Open main menu

Wikipedia β

A reusable launch system (RLS, or reusable launch vehicle, RLV) is a launch system intended to allow for recovery of all or part of its components for later reuse. This contrasts with expendable launch systems, where each launch vehicle is launched once and then discarded. To date, no 100% reusable orbital launch system has ever been created.

The first major attempt at a RLV was the NASA developed Space Shuttle. It was intended to greatly reduce the cost of access to low Earth orbit, but was criticized for failing to deliver on this goal. The space shuttle system included a reusable orbiter (which included the Space Shuttle main engines and the Orbital Maneuvering System engines), and two solid rocket boosters which were reused after several months of refitting work for each launch. The external tank was discarded after each flight.[1][2] Due to failures with loss of crew and high costs, the Space Shuttle system was retired in 2011.

SpaceX and Blue Origin have recently reintroduced the concept of RLV. The Blue Origin New Shepard rocket has recoverable first and second stages but is still in development and is only capable of suborbital flights. The SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket has a reusable first stage and expendable second stage, and is currently in use for the NASA Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program and commercial satellite launches. Video of the first successful landing of a new first stage can be found here.[3] On 30 March 2017, a reused Falcon 9 successfully landed on an Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship (ASDS), after its second launch, marking the first successful relaunch and landing of a used orbital-class booster. SpaceX now routinely recovers and reuses their first stages.

Several other RLVs are in early stages of development, including the engine sections of Ariane 6 (Adeline)[citation needed] and Vulcan and the fully reusable SpaceX BFR.




In the first half of the twentieth century, popular science fiction often depicted space vehicles as either single-stage reusable rocket ships which could launch and land vertically (SSTO VTOL), or single-stage reusable rocket planes which could launch and land horizontally (SSTO HOTOL).

The realities of early engine technology with low specific impulse or insufficient thrust-to-weight ratio to escape Earth's gravity well, compounded by construction materials without adequate performance (strength, stiffness, heat resistance) and low weight, seemingly rendered that original single-stage reusable vehicle vision impossible.

However, advances in materials and engine technology have rendered this concept potentially feasible.

Before VTOL SSTO designs, came the partially reusable multi-stage NEXUS launcher by Krafft Arnold Ehricke. The pioneer in the field of VTOL SSTO, Philip Bono, worked at Douglas. Bono proposed several launch vehicles including: ROOST, ROMBUS, Ithacus, Pegasus and SASSTO. Most of his vehicles combined similar innovations to achieve SSTO capability. Bono proposed:

  • Plug nozzle engines to retain high specific impulse at all altitudes.
  • Base first re-entry which allowed the reuse of the engine as a heat shield, lowering required heat shield mass.
  • Use of spherical tanks and stubby shape to reduce vehicle structural mass further.
  • Use of drop tanks to increase range.
  • Use of in-orbit refueling to increase range.

Bono also proposed the use of his vehicles for space launch, rapid intercontinental military transport (Ithacus), rapid intercontinental civilian transport (Pegasus), even Moon and Mars missions (Project Selena, Project Deimos).

In Europe, Dietrich Koelle, inspired by Bono's SASSTO design, proposed his own VTVL vehicle named BETA.

Before HTOL SSTO designs came Eugen Sänger and his Silbervogel ("Silverbird") suborbital skip bomber. HTOL vehicles which can reach orbital velocity are harder to design than VTOL due to their higher vehicle structural weight. This led to several multi-stage prototypes such as a suborbital X-15. Aerospaceplane being one of the first HTOL SSTO concepts. Proposals have been made to make such a vehicle more viable including:

  • Rail boost (e.g. 270 m/s at 3000 m on a mountain allowing 35% less SSTO takeoff mass for a given payload in one NASA study)[4]
  • Use of lifting body designs to reduce vehicle structural mass.
  • Use of in-flight refueling.

