National Aerospace Plane (X-30) announced 20 years ago

[Air Raid]

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'

Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...

concept video
http://redstone.ae.gatech.edu/mm/Miscellaneous/NASP_promo.mov

articles:
http://fas.org/irp/mystery/nasp.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/x30.htm
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/8574/X30.html

[Bruce Hoult]

Post by Air Raid
"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."

I wonder whether Reagan actually believed that it might work, or whether
it was simply part of the "Strategy of Technology" that he hoped the
Soviets would respond to. Either way, *did* they respond?

[Bad Idea]

Post by Bruce Hoult
I wonder whether Reagan actually believed that it might work, or whether
it was simply part of the "Strategy of Technology" that he hoped the
Soviets would respond to. Either way, *did* they respond?

See:
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-05zy.html

The Cold Equations Of Spaceflight
by Jeffrey F. Bell

excerpted:
"Yes, it makes no sense - but it frequently happens that governments
spend huge sums of money on aerospace projects that make no technical
sense, for political reasons, or simple ignorance, or because the
decision-makers have been bought. X-33 was born during Dan Goldin's
reign of error at NASA, when all sorts of absurd projects were promoted
for reasons that still defy any rational analysis.

"In the cases of X-30 and DC-X, there WAS a reason to spend money on
impossible vehicles. Both these doomed projects were sponsored by the
old Strategic Defense Initiative Office, which was running an elaborate
scam on the Soviet Politburo. In order to make credible their central
fantasy project of orbital battle stations shooting down Red ICBMs,
they had to run a parallel fantasy booster development program. The
Space Shuttle was clearly not up to the task of launching serious "Star
Wars" hardware.

"These phony programs of the 1980s achieved their goal. Soviet
intelligence looked at the press releases about X-30, and looked at the
satellite photos of the 25,000' runway and huge hangar at Groom Lake /
Area 51, and the disinformation about 'Aurora' in Aviation Leak, and
evaluated them all as signs that the USA would soon have cheap frequent
access to space.

"And those old fossils on the Politburo remembered many previous
occasions when the West had done things they couldn't - most notably
Apollo. They ignored their own science advisers and spent millions of
rubles on similar hopeless projects like Polyus and Tu-2000 which
helped drive their empire into collapse.

"And it wasn't just dumb Communists who were fooled. In his fascinating
memoirs, NASA-Dryden aerodynamicist Ken Iliff describes a meeting of
the AIAA soon after the Challenger crash. In the morning session, the
NASA Administrator described how they would build a replacement Shuttle
Orbiter from the existing blueprints - for about $3B. After lunch, the
head of the NASP project showed graphs indicating that the X-30 would
be designed, built, and flown for only about $5B..."


You might find the entire article instructive.

[Bruce Hoult]

Post by Bad Idea

Post by Bruce Hoult
I wonder whether Reagan actually believed that it might work, or whether
it was simply part of the "Strategy of Technology" that he hoped the
Soviets would respond to. Either way, *did* they respond?

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-05zy.html
The Cold Equations Of Spaceflight
by Jeffrey F. Bell
You might find the entire article instructive.

I agree with much that he says, which woudl be no surprise if you
understand my reference to "Strategy of Technology".


But I think he's clueless about the DC-X. It had a lousy propellant
fraction because it had no reason to have a good one. It served the
same purpose as the EZ-Rocket -- as a technology demonstrator for
engines and control systems, NOT as a prototype for a space-going craft.

[Pat Flannery]

Post by Bruce Hoult
I wonder whether Reagan actually believed that it might work, or whether
it was simply part of the "Strategy of Technology" that he hoped the
Soviets would respond to. Either way, *did* they respond?

