Evan Comba

Capstone 12

25 January 2021

The Possibilities of Single Stage to Orbit Spacecraft

1 – Introduction

The creation of successful Single Stage to Orbit spacecraft is generally seen as an

unattainable or marginally attainable goal. Single Stage to Orbit (SSTO) spacecraft would

revolutionize space travel, permitting humans to build our space-bound future to our desires.

They would allow us to shed our wasteful methods and embrace reusability to a greater degree

than ever before. SSTOs are like a fruit hanging above our reach, and once human ingenuity has

found a way to pick it, we may be closer to our future. They have been seen as a possible way to

deliver payloads efficiently and cost-effectively to Low-Earth Orbit and beyond using incredibly

advanced and innovative technologies which our current age does not yet fully possess.

However, there are important questions that are raised from all this dreaming: Are SSTOs

possible? What needs to change for them to be possible? What can be done with them in the

future? The answers to these questions are not easily found and shall be here discussed and

examined. The general subjects regarding rocketry and spaceflight will be discussed to provide a

background to the challenges which SSTOs present.

2 – Challenges of Rocketry and Their Pertinence to SSTOs

2.1– Staging

As of the year 2021, no human made SSTOs have successfully been built and launched from

Earth. This is due to a variety of difficulties not normally encountered on standard rockets. The

first and most obvious challenge regarding SSTOs can be found in the name. Single Stage to
 Comba 2

Orbit means that no hardware such as engines, propellant tanks, or boosters are detached or

ejected from the craft mid-flight. The vehicle itself could be considered as the only stage for

reaching orbit, with no decouplers on the craft.

The reason orbit-capable spacecraft so far have all used staging is due to the enormous amount of

energy required to move a significant mass into orbit. When a rocket has many stages, it has a

higher propellant capacity and therefore more chemical energy contained within. In practice,

rockets have at least two stages, each usually consisting of a propellant tank and engines. When a

bottom stage is depleted of its propellant by running its engines, the stage is detached to reduce

the mass which the next stage is required to accelerate, giving higher acceleration (higher thrust

to weight ratio) and more change in velocity (ΔV, delta V) for the given amount of propellant.

This makes staging the current easiest method of achieving LEO (low-Earth orbit) and beyond

with the ability to have large enough payloads to haul even more stages for interplanetary travel.

The greatest factor which governs this is the concept of the Propellant Mass Fraction, which is

the ratio of the propellant mass to the rocket’s total mass.

If each rocket stage has its own engines, then these engines must be powerful enough to haul all

the stages above them and the propellant they carry. More powerful engines are incidentally

heavier and larger and consume more propellant therefore requiring larger propellant tanks,

meaning that the “dry” mass without propellant is significantly higher. By having larger

propellant tanks there will inevitably be more skin friction and aerodynamic drag caused by the

larger size and therefore surface area of the stage, meaning that once the stage is jettisoned the

overall drag is lessened. The same is repeated for the next stage and the next. The problem with

the Propellant Mass Fraction is that propellant must be stored in physical tanks, and physical

tanks can have significant mass. Jettisoning empty tanks and their engines allows for the
 Comba 3

Propellant Mass Fraction (PMF) to be maintained mid-flight, as when an empty tank exists on

the craft there is useless weight, reducing the PMF. Besides the PMF, another factor which is an

advantage of the staging system lies in the difference of the engines in each stage. For a bottom

stage, one which is used in the lower to upper atmosphere, the engine nozzles, etc. will be tuned

or specified for that specific range of altitude of operation due to atmospheric differences or the

phase of flight. This also includes propellant types. Each stage following the other will be tuned

for its own specific altitude and use, which makes for higher efficiency in each stage. This

subject is a complicated one which will be discussed later.

When it comes to SSTOs, none of the advantages of staging can be used, as this would disqualify

the craft as an SSTO and make it a multi-stage spacecraft. As mentioned above, staging is

currently the most effective method of rocket-building, as it allows for larger payloads. SSTOs

will likely never have the payload capabilities conventional rockets will have (unless simply

massively upscaled, leading to impracticalities), but that is simply due to the nature of the SSTO.

The greatest reason that staging is a massive problem for SSTOs is that the spacecraft will have

to have a somewhat fixed form, as no staging is allowed. The mass of the empty parts of

propellant tanks will always have to be kept and so will the aerodynamic drag which is

associated with the tanks’ form, though this drag is diminished with altitude. As a result, the

Propellant Mass Fraction will remain relatively fixed, presenting yet more challenges in terms of

capabilities, ΔV, etc. In normal rockets, the Propellant Mass Fraction can be calculated for each

part of the rocket. For example, the external propellant tank on the Space Shuttle had a PMF of

96%, meaning that, of the total mass of the tank, it was only 4% structure. Based on current

technologies, it would be an unimaginable feat of engineering to accomplish a similar PMF for

 Comba 4

an SSTO, because one cannot think of the different parts of the SSTO as separate, as one could

for the Space Shuttle, given that they do not detach. To achieve

this PMF would be near impossible, especially if payloads are to be taken and humans to be kept

alive inside.

As a result of the difficulties posed by a lack of staging, SSTOs are seen as impractical by their

very nature. No PMF that is very high can be achieved for an SSTO, therefore their chances of

success are greatly diminished unless a superior propellant is used, which is another topic.

However, there are advantages that SSTOs have over staged rockets in terms of staging itself.

Staged rockets require many different sets of engines, and where there are more engines, there

are more chances of failure. One singular failure of an engine could destroy the entire craft, as

the Soviet N-1 Moon rocket demonstrated when one of its thirty engines of the first stage failed

some seconds after liftoff, leading to the largest rocket explosion in history. SSTOs would likely

have a much smaller number of engines. As well as having fewer engines and therefore fewer

chances of failure, SSTOs would have no dangerous explosive bolts or pneumatic systems for

decoupling the stages, and no maneuvers for stage separation would be required. SSTOs, in this

sense, would be much safer than conventional rockets, as decoupling itself can prove to be

hazardous and can potentially introduce debris.

2.2 – Propulsion

2.2.1 – Rocket Propulsion

Rocket propulsion is what produces thrust for rockets. Propulsion is, in many senses, the most

difficult part of rocketry. The propulsion system is what makes the very concept of the rocket

possible; without any means of being propelled, a rocket is not a rocket. In this sense, one could

say that the propulsion system is the heart of the rocket and the key to its function. Especially for
 Comba 5

SSTOs, the matter of propulsion and propellants is of paramount importance, as a staged rocket

is much easier to design than an SSTO in terms of propulsion, ΔV, and the limitations of the

rocket equation.

Rocket propulsion and other means of propulsion proposed for SSTOs work off of Newton’s

Third Law at the simplest level. Rocket engines and aircraft jet engines are all reactive engines,

meaning that they eject materials in one direction to obtain a force in the opposite direction.

Essentially, reactive engines create a force and harness the opposite force as thrust. This works

because the thrusting force is created by forcing propellants one way where they are not bound to

the craft and therefore the force does not negate itself. This creates the need for propellants and

one of the most difficult matters in rocketry and space flight, as many of the factors influencing

the craft are dependent on thrust in some way. For example, aerodynamic drag and the thrust to

drag ratio would not exist if there was no thrust propelling the craft to high speeds where drag is

significant. When there is high thrust, there is obviously a higher acceleration of the craft as

Newton’s Second Law and the equation F=ma explains. Excessive acceleration on a craft is

undesirable as it puts large stresses on the structure of the craft and can be dangerous. Too low

an acceleration rate will lead to more time spent burning the engines in Earth’s gravity and more

propellant used and ΔV wasted. A good balance is ideal to achieve efficient flight, and so craft

design must be influenced by this as well. One important factor which is to be considered is the

thrust to weight ratio (TWR) of an engine. If an engine has a TWR of less than 1.00, the craft

will never take off vertically using this engine. This is because the weight of the engine alone

compared to the force it can generate (excluding the weight of propellants and tanks) is

insufficient to accelerate beyond gravity. Therefore, engines with very high TWR’s are required

to achieve a vertical launch for a rocket. Another aspect of this is that the only way the TWR of a
 Comba 6

craft can be improved is by either adding more engines with TWRs above 1.00 (adding engines

with a TWR of less than 1.00 will never make for a total TWR of over 1.00) or reducing the

craft’s weight. It is for this reason along with others that few rockets with a very large number of

engines have been used.

Perhaps the most important general factor of rocket engines is the specific impulse or Isp. Isp is

defined as the ratio of thrust to the weight of the propellants used (flow rate). If two different

engines were to be compared, one having a higher Isp than the other, the engine with the higher

Isp will be more efficient as it produces more thrust for equivalent propellant used compared to

the other engine. Therefore, a higher Isp number is better for having higher ΔV, as more thrust

and therefore more acceleration and change in velocity can be accomplished with a given amount

of propellant. This figure depends on many factors in the function of the engine such as the

energy lost to incomplete combustion, thermodynamic losses, the propellant’s potential, etc.

The most common types of rocket engines use a mixture of two materials for propulsion: a

propellant which can be burned and an oxidizer to allow for the propellant to burn. Propellants

are usually burned because burning produces hot, expanding gas as a product. The expansion of

the hot gas being directed in one direction makes for a higher force to be produced (thrust) than

if the propellant remained as a liquid or gas that was not heated or burned to expand. Burning

does, on the chemical level, use the propellant material’s potential, meaning that the theoretical

thrust that can be produced from burning the material is much higher than the materials’ mass in

relation. The amount of stored energy in a propellant material and therefore what propellant is

best is another matter which will be discussed. Propellants must always be contained in a

propellant tank and must be fed to the engine by some means. These include pressure-fed
 Comba 7

systems and pumps, the latter being more efficient for space flight. Once the propellant has been

fed to the engine, an oxidizer must be included so that combustion may occur.

Oxidizers also have their own containment. Often a high ratio of oxidizer to propellant is used

for ideal chemical combustion. For example, the ratio of flow of oxidizer to the flow of

propellant for ideal combustion of kerosene is 2.35. Any variation from this number will lead to

either incomplete combustion and less thrust or extra unneeded weight in the form of excess

oxidizer. Following this, perhaps the most critical component of the engine comes into play. The

injector, as the name would suggest, injects the propellants and oxidizers into the combustion

chamber. The injector is critical because it is what mixes the propellant and oxidizer together to

create an optimal mixture ratio. If the injector malfunctions or is inexact, its efficiency is lowered

for the entire engine. Therefore, the injector must be precise to the molecular level to create the

most optimal combustion. The injector is often located at the top of the combustion chamber,

where the combustion of the propellant and oxidizer takes place. The shape of the combustion

chamber can either be cylindrical, spherical, or near-spherical. Each form has its own

advantages, but a cylindrical form is often employed in the west. The main purpose of the

combustion chamber is to facilitate combustion and to ensure that the mixture has the required

time to fully combust before the forces of combustion force the materials through the throat and

into the nozzle and out of the engine. There are many factors surrounding the design of a

combustion chamber. One large factor is the type of propellant used, as each propellant has its

own chemical properties and as such, they require different specific forms and dimensions of the

combustion chamber. The combusted gases then pass into the nozzle. Generally, the nozzle

exists to use the high-pressure gases in the combustion chamber to make thrust. The nozzle must

accelerate and reduce the pressure of these gases to create this thrust, and this is achieved by
 Comba 8

having a throat or narrow section (also called a venturi) for the gas to pass through at the

beginning of the nozzle and a wider exit point at the end of the nozzle. The length of the nozzle

allows for the gases to expand and have a lower pressure so that, upon exit from the nozzle, the

gases have an equal pressure to the surrounding atmosphere at the intended altitude of operation.

This latter part is for the sake of efficiency, as when the pressure at the exit point of the nozzle is

equal to the ambient pressure, maximum thrust is produced by the engine. When the nozzle

pressure is unequal to the ambient pressure, thrust is not maximized and therefore engine

efficiency is significantly decreased. As mentioned above in the previous section, staged rockets

can take advantage of having multiple sets of engines for each altitude and therefore air pressure

of operation to combat this loss in efficiency.

Besides the length, there are other design aspects for nozzles, most notably shape. There are two

dominant conventional nozzle shapes: conical and bell (though a third exists and will be detailed

soon). Conical nozzles were used on earlier rocket engines. They have no curvature and consist

of cross-sectionally straight nozzle walls which angle outwards at a constant angle, so as to

resemble a cone with no top point. Conical nozzles offer weight reductions, ease of

manufacturing, and decent all-round performance. Bell nozzles are more common and are used

in high-performance applications. As the name would imply, they are bell-shaped and therefore

the gases expand at a higher rate at the beginning, meaning that the length of the nozzle does not

need to be as large.

