.jpg)
| Part ofa series on |
| Spaceflight |
|---|
 |
Spaceflight types |
List of space organizations |
 Spaceflight portal |
Areusable launch vehicle has parts that can be recovered and reflown, while carryingpayloads from the surface toouter space.Rocket stages are the most commonlaunch vehicle parts aimed for reuse. Smaller parts such asfairings,boosters orrocket engines can also be reused, thoughreusable spacecraft may be launched on top of an expendable launch vehicle. Reusable launch vehicles do not need to make these parts for each launch, therefore reducing itslaunch cost significantly. However, these benefits are diminished by the cost of recovery and refurbishment.
Reusable launch vehicles may contain additionalavionics andpropellant, making them heavier than their expendable counterparts. Reused parts may need toenter the atmosphere and navigate through it, so they are often equipped withheat shields,grid fins, and otherflight control surfaces. By modifying their shape,spaceplanes can leverageaviation mechanics to aid in its recovery, such asgliding orlift. In the atmosphere,parachutes orretrorockets may also be needed to slow it down further. Reusable parts may also need specialized recovery facilities such asrunways orautonomous spaceport drone ships. Some concepts rely on ground infrastructures such asmass drivers to accelerate the launch vehicle beforehand.
Since at least in the early 20th century,single-stage-to-orbit reusable launch vehicles have existed inscience fiction. In the 1970s, the first reusable launch vehicle, theSpace Shuttle, was developed. However, in the 1990s, due to the program's failure to meet expectations, reusable launch vehicle concepts were reduced to prototype testing. The rise ofprivate spaceflight companies in the 2000s and 2010s lead to a resurgence of their development, such as inSpaceShipOne,New Shepard,Electron,Falcon 9, andFalcon Heavy. Many launch vehicles are now expected to debut with reusability in the 2020s, such asStarship,New Glenn,Neutron,Soyuz-7,Ariane Next,Long March,Terran R,Stoke Space Nova, and the Dawn Mk-II Aurora.[1]
The impact of reusability in launch vehicles has been foundational in the space flight industry. So much so that in 2024, theCape Canaveral Space Force Station initiated a 50 year forward looking plan for the Cape that involved major infrastructure upgrades (including toPort Canaveral) to support a higher anticipated launch cadence and landing sites for the new generation of vehicles.[2]
Reusable launch systems may be either fully or partially reusable.
Several companies are currently developing fully reusable launch vehicles as of January 2025. Each of them is working on atwo-stage-to-orbit system.SpaceX is testingStarship, which has been in development since 2016 and has madean initial test flight in April 2023[3] and a total of 8 flights as of March 2025.Blue Origin, withProject Jarvis, began development work by early 2021, but has announced no date for testing and have not discussed the project publicly.[4]Stoke Space is also developing a rocket which is planned to be reusable.[5][6]
As of January 2025[update], Starship is the onlylaunch vehicle intended to be fully reusable that has been fully built and tested. Thefifth test flight was on October 13, 2024, in which the vehicle completed a suborbital launch and landed both stages for the second time. TheSuper Heavy booster was caught successfully by the "chopstick system" on Orbital Pad A for the first time. The Ship completed its second successful reentry and returned for a controlled splashdown in the Indian Ocean. The test marked the second instance that could be considered meeting all requirements to be fully reusable.[7][failed verification –see discussion]
Partial reusable launch systems, in the form of multiple stage to orbit systems have been so far the only reusable configurations in use.
The historicSpace Shuttle reused itsSolid Rocket Boosters, itsRS-25 engines and theSpace Shuttle orbiter that acted as an orbital insertion stage, but it did not reuse theExternal Tank that fed the RS-25 engines. This is an example of a reusable launch system which reuses specific components of rockets.ULA’sVulcan Centaur was originally designed to reuse the first stage engines, while the tank is expended. The engines would splashdown on an inflatableaeroshell, then be recovered. On 23 February 2024, one of the nine Merlin engines a powering aFalcon 9 launched for the 22nd time, making it the most reused liquid fuel engine used in an operational manner, having already surpassedSpace Shuttle Main Engine number 2019's record of 19 flights.
As of 2024,Falcon 9 andFalcon Heavy are the only orbital rockets to reuse their boosters, although multiple other systems are in development. All aircraft-launched rockets reuse the aircraft.
