fllggggFiraOf?

gTATBMSHT ft
ÄBppcoved to ßuciie rei&asei ,
V*

SSTO RLVs: MORE GLOBAL REACH?

A STUDY OF THE USE OF SINGLE STAGE TO ORBIT
REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLES AS AIRLIFT PLATFORMS

GRADUATE RESEARCH PAPER

John R. Stafford, Major, USAF

AFIT/GMO/L AL/96N-13 cvi

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

AIR UNIVERSITY

AIR FORCE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio

[BEKJ QUALITY INSEECIBD 3

AFIT/GMO/L AL/96N-13

SSTO RLVs: MORE GLOBAL REACH?

A STUDY OF THE USE OF SINGLE STAGE TO ORBIT
REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLES AS AIRLIFT PLATFORMS

GRADUATE RESEARCH PAPER

John R. Stafford, Major, USAF

AFIT/GMO/LAL/96N-13

UTIC QUALITY INBPECSED 3

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited

The views expressed in this graduate research paper are those
of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position
of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government.
AFIT/GMO/L AL/96N-13

SSTO RLVs: MORE GLOBAL REACH?

A STUDY OF THE USE OF SINGLE STAGE TO ORBIT

REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLES AS AIRLIFT PLATFORMS

GRADUATE RESEARCH PROJECT

Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of

Logistics and Acquisition Management of the

Air Force Institute of Technology

Air University

Air Education and Training Command

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

Degree of Master of Air Mobility

John R. Stafford, B.S., MA.

Major, USAF

November 1996

Approved for public release, distribution unlimited

 Acknowledgments

I am deeply indebted to Major Ed Spaulding at the Space and Missile Center, El

Segundo, California. Without his records, insight, contacts, and encouragement this

paper would not have been possible. In addition, Dr. William Gaubatz, SSTO Program

Manager at McDonnell Douglas Aerospace, Huntington Beach, California provided

invaluable insight into SSTO RLV systems and the Delta Clipper program. I appreciate

all the time he devoted to increasing my understanding. Other people who contributed

significantly to this work include Major Fritz Koennecke, Michael Mihara, Steve Cook,

Bob Baumgartner, Dr. David Vaughan, and Ray Smiljanic.

I would also like to acknowledge the patience and assistance of my advisor, Dr.

William Cunningham, who kept me on the right track.

Maj John R. Stafford

n
 Table of Contents

Page

Acknowledgments ii

List of Figures v

List of Tables vi

Abstract vii

I. Introduction 1

Background .' 1
Importance of Research 6
Problem Statement 8
Questions to be Resolved 9
Overview of Research 10

II. Source and Information Overview 11

Introduction 11
Previous Work 12

III. Discussion of the SSTO RLV Development 17

Overview 17
Proposed SSTO RLV Capabilities 21
Current Program Development Status 34
Summary 39

IV. Findings and Analysis 40

Overview 40
Cost Data 40
Analysis 47
Summary 48

m
 Page

V. Conclusions and Recommendations 50

Overview 50
Conclusions 51
Recommendations 52
Future Research 53

Appendix A: Acronyms and Terminology 55

Appendix B: Points of Contact 60

Bibliography 61

Vita 67

IV
 List of Figures

Figure page

1. SSTO Timetable 5

2. Airlift Objectives g

3. Global Coverage of SSTO 18

4. Delta Clipper Operational System 23

5. SSTO Vehicles 28

6. SSTO Ground Support 37

7. Space Demand Varies With Cost 47

 List of Tables

Table Page

1. SSTO Comparisons 20

2. SSTO Costs Per Flight 41

3. Fuel/Gross Weight Ratios and Fuel Costs 43

4. Military Aircraft vs. SSTO Cost Distribution 44

5. Time and Cost By Mode 45

6. Transportation Mode Cost and Time Ratios 48

VI
AFIT/GMO/LAL/96N-13

Abstract

The US military must think creatively to exploit potentially useful developing

technologies in the pursuit of national security. Single Stage to Orbit (SSTO) Reusable

Launch Vehicles (RLVs) are currently under cooperative development by NASA, the Air

Force, and the aerospace industry in the pursuit of assured commercial and national

access to space. The transportation elements of DoD (Air Mobility Command and

USTRANSCOM) have the opportunity to exploit these rapid transit technologies to

advance "Global Reach for America." The SSTO RLV is a single stage rocket that will

be completely reusable, similar to an aircraft, yet deliver a C-130 size cargo anywhere on

the planet in less than one hour. Industry, Air Force, and NASA sources were

investigated to assess the projected capabilities and costs of the SSTO system.

This paper reviews the proposed capabilites of the SSTO system, discusses the

current status of the development and test program, compares the proposed capabilities

with current DoD and commercial transportation modes and costs, and recommends that

Air Mobility Command, as airlift agent for USTRANSCOM and DoD as a whole, should

pursue development and limited acquisition of SSTO RLVs for use as airlift platforms.

Vll
 SSTO RLVs: MORE GLOBAL REACH?

A STUDY OF THE USE OF SINGLE STAGE TO ORBIT

REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLES AS AIRLIFT PLATFORMS

I. Introduction

'Time is everything; five minutes make the difference between victory and defeat. "

Admiral Lord Nelson (Tsouras, 1992:434)

"It is better to be in the right place with ten men than absent with ten thousand. "

Tamerlane (Tsouras, 1992: 434)

Background

Air Mobility Command (AMC) is expending considerable effort to evaluate and

develop the next generation of tanker aircraft and the replacement for the C-5. While

both pursuits are in keeping with an extrapolation of our current defense needs into the

future, they should also consider options "outside the box" or paradigm. Specifically, the

US military must consider exploiting developing technologies that may offer aerospace

craft capable of improving national capabilities, or even offering new capabilities. The

Single Stage To Orbit (SSTO) Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) is such a craft. Global

Reach proponents may attempt to dismiss SSTO RLVs as spaceships that belong to
United States Space Command (USSPACECOM) or the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA). In an orbital role, replacing the Space Shuttle as the primary

means of satellite launch and other space operations, they may be correct. But SSTO

vehicles offer a suborbital as well as orbital surface-to-surface transportation option

superior to the National Aerospace Plane (NASP) touted several years ago. When a

shipper can place 11,340 kg of payload or passengers anywhere on the planet in one hour

or less, and perhaps land on a parking lot instead of a 3000 meter runway, that is a

significant capability.

Research into SSTO designs and reusable craft began with the early rocketry

pioneers, who thought the ideal launch vehicle would consist of only one stage that

discarded only propellant and used a lightweight structure and subsystems to minimize

gross weight, size, and cost (Bekey, 1994b:32). However, technological development

was not good enough at that point to produce such a vehicle. More recent emphasis

began in 1982 when Boeing proposed a sled launched, winged SSTO orbiter to meet

Strategic Air Command's requirement for placing a 9,070 kg payload in polar orbit. The

original design, code named "Science Dawn" proved impractical, but Lockheed and

McDonnell Douglas Aerospace (MDA) joined the project and improved the concept. The

new project, called "Science Realm," encompassed vertical takeoff possibilities. In 1986,

it split into two programs: NASP and "Have Region." The NASP continued the

horizontal takeoff, horizontal land (HTHL) concept, while Have Region gave the rocket

proponents a chance to examine new materials and structures for vertical takeoff, vertical
land (VTVL). Have Region ran until 1989, and along with its predecessors, cost a total

of about $100 million (Dornheim, 1993:46).

In 1989 President George Bush, at the urging of the national Space Council,

issued an updated US National Space Policy. That policy reaffirmed US leadership in

space activities, the use of space to strengthen national security, and the encouragement

of commercial use and exploitation of space (ACSC, 1995: vol. 5,18-7 to 18-16).

Toward this end, Bush's National Space Policy Directive identified the need to develop

"a new space launch system to reduce cost and improve reliability and responsiveness"

(Aldridge, 1993:241). Vice President Quayle assigned development of the project

designs to the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO), putting emphasis on

reusable single stage vehicles (Port, 1993:119). In 1989, SDIO signed a $15 million

contract with McDonnell Douglas to develop the reusable SSTO concept. MDA was

awarded the contract based on recent experience in some classified reentry vehicle

maneuver tests that demonstrated much of the technology required to maneuver an SSTO

for reentry to a vertical landing (Dornheim, 1993:49).

The results of the study led to another contract competition, awarded again to

McDonnell Douglas in 1991, to develop the first prototype SSTO reusable launch vehicle

(Smiljanic et al, 1993: 2). That first vehicle, DC-X (Delta Clipper-Experimental)

successfully completed the last of eight test flights on 7 July 1995. It was a one-third

scale vehicle (approximately 13 meters tall and 4 meters in diameter at the base) designed

to test basic vehicle design, maneuvering ideas, and supportability and maintainability
concepts. Once completed, the vehicle was refurbished with some added technological

features, renamed the DC-XA, and a second phase of flight test conducted (Gaubatz,

1995: 3-5). The final flight concluded on 31 July 1996 after a fire on landing prevented

the fifth test flight (MDA, 1996d: vii, 225).

The success of the DC-X prototype has shattered old paradigms concerning the

mission profiles and roles for space-capable craft. Prior to 11 September 1993 (the first

DC-X flight), rockets were expendable "ammunition"~good only for one flight (Stine,

1994: 65). The Space Shuttle had taken a small step toward reusability, but it's launch

boosters were either expendable or had a long lead time for refurbishment. The Delta

Clipper, VentureStar, and any other SSTO RLVs that develop will truly be reusable.

President Clinton's space policy upholds the development of technologies

supporting a single stage to orbit vehicle (Asker, 1994: 24). In July 1996, the next step of

development was taken when NASA signed a $1.16 billion contract with Lockheed

Martin to develop a half-scale prototype under the program title X-33. Lockheed's

VentureStar is designed to fly up to Mach 15 at altitudes up to 50 miles, and demonstrate

most of the remaining technological advancements to achieve a fully functional SSTO

RLV. The first flight of VentureStar is scheduled for March 1999 (Leary, 1996). One of

those technological hurdles is the development of high technology "scramjet" engines

loosely based upon NASP concept. Lockheed's aerospike engines will be the

culmination ofthat research when they are produced (Cook, 1996c: WWWeb).

Assuming a successful program, the full scale prototype is estimated to be complete by

2003, and commercial production and operation beginning in 2004 or 2005 (Gaubatz,

undated-a:2-3). See Figure 1 SSTO Timetable below:

FY 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Phase!
Base Technology Technology
Program Outputs
X7

Technology
Components

I
Right Demonstration
Program Technology
Inputs
DC-XA
O Operations iDeäofvBuHdEIüa
□ Advanced
Technology
PHASE I Multiple
Concept Studies
MDA/ Boeing
RLV, X-33 Project
Q Operations Lockheed
Q Mass Fraction Hockwell In'» Operational System Decision
^ Design/Build
Phase II X-33 Advanced
Operational System ^ Technology Demonstrations
Program X-33 Decision
Full-Scale Development Commercial
and Certification Operation /^
□ Commercial Destgn/Build/F8ghtTest Certification
Involvement
Reducing ma Risk tor Commercial Space Transportation

Figure 1. SSTO Timetable (Gaubatz, undated-a: 3)

The United States has relied heavily upon the Space Shuttle for its space launch

needs during the last fourteen years. This system is so costly and manpower intensive

that using it in a suborbital mode would be prohibitively expensive ($15-17,000/kg)

(Ligon, 1996: 122). Nor is it reusable. Besides using expendable boosters, major

portions of the vehicle and its fuel tanks are completely refurbished after each flight,

hence the high cost. No new heavy lift vehicle designs have been developed since the

arrival of the Shuttle, which is itself a twenty year old design. Consequently, the SSTO
RLV is the first practical system available to the Department of Defense (DoD) to

perform in this fast and flexible transportation role. But to perform at an affordable and

reliable level, an aircraft-like supportability and maintainability system must be

implemented. Toward this end, Air Force Space Command (AFSPACECOM) said,

"Airplane supportability experts need to be an integral part of the design and operations

team" (BMDO, 1993).

Importance of Research

As mentioned previously, SSTO RLVs offer an expansion of Global Reach,

providing additional capability to US national security assets. Whether used in the

traditional airlift role, aeromedical evacuation, or as operational support aircraft (OSA),

SSTO RLVs offer a number of advantages previously unavailable. Reusable SSTOs will

very likely be developed to replace the Shuttle for delivery and retrieval of space assets.

AMC should evaluate this technology for application to airlift. This paper will hopefully

provide an introduction to SSTO RLV technology for those people who plan for future

transportation assets in DoD. While current and projected US forces may meet all the

threats of the future adequately, having a very fast, flexible delivery mode of

transportation may mean the difference between success and failure.

