NEW MOON;  An open letter to the 2016 campaign leaders

Our space program was born to meet the challenges of the cold war, and these times are no less demanding.  When John Kennedy launched us towards the Moon landings we needed to be strong in a world of uncertainty.  Over time we established leadership in space, but we also learned the cost of big space programs.  The big Saturn rockets were abandoned to develop more affordable systems.

The space shuttles promised more that they could deliver in cost savings.  They also delivered some lessons about safety that provoked some retreat back to older designs.  Unfortunately the “new” Space Launch System has retreated back into very expensive ideas.  Consider the cost of one SLS launch vehicle compared to one Navy warship:


We stopped going to the moon because we couldn’t afford to continue those missions.  This new program didn’t even have a mission when it was conceived.  It is actually a Republican jobs program; a pork barrel mission.  Now they fantasize about going back to the Moon or even to Mars.  The Moon may actually offer some real value, but Mars is a pointless mission when our economy needs a major overhaul.  Instead we are about to be keelhauled into a massive debt.

We have private ventures ready and willing to provide vastly cheaper launch services, and even to develop the resources of space.  We can deliver the same mass to orbit with two smaller vehicles for less than one monster rocket.  Spacex, Blue Origin, and others are already developing economical systems that have already been flown.  Deep space missions and heavy launch do not require a massive deficit.  Even leaders at NASA dislike what they are being forced to do with the SLS.

More importantly we have many smaller missions being flown on Russian boosters and rocket engines.  We cannot now launch defense missions on American rockets without paying the Russians…except for Spacex boosters.  We are finally paying American firms to develop new rocket engines.  But we still pay the Russians to carry American astronauts on the same old booster that launched the Sputnik in 1957.  Only commercial launch providers can fix this problem because NASA has no small launchers except these new commercial providers.

Just compare these proposed heavy lifters cost to cargo ratio.  The Falcon Heavy is due to fly this year, and the SLS…who knows when?


What do commercial launchers offer to reduce costs?  Spacex has already landed and re-fired a booster.  Blue Origin has flown and re-flown the same booster.  This means a difference between throwing away a 60 million dollar booster or just refurbishing it for under one million dollars.  Potentially 59 million dollars less per launch in savings, even if you save only one stage.  Remember the Space Launch System is all expendable, except possibly the crew capsule.  We can use multiple small launchers at far greater savings than any expendable system.

The Verge:  SpaceX’s reusable rockets will make space cheaper — but how much? Dec 24, 2015

This means that space can become a profitable business instead of a deficit maker.  There are already a number of ventures protecting the environment and reaching for mineral wealth in space.  The Air Force contracts launch services, couldn’t NASA do the same?  They don’t need to be in the launch vehicle business.  Private companies with competitive bidding do a better job of delivering vehicle designs.  The best part is that jobs in space programs must stay in the United States because of International Traffic in Arms Regulations .   Space is the one industry that can be a jobs program for American workers only.

Private companies have offered solutions to space launch and even for clean energy in the past.  Rockwell International proposed a huge project that would at least deliver solar energy from space.  Elements of that old concept are still valuable to consider for more economical systems today.  The idea of flying vehicles from a spaceport runway is still being considered today.  With new materials, propulsion, and methods these ideas may yet be built and flown.  Wings to Space: the Wright Stuff is a blog that publishes concepts from several groups seeking horizontal launch technologies.  If saving one stage delivers big savings, what could be gained by making the whole vehicle reusable?  Only private ventures are considering this, but they need the money being wasted on the “Senate Launch System”.

At this time only two spacecraft have gone to orbit, been refurbished, and returned to orbit.  The only reusable orbiters were the shuttle and the Air Force X-37.  Lessons from the shuttle helped with the X-37, which has orbited for as long as two years.  That is a proven system now.  As such it is reasonable to consider winged vehicles potentially superior for comfort, safety, and demonstrated long life.  We welcome every step that proves that economy is possible in space operations.  We also welcome the work being done by new groups for even greater economy and safety.

Space is not just a science fiction fantasy, it is a viable marketplace if we leave the mistakes of the past behind.  We have already seen reusable vehicles flown and re-flown for years now.  When we had surplus missiles to throw away that made sense.  But building a huge new throw away rocket makes nothing more than a bonfire of cash.  We urge the current campaign leaders to take a leadership role in the only growth segment in America’s economy.  Yes, ask these companies to pay taxes, but encourage them to give us a future in the process.

David Luther,  Exodus Aerospace


















BLAST FROM THE PAST; a few good ideas may return to the light of day…

Rockwell International Star-Raker proposal

King of the Wings into space concepts.
by Kelly Starks


Figure 1: Rockwell’s Star-Raker in comparison with a Boeing 747

If you’re going to talk about low cost access to space, and winged Horizontal Takeoff-Horizontal Landing (HTHL), Single-Stage to Orbit (SSTO) vehicles, you need to talk about Rockwell’s Star-Raker, proposed to the Department of Energy (DOE) in the late 1970’s, in response to the DOE study of the Space Solar-Powered Satellite (SSPS) concept. Star-Raker offered a massive change in capacity and price from what had been considered, and turned the whole SSPS concept on its ear – which infuriated some of the advocacy groups for the concept.



Figure 2: Space Solar-Powered Satellites (SSPS)

SSPS was a very popular concept among space advocacy groups in the 1970’s, involving building huge solar collector farms in orbit. Aside from the perceived benefits of solar power arrays placed in orbit (no weather or day/night cycles, and more intense sunlight means a daily average of roughly twenty times as much power gathered per collector) and the huge interest in a non-oil-based power supply during the oil crisis era (when people were being assured by President Jimmy Carter that all oil and gas supplies in the world would be exhausted by the 1990’s), the vast construction effort to build them was seen by space advocates (most especially the L-5 Society) as “the key” to founding major industrial colonies in space. Since the calculated margin cost per pound to orbit with Shuttles (the assumed lowest possible launch technology possible in the day) was roughly $200+ (in ‘70’s dollars), and the target 300 solar power platforms would weigh 10,000 tons each, it would be utterly unaffordable to build these platforms from three million tons of components shipped up to orbit, for $1.2 trillion in 70’s dollars. So space advocates assumed you’d need to colonize space and build with resources in space. However, they had completely misjudged the nature of launch costs.

