5: the National Aero-Space Plane
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Chapter 5 The National Aero-Space Plane ! Photo credit Ahmkmal Aaro-Sv Ram Joint_ 017km+ Conceptual design for the X-30 National Aero-Space Plane. CONTENTS Introduction . 65 Background . .66 Operational Vehicles. 66 X-30 Design Goals. 68 Funding and Schedule. 71 NASP Technologies. 74 Fuel . .. .. 78 Materials and Thermal Management . .79 Computational Fluid Dynamics and X-30 Design. 80 5-A. NASP, the Orient Express, and High-Speed Commercial Transports . 69 5-B. The Origins of NASP. 72 5-C. Limits of Computational Fluid Dynamics . 82 Figures Figure Page 5-1. System Integration. .67 5-2. Typical NASP Flight Trajectories. 68 5-3. NASP Program Schedule . .75 5-4. High Speed Propulsion System . 76 5-5. Engine Isp . .77 Tables Table Page 5-1. NASP Funding . 75 . — Chapter 5 The National Aero-Space Plane INTRODUCTION carrying capability, it is conceivable that a NASP- derived vehicle might also supplement or replace the The National Aero-Space Plane (NASP) program Space Shuttle when the Shuttle fleet reaches the end is a research effort funded by the Department of of its useful lifetime. Defense (DoD), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and industry to develop Program officials believe that an aerospace plane and demonstrate the technologies of hypersonic could lower the cost to reach orbit because its design flight in a revolutionary, piloted research vehicle would allow: designated the X-30. If successful, the X-30 would ● rapid turn-around; demonstrate the capability to reach outer space using ● manpower support at commercial aircraft levels a single propulsion stage that would make unprece- (in contrast to Shuttle operations); dented use of air-breathing engines.2 In a launch ● complete reusability of the system with mini- demonstration that program officials hope to com- mal refurbishment between flights; plete by October 1996, the X-30 would take off ● operations from conventional runways; and horizontally from a conventional 10,000-foot-long 3 ● runway, accelerate to Mach 25 in the upper atmos- greater payload fractions, the result of using phere, enter orbit, and return to Earth, landing on a air-breathing, rather than rocket engines. conventional runway. In contrast, a typical rocket Not all of these potential economies would be launcher ascends vertically from special launch unique to NASP-derived launch vehicles; some facilities and jettisons one or more propulsion stages could also be realized in other advanced launch during flight. systems. The NASP program is currently developing the Although this chapter refers often to vehicles technology to build the X-30. Although the X-30 is derived from technologies developed in the NASP meant to serve as a technology test-bed and not as a program, neither the construction of an X-30 vehicle prototype, it is being designed as a demonstration nor a follow-on program to build an operational vehicle that could resemble prospective operational vehicle has been funded yet. A decision by a launch vehicles. Proponents of the X-30 believe it DoD/NASA Steering Group on the feasibility of could herald a new era in flight, spawning military moving beyond the current technology development and civilian aircraft capable of global range at phase to construct a flight vehicle is now scheduled hypersonic speeds, or low-cost and routine access to for September 1990. As the later section, Policy and space. Options explains, recent revisions in the DoD budget submission for fiscal year 1990, if adopted by OTA included NASP in its assessment of ad- Congress, would have a dramatic effect on the vanced space transportation technologies because of direction of even the research portion of the NASP the possibility that operational vehicles of utility for program. both the civilian and military space programs may evolve from the X-30. These ‘‘NASP-derived vehi- OTA did not perform a detailed evaluation of the cles” (NDVs) would offer a radically different economic benefits of the NASP program or NASP- approach to space launch and might eventually derived vehicles, nor did it attempt to evaluate the become important elements of a future space trans- potential contribution of the NASP program to the portation system, ferrying people or cargo into Nation’s defense or its defense technology base. low-Earth orbit with rapid turn-around and low cost. However, NASP officials believe that these contri- Depending on its eventual configuration and payload- butions would be among the most important benefits IH~rWnic USu~Iy refers t. flight at S-S of at lemt Mach S—five times the speed of sound, or about 4,000 miles Per ho~. Thes@ of so~d in dry air is 331.4 meters per second (742.5 miles per hour) at a temperature of O degrees Celsius (273 degrees Kelvin). ZAir.breathin~ en~nes b~ atmospheric oxygen d~ing combustion instead of c~ing ~ oxid~t in(ermd]y m is typical on rockets. All COllVel’ltlOnd aircraft engines are air-breathers. 