Hubbry Logo
SpaceplaneSpaceplaneMain
Open search
Spaceplane
Community hub
Spaceplane
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Spaceplane
Spaceplane
Spaceplane
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Space Shuttle Discovery
Part of a series on
Spaceflight
History
Applications
Spacecraft
Robotic spacecraft
Crewed spacecraft
Space launch
Spaceflight types
List of space organizations
Spaceflight portal

A spaceplane is a vehicle that can fly and glide as an aircraft in Earth's atmosphere and function as a spacecraft in outer space.[1] To do so, spaceplanes must incorporate features of both aircraft and spacecraft. Orbital spaceplanes tend to be more similar to conventional spacecraft, while sub-orbital spaceplanes tend to be more similar to fixed-wing aircraft. All spaceplanes as of 2024 have been rocket-powered for takeoff and climb, but have then landed as unpowered gliders.

Four examples of spaceplanes have successfully launched to orbit, reentered Earth's atmosphere, and landed: the U.S. Space Shuttle, Russian Buran, U.S. X-37,[2] and the Chinese Shenlong. Another, Dream Chaser, is under development in the U.S. As of 2024 all past and current orbital spaceplanes launch vertically; some are carried as a payload in a conventional fairing, while the Space Shuttle used its own engines with the assistance of boosters and an external tank. Orbital spaceflight takes place at high velocities, with orbital kinetic energies typically greater than suborbital trajectories. This kinetic energy is shed as heat during re-entry. Many more spaceplanes have been proposed.

At least two suborbital rocket-powered aircraft have been launched horizontally into sub-orbital spaceflight from an airborne carrier aircraft before rocketing beyond the Kármán line: the X-15 and SpaceShipOne.[a]

Principles of operation

[edit]
Landing of Space Shuttle Atlantis, a crewed orbital spaceplane

Spaceplanes must operate in space, like traditional spacecraft, but also must be capable of atmospheric flight, like an aircraft.

Spaceplanes do not necessarily have to fly by their own propulsion, but instead often glide with their inertia while using aerodynamic surfaces to maneuver in the atmosphere during descent and landing. The U.S. Space Shuttle for instance, could not fly under its own propulsion but used its momentum after de-orbit to glide to the runway destination.[3][4][5]

These requirements drive up the complexity, risk, dry mass, and cost of spaceplane designs. The following sections will draw heavily on the US Space Shuttle as the biggest, most complex, most expensive, most flown, and only crewed orbital spaceplane, but other designs have been successfully flown.

Launch to space

[edit]

The flight trajectory required to reach orbit results in significant aerodynamic loads, vibrations, and accelerations, all of which have to be withstood by the vehicle structure.[6][7][8]

If the launch vehicle suffers a catastrophic malfunction, a conventional capsule spacecraft is propelled to safety by a launch escape system. The Space Shuttle was far too big and heavy for this approach to be viable, resulting in a number of abort modes that may or may not have been survivable. The Challenger disaster demonstrated a lack of survivability on ascent.[citation needed]

Space environment

[edit]

Once on-orbit, a spaceplane must be supplied with power by solar panels and batteries or fuel cells, maneuvered in space, kept in thermal equilibrium, oriented, and communicated with. On-orbit thermal and radiological environments impose additional stresses. This is in addition to accomplishing the task the spaceplane was launched to complete, such as satellite deployment or science experiments.[citation needed]

The Space Shuttle used dedicated engines to accomplish orbital maneuvers. These engines used toxic hypergolic propellants that required special handling precautions. Various gases, including helium for pressurization and nitrogen for life support, were stored under high pressure in composite overwrapped pressure vessels.[citation needed]

Atmospheric reentry

[edit]
Main article: Atmospheric entry
Buran spaceplane rear showing rocket engine nozzles, attitude control thrusters, aerodynamic surfaces, and heat shielding

Orbital spacecraft reentering the Earth's atmosphere must shed significant velocity, resulting in extreme heating. For example, the Space Shuttle thermal protection system (TPS) protects the orbiter's interior structure from surface temperatures that reach as high as 1,650 °C (3,000 °F), well above the melting point of steel.[9] Suborbital spaceplanes fly lower energy trajectories that do not put as much stress on the spacecraft thermal protection system.

The Space Shuttle Columbia disaster was the direct result of a TPS failure.

Aerodynamic flight and horizontal landing

[edit]

Aerodynamic control surfaces must be actuated. Landing gear must be included at the cost of additional mass.

Air-breathing orbital spaceplane concept

[edit]

An air-breathing orbital spaceplane would have to fly what is known as a 'depressed trajectory,' which places the vehicle in the high-altitude hypersonic flight regime of the atmosphere for an extended period of time. This environment induces high dynamic pressure, high temperature, and high heat flow loads particularly upon the leading edge surfaces of the spaceplane, requiring exterior surfaces to be constructed from advanced materials and/or use active cooling.[8] Skylon was a proposed spaceplane that would have used air-breathing engines.

Flown orbital spaceplanes

[edit]

Space Shuttle

[edit]
This section is an excerpt from Space Shuttle.[edit]
Discovery lifts off at the start of the STS-120 mission.

The Space Shuttle is a retired, partially reusable low Earth orbital spacecraft system operated from 1981 to 2011 by the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) as part of the Space Shuttle program. Its official program name was the Space Transportation System (STS), taken from the 1969 plan led by U.S. vice president Spiro Agnew for a system of reusable spacecraft where it was the only item funded for development.[10]: 163–166 [11][12]

The first (STS-1) of four orbital test flights occurred in 1981, leading to operational flights (STS-5) beginning in 1982. Five complete Space Shuttle orbiter vehicles were built and flown on a total of 135 missions from 1981 to 2011. They launched from the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) in Florida. Operational missions launched numerous satellites, interplanetary probes, and the Hubble Space Telescope (HST), conducted science experiments in orbit, participated in the Shuttle-Mir program with Russia, and participated in the construction and servicing of the International Space Station (ISS). The Space Shuttle fleet's total mission time was 1,323 days.[13]

Space Shuttle components include the Orbiter Vehicle (OV) with three clustered Rocketdyne RS-25 main engines, a pair of recoverable solid rocket boosters (SRBs), and the expendable external tank (ET) containing liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. The Space Shuttle was launched vertically, like a conventional rocket, with the two SRBs operating in parallel with the orbiter's three main engines, which were fueled from the ET. The SRBs were jettisoned before the vehicle reached orbit, while the main engines continued to operate, and the ET was jettisoned after main engine cutoff and just before orbit insertion, which used the orbiter's two Orbital Maneuvering System (OMS) engines. At the conclusion of the mission, the orbiter fired its OMS to deorbit and reenter the atmosphere. The orbiter was protected during reentry by its thermal protection system tiles, and it glided as a spaceplane to a runway landing, usually to the Shuttle Landing Facility at KSC, Florida, or to Rogers Dry Lake in Edwards Air Force Base, California. If the landing occurred at Edwards, the orbiter was flown back to the KSC atop the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft (SCA), a specially modified Boeing 747 designed to carry the shuttle above it.

The first orbiter, Enterprise, was built in 1976 and used in Approach and Landing Tests (ALT), but had no orbital capability. Four fully operational orbiters were initially built: Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, and Atlantis. Of these, two were lost in mission accidents: Challenger in 1986 and Columbia in 2003, with a total of 14 astronauts killed. A fifth operational (and sixth in total) orbiter, Endeavour, was built in 1991 to replace Challenger. The three surviving operational vehicles were retired from service following Atlantis's final flight on July 21, 2011. The U.S. relied on the Russian Soyuz spacecraft to transport astronauts to the ISS from the last Shuttle flight until the launch of the Crew Dragon Demo-2 mission in May 2020.[14]

Buran

[edit]
This section is an excerpt from Buran programme.[edit]
The Antonov An-225 Mriya carrying a Buran orbiter in 1989.

The Buran programme (Russian: Буран, IPA: [bʊˈran], "Snowstorm", "Blizzard"), also known as the "VKK Space Orbiter programme" (Russian: ВКК «Воздушно-Космический Корабль», lit. 'Air and Space Ship'),[15] was a Soviet and later Russian reusable spacecraft project that began in 1974 at the Central Aerohydrodynamic Institute in Moscow and was formally suspended in 1993.[16] In addition to being the designation for the whole Soviet/Russian reusable spacecraft project, Buran was also the name given to orbiter 1K, which completed one uncrewed spaceflight in 1988 and was the only Soviet reusable spacecraft to be launched into space. The Buran-class orbiters used the expendable Energia rocket as a launch vehicle.

The Buran programme was started by the Soviet Union as a response to the United States Space Shuttle program.[17] The latter's unclassified nature was a boon for the Soviets and resulted in many superficial and functional similarities between American and Soviet shuttle designs.[18] Although the Buran class was similar in appearance to NASA's Space Shuttle orbiter, and could similarly operate as a re-entry spaceplane, its final internal and functional design was different. For example, the main engines during launch were on the Energia rocket and were not taken into orbit by the spacecraft. Smaller rocket engines on the craft's body provided propulsion in orbit and de-orbital burns, similar to the Space Shuttle's OMS pods. Unlike the Space Shuttle whose first orbital spaceflight was accomplished in April 1981, Buran, whose first and only spaceflight occurred in November 1988, had a capability of flying uncrewed missions, as well as performing fully automated landings.[19] The project was the largest and the most expensive in the history of Soviet space exploration.[16]

X-37

[edit]
This section is an excerpt from Boeing X-37.[edit]
X-37B with a service module being encapsulated inside a payload fairing ahead of the sixth mission

The Boeing X-37, also known as the Orbital Test Vehicle (OTV), is a reusable robotic spacecraft. It is boosted into space by a launch vehicle, re-enters Earth's atmosphere, and lands as a spaceplane. The X-37 is operated by the Department of the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office, in collaboration with the United States Space Force,[20] for orbital spaceflight missions intended to demonstrate reusable space technologies. It is a 120-percent-scaled derivative of the earlier Boeing X-40. The X-37 began as a NASA project in 1999, before being transferred to the United States Department of Defense in 2004. Until 2019, the program was managed by Air Force Space Command.[21]

An X-37 first flew during a drop test in 2006; its first orbital mission was launched in April 2010 on an Atlas V rocket, and returned to Earth in December 2010. Subsequent flights gradually extended the mission duration, reaching 780 days in orbit for the fifth mission, the first to launch on a Falcon 9 rocket. The sixth mission launched on an Atlas V on 17 May 2020 and concluded on 12 November 2022, reaching 908 days in orbit.[22] The seventh mission launched on 28 December 2023 on a Falcon Heavy rocket, entering a highly elliptical high Earth orbit, landing in March 2025 after 434 days in orbit.[23][24]

Reusable experimental spacecraft

[edit]
This section is an excerpt from Chinese reusable experimental spacecraft.[edit]
The Chinese reusable experimental spacecraft (Chinese: 可重复使用试验航天器; pinyin: Kěchóngfùshǐyòng shìyàn hángtiānqì; lit. 'Reusable Experimental Spacecraft') is the first reusable spacecraft produced by China. It embarked upon its initial orbital mission on 4 September 2020.[25][26][27][28] According to media reports, the spacecraft is launched into Earth orbit in a vertical configuration while enclosed within the payload fairings of a rocket like a traditional satellite, but it returns to Earth via autonomous runway landing. In the absence of any official descriptions of the spacecraft or photographic depictions thereof, some observers have speculated that the spacecraft may resemble the X-37B spaceplane of the United States in both form and function.[29][30]

Flown suborbital rocket planes

[edit]
Main article: Rocket-powered aircraft
An X-15 in flight

United States

[edit]

Two piloted suborbital rocket-powered aircraft have reached space: the North American X-15 and SpaceShipOne; a third, SpaceShipTwo, has crossed the US-defined boundary of space but has not reached the higher internationally recognised boundary. None of these crafts were capable of entering orbit, and all were first lifted to high altitude by a carrier aircraft.

On 7 December 2009, Scaled Composites and Virgin Galactic unveiled SpaceShipTwo, along with its atmospheric mothership "Eve". On 13 December 2018, SpaceShipTwo VSS Unity successfully crossed the US-defined boundary of space (although it has not reached space using the internationally recognised definition of this boundary, which lies at a higher altitude than the US boundary). SpaceShipThree is the new spacecraft of Virgin Galactic, launched on 30 March 2021. It is also known as VSS Imagine.[31] On 11 July 2021 VSS Unity completed its first fully crewed mission including Sir Richard Branson.

Soviet Union

[edit]

The Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-105 was an atmospheric prototype of an intended orbital spaceplane, with the suborbital BOR-4 subscale heat shield test vehicle successfully reentering the atmosphere before program cancellation.

Japan

[edit]

HYFLEX was a miniaturized suborbital demonstrator launched in 1996, flying to 110 km altitude, achieving hypersonic flight, and successfully reentering the atmosphere.[32][33]

Europe

[edit]

The European Space Agency (ESA) test project Intermediate eXperimental Vehicle (IXV) has demonstrated lifting body reentry technologies during a 100-minute suborbital flight in 2015.

