AIAA 2001-4619

A Study of Air Launch Methods for RLVs

Marti Sarigul-Klijn, Ph.D. and Nesrin Sarigul-Klijn, Ph.D.*
Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering Dept, University of California, Davis, CA 95616
Many organizations have proposed air launch Reusable Launch Vehicles (RLVs) due to a renewed
nd
interest generated by NASAs 2 Generation Space Launch Initiative. Air launched RLVs are
categorized as captive on top, captive on bottom, towed, aerial refueled, and internally carried.
The critical design aspects of various proposed air launch RLVs concepts are evaluated. It is
found that many concepts are not possible with todays technology. The authors introduce a new
air launch concept that is possible with todays technology called SwiftLaunch RLV.

INTRODUCTION

missions. Air launch RLVs can operate free of

national range scheduling constraints, have
minimum launch site requirements, and they may
have reduced range safety concerns.
Air
launching significantly reduces the acoustic
energy from the engine since there is no reflection
from the ground and air density is lower. The
strength of the thermal protection system (TPS)
and structures near the base of a surface launch
vehicle are sized by acoustic energy at launch.
Finally, some air launch methods can improve
mass inserted into orbit over a similarly sized
surface launch vehicle.
Shuttle mission STS-101 of May 2000 illustrates
the problem with surface launch RLVs. Its ISS
logistic mission was delayed by total of 25 days

Air launching provides mobility and deployment

advantages over surface launching. Air launch
Reusable Launch Vehicles (RLVs) can fly over or
around launch constraining weather. They can
chase orbits and achieve any launch azimuth
without out-of-plane orbital maneuvers that
consume large amounts of on-orbit propellant important for International Space Station (ISS)
emergency access or military launch on demand
_____________________
Copyright 2001 by M & N Sarigul-Klijn.
Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics, Inc. with permission.
*Associate Fellow, AIAA
1

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

due to a combination of waiting for suitable launch

weather, waiting for other launch vehicles that
shared the same range resources, and waiting for
the ISS orbital plane to pass overhead the launch
site.
Historically, few surface launch vehicles
make their first scheduled launch date.
In contrast, air launch RLVs offer the potential
for aircraft-like operations that provide responsive
launch on demand or launch on schedule.
However, modifying an existing aircraft into an air
launch carrier aircraft limits the size of air launch
RLVs payloads. Still many organizations have
proposed air launched RLVs in response to
nd
NASAs 2 Generation Space Launch Initiative
because of the operational advantages since an
air launch RLV could complement a large surface
launched RLV. Large payload and volume would
be available from the surface launched RLV while
the smaller air launched RLV provides responsive
launch on demand or schedule, quick turnaround
times, assured access, emergency crew rescue,
low cost for small payloads, and for some
concepts improved safety. Air launch concepts
have also been proposed in other countries.

angle () between the vehicle velocity vector and

the local horizontal as soon as possible minimizes
gravity loss. Typical gravity losses are about
3,500 to 5,000 fps. Drag loss is another loss and
is caused by the friction between the launch
vehicle and the atmosphere. It is given by:

D / m dt

Where both the drag force D, and the mass of the

launch vehicle, m, are continuously changing.
Drag losses are in the order of about 500 fps for
medium sized rockets and can be minimized by
flying a vertical trajectory to clear the atmosphere
as soon as possible and by building a low drag
rocket. A long slender cylinder with a pointed
nose is a favored shape since over of drag
losses are caused by supersonic drag. Also drag
losses are subjected to the cubed-squared law.
As an objects external dimensions increase,
surface area increases with the square of the
dimension while volume increases with the cube.
Since drag is a function of surface area and not
volume, then increasing the launch vehicle size
will reduce drag losses. For example, the huge
Saturn V moon rocket had drag losses of only 150
fps. Finally, steering loss is the mismatch of the
engines thrust vector with the vehicles velocity
vector and is caused by the need to steer the
launch vehicle. Steering losses are typically 100
to 600 fps.
Notice a compromise trajectory must be chosen
to minimize losses. A vertical trajectory that would
minimize drag losses increases gravity losses
while a trajectory that pitches early to the
horizontal would decrease gravity losses while
increasing drag losses as the vehicle plows
through the atmosphere. Computer programs,
such as NASAs POST (Program to Optimize
Simulated Trajectories) are used to find the
trajectory with the lowest losses. For a typical
surface launched rocket the various losses
amount to about 5,000 fps.
Finally, delta V depends on launch location. The
best place to launch is from the equator in a due
east direction because the Earths rotation helps
with a free velocity increment of 1,520 fps. The
actual increment depends on launch site latitude
and launch direction. Hence a baseline vertical
launch from the surface to the east requires a total
delta V of between 29,000 to 30,000 fps.

SCOPE
This paper will discuss horizontal take-off launch
vehicles that have more than one stage and have
some reusable component(s). Our analysis is
limited to information found in the public domain
such a companys web sites, journal articles, or
press releases and will discuss only the major
deficiencies found in each concept. Limits to the
length of this paper prevent mentioning all the air
launch concepts that have been proposed.
GETTING INTO ORBIT
The velocity of an object in an 100 nautical mile
(nm) circular low earth orbit (LEO) is about 25,600
feet per second (fps). However, the change of
velocity (called delta V) that a launch vehicle must
provide is greater than this amount because of
several losses. Gravity loss arises because part
of the launch vehicles energy is wasted in holding
it against the pull of Earths gravity (g). It is given
by:

g sin dt

(2)

(1)

with integration carried from ignition to burnout.

Flying a trajectory that zeros out the flight path
2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

AIR LAUNCH PERFORMANCE BENEFITS

A wingless launch vehicle released from under a

parachute at 30,000 ft altitude gains about 1,200
fps delta V over a baseline vertical surface launch.
In contrast, a winged vehicle launched horizontally
from the surface, such as the cancelled X-30
National Aerospace Plane, carries a 700 to 1,000
fps delta V penalty.

Air launching can reduce the delta V required to

reach orbit. The forward speed provided by a
subsonic carrier aircraft can provide 600 to 800
fps. Launch at altitude can reduce gravity and
drag losses as well increase engine efficiency due
to better thrust expansion in the engine nozzle and
due to using a large area ratio nozzle properly
sized for the launch altitude.
Surprisingly, a typical straight and level subsonic
horizontal air launch such as used by the X-15
research rocketplane does not result in any
significant changes in the delta V requirement as
compared to a baseline vertical surface launch.
Horizontal launched vehicles like the X-15 must
accelerate to a higher airspeed after being
dropped so that their wings can produce enough
lift in order to conduct an aerodynamic pull-up
maneuver. Typically a descent of 4,000 to 7,000
feet (ft) occurs until sufficient airspeed is obtained.
The pull-up maneuver is limited to 2 to 3 Gs due
to airframe and wing structural limits and takes
about 1 minute to reach a climb-out angle of 45 to
80 degrees nose-up. During the one-minute pullup maneuver, aerodynamic pressure increases,
and the launch vehicle is subjected to both high
sideways bending moments as well as high
aerodynamic pressure. For example, the Orbital
Sciences air launched Pegasus XL experiences
over 1250 pounds per square foot (psf)
aerodynamic pressure, twice the Space Shuttles,
even though it is launched at 38,000 ft.
To provide a performance benefit, the carrier
aircraft must be capable of releasing the launch
vehicle at a positive flight path angle () above the
o
local horizon. A subsonic release at = 25
provides about 1,600 fps delta V benefit for a
winged launch vehicle. Further increases in
o
above 25 provide little additional benefit for
winged launch vehicles but does provide
additional benefit for unwinged launch vehicles.
Unfortunately, possible carrier aircraft such as the
Boeing 747 or Lockheed C-5 Galaxy need thrust
o
augmentation in order to maintain a =25 while
flying above 30,000 ft. Adding a liquid fueled
rocket to the carrier aircraft appears to be the best
choice, since a jet engines thrust decreases with
altitude.
At 20,000 ft altitude a jet engine
produces 1/2 of its sea level thrust and at 40,000
ft, thrust is 1/4 of sea level. In contrast, a rocket
engine thrust increases by about 5 to 10% as it
leaves the atmosphere.