Liquid propellant rocket engines come in four primary, conventional design and function layouts

or power cycles. They are the gas-generator cycle, the staged combustion cycle, the expander

cycle, and the pressure-fed cycle.

 Comba 9

Gas-generator cycle engines use a gas generator to propel the turbine (of which engines may

have multiple) which powers the pumps feeding propellant and oxidizer from the tanks to the

engine. This is achieved by a small portion of the flow of propellant and oxidizer being diverted

into the gas generator for small-scale combustion and the exhaust being sent to the turbine. This

combustion must happen at a sub-optimal mixture ratio so that the turbine does not overheat or

melt, resulting in an efficiency loss. Once the exhaust has been through the turbine, it is either

ejected outward or sent through the nozzle. This system functions off of the idea that when there

is more propellant and oxidizer flow, there is more thrust as well as more propellant and oxidizer

going to the gas generator to increase propellant and oxidizer flow. This system has been used to

great success in the past but is not the most efficient system due to the nature of the gas

generator. The staged combustion cycle is similar to the gas-generator cycle but is much more

efficient. It uses what is called a pre-burner to achieve something very similar to what the gas-

generator does, except the pre-burner leaves behind some propellant to be burned. Unlike a gas-

generator cycle engine, staged combustion cycle engines direct the exhaust from the pre-burner

to the injector to take part in the main combustion. Since there is leftover propellant in the pre-

burner’s exhaust and the exhaust is used, all propellant is burned at an optimal mixture and

nothing is wasted, therefore the engine is made more efficient and produces more thrust. This

type is significantly more complicated due to its nature and associated complications, but it

provides very high capabilities.

The expander cycle is the final of the most viable power cycle types (the last being mostly

obsolete). This cycle uses the heat of the engine to power itself. The propellant runs through

tubing all over the nozzle and combustion chamber so that it is heated. This heated propellant is

then passed through the turbine and into the injector. This system is very simple compared to the
 Comba 10

previous two types; however, the viable propellant types are limited (the higher the propellant’s

ability to absorb heat, the better) and there is a limit to this design overall. Extracting heat energy

through the walls of the engine has its limit, and therefore the power of the design is restricted.

One solution to this is to dump some propellant overboard past the turbine to create a sufficient

pressure differential from the ambient air for more power to the turbine. This sacrifices

efficiency for power. The final and simplest standard power cycle is the pressure-fed cycle. As

the name would suggest, this system uses only the pressure of the propellants and oxidizers in

their tanks to inject propellant into the engine. This system is very reliable as there is only a

handful of moving parts but is very limited in terms of power and practicality. Pressure-fed cycle

engines are mostly obsolete.

A type of engine which is not as efficient as liquid propellant engines, but which is still used, is

the solid propellant engine. The solid rocket is the simplest possible design for a rocket engine,

as the entire assembly consists of only a large cylinder filled with solid propellant and a nozzle at

the bottom. Solid rockets produce high thrust but poorer Isp, and the throttle of a solid rocket

cannot be controlled. Once the burning of the solid propellant has begun, nothing can stop it and

therefore solid rockets are mostly used as bottom stage boosters. These are discarded in a staging

event once the propellant has run out. Solid rockets are not a realistically viable option for an

SSTO due to the nature of the engine and its limitations.

Overheating is a problem which can plague rocket engines. If the materials for the nozzle or

combustion chamber cannot withstand such immense heat as can be produced from combustion,

the engine may fail catastrophically. This, of course, is undesirable, as failure in the engines may

result in a complete, un-planned, and rapid rocket disassembly. There are a few different ways to

cool an engine, however only a few of these do not sacrifice performance. For example, one
 Comba 11

solution to overheating may be to use a sub-optimal propellant mixture to reduce combustion and

heating. This would sacrifice Isp to a large degree. Fortunately, better systems for engine cooling

exist. These may include ablative cooling, radiation cooling, film cooling, transpiration, dump

cooling, and regenerative cooling.

Ablative cooling is a method which sacrifices the very engine to cool it. The walls of the

combustion chamber or nozzle are melted away or vaporized to wick away heat in the removed

material. Ablation of engine materials is definitely not a first choice, however for a lower stage

of a staged rocket it may be applicable. Radiation cooling is a much more viable method to cool

a rocket engine and requires no sacrifice. The idea behind radiation cooling is that the heat from

the engine radiates away either into the atmosphere or into space. All engines will inevitably do

this to a certain degree, however designing an engine around this principle can aid in cooling.

Film cooling uses, as the name would suggest, a film of coolant (usually propellant) around the

hottest areas of the engine. This is done by moving propellant into small holes and slots against

the engine for the propellant to absorb heat. Transpiration cooling is a very similar method to

film cooling, but the cooling propellant flows through a porous wall against the areas of the

engine needing to be cooled. The rate of flow through the porous material can be specified to

maintain a certain temperature. Dump cooling is another sacrificial method which has never been

practically used. For dump cooling, cooling propellant flows around the engine in tubing to wick

away heat. However, once the propellant has cooled the combustion chamber it is dumped away.

Naturally, this results in large efficiency losses as propellant is wasted. The final, most popular

and most effective method, which dump cooling is similar to, is regenerative cooling.

Regenerative cooling consists essentially of using external tubing all over the surfaces of the

engine which need cooling. Cooling propellant is pumped through this tubing at a high rate of
 Comba 12

flow and is then sent to the injector where it is to be combusted. This method makes no sacrifices

and has proven to be efficient, especially in conjunction with other cooling methods.

Besides the traditional rocket engine types, there are a few which are currently under

development and which could revolutionize the space industry. Some of these will be discussed

here.

The aerospike is an advanced concept which has been considered as one of the best options for

propelling an SSTO. The principle behind the aerospike is to create a rocket engine nozzle which

is efficient at all altitudes. This means that there would be no thrust or Isp lost due to the nozzle

exit pressure being unequal to the ambient air pressure. The design of the aerospike is what

makes this possible. What the aerospike design does is it essentially inverts a bell nozzle to

create the inverse shape. This creates a central long, curved spike shape with separate

combustion chambers on each side or behind the nozzle, with gases flowing around the spike

structure in the latter case. Aerospikes come in two forms, one being toroidal and the other being

linear. The former is circular, as if the cross-sectional image of the aerospike were wrapped

around to a full circle. The latter is a long shape, as if the cross-sectional image were only a slice

and the design continued behind what is seen. In the case of the linear aerospike design, there

would be many combustion chambers in rows. In the case of all aerospike designs, the gases

produced from each combustion chamber stick to the shape of the spike or ramp because the

ambient air pressure forces the them against it. When there is a lower air pressure (at higher

altitude) then the air forces the gases against the ramp to a lesser degree, and so the plume of

gases can expand and depressurize to meet the ambient air pressure. In this sense, the ambient air

pressure adaptively creates the “outer wall”, while the structure of the ramp or spike remains as

the opposing inner wall to the inverse bell’s shape. The resulting effect is that there is one
 Comba 13

hundred percent efficiency at all altitudes with a perfect design. Another benefit of the linear

aerospike design using many combustion chambers is that there can be throttle differential to

control the craft. For example, if the bottom row of combustion chambers is lowered in throttle,

the craft will pitch down (that is, if the center of thrust with all combustion chambers running at

full throttle is in-line with the center of mass).

All these benefits are, of course, not without downsides. The aerospike design is inherently

heavy. One solution to this which has been applied to nearly every successful aerospike engine is

to truncate the nozzle or to cut off a portion of the spike or ramp. To replace the thrust lost from

this, the exhaust from the gas-generator is pumped through where the nozzle ends so that the

exhaust produces thrust and elongates the stream of combusted gases for further increased thrust.

Besides the shape of the nozzle making the design heavy, the internals are complicated because,

for a linear aerospike engine, there are multiple nozzles, each of which weighs a significant

amount and needs its own plumbing and systems. Not only does this aspect make the design

heavy, but there are more parts and more chances for failure when there are many combustion

chambers. The greatest problem for aerospikes, though, is the heating problem. With this higher

mass and larger surface area that gets heated, aerospikes are plagued with overheating problems.

This is partly due to the fact that the throat is always one of the key points of heating in a rocket

engine, and the throat of an aerospike is the widest point with much more surface area to cool

than a traditional nozzle. The best solution to heating, of course, is to implement cooling

solutions. In the case of the aerospike where heating is a very major problem, a powerful cooling

system is required which only adds to the engine’s weight. A possible solution to this is the

expander cycle aerospike, as it would make use of the aerospike’s biggest problem. It has been
 Comba 14

theorized that an expander cycle aerospike engine could have a TWR of 108, which is very

impressive considering that weight is normally an issue for aerospikes.

Some consider aerospikes to be simply not worth the development costs given the inherently

problematic design. Others see aerospikes as the future of spaceflight. In any case, an aerospike

would be just about the most perfect engine design for an SSTO. This is especially true when it

is considered that SSTOs have only one set of engines, and so if these engines are inefficient at

certain altitudes as bell-nozzle engines are, the SSTO will lose Isp, ΔV, and the capability to

reach orbit. If the aerospike can be perfected, then this type of engine might be what makes the

SSTO possible.

Rotating detonation rocket engines (RDREs) are another very promising concept, however one

which has a lot further to go than aerospikes to be made viable. Currently, they are very unstable

and unpredictable. If one were to be applied to a rocket today, there would be a high likelihood

of an unscheduled rocket disassembly. Standard rocket and jet engines today use combustion or

deflagration. Deflagration is standard combustion where the “wave of burning” or shock wave

moves at subsonic speeds (below the speed of sound). Deflagration is a process which is slower

and more predictable and stable. Detonation, on the other hand, is a process which is much more

violent and relatively powerful, but still requires an oxidizer in its mixture of propellants.

Detonation waves, in contrast to deflagration waves, travel at supersonic speeds (above the speed

of sound). There are programs studying the possibility of using detonation in a rocket engine

instead of standard deflagration. The modern-day iteration of the detonation engine is an RDRE.

The design consists of a cylinder with a small diameter placed into a cylinder with a larger

diameter. Propellant flows into the calibrated gap between these two from an angle so that the

propellant flows around the cylindrical gap. Ignition consists of a large shock wave followed by
 Comba 15

stable combustion (detonation) pulses and shocks. These shocks all rotate in one direction and

consume propellant based on fronts. There may be many combustion shocks at one time, all at

different points in the rotation. The advantage to this is that no engine components are required

to maintain or manage this, therefore this system is very light. All that would theoretically be

required are the propellant pumps and ignition system. RDREs will, in the future, supposedly be

able to produce high efficiency and thrust (Isp) while being very light (high TWR). The problem

is that these engines are currently very new and not thoroughly understood. Problems where the

rotating detonation shocks merge can disrupt the engine. In short, these engines are not well

understood and are currently not viable. Relating to SSTOs, these engines are currently theorized

to be used on upper rocket stages, likely due to the effects of the atmosphere. Therefore, it is

unlikely that RDREs will be seen on SSTOs. Perhaps in the future, when RDREs are made safe,

a rotating detonation aerospike could be created.

Another very promising concept, but another one which does undeniably have its downsides, is

the nuclear-thermal propulsion (NTP) concept. The idea behind this is to use the vast reserves of

thermal energy from a nuclear reactor to heat and propel a propellant. An NTP engine would use

a small nuclear reactor to produce ample thermal energy to heat up and eject a propellant (likely

liquid hydrogen). In theory, while standard liquid fuel engines produce an Isp of 450s, an NTP

could produce an Isp of 900s. Unlike with xenon ion engines, this high Isp also comes with

enough thrust for larger spacecraft. Another added bonus to this is that no oxidizer would be

required, and the craft can therefore be made lighter. These engines also have the ability to run

for hours at a time, allowing for the completion of long and efficient burns. There is definitely

the problem of the safety of launching a reactor over Earth, however. There may and likely will

be political and public opposition to the use of reactors in spacecraft, as a failed launch could
 Comba 16

result in radioactive material being spread over vast swathes of the Earth. However, reactor

technologies are advancing, and perhaps in the future a safe enough system can be used to enable

next-generation space-travel. Again, relating to SSTOs, this propulsion system may be very

effective. Since NTPs are generally lower-thrust engines in comparison with chemical rockets,

maybe an SSTO with NTPs could fire these engines at high altitude and continue to fire the

engines for a long period to obtain a circular orbit. As it stands today, NTPs are another

promising technology which may come soon but is not yet fully ready.

2.2.2 – Jet and Hybrid Propulsion

A possible way that a spaceplane SSTO may be propelled is by both rocket engines and

jet engines (or hybrids, to be discussed later). As rocket engines have already been discussed,

here jet engines will be discussed and how they may apply to spaceplane SSTOs.