Spaceplanes in development

[edit]

China

[edit]
Main articles: Shenlong (spacecraft) and Shadow Dragon (aircraft)

Shenlong (Chinese: 神龙; pinyin: shén lóng; lit. 'divine dragon') is a Chinese robotic spaceplane that may be similar to the Boeing X-37.[34] Only a few images have been released since late 2007.[35][36][37]

Haolong is a reusable uncrewed spaceplane with a 1.8 ton cargo capacity in development by the Chengdu Aircraft Design and Research Institute for resupplying the Chinese space station. It will be 10 meters long and 8 meters wide and will use folding wings.[38]

Europe

[edit]

The experience from the IXV project is being used in the PRIDE programme to develop the uncrewed reusable spaceplane Space Rider.[39]

This section is an excerpt from Space Rider.[edit]
The Space Rider (Space Reusable Integrated Demonstrator for Europe Return) is a planned uncrewed orbital lifting body spaceplane aiming to provide the European Space Agency (ESA) with affordable and routine access to space.[40][41][42] Space Rider will have the potential to allow experiments in microgravity, such as exposure of materials to outer space and in-orbit validation of technologies, as well as deployment of small satellites.[43] Its maiden flight is currently scheduled for 2027.[44]

The German Space Agency (DLR) is developing the Reusable Flight Experiment (ReFEx) as a demonstrator for a winged reusable rocket first stage. It will be carried by a sounding rocket to apogee of approximately 130 km.[45] Its first flight is expected in 2026.[46]

The German company POLARIS Spaceplanes, in cooperation with DLR, is developing a multipurpose suborbital spaceplane Aurora that can be used for launching payloads into orbit when combined with an expendable upper stage.[47][48][49][50]

Dassault Aviation and OHB[51] are developing an orbital spaceplane called VORTEX (Véhicule Orbital Réutilisable de Transport et d’EXploration) for both civilian and military orbital missions. The company first presented this project at the 2025 Paris Air Show.[52][53] ESA expressed an interest to cooperate on a scaled down suborbital technology demonstrator version of VORTEX.[54]

French company AndroMach, founded in 2023, is developing small suborbital (ENVOL) and orbital (ÉTOILE) spaceplanes with financial support by CNES.[55][50]

India

[edit]

As of 2012, the Indian Space Research Organisation is developing a launch system named the Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV). It is India's first step towards realizing a two-stage-to-orbit reusable launch system. A space plane serves as the second stage. The plane is expected to have air-breathing scramjet engines as well as rocket engines. Tests with miniature spaceplanes and a working scramjet have been conducted by ISRO in 2016.[56] In April 2023, India successfully conducted an autonomous landing mission of a scaled-down prototype of the spaceplane.[57] The RLV prototype was dropped from a Chinook helicopter at an altitude of 4.5 km and was made to autonomously glide down to a purpose-built runway at the Chitradurga Aeronautical Test Range, Karnataka.[58]

Japan

[edit]

As of 2018, Japan is developing the Winged Reusable Sounding rocket (WIRES), which if successful, may be used as a recoverable first-stage or as a crewed sub-orbital spaceplane.[59]

United States

[edit]
This section is an excerpt from Dream Chaser.[edit]
Dream Chaser flight test vehicle in 2013

Dream Chaser is an American reusable lifting-body spaceplane developed by Sierra Space. Conceived as a crewed vehicle, it is being developed in a cargo configuration known as the Dream Chaser Cargo System for missions to the International Space Station (ISS) under NASA's Commercial Resupply Services program.[60]

Development of Dream Chaser began in 2004 as a project of SpaceDev, which was acquired by Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) in 2008.[61] In 2021, the program was transferred to Sierra Space, a subsidiary spun off from SNC as an independent company.

Dream Chaser is designed for vertical takeoff and horizontal landing, launching atop a Vulcan Centaur rocket and landing on conventional runways.[62][63] It is capable of carrying both pressurized and unpressurized cargo. A proposed variant for the European Space Agency would launch aboard an Ariane 6 rocket. The first flight of Dream Chaser was originally scheduled for the second flight of Vulcan Centaur but was not ready in time. As of September 2025, the spacecraft's propulsion system and software had not yet been certified by NASA,[64] and the spacecraft's initial mission in late 2026 will no longer dock at the ISS as originally planned.[65]

The Dream Chaser’s design is derived from NASA's HL-20 Personnel Launch System, a lifting-body concept studied in the 1980s and 1990s.

Other

[edit]

The Dawn Mk-II Aurora is a suborbital spaceplane being developed by Dawn Aerospace to demonstrate multiple suborbital flights per day. Dawn is based in the Netherlands and New Zealand, and is working closely with the American CAA. On 9 December 2020, the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand, working alongside the New Zealand Space Agency, issued a license allowing the vehicle to fly from a conventional airport.[66] On 25 August 2021, the first test-flight campaign of five successful flights using surrogate jet engines was announced.[67] As of 15 August 2022, 35 test flights have been complete, validating the vehicles aerodynamics, avionics, rapid deployment and various piloting modes.[68] A qualified 2.5 kN.s pump-fed HTP/kerosene engine is being installed for high-performance high-altitude flights. Dawn Aerospace previously demonstrated multiple low-altitude rocket-powered flights per day on their Mk-I vehicle.[69]

Unflown spaceplane concepts

[edit]
United States Gemini tested the use of a Rogallo wing rather than a parachute. August 1964.

Various types of spaceplanes have been suggested since the early twentieth century. Notable early designs include a spaceplane equipped with wings made of combustible alloys that it would burn during its ascent, and the Silbervogel bomber concept. World War II Germany and the postwar US considered winged versions of the V-2 rocket, and in the 1950s and '60s winged rocket designs inspired science fiction artists, filmmakers, and the general public.[70][71]

United States

[edit]

The U.S. Air Force invested some effort in a paper study of a variety of spaceplane projects under their Aerospaceplane efforts of the late 1950s, but later reduced the scope of the project. The result, the Boeing X-20 Dyna-Soar, was to have been the first orbital spaceplane, but was canceled in the early 1960s[72][73] in lieu of NASA's Project Gemini and the U.S. Air Force's crewed spaceflight program.[citation needed]

In 1961, NASA originally planned to have the Gemini spacecraft land on a runway[74] with a Rogallo wing airfoil, rather than an ocean landing under parachutes.[citation needed] The test vehicle became known as the Paraglider Research Vehicle. Development work on both parachutes and the paraglider began in 1963.[75] By December 1963, the parachute was ready to undergo full-scale deployment testing, while the paraglider had run into technical difficulties.[75] Though attempts to revive the paraglider concept persisted within NASA and North American Aviation, in 1964 development was definitively discontinued due to the expense of overcoming the technical hurdles.[76]

United States STS concepts, circa 1970s

The Space Shuttle underwent many variations during its conceptual design phase. Some early concepts are illustrated.

Illustration of NASP taking off

The Rockwell X-30 National Aero-Space Plane (NASP), begun in the 1980s, was an attempt to build a scramjet vehicle capable of operating like an aircraft and achieving orbit like the shuttle. Introduced to the public in 1986, the concept was intended to reach Mach 25, enabling flights between Dulles Airport to Tokyo in two hours, while also being capable of low Earth orbit.[77] Six critical technologies were identified, three relating to the propulsion system, which would consist of a hydrogen-fueled scramjet.[77]

The NASP program became the Hypersonic Systems Technology Program (HySTP) in late 1994. HySTP was designed to transfer the accomplishments made in hypersonic flight into a technology development program. On 27 January 1995 the Air Force terminated participation in (HySTP).[77]

In 1994, a USAF captain proposed an F-16 sized single-stage-to-orbit peroxide/kerosene spaceplane called "Black Horse".[78] It was to take off almost empty and undergo aerial refueling before rocketing to orbit.[79]

The Lockheed Martin X-33 was a 1/3 scale prototype made as part of an attempt by NASA to build a SSTO hydrogen-fuelled spaceplane VentureStar that failed when the hydrogen tank design could not be constructed as intended.[citation needed]

On 5 March 2006, Aviation Week & Space Technology published a story purporting to be the "outing" of a highly classified U.S. military two-stage-to-orbit spaceplane system with the code name Blackstar.[80]

In 2011, Boeing proposed the X-37C, a 165 to 180 percent scale X-37B built to carry up to six passengers to low Earth orbit. The spaceplane was also intended to carry cargo, with both upmass and downmass capacity.[81]

Soviet Union

[edit]
Further information: Buran program § Background
This section is an excerpt from Buran programme § Background.[edit]

The Soviet reusable spacecraft programme has its roots in the late 1950s, at the very beginning of the space age. The idea of Soviet reusable space flight is very old, though it was neither continuous nor consistently organized. Before Buran, no project of the programme reached operational status.

The first step toward a reusable Soviet spacecraft was the 1954 Burya, a high-altitude prototype jet aircraft/cruise missile. Several test flights were made before it was cancelled by order of the Central Committee. The Burya had the goal of delivering a nuclear payload, presumably to the United States, and then returning to base. The Burya programme was cancelled by the USSR in favor of a decision to develop ICBMs instead. The next iteration of a reusable spacecraft was the Zvezda design, which also reached a prototype stage. Decades later, another project with the same name would be used as a service module for the International Space Station. After Zvezda, there was a hiatus in reusable projects until Buran.

The Buran orbital vehicle programme was developed in response to the U.S. Space Shuttle program, which raised considerable concerns among the Soviet military and especially Defense Minister Dmitry Ustinov. An authoritative chronicler of the Soviet and later Russian space programme, the academic Boris Chertok, recounts how the programme came into being.[82] According to Chertok, after the U.S. developed its Space Shuttle program, the Soviet military became suspicious that it could be used for military purposes, due to its enormous payload, several times that of previous U.S. launch vehicles. Officially, the Buran orbital vehicle was designed for the delivery to orbit and return to Earth of spacecraft, cosmonauts, and supplies. Both Chertok and Gleb Lozino-Lozinskiy (General Designer and General Director of NPO Molniya) suggest that from the beginning, the programme was military in nature; however, the exact military capabilities, or intended capabilities, of the Buran programme remain classified.

Like its American counterpart, the Buran orbital vehicle, when in transit from its landing sites back to the launch complex, was transported on the back of a large jet aeroplane – the Antonov An-225 Mriya transport aircraft, which was designed in part for this task and was the largest aircraft in the world to fly multiple times.[83] Before the Mriya was ready (after the Buran had flown), the Myasishchev VM-T Atlant, a variant on the Soviet Myasishchev M-4 Molot (Hammer) bomber (NATO code: Bison), fulfilled the same role.
MiG-105 crewed aerodynamics test vehicle

The Soviet Union first considered a preliminary design of rocket-launch small spaceplane Lapotok in early 1960s. The Spiral airspace system with small orbital spaceplane and rocket as second stage was developed in the 1960s–1980s.[citation needed] Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-105 was a crewed test vehicle to explore low-speed handling and landing.[84]

Russia

[edit]
Main articles: Buran program and Kliper

In the early 2000s the orbital 'cosmoplane' (Russian: космоплан) was proposed by Russia's Institute of Applied Mechanics as a passenger transport. According to researchers, it could take about 20 minutes to fly from Moscow to Paris, using hydrogen and oxygen-fueled engines.[85][86]

Europe

[edit]
An artist's depiction of HOTOL

The Multi-Unit Space Transport And Recovery Device (MUSTARD) was a concept explored by the British Aircraft Corporation (BAC) around 1968 for launching payloads weighing as much as 2,300 kg (5,000 lb) into orbit. It was never constructed.[87]

In the 1980s, British Aerospace began development of HOTOL, an SSTO spaceplane powered by a revolutionary SABRE air-breathing rocket engine, but the project was canceled due to technical and financial uncertainties.[88] The inventor of SABRE set up Reaction Engines to develop SABRE and proposed a twin-engined SSTO spaceplane called Skylon.[89] One NASA analysis showed possible issues with the hot rocket exhaust plumes causing heating of the tail structure at high Mach numbers.[90] although the CEO of Skylon Enterprises Ltd has claimed that reviews by NASA were "quite positive".[91]

Bristol Spaceplanes has undertaken design and prototyping of three potential spaceplanes since its founding by David Ashford in 1991. The European Space Agency has endorsed these designs on several occasions.[92]

France worked on the Hermes crewed spaceplane launched by Ariane rocket in the late 20th century, and proposed in January 1985 to go through with Hermes development under the auspices of the ESA.[93]

In the 1980s, West Germany funded design work on the MBB Sänger II with the Hypersonic Technology Program. Development continued on MBB/Deutsche Aerospace Sänger II/HORUS until the late 1980s when it was canceled. Germany went on to participate in the Ariane rocket, Columbus space station and Hermes spaceplane of ESA, Spacelab of ESA-NASA and Deutschland missions (non-U.S. funded Space Shuttle flights with Spacelab). The Sänger II had predicted cost savings of up to 30 percent over expendable rockets.[94][95]

Hopper was one of several proposals for a European reusable launch vehicle (RLV) planned to cheaply ferry satellites into orbit by 2015.[96] One of those was 'Phoenix', a German project which is a one-seventh scale model of the Hopper concept vehicle.[97] The suborbital Hopper was a Future European Space Transportation Investigations Programme system study design[98] A test project, the Intermediate eXperimental Vehicle (IXV), has demonstrated lifting reentry technologies and will be extended under the PRIDE programme.[39]

The FAST20XX Future High-Altitude High Speed Transport 20XX aimed to establish sound technological foundations for the introduction of advanced concepts in suborbital high-speed transportation with air-launch-to-orbit ALPHA vehicle.[99]

The Daimler-Chrysler Aerospace RLV is a small reusable spaceplane prototype for the ESA Future Launchers Preparatory Programme programme. SpaceLiner is the most recent project.[citation needed]

Airbus Defence and Space Spaceplane was a suborbital spaceplane concept for carrying space tourists, proposed by EADS Astrium in 2007.[100]

Japan

[edit]

HOPE was a Japanese experimental spaceplane project designed by a partnership between NASDA and NAL (both now part of JAXA), started in the 1980s. It was positioned for most of its lifetime as one of the main Japanese contributions to the International Space Station, the other being the Japanese Experiment Module. The project was eventually cancelled in 2003, by which point test flights of a sub-scale testbed had flown successfully.[citation needed]

India

[edit]

AVATAR (Aerobic Vehicle for Hypersonic Aerospace Transportation; Sanskrit: अवतार) was a concept study for an uncrewed single-stage reusable spaceplane capable of horizontal takeoff and landing, presented to India's Defence Research and Development Organisation. The mission concept was for low cost military and commercial satellite launches.[101][102][103]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Bibliography

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Spaceplane

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia

A spaceplane is an aerospace vehicle designed to operate both as an in Earth's atmosphere, generating lift aerodynamically from wings, and as a in or beyond, typically using to achieve the necessary velocities. This hybrid capability distinguishes spaceplanes from conventional rockets or capsules, which rely on ballistic re-entry without powered atmospheric flight, and aims to enable horizontal takeoff and landing for potential reusability and operational flexibility. The most prominent realization of the spaceplane concept is the Space Shuttle, which launched vertically like a , orbited as a , and glided to a runway landing, completing 135 missions from 1981 to 2011 that assembled the , deployed satellites, and advanced scientific research. Earlier experimental efforts, such as the X-15 plane, demonstrated and briefly crossed the into space in the , validating key aerodynamic and principles. Other notable programs include the Soviet Buran shuttle, which flew once uncrewed in 1988, and the ongoing U.S. Air Force X-37B, an autonomous orbital test vehicle that has conducted multiple classified missions since 2010, highlighting advancements in reusable space access. Despite achievements in demonstrating winged spaceflight, spaceplanes have faced challenges including high development costs, technical complexity, and safety risks—as evidenced by the Challenger and Columbia shuttle disasters—limiting flight rates compared to expendable launchers and prompting a shift toward simpler vertical-landing rockets in recent decades. Future prospects, such as Sierra Space's , seek to revive crewed and cargo spaceplane operations for low-Earth orbit logistics, potentially reducing turnaround times through runway compatibility.

Definition and Core Principles

Fundamental Design and Operation

Spaceplanes incorporate aerodynamic surfaces, typically wings or a fuselage, to generate lift and control forces during atmospheric phases, combined with high-thrust for vacuum operations. This design enables horizontal takeoff in conceptual (SSTO) variants or vertical launch with external boosters in multi-stage configurations, prioritizing reusability through landings. Key structural elements include lightweight composite or metallic airframes reinforced to withstand launch vibrations and reentry aerothermal loads, with thermal protection systems (TPS) such as reinforced carbon-carbon or silica tiles to manage peak surface temperatures exceeding 1,650 °C during hypersonic reentry. Propulsion relies on chemical rockets, which expel high-velocity exhaust for via the reaction principle, achieving specific impulses around 450 seconds in vacuum for bipropellant engines like those using and oxygen. Air-breathing concepts, such as or engines, supplement initial low-altitude ascent by ingesting atmospheric oxygen, potentially reducing onboard oxidizer mass by up to 80% until airspeed limits preclude efficient operation. systems integrate inertial navigation, reaction control thrusters for orbital maneuvering, and controls for precise attitude management across regimes. Operational phases commence with ascent, where the vehicle follows a gravity-turn to minimize losses, accelerating to orbital of approximately 7.8 km/s at 200-400 km altitude while countering peaks around 30-50 kPa. In , minimal maintains position via periodic station-keeping burns. Deorbit initiates reentry by a retrograde burn reducing perigee to 60-80 km, entering hypersonic flow where dissociated air forms a plasma sheath, generating drag for deceleration from 7.8 km/s to subsonic speeds over 20-30 minutes. Reentry employs a lifting at 30-40° angle of attack to produce lift-to-drag ratios of 1:1 to 4:1, enabling crossrange capabilities up to 1,100 km and peak decelerations limited to 3-4 g, compared to 8-10 g for ballistic entries. Hypersonic dominate, with shock waves causing and requiring active control to avoid skipping or excessive heating. Transition to subsonic flight occurs below 20 km, followed by powered approach or unpowered glide to touchdown at 150-200 knots, utilizing spoilers, speedbrakes, and for stability.

Distinction from Capsules and Vertical Rockets

Spaceplanes differ from space capsules in their incorporation of aerodynamic lifting surfaces, such as wings or lifting bodies, which facilitate controlled, reentry through the atmosphere and horizontal landings. Space capsules, by contrast, follow a ballistic reentry characterized by minimal lift, high deceleration forces managed via blunt-body heat shields, and final descent controlled by parachutes, typically culminating in ocean splashdowns or land impacts. This distinction arises from the capsules' simplified, non-aerodynamic shape optimized for passive thermal protection and recovery reliability in varied weather conditions, as opposed to the active flight control required for spaceplane gliders. Relative to vertical rockets, spaceplanes emphasize aircraft-like operations, leveraging aerodynamic forces for unpowered descent and precise runway touchdowns, even if many orbital examples like the Space Shuttle initiate launch vertically atop boosters. Vertical rockets maintain a cylindrical, low-drag profile suited for rapid ascent through dense atmosphere and, for reusables like the Falcon 9 first stage, employ powered vertical landings via engine throttling on designated pads. The absence of significant wings in vertical rockets avoids the mass penalties associated with thermal protection for lifting surfaces but limits reentry maneuverability and landing site options to vertical infrastructure. These design choices reflect trade-offs in mission flexibility versus simplicity: spaceplane horizontal landings enable potential access to global airfields for rapid turnaround and crew egress akin to , reducing dependency on specialized recovery assets needed for capsules or vertical propulsive systems. However, the added structural complexity and heat management demands for aerodynamic components have historically increased development costs and maintenance burdens, as evidenced by the Space Shuttle's tile system vulnerabilities.

Propulsion Systems: Rocket vs. Air-Breathing

Rocket propulsion systems for spaceplanes utilize self-contained propellants, including both and oxidizer, to generate independently of the surrounding environment, enabling sustained operation from launch through orbital insertion and reentry phases. This approach, exemplified by the Space Shuttle's three main engines, burns and to produce a combined sea-level of approximately 5.255 MN, with each engine throttlable from 65% to 109% of rated power for precise control during ascent. The engines achieve a of around 366 seconds at and 452 seconds in , but the mass of carried oxidizer—roughly 85% of total propellant mass in typical bipropellant systems—imposes a significant structural and performance penalty, limiting payload fractions to under 2% for orbital missions without staging. In contrast, air-breathing propulsion systems draw oxidizer from the atmosphere, compressing and combusting ingested air with onboard fuel to generate , which reduces initial and enhances during the atmospheric ascent up to roughly 26-30 km altitude and Mach 5-6 speeds. The Synergetic Air-Breathing (SABRE), intended for vehicles like Skylon, employs a precooler to chill incoming air from over 1,000 K to usable temperatures in milliseconds, enabling hydrogen-fueled combustion in ramjet-like mode before transitioning to closed-cycle rocket operation using stored oxidizer for the exo-atmospheric phase. This hybrid capability theoretically boosts effective by 20-30% over pure rockets during the air-breathing leg, as the engine leverages ambient oxygen density for higher exhaust velocity without the full oxidizer burden. Historical concepts like the British Aerospace HOTOL from the 1980s proposed similar air-breathing rocket integration via the RB545 engine, aiming for (SSTO) horizontal takeoff, though thermal dissociation limits and risks at hypersonic speeds have persistently challenged scalability. The core arises from operational domains and : systems offer reliability and high density (up to 300 s Isp for advanced cycles) but suffer inefficiencies in atmosphere, where overexpansion wastes against backpressure, yielding effective Isp penalties of 20-50% below 50 km altitude. Air-breathing variants excel in below the Karman line—jet engines achieve Isp equivalents exceeding 2,000 s via atmospheric momentum transfer—but cease functioning above ~100 km due to oxygen scarcity, requiring seamless mode-switching hardware that introduces single-point failure risks and development costs, as evidenced by SABRE's precooler validation tests achieving 1,000 K cooling in 0.01 seconds yet facing material fatigue issues. Empirical data from suborbital tests, such as the X-15's XLR99 delivering 57 kN for Mach 6.7 flights, confirm rockets' robustness for edge-of-space performance, while air-breathers remain conceptual for orbital use, with no flight-proven hybrid achieving full SSTO due to dissociation heat loads exceeding 2,000 K at transition velocities.
AspectRocket PropulsionAir-Breathing Propulsion
Oxidizer SourceOnboard (e.g., LOX)Atmospheric O2
Operational CeilingFull vacuum to surfaceUp to ~30 km / Mach 5-6
Specific Impulse (Atm)300-400 s1,000-2,000 s equivalent
Mass PenaltyHigh (oxidizer ~85% propellant mass)Low initially, but hybrid hardware added
ComplexityLower (proven cycles like staged combustion)Higher (precoolers, mode transition)
Proven ApplicationsOrbital (Shuttle, 1981-2011)Suborbital concepts (SABRE ground tests)
Pure rocket designs dominate operational spaceplanes for their simplicity and thrust margins, whereas air-breathing hybrids promise reduced launch costs via reusability and higher ratios—potentially doubling effective delta-v budgets—but hinge on overcoming causal barriers like ingestion losses and cryogenic cooling demands, which have delayed maturity despite decades of R&D.

Historical Context and Early Experiments

Pre-1950s Concepts and Theoretical Foundations

The theoretical foundations of spaceplanes emerged from early 20th-century advancements in rocketry and , which initially emphasized vertical-launch multistage rockets but gradually incorporated winged designs for atmospheric reentry and horizontal operations. Pioneers like established the rocket equation in 1903, quantifying the delta-v requirements for , while Hermann Oberth's 1923 work "Die Rakete zu den Planetenräumen" explored for orbital velocities, laying groundwork for vehicles capable of sustained high-speed flight beyond atmospheric limits. These principles highlighted the inefficiencies of purely ballistic trajectories, prompting considerations of lifting bodies to exploit aerodynamic forces for range extension and controlled descent, though practical winged concepts remained speculative until the . Eugen Sänger provided the earliest rigorous technical framework for a rocket-powered spaceplane in his 1933 book Raketenflugtechnik, proposing a reusable, piloted vehicle with horizontal takeoff from a , ascent to suborbital altitudes via liquid-propellant rockets, and atmospheric skipping for global reach before gliding to a landing. Sänger's design emphasized a slender, winged configuration to generate lift at hypersonic speeds, managing thermal loads through continuous atmospheric interaction rather than pure vacuum coasting, which anticipated modern reentry challenges. This work shifted focus from expendable capsules to vehicles blending and attributes, theoretically enabling reusability and precision recovery, though it required unresolved advances in materials and efficiency. During , Sänger and Irene Bredt refined these ideas into the ("Silver Bird") antipodal bomber concept around 1938–1941, envisioning a 3-ton sled-launched vehicle reaching 145 km altitude, skipping across the upper atmosphere at Mach 5–10 to bomb distant targets like the , then ditching in the Pacific for potential recovery. The design incorporated a leading edge for cooling and a flat-bottomed for supersonic lift, demonstrating causal links between , aerothermodynamics, and structural integrity. Despite interest, technical hurdles—including excessive mass fractions and heat dissipation—prevented prototyping, but influenced postwar hypersonic research by validating skipping trajectories as a feasible suborbital path. These pre-1950 efforts underscored spaceplanes' potential for cost-effective access via reusability, contrasting with the vertical dominance that prevailed due to simpler immediate feasibility.

1950s-1970s Suborbital Tests

The push for suborbital spaceplane testing emerged in the mid-1950s amid competition, focusing on hypersonic technologies for potential military applications. The U.S. X-15 program, formally approved in 1955 by the U.S. Air Force with NACA involvement, represented the era's flagship effort. delivered the first X-15 in 1958, designed for air-launch from a modified NB-52A bomber at around 8.5 km altitude. Initial tests emphasized structural integrity and control systems through captive carries and unpowered glides. On March 10, 1959, the first captive flight lasted 45 minutes, validating carrier aircraft integration. The program's first free flight occurred on June 8, 1959, with test pilot Scott Crossfield gliding 84 km downrange to a landing at after release at 11.9 km altitude. Powered suborbital tests commenced September 17, 1959, using the smaller XLR11 engines initially, achieving Mach 2.11 at 12.5 km. By late 1959, the more powerful XLR99 engine enabled higher performance, with Crossfield reaching Mach 3.31 on November 23. These early flights gathered critical data on rocket propulsion stability, thermal loads exceeding 1,200°C on leading edges, and pilot under high-g acceleration up to 5g. Over 12 flights in 1959 alone, the X-15 demonstrated reusable spaceplane feasibility, though altitudes remained below the 100 km until 1963. Concurrent U.S. efforts included the Air Force's X-20 Dyna-Soar, initiated in 1957 as a boost-glide vehicle for suborbital strikes and . Boeing's design featured a delta-wing configuration launched atop a rocket. While full-scale gliders were not flown, subscale models underwent extensive aerothermodynamic testing, including arc-jet simulations for reentry heats up to 1,650°C. Planned suborbital launches using modified Titan I boosters were prepared by , but the program faced technical hurdles in materials and guidance, leading to cancellation in December 1963 after $400 million invested, redirecting resources to NASA's Gemini. Soviet suborbital spaceplane tests lagged in crewed efforts but advanced parallel concepts. In , Chelomei's OKB-52 pursued the VKA-23, a small winged vehicle for suborbital hops powered by S5.8 engines. Ground tests and subscale drop models validated aerodynamics, but no powered flights occurred before cancellation in 1964 amid priority shifts to orbital systems. By the , Mikoyan's MiG-105.11 EPOS subscale demonstrator for the Spiral program conducted eight rocket-assisted flights from 1976 to 1978, launched from a Tu-95 . These reached altitudes of 1-2 km, testing ejection systems, thermal protection, and landings, with peak speeds near Mach 1.5, informing reusable orbiter designs though Spiral was ultimately shelved.