MASS FRACTIONS
In order to reach LEO, a sizable portion of a
launch vehicles mass must be propellant. The
mass of the propellant (MP) relative to the mass of
the total vehicle before ignition (Mi ) is called
propellant mass fraction. The mass of the rest of
the vehicle (MF ) relative to the ignition weight is
called dry mass fraction. The dry mass fraction
includes the payload, structures, engines, residual
and reserve propellant, avionics, on-orbit
maneuvering and reentry propellant, reentry
thermal protection, and landing system.
For
manned vehicles, dry mass fraction also includes
the crew, escape systems, and life support
systems.
The LEO payloads of current
expendable launch vehicles are typically only 1 to
3.5% of the ignition weight.
Mass fraction
depends on propellant combination and number of
vehicle segments or stages. By staging a vehicle
it is possible to reduce propellant mass fraction,
employ different types of propellants or types of
power plants, and use entirely different
configurations in successive stages of any one
vehicle.
A kerosene-liquid oxygen (RP-LOX)
single stage to orbit (SSTO) vehicle must have at
least a 94% propellant mass fraction while a twostage to orbit (TSTO) vehicle with optimum staging
must have 90% propellant in each stage. In other
words, a RP-LOX launch vehicle must carry 9 to
16 times its dry weight in propellant in order to
reach orbit. Note that optimum staging occurs
when the lower stage is roughly 5 times more
massive then the upper stage.
Also notice that for a TSTO vehicle, one stage
can have propellant mass fraction less then the
optimum number. For example, if the first stage of
a TSTO RP-LOX vehicle had a propellant mass
fraction of 50%, then the second stage could
compensate with a fraction of 92% and still reach
orbit. Because staging adds additional engines
and interstages (the structure that joins the stages
together), it is impractical to have more than 4 to 7
stages in a vehicle.

3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Liquid hydrogen-LOX (LH2-LOX) is a propellant

combination with a higher specific impulse (Isp).
Isp is a measure of the efficiency of a propellant
and engine combination.
A LH2-LOX SSTO
needs a propellant mass fraction of 90% while a
TSTO needs roughly about 85% to reach orbit.
However, LH2-LOX engines weigh twice as much
RP-LOX engines for the same amount of thrust.
This is due to the large passageways in the engine
required to flow the low-density LH2. LH2 density
is only 8.8% of RP. Also LH2-LOX propellant
tanks weigh about 2.8 times more than RP-LOX
1
tanks when carrying the same mass of propellant.
Again this is due to large volume tanks required to
hold the LH2. These factors erode many of the
benefits of using high Isp LH2-LOX.

For example, the X-15 carried propellant equal

to 55% of its launch mass even though its wings
and landing gear where sized for landing and not
take-off.
This is similar to other supersonic
aircraft, such as the Concorde. Figure 1 plots the
empty weight fraction of various existing aircraft
and some proposed carrier aircraft. Empty weight
fraction is the aircraft empty weight divided by its
maximum operating weight (MOW). It differs from
dry mass fraction in that it does not include
payload since aircraft payloads are 5 to 35% of
MOW. MOW includes the aircrafts empty weight,
aircraft fuel, and payload.
Fig. 1 - Empty Weight Fractions (%)
60
Empty Wt / MOW (%)

WING-BORNE VS ROCKET-BORNE FLIGHT

Rockets can carry propellant mass fractions of
90% or more. For example the lower stage of the
TSTO Titan II rocket has a propellant mass
2
fraction of 96.4%.
The Titan IIs lower stage
carries 35 times its dry mass in the form of lower
and upper stage propellants, upper stage dry
mass, and payload mass. Rockets are basically
pressurized balloons under compression and are
subject to very little bending and no twisting
moments.
Wing-borne vehicles can not be built with large
propellant mass fractions. In addition to propellant
tanks and engines, wing-borne vehicles have
wings, control surfaces, and landing gear all
which add to dry mass. Some air launch concepts
even add jet engines which increases dry mass
further. Wing-borne vehicles are also subject to
high bending and twisting moments which
increases structural mass.
Aircraft are quite
flexible, especially in fuselage longitudinal
bending, wing spanwise bending, and wing
torsional deflection. These have a major effect
upon stability characteristics that in turn affects
structural mass. For example, a typical sweptwing transport at high subsonic speeds will have a
reduction in elevator effectiveness of about 50%
due to fuselage flexibility effects.
Aileron
effectiveness is reduced by 50 to 100% because
deflecting the ailerons twist the wing in the
opposite direction causing a condition known as
aileron reversal. Thus many parts of an aircraft
are not designed to strength limits, but to stiffness
requirements which greatly increases structural
mass.

X-15

Concorde

747
C-5

40

An-124

Astroliner

20

Pathfinder

Alchemist

0
0

400,000

800,000

1,200,000

1,600,000

Maximum Operating Weight (MOW in lbs)

AIR LAUNCH METHODS

We have categorized air launched RLVs into five
launch method categories:
(1) Captive on top
(2) Captive on bottom
(3) Towed
(4) Aerial refueled
(5) Internally carried
Several examples are used in the following
discussion of each launch method.
Captive on top. The advantage of the captive on
top launch method is the capability to carry a large
RLV on top of the carrier aircraft. Disadvantages
include penetrations on the windward side of the
RLVs thermal protection system (TPS) for
attachment hardpoints and extensive modifications
(high cost) to the carrier aircraft. Also the RLV
must have active controls at release from the
carrier aircraft and the RLV wings must to be large
enough to support it at separation from the carrier
aircraft. Examples include:

4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

hydrogen ramjet was run for 25 seconds in a

simulated Mach 4 environment by MBB in 1991.
The program was cancelled due to development
cost.
Interim HOTOL. The British Aerospace Interim
4
HOTOL was studied from 1989 to 1991 and was
an air-launched version of the original HOTOL that
eliminated the ambitious RB-545 combined cycle
air-breathing propulsion system for four modified
Russian RD0120 LH2-LOX rocket engines. The
carrier aircraft was to be a Ukrainian An-225 Mriya
(Dream) aircraft, currently the worlds largest
aircraft.
Modifications to the aircraft including
adding two Lotarev D-18 engines to increase
number of engines to 8. The Interim HOTOL
would separate from the carrier aircraft at Mach
0.8 at 30,000 ft. It wings would assist its pull up
for the ascent to orbit and it would return via a
gliding re-entry and conventional runway landing.

