Abstract
In this paper a predominantly airbreathing SSTO vehicle is compared with three different TSTO configurations that stage at Mach numbers of 10,12, and 14. The first stage of the TSTO vehicle uses the same propulsion system type and airframe shape as the SSTO vehicle except for modifications required to integrate the orbiter on top of the first stage. The TSTO configuration incorporates the same technologies, mission, and design methodology as the SSTO vehicle to allow a consistent comparison. The technologies employed on each of the vehicles are consistent with a successful NASP technology development program in the areas of structures, subsystems, and propulsion systems. In an attempt to examine whether or not a more ideally integrated TSTO configuration could be competitive with an SSTO vehicle, the TSTO configurations were each redesigned with several hypothetical assumptions and compared to the reference SSTO vehicle. To determine the effect of structural and subsystem technologies on the relative weights of the SSTO and TSTO configurations, weight sensitivity trades are also presented. A comparison of the results to SSTO and TSTO rocket-powered configurations using the same technologies, mission, and design methodology is also presented.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