Transition to Orbital Ambitions During Cold War

The Cold War space race intensified ambitions to develop orbital spaceplanes capable of achieving and sustaining low Earth orbit, extending beyond the suborbital trajectories demonstrated by vehicles like the X-15. These efforts were driven by military imperatives, including reconnaissance, satellite inspection, and potential antisatellite operations, as both superpowers sought advantages in space domain awareness and rapid global strike capabilities. Unlike expendable capsules, spaceplanes promised reusability and maneuverability, allowing for precise orbital adjustments and unpowered atmospheric returns akin to aircraft landings. In the United States, the Air Force's X-20 Dyna-Soar program, initiated in 1957 following studies on hypersonic gliders, represented the first concrete push toward a crewed orbital spaceplane. Designed as a delta-winged vehicle launched atop a Titan IIIC rocket, Dyna-Soar was intended to reach orbital speeds exceeding 25,000 km/h, perform gliding maneuvers in space, and reenter for horizontal landings on conventional runways. By 1961, full-scale mockups were constructed, and subscale tests validated aerodynamics, but escalating costs—projected at over $1 billion—and shifting priorities toward the Manned Orbiting Laboratory led to cancellation in December 1963. The program's emphasis on boost-glide trajectories influenced subsequent designs, highlighting the engineering trade-offs between reusability and the immense delta-v required for orbit. Parallel Soviet initiatives mirrored these ambitions, with the Mikoyan-Gurevich Design Bureau's MiG-105, developed under the Spiral program from 1965, serving as a manned for orbital spaceplane technologies. The MiG-105 analog conducted 8 unpowered drop tests from a Tu-95 between 1972 and 1976, validating low-speed handling, stability, and deployment at speeds up to 300 km/h. Intended for integration with a rocket booster like the GUR-70, the full Spiral system aimed to deploy small orbital vehicles for or missions, capable of multiple reentries using ablative heat shields. Canceled in 1978 amid technical hurdles and resource shifts toward larger systems, Spiral underscored the Soviet focus on hypersonic weapons platforms, including potential nuclear-armed variants, though bureaucratic competition between design bureaus delayed progress. These programs marked a pivotal transition, as suborbital data informed the need for to withstand reentry heats exceeding 1,800°C and propulsion hybrids combining rockets with potential air-breathing stages, yet revealed insurmountable near-term barriers like inefficiencies. By the late 1970s, ambitions evolved toward partially reusable systems, paving the way for the and Buran, which achieved one orbital flight each in 1981 and 1988, respectively, but at the cost of full operational reusability. The era's cancellations reflected causal realities: demanded vertical launches for efficiency, while winged reentry prioritized over horizontal takeoff amid budget constraints and verification challenges in classified environments.

Operational Spaceplanes

Orbital-Class Vehicles

Orbital-class spaceplanes are reusable spacecraft engineered to achieve and sustain Earth orbit, typically requiring delta-v exceeding 9 km/s for launch, orbit insertion, and deorbit maneuvers. These vehicles employ winged or lifting-body designs for atmospheric reentry and horizontal runway landings, contrasting with ballistic capsules. Only three programs have demonstrated orbital flight: the United States' Space Shuttle, the Soviet Union's Buran, and the Boeing X-37B, each advancing reusability but facing unique engineering and economic hurdles.

Space Shuttle Program (1981-2011)

The NASA Space Shuttle, operational from April 12, 1981, to July 21, 2011, conducted 135 missions, deploying satellites, servicing the Hubble Space Telescope, and constructing the International Space Station. The orbiter, a delta-winged glider powered by three liquid-fueled main engines and two solid rocket boosters, launched vertically atop an expendable external tank, achieving low Earth orbit altitudes of 200-600 km. Reusability was partial: orbiters flew multiple times after refurbishment, but boosters were recovered and reused while the tank was discarded per flight. Crews of up to eight astronauts operated for durations up to 17 days, with the longest mission, STS-75 in 1996, lasting 16 days. Despite ambitions for routine access to space, program costs averaged $450 million per launch, exceeding projections due to maintenance complexities and safety incidents like the Challenger (1986) and Columbia (2003) disasters, which killed 14 astronauts total.

Soviet Buran (1988)

The Soviet Buran program produced a single orbital flight on November 15, 1988, with the uncrewed orbiter completing two orbits before autonomously landing at the Yubileyny airfield near Baikonur Cosmodrome after 3 hours. Launched atop the expendable Energia rocket, which provided 7,257 orbital-class spaceplane capable of carrying up to 10 tons to low Earth orbit, Buran featured a design closely resembling the Space Shuttle but with improvements like all-liquid-fueled strap-on boosters for potential full reusability. Intended for military reconnaissance and satellite deployment amid Cold War competition, the program was canceled in 1993 due to economic collapse and shifting priorities, leaving the orbiter destroyed in a 2002 hangar collapse. No crewed missions occurred, and follow-on vehicles remained incomplete.

Boeing X-37B Series (2010-Present)

The X-37B, an uncrewed autonomous orbital test vehicle operated by the , has conducted eight missions since its first orbital flight in April 2010, accumulating over 4,200 days in space by August 2025. Measuring 8.8 meters long with a 4.5-meter , it launches on expendable rockets like or , testing reusable technologies, , and propulsion systems in highly elliptical orbits up to 700 km apogee. Mission durations have extended progressively, with (2023-2025) demonstrating novel maneuvers using a service module for deorbit efficiency. Classified aspects limit public details, but disclosed experiments include radiation effects on materials and deployment analogs; the vehicle lands horizontally on runways like . As of August 22, 2025, launched on a , continuing secretive technology maturation without crew provisions.

Space Shuttle Program (1981-2011)

The Space Shuttle Program, designated as the Space Transportation System by NASA, conducted its first orbital mission, STS-1, on April 12, 1981, using the orbiter Columbia, and concluded with STS-135 on July 21, 2011, after 135 successful launches and landings, accumulating 20,952 orbits and over 537 million miles traveled. Five operational orbiters were built: Columbia (lost in 2003), Challenger (lost in 1986), Discovery, Atlantis, and Endeavour, each measuring 122 feet in length and designed for up to 100 reuses, though extensive refurbishment between flights limited actual reuse rates to far fewer missions per vehicle. The system featured a reusable winged orbiter, two recoverable solid rocket boosters (SRBs), and an expendable external tank (ET), with the orbiter propelled by three Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs) using liquid hydrogen and oxygen from the ET. Missions primarily supported deployment of commercial and scientific satellites, interplanetary probes, the in 1990, and extensive construction and resupply of the (ISS) from 1998 onward, carrying 355 astronauts from 16 nations and enabling over 1,320 days of on-orbit operations. Despite ambitions for routine, low-cost access to , the program's partial reusability—requiring SRB recovery from ocean and orbiter thermal protection system (TPS) inspections and repairs—resulted in high operational complexity and maintenance demands, with each orbiter needing approximately five months of turnaround time post-flight. The program suffered two catastrophic failures: Challenger exploded 73 seconds after launch on January 28, 1986, during , due to failure of an seal in the right SRB caused by cold temperatures compromising joint integrity, killing all seven crew members. Columbia disintegrated during reentry on February 1, 2003, on , from damage to its left wing TPS inflicted by foam debris from the ET during ascent, again resulting in the loss of seven crew; these incidents highlighted vulnerabilities in the hybrid reusable-expendable design and organizational pressures prioritizing schedule over safety margins. Cumulative program costs exceeded $150 billion, with per-launch expenses averaging around $450 million in later years, far surpassing initial projections and expendable launch alternatives, contributing to the decision for retirement to shift resources toward next-generation systems like the .

Soviet Buran (1988)

The Buran program, formally known as the VKK Space Orbiter system, was a Soviet initiative to create a reusable orbital spaceplane as a counterpart to the U.S. Space Shuttle, driven by concerns over the latter's potential military applications and technological superiority. Authorized in 1976 following initial studies in 1974, the project involved major design bureaus including NPO Energiya under Valentin Glushko, who shifted from competing lunar rocket efforts to this integrated system. The program encompassed the development of the Buran-class orbiter, the Energia launch vehicle, and supporting infrastructure like the Baikonur Cosmodrome facilities. The Buran orbiter shared an external configuration with the , including a delta-winged glider with a , but incorporated fundamental differences rooted in Soviet engineering priorities. Unlike the Shuttle, which integrated three main engines into the orbiter, Buran carried no ascent engines; all primary propulsion was provided by the Energia rocket's four liquid-fueled engines on its core stage and four strap-on boosters, enabling the launcher to operate independently for non-orbiter payloads up to 100 metric tons to . The orbiter's dry mass was 62 metric tons, with a gross liftoff mass of 105 metric tons including up to 30 metric tons of , and it featured two RD-8 vernier engines for orbital maneuvers using hypergolic propellants. Thermal protection consisted of ceramic tiles similar to the Shuttle's but with adaptations for automated operations, and the vehicle was designed for full reusability, including potential refurbishment between flights. On November 15, 1988, at 06:00 UTC, the first and only orbital flight of Buran (vehicle OK-1K1) lifted off from Baikonur's Site 110 atop an Energia rocket, marking the debut of both the orbiter and launcher. The uncrewed mission, fully automated without ground intervention after ignition, achieved orbit successfully, circumnavigating Earth twice over approximately 3 hours before deorbiting and executing a precision autonomous landing at 09:25 UTC on the Yubileiny runway near Baikonur, touching down at 260 km/h after a 180 km final glide. This demonstrated Buran's capabilities for reentry, hypersonic flight, and runway recovery in adverse weather, with the vehicle experiencing peak heating of 1,700°C and structural loads within design limits. No major anomalies occurred, validating the system's automation and aerodynamics, though post-flight inspections revealed minor tile damage typical of such profiles. Prior to the orbital test, extensive sub-scale and full-scale unpowered drop tests, along with 25 piloted atmospheric flights of the test vehicle from 1984 to 1988, confirmed handling qualities from subsonic to Mach 3 approaches. Plans for crewed flights, Energia-only launches, and a fleet of five orbiters were curtailed by the Soviet Union's dissolution in 1991 and ensuing economic collapse; the program was officially terminated on June 30, 1993, by Russian President , after expenditures estimated at 14-20 billion 1980s rubles, leaving incomplete vehicles like OK-2K1 in storage and forgoing further development despite the single flight's technical success.

Boeing X-37B Series (2010-Present)

The Boeing X-37B, also known as the Orbital Test Vehicle (OTV), is an unmanned, reusable spaceplane developed by Boeing for the United States Space Force to test advanced space technologies. Originating from NASA's X-37A project in the late 1990s, the program transitioned to the Department of Defense in 2004, with Boeing building two operational vehicles approximately one-quarter the size of the Space Shuttle, each weighing around 11,000 pounds and designed for missions up to 270 days initially. The first orbital mission, OTV-1, launched on April 22, 2010, aboard an Atlas V rocket from Cape Canaveral and landed autonomously at Vandenberg Air Force Base on December 3, 2010, after 224 days in low-Earth orbit, demonstrating reentry and runway landing capabilities. Subsequent missions have progressively extended durations and tested diverse experiments, including radiation effects on materials, propulsion systems, and technologies, with hardware returned to for analysis. By October 2025, the X-37B fleet has completed seven missions totaling over 4,000 days in orbit and more than 1.3 billion miles traveled, with (launched May 17, 2020) achieving a record 908 days before landing in November 2022, and (launched December 28, 2023, on a Falcon Heavy) concluding on March 7, 2025, after introducing highly elliptical orbits and maneuvers to alter its trajectory using atmospheric drag. launched on August 21, 2025, aboard a Falcon 9 from , focusing on communications, quantum navigation, and further adaptability demonstrations. Operable in orbits from 150 to altitude, the X-37B features solar-powered systems, an onboard orbital maneuvering for precise positioning, and a service module for additional payloads, enabling flexible experiment hosting without human presence. While mission specifics remain classified due to , public disclosures emphasize its role in validating technologies for future responsive space operations, distinguishing it from expendable systems by allowing iterative testing and rapid turnaround. The program's success, including breaking endurance records across flights, underscores advancements in autonomous reentry and thermal protection, though details on exact payloads and outcomes are limited to official releases from the and .

Suborbital and Experimental Vehicles

Suborbital spaceplanes reach altitudes above the —typically exceeding 100 kilometers—but lack the velocity for sustained orbit, focusing instead on testing regimes, reentry profiles, and horizontal landing capabilities. These experimental platforms have advanced understanding of atmospheric-space transition without the complexities of orbital insertion. The , jointly operated by the U.S. Air Force and from 1959 to 1968, conducted 199 research flights air-launched from a modified B-52 Stratofortress. Powered by the producing 57,000 pounds of thrust, it achieved a peak speed of Mach 6.70 (7,274 km/h) on October 3, 1967, under pilot , and a maximum altitude of 108 kilometers on August 17, 1962, with Robert M. White at the controls. These missions yielded data on , stability at hypersonic speeds, and pilot performance in near-space conditions, directly influencing subsequent designs. NASA's lifting body program, spanning the mid-1960s to 1970s, extended X-15 insights by evaluating wingless configurations for unpowered or rocket-assisted reentry gliders. Vehicles including the HL-10, M2-F3, and X-24 series, dropped from B-52 carriers, completed over 100 flights demonstrating body-generated lift sufficient for controlled glides and runway landings from suborbital trajectories. The HL-10 reached Mach 1.86 and 27,000 feet in powered tests on March 21, 1968, validating thermal protection and control systems akin to those needed for orbital returns. Soviet efforts paralleled U.S. programs with the , a sub-scale analog for the Spiral orbital interceptor developed in the 1970s. This unpowered test vehicle, air-dropped from a , executed eight flights between 1976 and 1978, confirming skid-based landing stability and low-speed handling for prospective spaceplanes. The program highlighted challenges in integrating jet engines for atmospheric maneuvering post-reentry. Private initiatives marked a resurgence in suborbital experimentation with ' , which pioneered non-governmental crewed spaceflight. Air-launched from on June 21, 2004, pilot attained 112 kilometers altitude using a hybrid rocket motor, securing the through two additional qualifying flights later that year. This feather-wing design enabled suborbital hops while proving commercial viability for reusable space access.