Spiral 50-50 credited Dan Roam

3

Spiral. The Sprial 50-50 represents a very

advanced concept that is still not possible with
todays technology since it requires advanced
materials, TPS, and engines. It was funded from
1965 to 1978 by the Soviet government and
consisted of an air-breathing Mach 7 booster
aircraft powered by 4 hydrogen-burning airbreathing turboramjets, an expendable two-stage
rocket, and a one-person orbital spaceplane.
Take-off gross weight was projected at 280,000
pounds (lbs). A proof-of-concept prototype of the
orbital spaceplane was flown at least 3 times from
1976 to 1978 after being airdropped from a Tu-95
aircraft. As an example of advanced technologies
needed for this concept, NASAs is just now
testing a small prototype hydrogen-burning airbreathing Mach 7 engine in the X-43 flight
demonstration program.

Interim HOTOL credited British Aerospace

Interim HOTOL represents an advanced concept
that is still not possible with todays technology. It
required fueling with densified super cooled LH2
and LOX to prevent propellant boil-off during the
climb and cruise to the launch point. External
carriage of the Interim HOTOL meant that its
propellants were subjected to both radiation
heating from the sun and convective heating from
the atmosphere. As an example of propellant boiloff, the X-15 that carried 1,000 gallons of LOX
internally needed to be topped off from its B-52
carrier aircraft with 600 to 800 gallons of LOX
during the 45-minute to 1-hour climb and ferry to
the launch point. The B-52 carried 1,200 gallons
of LOX in an internal insulated tank.
Interim HOTOL needed new materials for its
tanks and wings in order to achieve the dry mass
fraction required for LEO. To improve Isp, the
engines would incorporate a two-position nozzle
that would be deployed while the engines were
operating something that has never been
attempted before. Although two-position nozzles

Saenger II credited Mark Lindroos

3

Saenger II.
Saenger II represents a very
advanced concept that is still not possible with
todays technology. It was funded from 1985 to
1994 by the MBB company and the German
Ministry for Research and Development.
It
consisted of a large air-breathing Mach 6.6
booster
aircraft
powered
by
6
co-axial
turboramjets and a small rocket-powered upper
stage (HORUS). The HORUS would deliver a
crew of two and 6,600 lbs of payload to LEO.
Take-off gross weight was projected at over
750,000 lbs. As part of the program a liquid
5

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

are currently used, they are deployed and locked

into place before the engine is started.
Finally, the designers of Interim HOTOL were
unable to achieve a satisfactory solution to its
stability and control problems. Reusable launch
vehicles must control their center of gravity (CG)
position both during ascent and reentry. During
the wing borne portion of flight, the CG must be
reasonably close to the wings lift or center of
pressure (CP). With engines mounted in the rear,
then empty CG is dominated by the engine
location, and the wings must be in the rear for
reentry. The resulting configuration suffers from a
severe CP / CG mismatch during ascent as the
CP shifts forward, due to the wide Mach range, the
large fuselage cross section to wing area ratio,
and the long overhang of the forward fuselage
while the CG moves aft as the propellant is burnt.

tanks for Lockheeds X-33 demonstrator weighed

more than 3.4 times (at 2.16 lbs/ft^3) than the
Shuttles expendable LOX tanks (0.62 lbs/ft^3)
even though the X-33 tanks factor of safety was
6
only 1.25. Pushing the external tank also allowed
for aborts without the weight of escape rockets
since during the atmospheric portion of the ascent
trajectory the external tank was always denser
than the orbiter. This meant the orbiter and
external tank would naturally separate if released.
The orbiter and external tank concept also
reduced the amount of orbital maneuvering
propellant required. Finally, the external tank
concept solved the stability and control problem
that plagued Interim HOTOL.
At the time of the cancellation, a 20,000 pound
force (lbf) thrust experimental engine with 19
injectors had been tested with 50 test burns
demonstrating a smooth switch between RP-LOX
and LH2-LOX operation. The RD-701 would have
had a thrust of 440,000 lbf each. Also, mock-ups
of both the orbiter and the external tank had been
finished.
The MAKS concept required the development of
new TPS materials for the orbiters leading edges
since it had a smaller radius (and hence higher
heating rate and temperatures) than the Burans
leading edges.
It also required the use of
supercooled propellants to prevent propellant boiloff. The orbiters payload capability appears a bit
optimistic, equaling 50% of the orbiters empty
weight. The larger Space Shuttle is capable of
less than 30% of its empty weight. Finally, the
fully reusable MAKS-M would require advanced
materials for the tanks as well as a solution to
ascent and reentry stability and control problems.

MAKS-OS credited NPO Molniya

5

MAKS. NPO Molniya developed MAKS in a

draft project that was completed in 1989. The
MAKS was to consist of a manned version
(MAKS-OS), and unmanned cargo carrier (MAKSC), a sub orbital demonstrator (MAKS-D), and an
advanced fully reusable unpiloted version (MAKSM), similar to Interim HOTOL. The MAKS-OS is
shown and it weighed 1.3 million lbs on takeoff. It
consisted of a An-225 carrier aircraft that would
piggy-back the 600,000 lb MAKS to an altitude of
about 30,000 ft and 480 kts, an external tank, and
a 40,000 lb and 63 ft long spaceplane designed for
100 reuses. It would carry a crew of two and a
o
payload of 18,000 lbs to a 100 nm 51 inclination
orbit and was powered by two RD-701 tripropellant
engines designed for 15 re-uses. These engines
initially used RP-LOX and then switched to higher
specific impulse LH2-LOX at reduced thrust later
in the trajectory. This reduced the size of the
external tank and was expected to reduce the
mass of the engines to half as compared to pure
LH2-LOX engines.
MAKS pioneered the idea of an orbiter pushing
an external tank. This significantly reduced the
tanks weight as compared to a fully reusable
integral tank. For example, the reusable LOX

Boeing AirLaunch credited Boeing

Boeing AirLaunch.
Conceived in 1999,
AirLaunch is feasible system design based on
todays technology. Its design goals were to keep
development and recurring costs to a minimum. It
6

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

can support two configurations, placing a Space

Maneuver Vehicle (SMV) into LEO, or launch civil,
commercial and military payloads with a
Conventional Payload Module (CPM). Thiokol
Propulsion would provide existing Castor 120 solid
rocket motors for the first two stages and a new
design for the third stage. Solid rockets have
shown that they can withstand both the sideways
Gs and the high aerodynamic pressure of a
horizontal air launch with little penalty in weight.
This is because their outer motor case must be
sized to withstand the internal pressure of
combustion. Solid motor wall thickness is several
times thicker (and heavier) than a liquid fueled
propellant tank wall thickness. Also the solid
propellant
itself
provides
some
structural
strengthening, particularly in compression. Note
that the SMV is a small, unpiloted reusable
spacecraft designed to support a variety of military
space missions ranging from satellite deployment
to terrestrial and on-orbit support.
The AirLaunch is basically the Lockheed Martin
Athena rocket on its side with wings attached.
The launch price of the Athena is currently $22 to
$26 million. Adding a wing will increase the cost
by a few more million. Unfortunately, the Athena
has demonstrated a poor launch record, with 2
failures in 5 launches. The extra drag of the
AirLaunch limits launch altitude to about 24,000 ft
since mounting it on top of its 747 carrier aircraft
causes a great amount of drag. The inherent low
Isp (280 seconds) and low propellant mass
fraction of solid propellant motors limits AirLaunch
to about 6,600 lbs for inserted orbital mass.
AirLaunch would need a specially modified 747,
which Boeing estimates at $500 million to build
and ten of millions of dollars a year to operate.
Boeing AirLaunch is an expendable launch vehicle
except for its 747 carrier aircraft and the SMV.

