A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Technology
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

National Aerospace Plane (X-30) announced 20 years ago



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 6th 06, 04:59 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history,sci.space.tech,rec.aviation.military
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default National Aerospace Plane (X-30) announced 20 years ago

the NASP ~ National Aerospace Plane ~ X-30
which Ronald Reagan called " a new Orient Express" was announced 20
years ago this week during the State Of The Union address Feb 4, 1986.

the NASP would've been a single stage to orbit space plane capable of
taking off from conventional airport runways - accellerating to
supersonic, hypersonic and orbital speeds using a combination of at
least three propulsion systems (maybe 4 or 5 systems) that included
turbojets, ramjets, scramjets and possibly rockets. It would have to
sustain temps of over 1600 degrees over the surface of the airframe and
upto 5000 degrees on the outer control surfaces.

NASP would be a replacement & supplament for the space shuttle, spy
aircraft
(NASP was even more advanced than the fabled Aurora-based hypersonic
spyplane(s), subsonic and supersonic commercial airliners and military
bombers.

NASP of course never made it - and all other hypersonic efforts, and
SSTO and hypersonic efforts (i.e. X-33 ~ VenturStar and X-43 ~ Hyper-X
) have been lesser efforts that also failed


NASP ~ National Aerospace Plane ~ X-30 ~ 'Orient Express'

President Reagan's State of the Union 1986:
"we are going forward with research on 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."



NASP ~ National Aerospace Plane ~ X-30 ~ 'Orient Express'

http://users.dbscorp.net/jmustain/x30.jpg
http://www.materials.qmul.ac.uk/admi...mages/nasp.jpg
http://pif.allolespace.com/invites_s...s/nasp_x30.jpg
http://www.fas.org/irp/mystery/nasp08.jpg
http://www.fas.org/irp/mystery/x-30-AC92-0287-6_a.jpg
http://ails.arc.nasa.gov/Images/Spac...-0699-2_a.jpeg
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/es...y/Tech20G5.jpg
http://home.earthlink.net/~chadslatt...es/x30nasa.jpg
http://history.nasa.gov/centtimeline...ict-1990_2.jpg

concept video
http://redstone.ae.gatech.edu/mm/Mis...NASP_promo.mov

articles:
http://fas.org/irp/mystery/nasp.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/x30.htm
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver.../8574/X30.html

  #2  
Old February 6th 06, 11:31 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history,sci.space.tech,rec.aviation.military
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default National Aerospace Plane (X-30) announced 20 years ago


Air Raid wrote:
NASP would be a replacement & supplament for the space shuttle, spy
aircraft
(NASP was even more advanced than the fabled Aurora-based hypersonic
spyplane(s), subsonic and supersonic commercial airliners and military
bombers.

NASP of course never made it - and all other hypersonic efforts, and
SSTO and hypersonic efforts (i.e. X-33 ~ VenturStar and X-43 ~ Hyper-X
) have been lesser efforts that also failed


NASP ~ National Aerospace Plane ~ X-30 ~ 'Orient Express'

President Reagan's State of the Union 1986:
"we are going forward with research on 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."





We are fully capable of doing the "orient express" today, and within 5
years.

Today, we have lighter materials, more knowledge of the hypersonic
environment, better computers, more heat resistant materials, and the
new 'slush' hydrogen fuel tanks that can hold substantially more
hydrogen. Today, a series of engine systems is unnecessary. SSMEs are
a tried and proven engine that can do the job from start to finish.

And, it won't cost a hundred billion dollars to do it. Maybe, 10
billion for a pair of the SSTOs.

Why aren't we doing it? Ask the people in charge.


tomcat

  #3  
Old February 7th 06, 11:49 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history,sci.space.tech,rec.aviation.military
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default National Aerospace Plane (X-30) announced 20 years ago

Assuming that you are asking "why not the NASP".....

What is about aircraft that fly in a atmosphere that make people that
they are anygood for a space craft?

Wings are not a good thing when there is no air or your going kinda
fast, eps if your on a budget and don't need cross range.

Non wing based SSTO or any other kind of xxTO will be cheaper and
easier than a winged one.
We are not flying... we'er orbiting.