The SSTO RLV offers a reusable vehicle to leverage the use of time. Whether

current RLV programs are purchased, or other follow-on vehicles, the concept must be

investigated and considered by our national military and civilian leaders if the US is to

grasp this opportunity.

 The commercial industries recognize the importance of time. The great

Presidential emphasis on supporting development of SSTO is in recognition of the

inability to meet the huge orbital and suborbital demands for launch capability desired by

the commercial market (AFSPACECOM, 1994: 1-2 ). According to a Dr. William

Gaubatz, McDonnell Douglas SSTO Program Manager, Boeing Corporation's aircraft

parts supply branch and Federal Express are both very interested in the McDonnell

Douglas SSTO concept. With a small fleet of reusable SSTO vehicles, Boeing could

reduce its overseas parts distribution infrastructure, run the operation from Seattle, and

save millions of dollars per year. In a similar vein, Federal express built their company

around fast delivery at a premium price. An SSTO fleet would speed overseas shipments

by an order of magnitude, offering even faster service. And if companies were to build

large fleets similar to today's airline fleets, that would offer a significant pool for

potential expansion of the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) to the suborbital and orbital

mode, further enhancing America's Global Reach.

The SSTO RLV is consistent with and enhances the current doctrinal use of airlift

assets. The SSTO directly supports three of the four operational concepts in Joint Vision

2010: dominant maneuver, precision engagement, and focused logistics (Shalikashvili,

1996: 1, 20, 21, 24). Air Force Doctrine Document 30, Airlift Operations, states that:

The power projection capability that airlift supplies is vital since it provides the
flexibility to get rapid reaction forces to the point of crisis with minimum delay.
Accordingly, airlift is viewed as the foundation of US national security at the
strategic level.... Airlift also supports overall US national policy by projecting
American power and influence in a wide range of non-lethal applications of
airpower. (Department of the Air Force, 1995: 2) [Italics added]
Reusable SSTOs will enhance current airlift capability. They also improve on the AMC

ability to meet the airlift objectives of force enablement, force enhancement, and national

policy execution (see Figure 2 Airlift Objectives). Consequently, serious consideration of

the advantages of SSTO RLVs is necessary and consistent with continuously improving

America's Global Reach.

Airlift Functions

•Deploy «Airland Assault -Assert Global Presence

•Sustain »Airborne Assault -Humanitarian Assistance
•Maneuver -Combat Resupply -Disaster Response
•Redeploy «Refugee Assistance
•International Stability

Figure 2. Airlift Objectives (Department of the Air Force, 1995: 3)

Problem Statement

Air Mobility Command, as airlift agent for the United States Transportation

Command (USTRANSCOM) and DoD as a whole, must consider airlift options outside
their paradigm. Single stage to orbit RLVs provide a unique transportation opportunity

which must be thoroughly investigated. Only after consideration can they know whether

acquisition of such a rapid, flexible system would provide a suitable option to enhance

national Global Reach capability. Consequently, this paper will determine whether it is

feasible for AMC and USTRANSCOM to use an SSTO RLV as an airlift platform, and

recommend a course of action.

Questions to be Resolved

This paper will explore the SSTO RLV concept-its past, present, and future.

Through that discussion and analysis, several questions will be resolved to provide a

basis for the feasibility decision, and prepare a platform from which further investigation

can be launched by AMC, USTRANSCOM, or other transportation-minded leaders. Is

the SSTO RLV a viable technological concept? The background section in this chapter

has already discussed the confidence the President, NASA, and Air Force leaders have in

this concept as shown by the continuing development of the SSTO concept. In addition,

the subsequent chapters, shall specifically describe how the reusable SSTO offers

significant capability as an airlift platform. If so, what capability would DoD acquire

with the system? These capabilities are projected since full scale prototypes are still some

years off. How much would this capability cost? A service must know how much impact

a program will have on its overall budget. Once a comparison is drawn between the

capability and cost, then it can be compared to other modes to answer: Is this system a

good value compared to other modes of transportation? Finally, a recommendation

based upon on the preceding questions must be made. Should DoD develop and purchase

this system?

Overview of Research

Every nuance of developing and acquiring a new weapon system for AMC or

DoD will not be developed here due to the limited scope of this paper. Even if the author

wanted to, he does not possess the vast technical knowledge nor the programmatic

expertise required to do so. Nor will the author discuss space-bound transportation. Both

NASA and USSPACECOM have the relevant experience and structure to handle putting

things into space. Rather, the paper will explore and justify a recommendation for further

pursuit of SSTO RLVs as airlift platforms by Air Mobility Command, USTRANSCOM,

and DoD. The focus will be upon a suborbital system for rapidly delivering people and

cargo from one location on the earth to another. The paper may also serve as a starting

point for those more skilled in these areas to pursue justification and acquisition of an

SSTO RLV system.

10
 II. Source and Information Overview

"In military operations, time is everything. " The Duke of Wellington, 1800

(Tsouras, 1992:434)

Introduction

When discussing any field of study, one must speak the language to understand

the basic concepts. It is difficult to grasp the concepts involved without knowing and

differentiating the specific terminology used for that particular field: the realm of space

technology is no different. While many terms and acronyms will be used and explained

throughout the text, Appendix A, Acronyms and Terminology summarizes them for ease

of reference. These key words and concepts will lay the foundation for understanding the

rest of the paper, and which may be useful to the reader who explores this topic further.

Since SSTO RLVs must fit into the current airlift structure, it is instructive to

review current airlift doctrine. By doing so, the reader can ascertain that SSTOs can be

easily integrated in the current airlift structure, and discover the ways in which such a

vehicle can enhance those roles and missions. Some of those concepts are spelled out in

this work. However, for those interested in further study, the CJCS Vision 2010. AF

Doctrine Document (AFDD) 30, Airlift Operations, and AFM 1-1, Basic Aerospace

Doctrine of the United States Air Force provide an excellent source of airlift doctrine.

See the Bibliography for specific details.

11
Previous Work

An enormous body of research is available on the broader topics of space

vehicles. SSTO is a more recent development stemming from research on the National

Aerospace Plane (NASP) and the US Space Doctrine. No single book or article

adequately defines the broad range of issues and developments in the SSTO and reusable

space vehicle arena. However, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

(AIAA) publishes a regular series of articles covering the complete spectrum of this

technological frontier.

Seven AIAA articles are quoted throughout this paper. All of them are

presentations from a variety of international forums on space. Carter, Rachel, Corbin,

and Block discuss the vehicle management system for SSTO vehicles in their paper

AIAA 93-0963 (Carter et al, 1993). Items of discussion include vehicle systems

requirements, commonality of hardware and software, software specifics for flight control

and system management, guidance and navigation, crew module interfaces,

communications, supportability, and the integration of these subsystems.

For propulsion systems, Fanciullo and Judd present detailed descriptions of the

engine's reaction control system in AIAA 92-0964 (Franciullo and Judd, 1993).

Holloway and Limerick discuss engine performance requirements, operability, engine

configuration, and the challenges of reusability in AIAA 93-0966 (Holloway and

Limerick, 1993). In AIAA 95-3609, Goracke and Levack discuss the various tri-

propellant engine and fuel options for SSTOs (Goracke and Levack, 1995).

12
 SSTO supportability and ground servicing are covered in AIAA 93-0962 and 93-

0965 respectively. Smiljanic et al write at length about the design of the Delta Clipper

and their attempt to design an aircraft-like maintenance and support regime around it

rather than an expensive and unresponsive rocket support system (Smiljanic et al, 1993).

Rozycki and his three co-authors discuss the ground servicing fluid system design for the

Delta Clipper to handle liquid oxygen (LOX) and liquid hydrogen (LH2) (Rozycki et al,

1993).

Finally, Dr. William Gaubatz and several others from McDonnell Douglas and the

Ballistic Missile Defense Office (BMDO) discuss the development of the first Delta

Clipper vehicle, DC-X, in AIAA 93-4163. Sections include the overall concept and

background, followed by the technologies being demonstrated, the operations and support

concept, design process, aerodynamics, avionics, vehicle management system, software,

and propulsion (Gaubatz et al, 1993).

In addition to AIAA sources, much information has been published by industry

sources concerning SSTO RLV systems. McDonnell Douglas Aerospace has published a

number of articles and reports concerning its Delta Clipper design and its prototypes, the

DC-X and DC-XA. The most informative and comprehensive of the group are the final

test results from the DC-XA, available from McDonnell Douglas as document tracking

number SSRT-96-XA01 through XA04 (MDA, 1996). Such articles and reports provide

detailed information concerning prototype standards and performance, special problems

encountered, detailed test data, photos, and other useful information.

13
02/14/97 FRI 08:25 FAX 703 614 7461 HQ AF/XOXS (g]002

The government has performed several studies „f space ^^ re]ated

topics including the studies mentioned in Chapter 1. In addition AFSPACECOM

developed a Technical Requirements Document (TRD) for the McDonnell Douglas

SSTO system i„ 1993 (AFSPACECOM, .993). They also wrote the Mihtary Aerospace

Vehicle Operational Requirements Document (ORD) in 1994 (AFSPACECOM, 1994).

Both these documents provide the basis for development of the SSTO RLVs. They

define the government requirements, and minimum performance standards in

considerable detail.

Several cos. studies have also been performed. Aerospace Corporation performed

a cos. analysis for development of an SSTO system in September 1993 a, the request of

BMDO, the Space and Missile Center, and AFSPACECOM (Hovden et al, 1993). TTtis

study was very useful and provtded a significant amount of the "government" costs used

in this paper. The other significant cost statistics contributor was an AFSPACECOM

cos, summary for SSTO operational capability completed in November 1993

(AFSPACECOM, 1993b). Nearly all government costs cited cnme from these two

sources. Applied Rescnrch, Inc. performed a cost estimate for Phase II of the SSTO

development program (contract given to Lockheed Martin in July . 996) in October 1993

(TuckerandPanciocco, !993). This estimate served as a benchmark * compare ma

VemureStar system against, especially since detailed cos. figures were unavailable from
Lockheed Martin.

14
 For comparative data on aircraft, the Air Mobility Command Data Book. May

1996 edition, provides excellent cost, range, and payload information (Office, 1996).

Additional information can be sought through the office of primary responsibility, HQ

AMC/QI.

Detailed information about US national space policy can be found in the National

Space Policy Directives. They have been published by both President Clinton and

President Bush. Also, the Air Command and Staff College (ACSC) texts include a good

overview of US national space policy and specific applications (Air University, 1995:18-

7 to 18-16). Specifically, the ACSC texts provide detailed accounts of Presidential and

national interest in a variety of space applications. Most of it is not applicable directly to

SSTOs, but an encompassing drive for cheaper and more reliable access to space is very

prominent.

For information concerning the production, handling, storage, and purchase of

cryogenic fuels, John Walsh at BOC Gases provided immense help (Walsh, 1996). As an

international producer and supplier of a variety of gases, BOC offered information

concerning all aspects of gases as they would relate to potential SSTO operation. As for

military handling of cryogenic gases, Staff Sergeant Peterson and Sergeant Novak at the

McGuire AFB POL Plant offered descriptions of current capabilities. Sergeant Cassidy,

at the McGuire AFB Fuels Accounting office, provided information concerning costs for

fuels under Air Force contracts (Peterson et al, 1996).

15
 As the launch date of the VentureStar nears (March 1999), more information will

become available on the Lockheed Martin craft and its eventual follow-on production

model. In addition, the government will need to select a contractor to replace the Space

Shuttle with its SSTO RLV. The commercial launch market will undoubtedly also be

pressing companies to produce a viable RLV to improve cheap access to space. As the

technology comes to fruition, more sources of information will blossom. But a

fundamental understanding of the SSTO RLV capabilities is available now in print, and

should be sought by those responsible for promoting Global Reach for America.

16
 III. Discussion of the SSTO RLV Development

"Speed is the essence of war. Take advantage of the enemy's unpreparedness; travel by

the unexpected routes and strike him where he has no precautions. " Sun Tzu

(Tsouras, 1992: 434)

Overview

The last three Presidents of the United States have made easier, cheaper access to

space a priority. In July 1996, NASA embarked on a prototype program (X-33) with

Lockheed Martin costing in excess of $1 billion to fulfill this national need. But a

reusable SSTO is not only important to the US as a commercial asset and a national space

access asset, but also as a potential means of rapid, flexible transportation for DoD.

Industry and NASA are already developing the technology, and it will likely be fielded

by NASA and industry. Air Force Space Command is also considering an SSTO RLV

not only as a replacement for the shuttle, but as a direct force application platform.

