Rapid Response: Part Three, Section Eight: Other Spaceplanes/Rocketplanes/(Military) Man-In-Space Projects--1990s

From astronautix.com:

Blackstar












Blackstar

American manned spaceplane. 2006 reports claimed it was flown covertly in the 1990s.

In March 2006 Aviation Week and Space Technology made the astounding claim that the United States had developed a reusable two-stage-two-orbit manned spacecraft in the 1990's, dubbed Blackstar, and flown it on numerous orbital and suborbital missions. The system was said to be out of service by 2005. If this system actually existed and was flown, the history of manned spaceflight would have to be revised.



The first stage of the Blackstar system consisted of a Mach 3+ winged air-breathing first stage evidently developed from North American's XB-70 bomber; and an XOV manned eXperimental Orbital Vehicle lifting body second stage. The system was developed by a consortium of US aerospace companies at the behest of an unspecified US government agency. The system was so classified that it remained unknown to the nation's top military and civilian space planners, while they labored to design, but never developed, an equivalent white-world system. Blackstar was designed to handle numerous missions: strategic reconnaissance; anti-satellite; quick-reaction small satellite launch; and delivery of small conventional warheads.



The existence of Blackstar could explain several puzzling aspects of the arms and space race during the Cold War and thereafter. These included the Department of Defense's cancellation and later lack of enthusiasm in resurrecting the SR-71 Mach 3 reconnaissance aircraft and various anti-satellite systems; and the Soviet Union's continued fear of such systems in the late1980's despite the absence of a visible American threat. In Aviation Week's scenario, the decision by the military to field such a system came after the Challenger disaster in 1986 and the realization that the US had no assured quick-reaction access to space. Evidently building on plans of the 1960's for air-launch of the X-15-3 or X-20 spaceplane by a modified XB-70 bomber, the final design consisted of an XOV that would be dropped from the SR-3 at Mach 3.3 and 31.6 km altitude. The XOV's linear aerospike rocket engines would carry the spaceplane to an orbital or suborbital trajectory depending on the mission.



The SR-3 had the same basic layout and dimensions as the XB-70. It was a completely different aircraft in detail, having variable geometry rather than fixed canards; a blended double-delta wing rather than a straight delta; fixed-upward swept combined wingtips/vertical stabilizers rather than deployable-downward swept wingtips and fixed twin vertical stabilizers; four engines in two nacelles rather than six in a single nacelle. The use of two nacelles had been proven in the North American B-1 design, and would have provided the necessary space for the carriage of the XOV on the belly. The X-15/B-70 concepts had envisioned launch from the back of the B-70, but the loss of an A-12 on 30 July 1966 while launching a Mach 4 D-21 drone had shown this to be dangerous.



The XOV was reportedly preceded by an unmanned predecessor 20 m long. The later manned version was 30 m long. Both had a double-delta planform like the space shuttle, but a complex blended lifting-body shape more akin to NASA Ames hypersonic designs of the late 1950's and early 1960's. The vehicle was said to have a spade-shaped forebody and downward-canted outer wing-body sections, augmented by a thick, stubby vertical stabilizer that fitted into the SR-3's lower fuselage. Payload bays on the upper surface of the XOV allowed carriage of reconnaissance sensors or payloads/weapons to be dropped in space. Propulsion was by aerospike rocket action, possibly air-augmented and fed by ribbed or straked channels in the lower surface of the vehicle. The engines used a high-density gelatinous fuel doped with a boron additive to increase specific impulse. The type of oxidizer used was not mentioned. The spaceplane's outer structure was made of lightweight heat-resistant composite materials.



Funds for development of the Blackstar were said to be buried in X-30/National Aerospaceplane and A-12 naval strike aircraft budgets. Both of these projects ran up huge bills before being 'cancelled' due to 'technical problems'. The X-30 was a good candidate for hiding such programs, but the A-12 was the subject of humungous post-cancellation litigation and lawsuits. Some have said that it was unlikely that the funds could have been buried there (unless the contractor's were cynical enough to use the government's desire to keep the program secret as leverage in reaching the final settlement). Development of the Blackstar stalled in the late 1980's until the fuel for the spaceplane was perfected in 1991.



An XOV said to have been spotted at Holloman AFB in New Mexico in 1994. What may have been an XOV on an aborted mission may have made an emergency landing at Kadena AFB in Okinawa during the same year. A sighting was reported in 1998 of the XOV mounted on the belly of the SR-3 The SR-3 itself was seen as early as 1990 and as late as 2000.



There were several curious aspects to the Aviation Week account, many of them brought up in web chatter and very critical commentary after the announcement (see articles cited at the end of this article). One was the known lack of advantage of using a supersonic launch aircraft. This had been studied many times over the years, and nearly always found not to be worth it. The total delta-V required to reach an any-inclination orbit is around 9500 m/s, including air drag and gravity losses during ascent. Air launch of an orbit-bound vehicle from a subsonic aircraft contributes the equivalent of 270 m/s to the delta-V required to reach orbit, while launch from a Mach 3 aircraft contributes only the equivalent of 950 m/s. There are operational advantages to air launch, but the minimal additional delta-V savings were usually seen as not worth the extra cost and complexity of developing a supersonic drop aircraft. However if the XOV design was so marginal that every amount of additional delta-V was crucial, then the decision could have been made to proceed with this solution.



It was said that the SR-3 used surplus J-93 engines from the XB-70 program, and that only four of these were used in the SR-3 (as opposed to six in the XB-70). This would imply a vehicle of 2/3 the GLOW of the XB-70 (e.g. 180 metric tons). The lower takeoff mass would suggest a range of only 2600 km compared to the 7870 km of the XB-70 (the B-70 design range was 12,000 km; however 10% was lost when the boron-doped zip fuel was abandoned in 1959, and flight test showed the aircraft another 25% deficient in range due to higher-than-expected transonic drag and lower than-expected supersonic lift-to-drag). This would basically allow the aircraft barely enough time to accelerate to launch velocity and speed, immediately drop the XOV, then return to base. However the SR-3 was intended as a launch aircraft, not a supersonic bomber, so this limitation was perhaps considered acceptable. It would also be likely that the SR-3, like the SR-71, was topped off by aerial refueling immediately after takeoff.



The connection of the XB-70 to the SR-3 seems tenuous at best. The detailed differences are so great that they represent an entirely new aircraft. The use of engines, stored for twenty years, with no existing logistics chain, seems very unlikely. Only if the SR-3 was an existing aircraft, which had evolved from the XB-70 in a long black development process beginning in the mid-1960's, making it available for use when the Blackstar was conceived in the 1980's, can some kind of direct connection be considered possible.



The description of the XOV propulsion system harkens back to various Aerojet studies of the 1960's for the Aerojet Ares rocket engine, designed to power a single stage ICBM to replace the Titan 2. Use of aerospike technology, air-augmentation, high-pressure combustion, and storable N2O4 and Aerozine-50 propellants were expected to result in a specific impulse as high as 360 seconds. Russian tests with N2O4 and Pentaborane propellant indicated an additional 22 seconds of specific impulse could be achieved with this combination. Finally, tests of gelled hydrazine fuel doped with aluminum showed higher combustion chamber temperatures (but dangerous instability - and borane would be even worse). So it can be estimated that the described rocket system would have a specific impulse of 390 seconds at the very best. Given a delta-V to orbit of 8500 m/s after the 950 m/s assist from the SR-3, this would imply a mass ratio of 10, or a dry mass fraction of 10%. Commentators noted that this was well outside the scope of any known lifting body, which typically have dry mass fractions of 22%.



However mention was also made of very lightweight materials for the external aeroskin and very dense propellants, perhaps loaded in disposable cartridges. This combination of jettisonable fuel casings and a lightweight aeroshell could - barely - be a solution to the mass fraction problem. But either extremely formidable technical problems were overcome, or the XOV was a suborbital vehicle, capable only of releasing a third stage that would be required to take payloads to orbit (as in the X-43).



Some commentators took these issues, together with Aviation Week's alleged lack of reliability in similar earlier cases, as evidence that the whole story had the same credibility as Roswell saucer crash accounts. However, the earlier false stories cited were related to Soviet systems (the nuclear bomber of the 1950's, the beam weapon of the 1970's). These represented analysis failures on the part of US intelligence rather than reporting failures by Aviation Week. It was also noted that some earlier black aircraft revealed by the magazine had never surfaced. But this could represent continued classification of these programs rather than reporting failures.



So it seems still possible that the Blackstar actually existed and was tested. What was not clear was how often the system was actually flown and whether it ever achieved orbit or even reached altitudes over 100 km. If it did, the history and logs of manned spaceflight will have to be rewritten. Only when - if ever - the US government decides to declassify the aircraft, if it existed, can this be known.



Characteristics



Crew Size: 1.



AKA: SR-3;XOV.

Gross mass: 30,000 kg (66,000 lb).

Height: 30.00 m (98.00 ft).

Diameter: 13.00 m (42.00 ft).





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Associated Countries •USA



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See also •Low earth orbit

•Manned

•Spaceplane

•US Rocketplanes



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bibliography •Scott, William B, "Two-Stage-to-Orbit 'Blackstar' System Shelved at Groom Lake?", Aviation Week and Space Techonology, 6 March 2006. Web Address when accessed: http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/030606p1.xml.

•Bell, Jeff, "Blackstar - A False Messiah from Groom Lake", spacedaily.com, Web Address when accessed: http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Blackstar_A_False_Messiah_From_Groom_Lake.html.

•Day, Dwayne Allen, "Six blind men in a zoo: Aviation Week’s mythical Blackstar", thespacereview.com, Web Address when accessed: http://thespacereview.com/article/576/1.