The specific SSPS proposals varied, but a common assumption was a fleet of three hundred, 10,000-ton SSPS platforms in orbit. This three million ton lift requirement was clearly vastly beyond the capability of any launch system available or in development. It would, for example, require 100,000 flights of the space shuttle which, given the existing capacities of the launch pads and best case assumptions of the shuttles, could take centuries to do. Ignoring that, the space shuttles’ margin cost of roughly $200+ per pound to orbit would mean over $1.2 trillion in launch costs in late 1970’s dollars to lift everything. This was clearly infeasible. (Note: the Space Colonization efforts required launch rates and capacities well beyond the capacity of the shuttle systems as well.)

We need a bigger launch capacity

Between 1978 and 1986, the U.S. Congress authorized the Department of Energy (DoE) and NASA to jointly investigate the SSPS concept. All of the resulting designs by these organizations and advocates required masses to orbit far beyond the capacity of any launcher systems that were operational or in development; but the requirements weren’t beyond the capacity of launcher systems that could be developed, or were being researched. Also, launch costs are largely driven by economies of scale, or rather the total lack of them, in launch markets then, and now. The very scale of tonnage the SSPS programs would need to launch into orbit — estimates were at least a thousand tons per day, half the total in human history to date, and roughly that of the entire 30 year shuttle program — would unavoidably drive costs far down. So, clearly, heavy or super heavy lift capacity craft capable of extremely high flight rates were needed.

Launch vehicle manufacturers were invited to submit suitable design concepts. Three of the baseline concepts used for the SSPS studies were:

  • Boeing’s “Reusable Aerodynamic Space Vehicle” (RASV), an all-rocket HTHL SSTO winged craft launched at high speed from a magnetic levitation trackway, boosted to orbit with rockets fueled solely from internal fuel tanks, and glided back to a runway like a shuttle orbiter.
  • Boeing’s rocket-powered VTVL TSTO (400 ton cargo capacity) configuration
  • Rockwell International’s “Star-Raker” Turbo-ramjet/rocket HTHL SSTO (100 ton cargo capacity).


Figure 3:  North American Rockwell Star-Raker in Orbit

The Rockwell Star-Raker was given some preference by the Department of Energy since it seemed better suited for high flight rates. Offering 100 tons of cargo per flight in a 20 x 20 x 141.5 ft cargo bay, a fleet of 22 Star-Rakers was considered quite capable of lifting the target 1,600 tons per day,  with a projected cost to orbit in 1978 dollars of $22-$33 per kilogram, or $10-$15 per pound – ($36 to $55 a pound in 2014 dollars).

Rockwell had been researching the Star-Raker design with Marshall Space Flight Center since the 1960’s, and by the late 1970’s were confident that new materials technologies, and a light pressure-stiffened wet-wing design (similar to the pressure-stiffened Atlas booster used to carry Mercury flights into orbit), would make HTHL SSTO possible. The lower wing loading of the design would make surface temperatures during re-entry several hundred degrees lower than the Space Shuttle. The turbo-ramjet engines would allow the Star-Raker to carry double the payload than Boeing’s all-rocket-based horizontal take off Reusable Aerodynamic Space Vehicle concept (Figure 4), with the same gross liftoff mass for both craft, although the Star-Raker’s dry mass would be 45% higher than the Boeing design and the vehicle would be exposed to a more severe aerodynamic heating environment.


Figure 4: Boeing’s Reusable Aerodynamic Space Vehicle (RASV)

The Star-Raker team was not only confident they could build it, but expected each craft could sustain a rate of up to three flights per day. With this, a reasonably sized fleet could lift the target 1,600 tons per day, from a fairly normal, airport-like facility. The low capital costs of the facility and a small fleet of craft, and low maintenance cost per flight led to the estimate of $10-$15 per pound to orbit. This is perhaps twenty times less than the $220 margin cost per pound projected for the space shuttles, or roughly a thousand times less than the total cost per pound to orbit demonstrated by the shuttle fleet. Launching SSPS from Earth in kit form would thus be more economical than colonizing space to construct them (as outlined in the 1975 study). Star-Raker showed that aircraft-like operations could deliver costs to orbit seven to ten times the air freight cost per pound from the US to Australia, and presumably offer similar cost factors per passenger to orbit, even at the comparatively small flight rate of thousands of flights for the Star-Raker fleet, versus tens of millions of flights for a fleet airliners such as the Boeing 747.


Figure 5: Star-Raker coming in for a landing.  Note ten running jet engines, and three inactive main rockets and two orbital maneuvering rockets at base of tail.
Operational Comparisons


Figure 6: Star-Raker ground ops at commercial airport, with a second Star-Raker taking off above.


Figure 7: Loading and unloading of 3 Star-Rakers.  Star-Rakers were expected to fly to commercial airports on their jet engines alone, to be loaded with their cargo.  They would then fly to a spaceport to be refueled, and loaded with Liquid Oxygen to boost themselves into orbit with the cargo.  Note swing open nose for cargo loading/unloading.

Rockwell studied the operational issues and requirements for launching 1600 tons of payload into low Earth orbit per day to support the construction of the referenced solar power satellite fleet. They specifically compared their Star-Raker turbofan/air-turbo-/exchanger/ramjet HTHL SSTO with 100 ton payload capacity to Boeing’s rocket-powered, vertical-takeoff, vertical-landing (VTVL) two-stage to orbit (TSTO), with 400 ton payload capability. (Note: the payload assumed for the Star-Rakers varies between various studies.)

Boeing’s two-stage HLLV

Figure 8: Boeing’s two-stage HLLV

Boeing’s VTVL TSTO vehicle would require ten launch pads, requiring extensive refurbishment between missions to meet the launch rate requirement of four flights per day from the Kennedy Space Center. Two new, high-bay Vertical Assembly Buildings (VAB) would also be required as opposed to two aircraft maintenance-type hangars for the Star-Raker. The Boeing VTVL TSTO would need 5.5 days to recover from the ocean, where it landed, and to restack two extremely heavy stages in the VAB. This assumes there was no recovery damage, which was considerably more likely for ocean landings than for runway landings. So although the air-breathing Star-Raker concept would require some advanced technologies, it appeared to be better suited for high flights rates (16/day) than the vertically-launched TSTO.

For the Star-Raker, a single-runway air base would support an entire fleet of thirty craft. By comparison, the VTVL TSTO’s launch range would have to be 850 square kilometers in area to accommodate a fleet of 22 vehicles and the launch noise they generated (120 decibels at 13km versus <120 decibels at 1km for the Star-Raker).

In comparison to Boeing’s winged horizontal take off, all-rocket based RASV (Reusable Aerodynamic Space Vehicle) HTHL SSTO concept mentioned above (Figure 4 above).  The RASV would require a special, very long, magnetic levitation runway to take off from, and another normal runway for landing.  There was no way it could fly in and out of normal airports to pick up their cargo, and then fly to the space port to boost into space, like the Star-Rakers.  Again, the turbo-ramjet engines would allow the Star-Rakers to carry double the payload of Boeing’s, with the same gross liftoff mass for both ships, and would eliminate the need for the magnetic levitation launcher track the RASV needed. Even assuming the RASVs could fly as often per day, it would require a fleet twice as large, with twice the capital and maintenance costs to keep the fleet running.

The Star-Raker was to be compatible with C-5A Galaxy cargo handling facilities and airports, with 2440-4270 meter runways. Indeed, one operational concept had the Star-Rakers flying airports near the cargo suppliers to be loaded. After the cargo was loaded at traditional airports, the ship would then fly to the launch port to be lifted onto its take off cradle, fully fueled with liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen, and would boost to orbit with no further cargo handling. This makes Star-Raker far more flexible than either Boeing’s VTVL two-stage craft or its magnetic levitation-launched HTHL RASV, at lower cost.

Star-Raker design features

Gross mass: 2,278,800 kg 5,023,800 lb
Payload: 100,000 kg 220,000 lb
Length: 94.50 m 310.00 ft
Span: 110.00 m 360.00 ft
Thrust: 20,480.00 kN 4,604,080 lbf
Apogee: 556 km 345 mi

Star-Raker system design features

Figure 9: Details of Star-Raker wing exterior and interior structure, engine details, and general specifications.

Star-Raker Design Features underside

Figure 10: Star-Raker Design Features[1]

[1] NASA Technical Memorandum 58238: “Satellite Power System: Concept Development and Evaluation Program Volume VI1 -Space Transportation”. November 1981. Page 40 (1-17).

Star_Raker inboard Profile

Star-Raker Vehicle Section results

Figure 11: Vehicle profiles and sectional cutaways[2]

[2] NASA Technical Memorandum 58238: “Satellite Power System: Concept Development and Evaluation Program Volume VI1 -Space Transportation.” November 1981. Page 41 (1-18).

The Star-Raker design used ten, 140,000 pound-force turbo-ramjet jet engines to power the craft to Mach 7.2, with a takeoff speed of 225 knots up from a 14,000-foot runway. This eliminated over half the weight of fuel and LOx a pure rocket craft would need to reach the same speed. Three 1.06 million lbf LOx/LH shuttle SSME-type engine rockets kick in at Mach 6, take over completely by Mach 7.3, and continue from there up to 300 mile high orbits.

Upon reaching orbit, the whole nose of the Star-Raker would swing to the side to remove cargo. Reentering, the low wing-loading on the now lightly loaded craft would mean the surface temperatures of the skin would be manageable. Increased ascent temperatures while transporting cargo, would be absorbed by the cryogenic fuel.

Star-Raker Isotherms

Figure 12: Figure showing assent temperature load on the underside of the Star-Raker and NASA shuttle. [3]

[3] Independent Research and Development Data Sheet – Earth-to-LEO Transportation System for SPS. Project Number 243, Fy 1979.


 Figure 13:  SSTO Launch Trajectory[4]

[4] NASA Technical Memorandum 58238: “Satellite Power System: Concept Development and Evaluation Program Volume VI1 -Space Transportation.” November 1981. Page 45 (1-22).

The most unusual feature of the Star-Raker design was the pressure-stiffened wings. Normally wings of this size, stiff enough to lift such a weight off a runway at 225 mph, would make the craft too heavy to reach orbit. But by allowing the boil-off gas to build up pressure in the wings, the wing pressure-induced tension stiffened them like the hull of the early Atlas missiles. Without the load of cryogenic fuel in the wings, the wings would be several times weaker – but the craft would be several times lighter, and could fly as a normal (if fast) jet aircraft.

Another unusual feature of the Star-Raker was a parachute-dropped takeoff cradle: effectively a heavy landing gear cradle capable of supporting the Star-Raker fully loaded with fuel and LOx for a flight to orbit. In this way, the lighter landing gear would be fully capable of handling the Star-Raker after its fuel/Oxygen load was consumed, and for normal flight operations. The heavy landing gear would be dropped after take-off, so its weight wouldn’t need to be lifted to orbit.

Star-Raker Multi-cycle Turbofan-turbo-ramjet and inlets

Figure 14: Multi-cycle Turbofan/turbo-ramjet and inlets.  These provide thrust [5]

[1] NASA Technical Memorandum 58238: “Satellite Power System: Concept Development and Evaluation Program Volume VI1—Space Transportation” November 1981. Page 42 (1-19).   ( )

The Star-Raker’s proposed multi-cycle air-breathing engine system was derived from the General Electric CJ805 aircraft engine, the Pratt and Whitney SWAT-201 supersonic wraparound turbofan/ramjet engine, the Aerojet Air Turbo-rocket, Marquardt’s variable plug-nozzle, ramjet engine technology, and Rocketdyne’s tubular-cooled, rocket engine technology.

Star-Raker mass table.

Figure 15: The weight breakdown of the Star-Raker hull, systems, cargo, and fuel/LOx load, in metric tons.


How does the design look today?

A study done by NASA in late 1981, referencing these three designs, was expecting much lower cost to orbit numbers than folks of the time expected:

“…The workshop decided that, although rather advanced technology and well developed operational management would be required, it was proper to target the average cost of gross cargo payloads into LEO [Low-Earth Orbit] at $30 [1979]/kg for construction of the initial SPS [Solar Power Satellite]. The further cost goal for repetitive construction of 30 to 60 SPS would need to be reduced to $15 [1979]/ kg for all operational payloads for ESLEO [earth surface to low earth orbit] and would require the use of advanced, long-lived vehicles with a sophisticated operational organization”[6] (emphasis added).

“ evolutionary series of heavy-lift and personnel-launch vehicles with chemical rocket propulsion can be targeted realistically to move heavy masses into LEO for $30 [1979]/kg by the year 2000. More advanced propulsion technology and vehicles may make $15 [1979]/kg a goal in the foreseeable future[7] (emphasis added.)

[6] NASA Technical Memorandum 58238: “Satellite Power System: Concept Development and Evaluation Program Volume VI1—Space Transportation.” November 1981. Page 138.

[7] NASA Technical Memorandum 58238: “Satellite Power System: Concept Development and Evaluation Program Volume VI1—Space Transportation.” November 1981. Page 248.