As are rocket engines, jet engines are reactive engines. They function off the same principle of

Newton’s Third Law, and they eject gases rearward at high speed. The primary difference

between jet engines and rocket engines is that rocket engines may function in a lack of

atmosphere therefore requiring oxidizers, whereas jet engines function in the atmosphere and use

air for combustion. It is for this reason that jets are considered air-breathing engines. One

common trait of all jet engines is that they require the air for combustion to be moved into the

combustor by some means.

The general layout of a gas turbine engine (a type of jet engine) is as follows. At the front, there

is an air inlet. This is to allow air to enter the engine. Behind this, there is a compressor,

consisting of a series of stationary and rotating fans which compress the incoming air from the

inlet for the combustor. Behind the compressor is the combustor, which injects and burns fuel

mixed into the air which was fed from the compressor. The hot, expanding exhaust created from
 Comba 17

the combustor is then directed into the turbine. The turbine is connected to the compressor so

that the cycle feeds itself. If there were no turbine or compressor, the engine would be unable to

generate thrust when stationary. When the exhaust has passed the turbine, it exits the engine

through the nozzle and thrust is created.

There are generally two types of gas turbine engines that could be applied to SSTOs (there are

two more types, but these are to drive propellers, which are not suitable for high-speed flight).

What was described above is the basic type of gas turbine engine, the turbojet. Turbojets provide

high thrust allowing for high speeds, but they are relatively inefficient. They perform well at

high altitudes compared to other types and are widely used. When a large fan is added frontally

to the engine which is connected to the turbine and compressor, this type of engine is called a

turbofan. Turbofan engines are most common on airliners and heavy lifting aircraft, however

certain versions of the turbofan are used to great success on high-speed aircraft. The reasoning

for adding a large fan is to produce more thrust. The fan produces thrust of its own down a

channel which contours the entire engine core assembly called the bypass. Bypass air is

propelled by the fan to produce thrust and give higher efficiency and performance in part by

cooling the hot exhaust air. There are varying scales of bypass size; turbofan engines used for

fighter jets have a low or small bypass whereas large airliners use high bypass engines. Both

turbojet and turbofan engines can have what is called an afterburner incorporated into their

design. Afterburners are located aft of the turbine and generate immense amounts of extra thrust

by essentially dumping more fuel into the engine. This is very inefficient but is used for

achieving high speeds.

The most basic type of jet engine which is not a gas turbine engine is the ramjet. Ramjets have

no moving parts and are therefore very light. The design consists simply of an inlet which is
 Comba 18

shaped to slow down incoming air, a fuel injector and combustor, and a simple nozzle. As

ramjets have no turbines or compressors (the inlet being the equivalent to a compressor), ramjets

cannot produce thrust while stationary. They are optimized by their design for producing high

thrust at high speeds. Once the aircraft and engine reach Mach 5, the thrust produced by the

ramjet is low due to inefficiencies from shock waves. An adaptation of the ramjet engine is the

scramjet engine, or supersonic combustion ramjet. Supersonic combustion means that

combustion happens when the flow of air is at supersonic speeds (this is not detonation as the

combustion itself still happens below Mach). Whereas ramjet engines must slow down the

incoming airflow with a specific inlet (which creates drag), scramjet engines can minimize losses

from the inlet using a different design. This permits the scramjet to produce much more thrust,

enough to continue to propel the craft at hypersonic (Mach 5) speeds despite the immense drag

on the craft. The scramjet design is, in a sense, a better equivalent to a rocket engine for

atmospheric flight given its characteristics. Scramjets are very possibly the best, most efficient

way of propelling a craft in the atmosphere at high speeds and altitudes since they do not require

oxidizers. The greatest downside to ramjet or scramjet propulsion, as stated above, is the

inability of the engine to produce sufficient thrust at low speeds or when static. It is therefore

necessary for the engine and craft to be accelerated to a speed where the engines can properly

perform. In the past, this has been done using rocket boosters. This could work for an SSTO;

however, the craft could not discard this booster as it would disqualify the craft from being an

SSTO. A possible solution to this is for the craft to fire its main rocket engines used for orbital

flight at low altitudes (which may be inefficient but necessary) to propel the craft to desired

speeds for the air-breathing engines.

 Comba 19

Since SSTOs and spacecraft require efficiency, turbofans do seem to be the best option for a

spaceplane SSTO. However, there are other factors to be considered; namely, the actual value of

using two types of engines (jet and rocket) against the weight disadvantages and fuel

consumption. In the grand scheme of the SSTO propulsion problem, using a limited type of

engine which only works in the atmosphere and which will only be dead weight above a certain

altitude does not seem entirely desirable. Therefore, if a jet engine is to be used, it should be a

scramjet which will not weigh down the craft terribly and which can provide the best high-

altitude performance and highest speeds. It may be that the disadvantage of requiring other

engines to accelerate the craft to a speed above Mach and waste fuel in the process may be offset

by the efficiency of the scramjet. In the case where a jet engine can be effectively utilized in the

atmospheric parts of the ascent to orbit, less oxidizer needs to be carried in the craft and it may

be lighter, comparing the weight of the jet engines to the oxidizer required for a rocket engine.

Hybrid propulsion engines are existent today as highly advanced systems which have not

yet flown on a spacecraft. However, it is very possible that these engines will have a large impact

on spaceplanes.

The idea of a hybrid system engine is to make one engine which is both a rocket and jet engine.

This is to say that this engine can be both air-breathing and closed-cycle at different times. There

may be many ways which a hybrid engine could function. One which exists today and has been

well-tested uses an engine core for jet mode and a rocket engine for closed-cycle function. Both

lead to a nozzle which functions for each. A supersonic-optimized inlet feeds the jet core during

air-breathing mode and extra air is used for a secondary ramjet system. One of the great

innovations of this design is the use of an engine pre-cooler behind the inlet which not only

keeps the engine cool and functioning but recycles heat for combustion, somewhat similarly to
 Comba 20

an expander cycle engine. All of this has led to this engine being an efficient and promising

design destined for spaceplanes.

There are other possible designs, few of which have been tested, however. Perhaps it would be

possible to create an engine with many angled nozzles in a ring driving both rocket propellant

pumps and a jet engine turbine? Perhaps a radically new approach to the rocket or jet engine

itself will allow for multi-function possibilities? There may be endless designs, and it may be

only a matter of time until one which will change space travel is built.

2.2.3 – Propellants

As was stated in section 2.2.1, reactive engines require propellants which are to be

burned for the products to be ejected. Generally, the propellant is what most determines the Isp of

an engine. The matter of engine design is only to obtain the highest possible Isp of the

propellant’s maximum. Therefore, the better the propellant, the better the propulsion. There are

three main types of propellants, these being liquid, solid, and hybrid propellants.

Liquid propellants are the most popular of the three as they are more practical than solid

propellants. Liquid propellants almost always consist of a fuel and an oxidizer, as mentioned in

previous sections. Perhaps the greatest advantage of liquid propellants in comparison to solid

propellants is the ability to control the flow. This means that the engine’s throttle can be

changed, the engine can be stopped, and the engine can be restarted. With these abilities, it is

made much more flexible and capable of completing precise orbital maneuvers or adjustments at

critical stages of flight. There are three different types of liquid propellants besides the oxidizers,

each with their own properties, advantages, and disadvantages. The first is petroleum fuels. Like

most common fuel types for many types of engines, petroleum fuel is made from crude oil. One

petroleum fuel used specifically in rocketry is a type of kerosene called RP-1. Kerosene on its
 Comba 21

own is also often used. This fuel was used with liquid oxygen (as RP-1 usually is) for the Saturn

V rocket and many others. For reference, the RP-1/LOX propellant has an Isp of 289s at sea level

(SL) when the chamber pressure is 68 atmospheres and the nozzle exit pressure is 1 atmosphere

(all Isp references will be given under these conditions). Next, cryogenic fuels are fuels which are

stored at very low temperatures. These temperatures can go as low as -253 degrees Celsius.

Cryogenic fuels are problematic because extra insulation materials and systems are required and

the density of the fuels can be quite poor, requiring larger and heavier tanks. Liquid hydrogen is

a common cryogenic fuel and is often used with LOX. This combination provides an Isp of 381s

under previously given conditions. More recent engines have tried using liquid methane instead

of liquid hydrogen with LOX. The liquid methane and LOX propellant has an Isp of 299s.

Overall, for using safe fuels, cryogenic fuels are a good solution, but the drawbacks can be too

much in certain applications. The last type of liquid propellants is the hypergolic propellants

type. Hypergolic propellants are not fuels on their own with oxidizers, but rather a combination

of two propellants (still a “fuel” and an oxidizer) which immediately ignite upon contact. These

combinations allow for simplified engines, such as for reaction control systems (RCS) and small

maneuvering engines. The Space Shuttle’s RCS systems used monomethyl hydrazine with

nitrogen tetroxide, providing an Isp of 280s under ideal conditions. Sometimes hypergols are used

for larger engines, however there are problems associated with using these types of propellants.

Hypergols can be very toxic and may be unstable. There are multiple types of hypergols, and

some solutions have been found for the drawbacks of some types of hypergols. The most

commonly used hypergolic mixture used in modern times is Aerozine 50 (50-50). When used

with nitrogen tetroxide, 50-50 has an Isp of 280s, and when used with red-fuming nitric acid, has
 Comba 22

an Isp of 270s. There are other types of hypergols such as hydrazine, however hydrazine is not

most common as it is unstable.

Solid propellants are much simpler and are entirely different from liquid propellants. They do not

require two different things to mix, but rather let a pre-made mixture be ignited. Perhaps their

greatest drawback, however, is that once a solid rocket has been ignited, there is no stopping it.

There is no ability to control throttle or anything about the combustion of a solid rocket. Often

solid propellants consist of a crystallized or fine-ground mineral as an oxidizer, aluminum as

fuel, and a polymeric binder to keep the entire mixture together. The end result is a rubbery

substance. The casing of the solid rocket is filled with this material (there may be a middle

section of a certain shape void of propellant for burning, the shape of which determines the burn

pattern) which is ignited for thrust. Solid rocket propellants can provide an Isp of approximately

277s. Solid propellants have been most effectively used in rocketry as first-stage boosters which

are discarded once the propellant is depleted. They may also be used for small boosts in orbit or

to circularize an orbit.

Hybrid propellants, as the name would suggest, are comprised of both liquid and solid

propellants. Often, the solid component is the fuel while the liquid component is the oxidizer. As

the main fuel is solid, it is stored in a solid rocket-type tank which serves as a combustion

chamber when the liquid oxidizer in pumped in. As can be inferred, this means that hybrid

propellant engines have the performance of a solid rocket with the ability to control the throttle

of a liquid propellant engine.

As far as conventional propellants go, the highest Isp for the propellants using standard

combustion and methods at SL is 400s. This is a hypergolic mixture of liquid hydrogen and

liquid fluorine. The next best Isp rating is at 381s from a liquid hydrogen and LOX mixture,
 Comba 23

which is much more feasible than when using liquid fluorine as fluorine is very toxic. These

numbers are indeed impressive, however these Isp numbers are under the perfect situation to

produce the most thrust, so real numbers from real engines will be significantly lower. One

propellant mixture which in fact allows for a higher real Isp is the LOX and liquid methane

mixture, as its use permits for highly efficient engine design. Whereas the standard Isp rating for

LOX and liquid methane is 299s, in real applications this Isp will be somewhat closer to 350s.

One must wonder, given all of the factors, if these numbers actually represent the best that

chemistry can offer. Indeed, better ways have been theorized and/or built and tried. For example,

ion propulsion has, as of late, become much, much more efficient. Current ion engines use xenon

as the propellant and electricity to ionize the xenon to produce thrust. This system produces

incredibly high Isp at the cost of terrible TWR, so it is only used on small satellites and probes.

There are projects under way for the creating of ion engines with more acceptable TWRs for use

on Mars missions, but it will likely be some time until ion engines are practical for crewed

missions. As previously mentioned, nuclear thermal engines are another way that standard

chemical rocketry may be surpassed, providing double the Isp of standard chemical rockets

(while current xenon-ion engines can provide many times what an NTP can) while maintaining a

usable TWR. It may be that current chemical rocket technology has reached near its peak, and

that methods will need to change for the future. It is also possible, though, that we have yet some

ways to go until we reach that peak in earnest. There are yet more ways that chemical rocketry

can become better.

One of these is the use of three or more propellants instead of the usual two. One hypergolic

tripropellant mixture was tested using liquid fluorine, LOX and kerosene and the results were an

Isp of 320s at SL. The largest problem with tripropellant mixtures is that each different propellant
 Comba 24

often requires completely different containment, and often when a third propellant exists it is a

difficult element to handle. Fluorine, for example, is very corrosive. When one propellant

requires containment at one temperature and both others require their own containment specifics,

it may no longer be worth it for the small performance improvements.

Another theory for how propellants may make propulsion advance is the use of free-radicals

(most likely hydrogen). In the case of hydrogen, a free-radical is a singular hydrogen atom

instead of H2. The use of free-radicals could theoretically produce Isp ranges between 1,200s and

1,400s, however the hydrogen atoms immediately want to recombine upon their separation.

What will be required for free-radicals to be used is an incredibly advanced chemical system to

stabilize the atoms, something which we do not currently have as a practical means. One final

propellant to be mentioned is metallic hydrogen. Metallic hydrogen is supposedly the most

powerful propellant possible to create. It would be able to produce an Isp of 1,700s while being

lighter than other propellants. The problem with this is whether metallic hydrogen can be reliably

produced. Currently, many laboratories have claimed to have created it, but only one so far is

likely to have actually made it. A vise of perfect synthetic diamonds exerting a pressure greater

than that found at the center of the Earth was used to compress solid hydrogen into a new state of

matter, metallic hydrogen. If metallic hydrogen were to be used as a propellant, an SSTO would

be easily possible and would have propellant to spare once in orbit, but it will not be possible in

the foreseeable future to be able to produce sufficient quantities of this material if it even retains

its form once the pressure of the vise has been relieved.

The matter of propellants is incredibly important and vital to rocketry to a degree

equivalent to the engines. Perhaps it will be metallic hydrogen or free-radicals which

revolutionize space travel, but, for the moment, conventional rocketry is most suited to the
 Comba 25

current problem. It may be that the one essential factor which determines whether SSTOs can be

made possible or not is the matter of propellants.

2.3 – Aerodynamics

2.3.1 – General

Aerodynamics plays a large role in nearly every aspect of atmospheric flight for not just

rockets and aircraft but for any object. In essence, aerodynamics refers to the forces acted upon

an object by the motion of the object through a gas (the atmosphere). There are four primary

forces which act upon a rocket or aircraft: weight, lift, drag, and thrust.

Both lift and drag can be thought of as to act through a center of pressure and they only exist

when there is air in contact with the craft. The center of pressure (CP) is the average location of

aerodynamic forces as an average of each component’s surface area and CP.

Lift functions differently between rockets and aircraft. Lift produced by aircraft is used to

counteract weight, which is the primary principle of the flight of aircraft. Aircraft, contrary to

standard rockets, use airfoils which use Bernoulli’s Principle to produce a lifting force from

wings. Rockets, though they generally have aerodynamic stabilizers, do not usually use wings,

and instead use thrust to counteract weight in the early stages of flight. Lift is produced on

rockets by the disruption of gas. Generally, it is the turning of gas flow by a solid object which

produces lift because, according to Newton’s Third Law, a force exists in the opposite direction.

This is what happens when airfoils create a downwash of air on aircraft wings. On rockets, this

can happen when the relative airflow is different from the orientation of the rocket, creating a

lifting effect from the “drifting” of the rocket’s motion.

Drag is essentially the resistance of the atmosphere against a solid object’s movement. Drag is

highly dependent on atmospheric conditions, such as air pressure, temperature, and air moisture
 Comba 26

content. Drag can be divided into three main categories: parasite drag, induced drag, and wave

drag. Parasite drag can be divided into three categories as well: form drag, skin friction drag, and

interference drag.

Form drag is drag produced by a lack of streamlining of a craft, creating turbulence and therefore

drag. It is for this reason that high performance aircraft and rockets alike never or rarely have

hard corners in their form and all angles are minimal and changes in form are gradual.

Skin friction is created from the interaction of air particles with the surface of the craft. A

rougher surface will of course create higher drag, so having a smooth surface is ideal. This is the

primary drag which is the most difficult to overcome, as any impurities on the surface of the

spacecraft will lead to both form drag and skin friction.

Interference drag is caused when air flowing over a surface must “compete” for a same space

with air flowing from another surface, and this creates turbulence. This becomes a greater

problem when reaching supersonic speeds, as the turbulence will become worse the faster the

relative airflow.

Induced drag is drag created by wing vortices on lifting wings. Due to the nature of lift using

airfoils, the air pressure on the underneath side of the wing is higher because the air on the top

side is moving faster and therefore has a lower pressure, as Bernoulli’s Principle explains. Since

higher pressure fluids always want to flow into lower pressure fluids, the underneath air curls

over the wingtip and creates vortices which create drag. Standard rockets do not have this effect

to any significant degree, but SSTOs might, since one theory for SSTOs is for them to be

spaceplanes with wings. Wingtip vortices are relatively simple to counteract by use of winglets

on the wingtips disrupting the curling airflow and stopping it from forming full vortices.
 Comba 27

Wave drag only occurs when the object or craft is moving faster than the speed of sound, as the

speed of pressure waves of air and the speed of sound are the same. Wave drag is the result of a

shock wave which is a powerful pressure wave created from supersonic flight creating high form

drag towards the rear end of the craft. Since rockets can break the sound barrier in their ascent,

this is a problem.

Drag in general is a major factor for rockets and SSTOs, but only in the atmosphere. In LEO

(Low-Earth Orbit), the drag is minimal, and at a higher orbit, the drag is negligible. Spacecraft

must be constructed in such a way as to minimize drag, though this may result in compromises.

A result of drag and air friction is heating. Spacecraft and rockets may heat to melting levels of

certain metals due to their extreme speeds, requiring advanced materials. This is especially

relevant when a spacecraft must re-enter the atmosphere from orbital speeds. Real spacecraft and

re-entry vehicles use relatively flat semi-spheres as surfaces for re-entering the atmosphere

because this shape creates an air barrier between the craft and the hottest parts of the air from the

friction of re-entry, preventing excessive craft heating, and producing more drag to slow down.

This model, though, is intended for re-entries where the craft will drop vertically and not land on

a runway as the Space Shuttle and Buran spacecraft did. SSTOs have also been proposed to land

horizontally, which creates a certain problem. Where lies the perfect amount of streamlining for

safe re-entry and effective ascent and gliding and landing without excessive drag? Since SSTOs

are single-stage and will be one singular craft, a balance will have to be struck in some way.

Weight is the force of gravity’s acceleration (9.81 m/s2) on the mass of the craft, therefore it

always acts downwards (towards the gravity, no matter the relative orientation) and is a constant

force on any object, no matter its proximity to any large gravitational body, such as our Earth.

Weight is always a major factor in space flight as it changes due to the fact that orbital velocity
 Comba 28

negates weight, depending on the orbit’s shape. In the atmosphere, at relatively low velocities,

weight is a much greater factor. Weight and Earth’s gravity are what make space flight so

difficult because gravity is an inescapable force which only wishes to reclaim anything that tries

to leave its reach.

Lastly of the four forces is thrust. Thrust, for the sake of efficiency and minimizing drag, is

always in line with the direction of the craft. In other words, thrust determines the direction of

movement and so the craft must be designed around this. Unlike aircraft (excepting rotorcraft,

balloons and Vertical Takeoff or Landing aircraft), thrust opposes weight for much of the ascent

of a rocket. Thrust produced from engines is the very thing that makes rockets and spacecraft fly.

This thrust must be enough to counteract both weight and drag to the point where the craft may

accelerate to a required orbital speed. Thrust is an absolutely key component in rockets because

whereas aircraft have lift to oppose weight, a rocket’s thrust must counteract drag and weight.

This is why horizontal-takeoff lift-producing SSTOs have been proposed, as it solves this

problem. Unfortunately, no problem is plainly solved without another being created. If an SSTO

were to have wings for either horizontal-takeoff and horizontal-landing or vertical-takeoff and

horizontal-landing, the craft would inevitably be heavier from having them. There would also be

more drag produced due to lift-induced drag, however the advantages may prove making SSTOs

with wings worthwhile.

Aerodynamic stability is another factor which affects all objects moving in the atmosphere. A

stability which is poor, or an instability, could be fatal to a rocket or aircraft, and it is therefore a

large factor to consider in the design of the craft. To achieve general aerodynamic stability, the

center of mass (or weight) must be in front of the CP (Center of Pressure) relative to the intended

direction of movement of the craft. This ensures that, in the case of a change in the angle of
 Comba 29

attack (the angle of relative airflow to the crafts’ direction), the fact that drag acts through the CP

corrects this movement. This is because the CP is aft of the center of mass (CM) and the craft has

been rotated so as to create a corrective moment or rotation. Ordinary rockets use stabilizing fins

at the aft end of the craft to move the CP backwards, but there must also be a balance between

stability and drag, as fins do produce drag. Another consideration is the amount of stability

required. The further back the CP is compared to the CM, the more stable the craft will be. This

is called positive stability. This may be detrimental to the craft as it may prevent maneuvering

and changing of direction, which is required to achieve orbit efficiently. Putting the CP very near

to or “on” the CM will make the craft have neutral stability. This would mean that, when the

flight path is changed, it would not resume its previous path but would stay on the current path.

Conversely, putting the CP in front of the CM would make the craft have negative stability. In

this case, when the flight path is changed the craft continues the movement and is called negative

stability.

2.3.2 – Aircraft Aerodynamics

As SSTOs may use wings and therefore may have many characteristics similar to aircraft,

it is worth mentioning the specifics of aircraft aerodynamics. Here we must think on the

horizontal plane whereon aircraft generally fly. Aircraft have three axes: the longitudinal axis

from the nose to the tail, the lateral axis from wingtip to wingtip centered on the aircraft, and the

normal axis going vertically in the center of the aircraft.

Longitudinal stability, or stability about the lateral axis, is what controls pitch or attitude.

Longitudinal stability is influenced by three main factors for aircraft: the location of the wing

(influencing the CP) in relation to the center of gravity (weight), the location of the horizontal

stabilizers at the tail of the aircraft (as is standard) in relation to the center of gravity, and the
 Comba 30

area of the horizontal stabilizers. Since, contrary to standard rockets, aircraft use lifting surfaces,

there is a problem presented by the fact that the CP (and lift from the wings) is aft of the center

of gravity for stability. The aircraft is made nose-heavy, therefore requiring a balancing factor so

that it may be controlled. This is the reason for the existence of the horizontal stabilizers

normally found on the empennage or tail of the aircraft. These are essentially upside-down wings

which create an opposite rotation effect from the main wings so that the aircraft may be

controlled and not have an excessive nose-down tendency. For an example, imagine placing a

lever on a fulcrum representing the CP. The lever would fall on the end where the weight

representing the center of gravity is. On the opposite end, a downwards force would be required

to balance this, and here is demonstrated the function of the horizontal stabilizer. As is the nature

of levers on fulcrums, the magnitude of the horizontal stabilizers’ force and the placement along

the lever of this force affects the degree to which the lever is balanced, or, using too much force,

unbalanced. Too much counterbalancing force would mean that the lever would fall to the end

opposite the center of gravity. On aircraft, this is not much different. The size and area of the

horizontal stabilizers will determine the magnitude of the counterbalancing force and the length

of the aircraft’s tail will determine the placement of the same force.

A last factor which does influence longitudinal stability is the placement of thrust from the

engines. This is rather simple. If the engines are placed far above or below the center of gravity,

then the aircraft will of course pitch in the opposite direction due to a rotational effect being

created. It is standard therefore to design the center of thrust to be in line with the center of

gravity along the longitudinal axis (this applies to both rockets and aircraft). There are other

factors such as downwash from propellers which influence the longitudinal stability of aircraft,

but these would be largely irrelevant as SSTOs would be powered by propulsion systems other
 Comba 31

than propellers and would therefore have their engines placed where there will be little or no

downwash, depending on the design.

Lateral stability is stability about the longitudinal axis. This is also known as roll stability, as the

movement of rotating the aircraft about its longitudinal axis (banking) is known as rolling.

Lateral stability is influenced by three main factors as well. First is dihedral and anhedral.

Dihedral is the upward angling of a wing on an aircraft. This means that the wingtips are higher

than the wing roots. Dihedral provides positive stability because when a gust of wind hits the

aircraft and a rolling motion results, one wing will have a higher angle of attack, producing more

lift and producing a corrective rotation. The corrective rotation is therefore a positive stability

trait. A negative lateral stability could be produced with anhedral, or the downward angling of

wings. This would create the opposite effect of dihedral and would likely not be suitable for an

expensive SSTO as it would make flight more dangerous. This would be a lesser factor for

spaceplane styled SSTOs as they would spend little time in the thick parts of the atmosphere

where winds are common compared to aircraft. Second of the factors influencing lateral stability

is wing sweepback. Sweepback is when the front or leading edge of a wing is angled towards the

rear of the aircraft. In other words, the wing is angled rearwards. Sweepback has more important

traits than only its stability advantages, and these will be discussed. The rearward angling of a

wing creates a corrective effect similar to that of dihedral, as when a gust of wind or air

disturbance causes a wing to drop, this wing is more perpendicular to the changed relative

airflow and therefore produces more lift. The wing producing more lift raises and corrects itself.