•Oberg, James, "Did Pentagon create orbital space plane?", msnbc.com, Web Address when accessed: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11691989/.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Blackstar Images





Blackstar
 
 
****************************************************************
The Rockwell X-30 National Aerospace Plane
 
From astronautix.com:








X-30 TAV

Credit: NASA

American manned spaceplane. Study 1990.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Associated Countries •USA



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See also •Manned

•Space station orbit

•Spaceplane

•US Rocketplanes



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Associated Launch Vehicles •X-30 American SSTO winged orbital launch vehicle. Air-breathing scramjet single stage to orbit. Second attempt after study of similar proposal in early 1960's. Cancelled due to cost, technical challenges. More...



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bibliography •Miller, Jay,, The X-Planes, Aerofax, Arlington, Texas, 1988.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





X-30 Images





X-30 Concept

Credit: NASA
 
 
From fas.org:
 
X-30 National Aerospace Plane (NASP)


There is also the possiblity that the SR-71 follow-on was hidden in plain sight. The program to develop what is called the National Aerospace Plane (NASP), designated the X-30, had its roots in a highly classified, Special Access Required, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) project called Copper Canyon, which ran from 1982 to 1985. Originally conceived as a feasibility study for a single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) airplane which could take off and land horizontally, Copper Canyon became the starting point for what Ronald Reagan called:<1>



"...a new Orient Express that could, by the end of the next decade, take off from Dulles Airport and accelerate up to twenty-five times the speed of sound, attaining low earth orbit or flying to Tokyo within two hours..."



The next stage of the program, called Phase 2, with Copper Canyon being Phase 1, was intended to develop the technologies for a vehicle that could go into orbit as well as travel over intercontinental ranges at hypersonic speeds. There were no commitments to undertake Phase 3, the actual design, construction and flight testing of the aircraft. The decision to undertake Phase 3 based on the maturity of the requisite technologies, originally planned for 1990, was currently been postponed until at least April of 1993.<3>



There were six identifiable technologies which are considered critical to the success of the project.<3&g; Three of these "enabling" technologies are related to the propulsion system, which would consist of an air-breathing supersonic combustion ramjet, or scramjet. A scramjet is designed to compress onrushing hypersonic air in a combustion chamber. Liquid hydrogen is then injected into the chamber, where it is ignited by the hot compressed air. The exhaust, consisting primarily of water vapor, is expelled through a nozzle to create thrust. The efficient functioning of the engine is dependent on the aerodynamics of the airframe, the underside of which must function as the air inlet mechanism and the exhaust nozzle. Design integration of the airframe and engine are thus absolutely critical to project success. The efficient use of hydrogen as a fuel for such a system is another crucial element in the development of the X-30.



Other enabling technologies include the development of advanced materials including various composites and titanium-based alloys which maintain structural integrity at very high temperatures. The enormous heat loads associated with hypersonic flight, sometimes in excess of 1,800 degrees fahrenheit, will necessitate the development of active cooling systems and advanced heat-resistant materials.<4>

    


Although the NASP effort was announced by President Reagan in his State of the Union address, much of the project remains shrouded in secrecy. Indeed, the paucity of publicly available information on this project is remarkable, given the scope of the effort to date. This very high level of classification derives at least in part from the core technological innovation that was the genesis of the X-30 project.

   


Prior analyses of scramjet propulsion systems had concluded that they would only be able to achieve speeds of about Mach 8. At this speed, the thrust emerging from the rear of the plane would be balanced by the heat generated by atmospheric drag and the high temperature of the air as it entered the front of the engine. Thus limited to a maximum speed that was only one-third the orbital velocity of Mach 25, a scramjet-propelled vehicle would need rocket motors to achieve the remaining speed needed to reach orbit. Analyses concluded that such a vehicle would be heavier and more complicated that a conventional rocket.



However, the Copper Canyon project discovered that higher speeds could be achieved through the imaginative use of active thermal management. By circulating, and thus heating, the scramjet's hydrogen propellant through the skin of the vehicle prior to injection into the engine, energy generated through atmospheric drag was added to the thrust of the scramjet, enabling it to accelerate beyond the Mach 8 thermal barrier. Initially, there was optimism that this active thermal management approach would permit speeds of up to Mach 25 using air- breathing engines alone, eliminating the need for rocket propellants to achieve orbit.<5>



X-30 NASP




The mass saved by eliminating the final rocket propellants had to be balanced, however, against the mass of the active thermal management system. This system became more complex and massive at higher speeds. At some point, the additional mass of the thermal management system needed to continue the acceleration of the air breathing scramjet would become greater than the mass of the rocket motors and propellant needed to continue the ascent to orbit.



As the NASP effort began, analysis suggested that this transition speed, at which rocket propulsion would be more efficient than continued scramjet operations, would be quite high, above Mach 20. Although this fell short of the initial promise of Copper Canyon, it nonetheless suggested that a scramjet vehicle might offer superior performance compared to conventional rockets. Over time, however, as the complexity of the active thermal management system was better appreciated, estimates of the transition speed declined to below Mach 17.<6> This diminished performance significantly reduces the attractiveness of scramjet propulsion compared with all-rocket vehicles.

   


Though the protection of this technological principle may explain part of the secrecy surrounding the NASP program, studies of the missions that such a vehicle might perform remain even more closely held.



Defining the mission of NASP to attract maximum support and funding has been a tricky business for program proponents. Original cost projections of $3.1 billion dollars have more than tripled, now at approximately $10 Billion total cost for the development of a pair of single-stage-to-orbit vehicles.<7>



A decision to undertake Phase 3 flight testing would have brought total program costs up to as much as $17 billion<8&t;. The target date for the first test flight of the X-30 was pushed back to the 2000-2001 period<9>, 11 years behind schedule and 500% over budget. Many years and a further $10 to $20 billion would have been required for the development of an operational vehicle. Funding this significant increase in a time of general budget cutting is not easy, and program cost overruns and delays in scheduling have made the project less attractive to many supporters.



Though the X-30 was originally touted by the Reagan administration for its civilian commercial applications and as a possible follow-on to the Space Shuttle for NASA<10>, the funding structure of the program tells another story. The Department of Defense was scheduled to fund approximately 80% of the project, or $2.65 out of $3.33 billion over the 8 years of the original project.<11> Budget allocations come primarily from the Air Force, which has seen NASP as potentially having a range of military missions.



The mystery remains of what military mission would justify this level of effort. Or perhaps there is no mystery at all. The X-30 may have been the purloined letter of military aircraft, an SR-71 follow-on hidden in plain sight. This would certainly jibe with the statement of Senator John Glenn, noted earlier and repeated here,<12>



"...what you are talking about on that system, I know what you are talking about. That is many years down the road and is still a very speculative system..."



Such a possibility would also explain the tenacious position of Congressman Dave McCurdy, the only member of Congress at the time to sit on both the Armed Services Committee and the Space and Technology Committee. From 1989 through 1992, McCurdy fought hard for continued funding for and Air Force involvement in NASP.<13>



"It's important to remember that NASP is not a NASA program. NASP is not an Air Force program. It is a national program. We believe that it is important to the country."



Presumably, an SR-71 follow-on would also be a national program of importance to the entire country. These arguments are, of course, predicated on the assumption that the NASP vehicle could fullfill such a defense mission. Concentrating on hypersonic flight in the upper stratosphere, possible military applications of a NASP derived vehicle include:<14>



space launch;

strategic bombing missions;

strategic air defense;

reconnaissance and surveillance.

While the reconnaissance and surveillance mission would be similair to the SR-71, closer examination reveals that the possible military applications provide a less than compelling rationale for the NASP effort.



As a single-stage-to-orbit vehicle with a claimed turnaround time of as little as 24 hours<15>, proponents of the Strategic Defense Initiative initially saw the X-30 leading the way to faster, cheaper access to low earth orbit, a critical aspect of lowering the cost of any space-based ballistic missile defense systems.<16> However, as it became clear that the time required for the development of an operational capability would extend far beyond the time horizon envisioned for deployment of space-based anti- missile systems, the SDI program soon lost interest in the NASP effort. A similar disenchantment has emerged within the Air Force and NASA, as the high technical risk of the project has become increasingly clear. What has also become increasingly clear is that the claims made for NASP as a space launch vehicle are eerily reminiscent of the initial claims made for the Space Shuttle in the early 1970s. The assertions that NASP will have airplane-like operating characteristics, with lower costs and fast turnaround times on the ground, are assumptions, rather than conclusions based on detailed analysis.



The potential for using NASP derived vehicles for strategic bombardment, as a hypersonic B-3, has not escaped the notice of the Air Force. Gen. Lawrence Skantze, commander of the Air Force Systems Command, observed:<17>



"We're talking about the speed of response of an ICBM and the flexibility and recallability of a bomber, packaged in a plane that can scramble, get into orbit, and change orbit so the Soviets can't get a reading accurate enough to shoot at it. It offers strategic force survivability -- a fleet could sit alert like B-52s."



The idea of reaching targets anywhere in the world in a an hour or two may be a tempting idea, but the challenge of accurately dropping a gravity bomb while travelling 20 times the speed of sound would be non-trivial. This challenge was eagerly embraced by the Energy Department, however. A Hypervelocity Aircraft- Delivered Weapon is among the five new nuclear weapons concepts currently under study by the Energy Department, as phase one or pre-phase one studies.<18>



"The need for the Hypervelocity Aircraft-Delivered Weapon derives from the ability of such a system to rapidly deliver, or threaten to deliver, nuclear weapons into a theater, while maintaining the launch platform well outside potential defenses. Hypersonic velocities enhance defense penetrability and survivability of the weapon and the delivery aircraft against state of the art defenses, while precision guidance can lead to reduced yield requirements, and consequently, collateral damage."



But a hypersonic aircraft would have high visibility to hostile defense due to its enormous heat signature and non-stealth composition of the fuselage, resembling nothing so much as a barn on fire. This is hardly a major selling point for a reconnaissance aircraft. As a bomber, a NASP derived vehicle would combine the worst features of an aircraft and a missile. With the large signature of an aircraft and the limited maneuverability of a missile warhead, it would provide a ready target for defensive systems.



