DOCSLIB.ORG

Space Launch 28 Years of Studies

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Space Launch 28 Years of Studies Space Launch 28 years of studies A Personal Journey By John W Livingston 2011 1 Space Launch 28 years of studies or Engineering & Management run amuck A Personal Journey By John W Livingston 2011 …and all I got was this lousy T-shirt 2 1958-64 Early studies (pre-me) Reusable Rockets & Aerospaceplanes • Wide ranging studies • Numerous combined cycle engines investigated Inadequate technology base, but really hot stuff. The US Air Force's aerospaceplane project encompassed a variety of projects from 1958 until 1963 to study a fully reusable spaceplane. A variety of designs were studied during the lifetime of the project, including most of the early efforts on liquid air cycle engines (LACE) and even a nuclear-powered ramjet. The effort was started largely due to the work of Weldon Worth at the Wright-Patterson AFB, who published a short work outlining a manned spaceplane. AF officials were interested enough to start SR-89774 (study requirement-) for a reusable spaceplane in 1957. By 1959 this work had resulted in the Recoverable Orbital Launch System, or ROLS, based around a LACE engine, known at the time as a Liquid Air Collection System, or LACES. Further work showed that more performance could be gained by extracting only the oxygen from the liquid air, a system they referred to as Air Collection and Enrichment System, or ACES. A contract to develop an ACES testbed was placed with Marquardt and General Dynamics, with Garrett AiResearch building the heat exchanger for cooling the air. The original ACES design was fairly complex; the air was first liquified in the heat exchanger cooled by liquid hydrogen fuel, then pumped into a low pressure tank for short term storage. From there it was then pumped into a high pressure tank where the oxygen was separated and the rest (mostly nitrogen) was dumped overboard. In late 1960 and early 1961 a 125 N demonstrator engine was being operated for up to five minutes at a time. In early 1960 Air Force offered a development contract to build a spaceplane with a crew of three that could take off from any runway and fly directly into orbit and return. They wanted the design to be in operation in 1970 for a total development cost of only $5 billion. Boeing, Douglas, Convair, Lockheed, Goodyear, North American, and Republic all responded. Most of these designs ignored the ACES system and instead used a scramjet for power. The scramjet had first been outlined at about the same time as the original LACES design in a NASA paper of 1958, and many companies were highly interested in seeing it develop, perhaps none more than Marquardt, whose ramjet business was dwindling with the introduction of newer jet engines and who had already started work on the scramjet. Both Alexander Kartveli and Antonio Ferri were proponents of the scramjet approach. Ferri successfully demonstrated a scramjet producing net thrust in November 1964, eventually producing 517 lbf, about 80% of his goal. Later that year a review suggested that the basic concepts of the aerospaceplane were far too new for development of an operational system to begin. They pointed out that far too much was being spent on development of the aircraft, and not nearly enough on basic research. Moreover, the designs were all extremely sensitive to weight, and any increase (and there always is one) could result in all of the designs not working. In 1963 the Air Force changed their priorities in SR-651, and focused entirely on development of a variety of high- speed engines. Included were LACES and ACES engines, as well scramjets, turboramjets and a "normal" (subsonic combustion) ramjet with an intake suitable for use up to Mach 8. In October a further review concluded that the technology was simply too new for anyone to predict when any such aerospaceplane could ever be built, and funding was wound down in 1964. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerospaceplane" 3 Early 1980’s Round One RASV, AMSC, TAV • Manned • Horizontal Takeoff and Landing, HTHL • Single stage, or a near as possible • Fully Reusable, or a s near as possible • SSME / Existing propulsion • No SSTO designs submitted (or possible) • Propulsion & Structural Fractions too high Specified preferred solutions, TSTO VTHL solutions ignored Reusable Aerodynamic Space Vehicle (RASV) The Boeing RASV comprised a ground-based sled to accelerate the aircraft to takeoff speed on a conventional runway, and a delta-winged, piloted orbital vehicle. The RASV was designed to be constructed of conventional refractory metals such as titanium and Rene-41, with the