Because of this probably inevitable development, AMC should, as the airlift agent for

USTRANSCOM and DoD, thoroughly investigate this mode of transportation to assess

its potential contribution to Global Reach for America. The SSTO technology offers very

fast transportation, flexibility, and potentially another CRAF avenue for AMC to exploit

in its continuing pursuit of providing transportation to other DoD customers. This paper

only touches the surface of many issues, and recommends further study to ensure AMC's

understanding of this new technology.

17
 Global Reach

CONUS to the World in Less Than One Hour

Figure 3. Global Coverage of SSTO (AFSPACECOM, 1993b: 15)

What does an SSTO RLV bring to USTRANSCOM and AMC? As mentioned

earlier, this paper will not address space-bound transportation. Rather, the reusable

launch vehicle would be best suited for AMC use in the suborbital role. A suborbital

mission would takeoff from one location, fly rapidly up into the upper atmosphere short

of low earth orbit (300 miles), and descend to land and deposit its payload. In this role, it

would operate much as an aircraft, with refueling, uploading and downloading, and

minimal servicing when necessary. The delivery time would be less than one hour to

18
 Table 1. SSTO Comparisons (multiple sources)

Delta Clipper" VentureStar Shuttle

Height 42 m 39 m 56 m
Vehicle Dry Weight 47,200 kg 118,000 kg 72,600 kg
Takeoff Gross Wt. 590,000 kg 1,043,000 kg 2,041,000 kg
Cargo Volume 4.6m X 4.6m X 4.6m X 4.6m X 4.6m X 4.6m X

9.1m 13.7m 18.3m

Payload 11,340 kg. 27,200 kg 14,500 kg

Takeoff Mode Vertical Vertical Vertical

Landing Mode Vertical-Powered Horizontal-Glide Horizontal-Glide
Runway Req't 137m X 137m 2400-3000m 4570m
Fuel Type LOX, LH2, LOX, LH2 LOX, LH2,
JP-4 option Hydrazine
Crew Optional Optional Required
Turnaround Time 7 days normal, 7 days normal, « 6 months
2/day emergency 2/day emergency
Cost/Launch $8.8 million $10 million » $500 million
Cost/Kg2 $776/kg $368/kg $34,000/kg
Time to Farthest Pt «50 minutes 72 minutes N/A3
Notel: McDonnell Douglas figures.
Note 2: Based on figures above. Delta Clipper and VentureStar numbers do not reflect
overhead and R&D which will push these numbers up to about $1100-2200/kg.
Note 3: Not available. However, the Shuttle is restricted to two primary bases, and a
small number of emergency alternates. Flight time should be similar to the VentureStar.

20
Proposed SSTO RLV Capabilities

As mentioned earlier, whether used in the traditional airlift role, aeromedical

evacuation, or as operational support aircraft (OSA), SSTO RLVs offer a number of

advantages previously unavailable. Some of these capabilities are summarized in Table 1

above. As an aeromedical airlifter, a critical load of patients could be delivered from the

theater to a stateside hospital in 20-40 minutes-perhaps even landing in the parking lot

on the helipad. Or if the theater commander needed to go to Washington, DC to brief

Congress or his chain of command, he or she could be there in 20-40 minutes instead of

10 or more hours. Of course, in the traditional airlift role, nearly all the goals and

objectives of airlift (see Figure 1 from AF Doctrine Document 30) that support force

enablement, force enhancement, or direct national policy execution are attainable through

reusable SSTOs.

Many of the SSTO RLV features have been highlighted already. However, the

proposed capabilities vary somewhat by vehicle. Also, there is some variation between

what the Technical Requirements Document and the Operational Requirements

Document call for, and what industry projects the vehicles will do.

The Technical Requirements Document (TRD) for the S-3 Spaceplane SSTO

System, completed 15 April 1993, was written with the McDonnell Douglas full size

SSTO RLV in mind (AFSPACECOM, 1993a). It defines a number of desired

performance areas for the entire SSTO system, including servicing and ground support.

In the design reference missions, operations similar to current Space Shuttle missions are

21
described: deploying space assets, recovery of space assets, space rescue, etc. These are

summarized in Appendix C of the TRD. Initial operating sites were traditional space

launch and recovery sites of the Space Launch System (SLS). The SSTO must be

capable of a number of specific tasks, including self-ferry to or from a remote landing

site. It must be capable of turnaround in 7 days or less, with an emergency turnaround of

12 hours. It should have an availability rate of 95 percent independent of weather

conditions. It shall be able to launch from either coast of the US, or central US without

undue danger to persons or property [TRD Section 2.1].

The TRD requires the vehicle itself to be single-stage, reusable, and self-powered.

It must be capable of delivering a 4536 kg pay load (excluding pay load container) into a

186 kilometer circular orbit and returning safely. The SSTO must carry sufficient fuel

onboard to allow a 183 meters per second (mps) maneuvering velocity change in orbit,

with a possibility of up to 366 mps. The vehicle must be capable of reorienting itself in

space to within one degree of the desired direction. It must be designed to last for a

minimum of 500 flights over a 20 year lifespan, with engines lasting for 200 flights

without replacement. The safety rate for the operational system must be 0.99999. Its

cargo must be containerized in a stand-alone container with standard hookups to the

aerospace vehicle to facilitate ground handling. The standard container shall have an

internal volume of 4.6 meters wide, 4.6 meters high, and 9.1 meters long and weigh no

more than 453 kg. The cargo must be loaded on the payload container at an off site

location prior to loading on the RLV. Payload must be capable of being monitored by

22
capable of crewed and uncrewed operation. A sub-sonic emergency crew egress system

must be installed if crew are used. The crew must also have windows for outside

visibility. Remote flight may use video for outside visibility [TRD Section 2.2].

Mission Phase:
Space Sortie, Spacelift, Space
Logistic Support, Earth
Coast and Observation, Space Test
Orbital Deorbit, Reentry,
Insertion and Cross-Range
Maneuvers

Landing
Maneuver

Figure 4. Delta Clipper Operational System (Gaubatz, undated-b: 5)

For ground operations and interface, the TRD specifies that the vehicle must be

capable of being towed when unrefueled. It must also have standard UHF, VHF, HF,

SATCOM, and space operations related radio and data equipment. The NAVSTAR/GPS

system must be installed and integrated into the navigation computer and autopilot. The

vehicle shall be capable of flight with no more than 350 man-days of servicing and

23
maintenance between flights. All repair and servicing equipment must be air

transportable to any emergency or non-operations landing site on existing transport

aircraft [TRD Sections 2.2 and 2.3].

The Operational Requirements Document (ORD) for the Military Aerospace

Vehicle (MAV) Flight System was completed by AFSPACECOM in 1994

(AFSPACECOM, 1994). It's content is similar to the TRD, but much more detailed.

Only significant items in addition to the TRD requirements or changing those

requirement will be mentioned. The ORD includes some very interesting ideas and

capabilities for AMC. In its mission area description, the ORD highlights the idea that

SSTOs may be sold to commercial enterprises in large numbers. If so, since they may be

a source of expansion of the CRAF, the military SSTOs must be compatible with the

civilian models. Mission needs include the ability to operate in orbital and suborbital

space, as well as to low earth orbit (LEO) and an geosynchronous transfer orbit [ORD

Sections 1.1 and 1.2].

For launch sites, design and operation will not be limited to current launch sites.

The remote flight and repair requirements of the TRD are repeated. The vehicles must be

capable of certification for flight by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Ground

servicing and maintenance will be performed like modern military and commercial

aircraft, with minimal servicing times and flight operations routine. The ground systems

and flight vehicle must be operable and maintainable by Air Force military personnel

with little or no direct contractor support. Logistic support will follow standard Air Force

24
logistic channels and practices. There is an integrated Logistics Support attachment to

the ORD. Launch pad servicing will be done through removable umbilicals attached to

portable servicing vehicles (or potentially in-ground systems). A portable hangar which

serves as aircraft shelter and depot maintenance hangar will be used [ORD Sections 1.3,

1.4, and 3.7].

The vehicle must be capable of all-weather, night or day operations down to FAA

Category 3 approach minimums. It must launch or land in 25 knots of wind, with gusts

up to 35 knots. A surge equivalent to double the routine launch rate must be sustainable

for 30 days minimum. The payload requirement was increased from 4500 kg to 9000 kg.

In the event of non-catastrophic failure, especially in the engine, the vehicle must be able

to abort intact to the launch site immediately or after one orbit. It must also be able to

complete the entire mission with one airborne engine failure. Flight control must be

accurate enough to touchdown consistently in a 61 m diameter area. The SSTO must

have capability for a crew of two to maintain orbit for two days (four days in

emergencies). Containerized additional life support will be used for additional personnel

or passengers [ORD Section 4.1].

The maintenance and servicing workers will not be required to exceed high school

plus two years of technical training. They shall be able to generate a sortie on demand in

an amount of time similar to other modern military aircraft, with routine flight servicing

not to exceed 24 hours. The launch on need (LON) shall not exceed 72 hours, with a goal

of 24 hours. The vehicles shall have a 95 percent reliability launch rate within 24 hours.

25
All maintenance jobs, including engine replacement, shall be finished in seven days or

less, with a goal of three days. Flight safety shall demonstrate a minimum of .999 with a

goal of aircraft reliability of .999995. Fault detection and isolation must be 100 percent

on all primary systems, with isolation to a line replaceable unit (LRU) at least 90 percent

of the time. Automated fault detection overall must be 100 percent. In-orbit servicing

and maintenance must be possible. Ground servicing must be possible from the ground

or standard servicing platforms. Ground support equipment (GSE) shall be standard Air

Force equipment to the maximum extent possible. Additional GSE shall be contractor

provided. Off site maintenance support shall be provided through Air Force Material

Command [ORD Sections 4.2,4.3, and 4.7.1].

The ORD calls for fuels management to be performed in accordance with Air

Force Manual 67-1, Volume 1, Part Three, Chapter 4. These propellants will likely be

liquid oxygen (LOX), liquid hydrogen (LH2), and potentially some form of kerosene

(possibly JP-4) if a tri-propellant engine is used [ORD Section 4.3.8].

The contractor shall develop the initial familiarization and training programs for

Air Force and/or contract personnel. The programs will develop training to the Air Force

5-7 level, with trainees at the 3 level. This training shall include overall space mission

awareness, as well as particular technical duties. Once trained, operations of flight and

preflight shall not need more than three individuals, with no more than 30 support

personnel for preventive maintenance and repair [ORD Section 4.7.3].

26
 The manufacturers have taken the requirements and begun to develop their craft

accordingly. However, in many cases, the capabilities they project for their vehicles

exceed the requirements. Also, many specifics are not defined in the requirements at all,

and so, will be listed accordingly. See Table 1 for a summary of many pertinent

characteristics, especially height and weight of the vehicles.

The full scale VentureStar aims for a safety record at least 10 times safer than the

Space Shuttle, which is one failure in 145 flights. VentureStar's and Delta Clipper's cost

goal is $2200/kg or less, compared to the Shuttle's nearly $22,000/kilogram (Leary,

1996: Al). VentureStar is a wedge-shaped lifting body (see Figure 5) as compared to the

conical Delta Clipper design, while the Shuttle has characteristics of both the lifting body

and aircraft-style design. Both the Shuttle-style SSTO and the VentureStar will takeoff

vertically, fly nose-first to destination, and land horizontally as a glider (unpowered)

similar to current Shuttle operation. None of the three proposed SSTO designs would

exert more than 3 g's of force on the cargo/passengers, and this only during takeoff

(Gaubatz et al, 1993: 2) and (Baumgartner).

Using government requirement figures, the full scale Delta Clipper (S-3 or DC-1)

would offer a 4.6m X 4.6m X 9.1m cargo bay and carry 9,100 kg of cargo

(AFSPACECOM, 1993b). Cost estimates are about $970/kg using costs in Table 2

(Chapter 4). McDonnell Douglas estimates the Delta Clipper can carry 3000 more

kilograms of cargo than required, lowering the cost/kg to $776. The flight profile is to

takeoff vertically as the other two designs, however after reentry, rotate to put the engines

27
toward the ground and use thrust for braking and landing (Gaubatz et al, 1994b: 2).

Hover is possible, also.

56m

42m

VentureStar Space Shuttle Delta Clipper

Figure 5. SSTO Vehicles

As a ballistic vehicle, the Delta Clipper would also use atmospheric friction to

slow its reentry. The unique shape of the Delta Clipper enables it to maneuver during

reentry with small aerodynamic controls (extendible flaps). These controls do not add

any appreciable drag to the vehicle when retracted, and they eliminate the significant

additional propellant required to lift wings. (Port, 1993: 119).