A third suggested mission for NASP derived vehicles would be as a interceptor for defense of the continental United States. Robert Cooper, Director of DARPA, suggested that it could:<19>



"... fly up to maybe 150,000 to 200,000 feet, sustain mach 15 plus for a while, slow down and engage an intercontinental bomber or cruise missile carrier at ranges of 1000 nautical miles..."



But the elaborate preparations needed to maintain a liquid hydrogen fueled aircraft on alert, combined with the limited maneuverability of this type of vehicle, would limit its utility for this mission. And given the relatively low priority the United States has traditionally attached to strategic air defense, it is doubtful that the large investment required by NASP could be justified on these grounds.



A final application of NASP was as an intelligence collection platform. Robert Cooper suggested that it could provide:<20>



"... a globe-circling reconnaissance system, a kind of super SR-71 that would... get anywhere on the Earth within perhaps half an hour of take-off..." (emphasis added).

But such reconnaissance and surveillance activities of hypersonic craft are constrained by the high speeds and altitudes at which the X-30 or its derivatives would travel. At altitudes nearly three times that of standard reconnaissance aircraft<21> and a fuel cost 3 times that of aviation grade kerosene,<22> it would certainly seem more economical to get information of comparable (or better) resolution from a satellite in low earth orbit, which could make another pass in 90 minutes instead of being forced to return to base for refuelling.<23>



Although some proponents have viewed these military missions as potentially attractive, a Committee of the National Research Council expressed doubts about the operational effectiveness of NASP derived vehicles:<37>



"Another restriction is inherent in the base support requirements associated with cryogenic fuels. They will require a complete departure from conventional airport storage and distribution facilities. For economic reasons alone, we are unable to envision a network of airfields giving the flexibility that today's aircraft enjoy.



"... sustained cruising flight in the atmosphere roughly between Mach numbers 8 and 20 ... is a very stressful flight environment with high skin temperatures, control and maneuvering difficulties, ionized boundaries through which sensors must operate, and high infrared signatures which would make the vehicle vulnerable to detection. For these reasons, we have great reservations about the military utility of sustained hypersonic flight in the atmosphere above Mach number 8."



A draft analysis done at the RAND Corporation was even more pessimistic:<25>



"Grave doubts exist that NASP could come anywhere near its stated/advertised cost, schedule, payload fees to orbit, etc.... On the basis of current knowledge, it is hard to defend previous DoD plans for NASP on the basis of any singular mission utility sufficiently attractive to operators... NASP could do many missions (but none is singularly persuasive)... No compelling "golden mission" exists for NASP."



NASA was disinclined to significantly increase its share of program costs given its current budgetary constraints<26>, and the Air Force, which has borne the brunt of development costs of Phase 2, expressed doubts about the future viability of the program. According to Martin Faga, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Space:<27>



"...these are exciting ideas... but they are not ready for commitment."



Clearly, no single vehicle can serve commercial, civil space and military masters at the same time. In spite of efforts to be all things to all people, the NASP remained without a truly credible mission, and ultimately proponents were unable to save it from termination.



The Hypersonic Systems Technology Program (HySTP), initiated in late 1994, was designed to transfer the accomplishments made in hypersonic technologies by the National Aero-Space Plane (NASP) program into a technology development program.



On January 27, 1995 the Air Force terminated participation in (HySTP).





NASA's Langley Research Center continues work on hypersonic technologies for air-breathing, single-stage-to-orbit flight. The NASA LoFlyte will test neural-network flight control for hypersonic aircraft.









--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



REFERENCES

<1> State of the Union Address, February 4, 1986.



<2> According to project manager Robert Barthelemy. Aerospace America, September 1991. page 6.



<3> United States General Accounting Office. "National Aero-Space Plane: A Technology Development and Demonstration Program to Build the X-30." USGAO/ NSIAD-88-122. April 1988. pages 35-40.



<4> GAO ibid. page 38.



<5> "DARPA Chief Notes Potential of Supersonic Combustion Ramjet," Aerospace Daily, 29 March 1985, page 165.



<6> "NASP Moves at Slower Speed," Military Space, 17 July 1989, pages 1, 7-8.



<7>United States General Accounting Office. "National Aero-Space Plane: Key Issues Facing the Program." March 31, 1992. p.



<8> GAO ibid. page 7.



<9> Defense Daily. April 17, 1992. page 103.



<10>Aerospace Daily. March 28, 1986. page 484.



<11> GAO ibid. page 19.



<12> United States Senate Armed Services Committee, 101st Congress, 1st Session, ibid.



<13> Press release. Office of Congressman Dave McCurdy. June 3, 1991.



><14> Williams, Robert M. "National Aero-Space Plane: Technology for America's Future." Aerospace America. November 1986. page 20.



<15> World Aerospace Weekly. November 11, 1988.



<16> Marshall, Eliot. "NASA and Military Press for a Spaceplane." News and Comment. January 10, 1986, pages 105-107.



<17> Williams, Robert, "National Aero-Space Plane: Technology for America's Future," Aerospace America, November 1986, pages 18-22.



<18> House of Representatives Appropriations Committee Energy and Water Development Subcommittee, Energy and Water Development Appropriations for 1993, 102nd Congress, 2nd Session, Part 6, pages 1669-1670.



<19> "DARPA Chief Notes Potential of Supersonic Combustion Ramjet," Aerospace Daily, 29 March 1985, page 165.



<20> ibid.



<21> Defense Daily. April 20, 1988. page 295.



<22> Aerospace Daily. March 14, 1992. page 408.



<23> Defense Daily. April 20, 1988. page 295.



<24> National Research Council Committee on Hypersonic Technology for Military Applications, Hypersonic Technology for Military Applications, (Washington, National Research Council, 1989), page 12.



<25> Augenstein, Bruno, Assessment of NASP: Future Options, (Santa Monica, RAND, June 1989), WD-4437-AF.



<26> "The Goldin Age" Space Business News, July 6, 1992.



<27> Inside the Air Force. March 27, 1992. page 3.



And, from Wikipedia:

Rockwell X-30






From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
X-30 NASP









Artist's Concept of the X-30 entering orbit







Role:  SSTO aerospaceplane

Manufacturer:  Rockwell International

Status:  Cancelled 1993

Primary user:  NASA

Number built:  0

Developed into:  X-43





The X-30 National Aero-Space Plane (NASP) was a United States project to create a single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) spacecraft. It was cancelled before a prototype was built.






Development



NASP came from the "Copper Canyon" project, in Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), running from 1982 to 1985. In his 1986 State of the Union address, President Ronald Reagan called for "a new Orient Express that could, by the end of the next decade, take off from Dulles Airport, accelerate up to 25 times the speed of sound, attaining low earth orbit or flying to Tokyo within two hours."



Research suggested a maximum speed of Mach 8 for scramjet based aircraft, as the vehicle would generate heat due to atmospheric friction, which would thus cost considerable energy. The project showed that much of this energy could be recovered by passing hydrogen over the skin and carrying the heat into the combustion chamber: Mach 20 then seemed possible. The result was a program funded by NASA, and the United States Department of Defense (funding was approximately equally divided between NASA, DARPA, the US Air Force, the Strategic Defense Initiative Office (SDIO) and the US Navy).[1]



McDonnell Douglas, Rockwell International, and General Dynamics competed to develop technology for a hypersonic air-breathing SSTO vehicle. Rocketdyne and Pratt & Whitney competed to develop engines.



In 1990, the companies joined under the leadership of Rockwell International to develop the craft to deal with the technical and budgetary obstacles. Development on the X-30, as it was then designated, continued until 1993, when it was terminated amid budget cuts and technical concerns.



Design











1986 artist's concept of the X-30 on liftoff.









Artist's Concept of the X-30 in orbit









Artist's Concept of the X-30 on reentry









X-30 model in a wind tunnel

The X-30 configuration was a highly integrated engine. The shovel-shaped forward fuselage generated a shock wave to compress air before it entered the engine. The aft fuselage formed an integrated nozzle to expand the exhaust. The engine between was a scramjet engine. At the time, however, no scramjet engine of the kind was close to operational.



The aerodynamic configuration was an example of a waverider. Most of the lift was generated by the fuselage by compression lift. The "wings" were small fins providing trim and control. This configuration was efficient for high-speed flight, but would have made take-off and slow-speed flight difficult.



Temperatures on the airframe were expected to be 1800 °F (980 °C) over a large part of the surface, with maximums of over 3000 °F (1650 °C) on the leading edges and portions of the engine. This required the development of high temperature lightweight materials, including alloys of titanium and aluminum called gamma and alpha titanium aluminide, advanced carbon/carbon composites, and titanium metal matrix composite (TMC) with silicon carbide fibers. Titanium matrix composites were used by McDonnell Douglas to create a representative fuselage section called "Task D". The Task D test article was four feet high by eight feet wide by eight feet long. A carbon/epoxy cryogenic hydrogen tank was integrated with the fuselage section and the whole assembly, including volatile and combustible hydrogen, was successfully tested with mechanical loads and a temperature of 1500 °F (820 °C) in 1992, just before program cancellation.



Despite progress in developing the necessary structural and propulsion technology, NASA still had substantial hurdles to overcome. The Department of Defense wanted it to carry a crew of two and even a small payload. The demands of being a man-rated vehicle, with the instrumentation, environmental control system, and safety equipment, made X-30 larger, heavier, and more expensive than required for a technology demonstrator. The result was a cancellation of the X-30 and a move toward a more modest hypersonic program that culminated in the unmanned X-43 "Hyper-X", which is essentially an unmanned scaled-down X-30. A large, detailed scale mock up of the X-30 was built by engineering students at Mississippi State University's Raspet Flight Research Lab in Starkville, Mississippi. The mock-up is on display at the Aviation Challenge campus of the U.S. Space Camp facility in Huntsville, Alabama.