All IMHO of course (or IMO if you prefer)

greg

  #4  
Old February 10th 06, 07:04 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history,sci.space.tech,rec.aviation.military
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default National Aerospace Plane (X-30) announced 20 years ago

tomcat wrote:
Today, we have lighter materials


Somewhat, yes.

more knowledge of the hypersonic environment


Somewhat, yes.

more heat resistant materials


But we don't have much experience using those materials on hypersonic
aircraft. The fact that a material has been developed doesn't mean
engineers are happy using it for a given application. Qualification of
a new material for a novel application can take more than five years.

and the new 'slush' hydrogen fuel tanks that can hold substantially more
hydrogen


When were these "new" slush hydrogen tanks invented? As I recall, the
slush hydrogen concept was around long before NASP and even figured in
some early Shuttle concepts.

Why aren't we doing it? Ask the people in charge.


I'm not in charge, but I could speculate. Aircraft that make sustained,
atmospheric hypersonic flight just open a whole bunch of problems that
aren't really worth dealing with. NASP was interesting, but why bother
when there are easier alternatives?

Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

  #5  
Old February 11th 06, 02:08 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history,sci.space.tech,rec.aviation.military
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default National Aerospace Plane (X-30) announced 20 years ago


delt0r wrote:
Assuming that you are asking "why not the NASP".....

What is about aircraft that fly in a atmosphere that make people that
they are anygood for a space craft?

Wings are not a good thing when there is no air or your going kinda
fast, eps if your on a budget and don't need cross range.

Non wing based SSTO or any other kind of xxTO will be cheaper and
easier than a winged one.
We are not flying... we'er orbiting.

All IMHO of course (or IMO if you prefer)




Wings use air to gain an advantage on gravity. Therefore, they can
reach the airless void using less energy than a vertical tublular
rocket. They also enable a spacecraft to 'fly' to a runway and land
softly after deorbit. Wings are unnecessary for a spacecraft that is
not designed for, and never intended for, planetary takeoff or
planetfall.

The proof that wings gain an advantage is that a bomber can reach
20,000 feet and stay there for the hours it takes to reach target and
return on 1/10th of the thrust to weight ratio that a vertical tubular
rocket requires just to slowly leave the launch pad.

Air molecules are compressed by gravity and that compression gives lift
with a properly designed airfoil.

In short, you have to get from here to orbit and the best method is a
winged or waverider vehicle. The airfoil vehicle, however, is more
difficult to design than a vertical tubular rocket. So, NASA opted for
a vertical tubular replacement for the Shuttle which will require a
Capsule Parachute landing. Launching such a rocket in the year 2012
may prove embarrassing.

Today, however, a waverider design shouldn't be all that difficult with
the knowledge and materials base that exists in 2006. Titanium is
plentiful and easily worked. The SSME (Space Shuttle Main Engine) has
proven to be reliable. The tile problem has been solved (Don't tell
NASA -- they haven't found out yet.). And, slush hydrogen tanks have
solved the volume problem for hypergolic hydrogen/lox burners like the
SSME.


tomcat

  #6  
Old February 12th 06, 02:25 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history,sci.space.tech,rec.aviation.military
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default National Aerospace Plane (X-30) announced 20 years ago


"tomcat" wrote in message
oups.com...

delt0r wrote:
Assuming that you are asking "why not the NASP".....

What is about aircraft that fly in a atmosphere that make people that
they are anygood for a space craft?

Wings are not a good thing when there is no air or your going kinda
fast, eps if your on a budget and don't need cross range.

Non wing based SSTO or any other kind of xxTO will be cheaper and
easier than a winged one.
We are not flying... we'er orbiting.

All IMHO of course (or IMO if you prefer)




Wings use air to gain an advantage on gravity. Therefore, they can
reach the airless void using less energy than a vertical tublular
rocket.


By definition wings cannot reach 'the airless void as they need air
to function'

snip

The proof that wings gain an advantage is that a bomber can reach
20,000 feet and stay there for the hours it takes to reach target and
return on 1/10th of the thrust to weight ratio that a vertical tubular
rocket requires just to slowly leave the launch pad.


Of course an ICBM gets to its target in minutes rather than hours
which may be rather significant

Air molecules are compressed by gravity and that compression gives lift
with a properly designed airfoil.


Oh dear you dont understand aerodynamics do you ?

In short, you have to get from here to orbit and the best method is a
winged or waverider vehicle.


Wings dont work in vacuum remember ?