Other than that a range ofnon-rocket liftoff systems have been proposed and explored over time as reusable systems for liftoff, from balloons[8][relevant?] tospace elevators. Existing examples are systems which employ winged horizontal jet-engine powered liftoff. Such aircraft canair launch expendable rockets and can because of that be considered partially reusable systems if the aircraft is thought of as the first stage of the launch vehicle. An example of this configuration is theOrbital Sciences Pegasus. For suborbital flight theSpaceShipTwo uses for liftoff a carrier plane, itsmothership theScaled Composites White Knight Two. Rocket Lab is working onNeutron, and theEuropean Space Agency is working onThemis. Both vehicles are planned to recover the first stage.[9][10]
So far, most launch systems achieveorbital insertion with at least partially expendedmultistaged rockets, particularly with the second and third stages. Only theSpace Shuttle has achieved a reuse of the orbital insertion stage, by using the engines and fuel tank ofits orbiter. TheBuran spaceplane andStarship spacecraft are two other reusable spacecraft that were designed to be able to act as orbital insertion stages and have been produced, however the former only made one uncrewed test flight before the project was cancelled, and the latter is not yet operational, having completedseven orbital test flights, as of January 2025, which achieved all of its mission objectives at the fourth flight.
Launch systems can be combined with reusable spaceplanes or capsules. TheSpace Shuttle orbiter,SpaceShipTwo, Dawn Mk-II Aurora, and the under-development IndianRLV-TD are examples for a reusable space vehicle (aspaceplane) as well as a part of its launch system.
More contemporarily theFalcon 9 launch system has carried reusable vehicles such as theDragon 2 andX-37.
Contemporary reusable orbital vehicles include the X-37, theDream Chaser, the Dragon 2, the Indian RLV-TD and the upcoming EuropeanSpace Rider (successor to theIXV).
As with launch vehicles, all pure spacecraft during the early decades of human capacity to achieve spaceflight were designed to be single-use items. This was true both forsatellites andspace probes intended to be left in space for a long time, as well as any object designed to return to Earth such ashuman-carryingspace capsules or the sample return canisters of space matter collection missions likeStardust (1999–2006)[11] orHayabusa (2005–2010).[12][13] Exceptions to the general rule for space vehicles were the USGemini SC-2, theSoviet Union spacecraftVozvraschaemyi Apparat (VA), the USSpace Shuttle orbiter (mid-1970s-2011, with 135 flights between 1981 and 2011) and the SovietBuran (1980-1988, with just one uncrewed test flight in 1988). Both of these spaceships were also an integral part of the launch system (providing launch acceleration) as well as operating as medium-duration spaceships inspace. This began to change in the mid-2010s.
In the 2010s, thespace transport cargo capsule from one of the suppliers resupplying theInternational Space Station was designed for reuse, and after 2017,[14] NASA began to allow the reuse of the SpaceXDragon cargo spacecraft on these NASA-contracted transport routes. This was the beginning of design and operation of areusable space vehicle.
TheBoeing Starliner capsules also reduce their fall speed with parachutes and deploy an airbag shortly before touchdown on the ground, in order to retrieve and reuse the vehicle.
As of 2021[update], SpaceX is building and testing theStarship spaceship to be capable of surviving multiplehypersonicreentries through the atmosphere so that they become truly reusable long-duration spaceships; no Starship operational flights have yet occurred.
With possible inflatableheat shields, as developed by the US (Low Earth Orbit Flight Test Inflatable Decelerator - LOFTID)[15] and China,[16] single-use rockets like theSpace Launch System are considered to be retrofitted with such heat shields to salvage the expensive engines, possibly reducing the costs of launches significantly.[17] Heat shields allow an orbiting spacecraft to land safely without expending very much fuel. They need not take the form of inflatable heat shields, they may simply take the form of heat-resistant tiles that preventheat conduction. Heat shields are also proposed for use in combination with retrograde thrust to allow for full reusability as seen inStarship.
Reusable launch system stages such as theFalcon 9 and theNew Shepard employ retrograde burns for re-entry, and landing.[citation needed]
Reusable systems can come insingle or multiple (two orthree) stages to orbit configurations. For some or all stages the following landing system types can be employed.
