ABOUT THE OFFICE OF THE ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR

COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION

The Federal Aviation Administration’s 

(FAA) Office of the Associate 

Administrator for Commercial Space 

Transportation (AST) licenses and 

regulates U.S. commercial space launch 

activity as authorized by Executive 

Order 12465 and Commercial Space 

Launch Activities, Title 49 of the United 

States Code, Subtitle IX, Chapter 701 

(formerly the Commercial Space Launch 

Act of 1984). FAA/AST’s mission is to 

regulate the U.S. commercial launch 

industry; license commercial launch

operations to ensure public health and 

safety and the safety of property; and 

protect national security and foreign 

policy interests of the United States 

during commercial launch operations. 

In addition, the Federal Aviation 

Administration is directed to encourage, 

facilitate, and promote commercial space 

launches. Additional information 

concerning space transportation can 

be found on FAA/AST’s web site at 

http://ast.faa.gov.
2001 REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAMS AND CONCEPTS JANUARY 2001

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................................................................1

THE PUBLICATION ................................................................................................................................................................... 1

RLV INDUSTRY BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................... 1

RLV INDUSTRY OUTLOOK ...................................................................................................................................................... 2

2000 DEVELOPMENTS...............................................................................................................................................................4

UNITED STATES COMMERCIAL PROGRAMS ...................................................................................................................6

SECOND GENERATION REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE – KELLY SPACE AND TECHNOLOGY ...................................... 6

K-1 – KISTLER AEROSPACE CORPORATION........................................................................................................................ 7

PATHFINDER – PIONEER ROCKETPLANE............................................................................................................................. 9

ROTON – ROTARY ROCKET COMPANY.............................................................................................................................. 10

SA-1 – SPACE ACCESS®, LLC............................................................................................................................................. 11

SPACE CRUISER SYSTEM – VELA TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................. 13

VENTURESTARTM – LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION .............................................................................................. 14

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS .................................................................................................................15

SPACE SHUTTLE..................................................................................................................................................................... 15

X-33........................................................................................................................................................................................... 16

X-34........................................................................................................................................................................................... 17

SECOND GENERATION RLV.................................................................................................................................................. 18

X PRIZE® COMPETITORS .......................................................................................................................................................21

THE X PRIZE®......................................................................................................................................................................... 21

SPACEPORTS.............................................................................................................................................................................24

COMMERCIALLY-LICENSED SPACEPORTS......................................................................................................................... 25

U.S. FEDERAL SPACEPORTS................................................................................................................................................. 29

PROPOSED SPACEPORTS........................................................................................................................................................ 34

ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................................................................39

ENDNOTES ..................................................................................................................................................................................40
2001 REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAMS AND CONCEPTS JANUARY 2001

INTRODUCTION PAGE 1

Introduction

The Publication

This report, Reusable Launch Vehicles and Spaceports: Programs and Concepts for 2001, 

provides technical and business information on U.S. commercial and government reusable launch 

vehicles (RLVs) and spaceports. The report describes operational vehicles and spaceports as well as 

efforts currently in development or proposal stages.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Associate Administrator for Commercial Space 

Transportation (AST) first published this report in 1998. Now in its fourth edition, this publication is 

similar to its predecessors but contains some important additions and changes. Each individual RLV 

entry has been updated with the most recent publicly available information on the RLV’s financial, 

technical, testing, and manufacturing situation. Each spaceport entry has been updated with respect to 

financing and infrastructure investment and upgrades. Other significant changes include a more narrow 

focus on U.S. RLV concepts and programs; except for those competing for the X PRIZE, 

international RLV concepts under consideration for development are not discussed in this report. 

Finally, the section on U.S. government RLV programs only focuses on concepts that are intended for 

space launch opposed to space flight. The resulting report is a comprehensive overview of the RLV 

industry in the United States.

RLV Industry Background

RLVs have become attractive alternatives for access to space for several reasons. With the exception 

of the United States’ Space Shuttle, world access to space is made possible by expendable launch 

vehicles (ELVs), or rockets that can only be used once. As a new vehicle is needed for each launch, 

the customer who purchases a launch must pay the cost to build an entire vehicle. In contrast, an RLV 

has the capacity not only to launch but also to return to Earth to be used again. Because the cost of 

construction of an RLV could be amortized over multiple launches, RLVs may potentially reduce the 

cost of access to space for government and commercial users. In addition, the return nature of RLVs 

facilitates human trips to and from space. Although many national governments and companies have 

explored the development of RLVs, the Space Shuttle—first flown in 1981—remains the first and only 

currently operational, partially reusable launch vehicle (the orbiter and solid rocket boosters are 

refurbished and reused, but the external tank is irrecoverable). 

Starting in the 1990s, however, both the public and private sectors intensified RLV design and 

development efforts. On the commercial side, RLV design and development activity increased in 

response to strong growth in projected launch demand during the 1990s fueled primarily by nongeostationary orbit (NGSO) satellite telecommunications constellations. These NGSO constellations 

required large numbers of satellites for initial deployment as well as many replacements and follow-on 

satellites. In 1998, FAA/AST projected that 1,063 NGSO satellites would be deployed between 2000 

and 2010. 
2001 REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAMS AND CONCEPTS JANUARY 2001

INTRODUCTION PAGE 2

Unfortunately, the operators and proponents of NGSO systems have suffered substantial setbacks. 

In particular, the pioneering Iridium NGSO mobile telephony system, which deployed 88 spacecraft 

on 20 launches, failed to attract enough subscribers to service its debt and was compelled to file for 

bankruptcy protection. The ICO system, which had not yet been deployed, soon followed suit. As 

a result, future NGSO satellite constellations, as well as the replacements and follow-ons of existing 

NGSO constellations, face increased market skepticism as and appear less likely to be funded and 

launched. FAA/AST’s year 2000 NGSO forecast reflected these reduced expectations and included 

only 552 NGSO satellite deployments between 2000 and 2010. 

The bankruptcies, along with the associated reduced launch projections, have made it increasingly 

difficult for commercial RLV companies to obtain capital from private investors to complete their vehicle 

development. The year 2000 was particularly difficult for U.S. RLV companies, as many vehicle 

development programs were stalled or delayed due to lack of funds.

The government also exhibited increased RLV design and development activity starting in the mid1990s. For many reasons, the Space Shuttle had proven and remained extremely expensive to operate, 

and the Shuttle’s aging orbiters required expensive upgrades. The National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA) thus began to consider next-generation RLVs that would be more efficient 

alternatives to meet its space transportation requirements. Consequently, NASA embarked on an 

ambitious series of experimental vehicle, or X-vehicle, programs.

The centerpiece of these programs was NASA’s X-33, a sub-orbital vehicle that would demonstrate 

technology for a reusable, single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) launch vehicle. Lockheed Martin, the prime 

contractor for X-33 planned to develop a commercial RLV called VentureStarTM that would use X-33 

technology. Originally, 15 flights from Edwards Air Force Base (AFB) in California to landing sites in 

Utah and Montana were planned to be completed by the end of 1999, and the demonstrator vehicle 

was to have flown at Mach 15. However, technical problems related to the manufacture of the 

composite propellant tanks pushed back the flights and reduced the velocity goals. The first flight 

of the X-33 vehicle has been delayed until 2003.

RLV Industry Outlook

While the year 2000 was a challenge for the RLV industry, the industry is proving to be resilient and 

adaptable. Several commercial RLV companies remain committed to the goal of developing and 

operating their vehicles. These companies are aggressively pursuing private investment, and many have 

revised their business plans to include a much higher percentage of government payloads. Many are 

focusing on re-supplying the International Space Station (ISS). NASA has not yet selected any 

contractors for re-supply.

NASA also is adapting to current realities. The space agency is incorporating lessons learned from 

the X-33 program into its Second Generation Reusable Launch Vehicle Systems Engineering Risk 

Reduction program. NASA’s Second Generation RLV program received support from Congress and 

the President when the Space Launch Initiative (SLI) was passed into law in Fall 2000. SLI is a new 
2001 REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAMS AND CONCEPTS JANUARY 2001

INTRODUCTION PAGE 3

budget initiative that commits $4.5 billion over five years to NASA to pursue the Second Generation 

RLV program. Rather than focusing on a specific vehicle concept, the program is designed to 

substantially reduce the technical, programmatic, and business risks associated with developing a safe, 

reliable, and affordable second generation RLV. NASA intends to sustain commercial competition 

through 2005 and to invest in high-priority risk reduction work. The desired payoff of these investments 

is to enable the initiation of full-scale development of commercially competitive, privately owned and 

operated RLVs by 2005, and operations by 2010.
2001 REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAMS AND CONCEPTS JANUARY 2001

2000 DEVELOPMENTS PAGE 4

2000 Developments

The following chronology summarizes key events related to commercial and U.S. government RLVs 

that took place in 2000:

• January 19 - A Red Team chaired by NASA and Lockheed Martin began the first of two sessions 

to review the health of the X-33/VentureStar program. The second session took place in February.

• February 9 - The Red Team, which previously met in January, concluded that the X-33 program 

was on track. 

• February 11 – Space Shuttle Endeavor (STS-99) was successfully launched, carrying the Shuttle 

Radar Topography Mission instrument. The mission mapped an estimated one trillion points on the 

Earth’s surface.

• April 11 – NASA announced its decision to redesign and rebuild the X-33 hydrogen fuel tanks with 

aluminum. The original design used a lightweight, composite material that could not withstand 

pressurization tests. The announcement was made to the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, 

Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives.

• April 13 – Kistler Aerospace signed a Memorandum of Agreement with Space Operations 

International to provide launch accommodations for small payloads on the K-1 vehicle.

• April 24 – Rotary Rocket Company signed a Memorandum of Agreement with Space Operations 

International to provide launch accommodations for secondary payloads on the Roton vehicle.

• May 12 – Final hot fire tests on a single X-33 aerospike engine were successfully conducted, 

completing the first series of engine tests.

• May 19 - The Space Shuttle Atlantis (STS-101) lifted off with the new Multifunction Electronic 

Display Subsystem (MEDS) installed in the cockpit. MEDS will be installed on the remaining 

orbiters by 2003, and will not be fully utilized until new computers are installed that same year.

• June 20 – Kelly Space and Technology won a NASA contract for risk reduction studies and 

analysis of a second generation RLV program.

• June 20 – SPACE ACCESS® won a NASA contract to develop aerospace worthiness standards.

• June 26 – Gary Hudson resigned as CEO of Rotary Rocket Company and was replaced by 

Rotary’s CFO, Helena Hardman.

• June 30 – Pioneer Rocketplane received a $200,000 grant from the State of California to develop 

a detailed structural concept for a low-cost upper stage.

• July 17 – The X PRIZE®foundation approved the application of the da Vinci Project as a new 

entrant to the $10 million X PRIZE®competition.

• July 6 – Starchaser Industries, an X PRIZE®competitor, successfully launched a two-stage rocket 

from Morecambe Bay, United Kingdom, to test a launch escape system and avionics for its 

Thunderbird vehicle.

• July 20 – The X-34 program began a series of ground tests on the A-1A unpowered test vehicle at 

Edwards AFB, California. These tests were designed to investigate roll-out characteristics, guidance 

and navigation systems, and nose gear mechanisms.
2001 REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAMS AND CONCEPTS JANUARY 2001

2000 DEVELOPMENTS PAGE 5

• August 10 – The X-33 liquid hydrogen tank failure report was released. The report concluded that 

the design of the tank was the primary reason for the failure (fracturing), and that manufacturing 

flaws were only a secondary contributor.

• August 23 – Kitten, a vehicle being developed by the Cerulean Freight Forwarding Company of 

Oroville, Washington, became the 19th entrant to the X PRIZE®competition.

• August 25 – Kistler Aerospace was awarded a contract by NASA to conduct a study for alternate 

access to the ISS.

• September 13 – Pioneer Rocketplane signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Oklahoma 

Space Industry Development Authority for $300 million in revenue bond financing in exchange for a 

commitment to conduct launches from the proposed Oklahoma Spaceport.

• September 29 – NASA and Lockheed Martin agreed to a new plan for the X-33. The plan 

included a revised payment schedule for only one more promised payment, the use of aluminum 

hydrogen tanks as opposed to the problematic composite tanks, and a target launch year of 2003. 

Lockheed Martin will be able to compete for additional funds from the Second Generation RLV 

Program.

• October 11 – NASA launched the 100th mission of the Space Shuttle, with Discovery (STS-92) 

sending up hardware for installation on the ISS.

• October 27 – President Clinton signed into law NASA’s appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001 

which included $290 million for the Space Launch Initiative (SLI). 

• December – Preparations for a 2001 test on a tandem X-33 aerospike engine configuration began 

at NASA’s Stennis Space Center, Mississippi. Fourteen test firings of a single aerospike engine 

have already been successfully completed at Stennis.
2001 REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAMS AND CONCEPTS JANUARY 2001

UNITED STATES COMMERCIAL PROGRAMS PAGE 6

United States Commercial Programs

The private sector is developing a variety of RLV concepts with plans to perform both payload launch 

and human passenger/crew missions. The vehicles described in this section are in various stages of 

development. 

Second Generation Reusable Launch 

Vehicle – Kelly Space and Technology

Slowed development of the NGSO satellite market 

has prompted a change in Kelly Space and 

Technology efforts to develop space transportation 

capabilities. Last year, Kelly planned to design and 

develop the Astroliner vehicle for launch in 2002. 

The company is now focused on development of 

“Second Generation” RLV capabilities that will 

serve sub-orbital, NGSO, geostationary orbit and 

ISS customers.1

Kelly’s piloted Second Generation RLV system will 

be based on its patented horizontal takeoff and 

landing, tow-launch technique and is designed to 

carry humans and cargoes to and from destinations 

off the Earth. The two-stage-to-orbit (TSTO) 

system will be towed to its various airborne launch 

sites using a modified Boeing 747 aircraft. The 

RLV’s on-board turbine engines will supplement the 

thrust of the tow aircraft during the initial ascent. 