X-15 and Lifting Body Tests (1959-1968)

The was a rocket-powered hypersonic research developed jointly by the U.S. , , and the Navy to investigate the aerothermodynamics of , systems, and pilot performance at the edge of space. The program conducted 199 flights between June 1959 and October 1968, with the aircraft air-launched from a modified B-52 bomber at altitudes around 45,000 feet. Powered by the Reaction Motors XLR99 engine producing 57,000 pounds of thrust, the X-15 achieved a maximum speed of Mach 6.7 (approximately 4,520 mph) on October 3, 1967, piloted by , and a peak altitude of 354,200 feet (67.1 miles) on August 17, 1962, by Robert M. White, qualifying eight pilots for astronaut wings. These flights provided critical empirical data on hypersonic aerodynamics, including behavior, rates exceeding 1,200°F on the , and the effectiveness of reaction control systems for attitude control in near-vacuum conditions above 250,000 feet, where aerodynamic surfaces were ineffective. The program's findings influenced reentry vehicle design by demonstrating stable hypersonic stability and control, as well as material limits under extreme thermal loads, directly informing technologies later used in the X-20 Dyna-Soar and programs. Human factors research revealed physiological responses to high-g accelerations (up to 5g during pullouts) and acceleration to hypersonic speeds in seconds, validating pressurized suits and ergonomics for transitions. Complementing the X-15's powered hypersonic research, NASA's program from 1962 tested wingless, blunt-body configurations for controlled atmospheric reentry and horizontal landing, aiming to decouple orbital propulsion from recovery phases in reusable space vehicles. The initial M2-F1, a lightweight wooden prototype, began unpowered tow tests in 1963 behind a car and Pontiac convertible on , progressing to 77 air-drops from a modified B-52 by August 1964, confirming inherent lift-to-drag ratios of about 1:1 for gliding descents. This led to rocket-powered variants: the M2-F2 first flew on July 12, 1966, reaching speeds over 300 mph, though a 1966 crash highlighted stability issues addressed in the M2-F3 with added ventral fins. The HL-10, developed by and Northrop, initiated powered flights on December 22, 1966, accumulating 20 research flights by 1968 that validated low-speed handling, flap effectiveness for pitch control, and approach-to-landing patterns for lifting bodies with lift-to-drag ratios up to 1.5. Early X-24A tests by the began in 1967, focusing on higher lift configurations for steeper reentry corridors, generating data on subsonic drag divergence and ground-effect landing dynamics essential for spaceplane recovery without runways longer than 15,000 feet. By 1968, these experiments empirically demonstrated that lifting bodies could achieve precise energy management during reentry, reducing g-forces to under 3g and enabling unpowered horizontal landings, foundational for subsequent orbital spaceplane concepts despite challenges like poor subsonic stability requiring stability augmentation systems.

Other National Suborbital Efforts

The Soviet Spiral program developed the MiG-105.11 as a manned analog to test handling, reentry, and landing for a proposed orbital interceptor spaceplane. From October 11, 1976, to September 15, 1978, the vehicle completed eight unpowered glider flights launched from a modified Tu-95 at altitudes around 10 km, focusing on subsonic to low-supersonic regimes relevant to spaceplane operations. These tests validated the variable-sweep wings and overall configuration but did not achieve altitudes. Subscale efforts under Spiral and related Buran preparations included the BOR series of unpiloted lifting-body prototypes to assess hypersonic and thermal protection. The BOR-5 variant underwent suborbital test flights starting in , propelled to Mach 5-6 speeds to simulate reentry heating on materials later used for the Buran orbiter. These ground-launched or air-dropped tests provided data on high-speed stability but remained unmanned and below full orbital profiles. China initiated suborbital spaceplane testing with the Shenlong demonstrator, a subscale reusable under Project 863-706. On January 8, 2011, it completed its first suborbital flight, launched atop a solid-fuel to validate autonomous reentry, guidance, and recovery technologies for prospective orbital systems. The mission achieved hypersonic reentry conditions and a successful , marking 's entry into experimental spaceplane development amid limited public disclosure. Subsequent iterations evolved toward orbital capabilities, building on these foundational suborbital validations.

Technical Advantages and Limitations

Engineering Strengths: Reusability and Maneuverability

The reusability inherent in spaceplane designs allows the core vehicle—typically the orbiter or —to survive ascent, orbital operations, and reentry intact, enabling post-flight inspection, refurbishment, and relaunch after certification, thereby amortizing high development costs over multiple missions unlike expendable rockets that discard stages after one use. This engineering approach facilitated the program's 135 orbital flights from 1981 to 2011 using a fleet of five orbiters, with the orbiter vehicles designed for up to 100 reuses each, though actual flight counts varied due to maintenance needs; for example, the orbiter completed 33 missions. In principle, such reusability supports rapid turnaround for responsive space access, potentially enabling sortie-like missions with turnaround times measured in weeks rather than years, as explored in concepts. Spaceplanes' aerodynamic lifting bodies and winged configurations confer superior atmospheric maneuverability during reentry, enabling controlled gliding trajectories that yield extensive cross-range capabilities—defined as lateral deviation from the ground track—far exceeding those of ballistic capsules. The Space Shuttle, for instance, achieved cross-range distances of approximately 1,100 nautical miles (2,037 kilometers) through hypersonic bank-to-turn maneuvers, allowing selection among multiple landing sites for weather avoidance or contingency aborts, a flexibility unattainable with parachute-dependent capsules limited to near-zero cross-range. This gliding reentry, leveraging delta-wing lift at hypersonic speeds, also enhances precision landing accuracy to runway standards, as demonstrated by the Shuttle's unpowered approaches from 100,000 feet altitude at Mach 25 to horizontal touchdown at 195 knots, reducing ground infrastructure demands compared to ocean splashdowns. Delta-wing designs further optimize lift-to-drag ratios for sustained maneuverability, providing engineering advantages in mission planning and safety margins over purely ballistic profiles.

Key Challenges: Thermal Protection and Propulsion Integration

Reentry into Earth's atmosphere subjects spaceplanes to intense , with peak temperatures reaching up to 1,650°C on leading edges and surfaces due to hypersonic compression and friction of air molecules. Unlike ballistic capsules that minimize exposure time, spaceplanes' lifting-body designs prolong the reentry phase, amplifying total heat loads and necessitating robust, lightweight thermal protection systems (TPS) that maintain structural integrity across multiple flights without extensive refurbishment. The Space Shuttle's TPS, consisting of over 24,000 silica-fiber tiles and reinforced carbon-carbon composites, demonstrated these vulnerabilities through recurrent damage from and launch vibrations, requiring labor-intensive inspections and replacements that undermined reusability goals. A primary challenge lies in balancing thermal resistance with minimal mass penalty; high-emissivity coatings and ablative materials erode or crack under repeated plasma flows and radiative heating, while metallic or ceramic options like (UHTCs) introduce brittleness and oxidation issues at sustained Mach 20+ velocities. The 2003 Columbia orbiter loss underscored causal risks: a foam impact compromised the wing's carbon-carbon panels, permitting plasma intrusion that melted aluminum spars at over 1,600°C, as confirmed by post-accident metallurgical analysis. Advanced spaceplane concepts demand integrated TPS that also accommodate propulsion-induced hotspots, such as plumes during ascent, where mismatched expansion ratios exacerbate local overheating. Propulsion integration compounds these thermal demands by requiring engines that transition seamlessly between air-breathing modes (e.g., or ) for atmospheric and pure modes for orbital insertion, yet such combined-cycle systems like rocket-based combined cycles (RBCC) face inherent instabilities. Mode shifts induce inlet flow distortion, phenomena from mismatches, and nozzle-airframe interference that generates drag penalties up to 10-15% of , while thermal gradients from dissociated air at Mach 5+ strain engine walls and fuel injectors. For precooled designs like ' , the helium-loop heat exchanger must rapidly cool incoming air from 1,000°C to near-cryogenic levels, but material from cyclic thermal cycling and helium leakage risks persist, as evidenced by subscale tests revealing drops beyond 20 km altitude. These integrations amplify failure modes through causal linkages: propulsion exhaust plumes during hybrid operation preheat adjacent TPS panels, reducing their margin against reentry fluxes, while variable-geometry inlets add mechanical complexity prone to jamming under vibrational loads. Peer-reviewed analyses highlight that unresolved scramjet combustion inefficiencies—due to fuel-air mixing delays in microseconds-scale flows—limit specific impulse gains, often capping RBCC performance at 20-30% below theoretical maxima without prohibitive weight additions for redundancy. Empirical data from hypersonic wind-tunnel tests confirm that airframe-propulsion coupling demands iterative refinements to mitigate these, yet full-scale validation remains elusive, constraining operational spaceplanes to conservative rocket-only architectures like the Shuttle's main engines.

Economic Realities: Cost Comparisons with Expendable Systems

The Space Shuttle program's operational costs, averaging approximately $775 million per mission in fiscal year 2010 dollars for preparation and launch, significantly exceeded those of contemporary expendable launch vehicles (ELVs) capable of similar payload capacities to . For context, the Shuttle delivered up to 24 metric tons to LEO, yet its per-flight expenses—driven by extensive refurbishment of the orbiter's thermal protection system, solid rocket boosters, and external tank—remained higher than ELVs like the , which cost around $350-400 million per launch for comparable lift despite lacking reusability. Over the program's lifetime of 135 missions, total costs reached about $209 billion (2010 dollars), yielding an amortized per-launch figure of roughly $1.5 billion when including development and sustainment, underscoring how partial reusability failed to offset the engineering overhead of winged reentry and horizontal landing. In contrast, modern reusable rockets like SpaceX's have achieved per-launch costs of $67-70 million for customers, with internal estimates as low as $15 million, for payloads up to 22 metric tons to LEO—demonstrating flight rates over 100 annually and booster reuse exceeding 20 times per unit, which dilutes marginal costs far below historical spaceplane economics. These reductions stem from vertical landing and minimal refurbishment, avoiding the aerodynamic penalties and inspections inherent to spaceplane designs, where reentry heating demands tile-by-tile replacement after each flight. The Soviet Buran program, with its single uncrewed orbital flight in , offers scant operational data but illustrates similar pitfalls: total development exceeded 16-20 billion rubles (equivalent to billions in USD at the time), rendering any hypothetical per-flight cost prohibitive given the program's cancellation amid and the realization that expendable systems like Proton rockets provided routine access at lower recurring expense. The X-37B, an ongoing spaceplane, further highlights opacity in cost structures, with program expenditures estimated at $2 billion across multiple missions launched atop expendable or semi-reusable boosters like , and individual vehicles costing around $200 million each—figures that prioritize specialized testing over volume , precluding comparisons favoring spaceplanes for routine operations. Economic analyses of reusability emphasize that spaceplanes' added mass from wings, control surfaces, and integrated historically inflates dry weight by 20-30% over equivalent stages, eroding fractions and necessitating higher (and fuel) for , while post-flight turnaround times of months contrast with days for vertical-landers. Thus, no operational spaceplane has verifiably undercut ELV costs on a per-kilogram-to-LEO basis, with Shuttle-era figures around $10,000-25,000/kg dwarfed by current reusable rockets at under $3,000/kg, attributing the gap to causal factors like low flight cadence (Shuttle averaged 4-5/year) amplifying fixed refurb costs.
SystemTypeApprox. Cost per Launch (Recent/Adjusted USD)Payload to LEO (metric tons)Key Economic Factor
Partially reusable spaceplane$775M (2010)24High refurbishment; low flight rate
(reusable)Vertical reusable rocket$15-70M (2024 est.)22Rapid reuse; high cadence
Buran (hypothetical)Fully reusable spaceplaneNot operational; program >$14B equiv.30Single flight; development sunk costs
X-37B missionReusable spaceplane (booster expendable)$200M+ per vehicle (est.)1-5Military secrecy; specialized use
Prospects for future spaceplanes like hinge on unproven claims of $400/kg to LEO, but historical precedents suggest integration challenges will likely preserve expendables' or vertical reusables' dominance unless flight rates exceed 50/year with automated refurbishment—conditions unmet in prior programs.