As to trying to field a weapons system capable of defending against it,
I don't know. They were working on high powered laser systems and also
did some work on particle beams.
On the other hand something moving as fast as it would be going wouldn't
have a high degree of maneuverability, and any ABM system capable of
intercepting an incoming ICBM warhead would probably be able to destroy
it also with a few modifications.
The other thing would be the numbers involved- unlike ICBM warheads that
would descend on your country by the thousands in wartime (we had 1000
Minuteman missiles deployed, and a total of 550 of those were the triple
warheaded Minuteman IIIs IIRC) the "Orient Express" transatmospheric
bomber would only exist in relatively modest numbers and that would mean
that fielding a missile-based system to defend against it would be
fairly economical.
The Soviets did do work on a similar type aircraft under the Tupolev
Tu-2000 program: http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/tu2000.htm (heck,
everybody jumped on the bandwagon- Germany started work on Saenger,
Britain had their HOTAL project and even China started to play around
with the concept with their H-2 HTOHL design)
Getting a aircraft to do what was required of the NASP with a single
stage vehicle would have been very difficult, but things got a lot
easier if you could carry it aloft via a reusable booster stage. You
will note that most of the later NASP design featured a basically flat
top to the fuselage; this section of the Air Force 2025 report may show
why:
http://milnet.com/pentagon/hyper/v3c12-1.htm
The NASP would snuggle down in the cavity in the back of a "Zero Stage
Flying Wing" that would get it up to fairly high altitude and speed
before it started on its mission. It could also carry a small orbital
spaceplane on its back in lieu of its weapons payload.
If this was the actual idea, then you can see why this whole program got
canned- this would be anything but cheap to develop with three separate
aerospacecraft involved, and the price tag would probably make the
Shuttle or B-2 look cheap by comparison.
For all of it's expense, it didn't really give all that much greater
capability than ICBMs and SLBMs, stealthy cruise missiles, and a low
cost orbital ASAT on a expendable booster would give. If you wanted a
quick response way to hit a specific target with a non-nuclear warhead,
a stealthy low-altitude subsonic cruise missile might actually have a
greater chance of reaching it than a hypersonic SHMAC- as the SHMAC's
overall thermal signature would be anything but subtle and it would be
coming in from high altitude allowing possible radar detection of either
it or its plasma trail. The stealthy cruise missile would be far easier
to launch also, as it didn't involve having a huge two stage reusable
transatmosheric vehicle standing by on rapid use alert.
Realizing that for every Minuteman III we fielded the Soviets had to
field a minimum of three ABMs, and you can see how MIRVs pretty well put
the ABMs out of business from an economic point of view, much less the
staggering command and control problem of trying to deal with over 2000
warheads coming at you inside the space of half an hour. That would
pretty much swamp any air defense system's capabilities, and that's not
even including all the Trident SLBM warheads that would also be arriving.
Even our screwed up Alaskan ABM system is only meant to deal with a few
incoming warheads launched be rogue states with low-tech capabilities,
and not a whole-hog nuclear war with Russia.
When they were made, the Minuteman III complete with its three warheads
were costing under eight million dollars each- which shows you just how
economical it is to overwhelm your enemy's ABM systems by simply
increasing numbers, even if each enemy interceptor missile is 100%
effective.

Pat

[Bob Haller]

I think I saw a mock up of this at a orlando Fl museum after the
program got cancelled.

[Derek Lyons]

Post by Pat Flannery
For all of it's expense, it didn't really give all that much greater
capability than ICBMs and SLBMs, stealthy cruise missiles, and a low
cost orbital ASAT on a expendable booster would give.

Yes, it does. Bombers can be deployed to the 'fail safe' line as a
form of political pressure - bombers can be called back, other systems
cannot.

Post by Pat Flannery
If you wanted a quick response way to hit a specific target with a
non-nuclear warhead,

Bombers aren't for quick response in the first place.

D.

[Pat Flannery]

Post by Derek Lyons

Post by Pat Flannery
For all of it's expense, it didn't really give all that much greater
capability than ICBMs and SLBMs, stealthy cruise missiles, and a low
cost orbital ASAT on a expendable booster would give.

Yes, it does. Bombers can be deployed to the 'fail safe' line as a
form of political pressure - bombers can be called back, other systems
cannot.

These honkers can't be held at fail safe due to the fact that they would
be going at around 15,000 mph. Also, recalling one would be like doing
a RTLS maneuver on the Shuttle due to the amount of energy involved in
turning something around at that speed.

Post by Derek Lyons

Post by Pat Flannery
If you wanted a quick response way to hit a specific target with a
non-nuclear warhead,

Bombers aren't for quick response in the first place.

The idea of this thing was to allow a strike anywhere in the world
within around an hour of takeoff.
Unfortunately, that didn't take into account that that first means
getting the thing ready for takeoff, and that would take several hours
to do unless the thing is sitting in a hanger venting LH2 24 hours a day.

Pat

[Derek Lyons]

Post by Pat Flannery

Post by Derek Lyons

Post by Pat Flannery
For all of it's expense, it didn't really give all that much greater
capability than ICBMs and SLBMs, stealthy cruise missiles, and a low
cost orbital ASAT on a expendable booster would give.

Yes, it does. Bombers can be deployed to the 'fail safe' line as a
form of political pressure - bombers can be called back, other systems
cannot.

These honkers can't be held at fail safe due to the fact that they would
be going at around 15,000 mph.

To put is simply: Horseshit. Bombers on fail safe flew in race tracks
- even the ones the BUFF's flew were pretty good sized.

Post by Pat Flannery

Post by Derek Lyons

Post by Pat Flannery
If you wanted a quick response way to hit a specific target with a
non-nuclear warhead,

Bombers aren't for quick response in the first place.