cryogenic liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen propellants contained within the "hot structure" wing acting as a heat sink to cool the airframe and reduce weight. Powered by two modified SSMEs, the RASV attracted considerable attention from the Air Force, which invested $3 million in the project for technology development in the early 1980s. Advanced Military Space Flight Capability (AMSC) Initiated by AFSC with one-year study contracts awarded to General Dynamics and Rockwell in 1981. Technology studies of small manned spacecraft based on two generic launch concepts: subsonic air launch and "staged" ground launch. Replaced by the Advanced Military Space Technology (AMST) program with a contract awarded to Boeing in January 1984 to determine key aerodynamic and performance parameters associated with air-launching a so-called AMST/TAV orbiter from a carrier aircraft. Transatmospheric Vehicle (TAV) Program begun in mid-1982. Stanley Tremaine coined the term “Transatmospheric Vehicle”, as the craft should be able to operate with equal efficiency both within the atmosphere and in space and be capable of transitioning from space into the atmosphere and back. Phase I of the TAV study began in May 1983 with Battelle Laboratories working with Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed, and Rockwell. McDonnell-Douglas submitted its own unsolicited TAV proposal. Phase I ended in December 1983 and resulted in 14 vehicle concepts. Phase II started in August 1984 with a twelve-month contract to Science Applications. In Phase II selected industry concepts were evaluated against alternative solutions such as advanced aircraft and the necessary technologies were further examined with emphasis on determining the military effectiveness of a TAV. The TAV was expected to be the size of a small airliner with a gross liftoff weight of 1 to 1.5 million lbs and using up-rated SSMEs for propulsion in the first generation. A TAV Project office was established in December 1984 under the direction of Lt Col Vince Rausch. By early 1986 the TAV program had been replaced by NASP with the entire TAV staff transferring into the NASP JPO. Science Dawn A classified program begun in 1982 to determine the technical feasibility of a military aerospace plane. Requirements were for a sled-launched horizontal-takeoff / horizontal-landing single stage to orbit (SSTO) launch vehicle powered by a modified SSME with a two-position nozzle. Dry mass was to be 100,000-150,000 lb, takeoff mass 1,2-1,5 million lb with a 10,000 lb payload to a polar orbit from Grand Forks AFB. The craft was to have a turn-around time of 12 hours, be ready to launch within two hours of an alert and have 24 hours orbital capacity. AMSC concepts from Boeing, Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas were hand-picked for further development with Rocketdyne and Air Products as propulsion contractors. The Boeing concept was the RASV vehicle. The McDonnell Douglas proposal was named the Global Range Mach 29 Aerospace Plane, or GRM-29A. It had a down-pointing SSME in the nose to cater for the runway requirements. The Lockheed Zero Length Launch TransAtmospheric Vehicle (ZEL-TAV) used a ramped takeoff with two solid boosters. By 1984 it had become clear that horizontal takeoff was inappropriate use of rocket power, and the program was superseded by Science Realm. 4 Round One Early 1980s Trans Atmospheric Vehicles Conclusions: Short Comings: No SSTO designs submitted (or possible) Overly constrained Propulsion & Structural Fractions too high Inadequate models with limited physics Level 0-1 analysis applied to systems with very high sensitivities 5 Aerospaceplane deux Round Two 1983-1993 SSTO HTHL, Copper Canyon, NASP • Manned • Horizontal Takeoff and Landing • Single Stage to Orbit • Fully Reusable Mandated Solution, Too much money, too little systems engineering Have Region In 1986 Science Realm was followed by the Have Region program, to complement the ongoing air-breathing work in the NASP program. Main goal was to further develop structures and TPS to reduce risk. Under the program three prototype lightweight structures in scales from 40 to 100% were fabricated from exotic metals, primarily titanium and high-temperature superalloys, to evaluate near-term flight readiness. The cross- sectional structures with integral cryogenic tanks were tested in simulated ascent and re-entry conditions. In tests the Boeing concept was validated and the built but untested Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas designs were classified as partial successes. The test articles were within 3% of required SSTO design weights. Regardless in 1988 it was concluded that the materials developed for NASP were more promising. Total cost of Have Region was around $40 million. Copper Canyon and NASP In June 1983 DARPA initiated the classified Copper Canyon program to investigate the potential military applications of air-breathing hypersonic and single stage to orbit vehicles and technologies with Vince Rausch as project director. Tony DuPont’s initial design from 1983 originated from a NASA study into engine cycles and was a 50,000 lb “F-15 sized“ aircraft. Funded with $6 million for 1983, with Battelle Laboratories doing the main work and initial contracts for airframe work to Boeing, Lockheed and General Dynamics, and propulsion work to Marquardt and GASL.