Other launch system configuration designs are possible such as horizontal launch with vertical landing (HTVL) and vertical launch with horizontal landing (VTHL). One of the few HTVL vehicles is the 1960s concept spacecraft Hyperion SSTO, designed by Philip Bono.[5] X-20 Dyna-Soar is an early example of a VTHL design,[citation needed] while the HL-20 and X-34 are examples from the 1990s.[citation needed] As of February 2010, the VTHL X-37 has completed initial development and flown an initial classified orbital mission of over seven months duration.[citation needed] Currently proposed VTHL manned spaceplanes include the Dream Chaser and Prometheus, both circa 2010 concept spaceplanes proposed to NASA under the CCDev program.[citation needed]

The late 1960s saw the start of the Space Shuttle design process. From an initial multitude of ideas, a two-stage reusable VTHL design was pushed forward that eventually resulted in a reusable orbiter payload spacecraft and reusable solid rocket boosters. The external tank and the launch vehicle load frame were discarded, and the parts that were reusable took a 10,000-person group nine months to refurbish for flight.[citation needed] Early studies from 1980 and 1982 proposed in-space uses for the tank to be re-used in space for various applications[1][2] but NASA never pursued those options beyond the proposal stage.

During the 1970s, further VTOL and HTOL SSTO designs were proposed for solar power satellite and military applications. There was a VTOL SSTO study[permanent dead link] by Boeing. HTHL SSTO designs included the Rockwell Star-Raker[permanent dead link] and the Boeing HTHL SSTO study[permanent dead link]. However, the focus of all space launch funding in the United States on the Shuttle killed off these prospects. The Soviet Union followed suit with Buran. Others preferred expendables for their lower design risk and lower design cost.

Eventually, the Shuttle was found to be expensive to maintain, even more expensive than an expendable launch system would have been. The cancellation of a Shuttle-Centaur rocket after the loss of Challenger also caused a hiatus that would make it necessary for the United States military to scramble back towards expendables to launch their payloads. Many commercial satellite customers had switched to expendables even before that, due to the lack of response to customer concerns by the Shuttle launch system.

In 1986 President Ronald Reagan called for an air-breathing scramjet plane to be built by the year 2000, called NASP/X-30 that would be capable of SSTO. Based on the research from Project Copper Canyon, the project failed due to severe technical issues and was canceled in 1993.

This research may have inspired the British HOTOL program, which rather than air breathing up to high hypersonic speeds as with NASP, proposed to use a pre-cooler up to Mach 5.5. The program's funding was canceled by the British government when the research identified some technical risks as well as indicating that that particular vehicle architecture would only be able to deliver a relatively small payload size to orbit.

When the Soviet Union collapsed in the early nineties, the cost of Buran became untenable. Russia has only used pure expendables for space launch since.

Interest in developing new reusable vehicles. occurred during the 1990s The military Strategic Defense Initiative ("Star Wars") program "Brilliant Pebbles" required low cost, rapid turnaround space launch. From this requirement came the McDonnell Douglas Delta Clipper VTOL SSTO proposal. The DC-X prototype for Delta Clipper demonstrated rapid turnaround time and that automatic computer control of such a vehicle was possible. It also demonstrated it was possible to make a reusable space launch vehicle which did not require a large standing army to maintain like the Shuttle.

In mid-1990, further British research and major re-engineering to avoid deficiencies of the HOTOL design led to the far more promising Skylon design, with a much greater payload.

From the commercial side, large satellite constellations such as Iridium satellite constellation were proposed which also had low-cost space access demands. This fueled a private launch industry, including partially reusable vehicle players, such as Rocketplane Kistler, and reusable vehicle players such as Rotary Rocket.

The end of that decade saw the implosion of the satellite constellation market with the bankruptcy of Iridium. In turn, the nascent private launch industry collapsed. The fall of the Soviet Union eventually had political ripples which led to a scaling down of ballistic missile defense, including the demise of the "Brilliant Pebbles" program. The military decided to replace their aging expendable launcher workhorses, evolved from ballistic missile technology, with the EELV program. NASA proposed riskier reusable concepts to replace the Shuttle technology, to be demonstrated under the X-33 and X-34 programs.

The 21st century saw rising costs and teething problems lead to the cancellation of both X-33 and X-34. Then the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster and another grounding of the fleet. The Shuttle design was now over 20 years old and in need of replacement. Meanwhile, the military EELV program churned out a new generation of better expendables. The commercial satellite market is depressed due to a glut of cheap expendable rockets and there is a dearth of satellite payloads.