These are landing systems that employ parachutes and bolstered hard landings, like in asplashdown at sea or a touchdown at land. The latter may require an engine burn just before landing as parachutes alone cannot slow the craft down enough to prevent injury to astronauts. This can be seen in the Soyuz capsule.
Though such systems have been in use since the beginning ofastronautics to recover space vehicles, only later have the vehicles been reused.
E.g.:
Single or main stages, as well asfly-back boosters can employ a horizontal landing system. These vehicles land on earth much like a plane does, but they usually do not use propellant during landing.
Examples are:
A variant is an in-air-capture tow back system, advocated by a company called EMBENTION with its FALCon project.[18]
Vehicles that land horizontally on a runway require wings and undercarriage. These typically consume about 9-12% of the landing vehicle mass,[citation needed] which either reduces the payload or increases the size of the vehicle. Concepts such aslifting bodies offer some reduction in wing mass,[citation needed] as does thedelta wing shape of theSpace Shuttle.
Systems like theMcDonnell Douglas DC-X (Delta Clipper) and those bySpaceX are examples of a retrograde system.The boosters ofFalcon 9 andFalcon Heavy land using one of their nine engines. TheFalcon 9 rocket is the first orbital rocket to vertically land its first stage on the ground. The first stage ofStarship is planned to land vertically, while the second is to be caught by arms after performing most of the typical steps of a retrograde landing.Blue Origin'sNew Shepard suborbital rocket also lands vertically back at the launch site.
Retrograde landing typically requires about 10% of the total first stage propellant, reducing the payload that can be carried due to therocket equation.[19]
There is also the concept of a launch vehicle with an inflatable, reusable first stage. The shape of this structure will be supported by excess internal pressure (using light gases). It is assumed that the bulk density of the first stage (without propellant) is less than the bulk density of air. Upon returning from flight, such a first stage remains floating in the air (without touching the surface of the Earth). This will ensure that the first stage is retained for reuse. Increasing the size of the first stage increases aerodynamic losses. This results in a slight decrease in payload. This reduction in payload is compensated for by the reuse of the first stage.[20]
Reusable stages weigh more than equivalentexpendable stages. This is unavoidable due to the supplementary systems, landing gear and/or surplus propellant needed to land a stage. The actual mass penalty depends on the vehicle and the return mode chosen.[21]
After the launcher lands, it may need to be refurbished to prepare it for its next flight. This process may be lengthy and expensive. The launcher may not be able to be recertified as human-rated after refurbishment, although SpaceX has flown reused Falcon 9 boosters for human missions. There is eventually a limit on how many times a launcher can be refurbished before it has to be retired, but how often a launcher can be reused differs significantly between the various launch system designs.
With the development ofrocket propulsion in the first half of the twentieth century,space travel became a technical possibility.
Early ideas of a single-stage reusablespaceplane proved unrealistic and although even the first practical rocket vehicles (V-2) could reach the fringes of space, reusable technology was too heavy. In addition, many early rockets were developed to deliver weapons, making reuse impossible by design. The problem of mass efficiency was overcome by using multiple expendable stages in a vertical launchmultistage rocket. USAF and NACA had been studying orbital reusable spaceplanes since 1958, e.g.Dyna-Soar, but the first reusable stages did not fly until the advent of the USSpace Shuttle in 1981.
Perhaps the first reusable launch vehicles were the ones conceptualized and studied byWernher von Braun from 1948 until 1956. Thevon Braun ferry rocket underwent two revisions: once in 1952 and again in 1956. They would have landed using parachutes.[22][23]
TheGeneral Dynamics Nexus was proposed in the 1960s as a fully reusable successor to the Saturn V rocket, having the capacity of transporting up to 450–910 t (990,000–2,000,000 lb) to orbit.[24][25] See alsoSea Dragon, andDouglas SASSTO.
TheBAC Mustard was studied starting in 1964. It would have comprised three identical spaceplanes strapped together and arranged in two stages. During ascent the two outer spaceplanes, which formed the first stage, would detach and glide back individually to earth. It was canceled after the last study of the design in 1967 due to a lack of funds for development.[26]
NASA started theSpace Shuttle design process in 1968, with the vision of creating a fully reusablespaceplane using a crewedfly-back booster. This concept proved expensive and complex, therefore the design was scaled back to reusablesolid rocket boosters and an expendableexternal tank.[27][28] Space ShuttleColumbia launched and landed 27 times and was lost with all crew on the 28th landing attempt;Challenger launched and landed 9 times and was lost with all crew on the 10th launch attempt;Discovery launched and landed 39 times;Atlantis launched and landed 33 times;Endeavour launched and landed 25 times.
