National Aero-Space Plane - NASP - X-30

[Lee]

flateric, quoted: "What the connection between university AIAA competitions and this, quite specific, program?"

Only that someone at NASA might find an aspact of a particular design worth incorporating into a program he or she is working on. NASA routinely archives academic papers for whatever reason they deem important. This is a long-standing tradition.
There isn't any real connection between the two, except maybe by coincidence.

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

flateric,

That drawing of the X-30 with the sharper nose seems to make a lot of sense. Definitely more practical than the blunt-nosed drawings that were publically-released. Interestingly Paul Czysz had mentioned something like that in one of his articles about the X-30 having a sharp nose.

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure how accurate some of the things he says are, but he definetly does know a great deal.


Kendra

 

[airrocket]

Scramjet is just one cycle of a RBCC. Scramjet to orbital velocity is 1950's stuff. M12 is max practical limit then switch back to rocket cycle. RBCC (ejector rocket) is the propulsion of choice (ejector rocket, ram,scram, rocket) RBCC. Inlets are not heavy because in 2D inlet spatula nose X-30 design the lower body is the inlet. Recent 3D inward inlets also light weight as round inlet is stronger than 2D channel inlets and requires less structual support. The spatula nose is 2D shape actually less draggy than pointed 3D nose. Spatula nose is clever way to add internal volume without adding much structural weight or drag.

 

[airrocket]

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure how accurate some of the things he says are, but he definetly does know a great deal.

Paul is "spot on"!

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

airrocket,

Does the spatula-nosed waverider behave better at low-speed as well as high-speed in terms of L/D-ratio and takeoff/landing-speed?

By the way, what exactly is a RBCC? The most common definition seems to be a ramjet/scramjet that utilizes a rocket in the cycle in some stages for boost into space and for low-speed (produces thrust and the rocket in the duct has the effect of drawing air through the duct).

I've heard more elaborate designs, though, which were labled as RBCC's that actually uses an expansion-turbine (cryogenic gas like LH2 or LCH4) located in an auxiliary duct above the ramjet/scramjet-duct. It compressed the air, and then fed the compressed air and vaporized fuel into the rocket nozzle in combination with varying amounts of LOx. Although this strikes me as some kind of turbojet/rocket, ramjet-scramjet mix.

How efficient is a typical RBCC in the low-speed/rocket-mode?


Kendra
BTW: What does a "recent 3D-inward inlet" look like out of curiousity?

 

[airrocket]

Yes spatula nose is a better way to add internal volume. Such as with LH2, triple point or slush LH2. If the design does not require additional volume then pointed nose is best. There are many other benefits associated with spatula nose.

RBCC Rocket Based Combined Cycle or TBCC which is Turbine Based Combined Cycle. Many combo's are possible. RBCC as in "Ejector rocket" is very efficient at lower speeds as it utilizes entrained air (air breather with thrust at zero velocity) to boost thrust up to M2 or so then switch to ram mode to M5-7 then to scram mode to M12 then pure rocket (inlets closed) mode to orbit. TBCC is a cruiser, RBCC is best for quick acceleration to LEO. Many ways to squeeze more thrust at hypersonic speeds especially with LH2.

Hypersonics one must utilize the entire vehicle as an energy conversion/transmitter even the heat around the vehicle, fuel and exhaust can be utilized.

3D inward compression inlets are based on the old Busemann inlet concept. The concept has been revised and modified (Fred Billig and Sannu Molder) with streamline tracing and CFD techniques to yield a very light weight dedicated (no moving ramps) efficient inlet with less wetted area. Identified by the notched (sugar scoop) inlet cowl. So the X-30 and Aurora 2D inlets are somewhat dated nowadays. However the physics involved in the designs are still valid.
See BlackSwift:
http://www.botjunkie.com/2007/12/14/video-friday-falcon-htv-3x-blackswift-unmanned-strike-bomber/

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

Yes spatula nose is a better way to add internal volume. Such as with LH2, triple point or slush LH2. If the design does not require additional volume then pointed nose is best. There are many other benefits associated with spatula nose.

I thought you said spatula noses (2D) produce less drag as well? Or are you talking about low-speed?