Against this backdrop came the Ansari X Prize contest, inspired by the aviation contests made in the early 20th century. Many private companies competed for the Ansari X Prize, the winner being Scaled Composites with their reusable HTHL SpaceShipOne. It won the ten million dollars, by reaching 100 kilometers in altitude twice in a two-week period with the equivalent of three people on board, with no more than ten percent of the non-fuel weight of the spacecraft replaced between flights. While SpaceShipOne is suborbital like the X-15, some hope the private sector can eventually develop reusable orbital vehicles given enough incentive. SpaceX is a recent player in the private launch market succeeding in converting its Falcon 9 expendable launch vehicle into a partially reusable vehicle by returning the first stage for reuse.

On 23 November 2015, Blue Origin New Shepard rocket became the first proven Vertical Take-Off/Landing (VTOL) rocket which can reach space, by passing Kármán line (100 kilometres), reaching 329,839 feet (100.5 kilometers).[6] Previous VTVL record was in 1994, the McDonnell Douglas DC-X ascended to an altitude of about 3.1 kilometers before successfully landing.[7]

On 30 March 2017, a reused Falcon 9 successfully landed on an Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship (ASDS), after its second launch, marking the first successful relaunch and landing of a used orbital-class booster. SpaceX now routinely recovers and reuses their first stages.

Reusability conceptsEdit

Single stageEdit

There are two approaches to Single stage to orbit or SSTO. The rocket equation says that an SSTO vehicle needs a high mass ratio. "Mass ratio" is defined as the mass of the fully fueled vehicle divided by the mass of the vehicle when empty (zero fuel weight, ZFW).

One way to increase the mass ratio is to reduce the mass of the empty vehicle by using very lightweight structures and high-efficiency engines. This tends to push up maintenance costs as component reliability can be impaired, and makes reuse more expensive to achieve. The margins are so small with this approach that there is uncertainty whether such a vehicle would be able to carry any payload into orbit.

Two or more stages to orbitEdit

Two stage to orbit requires designing and building two independent vehicles and dealing with the interactions between them at launch. Usually the second stage in launch vehicle is 5-10 times smaller than the first stage, although in biamese and triamese[8] approaches each vehicle is the same size.

In addition, the first stage needs to be returned to the launch site for it to be reused. This is usually proposed to be done by flying a compromise trajectory that keeps the first stage above or close to the launch site at all times, or by using small air-breathing engines to fly the vehicle back, or by recovering the first stage down range and returning it some other way (often landing in the sea, and returning it by ship.) Most techniques involve some performance penalty; these can require the first stage to be several times larger for the same payload, although for recovery from downrange these penalties may be small.

The second stage is normally returned after flying one or more orbits and reentering.

another name for this concept would be a combination launch system.

Biamese & Triamese (Crossfeed)Edit

Two or three similar stages are stacked side by side and burn in parallel. Using crossfeed, the fuel tanks of the orbital stage are kept full, while the tank(s) in the booster stage(s) are used to run engines in the booster stage(s) and orbital stage. Once the boosters run dry, they are ejected, and (typically) glide back to a landing. The advantage to this is that the mass ratios of the individual stages are vastly reduced due to the way cross feed modifies the rocket equation. Isp*g*ln(2MR^2/MR+1) & Isp*g*ln(3MR^2/MR+2)[clarification needed] respectively.[original research?] With hydrogen engines, a triamese only needs an MR of 5, as opposed to an MR of 10 for a single-stage equivalent vehicle.[citation needed]

A criticism of this approach is that designing separate orbiter and boosters, or a single vehicle that could do both, would compromise performance, safety, and possible cost savings. Compromising maximum performance to reduce cargo cost, however, is the point of the triamese approach. Stacking two or three winged vehicles can also be challenging. Optimistically, the lower mass ratios would translate to lower overall R&D costs, even if there were two different stage designs. While many aerospace designs have successfully been modified far beyond the original designer's intentions (Boeing's 747 is perhaps the best example) the slow and painful birth of the F-35 family demonstrates that it is not always a guarantee of such flexibility.[citation needed]

Horizontal landingEdit

Scaled Composites SpaceShipOne used horizontal landing after being launched from a carrier airplane

In this case, the vehicle requires wings and undercarriage (unless landing at sea). This typically requires about 9-12% of the landing vehicle to be wings; which in turn implies that the takeoff weight is higher and/or the payload smaller.