In 1986 PresidentRonald Reagan called for an air-breathingscramjetNational Aerospace Plane (NASP)/X-30. The project failed due to technical issues and was canceled in 1993.[29]
In the late 1980s a fully reusable version of theEnergia rocket, the Energia II, was proposed. Its boosters and core would have had the capability of landing separately on a runway.[30]
In the 1990s theMcDonnell DouglasDelta Clipper VTOL SSTO proposal progressed to the testing phase. TheDC-X prototype demonstrated rapid turnaround time and automatic computer control.
In mid-1990s, British research evolved an earlierHOTOL design into the far more promisingSkylon design, which remained in development until 2024 when the company developing Skylon went bankrupt.
From the late 1990s to the 2000s, theEuropean Space Agency studied the recovery of theAriane 5solid rocket boosters.[31] The last recovery attempt took place in 2009.[32]
The commercial ventures,Rocketplane Kistler andRotary Rocket, attempted to build reusable privately developed rockets before going bankrupt.[citation needed]
NASA proposed reusable concepts to replace the Shuttle technology, to be demonstrated under theX-33 andX-34 programs, which were both cancelled in the early 2000s due to rising costs and technical issues.
.jpg)
TheAnsari X Prize contest was intended to develop private suborbital reusable vehicles. Many private companies competed, with the winner,Scaled Composites, reaching theKármán line twice in a two-week period with their reusableSpaceShipOne.
In 2012,SpaceX started a flight test program withexperimental vehicles. These subsequently led to the development of theFalcon 9 reusable rocket launcher.[33]
On 23 November 2015 theNew Shepard rocket became the firstVertical Take-off, Vertical Landing (VTVL) sub-orbital rocket to reach space by passing theKármán line (100 km or 62 mi), reaching 329,839 ft (100,535 m) before returning for a propulsive landing.[34][35]
SpaceX achieved the first vertical soft landing of a reusable orbital rocket stage on December 21, 2015, after delivering 11Orbcomm OG-2 commercial satellites intolow Earth orbit.[36]
The first reuse of a Falcon 9 first stage occurred on 30 March 2017.[37] SpaceX now routinely recovers and reusestheir first stages, as well as reusing fairings.[38]
In 2019Rocket Lab announced plans to recover and reuse the first stage of theirElectron launch vehicle, intending to useparachutes andmid-air retrieval.[39] On 20 November 2020, Rocket Lab successfully returned an Electron first stage from an orbital launch, the stage softly splashing down in the Pacific Ocean.[40]
China is researching the reusability of theLong March 8 system.[41]
As of May 2020[update], the only operational reusable orbital-class launch systems are the Falcon 9 andFalcon Heavy, the latter of which is based upon the Falcon 9. SpaceX is also developing the fully reusableStarship launch system.[42]Blue Origin is developing its ownNew Glenn partially reusable orbital rocket, as it is intending to recover and reuse only the first stage.
5 October 2020, Roscosmos signed a development contract forAmur a new launcher with a reusable first stage.[43]
In December 2020, ESA signed contracts to start developingTHEMIS, a prototype reusable first stage launcher.[44]
After 1980, but before the 2010s, two orbital launch vehicles developed the capability toreturn to the launch site (RTLS). Both the USSpace Shuttle—with one of itsabort modes[45][46]—and the SovietBuran[47]had a designed-in capability to return a part of the launch vehicle to the launch site via the mechanism ofhorizontal-landing of thespaceplane portion of the launch vehicle. In both cases, the main vehicle thrust structure and the large propellant tank wereexpendable, as had been the standard procedure for all orbital launch vehicles flown prior to that time. Both were subsequently demonstrated on actual orbital nominal flights, although both also had an abort mode during launch that could conceivably allow the crew to land the spaceplane following an off-nominal launch.