This is in effect positive stability. Forward-swept wings do exist, and they provide massive

instability and incredible maneuverability as a result, but they require complex computerized

systems to control the aircraft.

 Comba 32

The last factor is the keel effect. This happens when the wings on an aircraft are set above the

center of gravity, creating a pendulum effect. The higher the wings are in relation to the center of

gravity, the more positively stable the aircraft will be. This would likely not be used for a

spaceplane styled SSTO as it would create complications in the CM. The Space Shuttle and

Buran spaceplanes used a low-wing design, likely for the advantages found during re-entry into

the atmosphere, so a high-wing SSTO is unlikely.

The last axis of stability is directional or yaw stability. It rotates about the normal or vertical

axis. Yaw stability, unlike the other axes of stability, has only two primary influencing factors.

The first relates to the CP. It was discussed previously that the CM must be in front of the CP for

a rocket to be stable; the same applies to aircraft. As it is the case that the CP is the average

location of all components’ centers of pressure, the surface area of the craft behind the CM is

greater than the surface area forward of the CM when the CP is behind the CM. This means that,

when the relative airflow is changed due to a change in direction, the side of the craft presented

to the oncoming airflow is greater aft of the CM than forward of it. Of course, this means that

there will be more drag aft of the CM, and so the force which drives the craft back straight into

the relative airflow prevails over the force forward of the CM which, if prevalent, would force

the craft to rotate until it flies backwards. Essentially, this is simply positive stability from the CP

being behind the CM. However, if the CP were to be very near to or in front of the CP, the craft

would be unstable and would want to flip around. The other factor influencing yaw stability on

aircraft is the vertical stabilizer or fin. Usually located at the rear of the aircraft, the vertical

stabilizer corrects yaw movements because, when the relative airflow is changed, the vertical

stabilizer remains fixed to the direction of the aircraft and has a side presented to the airflow

which naturally creates lift to straighten itself. The effect produced from the vertical stabilizer is
 Comba 33

the same as that produced by the CP being aft of the CM. In fact, the vertical stabilizer itself

moves the CP rearward.

Wing design for spaceplane SSTO designs could come in many forms. Wing design is a

very specific area of study, as each type of wing has its own unique characteristics and flight

performance. Some of the most promising designs for spaceplanes are delta wings and lifting

body designs.

Delta wings come in two forms: double and single delta. Single or standard delta wings are high-

performance wings used on many supersonic aircraft throughout history. They have a highly

back-swept leading edge and a trailing edge with very little or no sweep. Essentially, they are

triangles. Delta wings have had numerous applications in the past for high-speed aircraft. They

have many advantages over standard wings and have good characteristics. They allow for high

speed (with correct application), high efficiency and a good lift-to-drag ratio. Often, delta wings

are used in conjunction with canards (horizontal stabilizers located nearer the nose of the

aircraft) or horizontal stabilizers in modern times. Double delta wing designs include a section of

wing which is highly backswept joining the standard delta wing design. The Space Shuttle used a

double delta wing design to allow for higher efficiency at hypersonic speeds while maintaining

lower drag. The ability to maintain high speeds provided by delta wings is something which

spaceplane SSTOs would likely need for their ascent so they may continue to accelerate through

the atmosphere.

Lifting body designs are a much different approach than a standard spaceplane idea. As the name

would imply, lifting body designs incorporate design features which allow the entire aircraft (or

spacecraft) to produce lift, thus not needing as much lift from wings. It is for this reason that

most spaceplane designs have their wings mounted low, as this is partly what makes a craft a
 Comba 34

lifting body design. This was applied to the Space Shuttle in conjunction with the delta wings, so

the wings were mounted low to make the bottom surface entirely smooth in design. Through the

use of this design, wing size may be minimized and therefore weight reduced, as large wings

would require heavy structural reinforcement to withstand the forces of re-entry from orbital

speeds. As well as not requiring as much weight from wings, a lifting body design is less likely

to suffer from the violence of re-entry due to this lack of wings. Lifting body designs have shown

much promise from research tests conducted on various different types and configurations. Much

of this research was used to test how the Space Shuttle may land given its design. A major

downside of lifting body designs is that they must land at higher speeds and have poor landing

characteristics. This makes them more dangerous to land, much riskier, and undesirable in this

sense.

Especially in the case of a spaceplane SSTO, aerodynamics is a factor to be considered in

many respects. It is entirely possible that poor aerodynamic characteristics could ruin the craft,

and so careful planning and a thorough design phase is required.

2.4 – Thermodynamics

Thermodynamics can relate to many things regarding rocketry. Especially regarding

engines, the laws of thermodynamics may influence the function of the craft entirely. Therefore,

certain factors must be considered in the design of a rocket.

Thermodynamics is an incredibly complex study, and for general relevance to rocketry not at a

level of studying each and every factor, much of the content is irrelevant in this context. What is

important are the factors pertaining to the rocket equation (specifically relating to the exhaust of

the engines), and these are the temperature, molecular weight, and specific heat capacity.
 Comba 35

Temperature is self-explanatory. Temperature relates to the thermal energy of an object as

determined by the specific heat capacity. The specific heat capacity is the required energy to

change the temperature of a substance. For example, liquid water has a specific heat capacity of

4,182J/kg oC. This means that, compared to other materials with lower specific heat capacities,

water can store a lot of thermal energy before changing its temperature. This is why water is

often used as a coolant. Hydrogen has the highest specific heat capacity at 14,304K/kg oC.

The average molecular weight of the mixture of engine exhaust is the chemical ratio of the

number of moles in the mixture to the weight of the mixture. This creates an average weight to

the mixture which can be used for other purposes.

Thermodynamics can also be seen as to relate to how the craft heats and cools. For example,

when flying at many times the speed of sound during re-entry, the craft heats from friction with

the atmosphere. In any environment the craft flies in, there will be sources which will heat the

craft. Since excessive heating could lead to harm to the craft, payload, or crew, cooling methods

have been developed. The method used on the ISS is a system of pumped water coursing out to

large radiators. The water absorbs excess heat in the rest of the structure, then it heats a

circulation of ammonia, which heats the radiator which dissipates this heat as infrared energy

into space. As well as this, the airflow within the ISS is regulated so that there is constant flow,

equalizing the air temperatures. This method would most likely be best suited to crew cabin

temperature control only, as using air for cooling is much less efficient than using water. Using

air to cool a spacecraft would most likely not be sufficient. A widely used method is the use of

surface coatings to control flow of thermal energy into or out of the craft. Reflective coatings, for

example, will not absorb as much heat as a dull coating.

 Comba 36

As temperatures of the spacecraft’s external surfaces in space can change by hundreds of degrees

depending on whether the surface is in the sun’s light or in shadow, insulation to retain heat must

also be included. Methods of insulation may work in conjunction with methods of cooling, such

as with surface coatings. Multilayer insulation and thermal blankets provide layers of enveloping

protection around the whole craft. These can retain heat depending on their design and

application and serve as meteoroid protection as well. Most obviously, heaters are used for

certain critical components. Especially when heating components which cannot drop below a

certain temperature, they are regulated by thermostat systems and are very versatile in their

applications, being so simple. They are also obviously used for heating requirements of the crew

cabin and air.

SSTOs, as the Space Shuttle and Buran did, will have to balance thermal retention capabilities

with thermal dissipation capabilities. An SSTO, for example, would have to endure incredible

heating during re-entry and the cold of space. There therefore must be a solution to how the craft

may safely endure the heating of re-entry while remaining warm enough in the vacuum. This

may be a highly specialized system with specific emphasis on components, or perhaps it will be

a unified system across the entire craft. The latter would most likely be very heavy and diminish

the craft’s capabilities. It also must be considered that some types of thermal control systems,

such as radiators, would most likely not be practical for an SSTO given the fact that it would

only spend a comparatively small amount of time in orbit and the weight of the radiator may not

be worth its benefits. This is especially possible since a radiator could not be deployed in the

atmosphere as it would create drag and would likely break and would need actuators or

hydraulics to deploy it once in space. Any type of heating or cooling system which is externally

applied must be able to withstand the heating and drag of re-entry. Insulation materials in
 Comba 37

conjunction with heat-resistant materials (to be discussed in greater detail below) may offer the

solution with regulatory heaters.

2.5 – Materials, Structure and Construction

The materials and structure of a spacecraft are, without a doubt, incredibly important to

consider in the designing phase. Without proper structural support, the craft may crumple under

the extreme forces of liftoff or fail critically resulting in a crash. At the same time, with too much

structure comes weight and the reduction of the craft’s ΔV. In the case of SSTOs, reliable,

strong, and resistant materials and structures will be required so that the craft may be re-used.

For any space-faring vehicle, there are many environmental hazards and challenges associated

with what the materials must endure.

The first and most obvious of these is the fact that spacecraft must operate in a vacuum and in

the atmosphere. As a result, materials must be able to sustain changing ambient pressures. For

crewed spacecraft, there must be a compartment for the crew which would preferably be

pressurized. In a vacuum, with pressure in the interior of the craft, there will be outward forces

on the structure which are very powerful. This, in combination with acceleration and other

forces, results in a lot of strain on the frame, requiring strong structures.

In a vacuum, there are three main challenges posed to the spacecraft’s materials. Temperatures

outside of the atmosphere can reach a hundred degrees below zero Celsius and hundreds of

degrees above zero Celsius. If the craft’s systems and components are to be kept operational,

there must be cooling or simply resistant materials. Especially if there is a crew on board, their

cabin may need to be many times cooler than the skin of the craft. Thanks to a lack of protective

atmosphere in orbit, spacecraft are also subjected to radiation. The most dangerous radiation is

from far-off supernovas producing some atom nuclei flying through space at incredible speeds.
 Comba 38

When these nuclei impact with organic cells, they may destroy DNA and cancer may be

developed. In part for this reason, there must be a protection system for the crew or delicate

sensors, etc. which cannot tolerate radiation. In the case of atom nuclei impacting the craft, the

worst material to protect the vehicle is metal. If an atom nucleus impacts a metal atom, the metal

atom may be shattered and from this radiation is produced, potentially harming the crew and

craft.

Aside from atom nuclei, spacecraft outside of the atmosphere inevitably experience impacts from

debris. Many satellites over the years have been shot down and their debris scattered through

space, posing a threat to any spacecraft flying at that altitude. Small meteoroids are also

everywhere in space. When a craft impacts even a tiny speck of dust, damage may result. A

pebble-sized piece of debris could make a significant dent in a spacecraft because of the

immense speeds of orbit. Spacecraft therefore require some form of protection from punctures

and damage. Often Kevlar is used as a layer of protection against small projectiles.

Lastly are the conditions of launch. For a vertical-launching rocket, the vertical structures of the

craft must be very strong to withstand not only the weight of the craft in gravity but the extra

acceleration and forces of drag from launch. As a result of all the forces of launch, a rocket may

experience 3 Gs, and the transition from many Gs to virtually no gravity in orbit must be

accounted for in the design of the structures.

Another factor associated with launch is the vibrations which the craft may experience.

Mechanical vibrations are a separate subject, but from high speeds and forces, vibrations in the

craft may result. In extreme cases, vibrations can rip a vehicle apart, and therefore design

considerations must be taken to prevent a catastrophic failure. Vibrations are less of a problem in

orbit, as they may possibly be induced by atmosphere and drag.

 Comba 39

Spacecraft in the past have had to balance structural strength and weight. Today, spacecraft can

make use of more advanced designs and techniques to allow for safety and lower weight.

Used in recent times as materials for construction (all of these were used on the Space Shuttle

and may be somewhat outdated in modern times) are aluminum, reinforced carbon-carbon,

reusable surface insulation, Nomex felt, thermal glass, and silica. Generally, when used with

other metals to make an alloy, aluminum is very strong while very light. It is very widely used

for many applications, and it performs well against impacts. It is also relatively affordable

compared to some other materials and is available in large amounts. As an option for SSTOs it

would most likely perform well, being so light. However, what would be preferable to aluminum

for construction and structure would be titanium. Titanium is very light and very, very strong.