launches to its credit. It consists of expendable 3stage solid rocket booster with wings attached to
st
the 1 stage. It is launched from Orbital Sciences
L-1011 Stargazer carrier aircraft.
Estimated
launch price is $12 - $15 million and maximum
payload is 1,000 lbs to 100 nm equatorial launch.
Only the carrier aircraft is reusable.
Yakovlev HAAL. Initially conceived in 1994 as
Burlak (barge-hauler) and now called High Altitude
7
Aerial Launch (HAAL) , this concept is possible
with todays technology.
The system would
consist of a two stage expendable rocket launched
from
the
Tu-160
Blackjack
swing-wing
supersonic bomber at an altitude of 45,000 ft and
Mach 1.7. The 70,000 lb launch vehicle is based
on a Russian ICBM and is fueled with noncryogenic propellants (N2O4/UDMH) and is
carried under the Tu-160. Payload is 2,500 lbs to
a 100 nm orbit. Launch price is estimated at $5
million and development cost is estimated at $100
million. Getting the necessary permission to use
the big Tupolev bombers - the most advanced
bombers the Russians have ever built required
that the US and the Ukraine agree to lift certain
conditions of the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty.
The aircraft were modified so that they cannot
again be used for weapons delivery.

Yakovlev HAAL photo by Vic Stathopoulos

Captive on bottom.
The advantages of the
captive on bottom launch method includes proven
and easy separation from carrier aircraft, leeward
side penetrations and hard points on the RLV that
eliminates some TPS concerns, and the option of
sizing the wing smaller then required for flight at
the release altitude and airspeed. Disadvantages
include limits to RLV size due to under the carrier
aircraft clearance limitations and the high cost of
carrier modifications. A new carrier aircraft can
eliminate clearance limitations.

Yakovlev Skylifter. Conceived in the late 1990s,

Skylifter is proposed as a large twin fuselage
aircraft that could carry a 900,000 1 million lb
payload. It would use modified landing gear from
the Antonov An-225, the outer wing sections from
an Antonov AN-124, and the cockpit, nose and
forward fuselage from the Yakovlev Yak-40
airliner. Twin boom assemblies support a pair of
vertical stabilizers connected by a high-mounted
horizontal stabilizer. Two tall vertical pods that
would house the landing gear, hence the wing and
fuselages would sit high above the runway. The

Pegasus.
Pegasus is the worlds only
operational air launch vehicle with over 30
7

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

resulting configuration can carry a large RLV (23 ft

high by 79 ft wide) below the wing and between
the twin fuselages.

Concorde supersonic airliner requires 152,000 lbf

from its engines to take-off at a 400,000 lb gross
weight for a take-off thrust to weight ratio of 0.38.
The Astroliner not only weighs 80% more then the
Concorde but also has more drag because its
truncated tail, which houses its rocket engines,
greatly increases subsonic drag. For example, the
drag of the Space Shuttle is 70% more with its tail
9
fairing off than with it on.
The 80,000 lbf of
excess thrust from the 747 is only capable of
towing off about a 200,000 lbs Astroliner.
A
720,000 lb Astroliner would need enormous jet
engines installed in it to augment the 747 tow
aircrafts thrust.
The Astroliners published empty weight fraction
is only 29%. No supersonic aircraft has achieved
this low empty weight, and certainly not one that
has to carry both jet engines and rocket engines.
The Astroliners wings and landing gear must be
sized for take-off with a full load of propellant and
payload on board. The Astroliner is expected to
carry 3.5 times its empty weight in propellant,
crew, and upper stage when current supersonic
aircraft can only carry 1 times their empty weight.
Even if the Astroliner worked as published, the
launch method does not make economical sense
since the upper stage, the most expensive part, is
expended. It contains tanks, a high performance
engine,
telemetry,
flight
computer,
flight
termination system, and avionics.

Towed. The primary advantages of a towed

concept are easy separation from the towing
aircraft and low cost modifications to the towing
aircraft. Safety concerns include broken towlines
and a towing aircraft take-off abort. Propellant
boil-off can be a major problem unless
supercooled propellants are used since there is no
means to replenish the propellant from the towing
aircraft. Another disadvantage is sizing the RLVs
wings and landing gear for take-off with a full
propellant load.

Astroliner credited Kelly Space

Kelly Spaces Astroliner. Conceived in 1993 and
receiving over $6 million in NASA funding, the
8
Kelly Space and Technology Astroliner concept is
a combined jet and rocket powered aircraft that
was to be built using existing technology and off
the shelf components. The fully fueled 720,000 lb
Astroliner would be towed off of a runway using
the thrust of its own jet engines and the excess
thrust from a stripped down Boeing 747 acting as
a tow aircraft. At 20,000 ft, the tow line would be
dropped and once clear of the 747, the Astroliner
would light its rocket engines and it was expected
to accelerate to Mach 5 and then coast to 65 nm
altitude. Clear of the atmosphere its nose would
open and release a 56,000 lb upper stage capable
of placing a 10,000 lbs into LEO. Except for
towing, new technologies were not expected to be
needed for the Astroliner.
Although the Astroliners basic towing concept is
sound, its current sizing is not possible with
todays technology. A stripped-down 747 has only
about 40% of its 192,000 lbf of sea level thrust
available for towing.
As a comparison, the

Aerial Refueled.
The principal advantage of
aerial refueling is that it reduces the size of the
carrier aircraft's wing and landing gear. Note that
aerial refueling does not reduce the size of the jet
engines they must be sized to maintain level
flight for a fully fueled carrier aircraft.
Pioneer Rocketplane. Conceived in the late
1990s and receiving $2 million in NASA funding,
10
the Pioneer Pathfinder Rocketplane concept is a
combined jet and rocket powered aircraft that was
to be built using existing technology and off the
shelf components. It would use its two turbofan
engines for take-off, rendezvous, and refueling
with a 747 aerial tanker where it would take on
130,000 lbs of LOX, effectively doubling its gross
weight to 274,000 lbs. This refueling concept
would reduce the size of the Pathfinders wings
and landing gear to about 1/2 of an aircraft that
had to carry all its oxidizer at take-off. Once clear
of the 747, it would light its single RD-120 engine
and it was expected to climb to 70 nm altitude and
Mach 15. Clear of the atmosphere it would open
8

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

its payload bay doors and release a 34,000 lb

upper stage capable of placing a 4,400 lb satellite
into LEO. Except for LOX aerial transfer, new
technologies were not expected to be needed for
Pathfinder.

style on the Gryphon.