The RLV system will be released at the launch site 

and, using its rocket engines, ascend to stage separation. The second stage system for the specific 

mission will proceed to orbit. The first stage will return to its planned landing site, using its turbine 

engines again for powered landing on conventional runways. 

Kelly’s RLV system includes a number of different upper stage vehicles, including cargo-only 

delivery/return vehicles, and a seven person Crew Transfer Vehicle (CTV). The system is designed to 

serve all current and future customers anticipated through 2030, including both government and private 

citizen space travelers. The system design will readily accommodate the use of customer-supplied orbittransfer stages in conjunction with their satellites or other cargoes. The CTV incorporates its own 

propulsion system for orbit-deorbit and orbital maneuvering needs.

Vehicle: 2nd Generation RLV System

Developer: Kelly Space and Technology

First launch: post-2006

Number of stages: 3-4 (including towing aircraft)

Payload performance: 4,700 kg to 300 km/28.5 deg. 

LEO

Possible launch sites: East/West/Gulf Coast 

locations, eventually mid-continent

Markets served: Humans and cargoes to all 

conventional orbits
2001 REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAMS AND CONCEPTS JANUARY 2001

UNITED STATES COMMERCIAL PROGRAMS PAGE 7

Kelly has received a U.S. patent for its tow-launch concept. Kelly’s tow-launch technique will facilitate 

significant reductions in expensive ground facilities infrastructure, will achieve system operating safety 

and reliability that approaches commercial airline operations, and will enable delivery of heavier 

payloads than can be achieved with other air-dropped system concepts.

Under a cooperative program with NASA’s Dryden Flight Research Center and the Air Force Flight 

Test Center at Edwards AFB, Kelly’s tow-to-launch concept has been successfully flight demonstrated. 

Using a modified QF-106 and a C-141A tow aircraft, Kelly successfully conducted six flight tests to 

demonstrate the RLV tow-launch technique in late 1997 and early 1998. 

Since mid-1998, Kelly has been performing Second Generation RLV Architecture and System 

Engineering and Risk Reduction Studies in support of the Government’s Integrated Space 

Transportation Plan. In August 2000, Kelly won a new contract from NASA for Risk Reduction 

Studies and Analysis of a Second Generation RLV System.2

K-1 – Kistler Aerospace Corporation

Kistler Aerospace Corporation is developing the K-1 

RLV for commercial launches of low-earth orbit (LEO) 

payloads. The K-1 design was developed in 1995 and 

1996 as a TSTO vehicle that will have a payload 

capacity of 4,500 kilograms to a standard LEO and 

will offer launch prices of about $17 million per launch.3

Kistler has completed a conceptual design for an 

Active Dispenser that will deploy payloads to mediumearth orbit, geosynchronous transfer orbit (GTO), and 

interplanetary orbits. The Active Dispenser will expand 

the K-1’s capability beyond LEO (approximately 

1,570 kilograms to GTO) at a launch price of about 

$25 million.4 The K-1 is also capable of providing 

cargo resupply and return services to and from the ISS. 

In August 2000, Kistler was awarded a three-month 

study contract from NASA Marshall Space Flight 

Center for assessing the K-1 as a potential vehicle to 

provide alternate access to the ISS.5

The K-1 is also capable of launching multiple small 

payloads as secondary payloads or on dedicated 

missions. In April 2000, Kistler announced it had 

signed a Memorandum of Agreement with Space 

Operations International, a new company jointly 

formed by Ball Aerospace and Technologies and the 

Vehicle: K-1

Developer: Kistler Aerospace Corp.

First launch: To be determined

Number of stages: 2

Payload performance: 4,000 kg to 400 km/45 

deg. LEO

Planned launch sites: Woomera, Australia; 

Nevada Test Site, NM

Markets served: Deployment of LEO payloads, 

GTO payloads (with Active Dispenser), ISS 

resupply, and cargo return missions
2001 REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAMS AND CONCEPTS JANUARY 2001

UNITED STATES COMMERCIAL PROGRAMS PAGE 8

Universities Space Research Association. Under the agreement, Kistler will offer Space Operations 

International excess space on K-1 missions for secondary payloads.6 Kistler and Astrium Ltd. of 

Europe are exploring development of reusable payload dispensers for multiple small payloads. 

Astrium’s multiple payload adapter system design for the K-1 is based on a similar system developed

for Ariane 4 and 5.7

The K-1 will launch vertically like conventional ELVs but will use a unique combination of parachutes 

and air bags to recover its two stages. The vehicle is designed to operate with a small complement of 

ground personnel and will be transported to the launch site and erected with a mobile transporter. The 

K-1 vehicle will measure about 36.9 meters high, with a launch mass of 382,300 kilograms.8

Kistler’s K-1 vehicle employs off-the-shelf technology and components in its design. The first stage, 

known as the Launch Assist Platform, is powered by three liquid oxygen (LOX)/kerosene GenCorp 

Aerojet AJ26 series engines. These engines include the core of the NK-33 engines originally built by 

the Russians in the 1960s for their moon mission program. After launch, the Launch Assist Platform 

separates from the second stage and restarts its center engine to fly a return trajectory to a landing area 

near the launch site. The Launch Assist Platform deploys parachutes and descends to the landing area 

where air bags are deployed to cushion its landing. 

The second stage, or Orbital Vehicle, continues into LEO where it releases its payload. The Orbital 

Vehicle is powered by a single Aerojet AJ26-60 engine (derived from the Russian NK-43 engine). 

Following payload separation, the Orbital Vehicle continues on orbit for about 24 hours, after which 

a LOX/ethanol orbital maneuvering system performs a de-orbit burn. After atmospheric re-entry, the 

Orbital Vehicle flies a guided re-entry path to a landing area near the launch site and deploys parachutes 

and air bags for touchdown. 

Kistler’s subcontractors are producing the major components of the vehicle, and several major 

milestones have been achieved. The K-1 vehicle is 75 percent complete. Northrop Grumman 

Corporation has been contracted to provide the vehicle structure and has completed 21 of the 23 major 

structural panels for the K-1,9 while Aerojet has undertaken test firings of the modified AJ26 engines.10

Lockheed Martin has completed the LOX tanks. Irvin Aerospace has conducted a series of drop tests 

on the parachute and airbag systems, and final vehicle assembly commenced in May 1998. 

Kistler is planning to operate the K-1 vehicle from two launch sites, one in Woomera, Australia, and 

one at the proposed Nevada Test Site. Kistler received authorization from the Australian government to 

begin construction of launch facilities at Spaceport Woomera in April 1998 and held a groundbreaking 

ceremony at the site in June 1998. The launch pad designs are complete, and Kistler will conduct its 

initial flight tests and commercial operations from Woomera. In October 1998, Kistler finalized a deal 

with the Nevada Test Site Development Corporation to permit Kistler to occupy a segment of the 

Nevada Test Site for its launch operations.11 An environmental assessment for Kistler operations at the 

Nevada Test Site is being finalized and is an initial step in the process of gaining an FAA license for 

launch and recovery of the K-1 at the Nevada site.
2001 REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAMS AND CONCEPTS JANUARY 2001

UNITED STATES COMMERCIAL PROGRAMS PAGE 9

Pathfinder – Pioneer Rocketplane

The Pathfinder tracks its heritage to a military spaceplane 

concept.12 The “Black Horse” spaceplane was 

promoted within the U.S. Air Force in the early 1990s. 

Pioneer Rocketplane developed a derivative design that 

it called “Pathfinder” and proposed a precursor to it as a 

potential design for NASA’s X-34 vehicle (discussed in 

the United States Government Programs section).

Although the Pioneer Rocketplane design was not 

selected for the X-34, the company elected to continue 

Pathfinder development. In June 1997, Pioneer 

Rocketplane was awarded one of four $2 million NASA 

Low Cost Boost Technology Program contracts to 

develop detailed preliminary designs and conduct windtunnel tests for concepts to launch small satellites. 

Pathfinder is a spaceplane to be operated by a crew of 

two and will be powered by both airbreathing jet engines 

and LOX/kerosene rocket engines. The 23-meter long 

vehicle will take off horizontally using turbofan jet 

engines. When it reaches an altitude of six kilometers, 

the Pathfinder will meet a tanker aircraft that will transfer about 59,000 kilograms of LOX to the 

Pathfinder’s LOX tanks in a method identical to air-to-air refueling. After disconnecting from the tanker, 

the spaceplane will ignite its RD-120 rocket engine and climb to an altitude of 112 kilometers at a speed 

of about 4 kilometers per second. Once out of the atmosphere, the Pathfinder will be able to open its 

cargo bay doors and release its payload with a conventional rocket upper stage. The payload will then 

be carried into orbit as the spaceplane re-enters the atmosphere. After deceleration to subsonic speeds, 

the Pathfinder will re-start its jet engines and land horizontally.13 The Pathfinder’s maximum payload 

capacity to a space station orbit will be 2,300 kilograms.

The Pathfinder vehicle will use existing technology and components. The propulsion system will use 

proven jet and rocket engines (two GE F404 turbofan engines and one kerosene/oxygen-burning RD120 rocket engine), and the avionics systems will be derived from existing military aircraft. In September 

1998, Pioneer Rocketplane announced that it had completed a system design review and concluded 

that all components and systems fit together properly. In May 1999, Pioneer was also awarded a 

$40,000 grant by the State of California to conduct a study on the possibility for Pathfinder to launch 

from the California coast. Pioneer received an additional $200,000 California Space Grant award in 

June 2000 to develop a structural concept and plan for manufacturing of a low-cost upper stage.14

Vehicle: Pathfinder

Developer: Pioneer Rocketplane

First launch: To be determined

Number of stages: 2

Payload performance: 2,100 kg to equatorial 

LEO

Possible launch sites: Oklahoma Spaceport; 

Vandenberg AFB, CA; Cape Canaveral, FL

Markets served: Launch of small and 

medium-class LEO payloads
2001 REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAMS AND CONCEPTS JANUARY 2001

UNITED STATES COMMERCIAL PROGRAMS PAGE 10

On September 13, 2000, Pioneer signed a MOU with the Oklahoma Space Industry Development 

Authority. Under the terms of the MOU, the Oklahoma Space Industry Development Authority agreed 

to provide up to $300 million in revenue bond financing to help finance the development of the 

Pathfinder launch vehicle. In exchange for this financial assistance, Pioneer agreed to conduct launch 

operations from the proposed Oklahoma Spaceport at the former Clinton-Sherman AFB in Washita 

County, Oklahoma. Until such time as the FAA authorizes over-land launch corridors, Pioneer plans to 

base its vehicles at the Oklahoma Spaceport and ferry-fly to approved launch sites on the East or West 

coasts.15

Roton – Rotary Rocket Company

The Rotary Rocket Company began development 

of the Roton launch vehicle in 1996. However, due 

to the difficulty of raising additional funding for its 

vehicle development, estimated at $60-80 million, 

Rotary Rocket stopped engineering and 

development work in the summer of 2000 and 

Gary Hudson resigned the post of CEO at Rotary. 

The company has now suspended all activities, 

including fund raising, and has put the organization 

on indefinite hold.16

The Roton was designed to provide launches of 

satellites to LEO and also to provide crew transfer 

to and from space stations. The SSTO Roton 

vehicle was designed to takeoff vertically like a 

conventional rocket and land vertically like a 

helicopter. The 19.5-meter high vehicle was to be 

powered by a cluster of several engines derived 

from the Fastrac engine developed by NASA.17

The cargo compartment was positioned in the 

middle of the vehicle between the LOX tank (in the nose) and the kerosene tank (above the engine). 

Following ascension to LEO, the Roton was to deploy its payload and perform a de-orbit burn. The 

vehicle was designed to remain on-orbit for up to 72 hours. 

The Roton was cone-shaped and had rotor blades that folded flat against the exterior. The vehicle used 

the rotor blades to control the vehicle descent after atmospheric re-entry. Each blade was powered by 

small hydrogen peroxide/methanol rocket motors on the blade tips that power the rotor. 

The Roton planned to touch down vertically under the control of its two-person crew. The vehicle was 

designed to be serviced by a small team of ground personnel, and Rotary Rocket targeted turnaround 

Vehicle: Roton 

Developer: Rotary Rocket Company

First launch: To be determined

Number of stages: 1

Payload performance: 3,600 kg to 275 km/35 deg. 

LEO

Possible launch sites: To be announced

Markets served: Deployment of LEO satellites and 

crew transfer to and from space stations 
2001 REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAMS AND CONCEPTS JANUARY 2001

UNITED STATES COMMERCIAL PROGRAMS PAGE 11

times between flights of 24 hours or less.18 The Roton also was designed to be able to return to Earth 

with the cargo bay fully loaded.

Rotary Rocket Company developed and tested many of its systems throughout 1998, including the 

rotor blade-tip engines and the rotor assembly. In addition, the company began construction of its 

manufacturing and flight operations facility in June 1998 at the Mojave Civilian Test Flight Center in 

California and completed the construction in January 1999.19

During 1998, Rotary Rocket also tested some of the systems for the proprietary RocketJet engine. This 

included several successful test firings of a LOX cooled combustion chamber with a thrust rating of 

approximately 2,700 kilograms. LOX cooling in a rocket engine allows for the use of an expander 

engine cycle with a LOX/kerosene fuel combination and many of the associated benefits. The RocketJet 

engine, a large centrifugal pumping engine design, was originally intended as the powerplant for the 

Roton vehicle; however, in June 1999 the company elected to proceed with development of the Fastrac 

variant using several of its achievements in engine design. According to Roton, this decision was made in 

order to “permit the Roton development program to be concluded more rapidly and with less technical 

risk.”20

In 1999, construction of the Roton Atmospheric Test Vehicle (ATV) was completed and flight testing 

began. The ATV was a full-scale prototype vehicle without the main propulsion system and was 

designed to perform approach and landing tests. From July through October 1999, the ATV completed 

three test flights demonstrating the vehicle control characteristics needed for the Roton landing profile, 

including hovering and low altitude forward movement. With the majority of the desired engineering data 

collected, the company elected to cancel its final flight test and retire the vehicle early.

SA-1 – SPACE ACCESS®, LLC 

SPACE ACCESS®, LLC, is developing the SA-1, an unmanned spaceplane that uses a hybrid 

propulsion system and one or two rocket-powered upper stages to deliver a full range of payloads to 

LEO or GTO.

The entire SA-1 launch system is designed to be compliant with commercial aerospace worthiness 

standards, the equivalent of airworthiness standards for transport aircraft imposed by the FAA. The 

propulsion system for the system’s first stage, the “aerospacecraft,” is based on a proprietary 

modification by SPACE ACCESS® to the ramjet engine design that has been in operation since the 

early 1960s. The modification to the engines allows the ramjets to operate at both subsonic and 

supersonic speeds (ramjets normally only operate above Mach 2).21 One of the company’s 

subcontractors, Kaiser Marquardt, has tested elements of the propulsion system,22 and SPACE 

ACCESS® has worked with the Air Force Research Laboratory since September 1995 under a 

Cooperative Research and Development Agreement to review the SA-1 aeromechanics and the 

“ejector” ramjet propulsion system. As of March 1998, SPACE ACCESS® had wind-tunnel tested the 

ejector ramjet engine at all of the altitudes and speeds of the SA-1’s planned flight profile.23
2001 REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAMS AND CONCEPTS JANUARY 2001

UNITED STATES COMMERCIAL PROGRAMS PAGE 12

The SA-1 vehicle will take off horizontally from a 

conventional runway, using a mixture of air and 

liquid hydrogen to power its ejector ramjet engines. 

As the aerospacecraft climbs and accelerates and 

reaches the limits of the atmosphere, it will gradually 

transition from ramjets to liquid rocket propulsion in 

order to reach its final altitude and speed of over 

100 kilometers and Mach 9. The aerospacecraft will 

then deploy an upper stage with its satellite payload 

and return to land on a conventional runway. The 

SA-1 will carry a single, rocket-powered upper 

stage for LEO missions and two upper stages for 

GTO. After deploying the satellite payload, the 

upper stage will de-orbit and return to land 

horizontally on the same runway.24

The SA-1 vehicle will be able to launch payloads of 

over 5,200 kilograms to GTO. Although SPACE 

ACCESS® intends to pursue deployment of 

commercial geostationary satellites as its primary 

market, the SA-1 will also have a capability of 

deploying well over 15,000 kilograms to LEO as 

well. The SA-1’s significant payload capability and 

reliability, derived from being designed in 

compliance with rigorous transport aircraft-based standards, will also make the SA-1 well-suited for 

conducting resupply missions to the ISS.25

In 1998, while working with NASA on a Space Transportation Architecture Study program contract, 

SPACE ACCESS® began to study the concept of developing a crewed version of the second stage, 

which would give the SA-1 the capability to provide human access to space. In 2000, NASA awarded 

SPACE ACCESS® a contract to develop Commercial Aerospace Worthiness Standards to be used by 

commercial RLV companies to obtain approval from the FAA to carry passengers for hire on 

commercial RLVs.26

In cooperation with the State of California, SPACE ACCESS® is now conducting tests of its 

proprietary integral hot structure which is based on the use of FAA-certified structural materials. 

SPACE ACCESS® currently plans to expand its test program over the next several years to include 

avionics and full-scale propulsion hardware as well.27

Vehicle: SA-1

Developer: SPACE ACCESS®, LLC

First launch: 2007

Number of stages: 2-3 (depending on payload 

requirements)

Payload performance: 15,000 kg to LEO

Possible launch sites: Gulf Coast Regional 

Spaceport (Brazoria County, TX); Sarita Spaceport 

(Kenedy County, TX); Homestead Air Reserve Base, 

and Kennedy Space Center/Cape Canaveral Air 

Force Station, FL

Markets served: Launch of LEO and GTO payloads
2001 REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAMS AND CONCEPTS JANUARY 2001

UNITED STATES COMMERCIAL PROGRAMS PAGE 13

Space Cruiser System – Vela Technology 

Development

The Space Cruiser System vehicle is marketed for 

space tourism flights by Space Adventures of 

Arlington, Virginia, which acquired Seattle-based 

Zegrahm Space Voyages in November 1999. The 

Space Cruiser vehicle is being designed and 

developed by Virginia-based Vela Technology 

Development, Incorporated, to carry six passengers 

and two crew members on a sub-orbital flight 

reaching an altitude of just over 100 kilometers.28

The Space Cruiser has a two-stage, horizontaltakeoff-and-landing design that employs both 

airbreathing and rocket engines. The first stage 

booster, or Sky Lifter, will be piloted by a twomember crew and will be powered by two 

JT8D/F100-class jet engines. The Sky Lifter is designed as a conventional jet aircraft with a 30-meter 

delta wing and with a dry mass of approximately 10,000 kilograms. The Space Cruiser second stage 

spaceplane will be carried underneath the Sky Lifter. The Space Cruiser will measure 18.3 meters from 

nose to tail and will weight about 11,800 kilograms with fuel and passengers. The two stages will climb 

together to about 15 kilometers where the Space Cruiser, carrying two crewmembers and six 

passengers, will separate and climb to 100 kilometers using its three nitrous oxide/propane-fueled 

rocket engines. During re-entry into the atmosphere, the Space Cruiser will fire retro-rockets to slow 

the vehicle’s descent and then activate two JT15D-class turbo-jet engines for landing.29

All preliminary testing has been successfully completed and Vela Technology is awaiting funding to 

proceed to the next phase of the development and construction. As financing could not be secured in 

2000, a test flight is not expected to occur before 2003. Vela began considering a new, single-stage 

design for its vehicle that would use an airbreathing take-off and return.30 Vela Technology 

Development and Space Adventures have received over 60 requests for reservations since they started 

marketing operations in October 1997 and are planning a first voyage two years after the first test flight. 

Vela Technology Development intends to build two sets of operational vehicles and plans to initially 

operate two launches per week. In November 1997, Vela named AeroAstro LLC as the prime 

contractor for the Space Cruiser System.31

Vehicle: Space Cruiser System

Developer: Vela Technology Development, AeroAstro 

LLC

First launch: post-2003

Number of stages: 2

Payload performance: 8 humans to 100 km

Possible launch sites: Commercial airports

Markets served: Sub-orbital space tourism flights
2001 REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAMS AND CONCEPTS JANUARY 2001

UNITED STATES COMMERCIAL PROGRAMS PAGE 14

VentureStarTM – Lockheed Martin 

Corporation

VentureStarTM is Lockheed Martin’s potential 

commercial follow-on to the X-33 vehicle the 

company is developing for NASA’s RLV program. 

Development of a VentureStarTM vehicle will only be 

pursued at the conclusion of the X-33 program and 

will be contingent on the X-33 performance.32

The VentureStarTM vehicle will be similar in design 

to the X-33 but twice the size and about eight times 

the launch mass. VentureStarTM will be powered by 

seven linear aerospike engines. Although original 

plans for the VentureStarTM called for an internal 

payload bay, the design was modified during 1999 

to shift to an external payload bay.33

Lockheed Martin plans to target the commercial and 

government satellite launch markets. The company 

hopes to operate the vehicle at a flight rate of at least 

40 launches per year, leading to launch costs of 

approximately $2,200 per kilogram. NASA and 

Lockheed Martin are also studying the accommodation of crew missions on VentureStarTM. One option 

is to launch VentureStarTM as a cargo-only craft initially, with crew-capable modules phased in later.34

Lockheed Martin plans to lease spaceport facilities for VentureStarTM operations. In July 1998, 

Lockheed Martin provided its spaceport requirements for the VentureStarTM to interested parties. 

Fifteen states responded to the requirements. A decision will likely not be made until development of the 

VentureStarTM vehicle begins. 

Vehicle: VentureStarTM

Developer: VentureStar LLC, Lockheed Martin

First launch: To be determined

Number of stages: 1

Payload performance: 22,700 kg to LEO

Possible launch sites: Multiple states are bidding to 

have a VentureStar launch site

Markets served: Launch of heavy-class LEO and 

GTO payloads and government satellites
2001 REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAMS AND CONCEPTS JANUARY 2001

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS PAGE 15

United States Government Programs

There are currently four active RLV programs funded by the federal government: the Space Shuttle, the 

X-33, the X-34, and the Second Generation RLV program. The Space Shuttle has been operational 

since April 1981. The X-33, a one-half scale prototype being developed by Lockheed Martin for 

NASA, could have its first flight test in 2003. Orbital Sciences Corporation, the prime contractor for the 

X-34, is hoping this new RLV technology demonstrator will fly in less than two years. NASA is also 

funding the development of other X vehicles, including the X-37, X-38, and the X-43. These other X 

vehicles are not included in this report because they are not by nature space launch vehicles, but rather 

space flight vehicles.

NASA has also begun the Second Generation RLV program, a five-year, $4.5-billion budget initiative 

to support the development of next-generation RLVs. The goal of the Second Generation RLV 

program is to substantially reduce the technical, programmatic, and business risks associated with 

developing a safe, reliable, and affordable second generation RLVs.

Space Shuttle

NASA’s Space Shuttle is the world’s first operational RLV and 

has been used as the only mode of human space transportation in 

the United States since 1981. Although the Space Shuttles have 

launched several commercial and military satellite payloads during 

their initial years of service, commercial payloads were effectively 

banned from Shuttle manifests since the explosion of the 

Challenger in 1986. The Space Shuttle is now fully engaged in 

the construction of the ISS, will remain so until mid-2006, and will 

be used for logistics and research at least until 2012. NASA 

successfully completed its 100th Space Shuttle launch on October 

11, 2000. 

The Space Shuttle consists of a reusable delta-wing vehicle called 

an orbiter (there are four in the fleet and each has a lifetime of 100 

flights); two solid-propellant rocket boosters, which are 

recovered and reused a maximum of 25 times each; and 

an expendable external tank containing liquid propellants 

for the orbiter’s three main engines. The Space Shuttle 

carries astronauts to orbit to perform a wide variety of 

activities such as payload deployment and recovery, 

research in pressurized modules and unpressurized 

pallets in the cargo bay, repair of on-orbit assets, and 

ISS support.35

Vehicle: Space Shuttle

Developer: NASA, Rockwell International, 

Lockheed Martin, Thiokol. Operated by United 

Space Alliance for NASA

First launch: April 12, 1981

Number of stages: 2

Payload performance: 24,950 kg to 204 

km/28 deg. LEO

Launch site: Kennedy Space Center, FL

Markets served: Heavy LEO payloads and 

human spaceflight 
2001 REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAMS AND CONCEPTS JANUARY 2001

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS PAGE 16

In October 1996, United Space Alliance, a joint venture of Lockheed Martin and Boeing, 

took over day-to-day operations of the Space Shuttle fleet under a six-year contract with NASA. 

In October 1999, United Space Alliance acquired USBI Co., gaining responsibility for the assembly, 

test, and refurbishment of the Space Shuttle’s solid rocket boosters.36 The move to a private contractor 

may allow for a reduction in program costs through elimination of program redundancies and the 

potential enhancement of Space Shuttle safety, reliability, and capability.37

Current plans call for the Space Shuttle fleet to remain in service until at least 2012.38 In order to 

continue operations, a two-phased program to develop upgrades for the fleet is in place. Phase One 

upgrades are designed to enhance safety or vehicle performance for ISS missions; examples include 

improved main engine turbopumps and main combustion chambers, lightweight aluminum-lithium 

external tank, and improved avionics. 

In May 2000, the Atlantis flight featured a new Phase One upgrade: the MEDS. This subsystem 

replaces the old “green screen” monitors (cathode ray tubes) and many flight deck controls. The other 

orbiters are scheduled for the MEDS installation by 2003. MEDS is expected to dramatically reduce 

simulator-training time and improve contingency response.

Phase Two upgrades are low-cost, high-value, incremental enhancements; examples include installation 

of a micro-meteoroid and orbital debris protection system and the replacement of launch control room 

systems.39 Additional long-range performance and safety upgrades are also under consideration, 

including a crew escape module and the use of liquid-fueled fly-back booster rockets or five-segment 

solid rocket boosters. 

X-33 

The X-33 program was initiated to develop a testbed for 

integrated RLV technologies, paving the way for full-scale 

development of an SSTO RLV that would be contracted 

for government and private sector use.40 The X-33 is 

targeted to reach high hypersonic speeds and demonstrate 

SSTO and autonomous operations capabilities. NASA 

has set goals of a seven-day turnaround time and a twoday emergency flight turnaround time. NASA hopes the 

program will lead to the development of RLVs that will 

reduce the cost of space launches by an order of 

magnitude.

In April 1995, NASA signed cooperative agreements 

with Lockheed Martin, McDonnell Douglas, and 

Rockwell International to develop concept designs for 

the X-33 program. On July 2, 1996, NASA selected 

Lockheed Martin’s aeroballistic rocket design, which is 

Vehicle: X-33

Developer: NASA, Lockheed Martin 

First launch: 2003

Number of stages: 1

Payload performance: None

Launch site: Edwards AFB, CA

Markets served: Testbed for RLV 

technologies and operations
2001 REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAMS AND CONCEPTS JANUARY 2001

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS PAGE 17

essentially a lifting body. In September 2000, NASA and Lockheed Martin agreed to continue with the 

program despite significant problems incurred with the development of composite hydrogen tanks and 

other setbacks. The September agreement included a new payment schedule, inclusion of aluminum 

instead of composite hydrogen tanks, and a target launch date of 2003. By December 2000, Lockheed 

Martin had assembled 75 percent of the vehicle and had fabricated, tested, and delivered 95 percent of 

the vehicle’s components to its Palmdale, California, facility.41

The X-33 will measure about 21 meters in length and have a dry mass of about 34,000 kilograms.42

The X-33 will be powered by two linear aerospike engines under development by Boeing’s 

Rocketdyne division. These engines do not use conventional cone-shaped exhaust nozzles but allow the 

exhaust flow to adjust to changes in atmospheric pressure. Fourteen tests of a single aerospike engine 

were successfully completed in 2000. A series of tests involving the two flight engines in tandem for X33 are planned for the first half of 2001.43

The flight test facility at Edwards AFB in California was completed in November 1998. The X-33 

rotating launch platform at Edwards AFB was validated with a 31,750-kilogram simulator in February 

1999. In addition, the translating shelter, ground electrical supplies, and storage systems were 

activated.44 Test flights of the X-33 will launch from the eastern portion of Edwards AFB and land at 

Michael Army Air Field in Utah and Malmstrom AFB near Great Falls, Montana. In parallel with these 

activities, Kennedy Space Center (KSC) validated a new laser-guided vehicle positioning system for the 

X-33.