The airfoil vehicle, however, is more
difficult to design than a vertical tubular rocket. So, NASA opted for
a vertical tubular replacement for the Shuttle which will require a
Capsule Parachute landing. Launching such a rocket in the year 2012
may prove embarrassing.

Today, however, a waverider design shouldn't be all that difficult with
the knowledge and materials base that exists in 2006.


Says someone who clearly has no clue.

Keith


  #7  
Old February 12th 06, 03:47 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history,sci.space.tech,rec.aviation.military
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default National Aerospace Plane (X-30) announced 20 years ago

"tomcat" wrote in message
oups.com...

Wings use air to gain an advantage on gravity. Therefore, they can
reach the airless void using less energy than a vertical tublular
rocket.


The goal isn't getting to orbit using the least energy -- it's
getting to orbit the cheapest, safest way. The energy expended
by a rocket is often inexpensive LOX and LH2. LOX is virtually
free and LH2 is a very low % of operating costs.

It makes no sense using a tremendously complicated,
very expensive hypersonic airbreathing winged vehicle to save a
few dollars of propellant.


The proof that wings gain an advantage is that a bomber can reach
20,000 feet and stay there for the hours it takes to reach target and
return on 1/10th of the thrust to weight ratio that a vertical tubular
rocket requires just to slowly leave the launch pad.


Actually this illustrates jet engines have much better specific
fuel consumption than rockets. The B-52H TF33 jet engine
has a specific fuel consumption of about 0.56 lb fuel per
pound thrust per hr. The shuttle SSME consumes about 9.4
lb propellant per pound thrust per hr.

If you replaced the B-52's jet engines with rockets, it couldn't
fly for hrs, despite having wings.


In short, you have to get from here to orbit and the best method is a
winged or waverider vehicle.


The best way is the cheapest most reliable way. Cheap means
a combination of operating costs and development costs.
Nobody gives you an award for getting to orbit the most
romantic way, or the coolest way.

The airfoil vehicle, however, is more
difficult to design than a vertical tubular rocket.


You've got that part right. A winged hypersonic airbreathing
orbital launcher is so difficult nobody has figured out how to
do it.


a waverider design shouldn't be all that difficult with
the knowledge and materials base that exists in 2006.


Add about a hundred years to that and you're closer to
correct.

And, slush hydrogen tanks have
solved the volume problem for hypergolic hydrogen/lox burners like the
SSME.

Hydrogen/LOX engines are NOT hypergolic.

-- Joe D.


  #8  
Old February 12th 06, 07:20 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history,sci.space.tech,rec.aviation.military
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default National Aerospace Plane (X-30) announced 20 years ago

tomcat wrote:
delt0r wrote:

Assuming that you are asking "why not the NASP".....

What is about aircraft that fly in a atmosphere that make people that
they are anygood for a space craft?

Wings are not a good thing when there is no air or your going kinda
fast, eps if your on a budget and don't need cross range.

Non wing based SSTO or any other kind of xxTO will be cheaper and
easier than a winged one.
We are not flying... we'er orbiting.

All IMHO of course (or IMO if you prefer)





Wings use air to gain an advantage on gravity. Therefore, they can
reach the airless void using less energy than a vertical tublular
rocket. They also enable a spacecraft to 'fly' to a runway and land
softly after deorbit. Wings are unnecessary for a spacecraft that is
not designed for, and never intended for, planetary takeoff or
planetfall.



Wings do not allow for less energy to be used to orbit a craft- while
they provide lift they do not provide any energy. In fact, since they
also generate drag, a winged vehicle would almost certainly require
more fuel to reach orbit, since the tubular design will have less
drag to overcome. The wings are only useful during the descent and
landing stage, where they allow you more options for a landing point,
such as using a runway or some other point farther from the ground
track of your orbit.


The proof that wings gain an advantage is that a bomber can reach
20,000 feet and stay there for the hours it takes to reach target and
return on 1/10th of the thrust to weight ratio that a vertical tubular
rocket requires just to slowly leave the launch pad.


This is totally irrelevant to wings being used on a spacecraft. While
they do allow aircraft to fly with lower thrust to weight ratios, that
has nothing to do with the fuel required to put a payload in orbit.
Heck, in your example, most of that fuel is burned in cruise, during
which you aren't even adding speed or altitude (i.e. energy) to the
aircraft- you are just replacing that lost to drag. On a vertical
launch, as you go higher you have less atmospheric drag to contend
with- winged or not.


