Lockheed LS-200: The Space Shuttle that Never Was

It was nearly the US’ next big leap. Sleek, futuristic, and packed with innovations that sat right on the cutting edge of what was possible, Lockheed’s Star Clipper was a serious contender to become NASA’s go-to ride to orbit. With its sharp lines, clever engineering, promises of low-cost reusability, and a plethora of advanced features, it looked like the future of spaceflight—because, in many ways, it was. But instead of flying, it faded—becoming a shuttle that never was.

It was so close to making the cut, too. Wind tunnel tests were completed. Design studies were submitted. NASA was interested. But then, in the way of so many good ideas, politics, budgets, and institutional comfort killed it dead.

All that’s left now are the blueprints, a few artist impressions, and one big, lingering question: what if?

Because Star Clipper wasn’t just another spaceplane concept—it was a bold reimagining of how America could get to space. One that, had things gone differently, might’ve changed the Shuttle era entirely.

So how did it work? Why did it fail? And what made it so special in the first place?

Origins

Star Clipper can trace its origins back to the mid-1960s, a time when the US was starting to think beyond Apollo, and to the future of its space travel.

The nation had, or more rather, their Air Force working alongside Boeing had, flirted with spaceplanes in the early ’60s, most notably with the X-20 Dyna-Soar Program, which aimed to create a ‘do it all’ military space plane that would be capable of undertaking reconnaissance, rescue, satellite interception, and ultra-high altitude bombing missions.

That project went nowhere however, and was unceremoniously cancelled in 1963; partly due to costs looking like they were set to spiral to insane proportions, but also due to the fact that it simply didn’t have much of a set aim – it was the Air Force pushing the envelope simply out of a habitual habit to do so, not because there was a dire strategic need for such a craft.

Its core idea however, that ‘space plane’ notion of a machine capable of getting up into space, doing its thing, and then coming back down to earth, proved to be an idea most tantalising indeed for the US’ aerospace engineers, and one that NASA in particular were very keen to explore when considering their post-Apollo future, for one reason in particular: it promised cheaper operational costs.

It makes sense too. Think about how your typical rocket then – and basically now as well to be fair – works. You have a big explodey tube full of all manner of expensive tech, and as the mission goes on, said tube disassembles itself in the name of shedding weight to get more go as gravity weakens, a process which goes on to the point that when all is said and done, what plonks back down on earth is a pod full of chaps and chapettes – and that’s about it. That’s a hell of a lot of wastage, and so you can see the logic; bring as much of the spacecraft (controllably) back down to earth as possible, where you can then reuse it – and to the victor go the savings!

Enter Maxwell Hunter, the man behind Star Clipper. He was an aerospace engineer who had cut his teeth at Douglas Aircraft working on airliner economics, before getting promoted to their Chief Designer in Aeronautics, and lending his mind to the XB-42 and XB-43 experimental bomber projects, before then moving onto rockets, with it being him who led the development of the PGM-17 Thor – the US Air Force’s first operational ballistic missile – during its final few years.

He did rather well on that last project in particular too, which saw him be posted to the ‘Thor-Delta Project’ in the early 1960s – which was an attempt to turn the Thor Missile into a delivery system capable of inserting payloads into orbit.

There, he found himself frustrated however, as in his own words:

“…by the end of 1963 the state of recoverable rockets was terrible.”

Obviously, reusability was the answer he was looking for, but how to do such a thing? The answer, unsurprisingly, lay in the basic premise of Boeing’s then recently cancelled X-20 concept.

He also wasn’t the only person to be having those thoughts, as at the same time, several companies were studying so called ‘fully two-stage reusable spacecraft’ – i.e. designs where a single winged booster would launch a winged orbiter, and both would fly back to Earth for reuse.

Hunter, however, saw a flaw in that approach: it was like building two airplanes to do the job of one. As he saw it, why develop and maintain two separate vehicles – a booster and an orbiter – when only the orbiter actually reaches space?

In 1964 then, he conceived a clever alternative he called a “stage-and-a-half” rocket. The idea was this: have just one main spacecraft that goes to orbit, but shed some dead weight along the way in the form of a disposable fuel tank. In other words, stick all the extra propellant in a cheap tank that can be binned in flight, while the spacecraft – with its engines and crew – continues to orbit and is eventually recovered. That way, you’d get the performance benefits of staging without having to build two entirely separate, complex, and above all else, expensive vehicles – you’d only be throwing away a relatively inexpensive empty tank.

Naturally, Hunter was chomping at the bit to get to work on his idea, but unfortunately for him, the moneymen at Douglas weren’t having any of it – it was too unproven and risky an idea to be worth any meaningful investment of time or capital, as far as they were concerned.