The idea of this thing was to allow a strike anywhere in the world
within around an hour of takeoff.
Unfortunately, that didn't take into account that that first means
getting the thing ready for takeoff, and that would take several hours
to do unless the thing is sitting in a hanger venting LH2 24 hours a day.

That sounds like 'fast strike' - not 'quick response'.

D.

[Pat Flannery]

Post by Derek Lyons

Post by Pat Flannery
These honkers can't be held at fail safe due to the fact that they would
be going at around 15,000 mph.

To put is simply: Horseshit. Bombers on fail safe flew in race tracks
- even the ones the BUFF's flew were pretty good sized.

First off, these things don't have the fuel to do it- the whole idea is
to boost the thing up to very high altitude to where it is on the outer
fringes of the atmosphere at very high velocity and then have it launch
its payload as it either flies over the target circles the earth and
returns home or makes an immense loop and heads for home; basically zip
loiter time. This device operates like Dyna-Soar, not a B-52.
Look at this: although it's hard to read, that's Iraq it's attacking:
Loading Image...
Note the turning radius of the aircraft as it prepares to leave the
combat zone. Its turning radius is several hundred miles.
That's from this page:
http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/v3c12/v3c12-1.htm

Post by Derek Lyons

Post by Pat Flannery

Post by Derek Lyons

Post by Pat Flannery
If you wanted a quick response way to hit a specific target with a
non-nuclear warhead,

Bombers aren't for quick response in the first place.

The idea of this thing was to allow a strike anywhere in the world
within around an hour of takeoff.
Unfortunately, that didn't take into account that that first means
getting the thing ready for takeoff, and that would take several hours
to do unless the thing is sitting in a hanger venting LH2 24 hours a day.

That sounds like 'fast strike' - not 'quick response'.

Actually, according to this it's preemptive strike on one day's notice
(from the above page):

"Utilization of the Proposed Weapons System <>The proposed integrated
multistage weapons system is capable of performing a variety of
missions, both strategic and tactical. Consider the scenario where an
adversary threatens to invade (the threat may include nuclear blackmail)
or has just invaded a neighbor state. Based on recent headlines, the
adversary in this scenario could be Iraq or North Korea. Future
headlines might include China or a resurgent Russia. Despite
negotiations at the highest levels, the adversary shows no signs of
backing down or retreating from the occupied territory. Plans are made
for a mission that would strike at the key war-fighting infrastructure
of the adversary. The targets include the command, control,
communications, computer center(s), the space launch facilities,
critical supply depots, massed formations of enemy tanks, etc. An
ultimatum from the president of the United States suggests that, if the
enemy does not act responsibly, massive force will be applied, suddenly
and without further warning. Authority is given to plan a mission that
would seriously damage the adversary's ability and will to fight.

The next day the mission is launched. One to four SHAAFT weapons systems
are launched. The number depends on the size of the adversary
(specifically, the number of and distance between the targets) and the
operational philosophy (whether the mission objectives include total
destruction of the enemy's war-fighting capabilities or merely a very
strong attention-getting strike at selected targets). The range of the
"zero" stage, the flying wing, allows it to take the attack aircraft
approximately halfway to the target (for purposes of discussion, 5,000
nautical miles). Staging occurs at mach 3.5 at an altitude of
approximately 60,000 feet. The supersonic/hypersonic attack aircraft,
the SHAAFT climbs to approximately 100,000 feet, where it flies at a
mach number of approximately 12. Soon after staging from the flying
wing, the crew of the SHAAFT is given final instructions: continue on to
the target and execute the full-scale operation, continue on to the
target and execute a modified plan (change the targets or change the
degree of destruction), or abort the mission altogether. The fact that
the SHAAFT is a crewed vehicle provides a great deal of flexibility.
Assuming that the instructions are to continue the mission, the SHAAFT
proceeds to the area where the SHMACs are to be launched. Since the
SHMACs have a range of over 1,000 nautical miles, the launch point,
which is 10,000 nautical miles from the SHAAFT's home base, may not even
be over the hostile country. To see an example of the standoff
capability of the SHAAFT/SHMAC weapon system, refer to figure 1-2.
Without slowing down, the SHAAFT launches a barrage of SHMACs from a
point well out the enemy's threat zone. Since the SHAAFT does not slow
from its cruise mach number of 12, the SHMACs will decelerate to their
design cruise mach number of eight. The SHMACs themselves may strike the
target or they may deploy submunitions, which further prioritize and
diversify the targeting philosophy. The suite of weapons may be nuclear,
conventional, or ray devices.