In the 2000s, bothSpaceX andBlue Origin haveprivately developed a set of technologies to supportvertical landing of the booster stage of a launch vehicle. After 2010, SpaceX undertook adevelopment program to acquire the ability to bring back andvertically land a part of theFalcon 9orbital launch vehicle: thefirst stage. The first successful landing was done in December 2015,[48] since then several additional rocket stages landed either at alanding pad adjacent to the launch site or on alanding platform at sea, some distance away from the launch site.[49] TheFalcon Heavy is similarly designed to reuse the three cores comprising its first stage. On itsfirst flight in February 2018, the two outer cores successfully returned to the launch site landing pads while the center core targeted the landing platform at sea but did not successfully land on it.[50]
Blue Origin developed similar technologies for bringing back and landing theirsuborbitalNew Shepard, and successfully demonstrated return in 2015, and successfully reused the same booster on a second suborbital flight in January 2016.[51] By October 2016, Blue had reflown, and landed successfully, that same launch vehicle a total of five times.[52] It must however be noted that the launch trajectories of both vehicles are very different, with New Shepard going straight up and down without achieving orbital flight, whereas Falcon 9 has to cancel substantial horizontal velocity and return from a significant distance downrange, while delivering the payload to orbit with the second stage.
Both Blue Origin and SpaceX also have additional reusable launch vehicles under development. Blue is developing the first stage of the orbitalNew Glenn LV to be reusable, with first flight planned for no earlier than 2024. SpaceX has a new super-heavy launch vehicle under development for missions tointerplanetary space. TheSpaceX Starship is designed to support RTLS, vertical-landing and full reuse ofboth the booster stage and the integrated second-stage/large-spacecraft that are designed for use with Starship.[53] Itsfirst launch attempt took place in April 2023; however, both stages were lost during ascent. On thefourth launch attempt however, both the booster and the ship achieved a soft landing in theGulf of Mexico and theIndian Ocean, respectively.
| Company | Vehicle | Reusable Component | Launched | Recovered | Reflown | Payload to LEO | First Launch | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 NASA | Space Shuttle | Orbiter | 135 | 133 | 130 | 27,500 kg | 1981 | Retired (2011) |
| Side booster | 270 | 266 | N/A[a] | |||||
| NASA | Ares I | First stage | 1 | 1 | 0 | 25,400 kg | 2009 | Retired (2010) |
| SpaceX | Falcon 9 | First stage | 461 | 411 | 385 | 17,500 kg (reusable)[54] 22,800 kg (expended) | 2010 | Active |
| Fairing half | >486[b] | >300(Falcon 9 and Heavy)[b] | ||||||
 Rocket Lab | Electron | First stage | 63 | 9 | 0[c] | 325 kg (expended) | 2017 | Active, reflight planned |
| SpaceX | Falcon Heavy | Side booster | 22 | 18 | 14 | ~33,000 kg (all cores reusable) 63,800 kg (expended) | 2018 | Active |
| Center core | 11 | 0[d] | 0 | |||||
| Fairing half | >18[b] | >300(Falcon 9 and Heavy)[b] | ||||||
| SpaceX | Starship | First stage | 8 | 3 | 0[e] | 50,000-100,000 kg (Block 1) 100,000-150,000 kg (Block 2) 200,000 kg (Block 3) | 2023 | Active, reflight planned |
| Second stage | 8 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| United Launch Alliance | Vulcan Centaur | First stage engine module | 2 | 0 | 0 | 27,200 kg | 2024 | Active, recovery planned |
 Space Pioneer | Tianlong-3 | First stage | 1 | 0 | 0 | 17,000 kg | 2025 | Planned |
| Blue Origin | New Glenn | First stage, fairing | 1 | 0 | 0 | 45,000 kg | 2025 | Active, recovery planned |
| Galactic Energy | Pallas-1 | First stage | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5,000 kg | 2024 | Planned |
| Deep Blue Aerospace | Nebula 1 | First stage | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,000 kg | 2025 | Planned |
 Perigee Aerospace | Blue Whale 1 | First stage | 0 | 0 | 0 | 170 kg | 2025 | Planned |
| Rocket Lab | Neutron | First stage (includes fairing) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13,000 kg (reusable) 15,000 kg (expended) | 2025 | Planned |
| Stoke Space | Nova | Fully reusable | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3,000 kg (reusable) 5,000 kg (stage 2 expended) 7,000 kg (fully expended) | 2025 | Planned |