Like the Pioneer
Rocketplane, the Alchemist takes off without any
oxidizer on board. An on-board LOX production
plant makes over 900,000 lbs of LOX from the
atmosphere by using compressed air from its 4
turbofan engines and 70,000 lbs of on-board liquid
hydrogen (LH2). Onboard LOX generation would
reduce the size of the Alchemist wings and landing
gear to less than 1/2 of an aircraft that had to carry
all its oxidizer at take-off. LOX generation takes 1
to 3 hours during which time the Alchemist flies to
the launch point.
After LOX generation is
completed, all 7 rocket engines fire and the
combined vehicles climb. Staging of the Merlin
orbiter is proposed at Mach 8 and the Gryphon
booster would restart its 4 turbofan engines after
reentry to fly back to the launch site.
The published empty weight fraction of the
Gryphon booster is an unachievable 0.19. Also its
four turbofans produce only 75,000 lbf of thrust at
20,000 ft altitude, insufficient by a factor of at least
3 to keep a 1.5 million lb aircraft airborne
(especially with the drag caused by the boosters
truncated tail and the piggybacked orbiter).
Serious stability and control problems may occur
during LOX generation since the LH2 used to
generate the LOX would occupy a 15,900 cubic ft
(equal to four X-33 LH2 tanks) while the LOX
would occupy a 13,500 cubic ft. Unfortunately,
this volume must be located in different tanks.
Also when Alchemist begins its rocket powered
ascent, it must carry the dead weight of large
empty LH2 tanks and a LOX generation plant.
Finally, the Alchemist uses a total of its seven
LH2 - LOX engines plus its four turbojets for a total
of 11 engines. The probability of an engine failure
is very high with this number of engines. A
catastrophic engine failure can be expected once
every 200 to 300 missions and a safe shutdown
failure can be expected every 30 to 40 missions if
the failure rate data for the Shuttle Main Engine is
assumed. The Alchemist does not represent a
feasible system that can be implemented as
designed or accomplish its design goals with
current technology.

Pathfinder credited Pioneer Rocketplane

Although the Pathfinders basic aerial refueling
concept is sound, its current sizing is not possible
with todays technology.
Its published empty
weight fraction is only 22%. Even with the savings
in landing gear and wing weight, the Pathfinder is
expected to carry 4.6 times its empty weight in
propellant, crew, and upper stage. Furthermore
the published empty weight fraction is too large to
allow staging at Mach 15. The rocket equation
shows staging at Mach 7 using published weights
and expected gravity and drag losses. However
with realistic weights using todays technology
Pathfinders staging would be much slower. It
would still be subject to significant aerodynamic
pressure during staging making release from
Pioneers payload bay extremely hazardous.
Like the Astroliner, Pioneer Rocketplane launch
method does not make economical sense since
the upper stage, the most expensive part, is
expended.
Andrews Space Alchemist. Conceived in the
late 1990s and receiving over $3 million in NASA
funding, the Andrews Space & Technology (AST)
Alchemist TSTO RLV uses an airbreathing / rocket
combined cycle propulsion system where each
system operates largely independent of the
11
other.
The AST concept consists of a first stage
booster called the Gryphon and a second stage
orbiter called the Merlin which rides piggyback

Internally Carried. An advantage of internally

carried concepts include little or no modifications
to the carrier aircraft (lowers both development
and operations cost). Most propellant boil-off
concerns are eliminated since the launch vehicle
is not subject to either radiation heating from the
sun or convective heating from the airstream.
Maintenance crews have access to the launch
9

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

vehicle until just before the launch, which reduces

the safety concerns of carrying a launch vehicle
with a manned carrier aircraft. The launch vehicle
is in a benign environment inside the carrier
aircraft and maintenance and safety problems can
be detected and resolved. Also, internal carriage
eliminates weather induced launch failures (such
as the Shuttle Challenger) by launching into a
known and benign environment (the stratosphere)
from the protection of the carrier aircraft.
Also, all the internal carriage concepts can
jettison the launch vehicles quickly.
This
compares to some concepts that we have already
discussed that propose a manned rocket-powered
booster with no means of jettisoning the internally
carried rocket engines and no rapid means of
dumping the internal propellant load. Flight crews
are exposed to the risks of carrying and firing
internally carried liquid fueled rocket engine(s). In
contrast, internally carried launch concepts require
carrying rockets inside manned aircraft, but not
firing them.
Internally carried launch concepts are also able
to carry heavier RLVs and release at the higher
altitudes as compared to externally carried RLV
concepts. Externally carried RLVs increase the
carrier aircraft drag while internally carried RLVs
dont. Since the carrier aircrafts jet engine thrust
must equal its drag, then either its gross weight or
launch altitude is reduced for externally carried
RLVs.

missile was also considered. In January 1997, the

second stage of a Minuteman I was successfully
parachute airdropped from a C-130.
A disadvantage of internal air launch is that the
launch vehicle must be sized to fit inside the
carrier aircraft. Also LH2-LOX powered RLVs can
not be carried because air and gaseous hydrogen
explode over a wide range of mixture ratios 4%
to 76% by hydrogen volume ratio not a safe
situation for the interior of a cargo airplane.

Vozhushny Start credited Air Launch Aerospace Corp.

Vozdushny Start (Air Start). The Energia, Polyot
and Antonov companies are currently developing
12
Air Start.
Like Boeing AirLaunch, its design
goals are to keep development and recurring costs
to a minimum. Air Start would carry a 100 ton,
two-stage expendable liquid-fueled (RP-LOX)
Polyot rocket inside a four-engine Antonov An124, the world's largest operational aircraft.
Payload is expected to be 6,600-8,800-lb to LEO.
The rocket is packaged inside a special launch
canister and at the launch point and altitude, a
charge of air injected into the canister ejects the
rocket. Compressed air is proposed to extract the
rocket due to the unavailability of high load
capacity parachutes in the Ukraine and Russia.
After a five-second drop the rocket engine ignites.
How the Air Start achieves an upward launch
trajectory is unclear from the published data. The
Polyot rocket does not have wings and our
trajectory simulations show that a horizontal
launch results in the rocket impacting the ground.
Other than this concern, it appears to be a feasible
system concept based on todays technology.