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Final EA for the Launch and Reentry of Spaceshiptwo Reusable Suborbital Rockets at the Mojave Air and Space Port
    Final Environmental Assessment for the Launch and Reentry of SpaceShipTwo Reusable Suborbital Rockets at the Mojave Air and Space Port May 2012 HQ-121575 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Office of Commercial Space Transportation; Finding of No Significant Impact AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) ACTION: Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) SUMMARY: The FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST) prepared a Final Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA; 42 United States Code 4321 et seq.), Council on Environmental Quality NEPA implementing regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations parts 1500 to 1508), and FAA Order 1050.1E, Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of issuing experimental permits and/or launch licenses to operate SpaceShipTwo reusable suborbital rockets and WhiteKnightTwo carrier aircraft at the Mojave Air and Space Port in Mojave, California. After reviewing and analyzing currently available data and information on existing conditions and the potential impacts of the Proposed Action, the FAA has determined that issuing experimental permits and/or launch licenses to operate SpaceShipTwo and WhiteKnightTwo at the Mojave Air and Space Port would not significantly impact the quality of the human environment. Therefore, preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not required, and the FAA is issuing this FONSI. The FAA made this determination in accordance with all applicable environmental laws. The Final EA is incorporated by reference in this FONSI. FOR A COPY OF THE EA AND FONSI: Visit the following internet address: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/environmental/review/permits/ or contact Daniel Czelusniak, Environmental Program Lead, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave., SW, Suite 325, Washington, DC 20591; email [email protected]; or phone (202) 267-5924.
    [Show full text]
  • Future Space Launch Vehicles
    Future Space Launch Vehicles S. Krishnan Professor of Aerospace Engineering Indian Institute of Technology Madras Chennnai - 600 036, India (Written in 2001) Introduction Space technology plays a very substantial role in the economical growth and the national security needs of any country. Communications, remote sensing, weather forecasting, navigation, tracking and data relay, surveillance, reconnaissance, and early warning and missile defence are its dependent user-technologies. Undoubtedly, space technology has become the backbone of global information highway. In this technology, the two most important sub-technologies correspond to spacecraft and space launch vehicles. Spacecraft The term spacecraft is a general one. While the spacecraft that undertakes a deep space mission bears this general terminology, the one that orbits around a planet is also a spacecraft but called specifically a satellite more strictly an artificial satellite, moons around their planets being natural satellites. Cassini is an example for a spacecraft. This was developed under a cooperative project of NASA, the European Space Agency, and the Italian Space Agency. Cassini spacecraft, launched in 1997, is continuing its journey to Saturn (about 1274 million km away from Earth), where it is scheduled to begin in July 2004, a four- year exploration of Saturn, its rings, atmosphere, and moons (18 in number). Cassini executed two gravity-assist flybys (or swingbys) of Venus one in April 1998 and one in June 1999 then a flyby of Earth in August 1999, and a flyby of Jupiter (about 629 million km away) in December 2000, see Fig. 1. We may note here with interest that ISRO (Indian Space Research Organisation) is thinking of a flyby mission of a spacecraft around Moon (about 0.38 million km away) by using its launch vehicle PSLV.
