Dave Urie, Have Blue

As a minor followup to the postings at http://tinyurl.com/fqyrb (David
Urie was a program manager for SR-71, Have Region), there is this:


http://www.rocketsaway.net/rockets_a...ocketplane.htm
[EXCERPT]

Rocketplane understands that you need technology, drive and capital,
but you also need a a lot of talent to be successful. They have pulled
together a strong management team to achieve this task.

The management team is lead by David Urie, who is Executive
Vice-President and Program Manager. David has been a revolutionary in
the field of engineering. He has won many awards, including the
prestigious Engineer of Year Award in 1997 from the AIAA (American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronauts). Before Rocketplane, he was
president of Cold Fusion, Inc. He used his prior experience and
expertise in the field to help both existing and start- up companies.
Prior to Cold Fusion, he had a distinguished career at Lockheed Martin
which included leading the X-30 National Aerospace Plane and the HL-20
Personnel Launch System. He was also heavily involved with the SR-71
reconnaissance system, the Have Blue and Have Region programs, the
Single Stage to Orbit program and the X- 33 Reusable Launch Vehicle
Program.

Speaking of Have Region, I found this slide show that is interesting in
itself and also contains some information about HR and other old
programs.


http://chapters.nss.org/ny/LongIslan...cles/ANSER.pdf

[p.1]

A Near Term Reusable Launch Vehicle Strategy
Ramon L. Chase
Warren Greczyn
Leon McKinney
February 2003 (update)
ANSER
17 November 2003 [slide dates]

[p.3]

Program Legacy

� 1965-70 Air Force Aerospace plane and DynaSoar programs
� 1965-68 CIA Isinglass program
� 1975-78 NASA and Air Force4 single stage to orbit studies
� 1978-79 Air Force Military Crews in Space study
� 1979-80 AF HQ (RDSL) mission analysis and cost benefit studies
� 1980-82 Air Force Advanced Manned Space-Flight Capability study
� 1980-82 Air Force Transatmospheric Vehicle study
� 1982-84 Air HQ (RDSL) Science Dawn program
� 1984-85 Air Force Science Realm program
� 1984-86 DARPA Copper Canyon study
� 1986-88 Air Force Have Region program
� 1986-92 DOD-NASA National AeroSpace Plane (NASP) program
� 1992-96 SDIO DC-X program
� 1996-01 NASA & Lockheed-Martin X-33 program
� 2000- NASA Space Launch Initiative program


[p.4]

� Isinglass: rocket-powered air launched reconnaissance aircraft
� AMSC: AF Advanced Manned Space flight Capability program
� Science Dawn: MSP program after down select from AMSC concepts
� Science Realm: design of structural test articles from SD designs
� Have Region: manufacture and test of SR subscale structural test
articles
� Copper Canyon (DARPA): air-breathing SSTO concept
� NASP: air-breathing SSTO Concept


[p.28]

� Two structural design concepts have been validated. They are the
Douglas Isinglass and the Boeing Have Region. Two additional Have
Region test articles were designed and built, but not tested. They are
the Lockheed Martin and McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing).


[p.32]

� The Lockheed- Martin Have Region structural design test article did
not complete testing. X-ray inspection of the manufactured test article
revealed faulty welding. The test article weight was heavier then
predicted The test article did, however, successfully demonstrate the
manufacturability of a 3 mil thick stainless steel liner for the
hydrogen tank. The Lockheed Martin X-33 program did not validate a
structural test article.

� The McDonnell Douglas test article was a scale up of the Isinglass
test article that was successfully design, built and tested in the
1960s. The actual weight of the Have Region test article was heaver
than predicted. Unfortunately, the load transfer structure failed
during the first structural load test. subsequently, the test article
blew up.

� The Boeing Have region test article was successfully designed,
built and tested. Some buckling of a lower surface skin panel occurred
during reentry testing. Close inspection showed the test article was
not built to specifications. The test article contained over 95% of the
parts required for the entire vehicle and weighted less then predicted.
As of two years ago the test article was still in storage at the Boeing
Kent facility.

� A half scale composite hydrogen tank was successfully designed,
built and tested in the NASP program.


[p.33]

Conclusions

� A large number of near term reusable launch vehicle design concepts
have been investigated since the late 1970s. New design concepts
continue to emerge today. While the Boeing RASV was the preferred
choice during Science Dawn, it is most likely not the preferred choice
today. Missions, operational requirements, payloads, and technologies
have continued to evolve.

� A low Earth orbit design reference mission may not be an
appropriate design reference mission. A geo transfer design reference
mission should be investigated further.