Hope soon appeared over the horizon, however, because in late 1965, Hunter was poached by Lockheed Corporation, specifically its ‘Missiles and Space Company’ division, and on quite literally his first day, he was in the offices of its President, Eugene Root, pitching his stage-and-a-half rocket idea – and Root really liked what he heard. Thus, the greenlight was given, and work formally began.

Early Work

And so it was that Lockheed’s design team – including its famed Skunk Works engineers – set out to craft a tangible spacecraft from Hunter’s vision.

Initial draft work didn’t take long, and in less than a year, the basic idea had been finalised, with them coming up with an elegant delta-winged lifting body spaceplane that incorporated Hunter’s drop-tank idea.

Lockheed dubbed it the Star Clipper, with ‘Star’ standing not for the big natural nuclear bombs out in space, but for ‘Space Transport And Recovery,’ and by the close of 1966, detailed design studies were underway. This was still very, very early days do note, and as much as it may sound like they were making cracking progress, which, to be fair, they were, a fully realised and flying Star Clipper, even just in a prototype stage, would still be a long way away even if everything went right for Lockheed.

And speaking of things going right for Lockheed, their timing also couldn’t have been better too, because in 1966, the US Air Force and NASA together began studying reusable launch concepts under their ‘Integral Launch and Recovery Vehicle,’ or ILRV, Program.

This was Lockheed’s moment to shine. In 1967, NASA’s George Mueller decided to gather all the major aerospace firms and invite them to present their best reusable shuttle concept in a one-day pitch session — the kind of event where dreams are made and careers either soar or combust violently in the atmosphere.

Lockheed, to their credit, didn’t miss a beat. On the 30th of September 1968, they submitted Star Clipper as their official proposal for the ILRV program, and they had receipts to prove it was viable. By this point, they’d clocked over 3,700 hours of wind tunnel testing on the concept, and the Air Force’s Flight Dynamics Laboratory had lent a hand too, providing research on optimal lifting-body shapes. This wasn’t just a fancy sketch on the back of a napkin — Star Clipper had aerodynamic bona fides.

NASA wasn’t picking favourites just yet however – they were still in the window-shopping phase, and what they got was a mess of wildly different ideas.

Star Clipper stood out though, not by just being bigger or brasher, but by being clever. It wasn’t trying to reinvent every wheel on the rocket, but rather, by taking proven, if occasionally niche technologies, and simply pushing the envelope just a smidge to make a technically excellent, new, but ultimately founded approach to the problem of making space travel cheaper.

By the end of the 1960s then, Star Clipper was firmly in the running.

Design

Before we continue on with the story, however, we should take the time to have a bit of a deeper dive onto something we otherwise only mentioned in passing: Star Clipper’s prospective design.

From the outside, it looked like the kind of spacecraft you’d expect to see on the cover of a 1960s sci-fi paperback — all sleek lines, delta curves, and just that bit far enough removed from our frame of reference to look futuristic.

To get technical however, what it actually was was a ‘lifting body,’ i.e. a fixed-wing aircraft or configuration in which the body itself produces lift, rather than having a clearly distinct fuselage and wings bolted thereto.

This, rather helpfully, kept the profile compact, reducing drag at hypersonic speeds, and also meant it didn’t need to worry about snapping a wing off as it endured the harsh forces of exit and re-entry from earth’s atmosphere.

That wasn’t entirely Lockheed’s idea, either, with lifting bodies first being mused over as far back as 1917 generally, and more specifically being inspired by past research that the US Air Force had undertaken with the FDL-5 and FDL-8 series. The final orbiter design was also dubbed the LSC-8.

Size-wise, the Star Clipper was to be a big old girl that’s for sure – around 186 feet long, making it a fair bit longer than the actual Space Shuttle NASA eventually used. That extra length was to be well used too, with it providing room for everything from propellant tanks to payload bays to all the complicated bits that made envelope-pushing engineers twitch in excitement.

Now, lifting bodies are great at going fast and not disintegrating in the process, but they aren’t brilliant when it comes to gliding like a graceful bird. In fact, they tend to come down more like a manhole cover with ambition. So, Lockheed included a little party trick: deployable wings.

Basically, as the vehicle re-entered and slowed to subsonic speeds, a set of small wings would pop out from the fuselage, boosting its lift-to-drag ratio from a rock-bottom 1.8:1 to a much more agreeable 8:1 – which, to put that in (very) rough context, meant it went from gliding like a brick (the kind of ratio you’d expect from a re-entering Apollo capsule) to gliding more like a modern airliner, capable of controlled, horizontal flight over considerable distance instead of just dropping straight toward the nearest patch of desert.