    [Show full text]
  • THE HELIUM NEAR SPACE LABORATORY Human Near Space Access, Now, More Affordable, Reliable and Safe
    66th International Astronautical Congress, Jerusalem, Israel. Copyright ©2015 by the International Astronautical Federation. All rights reserved. IAC-15-B3.2.8.30387 THE HELIUM NEAR SPACE LABORATORY Human Near Space Access, Now, More Affordable, Reliable and Safe. Annelie Schoenmaker, David Ferrer Desclaux, José Mariano López-Urdiales, Gerard Illana Meler zero2infinity SL Cerdanyola del Vallès, Barcelona, Spain +34 935 824 422 [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Abstract The HELIUM (High European Laboratory for Institutes, Universities and Markets) project offers European and international companies, researchers and scientists a platform to access Near Space. Space technologies are on a continuous growth path and many new developments (related to flag-ship Space programmes like Galileo or Copernicus, and a long tail of other Space initiatives) need to be tested, demonstrated and validated before being accepted by the industry. Currently, these newly developed technologies are tested on the ground, using climatic chambers that simulate one, or a few, Space conditions. However, it remains difficult to simulate the integrated effect of all Space conditions. It’s even more difficult to have a human in the loop, which can help understand the interactions between the environment and the experiment. zero2infinity is developing a balloon-borne laboratory that provides cost effective access to Near Space. It’s an environmentally friendly solution that. In Europe there is an increasing demand of flight opportunities to test, validate, demonstrate and calibrate technologies, equipment and new concepts that need to increase their TRL. This is essential to retain the competitiveness of the European Space sector.
    [Show full text]
  • Delta Clipper a Path to the Future
    Delta Clipper A Path to the Future By Jason Moore & Ashraf Shaikh Executive Summary Although the Space Shuttle has well served its purpose for years, in order to revitalize and advance the American space program, a new space launch vehicle is needed. A prime candidate for the new manned launch vehicle is the DC-X. The DC-X isn’t a state-of-the-art rocket that would require millions of dollars of new development. The DC-X is a space launch vehicle that has already been tested and proven. Very little remains to be done in order to complete the process of establishing the DC-X as an operational vehicle. All that’s left is the building and final testing of a full-size DC-X, followed by manufacture and distribution. The Space Shuttle, as well as expendable rockets, is very expensive to build, maintain and launch. Costing approximately half a billion dollars for each flight, NASA can only afford to do a limited number of Space Shuttle missions. Also, the Shuttle is maintenance intensive, requiring hundreds of man-hours of maintenance after each flight. The DC-X, however, is very cheap to build, easy to maintain, and much cheaper to operate. If the DC-X was used as NASA’s vehicle of choice, NASA could afford to put more payloads into orbit, and manned space missions wouldn’t be the relative rarity they are now. Since not much remains in order to complete the DC-X, a new private organization dedicated solely to the DC-X would be the ideal choice for the company that would build it.
