Conference 7.286::space

	From what I understand about the President's proposed "space plane" 
it would be a type of 2nd generation Concord, able to reach up to 25 times 
the speed of sound. This plane would take off and land like a conventional 
aircraft. Instead of carrying it's own LOX, it would use a ram jet principle 
and utilize the oxygen in the thin atmosphere. Estimated cost; 2 Billion $$$.

	The concept of using existing atmospheric oxygen is interesting, but 
I would think it would limit the operating altitudes of this plane.
Does anyone have any idea as to what altitude the oxygen becomes too thin to 
be used for such a propulsion system?

	Although it was tough to determine from his speech whether this would 
be at the cost of "actual" space flight, his affirmation for going ahead with 
a space station would seem to be a positive indication. 

	25 times the speed of sound..... low earth orbit.... sounds like 
there would be *plenty* of military applications for such a vehicle..........

					Dave...

Sounds like it would have to carry some oxidizer if it were going to go into
orbit.  Or perhaps the main engines cut off while there is still enough air
around, and then they use OMS-like things to circularize?  Don't know.  Mach
25 sounds like almost exactly low-orbital velocity, however.  (But then we
get into 25X sound passing through air at what pressure).

Burns

Well, aren't there military aircraft that fly at altitudes in excess of
100K ft (~20 miles)?  That's a sufficient altitude to get up a pretty good
speed without extremely high aerodynamic forces, while still low enough to
inhale oxygen for combustion.

While an improvement over expendible launch vehicles, the shuttle is still
pretty much brute-force in terms of efficiency.  My rusty chemistry suggests
to me that for complete hydrogen combustion a weight of oxygen about 8 times
the weight of the hydrogen should be required - and if so, being able to
get that oxygen from the atmosphere for the first few minutes of flight
should dramatically decrease the overall launch weight of the vehicle.

It therefore also might change the economies of the flight path - e.g.,
make it reasonable to build up more speed at the lower altitudes (to the
point where the pressure forces limited it, anyway), thus further
decreasing the required oxygen load.

Now, whether this makes a simple take-off-and-fly-it-up approach feasible
is something else:  it's hard to envision the entire assembly taking off
from anything like a conventional airport horizontally, even with solid
boosters to help it get up to ram-jet speeds.

But not if there's some monster mother plane to get it off the ground
more conventionally, like the X-15.

All this has been obvious for decades.  Maybe the problem is the size of
the mother plane required - but if you re-define the shuttle as primarily
a people-booster rather than a combined people/large-payload booster,
the size may become reasonable.
					- Bill

 There was an article in newsweek several weeks ago on this. the 
aircraft was designed in 1948 and was the extension of the air force's 
rocket plane program (X-1, X-2, X-15 etc.) The proposal is coming from 
Hughes aircraft (I think) to finish the development of this aircraft 
(the Dyno-saur). The article mentioned that several would probably be 
used commercially (New York to Sydney Australia in 30 min), but that the 
main use would be for moving things to low orbit at roughly 1% the cost 
of the shuttle. 

If I can find it I'll reprint the aricle here.

dave

The X-20 (aka Dyna-soar, for dynamic soaring) had no major propulsion system
of its own. It was to be launched on a conventional booster (originally
Titan I, ultimately Titan IIIC). In the Titan IIIC scenario it was to have
entered orbit with the Transtage still attached for in orbit manoeuverability.
It was to have a non ablative heat shield which would not need refurbishment
between flights. 

There two projects that are very similar to the Dynasoar. One is the French
Hermes 'minishuttle' which is to be launched on an Ariane 5 and could carry
5 men (but not much more). There has been discussion of it having the capability
to dock with the US space station. The other is the Soviet space plane which
will presumably be launched on their new medium weight launch vehicle (Titan
II class). This not the Soviet shuttle program, which is a different vehicle
(Data on the Soviet programs is from the DoD report 'Soviet Military Power
1985')

The thing being talked about on the news is very similar to a proposal called
HOTOL (horizontal take off and landing) that is being proposed by Rolls Royce
in the UK. HOTOL burns LH2 with atmospheric oxygen until the air becomes too
thin and it switches to its own LOX tankage. Its a one piece system, completely
resuable. Rolls Royce and British Aerospace claim to have made a breakthrough
in the air breathing engine design, implying (my speculation) they have solved
some of the major problems with SCRAMjets (Supersonic Combustion RAMjets).

gary

                          LA To TOKYO IN TWO HOURS
                           A new era for aircraft
       (Reprinted without permission from Newsweek December 16, 1985)

 ...Good morning ladies and gentlemen, and welcome aboard the Orient 
express, Flight 107 from Los Angeles to Tokyo. Our flying time will be 
two hours. We regret that the aircraft has no windows, but we hope that 
you will enjoy the panoramic view of earth form 110,00 feet on the TV 
monitor at the front of the cabin. When we have reached our cruising 
speed of Mach 5 our cabin staff will be serving you beverages; there 
will be no time for a meal. During our ascent and descent we do ask that 
your remain strapped in your reclining chairs. These are specially 
designed to help your body cope with the G-forces acting on it during 
acceleration and deceleration. And now lie back and enjoy your 
flight...

 For transpacific passengers and space enthusiasts alike, it is a 
dazzling vision: a 21-st century hypersonic aircraft blasting passengers 
halfway across the globe at unthinkable speeds. The Concorde cruises at 
barely Mach 2, a mere 1,450 mph; these superplanes would fly at five 
times the speed of sound, so fast that ordinary aircraft windows would 
make the structure too weak to withstand the stresses at such speed. 
Some might make Mach 25, more than 17,000 mph: from London to Sydney, 
Australia, in 67 minutes, runway to runway.

 Although there may never be a commercial market for hypersonic 
aircraft, a heavyweight aerospace lobby-including outgoing White House 
science advisor George Keyworth-is pushing for a three year, $500 
million project, funded by the department of defense and the National 
Aeronautics and Space administration. It would develop plans for a Mach 
25 plane that could take off from a conventional runway and fly into 
outer space. The transatmospheric vehicle (TAV) would in theory provide 
a cheaper alternative to the space shuttle, carrying payloads- for the 
Stars wars defense system, say-into orbit for 1 percent of the cost of 
the shuttle, Keyworth claims. It might also have tactical military 
value-as an attack plane against enemy bombers, for example. The Mach 25 
technology could then be adapted for Mach 5 300 to 500 passenger 
civilian transports like the Orient Express. "We're where we were in 
1953 or 54 when we saw that jet transportation was practical," says 
Lockheed TAV expert Gene Salvay.

 There are formidable technological hurdles ahead. The most promising 
hypersonic technologies are hybrid engines known as "airturboramjets". 
At low speeds the engine would use turbines to compress the air before 
it mixes with fuel in the combustion chamber. At higher speeds the 
tremendous force of the incoming supersonic airstream itself would become 
the compressor. Finally as the plane reached Mach 16, rocket power would 
thrust the craft to Mach 25, the velocity needed for orbit. The engine 
would require a fast burning fuel and very precise control l of the 
supersonic airstream. "the whole thing is a massive thermodynamic 
computation", says one expert at DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research 
projects agency. "You really couldn't do it without supercomputers."

 Cryogenic fuels: Because of the extreme temperatures generated by 
atmospheric friction, a hypersonic craft would also require 
high-strength, high-teperature-tolerant materials and elaborate cooling 
measures. One possibility is to use cryogenic fuels, such as liquid 
hydrogen, as both coolants and propellants: the fuel flowing through the
aircraft's skin, would cool the surfaces as it vaporized before being 
injected into the combustion chamber.

 Oddly enough, a hypersonic aircraft would be a throwback to the days of 
rocket planes like the X-15 of 1958, which still holds the world 
aircraft records for high-altitude flight at 354,000 feet and speed at 
Mach 6.7. In fact, the airturboramjets rocket engine now in development 
at Aerojet General Corp. of Sacramento, Calif. was invented in 1949. In 
the panic after Soviet flight of Sputnik, plans to send rocket planes 
into orbit were scrapped in favor of missile launched capsules. "When 
President Eisenhower created NASA [in 1958] he inadvertently made one of 
the most costly errors this country has ever suffered in technology," 
says X-15 pilot Scott Crossfield, now 64 and a leading advocate of 
hypersonic rocket planes. "Space development fell into the hands of 
medicine men:misslemen and Germans [rocket scientists led by German 
immigrant Werhner von Braun]." Crossfield argues that rocket vehicles 
like the shuttle are inherently uneconomic: "Seventy-eight percent of 
the fuel it carries at such high cost is oxygen. That's ridiculous. 
Twenty percent of the atmosphere is oxygen , and you can get it for 
free."

  The hypersonic program will not come for free, however, and the 
commercial market for it seems small. The number of suitable hauls is 
limited, and ticket prices could be ionispheric. And the very speed of 
the planes would drive up their production cost: since an airline could 
get several trips a day out of each plane, it would need only a few. 
Still, aviation experts expect that today's long haul aircraft will 
begin to be replaced with some new form of supersonic transport by the 
year 2000. At the very least, the push for a hypersonic plane may usher 
in a new age of aircraft design.


William D. Marbach with
John Barry in Washington and
Peter McAlevey in Los Angeles



dave

	NPR had a tiny quip this AM about the British government beginning a 
study as to the feasibility of their own "space plane". Instead of 
"Washington to Tokyo", they used "London to Australia" as their example.



					Dave...



P.S. If my calculator and memory are correct, I believe Mach 25 is just about
orbital velocity.

	I think the best we could expect from this sort of development 
would be to ofload the human transportation aspects of the shuttle 
in favor of it being a cargo transport to our space platforms and
using this new vehicle to transport the technical staffers.
	This would facilitate us having space docks to build the
nonatmospheric worthy long range vehicles like the "DISCOVERY" of 2010.
These vehicles being much more cost effective even if unmanned, than 
trying to build them down here and build bigger,and bigger rockets to
get them somehow through the atmosphere. This of course does not
take into consideration the possibility of research finding a totaly
new propulsion system that might change the way we will get into space
in the future ,such as "an ION drive in conjunction with a vehicle 
having an antigravitational field generator".
	Anyone else care to speculate ?


					Mike

 Maybe we'll learn to sail on the "currents" of space.

Seriously though, I would hope that a bigger, better, faster way to 
vaporise people would not be the motivation for new technology, but 
given the current state of maturity of most governments I guess that's 
what we have to look forward to. If the cost savings between the TAV and 
the shuttle pan out (ie: TAV being 1% of shuttle cost) I would suspect 
that the shuttle would be retired. Once we establish a permanent 
foothold in space (as opposed to just having visting rights) I think 
that a more effective space drive will be developed. All it takes is a 
comittment from our government (nobody else has enough money) and alot 
of hard work.

Here's hoping.....

dave

     It occurs to me that the Russians are probably pretty ticked off by now .
You see, they spent all this time and money stealing the technical designs of 
the current space shuttle systems, now we go off and develop something else 
that makes the shuttle kind of obsolete .
     If the Shuttle was intended to be simply a heavy lift vehicle, a simpler 
design would have sufficed .  So, if the new space plane is the manned and 
small payload vehicle, perhaps a design using modified shuttle components for 
the heavy lift vehicle (perhaps even a solid fuel only booster ?) would be 
relatively cheap to develop and quick to put into action .
     Hopefully it will take the Russians a little longer to steal the space 
plane secrets (ah, the price of a relatively free and open society !) .

Jon

P.S.
   The more discussion I see regarding the Space Plane, the more the idea 
appeals to me .  Perhaps a truly inexpensive way to get into space at last .
   I do wonder though if we should'nt examine some alternatives ?  One that I 
can think of at the moment would be a modification of the magnetic rail gun .
Something on the order of a ten or fifteen mile long series of superconducting 
coils that would constitute the initial boost phase, perhaps built along the 
sloping side of the Rocky mountains to give an angle to the beast .  Power 
could be stored up via Solar energy or off time power from the national grid .
   Eventually the Bean Stalk approach may be the best, but we are far from 
being able to accomplish that .  Enough of my ramblings, I wonder what the 
Experts think ?

Well, I'm by no means an expert, but -

As for freight:  Humans require quite a bit of coddling, whether you measure
by weight or by volume.  If we had a space plane capable of getting a small
group of people into orbit efficiently, it's entirely possible that you
could substitute a fairly good-sized non-human payload and use the same
mechanism.  A computer should be able to handle getting it up there - or
a pilot using remote controls (or both, with pilot as back-up).

Heinlein pointed out a long time ago that magnetic launching guns are just
a dandy way to get dead weight off the moon.  He was less enthusiastic
about earth launches, and for good reasons:

1) Atmosphere limits the initial velocity you can reasonably impart with
   the launcher.

2) Geography is not very cooperative, in lots of ways.  In the U.S., our
   highest mountains are quite a bit further from the equator than other
   U.S. launch sites.  The further you get from the equator, the less you
   can take advantage of the Earth's 'free' rotational velocity (up to
   around 1000 mph, which is significant).

   Our high mountains also don't happen to be near the East coast.  If you
   launch from Pike's Peak, for example, the launch cradle will likely
   come back to earth somewhere around Kansas.  Now, Kansas may be as flat
   as the Atlantic, but it's somewhat more densely populated.

   South America isn't all that much better.  Mexico has possibilities, as
   it has high mountains down near the narrow Southern part.  On the other
   hand, given military interest, this has a few problems too:  the military
   don't particularly like to depend upon other services, let alone U.S.
   civilian agencies, and their enthusiasm for a Mexican launch facility
   is apt to be qualified.

3) How many such facilities would we need?  They're awfully vulnerable.
   The military would want lots.  The conservationists would want none.

4) Strong magnetic fields need something fairly massive (and magnetic) upon
   which to act.  Space vehicles tend to be light, and in large part non-
   magnetic.  Hence the launch cradle I mentioned above.