So looking back on it now, how realistic were those numbers?  Or more importantly, what could we do now with more advanced modern technology?  If it was proper in 1981 to expect to be able to lift “gross cargo payloads into LEO at $30 1979)/kg for construction of the initial SPS” and down to $15 (1979)/ kg” for a more advanced, mature, and larger scale operation ($96 and $48 per kg or $43-$22 per pound in 2015 dollars.), what could we do now?

In retrospect, hydrocarbon Mach 7 turbo-ramjets, and hydrocarbon<> LOx rocket engines would be much lighter, possibly half the weigh as expected for the Star-Raker, and allow a lower dry weight craft by eliminating most of the bulk and weight of liquid hydrogen tanks. Though the heavier fuel would make the takeoff weight higher (requiring either more efficient wings, or faster takeoff speeds), the dry weight and costs and operational complexity should be less. In general, modern systems are much more reliable and lighter weight than those of almost forty years ago. Similarly, modern materials (metals, composites, fiber-reinforced metals, etc.) would greatly lower the weight of the airframe and hull by perhaps by 30%. Ultra-high toughness ceramic composite (UHTCC) ceramic composite leading edges could not only be sharper and more aerodynamically efficient, they could offload heat that would otherwise spread out over the wings. Similar panels could also greatly lower the weight of other thermal protection system panels, further lowering the dry weight of the craft. At the least, a hydrocarbon-fueled Star-Raker of a similar size could have a 30% lower dry weight than the original design for the same cargo capacity, and the hydrocarbon engines can be built out of off the shelf parts. In short, it would be easier to do now.

I was involved in a project to commercially field a smaller craft than the Star-Raker with similar engines, though fueled with conventional jet fuel and liquid oxygen, and using more modern composites. Rather than costing $36 to $55 per pound to orbit in 2014 dollars, we were calculating more like $15-$20 per pound.

The problem of the need for heavy landing gear for a fully fueled/loaded Star-Raker was looked at by the British company Reaction Engines Limited’s Skylon team, but rather than assuming the need for a heavy takeoff cradle, they developed ways to dramatically lower the weight of the landing gear. The weight of normal landing gears is driven by the very large tires and wheels needed to distribute the weight over normal runways, and the heavy weight of uncooled brake disks. Specifying a super-hard runway for launches to orbit eliminated the heavy wheels and tires. A water-cooled braking system would allow smaller, lighter brakes still capable of handling emergency take-off abort loads. The water would add considerable weight, but could be dumped after the craft has taken off. With a similar landing gear driving the weight of a takeoff- capable landing gear down to 1.5% of the gross takeoff weight, as with Skylon, Star-Raker wouldn’t need a heavy landing gear or drop cradle for flights to orbit, even if assuming bigger, softer tires and with some extra weight allowed due to other weight reductions.


The Star-Rakers are a tremendous—and all but forgotten—capability that was utterly unnecessary for any program we actually undertook in space. But it shows we have the capability to do more – and do it far more economically than most would assume.

As a passenger craft, a single Star-Raker could have lifted more people into orbit in a day than have so far reached there in all of human history. Theoretically, even if they spent one quarter of each year being serviced (insanely high for most military or commercial aircraft), a fleet of 1,000 Star-Rakers (a moderate-sized production run for airliners), each with a thirty-year service life (average to low for commercial and military aircraft) could lift all of the people of the Earth to orbit in 28 years, for a ticket price, assuming $30/pound operations, of $19,000 each.

In cargo configuration, one Star-Raker could lift as much cargo tonnage per week as has ever been launched in human history. The total estimated ten million ton weight of a 10,000 person L5 colony from the 1975 NASA space settlement study would take a 100-ship fleet of similar cargo craft under fifteen months to lift to orbit, for a total cost of $600 billion. Compare that to the $150 billion dollar Space Station budget, or to the budgets of hundreds of billions of dollars proposed for the return to the moon, or man to Mars programs.

A thousand similar Star-Rakers could lift a billion ton, 30km long Island 3 O’Neill cylinder in twelve years for $60 trillion. By way of comparison, this is less than the $73 trillion dollar global GDP for 2014. Of course you might want to be into space mining by then. Or develop something a little more advanced than a 1970’s era Star-Raker. But until then, they could support about anything anyone has dreamed of doing in space.

Sources Cited

“Earth-to-LEO Transportation System for SPS,” Independent Research and Development Data Sheet, Project Number 243. Rockwell International Space Systems Group, 15 December 1978. Retrieved from < >

“The Final Report of the SPS Space Transportation Workshop, January 29-31, 1980.” The Johnson Environmental and Energy Center, The University of Alabama-Huntsville, October 1980.  Retrieved from <;

Hanley, G.M. “NASA Contractor Report 3321: Satellite Power Systems (SPS) Concept Definition Study – Volume IV: Transportation Analysis.” NASA—Science and Technical Information Branch, 1980. Retrieved from < Star_Raker/NASA-CR-3321_Excerpt.pdf>

Hanley, G.M. and R. Bergeron. ”An Overview of the Satellite Power System Transportation System.” 14th Joint Propulsion Conference, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), July 1978.  Retrieved from <>.

“NASA Technical Memorandum 58238: Satellite Power System: Concept Development and Evaluation Program – Volume VII: Space Transportation.” NASA—Science and Technical Information Branch, 1981. Retrieved from < Star_Raker/NASA-TM-58238_Excerpt.pdf>

Reed, David A., Jr., Hideo Ikawa, and Jonas A. Sadunas. “Star-Raker: An airbreather/Rocket-Powered, Horizontal Takeoff Tridelta Flying Wing, Single-Stage-to-Orbit Transportation System.” Conference on Advanced Technology for Future Space Systems, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA). May 1979. Retrieved from  <>

[1] NASA Technical Memorandum 58238: “Satellite Power System: Concept Development and Evaluation Program Volume VI1 -Space Transportation”. November 1981. Page 40 (1-17).

[2] NASA Technical Memorandum 58238: “Satellite Power System: Concept Development and Evaluation Program Volume VI1 -Space Transportation.” November 1981. Page 41 (1-18).

[3] Independent Research and Development Data Sheet – Earth-to-LEO Transportation System for SPS. Project Number 243, Fy 1979.

[4] NASA Technical Memorandum 58238: “Satellite Power System: Concept Development and Evaluation Program Volume VI1 -Space Transportation.” November 1981. Page 45 (1-22).