    [Show full text]
  • Minotaur I User's Guide
    This page left intentionally blank. Minotaur I User’s Guide Revision Summary TM-14025, Rev. D REVISION SUMMARY VERSION DOCUMENT DATE CHANGE PAGE 1.0 TM-14025 Mar 2002 Initial Release All 2.0 TM-14025A Oct 2004 Changes throughout. Major updates include All · Performance plots · Environments · Payload accommodations · Added 61 inch fairing option 3.0 TM-14025B Mar 2014 Extensively Revised All 3.1 TM-14025C Sep 2015 Updated to current Orbital ATK naming. All 3.2 TM-14025D Sep 2018 Branding update to Northrop Grumman. All 3.3 TM-14025D Sep 2020 Branding update. All Updated contact information. Release 3.3 September 2020 i Minotaur I User’s Guide Revision Summary TM-14025, Rev. D This page left intentionally blank. Release 3.3 September 2020 ii Minotaur I User’s Guide Preface TM-14025, Rev. D PREFACE This Minotaur I User's Guide is intended to familiarize potential space launch vehicle users with the Mino- taur I launch system, its capabilities and its associated services. All data provided herein is for reference purposes only and should not be used for mission specific analyses. Detailed analyses will be performed based on the requirements and characteristics of each specific mission. The launch services described herein are available for US Government sponsored missions via the United States Air Force (USAF) Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC), Advanced Systems and Development Directorate (SMC/AD), Rocket Systems Launch Program (SMC/ADSL). For technical information and additional copies of this User’s Guide, contact: Northrop Grumman
    [Show full text]
  • Facing the Heat Barrier: a History of Hypersonics First Thoughts of Hypersonic Propulsion
    Facing the Heat Barrier: A History of Hypersonics First Thoughts of Hypersonic Propulsion Republic’s Aerospaceplane concept showed extensive engine-airframe integration. (Republic Aviation) For takeoff, Lockheed expected to use Turbo-LACE. This was a LACE variant that sought again to reduce the inherently hydrogen-rich operation of the basic system. Rather than cool the air until it was liquid, Turbo-Lace chilled it deeply but allowed it to remain gaseous. Being very dense, it could pass through a turbocom- pressor and reach pressures in the hundreds of psi. This saved hydrogen because less was needed to accomplish this cooling. The Turbo-LACE engines were to operate at chamber pressures of 200 to 250 psi, well below the internal pressure of standard rockets but high enough to produce 300,000 pounds of thrust by using turbocom- pressed oxygen.67 Republic Aviation continued to emphasize the scramjet. A new configuration broke with the practice of mounting these engines within pods, as if they were turbojets. Instead, this design introduced the important topic of engine-airframe integration by setting forth a concept that amounted to a single enormous scramjet fitted with wings and a tail. A conical forward fuselage served as an inlet spike. The inlets themselves formed a ring encircling much of the vehicle. Fuel tankage filled most of its capacious internal volume. This design study took two views regarding the potential performance of its engines. One concept avoided the use of LACE or ACES, assuming again that this craft could scram all the way to orbit. Still, it needed engines for takeoff so turbo- ramjets were installed, with both Pratt & Whitney and General Electric providing Lockheed’s Aerospaceplane concept.
    [Show full text]
  • Part 2 of This Article Will Describe the Thunderchief's
    On the cover: Two F-16C Fighting Falcons from the 177th Fighter Wing fly over MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey on Nov. 8, 2015 prior to the “Salute The Service” game between the NY Jets and the Jacksonville Jaguars. The ceremonies were opened by an enlistment of new troops in the end zone, followed by jumpers from the United States Military Academy- West Point Parachute Team and concluded with a giant 40 yard U.S. flag being unfurled by representatives from each branch of service for the singing of the National Anthem and the flyover. (Photo courtesy of John Iocono - Pro Football Hall of Fame) NOVEMBER 2015, VOL. 49 NO. 11 THE CONTRAIL STAFF 177TH FW COMMANDER COL . JOHN R. DiDONNA CHIEF, PUBLIC AFFAIRS CAPT. AMANDA BATIZ EDITOR/PUBLIC AFFAIRS SUPERINTENDENT MASTER SGT. ANDREW J. MOSELEY PHOTOJOURNALIST TECH. SGT. ANDREW J. MERLOCK PHOTOJOURNALIST SENIOR AIRMAN SHANE S. KARP PHOTOJOURNALIST SENIOR AIRMAN AMBER POWELL AVIATION HISTORIAN DR. RICHARD PORCELLI WWW.177FW.ANG.AF.MIL This funded newspaper is an authorized monthly publication for members of the U.S. Military Services. Contents of The Contrail are not necessarily the official view of, or endorsed by, the 177th Fighter Wing, the U.S. Government, the Department of Defense or the Depart- On desktop computers, click For back issues of The Contrail, ment of the Air Force. The editorial content is edited, prepared, and provided by the Public Affairs Office of the 177th Fighter Wing. All Ctrl+L for full screen. On mobile, and other multimedia products photographs are Air Force photographs unless otherwise indicated.