5) The electronics might, however, object to magnetic fields of the required
   strength.  Guess the launch cradle better be a full Faraday-cage-type
   thingy.

A multi-stage plane approach seems a lot more flexible.

			- Bill

 I would think that the "space plane" being capable of carrying 300-500 
passengers (commercial version) would be able to carry a significant 
load into orbit. I also get the impression that it would be able to fly 
several times a day allowing alot of material to be shuttled up to 
orbit. we could build a space station faster and alot cheaper. If we can 
develop the aircraft.

dave

 Regarding .11 (potential drawbacks to "rail gun" launching system)

I also am not an expert but I enjoy flexing my conjecture muscles .  What I 
had in mind was something that would constitute the initial boost phase, 
followed by a second stage type of rocket propulsion .  The geographical 
limitations are quite a problem, in an extreme case we could build an offshore
facility that would launch from under water to the sea level .  This is really 
stretching credulity and I would have to see the math to determine whether it 
is completely insane (at the moment it looks merely warped) .  The point is 
that we might want to explore some other possibilities .

The potential benefits of a rail gun system : 

- The vehicle itself could be very cheap compared to current ships .  I am 
talking about the cargo style vehicle consisting of a shell, guidance, a 
booster rocket and whatever else that I have neglected that all rides in the 
previously mentioned launch cradle .  With current costs of 2 billion for a 
TAV style ship, the economics begin to look better .

- As some one else mentioned, the cost of lifting fuel is very prohibitive .  
If the "rail ship" were fitted with ram style motors and hydrogen fuel, the 
savings might be even greater .

- Frequency of launch could be quite high IF each ship is relatively cheap AND 
the power cost is not prohibitive .

The problems mentioned in .11 are still quite valid, in addition, the cost of 
building the rail launch system would be very high even though the ships could 
cost little .  The concept of relying on a "single source" for launching is 
also a problem strategicly .

The TAV style ships probably suit our national mentality better than most 
other techniques .  Even though each ship will be quite costly, the 
flexibility of many potential launch sites is a great benefit .  I suspect, 
however, that the supporting infrastructure of such a complex craft will 
negate many flexibility factors .

I am eager to see the proposed designs of the TAV .

Regards,
Jon

I think that the 1% figure is hogwash.  I don't recall what the initial
figures were for the Shuttle (reusable launch vehicle) versus non-reusable
vehicles like the Titan, but I do know that the Arianne (sp.) is quite
competitive with the Shuttle.  When you take into account all the support
facilities for such vehicles the costs start to escalate.

I am not oppsed to a less expensive way to get into space.  I just think
that the people pushing these programs have the potential of making a lot
of money and don't necessarily have the same objectives as you and I.

As for the maximum altitude of air-breathing aircraft I think that it is
somewhere around 100,000 feet.  Chuck Yeager flew a new jet aircraft
(sometime in the late 50s or early 60s?) to an altitude of about 114,000
feet and lost control of the aircraft --  nearly killing himself in the
process.  The reason he lost control was that there was not enough air
pressure on the aircraft's control surfaces.  At a minimum, you would need
small thruster rockets on the control surfaces to properly orient the
aircraft.

	Mike

Yeah, that was the flight I was thinking about (though I think flying at
only slightly lower altitudes has become fairly common for the military).

Since you'd need thrusters anyway on anything going into orbit, needing
them at lower altitudes shouldn't complicate things horribly.  The
important point is the presence of sufficient atmospheric oxygen for
ramjet use up to significant heights - and while I have no idea of how
far ABOVE 114,000 ft. they could be used, that in itself is high enough
to be useful for the first stage (or two if there's a mother to count
as the first).

And, as was mentioned in the Crossfield quote, the real bear is not so
much the fuel as its oxidizer.

As a point of reference, I can't now recall the exact numbers, but the
first stage of the Saturn V became exhausted at lower altitudes than
this - and at fairly (well, relatively) low speed.  Anyone know how
that might compare with the speed/altitude at which the SRBs top out?

		- Bill

> Anyone know how that might compare with the speed/altitude at which the
> SRBs top out? 

We, you probably have memorized how high/fast they are after 70 seconds
into a 2 minute burn.

The 4-NOV-1985 issue of Aviation Week gave some insight into the new
space plane concept.  First, this new 'space plane' should not be
confused with the  second-generation Concorde.  That project,
by Aerospatiale, is a re-vamp of the current 10-year old Concorde
to give it increased range, speed, and capacity, however it will
probably fly at best somewhere around Mach 3.

This project envisons no 'mother' plane or any other auxiliary
boosters, rails, etc. -- the vehicle described (actually, several
vehicles are probably contemplated) is totally self-contained.
Advances in scram-jet technology are expected to make the vehicle
possible.  It will fly under rocket or conventional jet power up to a speed of
about Mach 6, at which the ram-jet takes over, boosting the vehicle
in an air-breathing configuration up to about Mach 16 (I'm not
sure what altitude the air-breathing ends).  After about Mach 16
it continues to boost to orbital velocity under rocket power.
At hypersonic speeds the airflow acts as a compressor, bringing
oxygen-containing air into the engines, where a fuel is added and
combustion takes place.  The fuel will probably be liquid hydrogen,
and it will probably also help in cooling the surfaces of the vehicle
as it is delivered to the engines.

One key to the design is airflow control.  The vehicle will have to
be designed in such a way that constant air pressure is available
to the engines over a range of speeds from Mach 6 to Mach 16 (the
speeds at which ram-jet operation takes place).

The project will be conducted by some combination of NASA, DOD, the
Air Force, and SDI.  You can be sure that the primary reason for
this vehicle is not to get from New York to Tokyo in 2 hours!  It
will be used for rapid response, SDI testing/deployment, commercial
and scientific payload delivery, surveilance, as well as servicing the space
station.  Although a commercial passenger version of the plane is
possible, I doubt that the same budget which eliminates funding for
Amtrak is going to contain funds for this vehicle just to get passengers
around the world faster.

I also agree that the goal of putting payloads into space for 1% of the
cost of the Shuttle is probably unrealistic.  If a totally reusable,
self-contained, horizontally taking-off vehicle can be built, then
operationally it will probably save a great deal over shuttle costs.
However this project will be technically advanced, and development
costs and delays will probably boost the cost per pound of payload
beyond 1% of shuttle costs.

Finally, the size of the vehicle will be approximately the same as a
727 (a little bigger than the shuttle) and it will have to have payload
capacity about the same as the shuttle, placing about 65,000 pounds into
low-earth orbit.

It's hard to believe that a "one piece" design is favorable to a "staged"
design. NASA has had some multi-stage versions of the shuttle under some
level of consideration for years. So-called advanced shuttle systems, 
ranging from other ways to lift the current shuttle to unmanned reconfigs
of the shuttle components for heavy-lift.

Consider that with a one-stage, everything goes everywhere. The atmospheric
propulsion system is carried into orbit, and has to re-enter. The weight
and drag is totally useless and probably hazardous in orbit and during
re-entry. The shuttle has proven that an unpowered vehicle is adequate for
re-entry and landing. In orbit you don't need a massive propulsion system,
and having the fuel around is just another problem or hazard.

A "flyback" first stage, with turbo and SCRAM jets, and a "rocket" second
stage, works better, I would think. It's just very difficult to make an
efficient motor system that works from 0 to 18,700 mph and from 3psi
oxygen to 0psi(no) oxygen... The "flybacks" always land at the takeoff
strip, so the facilities are available for mounting orbiters. Turnaround
could be very short, maybe in the order of a day or so. "Rail guns" might
be used to assist up to "takeoff" velocity, a few hundred mph. "Rail
guns" probably can't be used for launching on the earth, as far as I can
tell- if the projectile could be brought to orbital+ velocity, it would
probably incinerate- it would have its highest velocity in the thickest
air, slowing as it rose, from drag and g, until it reached orbit. Works
well in vacuum, as on the moon, and with low orbital v.

Well, we'll have to wait and see. Almost everyone who's said it can't be
done has been wrong.

John Osborne

re .10

Why do you assume the Soviets hve 'stolen the plans for the space shuttle'?
The vehicles that the DoD and others think they are building are not all
that similar to the shuttle.

re Scramjets

A scramjet is a supersonic combustion ramjet. They key concept is supersonic
combustion. In a conventional ramjet the air is slowed to subsonic speeds
before entering the combustion chamber. This effectivly limits opertional
speeds of ramjets. The trick is to somehow have controlled combustion without
having to slow the incoming air as much.

re powerless reentry

Having a glider as the rentry vehicle severely limits its flexibility. Witness
the shuttle missions that have had to land at Edwards when the weather at
the Cape is bad, or have extended waiting for better conditions. I recall
that a USAF objection to the X-20 was itrs limited cross range during reentry
(it was unpowered). For routine utilisation of space, powered flight after
reentry is necessary.

re manned/unmanned

The HOTOL concept was aimed primarily at unmanned flight although a passenger
module is envisaged. FWIW, the launch stress on a payload in the shuttle
is greater than either of the competitors for commercial satellite launch
(Ariane and the Soviet 'D class' launcher).

re single vs. multistage

I would guess that the weight savings in building a single stage, partially
air-breathing launcher would be greater than that obtained by staging (the
weight savings coming from not having to lift things like control systems
for the booster, etc). This would be especially true if it becomes possible
to use the same combustion chambers and fuel for jet and rocket propulsion.
The vehicle would be simpler and therefore more reliable and would not have
to deal with the dynamics and stress of staging.

gary

    Response to note .18:
    
    Your comment was that a one-piece design could not be favourable
    to a staged design because of the weight to be carried during launch,
    re-entry, etc...
    
    Assume a spaceplane maybe a little heavier and bigger than a shuttle.
    (HOTOL, for example). It certainly looks feasible to Rolls-Royce
    and British Aerospace. Go and argue with the Harrier and the Concorde
    and the jet engine.
    
    That's going to be a damn sight lighter than the staged system
    that gets the shuttle into orbit.
    
    And no different from landing the shuttle, which has really gone
    quite well, despite the odd diversion or delay. 
    
    While I'm on the subject of delays, one thing I fail to understand
    is the western way of regarding a launch as an OBJECTIVE, rather
    than an OPTION.
    
    Like landing a plane, the actual landing should be regarded as an
    option to take ONLY if everything is right. Otherwise, go round
    and do it again. (example not meant to relate to shuttle landings
    after committing to re-entry!)
    
    Similarly, it would make sense not to regard a delayed launch as
    an *embarrasment*, the way it always appears to come across in the
    news. What's a delay of a few days when it takes months or years
    to get the vehicle ready?
                                  
    Regards,
    
    Ray.

    	Unfortunatly the embaressment is due to the fact that the whole
    world is watching.  Not that I'm advocating that they stop televising
    the launching of STS, but there is a certain amount of disappointment
    felt by the public when a long awaited launch fails to materialize.
    That portion of the US space program which is considered the cutting
    edge of technology is constantly under the public eye.  Everyone's
    interested in seeing the latest example of US technological genius.
    When this fails or hiccups, it doesn't make people feel good.  So
    why is this important?  Because the US has not made an official
    commitment of long term programs in space.  Americans like to see
    quick results,  with plenty of milestones along the way.  This is
    why it's difficult to plan a long term mission and get the public
    to support it.  It's alot easier to say "We're going to put a man
    on the moon by the end of the decade" than it is to say "We're going
    to establish a permanent moon colony by the end of the century".
    Americans like the good race, but they don't want that race to be
    of such a long duration that they may not be around for the ending.
    
    Rich

    re .20
    
    I'm not disputing that the Hotol looks interesting, but I could
    not resist commenting on your arguments, i.e. the 'proof' of the
    Concorde, Harrier and invention of the jet engine.
    
    The Concorde was flying for well over 10 years before it was successful
    in terms of meetings its design goals, to be a profitable airliner.
    You may consider this a nit, but economic access to space is a major
    design factor for HOTOL. The Harrier is certainly an achievement,
    but the preferred version is the AV-8B, the upgraded version from
    McDonnell Douglas. There is some dispute over who built the first
    jet engine, certainly the first successful jet powered flight was
    German.
    
    Anyway, the point of all this is that if history repeats itself,
    Britain could get the HOTOL working but someone else will take the
    technology and make it into a workable system.
    
    As for the multistage argument... if you can avoid carrying the
    scramjets and the emtpy tanks that contained the LH2 into orbit
    you win, but only if the overall increase in vehicle weight doesn't
    cancel out the gains. Dumping the scramjets and, say, external LH2
    tanks would complicate recovery and may well be economically
    unattractive even if it does boost performance.
    
    gary

From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Info on the NASP
Date: 26 Feb 88 20:16:00 GMT
  
    Dr. Max Waddoups, director of the General Dynamics NASP project
(National Aero-Space Plane), gave a lecture about that plane to our
IEEE meeting last night.  Much of what he said I haven't seen posted
to sci.space, although it may be available from other sources.  Of
course, much of what he said also had all sorts of qualifiers like "I
can't tell you the exact numbers" or "I'm not authorized to reveal
that compound", etc. 
 
    The builder of the NASP, also known as the X-30, will be decided
amongst collaboration/competition from three contractors for the
airframe, and two contractors for the engines.  He said this has
resulted in much confusion on the who gets what data, with "many
packages going to the wrong doorstep." This has resulted in many of
the people on the project being more relaxed and open with ideas
between contractors and NASA, much to the horror of GD and the DoD. 
 
    This airplane will be one of the least dense aircraft ever built. 
Full loaded with fuel, it could quite literally float on water.  This
is because the fuel used is supercooled hydrogen slush, "about the
same consistency as a snow cone", with a density of 6 lbs/cubic foot. 
This has earned the plane the nickname of "The Hypersonic Hindenburg".
The outer skin will be a carbon-silicate polymer almost like the
black tiles used on the shuttle. The inner fuel tank will be
constructed of a material that has a zero coefficient of expansion,
which will hopefully not spring leaks that have to be traced down by
soap bubbles, like they do on the Atlas/Centaurs. The first design
prototype will be rather small, "large enough for two passengers and a
box of Cheerios."  They plan having an initial fleet of three aircraft. 
 