Criticisms and Debates

Safety Records and Failure Modes

The , the most extensively operated manned spaceplane, completed 135 missions between 1981 and 2011, experiencing two catastrophic s that resulted in the loss of both vehicles and 14 astronauts. The overall mission success rate was approximately 98.5%, with a per-flight fatality of about 1.4%, significantly higher than contemporary expendable launchers like Soyuz, which maintained lower loss rates over comparable mission volumes. NASA's pre-program risk assessments underestimated ascent and reentry hazards, projecting failure probabilities as low as 1 in 100,000, whereas post-accident analyses revealed actual risks closer to 1 in 60 for early flights due to design trade-offs prioritizing reusability over redundancy. The 1986 Challenger disaster occurred 73 seconds after launch due to failure of an seal in a , exacerbated by cold temperatures that reduced material resilience, leading to structural breach, external tank rupture, and vehicle disintegration; this highlighted vulnerabilities in cryogenic seals and launch weather protocols. The 2003 Columbia accident stemmed from foam insulation debris impacting the orbiter's thermal protection system during ascent, causing wing leading-edge damage that allowed superheated plasma penetration during reentry on February 1, 2003, resulting in and loss of crew; investigations underscored the fragility of reusable materials under debris strike scenarios and inadequate in-orbit capabilities. These incidents prompted extensive redesigns, including SRB joint reinforcements and tile repair kits, but underscored causal links between cost-driven compromises in materials and inspection regimes and elevated failure probabilities. The Soviet Buran orbiter conducted a single uncrewed orbital test flight on November 15, 1988, lasting 206 minutes over two orbits, with fully autonomous reentry and runway landing, achieving success without propulsion or thermal anomalies reported. No manned flights occurred, and the program ended without in-flight failures, though the vehicle was later destroyed in a 2002 hangar collapse unrelated to flight operations. The U.S. X-37B unmanned spaceplane has executed eight missions since 2010, all concluding successfully with cumulative on-orbit time exceeding 4,200 days as of 2025, demonstrating robust autonomous reentry and landing reliability absent public failures. Suborbital X-15 flights totaled 199 powered runs from to 1968, with one fatal incident in 1967 when electrical system failure and pilot during hypersonic reentry caused Ship 3 to break up, killing Michael Adams; other mishaps involved engine cutoffs or issues but yielded a high operational success rate for an experimental platform pushing Mach 6+ envelopes. Common failure modes across spaceplanes center on thermal protection system (TPS) degradation, where ablative or reusable tiles succumb to impact damage, oxidation, or bondline overheating exceeding 1,650°C during reentry, potentially propagating to structural carriers. Propulsion integration challenges include seal extrusion in hybrid rocket or cryogenic engines under high-thrust transients, as seen in solid booster anomalies, and combustion instability risking nozzle erosion or chamber rupture. Hypersonic aerodynamics introduce risks of control surface flutter or aeroelastic divergence, compounded by material fatigue from repeated thermal cycles, which empirical testing reveals as primary causal factors in historical losses over simpler ballistic reentries of capsules. Emerging designs like Sierra Space's Dream Chaser have passed ground-based vibration, shock, and TPS arc-jet tests validating integrity under simulated loads, with no operational failures to date pending orbital debut.

Overhype vs. Practical Viability

Proponents of spaceplanes have frequently promoted them as transformative vehicles capable of achieving routine, airline-like access to orbit, exemplified by the U.S. program's early projections in the 1970s of marginal launch costs around $10-20 million per flight at high operational tempos of 50 flights annually, aiming to drastically undercut expendable rocket expenses of approximately $20,000 per kg to . In reality, the Shuttle's 135 missions from 1981 to 2011 incurred average costs exceeding $450 million per launch, with total program expenditures surpassing $209 billion in 2010 dollars, due to extensive refurbishments, low flight rates averaging four per year, and unforeseen complexities like repairs and overhauls. This gap highlights a pattern of optimistic forecasting that underestimated the causal difficulties of combining aerodynamic reusability with orbital demands. Fundamental technical barriers, rooted in the rocket equation, exacerbate these issues for spaceplanes, which must achieve 7,800 m/s orbital velocity while bearing additional structural mass from wings, , and thermal protection systems—yielding payload fractions as low as 1-2% for designs using conventional chemical propellants, compared to 4-5% for multi-stage rockets. Historical efforts, including the U.S. National Aero-Space Plane (NASP) in the and Britain's HOTOL in the , collapsed amid insurmountable material limits for sustained hypersonic air-breathing propulsion and the mass penalties of carrying oxidizers into vacuum, where wings provide no lift and only drag. Over two spaceplane prototypes since the have similarly faltered, as aerodynamic efficiency aids ascent but fails to offset gravity and drag losses without breakthroughs in engines like , which remain unproven at scale. Economically, spaceplanes' viability is constrained by development costs often exceeding billions without commensurate operational savings, as refurbishment cycles mirror the Shuttle's months-long downtimes rather than rapid turnarounds, rendering them less competitive against reusable vertical rockets like SpaceX's , which have driven costs below $3,000 per kg through simplified staging and propulsive landings devoid of stresses. While niche applications persist—such as the U.S. Air Force's X-37B for autonomous orbital testing since 2010—broad commercial adoption falters, with experts noting that hype often disregards these physics-driven realities in favor of conceptual allure, prioritizing empirical rocket successes over unverified hybrid architectures. True practicality demands advances like or beamed energy to elevate beyond chemical limits, but current data affirm rockets' dominance for scalable, cost-effective access.

Policy and Funding Inefficiencies

The Space Shuttle program, initiated under NASA policy mandates for a reusable orbital vehicle capable of fulfilling diverse military, scientific, and commercial roles, incurred development costs of approximately $10.6 billion from 1972 to 1982, substantially exceeding initial estimates due to design compromises that prioritized payload versatility over streamlined reusability. These policy choices, including requirements for cross-range capabilities to support Department of Defense payloads, increased structural complexity and thermal protection demands, contributing to operational costs averaging $450 million per flight—far above the program's projected $20–50 million per launch. Cost-plus contracting structures, prevalent in government-led efforts, further exacerbated overruns by rewarding contractors for expenses rather than innovations in efficiency, while political distribution of contracts across multiple congressional districts to secure funding approval added administrative layers without proportional performance gains. Subsequent initiatives like the X-33 demonstrator for the spaceplane faced analogous funding pitfalls, with investing $922 million by cancellation in 2001 amid composite fuel tank failures during ground tests and disputes over supplemental appropriations. Policy emphasis on high-risk, unproven technologies without phased risk reduction or competitive fixed-price incentives led to withdrawal of federal support, as declined to absorb further overruns absent guaranteed returns. The U.S. Government Accountability Office highlighted 's inadequate management of such programs, including insufficient contingency planning for technical setbacks and overreliance on optimistic cost models that ignored historical patterns of delay and escalation seen in prior efforts. Internationally, the Soviet Buran program mirrored these inefficiencies, expending an estimated 1.3 billion rubles (equivalent to billions in contemporary dollars) on and a single unmanned flight in , before dissolution of the USSR in halted funding for a system deemed a resource drain amid . State-centralized planning, unmoored from market-driven validation, prioritized prestige over practical utility, employing over 150,000 workers in redundant facilities while yielding no sustained operational capability. In contrast, private sector advancements in reusable rocketry, such as those by under fixed-price contracts, have demonstrated superior cost discipline, underscoring how government policies favoring monopolistic development and intermittent appropriations perpetuate inefficiencies in spaceplane pursuits compared to competitive, outcome-oriented models.

Ongoing Developments and Military Roles

Active Projects in Testing or Production

Several commercial and governmental initiatives are advancing reusable spaceplane technologies, emphasizing orbital cargo delivery, uncrewed experimentation, and suborbital research flights. These projects leverage lifting-body or winged designs integrated with rocket propulsion for horizontal takeoff and landing where feasible, though most rely on vertical launch vehicles for initial ascent. Development focuses on cost reduction through reusability, with testing encompassing drop tests, propulsion firings, and subscale flights, amid challenges like certification delays and integration with launch providers. As of October 2025, key efforts include Sierra Space's Dream Chaser for low-Earth orbit cargo, the European Space Agency's for reusable orbital platforms, and Dawn Aerospace's Aurora for rapid suborbital access.

Sierra Space Dream Chaser

The Dream Chaser, developed by Sierra Space, is a reusable lifting-body spaceplane originally designed for uncrewed cargo resupply missions to the International Space Station under NASA's Commercial Resupply Services program. Measuring approximately 9 meters in length with a 4.5-meter wingspan, it accommodates up to 5,500 kg of pressurized and unpressurized cargo and features seven hybrid rocket engines using hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene fuel and nitrous oxide oxidizer for powered landing precision. In September 2025, NASA modified the contract to designate the inaugural flight as a free-flyer demonstration rather than an ISS docking mission, citing Sierra Space's strategic shift toward defense applications and delays in achieving docking certification. The vehicle has undergone extensive ground testing, including thermal vacuum simulations and propulsion qualifications, with Sierra Space reporting progress toward flight readiness despite repeated delays from initial 2023 targets. The first flight, now scheduled for late 2026, will launch atop a United Launch Alliance Vulcan Centaur rocket from Cape Canaveral, demonstrating autonomous reentry, glide, and runway landing at Vandenberg Space Force Base. This adjustment preserves NASA's oversight into development while allowing Sierra Space to validate core reusability features independently of ISS timelines, potentially enabling future crewed variants or satellite deployment roles.

ESA Space Rider

The European Space Agency's is an uncrewed, reusable spaceplane intended for low- missions lasting up to two months, supporting microgravity experiments, technology demonstrations, and with a capacity of around 800 kg in a pressurized volume equivalent to two minivans. Launched via , it employs a with a service module for propulsion and reentry, enabling autonomous landing on prepared runways in . Entering Phase D in June 2023, the program has progressed to full-scale manufacturing and qualification testing, including successful closed-loop drop tests in July 2025 that validated and recovery systems. Further system-level drop tests are planned for late 2025 to assess integrated performance under realistic conditions, with an inaugural orbital flight targeted no earlier than 2027. Delays from earlier 2025 projections stem from rigorous qualification requirements and integration challenges with the Vega C launcher, underscoring ESA's emphasis on European autonomy in access to space. The project, managed by , prioritizes modularity for diverse payloads, positioning as a platform for in-orbit servicing precursors and debris removal technologies.

Dawn Aerospace Aurora

Dawn Aerospace's Mk-II Aurora is a suborbital, rocket-powered spaceplane designed for rapid-turnaround and deployment, featuring a composite with liquid engines capable of reaching altitudes above 100 km on fully powered flights. The two-seat , which glides to landing after cutoff, achieved supersonic speeds (Mach 1.12 at 82,500 feet) in 2024 and has conducted multiple test flights in 2025, including payload missions for California Polytechnic State University reaching 37,000 feet in September and a suborbital test with Scout Space in August. In May 2025, Dawn began accepting commercial orders for the Aurora, marking it as the first spaceplane available for purchase, with applications in microgravity testing and responsive space operations from bases in . The program's iterative testing approach—encompassing over 100 flights of precursor systems—demonstrates feasibility for daily reusability, though full orbital capability remains a future goal dependent on scaled advancements. Independent validations, such as university payloads, confirm payload integration reliability without compromising vehicle performance.

Sierra Space Dream Chaser

The Dream Chaser is a reusable lifting-body spaceplane developed by Sierra Space for uncrewed cargo resupply missions to the International Space Station (ISS) under NASA's Commercial Resupply Services-2 (CRS-2) program. Selected in 2016, the contract originally committed NASA to a minimum of seven cargo missions using the Dream Chaser vehicle and its Shooting Star cargo module, with a payload capacity of up to 5,000 kg of pressurized cargo and 500 kg unpressurized. The design enables autonomous runway landings on commercial airports, supporting rapid turnaround for up to 15 reuses per vehicle, and is launched atop a United Launch Alliance Vulcan Centaur rocket. Development traces back to 2008 when (now ) acquired SpaceDev and revived the concept as an automated cargo vehicle. The vehicle underwent seven free-flight tests in 2017 using a subscale demonstrator, validating approach and landing capabilities, but full-scale integration has faced repeated delays due to propulsion certification and software validation challenges. As of September 2025, the propulsion system and software remain uncertified by standards. The first full vehicle arrived at in spring 2024 for final preparations. In September 2025, and modified the CRS-2 contract, relieving of the obligation to procure ISS resupply missions and converting the debut flight—now targeted for late 2026—into a free-flyer demonstration without docking to the station. This change reflects 's strategic pivot toward defense and multi-use applications for , including missions, amid ongoing delays from the original 2021 target. To date, has obligated $1.43 billion under the CRS-2 contract for , though no operational ISS flights are guaranteed post-demonstration. A crewed variant remains in early planning stages but is not part of current active development.

ESA Space Rider

The European Space Agency's is a reusable, uncrewed spaceplane designed to provide (LEO) access for scientific experiments, technology demonstrations, and potential in-orbit servicing, with autonomous reentry and runway landing capabilities. Launched atop a , the operates as a robotic approximately the size of two minivans, capable of missions lasting up to two months at altitudes around 500 km, accommodating payloads of up to 600 kg in a pressurized compartment. Its design emphasizes reusability, targeting at least six flights per vehicle following six months of refurbishment between missions, to enable cost-effective routine access without crewed operations. Development of Space Rider originated from earlier concepts like the Intermediate eXperimental Vehicle (IXV), advancing through ESA's Phase C/D in 2023 to initiate full-scale and qualification testing of components such as the reentry module, service module, and control systems. Key contractors include for the reentry and service modules, Avio for integration with Vega-C, and Telespazio/ALTEC for ground segment operations, with contracts valued at around €167 million awarded in December 2020 to support flight model production. The system features a winged reentry vehicle with body flaps for attitude control during hypersonic descent, thermal protection derived from IXV heritage, and a propulsion-agnostic service module for orbit insertion and deorbiting. Autonomous guidance relies on GPS and inertial systems for precision landing on runways like those at Sardinia's Salto di Quirra range. As of mid-2025, qualification milestones included successful body flap testing by the Italian Aerospace Research Centre (CIRA) and closed-loop drop tests of the reentry module from 2.5 km altitudes using helicopter releases to validate deployment and extension. Service module environmental testing concluded in April 2025, confirming structural integrity under and extremes. Despite an initial target for a 2025 , delays in integration and verification have shifted the inaugural uncrewed mission to no earlier than 2027, reflecting challenges in achieving full system autonomy and reusability certification amid Europe's constrained space budgets. Ongoing efforts focus on system-level drop tests by late 2025 to mitigate reentry risks, positioning as a bridge toward independent European orbital return capabilities without reliance on foreign systems.