The simpler shape of the Delta Clipper allows for the use of less complex thermal

protection systems. The Shuttle is a complex shape that has 17,000 uniquely shaped

thermal protection tiles (Nordwall, 1994) that collectively weigh almost 8600 kg

(Rockwell, 1980). The hot spots which develop during reentry along the leading edge of

28
the wing require even higher protection levels than the rest of the vehicle. Any winged

vehicle (VentureStar or Shuttle) would inherently have similar thermal protection

requirements. The Delta Clipper's simple geometry requires just a few common tile

shapes and should consequently cost significantly less to build and maintain than a

winged vessel (Port, 1993).

The Delta Clipper would employ 8 liquid oxygen (LOX) and liquid hydrogen

(LH2) burning engines. Of these 8 engines, 4 would be fitted with low altitude booster

nozzles, and 4 with high altitude sustainer nozzles, producing an average 97,000 kg of

thrust and 348 seconds of specific impulse at sea level and increasing in space (Holloway

and Limerick, 1993: 6-7). This translates into approximately a 1.3 thrust-to-weight ratio

at liftoff and much higher at landing (Gaubatz et al, 1993: 2). Another option being

investigated is an engine that changes the shape of the exhaust nozzle, such as those on

the submarine launched Trident missiles (Semi-, 1996: WWWeb). VentureStar, on the

other hand, will use the aerospike engines currently being developed. They are also LOX

and LH2 fueled, with a water coolant (Cook, 1996c: WWWeb).

Tri-propellant engines are another alternative, initially burning kerosene (similar

to JP-4 jet fuel) and LOX, then switch to LOX-LH2 in later stages of flight.

Theoretically, tri-propellant engines could attain SSTO mass fractions in excess of 0.90

(Bekey, 1994b). These engines produce more thrust, but less efficiency initially by

burning a mixture of kerosene, hydrogen and oxygen. Later, the engines switch to

hydrogen-oxygen when the launch vehicle's lighter weight allows for reduced thrust. The

29
tri-propellant system improves overall system efficiency by employing high thrust, lower

efficiency modes when necessary. Bekey calculates that tri-propellant technology

engines alone could drive mass fractions over 0.90 (Bekey, 1994b). However, another

study by Rocketdyne in 1995 found that bi- and tri-propellant engines resulted in nearly

identical vehicle performance (Goracke and Levack, 1995: 1).

Bi-propellant (LOX/LH2) engines are much more environmentally friendly than

kerosene burning engines. The exhaust product of the LOX/LH2 engines is water.

Combining this clean exhaust with the lack of debris (single stage) and manageable noise

levels makes SSTOs very environmentally friendly (Worden and Sponable) and (Worden

et al, 1993:23).

The reason rocket engines are being tested for SSTO is that air breathing engines

are not efficient enough. The best military jet engine produces a thrust to weight ratio of

about 8:1. The Shuttle main engines each produce about 70:1. An SSTO engine will be

even more efficient (Semi-, 1996: WWWeb).

Gaseous hydrogen and gaseous oxygen would be used for reaction control engines

to make fine-tuning attitude adjustments (Gaubatz et al, 1993: 2). The gaseous 02/H2

propellant system provides a synergistic effect to LOX/LH2 powered engines in both

initial starts, restarts in flight, and reduced logistics due to easy conversion of liquid to

gas (Fanciullo and Judd, 1993). Gaseous helium is used to prevent geysering of the LOX

(Rozycki et al, 1993:1). Gaseous nitrogen is used to purge the fuel system lines

(Baumgartner).

30
 The Space Shuttle uses L0X/LH2 for its main engines and solid fueled boosters,

nitrogen tetroxide oxidant, monomethyl- hydrazine fuel (highly toxic and corrosive), and

helium pressurant for its orbital maneuver engines and reaction control thrusters. It uses

mono-propellant hydrazine fuel (highly toxic and corrosive), cooling water, and nitrogen

pressurant for hydraulic power generators, and a separate hydrogen-oxygen system for

electrical power generation (Rockwell, 1980). Delta Clipper and VentureStar will use

electromechanical controls to eliminate the requirement for any hydraulic system at all.

The DC-X used off the shelf aircraft components. The designers plan to continue

to use aircraft-style avionics in the later models. One of the prime supportability features

of the Delta Clipper vehicles and other SSTOs in the works is their extensive use of off

the shelf systems to maintain high reliability. An estimated 2000-5000 hours mean-time-

between failure should be realized on all electrical components, in addition to multiple

redundant systems in the event of failure (Carter et al, 1993: 3). On board diagnostics

and control systems similar to commercial airliners will also be included. Similar

systems are expected on VentureStar. Through this use of proven off-the-shelf hardware,

the RLV designers eliminate the need for expensive reliability qualification testing and

acceptance (Smiljanic et al, 1993a). Most of the Delta Clipper's modular avionics are

"line replaceable units" or "LRUs" that can be quickly fault isolated and replaced by

technicians. The onboard avionics system should fault isolate no less than 70% of all the

LRUs. This will help cut turnaround time and expense since LRUs receive off-site

31
servicing. Furthermore, an average aircraft mechanic (3-5 level blue suit maintenance)

could do the work with little additional training (Smiljanic et al, 1993a: 27).

The Delta Clipper Flight Operations Control Center (FOCC) is designed with

standard personal computer workstations and modified commercial software that enables

three people to control all ground and flight operations (Worden et al., 1993: 22). With

computer data links, monitoring of launch and flight status could be made from the

AMC/Tanker Airlift Control Center (TACC).

Using graphite-composites, aluminum-lithium and other lightweight materials in

the design of an SSTO could reduce dry vehicle weight enough to raise the mass fraction

to over .89 with current non-tri-propellant engine technology. Lighter components

require lighter mounts, structures, and supporting systems, and so every kilogram saved

results in more than one kilogram total weight savings for the system. As an example:

Substituting Al-Li for aluminum in both propellant tanks results in about a

4% direct weight savings. But this substitution also enables the supporting
structure to be lighter, the wings smaller, the propellant load lighter, and
the engine's thrust lower. The net result is a 23 percent vehicle weight
reduction. (Bekey, 1994b:34)

Such a savings was confirmed on the DC-XA. When McDonnell Douglas

replaced the aluminum LOX tank with the Al-Li composite, it reduced the weight by 544

kg (Cook, 1996a: WWWeb) on a vehicle that only weighed 14,000 kg fully loaded, for a

3.8 percent savings (MDA, 1996a: 13) However, the test vehicles have thus far not

shown the fully lightweight (80 percent lighter than current) construction needed for an

SSTO vehicle (Dornheim, 1995: 56).

32
 The Delta Clipper requires a much smaller support staff than the Space Shuttle.

The four NASA shuttles require 6,000 support workers, and prepping each Shuttle for

flight costs about $500 million and up to a million man-hours over many weeks (Port,

1993). Support for the Delta Clipper is much simpler because the systems are simpler,

there is no stage stacking, and the system uses aircraft style servicing procedures.

Servicing and refurbishment should take less than a week between flights and 350 man-

days. According to Worden et al, a ground crew of 20-40 people could maintain and

turn the Delta Clipper around between flights (Worden et al, 1993: 23). The launch staff

consists of three people and two pilots, either remote or in the craft. The Delta Clipper

could even fly twice in one day if the crew pushed (Port, 1993). The annual maintenance

inspection would take the vehicle out of service for 30 days. The SSTO system is

designed to operate as two-level maintenance, with line replaceable units (LRUs) pulled

and replaced with new ones rather than repairing them on the vehicle. Pulled LRUs

would be sent to depot level repair at the appropriate location. Air Force skill levels

would be 3-5 level, and no more than 10 skill specialties would be required (Smiljanic et

al, 1993: 26-7). Lockheed Martin estimates a ground crew of 150, with 38 needed to turn

the VentureStar around for a second flight (Baumgartner).

The Delta Clipper, having a powered descent, can vary its destination by up to

1200 miles from the plane of orbit (Carter et al, 1993: 2). Any SSTO should have similar

capability, though unpowered descending vehicles will have less flexibility at lower

altitudes. The powered lander can abort more safely in any phase of flight, and is less

33
bothered by crosswinds. A drawback to the VentureStar design is that, being a VTHL, it

cannot return to its launch site if an abort after takeoff is required. It must fly to a runway

for landing (Sponable). The launch/recovery pad for the VTVL must be 137m by 137m

(Gaubatz), while the VentureStar needs an 2400-3000 meter runway. The Lockheed craft

is limited to 20 knots of crosswind also, versus the 35 knots for the Delta Clipper.

The primary market Lockheed Martin is aiming for is the commercial space

market, not a surface-to-surface suborbital use (Baumgartner). While this is also true of

the Delta Clipper, the MDA team has considered other options for military use, including

suborbital RLVs (Gaubatz). McDonnell Douglas has proposed several variations on the

basic Delta Clipper model. This "Family of Vehicles" ranges from a suborbital-only

model carrying 1361 kg, to a tri-propellant driven model with a 4.6m X 4.6m X 18.3m

cargo bay capable of carrying 34,000 kg (MDA, 1993: 10-14).

To use the SSTOs effectively, they will have to be certified for flight by the FAA

like civil aircraft. Otherwise, the cost of range control and other NASA-like single

launch certifications will drive costs up prohibitively. Toward that end, top level

discussions were held in late May 1995 between the NASA RLV program managers and

the FAA (Zapata, 1996: WWWeb). In addition, AMC will have to train its airspace

controllers in operations above Positive Control Airspace (Flight Level 600).

34
Current Program Development Status

The SSTO program has developed very quickly compared to other recent space

projects. The first flight of the DC-X came only 24 months after contract award. The

streamlined partnership between government and industry during this development is the

direct cause of such rapid advancement (Gaubatz and Sponable, 1994: 6). One of the

objectives of the SSTO program is to achieve the lowest life cycle costs. According to

NASA, this will be achieved by:

...developing technology before proceeding with system development;

bringing the needed technologies to maturity and demonstrating them
through flights of an experimental rocket; demonstrating and validating
vehicle design via flights of a full-scale prototype, with gradual stretching
of the flight envelope; one-time certification of the vehicle design; and type-
certification of the fleet. (Bekey et al, 1994a: 41)

In other words, NASA says to build rockets the same way X-aircraft are currently

built. That is, most of its technology has already been matured in other programs, and its

development involves progressively larger prototypes that minimize the overall risks

associated with a system failure. The original DC-X is proof the process works, being

built successfully for less than $67 million dollars—very little money in aerospace terms

(Dornheim, 1993:49).

Since off the shelf technology is the goal, the DC-X and DC-XA were built from

scrap parts and other available materials. They used four Pratt and Whitney RL10-5A

rocket engines from a Centaur rocket, an F-15 inertial navigation system, an F-18

accelerometer and rate gyro, an MD-11 autopilot and avionics, and a Honeywell GPS

(Stine, 1994: 66-7).

35
 Testing of the DC-X validated aerodynamic control of the vehicle during all

phases of flight, including hover and autoland. Throttled rocket propulsion control was

also validated, as well as autonomous flight by the vehicle (no ground inputs) (Gaubatz et

al, 1994a: 1-3). The program demonstrated the required ground support equipment,

minimal ground operations and servicing crew, aircraft-like operations, and the rapid,

low-cost development NASA sought. The average time for preflight maintenance has

been demonstrated at 3.5 hours, and 2.5 hours for postflight using a five-person crew

(Gaubatz et al, 1993: 2, 7). Total ground crew averaged 15 persons versus the 20-40

estimated (Gaubatz, undated-b: 5). The goal for refueling once hooked up is 20 minutes,

with a total refueling time of one hour (Rozycki et al, 1993: 1, 3). In practice, the DC-

XA averaged 33 minutes (MDA, 1996e: 1-4). Eight test flights and 18 ground tests were

completed in two years. An explosion on flight 6 of 8 forced a successful emergency

autoland on the desert floor (Gaubatz, 1995: 3-5). The rapid advancement of flight

control software during testing of DC-X has removed further development from the

critical path of SSTO progress (Gaubatz et al, 1993: 14). Two flights in one day and a six

day turnaround were both successfully demonstrated (Gaubatz, undated-a: 4).

Ground support equipment for the DC-X/DC-XA included a towed launch-to-

landing-transporter (LTLT) to move the test vehicle to and from the land/recovery pad.

The tow vehicle was a Coleman MB-4 aircraft tug. The LTLT can be operated safely by

an Air Force 5-7 level technician, and requires only routine vehicle maintenance. The

LTLT concept would probably apply to the full scale vehicle since the RLV cannot be

36
towed directly while standing on its landing gear. The same tow vehicle can move the

portable combination aircraft shelter/depot maintenance hangar. Total weight of the

shelter is 41,000 kg (BMDO, 1993). The shelter also contains air conditioning and an

overhead crane (Rozycki et al, 1993: 1). See Figure 6 below for ground support layout.