Concepts such as lifting bodies attempt to deal with the somewhat conflicting issues of reentry, hypersonic and subsonic flight; as does the delta wing shape of the Space Shuttle.

Vertical landingEdit

McDonnell Douglas DC-X used vertical takeoff and vertical landing

Parachutes could be used to land vertically, either at sea or with the use of small landing rockets, on land (as with Soyuz). McDonnell Douglas DC-X ascended to an altitude of about 3.1 kilometers before successfully landing.[7]

Alternatively, rockets could be used to soft land the vehicle on the ground, after the subsonic speeds had been reached at low altitude (see DC-X). This typically requires about 10% of the vehicle's landing weight to be propellant.

A slightly different approach to vertical landing is to use an autogyro or helicopter rotor. This requires perhaps 2-3% of the landing weight for the rotor.

SpaceX's "grasshopper" rocket, a 10-story Vertical Takeoff Vertical Landing (VTVL) vehicle, became the first reusable rocket designed to test the technologies needed to return a rocket back to Earth intact. While most rockets are designed to burn up in the atmosphere during reentry, SpaceX's rockets are being designed to return to the launch pad for a vertical landing.

By passing Kármán line (100 kilometres),[6] Blue Origin's New Shepard rocket became the first proven rocket to achieve a vertical landing after reaching space.

SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket became the first orbital rocket to vertically land its first stage on the ground, after propelling its second stage and payload to a suborbital trajectory, where it would continue on to orbit.[9]

Horizontal takeoffEdit

XCOR Aerospace EZ-Rocket used horizontal takeoff and landing using a standard airport runway

The vehicle needs wings to take off. For reaching orbit, a 'wet wing' would often need to be used where the wing contains propellant. Around 9-12% of the vehicle takeoff weight is perhaps tied up in the wings.

Air launched vehiclesEdit

Rockets launched from aircraft may be considered to be at least partially reusable, because the air launcher aircraft is a reusable stage zero. An example of a partially reusable orbital launcher of this configuration is the Orbital Sciences Pegasus system. An example of a fully reusable suborbital system of this configuration is the Scaled Composites Tier One combination of SpaceShipOne and White Knight One.

Vertical takeoffEdit

This is the traditional takeoff regime for pure rocket vehicles. Rockets are good for this regime because they have a very high thrust/weight ratio (~100).


Airbreathing approaches use the air during ascent for propulsion. The most commonly proposed approach is the scramjet, but turborocket, Liquid Air Cycle Engine (LACE) and precooled jet engines have also been proposed.

In all cases, the highest speed that an air-breathing engine can reach is far short of orbital speed (about Mach 15 for Scramjets and Mach 5-6 for the other engine designs), and rockets would be used for the remaining 10-20 Mach required for orbit.

The thermal situation for airbreathers (particularly scramjets) can be awkward; normal rockets fly steep initial trajectories to avoid drag, whereas scramjets would deliberately fly through the relatively thick atmosphere at high speed generating enormous heating of the airframe. The thermal situation for the other airbreathing approaches is much more benign, although is not without its challenges.


Hydrogen fuelEdit

Hydrogen is often proposed since it has the highest exhaust velocity. However, tankage and pump weights are high due to insulation and low propellant density; and this eliminates much of the advantage.

Still, the 'wet mass' of a hydrogen fuelled stage is lighter than an equivalent dense stage with the same payload and this can permit usage of wings. Meanwhile, it is good for second stages.

