Delta Clipper

To Boldly Go…

A presentation by:

Jason Moore

&

Ashraf Shaikh

How do we get there now?

• Space Shuttle– Partially reusable– Multi-stage– Manned– ~$500 Million / Launch

Picture courtesy of NASA

How do we get there now?

• Titan IV, et. al.– Single use– Multi-stage– Expensive– Long build time

Picture courtesy of NASA

A need for something better…

• Current vehicles suffer from a few drawbacks.– They are expensive to build and maintain.– Multi-stage rockets require large uninhabited

areas for stage recovery/disposal.– It takes many months to prep the Shuttle or

build a new expendable vehicle.– Large specialized space ports are needed to

launch these vehicles.

A solution from the past…

• SSTO – Single Stage to Orbit

• RLV – Reusable Launch Vehicle

• Aerospace engineers have been working on this problem for years; it has been a dream for many in the industry.

Picture courtesy of Space Merchants Inc. and G. Stine

A few noble attempts…

• Early vision for what the Space Shuttle was to have been…– NASA investigated the

possibility of building a fully reusable shuttle

– Due to compromises with Congress, as well as then-current technology limitations, the Shuttle designers had to pick a staged design.

A few noble attempts…

• X-33– Subscale Technology

Demonstrator– NASA budgeted $941

Million for the project– No powered prototype

ever flew– Vertical takeoff,

Horizontal landing configuration

– Full scale version dubbed ‘VentureStar’

A few noble attempts…

• X-37– Technology demonstrator– Designed to validate

concepts and designs for a future Orbital Space Plane

– OSP not intended to be fully reusable

– Stop-gap measure while more time and money is spent studying a true RLV

– So far NASA has only done drop tests and structural tests

Faster, Better, Cheaper

• Delta Clipper– Originally completed in

1993 as the DC-X– Joint venture between

the Air Force and McDonnell Douglas

– Intended as a one third scale prototype of a RLV proposed by the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization

Picture courtesy of NASA

Faster, Better, Cheaper

• A primary goal of the Delta Clipper project was to show that an RLV could be operated in a manner similar to a commercial airliner.

Pictures courtesy of NASA

Faster, Better, Cheaper

• Compare the mission profiles of the Space Shuttle and a Delta Clipper.

Picture courtesy of NASA Picture courtesy of McDonnell Douglas

Faster, Better, Cheaper

• DC-X Program– Built in 21 months for $60

Million by a team of 100– USAF completed 8 test

flights– During flight 5 the vehicle

demonstrated its autoland capability, an important safety feature

– Built almost entirely of off the shelf partsPicture courtesy of NASA

Faster, Better, Cheaper

• DC-XA– Delta Clipper program

acquired by NASA– NASA installed

experimental fuel tanks and a better reaction control system, saving 620 kilograms of weight

– 4 Test flights were completed, as well as 2 static engine tests

Picture courtesy of NASA

A path to the future…

• A private organization should build an RLV based on the Delta Clipper experimental rocket.

• A full scale Delta Clipper would be a SSTO launch vehicle.

• Goal for the project will be to build a vehicle which can be operated much like a commercial airliner, and drastically reduce the cost of putting a payload into orbit.

Whose mission should this be?

• NASA should be a consumer of launch services, not a supplier.

• Bureaucracy gets in the way. DC-X an example of unhindered engineering.

• NASA’s Mission Statement…– To understand and protect our home planet – To explore the Universe and search for life– To inspire the next generation of explorers– … as only NASA can.

What will it be used for?

• Smaller and cheaper satellites. More advanced technology in orbit due to faster and cheaper access to space.

• Space Station construction & payload ferry.

• Space tourism

• Global Express

• Moon exploration

Why hasn’t this been done?

It has.

The DC-X.

Why hasn’t the project been completed?

• Lack of support from Congress• Misinformation• Wrong culture at NASA (not a corporate

culture)• NASA too busy with Shuttle and its many

explorative missions• NASA prefers to study new technologies,

where as the Delta Clipper would require little new technology

Why not just build the VentureStar?

• The Delta Clipper has flown. It doesn’t rely on cutting edge technology.

• The first stage of most development programs, the proof-of-concept prototype, has already been built and tested.

• Versatility. A modified Clipper could make a trip to the moon, land on the surface, and return to Earth.

• Safety features. Powered engine-out landing capability and engine redundancy to name two.

X-Prize

• $10 Million prize to the first team to complete the following goals:– Fly 3 people to an altitude

of 100Km– Repeat flight within 2

weeks• Encourages development

outside of the regular Aerospace industry

• Not ambitious enough to solve the problem of current launch technologies

Picture courtesy of Scaled Composites

Picture courtesy of Armadillo Aerospace

A real success…

DeltaClipperClip.mov

Questions, Thoughts, Comments?