    He showed us several slides, one of which was the flight envelope
of the X-30.  On a chart with time on the y axis and speed on the x
axis, the shuttle flight envelope was almost vertical on the ascent,
with a more gracefull curve on the descent.  That shuttle descent
curve will be followed almost exactly by the X-30 on ascension as well
as descension, meaning it will be traveling at Mach 15-20 from about
100,000 ft. until it achieves orbit.  The other slide he showed us
some projected test flights from Edwards AFB, each having a leisurely
2-G turn.  The first was at Mach 10, and encompassed a circle over
northern Nevada, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona.  The second
flight was at Mach 15 and included going over Nevada, Idaho, southern
Canada, Lake Michigan, Mississippi, Texas and back to Edwards! 

    They are looking into the possibility of using some of the new
high temperature superconducting materials onboard for power
transmission/storage, since they have this really nice source of a
very cold material available.  The hardware for the computers will be
massively redundant so that any stray radiation doesn't kill
something.  The operating system for the plane will probably be a
derivative of a real-time Unix, with many Ada applications thrown in,
as per DoD spec. They want to try to keep the software costs down to
"no more than 25% of the cost of the plane." 

    Another real problem they are having is sampling/sensing of the
airflow outside.  There would be no way they could just stick a Pitot
tube out without it melting, so they are looking into ways of doing
remote sensing of such things behind transparent panels.  And speaking
of transparent panels, they don't really want to have to figure out a
way to put windows in the thing, causing much uproar with the pilots. 
 
    He stressed this will be a very experimental and dangerous plane,
fully deserving the "X" designation.  Much of the data for the airflow
and and such isn't available yet, and will require years of testing.
He said, "we won't be sending any school teachers up in it anytime soon." 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
    I hope I haven't butchered the details too badly, since I am doing
this from memory.  If so, perhaps you more knowledgeable types could
correct me. 
 
						-George Moore
						  ([email protected])
 
	"Ok...which way to Ft. Lauderdale?"
		"How should I know?  I only know what's inside your head,
		 and you don't know the way from your house to a 7-11."

From: [email protected] (David Smyth)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Info on the NASP
Date: 10 Mar 88 01:27:23 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena CA.
 
    In article <191700007@trsvax> [email protected] writes:

>Another real problem they are having is sampling/sensing of the airflow
>outside.  There would be no way they could just stick a Pitot tube out
>without it melting, so they are looking into ways of doing remote
>sensing of such things behind transparent panels.  And speaking of
>transparent panels, they don't really want to have to figure out a
>way to put windows in the thing, causing much uproar with the pilots.
 
    This seems strange.  Yachts have had water speed transducers which
require nothing at all beyond the surafe for years.  I think they use
doppler against the water molecules, but I'm not sure.  Why not just
use intertial and Navstar like ICBMs?  Or TDRS like the shuttle? 
 
    If they want air data, just use pressure.  That won't require
anything beyond the surface. 
 
    The shuttle has windows, so the NASP obviously could too.  But why
bother? Use cameras (small ports should be easy and light) and make a
transparent cockpit via imaging, like Honeywell did on some
experimental cockpit they made a few years ago.  They tracked the
pilots eyes with light, and projected very high resolution images in
the narrow area immediately ahead of the pupil, with the resolution
decreasing with angle, so not so much imaging really had to be done by
the computers.  The image was displayed on the inside of a rather
extended visor. 

    A very interesting article on the NASP has been published in the 1990
    encyclopedia britannica science and technology year book I just
    recieved it today.
    I believe that one idea for the engines was SCRAMjet w/LACE if anyone
    is interested I can enter more details when I have more time.
    
    -j

    	See Topic 537 for information on LACE, but please add your info 
    on the spaceplane project as well.
    
    	Larry
    

    Someone asked for an update of HOTOL, I am just as interested in an
    update of the X-30.
    
    How is it coming?  Is the flight schedule intact (I think it was for
    the first flight in 1993?)?  How are the scramjets doing?  How is the
    transition between modes (turbojet => ramjet => scramjet => rocket) 
    being handled?  
    
    I have to agree with what George M. said elsewhere, without something
    like a space plane, where it costs no more to go to orbit than it costs
    to go to tokyo via plane, will we have large scale space activity.  So
    I think X-30 could be a VERY important step!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    Tony

    Re:.27
    	The X-30 project is still proceeding well but there is great
    uncertainty about its future at this point. While the White House has
    stated the project is needed (The National Space Council headed by Dan
    Quayle has endorsed the project) there are those in Congress who feel
    that the DoD should not be funding the project since the X-30 seems to
    have limited realistic military potential for the forseeable future.
    This combined with the ubiquitous drive to trim the Federal budget
    could cause a slow down in the project or outright cancellation. In
    this sort of enviroment, the various contractors involved in the X-30
    project are not willing to throw all their resources into the project
    at least not until there is some serious LONG TERM commitment from the
    government to support and fund the project. In the mean time, the
    contractors are proceeding cautiously (i.e. less than full speed).
    	In any case if the X-30 gets its needed funding, the most likely
    first flight date will be around 1998 (if I remember correctly). Most
    people involved with the project feel that development can proceed at
    this comfortable (and relatively less expensive) pace and meet this
    goal even if problems arise in the development (and there are bound to
    be plenty as there were with such projects as the X-15 and Space
    Shuttle).
    	As far as the state of the engine technology, it is progressing
    quite well. Various engine components (both full size and scale) have
    been tested in wind tunnels at various subsonic and supersonic speeds.
    There has also been limited testing at hypersonic speeds using shock
    tunnels (which can create hypersonic conditions for a fraction of a
    second). If I remember correctly, one of the engine contractors (Pratt
    & Whitney?) is constructing new test facilities for additional engine
    tests. All in all the engine test seem to indicate that they will
    perform as well as (and in some cases better than) numerical computer
    models indicate.
    	The Soviet Union has offered to jointly develop the X-30 (as well
    as several other European nations and Japan). In particular, the
    Soviets have some of the largest and best wind tunnels in the world.
    With such facilities, it should be possible to test FULL SIZE engines
    to trans-sonic speeds. It seems unlikely, however, that the US will
    accept the Soviet's proposal (of course!).
    	There has been some talk of using the Pegasus winged space launcher
    to perform some engine component or scale engine tests at supersonic to
    hypersonic speeds while Pegasus flies on a depressed trajectory. As far
    as I know there are some negotiations taking place.
    
    				Drew                          
    
    

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Space Station Strangles NASP
Date: 27 Sep 89 18:50:17 GMT
Reply-To: [email protected] (Larry Smith)
Organization: Intel Corp., Hillsboro, Oregon
 
    Quoting SPACE NEWS Sept. 18, 1989 (the preview issue of the new
publication of DEFENSE WEEK to appear in Jan. 1990), "The 1990 budget
account for NASA's Space Station [FREEDOM] was increased substantially
by a key Senate committee last week, but all funding for the national
aerospace plane was deleted from the agency's spending plan". 
 
    This is absurd. Just like the Ford Model-T enabled people for the
first time to AFFORDABLY travel hundreds of miles from their homes,
and the DC-3 to AFFORDABLY travel thousands of miles, the national
aerospace plane derived vehicle (NASPDV) holds the promise of
AFFORDABLE transportation to low earth orbit. If you really want the
federal and commercial space development business to bloom, provide an
AFFORDABLE way to get people and light cargoes to LEO (NASPDV), and
reduce by 10X the cost of heavy payloads (ALS or Jarvis). Don't
provide a great facility (space station) with a very expensive, and
therefore ultimately unaffordable, way to get there (Shuttle). Put
another way, if you had to travel from LA to NY to help a client with
a technical problem, or to investigate new techniques/markets, would
you want to go through the overhead and delay of getting yourself on a
system like the space shuttle, or would you like to buy a ticket with
a credit card, and go to your local large airport and catch a ride ? 
 
    True, NASP/X-30 has technical hurdles, but these hurdles are not
impossible ones. The past several years of technology development have
proven that. Also, for the people on the net that say that U.S.
aerospace companies never contribute their own funds to development
any more, the NASP/X-30 technology development effort to date, has
been funded at the 50% level by the 5  U.S. aerospace firms that are
taking part, and a vehicle is not even being built! . Surely, they
wouldn't do this if they didn't see the potential, as mentioned above.
Quoting them, in 1 year they will be at the point where they will be
ready to develop hardware! They have said that any further delay is
excessive! X-30 is NOT a 21st century concept. It IS a mid 1990's
concept !! Look at it yet another way ... X-30 would cost the same as
about 4 B-2s. Which gives a better return? 
 
    The orbital X-15 program was killed by Apollo. Is NASP/X-30 about
to be killed by Space Station FREEDOM? 
 
    Larry Smith

Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: NASA heads hydrogen fuel technology effort for aero-space plane 
Date: 15 Nov 89 21:17:48 GMT
Reply-To: [email protected] (Peter E. Yee)
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
 
Mary Sandy
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                  November 15, 1989
 
Linda Ellis
Lewis Research Center, Cleveland
  
RELEASE:  89-176
 
    NASA HEADS HYDROGEN FUEL TECHNOLOGY EFFORT FOR AERO-SPACE PLANE 
  
     When the proposed National Aero-Space Plane (NASP) leaves 
the runway sometime in the 1990's, the fuel that powers it may be 
largely the result of technology efforts being coordinated today 
by NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland. 
 
     NASP is a joint NASA/Department of Defense program with the 
ultimate goal of developing an air-breathing experimental flight 
vehicle designated the X-30.  The X-30 will take off horizontally, 
fly directly into orbit, then land like a conventional aircraft.  
It also may have the capability to cruise through the atmosphere at 
sustained hypersonic (above Mach 5) speeds.
 
     Researchers are focusing on "slush" hydrogen, a high-energy 
hydrogen slurry, as the primary propellant for NASP.  It is 
denser than liquid hydrogen and requires smaller tanks for the 
same amount of propulsive capability.  The tanks themselves can 
be lighter in weight because slush hydrogen requires an internal 
pressurization of only 1 pound per square inch.  Also, slush 
hydrogen is a better coolant for the vehicle and engines than 
liquid hydrogen.
  
     Using slush instead of liquid hydrogen "reduces the size of 
the NASP and reduces the projected gross liftoff weight by up to 
30 percent," according to Ned Hannum, Deputy Chief of the Space 
Propulsion Technology Division, Lewis Research Center. 
 
     The slush hydrogen technology development team, headed by 
Lewis Research Center, was formed about 3 years ago when very 
little was known about the material's properties.  Each team 
member is assigned a specific area of research.
 
      o The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 
is investigating instrumentation, the physical properties of 
slush hydrogen and production methods.  NIST also has a 
historical data base and experience in slush hydrogen production 
and pumping. 
 
      o  McDonnell Douglas and its subcontractors, Air Products, 
Martin Marietta and Wyle Laboratories, are performing large-scale 
experimental work in slush production, pressurization, transfer 
and flow modeling.
 
      o  The University of Michigan is working on the gelation of 
hydrogen and slush hydrogen.  Gelated hydrogen probably will not 
be available for NASP, but may help control sloshing of hydrogen 
fuels in the propellant tanks of future flight vehicles.
 
      o  The University of Colorado is studying slush hydrogen 
thermal acoustic oscillation phenomena. 
 
      o  The Los Alamos National Laboratory is investigating the 
safety aspects of slush hydrogen, including the levels of oxygen 
contamination that will be acceptable in slush hydrogen propellants. 
 
     As part of the in-house activity at Lewis, Air Products has 
constructed the slush maker at Lewis' Plum Brook Station near 
Sandusky, Ohio.  The plant, slated to begin operation late this 
winter, will be capable of producing slush hydrogen in 800-gallon 
batches.  The slush facility will allow researchers to explore 
production, transfer and storage of slush.  Lewis' experimental 
efforts are a major portion of the overall slush hydrogen program. 

Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: NASA Headline News for 01/24/90 (Forwarded)
Date: 24 Jan 90 18:30:55 GMT
Reply-To: [email protected] (Peter E. Yee)
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, January 24, 1990                   Audio: 202/755-1788
-----------------------------------------------------------------
  
    This is NASA Headline News for Wednesday, January 24:
  
    Four major aerospace firms say they will stop competing against
each other for the federally-funded National AeroSpace Plane program
and cooperate in the development of the experimental X-30 research
aircraft.  General Dynamics, McDonnell Douglas, Rockwell International
and United Technologies say the unusual joint effort will cut costs
and increase the likelihood that the program will be successful.  The
program has been on shaky ground with Congress for several years.  
Congress has appropriated $254 million for fiscal 1990.  The Wall
Street Journal reports NASA and the Air Force are expected to okay
the joint effort within the next few weeks. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
These reports are filed daily, Monday through Friday, at 12 noon, 
Eastern time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A service of the Internal Communications Branch (LPC), NASA  
Headquarters, Washington, D.C. 

    At one time, the information that was available to me indicated that
    perhaps as many as 4 different types of engines would be needed for an
    aerospace plane.
    
    1)  conventional turbojet for take-off -> ramjet ignition speed
    2)  conventional ramjet from ramjet ignition speed to scramjet
    ignition speed 
    3)  Scramjet from ignition to mach 25
    4)  rocket for orbital insertion.
    
    The reason 4 engines were needed was the legitimate flight regimes of
    these engines.
    
    turbojet is a self starter, but 'runs out of gas' at just a little over
    mach 2, and needs fuel thirsty afterburners to achieve this speed.
    
    Ramjet needs airflow of about 600 mph for ignition, will work up to at
    least mach 5 and probably mach 6.
    
    scramjet needs something like mach 3 for ignition.  needs air, so
    another engine is required for orbital insertion.
    
