|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 14th 04 11:32 PM |
Ho! Ho! HUMBUG! | Ed Conrad | Astronomy Misc | 0 | November 14th 04 01:34 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 |