But the main event — the real centrepiece of this little spaceplane-that-could — was its drop tank of course. Not content with just strapping on a big tube, Star Clipper rocked a giant inverted V-shaped propellant tank that clung to its underside like a particularly aerodynamic barnacle. This was the ‘half-stage’ in its ‘stage-and-a-half’ design – a big lump of liquid hydrogen that would be ditched mid-flight once it was empty.

Now, jettisoning a big tank directly under your main spacecraft sounds like the sort of thing that ends with a puff of smoke and a very awkward press conference. But Lockheed had a plan. The V-shape and mounting were engineered so that, once released, the tank would be swept away from the orbiter by airflow — neatly clearing it without any unfortunate fender benders on the way out. In theory, anyway.

After that, once the tank had gone off to either burn up or splash back down, the orbiter would continue to orbit on internal fuel.

As for what was to make it all go: Star Clipper was originally meant to be powered by three absolutely enormous M-1 liquid hydrogen fuelled engines, each cranking out around 1.5 million pounds of thrust — more than triple what the Shuttle’s main engines eventually produced. Work on that engine slowly wound up between 1965 and 1966 however, with NASA realising that while theoretically phenomenal, it was an engine that, realistically, they just didn’t think they’d themselves would need – and so Star Clipper, which was a Lockheed product, not a NASA one, needed a new source of go.

The leading replacement was something called an ‘aerospike’ engine, which, if you are unfamiliar, is a type of rocket engine that replaces the traditional bell-shaped nozzle with a wedge or cone-shaped “spike,” allowing exhaust gases to expand against the outside air. This self-adjusting design maintains high efficiency across all altitudes, unlike conventional nozzles, which are only optimised for one pressure level. This was certainly dreaming big too, because even to this present day, they aren’t really a finished and rolled out thing.

Star Clipper’s payload bay was to be respectable too. Early versions proposed a 40-foot long by 9-foot wide cargo hold, though some sources suggest later upgrades could have taken it to 60 by 22 feet. Initial predicted payload capacity hovered around 20,000 pounds, with stretched variants pushing up to 30,000–32,000 lbs. This was not quite in the same league as the final Shuttle’s limit, however, despite Star Clipper’s longer size.

Reusability, unsurprisingly, was also baked into every bolt and tile. The structure was to be made of aluminium and titanium alloys, draped in a thermal protection system eerily similar to what the Shuttle would eventually use — silica tiles, quartz-fibre blankets, and reinforced carbon-carbon for the nose and leading edges.

One especially cool feature though? Hidden jet engines. Tucked into the orbiter were a pair of little turbojets that could pop out during descent. The idea was that once Star Clipper re-entered and slowed down enough, it could fire up these jets for powered flight.

That meant if you botched your landing approach, you could circle around for another go — a luxury the real Shuttle never had. Or, if you landed at some dusty backup strip in the middle of nowhere, you could just take off and fly back to base under your own steam.

All in all then, it was clever, and it was ambitious… but of course, it wasn’t the only dog in the fight.

The Competition

By the early 1970s, every major aerospace contractor in the US – and even a few minor ones who fancied their chances – were hawking their own take on how to get to orbit and back without making Uncle Sam’s accountant weep every time. NASA was therefore spoiled for choice, and like any large organisation tasked with making a big decision on a slashed budget and a political leash, it did what they all do: talk, talk, talk, and just to be really safe, talk a bit more, and keep everyone guessing about what way they would go.

The early front-runner model was a fully reusable two-stage shuttle – that classic setup where a big, winged booster flies a smaller, winged orbiter most of the way to space, detaches it, and then both parts come gliding home like extremely expensive boomerangs. NASA’s own Max Faget – of Mercury and Apollo fame – was the designer of this one, it being an entirely ‘in house’ thing.

Naturally, with NASA clearly having a soft spot for the two-stage approach, many of the big contractors took the cue and hint with it.

North American Rockwell, flush with clout for having made the second stage and command module of the Saturn V rockets, pitched a fully reusable system that looked suspiciously like the Shuttle we eventually got – a huge delta-wing orbiter mounted on an equally massive booster, both of which would come in for smooth landings on prepared runways. Their version was essentially ‘Apollo, but make it fly again,’ and it ticked a lot of boxes for NASA.

McDonnell Douglas went a slightly different route however with a proposal known as “Tip Tank,” which, as the name suggests, bolted the propellant tanks onto the wingtips. Like Star Clipper, however, Tip Tank followed the stage-and-a-half concept – drop the empty fuel tanks mid-flight, keep the orbiter intact.

