260669
>I've been wondering why no one's ever developed anything like this yet, it's so obvious.
Because the Shuttle was the primary reusable launch vehicle of the US and it sucked so much that it stopped any other attempts of reusability until SpaceX and Blue Origin came along.

Also, older concepts of the Shuttle had a winged first stage.

>>11254415
Aye, dolphin sex.

>>10858942
I think it launches vertically and lands horizontally. It's the sibling to "Starship but with a dolphin fetish".

>>10839951
Shuttle DC-3, NASA.
http://www.astronautix.com/s/shuttledc-3.html