Dense fuelEdit

Dense fuel is sometimes proposed since, although it implies a heavier vehicle, the specific tankage and pump mass is much improved over hydrogen. Dense fuel is usually suggested for vertical takeoff vehicles, and is compatible with horizontal landing vehicles, since the vehicle is lighter than an equivalent hydrogen vehicle when empty of propellant. Non-cryogenic dense fuels also permit the storage of fuel in wing structures. Projects have been underway to densify existing fuel types through various techniques. These include slush technologies for cryogenics like hydrogen and propane. Another densifying method has been studied that would also increase the specific impulse of fuels. Adding finely powdered carbon, aluminum, titanium, and boron to hydrogen and kerosene have been studied. These additives increase the specific impulse (Isp) but also the density of the fuel. For instance, the French ONERA missile program tested boron with kerosene in gelled slurries, as well as embedded in paraffin, and demonstrated increases in the volumetric specific impulse of between 20-100%.


Dense fuel is optimal early on in a flight, because the thrust to weight of the engines is better due to higher density; this means the vehicle accelerates more quickly and reaches orbit sooner, reducing gravity losses.

However, for reaching orbital speed, hydrogen is a better fuel, since the high exhaust velocity and hence lower propellant mass reduces the takeoff weight.[citation needed]

Therefore, tripropellant vehicles[citation needed] start off burning with dense fuel and transition to hydrogen. (In a sense the Space Shuttle does this with its combination of solid rockets and main engines, but tripropellant vehicles usually carry their engines to orbit.[citation needed])

Propellant costsEdit

As with all current launch vehicles, propellant costs for a rocket are much lower than the costs of the hardware. However, for reusable vehicles, if the vehicles are successful, then the hardware is reused many times and this would bring the costs of the hardware down. In addition, reusable vehicles are frequently heavier and hence less propellant efficient, so the propellant costs could start to multiply up to the point where they become significant.

Launch assistance/non rocket space launchEdit

Since rocket delta-v has a non linear relationship to mass fraction due to the rocket equation, any small reduction in delta-v gives a relatively large reduction in the required mass fraction; and starting a mission at higher altitude also helps.

Many systems have proposed the use of aircraft to gain some initial velocity and altitude; either by towing, carrying or even simply refueling a vehicle at altitude.

Various other launch assists have been proposed, such as ground-based sleds, or maglev systems, high-altitude (80 km) maglev systems such as launch loops, to more exotic systems such as tether propulsion systems to catch the vehicle at high altitude, or even Space Elevators.

Reentry heat shieldsEdit

Robert Zubrin has said that as a rough rule of thumb, 15% of the landed weight of a vehicle needs to be aerobraking reentry shielding.[10]

Reentry heat shields on these vehicles are often proposed to be some sort of ceramic and/or carbon-carbon heat shields, or occasionally metallic heat shields (possibly using water cooling or some sort of relatively exotic rare earth metal.) [11] Some shields would be single-use ablatives, discarded after reentry.[citation needed]

A newer Thermal Protection System (TPS) technology was first developed for use in steering fins on ICBM MIRVs. Given the need for such warheads to reenter the atmosphere swiftly and retain hypersonic velocities to sea level, researchers developed what are known as SHARP materials, typically hafnium diboride and zirconium diboride, whose thermal tolerance exceeds 3600 C. SHARP equipped vehicles can fly at Mach 11 at 30 km altitude and Mach 7 at sea level. The sharp-edged geometries permitted with these materials also eliminates plasma shock wave interference in radio communications during reentry. SHARP materials are very robust and would not require constant maintenance, as is the case with technologies like silica tiles, used on the Space Shuttle, which account for over half of that vehicles maintenance costs and turnaround time. The maintenance savings alone are thus a major factor in favor of using these materials for a reusable launch vehicle, whose raison d'etre is high flight rates for economical launch costs.[citation needed]

Weight penaltyEdit

Any RLV is degrading the launcher’s performance compared to ELV due to additional stage inert mass. This additional mass is almost unavoidable due to either supplementary mechanical or propulsion systems or surplus propellant needed for the safe return of RLV stages. The actual amount of the mass penalty and its dispersal between structure and propellant is depending on the chosen RLV stage return modes and staging velocity. [12]


The research & development costs of reusable vehicle are expected to be higher, because making a vehicle reusable implies making it robust enough to survive more than one use, which adds to the testing required. Increasing robustness is most easily done by adding weight; but this reduces performance and puts further pressure on the R&D to recoup this in some other way.

These extra costs must be recouped; and this pushes up the average cost of the vehicle.