[5] NASA Technical Memorandum 58238: “Satellite Power System: Concept Development and Evaluation Program Volume VI1—Space Transportation” November 1981. Page 42 (1-19).   ( )

[6] NASA Technical Memorandum 58238: “Satellite Power System: Concept Development and Evaluation Program Volume VI1—Space Transportation.” November 1981. Page 138.

[7] NASA Technical Memorandum 58238: “Satellite Power System: Concept Development and Evaluation Program Volume VI1—Space Transportation.” November 1981. Page 248.



You are offering business based in space, a promising economic future for our nation and the world.  You will need a bold launch system to deliver that to space.  We are blessed to have visionaries preparing reusable launch systems today.  But are they delivering enough to reach the goal?

Spacex is the most inspiring example with their booster recovery efforts.  I salute their courage while hoping the formula is not stacked against them.  Recovery increases the number of propulsion events, and is challenged by variables in flight.  Having a high center of gravity on a narrow set of legs complicates the equation even if they are close to a perfect landing.  So many variables provide statistical math with serious challenges.  Las Vegas may not favor their odds.


Compared to the feeble American and European ideas to recover only the booster engines, Spacex is still a far better option, even against the odds.  Stratolauncher is proposing a horizontal launch of a Dreamchaser based vehicle, but even this throws away most of the rocket engine stages.  But don’t get me started in the Space Launch System!  Where will we find a fully reusable system?  Skylon offers hope but high tech requires more development.  The development costs threaten to stifle the courage of visionaries in this area.

Although a horizontal launch system is expensive, reusable systems drive reliability up, which can encourage payload owners and insurers.  Wings also offer a chance to recover from a propulsion failure.  They also offer more variations of trajectories and launch locations.  With blended wing bodies they can allow wings and fuselage to multi task, providing both lift and internal volume.  We are prepared to demonstrate a variant with low drag and high lift that can grow to serve deep space missions.  Our small prototype will develop the avionics for much larger vehicles, spreading development costs out in stages.  But submitting the small vehicle to small markets is not promising.  Better to “go for the moon” and market a much bigger future on orbit and in deep space.  The need is greater there.

I want investors to see customer interest, even if those customers are still a bit ahead of their time.  We may see cargo delivery, suborbital science, or satellite launchers interested, but investors want markets with passion too.  With three patents in hand we hope to validate a small demonstration and see better solutions for our space future.




Exodus Aerospace aims to create a model for the golden age of space, even as the DC-3 was for that earlier golden age of aviation.  Horizontal operations offer clear advantages for reusable economies, comfort, and safety in manned space flight.  No orbital spacecraft have ever been reusable except the winged space shuttle and the X-37.  Wings can offer full reusability that no vertical launch has ever delivered.  Our ability and willingness to grow in affordable steps can deliver all of this promise for a much bigger future.  We intend to aim high, and we are getting more interest in that than fighting over suborbital scraps.


















  1. THE REAL BOOSTERS…INVESTOR INTEREST: some surpass even my enthusiasm!


P5.25 3 VIEW

Small rocket and turbine powered development mule.


Horizontal In Line Launch Staging (HILLS)


Smooth flight with redundant safe abort options.


Ample cargo and avionics capacity

This vehicle is designed only to fly cheaply, repeatedly, and reliably.  Performance has no mandate except to develop avionics and staging systems.  But performance will deliver a measure of the potential for future growth.  We have a group of vendors signed on to deliver that performance now.  Other larger aerospace companies have expressed interest in collaboration for more ambitious designs.  We expect to submit concepts to an Army Broad Area Announcement to support development.

High costs are partly driven by failures expected in development, so this vehicle is small in size to minimize the replacement costs.  Engineering data is recovered by telemetry so that investment is preserved.  Using rocket and turbine propulsion produces guidance and avionics suitable for much larger vehicles.  A smaller vehicle presents less threat to the test facility and requires less range to operate.  This may ease the path to FAA certification and licensing.  That may represent the one giant step for one small space plane.

The last frontier was opened by mountain men who defined a path for the wagon trains to follow.  The new one will be opened by those who negotiate the regulatory agencies, finances, and physics of space launch.  They need the first stage of financial backing and market opportunities.  Our market research has to look beyond suborbital and small satellites to greater market needs.  Your ventures are the real future of space missions, and they deserve a worthy launch system, not a partial solution.

Our investors deserve the best understanding of the needs of this future market.  Our team needs to build this venture around customer needs long before we imagine a design.  We have a few patents and more must follow but we should solve real problems with those efforts.  You can suggest where you want our systems to accommodate your plans.  There are many ideas like fuel depots and rendezvous systems that begin with launch vehicles.  Crew and payload need consideration for safe efficient operations.  We can listen, and consider special adaptations as part of the early concept discussions.  I have illustrated a few new ideas here, but you may have more important thoughts to add to the formula.  We need input from the market that will materialize once we put the vision in motion.  You are the market, and you need to drive the launch providers to change gears for the future.

David Luther

Exodus Aerospace



US 8528853 B2           

US 20140158812 A1            

US 20140158812


A Crowdfunding Campaign to Bust Space Myths


Do you believe the following?

  • Space travel has to be dangerous, difficult, and very expensive.
  • You have to be superfit to go to space.
  • A small company cannot possibly make a big difference to the way ahead for spaceflight.

These are all myths!

Affordable public access to space for business and leisure could become available soon by building spaceplanes that were widely considered feasible in the 1960s.   Within 15 years, near-space could become as accessible as Antarctica is today!

  • An airliner capable of flying to a space station would transform spaceflight.   It would replace present throwaway launchers and would slash costs and greatly improve safety.   It would lead to a new golden age of space science and exploration, and to public visits to space hotels becoming widely affordable
  • We knew how to build one in the 1960s, when most large aircraft companies studied spaceplanes in depth.   They were not developed at the time because of the pressures of the Cold War space race.
  • This knowledge has been largely forgotten or overlooked, even though all the required technologies have since been proven in flight.
  • The founder of Bristol Spaceplanes is one of the few who worked on these 1960s spaceplane designs and who is still active in the field.   As a result, we can credibly claim to have the most competitive way ahead for bringing in the new space age.
  • Courtesy of the excellent pioneering work by Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic and others, the revolution in spaceflight is now all but inevitable.   It could be brought forward several years by planning for it now.
  • The main obstacle today is the power of traditional thinking.   Large space agencies and other major players are locked into the throwaway launcher habit.
  • The above points are explained in more detail in a recent book written by the founder of Bristol Spaceplanes, ‘Space Exploration’ by David Ashford (Hodder and McGraw-Hill 2013).
  • One way to help to persuade major players to take spaceplanes seriously is to show large public interest.   We have therefore launched a crowdfunding campaign to help to dent the mindset—see
  • The funding will be used to build a flying model of our Ascender entry-level suborbital spaceplane and for a publicity campaign.
  • Please support the new space age by backing our campaign!