3Paylo~ fr~tlon is he weight of the pay]o~ expres~ ~ a fr~tion of tie launch vehicle’s gTOSS lift-off weight, including fuel. -65- 66 ● Round Trip to Orbit: Human Space flight Alternatives of their program. The broader implications of the tion and control system of the X-30 also presents NASP program are beyond the scope of this report unique technical challenges. and are considered only in so far as they affect the The X-30 would make unprecedented use of support, schedule, cost, and likelihood of achieving numerical aerodynamic simulation as a design aid an operational launch capability. This report pre- and as a complement to ground-test facilities that are sents an overview of the NASP program, a short unable to reproduce the full range of conditions the introduction to the technologies of hypersonic flight, X-30 would encounter in hypersonic flight. The and a guide to the issues likely to be faced by NASP program is currently utilizing a substantial Congress as the program nears the point where it fraction of the U.S. supercomputer capability in could move beyond its current research stage. what officials describe as a massive effort to advance the state-of-the-art in the computational techniques BACKGROUND needed to design the X-30. In fact, the dependence on supercomputers and numerical simulation mod- The X-30 requires the synergism of several major els of hypersonic flight is so great they constitute a technology advances for success. The propulsion key “enabling” technology for the X-30, rivaling system is based on experimental hydrogen-fueled, propulsion systems and materials in importance.4 supersonic combustion ramjet (“scramjet”) en- gines. A scramjet is designed to allow combustion to The requirement that aircraft structures be light- occur without slowing the incoming air to subsonic weight, reusable, and able to withstand thermal speeds, as is typical in all other air-breathing cycling (heating and cooling) over multiple flights engines. Ground tests of scramjet engines indicate stresses all aspects of vehicle design. In addition, the that they could propel an aircraft to hypersonic engine, airframe, cooling systems, and control speeds, but the X-30 would be the first aircraft to systems would all be melded together in the X-30, explore fully their potential in flight. thus creating unusual challenges for both vehicle designers and program managers (figure 5-l). For The X-30 airframe would require extremely example, the airframe and engine cannot be devel- lightweight and strong structures, some capable of oped independently; instead, they must be designed withstanding temperatures thousands of degrees from the outset as a single package. The heat load on hotter than materials currently used in aircraft the X-30 will be a sensitive function of both the construction. In contrast to the thermal protection vehicle’s aerodynamics and of the heat generated by tiles used on the Space Shuttle, some of the X-30’S engine combustion. In turn, the thermal require- high-temperature tolerant materials would be ments affect materials and structural requirements. formed into load-bearing structures. In addition, Finally, aircraft instrumentation and control systems while some of the X-30’S materials, such as carbon- must be matched to airframe designs, which are carbon composites, have been used before (although not as load bearing structures), others are still in a coupled to propulsion and thermal control systems. laboratory stage of development. Furthermore, even with special materials and coatings, novel cooling OPERATIONAL VEHICLES techniques would be necessary to keep some leading Even if the NASP program proves completely edges and internal engine parts at tolerable tempera- successful, an additional program would still be tures. The active cooling system would also be used necessary to develop operational vehicles. The to recover fuel energy that would otherwise be lost extent of such a program would depend on how well as heat. The use of “regenerative’ cooling tech- technology issues are resolved by the X-30 and how niques has never been attempted in an aircraft, much modification would be necessary for first- although the technique is commonly employed in generation follow-on vehicles. Safety, crew escape, liquid rocket engines. Developing the instrumenta- environmental compatibility (pollution and noise), 1$’IIK embling t~hnologies of NASP were critically reviewed in Hypersonic Technology For Military Application, committee on HypeMiC lkchnology for Milit~ Application, Air Force Studies Board, National Research Council (Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1989) andReport of the D@wse Science Board Ti-.ask Force on tk Natiorud Aerospace Plane (NASP) (Washington DC: OffIce of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, September 1988). See also National Aero-Space Plane: A Technology Development and Demonstration Program to Build the X-30 (US. General Accounting Gffke Report GAO/NSIAD-88-122, April 1988), Chapter 5--The National Aero-Space Plane ● 67 there are practical limits.