Drop of Minuteman missile from C-5A in 1974

photo US Air Force

Internal air launch has been done before. On 24

October 1974 a C-5A Galaxy dropped a 78,000 lb
LGM-30A Minuteman I missile using drogue
chutes to extract the missile and its 8,000 lb
launch sled. Parachute airdrop of the 195,000 lb
and 92 inch diameter LGM-118 Peacekeeper MX

BladeRunner. The BladeRunner concept is a

fully reusable vehicle concept sponsored by the
13
Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL).
It calls
for using high-pressure air expulsion to launch a
10

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

70,000 lb liquid fueled (RP-LOX) two stage rocket

from a C-141 cargo aircraft. The BladeRunner
uses a composite, folding scissors biplane wing for
lift during ascent. The fuselage is built mostly from
metals, titanium for the upper stage and aluminum
for the lower stage. Parachutes are used for
recovery of both stages.
Although the BladeRunner looks like a rocket, it
is actually rocket powered airplane, but with
moveable wings. The BladeRunner should have
mass fractions similar to the X-15 or the X-34
since it is subjected to similar sideways launch
and climb-out loads. The propellant mass fraction
for the horizontally air launched X-15 was 55%
and the X-34 was 63%, far less than the 90%
required to reach LEO. Although the BladeRunner
is carried internally, it is launched at a horizontal
flight path angle that provides no significant
performance gain over a similarly sized surface
launch vehicle. It will lose over 5,000 to 7,000 feet
in altitude before it starts climbing. The published
payload of 2,000 lbs for the fully reusable
BladeRunner is optimistic since it is twice that of
the similarly sized but fully expendable Pegasus.

ground support. The SwiftLaunch RLV concept

allows a high visibility space activity to be
stationed in a part of the country that traditionally
has no space industry.
A hangar and a
compatible runway (10,000 ft long) are required.
When a launch mission arises, carrier aircraft
arrive to pick up the SwiftLaunch RLVs.
Redundant carrier aircraft and SwiftLaunch RLVs
are recommended to ensure a successful launch
on demand or launch on schedule mission with a
90% or better schedule completion rate.
The two carrier aircraft candidates are the U.S.
Air Forces C-5 Galaxy and the Ukrainian An-124
Ruslan commercial transport. The U.S Air Force
currently has 126 C-5s while 59 An-124s were
built and 20 are commercially available worldwide
from Volga-Dnepr Airlines, Air Foyle or Polyot
airlines.
The An-124 carried a world record
payload of 377,473 lbs to 35,269 ft on 26 July
1985. The SwiftLaunch concept does not require
any permanent modifications to the carrier aircraft.
Unlike other air launch concepts, no money is
spent modifying an aircraft and more importantly,
no money is spent maintaining a one of a kind
carrier aircraft.
Propellant is loaded into the SwiftLaunch ETank
in about 6 hours at a coastal airport near the
launch point. The ETank consists of a LOX tank
made of Aluminum-Lithium (Al-Li) flanked by two
carbon-epoxy composite RP tanks. This concept:
- Is lighter since it eliminates a compressive
intertank between a RP and LOX tank, a
compressive truss structure between the orbiter
and ETank, and compressive loads on the orbiter.
- Increases exit clearance through the aft airdrop
opening in the carrier aircraft.
- Limits heat transfer area between the RP and
LOX tanks.
- Reduce the mixing of LOX and fuel in the event
of a leak, minimizing accidental explosions. Note
that a RP-LOX propellant combination has an
explosive yield 1/6 of LH2-LOX and 1/10 of solid
rocket propellant combinations.
- Eliminates attaching the engine directly to the
propellant tank, which further reduces the chance
of an accidental explosion. Instead the engine is
attached to a firewall located on the backside of
the orbiter.
The weight of the ETank is conservatively baselined at 3,100 lbs, which is 32% heavier than the
st
Shuttles 1 generation external tanks (0.82 lb/ft^3
versus the Shuttles 0.62 lb/ft^3). Note that the
rd
Shuttles current 3 generation Al-Li tanks weigh
st
only 84% of the 1 generation tanks.

SwiftLaunch RLV. The SwiftLaunch RLV is a

privately funded concept that uses the lesson
learned from previous air launch concepts. It is
feasible system based on todays technology with
a design goal to keep development and recurring
costs to a minimum. It consists of a reusable
orbiter and an expendable tank (ETank) carried on
a launch sled that is extracted with parachutes
from a cargo aircraft. No permanent modifications
are required to the cargo aircraft. Like MAKS, the
SwiftLaunch RLVs are air-launched 1 stage
launch vehicles that expend their propellant tanks
prior to reaching orbit. A reusable single engine
powers the orbiters.
Several orbiters are
proposed including a 3-person crew transfer
vehicle, an ISS cargo transfer vehicle, a space
maneuver vehicle, and a commercial cargo
vehicle. The orbiters are capable of executing an
abort throughout their powered ascent and
parachutes recover the orbiters after reentry. The
SwiftLaunch RLVs are described in detail in a
14
patent application. The SwiftLaunch RLV consist
of the orbiter and ETank and are 89 feet long
when attached together with an ignition weight
currently base-lined at 264,000 lb.
The
SwiftLaunch RLV and launch sled are collectively
called the parachute load, estimated at 290,000 lb.
The SwiftLaunch RLV uses horizontal integration
with the launch sled providing almost all of the
11

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

The launch sled supports the SwiftLaunch while

inside the carrier aircraft. The SwiftLaunch RLV is
extracted by two 54 ft diameter Shuttle solid rocket
booster (SRB) drogue parachutes and three 136 ft
diameter SRB main chutes stabilize the descent.
During parachute extraction there are no sideways
accelerations from the parachutes and the launch
sled absorbs any bending moments caused by
temporary off-alignment of the parachutes with the
launch sled.
The launch sled takes all the
extraction parachute loads (estimated at only 1.3
G) which means that the SwiftLaunch can be
designed to normal rocket loads and does not
need any heavy reinforcements for extraction
loads. Wheels, in the front and back of the sled,
guide it out of the carrier aircraft.

EXTRACTION & SEPARATION TRAJECTORY

30,000

Altitude (ft MSL)

Parachute
Extraction

0
1,000
2,000
3,000
Downrange Travel from Extraction Point (ft)

The SwiftLaunch launch point is selected based

on the following criteria:
- It has suitable launch weather
- It has an over the water ascent trajectory
- It is locally clear of other aircraft, ships, and
launch vehicles
- It is directly under the desired orbital plane. For
ISS missions there is no need to wait several days
for the ISS to pass over a fixed ground location.
- It has proper orbit phasing that allows a direct
ascent rendezvous in one orbit. This reduces
electrical power requirements, which maximizes
payload weight.
For high inclination launches (such as to the
ISS), the carrier aircraft can chase the orbital
plane by flying to the west when at high latitudes.
This capability can increase the launch window
time.
SwiftLaunch RLV does not need active flight
controls and engines at extraction. Engine starts
about 10 seconds after extraction and when it is
more than 2,500 ft horizontally and 1,000 ft below
the carrier aircraft. The SwiftLaunch RLV ascent
trajectory does not cross the carrier aircrafts flight
path. When the SwiftLaunch RLV climbs through
the carrier aircrafts altitude, the carrier aircraft is
more than 3 nm away and it is flying away from
and perpendicular to the RLV and not parallel to it
as in other air launch concepts. There is no risk of
collision with the manned carrier C-5 or An-124
aircraft.
The SwiftLaunch separates from the sled when
the sled pitch attitude is about 60 degrees below
the horizon and the launch sled slows down
quickly once relieved of the launch vehicle load,
which ensures separation. Our analysis shows

Deceleration (G's)

1.25

2nd Dis-reefing
of Parachutes

0.75
0.50
0

10

28,000

27,000

1.50

1st Dis-reefing
of Parachutes

Separation at
10 seconds

Sled

LAUNCH SLED EXTRACTION DECELERATION

1.00

29,000

RLV

15

Time since Launch Sled Extraction (seconds)

A zero G maneuver is used to prevent

overloading the carrier aircrafts rear ramp and to
prevent the aircraft from experiencing an
uncontrollable pitch up as the parachute load
moves aft. Our analysis shows that while flying
within the parachute airdrop airspeed limits of 150
+ 10 knots indicated, over 10 seconds of zero G
flight is available, far more than the required 4
seconds. The zero G maneuver also eliminates
most carrier aircraft structural loads and provides
plenty of structural margins for piloting errors.
The SwiftLaunch RLV descents only 2,000 ft
under its SRB parachutes before rocketing
upward, which compares favorably to the 4,000 ft
to 7,000 ft lost in a typical horizontal air launch
(such as the X-15). After launch, the launch sled
is towed back to shore for reuse. It is half the
length and less than 1/3 the mass of the Shuttle
SRBs which are towed over 110 miles after every
shuttle launch.