Thanks to Frank Morring’s Facebook post I see a video of the Spacex vertical landing flight.  While there is a lot of risk in this road to reusable launchers I see an unexpected advantage.  When retro rockets are firing, the first stage seems to be in an envelope of flame.  In actuality it is probably tucked in  an umbrella of cool provided by the shock wave of the rocket plume.  A capsule usually uses a flat heat shield to form a shock wave that better shields the sides of the capsule while taking the brunt of the heating head on.  The retro-rocket uses no shield, and suffers no direct contact with the reentry plasma.  This reminds me of Navy torpedoes that use super-cavitation.  They blow bubbles out the front that lubricates their underwater flow and allows huge velocity gains.

Perhaps we should be looking at both solutions.  Wings are reliable, but require a lot of heavy shielding to protect an orbiter in reentry.  A mild retro rocket system might induce just enough laminar flow to reduce thermal loads while also reducing forward velocity.  Now I know I want to have my cake and eat it too, but will we find a good tool here?  We may reach a balance that could survive a partial system failure without total disaster.  Retro failure might damage thermal shields without total mission loss.  Foreign object damage might not be as destructive in a laminar cooling flow.

Such a cooling flow notion was proposed many years back by an unlikely rocket guy.  Dr. James Victor Hugo Hill offered the Space Kitten as a kit plane you can build at home.  One ideas was to introduce a cooling gas across the leading edges of the vehicle.  Unfortunately (?) Dr. Hill passed away before this could take flight.   As one of his disillusioned early supporters I know there were many unresolved design ideas in the plan but this one might be vindicated some day.  Keep an eye on the crazy “rocket scientists” out there because some one has to be the first one dumb enough to try an idea before it can fly.




There are a few issues with building an orbital aircraft to launch satellites.  We need more than one stage, so do we put the stages under or on top?  Under threatens ground clearance but offers a drop.  Even a drop may be driven back into the carrier by air currents.  On top has the same issue plus gravity resisting that separation.  I can see that I am not alone in considering in-line staging on horizontal applications.  Does anyone know what this is?  I don’t.  The only use I see is space launch, but does it work?




Boeing has an in-line application brewing too.  No fear of structural issues here!





Actually in-line staging has already been flown for an X-plane.  The X-43 was mounted on a Pegasus winged rocket for its testing flights.







So I don’t feel too bad about keeping my concept alive.  There are aerodynamic advantages in the HILLS blended wing bodies that these earlier examples are missing.  Expect to see more development of our concepts.



Staging and aerodynamics are not the only issues here.  Early space planes were fond of their metal structures, but we are seeing more composites now.  The Dream Chaser and the Xcor Lynx showcase 21st century structures.  I see pressure vessels and tanks as part of the structural consideration.  They can help with lateral loads and rocket engine linear thrust loads.  Airframes can lose weight with carbon fiber and optimized analysis.  We may not reach the goal with older airframe designs, so we move on.









NASA Deputy Administrator Tours Sierra Nevada Space Systems' Dre








We see problems and solutions as we move into a design project.  These ventures share the same technology availability except for the unique solutions we can each add.  I look ahead to lots of work and lots of paychecks for the innovators and problem solvers.



CAPITOL IDEA! (nearly) FULL REUSABILITY TO ORBIT AND BACK…BRAVO!…/sierra-nevada-stratolaunch-team-dr…

Sierra Nevada and Stratolaunch Team Up on Dream Chaser Space Plane – NBC News
Sierra Nevada Corp.’s Dream Chaser mini-shuttle space plane may have lost out in NASA’s space taxi competition, but the company is still keeping the dream alive

OH YEAH…This validates in part my in-line staging concept too.  If they used the blended wing bodies and rockets on the first stage this could be even smaller, faster, and cheaper!





We do still have the Air Force operating the unmanned X-37, which continues to validate winged shuttles as reusable space vehicles.  Sierra Nevada’s Dreamchaser may live on for other missions as well.

While NASA may feel threatened by the ghost of failures and costs from the shuttle program, the safety problems of winged vehicles were only created by problems associated with the booster stage tanks and rockets.  The winged shuttle orbiters were reliable and reusable aside from those issues.  For ALL national manned space systems to be capsule based only ignores the value of those great vehicles.

The Dreamchaser is a design based on previous NASA development, and represents salvation of a lot of taxpayer investment.  Too many NASA experiments have been terminated with no return value to the taxpayers.  The Dreamchaser is built on a legacy of successful reusable orbital winged reentry vehicles.  To date NO manned capsule has ever been reusable.  There is no legacy or history of such re-usability, and both of the “winners” of this competition depend on delivering the unproven promise.

Parachutes have delivered capsules to the ocean and they may be able to clean off the salt water and burned up heat shields.  The Spacex vertical landing idea is still being tested.  Spacex is more successful with vertical landing tests, but still suffer an occasional mishap.  There is a legacy of failed vertical landers among other firms though.  One group reported a power failure at altitude as “an interesting data point”.  As these rockets grow larger the interesting data points may come from a seismograph!  It seems reasonable to suggest that statistically a mishap will eventually come to these manned capsule operations.  They lack the potential to glide to a safe landing.  Spacex may offer parachutes as a backup at least.

While capsules are a proven system generally, why should all of our tax dollars go to only one system?  Why should we abandon a valid alternative that is being demonstrated regularly by the Air Force X-37?  The deep space Orion Capsule is another example of missing the boat in this way.  Our tax investment should not be all put in one basket while we lose the lessons of a valuable alternative system.

While this blog is dedicated to the virtues of horizontal launch, it is dependent on the lessons of the past, including horizontal landing.  Horizontal launch includes the Orbital Sciences Pegasus, the X-15, and Space Ship One.  Our vision for fully reusable orbiters is built on the legacy of the Prime Lifting Body, the shuttles, and the X-37.  Without the reentry technology re-usability is non-existent.  To date, only winged orbiters have ever achieved this goal.  This is the wrong time to look back to the Mercury program of the early 60s and hope to convert them to reusable systems.  Tax payers should insist on keeping the most viable technologies in service while new solutions are tested.