Having delivered massive firepower to the targets, the next
consideration is the safe recovery of the SHAAFT. The optimum scenario
would have the SHAAFT return to its CONUS base. However, if there is not
sufficient fuel to reach the CONUS, the SHAAFT would proceed to an
alternate, preselected recovery base. Depending on the mission, Hawaii
or Diego Garcia seem natural selections for the non-CONUS recovery base.
The recovery base will be within the 14,000 nm overall mission
capability of the flying wing/SHAAFT. Once it releases the SHAAFT, the
flying wing would proceed directly to Hawaii or Diego Garcia, where it
would await the SHAAFT to complete its mission.

Procedures by which the SHAAFT returns safely to its CONUS base from
other recovery bases, such as Diego Garcia, will be evaluated through
further study. One possibility is sending a flying wing to retrieve the
SHAAFT. The mated configuration would be flown home using the engines of
the "zero" stage, the flying wing, and fuel added at the recovery base.
Fuel and supplies would be brought to this base so that the SHAAFT could
be serviced for its flight back to its home base in the CONUS. Because
the technology base for the flying wing is that of the HSCT, the
logistics infrastructure at the alternate recovery bases is relatively
conventional."

Pat

[Fred J. McCall]

***@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote:

:Pat Flannery <***@daktel.com> wrote:
:
:>Derek Lyons wrote:
:>>Pat Flannery <***@daktel.com> wrote:
:>>
:>>>For all of it's expense, it didn't really give all that much greater
:>>>capability than ICBMs and SLBMs, stealthy cruise missiles, and a low
:>>>cost orbital ASAT on a expendable booster would give.
:>>>
:>>
:>>Yes, it does. Bombers can be deployed to the 'fail safe' line as a
:>>form of political pressure - bombers can be called back, other systems
:>>cannot.
:>>
:>These honkers can't be held at fail safe due to the fact that they would
:>be going at around 15,000 mph.
:
:To put is simply: Horseshit. Bombers on fail safe flew in race tracks
:- even the ones the BUFF's flew were pretty good sized.

Now try that with a NASP. Afraid he's right, Derek.

[Joe D.]

Post by Fred J. McCall
:>>
:>>>For all of it's expense, it didn't really give all that much greater
:>>>capability than ICBMs and SLBMs, stealthy cruise missiles, and a low
:>>>cost orbital ASAT on a expendable booster would give.
:>>>
:>>
:>>Yes, it does. Bombers can be deployed to the 'fail safe' line as a
:>>form of political pressure - bombers can be called back, other systems
:>>cannot.
:>>
:>These honkers can't be held at fail safe due to the fact that they would
:>be going at around 15,000 mph.
:To put is simply: Horseshit. Bombers on fail safe flew in race tracks
:- even the ones the BUFF's flew were pretty good sized.
Now try that with a NASP. Afraid he's right, Derek.

Let's assume our 15,000 mph (6705 m/s) X-30 scramjet bomber is nuclear
powered, so there's no fuel problem. We can orbit forever at the fail safe
point. What would be the turn radius at 2 g? (math types correct me if
wrong):

r = v^2 / ac, where:
r = turn radius
v=velocity
ac= centripedal acceleration

r = 6705^2 / 19.6 m/s/s
r = 2,293 km (turn diameter of 4,587 km

Thank goodness it's a big sky, since you'll
be using a lot of it :)

-- Joe D.

[i***@gmail.com]

I would like to add something else. A hypersonic plane going to LEO
economically may or may not be possible. NASA has certainly lost a lot
of credibility with the Shuttle which costs twice as much per Kg as
Ariane.

Hoever the military uses are frought with even more problems. If you
are a batsperson (there are no longer men's games) facing a fast bowler
bowling at 130km/h you do not have to move at that speed to stop the
ball. You simply have to be in the line of sight of the ball.

Similarly you do not have to travel at hypersonic speed to shoot down a
hypersonic plane, you simply need to line up with it in a plane
travelling at perhaps 2,500km/h. Now a H plane travels at high altitude
(~20,000m), this gives a range of 500km at ground level (simple
curvature of Earth calculation). There is nothing stealthy about
hypersonic flight, the airframe is hot (strong IR signiture) and all
the materials used to absorb microwaves would melt/burn.

The damn thing would be a sitting duck to a sophisticated enemy. For an
enemy of less sophistication why not simply use what is in the arsenals
now?

Rapid response would be far better achieved by having forward bases. Ie
putting the B2 in Cyprus or Israel rather than in Missouri.

[Keith W]

Post by i***@gmail.com
The damn thing would be a sitting duck to a sophisticated enemy. For an
enemy of less sophistication why not simply use what is in the arsenals
now?
Rapid response would be far better achieved by having forward bases. Ie
putting the B2 in Cyprus or Israel rather than in Missouri.

