Home - Search - Browse - Alphabetic Index: 0- 1- 2- 3- 4- 5- 6- 7- 8- 9
A- B- C- D- E- F- G- H- I- J- K- L- M- N- O- P- Q- R- S- T- U- V- W- X- Y- Z
RTTOCV
In June 1962 NASA funded studies with several contractors on Operations and Logistics for Space Stations. This included study contracts for a "Reusable Ten Ton Orbital Carrier Vehicle"

Both NASA and the military investigated various reusable TSTO launch vehicle concepts during the early 1960s. In November 1962, the heads of the military and civilian future space transportation efforts signed an agreement to coordinate their hypersonic research vehicle programs. The U.S. Air Force initially was very interested in airbreathing HTHL SSTO aerospaceplanes -- General Dynamics and North American received $1.5-million contracts for preliminary USAF concept studies in June 1963 and the Department of Defense had spent some $46 million on advanced airbreathing vehicle research by FY 1963 -- but quickly concluded that scramjets and other propulsion systems were not yet sufficiently lightweight and efficient for single-stage vehicles.

Airbreathing propulsion and rocket propulsion on HTHL TSTO boosters, on the other hand, would be bigger since they require large wings and huge hydrogen fuel tanks and consequently have a higher dry mass which translates to higher cost. For these reasons, NASA preferred all-rocket TSTO boosters for its "Space Transporter" class of vehicle, since the required engines already had been developed for the Saturn program. The Space Transporter studies were based on the following specifications: (1) 10 passengers + crew of 2 with 3,000kg of cargo to LEO, (2) reduced payload into polar orbit, (3) maximum acceleration of three G, (4) 95% mission reliability and 99.9% probability of passenger survival, and (5) launch rate options of four, eight and sixteen per month over an operational period of 10 years.

In general, the 1960s RLV studies were focused on mission/technology requirements rather than detailed vehicle design. NASA's main priorities for the 1970s were large space stations and manned lunar & planetary missions; the reusable "space transporters" and post-Saturn heavy-lift rockets were simply regarded as necessary adjuncts to reduce the transportation cost. NASA initially regarded horizontally launched TSTOs as safer for passenger transport than vertically launched systems, since the launch G-loads were reduced and the abort characteristics were better than for VLs. However, the US Air Force had more flexibility with respect to G limits and was willing to consider both vertically and horizontally launched Aerospaceplanes.



Subtopics

Douglas Astro American winged orbital launch vehicle. The Douglas "Astro" was a VTHL TSTO system designed for launching space station crews and cargo by the 1968-70 period. A key requirement was that off-the-shelf technologies must be used, e.g. existing M-1, J-2 and RL-10 engines from the Saturn and Nova expendable launch vehicle programs.

Martin Astrorocket Martin winged orbital launch vehicle design of 1962. Early two-stage-to-orbit shuttle study, using storable propellants, Dynasoar-configuration delta wing orbiter and booster.

Convair Shuttlecraft American manned spaceplane. Study 1962. Convair concept for a winged shuttle vehicle, early 1960's.

Astro launch vehicle American winged orbital launch vehicle. Douglas design of the early 1960's for a two-stage-to-orbit, winged, recoverable vehicle. Two versions were envisioned - a preliminary one the size of a DC-8 and a monster vehicle capable of delivering one million pounds payload to orbit. It was assumed at this scale that LOx/LH2 vehicles could achieve stage propellant mass fractions of 88% to 86%.

NAA RTTOCV NASA awarded a "Reusable Ten Ton Orbital Carrier Vehicle" contract worth $342,000 to North American Aviation. The final concept from 1963 was quite similar to Lockheed's System III design. The launch capability was 11,340 kg (25,000 lb) and the standard payload would have consisted of a small lenticular 12-man orbital transfer vehicle spaceplane for space station logistics and crew transfer.

Recoverable Booster Systems for Orbital Logistics American winged orbital launch vehicle. Lockheed investigated the economics of reusable launch vehicles for crews and light space station cargo during the early 1960s. Anticipated manned space activities in the 1970s included a two-phase Earth-orbital space station program, a lunar base, an early Mars mission, plus later Mars/Venus missions. Lockheed proposed four possible launch systems to support the scenario, ranging from System I, a 6-man Apollo CSM/Saturn-IB vehicle, to a fully reusable System IV with a ramjet-rocket booster.

Lockheed Space Taxi American manned spaceplane. Study 1963. Lockheed investigated the economics of reusable launch vehicles for crews and light space station cargo during the early 1960s. Lockheed proposed a new reusable 10-man spaceplane as a follow-on to the Apollo CSM.

Lockheed RTTOCV Lockheed sled-launched ten-crew winged orbital launch vehicle design of 1963, a result of NASA-funded studies with several contractors on Operations and Logistics for Space Stations.

McDonnell Spaceplane 1963 American manned spaceplane. Study 1963. In June 1962 NASA funded studies with several contractors on Operations and Logistics for Space Stations.

Reusable Orbital Carrier American sled-launched winged orbital launch vehicle. The Reusable Orbital Carrier (ROC) was a 1964 Lockheed study of a sled-launched HTHL TSTO. The booster's rocket engines would burn liquid oxygen and jet fuel while small turbojets would be used for landing approach. The 2nd stage orbiter rocketplane would make an unpowered glide return and landing. LOX, LH2 rocket propulsion would be used on the second stage. The gross liftoff weight would be about 453t and the vehicle could deliver ten passengers+3000kg to a space station. Alternatively, an unmanned 11,340kg payload could be carried.



Home - Search - Browse - Alphabetic Index: 0- 1- 2- 3- 4- 5- 6- 7- 8- 9
A- B- C- D- E- F- G- H- I- J- K- L- M- N- O- P- Q- R- S- T- U- V- W- X- Y- Z
© 1997-2017 Mark Wade - Contact
© / Conditions for Use