Specifications (X-30 as designed)











This aircraft article is missing some (or all) of its specifications. If you have a source, you can help Wikipedia by adding them.





General characteristics

Length: 314.0 ft (95.7 m)

Diameter: 52.0 ft (15.8 m)

Empty weight: 132,000 lb (59,874 kg)

Gross weight: 300,000 lb (136,078 kg)

Powerplant: 1 × Scramjet , 314,700 lbf (1,400 kN) thrust



Performance

Maximum speed: 23,000 mph (37,000 km/h; 20,000 kn)

Maximum speed: Mach 30

Service ceiling: 1,500,000 ft (457,200 m)

Wing loading: 200 lb/sq ft (980 kg/m²) (Takeoff), 40 lb/ft² (195 kg/m²) (Reentry)

Thrust/weight: 1.049

Stage 1: 1 x X-30.

Isp: 1,550 sec

Burn time: 886 sec

Propellants: Air/Slush LH2 [1]



See also













United States Air Force portal



Scramjet

Single-stage to orbit





Comparable aircraft NASA X-43 (essentially a down-scaled model)

Tupolev Tu-2000

HOTOL









References



1.^ NATIONAL AERO-SPACE PLANE PROGRAM FACT SHEET



American X-Vehicles (.pdf)

***************************************************************
 
The General Dynamics Hypersonic Glide Vehicle
 
HGV












HGV

General Dynamic Hypersonic Glide Vehicle as exhibited in 1987

American spaceplane. Study 1992. The Hypersonic Glide Vehicle was a USAF project discussed openly in 1987 to 1988, which may have flown as a black project in 1992-1993.

A model of the General Dynamics concept for the vehicle was shown at the Air Force Association show in 1987. Martin Marietta was an associated or competing contractor. The HGV resurrected the Dynasoar boost-glide bomber concept of the 1950's. A booster would accelerate the HGV to Mach 18 and an altitude of 80 km. It would then enter a long glide, coming over its selected target at Mach 5 at 30 km altitude. An HGV launched by a Minuteman would have a range of 15,000 km; air-launched from a B-1 or B-52, a 7,400 km range.



Advanced materials and lightweight avionics were expected to make it possible for the ca. 2 metric ton HGV to have a useful payload. These might include an interceptor using Raytheon's LORAINE (Long-Range Interceptor Experiment) phased-array radar; or a surface attack missile using Loral air-to-surface guidance concepts developed for the USAF Maneuvering Re-entry Vehicle (MaRV) program. In 1987 the USAF was considering a five-year, $400 million program ending in four Minuteman-boosted HGV flights from Vandenberg AFB. Reports as late as 1992 indicated the tests may have occurred under the Have Space project, with the air-launched version referred to as the HGV and the ground-launched version as the Strategic Boost Glide Vehicle.



The NASA Hyper-X air-launched scramjet experiment may owe some of its launch vehicle underpinnings to HGV.



Many thanks to Bill Sweetman for pointing out the existence of this project.



AKA: Hypersonic Glide Vehicle;Strategic Boost Glide Vehicle.

Gross mass: 2,000 kg (4,400 lb).





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Associated Countries •USA



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See also •Spaceplane

•Suborbital

•US Rocketplanes



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Associated Manufacturers and Agencies •USAF American agency overseeing development of rockets and spacecraft. United States Air Force, USA. More...

•DARPA American agency overseeing development of rockets and spacecraft. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (formerly ARPA), USA. More...

•Martin American manufacturer of rockets, spacecraft, and rocket engines. Martin Marietta Astronautics Group (1956), Denver, CO, USA. More...

•Convair American manufacturer of rockets, spacecraft, and rocket engines. Convair, USA. More...

•USAF American agency. USAF, USA. More...



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bibliography •Sweetman. Bill, "Review of Air Force Association Show", Interavia, 9/23/87.

•Arkin, WIlliam M, "Unindicted co-conspirators", Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, July/August 1992. Web Address when accessed: http://www.bullatomsci.org/issues/1992/ja92/ja92.perspectives.html

 
And from designation-systems.net:
 
Copyright © 2003-2009 Andreas Parsch




Lockheed HGV

The HGV (Hypersonic Glide Vehicle) was a U.S. Air Force program for a hypersonic aero-ballistic (boost/glide) ground attack missile. It is still classified, and therefore undisputed information, including whether any HGVs were built at all, is almost non-existing. The HGV project was probably begun in the early 1980s. The contractor who is usually credited with actually building the HGV is the Lockheed Missiles and Space Company.



No HGV construction, let alone flight test, was ever openly announced. However, it is reported that several tests occurred in the 1990/93 time frame, possibly under the program name HAVE SPACE. The HGV was carried to 20000 m (68000 ft) under the wing of a modified B-52H, and after release a large rocket booster accelerated the missile to Mach 18. In the long hypersonic glide after booster separation, the HGV could cover up to 8000 km (5000 miles). It's possible that the HGV test missiles were recoverable. The exact configuration of the HGV remains unconfirmed, but reports point towards a highly-swept (75°) delta planform and four vertical tails. Thermal protection was provided by a carbon-carbon composite skin (similar to the Space Shuttle leading edges) on a titanium structure. The HGV would have used guidance technology developed under the USAF's MaRV (Manoeuvering Reentry Vehicle) program.





Image: via Stéphane Cochin, Stratosphere Models

HGV (possible configuration)









The USAF planned to develop the HGV as a survivable quick reaction nuclear strike weapon with a payload of two or three nuclear warheads. Its high speed (Mach 5+ over the target) and relatively shallow approach trajectory would have given a potential target an extremely short reaction time (much less than in an ICBM attack), making attacks against e.g. mobile ICBM launchers possible. A variant of the HGV, known as Strategic Boost Glide Vehicle, was to be launched from the top of a modified LGM-30 Minuteman ICBM, for a total range of 15000 km (9300 miles). In the end, no operational HGV missiles were built, most likely because the end of the Cold War made such advanced strategic weapon systems unnecessary.



Specifications

Note: Data given by several unconfirmed sources show variations. Figures given below may therefore be inaccurate!



Data for HGV:



Length (incl. booster) 14 m (46 ft); w/o booster: 9 m (30 ft)

Wingspan 3.4 m (11 ft 2 in)

Weight 11300 kg (25000 lb)

Speed Mach 18

Range (air launch) 8000 km (5000 miles)

Propulsion Rocket booster (HGV itself unpowered)

Warhead 2x or 3x thermonuclear



Main Sources

[1] Bill Sweetman: "Aurora, The Pentagon's Secret Hypersonic Spyplane", Motorbooks Intl., 1993

[2] Mark Wade: Encyclopedia Astronautica







Back to Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles, Appendix 4


And, from dreamlandresort.com:

HGV (Hypersonic Glide Vehicle)


Rumors

The HGV was a recoverable unmanned rocket-powered hypersonic vehicle, contracted in 1979/80 to the UAB (Unmanned Aircraft Bureau) of the Lockheed Skunk Works. It could achieve a speed of Mach 18 and a range of 8000 km (5000 miles) when launched from 20000 m (68000 ft) by a highly modified B-52H. At one time it was planned to develop the HGV into a survivable quick reaction nuclear strike weapon with a payload of two or three nuclear warheads. Some sightings of HGV flight tests were reported during 1989/90. The HGV was about 9 m (30 ft) long, had 75° delta wings, and four vertical tails. It also featured an extendable aero-spike (similar to the Trident SLBM) to reduce hypersonic drag.



Comments

It is certain, that the HGV existed as a project, but actual flights were never officially announced. For additional information on the HGV program, including an unofficial image, see this page.






 
**********************************************************************
 
Lockheed L301/Copper Coast
 
from dreamlandresorts.com:
 
L301/COPPER COAST


In the mid-1970s, NASA studied hypersonic vehicles as follow-on projects to the X-24B lifting body under the general "X-24C" designation. Lockheed Skunk Works' concept for the X-24C was the L301 design. The L301 was to be rocket and/or scramjet powered, and was designed for speeds of up to Mach 6.65 at 28000 m (92000 ft) altitude. In September 1977, the X-24C/L301 project was officially cancelled for lack of funding, thus ending the documented history of the L301 in the "white world".





Photo: NASA









Drawings: Lockheed

Lockheed X-24C/L301 design



 

Rumors

After official cancellation, the DOD took over the L301, and development was continued under the highly classified project COPPER COAST. Lockheed also studied operational derivatives of the L301 as potential successors to the SR-71. These studies included designs for Mach 4 at 60 km (200,000 ft) and Mach 7 at 75 km (250,000 feet). An L301/COPPER COAST test vehicle, slightly different from the published configuration shown in the drawings, was actually built, and it first flew in 1981. The planned operational derivatives of the COPPER COAST vehicle were cancelled, however, because the contract for the SR-71 successor went to General Dynamics with their Sentinel design (see F-121).



The L301/COPPER COAST flight test program was run by NASA-Dryden, and in the later flight test phase the NASA referred to the vehicle as SYNCON (Synergetic Configuration). NASA also planned waverider designs as follow-on projects to the L301. The photo below is said to show a wind tunnel model of such a design.





Photo: NASA via FAS









Comments

There are no hints whatsoever in open references, that the X-24C/L301 project was continued in any way after its official cancellation. And the notion that NASA runs a flight test program so secret, that even its existence is classified, also doesn't sound very plausible. Therefore the credibility of the L301/COPPER COAST rumors is close to zero.