RBCC Rocket Based Combined Cycle or TBCC which is Turbine Based Combined Cycle. Many combo's are possible. RBCC as in "Ejector rocket" is very efficient at lower speeds as it utilizes entrained air (air breather with thrust at zero velocity) to boost thrust up to M2 or so then switch to ram mode to M5-7 then to scram mode to M12 then pure rocket (inlets closed) mode to orbit. TBCC is a cruiser, RBCC is best for quick acceleration to LEO. Many ways to squeeze more thrust at hypersonic speeds especially with LH2.

An ejector rocket basically uses a rocket in the duct such that as exhaust blasts out of the nozzle, it then pulls extra air through the duct which enhances combustion effects and possibly even allows some ramjet use? Or are you talking about the one with the expansion-turbine like I was talking about earlier?

How efficient would you say one of these RBCC systems are?

Hypersonics one must utilize the entire vehicle as an energy conversion/transmitter even the heat around the vehicle, fuel and exhaust can be utilized.

Actually that's not entirely true. However for speeds over Mach 6, and high aerodynamic and propulsive efficiency, it does become extremely practical.

3D inward compression inlets are based on the old Busemann inlet concept. The concept has been revised and modified (Fred Billig and Sannu Molder) with streamline tracing and CFD techniques to yield a very light weight dedicated (no moving ramps) efficient inlet with less wetted area. Identified by the notched (sugar scoop) inlet cowl. So the X-30 and Aurora 2D inlets are somewhat dated nowadays. However the physics involved in the designs are still valid.

I didn't think any good hypersonic wave-rider designs required any significant amount of movable ramp-area...

 

[Lee]

KJ, quoted: "How efficient would you say one of these RBCC systems are?

Composite Engines for Application to a Single-Stage-to-Orbit Vehicle
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19760006115_1976006115.pdf
104 pp. (Takes a while to load and run on this computer, at least.)

In terms of speed, I think Mach 8 was as fast as Marquardt thought some of these design versions would go. Even at that speed, no air-breathing would be terribly efficient, but these are pretty good. Very large, though.

Hypersonics one must utilize the entire vehicle as an energy conversion/transmitter even the heat around the vehicle, fuel and exhaust can be utilized.

KJ: "Actually that's not entirely true. However for speeds over Mach 6, and high aerodynamic and propulsive efficiency, it does become extremely practical."

Marquardt's designs should be practical at those high velocities. Testing, if it's ever funded, would logically be done on a smaller scale than those drawing board versions above.




KJ: "I didn't think any good hypersonic wave-rider designs required any significant amount of movable ramp-area..."

There are patents that feature moving inlet ramp scramjets, but whether they're any good or not is open to debate.

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

In terms of speed, I think Mach 8 was as fast as Marquardt thought some of these design versions would go. Even at that speed, no air-breathing would be terribly efficient, but these are pretty good. Very large, though.

Those designs use compressors in the design and not just a rocket -- turborockets. I've been told such designs are about as efficient as a 1960's era military turbofan.

Marquardt's designs should be practical at those high velocities. Testing, if it's ever funded, would logically be done on a smaller scale than those drawing board versions above.

Of course, you always test small, then scale up and if you can get the money, build it and all goes well, you build a prototype.

There are patents that feature moving inlet ramp scramjets, but whether they're any good or not is open to debate.

Yeah, it would seem that if designed right most if not all of the work would be done by the fixed-geometry compression ramp. Any moving ramps, if necessary only, would be located inside the inlet-boxes.


Kendra

 

[Lee]

In terms of speed, I think Mach 8 was as fast as Marquardt thought some of these design versions would go. Even at that speed, no air-breathing would be terribly efficient, but these are pretty good. Very large, though.

KJ_Lesnick, quoted: "Those designs use compressors in the design and not just a rocket -- turborockets. I've been told such designs are about as efficient as a 1960's era military turbofan."

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.

Marquardt's designs should be practical at those high velocities. Testing, if it's ever funded, would logically be done on a smaller scale than those drawing board versions above.

KJ_Lesnick: "Of course, you always test small, then scale up and if you can get the money, build it and all goes well, you build a prototype."

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.

There are patents that feature moving inlet ramp scramjets, but whether they're any good or not is open to debate.