Reusable launch systems require maintenance, which is often substantial. The Space Shuttle system required extensive refurbishing between flights, primarily dealing with the silica tile TPS and the high performance LH2/LOX burning main engines. Both systems require a significant amount of detailed inspection, rebuilding and parts replacement between flights, and account for over 75% of the maintenance costs of the Shuttle system. These costs, far in excess of what had been anticipated when the system was constructed, have cut the maximum flight rate of Shuttle to 1/4 of that planned. This has also quadrupled the cost per pound of payload to orbit, making Shuttle economically infeasible in today's launch market for any but the largest payloads, for which there is no competition.

For any RLV technology to be successful, it must learn from the failings of Shuttle and overcome those failings with new technologies in the TPS and propulsion areas.

Manpower and logisticsEdit

The Space Shuttle program required a standing army of over 9,000 employees to maintain, refurbish, and relaunch the shuttle fleet, irrespective of flight rates. That manpower budget must be divided by the total number of flights per year. The fewer flights means the cost per flight goes up significantly. Streamlining the manpower requirements of any launch system is an essential part of making an RLV economical. Projects that have attempted to develop this ethic include the DC-X Delta Clipper project, as well as SpaceX's Falcon 9 and Falcon 1 programs.

One issue mitigating against this drive for labor savings is government regulation. Given that NASA and USAF (as well as government programs in other countries) are the primary customers and sources of development capital, government regulatory requirements for oversight, parwork, quality, safety, and other documentation tend to inflate the operational costs of any such system.

Orbital reusable launchersEdit

In useEdit

As of October 2017, the only operational orbital reusable rocket stages are Falcon 9 core boosters by SpaceX, which form the first stage of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle and will propel the upcoming Falcon Heavy three-core version.

This VTVL reusable design was publicly announced in 2011.[13][14] In 2012, SpaceX started a flight test program in which experimental vehicles Grasshopper and F9R Dev1 performed self-propelled launches, controlled hovering, precision maneuvers and soft landings at low altitudes up to 1,000 metres (3,300 ft). From 2013 to 2016, the Falcon 9 rockets performed more extensive high-altitude re-entry, guidance and landing tests in the context of operational missions.[15] Several boosters were destroyed on impact in what Elon Musk called "rapid unscheduled disassemblies".[16]

SpaceX eventually achieved the first vertical soft landing of a rocket stage on December 21, 2015: Falcon 9 booster B1019 returned to Landing Zone 1 at Cape Canaveral after helping send 11 Orbcomm OG-2 commercial satellites into low Earth orbit on Falcon 9 Flight 20.[17] On April 8, 2016, booster B1021 returned from the edge of space and landed safely on a drone ship in the Atlantic Ocean after it had propelled a Dragon capsule towards the International Space Station on the CRS-8 mission.[18] This same booster was refurbished and launched again on March 30, 2017, helping lift communications satellite SES-10 into geostationary transfer orbit (GTO); the booster landed a second time on the drone ship and was retired from service.[19]

In 2017, most Falcon 9 first-stage boosters were recovered on land or at sea; none were unintentionally destroyed. Some missions were flown in an expendable configuration without landing legs, when particularly heavy satellites required the full capacity of the rocket to reach a GTO destination orbit.

Under developmentEdit

Partial reusabilityEdit

Full and rapid reusabilityEdit

  • SpaceX is also developing the first fully and rapidly reusable launch system, the BFR. The 9-meter (30 ft) core diameter system is intended to replace both Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launch vehicles, as well as the Dragon spacecraft, initially aiming at the Earth-orbit launch market, but explicitly adding substantial capability to support long-duration spaceflight in the cislunar and Mars mission environments.[26] An earlier and larger version of this fully reusable design (12 m (39 ft) core diameter) was proposed in 2016—the ITS launch vehicle—but was subsequently replaced with the smaller BFR in the 2017-announced design.[27] "Serious development of BFR" began in 2017.[26]:15:22