Dawn Aerospace Aurora

The Dawn Mk-II Aurora is an uncrewed, rocket-powered suborbital spaceplane developed by , a New Zealand-based company focused on rapid reusability for space access. Designed for horizontal takeoff from conventional , it employs a parabolic trajectory to exceed the at altitudes above 100 km, achieving speeds exceeding Mach 3 before gliding to a runway landing, enabling potential multiple flights per day. The vehicle integrates aviation-style operations with rocket performance to support payload delivery, satellite testing, and research missions, prioritizing turnaround times under 24 hours over traditional vertical-launch systems. Measuring 4.8 in with a 4 wingspan, the Aurora has a of approximately 450 kg when fully loaded, an empty weight of 75 kg, and carries up to 10 kg of . derives from a bipropellant using 90% oxidizer and ( variant D60) fuel, enabling vertical climbs post-takeoff and high-altitude operations without air-breathing engines. The airframe incorporates lightweight composites for thermal and structural resilience during hypersonic reentry, with control surfaces for precise gliding recovery. Development progressed through subsonic and supersonic testing phases, culminating in the vehicle's first supersonic flight on November 12, 2024, reaching Mach 1.1 at 82,500 ft (25 km) in an 85-degree climb from the Tāwhaki National Aerospace Centre in . Subsequent 2025 missions included payload demonstrations, such as carrying Scout Space's Morning Sparrow surveillance system to 67,000 ft on July 17 and a Polytechnic State University experiment to 37,000 ft in September, validating rapid deployment for high-altitude testing. As of May 2025, opened preorders for production Aurora vehicles, with the initial unit slated for delivery and within 18 months, followed by a 6-9 month qualification program targeting full suborbital operations. The company projects fleet scalability for frequent missions, contrasting with slower reusable cycles, though full certification remains pending regulatory approvals in and potential U.S. expansions. Challenges include propellant handling and achieving consistent edge-of-space performance, with empirical flight data informing iterative improvements over modeled simulations.

Military and Classified Applications


Military applications of spaceplanes prioritize autonomous reusability to enable frequent, low-cost access to orbit for testing technologies with strategic implications, such as orbital maneuverability and payload recovery under classified conditions. The U.S. Space Force's Boeing X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle exemplifies this approach, functioning as a robotic platform for experiments that advance space domain awareness, satellite servicing, and resilient spacecraft design.
Since its inaugural flight in 2010, the X-37B has executed seven missions, logging more than 4,200 cumulative days in space and over 1.3 billion miles traveled, with payloads returned intact for post-flight analysis. The program's classified nature restricts public disclosure, but declassified elements include demonstrations of radiation-tolerant computing, high-bandwidth inter-satellite laser communications, and novel aerobraking techniques that enable stealthy orbit changes by leveraging atmospheric drag, minimizing detectable propulsion signatures. The eighth mission, launched aboard a SpaceX Falcon Heavy on August 22, 2025, incorporates service modules for additional experiments in quantum sensing and communications, underscoring the vehicle's role in maturing capabilities for contested space environments.
Beyond orbital testing, military interest extends to hypersonic spaceplane concepts for rapid global response, integrating atmospheric hypersonic flight with suborbital trajectories to achieve strike or reconnaissance times under an hour. While programs like the Air Force's AGM-183 Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW) employ boost-glide hypersonics exceeding Mach 5 for precision strikes, these differ from winged spaceplanes by lacking reusability and full atmospheric reentry control. Classified efforts may pursue integrated spaceplane designs for maneuverable, recoverable hypersonic platforms, but verifiable details remain scarce, with emphasis on countering adversary advances in similar technologies through accelerated prototyping and orbital validation via vehicles like the X-37B.

X-37B Strategic Testing

The X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle, developed by Boeing for the U.S. Space Force, serves as a reusable, unmanned platform for validating technologies critical to military space operations, including autonomous maneuvering, extended endurance, and resilient communication systems. Launched initially in April 2010, the program has executed seven missions by March 2025, accumulating over 4,200 days in orbit and demonstrating progressive advancements in orbital sustainability and de-orbit precision. These tests prioritize strategic capabilities such as rapid orbit adjustments and payload experimentation under classified conditions to enhance space domain awareness and operational resilience against adversarial threats. Key strategic testing includes novel maneuvers performed during , initiated on October 10, 2024, to alter the vehicle's orbit using atmospheric drag, thereby testing fuel-efficient de-orbit methods and reentry dynamics without propulsion reliance. This mission, concluding with a landing at on March 7, 2025, followed a record 908-day duration set by , underscoring the vehicle's ability to sustain long-duration operations for persistent surveillance or responsive asset deployment. Declassified experiments across missions have validated radiation-tolerant electronics, propulsion analogs, and Hall-effect thrusters for precise attitude control, directly informing DoD requirements for survivable in contested environments. The eighth mission (OTV-8), launched aboard a on August 22, 2025, as part of USSF-36, focuses on communication demonstrations for high-bandwidth relay independent of vulnerable ground links, alongside quantum inertial sensors to measure atomic rotations for GPS-denied . These tests aim to prototype resilient alternatives to traditional architectures, enabling secure, low-latency in . While many payloads remain classified to protect tactical advantages, the program's emphasis on reusability—evidenced by over 1.3 billion miles traveled—positions the X-37B as a benchmark for scalable military planes capable of iterative experimentation without expendable hardware. Official disclosures highlight its role in maturing technologies for space superiority, though independent analyses note potential extensions to , servicing, or counterspace roles inferred from maneuverability .

Hypersonic and Rapid Response Concepts

Hypersonic spaceplane concepts emphasize vehicles that sustain Mach 5+ speeds during ascent or reentry to enable rapid military responses, such as deploying satellites or conducting prompt global strikes without relying on vertically launched . These designs integrate air-breathing like scramjets with rocket stages for efficient transition to orbital velocities, aiming for reusability and turnaround times measured in days rather than months. DARPA's Experimental Spaceplane (XSP) program, successor to XS-1, targets development of a reusable hypersonic platform to ferry 5,000-pound class payloads to at costs under $1,000 per pound, with objectives including 10 flights within 10 days to demonstrate operational tempo for time-sensitive missions. The initiative addresses gaps in rapid reconstitution of space assets, where traditional launch systems lag behind emerging threats from adversaries' anti-satellite capabilities. The U.S. Air Force's Next Generation Responsive Strike (NGRS) effort builds on prior programs like Mayhem, pursuing an unmanned hypersonic aircraft for integrated strike and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) roles, with prototype flight testing eyed by 2030 to support global reach within hours. This concept leverages sustained hypersonic cruise for maneuverability, potentially extending to suborbital profiles that enhance responsiveness over ballistic missiles. Such systems face engineering hurdles, including materials tolerant of extreme aerothermal loads and integrated for seamless air-to-space transition, as evidenced by ongoing investments in high-Mach turbines and air-breathing engines. Despite progress in ground and wind-tunnel testing, no operational hypersonic spaceplane has achieved routine flight, underscoring persistent technical risks in scaling concepts to utility.

Future Prospects and Unflown Concepts

Near-Term Goals and Barriers

Near-term objectives for spaceplane development center on demonstrating reliable orbital access and reusability through uncrewed missions, with Sierra Space's Dream Chaser targeting a free-flyer demonstration launch no earlier than late 2026 atop a United Launch Alliance Vulcan Centaur rocket. This initial flight aims to validate autonomous reentry, runway landing, and post-flight inspection processes, paving the way for subsequent cargo resupply missions to the International Space Station under NASA's Commercial Resupply Services contract. Similarly, the European Space Agency's Space Rider seeks its maiden orbital test flight around 2026-2027 on a Vega-C launcher, focusing on microgravity experimentation, technology validation, and controlled reentry from low Earth orbit to establish Europe-independent reusable access to space. These efforts prioritize achieving at least five reuses per vehicle with turnaround times under six months to demonstrate economic viability for frequent LEO operations. Key barriers include persistent technical challenges in thermal protection systems durable for multiple hypersonic reentries, where ablative materials and ceramic tiles must withstand peak temperatures exceeding 1,600°C while maintaining structural integrity for rapid refurbishment. Propulsion integration for vertical launches remains reliant on expendable boosters, limiting full horizontal takeoff advantages and complicating cost reductions compared to maturing reusable rockets like SpaceX's , which achieve launch costs below $3,000 per kilogram to orbit. Development delays, as evidenced by Dream Chaser's postponement from 2021 targets due to integration issues with launch vehicles and certification hurdles, underscore risks from dependencies and rigorous FAA human-rating processes for eventual crewed variants. Economic and regulatory obstacles further impede progress, with high upfront R&D investments—exceeding $1 billion for programs like Space Rider—facing uncertain returns amid competition from vertical-launch alternatives that have already lowered barriers to space commerce. Insurance and liability requirements for reusable vehicles amplify financial risks, while the absence of standardized reuse criteria prolongs qualification testing and inflates operational costs. Overcoming these demands innovations in lightweight composites and automated health monitoring to enable turnaround times rivaling aircraft, but systemic delays in funding and international collaboration continue to hinder timelines.

Abandoned or Theoretical Designs

The U.S. National Aero-Space Plane (NASP) program, initiated in under joint Department of Defense and oversight, aimed to develop the X-30 as a (SSTO) hypersonic vehicle capable of Mach 25 speeds using propulsion integrated with rocket engines. The design required revolutionary lightweight composites and systems to withstand reentry heats exceeding 2,000°C, but ground tests from to 1993 revealed persistent issues with material integrity and structural mass, preventing the vehicle from achieving the necessary . Canceled in 1994 after over $1 billion in expenditures without producing flight hardware, the program highlighted fundamental engineering barriers to air-breathing SSTO feasibility under contemporary technology constraints. Britain's HOTOL (Horizontal Take-Off and Landing) concept, developed by from 1982, proposed an SSTO spaceplane powered by the RB545 precooled air-breathing for runway launches and unassisted returns. The design promised payload capacities of 7-10 tonnes to with full reusability, but subscale tests exposed challenges in engine precooling efficiency and overall vehicle stability during hypersonic transitions. Abandoned in 1989 following the government's refusal to provide development —estimated at £250 million—due to perceived high technical risks and insufficient private investment, the project spurred the creation of Limited to refine the engine technology for successor concepts. The Sänger II, a West German two-stage-to-orbit proposal from Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm in the mid-1980s, envisioned a reusable hypersonic booster stage with turboramjet and engines carrying a rocket-propelled orbiter to orbit, enabling 15-tonne payloads and rapid turnaround. Drawing from Eugen Sänger's 1930s antipodal bomber theories, which calculated skip-glide trajectories for suborbital hops using launches, the modern iteration underwent aerodynamic wind-tunnel validation but stalled amid European prioritization of the Hermes shuttle and Ariane expendables, lacking committed multinational funding by the early 1990s. Soviet theoretical designs, such as the 1960s-1970s Spiral system's MiG-105-11 analog, explored winged orbital with air-launched stages for , achieving subscale atmospheric tests up to Mach 7 but deeming full orbital implementation impractical against advancing U.S. Shuttle capabilities. Abandoned by 1976 in favor of the Energiya-Buran stack, these efforts underscored propulsion integration difficulties for reusable hypersonic platforms.

Competition with Reusable Rocket Alternatives

Reusable rockets, exemplified by SpaceX's , have achieved payload delivery costs to (LEO) of approximately $2,720 per kg as of 2024, enabling over 100 launches annually with booster reuse rates exceeding 30 flights per unit. This contrasts sharply with historical spaceplane operations, such as the , which incurred per-launch costs of around $1.6 billion despite partial reusability, yielding effective rates over $50,000 per kg when accounting for fixed infrastructure and refurbishment expenses. Emerging fully reusable systems like target sub-$100 per kg through propulsive vertical landings and minimal refurbishment, with projected turnaround times of days rather than months, facilitated by construction enduring reentry without extensive thermal protection overhauls. Spaceplane designs, by contrast, impose structural penalties from aerodynamic surfaces and hybrid propulsion, reducing payload fractions; for instance, Sierra Space's offers 5,000 kg pressurized cargo capacity to LEO, comparable to or below SpaceX's Cargo Dragon (~3,000 kg pressurized plus unpressurized options) but atop costlier launches without proven rapid reuse cycles. Theoretical advantages of spaceplanes, such as landings enabling airport-like operations and potential for suborbital hops, remain unproven at scale due to reentry-induced fatigue on wings and tiles, historically demanding months-long inspections as seen in Shuttle operations. Vertical architectures sidestep these by leveraging simpler geometries for heat dissipation and , achieving 70-80% cost reductions over expendables without the added complexity of horizontal recovery. Concepts like ' Skylon demand hundreds of reuses to amortize development, yet face for underperforming in compared to pure cycles. In cargo and crew markets, reusable rockets dominate due to scalability and reliability; Falcon 9's flight rate surpasses the Shuttle's by 30-fold at 1/100th the , underscoring causal factors like streamlined and iterative testing over spaceplanes' engineering demands. Spaceplanes may niche in responsive military insertions or precise deorbiting, but broad economic viability hinges on demonstrating sub-week turnarounds without Shuttle-era refurb burdens, a threshold unmet amid rockets' maturing ecosystem.