12
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

15

that separation steadily increases with no danger

of sled to launch vehicle impact.

vehicle mishaps. The single engine SwiftLaunch

has less risk of a catastrophic failure as compared
to any multiple engine launch vehicle by a factor
equal to the number of engines. The SwiftLaunch
is expected to have a loss of vehicle probability of
less than 1 in 1,000 due to its single engine
design. Its SafeAbort capability (discussed below)
gives it a loss of crew or mission equipment
probability of less than 1 in 10,000.
The SwiftLaunch RLV is statically stable during
ascent since its center of gravity is forward of its
center of pressure because its low-density orbiter
and its fins are located aft of the of the high
density ETank. Unlike other launch vehicles which
are statically unstable (since the low density
payload is on top), the SwiftLaunch does not need
to constantly gimbal its engine to prevent it from
flipping over end to end.
The SwiftLaunchs
statically stable configuration minimizes steering
losses.
The ETank separates after main engine
shutdown.
SwiftLaunchs single staging event
minimizes separation and staging failures as
compare to other launch vehicles. The ETank is
too slow to enter orbit so it burns completely up
during reentry because of its high velocity and its
construction (no steel or titanium components).
Although the SwiftLaunch could be considered as
an air launched stage and a half vehicle, it has
many of the operational range safety benefits of a
SSTO vehicle.
Only one of the orbiters two redundant Orbital
Maneuvering System (OMS) engines is needed to
circularize its orbit. They are currently base-lined
as two shuttle Reaction Control System (RCS)
thrusters. Either the standard nitrogen tetroxide
and hydrazine Marquardt engines or the LOXethanol Aerojet 870 lbf thrust engines could be
used.
The orbiter is located below the ETank so that
an emergency separation, called SafeAbort, can
occur anytime. Separation is exactly like a normal
upper stage and lower stage separation event
since the partially full ETank is denser compared
to the orbiter throughout the atmospheric portion
of the ascent. If the rocket engine is shut down,
the orbiter and ETank will separate naturally.
Because of parachute air launch the SwiftLaunchs
peak dynamic pressure (Max Q) is only 325 psf,
less than that experienced by jet airliners, and half
of the Space Shuttles. The low dynamic pressure
of the SwiftLaunch RLVs trajectory makes
SafeAbort possible and it also reduces drag
losses. Escape rockets, which can weigh 30 to 60

SwiftLaunch RLV during ascent

The engine is throttled to maintain 3 Gs of
ascent acceleration, except for the final 70
seconds when acceleration increases to a peak of
5.2 G (due to main engine throttle limits). The
main engine is currently proposed as the 3,260 lb
RP-LOX Aerojet AJ26-60, which is the former
Russian NK-43 engine. Thrust to weight of 122 to
1 compares to the Space Shuttle Main Engines
(SSME) 67 to 1 and specific impulse (Isp = 348.3
seconds vacuum) is 50 to 60 seconds better than
the Atlas II, Delta II, or Delta III RP-LOX engines.
A total of 831 engines have been tested for
194,000 seconds. These engines are available for
$4 million each, which is about 10% the cost of a
SSME.
The SwiftLaunch uses a single main engine to
minimize the possibility of propulsion leaks that
are the cause of over 70 percent of current launch
13

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

percent of the orbiters weight, are not needed and

the orbiter experiences no high escape rocket
abort acceleration loads. Escape rocket abort
loads can account for up to 1/3 of an orbiters
16
structural weight.
After a SafeAbort separation
the SwiftLaunch orbiter is statically stable since it
has a full load of OMS propellant in its nose. The
OMS propellant is then dumped during the coast
to trajectory apogee. After dumping the OMS
propellant, a normal lifting reentry and parachute
landing is possible. Some cross range is available
depending on when the SafeAbort is executed and
a water landing is survivable because a parachute
recovery is used. SafeAbort even works if the
engine fails to start during a parachute air launch
since there is plenty of time (about 4 minutes) to
separate the orbiter from the launch sled and
ETank, dump the OMS propellant, and deploy the
landing parachute.
Finally, note that the
SwiftLaunch RLVs uses its normal ETank
separation equipment and its redundant landing
parachutes as its emergency system. This means
that it is operated and proven in every flight.
Equipment designed purely for emergency use
has a poor history of actually working.
For
example, only 50% of flight crews survive an
ejection in ejection seats.

payload bay doors depending on version.

Proposed orbiters include a 3-person crew transfer
vehicle, an ISS cargo transfer vehicle, a space
maneuver vehicle, and a commercial cargo
vehicle. They all share the same outer mold line
hence their aerodynamic and mass property
characteristics are similar.
This will reduce
development time and cost by eliminating
duplicate analysis, ground tests, and flight tests.
Customers seldom know what they want or need
and system objectives rarely remain fixed
throughout the life of a system. The SwiftLaunch
concept accepts upgrades to modify the vehicle to
accommodate broader objectives and to satisfy
future customer needs without having to repeat
expensive analysis, ground tests, or flight tests.
POST shows that a 14,700 lb orbiter can be
placed into a 150 nautical mile circular orbit at the
o
ISSs 51.6 inclination using a 30,000 ft parachute
air launch.
Payload is estimated at a very
conservative 12 % of the orbiters weight or 1,800
lbs. Payload size may be increased 3,500 to
5,000 lbs by flying a Once Around the Earth (OAE)
orbit. An OAE orbit is an elliptic orbit with a 100mile apogee and a 35-mile perigee. The payload
is released at apogee and it circularizes itself with
onboard propulsion using about 150 to 200 lbs
propellant for a circular 100-mile orbit.
OAE
trajectories have been proposed before for ground
launched RLVs but have been found not to be
practicable due to the limited number of return to
launch site orbital inclinations.
Air launching
allows launching into almost any orbital inclination
while still having a single orbit return to the landing
site. The carrier aircraft would position itself to the
east of the landing site with the separation
distance depending on launch inclination and
latitude.
SwiftLaunch RLV Gross Ignition Weight
SwiftLaunch RLV
Weights Percent
(lbs)
(%)
Etank Propellant
242,300 92.1
Etank Dry weight
3,100
1.2
Residuals & Ullage gas
800
0.3
OMS Circularization Burn 2,300
0.9
Common Core Orbiter
14,700
5.6

SwiftLaunch RLV orbiter during reentry

The orbiter shape is currently base-lined as the
Japanese flight-tested HYFLEX shape (launched
on the J-1 rocket in February 1996). This shape
has a high volume to external surface area ratio
and the minimum number of sharp leading edges
that would require heavy or advanced TPS.
Internal cabin or payload volume is similar to the
Soyuz descent module. Orbiters are equipped
with either an ISS docking port or a shuttle like