Maintenance Control Portable

Maintenance
Hangar
LO2 Trailer
Mobile Right Operations
Control Center

Gaseous
Nitrogen
Trailer

LH2 Trailer Above Ground

Propellant Loading
Feed Lines

Gaseous Helium
Trailer

Figure 6. SSTO Ground Support (Gaubatz, undated-a: 5)

One problem has developed in testing the DC-X and DC-XA with regard to the

takeoff and landing pad surface. When takeoff and landing on concrete, the surface tends

to. reflect a great amount of heat back onto the vehicle. Also, the surface of the pad tends

to be somewhat melted and/or abraded by the blast. While the heating protection

problem seems to be understood and compensated for by a variety of shielding methods,

the same cannot be said for protection of the landing/launch pad. When landing on softer

surfaces (prepared and unprepared gypsum) the vehicles suffers significantly less heat,

37
but the engine blast digs large holes in the turf. The holes present a hazard for the

landing gear, and the potential that the vehicle will fall over. The test teams came up

with a vented grate system to land the vehicle on, but it resulted in strange updrafts on the

vehicle as it approached touchdown. Further analysis and investigation continue (MDA,

1996a: 4). No cost figures for the vented grate landing pad were available.

The next vehicle in the development series (X-33) will be capable of suborbital

flight, and demonstrate the desired mass fraction for an orbital vehicle through its state-

of-the-art lightweight construction materials. It will also demonstrate the scaled up

operations and maintenance requirements, low cost manufacturing techniques, and

thermal protection (Gaubatz, 1995: 5, 7).

Competition for X-33 vehicle was intense. McDonnell Douglas proposed a 2/3

scale version of the DC-X called DC-X2. Lockheed Martin, the eventual winner,

proposed their 1/2 scale VentureStar, and Rockwell International proposed a vehicle

similar in design to the Space Shuttle (Apodaca and O'Dell, 1996: Dl). The VentureStar

will be 20.7 meters wide, 19.2 meters tall, have a dry weight of 28,440 kg, a gross takeoff

weight of 124,000 kg, and a mass fraction of 0.77 (Cook, 1996b). It will fly as high as 50

miles at Mach 15. They plan 15 flights between March and December 1999 (Leary,

1996: D5).

The cost of X-33 will be significant-$940 million in NASA funds, $220 million

from Lockheed Martin and her partners (Leary, 1996: D5). This price is 55 percent

38
higher than the McDonnell Douglas estimate for their program of $744 million (Tucker

and Panciocco, 1993: 4).

VentureStar's aerospike engines are currently being tested. A 10 percent size

prototype built by Lockheed was flown in April 1996 on a modified NASA SR-71

Blackbird to test engine performance (Cook, 1996c: WWWeb). Reports indicate the test

was successful and development continues on the half-scale version for X-33.

Lockheed Martin has several partners in the X-33 program. Their Skunk Works

in Palmdale CA, Rocketdyne (engines), Rohr (thermal protection), Allied Signal, and

Sverdrup (ground support equipment) form the commercial side. A variety of NASA and

DoD laboratories form the other half of the team (Cook, 1996d: WWWeb).

Summary

The tests of SSTO systems are moving along on time and on budget. The X-plane

style development seems to be working well. And each new success brings NASA, DoD,

and industry closer to their goal of an operational SSTO RLV. Assuming the VentureStar

is successful, and there is no reason it shouldn't since little new technology is involved,

an operational SSTO fleet should be available in 2004 or 2005. Whether the final vehicle

will be like the Delta Clipper, the VentureStar, the Shuttle, or some other design is still

open to question based on the results of development between now and then. However,

assuming the goal of a a deployed fleet is reached, it then leads to the question of whether

that mode of transportation is worth the price for surfact-to-surface transportation

compared to other modes such as aircraft, truck, train, or ship.

39
 V. Findings and Analysis

'I have destroyed the enemy merely by marches. " Napoleon, 1805

(Tsouras, 1992: 244)

Overview

There are many costs involved in setting up an operational SSTO system. Since it

will be several years before a full scale SSTO, the figures relating to fixed and variable

costs are going to be estimates or outright guesses based on other spacecraft or aircraft

operations. Nevertheless, the costs of some things like LOX and LH2 are known, as well

as the current price DoD charges its customers to use airlift. Unfortunately, the latter

prices do not necessarily reflect the true cost of operation. Nevertheless, they will serve as

a starting point. Costs or prices used for other modes of transportation were gathered by

telephone directly from companies which provide these services. The nominal "package"

they were to deliver weighed 27,000 kg, filled 283 cubic meters, and was sub-divided

into 360 .9 m cubed boxes weighing roughly 77 kg apiece. The cargo inside was called

"machine parts" for cargo cost classification, and was to be shipped 3218 km (2000

miles).

Cost Data

The competing SSTO companies, Lockheed Martin, McDonnell Douglas, and

Rockwell estimate the operational version of an SSTO RLV will cost approximately $5-8

40
billion, and fly 30-40 flights per year. Lockheed Martin foresees a fleet of 3 vehicles to

meet NASA needs for space launch (Leary, 1996: D5). McDonnell Douglas, in concert

with AFSPACECOM, see a fleet of four as a minimum (AFSPACECOM, 1993b). The

BMDO estimates are higher at $9.5 billion, and Aerospace Corporation estimates a

similar amount at $9.4 billion (Hovden et al, 1993 and AFSPACECOM, 1993b). If the

SSTO must "payback" its development costs, the repayment will cost as much as $9.5

billion for the initial fleet, plus $1.160 billion for X-33, and $67 million for DC-X. For

this purpose, all other costs related to SSTO development are considered sunk costs.

These other costs would include all previous related research and development on SSTO

or RLV related technologies not specifically paid for under DC-X and X-33. The total is

$10.727 billion. At 40 flights per year for 20 years, 4 vehicles will log 3200 flights.

$10.727 billion/3200 = $3,352,187/flight. At only 30 flights/year the cost is $4,469,583.

Table 2. SSTO Costs Per Flight (AFSPACECOM, 1993b)

Variable Costs Per Flight (million $ FY93)--Based on 30 flights per year

Processing 2.5
Fuel .8
Parts and Spares 1.1
Indirect Support 2&
TOTAL $7.2

Fixed Cost Per Year (million $ FY93)

Facility/Equipment O&M 12.0
Program Support 21.7
Supplies/Materials 8.5
Sustaining Engineering 41
TOTAL $47.0 -s-30 flights = $1.6/flight

GRAND TOTAL $8.8 /flight = $7.2+ $1.6

41
 The only operations and maintenance costs found by the author were the BMDO

figures based on the McDonnell Douglas concept. See the cost breakdown above in

Table 2. Obviously, the most significant factor in both payback and reducing the fixed

cost per flight is the number of flights per year. Commercial and military aircraft fly

several times per day, probably averaging 300-500 sorties per year. If an SSTO could

reach this utilization rate, the payback and fixed cost would approach negligible figures

compared to the variable costs. For example, at 300 sorties per year, the payback cost

would drop from $3-4 million per flight to less than $500,000, and fixed costs would

drop from $1.6 million per flight to only $160,000.

One of the significant issues in SSTO RLV operations is fuel. Fuel like

LOX/LH2 is different from conventional aircraft fuels in that they are cryogenic—they are

stored at very cold temperatures to keep them liquid (-218 degrees Celsius for LOX and -

259 degrees Celsius for LH2) (Goetz, 1987: 9:35, 6:191). Also, 25 percent or more

weight of propellant is used in comparison to vehicle weight on SSTOs than on aircraft.

See Table 3 below for a comparison of fuel and gross weights, and fuel costs for the

C-17, C-141, Delta Clipper, and VentureStar. An oxidizer/fuel ratio of 2.6:1 is assumed

from Space Shuttle fuel usage. The data is based on flying halfway around the globe

(farthest point—approximately 21,000km. If shorter distances were used, the fuel cost for

the aircraft would be lower by the appropriate fraction. However, since SSTOs use most

of their fuel climbing out of the atmosphere, fuel costs are not significantly reduced for

42
shorter distances. In addition, while the SSTOs need roughly an hour for the flight, the

C-141 or C-17 would need approximately 30 hours of flight time to reach that distance.

Table 3. Fuel/Gross Weight Ratios and Fuel Costs

(Ligon, 1996: 118-9, and Walsh, 1996)
Vehicle Fuel kg | Gross Wt kg Ratio LOX kg LH2 kg Fuel Cost S
C-17 81,600 265,400 .31 NA NA $47,000
C-141 68,000 146,500 .46 NA NA $42,000
Delta Clipper 429,000 590,000 .73 310,000 119,000 $389,000
VentureStar 898,000 1,043,000 .86 649,000 249,000 $813,000

The cost, however, is not the only issue, there is also the volume. Current Air

Force installations, with the exception of Vandenburg AFB and other space launch bases,

have only limited cryogenic LOX capacity, and no LH2 storage. For instance, McGuire

AFB NJ owns 14,190 liter (216 kg) trailers for LOX and 10,303 liter (245 kg) trailers for

liquid nitrogen. They have permanent storage capacity for about 52,000 kg of LOX, and

order roughly 43,000 kg per month (Peterson et al, 1996). Since each launch of an SSTO

will take between 10 and 20 times the present capacity of McGuire AFB, new facilities

will have to be created, transportation or pipeline to the launch pad created, sources of

supply found, as well as personnel trained in handling cryogenics.

The SSTO costs in Table 4 below are not unlike those of aircraft. As displayed,

while the actual costs may differ by a significant amount, the relative percentage of cost

distributions are quite alike. The standout differences are the 16 percent higher share of

spares and depot maintenance for the SSTOs, and 4 percent higher support equipment

costs. Yet, SSTOs had 8 percent lower system training costs, and the 5 percent lower

personnel support costs.

43
 Table 4. Military Aircraft vs. SSTO Cost Distribution
(Summarized from Gaubatz and Sponable, 1994: 5)

Military Aircraft (%) SSTO (%)

Spares/Depot Maintenance 21 37
Aircraft Maintenance 20 20
Petroleum Products 18 16
System Training 9 1
Preflight/Flight Operations 8 7
Personnel Support 6 1
Facilities 7 6
System Data 4 1
Support Equipment 4 8
Engineering 3 3

How does the SSTO compare with other modes of transportation? A nominal

cargo (27,216 kg or 60,000 lbs) and distance (3300 km or 2000 miles) was created, as

mentioned earlier, to give a baseline against which to measure the different transportation

modes. Different modes required different carriage depending on the size of the typical

movement vehicle. By ship, five containers were required, and a minimum rate was

charged since the cargo was not more dense than the minimum charged weight per

container. Two rail boxcars were needed to carry the same load, as were three 15.8 meter

truck trailers, one C-17, one VentureStar, two Delta Clippers, or two C-141s. The time,

cost, and cost per kg to haul the 27,000 kg, 283 cubic meter load are listed below in Table

5. The C-17/C-141 costs are the special air mission tariffs charged to non-DoD

customers. The commercial rates are those obtained from the indicated industry sources.

The Delta Clipper costs include fixed and variable costs taken from Table 2, while the

VentureStar costs were estimates from Bob Baumgartner, RLV Program Manager at

44
Lockheed Martin. They also include fixed and variable costs. No payback costs were

included for the SSTOs.

Table 5. Time and Cost By Mode (27,000 kg for 3300 km)

(multiple sources-see below)
Mode Tlme(hrs) Cost Cost/kg
Ship 125.00 $ 15,230 $ 0.56
Train 50.00 $ 8,110 $ 0.30
Com. Plane 4.35 $ 75,809 $ 2.79
Truck 40.00 $ 14,144 $ 0.52
C-17 5.00 $ 38,530 $ 1.42
C-141 5.00 $ 81,100 $ 2.98
Delta 0.33 $ 8,800,000 $ 323.34
VentureStar 0.33 $10,000,000 $ 367.43
Sources:
For C-17/C-141 speeds and rates--non-US Gov't (Office, 1996: 5, 73).
For ships speed (16 kts.) (Begert, 1996).
For ship costs (SeaLand, 1996).
For train and truck speeds (40 and 50 mph) (Pohlen, 1995).
For train cost (Bollinger, 1996).
For commercial plane speed and cost (460 kts) (Jason, 1996).
Fortruck costs (Chase, 1996).
For Delta Clipper speed and cost (Gaubatz, 1996 and AFSPACECOM, 1993b)
For VentureStar speed and cost (Baumgartner, 1996)

It is important to emphasize that variation in the distance flown for the SSTOs

does not significantly (less than ten percent) affect the cost of the flight or the fuel used.

