Airbreathing Hypersonic Technology Vision Vehicles and Development Dreams
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
AI A A 99 - 4 9 7 8 Airbreathing Hypersonic Technology Vision Vehicles and Development Dreams C. R. McClinton, J. L. Hunt, and R. H. Ricketts NA S A Langley Research Center, Hampton VA P. Reukauf NA S A Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA an d C. L. Peddie NA S A John Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, OH 9th International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference an d 3rd Weakly Ionized Gases Wor k s h o p November 1-5, 1999/Norfolk, VA For permission to copy or republish, contact the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW • Washington, DC 20024 AIAA 99-4978 Ai r b r eathing Hypersonic Tec h n o l o g y Vision Vehicles and Development Drea m s C. R. McClinton, J. L. Hunt, and R. H. Ricketts NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton VA P. Reukauf NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA C. L. Peddie NASA John Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, OH ABSTRACT Significant advancements in hypersonic airbreathing vehicle technology have been made in the country’s research cen- ters and industry over the past 40 years. Some of that technology is being validated with the X-43 flight tests. This paper presents an overview of hypersonic airbreathing technology status within the US, and a hypersonic technology development plan. This plan builds on the nation’s large investment in hypersonics. This affordable, incremental plan focuses technology development on hypersonic systems, which could be operating by the 2020’s. IN T R O D U C T I O N over 40 years. Within the U.S. alone, NASA, DOD (DARPA, U.S. Navy and USAF), and industry have par- Man’s search for higher speeds, as for flight itself, is lim- ticipated in hypersonic technology development. Over ited by the propulsion system required for the task. The this time NASA Langley Research Center continuously hypersonic (Mach number greater than 5, or 3,400 miles studied hypersonic system design, aerothermodynamics, per hour) rocket powered X-15 aircraft demonstrated propulsion, high temperature materials and structural flight up to Mach 6.7 (6.7 times the speed of sound, or architectures, and associated facilities, instrumentation about 4600 miles/hr.) in the 1960’s. The fastest aircraft and test methods. These modestly funded programs were propelled by an air breathing engine, the SR-71 substantially augmented during the National Aero-Space Blackbird, only reaches speeds slightly over Mach 3 Plane (X-30) Program, which spent more than $3B using a turbojet engine. Ramjets have been utilized for between 1984 and 1995, and brought the DOD and other missile propulsion at speeds up to about Mach 5. Winged NASA Centers, universities and industry back into hyper- rocket powered vehicles, such as the Orbital Sciences sonics. In addition, significant progress was achieved in Corporation Pegasus, have been utilized for hypersonic all technologies required for hypersonic flight, and much flight within the atmosphere to improve launch efficien- of that technology was transferred into other programs, cy. Not unlike the challenge facing Orville and Wilbur, such as X-33, X-37, X-43, etc. In addition, technology dramatically improved engine performance is required for transfer impacted numerous other industries, including hypersonic flight. In fact, efficient hypersonic flight with- automotive, medical, sports and aerospace. in the earth’s atmosphere requires a different engine, one that uses the oxygen within the air for combustion of the Recently, NASA initiated several hypersonic technology fuel. Hypersonic airbreathing propulsion also provides programs: the LaRC/DFRC Hypersonic X-Plane the option to “fly” to orbit. This air breathing engine Program, Hyper-X, in 1996; the GRC Trailblazer in option has been considered and studied for over 40 years, 1997; and the MSFC Advanced Reusable Transportation but not realized because of low technology maturity as ART technology program in 1997, Bantam in 1997, compared to the rocket. Recently, as hypersonic air- Spaceliner-D and finally, just “Spaceliner” in 1999. Of breathing technology matured, and space access require- these programs only Hyper-X and ART build on the ments continued to grow, the world started seriously con- technology gains of the X-30 program. The Hyper-X sidering airbreathing propelled vehicles for space access. Program focus is to extend scramjet powered vehicle technology to flight, elevating as much technology as NASA, DOD, the U.S. industry and global community possible, and validating, in flight, the design systems, have studied scramjet-powered hypersonic vehicles for computational fluid dynamics (CFD), analytical and Copyright © 1999 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. No