While this is a horizontal launch advocacy site, we are inviting Sierra Nevada to publish here too.  If they wish to help us to educate the public about the opportunity here we welcome contributions.  I hope that qualified investors will recognize the value of such a proven technology.  We need to see support for the courage expressed by Sierra Nevada in expressing interest in pressing on for new missions and markets.

Sierra Nevada could use a serious asteroid miner, moon ventures, and tourist destinations to assure investors of a market. The U.S. mail contract was a big deal, but biplanes filled that first assignment. Visionary investors need to see the value waiting. There WILL be another generation of launch vehicles equivalent to the DC3; efficient commercial vessels. Now is the time to buy low and sell high. Sierra Nevada holds the best technology for returning treasures to earth now.


X-37 3





Clayton and Marcella Luther left western Nebraska to serve the war effort in the 1940s.  Dad taught hydraulics at Chanute Field in Illinois before joining the B-24 manufacturing effort at Ford Motor Company.  That led dad to a career as an engineer in the auto industry.  I too found some comfort in the Detroit suburbs as the nation prospered after the war.






Dad had publications left from WWII aviation so I grew up with cut away images of aircraft and some drawing skills.  The growing space race fueled my aviation interests.  I wasted my best study hall hours drawing pictures of space ships. I was one of many “rocket boys” who launched small rockets in the 1960s.   I didn’t get good enough grades to fend off the selective service though.






I volunteered for the U.S. Army missile defense, hoping to be assigned near Detroit on the old Nike Missiles.  Somehow I wound up on an Honest John rocket artillery assignment instead.  The Honest John didn’t need a guidance system as it carried an atomic warhead.  Unfortunately the blast radius of the warhead was greater than the range of the rocket.  I felt safer after I landed in the cannon artillery in Vietnam.  I was filling sand bags when man landed on the moon.






I brought no good habits home from Germany or Vietnam.  In the 60s good habits were in low esteem anyway.  Eventually I got crazy enough to try something sensible.  Actually, most people think that Christianity is the ultimate crazy, but it works.  There is an alternative reality where science fails and only the spiritual does work.  Most don’t realize that THIS is that reality.  I love it when my madness carries me past the world’s science and sanity with inexplicable success.




I took my scattered education to industry as a draftsman, and advanced neatly into the modern era of computer drafting.  The auto industry met Japanese competition and intense lessons in quality control.  It was great to witness new technologies and efficiency coming on line.  But I retained a desire to be free of Detroit and launch into aerospace work.




Amateur rocketry had progressed to glorious ambitions in the Cheap Access to Space (CATS) Contest.  I was approved to teach a drafting class in our church community center, so I offered free drafting services to new space ventures.  Suddenly the X-Prize fanned the flames even more.  Wow…we had a pit pass for a new space race!  Before we could go far my automotive career crashed along with the industry, and we had to abandon our home and the classroom.




I continued to perform services for a couple of X-Prize ventures.  One is still active today, and the Ascender Space Plane is seeking funding now.  I began a second career in my free time with several notable rocketry ventures.  Bill Colburn, Mark Blair, Jerry Irvine, and Lutz Kayser found some minor projects for me along the years.  Other ventures, like the Cerulean Space Kitten were a little more infamous, but still fun.


I gathered information on aerospace at every opportunity.  I found work on Aerojet, Hamilton Sundstrand, and Boeing projects along the way.  Without formal education I was gathering some sort of skills.  I took correspondence engineering courses and studied Dan Raymer’s Aircraft Design text.  I was drawn to horizontal launch concepts, and it was suggested that we look at orbital applications.  That provoked the radical notion of in-line staging for horizontal launch.




I bought a bargain 3D CAD program called Alibre, and managed to develop blended wing body concepts with that software at home.  The new Space world was moving along while I had notions collecting in the virtual world of CAD.






Eventually my career came to a total stop as industry invented the status they call “unemployable”.  If you have been unemployed for a couple of months they think you have forgotten 30 years of design skills entirely.  I stayed in Indiana for 6 months until my lease and my funds expired.  Then dog and I moved in with my dad in Arizona.  That time provided Social Security, nights for design, and days to help dad.  I treasure the time I got to spend with dad when he needed my help.  My new paradigm:

If you can’t join them, LICK them!




I build a glider, then a radio controlled model of my in-line staging concept.  Each test flight was good on the first try.  The model airplanes worked, now I needed a business model.  Dad, as a retired engineer saw my space ship designs and said that I needed “professional help”.  I think he meant engineering professionals, right?  I did obtain two patents at some expense for lawyers.  After dad passed away I bought a trailer and went looking for professional help.




To fund a larger prototype and interest the unmanned industries I launched a fund raiser on Kickstarter.  It fell short of the goal, but served to get attention from one drone manufacturer.  That was more valuable than funds that would tie me to the post office and boxes of hats and coffee cups!  We have a few interesting possibilities with that contact now.




I operate by faith, not by sight.  I see possibilities where others see barriers.  A lifetime of good results inspires confidence that I am getting help.  The Tower of Babel was resisted by God, but if he gets honor for his contribution, he may help our efforts to see a small part of his creation.  I think our early moon astronauts got that message.



My notional ideas are embryonic, and far from the engineering effort for real space access.  But others have assets and need these basic skill sets to realize their dreams.  I have been making my services available, and opportunities do appear along the way.




Horizontal launch has to mean more than an airplane ride to 50,000 feet (9.5) miles) at 500 miles per hour.  Orbital launch requires 200 miles of altitude and 17,000 miles per hour.  The rocket stages that provide that acceleration are expensive and usually wasted.  If the aircraft delivered part of that acceleration it might have reusable value to reduce costs.  Wings are still the best recovery system in service for that reusability mission.  I am not alone in seeing that opportunity.  The concept has reappeared for decades.  I became aware that is available again now.




One pioneer has been doing the rocket science for this dream for over ten years now.  Wes Kelly of Triton Launch Systems has been working towards a launch vehicle.  I was invited to update the airframe concepts with our basic Geomagic (Alibre) CAD.  Having delivered that, a recent meeting in Houston revealed a much bigger team of professional aerospace management and engineering behind the scenes.  Those first CAD models are crude, but aerodynamic studies will point to the improvements for actual flight hardware.  Siemens NX CAD tools are now on line for the next generation of CAD design.  The marketing and management teams are hot on the trail of the mission now too.  We have liftoff.