This is because the majority of the fuel is consumed taking off (and landing for the delta

Clipper), not during the en route portion. This is unlike aircraft, which are very sensitive

to range in their costs. That is why aircraft charge by the en route hour for special air

missions or charters. Each hour of flight may burn an additional 5-9,000 kg more fuel,

costing $1300 to $2600. That is one-quarter or more of the cost charged on a charter

45
flight. Since the SSTO is coasting for most of its flight, it burns little or no fuel, in

comparison, other than takeoff or landing.

The costs are important to the success of SSTO. As mentioned in Chapter 1,

many companies are eyeing SSTO RLVs to gain a new competitive edge in their

industries in the future. However, the realization ofthat advantage will hinge on the

value of the transportation. As cited by Alvin Toffler, Jiro Tokuyama, senior advisor to

the Mitsui Research Institute, performed a fifteen nation study of telecommunications,

transportation, and tourism. He reported that Pacific air passenger traffic was going to

grow immensely in the next few decades. He estimated that it would take 500-1000

hypersonic aircraft to handle the growing demand for rapid transit (Toffler, 1990:71-72).

In their study of space market demand, Andres et al found that there would be a small

linear increase in demand as the price per kilogram fell under $4000. They then predicted

that between $100 and $1000/kg there would be an exponential growth in demand. See

Figure 7 below. Consequently, much will be riding on the success of SSTO RLV testing

besides a vehicle for DoD transportation.

46
 Launch Cost, $/Ib
500 50

10" 10'
Launch Cost, $/kg

Figure 7. Space Demand Varies With Cost (Gaubatz, 1995: 12)

Analysis

Comparing the figures in Table 5 one can attempt to assess the potential value of

an SSTO RLV for surface-to-surface transportation. The concept is to use the SSTO

costs per kilogram and time to destination as a baseline. Then, for each other mode of

transportation, create a ratio with the baseline SSTO numbers. See the results below in

Table 6. For the baseline, the Delta Clipper numbers from the AFSPACECOM cost

study will be used, with no "payback" amounts added. Ideally, the time ratio and the cost

47
ratio would be identical, i.e., the shorter delivery time would cost an correspondingly

higher amount. All ratio values were rounded for ease of comparison.

Table 6. Transportation Mode Cost and Time Ratios

Mode Time(hrs) Time Ratio Cost/kg Cost Ratio
Ship 125.00 375 1 $ 0.56 557 1
Train 50.00 150 1 $ 0.30 1078 1
Com. Plane 4.35 13 1 $ 2.79 116 1
Truck 40.00 120 1 $ 0.52 622 1
C-5 5.00 15 1 $ 3.15 103 1
C-141 5.00 15 1 $ 2.98 109 1
Delta 0.33 1 1 $ 323.34 1 1

To read the table, take trains for example. The SSTO is 150 times faster than the

train, and 1078 times more costly. Therefore, the train is the better value unless speed is

more important than cost. If cost, not time, is the priority, then the lowest cost per

kilogram would be the best choice~in this case, train. If speed is the priority and cost

does not matter, an SSTO is the best choice. For AMC, comparing the SSTO to aircraft

transportation is the key. The SSTO is 15 times faster than typical AMC airlifters, yet

costs more than 100 times as much to lift the same load. The aircraft are the better value.

Summary

Does this mean AMC and DoD should not develop or purchase SSTO RLVs?

No. However, knowing the relative capabilities of the SSTOs versus aircraft, these

organizations can more objectively evaluate the non-quantifiable aspects of RLVs. For

48
example, AMC flies an average of 1370 missions per week (Begert, 1996). Of those,

approximately 450 per week are rated under the JCS Priority system as Priority 1 or 2

(330 Priority 1,120 Priority 2~usually Special Assignment Airlift Missions and

Contingency Missions) (Blanchard, 1996). Could some of those missions rate a higher

dollar cost to take advantage of the rapid delivery? What if DESERT EXPRESS had

been run by SSTO in DESERT STORM? Under the Defense Business Operating Fund

(DBOF), would AMC customers be willing to pay premium rates to have some of their

special cargoes and/or passengers delivered in minutes versus hours or days? Cost is

obviously not the only driver. However, it is a significant factor in choosing to develop

and purchase a weapon system.

49
 V. Conclusions and Recommendations

'Our cards were speed and time, not hitting power, and these give us strategical rather

than tactical strength. Range is more to strategy than force. "

Colonel T.E. Lawrence, 1929 (Tsouras, 1992: 434)

Overview

Air Mobility Command must consider future defense transportation needs, even

those "outside the box" or paradigm. SSTO RLVs offer new capabilities and

technologies to improve old capabilities-namely, rapid transportation. Reusable SSTOs

should not be dismissed as spaceships that belong to USSPACECOM or NASA. The

suborbital surface-to-surface transportation option offers superior speed and flexibility to

modern airlift aircraft. When a shipper can place 11,340 kg of payload or passengers

anywhere on the planet in one hour or less, and perhaps land on a parking lot instead of a

3000 meter runway, that is a significant capability.

The use of an SSTO would also comply with and enhance AMC's fulfillment of

Global Reach doctrine. Input from the premier DoD operator of air transportation during

this development process would lead to a vehicle that meets the peculiar requirements of

AMC and its DoD customers. And USSPACECOM is not organized to run surface to

surface lift via space-AMC is. While the cost value of SSTO delivery is not in line with

aircraft cost value, this does not mean some capability should not be considered. Other

tradeoffs may offset the higher operating costs of SSTOs. Lower inventory costs may

result due to the capability of an SSTO to provide robust "just-in-time" delivery than

50
aircraft. In wartime, the difference of delivery times between days, hours, or even

minutes may mean a significant difference in the outcome of a battle, a campaign, or even

a war. Such benefits may not be reducible to cost comparisons, but they should be

considered.

Another consideration may be some sort of cross-subsidization of an SSTO RLV

fleet. A joint use arrangement between AMC, AFSPACECOM and NASA could spread

the costs, maintenance, and manning required. If a large enough pool of vehicles were

purchased, all organizations could use the assets on a prioritized basis (JCS priority with

space missions added), yet share the overhead and support costs associated with the new

weapons system. As the technology matures and SSTOs become more ubiquitous, AMC

could develop its own fleet to meet its needs. In the mean time, the lowered cost of

deploying space assets could help offset the higher costs of rapid surface-to-surface

transportation. The DBOF payments could also be set to pay a pro rata share of the

SSTO operations cost. Air Mobility Command should evaluate these, and other ideas

generated by more qualified staff members, to decide how the RLV technology can be

used to enhance Global Reach.

Conclusions

SSTO operation is expensive in relation to AMC aircraft. The vehicles also

require fuels that the Air Force does not currently handle in large quantity except at space

launch bases. However, the RLVs are more flexible in their landing sites, needing only a

51
137 meters square to land upon. They also offer delivery 15 to 30 times faster than jet

aircraft, with comparable payloads. The people at NASA plan to replace the Space

Shuttle with the SSTO. Civilian industry is interested in this technology, and plans to

exploit it for not only space transportation, but also surface-to-surface transportation over

long distances. Ignoring this technology could leave AMC capability far behind the

civilian sector, and potentially our future enemies. There are many options AMC can

explore in evaluating a full or part share in fielding SSTOs as airlift platforms.

Recommendations

Air Mobility Command and USTRANSCOM should continue to monitor the

development of SSTO RLVs for potential use as airlift platforms. While the

development costs are fairly high, AMC and USTRANSCOM would not be liable for

those costs. Instead, they need only purchase a small fleet (perhaps 4-6) to provide a

significant capability, limiting their fuel storage and equipment costs to one location

initially. There are also several options, some discussed above, which offer ways for

AMC to defray or share the cost of SSTO deployment. As with any new technology, the

second generation vehicle would likely be significantly cheaper and more capable. If

DoD ignores this capability, the civilian industry will develop the vehicles to suit their

needs irrespective of military needs.

Also, AMC should send support and operations specialists to NASA to become

actively involved in the development of a system that has the potential to seriously

52
augment US national airlift capability. The initial interest in SSTOs has been, and will

continue to be, from companies interested in space launch. The cost and turnaround

advantages over the Space Shuttle are evident from the data presented. It will likely be

the second generation of vehicles, or at least several years into regular operation that the

surface-to-surface aspect begins to be fully exploited commercially. This is, of course,

the area of interest for DoD's transportation specialists. But since such development

takes time and expertise, AMC must be involved now. Using the initial SSTO vehicles

will provide an unmatched worldwide capability, and should not be ignored on the basis

of cost alone.

The experts at AFSPACECOM estimate 36 months from completion of X-33 to

completion of the full scale prototype testing, followed by another 24 months to build and

test the first four operational SSTOs (AFSPACECOM, 1993b). Since X-33 is scheduled

to finish in December 1999, that would make the SSTOs operational at the end of 2004.

Since AMC (along with the rest of the Air Force) starts lining up their programs at least

seven years out for the budget, consideration in 1996/7 would lead to funding completion

in 2004.

Future Research

The SSTO RLVs are currently in test and development. The first flights of the

half-scale prototype by Lockheed Martin will be March 1999 with completion in

December 1999. The success of those tests should be followed closely. After that,

53
operational capability is estimated in 2004 or 2005. There is a great amount of specific

research that AMC could investigate, and perhaps contribute to the development of a

successful AMC SSTO vehicle. Items that could be investigated include creating

servicing vehicles that are air transportable, rapid transportation of cryogenic fuels,

loading systems for containerized or non-containerized cargo and passengers, building

fuel storage facilities, ere wed or uncrewed operations studies, creation of an SSTO

CRAF, and many more. As costs and operational equipment is refined, more accurate

forecasts of budget and material requirements will be known. These must be analyzed

and reported for appropriate decision makers to use in developing and purchasing this

weapons system. But this research will be done by space operations personnel, no

airlifters, if AMC and USTRANSCOM do not get involved now.

54
 Appendix A: Acronyms and Terminology

ATD~Advanced Technology Demonstrator.

BMDO—Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. Air Force successor to SDIO, with

primary emphasis on ballistic missile defense, but tasked by Vice President Quayle to
pursue SSTO technologies.

DARPA-Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Currently managing SSRT

programs.

Delta Clipper-The McDonnell Douglas SSTO concept using a VTVL vehicle to launch
11340 kg of payload to LEO. The proposed size is roughly 40 meters tall, 12 meters
wide at the base, a cargo volume of 4.6m square by 9.1m long, and a vehicle weight of
approximately 47,600 kg. Total liftoff weight with fuel is estimated at 590,000 kg
(Ligon, 1996, pp. 119-123).

DC-X-Delta Clipper-Experimental. First prototype of the McDonnell Douglas SSTO

RLV~one-third scale. Testing complete 7 July 1995.

DC-XA- Delta Clipper-Experimental. Revision of first McDonnell Douglas SSTO RLV

prototype. Testing complete 31 July 1996.

DoD~Department of Defense.

Dry weight— the weight of the vehicle less the fuel and cargo.

ELV~Expendable Launch Vehicle. A system, such as a solid booster or rocket that is

used and discarded after or during flight. Not reusable.

FOCC-Flight Operations Control Center. The trailer or building where operational

control of the launch vehicle is performed. For the Delta Clipper, a minimum crew of
three is required.

HLV~Heavy Lift Vehicle. VentureStar, carrying 27,200 kg of cargo, is an HLV.

HTHL--Horizontal Takeoff, Horizontal Landing. The vehicle operates as a typical

aircraft. In the case of current SSTO plans, the landing portion is not powered flight, but
rather a glider similar to the Space Shuttle's current modus operandi. This mode of
landing leaves little margin for error during approach, and strictly limits landing
destinations.

55
ILC—Initial Launch Capability.

LH2--Liquid Hydrogen. May only be kept in this state at cryogenic temperatures.

Highly flammable.

LN2--Liquid Nitrogen.

LON—Launch On Need. The capability to generate a flight on shorter notice than a

typical flight. Lead time varies by craft and preparations.

LOS—Launch On Schedule. Missions launched from a predetermined schedule.

LOX or LQ2-Liquid Oxygen. May only be kept in this state at cryogenic temperatures.
Flammable.

Low Earth Orbit (LEO)—Typically 300-500 nautical miles above the earth's surface.
Many satellites are launched to this region, as opposed to geosynchronous orbit at 22,300
nautical miles. Government requirements for SSTO launch consider 100 nautical miles
as LEO.

LRU-Line Replaceable Unit. A system component that is not repaired in place. Rather,
that unit, upon failing, is removed and replaced by another similar unit, typically taking
little time. LRUs are usually repaired at a depot level repair location rather than the line
maintenance facility.

LTLT—Launch-To-Landing-Transporter. A towed vehicle used to move the DC-X/DC-

XA to and from the launch pad.

Margin—the weight growth allowance used in initial feasibility studies of spacecraft by

engineers. These "pessimistic" numbers allow for growth in the weight of system
components or inefficiencies in propulsion. Any unused margin left in an operational
system results in a performance increase, though the entire system is structurally limited
to carrying that maximum load. Unused margin will allow payloads to be lifted to a
higher orbit than originally planned, or increased robustness and operational flexibility
(Bekey, 1994). It does not, unfortunately, allow for more cargo mass since the structure
was not designed to carry more. A 15% margin is typical.

Mass Fraction— the propellant weight divided by vehicle gross weight less the payload.
An ideal vehicle would have a mass fraction of 1.0. This is unattainable since the vehicle
would then be weightless, massing only the fuel and cargo. However, it is a good
indicator of how close a given system comes to the ideal (Bekey, 1994) As a reference,
an SSTO vehicle built with Space Shuttle engines must have a mass fraction exceeding

56
0.92 to reach low earth orbit. Current Shuttle technology gives only 0.84. More efficient
propulsion and/or lighter dry weight mean you can get a higher attainable mass fraction.

MAV~Military Aerospace Vehicle.

MLV--Medium launch Vehicle. The Delta Clipper is in this class at 11,340 kg of

payload. The VentureStar, with 27,200 kg of payload would be a Heavy Lift Vehicle.

MSFC-Marshall Space Flight Center. Located in Alabama, and center for NASA SSTO
development.

NASA-National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The lead national agency for
most space related issues in the US.

NASP-National Aerospace Plane. A defunct program from the 1980s with the goal of
creating an airbreathing hypersonic aerospace craft.

Payload Fraction-payload weight divided by total vehicle weight (fuel, cargo, and
vehicle). The higher the payload fraction, the better the performance since the vehicle is
moving more payload as a fraction of the total mass. Again, 1.0 would be the ideal
payload fraction as the entire vehicle would be payload. The Space Shuttle currently has
a payload fraction of .7 percent (seven-tenths of one percent). By comparison, most
cargo aircraft have a 20-25 percent payload fraction. The Delta Clipper is planned to
have about a 1.5 percent payload fraction (Ligon, 1996, p. 119).

RLV-Reusable launch vehicle. The space craft needs no major servicing or overhaul
between flights—similar to aircraft operations.

SDIO-Strategic Defense Initiative Organization. Air Force organization responsible for

developing President Reagan's Star Wars program and related space technologies.

SLS-Space Launch System. The national space launch sites and associated capability.

Space Shuttle-Current surface to LEO launch system for the US. The Shuttle itself
weighs approximately 160,000 ponds, lifts a payload of about 14,500 kg, and relies on
three additional boosters that make the total takeoff weight nearly 2041 metric tons. The
shuttle requires 9-15,000 people working roughly six months to prepare for a launch,
which costs approximately $500 million (Ligon, 1996, p. 122).

Specific Impulse (I:p)-a measure of propulsion efficiency, it is the amount of thrust

produced per pound of propellant. The specific impulse of a propulsion system
(fuel/engine) is measured in seconds, and has a direct impact on the mass fraction
attained by a launch vehicle. Specific impulse differs from thrust in that you can have

57
high thrust and low specific impulse or other combinations. An analogy would be the
powerful, gas guzzling car that can burn rubber but only gets 3 km per liter. The
propulsion system must provide enough thrust to get airborne, but also be efficient to
reduce the amount of propellant required. Generally, higher specific impulse means a
better propulsion system. As a reference, the Shuttle (with solid boosters attached)
provides about 460 seconds Isp, while the final Delta Clipper is estimated at 450 seconds
(Ligon, 1996, p. 119). Nitroglycerin yields about 200 seconds.

SSME-Space Shuttle Main Engine

SSRT-Single Stage Rocket Technology. The overall program title for SSTO
development by the US government.

SSTO-Single Stage To Orbit. The vehicle does not shed any parts or stages during the
flight. All parts stay connected throughout the mission.

STS--Space Transportation System. The national capability to transport items to and from
space.

VTVL-Vertical Takeoff, Vertical Landing. The vehicle launches from an upright

position like a typical rocket. Upon return to the surface, the vehicle turns around to
place its tail toward the ground, typically using its engine thrust as a brake against
gravity. It then lands upon its tail or extended landing gear. This powered landing allows
for greater flexibility of landing destinations during the descent phase, and allows for
easier glidepath corrections—including the ability to hover.

VentureStar-Lockheed Martin Phase II prototype of their SSTO RLV concept. The craft
will be roughly half-scale, and fly up to mach 15 at suborbital altitudes. The cost of the
program is approximately $1 billion—done as a cost share between NASA and industry.
The NASA name for this project is X-33.

X-33-The NASA name for Phase II of the SSTO RLV development project. The
contract was won by the Lockheed Martin corporation and their allied subcontractors.

X-34—A terminated program that intended to provide another step in the development of
SSTO between DC-XA and X-33. The program was to be another cost share program,
with $100 million from industry and $70 million from NASA. The program was dropped
after industry voiced their concern that the cost was not worth the gains (Ames, 1996,
WWWeb).

58
 Additional acronyms may be found in the Acronym Dictionary (Third Edition,

January 1996), published by the USAF Air Mobility Warfare Center (AMWC), Ft Dix,

NJ. The OPR is HQ AMWC/WCOMO.

59
 Appendix B: Points of Contact

Launchspace. This company offers space science courses and seminars to individuals or
corporations to educate them on broad or specific details of technology or space systems.
Scheduled events are year round, but can be tailored to a specific customer. They are
sponsotred by the Untied States Space Foundation. Launchspace 7235 1/2 Arlington
Boulevard, Falls Church VA 22042, or 1-800-553-5907, Fax (703) 698-0211.

Lockheed Martin, RLV Program Manager, Bob Baumgartner. He can be reached at (805)
572-6192.

McDonnell Douglas, SSTO Program Manager, Dr. William Gaubatz, Deputy Program
Manager for DC-X, Paul Klevatt, or Chief Engineer for DC-XA, D.A. Steinmeyer.
McDonnell Douglas Aerospace, 5301 Bolsa Chica Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA
92647-2099, or (714) 896-3311.

McDonnell Douglas, supportability and maintainability issues, Ray Smiljanic, (310) 593-
4958.

NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Deputy Program Manager for X-33, Steve Cook.
He can provide significant information on NASA involvement in SSTO development.
His phone number is (205) 544-4918.

USAF, Advanced Spacelift Technologies, Lt Col Jess M. Sponable. Lt Col Sponable was
the Air Force Program Manager for BMDO during the DC-X tests. PL/VT-X, 3550
Aberdeen Aveneue SE, Kirtland AFB NM 87117, or phone (505) 846-8927/5929, ext.
127, or [email protected].

These are not all the sources available, but represent a good selection of direct

contacts for further inquiry.

60
 Bibliography

AFSPACECOM. Technical Requirements Document for the S-3 Spaceplane Single-

Stage-to-Orbit System. Colorado Springs: HQ AFSPACECOM, 15 April 1993.

AFSPACECOM. Government Cost Summary for Achieving Single Stage to Orbit

fSSTO) Operational Capability. Colorado Springs: HQ AFSPACECOM,
23 November 1993.

AFSPACECOM. The Operational Requirements Document fORD^ for the Military

Aerospace Vehicle fMAVI Flight System. Colorado Springs: HQ
AFSPACECOM, 1994;

Air Mobility Warfare Center (AMWC). Acronym Dictionary (Third Edition). Ft Dix
NJ: HQ AMWC/WCOMO, January 1996.

Air University. "US National Space Policy," Air Command and Staff College.
Version 10. Vol. 5: 18-7 to 18-16. Maxwell AFB AL: 1995.

Aldridge, E. C. As quoted in Testimony before the House Committee on Science. Space

and Technology: Subcommittee on Space. 17 February 1993.
GPO Item 1025-A-02 (MF). Washington: GPO, 1993.

Alpert, Jason. Customer Service, Emory Air Freight, (800)-443-6379. Kansas City KS.
Telephone interview. 16 September 1996.

Ames Research Center, NASA. "Lessons Learned From the Previous

X-34 Activities." WWWeb at http://rlv.msfc.na...._HTMLs/RLVX34.html.
22 July 1996.

Andres, D. G., E. L Bangsund, T. J. Vinopal, and E. D. Wetzel. "Economics of Fully

Reusable Launch Systems," IAA 1.1-93-641. International Astronautical
Federation. Graz, Austria: October 1993.

Apodaca, Patrice and John O'Dell. "The X-Factor in Aerospace," Los Angeles Times.
20 March 1996, sec. D: 1,6.

Asker, J. R. "Clinton Launch Policy: Upgrade ELVs, Push SSTO," Aviation Week and
Space Technology: 24-26 (9 May 1994).

Ballistic Missile Defense Office (BMDO). Delta Clipper fDC-X1 O&M Concept
Assessment. Washington: 1993.

61
Baumgartner, Bob. RLV Program Manager, Lockheed Martin, Palmdale CA. Telephone
interview. 12 September 1996.

Begert, Major General William. Oral presentation to DIRMOBFOR course, Air Mobility
Warfare Center, Fort Dix NJ, 12 September 1996.

Bekey, I., N. Powell, and R. Austin. "NASA Studies Access to Space," Aerospace
America: 38-43. (May 1994).

Bekey, I. "SSTO Rockets: A Practical Possibility," Aerospace America: 32-37 (July

1994).

Blanchard, Rick. TACC/XONY, Scott AFB IL. Telephone interview and follow up data
fax. 15 October 1996.

Bollinger, George. New Business Tariff Manager, CSXT, (800)-327-3307. Jacksonville

FL. Telephone interview. 17 September 1996.

Carter, J. P., J. W. Rachel, B. J. Corbin, and Dr. R. Block. "Vehicle Management System
for Single Stage Rocket." AIAA 93-0963 AIAA/AHS/ASEE Aerospace Design
Conference. Irvine CA. 16-19 February 1993. Washington: AIAA, 1993.

Chase, Jennifer. Tariff Consultant, Roadway Trucking, (800)-920-1000. Akron OH.

Telephone interview. 17 September 1996.

Cook, Steve. "The DC-XA News Page." WWWebat

http://rlv.msfc.nasa.gov/RLV_HTMLs/DCXANews.html. 25 July 1996.

Cook, Steve. "X-33 Specifications." WWWeb at

http://rlv.msfc.nasa.gov/RLV_HTMLs/JPEGs/X33Spec.jpeg. 25 July 1996.

Cook, Steve. "The Linear Aerospike SR-71 Experiment (LASRE)." WWWeb at

http://rlv.msfc.na...V_HTMLs/LASRE.html. 26 August 1996.

Cook, Steve. "X-33 News." WWWeb at http://rlv.msfc.na...s/RLVOverview.html.

26 August 1996.

Copper, J. A., T. Fanciullo, R. Parsley, and W. Van Dalsem. "Future Single Stage
Rockets: Reusable and Reliable," Aerospace America: 18-21 (February 1994).

Department of the Air Force. Basic Aerospace Doctrine of the United States Air Force.
Vol. 1. AFM 1-1. Washington: HQ USAF, March 1992.

62
Department of the Air Force. Air Force Doctrine Document 30 - Airlift Operations.
Washington: HQUSAF, 1995.

Dornheim, M. A. "DC-X Proving Initial Operating Concepts," Aviation Week and Space
Technology: 46, 49 (11 October 1993).

Dornheim, M. A. "DC-X Holds Promise; Big Questions Remain," Aviation Week and
Space Technology: 56-59. (28 August 1995).

Fanciullo, T. J. and D. C. Judd. "Long Life Reaction Control System Design." AIAA
92-0964 ATAA/AHS/ASEE Aerospace Design Conference. 16-19 February 1993.
Irvine CA. Washington: AIAA, 1993.

Gaubatz, Dr. William A. Space is a Place. Huntington Beach CA: McDonnell Douglas
Aerospace, December 1991, revised 1995.

Gaubatz, Dr. William A., John A. Copper, Paul L. Klevatt, Matthew G. Maras, Daniel R.
Nowlan, Ray R. Smiljanic, Donald A. Steinmeyer, Edward A. Webster, Richard
K. Weeger, and Major Jess Sponable. "A Technology and Operations Assessment
of Single Stage Technology Flight Test Program Results." AIAA-93-4163 AIAA
Space Programs and Technologies Conference and Exhibit. 21-23 September
1993.HuntsvilleAL. Washington: AIAA, 1993.

