We will dust off a decades–old Vertical Takeoff Horizontal Landing (VTHL) Single–Stage–To–Orbit (SSTO) Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) design called the VentureStar (Image A).
The VentureStar was supposed to start out as the X–33 proof–of–concept vehicle. The X–33 was a smaller scale version of the VentureStar (Image B) and would have flown suborbital flight tests, where it would have launched vertically from one location and landed horizontally in another.
All aspects of flight operations would be evaluated, from drone operations to the Thermal Protection System (TPS) to turnaround times between flights. Once all the bugs had been worked out on the X–33, the VentureStar would then be constructed and flown.
The X–33 was a lifting body–design, but later studies showed that it would not have provided sufficient lift capabilities. The wings were enlarged later in the design process which included a lower dihedral angle.
There was also a problem with the propellant tanks, which were supposed to use composite material instead of aluminum. Since the technology for Composite Propellant Tanks (CPT) were in its infancy a quarter century ago, it was inevitable that the tanks failed. CPTs are, of course, routinely manufactured nowadays, so our spacecraft will have the same.
Work actually began on the X–33 and was almost completed when the funding ax fell. The launch and landing facilities were mostly complete, and the mission control center was essentially operational. They even had a plan to ferry the X–33 on the back of a modified Boeing 747, just like the US Space Shuttle did.
The VentureStar RLV would have replaced the US Space Shuttle at the dawn of the 21st Century (Image C). Alas, the Funding Equation was inadequate and lead to its demise (Image D).
::
 |
| Image A: NASA drawing of the VentureStar space shuttle |
The VentureStar was supposed to start out as the X–33 proof–of–concept vehicle. The X–33 was a smaller scale version of the VentureStar (Image B) and would have flown suborbital flight tests, where it would have launched vertically from one location and landed horizontally in another.
All aspects of flight operations would be evaluated, from drone operations to the Thermal Protection System (TPS) to turnaround times between flights. Once all the bugs had been worked out on the X–33, the VentureStar would then be constructed and flown.
_DVIDS713464.jpg/698px-Artist_concept_of_X-33_and_Reusable_Launch_Vehicle_(RLV)_DVIDS713464.jpg) |
| Image B: The X-33 was the proof-of-concept vehicle for the VentureStar |
There was also a problem with the propellant tanks, which were supposed to use composite material instead of aluminum. Since the technology for Composite Propellant Tanks (CPT) were in its infancy a quarter century ago, it was inevitable that the tanks failed. CPTs are, of course, routinely manufactured nowadays, so our spacecraft will have the same.
Work actually began on the X–33 and was almost completed when the funding ax fell. The launch and landing facilities were mostly complete, and the mission control center was essentially operational. They even had a plan to ferry the X–33 on the back of a modified Boeing 747, just like the US Space Shuttle did.
The VentureStar RLV would have replaced the US Space Shuttle at the dawn of the 21st Century (Image C). Alas, the Funding Equation was inadequate and lead to its demise (Image D).
 |
| Image C: The VentureStar as a Space Shuttle replacement vehicle |
 |
| Image D: What might have been if not for the dreaded Funding Equation |