s shorter than the
Space Shuttle. VentureStar's engineering and design would have offered numerous advantages over the
Space Shuttle, notably considerable savings in time and materials, as well as increased safety. VentureStar was expected to launch satellites into orbit at $2,000 USD per kilogram, 1/10 of the Space Shuttle's cost of $20,000 USD per kilogram. Readying VentureStar for flight would have dramatically differed from that of the Space Shuttle. Unlike the
Space Shuttle orbiter, which had to be lifted and assembled together with several other heavy components (a large
external tank, plus two
solid rocket boosters), VentureStar was to be simply inspected in a
hangar similarly to an airplane. Also unlike the Space Shuttle, VentureStar would not have relied upon
solid rocket boosters, which had to be hauled out of the ocean and then refurbished after each launch. Furthermore, design specifications called for the use of linear
aerospike engines that maintain thrust efficiency at all altitudes, whereas the Shuttle relied upon conventional nozzle engines which achieve maximum efficiency at only a certain altitude. VentureStar would have used a new metallic thermal protection system, safer and cheaper to maintain than the ceramic protection system used on the Space Shuttle. VentureStar's metallic heat shield would have eliminated 17,000 between-flight maintenance hours typically required to satisfactorily check (and replace if needed) the thousands of heat-resistant
ceramic tiles that composed the Shuttle heat shield. VentureStar was expected to be safer than most modern rockets. Whereas most modern rockets fail catastrophically when an engine fails, VentureStar would have a thrust reserve in each engine in the event of an emergency. For example, if an engine on VentureStar failed during ascent, another engine would shut off to counterbalance the failed thrust, and each of the remaining working engines could throttle up to safely continue the mission. Unlike the Space Shuttle, whose solid rocket boosters produced chemical wastes, primarily
hydrogen chloride, during launch, VentureStar's exhaust would have been composed of only water vapor, since VentureStar's main fuels would have been only
liquid hydrogen and
liquid oxygen. This would have given VentureStar the benefit of being environmentally clean. VentureStar's simpler design would have excluded
hypergolic propellants and even
hydraulics, relying instead upon electrical power for flight controls, doors and landing gear. Because of its lighter design, VentureStar would have been able to land at almost any major airport in an emergency, whereas the Space Shuttle required
much longer runways than available at most public airports. == Cancellation ==