Yep putting a priceless strategic asset someplace where an enemy sitting
outside
the base fence with a WW2 surplus mortar can destroy it makes perfect
sense in parker world

Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[i***@gmail.com]

Post by Keith W
Yep putting a priceless strategic asset someplace where an enemy sitting
outside the base fence with a WW2 surplus mortar can destroy it makes perfect
sense in parker world
Keith

Its so expensive it can't be used. There are troops devoted to base
security. In fact with the Second Amenment I am not so sure that
America is the safest place anyway. Arn't there places you can simply
buy a mortar?

[Keith W]

Post by i***@gmail.com

Post by Keith W
Yep putting a priceless strategic asset someplace where an enemy sitting
outside the base fence with a WW2 surplus mortar can destroy it makes perfect
sense in parker world
Keith

Its so expensive it can't be used.

The fact that it has been used shows you are incorrect.

Post by i***@gmail.com
There are troops devoted to base security.

Indeed there are but mortars are fired from outside the
base fence.

Post by i***@gmail.com
In fact with the Second Amenment I am not so sure that
America is the safest place anyway. Arn't there places you can simply
buy a mortar?

They are rather more available in Israel and the West Bank than
Missouri, the FBI have limited authority over there and there's
a wider pool of would be suicide bombers.

Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[i***@gmail.com]

Post by Keith W

Post by i***@gmail.com
Its so expensive it can't be used.

The fact that it has been used shows you are incorrect.

It has been used yes. It has a far lower rate of fire than other
systems. It would not have been cost effective to develop it for the
missions it has currently been used for. My point is that if is needs
to be in the US that takes away a tremendous amount of effectiveness
inj that its rate of sortie is so low and it needs a condierable
investment in tankers to get it to the target.

The answer is surely a cheaper system (possibly automated) that you are
prepared to lose.

OK there have been no wars against first chass enemies (let us
sincerely hope there arn't any) so we dont really know how Stealth
would have performed against (say) the Chinese. At the back of my mind
is the fact that a first class enemy would find a method of detection,
and a second/third class does not need that level of sophistication
anyway. We know for example that metric radar will detect Stealth. What
"Orange" needs is a number of linked metric stations.

[Scott Hedrick]

Post by i***@gmail.com
What
"Orange" needs is a number of linked metric stations.
That is the Ariane engine.

Yes it is.

Probably the cost of a Vulcain is roughly

Post by i***@gmail.com
comperable to a SSME service.

Why don't you find out and report back here with verifiable references? It
shouldn't be too hard to find out.

Post by i***@gmail.com
The Ariane 5 has a solid fuel configuration similar to the shuttle.
Ariane is designed to put a load into space and not breturn. To return
you need something like Soyuz.
When I say that A is as reusable as the Shuttle what I am in effect
saying is that the Shuttle is not reusable.

Now, how about supporting something you said before: How many Ariane parts
have *actually*
been reused? Don't forget to document your sources. Remember to concentrate
on Ariane first stages.

[Scott Hedrick]

Post by i***@gmail.com
In fact with the Second Amenment I am not so sure that
America is the safest place anyway.

Seen any uninvited foreign troops here lately?

[Eric Chomko]

Scott Hedrick (diespammers-***@yahoo.com) wrote:

: <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
: news:***@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
: > In fact with the Second Amenment I am not so sure that
: > America is the safest place anyway.

: Seen any uninvited foreign troops here lately?


More because of the oceans and NORAD than the 2nd Amendment. It doesn't
keep out the wetbacks and all those Canadian singers that have taken over
Nashville. Heck, "American Idol" is owned and run by a Brit! Sure none of
these "inavders" are troops, but the 2nd Amendment does very little other
than allow you to go and shoot stuff up and own many guns. Oh boy!

You should be so concerned about computer viruses and spyware.

Eric

[Scott Hedrick]

Post by i***@gmail.com
Similarly you do not have to travel at hypersonic speed to shoot down a
hypersonic plane, you simply need to line up with it in a plane
travelling at perhaps 2,500km/h.

No, but unless you're using a laser, you need a projectile that is
travelling fast enough to intercept, and if you are behind the target, that
means your projectile needs to be travelling *at least* hypersonic.

Before going on to a new bunch of questions you're not going to be able to
answer, how about answering the ones you've already been asked?

[Eric Chomko]

***@gmail.com wrote:
: I would like to add something else. A hypersonic plane going to LEO
: economically may or may not be possible. NASA has certainly lost a lot
: of credibility with the Shuttle which costs twice as much per Kg as
: Ariane.