    Well, anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that the latest popular
    science details a govt funded turbojet engine development program where
    the goal is a turbojet with a mach 3, no afterburner high efficiency
    cruise.  This would eliminate the need for a conventional ramjet.
    
    Anyway I thought it was interesting and I also wanted to remind people
    of this topic, to see if there is any other info about NASP out there.
    
    I had heard that the initial wind-tunnel tests of the scramjet were
    better than computer simulation predicted.
    
    Tony

Mary L. Sandy
Headquarters, Washington, D.C                        May 24, 1990
(Phone:  202/453-2754)                                       Noon

Maj. Robert Perry
Pentagon, Washington, D.C.
(Phone:  202/697-8123)

RELEASE:  90-71

DOD/NASA ANNOUNCE NATIONAL AERO-SPACE PLANE CONTRACTOR TEAM

     The Department of Defense and NASA announced today the 
immediate establishment of a national team of contractors to 
continue the challenging research and development of the National 
Aero-Space Plane (NASP).  

     With the engineering and technology bases available from 
Rockwell International, McDonnell Douglas, Pratt and Whitney, 
General Dynamics and Rocketdyne, the federal government expects 
to benefit from the synergism of ideas from these five 
organizations.

     As a presidentially directed joint DOD/NASA program, the 
NASP program objective is to develop technologies for a new 
generation of aero-space vehicles.  This includes single-stage-
to-orbit space launch vehicles capable of horizontal takeoff and 
landing and long range, hypersonic flight within the atmosphere.

     With the national contractor team, DOD and NASA take a 
unique first step in formulating a single team of contractors 
working together to develop technologies for future hypersonic 
aircraft.  The team will conduct the design and development 
activities for the X-30 research aircraft and develop a 
competitive technology base for future systems. 

     Instead of just one contractor coming forward with concepts 
in materials, propulsion and structures, this new approach will 
allow the government and the contractors alike to capitalize on 
five industry bases of technological development.

     The government anticipates that with breakthroughs in 
technology from efforts such as NASP, the United States will 
continue to maintain its world leadership position in aerospace 
technology.



From: [email protected] (Peter E. Yee)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: DOD/NASA announce National Aero-Space Plane contractor team (Forwarded)
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 24 May 90 18:23:18 GMT
Sender: [email protected]
Reply-To: [email protected] (Peter E. Yee)
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Lines: 45

[Copyright 1990, Technology Review, MIT Press -- October 1990]

How to Make Space Launch Routine
by George A Keyworth II and Bruce R. Abell


   The technologies are now in place to build a hypersonic
   National Aerospace Plane (NASP) that could inexpensively
   ferry payloads into earth orbit.



Since the last moon landing in 1973, the momentum of the space
shuttle has dominated U.S. space launch programs.  Here was a
vehicle, we were told, that would make access to space routine. 
It would launch satellites, carry supplies to build a space
station, and provide a zero-gravity platform for scientific
research and, ultimately, industrial production.  During the early
1980s, our national policy relied almost solely on the shuttle as
our means of reaching earth orbit.

This policy was doomed from the start.  The shuttle is too
costly, too complex, and too inflexible to support today's space
access needs.  Moreover, overreliance on any single system leaves
us extremely, vulnerable in the event of an accident; after the
Challenger tragedy, U.S. access to earth orbit virtually
disappeared for almost three years.

After 20 years, it is no surprise that a system begins to look
dated and inadequate.  But addressing these realities head-on has
often been awkward, even painful, because so much money and
effort has been invested in the current launch systems and
because there is no replacement system immediately on the
horizon.

But one research program now underway offers hope for precisely
the kind of warkaday access to space that shuttle proponents once
envisioned; the National Aerospace Plane, or NASP.   Unlike other
launch vehicles that exist or are being developed, this aircraft
would take off from a runway.  It would then hurtle through the
atmosphere at more that 20 times the speed of sound (Mach 20),
deposit its payloads in low earth orbit, and finally descend and
land on a runway.

NASP has been publicly perceived as primarily a hypersonic
aircraft, intended for high-speed transport on earth, or as an
exotic military reconnaissance or rapid deployment aircraft.
(Conceived in the late 1970s by the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency, NASP has been funded since 1985 through a joint
NASA-Air Force program office at Wright-Patterson Air Force
Base.)  When the program first entered the public spotlight, much
was made of the idea of an "Orient Express" that could carry
passengers from New York to Tokyo in one or two hours.

But the technology's most immediate impact will be in space
access.  More than any other launch vehicle now being considered,
NASP would provide low-cost and flexible access to space. 
Unfortunately, plans for post-shuttle space-launch systems have
not yet seriously included vehicles using NASP technologies.

Growing Space Needs

The United States faces a serious shortage of lift capacity. 
Right now the U.S. fleet is able to launch about a million pounds
a year into low earth orbit.  That does not even adequately
cover the "official" lanch demand compiled by the Air Force Space
Command.

And demand will surely increase in coming years.  The need for
communications satellites will contine to grow as
direct-broadcast television services are put into place around
the world.   Further demand will come from a proliferation of
satellite-based navigation and position-locating systems; and new
generations of earth-sensing programs; including the ambitious
Mission to Planet Earth; and a backlog of planetary exploration
projects.  Moreover, military need for space access will
increase, not decrease, as international tensions ease and
surveillance supplants readiness as the basis for national
security.  When nations reduce defenses, they put a higher
premium on intelligence - the old adage trust but verify.

Many of these missions could be served by unmanned launch
vehicles.  But if the United States seriously wants to build a
space station or explore Mars -- both proposed national goals --
it will need a way to get people as well as payloads into orbit
cheaply.  Interplanetary manned exploration in particular will be
unrealistic unless we reduce the cost of access to space.

But more importantly, there is a huge class of potential users of
earth orbit who cannot afford present launch systems.  Each
shuttle launch costs about $275 million, or $5,000 per pound of
payload.  Unmanned rockets are less expensive, but not
dramatically; it costs about $150 million to put up a workhorse
like the Titan, or about $3,000 per pound of payload.  These
costs form a high barrier to participation.  Many more users will
surface if prices drop to the $20 to $200 per pound range
promised by NASP.

Providers of communications services other than for mass
broadcast, for example, could take advantage of networks of
satellites in low earth orbit (rather than in higher
geosynchronous orbits).  The idea of growing new kinds of
materials in space -- which so far has been essentially a stunt
givien the high cost of shuttle launches -- could become
economical.

Shuttle launches are not only expensive, but also infrequent. 
Routine access means frequent launches and it means the ability
to launch on relatively short notice.  Yet after 40 years of
space access with rockets, the United States is still a long way
from that capability, even for unmanned systems.

Another element of routine access is the ability to carry a wide
range of payload sizes.  The space shuttle is designed to carry
one or at most two large payloads.  But this practice is
anachronistic.  Very few things that we want to put into space
are the size of the Hubble space telescope.  Most projected
flight requirements would require a payload of no more than
25,000 pounds.

This shift toward smaller payloads is becoming particularly
apparent in the growing popularity of small, cheap satellites. 
Conventional satellites, with their billion-dollar price tags,
are the space-borne equivalent of mainframe computers.  Each
multi-ton unit takes a decade (or longer) to build.  Moreover,
launch times must be reserved years in advance.  Small
satellites, typically weighing 50 to 1,000 pounds, are more like
personal computers; they can be assembled quickly from inexpensive
and accessible hardware and launched on short notice.  And like
th PC, as small satellites become more available, people will
find unexpected new uses for them, further stimulating demand for
launch services.

The move toward PC-equivalents in space is particularly important
for scientists studying the earth.  Missing from attempts to
create realistic models of natural systems has been the ability
to make large numbers of observations.  We could learn more with
500 100-pound satellites that with one 50,000 pound satellite.

 +----------------------------------------------------------+
 |                 HOW THE NASP STACKS UP                   |
 +----------------------------------------------------------+
 |               PAYLOAD     LAUNCH COST    TYPICAL LAUNCH  |
 |                (LBS.)     ($ PER LB.      DELAY (DAYS)*  |
 |                            OF PAYLOAD)                   |
 |                                                          |
 |  Shuttle       50,000         4,300          30-60       |
 |  Titan IV      50,000         2,700           147        |
 |  Pegasus          500    10,000-15,000         7         |
 |  ALS          100,000      300-1,600           ?         |
 |  Ariane V  22,000-40,000      3,000          40-50       |
 |  NASP          30,000        50-400           3-18       |
 |                                                          |
 |   *After payload delivered to launch site                |
 +----------------------------------------------------------+

Looking Beyond the Shuttle

The shuttle's high cost and inflexibility have brought forth a
number of proposals for alternative launch vehicles.  But most of
these would suffer from the same deficiencies that mark the
shuttle.

The most ambitious goals for reducing cost come from NASA's
planned Advanced Launch System (ALS), an unmanned rocket that
could carry cargoes of up to 200,000 pounds -- more than the
shuttle or its planned follow-on the Advanced Manned Launch
System.  About half the cost of a shuttle launch goes not to
hardware or fuel, but to operations; 12,000 people work on each
launch.  Developers of the ALS aim to improve launch efficiency
by simplifying operations and trimming this enormous personnel
cost.  Their target is a payload cost of $300 per pound.

This order-of-magnitude reduction from the shuttle's cost is a
laudable but not very credible goal.  The ALS is, at its core,
an extrapolation of well-mined technology.  It shares the
inherent inefficiencies of all multistage rockets -- the costs of
hauling expendable superstructure and liquid oxygen into space,
for example.  A recent study by the Office of Technology
Assessment (OTA) projects an R&D cost on the order of $7 billion
to develop the ALS, with an additional $4 billion for the new
launch facilities that would be required to permit the more
efficient operations.  To pay back the large up-front cost, ALS
would have to dominate the launch market -- an unlikely prospect,
given that the ALS is intended to launch large satellites rather
than the increasingly popular small ones.

In addition to NASA's projects, a number of commercial vehicles
are promoting a class of small launch vehicles.  One innovative
example is the Pegasus, the air-launched version of which was
successfully tested early this year.  Like the old X-15 rocket
plane, Pegasus is carried aloft under the wing of a large
airplane and then drop-launched.  The rocket expends no fuel until
it reaches an altitude of perhaps 50,000 feet.

Small launchers such as the Pegasus or Space Services' Conestoga
rocket are suitable for these smaller payloads, and satellite
manufacturers are now designing and building families of small
satellites sized to fit into these launch vehicles.  Four of Ball
Aerospace's Techstars, for example, can nest into the Pegasus
housing.  But lacking economics of scale, per-pound launch costs
are still high -- $10,000 to $15,000 for Pegasus, several times
those of the shuttle.

The limitations of all these multistage, expendable launch
vehicles have led some people to reexamine the idea of launch
system that climbs from the ground into orbit with a single
rocket stage.  The inherent difficulty of single stage to orbit,
or SSTO, is the weight penalty of carrying the whole launch
vehicle into orbit.  For this reason, early rocket developers
produced vehicles with expendable stages that are jettisoned
after they use up their propellant.  Over the years, engineers
got comfortable with staged rockets, somtimes forgetting that a
design decision based on technology of the 1950s and 1960s might
be worth revisiting.

Technological developments are making nonexpendable SSTO
launchers a more sensible alternative.  Fuel tanks made from
composite materials, for example, are much lighter than before. 
New designs also make possible lighter weight and more efficient
rocket motors.  Novel engine-control systems would continuously
vary the fuel-to-oxidizer ratio to maintain the most efficient
mixture as the vehicle climbs through the thinning atmosphere. 
This concept has recently been advanced by the work of a small
number of innovators, notably Gary Hudson through his start-up,
Pacific American Launch Systems (Redwood City, Calif.).

Developers of SSTO vehicles think they can substantially reduce
launch costs.  The Spaceship Experimental (SSX), for example, a
vertical-takeoff and vertical-landing manned vehicle being
developed by the Strategic Defense Initiative Office, aims for
payload costs a fraction of the shuttle's.  However, this manned,
reusable vehicle is still a paper design.

Rocket on a Runway

Unlike the shuttle or any of the other proposed alternatives, a
NASP vehicle would offer frequent and low-cost access to low
earth orbit without the complexity of a rocket launch.

NASP vehicles will use a jet engine to fly to hpersonic speeds
and high altitudes.  Equipped with massive air intakes, they
should ideally reach Mach 22 (about 4 miles per second) in
air-breathing flight.  Rocket motors would accelerate the craft
to Mach 24, the velocity needed to enter earth orbit.

Eliminating the need for rocket power from the ground to around
200,000 feet would reduce launch costs enormously.  And unlike
rockets, a NASP vehicle would not have to carry enormous tanks of
liquid oxygen to use as the oxidizer for its hydrogen fuel.  The
craft will need to carry only enough on-board oxygen to fire the
engines briefly for a final "kick" into orbit, to maneuver in
space, and eventually to re-enter the atmosphere.

A NSAP-derived vehicle would compare favorably with other space
launch technologies.  According to a May 1990 study by OTA, the
cost to launch an aerospace plane would run between $800,000 and
$4.4 million per flight, for a payload of 20,000 to 30,000
pounds.  That's far more economical than the shuttle, with its
nominal launch cost of $275 million.

The NASP's cost advantages stem primarily from its similarities
to ordinary aircraft.  Operating out of an airport and taking off
from airport runways roughly the size used by commercial       
airliners, NASP vehicles could be launched frequently.  According
to plans developed by the NASP program office, a NASP vehicle
could typically take off 24 to 36 hours after landing.  Where
rockets often sit in hangars and on the launching pad for weeks
or months while the payload is loaded and all systems checked,
NASP payloads and fuel could be loaded just a few hours before
takeoff.   A NASP vehicle will require inspection similar to that
of an airplane -- not the intense scrutiny required by a rocket.
(If NASP suffers a mishap after takeoff, it can simply turn
around and land again; the shuttle and other rockets risk total
destruction.)  And NASP will not be much more sensitive to weather
conditions than airliners are.  By contrast, the shuttle often
waits days for acceptable launch conditions.  Finally, while
safety considerations usually force rockets to be launched over
oceans, NASP could fly over land.  This flexibility gives NASP
the advantage of access to virtually all low-earth orbits.

Enabling Technologies

NASP relies on two critical technologies: an engine that can
achieve hypersonic flight with little or no rocket assist, and
structural materials that withstand high stress and high
temperatures.  Recent developments in both areas are encouraging.

When NASP was first proposed as a national program in 1985, there
was widespread skepticism that high-performance materials could
be developed to hold up to the extreme operating conditions. 
This lack of suitable materials has essentially been solved. 
Early in the NASP program, the major contractors -- General
Dynamics, Rocketdyne, Pratt & Whitney, McDonnell-Douglas, and
Rockwell International -- formed a consortium devoted to
materials research for the NASP.  Each contractor is responseible
for a particular materials class and then sharing the results
with the others.

Over three years, the five companines have spent about $160
million, and their efforts have producted an array of materials
that appear to withstand any anticipated stress.  For example,
structural elements in the air inlets or exhaust nozzles and near
the leading edges will have to withstand temperatures of up to
3,000 degrees Fahrenheit.  Traditionally, in other systems, those
surfaces are faced with carbon-carbon (C-C) composites (carbon
fibers embedded in a carbon matrix).  At high temperatures,
however, the C-C material oxidizes and erodes.  This is why
shuttle materials have to be replaced routinely.

The solution -- considered highly improbable just two years ago
-- is a self-healing, glasslike coating for the C-C's surface. 
This coating prevents oxidation and withstands extreme changes in
temperature.  The design goal is for this material requirement to
survive 150 flights without needing refurbishing.  It has already
withstood more than 250 flight demonstration cycles.  General
Dynamics is now making four-by-ten structural panels of the C-C
material.  These panels are one-third the weight of conventional
titanium structures, yet they withstand three times the
temperature.

For structural somponents that don't experience quite such
extreme temperatures, a team led by Rockwell International has
developed a new form of titanium-aluminide (Ti-Al).  Ordinarily,
Ti-Al tends to be brittle when rolled into flat sheets.  This new
form, strong up to 1,300 degrees Fahrenheit, is produced by a new
hot-rolling technique that assures uniformity of strength
throughout the entire sheet.  The sheets are now being fabricated
into large structures using a diffusion bonding method that
structurally links pieces of metal at the molecular level. 
Diffusion bonding eliminates the need for welding, which can
weaken the materal. 

For cricial areas where the enhanced Ti-Al is not strong enough,
Rockwell has developed another version of the alloy that is
reinforced by embedded silicon-carbide fibers.  By controlling
the orientation of these fibers within the metal matrix,
engineers can assure that the material's strength matches the
expected loading on the part.  It's like reinforced concrete, in
which steel rods carry the load.  Ordinarily, different expansion
properties of the materials cause failure at very high
temperatures, but that problem has been solved by high-purity
processing.  Contractors are also now producing four-by-ten-foot
structures of this reinforced titanium-aluminum material,
including wing cross-sections that can withstand temperatures up
to 1,500 degrees F.

The payoffs of this material engineering will extend well beyond
NASP.  In particular, the ability to design a material's
properties to match the stress it must bear is likely to
significantly influence product design and manufacturing.  Ten
years from now, manufacturers may routinely design
three-dimensional materials properties into their products thanks
to the innovations of NASP developers.

Most essential to the NASP concept is its engine technology.  The
optimistic design objective for these engines to propel the
aircraft nearly all the way to orbit without rocket assist.   So
far, that optimism is unshaken.

NASP's innovative propulsion system is a variation on a
well-developed engine type called a ramjet.  The entire front of
a NASP vehicle would function as a large air collector, and the
geometry of the structure would form the compressor.  The massive
amounts of machinery used in standard turbojets to compress the
airflow would simply not be required.   When the vehicle reaches
hypersonic speeds, the engine will function as a "scramjet"
(supersonic combustion ramjet).

Although the NASP test aircraft (designated the X-30) will not
fly for several years, ground tests of the engine, as well as
supercomputer simulations, have been encouraging.  Engine
efficiencies have reached about 70-80 percent, closing in on the
goal of 90 percent -- comparable to a typical turbojet.  Nearly
50 wind-tunnel tests of scaled versions of the engine have
simulated speeds of up to Mach 8, and there is strong confidence
in the engine performance up to about Mach 10 or 12.

As a manned, reusable vehicle, NASP will have the advantage of
repetitive flight testing.  These tests will allow designers to
refine the operating characteristics and gauge the vehicle's
performance, step by step, as it begins to probe unprecedented
altitudes and speeds.  And unlike a rocket, the NASP can have
varying degrees of success.  A rocket that does not achieve
orbital velocity is a dud.  But even if NASP fails to go beyond
Mach 15 or Mach 20 in air-breathing flight, it would still be
very nearly in orbit.  It would simply need to carry more oxygen
than the ideal to get its final boost into space. (Additional
acceleration at high altitudes requires relatively little thrust
since there is virtually no air resistance.)

Building a Constituency

NASP has had a difficult time finding its niche in the government
bureaucracy.  Facing massive budgetary pressures, Secretary of
Defense Richard Cheney recommended cancelling the program in
April 1989.  Vigorous objections from within the Defense
Department and NASA, plus a favorable review by the National
Space Council, stayed the axe, but funding has been cut
significantly.  Congress appropriated only $254 million for the
program in fiscal 1990, down from the $427 million that would
have been required to beet the original timetable.  As a result,
flight testing originally slated for 1994 will not now begin
until 1997, delaying the availability of an operational aerospace
plane until early in the next century.

The NASP program competes with familiar technologies, both in the
space access and in high-speed flight, that have long-standing
constituencies.  Many in NASA, for example, still view the NASP
as a competitor to the shuttle and its shuttle-like follow-ons. 
But NASA is becoming a more enthusiastic participant in the
program.  At the same time, many senior Air Force officials have
embraced the program, although budgetary pressures have often
appeared to place NASP on the auction block.

As the NASP gets closer to flight testing and produces
operational results, resistance should diminish.  The NASP
program is now developing technologies -- most visibly in the
area of high-strength materials and reusable engines -- that will
benefit almost any new approach to space access, including
mainstream efforts such as the Advanced Manned Launch System. 
This spinoff potential will doubtless build stronger support for
the NASP program.

But it would border on tragedy if parochial turf wars block NASP
from progressing at least to the test flight stage.  Automobiles
made their full impact only when driving a car became more than a
hobby practiced by eccentrics.  Computers have revolutionized
business and society to the extent that they have become
inexpensive, readily available, and easy to use.  An only when
travel into orbit ceases to be a newsworthy event can we claim to
have truly entered the Space Age.

----------------
George A. Keyworth II is director of research at Hudson Institute
in Indianapolis, a private, not-for-profit policy research
organization.  From 1981-85, he was science advisor to President
Reagan and director of the White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy.  He holds a doctorate in nuclear physics from
Duke University.

Bruce R Abell is a senior research fellow at Hudson Institute. 
Hew was formerly assistant director of the White House Office of
Science and Technology Policy.

    Re: Keyworth article
    
    I wish this was written by an aerospace engineer and not a policy
    analyst...
    
    Maybe I'm way off base here, but the article feels like it is
    overselling the NASP much like I'm sure the articles about the space
    shuttle did 15 years ago.
    
    I'm really in favor of the NASP (even after reading this article), but
    either there's been a lot of technology advancement that wasn't
    mentioned or someone is sweeping a lot of "details" under the rug:
    
    - The article mentions the elimination of "enormous liquid oxygen
    tanks" by the air-breather.  Well, that still leaves a pretty good size
    hydrogen tank (which is 2/3 of the volume in a LH/LOX rocket) -- I
    assume the ramjet burns LH of course -- the article implied it.
    
    - The numerous comparisons to an airplane bothered me.  Most commerical
    airliners are not fueled with cryogenic fuels, have hypergolic
    rockets (it needs an RCS of some sort), and quite probably some major
    rocket engines will not turn around in 36 hours -- at least not that
    many times.   A turnaround time of 1 week sounds optimistic to me -
    does anyone have any data to support the 1 day handling.
    
    - Doesn't a ramjet need to get up speed to work?  Whatever does that
    has to be integrated into the aircraft, and then get the heck out of
    the way when things begin to heat up.  More complexity, more
    maintenance.
    
    - If the thing has a rocket engine in it to get into orbit -- it WILL
    require the intense scrutiny of a rocket.   If the RCS system is
    hypergolic, it will require some inspections.  I also have some doubts
    about how well the RCS rockets will work if the NASP took off in less
    than ideal weather.   Come to think of it, it HAS to have a rocket
    engine in it - not to get into orbit, but it sure will need one to get
    out.
    
    
    The whole idea is really neat - and I'm happy to see that many of the
    major challenges in engineering are being hurdled.  Many of the points
    made earlier in the article are particularly well thought-out and
    valid.
    
    Does anyone have information on the Manned Advanced Launch System? 
    This is the first time I think I've heard about it.
    
    The article also mentioned an OTA report.  The report's name is: Round
    Trip to Orbit, an OTA assessment report.  This is out of print - can
    anyone lend me their copy for a week or so?
    
    Thanks,
    
    - dave

    re:           <<< Note 135.35 by 4347::GRIFFIN "Dave Griffin" >>>
    
    >- The article mentions the elimination of "enormous liquid oxygen
    >tanks" by the air-breather.  Well, that still leaves a pretty good size
    >hydrogen tank (which is 2/3 of the volume in a LH/LOX rocket) -- I
    >assume the ramjet burns LH of course -- the article implied it.
    
    Sure, it will have a large H2 tank, but 8/9 ths of the weight is in the
    O2 tank.  Perhaps it woudl have been more appropriate to say heavy
    rather than enormous.
    
    >- The numerous comparisons to an airplane bothered me.  Most commerical
    >airliners are not fueled with cryogenic fuels, have hypergolic
    >rockets (it needs an RCS of some sort), and quite probably some major
    >rocket engines will not turn around in 36 hours -- at least not that
    >many times.   A turnaround time of 1 week sounds optimistic to me -
    >does anyone have any data to support the 1 day handling.
    
    Yes, I agree, perhaps 36 hours is wildly optomistic, but in any case it
    should be well ahead of shuttle.  Also, is there any reason that you
    couldn't have RCS packs that you could swap in and out?  Certainly it
    seems foolish to keep the whole thing on the ground if all you are
    waiting for is to check out some RCS systems.  Test the old packs when
    the thing is in orbit.
    
    >- Doesn't a ramjet need to get up speed to work?  Whatever does that
    >has to be integrated into the aircraft, and then get the heck out of
    >the way when things begin to heat up.  More complexity, more
    >maintenance.
    
    Yes, a ramjet is not a self-starter, but it does not appear unlikely
    that some kind of turbojet could be installed in the same airscoop, for
    use on both take-off and landing.  Maintenance on standard turbojets
    isn't all that bad and it certainly provides lots more flexibilty on
    landing (thrust reversers make EXCELLENT brakes).
    
    >- If the thing has a rocket engine in it to get into orbit -- it WILL
    >require the intense scrutiny of a rocket.   If the RCS system is
    >hypergolic, it will require some inspections.  
    
    Maybe this can be handled, see above.
    
    >I also have some doubts
    >about how well the RCS rockets will work if the NASP took off in less
    >than ideal weather.   
    
    Please explain.
    
    >Come to think of it, it HAS to have a rocket
    >engine in it - not to get into orbit, but it sure will need one to get
    >out.
    
    Clearly the aerospace plane wil have rockets, the article even mentions
    that it will.
    
    Tony
    

    My comment about weather and the RCS rockets arises from their
    protection on the launch pad.  Except on the day of launch, you will
    see them protected with red covers -- I don't think they can tolerate a
    lot of dirt and water and work properly.   Maybe only the 20 yr. old
    variety need such TLC :-)
    
    I agree (and I'm certain) that a reusable launch system can be
    developed with a shorter turn around time than the shuttle.  I was
    harping (perhaps overly so) on the author's tendency to characterize
    the NASP as a simple vehicle -- I don't think that it will be.  It
    should be a lot simpler than the shuttle (then again, the shuttle was a
    lot simpler before the budget people got ahold of it), but any
    operational launch system that exists after the shuttle has been
    running for 20 years is bound to make the space shuttle look
    antiquated.
    
   > Clearly the aerospace plane wil have rockets, the article even mentions
   > that it will.
    
    You'd think that after typing all that in, I'd have seen that.... Sigh.
    I believe I was confusing it with another article I read that posited
    the NASP could coast into orbit after achieving Mach 25 with the
    scramjet.
    
    
    On another point - the author mentioned the $11 billion price tag of
    ALS, but the price tag for NASP was conspicuously absent -- is there a
    predicted development/deployment figure for NASP?  I can already see a
    couple of billion reflected in a few of the figures given.  I'd also
    love to hear why NASP and the Manned Advanced Launch System aren't the
    same thing.
    
    Thanks for the comments,
    
    
    - dave

    
    	Re: .37
    
    	I don't see how the NASP could avoid having rockets if it wants to
    enter a non-suborbital orbit.  If all it did was coast out of the
    atmosphere, its orbital tragectory would be purely suborbital.  It
    would *need* to have a rocket of some form to change its orbit from
    suborbital to fully orbital.
    
    	The article might have been describing the "orient express" form
    where it is flying passengers from New York to Tokyo, for example.  In
    that mode, a suborbital flight is exactly what is wanted (ie. get up
    and get down) and thus it wouldn't need rockets if it could gain enough
    atmospheric speed to achieve the right ballistic course.
    
    							-craig

	The NASP people should be carefull to build it with lots
	of built in safety margins. So that materials and modules
	can degrade a bit without affecting the flight readiness
	of the vehicle.

	The shuttle is the example of a vehicle working too near
	to the limits. Even a small downgrade anywhere grounds it,
	and a lot of people have to work a long time to fix even
	the smalest problem.

	In fact even routine flight procedures take 12000 people
	a month of work (as mentioned in the .34 article).  Its 
	better to have a somewhat lower performance, if that means
	a vehicle that doesn't have to be babied all the time.

	Just think how much happier we all would be if the shuttle
	payload max was only 25000 pounds instead of 50000. But if
	at the same time its turn around only took a 1000 people
	and one week, and was reliable. 

	Or maybe the other way, keep the payload of 50000 pounds, 
	but instead of a 2000 ton near-the-limits unreliable vehicle 
	have a 2500 ton reliable vehicle. This is the basic idea
	behind the big-dumb-boosters people were talking about a
	while back.

	***** I guess this is too much to ask. I am sure that just
	like it happened with the shuttle and is currently happening 
	with the space station. The NASP or any other system will
	be made into a dodo by the year by year budget variations, 
	cuts, and delays.

	Congressman as true dodos, will never decide anything in
	a holistic system basis. They much rather blow everything to
	bits then look further ahead then the next yearly budget.

	Gil

From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: clari.tw.space,clari.news.aviation
Subject: Experimental NASA spacecraft resembles Soviet craft
Date: 21 Sep 90 19:48:27 GMT
  
	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- NASA has apparently taken a cue from the
Soviet space program in designing an experimental spacecraft, Aviation
Week and Space Technology reported Friday. 

	The HL-20 Personnel Launch System, a small, winged craft that
could ferry 10 astronauts at a time to and from a space station,
resembles a space plane the Soviets tested from 1982 to 1984, the
magazine reported in an issue to be released next week. 

	``Their work stimulated our interest,'' William Piland of
NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va., told the magazine.
``We had a very keen interest in that configuration.'' 

	NASA has spent years ``gloating'' about the Soviet Buran spacecraft's 
striking similarity to NASA's space shuttle, the magazine said. 

	``I'm not aware of the U.S. ever designing one of its
spacecraft on a Soviet design,'' said Marcia Smith, a specialist in
aerospace policy for the Congressional Research Service, told United
Press International. 

	Piland noted, however, that the Soviet craft ``seems to have
evolved'' from U.S. designs, the magazine said. 

	NASA is exploring a variety of alternatives to the space shuttle 
that would allow the shuttle to be reserved for carrying large payloads. 

	A mock-up of the HL-20, built by North Carolina State
University, is 29 1/2 feet long and has a wingspan of 23 1/2 feet, the
magazine said. 

	The craft would weigh about 24,000 pounds and its wings could
be made to fold so it would fit in the space shuttle payload bay to
assure that crews could return to Earth from the space station if a
shuttle were unavailable, the magazine said. 

	It could also be used for missions to repair satellites or
rescue stranded space crews, it said. 

  The NASP design I saw had 5 types of engines, kerosene burning turbo jets to
get off the ground, kerosene burning ram jets to get up to about Mach 3-4,
hydrogen burning ram jets to get up to the Mach 6-8 range, a hydrogen burning
rocket to go to orbit speed of Mach 25, and a set of OHMS rockets like the
shuttle has to maneuver in space. 

  Supposedly there were plans to try to double up on the hardware by either
having the turbofans get out of the way allowing the turbo jet to become a ram
jet or by having one set of ram jets that burned kerosene at low speeds and
hydrogen at higher speeds. 

  I hate to say it, but this already looks far more complicated than anything
that could be expected to work. I think they would do better to have a multi
stage thing with the 1st stage being a large aircraft based on the C5A (but
about twice as large) and a small upper stage carried piggyback that was either
a small manned flier or a cargo pod. 

  The lower stage aircraft would have turbofans with kerosene in the wings and
perhaps a rocket engine in back with fuel in the cargo section. The upper stage
could have the hydrogen ramjets and OHMS engines and either a large throw away
cargo pod, a smaller flyback cargo pod or a small flyback manned shuttle.

  But of course, we have to have the massive giant all things to everyone
behemoth that pushes technology to the limit and the budget through the roof.

  George

    Re: .34
    
    Can anyone elaborate on the Spaceship Experimental (SSX), an SDIO
    project referred to by Keyworth and Abell in their article?  Is this
    project the same as, or related to, the Navy SEALAR project aslo funded
    by SDIO?
    
    Thanks!
    
    George

5/14/91: NASA TO TEST FLIGHT-WEIGHT AERO-SPACE PLANE COMPONENT

RELEASE: 91-75

        NASA is preparing to test a structural component made of
advanced carbon-carbon composite material as part of the X-30
National Aero-Space Plane (NASP) program.  Carbon-carbon is an
advanced heat-resistant, non-metallic material that may be used on
the NASP flight research vehicles in the mid-1990s.

        The NASP mission profile demands much greater performance
from its structures and materials than does the Space Shuttle,
which travels through the atmosphere in a relatively short time.
Engineers expect that the X-30 will experience structural loads at
extreme temperatures and sustained high temperatures in high-
altitude cruise through the atmosphere.

        Design and fabrication of this major NASP flight-weight
component follows years of technology development.  The carbon-
carbon material is stronger than metal at high temperatures.  It's
also lighter than aluminum, making it a good alternative in areas
where active cooling can be avoided.

        The component is part of a full-scale wing control surface
from a generic NASA aerospace plane design.  The structure was
shipped to NASA's Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards,
Calif. last week for extensive tests to begin this Fall.  The
flap-like component first will be tested for its ability to
withstand mechanical loads similar to those on a vehicle that
takes off from a runway like an airliner and flies into orbit.

        Thermal trials are scheduled to start in Fall 1992.  Initial
tests will be limited to state-of-the-art strain measurement
capabilities -- about 600 degrees F.  Researchers hope to achieve
test temperatures exceeding 2000 degrees F. by 1993.

        The Missile Division of LTV Corp., Grand Prairie, Texas,
designed and built the NASP test component under contract to
NASA's Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va.  LTV's successful
fabrication of the somewhat stiff composite represents a major
milestone in materials technology development.

        "The fabrication was challenging," said Dr. Wayne Sawyer of
Langley's Structural Mechanics Division.  "It is a big part that
requires a series of fairly high-temperature thermal cycles in the
fabrication process.  These thermal cycles result in material
deformations in some way or another.  It shrinks and expands and
tends to warp.  Just being able to make a big part or several big
parts that will fit together is very tough and requires good
control of the tolerances and the fabrication process."

        The rib-stiffened NASP component is about 56 inches long, 39
inches wide, 14 inches thick at the leading edge and 6 inches
thick at the trailing edge.  It is patterned after part of a
flight control surface called an elevon, which is mounted at the
back of some aircraft and the Space Shuttle orbiter to provide
pitch and roll control.

        "To our knowledge the component is made of some of the most
complicated carbon-carbon parts ever fabricated," said Langley's
Dr. Don Rummler, also of the  Structural Mechanics Division.  The
need for a  load-bearing tube with multiple layers and many holes
and cutouts complicated the fabrication task.  High-temperature
requirements dictated that even simple parts like fasteners were
made of carbon-carbon.

        Extra care was taken to overcome the potentially serious
problem of delamination of the materials, which is almost
impossible to repair.  Technicians built up the test structure one
thin layer at a time; it has 42  layers, or plies, at its maximum
thickness.

        The component parts were heated to high temperatures several
times and densified to increase their strength, in a process
Rummler likens to "burning toast."  Strength went up with each
processing cycle, as epoxy-like material was used to densify the
material by filling tiny voids in the carbon matrix between heat
treatments.  A final coating protected exterior surfaces against
oxidation.

        Just where, how and if advanced carbon-carbon will be used in
the X-30 has yet to be decided.  "The material and the advanced
fabrication procedures developed to make the elevon structure
represent an option that we did not have at the beginning of the
National Aero-Space Plane program," explained Rummler.  "It is a
design-efficient, light-weight alternative."
 

NATIONAL AERO-SPACE PLANE (X-30)

NASA FACT SHEET
MAY 1991

National Aero-Space Plane Program
NASA, the Department of Defense (DoD) and a team of
America's leading aerospace contractors are conducting the
National Aero-Space Plane (NASP) program, a high-priority
national effort that will promote competitiveness, foster
America's space leadership and provide the technical basis for
greatly expanded access to Earth orbit in the 21st century.

Imagine a sleek flight research vehicle dubbed the X-30... part-
airplane, part-spaceship... able to take off like an aircraft,
accelerate into orbit around the Earth, then return through the
atmosphere for a runway landing.  The NASP program is aimed
at testing just such a vehicle at the leading edge of
technology, involving state-of-the-art aeronautical design
made possible by breakthroughs in materials, propulsion and
computers.

The NASP program is proceeding in three phases:
Phase I.  During 1984-85, NASA, DoD and the aerospace
industry defined the aero-space plane concept and evaluated
its feasibility.  Studies centered on a hydrogen-powered
vehicle capable of horizontal takeoff and landing, and
acceleration to orbital speed (25 times the speed of sound).

Phase II.   The current phase, which began in 1986, focuses on
accelerated research and development for the advanced
concepts in structures, propulsion and airframe design needed
for the NASP program.  A decision to build and flight test the
X-30 will be made by the spring of 1993.

Phase III.  The X-30 would undertake a comprehensive program
of aerodynamic engineering investigations.  Soaring eight
times higher and faster than existing air-breathing aircraft,
the aero-space plane's flight tests would cover four key areas:

--Single-stage-to-orbit capability with air-breathing engines
and minimal rocket assist
--New materials to withstand the tremendous heat loads
generated in accelerating through the atmosphere to orbital
velocity
--Highly integrated flight control systems
--Horizontal takeoff and landing on runways

The Technology Challenge
National Aero-Space Plane propulsion research centers on an
airbreathing, hydrogen-fueled, supersonic ramjet ("scramjet")
engine.  The program also seeks advances in materials and
structures that will offer higher strength, lower weight,
better thermal shielding and greater reusability than current
aircraft.  And designing the X-30 would be impossible without
super-computers such as the Numerical Aerodynamic
Simulation Facility at NASA's Ames Research Center to
generate aerodynamic and engineering data unavailable through
wind tunnel tests.

The National Contractor Team
Five of the nation's leading aerospace companies --General
Dynamics, McDonnell Douglas, Pratt & Whitney, Rockwell
International and Rocketdyne, a division of Rockwell --are
pioneering a new management approach for the program.  The
members of the "National Contractor Team" are combining
their technical expertise and their best ideas to ensure the
success of this vital national effort.

The Payoff
The NASP program is being conducted by NASA, the U.S. Air
Force, the aerospace industry, the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA), the Strategic Defense Initiative
Office (SDIO) and the U.S. Navy.  Within this joint effort, NASA
is responsible for overall technology maturation and civil
applications.
NASP has impressive potential applications and economic
benefits:
--Reduced space launch costs
--Greater role for private enterprise in commercial space
ventures
--U.S. preeminence in aeronautics with consequent
international trade advantages in international trade
--Stronger national security posture
--New jobs and career opportunities


NOTE TO TEACHERS: SUGGESTED TOPICS FOR CLASSROOM
DISCUSSION:
1.  Research Topics
--X-series of research aircraft
--U.S. share of commercial aerospace market
--Recent research in aircraft technology:  hypersonic
propulsion, advanced materials and structures, computational
fluid dynamics

2.  Have students research the term "Mach number" and
differentiate between subsonic, transonic, supersonic,
hypersonic and orbital speeds.


3.  Have students list as many types of high-speed aircraft as
they can, their characteristics and their uses.  How are they
similar to, or different from, the proposed X-30 research
vehicle?

4.  Ask the class to compile a list of technologies that made
major changes in the way people live (examples:  the
automobile, production lines).  What changes might the
technologies offered by NASP introduce?

5. Have students compile a list of current aerospace jobs.

Article        33295
From: [email protected] (Mary Shafer)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.aeronautics,rec.aviation
Subject: X-15 30th Anniversary Proceedings
Date: 16 Jul 91 21:02:56 GMT
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards AFB, CA
 
On 8 June 1989 NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility held a 30th
anniversary celebration of the X-15 first flight.
 
Topics discussed included historical perspective, X-15 contributions
to the X-30 (NASP), concept evolution, hardware design, and a pilot's
panel discussion.
 
Proceedings of this symposium were distributed to attendees and to a
large distribution and there are still some copies available, which I've
arranged to be offered here.  If you would like a copy, write to:
 
    NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility
    XAR/Ms. Marilee Morgan
    Mail Stop D-2113
    P.O. Box 273
    Edwards, CA  93523
 
--
Mary Shafer  [email protected]  ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
           NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
                     Of course I don't speak for NASA

            "Turn to kill, not to engage."  CDR Willie Driscoll
    "Hey, Willie, how long can you tread water?"  CDR Randy Cunningham

RELEASE: 91-134 (8/20/91)

      The nation's undergraduate engineering schools will compete this fall for
the opportunity to design and build a mockup of the X-30 National Aero-Space
Plane (NASP).

      The NASP Joint Program Office, composed of NASA and Department of Defense
officials, is sponsoring the competition to stimulate student interest in
aerospace science and to provide an engineering education project tied to a
"cutting- edge" technology program.

      In a message to engineering faculties at colleges and universities around
the country, Program Director Dr. Robert Barthelemy said that "NASP is a
particularly exciting undertaking because of the technology challenges involved
in developing a hypersonic space plane with airbreathing propulsion.  We're
pleased to provide an educational opportunity for today's engineers-in-training
who may well find themselves using the new technologies developed for NASP
during their professional careers."

      U.S. colleges with 4-year accredited engineering programs may compete for
the $125,000 award.  The competition will be coordinated by the Virginia Space
Grant Consortium, Hampton, Va.

      Undergraduate engineering students at the winning school will design and
build a scale mockup of the X-30 approximately 50 feet long.  The student-
managed project will provide a practical engineering exercise involving a broad
range of design parameters and firm deadlines.  Students will have access to
NASP advisors during mockup development and will gain experience in the
teamwork necessary to complete a large engineering design project.  The effort
will also raise student awareness of the technological challenges inherent in
designing and building an aerospace plane.

      The mockup will be exhibited at major aerospace shows and exhibitions
throughout the United States.

      The X-30 will be a sleek flight research vehicle that takes off like an
airplane, accelerates into orbit around Earth then returns through the
atmosphere for a runway landing.  The X-30 could unlock the possibilities for
future aerospace vehicles that would provide routine access to Earth orbit or
fly from point to point on the globe in 3 hours or less.

      The Virginia Space Grant Consortium is a coalition of five Virginia
colleges and universities, NASA , state educational agencies, museums, private
industry associations and other institutions with diverse educational and
aerospace interests.  The Consortium will mail application packages to
engineering deans throughout the United States. The application deadline is
October 15.

      Final selection of the winning school will be made by a panel of experts
working in conjunction with the NASP Joint Program Office. For more information
on participating in the competition, contact the consortium at 804/865-0726.

 

    I have heard recently (not entirely sure where, I forgot to enter it at
    the time), that SDIO is again VERY interested in NASP.

    Seems as if in the late 80's SDIO (and all of DOD) thought the
    materials challenges would be show stoppers for years to come.  Well,
    the contractors have pooled information and made some startling
    materials advances.  SDIO is now fully engaged in NASP again and the
    commit to build in 1993 looks very good.

    And I would not sell the SDIO short these days.  After the Soviet Coup,
    even if this one fails, people in Washington are worried about some
    fanatic KGB Colonel getting the launch authorization codes and
    vaporizing New York, Washington, ..... and feel that at least some
    strategic defense is mandatory.

    Tony

Article: 9192
From: [email protected] (Jonathan McDowell)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: X-15 flights (was: What do Astronauts do after?)
Date: 25 Oct 91 14:46:59 GMT
Sender: [email protected] (Super-User)
Organization: NASA/MSFC
 
[email protected] (Mary Shafer) writes:

>Joe Engle flew in space quite some time before he was accepted into
>the astronaut corps.
>Certain of the X-15 pilots went into space in the X-15 and were recognized
>as astronauts.  
>I don't remember the defining altitude--maybe 200,000 ft?  Since I don't
>remember the altitude limit, I can't tell you if all the X-15 pilots made it.  
 
The US limit was 50 miles (~80 km). Although the FAI (Federation
Aviatique Internationale?) uses 100 km, I think the 80 km limit is
better as being roughly the interface between the mesosphere and the
exosphere, a good physical boundary (albeit one whose altitude is time
dependent) between 'atmosphere' and 'space', and a better lower limit,
historically speaking, for the perigees of objects which remained in
space for over one orbit. 

Only eight of the X-15 astronauts flew into space on the X-15,
although one other later made it into space by other means (a certain
N. Armstrong). Here are the X-15 spaceflights together with other
suborbital spaceflights, I've split the file into two parts for the
benefit of those with narrow text windows. The main data I'm still
missing is the identity of the NB-52 carrier aircraft for these
flights: which ones used 008 (the one still flying) and which ones
used 003 (the one in a museum in Tucson)? Any suggestions on how to
chase this up, Mary? 
 
I have defined 'Duration' as B-52 drop to touchdown in the case of
X-15 flights. Should I perhaps have defined it as B-52 takeoff to X-15
touchdown? We statistics nuts have to worry about this, because once
real spaceships like NASP get built, we have to worry whether someone
can accrue spaceflight hours just by cruising around in NASP at low
altitude for ages and popping up above the atmosphere for a few
seconds to make it count as a spaceflight. Comments, anyone? 
 
Suborbital piloted spaceflights
-------------------------------
 
	Spaceship	Crew		Durat'n	Apogee	Takeoff
					min	km	to Launch
							min
 
1  Freedom Seven	A. Shepard	15:22	187	0	
2  Liberty Bell Seven	V. Grissom	15:37	190	0	
3  X-15 3-7-14		R. White	10:21	 96	44	
4  X-15 3-14-24		J. Walker	 9:24	 82	52	
5  X-15 3-20-31		R. Rushworth	10:28	 87	49	
6  X-15 3-21-32		J. Walker	11:25	106	61	
7  X-15 3-22-36		J. Walker	11:09	108	57	
8  X-15 3-44-67		J. Engle	10:32	 85	44
9  X-15 3-46-70		J. Engle	 9:52	 83	56	
10 X-15 3-49-73		J. McKay	11:57	 90	44	
11 X-15 1-61-101	J. Engle	 9:18	 81 	53	
12 X-15 3-56-83		W. Dana		10:44	 93	62	
13 X-15 3-64-95		W. Knight	10:06	 85	57	
14 X-15 3-65-97		M. Adams	 4:51	 81	77	
15 X-15 1-79-139	W. Dana		 9:23	 81	73	
16 Soyuz		V. Lazarev	21:27	192	0	
			O. Makarov
 
 
	Date (UT)		Launch	Site	Landing Site
 
1	1961 May  5, 1434	Canaveral	Atlantic/USS Lake Champlain
2	1961 Jul 21, 1220	Canaveral	Atlantic/USS Randolph
3	1962 Jul 17, 1730	Delamar DL	Rogers DL
4	1963 Jan 17, 1859	Delamar DL	Rogers DL
5	     Jun 27, 1756	Delamar DL	Rogers DL
6	     Jul 19, 1820	Smith's Ranch	Rogers DL
7	     Aug 22, 1806	Smith's Ranch	Rogers DL
8	1965 Jun 29, 1821	Delamar DL	Rogers DL
9	     Aug 10, 1924	Delamar DL	Rogers DL
10	     Sep 28, 1808	Delamar DL	Rogers DL
11	     Oct 14, 2047	Delamar DL	Rogers DL
12	1966 Nov  1, 2124	Smith's Ranch	Rogers DL
13	1967 Oct 17, 1640	Smith's Ranch	Rogers DL
14	     Nov 15, 1830	Delamar DL	Mojave Desert, CA
15	1968 Aug 21, 1605	Railroad Valley Rogers DL
16	1975 Apr  5, 1103	Baykonur	Gorno-Altaisk
 
 .-----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
 |  Jonathan McDowell                 |  phone : (205)544-7724                 |
 |  Space Science Lab ES65            | uucp:                                  |
 |  NASA Marshall Space Flight Center | bitnet :                               |
 |  Huntsville AL 35812               |  inter : [email protected]  |
 |  USA                               |   span :                               |
 '-----------------------------------------------------------------------------'

Drucella Andersen
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                    November 4, 1991

Sue Baker
USAF Aeronautical Systems Division

Mary Sandy
Virginia Space Grant Consortium, Hampton, Va.

RELEASE: 91-182

      Undergraduate engineering students at Mississippi State
University, Starkville, have won a competition to build a 50-foot
mockup of the X-30/National Aero-Space Plane (NASP).  Mississippi
State will receive a $125,000 award to design and construct the
approximately one-third scale mockup, which will be displayed at major
aerospace shows and exhibitions throughout the United States.

      The NASP Joint Program Office, composed of NASA and Department
of Defense officials, sponsored the competition to stimulate student
interest in aerospace science and to provide an engineering education
project tied to a "cutting-edge" technology program.  The contest was
open to any U.S. college with a 4-year accredited engineering program.

      A panel of aerospace experts, chosen by the NASP Joint Program
Office, selected Mississippi State's mockup proposal. The panel cited
the quality of the educational experience described in the
university's proposal, strong student involvement and a large
commitment for matching funds as key reasons for their decision. They
also noted the university's experience in handling similar engineering
projects.

      Mississippi State University is a land grant institution with
about 14,000 students enrolled. The College of Engineering,
celebrating its centennial this year, includes an aerospace
engineering department noted for outstanding research in computational
fluid dynamics and composite materials.

      The university also conducts a major interdisciplinary research
program to develop instrumentation for analysis of combustion and
chemical processes. A National Science Foundation Engineering Research
Center, which grew out of joint research in aerospace and electrical
engineering, focuses on supercomputer design and applications.

      The technology challenges inherent in developing the hypersonic
X-30 make it a particularly interesting subject for today's
engineering students.  It will be a flight research vehicle that will
pave the way for future aero-space planes using runways for takeoff
and landing.   NASP technology eventually may allow routine access to
Earth orbit and permit very rapid flights from point to point on the
globe.

      In designing and building the mockup, students at Mississippi
State will have access to NASP advisors and will gain experience in
the teamwork necessary to complete a large engineering design project.
In turn, their firsthand experiences in designing and fabricating the
mockup will be incorporated into the general body of research and
development knowledge about the NASP.

      The Virginia Space Grant Consortium, Hampton, Va., coordinated
the NASP mockup competition.  The consortium is a coalition of five
Virginia colleges and universities, NASA, state educational agencies,
museums, private industry associations and other institutions with
diverse educational and aerospace interests.

[Excerpt from NASA's daily news...]

On network television this evening, Public Broadcasting Service's
NOVA science program  will feature the National AeroSpace
Plane.  This week's science program installment is titled "Fastest
Plane in the Sky," and will feature NASA-produced animation of the
AeroSpace Plane.  Check local listings for time and channel (in the
Washington area NOVA airs at 8:00 pm on WETA-TV, Channel 26 and
WMPT, Channel 22.)

Article: 37520
From: [email protected] (John A. Weeks III)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: THE X PLANES
Date: 15 Nov 91 01:04:11 GMT
Organization: NeWave Communications Ltd, Eden Prairie, MN
 
In <[email protected]> [email protected] (Habeeb Dihu) writes:

> I was wondering if any of you out there could answer a couple of questions for
> me:  First, what is the status on the X-30 and what exactly is it supposed to
> do; next, can anyone give me a history of the X planes -- ie The X-1 broke the
> soun barrier, etc.
 
Well, it not _that_ big, and its been about a year, so, here it is.  Many 
thanks go to Joe Baugher, who originally compiled a bunch of these lists
on various aircraft.
 
======
 
From: [email protected] (Joseph F Baugher)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: X planes
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 20 Dec 90 02:01:40 GMT
 
From: [email protected] (Joseph F Baugher)
 
A couple of months back, someone on the net asked about the airplanes in the
X series.  I got interested and started digging through some references.
Here's what I came up with.  I hope someone finds this useful or at least
interesting.  Enjoy!
 
The X-series was introduced in 1948, at the same time that the F fighter
series was introduced.  It was intended to designate aircraft acquired by
the military solely to gather experimental data in the exploration of new
technologies.  By now the X-series has reached the 31st entry.  Here they
are!
 
Bell X-1			Formerly XS-1. Air-launched supersonic
				rocket-powered research aircraft
				XS-1 was first aircraft to exceed the speed
				of sound.
				X-1A reached speed of Mach 2.5.
				Total of six built.
 
Bell X-2  			Formerly XS-2.  Air-launched supersonic
				rocket-powered research aircraft.  Two built.
				First aircraft to attain a speed of 2000 mph.
 
Douglas X-3 Stiletto		Single-seat jet-powered high speed research
				aircraft.  Designed to achieve Mach 2 speeds.
				Two Westinghouse XJ34-WE-17 turbojets.  Long
			        needle nose housing most of the test
				instrumentation.  Pressurized cockpit with 
				downward ejector seat (which was also an
				electrically-operated lift for pilot entry and
				exit).  Short and stubby wings of thin cross
				section.  Titanium used in various critical
				airframe components.  Disappointing performance
				due to low thrust of engines.  Found to be
				only marginally supersonic, even in a dive.
				706 mph at 20,000 ft in level flight.  USAF
				cancelled the program after only six flights. 
				NACA made a few more flights after USAF
				cancellation, and the sole X-3 built was
				eventually consigned to the Air Force Museum.
 
Northrop X-4			Formerly designated XS-4.  Tailless research
				aircraft.  Two Westinghouse J-30-WE-17 
				turbojets.  Two built.
 
Bell X-5		        Formerly designated XS-5.  Variable sweep
				research aircraft.  Based on Messerschmitt
				P1101 prototype which had been partially
				completed at the end of World War 2.  Two 
 				built.
 
Convair X-6 			Projected nuclear-powered research version of
				B-36.
 
Lockheed X-7A			High-altitude unpiloted ramjet test vehicle.
 
Aerojet X-8A Aerobee		Upper atmosphere unpiloted test vehicle.  Over
				100 built.
 
Bell X-9 Shrike			Rocket test vehicle for GAM-63 Rascal air to
				surface missile.
 
North American X-10		Tail-first test vehicles for SM-64 Navajo 
				cruise missile.
 
Convair X-11			Designation given for test vehicle for SM-65
				Atlas intercontinental ballistic missile.
 
Convair X-12			Designation given for test vehicle for SM-65
				Atlas intercontinental ballistic missile.
 
Ryan X-13 Vertijet		Experimental vertical take off jet aircraft.
				Delta wing.  Took off and landed vertically from
				a trolley.  Only two built.
 
Bell X-14			Jet-deflection STOL test aircraft.
 
North American X-15A		Single-seat, rocket-powered high speed and
				high altitude research aircraft.  One 57,000
				lb. st. Thiokol XLR 99 liquid-fueled rocket
				engine.  Launched from pylon under the wing
				of a B-52, lands on a pair of retractable 
				skids under the rear fuselage.  Retractable
				nosewheel under forward fuselage.  Reached
				speeds of 4104 mph and altitudes of 354,200
				feet.  Three built.  X-15A-2 is modification
				of second X-15A with longer fuselage, 
				redesigned windshield, and provision for two
				large external tanks carrying additional fuel.
 