Total

263,200

100.0

Upon completion of its mission, the SwiftLaunch

fires its redundant OMS engines again for a
reentry burn. The SwiftLaunchs HYFLEX shape
is capable of a shuttle like lifting reentry. Its
14

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

moderate L/D of about 1.1 results in a reentry

cross range of over 500 nautical miles and a
maximum reentry acceleration of 1.8 G. A trailing
body flap trims the orbiter for a range of center of
gravity locations, which allows for a variety of
reentry payloads. Determining exact weight and
balance is very difficult while on orbit, and is not
required for the SwiftLaunch orbiter because of its
central cabin/payload location and its trailing body
flap. At Mach 2 (about 80,000 ft altitude and 7 nm
up range from the landing zone) a supersonic
drogue chute is deployed to stabilize the orbiter.
At subsonic speeds the drogue is steerable and
provides a lift over drag (L/D) ratio of about 0.1,
sufficient to correct reentry errors and ensure
touch down within 600 feet of the intended aim
point.
Precision landing using small drogue
chutes is under development by the US Army.
The recovery system has a powerful multiplier
effect on the orbiter weight, since it must be
carried to orbit and then returned. Each additional
pound of recovery system then increases TPS
weight, OMS propellant, structures, etc. Historical
data shows that a parachute based recovery

system is much lighter than a wing and wheel

based recovery system.
Powerful examples
include the 11,300 lb 1-man Dyna-Soar as
compared to the 3,200 lb Mercury capsule or the
33,000 lb and 3-man Hermes space plane as
compared to the 6,600 lb and 3-man Soyuz
descent capsule.
Parachutes allow SafeAbort
throughout the ascent without having to find a
suitable 12,000-ft runway and autonomous
operation with parachutes is simple, requiring only
a timer and accelerometer based control system
as compared to a much more complicated system
required for winged vehicles. Currently, Apollo
style circular parachutes are base-lined since they
are much lighter than an X-38 type parafoil and
three parachutes provide redundancy in the event
that one chute fails to open.
Pneumatic retractors under development by the
U.S. Army pull the SwiftLaunch and the
parachutes together just before landing and
reduce landing impact. They allow normal land
touchdowns or emergency ocean landings.
The SwiftLaunch concept is a near (0-5 years)
term concept that would cost approximately $1
Orbital velocity with
OMS engines

Variety of On-Orbit
Operations

Orbit circularization

SwiftLaunch /
ETank separation
Reusable engine
powers SwiftLaunch
1.8 G Lifting Reentry500 mile cross range
Shuttle SRB
parachutes

ETank burns up during

Reentry

Airdrop at 30,000 + ft

Parachute airlaunch

Separation & Ignition

at 28,000+ ft

SwiftLaunch RLV
Operational Concept
and Flight Profile

Sled recovered
from Ocean

Horizontal Integration inside a hangar

C-5 or AN-124 takes off

with SwiftLaunch RLV
in cargo hold

Lands within
600 ft radius

15
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

billion to develop to initial operating capability.

The ETank production price is estimated at
$200,000 to $1.5 million each and a launch would
cost $5 million to $15 million.
These cost
estimates are based mostly on parametric studies
and are preliminary Pre-Phase A cost estimates.
The SwiftLaunch RLV concept has technology
maturity level of 5 or greater.
The SwiftLaunch RLV represents a conservative
stage and half launch vehicle design. It is based
on the idea that a simple single engine design with
an inherent SafeAbort capability is the safest. It is
also based on the idea that the lightest vehicle is
the one with the lowest loads imposed on it.
Lightness then leads to the best payload
performance and the lowest operation costs. It
can be implemented as designed and it can
accomplish its design goals.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to thank Mr. Ken Doyle
and Mr. Jonathan Byron for their drawings.
REFERENCES
1

J.C. Whitehead, Single Stage to Orbit Mass

Budgets Derived from Propellant Density and
Specific Impulse, AIAA paper, July 1996. (AIAA
96-3108)
2
S.J. Isakowiz, International Reference Guide to
Space Launch Systems, AIAA, Reston, Virigina.
3
Mark Wades Encyclopedia Astronautica at
www.friends-artners.org/mwade/spaceflt.htm
4
V. Ya.Neiland and R.C. Parkinson, The Annd
225/Interim HOTOL Launch Vehice, 42
Congress of the International Astronautical
Federation, October 1991. (IAF-91-197)
5
Skorodelov, V.A., The MAKS Multipurpose
Aerospace
System
accessed
from
www.buran.ru/htm/molniya6.htm June 2001.
6
X-33 RLV Critical Design Review, American
Space Encyclopedia Series, 2000.
7
W.B.
Scott,
Tu-160
Launch
Program
Revamped to Cut Costs, Aviation Week & Space
Technology, June 12, 2000.
8
www.spaceandtech.com accessed June 2001.
9
E.J. Saltman, K.C. Wang, and K.W. Iliff, FlightDetermined Subsonic Lift and Drag Characteristics
of Seven Lifting-Body and Wing-Body Reentry
Vehicles Configurations with Truncated Bases,
AIAA paper published 1999.
10
www.rocketplane.com accessed June 2001.
11
J. Andrews, RLV Design Issues for Future
Commercial Space Applications. AIAA Paper,
September 2000 (AIAA 2000-5104).
12
www.airlaunch.ru/english/e-index.htm
accessed 6 June 2001.
13
K.R.
Hampsten
and
J.M.
Walker,
BladeRunner Aerospace Vehicle, AIAA Paper.
(AIAA 99-4616)
14
Patent filed with the United States Patent and
Trademark Office, June 2000.
15
I-Shing Chang, Investigation of Space Launch
Vehicle Catastrophic Failure, AIAA Paper, July
1995. (AIAA 95-3128)
16
L.B. Bush and C.A. Lentz, Structural Design
Considerations for a Personnel Launch System,
Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 29, No. 1
January 1992.

CONCLUSIONS
Air launching provides mobility and deployment
advantages over surface launching. It can also
provide performance advantages over surface
launching, but only if the release flight path angle
is above the horizon.
Many air launch concepts require advance
technologies. Of the concepts discussed in this
paper only the following are possible with todays
technology; Orbital Sciences Pegasus, Boeing
AirLaunch, Yakovlev HAAL, Yakovlev Skylifter,
SwiftLaunch, and perhaps Vozdushny Start.
The SwiftLaunch RLV introduced here is based
upon the lessons learned from earlier air launch
concepts. The SwiftLaunch RLV concept:
Lowers cost since it does not need a
dedicated carrier aircraft and it only expends
its propellant tank.
Provides a significant improvement in safety
over other concepts due to its simple single
engine design, reusability, ascent stability, and
SafeAbort capability throughout its ascent.
Can return payloads from orbit.
Has orbiters that can be configured as a 3person crew transfer vehicle, an ISS cargo
transfer vehicle, a space maneuver vehicle, or
as a commercial cargo vehicle.
Has the range safety benefits of a SSTO
vehicle since its ETank is expected to burn-up.
Minimizes technical risk by using current
technology, off the shelf components, and
generous weight margins.

16
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics