McDonnell-Douglas Orient-Express

[KJ_Lesnick]

I would agree, particularly for that time period.
However, as a point of discussion, a design similar to the Marquardt unit could have been installed in the GTX SSTO and the H2/O2 fuel/oxidizer weight possibly increased instead of scramjets. I think the SERJ was at least as good as any scramjet.

The SERJ could work as a ramjet and a scramjet right? (It's been awhile since I read and responded to this post -- weird though, I normally have a photographic memory)

Sure. You have logic. But that's not what the Govt wanted with the 60's SST. The design could have been perfected on a smaller scale or disproven then with less cost. They didn't think of that then, though.

Wow, that's such a simple strategy though. Start small test, if works go bigger, if works go bigger yet, if that works and money available, build a prototype...

I think using fixed geometry ramps are cheaper if one resets them after each test. The ultimate idea, I believe, is to test a prototype flight computer by having it go through different speeds and altitudes to test the whole air intake system as well as overall engine performance.

I'd rather a fixed inlet that works efficiently than a really overly complicated variable geometry piece. (Unless that VG piece had performance capabilities that could not be achieved any other way) Simple is better than complex within reason.


Kendra

 

[Lee]

KJ,quoted: "The SERJ could work as a ramjet and a scramjet right?"

It was designed to be optionally variable as an SSTO engine. So, yes, it could be a ramjet by tilting up the fan and letting air leave the inlet and go right to the combustor.


KJ:"(It's been awhile since I read and responded to this post -- weird though, I normally have a photographic memory)"

I have 'Senior Moments' as well. Joke.





KJ: "Wow, that's such a simple strategy though. Start small test, if works go bigger, if works go bigger yet, if that works and money available, build a prototype..."

You bet. Back in the 40s and 50s, they did the theoretical work first, built the first prototype and used results from that to improve the 2nd one until they broke or crunched them, or, they learned all they could from both. Did industry or Congress do it that way??? Oh, no, that wouldn't be politically correct!!!





KJ: "Simple is better than complex within reason."

Occam's Razor says so, too. But there might be tradeoffs, as you may have implied above.


Kendra
[/quote]

 

[flateric]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3bKffAjJug

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

Occam's Razor says so, too. But there might be tradeoffs, as you may have implied above.

Actually I thought the idea of Occams razor was to use the simplest solution as possible that could answer all the questions or cover all the variables before resorting to a more complicated one -- But it would still have to cover all the variables.


KJ Lesnick

 

[Lee]

KJ, quoted: "Actually I thought the idea of Occam's razor was to use the simplest solution as possible that could answer all the questions..."

I read the definition, paraphrased: The simplest solution should be best. Complexity for its own sake is self-defeating.

That was the gist, anyway.


To offer an additional point of discussion on Orient Express possible propulsion variations, this British paper has been around for some time:

www.reactionengines.co.uk/downloads/JBIS_v56_108-117.pdf

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

I read the definition, paraphrased: The simplest solution should be best. Complexity for its own sake is self-defeating.

That was the gist, anyway.

Understood.

To offer an additional point of discussion on Orient Express possible propulsion variations, this British paper has been around for some time:

www.reactionengines.co.uk/downloads/JBIS_v56_108-117.pdf

I'm reading it right now.

By the way, the McDonnell Aerospace Plane. What kind of engines did it use for the takeoff and landing stage? To the best of my knowledge it used a ramjet/scramjet for high-speed, and either a rocket for a quick boost into orbit if that wasn't enough.

 

[flateric]

By the way, the McDonnell Aerospace Plane. What kind of engines did it use for the takeoff and landing stage?

It still seems to be mystery for NASP engineers themselves.

If you are eager to read, dig this
The Hypersonic Revolution. Case Studies in the History of Hypersonic Technology.
Volume III: The Quest for the Orbital Jet: The National Aero-Space Plane Program (1983-1995)
http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=A441126&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

 

[LowObservable]

It still seems to be mystery for NASP engineers themselves.

Too true. I've seldom seen amnesia on such a scale.

 

[flateric]

After reading Hallion/Schweikart/Peebles I'm starting to think that amnesia is caused by the reason that main thoughts were of how made the beast scramjeting...then how to make it reach orbit...take-off and landing were looking so tiny part of the job...

From the left rear corner across the street is my favourite cafe, 'Buns&Secrets'

 

[LowObservable]

I know that's the line. But the problem is that the standstill to RJ ignition - Mach 2-plus if you want to do it right - is crucial to the ability to get to SCRJ cruising speed, and the runway-to-orbit piece was always integral to NASP, "we don't need no stinking staging" being the watchword. It's where all TRJ solutions - like the XF-103 - fell apart, for instance. The turbojet power needed to get you to a respectable RJ light results in a solution that's too heavy to work. With BlackSwift - with a much lighter axisymmetrical turbo-ramjet and very high-performance turbomachinery - you're finally getting there.

I've seen a lot of screwed-up programs, but none in which a central and obvious problem was never addressed at all, which is why I don't believe that the low-speed end was ignored. That was where Mr DuPont came in. You need a thermally integrated cycle which extracts energy from the ambient air and dynamic friction and recovers it in thrust (which was the core of the DuPont patent). I think that was at the core of NASP.

And why was it not talked about? Hmm...

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

No... I don't mean the 1983 to 1995 NASP...

I mean the 1958 - 1963 Aerospace Plane that Paul Czysz mentioned...

 

[flateric]

Boeing, GD Convair, Goodyear, Martin, Republic were awarded contracts for Aerospaceplane, North American and Lockheed participated as well.

According to Jenkins, for take-off and acceleration were used

Republic - turbojets.
Convair - LACES/ACES (?)
GD Convair - LACES/ACES

For Convair propulsion system, check their patent at http://www.google.com/patents?id=amkzAAAAEBAJ&dq=3756024
(so, in the last two cases, rocket engines in fact were used for take-off)

Many Aerospaceplane design details are still remain classified, though.

 

[LowObservable]

The NASP low-speed concept has been declassified. It's on page 215 of Heppenheimer's history of hypersonics, available here:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070035924_2007036871.pdf

However, I do have confirmation from a senior NASPer (a P&W guy) dated 1995 that "it was one of the most secret parts of the program."

 

[flateric]

Oh, LO, you've made my day!

 

[airrocket]

TBCC is a cruise propulsion concept except for KLIN cycle. RBCC as in "ejector rocket" (entrained air) solves the transonic to supersonic issues with quick acceleration through that phase to LEO. Problem with NASP was management wanted (horns down and charge ahead) single stage SCRAM to very high MACH. Engineers want TSTO RBCC and/or M12 -14 limit on scram mode. Management was persistent and the project was doomed.

 

[Orionblamblam]

The NASP low-speed concept has been declassified. It's on page 215 of Heppenheimer's history of hypersonics, available here:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=107387&id=7&qs=N%3D129

Page 220 shows the public X-30 configuration with a scale bar. Is it accurate? Shrug.

 

[archipeppe]

Dear Folks,

I've only one BIG question regarding the X30 development, why at the very start of the programme (in mid '80s) it was depicted a very sleek, single rudder configuration, while at the end it was depicted a completely different one???

Why so much differencies between the first public image and the last (X43 similiar) ones???

And where it is possibile to find out a 3 views of the "original" configuration???

Thanks in advance.
Peppe

 

[flateric]

Oh, my...

Prepare a lot of paper and printer cartridge
http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA441127
http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA302634
http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA441126

Start with the third thing...OK, in fact, start from the last chapter of the second...

Good 3-view of duPont NASP aka 'government baseline' (that mid 80s sleeky nerd) is in Jay Miller's X-Planes, 3rd edition (From X-1 to X-45)

 

[archipeppe]

Oh, my... Start with the third thing...OK, in fact, start from the last chapter of the second...

Good 3-view of duPont NASP aka 'government baseline' (that mid 80s sleeky nerd) is in Jay Miller's X-Planes, 3rd edition (From X-1 to X-45)

Many, many thanks Flateric!!!

 

[LowObservable]

KLIN cycle... a long time since I heard that one.

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

Flateric,

There's no page 215 in that PDF file.

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

Is it possible for a government to keep an entire contract secret.

Like for example to keep it secret hypothetically that McDonnell competed in the program and got the contract?

Is that possible over all these years?

 

[flateric]

Flateric,

There's no page 215 in that PDF file.

There is. Try to look once more.

 

[flateric]

Is it possible for a government to keep an entire contract secret.

Like for example to keep it secret hypothetically that McDonnell competed in the program and got the contract?

Is that possible over all these years?

Which damn program you are telling about? Building 14 lifting body spaceships for supplying *MOL* and flying 100 flight a year from 1963 to 1979...yes, it's quite easy to be a closely kept secret...

 

[LowObservable]

Nobody noticed the U-2R for 12 years... The A-12 (CIA Blackbird) was secret for 14 years after retirement, with every unclass document vetted so that they didn't even hint at anything other than the YF or SR. If you told people that there was a recce drone in the 1960s that cost the equivalent of $375 million per unit, they'd wet themselves laughing.

 

[flateric]

OK, LO, I can't resist you on these remarks. But I just can't understand what KJ means in terms of program being completed and still classified - was it Model-176 MOL supply shuttle? Was it hypersonic cruise recce aircraft? Was it damn Aerospaceplane (first one) or was it...ugh...*Orient Express*?

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

So you mean in addition to classifying a particular program they could technically have a national-program (aerospaceplane) and classify one of the competitors so that that particular company doesn't show up in the competition?

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

Nobody?

KJ

 

[flateric]

Is it possible for a government to keep an entire contract secret.

Like for example to keep it secret hypothetically that McDonnell competed in the program and got the contract?

Is that possible over all these years?

Built actually a SSTO *vehicle* which flights are totally unknown? Kidding? If you can hide aircraft operations, it's rather hard to hide Aerospaceplane orbiting Earth.

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

The russians would obviously have been aware of any object we inserted into space. But I'm not sure if they'd realize it was a spaceplane or some other orbiting vehicle. As for the airplane, it is possible to keep it secret for quite awhile...

 

[flateric]

These are amateur photos of ISS http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/satcom_transits/March2005.html
Now just imagine what could be done with THAT stuff http://enews.ferghana.ru/article.php?id=1390
Don't you remember Columbia re-entry shots?

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

From 1964 to 1979 did the russians have that kind of ability to observe things in space?

 

[flateric]

We had this ability for Mt.Maidanak telescope complex as early as in 1970, but in fact we have started all this SPADATSki stuff ca.1962.

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

So this couldn't have been kept secret from the Russians? Were the satellites always operational? Or only when a suspected object would fly overhead...

So it's likely Czysz made it up?

 

[Barrington Bond]

Made what up

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

Paul Czysz claimed that McDonnell built an aerospaceplane that operated in service from 1964 to 1979, performing a certain number of missions every year. He claimed the plane had the same utility as a B-52.

Of course, considering the Russians apparently had observatories and telescopes all over the place to watch satellites and stuff even in the 1960's, and McDonnell was not listed in the Aerospaceplane program from 1958 to 1963 (I know programs have been classified, but I don't know if a competitor's name has ever been classified from the competition and other competitors) it seems kind of likely that he made the thing up. Of course McDonnell did come up with all sorts of high-tech hypersonic designs, and I've heard debates as to whether any, or some flew or not.

Of course, the best liars mix in a good mix of truth, and half-truth in with their whole-lies to make it difficult to figure out where the truth ends and fiction begins.

 

[flateric]

He never stated this. I'm saying this as I remember, for the third time.

Czysz:

What we were doing when I was at McDonnell-Douglas – because “Old-Man Mac” was a hardware guy – was looking at how you could take these big ideas and build samples & prototypes out of them, to see if we could come out of this with an operational concept.
When we designed a Mach-6 aircraft, we didn’t follow NASA’s strategy of building a research and develop vehicle that could only be flown 3 times a year. What we developed were vehicles that were operationally functional as much as a B-52 is.
Our resupply vehicle in 1964 for the manned orbiting laboratory had 11 operational vehicles and 3 spares – and those 11 vehicles flew 100 times a year for 15 years. That’s 1964 industrial capability – no magic at all. I don’t need magic. Now compare that to the Shuttle.

The ultimate intent was to begin operational evaluation flights, with the Model 176 launched on a Martin Titan IIIC, as shown in Figure 3-20. In 1964, the estimated cost was $US 13.2 million per launch for a 100 launch program, or about $US 2,700 per payload pound. As the system was further developed, two strap-on liquid hydrogen-liquid oxygen propellant tanks would be fitted to the Model 176 spaceplane for a fully recoverable system, as shown in the right side of Figure 3-20. The estimated 1964 cost of this version was $US 6.1 million per launch for a 100 launch program or about $US 1,350 per payload pound. The launch rate for which the launch estimate was made has been lost in history, but to maintain the MOL spacecraft, launch rates on the order of one per week were anticipated for both re-supply and waste return flights, as already discussed in Chapter 1.

He's talking of Model-176 (never built) MOL (never built) resupply vehicle, that COULD be built using 1964 tech.

If I'm saying to a girl I've met at disco "Hey baby, now we are going to good Italian restaurant, then driving to my home', it's not definitely means that we will have sex this night. It's even doesn't mean she will agree to go to the restaurant with me.

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

Was the resupply vehicle a SSTO or something?

Do you have any data on it?

 

[flateric]

KJ, do you read something that we are providing links to? Either Titan IIIC [corrected] launched or stage-and-a-half with reusable tanks.
MOL resupply vehicle = MDC Model 176 = http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,722.msg19069.html#msg19069

"In a 1964 brief, Rollie Quest of McDonnell Douglas Astronautics, St. Louis, presented a fully reusable hypersonic glider, the so-called model 176, intended to be the crew delivery, crew return, crew rescue, and re-supply vehicle for the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) crew (see discussion of its requirements in Chapter 1). One vehicle was to be docked with the MOL at all times as an escape and rescue vehicle. It could accommodate up to 13 persons, and like BURAN all components were recoverable."

http://www.americanantigravity.com/articles/589/1/Model-176-Hypersonic-Shuttle/Page1.html
http://www.americanantigravity.com/documents/Aerospace-Design-Notes.pdf
http://www.americanantigravity.com/documents/Hypersonic-SpacePlanes-History.pdf
http://www.americanantigravity.com/documents/Paul-Czysz-Hypersonic-Interview.pdf

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

I thought the model was unmanned? Or was that just the prototype?

How did the heat-dissipation work on it?