And, from Wikipedia:

Lockheed L-301






From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

















X-24C configuration images circa January 1977.[1]

Lockheed L-301 (sometimes called the X-24C, though this designation was never officially assigned) was an experimental air-breathing hypersonic aircraft project. It was developed by the NASA and USAF organization National Hypersonic Flight Research Facility[2] (NHFRF or NHRF[3]), with Skunk Works as the prime contractor. In January 1977, the program was "tentatively scheduled to operate two vehicles for eight years and to conduct 100 flights per vehicle."[1] NASA discontinued work on L-301 and NHRF in September 1977 due to budget constraints and lack of need.[2]


Development



The L-301 HGV was intended to be a follow-on to the X-15 and X-24 (specifically the X-24B) programs, to take lessons learned from both and integrate them into an airframe capable of at least reaching Mach 8 and engaging in hypersonic skip-glide maneuvers for long range missions. While the NASA program, one of several to use the tentative X-24C designator, was ostensibly canceled in 1977, it was only canceled at the time because of USAF disclosures of duplicate black programs with the same contractors for similar vehicles. The vehicle used both air breathing ram or scramjet propulsion as well as a rocket engine, carrying both RP-1 and LH2 propellant as well as on board stores of LOX.



It is presently undetermined whether the black program ever resulted in flight tests, however wind tunnel models are well documented online by both Lockheed and USAF websites,[4] while Lockheed drawings have appeared on the web,[5] particularly on the sites of modelers producing models of this vehicle. Aviation historian Rene Francillion believes Lockheed did fly a testbed aircraft in 1982.[citation needed]



Design



Propulsion



Originally intended to carry the same XLR-99 engine used by the X-15, the primary engine was changed to the LR-105, which was the sustainer engine used on the Atlas launcher. This rocket engine, burning RP-1 and LOX, was intended to accelerate the X-24C to hypersonic speeds in order to ignite the hydrogen fueled, air breathing ram/scramjet mounted in the belly of the airframe with which it would attain cruise speeds of at least Mach 6 and peak velocities of Mach 8+ at altitudes of 90,000 feet or more.



As such, this vehicle was plainly not intended to reach orbit, but may have served as a technology testbed for development of later black orbiter programs such as COPPER CANYON, HAVE SPACE, HAVE REGION, among others, perhaps even the purported Blackstar project. It may also have served as an intermediate stage for an expendable upper stage capable of putting a small payload in orbit.



Airframe



Design of the aircraft in various wind tunnel models and contractor drawings seems to follow variations of the FDL-5 and FDL-8 lifting body shapes originally developed by the USAF Flight Dynamics Laboratory in the 1950's, which were used in the earlier X-23 and X-24A/B programs. With a radically swept delta wing, and 2, 3, or 4 vertical stabilizers, as well as several body flaps (depending on the model), the vehicle did not lack for control surfaces. The vehicle measured 74 feet 10 inches long, 24 ft, 2 in wingspan, and 20 ft, 7 in height.



Various drawings show a payload bay twelve feet long and perhaps five feet diameter. This would certainly have been sufficient for delivering military ordinance on a transcontinental skip-glide strike mission. It may also have been large enough to carry an upper stage and a small satellite for a surprise orbiting which would eliminate the problem spy satellites have of having their ephemerides predicted and used by enemy nations to hide sensitive observation targets.



References



1.^ a b http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19790008668_1979008668.pdf [CONFIGURATION DEVELOPMENT STUDY OF THE X-24C HYPERSONIC RESEARCH AIRPLANE - PHASE II]

2.^ a b http://books.google.com/books?id=DUkl5bH6k6EC&pg=PA98&lpg=PA98&dq=National+Hypersonic+Research+Facility+x-15+x-24c&source=bl&ots=Ubvm4kazo1&sig=16Y5rv1y8HLZX8fy8mHZGmDBev4&hl=en&ei=7exrSujtNpLWM4a5tPkG&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3 [Lockheed Secret Projects by Dennis R. Jenkins]

3.^ http://www.darpa.mil/tto/solicit/BAA08-53/VULCAN_Industry_Day_Presentations.pdf ["X-24C NHRF"]

4.^ Arnold Air Force Base - Library

5.^ Lockheed's X-24C (L-301)



Miller, Jay. The X-Planes: X-1 to X-45. Hinckley, UK: Midland, 2001.



Rose, Bill, 2008. Secret Projects: Military Space Technology. Hinckley, England: Midland Publishing.


**********************************************************************

From astronautix.com:

Black Colt








American manned spaceplane. Study 1993. Winged, first stage of a launch vehicle using aerial refueling and existing engines.

Takes off from runway; rendezvous with tanker to load oxidizer; then flies to Mach 12/150 nm to release Star 48V second stage and 450 kg payload. In comparison to Black Horse, uses existing engines and a much more achievable mass fraction by only flying to half orbital speed.



Crew Size: 1.



Gross mass: 43,160 kg (95,150 lb).

Height: 48.00 m (157.00 ft).

Thrust: 402.05 kN (90,385 lbf).





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Associated Countries •USA



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See also •Low earth orbit

•Manned

•Spaceplane

•US Rocketplanes



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Associated Launch Vehicles •Black Colt American air-launched orbital launch vehicle. Winged, first stage of a launch vehicle using aerial refueling and existing engines. Takes off from runway; rendezvous with tanker to load oxidizer; then flies to Mach 12/150 nm to release Star 48V second stage and 450 kg payload. In comparison to Black Horse, uses existing engines and a much more achievable mass fraction by only flying to half orbital speed. More...



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bibliography •Zubrin, Robert M, and Clapp, Mitchell B, "Black Horse: One Stop to Orbit", Black Horse Web Site, Web Address when accessed: http://www.im.lcs.mit.edu/bh/analog.html.

*****************************************************************

From astronautix.com:

Black Horse












Black Horse Profile

Mission profile for the proposed Black Horse air-refuelable launch vehicle. The Black Horse would, lightly loaded, take off horizontally from a runway and rendezvous with a tanker for in-flight fuelling of non-cryogenic lower specific impulse propellants. The Black Horse would then boost itself to suborbital velocity, releasing an upper stage for orbital insertion of its payload. The winged vehicle would then return to its base for a runway landing and reuse.

American manned spaceplane. Study 1994. Winged, single stage to orbit launch vehicle using aerial refueling and lower performance, non-cryogenic propellants.

Takes off from runway at 22,000 kg gross weight; rendezvous with tanker to load 66,760 kg oxidizer; then flies to orbit.



Crew Size: 1.



Gross mass: 84,100 kg (185,400 lb).

Height: 69.00 m (226.00 ft).

Thrust: 443.19 kN (99,633 lbf).





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Associated Countries •USA



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See also •Low earth orbit

•Manned

•Spaceplane

•US Rocketplanes



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Associated Launch Vehicles •Black Horse American air-launched winged orbital launch vehicle. Winged, single stage to orbit launch vehicle using aerial refueling and lower performance, non-cryogenic propellants. Takes off from runway at 22,000 kg gross weight; rendezvous with tanker to load 66,760 kg oxidizer; then flies to orbit. More...



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bibliography •Zubrin, Robert M, and Clapp, Mitchell B, "Black Horse: One Stop to Orbit", Black Horse Web Site, Web Address when accessed: http://www.im.lcs.mit.edu/bh/analog.html.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Black Horse Images





Black Horse

Credit: © Mark Wade

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------







Black Horse

Black Horse Launch Vehicle 3 View

Credit: © Mark Wade
 
*****************************************************************
 
The Orbital Science Corporaton X-34
 
From youtube:
 

 
 
From astronautix.com:
 
X-34












X-34

Credit: NASA

American spaceplane. Study 1996.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Associated Countries •USA



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See also •Spaceplane

•Suborbital

•US Rocketplanes



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Associated Manufacturers and Agencies •OSC American manufacturer of rockets, spacecraft, and rocket engines. Orbital Sciences Corporation, USA.


From Science Daily:

New X-34 Spaceplane To Be Unveiled At NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center






ScienceDaily (Apr. 23, 1999) — NASA will unveil a new reusable, robotic rocket plane in the high desert of California next week.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



See Also:



Space & Time

•Space Exploration

•NASA

•Space Station

•Space Probes

•Space Missions

•Astronomy



Reference

•Scaled Composites SpaceShipOne

•Multistage rocket

•Space Shuttle program

•Model rocket





The first of three X-34 demonstration vehicles will be "rolled out" at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA, on Friday, April 30, opening an era of low-cost reusable space planes.



The X-34, a single-engine rocket plane, will fly itself using onboard computers. The vehicle is approximately 58 feet long, 28 feet wide at wing tip and 11 feet tall from the bottom of the fuselage to the top of the tail. The X-34 will launch from an L-1011 airliner and will reach altitudes of up to 250,000 feet and travel up to eight times faster than the speed of sound.



Flights of the X-34 will test many new technologies: composite material structures, composite tanks and new, integrated avionics. The vehicle also will demonstrate the ability to fly through inclement weather, land horizontally at a designated landing site, and safely abort during flight. The planned 27 flights within a year will demonstrate the program's ability to fly within 24 hours of its last mission, using a small ground crew.



The X-34 has completed ground vibration tests, ensuring there will be no potentially hazardous vibrations during flight. The L-1011 and the X-34 prototype were tested separately and together at Dryden.



After the rollout, the X-34 will be mounted underneath the L-1011 and flown on "captive-carry" flights to allow the Federal Aviation Administration to approve modifications to the L-1011. When powered flights begin for X-34, the demonstrator will be carried aloft and separate from the L- 1011 before igniting its rocket engine. Following the powered portion of flight, the unpiloted X-34 will land horizontally, initially on a dry lakebed and eventually on a runway.



The April 30 rollout, which is open to the media, will air live on NASA Television. A press conference will be held at 1 p.m. EDT, and the rollout ceremony will take place at 2 p.m. EDT. For accreditation and more information, reporters should contact Leslie Mathews at Dryden Public Affairs on (661) 258-3893.



NASA TV is available on GE-2, transponder 9C at 85 degrees west longitude, with vertical polarization. Frequency is on 3880.0 megahertz, with audio on 6.8 megahertz.



In a cooperative program among NASA Centers, Dryden will provide flight-testing and ground vibration testing. NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL, manages the X-34 project. Orbital Sciences Corporation Dulles, VA, is designing, developing and testing the vehicle.