� Propulsion choices are limited. Air-breathing propulsion systems do
not appear to be an appropriate choice. Current rocket propulsion
choice is the SSME. The Rocketdyne linear aerospike engine would
require further work and funding to transition from a prototype into a
long life, reliable, flight weight operational engine. A Pratt &Whitney
expansion cycle is a highly desirable new engine, but would need
development.

"Ed Kyle" wrote in message
oups.com...

Maybe it could, be that is, at least according to
avleak this week. Or at least could have been.

"http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/03
0606p1.xml"

Speaking of which, does anyone get the aerospike comment? It would seem
to me that an orbiter launched at ~Mach 3.3 and ~100,000 ft would have
little need for altitude compensating engines.

Pete.

Pete Lynn wrote:
"Ed Kyle" wrote in message
oups.com...

Maybe it could, be that is, at least according to
avleak this week. Or at least could have been.

"http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/03
0606p1.xml"

Speaking of which, does anyone get the aerospike comment? It would seem
to me that an orbiter launched at ~Mach 3.3 and ~100,000 ft would have
little need for altitude compensating engines.

Or the comment about the X-33 engines mysteriously
having "history". It is no mystery. Rocketdyne tested
full-scale hot-fire tests of just such an engine during the
early 1970s, with hardware based on the J-2 Saturn
engines.

- Ed Kyle

In article ,
Pete Lynn wrote:
Speaking of which, does anyone get the aerospike comment? It would seem
to me that an orbiter launched at ~Mach 3.3 and ~100,000 ft would have
little need for altitude compensating engines.

Moreover, despite the sound of the name aerospike engines are not
airbreathers, as the article implies.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...

Speaking of which, does anyone get the aerospike
comment? It would seem to me that an orbiter
launched at ~Mach 3.3 and ~100,000 ft would
have little need for altitude compensating engines.

Moreover, despite the sound of the name aerospike
engines are not airbreathers, as the article implies.

Some kind of air augmented rocket engine?

Pete.

"Pete Lynn" wrote in message
...
"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...

Speaking of which, does anyone get the aerospike
comment? It would seem to me that an orbiter
launched at ~Mach 3.3 and ~100,000 ft would
have little need for altitude compensating engines.

Moreover, despite the sound of the name aerospike
engines are not airbreathers, as the article implies.

Some kind of air augmented rocket engine?

Nope.

Essentially they replace the bell of the engine with a spike in the middle.
(sorta like turning the engine bell inside out and relying on external
air-pressure to maintain the shape of the exhaust you want against the
spike.)



Pete.

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in
message ink.net...

Moreover, despite the sound of the name
aerospike engines are not airbreathers, as the
article implies.

Some kind of air augmented rocket engine?

Nope.

Essentially they replace the bell of the engine with a
spike in the middle. (sorta like turning the engine bell
inside out and relying on external air-pressure to
maintain the shape of the exhaust you want against the
spike.)

Indeed, but an aerospike makes no sense in this circumstance.

The orbiter description seems to infer some kind of air breathing which
only kicks in at ~Mach 3.3, inferring it works to much higher speeds
than this. A scram jet might match the physical description but seems a
bit far out there. Hence the thought that it might be some kind of air
augmented rocket, this at least seems remotely possible.

Pete.

I believe the writer is using an alternate concept or is not
communicating effectively. The term "aerospike" refers to the use of a
vehicle's shock wave as part of the thrust structure of the propulsion
system. The plug nozzle engines (both linear and annular) are aerospike
engines, but they are not the only kind. The sort that has been
commonly associated with the rumored "Aurora" involves a hypersonics
design in which the airframe has a defined crease point across some mid
section, which holds a shock wave. Fuel is injected into the exterior
airstream at this crease point and undergoes either continuous
combustion, or pulse detonation, using the rear fuselage and the shock
wave as the thrust structure. Vanes might be used to control airflow
and to serve as fuel injectors into this airstream.
That being said there is an alternative explaination: while linear and
annular plug nozzle engines do not breath air, they can derive
additional thrust from the rear fuselage shock just as described above
if the thrusters are operated in a fuel rich mode. They also generate
thrust against the bottom plate of the nozzle, particularly if
turbopump exhaust gases are outlet in the plate region to counteract
the normal tendency to develop back flow vacuum. Note that the X-33
developed some rather large air dams around its aerospike engines to
both prevent air from leaking in the sides into the plate region or
into the thrust ramps, as well as cross spillage between thruster
sections in order to effectively thrust vector. The X-33 also required
some rather large body flaps to control rear airflow. Either the air
dams or the flaps, or both, may be what the writer was speaking of.
There is also a third explaination: that the aerospike engines were
augmented by a ram-ejector cowling to improve Isp and thrust in
fuel-rich mode. What advantage that would provide over the rear
shockwave is unknown.