Air molecules are compressed by gravity and that compression gives lift
with a properly designed airfoil.


This is utter nonsense. An airfoil will produce lift through forward
motion whether the air is "compressed by gravity" or not. The lift
is determined by the density of the fluid (air in this case), not by
how it got to be that dense.

Mike
  #9  
Old February 12th 06, 09:26 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history,sci.space.tech,rec.aviation.military
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default National Aerospace Plane (X-30) announced 20 years ago


"tomcat" wrote in message
oups.com...
Wings use air to gain an advantage on gravity.


How much air is there at typical Shuttle altitudes? How much advantage does
air provide to wings at that altitude?

Today, however, a waverider design shouldn't be all that difficult with
the knowledge and materials base that exists in 2006. Titanium is
plentiful and easily worked. The SSME (Space Shuttle Main Engine) has
proven to be reliable. The tile problem has been solved (Don't tell
NASA -- they haven't found out yet.). And, slush hydrogen tanks have
solved the volume problem for hypergolic hydrogen/lox burners like the
SSME.


Feel the breeze with all that handwaving.

  #10  
Old February 13th 06, 01:12 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history,sci.space.tech,rec.aviation.military
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default National Aerospace Plane (X-30) announced 20 years ago

"tomcat" wrote in message
oups.com...

Wings use air to gain an advantage on gravity. Therefore, they can
reach the airless void using less energy than a vertical tublular
rocket.


The goal isn't getting to orbit using the least energy -- it's
getting to orbit the cheapest, safest way. The energy expended
by a rocket is often inexpensive LOX and LH2. LOX is virtually
free and LH2 is a very low % of operating costs.

It makes no sense using a tremendously complicated,
very expensive hypersonic airbreathing winged vehicle to save a
few dollars of propellant.


The proof that wings gain an advantage is that a bomber can reach
20,000 feet and stay there for the hours it takes to reach target and
return on 1/10th of the thrust to weight ratio that a vertical tubular
rocket requires just to slowly leave the launch pad.


This only illustrates that jet engines have much better specific
fuel consumption than rockets. The B-52H TF33 jet engine
has a specific fuel consumption of about 0.56 lb fuel per
pound thrust per hr. The shuttle SSME consumes about 9.4
lb propellant per pound thrust per hr.

A rocket can produce lots of thrust, but its specific propellant
consumption is poor. It's better to let the rocket do what it does
best -- produce lots of thrust and get out of the atmosphere
quickly. Wings just slow you down.

If you replaced the B-52's jet engines with rockets, it couldn't
fly for hrs, despite having wings. It's not the wings that make
the difference, it's the engine type.


In short, you have to get from here to orbit and the best method is a
winged or waverider vehicle.


The best way is the cheapest, most reliable way. Cheap means
a combination of operating costs and development costs.
Nobody gives you an award for getting to orbit the most
romantic way, or the coolest way.

The airfoil vehicle, however, is more
difficult to design than a vertical tubular rocket.


You've got that part right. A winged hypersonic airbreathing
orbital launcher is so difficult nobody has figured out how to
do it.


a waverider design shouldn't be all that difficult with
the knowledge and materials base that exists in 2006.


Add about a hundred years to that and you're closer to
correct.

And, slush hydrogen tanks have
solved the volume problem for hypergolic hydrogen/lox burners like the
SSME.

Hydrogen/LOX engines are NOT hypergolic.

-- Joe D.







 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Another Solution of the Fermi Paradox Alfred A. Aburto Jr. SETI 53 October 19th 05 06:34 AM
Ted Taylor autobiography, CHANGES OF HEART Eric Erpelding Policy 3 November 15th 04 12:32 AM
Ho! Ho! HUMBUG! Ed Conrad Astronomy Misc 0 November 14th 04 02:34 PM
Three aerospace innovators Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Orbital Sciences Combine strengths to design and build NASA's Orbital Space Plane Jacques van Oene Space Shuttle 1 October 15th 03 12:21 AM
Three aerospace innovators Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Orbital Sciences Combine strengths to design and build NASA's Orbital Space Plane Jacques van Oene Space Station 0 October 14th 03 03:31 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.