 
 
From Wired.com:

Nasa resurrects X-34 space planes






By David Axe



29 November 2010


The aviation and space press buzzed last week with the news that NASA had quietly moved its two long-grounded X-34 space planes from open storage at the space agency's Dryden center -- located on Edwards Air Force Base in California -- to a test pilot school in the Mojave Desert. At the desert facility, the mid-'90s-vintage, robotic X-34s would be inspected to determine if they were capable of flying again. It seemed that Nasa was eying a dramatic return to the business of fast, cheap space access using a reusable, airplane-style vehicle -- something the Air Force has enthusiastically embraced with its mysterious X-37B spacecraft.



The truth, it turns out, is a bit more complicated, even confusing -- but no less exciting. If everything works out, the X-34s might help pioneer not just an emerging method of accessing space, but a new space-exploration business model, as well.



A Wednesday call to Orbital Sciences, the original manufacturers of the X-34, resulted in a brief conversation with a bemused company official. Barry Berneski, Orbital's communications director, said he had read the X-34 news, but had heard nothing on the subject from inside the firm. "They might be just trying get it out of Edwards' valuable real estate," Berneski said of the 59-foot-long space planes, only one of which ever flew -- and just once -- before the programme was cancelled on cost grounds in 2001.



In fact, real estate has been a factor in the X-34s' moves over the years, Dryden official Alan Brown said on Wednesday. After the programme's termination, Nasa transferred the space plane prototypes to the Air Force, "which thought it might use them but never did," Brown said. "When the Air Force needed room in the hangar, they [the X-34s] were moved to a bombing range and sat out there deteriorating for several years." The two bots luckily avoided getting bombed, and earlier this year Nasa moved them back to its side of Edwards. "They were sitting there a while," Brown mused.



The idea to ship the X-34s to Mojave and inspect them originated with a Dryden-based Nasa engineer, Brown said. "When he found out this thing still existed … he decided people should take a look to see if it could be refurbished and made flightworthy." That's when the contractors came to retrieve the two neglected spacecraft, pictured above en route to the Mojave.



But that doesn't mean Nasa has formal plans to operate the X-34s under its own auspices, now or ever, Brown stressed. Provided they're in flyable shape, it's far more likely the space agency will make the X-34s available to private industry. "There are a number of firms interested in these things, developing communications and other technologies," Brown said. "It would be helpful if they had a vehicle."



Brown implied he was trying to downplay the X-34s' possible resurrection, but his reference to private industry hints at a far more exciting future for the space planes than would be likely in Nasa service. After all, America's space future is looking increasingly privatised. In 2004, Scaled Composites boosted its Space Ship One vehicle to higher than 300,000 feet, proving that cheap, reusable, commercial vehicle could reach near-orbit -- and potentially score huge profits from spacefaring tourists. And just this week, the Federal Aviation Administration issued the very first license for a commercial spacecraft to re-enter the atmosphere from orbit. The license will allow SpaceX to test, in December, an unmanned rocket vehicle designed for resupplying the International Space Station.



President Barack Obama's space policies entail " outsourc[ing] major components of the space program to private industry." With flyable X-34s at the ready, Nasa could lend a hand to companies hoping to expand on Scaled's and SpaceX's achievements, and further open up space to explorers … and entrepreneurs. That's way cooler than just another government-only test programme, if you ask us.



Source: Wired.com


And, from Wikipedia:
 
Orbital Sciences X-34






From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



















This article needs additional citations for verification.

Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2010)





X-34









The X-34 on the tarmac







Function:  Unmanned Re-usable Spaceplane

Manufacturer:  Orbital Sciences Corporation

Country of origin:  United States

Size

Height

58.3 ft[1] (17.8 m)

Diameter

N/A
Mass:  18,000 lb[1] (8,200 kg)

Stages:  1


Capacity
Launch history

Status:  Cancelled

Launch sites:  Dryden Flight Research Center, Kennedy Space Center

Total launches:  0

First stage - X-34

Engines:  1 Marshall-designed Fastrac engine[1]

Thrust ;  60,000 lbf[1] (270 kN)

Burn time Fuel:  LOX/kerosene





The Orbital Sciences X-34 was intended as a low-cost testbed to demonstrate "key technologies" integratable to the Reusable Launch Vehicle program.



It was intended to be an autonomous pilotless craft powered by a 'Fastrac' liquid rocket engine capable of reaching Mach 8, and performing 25 test flights per year. The unpowered prototype had only been used for towing and captive flight tests when the project was canceled in 2001 for cost concerns. Orbital and Rockwell withdrew less than a year after the contract was signed, because they decided the project could not be done for the promised amount. (A major disagreement between Rockwell and NASA over engine choice likely contributed to the decision.)[citation needed]



The X-34 was reborn as a program for a suborbital reusable-rocket technology demonstrator. But when the first flight vehicle was near completion, the program died after NASA demanded sizable design changes without providing any new funding, and the contractor, Orbital Sciences, refused.[citation needed]



As of January 1, 2010 two demonstrators remain in storage at Edwards Air Force Base.[2] On November 16, 2010, both X-34s were moved with their vertical tails removed from Dryden to a hangar owned by the National Test Pilot school in Mojave, California. They are to be inspected, and NASA is investigating the possibility of restoring them to flight status.[3]



See also

List of experimental aircraft

Cygnus spacecraft



References



1.^ a b c d "X-34: Demonstrating Reusable Launch Vehicle Technologies (wikisource)". Retrieved 2007-06-13.

2.^ Orbital Sciences Corporation X-34. Airliners.net

3.^ http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/11/19/349997/photos-nasa-moves-x-34s-out-of-storage-considers-return-to-flight.html

*******************************************************************
 
The HL-42
 
From astronautix.com:
 
HL-42












HL-42 Configuration

Credit: NASA

American manned spaceplane. Study 1997. The HL-42 was a reusable, lifting body manned spacecraft designed to be placed into low-Earth orbit by an expendable booster.

Despite extensive study of the concept by NASA Langley in the early 1980's, it was seen as a threat to the shuttle and went no further than the mock-up stage.



The 1997 HL-42 design (HL = horizontal landing) stemmed directly from the HL-20 lifting body vehicle concept studied at Langley Research Center from 1983. It was a 42 percent dimensional scale up of the HL-20, hence the designation HL-42, and also happened to have a body length of 42 feet. It retained key design and operational features of the HL-20 design. The applicable HL-20 design data base included extensive in-house aerodynamic, flight simulation and abort, and human factors research as well as results of contracted studies with Rockwell, Lockheed (Skunk Works), and Boeing in defining efficient manufacturing and operations design and auto-land capabilities.



The HL-42 reference vehicle was a reusable, lifting body spacecraft designed to be placed into low-Earth orbit by an expendable booster. Launch escape motors for use in the event of an abort were attached to the expendable launch vehicle adapter at the base of the HL-42. The spacecraft had a dry mass of 13,365 kg, an on-orbit mass of 21,093 kg, and a launch mass (with booster adapters and launch escape system) of 28,725 kg.



The core of the HL-42 design was an aluminum-lithium, cylindrical, pressurized cabin which contained the crew and/or cargo. It had ingress/egress hatches at the top and rear of the cabin. Docking at the space station occurred at the rear of the HL-42. A 1.27 m space station hatch permitted loading and unloading of cargo as large as space station racks. Extending from the pressurized cabin were frame extensions which supported the lower heat shield structure and defined subsystem bays. A graphite polyimide heat shield structure defined the underside of the HL-42 with the TABI TPS bonded directly to the structure. The upper surface was composed of aluminum lithium removable panels that defined the required aerodynamic shape and allowed access to the subsystems located in the unpressurised bay areas. Shuttle flexible blanket insulation (FRSI) TPS was bonded directly to these panels. The graphite polyimide fins had direct bond TPS (TABI and FRSI) with the addition of advanced carbon-carbon (ACC) for the higher heating leading edges. The vehicle nose cap was also made of ACC.



Flight control consisted of seven moving surfaces -- four body flaps, two elevons on the large fins and an all-moving centre vertical fin. Control movement was effected using electromechanical actuators. Spacecraft power was supplied by Shuttle-derived hydrogen-oxygen fuel cells with limited emergency power backup provided using rechargeable silver-zinc batteries.



The HL-42 did not have a main propulsion system. HL-42 propulsion consisted of a methane (CH4) - liquid oxygen (LOX) orbital maneuvering system (OMS) and reaction control system (RCS) for multi-axis attitude control on orbit and during entry. The CH4-LOX system was selected as a result of the no hypergolic propellant ground rule.



The reference HL-42 was a low-risk technology design. Many subsystems were either direct, off-the-shelf designs or based on existing designs. The only exceptions were in the areas of propulsion (new CH4-LOX systems) and health monitoring avionics. Technologies supporting a 1997 development included aluminum lithium structures, graphite polyimide TPS substructure and fins, and TABI TPS.



Mission Description



Ascent



The HL-42 spacecraft was launched by an expendable booster into a 28 x 405 km injection orbit inclined at 51.6 or 28.5 degrees. The OMS capability was 290 m/s, consistent with maneuvers required to transfer to a 405 km space station orbit, circularize, rendezvous, and de-orbit. Various combinations of crew and cargo (space station racks, early-late access lockers, and EMU suits) up to the 4,300 kg limit could be carried by HL-42 in the pressurized cabin volume



Abort



Crew safety and intact vehicle recovery were two aspects of abort which were addressed by the HL-42 design. The launch escape motors located on the launch vehicle adapter provided a high thrust impulse to rapidly distance the HL-42 from the site of a catastrophic booster failure. While the HL-42 was on the launch pad and during the first 60 seconds of ascent, these abort motors provided for a return-to-launch site (RTLS) capability and an intact runway landing. The booster also provided an additional RTLS capability beyond this initial period. Thereafter, single-engine out transatlantic (TAL) and abort-to-orbit (ATO) options existed throughout the remainder of the ascent powered trajectory. Some booster options had a portion of the ascent where the abort mode resulted in an ocean ditching using emergency parachutes on board the HL-42. Under these conditions the crew was saved, but the vehicle was considered expendable (not refurbished if recovered). Based on the flight rate, this event was estimated to occur only once in the mission model with this vehicle attrition accounted for in the fleet sizing.