Then there was General Dynamics and Convair, then merged as one company. Their concept, charmingly named ‘Triamese,’ involved three near-identical spaceplanes strapped together, two of which acted as boosters, feeding propellant into the central orbiter before peeling off and flying back home – each of them manned, from their own cockpit.

Chrysler – yes, the car company, still hanging on in the space industry thanks to its work on Redstone and other early launchers – proposed something called SERV, the Single-stage Earth-orbital Reusable Vehicle. No wings, no gliding, just raw power and the ability to go up and come straight back down again – basically like one of modern SpaceX’s Falcon 9s. For bonus points too, Chrysler also threw in a little lifting-body personnel carrier called MURP that would ride on top for crew missions. NASA, not unreasonably, took one look at this bizarre stack of Cold War ambition, realised it was all but impossible with even the most advanced technology of the day – there’s a reason SpaceX has only just started doing this stuff – and pinned it up on the fridge, patted Chrysler affectionately on the head, and then forgot all about it.

Some other contenders tried to hedge their bets by combining ideas — Grumman, for instance, floated hybrid designs that included drop tanks and partially reusable boosters. Their engineering was solid, and their Apollo Lunar Module work gave them credibility, but the projected costs quickly spiralled and enthusiasm waned.

Still, amidst all of that competition, Lockheed’s Star Clipper held its own. It was different enough to stand out, realistic enough to be tempting, and mature enough – thanks to all that wind tunnel testing – to be taken seriously. NASA therefore kept it in the running even as it tilted toward more conventional winged two-stage systems.

In fact, in a last-ditch attempt to keep themselves competitive, Lockheed teamed up with Boeing for a joint Phase B proposal. The idea was that Lockheed would build the orbiter (a refined version of Star Clipper), and Boeing would handle a new winged booster — because if you can’t beat the two-stage crowd, you may as well join them. The design still tried to preserve as much of the Clipper’s DNA as possible, but at this point, the writing was very much beginning to appear on the bulkhead.

NASA eventually handed the major contracts to North American Rockwell and McDonnell/Martin, leaving Lockheed on the outside. But not totally out. NASA still saw enough potential in Star Clipper to commission further studies — leading to the LS-200 concept: a stretched, souped-up evolution that could be scaled into something more ambitious if budgets and politics ever aligned – spoiler: they didn’t.

Why It Failed

But why didn’t they?

In the end, when NASA called for final proposals in 1972, Lockheed showed up with its best foot forward: the LS-200, fully polished and refined as an idea, complete with drop tank, lifting body, and a shopping list of optional upgrades that could turn it into a fully reusable spaceplane someday. Their pitch was clear: keep it simple now, improve it later — a refreshingly sane philosophy in a field not known for restraint.

But the writing was already on the launchpad. North American Rockwell, already deep in NASA’s good books, waltzed in with a safer, more conventional delta-wing design. It had the cross-range NASA wanted, the institutional clout the Air Force demanded, and the kind of “we’ve-done-this-before” energy that made risk-averse decision-makers breathe just a little easier.

More importantly, it looked cheaper. Whether it actually was cheaper is debatable, but in an era of shrinking budgets, public apathy, and political point-scoring, perception was everything. Rockwell’s design looked like a prudent investment. Lockheed’s? A bit too clever by half.

There were also technical sticking points. The Clipper’s lifting body design, while aerodynamically efficient, came with its own baggage, specifically complicated re-entry profiles, and question marks over how well it could really glide if things went pear-shaped. The folding wings, embedded jet engines, and funky fuselage shape didn’t help its image, either – in an environment where NASA was being told to cut its budget in half and be grateful for it, they were seen as complicated solutions to problems that Lockheed had willingly imposed upon itself.

Then there was the optics. Despite all of their work in proving the concept, Lockheed had simply never built a crewed spacecraft before… and Rockwell had. Lockheed could boast spy satellites, missiles, and aircraft galore – but not a single thing that had ever brought a human home from orbit. And in the end, that made all the difference, and so the Star Clipper was confined to the rubbish bin, as nought but a ‘what if’ in NASA’s history.

Key Takeaways

• The Lockheed Star Clipper was a innovative, reusable spaceplane concept that promised lower operational costs.
• Star Clipper’s design featured a lifting body, deployable wings, and a unique drop-tank system for reusability.
• Political factors, budget constraints, and institutional preferences led to the Star Clipper being overlooked.
• The Star Clipper faced stiff competition from other aerospace companies, each proposing different reusable shuttle concepts.
• Lockheed’s lack of experience in building crewed spacecraft contributed to the Star Clipper’s ultimate rejection.

Sources

• Original MegaProjects video: Lockheed LS-200: The Space Shuttle that Never Was

Related Coverage