Bell X-16			Twin-jet high-altitude research aircraft.
				Was actually a cover for a CIA project to 
				develop a spyplane.  Project was cancelled in
				favor of Lockheed U-2 before any example could
				be completed.  Two J57-PW-37A turbojets.
 
Lockheed X-17			Unpiloted nose-cone entry research vehicle.
				26 built.
 
Hiller X-18			Tilt-wing VTOL research aircraft.
 
Curtiss-Wright X-19A		Twin-engined V/STOL experimental aircraft
				Two Lycoming T55 shaft turbines driving four
				tilt rotors, one mounted on each "winglet"
  				Rotors orient vertically for takeoff, then
				tilt horizontally for conventional flight.
				460 mph at 20,000 ft.  
 
Boeing X-20 Dynasoar		Rocket-launched orbital glider.  Ten ordered.
				Project cancelled before any could be delivered.
 
Northrop X-21A			Five-seat laminar-flow research aircraft.
			        It is an extensively-modified Douglas WB-66D
				Destroyer with 25 degree swept wings of much
				greater area with slots and metering holes
				to suck the boundary layer air from the wing
				surface through a pumping system.  Two 9490 lb.
				st. General Electric XJ-79-GE-13 70 turbojets in
				pods attached to the rear fuselage.  Crew of
				pilot, two flight engineers in front cockpit,
				and two flight engineers in center fuselage
				beneath the wing.  Two built.  528 mph
				at 40,000 ft.  Laminar flow wing did provide
				for increased range, but the maintenance 
				difficulties associated with need to keep
				wing slots spotlessly clean proved too costly 
				for any practical application.
 
Bell X-22A			Four-engined V/STOL experimental aircraft.
				Four General Electric YT-58 turbines powering
				dual tandem ducted props.  Ducts tilt 
                                vertical for VTOL, horizontal for conventional
                                flight.  Ducts have lifting surfaces when
                                horizontal for forward flight.  345 mph.
 
Martin X-23			Unpiloted lifting body reentry test vehicle.
				Four built.
 
Martin X-24			SV-5P piloted lifting body prototype.  One 
				XLR22-RM-13 rocket motor.  
 
Bensen X-25			X-25A was gyrocopter, X-25B was gyro-glider,
				and X-25 was discretionary descent vehicle for
				USAF evaluation.
 
Schweizer X-26			X-26A was designation given to four Schweizer
				SGS 2-32 sailplanes acquired by US Navy for
				tests.  X-26B was powered version adapted by
				Lockheed for quiet aircraft research.
 
Lockheed X-27			Designation reserved for proposed USAF 
				evaluation of CL-1200 Lancer adaptation of
				F-104 Starfighter.  Project cancelled.
 
Pereira X-28			Home-built seaplane acquired for US Navy
				evaluation.  One Continental C90 engine.
 
Grumman X-29A			Single-seat research aircraft to study swept-
				forward wing technology.  Fly-by-wire control
				system, variable-camber trailing edge, composite
				material construction.  One 16,000 lb. st. GE
				F404-GE-400 turbofan.  Mach 1.87 (1230 mph) at
				altitude.  Two built.
 
X-30				National Aerospace Plane (NASP) testbed project.
				Contractor not yet selected.
 
Rockwell/MBB X-31A		Joint German/American fighter maneuverability
				demonstration aircraft.  One 10,600 lb. st.
				GE F404-GE-400 turbofan.  Cranked delta wing,
				canard surfaces, vector thrusting, and fly-by-
				wire control systems.  598 mph at 35,000 ft.
  
Sources:
	Various issues of Aviation Week
	The Observer's Book of Aircraft, William Green.
	United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and
		Peter Bowers. 
-- 
=============================================================================
John A. Weeks III               (612) 942-6969             [email protected]
NeWave Communications, Ltd.                        ...uunet!tcnet!newave!john

    There is a very good book called 'The X-Planes' that devotes a chapter
    to each vehicle. Send me mail if you want ISBN and other details.
    
    Also, the series 'Wings' on The Discovery Channel has covered several
    of the X series aircraft although usually indirectly. The episode on
    the F-104 had a lot of footage on the X-7 for example.
    
    gary

From:	DECPA::"[email protected]"  4-MAR-1992 
        15:30:00.11
To:	[email protected]
Subj:	NASP propulsion tests planned for NASA SR-71 (Forwarded)

Drucella Andersen
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                               March 4, 1992
(Phone:  202/453-8613)

Don Haley
Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, Calif.
(Phone:  805/258-3456)

RELEASE:  92-29

NASP PROPULSION TESTS PLANNED FOR NASA SR-71

	A key propulsion concept for the X-30 National Aero-Space Plane 
(NASP) is being designed for tests on a NASA SR-71A "Blackbird" research 
aircraft.  The experiment is expected to be the first major research 
project flown in the SR-71 program in NASA service.

	An SR-71A, which can cruise at three times the speed of sound, 
would act as a high-speed testbed to prove the concept of burning 
hydrogen fuel outside the X-30's engine exhaust nozzles as a way to 
improve overall flight efficiency.  If the initial design work is accepted
and SR-71 program operations are approved through the 1993 fiscal year, the 
SR-71A will be modified and flown at NASA's Ames-Dryden Flight 
Research Facility, Edwards, Calif.

	The X-30 is a future flight research vehicle that will take off 
horizontally, fly into Earth orbit and return through Earth's atmosphere 
for a runway landing.  The NASP Joint Program Office, Wright-Patterson 
AFB, Ohio, is funding preliminary design work for the experiment.  The 
NASP program is a joint effort involving NASA, the Department of Defense 
and a U.S. industry team.

	The bottom rear part of the X-30's fuselage will be shaped to act as 
an exhaust nozzle, which will increase thrust.  But computer and wind 
tunnel studies predict that the area near the exhaust will experience low 
pressures when the Aero-Space Plane flies at lower altitudes and at 
speeds from Mach 0.8 to Mach 3.

	The low pressures will increase drag and reduce the vehicle's 
maximum planned performance.  Injecting hydrogen fuel into the air 
stream under the X-30's engines and then igniting it -- a concept dubbed 
"external burning" -- is being studied as a way to increase pressure near 
the engine nozzles to reduce drag.

	"The NASP external burning concept has progressed steadily from 
the drawing board through wind tunnel tests and computer simulations to 
the point where we're ready to move to larger scale, high-speed flight 
tests" said Vincent Rausch, Director for the National Aero-Space Plane at 
NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C.  "The tests with NASA's SR-71A 
should be an important milestone in that effort."

	The external burning experiment will mount a 10-foot-long, half-
scale X-30-type aft-engine cowling and exhaust nozzle model atop the SR-
71A's fuselage midway between the nose and twin vertical rudders.  
According to David Lux, SR-71 Project Manager at Ames-Dryden, the test 
fixture's location on the aircraft will be free from aerodynamic 
disturbances.

	"We'll be flight testing the experiment to a speed up to Mach 3," 
said Lux.  "We believe this type of flight environment will give us a true 
simulation of what external burning will be on the X-30."

	Current plans call for about 10 flights of the external burning 
experiment at speeds up to Mach 1.5.  The final six flights will be made at 
speeds up to Mach 3.  The tests will study ignition limits of the hydrogen 
at high speeds, conditions that could lead to engine flameout and levels of 
turbulence that may result from the burning process.

	The hydrogen will be carried in seven pressurized tanks located in 
chine equipment bays that run along the sides of the SR-71's fuselage.  
The fuel will be fed to 19 openings on the test model and dispersed into 
the exhaust flow.  Sensors in the exhaust plume area will record air 
pressure and temperature data for comparison with earlier computer and 
wind tunnel results.

	The test aircraft for the external burning experiment is one of three 
SR-71s on loan to NASA from the U.S. Air Force for use as high-speed 
research testbeds.  According to John Lutes, SR-71 Program Manager at 
NASA Headquarters, a Dryden-led inter-center team is developing a 
national plan involving industry, universities and other government 
agencies.  "The purpose of the planning effort is to identify experiment 
needs that would use the unique flight research capabilities offered by 
these aircraft," said Lutes.

	Tests with a small "boilerplate" fixture previously proved that 
hydrogen can be burned externally at supersonic speeds.  The 14-inch-
long test apparatus was mounted on the wing tip of an F-18 and flown to 
Mach 1.26 at the Naval Air Test Center, Patuxent River, Md.

	The external burning project participants are Ames-Dryden; NASA's 
Lewis Research Center, Cleveland; the Naval Air Test Center; Lockheed 
Advanced Development Company, Burbank, Calif.; The Johns Hopkins 
University Applied Physics Lab, Laurel, Md.; and the Air Force Flight Test 
Center, Edwards AFB, Calif.

Drucella Andersen
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                    June 10, 1992

RELEASE:  92-86

        Decked out in striking red, white and blue colors, a 50-foot-long
X-30 National Aero-Space Plane (NASP) mockup rolled out of its hanger
today in ceremonies at Mississippi State University, Starkville.

        University students won the chance to build the one-third scale
mockup in a nationwide competition sponsored by the NASP Joint Program
Office, composed of NASA and DOD officials.  NASP is a high-priority
effort to create a flight research vehicle that will take off like an
airplane, fly into Earth orbit and then return through the atmosphere for
a runway landing.

        "NASA appreciates the hard work and dedication of the Mississippi
State students," said Vincent L. Rausch, NASP Director at NASA
Headquarters, Washington, D.C. "The spirit and teamwork they showed in
getting a quality X-30 mockup built on time reflects the same cooperation
that we have among government, industry and universities in the program."

        Forty-five students in Mississippi State's engineering program
worked for 5 months to construct the 5000-pound mockup at the university's
Raspet Flight Research Laboratory. Throughout the project, they had access
to NASP program officials who advised them on technical aspects of the X-
30's design.  Mississippi State aerospace engineering professor Dr. George
Bennett directed the students' efforts.

        The subscale X-30 is made entirely of composite materials so that
it can tolerate rain, hail and the other weather conditions that it may
experience in outside displays.  The spaceplane mockup will debut at the
U.S. Air and Trade Show in Dayton, Ohio, June 16-21, 1992.  Other stops
scheduled in 1992 are the Experimental Aircraft Association Fly-In at
Oshkosh, Wisc., July 31-Aug. 6 and the World Space Congress in Washington,
D.C., Aug. 28-Sept. 5.  It also will tour in 1993 and 1994.

Article: 45832
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: [email protected] (James Annis)
Subject: The X-15: first seat of the pants reentry 
Sender: [email protected] (News Service)
Organization: Institute for Astronomy, Hawaii
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1992 09:29:53 GMT
 
My favorite X-15 story comes from At the Edge of Space, by Milton
Thompson, himself an X-15 pilot. It involves the first, and probably
only, atmospheric reentry by improvisation. 
 
It seems that Pete Knight was on a Mach-5, 250,000 foot X-15 flight.
When it came time for engine shutdown, both APU's shut down as well.
This meant a complete power and electrical failure. 
 
To quote Thompson: "All the lights went out, including the cockpit
lights. Pete was now in a darkened cockpit climbing out of the
atmosphere at over 2,000 feet per second. The majority of his
instruments were no longer working and he quickly noted that his
aerodynamic controls were not responding to his attempted inputs.
Indeed, his controls were essentially locked." 
 
Without electrical power, the X-15 was without speed, altitude, or
rate of climb (descent!) information.  As the X-15 went though the
peak of its trajectory, Knight tried to restart the APU's, and managed
to get one going.  But: 
 
"Pete had to give up on resetting the generator because he had to
position the aircraft for the reentry. He had no indication of his
angle of attack and yet he knew he had to maintain a fairly high one
to successfully reenter. He resorted to flying by the seat of his
pants. (!!!) 
 
"He pulled the nose up until it started to diverge sideways and then
lowered it slightly. This little maneuver gave Pete a rough indication
that he was at an acceptable angle of attack for the entry. He held
this altitude until the g forces started to building up and then, when
he felt that he had made the pullout, he rolled into a steep bank to
start the turn back to Mud Lake. 
 
"Pete had managed to make a successful rentry without instruments and
without any stability augmentation- quite a feat." 
 
Do you remember the shock and disbelief at mission control when the
"major malfunction" occured with Challenger?  The X-15 control room
was undergoing something similar: 
 
When the X-15 power failure occured 2 minutes into the flight, all
communication and telemetry with the aircraft ceased. Some control
room personnel thought the airplane had blown up. "At this point over
8 minutes had elapsed since Pete and the X-15 had disappeared. Again,
8 minutes does not sound like a lot of time, but it can be an eternity
to those waiting to hear some word, any word. An airplane does not
just disappear. Someone has to see or hear something- a Mayday call, a
parachute, a dust cloud from a landing or a crash, or at least pieces
of the airplane lying on the ground. 
 
"Then, all of the sudden, Chase-2 called, "He is going into Mud. I
think he is landing east to west." Several seconds later Chase-2 said,
"He's in the center of Mud and in good shape right now." NASA-1
replied, "Roger, understand. Gentlemen, start your hearts." 
 
The first time I heard this story was when I read the Thompson book. I
just have to wonder why. Thompson uses an understatment ("quite a
feat") to describe it; the phrase "absoultely incredible" is more
along the lines of what I had in mind. 
 
To put the "feat" into perspective, Neil Armstrong had, earlier,
performed a similar flight. During a moments inattention during the
pullout phase of reentry, the X-15 bounced off the atmosphere.  By the
time he got back into the atmosphere and turned around he was over LA.
He barely mangaged to reach Edwards to land. 
 
Pete Knight managed a successful rentry by guessing. Educated
guessing, based on long hours in a simulator, but essentially the guy
-guessed-.  Simply Amazing. 
 
I do recommend the book. It is a strange mixture of technical
information and pilot stories, but a very good read. For instance,
there was the time the X-15 collided with a camper, and the X-15
won....
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
James Annis                                [email protected]
Institute for Astronomy    University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii USA 
----------------------------------------------------------------------