Gaubatz, Dr. William A., and Major Jess Sponable. "Delta Clipper - Developing and
Testing the Next Generation Space Transportation System." ISTS94-g-15v 19th
International Symposium on Space Technology and Science. Yokohama. Japan.
15-24 May 1994. Tokyo: Institute of Space and Astronautical Science, 1994.

Gaubatz, Dr. William A., Daniel R. Nowlan, Matthew G. Maras, John A. Copper, and
Kate A. Coleman, "Reference No. 11, Test Aspects of Single-Stage-to-Orbit
Systems." FVP Symposium on "Space Systems Design & Development Testing."
Agard 1994. Cannes. France. 3-6 October 1994.

Gaubatz, Dr. William A., Daniel R. Nowlan, Matthew G. Maras, John A. Copper, Donald
A. Steinmeyer, and John Paulson. "Ground and Flight Testing of a Fully Reusable
Single Stage to Orbit Experimental System." IAF-94-V.5.552 45th Congress of
the International Astronautical Federation. 9-14 October 1994. Jerusalem. Israel.
Paris: International Astronautical Federation, 1994.

Gaubatz, W. "DC-XtoX-33." IAF-95-V.5.08 46th International Astronautical

Congress. 2-6 October 1995. Oslo. Norway. Paris: International Astronautical
Federation, 1995.

63
Gaubatz, Dr. William A. The Road From Delta Clipper Experimental to Operational
SSTO. Huntington Beach CA: McDonnell Douglas Aerospace, undated.

Gaubatz, Dr. William A. X-33 - Taking the First Step. Huntington Beach CA:
McDonnell Douglas Aerospace, undated.

Gaubatz, Dr. William A. SSTO Program Manager, McDonnell Douglas Aerospace,

Huntington Beach CA. Personal interview. 19 March 1996.

Goetz, Philip W., ed. "Hydrogen" and "Oxygen." The New Encyclopaedia Britannica.
15 ed. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1987.

Goracke, B. D. and Daniel J. H. Levack, "Triporpellant Engine Option Comparison for

SSTO." AIAA 95-3609 AIAA Space Programs and Technologies Conference.
Huntsville AL. 26-28 September 1995. Washington: AIAA, 1995.

Holloway, J. F., and C. D. Limerick. "The Challenge of Reusable, Single Stage to Orbit
Propulsion." AIAA 93-0966 AIAA/AHS/ASEE Aerospace Design Conference.
16-19 February 1993. Irvine CA. Washington: AIAA, 1993.

Hovden, R. E., R. A. Hickman and J. P. Penn. SSTO Launch Vehicle Cost Analysis
Review. Los Angeles: Aerospace Corporation, 30 September 1993.

Leary, Warren E. "Builder is Chosen for a Test Model of a New Rocket," New York
Times. 3 July 1996, sec. A:l, D:5.

LigomTom. "Prospectus," Analog. 116: 110-125 (July 1996).

McDonnell Douglas Aerospace (MDA). Flight Test Report: Single Stage Rocket
Technology (SSRT) DC-XA Flight #1. Document number SSRT-96-XA01.
Huntington Beach CA: McDonnell Douglas Aerospace, 31 July 1996.

McDonnell Douglas Aerospace (MDA). Flight Test Report: Single Stage Rocket
Technology (SSRT) DC-XA Flight #2. Document number SSRT-96-XA02.
Huntington Beach CA: McDonnell Douglas Aerospace, 31 July 1996.

McDonnell Douglas Aerospace (MDA). Flight Test Report: Single Stage Rocket
Technology (SSRT) DC-XA Flight #3. Document number SSRT-96-XA03.
Huntington Beach CA: McDonnell Douglas Aerospace, 31 July 1996.

64
McDonnell Douglas Aerospace (MDA). Flight Test Report: Single Stage Rocket
Technology (SSRT) DC-XA Flight #4. Document number SSRT-96-XA04.
Huntington Beach CA: McDonnell Douglas Aerospace, 15 August 1996.

McDonnell Douglas Aerospace (MDA). Single Stage Rocket Technology (SSRT) DC-
XA Final Report. Document number SSRT-96-XA05. Huntington Beach CA:
McDonnell Douglas Aerospace, 30 August 1996.

McDonnell Douglas Aerospace (MDA). Delta Clipper Is A Family of Vehicles.

Huntington Beach CA: McDonnell Douglas Aerospace, undated.

Nordwall, B. D. "Robot Replacing Humans to Service Shuttle Tiles," Aviation Week

and Space Technology: 68 (22 August 1994).

Office of Command Quality, Headquarters Air Mobility Command. Command Data

Book. Scott AFBIL: HQAMQ May 1996.

Peterson, Staff Sergeant Howard, Staff Sergeant Mark Novak, and Technical Sergeant
Phillip Cassidy. McGuire AFB POL Plant (609) 724-2771, and (Cassidy)
McGuire AFB Fuels Accounting Office (609) 724-4786. Telephone interviews.
18-19 September 1996.

Pohlen, Lieutenant Colonel Terrance. Class notes, Introduction to Transportation.

Advanced Study of Air Mobility, School of Logistics and Acquisition
Management, Air Force Institute of Technology, Ft Dix NJ, 1995.

Port, O. "Is Buck Rogers' Ship Coming In?" Business Week: 118-120. (21 June 1993).

Rockwell International. Space Shuttle System Summary. Downey CA: 1980.

Rozycki, R. C, W. J. Edwards, S. W. Satterthwaite, and B. L. Worthington

"Development of the Ground Fluid Servicing System for the DC-X Vehicle."
AIAA 93-0965 AIAA/AHS/ASEE Aerospace Design Conference. 16-19
February 1993. Irvine CA. Washington: AIAA, 1993.

SeaLand Corporation. Customer Service. (800)-732-5263. Atlanta GA. Telephone

interview. 16 September 1996.

"(Semi-) Technical Aspects of SSTO." WWWeb at

http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/usr/fj04/semitech.html. 15 July 1996.

Shalikashvili, General John M. Joint Vision 2010. Washington: Department of Defense,

1996.

65
Smiljanic, Ray R., Charles (Pete) Conrad, Captain Ed Spaulding, and Staff Sergeat Don
Gisburne. "Delta Clipper: Design For Supportability," Aerospace America:
24-27 (July 1993).

Smiljanic, Ray R., Paul L. Klevatt, and Donald A. Steinmeyer. "Delta Clipper Vehicle
Design For Supportability." AIAA 93-0962 ATAA/AHS/ASEE Aerospace
Design Conference. 16-19 February 1993. Irvine CA. Washington: AIAA, 1993.

Sponable, Lieutenant Colonel Jess M. Director for Advanced Spacelift Technologies,

Phillips Laboratories, Kirtland AFB NM. Telephone interview.
10 September 1996.

Stine, G. Harry. "The Rooster Crows at White Sands." Analog. 114: 64-73 (May 1994).

Toffler, Alvin. "Toffler's Next Shock." Air University, Air Command and Staff College-
Version 10. Vol. 9, Chapter 38: 71-72. Maxwell AFB AL: 1995. Reprinted from
"Next Shock," Powershift. New York City: Bantam Books, 1990.

Tsouras, Peter G. Warriors Words. London: Arms and Armour Press, 1992.

Tucker, Dawn H. and Cass G. Panciocco. Ballistic Missile Defense Organization Single
Stage Rocket Technology Cost Estimate for the SX-2 Advanced Technology
Demonstrator Program. Huntsville AL: Applied Research, Inc.,
31 August 1993.

Walsh, John. Sales Representative, BOC Gases, West Chester PA. Personal interview at
the Air Mobility Warfare Center, Ft Dix NJ. 6 September 1996.

Worden, Colonel Simon P., Major Jess Sponable, Dr. William Gaubatz, and Paul Klevatt.
"Single Stage Rocket Technology: Here Today." Aerospace America: 20-23
(July 1993).

Worden, Colonel Pete, and Major Jess Sponable. White Paper: SX-2 Advanced
Technology Demonstrator (ATP) Program. Strategic Defense Initiative
Organization. Unpublished, undated.

Zapata, Edgar. Engineer, Kennedy Space Center. "Reusable Launch Vehicles."

WWWeb at http://calvin.ksc.../negen/rlvhp5.htm.

66
 Vita

Major John R. Stafford was born on 14 December 1960 in Los Angeles,

California. He graduated with honors from Loyola High School in 1979 and entered the

Air Force Academy. He was commissioned and graduated with a Bachelor of Science

degree in Engineering and a minor in Military History in June 1983.

His first assignment was to Williams AFB where he completed Undergraduate

Pilot Training in July 1984. His next assignment was to Norton AFB where he flew the

C-141B, upgrading to instructor and specializing in airdrop and air refueling missions. In

January 1989 he moved to Altus AFB as a schoolhouse instructor, flight examiner, and

Chief of C-141 Training Programs. While at Altus AFB, he earned a Master of Arts

degree in Social Science from Syracuse University. Next, Maj Stafford was assigned to

HQ AMC in 1992, where he worked as the Deputy Chief of Protocol and later the

Command C-141 Chief Pilot in Aircrew Standardization. In July 1995, he entered the

Advanced Study of Air Mobility Master's Degree Program at the Air Mobility Warfare

Center, sponsored by the School of Logistics and Acquisition Management, Air Force

Institute of Technology. His follow-on assignment is to HQ USAF/XOXS, the "Skunk

Works." Maj Stafford is a graduate of Squadron Officers School and Air Command and

Staff College.

Permanent Address: 13 7 W. 8th Street

Ft DixNJ 08640

67
 Form Approved
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 074-0188
Public reporting burden for th,s collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources qatherina
and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of the collection'of
information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Washington Headquarters Services. Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Hiqhway Suite
1Z04, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project 10704-01881 Washington DC 20503
1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED
Nov 1996 Graduate Research Paper
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS
SSTO RLVs: MORE GLOBAL REACH? A Study of the Use of
Single Stage to Orbit Reusable Launch Vehicles as Airlift Platforms
6. AUTHOR(S)
John R. Stafford, Major, USAF

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAMES(S) AND ADDRESS(S) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER

Air Force Institute of Technology AFIT/GMO/LAL/96N-13

2750 P Street
WPAFB OH 45433-7765

9. SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING / MONITORING

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER
HQ AMWC/WCOA
Ft DixNJ 08640
11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

12a. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 Words)

The US military must think creatively to exploit potentially useful developing technologies in the pursuit of national security.
Single Stage to Orbit (SSTO) Reusable Launch Vehicles (RLVs) are currently under cooperative development by NASA, the Air
Force, and the aerospace industry in the pursuit of assured commercial and national access to space. The transportation elements of
DoD (Air Mobility Command and USTRANSCOM) have the opportunity to exploit these rapid transit technologies to advance
"Global Reach for America." The SSTO RLV is a single stage rocket that will be completely reusable, similar to an aircraft, yet
deliver a C-130 size cargo anywhere on the planet in less than one hour. Industry, Air Force, and NASA sources were investigated to
assess the projected capabilities and costs of the SSTO system.
This paper reviews the proposed capabilites of the SSTO system, discusses the current status of the development and test program,
compares the proposed capabilities with current DoD and commercial transportation modes and costs, and recommends that Air°
Mobility Command, as airlift agent for USTRANSCOM and DoD as a whole, should pursue development and limited acquisition of
SSTO RLVs for use as airlift platforms.

14. SUBJECT TERMS

15. NUMBER OF PAGES
SSTO, RLV, Delta Clipper, VentureStar, Single Stage to Orbit, Airlift, 78
Reusable Launch Vehicles 16. PRICE CODE

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT
OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT
UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED UL
NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)
Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18
298-102
 AFIT Control Number AFIT/GM0/LAL/96N-13

AFIT RESEARCH ASSESSMENT

The purpose of this questionnaire is to determine the potential for current and future applications
of AFIT research. Please return completed questionnaire to: AFIT/LAC BLDG 641 2950 P
STREET, WRIGHT-PATTERSON AFB OH 45433-7765 or e-mail to [email protected] or
[email protected]. Your response is important. Thank you.

1. Did this research contribute to a current research project? a. Yes b. No

2. Do you believe this research topic is significant enough that it would have been researched (or
contracted) by your organization or another agency if AFIT had not researched it?
a. Yes b. No

3. Please estimate what this research would have cost in terms of manpower and dollars if it had
been accomplished under contract or if it had been done in-house.

Man Years $

4. Whether or not you were able to establish an equivalent value for this research (in Question
3), what is your estimate of its significance?

a. Highly b. Significant c. Slightly d. Of No

Significant Significant Significance

5. Comments (Please feel free to use a separate sheet for more detailed answers and include it
with this form):

Name and Grade Organization

Position or Title Address