Proposed and concept vehiclesEdit

Historical developedEdit


  • Baikal French/Russian early-2000s joint-project concept. Cancelled after "CNES officials concluded that a rocket system with a reusable first stage would need to launch some 40 times a year" in order to make the project economically feasible.[30]
  • HOTOL British SSTO.
  • Hyperion SSTO 1960s concept HTVL spacecraft.[5]
  • Kliper planned Russian partly reusable orbiter, cancelled in 2006.[citation needed]
  • Liquid Fly-back Booster proposed design of reusable boosters for Ariane 5 with additional derivatives
  • MAKS proposed Russian system of Buran-like smaller winged reusable orbiter on heavy aircraft carrier.
  • Phoenix SSTO[31]
  • X-30 NASP, X-33 and VentureStar proposed SSTO replacement for the Space Shuttle, cancelled in 2001.[citation needed]
  • Roton Commercial launch vehicle project, cancelled in 2000 due to lack of funds.
  • Swiss Space Systems was developing a launching system including the suborbital spaceplane SOAR. The first 2 stages, an Airbus 300 and SOAR, were planned to be completely reusable.[32][33]
  • Spiral Cancelled Soviet military system of small winged reusable orbiter on winged hypersonic air-carrier.[citation needed]

Reusability dropped, flown only as expendableEdit

  • SpaceX Falcon 1 was announced as a partially reusable launch vehicle, and the 28 September 2008 test flight reached orbit, but vehicle recovery was never demonstrated and the vehicle was retired after 2009.[34]

Suborbital reusable launchersEdit


In 2006, the US Federal Aviation Administration issued a new regulation regarding commercial reusable launch vehicles, both suborbital and orbital, as Part 431. The text can be found under the US Federal Code at 14 CFR Part 431. The new regulation was made in anticipation of planned commercial reusable launch operations including the American companies listed above. FAA regulations only have jurisdiction within the United States and its territories, and to aircraft and spacecraft registered in the United States.