Entry



The entry trajectory of the HL-42 was designed not to exceed the temperature capability of the thermal protection system, to not exceed a total acceleration of 1.5 Gs, and to provide a cross-range capability in excess of 1850 km. The entry thermal environment of the HL-42 was similar to that of the HL-20 which had been studied extensively. However, because of its larger dimensions, the heating expected on the nose and fin leading edges was expected to be less severe than on HL-20. The centre-of-gravity of the vehicle with payload in or out was within the flyable range based on the extensive HL-20 aerodynamic data base. The large cross-range capability of HL-42 permitted multiple daily landing opportunities at the launch site, or every orbit landing opportunities if five landing sites were selected from the current list of available Shuttle landing sites.



Servicing Towed Package



To provide for a servicing mission capability, it was assumed one vehicle of the HL-42 fleet would have modifications for an airlock system within the vehicle and inclusion of an RMS servicing arm which telescoped into the base and was housed in the unpressurised service bay area. The servicing mission HL-42 also included a servicing kit which was towed attached to the HL-42. This towed package included:



•Additional OMS/RCS LOX/methane propellants to provide a total orbit maneuver capability to the vehicle of 2980m/s (including reserves).

•1000 kg of hydrazine propellant to refuel the satellite being serviced

•Tanks, pressurization and feed, and propellant transfer systems for the above

•TPS to maintain thermal balance

•A radiator to reject excess heat during the 7-day mission

•A fixed link for satellite hold-down during servicing

•Servicing structure



The servicing kit was housed inside the launch vehicle adapters during launch. During ascent, the adapters split apart exposing the towed package. In a launch abort, the towed package links to HL-42 were severed, and the package was left with the launch vehicle.



Characteristics



Crew Size: 4. RCS total impulse: 56,800 kgf-sec. Spacecraft delta v: 290 m/s (950 ft/sec).



Gross mass: 21,093 kg (46,502 lb).

Unfuelled mass: 19,093 kg (42,092 lb).

Payload: 4,300 kg (9,400 lb).

Height: 12.80 m (41.90 ft).

Span: 10.21 m (33.49 ft).

Specific impulse: 300 s.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Associated Countries •USA



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See also •Manned

•Spaceplane

•Suborbital

•US Rocketplanes



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Associated Launch Vehicles •Titan American orbital launch vehicle. The Titan launch vehicle family was developed by the United States Air Force to meet its medium lift requirements in the 1960's. The designs finally put into production were derived from the Titan II ICBM. Titan outlived the competing NASA Saturn I launch vehicle and the Space Shuttle for military launches. It was finally replaced by the USAF's EELV boosters, the Atlas V and Delta IV. Although conceived as a low-cost, quick-reaction system, Titan was not successful as a commercial launch vehicle. Air Force requirements growth over the years drove its costs up - the Ariane using similar technology provided lower-cost access to space. More...



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Associated Manufacturers and Agencies •NASA American agency overseeing development of rockets and spacecraft. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, USA, USA. More...

•NASA Langley American agency overseeing development of rockets and spacecraft. Langley, USA. More...



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Associated Propellants •Lox/CH4



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bibliography •"HL-20 MODEL FOR PERSONNEL LAUNCH SYSTEM RESEARCH", NASA Facts On-Line, NF172



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





HL-42 Images





HL-42 Crew/Cargo

HL-42 Crew/Cargo Versions

Credit: NASA
 
******************************************************************
 
The NASA X-43
 
X-43












X-43 Hyper-X

Credit: NASA

American spaceplane. Study 1997. NASA's X-43 Hyper-X program demonstrated an integrated hypersonic scramjet engine briefly at Mach 10 on its third and final flight.

However the program was delayed for three years after the first launch failed due to miscalculation of maximum aerodynamic loads during acceleration to scramjet ignition speed.



The X-43A fuselage formed a critical elements of the engine, with the forebody acting as the intake for the airflow and the aft section serving as the nozzle. The Hyper-X program was a joint NASA Dryden/NASA Langley conducted under NASA's Aeronautics and Space Transportation Technology Enterprise. NASA Langley had overall management of the Hyper-X program and led the technology development effort. Dryden's primary responsibility was to fly three unpiloted X-43A research vehicles to help prove both the engine technologies, the hypersonic design tools and the hypersonic test facilities developed at Langley.



The first flight mission profile was for NASA Dryden's NB-52 aircraft to climb to 7600 m and release the modified Pegasus launch vehicle. For each flight the booster accelerated the X-43A research vehicle to the test conditions (Mach 7 or 10) at approximately 30 km altitude, where it separated from the booster and then fly under its own power and preprogrammed control. Flights of the X-43A originated from the Dryden/Edwards Air Force Base area, and the missions occurred within the Western Sea Range off the coast of California.



The B-52 Dryden used to carry the X-43A and launch vehicle to test altitude was the oldest B-52 on flying status. The aircraft, on loan from the U.S. Air Force, had been used on some of the most important projects in aerospace history. It was one of two B-52s used to air launch the three X-15 hypersonic aircraft for research flights. It also was used to drop test the various wingless lifting bodies, which contributed to the development of the Space Shuttle. In addition, the B-52 was part of the original flight tests of the Pegasus booster. .



On Aug. 11, 1998, the first piece of hardware was delivered to NASA - a scramjet engine used for a series of ground tests in NASA Langley's 2.4-m-high Temperature Tunnel. This engine could later be used for flight if necessary.



Orbital Sciences Corp., Dulles, Va., designed and built three Pegasus-derivative launch vehicles for the series of X-43A vehicles, a process supervised by Dryden. A successful critical design review for the launch vehicle was held at Orbital's Chandler, Ariz., facility in December 1997.



NASA selected MicroCraft Inc., Tullahoma, Tenn., in March 1997 to fabricate the unpiloted research aircraft for the flight research missions, two flights at Mach 7 and one at Mach 10 beginning in 2000. Micro-Craft was aided by Boeing, which was responsible for designing the research vehicle, developing flight control laws and providing the thermal protection system; GASL Inc., which built the scramjet engines and their fuel systems and providing instrumentation for the vehicles; and Accurate Automation, Chatanooga, Tenn.



Hyper-X Vehicle Specifications



Hyper-X Launch Vehicle

•Length: 49 ft / 14.9 m

•Diameter: 50 in / 1.27 m

•Wingspan: 22 ft / 6.7 m

•Weight (including X-43A): 37,300 lbs / 16,900 kg

•Propulsion: Alliant Techsystems Orion 50S solid rocket motor with 109,000 lbs / 484 kN average thrust

•Airframe: Composite with aluminum ballast/avionics module

•Control System: Electromechanically actuated fins

•Avionics System: GPS/INS navigation, 32-bit flight computer with RS-422 digital serial datalinks, Orbital MACH power and ordnance switching, 2 Mbits/sec PCM data system

•Performance: Separation conditions between Mach 7 and 10 at 95,000 to 110,000 ft (29 km to 34 km)



X-43A Research Vehicle

•Length: 12 ft / 3.66 m

•Wingspan: 5 ft / 1.52 m

•Weight: Approx. 3,000 lbs / 1400 kg

•Propulsion: Dual-mode ramjet/scramjet

•Downlink: S-band (approx. 700 parameters measured and transmitted)



AKA: Hyper-X.

Gross mass: 1,000 kg (2,200 lb).

Height: 3.66 m (12.00 ft).





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Associated Countries •USA



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See also •Spaceplane

•Suborbital

•US Rocketplanes



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Associated Manufacturers and Agencies •NASA American agency overseeing development of rockets and spacecraft. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, USA, USA. More...

•MicroCraft American manufacturer of spacecraft. MicroCraft, USA. More...



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bibliography •NASA Dryden Flight Research Center Web Site, Web Address when accessed: http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/.

•NASA Report, NASA Factsheet FS-040-DFRC X-43 Hyper-X, Web Address when accessed: http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Newsroom/FactSheets/PDF/FS-040-DFRC.pdf.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



X-43 Chronology



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1997 During the Year - . •X-43 Hyper-X contracted - . Nation: USA. Spacecraft: X-43. Summary: NASA selected MicroCraft Inc., Tullahoma, Tenn., in March 1997 to fabricate the unpiloted research aircraft for the flight research missions, two flights at Mach 7 and one at Mach 10 beginning in 2000..

 
 
From youtube:
 

 
 
 

 
 
 
And, from Wikipedia:
 
NASA X-43






From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

















NASA technicians working on the X-43A at the tip of a Pegasus rocket attached to a Boeing B-52B prior to launch on March 27, 2004.

The X-43 is an unmanned experimental hypersonic aircraft with multiple planned scale variations meant to test various aspects of hypersonic flight. It was part of NASA's Hyper-X program. It has set several airspeed records for jet-propelled aircraft.[1]



A winged booster rocket with the X-43 itself at the tip, called a "stack", is launched from a carrier plane. After the booster rocket (a modified first stage of the Pegasus rocket) brings the stack to the target speed and altitude, it is discarded, and the X-43 flies free using its own engine, a scramjet.

Development













Artist's concept of X-43A with scramjet attached to the underside

The initial version, the X-43A, was designed to operate at speeds greater than Mach 7, about 8,050 km/h at altitudes of 30,000 m or more. The X-43A is a single-use vehicle and is designed to crash into the ocean without recovery. Three of them have been built: the first was destroyed; the other two have successfully flown, with the scramjet operating for approximately 10 seconds, followed by a 10 minute glide and intentional crash.