| CAS Space | Kinetica-2 | First stage | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12,000 kg | 2025 | Planned |
| I-space | Hyperbola-3 | First stage | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8,300 kg (reusable) 13,400 kg (expended) | 2025 | Planned |
| LandSpace | Zhuque-3 | First stage | 0 | 0 | 0 | 18,300 kg (reusable) 21,300 kg (expended) | 2025 | Planned |
| CALT | Long March 12B | First Stage | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2025 | Planned | |
| Deep Blue Aerospace | Nebula 2 | First stage | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20,000 kg | 2025 | Planned |
| Orienspace | Gravity-2 | First stage | 0 | 0 | 0 | 17,400 kg (reusable) 21,500 kg(expended) | 2025 | Planned |
 Roscosmos | Amur | First stage | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10,500 kg | 2026 | Planned |
| Relativity Space | Terran R | First stage | 0 | 0 | 0 | 23,500 kg (reusable) 33,500 kg (expended) | 2026 | Planned |
 PLD Space | Miura 5 | First stage | 0 | 0 | 0 | 900 kg | 2026 | Planned |
| Space Pioneer | Tianlong-3H | Side booster | 0 | 0 | 0 | 68,000 kg (expended) | 2026 | Planned |
| Center core | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Orienspace | Gravity-3 | First stage, fairing | 0 | 0 | 0 | 30,600 kg | 2027 | Planned |
| CALT | Long March 10A | First Stage | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14,000 kg (reusable) 18,000 kg (expended) | 2027 | Planned |
| CALT | Long March 9 | First Stage | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100,000 kg | 2033 | Planned |
| Second Stage | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Company | Spacecraft | Launch Vehicle | Launched | Recovered | Reflown | Launch Mass | First Launch | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NASA | Space Shuttle orbiter | Space Shuttle | 135 | 133 | 130 | 110,000 kg | 1981 | Retired (2011) |
 NPO-Energia | Buran | Energia | 1 | 1 | 0 | 92,000 kg | 1988 | Retired (1988) |
| Boeing | X-37 | Atlas V,Falcon 9,Falcon Heavy | 7 | 7 | 5 | 5,000 kg | 2010 | Active |
| SpaceX | Dragon | Falcon 9 | 51 | 49 | 30 | 12,519 kg | 2010 | Active |
| NASA | Orion | Space Launch System | 2 | 2 | 0 | 10,400 kg (excluding service module and abort system) | 2014 | Active, reflight planned |
| Boeing | Starliner | Atlas V | 3 | 3 | 1 | 13,000 kg | 2019 | Active |
| CASC | Shenlong (spacecraft) | Long March 2F | 3 | 2 | unknown | unknown | 2020 | Active, reusability unknown |
| Sierra Space | Dream Chaser | Vulcan Centaur | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9,000 kg | 2025 | Planned |
| CAST | Mengzhou | Long March 10A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14,000 kg | 2027 | Planned |
| Company | Vehicle | First launch to space | Launches to space (only successful launches counted) | Recovered from space (only successful recoveries counted) | Reflown to space (only successful launches counted) | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blue Origin | New Shepard | 2015 | 27 | 26 | 22 | Fully reusable. Active as of December 2024. Of the 27 (successful) launches to space, 3 were to an altitude over 80km (USAF/NASA limit for space) but below 100km (international limit for space) and 24 to an altitude over 100km. |
| Virgin Galactic | SpaceShipTwo (VSS Unity) | 2018 | 12 | 12 | 11 | Fully reusable. Retired in 2024. Only flew to above 80km (USAF/NASA limit for space) but not above 100km (international limit for space). |
| Mojave Aerospace Ventures/Scaled Composites | SpaceShipOne | 2004 | 3 | 3 | 2 | Fully reusable. Retired in 2004. Of the 3 (successful) launches to space, all were to an altitude over 100km (international limit for space). |
| North American Aviation/USAF/NASA | North American X-15 | 1962 | 13 | 12 | 11 | Fully reusable. Retired in 1968. Of the 13 (successful) launches to space, 2 were to an altitude over 100km (international limit for space) and 11 to an altitude over 80km (USAF/NASA limit for space) but below 100km. |
List updated 1 December 2024.
{{cite AV media}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
| General | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Applications | |||||||
| Human spaceflight |
| ||||||
| Spacecraft | |||||||
| Destinations | |||||||
| Space launch | |||||||
| Ground segment | |||||||