copyright is asserted in the United States under Title 17, U.S. Code. The U.S. Government has a royalty-free license to exercise all rights under the copyright claimed herein for Governmental purposes. All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner. 1 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics AIAA 99-4978 experimental methods required for this complex multi- system. The impact on the overall system is the only disciplinary problem. The smaller ART program focus is adequate measure of goodness. An example of this is the on RBCC wind tunnel testing of alternate airframe inte- development of a combustor performance index, namely grated scramjet flowpath concepts. thrust potential (ref. 1). This parameter was developed during the 1990’s, as scramjet engine designers realized Likewise, within the DOD several hypersonic programs that combustion efficiency was not an adequate measure are emerging. The USAF AFRL Hypersonic Technology of the combustor design. A method of quantifying the (HyTech) program, the Defense Advanced Research combustor impact on overall engine performance was Projects Agency (DARPA) Affordable Rapid Response required, and exergy, as applied in the literature, did not Missile Demonstrator (ARRMD) Program, The USN provide an optimum design. Rapid Response Missile Program and the Army Scramjet Technology Development Program. In addition, the Formal system analysis procedures are required for vehi- USAF Aeronautical Systems Center, in collaboration cle design and performance analysis. The LaRC design with the Air Combat Command, is conducting a Future process is illustrated in figure 1. Engine and aerodynam- Strike study, which focuses on hypersonic aircraft. ic performance, structural requirements, weights, and flight vehicle performance (mission or trajectory) are With this renewed interest in hypersonic vehicles, evaluated, always “closing” on take off gross weight for requirements are being developed which can only be met the specified mission. This design process can be execut- with hypersonics systems. These include the USAF ed using four basic levels of analysis. CONUS-based Expeditionary Aerospace Force con- cepts, and reduced cost to orbit. The lowest level, designated “0” in Table 1, does not require a physical geometry. The level zero analysis uti- This paper discusses the potential of hypersonic airbreath- lizes ideal engine cycle performance, historical L/D and ing technology for endo- or exo-atmospheric vehicles (air- Cd values for aerodynamic performance, design tables (or planes and space planes). The status of hypersonic tech- weight fractions) for structure and components weight, nology, the significance of the X-43 flights to technology “rocket equation” for flight trajectory, and estimates for advancements, and a method of filtering vehicle propo- packaging. This analysis does not require a specified nents’ claims are also discussed. Finally, a plan to effi- vehicle, engine flowpath or systems definition. All higher ciently demonstrate hypersonic technology is presented. levels of analysis require a vehicle, engine flowpath shape and operating modes, system definition, etc. HYPERSONIC TECHNOLOGY STATUS The next level of system analysis, referred to herein as This section discusses the status of hypersonic technolo- Level 1, utilizes uncertified cycle performance and/or gy—with the goal of showing significant advancement; CFD, impact theory, unit or uncertified finite element thus, justification for continuing to push hypersonic tech- model (FEM) weights, single equation packaging rela- nology development to flight. tions, and energy state vehicle performance. (Certification is discussed in the next paragraph). This System Analysis and Conceptual Designs level of analysis does not capture operability limits, and thus has large uncertainties. The key to any hypersonic vehicle development or tech- nology program is a credible preliminary system analysis Level 2 analysis utilizes “certified,” methods; i.e., the to identify the technical requirements and guide technol- user has sufficient relevant experience. This level uses the ogy development. The X-30 program provided an excel- same methods for propulsion, aerodynamics, structure lent training ground for system design, analysis and and weights (but certified), trimmed 3-DOF (degree of development of hypersonic technology. The complexity freedom) vehicle performance analysis and multiple of the hypersonic airbreathing system and the small equation, linear or non-linear packaging relations. thrust margin dictate that a thorough system analysis be Certification is only achieved by demonstration that the performed before any focused technology development methods used work on the class of problems simulated is started. Over the past 40 years, many bright individu- (this