A comparison of two OTVs

Abstract

For a low Earth orbit (LEO) to geosynchronous orbit (GEO) mission scenario, it can be shown that both a chemically-propelled, aerobraked orbital transfer vehicle (OTV), and a high-thrust, nuclear OTV use approximately 50 percent less propellant than a comparable, chemical OTV. At the University of Virginia two teams worked on designs for these types of OTVs. One group formed WWSR Inc. and worked on the aerobraked OTV, which was named Project Orion. The other group, named MOVERS, collaborated on the design for the nuclear engine OTV. This report will briefly review the nature and specifics of their work. This will summarize each of these propellant systems and their corresponding cost savings. It will also highlight the strengths and weaknesses of each OTV concept.