KJ_Lesnick: "Yeah, it would seem that if designed right most if not all of the work would be done by the fixed-geometry compression ramp. Any moving ramps, if necessary only, would be located inside the inlet-boxes."

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.


Kendra

 

[flateric]

Actually, with the high level of probability, *this* is final X-30 confuguration.
At least Pratt&Whitney paper authors state so.

 

[flateric]

Another NASP promo from Rockwell International

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

Was the NASP (1983-1995) supposed to have the same payload as the Space-Shuttle?

Or was that never published?

 

[flateric]

Was the NASP (1983-1995) supposed to have the same payload as the Space-Shuttle?

Or was that never published?

Aerospaceplane (1957-1963) from 30,000 to 38,000 pounds
duPont NASP - 2,500 pounds
('During 1984, amid the Copper Canyon activities, Tony duPont devised a conceptual
configuration that evolved into the program’s baseline. It had a gross weight of 52,650 pounds, which included a 2,500-pound payload that it was to carry to polar orbit. Its weight of fuel was 28,450 pounds. The propellant mass fraction, the ratio of these quantities, then was 0.54. The fuel had low density and was bulky, demanding high weight for the tankage and airframe. To save weight, duPont’s concept had no landing gear. It lacked reserves of fuel; it was to reach orbit by burning its last drops. Once there it could not execute a controlled deorbit, for it lacked maneuvering rockets as well as fuel and oxidizer for them. DuPont also made no provision for a reserve of weight to accommodate normal increases during development.' - Heppenheimer)
NASP X-30 - 0,000

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

What's the payload capacity of the Space Shuttle?

 

[starviking]

What's the payload capacity of the Space Shuttle?

Kendra,

the payload capability of the Space Shuttle is in the Public Domain. It is easily accessible.

Starviking

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

flateric,

Just out of curiousity, if the X-30 was built and flown, and then paved the way for a space-shuttle replacement, it would have had the same capacity as the old Orbiter, correct?


Kendra Lesnick

 

[flateric]

All depends of a *size* of this follow-on. All depends on how much payload nation wants to transport to orbit currently. Energiya could launch 100 tonns to LEO, but *what* to launch? Do you have payloads for the horse? Or donkey will be enough?

 

[flateric]

From 1993 Lockheed paper come these drawings, while text mentions it as 'configuration very close to X-30' (usual trick)
Dimensions given are lenght 150 ft, with 60 ft wingspan

 

[flateric]

P&W NASP promo lithograph. Of course, P&W logo on scramjet module should be *such* a size, approximately 2 meters in a diameter...

 

[flateric]

Another promo from McDonnell Douglas
Soon we will have the largest NASP images collection on te web (or have it already)

 

[Antonio]

Soon we will have the largest NASP images collection on te web (or have it already)

Soon we will be a reference forum

 

[avatar]

Hey I believe that SPF is already a super reference forum . 8)

 

[flateric]

...leaky-leaky

 

[flateric]

HALO (High Altitude Launching Option) proposed by Lockheed and dedicated to a preliminary exploration of the aerodynamic concepts implied in the X-30.
It was projected to be an airship of 17.7 meters that would be thrown by a SR-71 modified and it would reach speeds from Mach 10-12 to a altitude of 44200 meters.

Here goes the HALO itself...

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Was this HALO an unmanned version? I still remember the Popular Mechanics issue in '92 that showing a manned, mini X-30 launching from a Blackbird under the name HALO.

 

[flateric]

HALO (dubbed High Altitude Launching Option in PM article, actually being Hypersonic LAunch Option configuration), is a subscale X-30 configuration for launch from the back of NASAs SR-71, being studied along X-30 model missile launch as cheap alternative for NASP tests at the age of program last convulsions.

The HALO is a conceived as a man-rated vehicle to be air launched from an SR-71 platform and is proposed as a testbed for an airbreathing hydrogen scramjet. A feasibility study has been performed and indicates that the proposed trajectory is possible with minimal modifications to the existing SR71 vehicle. The mission consists of launching the HALO off the top of an SR-71 at Mach 3 and 80,000 ft. A rocket motor is then used to accelerate the vehicle to the test condition. After the scramjet test is completed the vehicle will glide to a lakebed runway landing. This option provides reusability of the vehicle and scramjet engine. The HALO design will also allow for various scramjet engine and flowpath designs to be flight tested.