Unlike aluminum alloys, reinforced carbon-carbon can withstand the immense heat of re-entry

effectively. Also called carbon reinforced carbon, RCC is a very high-performance, high-heat-

resistance material used in many important applications. It was used as the nose cap and wing

leading edge material on the Space Shuttle, it is used for high-performance brake pads, and as the

material for components in a fusion reactor. RCC consists of a matrix of carbon creating an

arrangement of carbon fibers. The process for creation is very difficult, and the material is

therefore incredibly expensive, but, when used in critical areas, it may be effectively used even

in small quantities. RCC is also excellent in dissipating heat which makes it all the better as a

material. Reusable surface insulation (RSI) are blocks of insulation which are heat-resistant and

were used as protection from re-entry heating on the Space Shuttle. RSI was made of ceramic

fibers and had a special coating. The old RSI of the time of the Space Shuttle was very effective,

being very porous and therefore light while being able to withstand very high temperatures. If the

RSI of back then was very effective, options of the future should be ideally suited to something
 Comba 40

like an SSTO if they are so light, seamless, and resistant. Used in conjunction with RSI tiles,

Nomex felt was used to aid in binding the tiles to the craft and in insulating and protecting some

areas which did not heat very much. Nomex felt is very versatile in this sense and can withstand

high temperatures (but not quite as high as the rest). It may not, perhaps, be used in a modern

spaceplane, but some derivative or development might. What may still remain viable is thermal

glass. Though it would not be necessary but would be preferable for a modern or futuristic SSTO

to have windows. The glass for the windows would need to be very heat resistant. This is

especially true since, for a window to be seen through, there must only be the window separating

the crew cabin from the harshness of space. Thermal glass is used as a way of creating insulative

and heat resistant viewing ports on just about any spacecraft. Besides being heat resistant, these

also must resist the high pressures of the cabin’s pressurization in the vacuum of space. Silica is

another of the very versatile materials. It was used as the main part of the material of the space

shuttle’s insulative tiles. Silica was also used to fill any cracks and any gaps. Like the rest of the

materials used on the Space Shuttle, silica has high heat tolerance and resistance, and it was

therefore widely applied.

As mentioned, some of these methods and types of heat protection may be somewhat antiquated,

but it is quite possible that adaptations may be used in the future. Unless space travel goes in the

direction of spaceplanes and SSTOs, most TPSs will likely remain as ablative heat shields on the

bottom of re-entry capsules.

In times more recent than the Space Shuttle there was a program by NASA to develop a potential

SSTO space delivery system called the X-33. It was canceled before a full prototype could be

completed, but a new TPS was developed for it. This new system would be metallic and would

be the aeroshell as well as the TPS. This would eliminate the need for a base structure with heat-
 Comba 41

resistant panelling on it and would instead use just one singular shell for the craft. It would

possibly be lighter and allow for more internal space. It is difficult to say exactly how well a

metallic TPS would have worked, but a modern, more advanced metallic TPSs may be a better

solution than tile panelling.

There are many upcoming materials which may be used in the future for spacecraft, such as

carbon nanotubes. Carbon nanotubes are able to give up to 600 times the structural strength by

weight compared to steel. They are comprised of a tubular structure of carbon atoms

approximately 1.2 to 1.4 nanometers across, about 10 times the radius of a carbon atom. This

means that, while they are incredibly strong, they are mostly empty space. Because of this, the

possible applications are nearly infinite. For spacecraft, theses tiny structures can be the

framework of the craft while being every component within it. Carbon nanotubes could, while

being structure, be batteries, wiring, propellant storage, radiation protection when used with

other atoms, etc. The possibilities are great since these structures exist on such as small scale.

Currently, the technology is not quite at a point to where it may be used extensively, but in the

foreseeable future, they could be used to greater effect than any material before it. Carbon

nanotubes might just revolutionize human industry, being used for anything and everything.

However, this future is, obviously, far off.

2.6 – Spacecraft Systems

Spacecraft are truly some of humanity’s most specialized, complex, and ingenious

creations. They must endure many different environmental situations. From the atmosphere to

the vacuum of space, from the gentle warmth of the Earth to the harsh heat and deadly cold,

spacecraft must be adaptive to these situations. As a result, they require systems for all their

functions to fit these environments. There are 8 primary systems to a spacecraft. These are the
 Comba 42

structural systems, power systems, communications, control systems, propulsion systems,

environmental systems, landing systems, and sensor systems.

Structural systems are comprised of the structural components of which the spacecraft is

comprised. The primary goal of this is, of course, to house every other system and to provide

structural strength. There must be very specific design features to accommodate for all other

systems and their required housings. In the case of a spaceplane, this structure must also be

relatively aerodynamic and include the necessary specific structures for lifting surfaces, etc.

Power systems are a necessary part of any spacecraft. They provide electrical energy to all of the

craft’s various subsystems, enabling use of electronics, sensors, actuators, and many other

functions. There are five main possible methods of storing or producing electricity on a

spacecraft. The first, being a storage solution, is the obvious use of batteries. Batteries are a tried-

and-true method of keeping electricity, and it is unlikely that they will ever disappear from

spaceflight. Often used in conjunction with a means of producing electricity, batteries are well-

suited to the needs of spacecraft, as they are backups for the failure of the electrical production

system. High-capacity batteries are, however, rather heavy. As mentioned above, carbon

nanotubes could lighten batteries significantly. The second method, as used most commonly with

batteries, are solar panels or photovoltaic cells. These convert sunlight directly into electricity.

These are a reliable source of power, however in a planetary orbit there will be a period where

the craft is in the planet’s shadow and the solar panels are unable to produce electricity.

Depending on the size of the arrays or surfaces of the craft covered with them, solar panels may

become heavy and, in the case of an array, require methods of deploying once out of the

atmosphere. Compared to other methods, though, solar panels are definitely a good option, as

they are lighter than some other options and they are very reliable. The third method, being the
 Comba 43

use of fuel cells, is a reliable yet sacrificial method for producing electricity. Fuel cells burn a

fuel and an oxidizer to produce electricity. This is often done with hydrogen and oxygen as water

is created from their combustion, which is useful for manned spacecraft. Whether the use of fuel

cells against other methods of producing electricity is better will likely be dependent on the

craft’s specifics. Fourthly, the use of radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs) could

resolve any electrical needs a craft has. RTGs use the radioactive decay of plutonium-238 to

produce heat which is then converted into electricity. They produce a constant amount of

electricity, and they are dependent on no factors, unlike solar panels. One advantage may be that

batteries are not required on a craft equipped with RTGs, so long as the electricity produced by

them is sufficient to sustain the craft’s most power-demanding functions. Often, this system is

used for spacecraft destined for distant operation from the sun, however it may still be applied to

spacecraft which stay close to Earth. Again, it would depend on the specific spacecraft to

determine whether the use of RTGs is better than the use of other means of producing electricity.

Fifth and lastly, the use of a small nuclear reactor may be the ultimate way of powering a large

spacecraft. Since reactors produce heat, their uses could go beyond producing electricity alone.

Perhaps an engine may be created which is a nuclear thermal engine incorporating the elements

necessary for the reactor to be used as a means of producing electricity as well. With current

technology, reactors are very heavy, partly because of all of the necessary safety measures. For

use in a crewed spacecraft, there may be need for extra radiation shielding, adding to the overall

weight. In the future, however, nuclear reactors may advance far enough to be small enough and

safe enough for use in all spacecraft. For application in an SSTO, the reactor would have to be

very small and light for it to be a better option than the solar-panels-and-batteries configuration.

In modern to close-future times, the use of nuclear reactors in spacecraft would likely receive a
 Comba 44

lot of opposition, given the fact that a failed launch could result in an entire band of the Earth

having radioactive materials spread about it.

As has always been the case, for the transportation of significant amounts of electricity, wiring is

required. Wiring has, in the past, caused fires in spacecraft, and so it is imperative that reliable

and secure wiring is used. As was mentioned, nanotubes would likely be the perfect method of

transporting electricity.

Communications are necessary for spacecraft for a variety of reasons. To communicate

with the crew of a spacecraft, to remotely control it, to direct it, etc., are all functions

necessitating effective communication with the ground stations and the spacecraft. There are two

stations required for data transmission: the transmitter and the receiver. The transmitter sends

encoded electromagnetic (radio) waves to the receiver, and the receiver un-encodes the waves to

obtain data. When a device may be both a transmitter and a receiver, it is called a transponder.

The most typical form of communication is done with, as mentioned, electromagnetic waves. To

accomplish effective sending and receiving, these devices make use of dishes to direct and

capture the signals better. On the ground, mostly all communications stations use massive dishes

for high power, long-distance communications. There are three categories for electromagnetic

antennae: high-gain, medium-gain, and low-gain. High-gain antennae are high-power, long

distance antennae used for deep-space spacecraft. They are larger antennae which must be

pointed towards the Earth for communications. Medium-gain antennae are smaller, less

powerful, shorter-range, but more flexible. Unlike high-gain antennae, the medium-gain antenna

has a larger angle of coverage. Low-gain antennae are used for short-range communications and

are able cover any direction for transmission. For something like an SSTO, which would only

remain in Earth orbit (perhaps they may go beyond, if sufficient advances are made), a low-gain
 Comba 45

antenna would be all that is necessary. Especially since large antennae are un-aerodynamic and

heavy, a small antenna is best suited to a spaceplane. Besides electromagnetic wave

communication, there is also infrared laser optical communication coming soon to be widely

used in space travel. Optical communication promises higher data rates than conventional

electromagnetic waves. Missions should be able to transmit ultra-high-definition video using this

new form of communications, enabling many other possibilities.

Control systems enable the direction of the spacecraft. This is especially important in the

execution of maneuvers, and in the case of a spaceplane, attitude, roll, and yaw control is

required for proper execution of landing and (potentially) takeoff. Any type of burning

(propelling) maneuvers require that the craft be aligned in the proper direction. To accomplish

these tasks of orienting and moving the spacecraft, there must be adequate subsystems available.

Reaction wheels can be used to control the craft’s direction in any way. They are electrically

powered, potentially weighted wheels which spin at very high speeds to generate a rotational

force on the craft in the direction opposite of the wheel’s rotation. Reaction wheels are an

effective way of controlling the craft’s orientation but require significant amounts of electricity

and may be heavy.

For spaceplanes, traditional aircraft control surfaces are used for aerodynamic control in the

atmosphere. In space, these systems are irrelevant as there is no atmosphere. These consist of

sections on wings or stabilizers which may be moved in a direction downward, upward, or

sideways to deflect oncoming air, generating a force. Ailerons are control surfaces usually

located at the far ends of the wings. One aileron deflects downwards and the other upwards (and

vice versa) to create rotation about the longitudinal axis of the aircraft, or roll. Elevators are

located on the horizontal stabilizers (if the aircraft has them) and deflect in synchrony to rotate
 Comba 46

the craft about its lateral axis. This type of rotation is called pitch. Lastly, rudders are found on

the vertical stabilizer(s) or fin(s). Like elevators, they deflect in synchrony, but sideways and

control movement about the normal axis. Yaw is the name given to the control given by the

rudder.

Control surfaces are traditionally controlled via wires, cables, pulleys, and levers. These systems

are prone to failure and are outdated, so modernized systems are used instead. Fly-by-Wire

(FBW) systems are computerized, integrated flying control systems which take the input of the

pilot’s or autopilot’s controls and process them into the optimal real control on the linked control

surface actuators to achieve the desired movement. These systems function within set

parameters, specifying to what degree the system may override the pilot’s inputs. FBW systems

also detect unwanted movements, such as in unstable aircraft, and automatically correct these to

cancel them. The usage of an FBW system allows for the craft to be much lighter, safer, and

more reliable. Obviously, electricity is required, and the computer requires a set of sensors to

detect movements. If these fail, the results may be catastrophic, however self-checking systems

are implemented to ensure that the computer and its subsystems do not fail.

For spacecraft, similar systems are used. Spacecraft often have more systems to be controlled,

such as with reaction wheels. Spaceplanes require computer systems which may co-ordinate the

use of both aerodynamic control surfaces, reaction wheels, and other control methods. The

computers must be reliable, consistent, and effective for use on such an expensive vehicle.

Current technology would likely be sufficient to create the ideal system for application in a

spaceplane SSTO.

A means of propulsion is required for any rocket or space-faring vehicle. Methods and

systems of propulsion have previously been discussed in detail, so this will be a summary of
 Comba 47

these systems. There are two main types of propulsion, these being by engines and by thrusters.

Engines, as previously discussed, are the main means by which a spacecraft accelerates to

achieve orbit or perform large burning maneuvers. Thrusters are small engines which are used

for making small corrections and adjustments to the craft’s orbital trajectory and for orienting the

craft. RCS or reaction control system thrusters are used for orienting and translating the craft.