: Hoever the military uses are frought with even more problems. If you
: are a batsperson (there are no longer men's games) facing a fast bowler
: bowling at 130km/h you do not have to move at that speed to stop the
: ball. You simply have to be in the line of sight of the ball.

You're striking out with that analogy. Or should I say the wicket has
fallen with that analogy. No sixer for you...

: Similarly you do not have to travel at hypersonic speed to shoot down a
: hypersonic plane, you simply need to line up with it in a plane
: travelling at perhaps 2,500km/h. Now a H plane travels at high altitude
: (~20,000m), this gives a range of 500km at ground level (simple
: curvature of Earth calculation). There is nothing stealthy about
: hypersonic flight, the airframe is hot (strong IR signiture) and all
: the materials used to absorb microwaves would melt/burn.

: The damn thing would be a sitting duck to a sophisticated enemy. For an
: enemy of less sophistication why not simply use what is in the arsenals
: now?

Because military is only one application of a spaceplane.

: Rapid response would be far better achieved by having forward bases. Ie
: putting the B2 in Cyprus or Israel rather than in Missouri.

And not having an overinflated DOD budget would do more to acquire cheap
acces to space than any other political move.

Eric

[Joe D.]

Post by Derek Lyons

Post by Pat Flannery
For all of it's expense, it didn't really give all that much greater
capability than ICBMs and SLBMs, stealthy cruise missiles, and a low
cost orbital ASAT on a expendable booster would give.

Yes, it does. Bombers can be deployed to the 'fail safe' line as a
form of political pressure - bombers can be called back, other systems
cannot.

Ah, a hypersonic, scramjet-powered bomber circling the fail safe
point at Mach 15.

That reminds me of Scotty from Star Trek: "Captain, circling at warp
9, we're going nowhere mighty fast".

-- Joe D.

[Derek Lyons]

Post by Joe D.

Post by Derek Lyons

Post by Pat Flannery
For all of it's expense, it didn't really give all that much greater
capability than ICBMs and SLBMs, stealthy cruise missiles, and a low
cost orbital ASAT on a expendable booster would give.

Yes, it does. Bombers can be deployed to the 'fail safe' line as a
form of political pressure - bombers can be called back, other systems
cannot.

Ah, a hypersonic, scramjet-powered bomber circling the fail safe
point at Mach 15.
That reminds me of Scotty from Star Trek: "Captain, circling at warp
9, we're going nowhere mighty fast".

LOL :) :)

OTOH - we circled our patrol points at about 5 knots... And referred
to being on patrol as doing '5 knots to nowhere'.

D.

[i***@gmail.com]

Post by Joe D.
Ah, a hypersonic, scramjet-powered bomber circling the fail safe
point at Mach 15

Unless you have a thermonuclear source or antimatter you cannot circle
at M15. There ain't the juice!.

[Scott Hedrick]

Post by i***@gmail.com

Post by Joe D.
Ah, a hypersonic, scramjet-powered bomber circling the fail safe
point at Mach 15

Unless you have a thermonuclear source or antimatter you cannot circle
at M15. There ain't the juice!.

Sure there is- it's in the same imaginary place as the reflown Ariane stages
*you* mentioned.

[Kevin Willoughby]

Post by Bruce Hoult

Post by Air Raid
"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."

I wonder whether Reagan actually believed that it might work,

There has been more than one President who knew little about
engineering, technology, or science.

[Bruce Hoult]

Post by Kevin Willoughby

Post by Bruce Hoult

Post by Air Raid
"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."

I wonder whether Reagan actually believed that it might work,

There has been more than one President who knew little about
engineering, technology, or science.

Reagan is known to have had good advisors. Including ones who advised
him to lure the Soviets into spending lots of money on things,
especially things that wouldn't work or were unnecessary but real things
were fine too, because they could afford it a lot less than the US
could. The theory was that doing so would greatly accelerate the end of
the Soviet Union.

So the question is: did Reagan's advisors tell him that NASP would work,
or that it woudln't work but was a damn fine thing to spend a lot of
money on anyway?

[Eric Chomko]

Bruce Hoult (***@hoult.org) wrote:
: In article <***@news.rcn.com>,
: Kevin Willoughby <***@acm.org.invalid> wrote:

: > In article <bruce-***@news.clear.net.nz>,
: > ***@hoult.org says...
: > > In article <***@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
: > > "Air Raid" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
: > > > 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."
: > > I wonder whether Reagan actually believed that it might work,
: >
: > There has been more than one President who knew little about
: > engineering, technology, or science.

: Reagan is known to have had good advisors. Including ones who advised
: him to lure the Soviets into spending lots of money on things,
: especially things that wouldn't work or were unnecessary but real things
: were fine too, because they could afford it a lot less than the US
: could. The theory was that doing so would greatly accelerate the end of
: the Soviet Union.