References

  1. https://www.americaspace.com/2013/06/10/a-brief-history-of-spaceplanes/
  2. https://www.yahoo.com/tech/exactly-space-plane-200016471.html
  3. https://www.yourdictionary.com/spaceplane
  4. https://www.nasa.gov/reference/the-space-shuttle/
  5. https://www.nasa.gov/specials/60counting/spaceflight.html
  6. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/space-plane
  7. https://www.nanalyze.com/2018/10/space-planes-future/
  8. https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/BGH/hihyper.html
  9. https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/III.4.1.7_Returning_from_Space.pdf
  10. http://www.braeunig.us/space/propuls.htm
  11. https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/bgp.html
  12. https://www.nasa.gov/history/sts1/pages/scotc.html
  13. https://builtin.com/articles/space-plane
  14. https://www.dlr.de/en/research-and-transfer/featured-topics/reusable-space-transportation/horizontal-versus-vertical-landing
  15. https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4791/1
  16. https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Human_and_Robotic_Exploration/Space_Shuttle/Shuttle_technical_facts
  17. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20120002911/downloads/20120002911.pdf
  18. https://physicsworld.com/a/air-breathing-rocket-engines-the-future-of-space-flight/
  19. https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/2.5352
  20. https://www.ingenia.org.uk/articles/air-breathing-rocket-engine/
  21. https://www.wired.com/story/the-rocket-motor-of-the-future-breathes-air-like-a-jet-engine/
  22. https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=2542
  23. https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/695726main_ComingHome-ebook.pdf
  24. https://www.drewexmachina.com/2019/03/10/the-first-reusable-spacecraft-the-origins-first-test-flights-of-the-x-15/
  25. https://www.drewexmachina.com/2016/04/10/the-future-that-never-came-the-x-20-dyna-soar-aerospace-plane/
  26. http://www.astronautix.com/d/dynasoar.html
  27. http://www.astronautix.com/s/spaceplane.html
  28. https://interestingengineering.com/science/reusable-spaceplanes-through-the-decades
  29. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA303832.pdf
  30. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/dyna-soar-space-plane-developed
  31. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/mig-105-spiral-the-little-known-soviet-starfighter
  32. https://planehistoria.com/mig-105/
  33. https://www.boeing.com/defense/autonomous-systems/x37b
  34. https://www.friendsofnasa.org/2025/07/anatomy-of-nasa-space-shuttle-1981-2011.html
  35. https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Human_and_Robotic_Exploration/Space_Shuttle/Space_Shuttle_timeline
  36. https://www.space.com/29159-buran-soviet-shuttle.html
  37. https://www.russianspaceweb.com/buran.html
  38. https://www.spaceforce.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/4112259/x-37b-orbital-test-vehicle-concludes-seventh-successful-mission/
  39. https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2025-08-22-Boeing-Built-X-37B-Spaceplane-Launches%2C-Beginning-Eighth-Mission
  40. https://www.nasa.gov/history/space-shuttle-history-resources/
  41. https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2011.07.05-shuttle-era-facts.pdf
  42. https://www3.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/pdf/566250main_SHUTTLE%2520ERA%2520FACTS_040412.pdf
  43. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19760024180/downloads/19760024180.pdf
  44. https://sma.nasa.gov/SignificantIncidents/assets/space-shuttle-missions-summary.pdf
  45. https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/wings-ch3a-pgs53-73.pdf
  46. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20190002249/downloads/20190002249.pdf
  47. https://nypost.com/2023/12/23/lifestyle/why-the-space-shuttle-was-the-wrong-craft-at-the-wrong-time/
  48. http://www.astronautix.com/b/buran.html
  49. https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/soviet-buran-shuttle-one-flight-long-history
  50. https://www.historynet.com/surprising-story-of-the-forgotten-soviet-space-shuttle/
  51. https://www.spaceflighthistories.com/post/soviet-buran-shuttle
  52. https://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/x-37b.htm
  53. https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/114795/x-37b-orbital-test-vehicle-lands-at-vandenberg-afb/
  54. https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1999734/x-37b-breaks-record-lands-after-780-days-in-orbit/
  55. https://investors.boeing.com/investors/news/press-release-details/2025/Boeing-Built-X-37B-Spaceplane-Launches-Beginning-Eighth-Mission/default.aspx
  56. https://www.spaceforce.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3932137/x-37b-begins-novel-space-maneuver/
  57. https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2312351/x-37b-spaceplane-wins-collier-trophy-for-advancing-the-boundaries-of-flight-and/
  58. https://www.nasa.gov/reference/x-15/
  59. https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/north-american-x-15/nasm_A19690360000
  60. https://www.nasa.gov/history/SP-4219/Chapter6.html
  61. https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/171367main_fs-011-dfrc.pdf
  62. https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/lifting-body-m2-f3/nasm_A19751576000
  63. http://www.astronautix.com/m/mig105-11.html
  64. https://scaled.com/portfolio/spaceshipone/
  65. https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/spaceshipone/nasm_A20050459000
  66. https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/sp-4303.pdf
  67. https://www.nasa.gov/aeronautics/aircraft/lifting-bodies/
  68. https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/sp-4220.pdf
  69. https://www.facebook.com/groups/828178678983076/posts/1143387784128829/
  70. http://www.astronautix.com/r/russianrocketplanes.html
  71. https://www.globalsecurity.org/space/world/china/shenlong.htm
  72. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20170000606/downloads/20170000606.pdf
  73. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20160013370/downloads/20160013370.pdf
  74. https://spp.fas.org/eprint/rampino.htm
  75. https://www.nasa.gov/history/sts1/pages/scota.html
  76. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19820015616/downloads/19820015616.pdf
  77. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20130012096/downloads/20130012096.pdf
  78. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19780011153/downloads/19780011153.pdf
  79. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1000936121004167
  80. https://www.space.com/12166-space-shuttle-program-cost-promises-209-billion.html
  81. https://www.nature.com/articles/472038d
  82. https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/12/spacex-has-set-all-kinds-of-records-with-its-falcon-9-rocket-this-year/
  83. https://www.quora.com/Did-the-entire-Buran-space-shuttle-program-really-cost-only-72-million-How
  84. https://www.rdworldonline.com/u-s-space-force-releases-first-public-orbital-photo-of-the-x-37b-spaceplane/
  85. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/am/pii/S0002934320305210
  86. https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2022-05/HSF-Safety-Record_6%2520May%25202022.pdf
  87. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20140000149/downloads/20140000149.pdf
  88. https://dewesoft.com/blog/space-thermal-protection-system-fitting-control
  89. https://interestingengineering.com/space/sierra-spaces-dream-chaser-clears-tests
  90. https://nss.org/the-space-shuttle-decision-chapter-6/
  91. https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/beginners-guide-to-aeronautics/ideal-rocket-equation/
  92. https://www.planetary.org/space-policy/sts-program-development-cost
  93. https://s3vi.ndc.nasa.gov/ssri-kb/static/resources/Cost-Reduction-paper.pdf
  94. https://thehighfrontier.blog/2015/10/06/the-x-33-nothing-ventured-nothing-gained/
  95. https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2006/01/x-33venturestar-what-really-happened/
  96. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-01-826t
  97. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/white-elephant-3322957/
  98. https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2025/05/nasa-and-other-federal-budget-overruns.html
  99. https://www.sierraspace.com/press-releases/dream-chaser-advances-toward-first-flight-eyes-multi-use-applications/
  100. https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Space_Transportation/Space_Rider
  101. https://www.dawnaerospace.com/spaceplane
  102. https://www.nasa.gov/missions/station/nasa-sierra-space-modify-commercial-resupply-services-contract/
  103. https://spaceflightnow.com/2025/09/26/sierra-spaces-dream-chaser-debut-mission-delayed-again-no-longer-docking-to-station/
  104. https://spacenews.com/nasa-modifies-dream-chaser-iss-cargo-contract-as-sierra-space-shifts-to-defense-work/
  105. https://aviationweek.com/space/commercial-space/spaceops-dream-chaser-reality-check
  106. https://phys.org/news/2025-10-sierra-space-chaser-nasa-upended.html
  107. https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Space_Transportation/Space_Rider/Closing_the_loop_new_Space_Rider_drop_test
  108. https://www.eoportal.org/satellite-missions/space-rider
  109. https://www.thalesaleniaspace.com/en/news/thales-alenia-space-successfully-completes-esa-space-riders-closed-loop-drop-test-essential
  110. https://europeanspaceflight.com/esa-concludes-key-testing-phase-for-space-rider-service-module/
  111. https://www.telespazio.com/en/business/space-programmes/space-rider
  112. https://www.dawnaerospace.com/latest-news/suborbital-sda-test-flight
  113. https://www.dawnaerospace.com/latest-news/calpoly
  114. https://mustangnews.net/dawn-aerospace-aurora-payload/
  115. https://www.dawnaerospace.com/latest-news/product-release-aurora-spaceplane
  116. https://www.asdnews.com/news/defense/2025/09/10/california-polytechnic-state-university-makes-history-first-us-research-payload-flies-dawn-aerospaces-reusable-aurora-spaceplane
  117. https://www.sierraspace.com/dream-chaser-spaceplane/uncrewed-cargo-spacecraft/
  118. https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/09/sierras-dream-chaser-is-starting-to-resemble-a-nightmare/
  119. https://www.orlandosentinel.com/2025/09/30/sierra-space-dream-chasers-nasa-deal-upended-1st-flight-pushed-to-late-2026/
  120. https://www.fromspacewithlove.com/space-rider/
  121. https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Space_Transportation/Space_Rider_overview
  122. https://phys.org/news/2025-07-space-rider-reentry-module-km.html
  123. https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2023/08/space-rider-update/
  124. https://www.airport-technology.com/projects/dawn-mk-ii-aurora-spaceplane/
  125. https://www.dawnaerospace.com/latest-news/dawn-mk-ii-aurora-unveil
  126. https://spacenews.com/dawn-aerospace-begins-sales-of-aurora-suborbital-spaceplane/
  127. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e82736a5e6bb91e8af13ea7/t/642ca7372f7f0742c4b01201/1719195925245/DA%2BMk-II%2BFlyer%2B20230401.pdf
  128. https://newatlas.com/aircraft/rocket-plane-supersonic-flight-dawn-aerospace/
  129. https://www.compositesworld.com/news/scout-space-dawn-aerospace-complete-suborbital-spaceplane-surveillance-test-flight
  130. https://spacenews.com/u-s-military-spaceplane-completes-7th-mission-including-advanced-orbital-maneuvers/
  131. https://www.torch.aetc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3945184/x-37b-to-use-aerobraking-to-change-orbit-safely-dispose-of-components/
  132. https://www.defensenews.com/space/2025/08/22/space-force-launches-x-37b-carrying-quantum-and-comms-experiments/
  133. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/report/the-imperative-for-hypersonic-strike-weapons/
  134. https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/capabilities/hypersonics.html
  135. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45811
  136. https://defensescoop.com/2024/11/22/dod-grady-hypersonics-2-0-weapons-development-operational-concepts/
  137. https://www.japcc.org/articles/hypersonic-weapons/
  138. https://www.dvidshub.net/feature/X37BOTV
  139. https://www.airandspaceforces.com/weapons/x-37b/
  140. https://www.spaceforce.mil/news/article-display/article/3932137/x-37b-begins-novel-space-maneuver/
  141. https://www.livescience.com/spaceplane-lands-after-908-days-orbit
  142. https://www.ssc.spaceforce.mil/Newsroom/Article-Display/Article/4283438/us-space-force-successfully-launches-x-37b-orbital-test-vehicle
  143. https://defensescoop.com/2025/07/28/x37b-space-plane-boeing-laser-communications-quantum-sensor-otv-8/
  144. https://payloadspace.com/x-37b-gearing-up-for-eighth-mission-to-orbit/
  145. https://www.darpa.mil/research/programs/experimental-space-plane
  146. https://www.darpa.mil/research/programs/hypersonic-air-breathing-weapon-concept
  147. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA356200
  148. https://www.twz.com/air/new-hypersonic-strike-recon-aircraft-effort-eyeing-prototype-development-by-2030
  149. https://aviationweek.com/defense/aircraft-propulsion/high-mach-turbine-moves-forward-darpa-hypersonic-plane
  150. https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/space-rider.htm
  151. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19860003881
  152. https://www.intereconomics.eu/contents/year/2025/number/2/article/the-missing-rocket-an-economic-and-engineering-analysis-of-the-reusability-dilemma-in-the-european-space-sector.html
  153. https://aerospaceamerica.aiaa.org/dream-chasers-long-awaited-first-flight-might-be-delayed-again/
  154. https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/news-wires-white-papers-and-books/barriers-space-commerce
  155. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405896316315555
  156. https://thehighfrontier.blog/2016/01/02/reagans-impossible-dream-the-x-30-national-aerospace-plane/
  157. https://www.aerospaceguide.net/x-30.html
  158. https://www.nature.com/articles/334371a0.pdf
  159. https://blog.c3l-security.com/2018/10/personal-interest-unbuilt-british-space.html
  160. http://www.astronautix.com/s/saenger.html
  161. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=61147.0
  162. https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/65806/what-is-spacex-doing-differently-with-their-falcon-9-so-that-it-doesnt-cost-as
  163. https://www.ainvest.com/news/spacex-30th-falcon-9-reuse-tipping-point-space-commercialization-2508/
  164. https://spaceinsider.tech/2023/08/16/how-much-does-it-cost-to-launch-a-rocket/
  165. https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/1h5031c/falcon_9_reaches_a_flight_rate_30_times_higher/
  166. https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2025/08/spacex-launch-will-be-five-times-lower-cost-for-end-of-2025.html
  167. https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/69872/what-makes-spacexs-starship-more-promising-in-terms-of-rapid-reusability-than-s
  168. https://www.quora.com/Would-the-Dream-Chaser-be-a-better-successor-to-the-Space-Shuttle-than-Soyuz-TMA-Orion-Dragon-2-Shenzhou-or-Blue-Origin%25E2%2580%2599s-New-Glenn
  169. https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-Starships-reusability-such-a-game-changer-in-space-travel-and-how-does-it-compare-to-previous-technologies-like-the-Space-Shuttle
  170. https://nstxl.org/reducing-the-cost-of-space-travel-with-reusable-launch-vehicles/
  171. https://theconversation.com/spaceplanes-vs-reusable-rockets-which-will-win-51938
  172. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43062.0
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.