    [Show full text]
  • PARAMETRIC ANALYSIS of PERFORMANCE and DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS for ADVANCED EARTH-TO-ORBIT SHUTTLES by Edwurd A
    NASA TECHNICAL NOTE ­-6767 . PARAMETRIC ANALYSIS OF PERFORMANCE AND DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS FOR ADVANCED EARTH-TO-ORBIT SHUTTLES by Edwurd A. Willis, Jr., Wz'llium C. Struck, und John A. Pudratt Lewis Reseurch Center Clevelund, Ohio 44135 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D. C. APRIL 1972 f TECH LIBRARY KAFB, NM I111111 Hlll11111 Ill# 11111 11111 lllllIll1Ill -. -- 0133bOL 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. - NASA TN D-6767 4. Title and Subtitle PAR I 5. Report Date METRIC NALYSIS OF PERFORMA K! E ND April 1972 DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS FOR ADVANCED EARTH-TO- 6. Performing Organization Code ORBIT SHUTTLES 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Edward A. Willis, Jr. ; William C. Strack; and John A. Padrutt E-6749 10. Work Unit No. 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 110-06 Lewis Research Center 11. Contract or Grant No. National Aeronautics and Space Administration Cleveland, Ohio 44135 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Technical Note National Aeronautics and Space Administration 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Washington, D. C. 20546 ~~ .. ­ ~~ 16. Abstract Performance, trajectory, and design characteristics are presented for (1) a single-stage shuttle with a single advanced rocket engine, (2) a single-stage shuttle with an initial parallel chemical-engine and advanced-engine burn followed by an advanced-engine sustainer burn (parallel-burn configuration), (3) a single-stage shuttle with an initial chemical-engine burn followed by an advanced-engine burn (tandem-burn configuration), and (4)a two-stage shuttle with a chemical-propulsion booster stage and an advanced-propulsion upper stage.
    [Show full text]
  • (RBCC)Propulsion Technology Workshop Tutorial Session
    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19920012274 2020-03-17T13:10:59+00:00Z NASA Conference Publication 10090 Rocket-Based Combined-Cycle (RBCC)Propulsion Technology Workshop Tutorial Session Proceedings of the tutorial session of a workshop held at the University of Alabama Huntsville, Alabama March 23-27, 1992 N'_2-L). _ 1 7 -- ]H f-,l!-- i,,i_?2- 2 I ._:::,_ Uric I _ s OO 7_ Jr,,, I NASA I I I NASA Conference Publication 10090 Rocket-Based Combined-Cycle (RBCC)Propuls'ion TechnologyWorkshop Tutorial Session Proceedings of the tutorial session of a workshop sponsored by NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C. and held at the University of Alabama Huntsville, Alabama March 23-27, 1992 [UP_A National Aeronautics and Space Administration Office of Management Scientific and Technical Information Program 1992 PRESENTATION SYNOPSES AND SHORT-PAPER VERSIONS OF THE WORKSHOP'S EXPERT PRESENTER "MINI-TUTORIALS" A Message from theGeneral Chairman Tuesday, March 24th, the first Workshop full-day set of sessions is andcpated to be the key to success of the Workshop's productive deliberations and presented findings, activities which will round out the nearly full-week event. A genuinely unique set of presentations will be made at that time, bearing on the Workshop's subject: rocket-based combined-cycle propulsion technology and systems, applicable to future space missions. On this day some two-dozen or so short "mini-tutorial" briefings will be provided by our Expert Presenters to the Workshop participants, covering four general topics: Selections from
    [Show full text]
  • Aerospace Propulsion from Insects to Spaceflight
    AEROSPACE PROPULSION FROM INSECTS TO SPACEFLIGHT Ulf Olsson Volvo Aero Corporation Vice president Technology (ret) - 2 - Olsson,Ulf Aerospace Propulsion from Insects to Spaceflight Copyright © 2006 by Volvo Aero Corporation. 1st Edition 2006 published Heat and Power Technology, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden. 2nd Edition April 2012 PREFACE This book is an introduction to the theory and history of aerospace propulsion. It describes how this specific technology has reached its present form and how it may develop in the future. To understand the technical parts, the reader is assumed to know about thermodynamics and aerodynamics at university level but no prior knowledge of aerospace propulsion technologies is required. For those wishing to go directly to the mathematics, a number of calculation schemes are given in the text as Appendices to various Chapters. They make it possible to write computer programs for performance estimates of the various types of engines. A number of exercises are included at the end of the different chapters. Solutions to the examples are provided in a separate Chapter at the end of the book together with the relevant equations being used. This can be used as a short handbook to the most important equations. For the reader specifically interested in the history of propulsion, a separate guide to the main topics and the most famous names is given under Contents below. Historical notes are also underlined in the text to be easily located. Ulf Olsson April 2012 ii iii CONTENTS Preface 0. Introduction Page 1 1. The balloons lighter than air 5 2. Newton and the reaction force 11 3.