The end of the Soviet Union was due to their economic system being crappy
and the 10% of the party members couldn't get the other 90% motivated
enough to carry the whole regime. This whole Reagan outspent then
therefore they fell is right-wing spin when in reality the USSR was
imploding well before Reagan took office.

: So the question is: did Reagan's advisors tell him that NASP would work,
: or that it woudln't work but was a damn fine thing to spend a lot of
: money on anyway?

His advisors were striking up a secret deal with Iran to get them weapons
to be paid for by drug money from Central America, in exchange for the
released hostages captured in Iran during the Carter administration.

Eric

: --
: Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
: Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

[VASSILIS PREVELAKIS]

Post by Bruce Hoult
So the question is: did Reagan's advisors tell him that NASP would work,
or that it woudln't work but was a damn fine thing to spend a lot of
money on anyway?

Well, Reagan announced in his State of the Union speech in 1986 (right
after the Challenger accident) that "We are going forward with research
on a new Oriental Express that could by the end of the decade take off
from Dulles Airport accelerate to 25 times the speed of sound
attaining low Earth orbit or fly to Tokyo within two hours"

The question is whether this was a brave speech to pull the troops together
after Challenger revealed the problems behind STS, or whether he actually
bought the story. There were a lot of dissenting voices at the time, e.g.
Ivan Bekey, former Director of Advanced Projects at NASA's OSF, called
NASP "the biggest swindle" claiming that the proposal was full of "dubious
claims."

Some people also believe that all this was an elaborate scheme to fool the
Soviets (who were copying every Western technological achievement, such
as Concorde and the Shuttle) in spending time and resources on a fool's
errant.

My personal opinion is that Reagan believed in NASP, but we may have
to wait 10-20 years before we know the details (as archives get unclassified).

**vp

[Eric Chomko]

VASSILIS PREVELAKIS (***@codex.cis.upenn.edu) wrote:
: Bruce Hoult (***@hoult.org) wrote:
: > So the question is: did Reagan's advisors tell him that NASP would work,
: > or that it woudln't work but was a damn fine thing to spend a lot of
: > money on anyway?

: Well, Reagan announced in his State of the Union speech in 1986 (right
: after the Challenger accident) that "We are going forward with research
: on a new Oriental Express that could by the end of the decade take off
: from Dulles Airport accelerate to 25 times the speed of sound
: attaining low Earth orbit or fly to Tokyo within two hours"

16 years later...

I guess one of Ronnie's visions did get realized; the SST no longer flys.

: The question is whether this was a brave speech to pull the troops together
: after Challenger revealed the problems behind STS, or whether he actually
: bought the story. There were a lot of dissenting voices at the time, e.g.
: Ivan Bekey, former Director of Advanced Projects at NASA's OSF, called
: NASP "the biggest swindle" claiming that the proposal was full of "dubious
: claims."

: Some people also believe that all this was an elaborate scheme to fool the
: Soviets (who were copying every Western technological achievement, such
: as Concorde and the Shuttle) in spending time and resources on a fool's
: errant.

: My personal opinion is that Reagan believed in NASP, but we may have
: to wait 10-20 years before we know the details (as archives get unclassified).

If Bush/Bush get their way, Reagan's documents will NEVER be declassified.

Eric

: **vp

[Scott Hedrick]

Post by Kevin Willoughby
There has been more than one President who knew little about
engineering, technology, or science.

And there's no reason for a US President to do so, since it isn't necessary
for the job. What is necessary is the ability to choose qualified people you
trust, an ability which Reagan had more than any other modern President.

[Eric Chomko]

Scott Hedrick (diespammers-***@yahoo.com) wrote:

: "Kevin Willoughby" <***@acm.org.invalid> wrote in message
: news:***@news.rcn.com...
: > There has been more than one President who knew little about
: > engineering, technology, or science.

: And there's no reason for a US President to do so, since it isn't necessary
: for the job. What is necessary is the ability to choose qualified people you
: trust, an ability which Reagan had more than any other modern President.


Yeah, that is why we saw Ollie North lie his ass off to Congress because
Reagan was out of the loop on a whole bunch of wierd shit here and abroad.
Face it Bush Sr. ran the show and Reagan was a face and a gladhander the
people knew. I will say this, W makes Reagan look good by comparison
though and neither of them knew/know how to balance a budget. ;)

So much for Republican "fiscal responsibility". For that he'll have to
wait for another Democrat it seems.

Eric

[Typhoon502]

I remember handling a NASP model in 8th grade at a junior high school
in Tullahoma (Arnold Engineering & Development Center is located
outside of town), and wondering. The idea of a flying Orient Express
really, REALLY sparked the imagination. I wish it had come to be.