See alsoEdit


  1. ^ a b NASA-CR-195281, "Utilization of the external tanks of the space transportation system"
  2. ^ a b "STS External Tank Station". Archived from the original on 7 April 2015. Retrieved 7 January 2015. 
  3. ^
  4. ^ "The Maglifter: An Advanced Concept Using Electromagnetic Propulsion in Reducing the Cost of Space Launch". NASA. Retrieved 24 May 2011. 
  5. ^ a b Wade, Mark. "Hyperion SSTO". Astronautix. Retrieved 2011-02-06. The 'Hyperion' vehicle was truly remarkable since it would have been launched horizontally and landed vertically (HTVL) — an extremely rare combination. The payload capability was 110 passengers or 18t of cargo. 
  6. ^ a b c "Blue Origin Makes Historic Reusable Rocket Landing in Epic Test Flight". Calla Cofield. Space.Com. 2015-11-24. Retrieved 2015-11-25. 
  7. ^ a b c Berger, Eric. "Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk spar over gravity of Blue Origin rocket landing". Ars Technica. Retrieved 25 November 2015. 
  8. ^ "Triamese". Retrieved 7 January 2015. 
  9. ^ "SpaceX on Twitter". Twitter. Retrieved January 7, 2016. 
  10. ^ Chung, Winchell D. Jr. (2011-05-30). "Basic Design". Atomic Rockets. Retrieved 2011-07-04. 
  11. ^ Johnson, Sylvia (September 2012). "Thermal Protection Materials: Development, Characterization, and Evaluation" (PDF). NASA Ames Research Center. 
  12. ^ Sippel, M; Stappert, S; Bussler, L; Dumont, E (September 2017), "Systematic Assessment of Reusable First-Stage Return Options" (PDF), IAC-17-D2.4.4, 68th International Astronautical Congress, Adelaide, Australia. 
  13. ^ "SpaceX says 'reusable rocket' could help colonize Mars". Agence France-Presse. Retrieved 15 July 2017. 
  14. ^ "Elon Musk says SpaceX will attempt to develop fully reusable space launch vehicle". Washington Post. 2011-09-29. Archived from the original on 2011-10-01. Retrieved 2011-10-11. Both of the rocket’s stages would return to the launch site and touch down vertically, under rocket power, on landing gear after delivering a spacecraft to orbit. 
  15. ^ Lindsey, Clark (2013-03-28). "SpaceX moving quickly towards fly-back first stage". NewSpace Watch. Retrieved 2013-03-29. (Subscription required (help)). 
  16. ^ SpaceX (January 16, 2015). "Close, but no cigar. This time". Vine. Retrieved May 8, 2016. 
  17. ^ "SpaceX on Twitter". Twitter. 
  18. ^ Drake, Nadia (April 8, 2016). "SpaceX Rocket Makes Spectacular Landing on Drone Ship". National Geographic. Retrieved April 8, 2016. To space and back, in less than nine minutes? Hello, future. 
  19. ^ "SpaceX successfuly launches first recycled rocket – video". Reuters. The Guardian. 31 March 2017. 
  20. ^ "India's Reusable Launch Vehicle Successfully Flight Tested". ISRO website. Retrieved 23 May 2016. 
  21. ^ Rajwi, Tiki (20 May 2015). "Futuristic Unmanned Space Shuttle Getting Final Touches". The New Indian Express. 
  22. ^ "Commercial Crew Program Overview" (PDF). NASA. 2011-04-22. Retrieved 21 November 2011. 
  23. ^ Messier, Doug (18 June 2014). "China Looks to Recover Booster Stages". Parabolic Arc. Retrieved 6 January 2015. 
  24. ^ "SpaceX launches and lands its first used rocket for NASA". The Verge. 15 December 2017. Retrieved 31 December 2017. 
  25. ^ Reyes, Tim (October 17, 2014). "Balloon launcher Zero2Infinity Sets Its Sights to the Stars". Universe Today. Retrieved 9 July 2015. 
  26. ^ a b Elon Musk (29 September 2017). Becoming a Multiplanet Species (video). 68th annual meeting of the International Astronautical Congress in Adelaide, Australia: SpaceX. Retrieved 2017-12-31 – via YouTube. 
  27. ^ "Mars Presentation" (PDF). 30 September 2016. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-09-28. Retrieved 6 April 2017. 
  28. ^ "SpaceFleet". Retrieved 7 January 2015. 
  29. ^ de Selding, Peter B. (5 January 2015). "CNES proposal". de Selding is a journalist for Space News. Retrieved 6 January 2015. 
  30. ^ a b de Selding, Peter B. (5 January 2015). "With Eye on SpaceX, CNES Begins Work on Reusable Rocket Stage". SpaceNews. Retrieved 6 January 2015. 
  31. ^ History of the Phoenix VTOL SSTO and Recent Developments in Single-Stage Launch Systems, AAS 91-643, included in Proceedings of 5th ISCOPS, AAS Vol. 77, pp 329-351, November 1991, accessed 2011-01-05.
  32. ^ "Mission - Goals". Retrieved 7 January 2015. 
  33. ^,, 20 Minuten, 20 Min,. "Swiss Space in Konkurs geschickt". 20 Minuten. Retrieved 2017-07-02. 
  34. ^ "Virgin Galactic relaunches its smallsat launch business". NewSpace Journal. 2012-07-12. Retrieved 2014-01-07. Several years ago, SpaceX was going to open up the smallsat launch market with the Falcon 1, which originally was to launch about 600 kilograms to LEO for $6 million; the payload capacity later declined to about 420 kilograms as the price increased to around $9 million. Later, the Falcon 1e was to provide approximately 1,000 kilograms for $11 million, but the company withdrew the vehicle from the market, citing limited demand. 
  35. ^ "Musk's Space Talk Wows Crowd at South by Southwest". Moon and Back. 2013-03-11. Retrieved 2013-03-11. 
  36. ^ Dean, James (2014-08-03). "SpaceX targeting Saturday launch from Cape". Florida Today. Retrieved 2014-08-03. 
  37. ^ Henry, Caleb (October 16, 2014). "Zero2infiniti Announces Bloostar Launch Vehicle, More than $200 Million Pre-Booked Sales". Satellite Today. Retrieved 9 July 2015. 
  38. ^ "XCOR Lynx Suborbital Spacecraft / spaceplane". Retrieved 13 June 2015. 


  • Heribert Kuczera, et al.: Reusable space transportation systems. Springer, Berlin 2011, ISBN 978-3-540-89180-2.

External linksEdit