    [Show full text]
  • P-47 Thunderbolt
    P-47 Thunderbolt USAAF P-47D "Razorback" configuration Type Fighter-bomber Manufacturer Republic Aviation Company Designed by Alexander de Seversky Alexander Kartveli Maiden flight 6 May 1941 Introduction 1942 Retired 1955, US ANG Primary user United States Army Air Force Number built 15,686 Unit cost US$83,000 in 1945[1] Variants Republic XP-72 The American Republic P-47 Thunderbolt, also known as T-bolt, Juggernaut or Jug was the largest single-engined fighter of its day. It was one of the main United States Army Air Force (USAAF) fighters of the Second World War. The P-47 was effective in air combat but proved especially adept in the ground attack role. Its modern-day equivalent, the A-10 Thunderbolt II takes its name from the P- 47. The Thunderbolt also served with a number of other Allied air forces. Development The P-47 Thunderbolt was the product of two Georgian immigrants, Alexander de Seversky and Alexander Kartveli, who had left their homeland to escape the Bolsheviks. P-43 Lancer / XP-47B 1 P-47 fires its M2 machine guns during night gunnery. In 1939, the Republic Aviation Company designed an AP-4 demonstrator powered by a Pratt & Whitney R-1830 radial engine with a belly-mounted turbocharger. While the resulting P-43 Lancer was in limited production, Republic had been working on an improved P-44 Rocket with a more powerful engine, as well as on a fighter designated the AP-10. The latter was a a lightweight aircraft powered by the Allison V-1710 liquid-cooled V-12 engine and armed with a pair of .50 caliber (12.7 mm) machine guns.
    [Show full text]
  • Industry Structure, Innovation, and Competition in the U.S
    The U.S. Combat Aircraft Industry 1909-2000 Structure Competition Innovation Mark Lorell Prepared for the Office of the Secretary of Defense R NATIONAL DEFENSE RESEARCH INSTITUTE Approved for public release; distribution unlimited The research described in this report was sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). The research was conducted in RAND’s National Defense Research Institute, a federally funded research and development center supported by the OSD, the Joint Staff, the unified commands, and the defense agencies under Contract DASW01-01-C-0004. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Lorell, Mark A., 1947- The U.S. combat aircraft industry, 1909–2000 : structure, competition, innovation / Mark A. Lorell. p. cm. “MR-1696.” ISBN 0-8330-3366-2 (pbk.) 1. Aircraft industry—United States—History. 2. Aircraft industry—United States—Military aspects—History. 3. Fighter planes—United States—History. I.Title. HD9711.U6L67 2003 338.4'7623746'09730904—dc21 2003008114 RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND® is a registered trademark. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of its research sponsors. Cover design by Peter Soriano © Copyright 2003 RAND All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from RAND. Published 2003 by RAND 1700 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138 1200 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202-5050 201 North Craig Street, Suite 202, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-1516 RAND URL: http://www.rand.org/ To order RAND documents or to obtain additional information, contact Distribution Services: Telephone: (310) 451-7002; Fax: (310) 451-6915; Email: [email protected] PREFACE Congress has expressed concerns about three areas of the U.S.
    [Show full text]