[Orval Fairbairn]

Post by Typhoon502
I remember handling a NASP model in 8th grade at a junior high school
in Tullahoma (Arnold Engineering & Development Center is located
outside of town), and wondering. The idea of a flying Orient Express
really, REALLY sparked the imagination. I wish it had come to be.

Aerospaceplane was the very first project that I worked on out of
college -- in 1962! Such a vehicle has been the wet dream of every
military and civilian space planner since the inception of the space
program.

My former colleagues and I at work referred to the ASP as the "BAV", or
"Balonium Aerospace Vehicle."

The propulsion technology just isn't there to make it work.

[Joe D.]

Post by Air Raid
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 of course never made it...

Yes and the above shows why. Unlike the game of craps, you don't
get extra points for getting to orbit "the hard way".

Achieving orbit via mainly airbreathing propulsion in a
piloted winged vehicle has long been a romantic dream, plus
at first glance has some theoretical advantages:

About 75% of the entire space shuttle orbiter/external tank wet mass
is liquid oxygen, not LH2, and not structure. Eliminating that would
seem a very compelling reason to pursue hypersonic airbreathing
propulsion. For the same vehicle mass you could have much more
payload, range, etc.

However as mentioned, you can't fly into orbit on scramjets.
You also can't get off the runway on scramjets.

The lowest operational speed for pure scramjets is fuzzy, but
it's maybe around Mach 5. Even turboramjets probably can't go that
fast, so you'd likely need rocket propulsion to bridge the gap to
scramjet minimum operational speed.

Scramjets work up to about Mach 17-19, significantly short of
orbital velocity. Then you'd again need rockets to accelerate to orbit.

Each separate propulsion system would require its own fuel,
structure, systems and thermal insulation. Each adds weight,
complexity and development cost.

The thermal problem alone is daunting. Unlike conventional
launchers that quickly get above the atmosphere and spend most
of their ascent thrusting mostly horizontally in a vacuum, an orbital
airbreather must fly a depressed trajectory and stay within the atmosphere
for most of the ascent.

Unlike the current shuttle that relies on passive thermal protection, many
orbital airbreather concepts demand active cooling over significant portions
of the vehicle, like a rocket engine nozzle. If anything failed in a high
temperature regime (plumbing, pumps, etc), you can't just shut it down like
an SSME and save things. You also can't quickly slow down from Mach 15
to escape the heat. It might be like Columbia where the entire vehicle
disintegrated from a thermal protection breech.

Flying into orbit mostly on airbreathing power is a neat concept
but the reality is the required complexity may forever relegate it
to being a dream.

-- Joe D.

[Alistair Gunn]

Post by Joe D.
Each separate propulsion system would require its own fuel,
structure, systems and thermal insulation. Each adds weight,
complexity and development cost.

Wasn't HOTOL meant to use the same engine for both jet and rocket
propulsion? IIRC, to switch to rocket propulsion the idea was that
they'd start injecting oxidiser as well as fuel into the engine?

Post by Joe D.
The thermal problem alone is daunting. Unlike conventional
launchers that quickly get above the atmosphere and spend most
of their ascent thrusting mostly horizontally in a vacuum, an orbital
airbreather must fly a depressed trajectory and stay within the atmosphere
for most of the ascent.

Though it hardly meets the description of SSTO, maybe the way forwards
would be something like Pegasus or Spaceship One (or the X15 for that
matter) - where an airbreathing craft is used to lift the exo-atmospheric
craft up into the atmosphere?

[Pat Flannery]

Post by Alistair Gunn
Though it hardly meets the description of SSTO, maybe the way forwards
would be something like Pegasus or Spaceship One (or the X15 for that
matter) - where an airbreathing craft is used to lift the exo-atmospheric
craft up into the atmosphere?

That certainly seems to be the idea in this concept:
http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/v3c12/v3c12-1.htm
Loading Image...

Pat

[Bob Haller]

<Though it hardly meets the description of SSTO, maybe the way forwards

would be something like Pegasus or Spaceship One (or the X15 for that
matter) - where an airbreathing craft is used to lift the
exo-atmospheric
craft up into the atmosphere? >


now jusat why cant that work, sure its 2 stage to orbit, but the first
stage gets the entire vehicle above most of the atmosphere, and can be
refuled as needed on its way to release altitude, the military does it
every day:) plus the first stage is basically a big overgrown airliner,
thats well understood technology.

the top stage should be small, and made for easy refurb, to save bucks.
a nice winged orbiter for runway landing on return. perhaps some sort
of deployable slowdown device for initial reentry