These are especially useful in docking maneuvers and whenever the power from the reaction

wheels is insufficient to achieve an orientation. Unlike reaction wheels, RCS thrusters should be

used sparingly as propellant is required. To make the craft as light as possible while still being

sufficiently controllable, it must be considered in the design phase whether the use of RCS

systems with extra tanks (which may weight a significant amount) is a better option than using

reaction wheels. A combination of the two would be most ideal, but this adds weight.

Environmental systems are the systems in place for managing the various harsh

conditions of space. As discussed in previous sections, the management of heat or a lack of heat

is an issue which spacecraft must combat. Cooling and heating methods can either be active or

passive. Passive systems use only the nature of thermodynamics to let the cooling (or possibly

heating) happen on its own. Active systems often include moving parts, such as the pumps of a

circulating coolant. Meteoroids and small space debris have also been discussed, and the risk

they pose cannot be ignored. The system which is possibly the most important and relevant to

humans is the life support system. This consists of all components necessary to maintain human

life inside a vehicle in space.

The parts necessary in a life support system (LSS) are defined by the requirements of the human

body. Humans require an atmosphere with oxygen, water, and suitable temperatures. To maintain

an atmosphere with oxygen in the vacuum of space, the parts of the spacecraft where humans are
 Comba 48

intended to live or stay must be airtight to the outside. For this, strong structures are required,

materials must be perfectly safe, and any openings (such as exterior doors) must be able to

maintain a seal from the outside to maintain the interior atmosphere. A solution to the last of

these is the airlock system, where there is always one door closed when people or objects are

transported outside of the craft. To ensure that the atmosphere is suitable for humans to live in, it

must be well regulated to maintain oxygen, pressurization, circulation, moisture, and temperature

at the optimum levels. To maintain proper oxygen content without too much carbon dioxide

building up from human breathing, CO2 scrubbers and removal systems are put in place.

Eventually, the CO2 buildup in the removal systems is ejected. Pressurization is maintained by

ensuring that the environment is entirely closed, and no air can escape into space and that

sufficient gases (oxygen) are re-introduced into the system. Air circulation may be used to

regulate both moisture and temperature and may easily be achieved but should be strategically

planned. If air does not circulate, it becomes stagnant, allowing for moisture to condensate, and

mould to form, hurting the air quality and posing safety problems. Temperature regulation is

aided by circulation since the movement of air through a heat source is an effective way of

heating. For humans to survive, temperatures must not fall too low or go too high and should be

regulated by systems set to maintain a certain temperature. For ensuring that there are no

microbes, contaminants, etc., contaminant control systems exist to remove these potentially

harmful particles. The air is well-filtered, ensuring that no humans become sick.

Water is processed to be found in the form of moisture in the air and potable water. Humans

naturally produce urine from water consumption, and this is recycled through a process of

purification and conversion into potable water. This purified water is then used to moisturize the

air and for producing oxygen. What is not used for this is used as drinking water. The resulting
 Comba 49

hydrogen from the production of oxygen from water is used to create more water by using the

oxygen from carbon dioxide. Eventually, the buildup of extras is ejected.

Humans, besides requiring a suitable environment, also obviously require food and facilities or

means of removing waste. This applies more to longer missions and so is not as relevant to

SSTOs where trips may not last very long compared to other missions, but in the case of future

commercial SSTO transportation, this will most likely apply. Facilities would take up valuable

space and weight and so would food containment and heating systems, so in the foreseeable

future of crewed SSTO travel there may not be much space and weight dedicated to these.

For the retrieval of science, crew, and the vehicle itself, spacecraft require a means of

descending and landing on Earth. Traditionally, these are rather simple systems which rely on

certain conditions for function. Because of this, often multiple different systems are used.

Heat shields are the most basic of re-entry devices. They are designed to withstand the heat of re-

entry while dissipating heat at a rate sufficient to keep the spacecraft at a safe temperature. These

can be ablative, meaning that the material melts away, wicking away heat as it goes. Ablative

heat shields are the most common form of heat shields as they are very effective but can only be

used once. Spaceplanes such as the Space Shuttle do not use ablation as a feature of the TPS.

Spaceplane heat shields come in a different form than those found on capsules as has been

discussed, and therefore a more robust and overall better system is required for reusability.

For landing on any planet or moon, a spacecraft may use a descent engine to reduce vertical

velocity so that the vehicle does not crash and smash into the planet. The use of a separate

descent engine is better suited to landing on a planet or moon without any or with a thin

atmosphere, such as our moon, as the added complexity may be unnecessary. In other cases, as

for re-usable rockets, the use of the main engines as descent engines for landing is entirely
 Comba 50

feasible and used since the mass of the part being landed is so large compared to a capsule. It

would be mostly impractical for a spaceplane to employ a descent engine, however for a

conventional-type SSTO rocket, the use of the main engines for descent control may be the best

option.

Instead of using descent engines, small capsules re-entering and landing on Earth (or mars) make

use of parachutes to slow the descent. Once at a low enough speed for deploying the parachutes

has been reached, they are deployed. There are two main types of parachutes, these being drogue

parachutes and standard or main parachutes. Drogues are used as the first parachutes to deploy,

as they are smaller and are able to withstand higher speeds without shredding from aerodynamic

forces. They can work as a method of slowing the craft down enough for the main parachute(s)

to safely deploy. The main parachute is larger and meant to reduce the craft’s speed to the point

of it being able to safely make a (most likely) water landing, at least in the case of capsules.

Parachutes of both types must be made of strong synthetic materials able to endure the incredible

forces of decelerating a heavy craft at high speeds. Parachutes may also be used for spaceplanes

to help slow the heavy vehicle when it has landed and may possibly be used in conjunction with

other landing methods.

Spaceplanes, like standard planes, have used landing gear. Landing gear may come in two

principal forms. Those designed for aircraft are able to endure high horizontal velocity and

therefore use wheels, while vertical descent landing gear or legs have low tolerance for

horizontal motion. Both types, for reduction of aerodynamic drag, often have means of retracting

and extending. Aircraft landing gear use small bays within the aircraft for them to retract into,

and the bay doors cover this when the gear are retracted to both protect the components and
 Comba 51

again reduce drag. The lighter and stronger (as with many other components) the landing gear

are, the better, especially in the case of a spaceplane SSTO.

Lastly, sensor systems are required for the computers and instruments of the craft to

detect a multitude of things. These may include air pressure, direction of movement, altitude, etc.

There are many sensors and instruments necessary for many purposes, some more important than

others, each requiring very specific and specialized devices. A spacecraft may need to know a

few essential things, while ground control can determine other necessary things via radar.

Imaging, part status sensors, audio equipment, etc. may be required of the spacecraft when the

ground stations require these things.

Spacecraft systems are numerous and varied. The extreme conditions and difficulties

which space-faring vehicles experience demand that these systems be redundant, reliable,

effective, and efficient, as with in any other aspect of spaceflight. Modern equipment is possibly

sufficient for use on a modern or future SSTO, but the more advanced the equipment becomes,

the better.

3 – The Possibilities of SSTOs

When many of the aspects and factors of spaceflight are considered, one realizes that

travel outside of our Earth is very difficult. While standard, conventional rocketry is challenging

humanity’s ingenuity, intelligence, creativity, capability, and commitment to exploration, SSTOs

pose an even greater challenge. One may even say that trying to accomplish the creation of an

SSTO is not a journey worth embarking on; but what is human achievement without challenge?

The challenge encouraged humans to build the rocket to put the first humans on a celestial body

other than our own. The challenge drove humanity to one of its greatest accomplishments along

the journey to becoming an advanced, space-faring civilization. If engineers did not back down
 Comba 52

from the challenge of building a rocket which could put humans on the moon, why should they

back down from the prospect of realizing the fantasy that is the SSTO?

The answer may be that, with the nature of staged rockets being the most efficient method in

terms of the rocket equation, the expended resources for developing SSTOs are unnecessary, as

they may simply be a dead-end. But, as history has repeatedly shown, the past’s science fiction

can become the future’s reality.

When one considers the options of how an SSTO may be launched and recovered, three main

ways are found. All these methods have been developed, but as stated, no SSTOs have flow from

Earth’s surface to orbit.

Firstly, a vertical-launch approach may offer the most simplistic design possible. A design which

consists of only an engine (or multiple), a propellant tank, instruments bay and payload fairing or

bay could provide the best PMF and TWR due to the lack of extra components. The Haas rocket

from ARCA promises to be the first true SSTO, with future developments being capable of

transporting significant payloads to orbit. It uses the simplistic design as described with an

advanced linear aerospike engine with individual combustion chamber thrust variation to control

the spacecraft. A design such as this does show much promise given the fact that one large

disadvantage of SSTOs is the inevitable wear on the materials. For a cylindrical design,

maintenance would be easy and cheap compared to, for example, replacing the Space Shuttle’s

TPS tiles. The vertical launch design demands that the vehicle have a powerful engine to provide

a TWR of over 1 as it must overcome gravity vertically. Given this nature, weight reduction

becomes of utmost importance, not only to accommodate for a payload, but to have the ΔV

required to achieve orbit at all. Any type of vertical-launching design must prioritize either thrust

(which may sacrifice efficiency) or reduction of weight. Recovery of a vertical-launch SSTO

 Comba 53

may be difficult, as any solution other than retro burning would add weight. For recovery, the

vehicle would not likely land on a runway as an aircraft would. Landing legs, airbrakes, extra

heat shielding, parachutes, etc., would all add weight that could, compared to other ways which

may perhaps be less safe or reliable, be unnecessary. A problem with the use of aerospike

engines with regards to this is that the shape of an efficiently designed aerospike nozzle is

unsuitable for landing an entire rocket on. Other rockets may use the large bells of their engines

as structure on which the whole rocket can sit on the ground while aerospike designs would

either be plainly impossible to land on without damage or would be very unstable, requiring very

precise landing and coordination. To circumvent this, the use of landing legs as landing gear

would be most logical, or else the aerospike is truncated to provide a surface to land on. The

added weight of the landing legs would be less than ideal, but it may be a lesser compromise

than other ways. For example, the use of parachutes to slow the craft for a landing on the side of

the vehicle may be very safe if executed over water, but perhaps not over land. There are many

considerations to be considered, especially for a design which does not make use of lifting

aerodynamics. In terms of actual, real-life development, the vertical launch and landing design

demonstrates many aspects ideal for SSTOs, such as a light design, a small surface area

permitting use of less heating protection materials and high reusability, and cost-effective

construction, manufacturing, and operation.

Conversely to the previous, a horizontal-takeoff and horizontal-landing design utilizing wings,

aerodynamic lift, and possibly air-breathing engines may exist. As discussed, this form would

resemble a spaceplane, somewhat similar in general appearance to the Space Shuttle or Buran

spacecraft. One general reasoning behind the use of wings or a lifting body design is that this

would permit for a much lower TWR than a vertically launched rocket, as lift is opposing weight
 Comba 54

when using lifting designs. If the lift to drag ratio remained at a level suitable for takeoff, gliding,

and landing, then the engines’ performance could be tuned down to achieve higher efficiency.

Another advantage to the use of lifting designs is that, when re-entering, the craft could glide

around the earth at very high altitudes where the air is only enough for lift to be generated. The

capability of gliding allows for a very controlled descent, so that the runway landing may be

perfectly coordinated and executed. The method of horizontally landing itself provides safety

and flexibility. Whereas a spacecraft which does not make use of runways for landing would be

somewhat committed to its re-entry and landing once it has commenced its descent into the

atmosphere, a gliding and horizontally landing spacecraft could divert its course to land at

alternative locations if unsuitable weather forces it to. Though a spaceplane design provides

general safety and flexibility, for sufficient lift to be produced for landing and taking off, the

craft would likely have a large surface area, leading to higher drag and more area to be covered

by protective materials. Resultingly, the dry mass of a spaceplane SSTO would likely be greater

than that of a more simplistic design, limiting the ΔV. Wings may require more structure and

reinforcement, limiting the PMF and payload capabilities. This may be offset by the use of air-

breathing engines (which generally have a much higher Isp than rocket engines) or hybrid

engines. Any increase in Isp is valuable, as by the use of jet engines, but the added mass of the jet

engines once they are no longer usable must be considered. Also to be considered is whether

they will use the same fuel/propellant as the rocket engine(s). If a different fuel type is used, then

propellant tanks will have to be separated internally, leading to a higher dry mass and further

complication. Spaceplane designs would likely use conventional aircraft type landing gear,

aerodynamic control surfaces, and many features in common with aircraft. In terms of capability,

it is difficult to compare a spaceplane design to another design. If an arrangement with jet

 Comba 55

engines is used, then the higher dry mass will diminish the vehicle’s ΔV in orbit, but the use of

jet engines may be the only way to achieve orbit at all. There is much to be considered when

considering the design of any aircraft, let alone an SSTO spaceplane.