The first flight in June 2001 failed when the stack spun out of control about 11 seconds after the drop from the B-52 carrier plane. It was destroyed by the Range Safety Officer, and it crashed into the Pacific Ocean. NASA attributed the crash to several inaccuracies in data modeling for this test, which led to an inadequate control system for the particular Pegasus used.



The X-43A's successful second flight made it the fastest free flying air-breathing aircraft in the world, though it was preceded by an Australian HyShot as the first operating scramjet engine flight. While still attached to its launching missile, the HyShot flew in descending powered flight in 2002.



The third flight of the X-43A set a new speed record of 12,144 km/h (7,546 mph), or Mach 9.8, on November 16, 2004. It was boosted by a modified Pegasus rocket which was launched from a Boeing B-52 at 13,157 meters (43,166 ft). After a free flight where the scramjet operated for about ten seconds, the craft made a planned crash into the Pacific Ocean off the coast of southern California.



The most recent success in the X-plane series of aircraft until it was replaced by the X-51, the X-43 was part of NASA's Hyper-X program, involving the American space agency and contractors such as Boeing, MicroCraft Inc, Orbital Sciences Corporation and General Applied Science Laboratory (GASL). MicroCraft Inc., now known as ATK GASL, built the X-43A and its engine.



The Hyper-X Phase I is a NASA Aeronautics and Space Technology Enterprise program being conducted jointly by the Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, and the Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, California. Langley is the lead center and is responsible for hypersonic technology development. Dryden is responsible for flight research.



Phase I was a seven-year, approximately $230 million, program to flight-validate scramjet propulsion, hypersonic aerodynamics and design methods.



Design:









NASA's B-52B launch aircraft takes off carrying the X-43A hypersonic research vehicle (March 27, 2004)

The X-43A aircraft was a small unpiloted test vehicle measuring just over 3.7 m in length.[2] The vehicle was a lifting body design, where the body of the aircraft provides a significant amount of lift for flight, rather than relying on wings. The aircraft weighed roughly 3,000 pounds (about 1,300 kilograms). The X-43A was designed to be fully controllable in high-speed flight, even when gliding without propulsion. However, the aircraft was not designed to land and be recovered. Test vehicles crashed into the Pacific Ocean when the test was over.



Traveling at Mach speeds produces a lot of heat due to the compression shock waves involved in supersonic drag. At high Mach speeds, heat can become so intense that metal portions of the airframe melt. The X-43A compensated for this by cycling water behind the engine cowl and sidewall leading edges, cooling those surfaces. In tests, the water circulation was activated at about Mach 3. In the future, fuel may be cycled through such areas instead, much like what is currently done in many liquid-fuel rocket nozzles and high speed planes such as the SR-71.



Engine











Full scale model of the X-43 plane in Langley's 8-foot (2.4 m), high-temperature wind tunnel.

The craft was created to develop and test an exotic type of engine called a supersonic-combustion ramjet, or "scramjet", an engine variation where external combustion takes place within air that is flowing at supersonic speeds. The X-43A's developers designed the aircraft's airframe to positively affect propulsion, just as it affects aerodynamics: in this design, the forebody is a part of the intake airflow, while the aft section functions as a nozzle.



The engine of the X-43A was primarily fueled with hydrogen. In the successful test, about two pounds (or roughly one kilogram) of the fuel was used. Unlike rockets, scramjet-powered vehicles do not carry oxygen onboard for fueling the engine. Removing the need to carry oxygen significantly reduces the vehicle's size and weight. In the future, such lighter vehicles could bring heavier payloads into space or carry payloads of the same weight much more efficiently.



Scramjets only operate at speeds in the range of Mach 4.5 or higher, so rockets or other jet engines are required to initially boost scramjet-powered aircraft to this base velocity. In the case of the X-43A, the aircraft was accelerated to high speed with a Pegasus rocket launched from a converted B-52 Stratofortress bomber. The combined X-43A/Pegasus vehicle was referred to as the "stack" by the program's team members.



The engines in the X-43A test vehicles were specifically designed for a certain speed range, only able to compress and ignite the fuel-air mixture when the incoming airflow is moving as expected. The first two X-43A aircraft were intended for flight at approximately Mach 7, while the third flew at nearly Mach 10.



Testing











The Pegasus booster accelerating the X-43A, shortly after booster ignition (March 27, 2004)









CFD image of the X-43A at Mach 7









The X-43A being dropped from under the wing of a B-52B Stratofortress.

NASA's first X-43A test on June 2, 2001 failed because the Pegasus booster lost control about 13 seconds after it was released from the B-52 carrier. The rocket experienced a control oscillation as it went transonic, eventually leading to the failure of the rocket's starboard elevon. This caused the rocket to deviate significantly from the planned course, so the stack was destroyed by onboard explosives as a safety precaution. An investigation into the incident stated that imprecise information about the capabilities of the rocket as well as its flight environment contributed to the accident, though no single factor could ultimately be blamed for the failure.[citation needed]



In the second test in March 2004, the Pegasus fired successfully and released the test vehicle at an altitude of about 29,000 metres (95,000 ft). After separation, the engine's air intake was opened, the engine ignited, and the aircraft then accelerated away from the rocket reaching mach 6.83. Fuel was flowing to the engine for eleven seconds, a time in which the aircraft traveled more than 24 km. After burnout, controllers were still able to maneuver the vehicle and manipulate the flight controls for several minutes as the aircraft was slowed down by wind resistance and took a long dive into the Pacific. Peak speed was at burnout of the Pegasus but the scramjet engine did accelerate the vehicle in climbing flight, after a small drop in speed following separation.[citation needed]



NASA flew a third version of the X-43A on November 16, 2004, achieving/maintaining a speed of Mach 9.68[3] at about 34,000 metres (112,000 ft) altitude [4] and further testing the ability of the vehicle to withstand the heat loads involved.[5]



Future of the scramjet



After the X-43 tests in 2004, NASA Dryden engineers said that they expected all of their efforts to culminate in the production of a two-stage-to-orbit crewed Vehicle in about 20 years. The scientists expressed much doubt that there would be a Single Stage to Orbit crewed vehicle like the National Aerospace Plane (NASP) in the foreseeable future, also known as the "Orient Express", that would take off from an ordinary airport runway.

In January 2006 USAF announced the Force Application and Launch from Continental United States or FALCON Scramjet reusable missile.[6]

In March 2006, it was announced that the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) supersonic combustion scramjet "Waverider" flight test vehicle has been designated as X-51A. The USAF Boeing X-51 Scramjet-powered Waverider was first flown on 26 May 2010. It was dropped from a NASA B-52 in tests very similar to the X-43 Hyper-X.



Variants

Other X-43 vehicles were designed, but as of November 2004 appear to have been suspended. They were expected to have the same basic body design as the X-43A, though the aircraft were expected to be moderately to significantly larger in size.



X-43B



The X-43B, was expected to be a full-size vehicle, incorporating a turbine-based combined cycle (TBCC) engine or a rocket-based combined cycle (RBCC) ISTAR engine. Jet turbines or rockets would initially propel the vehicle to supersonic speed. A ramjet might take over starting at Mach 2.5, with the engine converting to a scramjet configuration at approximately Mach 5.



X-43C



The X-43C would have been somewhat larger than the X-43A and was expected to test the viability of hydrocarbon fuel, possibly with the HyTech engine. While most scramjet designs have used hydrogen for fuel, HyTech runs with conventional kerosene-type hydrocarbon fuels, which are more practical for support of operational vehicles. The building of a full-scale engine was planned which would use its own fuel for cooling. The engine cooling system would have acted as a chemical reactor by breaking long-chain hydrocarbons into short-chain hydrocarbons for a rapid burn.



The X-43C was indefinitely suspended[7] in March 2004. The linked story reports the project's indefinite suspension and the appearance of Rear Admiral Craig E. Steidle before a House Space and Aeronautics subcommittee hearing on March 18, 2004. In mid-2005 the X-43C appeared to be funded through the end of the year.[8]



X-43D



The X-43D would have been almost identical to the X-43A, but expanding the speed envelope to approximately Mach 15. As of September 2007, only a feasibility study had been conducted by Donald B. Johnson of Boeing and Jeffrey S. Robinson of NASA's Langley Research Center. According to the introduction of the study, "The purpose of the X-43D is to gather high Mach number flight environment and engine operability information which is difficult, if not impossible, to gather on the ground."[9]


See also

Hypersoar

HyShot





Comparable aircraft Boeing X-51

Rockwell X-30




References



1.^ Thompson, Elvia; Henry, Keith; Williams, Leslie. "Faster Than a Speeding Bullet: Guinness Recognizes NASA Scramjet". NASA.

2.^ Dr. Phillip T. Harsha, Lowell C. Keel, Dr. Anthony Castrogiovanni, Robert T. Sherrill, “X-43A Vehicle Design and Manufacture,” AIAA 2005-3334

3.^ "Airbreathing Hypersonic Propulsion at Pratt & Whitney – Overview"

4.^ http://www.aiaa.org/Participate/Uploads/AIAA_DL_McClinton.pdf "X-43: Scramjet Power Breaks the Hypersonic Barrier" 2006

5.^ http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-040-DFRC.html "NASA "Hyper-X" Program Demonstrates Scramjet Technologies "

6.^ FALCON

7.^ Morris, Jefferson (March 19, 2004). "X-43C, RS-84 Engine Among Casualties Of NASA Review". Aviation Week (McGraw-Hill). Retrieved January 9, 2010.

8.^ "Good news travels fast". Boeing Frontiers, August 2005. Quote: "Thanks to a funding request of $25 million for NASA sponsored by U.S. Rep. Jim Talent (R-Mo.), work on the X-43C program will continue through 2005."

9.^ X-43D CONCEPTUAL DESIGN AND FEASIBILITY STUDY

*******************************************************************