This is to my knowledge, the only first-hands HALO illustration ever appeared.

More reading

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

http://hdl.handle.net/2060/20010111034
Design of a Flush Airdata System (FADS) for the Hypersonic Air Launched Option (HALO) Vehicle
AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, 12th, 20-24 Jun. 1994, Colorado Springs, CO, United States

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Nice find. As for the HALO version I mentioned earlier, it's on page 1 of this thread

 

[CFE]

What would have prevented HALO from suffering the same fate as the D-21 drone? I assume they'd limit the launch speed and point the mothership into a shallow, nose-down attitude prior to separation.

 

[Orionblamblam]

What would have prevented HALO from suffering the same fate as the D-21 drone?

Nothing.

There are reasons why "Hey, let's launch this off the back of an SR-71" concepts don't seem to get built.

 

[flateric]

dubbed in 1991s contractor's paper as 'declassified preliminary McDonnell Douglas NASP configuration', this pic gives some clues of vehicle size

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Of course it's from MCD. Like any family, it has certain prominent features.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Maybe that thread on MCD Hypersonic Projects, 60's and 70's, should be expanded to include the 80's and 90's. All these projects have a really strong family resemblance.

 

[airrocket]

MCD hypersonic reasearch.....Shock Confined Combustion, base burning, LH2 vaporized ISP injection, all weather metal TPS......! MCD was gold in the sixties. That heritage still exists in today's dreams. Unfortunately those dreams seem father from reality today than they were then.

 

[shockonlip]

What would have prevented HALO from suffering the same fate as the D-21 drone? I assume they'd limit the launch speed and point the mothership into a shallow, nose-down attitude prior to separation.

There were successful launches of the D before the destruction of 941 and the
loss of Ray Torrick.

Granted, there were also additional challenges in launching an airbreather from the back
of the M.

I was involved in the restoration of the M and the D at Seattle Museum of Flight (SMOF)
and I can tell you that NASA retained 940's post when 940 was sent to SMOF to go on
display. We were supplied a suitable non-functional replacement to use for the exhibit by
a SMOF donor.

So I think NASA was thinking of using 940's post possibly on a SR in the future or retaining
it for future reference for something else. This was some time ago of coarse.

 

[CFE]

Possibly the post was being retained for the LASRE program, the mounting of an aerospike rocket engine to an SR-71. NASA's Blackbird flew with LASRE in place (was this a mockup or actual flight hardware?) but never ignited the rocket in-flight.

 

[flateric]

Escape capsule for Boeing's 1988 horizontal-take-off and landing 'Hypervelocity Technology Vehicle'...mmm...familiar 'conical accelerator' shapes...

source
HYPERVELOCITY TECHNOLOGY (HVT) CREW ESCAPE
Lanny A. Jines, P.E.
Aerospace Engineer
Air Force Wright Aeronautical Laboratories
Flight Dynamics Laboratory
Crew Escape and Subsystems Branch
Air Crew Escape Group
WPAFB, OH 45433

added art by https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/members/lelouvre.8010/

 

[hesham]

Hi,

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1989/1989%20-%202063.html?search=vertol%20167

 

[flateric]

oh my

 

[shockonlip]

Ah the danger of out of context quotes and missing
a few key words!!

A little clarity to shine on this:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-7825209.html

Pratt says low speed propulsion for NASP exceeds goals.
(Pratt & Whitney Group; National Aero-Space Plane)
Defense Daily | June 14, 1989 | COPYRIGHT 1989 Access Intelligence, LLC.
This material is published under license from the publisher through the
Gale Group, Farmington Hills, Michigan.
All inquiries regarding rights should be directed to the Gale Group.

PRATT SAYS LOW SPEED PROPULSION FOR NASP EXCEEDS GOALS.

Pratt & Whitney, which is competing with Rocketdyne to build the propulsion
system for the X-30 National Aerospace Plane (NASP), reports that its
"low-speed" system to power the NASP from takeoff to Mach 7 has exceeded
performance goals during initial tests. The NASP's scramjet takes over
propulsion from Mach 7. Joseph Zimonis, Pratt & ...