To combine the flexibility of a gliding, horizontally landing aircraft and a vertical-launch ascent

profile, a vertical-launch and horizontal-landing approach may prove best. This type would

spend less time in the atmosphere due to the vertical ascent, maintain runway landing and long-

distance gliding capabilities, and may not have the extra dry mass of jet engines. The reasoning

behind the last of these is that, for a vertical ascent, the vehicle’s time in the sufficiently dense

parts of the atmosphere would be limited and therefore the jet engines’ use possibly unjustified if

a standard vertical ascent path is used. Of course, the engines must provide a TWR of over one in

the case of this type. Vertical-launch and horizontal-landing designs essentially incorporate the

best features of each type listed above, which may prove best for accomplishing the SSTO.

If an SSTO were to be built and successfully launched, it would be a marvel of

engineering and human accomplishment. But, while Two Stage to Orbit designs exist which

have much higher capabilities while still being possibly entirely reusable, are SSTOs worth it?

Will private companies buy SSTOs over TSTOs, which may not have a significant cost

difference while being able to transport higher payloads to orbit? This is the unfortunate matter

of rocket economy.

SSTOs, as has been stated, are perhaps the most reusable launch vehicle design possible. This

will definitely attract the market, as the launch costs could be at a fraction of that of a

conventional rocket. Whereas standard rockets may require full or partial replacement after

launch, an SSTO would only need standard maintenance and more propellant. Because of this

nature, operating a fleet of SSTOs could mean that there is always a vehicle flying. Turnaround
 Comba 56

times, or the time required for maintenance and refilling of propellants before the vehicle is

ready for its next launch, could be very, very low in comparison to other rocket types. Especially

in comparison to a non-reusable rocket, this is true as a replacement would have to be built. As

humanity moves more and more into space, a constant stream of supplies and transportation will

become more and more important. SSTOs should theoretically fill the supply role better than any

other design, since bulk transport from large rockets would be less cost-effective and frequent.

Larger SSTOs, capable of transporting construction components, could allow for large space

stations, colonial motherships, or any other science fiction fantasy to be realized for a cost

previously thought impossible. People could buy flights to orbit and beyond for an affordable

price, moving humanity further and further into space.

Despite all of these advantages and possibilities, the rocket equation still dictates that staged

rockets are better. Nothing can change this. No matter how advanced the SSTO becomes, a

staged rocket which is equivalently advanced will have higher capabilities in terms of payload

and ΔV. It is very unlikely that, in the foreseeable future, any means of propulsion efficient and

powerful enough to reach Mars on a single stage will be found and used. Resultingly, humanity’s

first colonial destination outside of our Earth and moon will still have to be reached by means of

staged rockets. It is possible that an SSTO could carry a payload of another vehicle capable of

reaching Mars, but this would be very limited. As a result, Earth-launched SSTOs will never

dominate the market for interplanetary travel. What would, given all the circumstances, appear to

be most likely, is that SSTOs would be a large part of the market for human transportation and

supplies. SSTOs would become the most effective shuttles and ferries to space.

4 – Conclusion
 Comba 57

The Single Stage to Orbit spacecraft is a challenge which will eventually be met and

overcome. SSTOs are currently a fantasy which is only real in science fiction. The principle is

fascinating and awesome; a rocket which simply flies to orbit.

“Are SSTOs possible?”

“What needs to change for them to be possible?”

“What can be done with them in the future?”

These questions, posed in the first paragraph, are difficult questions with simple answers. To

answer the first question, the answer will be yes, in the future. Based on current technology, the

answer is most likely barely or marginally. Perhaps the answer may even be no.

For SSTOs to be made possible, humans must, as they always have, advance their technologies,

and commit to the challenge. We did not back down from putting humans on the moon. We are

not backing down from putting humans on Mars. To advance our space travel, we must accept

the challenge and face it, as we must with any.

When the SSTO is finally successfully created, what are we going to do with them? Develop

them further, advance them, and use them to their fullest in our space-bound endeavours.

Physics and the rocket equation say that SSTOs will not be easy to make. No great technological

advancement was ever easy. Through perseverance, commitment, ingenuity, and creativity,

SSTOs will become possible and may change our space-bound future.

Works Cited

1. Pettit, Don. “The Tyranny of the Rocket Equation.” NASA, NASA,

www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/expeditions/expedition30/tryanny.html.

2. “Rocket Mass Ratios.” NASA, NASA, www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/rocket/rktwtp.html.

 Comba 58

3. “What Is Rocket Staging? Learn About the Different Purposes of Each Rocket Stage -

2020.” MasterClass, www.masterclass.com/articles/what-is-rocket-staging-learn-about-

the-different-purposes-of-each-rocket-stage.

4. The Second Launch of the N1 Rocket, www.russianspaceweb.com/n1_5l.html.

5. Cain, Fraser. “Why Do Rockets Need Stages? The Quest to Build a Single Stage to Orbit

(SSTO).” Universe Today, 3 May 2017, www.universetoday.com/135367/rockets-need-

stages-quest-build-single-stage-orbit-ssto/.

6. “Rocket Aerodynamic Forces.” NASA, NASA, www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-

12/rocket/rktaero.html.

7. Braeunig, Robert A. “AERODYNAMICS.” Basic of Space Flight: Aerodynamics,

www.braeunig.us/space/aerodyn_wip.htm.

8. “Rocket Aerodynamics.” Science Learning Hub,

www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/392-rocket-aerodynamics.

9. Braeunig, Robert A. “ROCKET PROPULSION.” Basics of Space Flight: Rocket

Propulsion, www.braeunig.us/space/propuls.htm.

10. “Aircraft Design Characteristics.” Aircraft Systems,

www.aircraftsystemstech.com/2017/05/aircraft-design-characteristics.html.

11. “The Aeronautics of the Space Shuttle.” NASA, NASA, 1 Aug. 2017,

www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/9-

12/features/F_Aeronautics_of_Space_Shuttle.html.

12. Delta Wings,

www.centennialofflight.net/essay/Evolution_of_Technology/delta_wing/Tech10.htm.
 Comba 59

13. “NASA Dryden Fact Sheet - Lifting Bodies.” NASA, NASA, 12 Aug. 2015,

www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS-011-DFRC.html.

14. Lifting Bodies,

www.centennialofflight.net/essay/Evolution_of_Technology/lifting_bodies/Tech29.htm.

15. “Aero_FAQ.” NASA, NASA, www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/x-33/aero_faq.htm.

16. “PROPELLANTS.” NASA, NASA, history.nasa.gov/conghand/propelnt.htm.

17. Wdgreene. “Closed Cycle Engine – Liquid Rocket Engines (J-2X, RS-25, General).”

NASA, NASA, 8 Aug. 2012, blogs.nasa.gov/J2X/tag/closed-cycle-engine/.

18. “TRANSPIRATION COOLING.” THERMOPEDIA,

www.thermopedia.com/content/1203/.

19. “Linear Aerospike Engine Fact Sheet (08/00).” NASA, NASA,

www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/background/facts/aerospike.html.

20. “Are Aerospike Engines Better Than Traditional Rocket Engines?” Everyday Astronaut,

27 Nov. 2020, everydayastronaut.com/aerospikes/.

21. Delbert, Caroline. “A Rotating Detonation Engine Would Revolutionize Rocket

Launches.” Popular Mechanics, Popular Mechanics, 22 Feb. 2020,

www.popularmechanics.com/science/a31000649/rotating-detonation-engine/.

22. “Groundbreaking New Rocket-Propulsion System.” ScienceDaily, ScienceDaily, 30 Apr.

2020, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/04/200430113007.htm.

23. “Simple, Fuel-Efficient Rocket Engine Could Enable Cheaper, Lighter Spacecraft.” UW

News, www.washington.edu/news/2020/02/18/simple-fuel-efficient-rocket-engine/.

24. “Gas Turbine Propulsion.” NASA, NASA, www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/BGH/turbine.html.

 Comba 60

25. “Gas-Turbine Engine.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.,

www.britannica.com/technology/gas-turbine-engine.

26. “Types of Gas Turbines.” NASA, NASA, www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-

12/airplane/trbtyp.html.

27. “Ramjet Propulsion.” NASA, NASA, www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/BGH/ramjet.html.

28. “Scramjet Propulsion.” NASA, NASA, www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/BGH/scramjet.html.

29. Thompson, Avery. “Boeing and Rolls-Royce Invest in a New Hybrid Rocket Engine.”

Popular Mechanics, Popular Mechanics, 12 Apr. 2018,

www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a19756912/rel-boeing-rolls-royce-hybrid-

rocket-engine/.

30. “SABRE The Engine That Changes Everything.” SABRE :: Reaction Engines,

www.reactionengines.co.uk/beyond-possible/sabre.

31. “ROCKET PROPELLANTS.” Basics of Space Flight: Rocket Propellants,

www.braeunig.us/space/propel.htm.

32. “Ion Propulsion.” NASA, NASA, 18 Aug. 2015,

www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/about/fs21grc.html.

33. Hall, Loura. “Nuclear Thermal Propulsion: Game Changing Technology.” NASA, NASA,

21 May 2018,

www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/game_changing_development/Nuclear_Thermal_P

ropulsion_Deep_Space_Exploration.

34. USNC-Tech. “New Nuclear Engine Concept Could Help Realize 3-Month Trips to

Mars.” New Atlas, 26 Oct. 2020, newatlas.com/space/nuclear-thermal-propulsion-ntp-

nasa-unsc-tech-deep-space-travel/.
 Comba 61

35. Bennett, Jay. “NASA's Nuclear Thermal Engine Is a Blast From the Cold War Past.”

Popular Mechanics, 22 Feb. 2018, www.popularmechanics.com/space/moon-

mars/a18345717/nasa-ntp-nuclear-engines-mars/.

36. “Why the next Generation of Rockets Will Be Powered by Methane.” Bright, 3 July

2019, bright-r.com.au/why-the-next-generation-of-rockets-will-be-powered-by-methane/.

37. Ghose, Tia. “Lab-Made 'Metallic Hydrogen' Could Revolutionize Rocket Fuel.”

LiveScience, Purch, 26 Jan. 2017, www.livescience.com/57645-elusive-metallic-

hydrogen-created.html.

38. “THERMODYNAMICS.” THERMOPEDIA, www.thermopedia.com/content/1195/.

39. Braeunig, Robert A. “ROCKET THERMODYNAMICS.” Rocket Thermodynamics,

www.braeunig.us/space/thermo.htm.

40. “The Right Stuff for Super Spaceships.” NASA, NASA,

www.nasa.gov/vision/space/gettingtospace/16sep_rightstuff.html.

41. “What Materials Can Survive in Space?” National Technical Systems, 23 Sept. 2019,

www.nts.com/ntsblog/materials-survive-in-space/.

42. “Understanding Carbon Reinforced Carbon.” Advanced Science News, 17 Nov. 2016,

www.advancedsciencenews.com/understanding-carbon-reinforced-carbon/.

43. Jenkins, Dennis R. “The Shuttle’s Thermal Protection System (TPS).” NASA, NASA,

history.nasa.gov/sts1/pages/tps.html.

44. “HSF - The Shuttle.” NASA, NASA,

spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/shutref/orbiter/tps/hrcitiles.html.

45. REUSABLE METALLIC THERMAL PROTECTION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.

NASA, ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20040095922/downloads/20040095922.pdf.
 Comba 62

46. “Specific Heat of Some Common Substances.” Engineering ToolBox,

www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-capacity-d_391.html.

47. “Staying Cool on the ISS.” NASA, NASA, science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-

nasa/2001/ast21mar_1.

48. “Thermal Systems.” NASA, NASA, mars.nasa.gov/mro/mission/spacecraft/parts/thermal/.

49. Braeunig, Robert A. “SPACECRAFT SYSTEMS.” Spacecraft Systems,

www.braeunig.us/space/systems.htm.

50. Baird, Daniel. “Space Communications: 7 Things You Need to Know.” NASA, NASA, 5

Oct. 2020, www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2020/space-communications-7-things-you-

need-to-know.

51. “Fly-By-Wire.” Fly-By-Wire - SKYbrary Aviation Safety,

www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Fly-By-Wire.

52. Jackson, Shanessa. “Life Support Systems.” NASA, NASA, 13 July 2016,

www.nasa.gov/content/life-support-systems.

53. “Haas.” ARCA, www.arcaspace.com/en/haas2c.htm.