45

X-34

The X-34 is designed as a sub-orbital testbed for 

technologies and operations that may be incorporated into 

future RLVs. Other goals for the X-34 are to reduce 

launch costs and use a ground and support team of twelve 

to launch twice within a two-week timeframe.46 The X-34 

program, initiated by NASA in 1994 and currently 

managed by Marshall Space Flight Center, includes three 

test vehicles being built by Orbital Sciences Corporation. 

The first vehicle, designated A-1A, is an unpowered flight 

vehicle. The A-1A was successfully tested in 2000 during 

captive-carry flight attached to the belly of a modified L1011 aircraft. The vehicle is currently undergoing twelve 

ground tests to examine roll-out characteristics, verify 

guidance and navigation, and evaluate nose wheel steering 

and braking. Captive flights with the A-1A will resume in 

2001 to finish FAA safety certification on the flight 

combination with the L-1011.47 The other two vehicles, 

Vehicle: X-34

Developer:NASA, Orbital Sciences Corp.

First powered launch: 2002

Number of stages: 1

Payload performance: 181-kg payload 

allocation

Possible launch sites: Edwards AFB, CA; 

Kennedy Space Center, FL

Markets served: Testbed for RLV 

technologies and operations
2001 REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAMS AND CONCEPTS JANUARY 2001

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS PAGE 18

the A-2 and A-3, are both powered vehicles. The A-2 will be flown at speeds of up to Mach 4.5 and 

will demonstrate crosswind landings and flight through rain. The A-3 will be flown at Mach 8 at an 

altitude of 76.2 kilometers with carry-on experiments.48

Flight testing will focus on RLV operations such as a surge capability of 24-hour turnaround, landing 

in adverse weather conditions, and safe abort procedures. New technology demonstrations will include 

composite primary and secondary airframe structures; cryogenic insulation and propulsion system 

elements; advanced thermal protection systems and materials; and low cost avionics, including 

differential global positioning and inertial navigation systems. Operations technologies such as 

integrated vehicle health-monitoring and automated checkout systems also will be validated.49

The X-34 design features a cylindrical body with delta wings. The vehicle will measure 17.8 meters 

in length with a wingspan of 8.4 meters and will have a dry mass of 19,500 kilograms. After being 

launched from a modified L-1011 aircraft, the X-34 will achieve a maximum speed of Mach 8 and 

reach altitudes of up to 80 kilometers. The primary engine is a new LOX/kerosene rocket engine 

known as Fastrac, a power plant being designed, developed, and provided by NASA under a separate 

program. In August 1999, NASA, having concluded the development of the engine, awarded a contract 

to Summa Technology Incorporated to manufacture three Fastrac engines for the X-34 program. The 

contract also calls for Summa to investigate possible commercial uses of the Fastrac engine.50

During 1999, the program suffered a six-month setback with the unexpected announcement by the 

Air Force to prohibit launches from X-34’s originally planned site, Holloman AFB, New Mexico. 

NASA and Orbital Sciences have since moved most powered flight tests to Edwards AFB and plan to 

use White Sands Missile Range for some unpowered approach and landing tests as well as engine static 

test firings.51

The schedule for the flight tests of the A-2 and A-3 is pending a program review by NASA prompted 

by failures of two Mars-bound spacecraft in 1999.52

Second Generation RLV

NASA released an Integrated Space Transportation Plan for current and future space transportation 

systems in 2000. This plan consolidates into one budgetary area a $7.2 billion plan for fiscal years 

2001-2005 for Shuttle safety and technology upgrades, ongoing X-vehicle programs, technology base 

development, the ISS Crew Return Vehicle, and the new Space Launch Initiative (SLI) including 

Second Generation RLV. 

The largest share of the integrated plan is the Second Generation RLV program, worth $4.5 billion 

through FY 2005. (The program name Second Generation RLV is often used interchangeably with 

SLI.) The Space Shuttle is considered to be a first generation RLV. Second Generation RLV is 

comprised of four budgetary areas: Systems Engineering and Requirements Definition; RLV 

Competition and Risk Reduction; NASA Unique System Elements (including the Crew Return Vehicle); 

and Alternative Access (contingency re-supply for ISS). The goal of the Second Generation program is 
2001 REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAMS AND CONCEPTS JANUARY 2001

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS PAGE 19

to develop a commercially competitive, privately owned and operated RLV that serves both 

commercial and NASA human space flight and other unique government needs. Increasing safety and 

reducing the cost of access to space are key drivers of the program. 

As part of Second Generation systems engineering and risk reduction research activities, NASA’s 

Marshall Space Flight Center is evaluating proposals for NASA Research Announcement (NRA) 8-30 

during the first quarter of 2001. NRA 8-30 includes ten technology areas for future RLV architectures 

including flight demonstrations.

Around April 2001, NASA will award contracts for NRA 8-30 for continued study, possibly including 

three or four vehicles and various RLV supporting technologies. Next, NASA will continue to refine 

programmatic, business, and technical risks to enable at least two competing vehicle options by 2005. 

NASA plans to proceed with full-scale development for at least one RLV to be operational by 2010. If 

the market can support more than one new RLV, NASA hopes to develop an architecture that can 

benefit from multiple commercial providers.53

NASA is studying whether the Crew Return Vehicle could be outfitted as an ascent vehicle in 

combination with a future RLV or an ELV in conjunction with NRA 8-30. 

The Alternative Access program will enable NASA to supply ISS through commercial launch providers, 

opening up a potential new market for future RLVs and existing ELVs, if NASA chooses to exercise a 

launch services contract. Light missions delivering cargo to ISS carry around 500 kilograms; heavier 

missions could carry 2,000 kilograms. Industry study contracts were completed in 2000. NASA is also 

evaluating rendezvous operations with ISS.

Research and development of third generation RLV technologies including advanced propulsion will 

also continue as part of the overall Integrated Space Transportation Plan. 

SLI received $290 million for FY 2001 from Congress as a new start program for fiscal year 2001 

when President Clinton signed in October 2000 the VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriations 

bill that includes NASA. 
Table 1: RLV Summary Information JANUARY 2001

Vehicle

First launch

Manufacturer/ 

Developer

(website)

Number of 

stages

Powerplants Performance Launch 

method

Recovery 

method

Launch 

Contracts

Government 

funding

Potential Markets Served Subcontractors Commercial Investors Possible launch sites

United States Commercial Programs

2nd Generation Reusable 

Launch Vehicle

post2006Kelly Space and Technology 

(www.kellyspace.com)

3 Engines under consideration include: GenCorp 

Aerojet's NK-33, Rockwell Rocketdyne Division's 

Aerospike and RS-27, or NPO’s RD-180; Upper 

stages under consideration include Thiokol's Star 71, 

and Pratt & Whitney Orbus 21

4,700 kg to 300 km 28.5 deg. LEO

3,950 kg to 300 km 86 deg. LEO

3,400 kg to 1700 km 28.5 deg. LEO

2,700 kg to 1700 km 86 deg. LEO

2,072 kg to GTO 

air-launched horizontal 

landing

no no Launch of humans and cargoes to all conventional 

orbits

ACTA, Aircraft Technical Services, GenCorp Aerojet, 

AeroLaunch Systems Corporation, Altair, Frontier 

Engineering, Menasco, Modern Technologies Corp., 

Oceaneering Space Systems, Pioneer Aerospace, 

Thiokol, Tracor, TRW, Universal Space Lines

East/West/Gulf Coast 

locations, eventually midcontinent

K-1 TBD Kistler Aerospace Corporation 

(www.kistleraerospace. com)

2 First stage: 3 GenCorp Aerojet AJ-26 kerosene/ LOX 

engines

Second stage: 1 GenCorp Aeroject AJ-60 kerosene/ 

LOX engine

Standard Payload Module: 

4,000 kg to 400 km 45 deg. LEO

2,100 kg to 1,000 km 45 deg. LEO

2,250 kg to 400 km 98 deg. LEO

Extended Payload Module:

3,700 kg to 400 km 45 deg. LEO

1,900 kg to 1000 km 45 deg. LEO

2,000 kg to 400 km 98 deg. LEO

1,570 kg to GTO with use of an Active Dispenser

2,500 kg cargo up-mass to ISS

900 kg cargo down-mass from ISS

vertical 

launch

parachutes 

and air bags 

(both stages)

yes no Launch of LEO payloads, launch of GTO and other high 

energy payloads, ISS resupply and cargo return 

missions

GenCorp Aerojet, Northrop Grumman Corporation, 

Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company - Michoud 

Operations, Draper Laboratories, Honeywell, Irvin 

Aerospace, Inc., Oceaneering Thermal Systems

Kistler Aerospace has raised more 

than $500 million in private capital, and 

continues to seek commercial financing 

to complete the K-1. Northrop 

Grumman has invested $30 million, 

with options for additional investment. 

Space Systems/Loral has signed a 

contract worth in excess of $100 million 

with Kistler Aerospace for ten 

launches. Space Operations 

International signed a MOU for launch 

of secondary payloads.

Woomera, Australia; Nevada 

Test Site, NV 

Pathfinder TBD Pioneer Rocketplane 

(www.rocketplane.com)

2 2 GE F404 turbofan engines, 1 RD-120 LOX/kerosene 

engine

2,100 kg to 200 km Equatorial 

1,600 kg to 200 km Polar

1,900 kg to 1,000 km Equatorial

1,450 kg to 1,000 km Polar

horizontal 

takeoff

horizontal 

landing

no yes Launch of small and medium-class LEO payloads Scaled Composites, ARB Rockets Incorporated Oklahoma Spaceport; 

Vandenberg AFB, CA; Cape 

Canaveral, FL

Roton - Rotary Rocket Company 

(www.rotaryrocket.com)

1 Cluster of several engines derived from the Fastrac 

design

3,600 kg to 275 km 35 deg. LEO

2,700 kg to 370 km 90 deg. LEO

3,150 kg to 550 km 35 deg. LEO

2,250 kg to 550 km 90 deg. LEO

vertical 

launch

vertical 

landing

yes no Launch of LEO constellation satellites and crew transfer 

to and from space stations

Scaled Composites, Advanced Rotorcraft 

Technologies, Deskin Research Corp., Hypersonics 

Inc., Aerotherm Corp., Altus Associates, Luna Corp., 

Guidance Dynamics Corporation, Howard & Houston 

Engineering, Inc., LAPCAD, National Technical 

Systems

Space Operations International signed 

a MOU for launch of secondary 

payloads.

TBA

SA-1 2007 SPACE ACCESS®, LLC 2 (LEO)

3 (GTO)

Ejector LOX/hydrogen ramjets for each stage 15,000 kg to LEO

5,200 kg to GTO

horizontal 

takeoff

horizontal 

landing

no yes Launch of medium to heavy LEO and GTO payloads, 

launch of ISS resupply missions, human spaceflight

Kaiser Marquardt, undisclosed "major aerospace firms" Brazoria/Sarita Spaceports, 

TX; Homestead 

ARB/Kennedy Space Center, 

FL

Space Cruiser System 

(SCS)

post2003Vela Technology Development, 

Inc.

Space Adventures 

(www.spaceadventures. com)

2 Lower stage: 2 JT8D/F100-class turbo-jet engines

Upper stage: 3 Nitrous Oxide/Propane, pressure fed, 

rocket engines, two JT15D-class turbo-jet engines 

6 passengers and 2 crew to 100 km sub-orbital horizontal 

takeoff

horizontal 

landing

yes no Sub-orbital space tourism, sub-orbital microgravity and 

other experiments, aerospace training

AeroAstro Commercial airports capable 

of servicing business jets

VentureStar TBD Lockheed Martin 

(www.venturestar.com) 

1 7 RS-2200 linear aerospike engines 22,700 kg to LEO vertical 

launch

horizontal 

landing

no yes VentureStar launch of heavy-class LEO and GTO 

payloads

Multiple states are bidding to 

have a VentureStar site

United States Government Programs

Space Shuttle 1981 Rockwell, Rocketdyne, 

Lockheed Martin

(www.boeing.com) 

(www.lmco.com)

2 3 Rocketdyne LOX/hydrogen Space Shuttle Main 

Engines

24,950 kg to 204 km 28 deg. LEO

18,600 kg to 204 km 57 deg. LEO

vertical 

launch

horizontal 

landing

yes yes Science missions, experimental payloads, human 

spaceflight, launch and in-orbit retrieval and repair of 

spacecraft

Kennedy Space Center, FL

X-33 2003 Lockheed Martin 

(www.venturestar.com) 

1 2 J-2S linear aerospike engines Mach 13.8 at 91 km vertical 

launch

horizontal 

landing

no yes Testbed for RLV technologies and operations LM Space Operations, LM Manned Space Systems, 

LM Astronautics, LM Engineering and Sciences, 

Sanders, BF Goodrich Aerospace, Honeywell, Alliant 

Techsystems, Jacobs Sverdrup, Boeing Rocketdyne

Edwards AFB, CA

X-34 2002 Orbital Sciences Corporation 

(www.orbital.com)

1 One kerosene/LOX Fastrac engine Mach 8 at 76 km (vehicle A3)

181-kg payload allocation

air-launched horizontal 

landing

no yes Sub-orbital demonstration of RLV technology AlliedSignal, Oceaneering Incorporated, Draper 

Laboratories, Summa Technology Inc.

Edwards AFB, CA; Kennedy 

Space Center, FL

PAGE 20
2001 REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAMS AND CONCEPTS JANUARY 2001

X PRIZE COMPETITORS PAGE 21

X PRIZE® Competitors

The X PRIZE®

In the spirit of the early 20th century aviation 

prizes, such as the Orteig prize that Charles 

Lindbergh won for crossing the Atlantic in 

1927, the X PRIZE® Foundation was 

established in 1994 as an educational, nonprofit corporation dedicated to inspiring 

private, entrepreneurial advancements in space 

travel. 

The St. Louis-based X PRIZE® Foundation is 

offering a $10 million prize to the first team able 

to launch a vehicle capable of carrying three 

people to a 100-kilometer sub-orbital altitude 

and repeating the flight within two weeks (only 

one person and ballast for two others are 

required to actually make the flights). The X 

PRIZE® is offered to help speed along 

development of space vehicle concepts that will 

reduce the cost of access to space and to allow 

human spaceflight to become routine. 

The X PRIZE® competition currently has 20 

entrants from five countries offering a variety 

of different RLV concepts. The commercial 

vehicles under development for the X PRIZE® 

competition are uniquely designed for suborbital space tourism operations carrying about 

three to six passengers. These designs use 

many different takeoff, landing, and design 

concepts, but all plan to use existing technology 

to accomplish their goals. 

In May 1998, the Foundation unveiled the X PRIZE® trophy, which was put on display at the National 

Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC. During 2000, the X PRIZE® trophy was on loan to the 

Museum of Flight in Seattle, Washington.

Figure 1: Typical X PRIZESM Trajectory
2001 REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAMS AND CONCEPTS JANUARY 2001

X PRIZE COMPETITORS PAGE 22

Table 2: Summary of X PRIZE® Vehicles

Program Developer Vehicle Type

Ascender David Ashford, Bristol 

Spaceplanes Limited

(Bristol, England)

Spaceplane powered by two conventional jet engines and 

a liquid-fueled rocket engine. The vehicle will take off and 

land horizontally.

Astroliner Kelly Space and Technology 

(San Bernardino, CA)

Horizontal takeoff and landing vehicle that is towed to an 

airborne launch site by a modified Boeing 747.

Aurora Fundamental Technology 

Systems (Altamonte 

Springs, FL)

Horizontal takeoff and landing double delta spaceplane 

powered by a single throttleable kerosene and hydrogen 

peroxide engine.

Canadian Arrow Canadian Arrow (Ontario, 

Canada)

Vertically launched two-stage vehicle with water landing of 

both booster and passenger stages.

Cosmos Mariner Dynamica Research 

(Houston, TX)

Spaceplane powered by two airbreathing engines and 

one rocket engine. The vehicle will launch and land 

horizontally.

Gauchito Pablo De Leon and 

Associates (Argentina)

Two-stage vehicle that will launch vertically. The first stage 

booster and the second stage passenger capsule return 

to Earth using parachutes.

Green Arrow Graham Dorrington 

(London, England)

Cylinder-shaped rocket using liquid-fueled rocket 

engines. The vehicle will launch vertically and land 

vertically using parachutes and air bags.

Kitten CFFC, Inc. (Oroville, WA) Methane and LOX powered spaceplane that takes off and 

lands from conventional runway. Structure is aluminum 

sandwich foam with Boron Nitride ceramic coating.

Lucky Seven Mickey Badgero (Owosso, 

MI)

Cone-shaped vehicle powered by rocket engines. The 

vehicle will launch vertically and land using a parafoil.

Mayflower (CAC-1) Advent Launch Services 

(Houston, TX)

Cylinder-shaped glider powered by liquid-fueled rocket 

engines. The vehicle will launch vertically from water and 

land horizontally in water.

MICHELLE-B TGV Rockets (Bethesda, 

MD)

The vehicle will launch vertically and land vertically using 

ascent engines in a deep throttle mode.

PA-X2 Rick Fleeter, AeroAstro Inc. 

(Herndon, VA)

Cylinder-shaped vehicle using a liquid-fueled engine. The 

vehicle will launch vertically and land horizontally using a 

steerable parafoil.

Pathfinder Pioneer Rocketplane (Ann 

Arbor, MI)

Spaceplane powered by both airbreathing jet engines and 

LOX/kerosene rocket engines. The spaceplane will takeoff horizontally and meet a tanker aircraft for air-to-air 

refueling.

Proteus Burt Rutan, Scaled 

Composites (Mojave, CA)

Two-stage vehicle consisting of the turbo-fan powered 

Proteus aircraft and a rocket-powered second stage.

The Space Tourist John Bloomer, Discraft 

Corporation (Portland, OR)

Disc-shaped vehicle powered by airbreathing “blastwavepulsejets.” The vehicle will take off and land horizontally.

Thunderbird Steven M. Bennett, 

Starchaser Foundation 

(Cheshire, England)

Cylinder-shaped rocket using airbreathing engines and 

liquid fueled rocket engines. The vehicle will launch and 

land vertically.

X Van Pan Aero, Inc., Third 

Millennium Aerospace 

(Washington, DC)

Pan Aero has publicized two designs for the X Van. The 

entry may be a two-stage-to orbit system comprised of a 

booster stage and orbiter stage, or a single-stage system 

flying a sub-orbital trajectory.
2001 REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAMS AND CONCEPTS JANUARY 2001

X PRIZE COMPETITORS PAGE 23

Table 2: Summary of X PRIZE®Vehicles (continued)

Program Developer Vehicle Type

Unnamed William Good, Earth Space 

Transport System 

Corporation (Highlands 

Ranch, CO)

No information on this entry has been released.

Unnamed Cosmopolis XXI (Moscow, 

Russia)

Cylinder-shaped rocket which is launched from a carrier 

aircraft “Geophisika.” The vehicle will take off vertically and 

land horizontally. 

Unnamed The da Vinci Project 

(Ontario, Canada)

Air-launched, LOX/kerosene rocket deployed from large 

piloted hot air balloon. Recovery system features a high 

drag reentry ballute and parachute. Air bags are used to 

cushion touchdown on landing.

During 2000, the X PRIZE®Foundation made progress in attracting sponsors and new entrants.54 The 

foundation worked with several non-U.S. groups to encourage greater international participation in the 

competition. Two of the four new X PRIZE®entrants come from Canada. The first of these designs, 

proposed by the da Vinci team, features air launch from beneath a large, piloted hot air balloon. The 

other Canadian team is designing the Canadian Arrow, a vertically launched two stage vehicle. The new 

entrants for 2000 also include the Aurora vehicle, sponsored by Fundamental Technology Systems, and 

the Kitten vehicle, sponsored by the Cerulean Freight Forwarding Company. Both vehicles are being 

designed for horizontal take-off and landing.

In addition to the announcements of four new vehicle entries to the X PRIZE® competition, two teams 

took steps forward in developing their vehicles in 2000. On July 6, 2000, the Starchaser Foundation 

team successfully launched a two-stage rocket to test a launch escape system and avionics for the 

Thunderbird vehicle. The six-meter rocket was launched from Morecambe Bay, United Kingdom, to an 

altitude of 5.8 kilometers.55 Pablo de Leon and Associates were also busy throughout 2000 managing a 

vigorous hybrid rocket development program. The Argentine team has been successfully testing subscale solid/liquid rocket motors. Hybrid rockets will be used in the propulsion system of their Gauchito 

vehicle.56

Several of the competitors have commercial plans for their vehicles after the X PRIZE®. In addition to 

the already discussed plans of Pioneer Rocketplane and Kelly Space and Technology, Scaled 

Composites plans to use its Proteus aircraft for atmospheric research, reconnaissance, microsatellite 

launch, and as a telecommunications platform over metropolitan areas.57 The Mayflower and Ascender 

are planned for continued use as commercial space tourism platforms. The X Van, Cosmos Mariner, 

and Aurora are proposed for both satellite launch and space tourism missions.
2001 REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAMS AND CONCEPTS JANUARY 2001

SPACEPORTS PAGE 24

Spaceports

Since the 1950s, the U.S. government has built, operated, and maintained space launch ranges and 

bases to meet a variety of national needs. Although U.S. military and civil government agencies have 

traditionally been the primary users of this infrastructure, non-government customers, flying payloads on 

either government-procured or private launch vehicles, have used it as well. Historically, NASA acted 

as the primary intermediary between government space launch ranges and non-governmental entities 

using these assets. However, after the 1986 Challenger accident, the White House made a decision to 

allow launch customers to solicit bids directly from private sector launch vehicle manufacturers. These 

vehicle manufacturers, in turn, began to use or lease launch facilities from NASA or the U.S. Air Force 

under the terms of the 1984 U.S. Commercial Space Launch Act and its 1988 amendments.

Today, the increasing commercialization of the U.S. launch industry is evident not only in the growing 

numbers of commercially procured launches but also in an expanding list of commercial launch sites 

supplementing U.S. government operated sites. The very first launch from a U.S. commercial launch 

site, Spaceport Florida, took place in January 1998. Today, four currently licensed commercial launch 

sites exist. States are encouraging the development of further commercial launch sites through a variety 

of grants and legislative activities.

This section describes existing and emerging launch sites, otherwise known as spaceports. It is divided 

into three subsections: Commercially Licensed Spaceports, U.S. Federal Spaceports, and Proposed 

Spaceports. Figure 2 shows the location of these spaceports, and Table 4, located at the end of this 

section, summarizes each spaceport’s major characteristics.

Figure 2. Location of U.S. Spaceports

Key:

• Commercially-Licensed Spaceport

♦ U.S. Federal Spaceport

∗ Proposed Spaceport

 California Spaceport/

·· ̈Vandenberg AFB

··

 Kodiak Launch Complex

 Spaceport Florida/

 ·· ̈Kennedy Space Ctr/

 Cape Canaveral 

 Air Force Station

 Virginia 

 Space Flight

 ·· ̈Center/ 

 Wallops 

 Flight Facility

 ̈*Edwards AFB/

 Mojave Civilian Test Flight 

Center

White Sands Missile Range/

Southwest Regional Spaceport

*Montana Spaceport

Texas Spaceport

(3 proposed sites)

*Nevada Test Site

*Utah Spaceport

*Oklahoma Spaceport

 ̈*
2001 REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAMS AND CONCEPTS JANUARY 2001

SPACEPORTS PAGE 25

With the exception of the facilities that have served the Space Shuttle, the existing spaceports have 

only interfaced with ELVs to date. Many existing and developing federal and commercial spaceports, 

however, plan or aspire to serve some of the RLVs currently under development. The spaceports’ 

potential and planned involvement with RLVs is discussed in the subsections. 

Commercially-Licensed Spaceports

In order to conduct a commercial space launch from or operate a commercial launch site in the United 

States, it is necessary to obtain a license from the federal government. FAA/AST issues such licenses to 

conduct individual launches or to operate commercial launch sites. While the vast majority 

of licensed launch activity still occurs at U.S. federal ranges, much future launch activity is expected to 

originate from private or non-federally-operated launch sites. To date, FAA/AST has licensed four nonfederal launch sites, including the California Spaceport at Vandenberg AFB (VAFB), Kodiak Launch 

Complex (KLC) in Alaska, Spaceport Florida at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS), and the 

Virginia Space Flight Center (VSFC) at Wallops Flight Facility (see Table 3). The first orbital launch 

from an FAA/AST licensed site occurred on January 6, 1998, when a Lockheed Martin Athena 2 

carrying NASA’s Lunar Prospector spacecraft successfully lifted off from Spaceport Florida.

 Table 3. Launch Site Operator Licenses Issued

License Operator / Launch Site Location Original 

Effective Date

Expiration Date

LSO 96-001 Spaceport Systems International / 

California Spaceport

Vandenberg 

Air Force Base

19 Sep 1996 19 Sep 2001

LSO 97-002 Spaceport Florida Flight Authority / 

Spaceport Florida

Cape Canaveral 

Air Force Station

22 May 1997 22 May 2002

LSO 97-003 VA Commercial Space Flight Authority 

/ Virginia Space Flight Center

Wallops Flight 

Facility

19 Dec 1997 19 Dec 2002

LSO 97-004 Alaska Aerospace Development 

Corporation / Kodiak Island

Kodiak Launch 

Complex

24 Sep 1998 24 Sep 2003

California Spaceport

Based near Lompoc, California, the California Spaceport 

is a commercial launch services company operated and 

managed by Spaceport Systems International, L.P., a 

limited partnership between ITT Federal Services 

Corporation and California Commercial Spaceport, 

Incorporated. It is co-located with VAFB on the central 

California coast where Spaceport Systems International 

has signed a 25-year lease. On September 19, 1996, the 

California Spaceport became the first commercial launch 

site to be licensed by FAA/AST. Located at 34° North

latitude, the California Spaceport can support a variety of 

mission profiles to low polar orbit inclinations, with possible launch azimuths ranging from 220° to 150°. 
2001 REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAMS AND CONCEPTS JANUARY 2001

SPACEPORTS PAGE 26

Initial construction at California Spaceport’s Commercial Launch Facility began in 1995 and 

was completed in 1999. The current facility design concept is based on a “building block” approach. 

Power and communications cabling is routed underground to provide a “flat pad” with the flexibility to 

accommodate a variety of different launch systems. Although the facility currently is configured to 

support solid propellant vehicles, plans are in place to equip the facility with commodities required by 

liquid fueled boosters. The current configuration of the facility consists of the following infrastructure: 

pad deck, support equipment building, launch equipment vault, launch duct and stand, communications 

equipment, and launch control room. Final facility configuration awaits customer requirements. When 

fully developed, the facility will be able to accommodate a wide variety of launch vehicles including the 

Minuteman-based Minotaur and Castor 120-based vehicles. 

Originally, the focus of the California Spaceport’s payload processing services was on the refurbishment 

of the Payload Preparation Room. This is a cleanroom facility designed to process three Space Shuttle 

payloads simultaneously. It is now leased and operated by the California Spaceport as the Integrated 

Processing Facility. 

With the Commercial Launch Facility and the Integrated Processing Facility, the California Spaceport 

provides both payload processing and orbital launch support services for commercial and government 

users. The California Spaceport provided payload-processing services for the NASA Lewis satellite 

and has contracts to provide payload processing for two Earth Observation System satellites. The 

California Spaceport’s first orbital launch occurred when it supported the launch of JAWSAT (a joint 

project by the Air Force Academy and Weber State University) on a Minotaur launch vehicle in July 

2000. 

Kodiak Launch Complex

In 2000, the Alaska Aerospace Development 

Corporation (AADC) completed two years of 

construction of the Kodiak Launch Complex 

(KLC), the first new U.S. launch site since the 

1960s and the only FAA-licensed spaceport not 

co-located with a federal launch site. A joint 

NASA-Department of Defense mission on a 

Lockheed Martin Athena 1, planned for 2001, 

is scheduled to be the first orbital launch from 

Kodiak.

AADC was created as a public company in 

1991 by the Alaska state legislature. KLC has received funding from the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army, 

NASA, the State of Alaska, and private firms. The commercial spaceport at Narrow Cape on Kodiak 

Island is about 420 kilometers south of Anchorage and 40 kilometers southwest of the city of Kodiak. 

It is located on a 12.4-square-kilometer site owned by the State of Alaska and divided between four 

areas: 1) the launch control and management center; 2) the payload processing facility (which will 
2001 REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAMS AND CONCEPTS JANUARY 2001

SPACEPORTS PAGE 27

include a class-100,000 cleanroom, an airlock, and a processing bay; 3) the integration and processing 

facility/spacecraft assemblies transfer facility; and 4) the launch pad and service structure. These facilities 

will allow the transfer of vehicles and payloads from processing to launch without exposure to the 

outside environment. This will protect both the vehicles and those working on them from exterior 

conditions, allowing all-weather launch operations. 

The AADC is also supporting the development of ground station facilities near Fairbanks, Alaska, in 

cooperation with several commercial remote-sensing companies. The high-latitude location makes the 

Fairbanks site favorable for polar orbiting satellites, which typically pass above Fairbanks several times 

daily. Mobile tracking equipment is currently provided by NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility. 

Located at 57° North latitude, KLC provides a wide launch azimuth and unobstructed downrange flight 

path to the south over the Pacific Ocean. KLC’s planned markets are telecommunications, remote 

sensing, and space science payloads of up to 3,600 kilograms. These can be delivered into LEO, polar, 

and Molniya orbits. The first launch from Kodiak was a suborbital vehicle, Ait-1, built by Orbital 

Sciences Corporations for the U.S. Air Force in November 1998. A second Ait launch followed in 

September 1999. 

KLC also intends to provide support for RLV operations as these vehicles are developed and 

deployed.

Spaceport Florida

Established in 1989, the Spaceport Florida Authority (SFA) was 

created by the State of Florida to facilitate the development of 

Florida’s space-related industry. The SFA facility consists of about 

28 hectares of land at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station 

(CCAFS) owned by the U.S. Air Force and operated by the U.S. 

Navy’s Strategic Systems Program Office. The SFA was awarded 

a commercial launch site license by FAA/AST 

on May 22, 1997.

Under an arrangement between the federal government and SFA, 

underutilized facilities at CCAFS have been conveyed to SFA for 

improvement and provision to commercial users on a dual-use, 

non-interference basis with U.S. Air Force programs. SFA’s 

efforts have concentrated on CCAFS’s Launch Complex (LC) 46, 

an old Trident missile launch site. LC 46 has been modified to 

accommodate small commercial launch vehicles as well as the U.S. Navy’s Trident. The philosophy 

guiding the development of LC 46 was to build a public transportation infrastructure for several 

competing launch systems rather than to tailor a facility for a single launch system. As a result, LC 46 

can currently accommodate a variety of launch vehicle configurations with lift capacities of up to 1,800 

kilograms to LEO. In the future, LC 46 could accommodate vehicles carrying payloads in excess of 
2001 REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAMS AND CONCEPTS JANUARY 2001

SPACEPORTS PAGE 28

2,200 kilograms to LEO. Launches to geostationary and interplanetary trajectories can also be 

conducted from this site. 

Currently, LC 46 is configured for Castor 120 or similar solid-motor-based vehicles (examples include 

Lockheed Martin’s Athena and Orbital Sciences Corporation’s Taurus). Its infrastructure can support 

launch vehicles with a maximum height of 36 meters and diameters ranging from 1.3 to 3.1 meters. A 

Lockheed Martin Athena 2 carrying NASA’s Lunar Prospector was the first vehicle to be launched into 

orbit from Spaceport Florida in January 1998.

SFA has also recently upgraded LC 20, made up of former Titan 1, Titan 2, and suborbital pads, to 

service a variety of small launch vehicles for both orbital and suborbital launches. LC 20 includes three 

launch pads, a launch control blockhouse, and an on-site facility for small payload preparation and 

storage. SFA hopes to use these facilities to provide a rapid response capability for various types of 

LEO payloads. SFA plans to refurbish the LC 20 blockhouse to offer a multi-user launch control and 

data monitoring system that will serve a variety of vehicle and payload systems. 

With its location on CCAFS, Spaceport Florida can offer extensive support services using existing 

range infrastructure. In addition to CCAFS assets required to conduct launch operations (such as range 

tracking and telemetry equipment), payload processing facilities—including cleanrooms—are available 

from off-site commercial providers.

Thus far the SFA has invested over $500 million in new space industry development. It has upgraded 

LC 46 and LC 20, built an RLV Support Complex (adjacent to the Shuttle landing site on KSC 

grounds), developed a new space operations support complex, and supported the Homestead 

Spaceport Initiative. It has also financed the Atlas 5 evolved expendable launch vehicle (EELV) launch 

facilities at CCAFS; financed and constructed a Delta 4 EELV Horizontal Integration Facility for 

Boeing; and provided financing for a Titan 4 storage/processing facility. 

Virginia Space Flight Center

The Virginia Space Flight Center (VSFC) traces its 

beginnings to the Center for Commercial Space 

Infrastructure (CCSI), which was created in 1992 

at Virginia’s Old Dominion University to establish 

commercial space research and operations facilities 

in the Commonwealth of Virginia. CCSI worked in 

cooperation with NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility 

on Wallops Island, Virginia, to develop a 

commercial launch infrastructure at Wallops. In 

1995, CCSI grew into the Virginia Commercial 

Space Flight Authority (VCSFA). 
2001 REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAMS AND CONCEPTS JANUARY 2001

SPACEPORTS PAGE 29

VCSFA is a public organization focused on developing a commercial launch capability in Virginia. In 

1997 VCSFA signed with NASA the NASA/VCSFA Reimbursement Space Act Agreement to use 

NASA’s Wallops facilities in support of commercial launches. This 30-year agreement allows the 

Authority access to the NASA Wallops payload integration, launch operations, and monitoring facilities 

on a non-interference, cost-reimbursement basis. On December 19, 1997, FAA/AST awarded 

VCSFA a commercial launch site operator’s license for the VSFC, which it operates in cooperation 

with NASA. 

VSFC is not the first commercial venture at Wallops. In 1994, EER Systems of Seabrook, Maryland, 

built launch pad 0-A at Wallops for use by EER Systems’ Conestoga launch vehicle. The Conestoga’s 

first and only attempted launch from this location took place in Fall 1995, when it failed to orbit the 

METEOR microgravity payload. Launch pad 0-A is still owned by EER Systems.

VSFC’s current facilities can support a variety of solid-fueled vehicles. Future development plans 

include completion of the commercial facilities at launch pad 0-B. Pad 0-B is designed as a “universal 

launch pad,” capable of supporting a variety of small- and medium-sized launch vehicles. It will consist 

of a 1,767-square-meter pad and a 55.5-meter service tower, equipped with a 68-metric-ton crane for 

vehicle and payload handing. Phase I construction (including the pad, launch mount, and some additional 

supporting infrastructure) was begun in early 1998 and was completed in December of that year.58 The 

service tower will be developed in subsequent development phases. From its location on Virginia’s 

southeastern Atlantic coast, VSFC can accommodate a wide range of orbital inclinations and launch 

azimuths. The most likely user vehicles for the facility are Lockheed Martin’s Athena or Orbital 

Sciences Corporation’s Taurus.

U.S. Federal Spaceports

The bulk of U.S. orbital launches are conducted from the federal launch ranges: CCAFS or Kennedy 

Space Center (KSC) in Florida and VAFB in California. With the transition underway to EELV, the 

number of launch pads utilized by Delta, Atlas, and Titan at both sites will eventually decrease from ten 

to four standardized pads, although some currently active vehicles such as Delta 2 may continuing 

launching as long as the market demands. 

Since the mid-1980s the federal ranges have supported commercial launch activity. Anticipating a 

continuing increase in the number of commercial launches from these sites and recognizing that the 

ranges are aging, the U.S. government is engaged in range modernization. This effort includes the 

ongoing Range Standardization and Automation program, a key effort to modernize and upgrade the 

Eastern Range at CCAFS and portions of the Western Range at VAFB. Launch pad development with 

commercial and state government support is also continuing for the latest generation of the Delta and 

Atlas launch vehicles (the Delta 3 and the Atlas 3) and the upcoming EELVs (the Delta 4 and Atlas 5 

families).
2001 REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAMS AND CONCEPTS JANUARY 2001

SPACEPORTS PAGE 30

Cape Canaveral Air Force Station/Kennedy Space Center

CCAFS and NASA’s Kennedy Space Center 

(KSC) are co-located on the “Florida Space 

Coast” at Cape Canaveral along with the 

commercially oriented Spaceport Florida. The Cape 

Canaveral area has endured several name changes. 

In 1949, the Banana River Naval Air Station was 

transferred to the U.S. Air Force for use as a joint 

service missile range. NASA's Launch Operations 

Center was renamed Kennedy Space Center in 

1963. Air Force Space Command redesignated 

Cape Canaveral Air Station as Cape Canaveral Air 

Force Station in February 2000. 

The Cape developed rapidly during the space race of the 

1950s and 1960s supporting Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo 

programs as well as ballistic missile testing.

Today, CCAFS encompasses six active launch pads for 

Delta, Atlas, Titan and Athena launch vehicles while the 

Space Shuttle operates from two pads at KSC. Range 

support for military, civil, and commercial launches is 

managed by the 45th Space Wing, headquartered at nearby 

Patrick AFB. The Eastern Range extends some 16,000 

kilometers over the Atlantic Ocean. NASA oversees launch 

operations for the Space Shuttle while the 45th Space Wing conducts flight operations for launches from 

CCAFS. 

There is currently one active launch pad (LC 40) for remaining Titan 4 vehicles launching from the East 

Coast. In 1999, Lockheed Martin began to work on new facilities for Atlas 5 at LC 41 including the 

implosion of the launch tower used by Titan 4. The SFA entered into an arrangement for ownership of 

LC 41 and support integration facilities and will lease them to Lockheed Martin. Boeing has a similar 

agreement with Spaceport Florida for lease of LC 37 and integration facilities where future launches of 

Delta 4 will occur. LC 37 has been inactive since 1960s when it served as the site for eight Saturn 1 and 

Saturn1B launches. 

KSC maintains its own launch complex, LC 39. LC 39’s pads A and B were originally built to support 

the Apollo program. After the end of the lunar landing program in 1972, they served to launch Skylab, 

Apollo-Soyuz, and now the Space Shuttle. LC 39 launch and processing facilities are all located on 

Meritt Island, between the Florida mainland and Cape Canaveral. LC 39 support facilities include the 

Vehicle Assembly Building, the Launch Control Center, the Mobile Launcher Platform, the Crawler 

Transporter, the Orbiter Processing Facilities, the Payload Processing Facility, and the Shuttle Landing 
2001 REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAMS AND CONCEPTS JANUARY 2001

SPACEPORTS PAGE 31

Facility, all of which are now dedicated to the Space Shuttle. KSC also provides a Range Operation 

Control Center, five hangars for non-hazardous payload processing, the Shuttle Payload Integration 

Facility, the Satellite Assembly Building, and an Explosive Safe Area. 

KSC (along with Spaceport Florida) has been selected as the launch and landing base for the X-34’s 

second phase of powered testing. Primarily to support X-34 operations, but also in the hope of 

attracting more RLV business, the State of Florida (through the SFA) has financed the construction 

of a climate-controlled hangar and processing facility at KSC (see the Spaceport Florida section).

Edwards Air Force Base

Edwards AFB in Mojave, California, is 

the home of the NASA Dryden Flight 

Research Center and the Air Force Flight 

Test Center. 

Edwards AFB served as the initial Space 

Shuttle landing site. The first two Shuttle 

flights landed on Rogers Dry Lake, a 

natural hardpack riverbed about 114 

square kilometers in size. A 4.5-kilometer 

runway was built at Edwards after flooding 

of the normally dry lakebed in 1982 

rendered the site unavailable for the thirdever Shuttle landing (the Space Shuttle 

instead landed at White Sands, New Mexico that time). Today, NASA prefers to use KSC as the 

Shuttle’s primary landing site and uses Edwards as a back-up site. 

The X-33 Program Office has built a launch site at Edwards. Completed in December 1998, this 12-

hectare complex consists of an X-33-specific launch pad, the Operation Control Center, and a movable 

hangar where the vehicle is to be housed and serviced in a horizontal position. The X-33 launch site is 

equipped with hydrogen and nitrogen gas tanks as well as liquid hydrogen and oxygen tanks capable of 

holding more than 1.1 million liters of cryogenic materials. A 76-meter-tall water tower will supply 

nearly a million liters of water to the concrete flame trench during launch. This deluge system not only is 

a cooling mechanism but also serves as a sound suppression system and helps minimize the intensity of 

the shock-wave rebounding from the trench to the engine.59 The Operation Control Center, which will 

serve as a launch monitoring facility and mission control, is situated over a kilometer away from the 

launch pad with data and communication links to the systems at the launch site. X-33 telemetry and 

tracking functions will be performed using existing U.S. Air Force and NASA facilities at Edwards AFB 

and downrange at Wallops.

Edwards AFB, with NASA Dryden, also hosts other NASA reusable x-vehicle demonstration 

programs. The X-34 high speed and long-range flight program will occur at Edwards. The X-37 will be 
2001 REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAMS AND CONCEPTS JANUARY 2001

SPACEPORTS PAGE 32

tested at Edwards, culminating in a landing after an orbital space test (scheduled for a Shuttle launch in 

2003). Testing of X-38, a demonstrator for the ISS Crew Return Vehicle; continues at Edwards, which 

may also serve as the vehicle’s landing site. In 2001, the U.S. Air Force and NASA plan to conduct 

drop tests of the X-40A demonstrator for the proposed Space Maneuver Vehicle. Also in 2001, 

NASA plans the first X-43 (Hyper-X) flight; the vehicle will be carried by a B-52 from Edwards to a 

site over the Pacific Ocean where X-43 will launch suborbitally from the nose of a two-stage Pegasus. 

Vandenberg Air Force Base

Located in Lompoc, California, 

Vandenberg AFB (VAFB) is used for 

polar space launches as well as missile and 

aeronautical testing. Activated as Camp 

Cook by the Army in 1941 and transferred 

to the U.S. Air Force in 1957, VAFB was 

given its name in 1958. It is the 

headquarters of the 30th Space Wing, 

which conducts space and missile launches 

and operates the Western Range. The 

range is a coverage zone that extends into 

the Pacific Ocean as far west as the island 

of Kwajalein with boundaries to the north 

as far as Alaska and to the south near Central America.60 Vandenberg has a 4.5-kilometer runway, 

launch facilities, payload processing facilities, tracking radar, optical tracking and telemetry facilities, and 

control centers. 

The 399-square-kilometer base houses 53 government organizations and 49 contractor companies in 

1,100 buildings. VAFB hosts a variety of federal agencies and is actively trying to attract commercial 

aerospace companies and activity including the California Spaceport effort (see the California 

Spaceport section).

Current launch vehicles using VAFB include Atlas 2, Delta 2, Titan 4, Titan 2, Taurus, Minotaur, and 

Pegasus XL. Space Launch Complex 2, from which Delta 2 launches, is owned by NASA. 

Construction is underway at Space Launch Complex 6 for Delta 4 and at Space Launch Complex 3 

West for Atlas 5. Payloads for Pegasus launches are integrated at Orbital Sciences' facility at 

Vandenberg and then flown to various worldwide launch areas. 

VAFB has been contacted by two RLV developers: Pioneer Rocketplane and Kelly Space and 

Technology. Both have expressed interest in using VAFB facilities for testing purposes and possibly for 

launch activities once the testing sequence is completed. Pioneer Rocketplane signed an Initial Support 

Agreement with VAFB and obtained a “right-of-entry” to VAFB facilities. This permit has, however, 

expired and Pioneer has moved its offices off base. Kelly Space and Technology has expressed its 

intention to use VAFB facilities for testing purposes, but Kelly and VAFB have not yet signed an Initial 
2001 REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAMS AND CONCEPTS JANUARY 2001

SPACEPORTS PAGE 33

Support Agreement. Kelly plans to move its operations to privately operated facilities when once it has 

developed an operational vehicle.61

Although there are no definite plans for other RLVs to use VAFB, the base is attempting to capture 

more RLV business and has presented a proposal to Lockheed Martin to provide services for 

VentureStarTM. VAFB is also being considered as a site for the proposed military Space Operations 

Vehicle.

Wallops Flight Facility

NASA has operated a sounding rocket range at 

Wallops Island, Virginia, since 1945 and has 

conducted over 14,000 small rocket launches. The 

first orbital launch was in 1961, when a Scout 

launch vehicle deployed Explorer 9 to study 

atmospheric density. There have been 29 orbital 

flight attempts from Wallops including six Pegasus 

launches, the most recent in 1999. The retired 

Scout made its last orbital launch from Wallops in 

1985. 

In addition to NASA’s operations, EER Systems 

built launch pad 0-A to support its Conestoga launch vehicle. In 1995 the first and only flight of 

Conestoga failed to deploy METEOR, a satellite designed for microgravity experiments. 

Other orbital launches from Wallops have included Orbital Sciences’ Pegasus (beginning with the 1996 

FAA/AST licensed launch of MSTI). In April 1996 the U.S. Air Force designated Wallops Flight 

Facility as a launch site for converted Minuteman II missiles under the Orbital/Sub-orbital Program 

(along with KLC and the California Spaceport), so possible future launches include the U.S. Air 

Force/Orbital Sciences Minotaur launch vehicle developed under that program. Wallops assets also 

support aeronautical testing and U.S. Navy testing.

Although Wallops has not conducted any orbital flights (beyond support of the air-launched Pegasus) 

since the Conestoga failure in 1995, NASA is committed to maintaining the existing infrastructure that 

would be used by both orbital and suborbital missions. Five launch areas (including one for heavy lift 

sub-orbital rockets and one for classified payloads), two blockhouses, and preparation facilities are 

operational. Wallops launches about 10 to 20 suborbital vehicles per year. It is part of the Eastern 

Range and supports northerly launches from KSC or CCAFS as well as worldwide orbital and 

suborbital launches with portable tracking and telemetry equipment. Wallops equipment will be used 

to support X-33 suborbital launches and the first orbital launch from Kodiak, Alaska. VSFC is 

co-located at Wallops.
2001 REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAMS AND CONCEPTS JANUARY 2001

SPACEPORTS PAGE 34

White Sands Missile Range

Situated 26 kilometers northeast of Las Cruces, New 

Mexico, White Sands Missile Range—which includes the 

NASA White Sands Flight Test Center—covers 8,100 

square kilometers including the site (Trinity) of the first 

atomic explosion. It is operated by the U.S. Army and is 

used mainly for launching sounding rockets. White Sands 

also supports Ballistic Missile Defense Organization flighttesting and is used as a test center for rocket engines and 

experimental spacecraft. Facilities at White Sands include 

seven engine test stands and precision cleaning facilities 

including a class-100 cleanroom for spacecraft parts.

White Sands is also the Space Shuttle’s tertiary landing site (after Edwards AFB and KSC). This 

landing site consists of two 11-kilometer, gypsum-sand runways. 

Proposed Spaceports

Mojave Civilian Test Flight Center

The Mojave Airport was established in 1935 in 

Mojave, California, as a county facility with 

taxiways and basic support facilities suitable for 

general aviation. A few years later, the airport was 

taken over by the federal government and turned 

into a Marine Corps auxiliary air station. In 1961, 

Kern County re-acquired the facility and turned the 

Mojave airport into a civilian flight test center.

Rotary Rocket Company used one hectare of 

the Mojave site between 1998 and 2000 for 

manufacturing and testing. During those years, Rotary built its Rotor Test Stand and a complex that 

included an engineering “workshop and campus” and a high bay.62

Montana Spaceport

The State of Montana is aggressively pursuing the development of its space industry. Under the 

Montana’s Department of Commerce, the Montana Space Development Authority has been established 

to coordinate and lead the Montana’s commercial space efforts. Montana’s space strategy involves 

creating the necessary organizational and educational infrastructure to support state space activities and 

ultimately constructing and licensing a commercial spaceport.
2001 REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAMS AND CONCEPTS JANUARY 2001

SPACEPORTS PAGE 35

Montana is proposing to fly RLVs from a site near Great Falls, Montana, and Malmstrom AFB. 

Malmstrom has already been selected as a landing site for the X-33 flight test program. Montana has 

been working with officials from both Lockheed Martin's VentureStarTM and Rotary Rocket to bring 

commercial space launch to the state. Montana Space Development Authority personnel have flown to 

Washington to meet with FAA/AST and are in the process of obtaining a commercial spaceport license 

for the Great Falls site. 

Nevada Test Site

The Nevada Test Site, 100 kilometers northwest of Las Vegas, was selected by Kistler Aerospace 

as a spaceport for the K-1 RLV in addition to their Woomera facility in order to increase scheduling 

flexibility and to widen the range of launch azimuths available for customers. Although it did not have any 

launch infrastructure as of December 1999, the Nevada Test Site has existing basic infrastructure that 

can be used as support facilities, such as a paved runway, water, roads, and power. 

The Nevada Test Site Development Corporation obtained an economic development use permit in 

1997 from the Department of Energy. Shortly after, the Corporation issued a sub-permit allowing 

Kistler to operate a launch and recovery operation at the Nevada Test Site. 

In 1999, a task force was formed to facilitate the growth of an aerospace industry in Nevada. The 

development of Spaceport Nevada is actively supported by the state. The Nevada Test Site 

Development Corporation is interested in accommodating Lockheed Martin’s VentureStarTM.

Oklahoma Spaceport

The State of Oklahoma is also interested in developing a spaceport and a broader space industrial 

base. In 1999, the Oklahoma State legislature passed a law creating the Oklahoma Space Industry 

Development Authority. The Authority will promote the development of space exploration and 

spaceport facilities in Oklahoma. The Authority is directed by a seven-member board of directors and 

has already designated the old Clinton-Sherman AFB at Burns Flat as the site for a future Oklahoma 

spaceport. No state money has been allocated to develop such a spaceport, but the designation allows 

continued spaceport planning and development when funding sources are identified.

As an inland site, the Oklahoma spaceport will be limited to RLVs that will not drop stages on 

populated areas. The Authority has signed a MOU with Pioneer Rocketplane for Pioneer’s use of the 

Burns Flat site.

Southwest Regional Spaceport

The State of New Mexico proposes to construct and operate the Southwest Regional Spaceport for 

use by private companies conducting space activities and operations. Currently planned to be located 

near the south central New Mexico town of Upham, the spaceport is expected to provide a full range of 

support for satellite launches and recoveries, scientific research, and ISS support. Vehicles to be 
2001 REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAMS AND CONCEPTS JANUARY 2001

SPACEPORTS PAGE 36

launched from the proposed spaceport are expected to have the capability to terminate each flight 

without damage and to make a fully controlled soft landing under emergency conditions. No spent 

stages or other components would be dropped during normal flight.

Major components of the proposed Southwest Regional Spaceport include two launch complexes, 

a landing strip, an aviation complex, a payload assembly complex, support facilities, and a cryogenic 

plant. 

Texas Spaceport

The State of Texas has enabled the development of one or more commercial spaceports for RLVs. The 

most promising sites were determined based on a detailed engineering and business evaluation of many 

potential sites using criteria that included 56 parameters, with the most heavily weighted criteria being 

public safety (consistent with the FAA/AST Spaceport Guidelines) and environmental compatibility. 

Two of the three candidate sites are located on the Gulf of Mexico; another is in the desert area of 

western Texas. The Texas spaceport site(s) will be selected in cooperation with RLV operators. The 

spaceport(s) will be owned and operated by a public-private sector partnership. A state law was 

enacted in early 1999, which provides for the Spaceport Authority.

Utah Spaceport

The Wah Wah Valley Interlocal Cooperation Entity proposes to construct and operate a commercial 

launch site utilizing approximately 280 square kilometers of Utah State Trust lands located 50 kilometers 

southwest of Milford, Utah. This proposed spaceport’s mission is to provide a cost effective launch and 

recovery facility for SSTO RLVs.

This development of the proposed spaceport would occur over several years. The proposed project 

would include the construction of a new 4,575-meter-long space vehicle recovery and aircraft runway 

at an elevation of 1,525 meters above sea level and two space vehicle launch facilities located at 2300 

meters above sea level. Additionally, assembly, testing, processing, and office facilities would be 

constructed.

Woomera Spaceport (Australia)

Situated 430 kilometers north of Adelaide, Australia, the Woomera Range was established jointly by 

the United Kingdom and Australia in 1946 to test ballistic missiles and sounding rockets. Unfortunately, 

the plan to make Woomera an international launch site never came to fruition as France chose to build 

its own site and the United Kingdom announced it would no longer use the facilities after 1976.63 The 

last orbital launch from Woomera was of a British Black Arrow in 1971.

After twenty-five years of virtual inactivity, Woomera is envisioned to become the first operational 

commercial RLV spaceport. In 1996, Kistler Aerospace signed an agreement and 25-year lease with 

the Australian government giving the company the right to build and operate an RLV launch complex on 
2001 REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAMS AND CONCEPTS JANUARY 2001

SPACEPORTS PAGE 37

Woomera grounds at 31° South latitude. After a groundbreaking ceremony in July 1998, Kistler had to 

halt construction because of lack of funds. Kistler plans to begin construction of the Woomera facility 

once program funding is completed.64

At present, the Woomera range is little 

more than an outdated launch site and 

assembly building and tracking facility. 

However, Kistler’s plans include building 

completely new facilities including payload 

processing. Also, the Australian 

government is hoping that Kistler’s efforts 

will attract other RLV companies in the 

future and has passed a series of legislative 

acts in support of space-related foreign 

investment in the area of Woomera.

This photograph of Woomera Spaceport was taken in the 1960s. 

Only the concrete remains today.
Table 4: Spaceport Summary Information JANUARY 2001

Spaceport Location Spaceport 

Owner/Operator

Launch Infrastructure at 

Site

Current Development Status

Commercially Licensed Spaceports

California 

Spaceport

Near Lompoc, 

California

Spaceport Systems 

International, L.P.

Existing launch pads, runways, 

payload processing facilities, 

telemetry and tracking equipment.

Currently in place are the concrete flame ducts, 

communication, electrical, and water infrastructure.

Kodiak Launch 

Complex

Kodiak Island, 

Alaska

Alaska Aerospace 

Development 

Corporation

Launch control center, payload 

processing facility, and integration 

and processing facility. Limited 

range support infrastructure (uses 

mobile equipment).

Construction completed in 2000. Ready for 2001 

Athena 1 launch. 

Spaceport 

Florida

Cocoa Beach, 

Florida

Spaceport Florida 

Authority (SFA)

Two launch complexes including 

pads and a control center, a small 

payload preparation facility and an 

RLV support facility.

SFA has invested over $200 million to upgrade LC 

46 and 20, build an RLV support complex adjacent 

to the Shuttle landing facilities, and develop a new 

space operation support complex.

Virginia Flight 

Test Center

Wallops Island, 

Virginia

Virginia Commercial 

Space Flight Authority

Launch pad and service tower, 

payload processing facility, 

downrange tracking facility.

Pad 0-B was completed in December 1998. VSFC 

obtained a commercial license from the FAA in 1997.

Federal Spaceports 

Cape Canaveral 

Air Force Station/ 

Kennedy Space 

Center

Near Cocoa 

Beach, Florida

USAF, NASA,

Florida Spaceport 

Authority

Telemetry and tracking facilities, jet 

and shuttle capable runways, launch 

pads, hangar, vertical processing 

facilities and assembly building.

Site is operational for ELVs and Space Shuttle. 

Development of EELV launch sites in progress. 

Negotiated with several commercial launch 

companies.

Edwards AFB Mojave, 

California

USAF Telemetry and tracking facilities, jet 

and shuttle capable runways, X-33 

launch pad, operations control 

center, movable hangar, fuel tanks, 

water tower.

X-33 site is completed. 

Vandenberg AFB Near Lompoc, 

California

USAF Launch pads, vehicle assembly and 

processing buildings, payload 

processing facilities, telemetry and 

tracking facilities, control center, 

engineering office space, shuttlecapable runway.

Site is operational for ELVs. VAFB has negotiated 

with several commercial launch companies. 

Wallops Flight 

Facility

Wallops Island, 

Virginia

NASA Launch pads, blockhouses and 

processing facilities.

Site is operational for ELVs. NASA is committed to 

maintaining its existing infrastructure related to 

orbital launches.

White Sands 

Missile Range

White Sands, 

New Mexico

US Army Telemetry and tracking facilities, 4.5 

km runway. Engine and propulsion 

testing facilities.

Site is operational for back-up Space Shuttle 

landings. 

Proposed Spaceports

Mojave Civilian 

Test Flight 

Center

Mojave, 

California

Mojave Airport 

Authority

Air control tower, runway, rotor test 

stand, engineering facilities, high 

bay building.

The infrastructure in place is part of a $5.5 million 

project. Development uncertain without Rotary 

Rocket.

Montana 

Spaceport

Great Falls, 

Montana

Montana Space 

Development 

Authority

Malmstrom AFB runway. Montana Spaceport is primarily seeking RLV 

business. The Montana Space Development 

Authority is in the process of obtaining a commercial 

spaceport license for the Great Falls site.

Nevada Test Site Nye County, 

Nevada

Department of 

Energy/Nevada Test 

Site Development 

Corporation (NTSDC)

Limited launch infrastructure at this 

time. Pow er and basic facilities 

available.

NTSDC has issued a sub-permit allowing Kistler to 

operate a launch and recovery operation. NTSDC is 

actively promoting the site as a spaceport for both 

RLVs and conventional launchers.

Oklahoma 

Spaceport

Washita 

County,

Oklahoma

Oklahoma Space 

Industry Development 

Authority (OSIDA)

No launch infrastructure at this time. OSIDA designated former Clinton-Sherman AFB at 

Burns Flat as the future spaceport. Budget for state 

approval will be voted on in 2001.

Southwest 

Regional 

Spaceport

White Sands, 

New Mexico

New Mexico Office of 

Space 

Commercialization

No infrastructure at this time. Plans for this site include a Spaceport central control 

facility, an airfield, a maintenance and integration 

facility, a launch and recovery complex, a flight 

operation control center, and a cryogenic plant.

Texas Spaceport TBD State of Texas 

Spaceport Authority

No infrastructure at this time. The final Texas Spaceport site(s) has not been 

selected yet.

Utah Spaceport Wah Wah 

Valley, Utah

Utah Spaceport 

Corporation

No infrastructure at this time. Plans for the proposed Utah Spaceport include a 

central administrative control facility, an airfield, a 

maintenance and integration facility for both 

payloads and craft, launch pads, a flight operation 

control center, and a propellant storage facility.

Woomera Rocket 

Range

Woomera, 

Australia

Woomera Rocket 

Range/Kistler 

Woomera

Outdated launch site infrastructure, 

assembly building, and tracking 

facility.

Kistler will begin work on new facilities when f unding 

is complete. The Australian government passed the 

"Space Activities Act of 1998" to regulate and attract 

commercial space business.

PAGE 38
2001 REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAMS AND CONCEPTS JANUARY 2001

ACRONYMS PAGE 39

Acronyms

AADC – Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation

AFB – Air Force Base

AST - Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation

ATV – Atmospheric Test Vehic le

CCAFS – Cape Canaveral Air Force Station

CCSI – Center for Commercial Space Infrastructure

CTV – Crew Transfer Vehicle

ELV – Expendable Launch Vehicle

EELV – Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle

FAA– Federal Aviation Administration

GTO – Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit

ISS – International Space Station

KLC – Kodiak Launch Complex

KSC – Kennedy Space Center

LC – Launch Complex

LEO – Low-Earth Orbit

LOX – Liquid Oxygen

MEDS – Multifunction Electronic Display Subsystem

NASA – National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NGSO – Non-Geostationary Orbit

NRA – NASA Research Announcement

RLV – Reusable Launch Vehicle

SFA – Spaceport Florida Authority

SLI – Space Launch Initiative

SSTO – Single-Stage-to-Orbit

TSTO – Two-Stage-to-Orbit

VAFB – Vandenberg Air Force Base

VCSFA – Virginia Commercial Space Flight Authority

VSFC – Virginia Space Flight Center

X-vehicle – Experimental Vehicle
2001 REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAMS AND CONCEPTS JANUARY 2001

ENDNOTES PAGE 40

Endnotes

1

Interview with Bob Davis, CEO, Kelly Space and Technology, December 20, 2000.

2

Interview with Bob Davis, CEO, Kelly Space and Technology, December 20, 2000.

3

Interview with Kistler Aerospace Corporation, January 29, 1999.

4

“Preparations for the K-1 Maiden Flight,” IAF-00-V.3.06, October 2000 (http://www.kistleraerospace.com/IAF-V3.06.pdf).

5

“Kistler Receives NASA Study for Alternate Access to Station,” Kistler Aerospace Corporation Press Release, 

August 24, 2000 (http://www.kistleraerospace.com/082400NASA.html).

6

“Space Operations International Signs MOA with Kistler Aerospace Corporation,” Kistler Aerospace Corporation 

Press Release, April 13, 2000 (http://www.kistleraerospace.com/041300SOI.HTML).

7

“K-1 Small Satellite Missions,” SSC00-IV-5, August 2000 (http://www.kistleraerospace.com/UTAHSSCOO-IV5%20Final.pdf).

8 K-1 Payload User’s Guide, May 1999.

9

Interview with Kistler Aerospace Corporation, January 29, 1999.

10 “GenCorp Aerojet Successfully Test Fires K-1 Rocket Engine, Test is Key Milestone Toward Kistler’s First 

Launch,” Kistler Aerospace Corporation Press Release, March 12, 1998 

(http://www.newspace.com/Industry/Kistler/news/pr/46.html).

11 “Kistler Inks Final Agreement in Nevada,” Kistler Aerospace Corporation Press Release, October 26, 1998 

(http://www.newspace.com/Industry/Kistler/news/pr/71.html).

12 “Pathfinder,” Space Systems Forecast, October 1998. 

13 Pioneer Rocketplane, Operations Concept (http://www.rocketplane.com/OpsConcept.html).

14 Interview with Mitchell Clapp, CEO, Pioneer Rocketplane, January 29, 2001.

15 Interview with Mitchell Clapp, CEO, Pioneer Rocketplane, January 4, 2001.

16 Interview with Richard Stockmans, Business Development Manager, Rotary Rocket Company, January 8, 2001.

17 “Rotary Changes Engines, Lays Off Some Workers,” Space News, July 5, 1999, p. 10.

18 Rotary Rocket Company, Revolution to Orbit (http://www.rotaryrocket.com/index.htm).

19 “Ground Breaking for High Bay/Office Complex at Mojave Site,” Rotary Rocket Company Press Release, June 19, 

1998 (http://www.rotaryrocket.com/new/980619.html); Interview with Rotary Rocket Corporation, January 29, 1999.

20 “Rotary Rocket Reorganizes to Meet Customer Commitments,” Rotary Rocket Company Press Release, June 22, 

1999.

21 “Space Access’ Launch System Based on Airbreathing Ejector Ramjet,” Aviation Week and Space Technology, 

March 30, 1998, pp. 75-77.

22 “Rocket Planes,” Popular Science, February 1999, pp. 44-45.

23 “Space Access’ Launch System Based on Airbreathing Ejector Ramjet,” Aviation Week and Space Technology, 

March 30, 1998, pp. 75-77.

24 “Space Access’ Launch System Based on Airbreathing Ejector Ramjet,” Aviation Week and Space Technology, 

March 30, 1998, pp. 75-77.

25 Interview with Stephen Wurst, SPACE ACCESS®

, LLC, January 3, 2001.

26 Interview with Stephen Wurst, SPACE ACCESS®

, LLC, January 3, 2001.

27 Interview with Stephen Wurst, SPACE ACCESS®

, LLC, January 3, 2001.

28 Zegrahm Space Voyages Brochure (http://www.spacevoyages.com/brochure.html).

29 Zegrahm Space Voyages, Space Cruiser System Fact Sheet (http://www.spacevoyages.com/factsheet.html).

30 Interview with Pat Kelly, President, Vela Technology Development, December 19, 2000.

31 “AeroAstro LLC Selected as Space Cruiser® Prime Contractor,” Vela Technology Development press release, 

November 25, 1997 (http://www.spacevoyages.com/press5.html).

32 Interview with David Brandt, X33/VentureStar Business Development, Lockheed Martin, January 5, 2001.

33 “Despite Problems, X-33 Demonstrator Remains on Track, Officials Say,” Satellite Today, September 30, 1999 

(www.phillips.com).

34 “RLV Plan Would Split Human, Cargo Roles,” Space News, February 16, 1998, p. 3.

35 Steven J. Isakowitz, International Reference Guide to Space Launch Systems, Third Edition, AIAA, 1999, p. 394.

36 “USA Takes Over Another Portion of Space Shuttle Program,” Satellite Today, October 1, 1999.
2001 REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAMS AND CONCEPTS JANUARY 2001

ENDNOTES PAGE 41

37 Testimony of Andrew Allen, United Space Alliance, before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on 

Space and Aeronautics, October 21, 1999.

38 “Industry, Government Leaders Outline Future Space Shuttle Upgrades,” Space Business News, October 27, 1999.

39 Testimony of William Readdy, Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Space Flight, NASA, before the U.S. 

House of Representatives Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, October 21, 1999.

40 “X-33,” Space Systems Forecast, October 1998.

41 “NASA, Lockheed Martin Agree on X-33 Plan,” VentureStar Press Release, 

(http://www.venturestar.com/pages/missupd/pressrel/2000/09290001.php).

42 “X-33 Specifications,” NASA Marshall Space Flight Center/X-33 website 

(http://x33.msfc.nasa.gov/x33specs.html).

43 “Twin Engine Tests for X-33 Take Shape in Mississippi,” VentureStar Press Release, 

(http//www.venturestar.com/pages/missupd/pressrel/2000/10240001.php).

44 “X-33 Program Status,” Lockheed Martin Press Release, May 26, 1999, 

(http://www.venturestar.com/pages/missupd/pressrel/1999/05269901.html).

45 “KSC Delivers X-33 Propellant Loading Equipment to California,” KSC Press Release, Aug. 24, 1999.

46 “X-34: Reusable Launch Vehicle Technology Demonstrator,” Orbital Sciences Corporation Brochure, 1999.

47 “NASA’s X-34 Experimental Rocket Plane Begins New Pre-Flight Test Series,” NASA Marshall Space Flight 

Center Press Release, (http://www1.msfc.nasa.gov/NEWSROOM/news/releases/2000/00-23-.html).

48 “Experimental X-34 Rocket Plane To Begin Extensive Testing,” NASA Headquarters Press Release, August 24, 

1999.

49 Orbital Sciences Corporation, “Orbital’s X-34 Launch Vehicle,”

(http://www.orbital.com/Prods_n_Servs/Products/LaunchSystems/X34/index.html).

50 “X-34 Gets Boost With Engine Contract,” Space.com, August 9, 1999 

(http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/business/summa_x34_809.html).

51 “NASA Revamps X-34 Testing, Adds Third Test Flight Vehicle,” Aviation Week and Space Technology, August 

30, 1999.

52 “X-34 Program Resumes Tests,” Spaceviews, July 31, 2000 (http://www.spaceviews.com/2000/07/26b.html).

53 Art Stephenson, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Prepared Remarks, FAA Third Annual Commercial Space 

Launch Forecast Conference, Arlington, VA, February 8, 2000.

54 “X-Prize Foundation Offers Sweepstakes for Space Ride,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, May 21, 1998, p. A7.

55 “X Prize Competitor Successfully Launches Two-Stage Rocket,” X Prize Foundation Press Release, July 6, 2000.

56 Interview with Gregg Maryniak, Executive Director, X Prize Foundation, January 3, 2001.

57 Scaled Composites, “Proteus Technical Sheet,” 1998.

58 Virginia Space Flight Center website (http://www.va-spaceflightcenter.org).

59 “Launch Site Construction Complete,” VentureStar Press Release, 

(http://www.venturestar.com/pages/missupd/pressrel/1999/01219901.html).

60 The Future Management and Use of the U.S. Space Launch Bases and Ranges, Report of the Interagency 

Working Group, February 8, 2000, p. 6. 

61 Interview with Dr. Joe Holland, Kelly Space and Technology, 1999.

62 Rotary Rocket website, (http://www.rotaryrocket.com/new/html).

63 Jane’s Space Directory, Fifteenth edition, 1999-2000.

64 “Kistler Pursues Funds to Restart Program”, Aviation Week and Space Technology, December 13, 1999.