I have transitioned from the auto industry to aerospace, and moved west to Wyoming now.  I followed my father’s footsteps…backwards!




There are interested satellite customers and investors.  Spaceport Houston welcomes an airport launch venture too.  At this time funding is being cultivated, but volunteers are laying the ground work before the paychecks are available.  Horizontal launch is one of the best deterrents to wasteful overpriced space programs.  We need to see this economy delivered as a live birth.  Some serious credentials are already applied to the effort now.   If you have the passion and some skills for this venture you may be considered as a contributor to this early stage development.  Perhaps you see a vision that surpasses the opinion that others hold about your potential.  Can you see with the eyes of faith where logic and education fail?  It is illogical Captain!  Henry Ford was not an engineer, but as a farm boy with mechanical aptitude and common sense, he revolutionized his world.  Are YOU ready to boldly go?


David I. Luther





Leaving the planet is our distant dream, a future exodus.  Yet we have seen private space ventures stepping up when national efforts seem to be foundering.  A few leaders have invested their personal funds to keep new space viable as a business as well as a dream.  The next step may require a collaboration of investors and builders.

If there will be great ventures there must be early planners and builders gathering long before the next steps.  If my space liner looks a bit ambitious, the author of the concept is ready to step up to the job.  I have invited everyone interested in horizontal launch to publish here, and this week’s author is ready to boldly go to new heights.



David Luther asked me to do a guest blog for him some time ago and has shown great patience in waiting for me to deliver it. I got to be an acquaintance of David due to mutual interest in space, shared faith, and surprisingly in a world where people rarely see eye to eye, we have in common the idea that HTOL (horizontal takeoff and landing) and winged craft is the way to space. I suppose that is why Mr. Luther asked me to do a guest blog for the Wings to Space blog after we became business associates.

A little about me. I am a very private person and so it is fortunate that people respect my privacy rights. I live for creating projects and making deals. I keep myself busy with various projects about which entrepreneurs and executives may inquire. Below I list them with brief remarks about each.

✔ Astronautics Space Travel Company Inc. Astrospace for short. I am its founder. The company focuses on the financial side of the NewSpace industry and growth.

✔ A boutique investment bank. No name yet. It will focus on two industries: NewSpace and biotechnology. Will talk with prospective active partners, managing partner, silent partners, nominal partners, secret partners, and junior partners.

✔ A joint venture to manufacture craft for ground to orbit passenger transportation. Team members are being gathered. Sales presentations can be done for potential customers upon request. Financial presentations can be done for potential investors. In either case, NDA’s and other paperwork must be signed to vouch that those requesting the presentations are not motivated by the desire to steal intellectual property. We seek genuine customers and honest investors.

✔ I am always approachable with propulsion engineers and propulsion companies.

✔ Astrospace Satellite Services. These services include: financing, designing, building, testing, licensing, regulatory compliance, launching, operating, and in-orbit servicing. Even disposal if insurance, Kessler Syndrome, and unplanned reentry is a concern. Any size from nanosat to heavy lift.

✔ Open to very early discussions with those with a commercial interest in Mercury, development interest in Venus, or agricultural interest in Ceres. Please note: use of the words “very early” as this could be a century away and an inheritance for the grandchildren or it could be less than decades. It is just dialogue but prefer to talk only with serious people with academic or corporate credentials.

✔ Advanced communication. Only institutions may be involved in this project.

✔ IGT. This is theoretical and advanced work that goes beyond what the various interstellar groups are doing. Open to any serious individual wanting to make this their life’s work.

✔ An aerospaceline. Already in talks with several parties. Please do not inquire if you cannot follow through. Ownership stakes are possible. The aerospaceline has a working name but would prefer not to preempt a partner who has another name in mind. Also, namesmithing is often done by companies like Namelab for reasons of branding, trademark and legal concerns.

✔ Orbital hotel. Will work with any hotel chain interested in this being only the first of many locations.

✔ Orbital Office Park. Naming rights available as OOP sounds like oops! This project may or may not be an executive park or corporate park depending on anchor tenants.

✔ If you have space-related products that you want Astrospace to list in a catalog and sell for you, then send a brochure or something printed so that we know that the product is real and not virtual or vaporware. Better yet, send a sample or the product itself unless it is too big to ship except by rail car. Our technical people can come and look at it and verify quality control to customers. Many space entrepreneurs lack the ability to use the US Mail or post and hide that inability by disparaging it as “snail mail”. When we say mail, we mean first class letters. We would say email if that is what we meant.

✔ It is surprising the number of space entrepreneurs who cannot express themselves in writing.  As this is a business opportunity for Astrospace, perhaps we can help.

✔ If you can do videos or featurettes or films on topics my company specifies, we will buy them or sell or distribute them for you. These topics include NewSpace documentaries, space news (professional journalists only) and, if you are a filmmaker, science fiction about NewSpace.  What else? It is hoped to systematize this operation and spin it off.

✔ Astrospace has the world’s most boring blog titled “In Orbit”. If you are an executive with authority to transact business for your company or an entrepreneur who is the founder of your company, then go to —  Be prepared to be underwhelmed.

✔ Astrospace has lots of websites and none of them are impressive. It will be awhile before Astrospace sees fit to upgrade but if your firm has had NewSpace clients or even (yuck!) aerospace clients, then send your brochure.

✔ The company will soon have an office that you can call and make an appointment to visit. Still debating whether to site the HQ in Charlotte NC or somewhere in South Carolina.

✔ The company is seeking super-sales professionals. The kind of people who can sell sand to desert dwellers and snow to Eskimo (Inuit). Straight commission. If you are good, benefits.

✔ Investors should contact our CFO. See our blog for news of investor relations. We have done little with crowd funding and angels so far.

✔ Finally, if you want to be on the Astrospace mailing list, then email us. An opt-in page will be set up also. Spammers (people trying to sell us something) will be filtered and deleted. Junk mail (people trying to sell us something) will go into the trash unopened and unread. Annoying phone calls (people trying to sell us something) will be ignored. We have proper channels for suppliers and we already know what we want. We are only interested in talking to customers.



Box 4436

Rock Hill, SC 29732

Voice mail (760) 661-7993

Email and PayPal:


Well this is a wide range of space related opportunities.  I for one would appreciate a new science fiction project that offers some hope for our real space future.  I don’t think we have space invaders or major disasters waiting at every turn.  But we do have builders who are enabling a greater reach for man.  Do we have the marketing and investment tools ready for these builders?  Astrospace is inviting you to engage.