Martin Marietta SSTO ( Space Shuttle Competitor)

F

flyingmystery

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
13 June 2024
Messages
3
Reaction score
2
I am doing research regarding Martin Marietta Single stage to Orbit vehicle. I have not found much information online and was wondering if anyone had any information.
All I have found is the NASA Contractor report.
Thank you


Martin Marietta SSTO.jpg
 
flyingmystery said:
I am doing research regarding Martin Marietta Single stage to Orbit vehicle. I have not found much information online and was wondering if anyone had any information.
All I have found is the NASA Contractor report.
Click to expand...

You may need to look in Dennis Jenkins' big 3-volume shuttle history. I'll try to pull my copy off the shelf and check.
 
In Gatland and Bono's Frontiers of space, (The Pocket Encyclopaedia of Spaceflight in Colour) (1969) this SSTO is noted as being a Tri-propellant design designed by or inspired by some person named Salked. The idea seems to have been that denser kerosene would be burned early in the launch to take advantage of that fuels greater density then at higher altitudes/ in space, the system would switch to H2 with LOX being the oxidizer in both cases. There is a plumbing diagram in the color plates in the book. It seems to have two very large engines and several smaller diameter ones. It's a very brief mention, basically an aside, and that's all I know about it, but this design intrigued me as a kid because it seemed to be something very close to a sci-fi space ship. I have no idea if it would have worked. Given the issues the much more conservative space shuttle had, and the fact that, NASA, by the '70 couldn't really do iterative testing (for political reasons), I kind of doubt it.
 
“In June 1975, NASA's Langley Research Center began a 12-month study to determine what RLV technologies might be available in the 1990s and which ones would be the most economical. Boeing and Martin Marietta received contracts to study fully reusable VTHL & HTHL SSTO concepts capable of launching the same type of manned spaceflight-related "priority payloads" (18.3 x 4.5m envelope, 29,484kg mass) as the Space Shuttle by 1995. Single-stage-to-orbit was chosen because of the potential for simplied operations & lower costs relative to TSTOs, e.g. because recovering a flyback TSTO booster appeared to be quite difficult without cruise/landing jet engines. Other significant assumptions included a technology readiness date of 1986 and the use of 4500psia high-pressure SSME-derived engines; Langley initially regarded tripropellant propulsion as too risky. Both linear aerospike as well as conventional two position bell-nozzle engines were however included. Compact, high pressure engines were regarded as essential because the RLV base area only increases by the square as the weight increases by the cube. The estimated cost to build four Langley SSTOs and fly 1710 missions by the year 2009 was only $8 billion [1976 rates] and the launch cost could be as little as $20 per pound. Langley felt no major breakthroughs were required, but only a number of subtle improvements in design, design techniques and technology. Although the SSTO payload capability for a given gross liftoff weight is less than for a TSTO, the configuration offers many compelling advantages (e.g. no downrange staging constraints, incremental airplane type testing becomes feasible) but also requires technology advances (mainly propulsion & structural mass). The overall conclusion was that single-stage-to-orbit appeared to be clearly feasible in the 1990s due to significant improvements occurring in applicable technologies.”

“Martin Marietta focused on VTHL SSTOs; the company initial design from September 1975 had a dry weight of 203,000kg and gross liftoff mass of 1,925,000kg. This represented a 25% weight reduction in vehicle structures from the existing Shuttle, thanks to new materials that likely would be developed in the 1980s and '90s. Uprated SSMEs with multi-position nozzles would be used to optimize performance. The vehicle also utilized an advanced external insulation thermal protection system derived from the existing Shuttle Orbiter TPS, and separate load-carrying propellant tanks with stand-off TPS carrier panels. NASA/Langley predicted the gross liftoff mass of a 29.5-tonne payload capability VTHL SSTO could be reduced from 4000t to 1633t (171t dry) by 1995 thanks to expected improvements such as two-position engine nozzles & 25% lighter structures.”

“The "normal technology growth" Martin Marietta VTHL SSTO (200t/1920t mass) would have cost $6 billion [1976] to develop and the cost per flight would be $2.6M. A similar "accelerated technology" tripropellant concept could be made much smaller (83t/1000t) and the cost would be less as well ($5.3B development + $1.2M/flight).”
  • "Looking Beyond the Space Shuttle" -- Dooling, SPACEFLIGHT 1976/p.68 & p.367
  • "Advanced Launch Vehicle Systems and Technology" -- Bell, SPACEFLIGHT 1978/p.135
  • "Advanced Technology and Future Earth-Orbit Transportation Systems" -- Henry & Eldred, Space Manufacturing Facilities II (Proceedings of the Third Princeton/AIAA Conference, May 9-12 1977) p.43
  • “Space Transportation Systems 1980-2000" -- Salkeld,Patterson & Grey, AIAA Aerospace Assessment 1978/Vol.1
 
NTRS has a public 200-page document on it. Lots of drawings, structural, propulsion system, etc.

“TECHNOLOGY REQUIREMENTS FOR ADVANCED EARTH-ORBITAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
Final Report
Rudolf C. Haefli, Ernest G. Littler, John B. Hurley, and Marh G. Winter
Prepared by
MARTIN MARIETTA CORPORATION Denver, Colo. 80201
for Langley Research Center
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION * WASHINGTON, D. C.
OCTOBER 1977”

 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom