Register here

Author Topic: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.  (Read 137217 times)

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1601
The lifting body program was one of the highlight of the NASA in the 60's. Various machines flew (HL-10, X-24, M2F series)
This program only consisted of atmospheric tests...well, that's the "offcial" version
But there's two mysteries
- 1 Aparently, modified HL-10 were send into suborbital flight, but unmanned (around 1971) More precisions about these flights?
- 2 There was a follow on to the X-24A/B, a kind of 70's Aurora  ;D
The X-24C. Any detail about that?
Conservatoire de l'Air et de l'Espace d'Aquitaine - Bordeaux - Mérignac / Dassault aviation museum
http://www.caea.info/en/plan.php

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10307
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #1 on: September 05, 2006, 04:41:11 am »
« Last Edit: September 05, 2006, 04:59:15 am by overscan »
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10307
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #2 on: September 05, 2006, 04:58:21 am »
Martin X-24C desktop model from beautiful Chad Slattery site http://home.earthlink.net/~chadslattery/
© 2008 Chad Slattery
« Last Edit: April 30, 2008, 04:39:05 am by flateric »
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10307
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #3 on: September 05, 2006, 04:59:38 am »
Probably Martin X-24C
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10307
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #4 on: September 05, 2006, 05:03:41 am »
Quote
X-24C model undergoes basic aerodynamic testing and evaluation in Arnold Engineering Development Center's 16-foot transonic propulsion wind tunnel in 1974.

http://www.arnold.af.mil/aedc/systems/74-1551.htm
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline elmayerle

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1164
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #5 on: September 05, 2006, 07:40:56 pm »
I know Martin did some studies of lifting bodies, to be launched by Titan III LVs, in the 1960s and they were of similar configuration to the HL-10.  As a matter of fact, I understand this factual background provided a lot of the background for the rescue lifting body vehicle seen in the film version of Marooned, which in turn inspired the ASTP and eventually common docking lugs on all manned US and Russian spacecraft.

Offline Woody

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 287
  • Passionate about the advancement of technology
    • http://www.freewebs.com/ian_francis_wood/
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #6 on: March 29, 2007, 10:34:33 am »
There are numerous references on the net (Global Security.org, Above Top Secret, Wikipedia etc.) saying how the X-24B and even X-24C were based on the shape of the FDL-8 (Flight Dynamics Laboratory-8). I've had a bad picture of the FDL-5 for ages but finding images of the the rest of the series is proving tough. It was supposed to be a top secret military programme in the sixties between the X-15 and the X-24. I know there was a -6 but that's all, and a commercial space plane called 'Silver Dart' is apparently being built based on the -7 but what about -1 through -4? Any pictures or information on any of them would be greatly appreciated.
Cheers, Woody

Offline kitnut617

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 114
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #7 on: March 30, 2007, 12:43:49 pm »
There's reference to the X-24's in David Myhra's book (Schiffer) about the Ta.183.  It says the the X-24A/B were the design of Hans Multhopp (Focke Wolf's Chief Designer during the war) when he worked at Martin and after he had designed the XB-51.  There's a photo of him holding a wind tunnel model of the X-24B IIRC. The photo of the fellow in the picture above looks like an older version of him.
If I'm not building models, I'm riding my dirtbike

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8210
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #8 on: March 30, 2007, 02:10:34 pm »
Extracts from NASA paper
NASACR14S2Z
CONFIGURATION DEVELOPMENT STUDY OF THE X-24C HYPERSONIC RESEARCH AIRPLANE /EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
H.G. Combs, ,et al, Lockheed Aircraft Corporation Advanced Development Projects, October 1977
I don't remember where I got this pdf, AFAIR it's readily aviable at NTRS server.

BTW, numerous rumors exist in communities far more serious than AboveTopSecret forum members that X-24C actually was built and flown
« Last Edit: March 30, 2007, 02:20:02 pm by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8210
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #9 on: March 30, 2007, 02:11:49 pm »
more from dusty partitions of my HDD
« Last Edit: March 30, 2007, 02:23:12 pm by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline GTX

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2393
  • All hail the God of Frustration!!!
    • Beyond The Sprues
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #10 on: March 30, 2007, 02:18:21 pm »
Quote
what about -1 through -4? Any pictures or information on any of them would be greatly appreciated.

This may be of a little use.

Regards,

Greg

Offline Woody

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 287
  • Passionate about the advancement of technology
    • http://www.freewebs.com/ian_francis_wood/
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #11 on: March 31, 2007, 09:52:41 am »
That's fantastic Greg. Do you know more accurately which is which and whether any of them actually flew? I was always disappointed by how slow the HL-10 and X-24s were compared to the X-15, did any of this lot do any better?
Cheers, Woody

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8210
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #12 on: March 31, 2007, 11:12:17 am »
Woody, I said 'rumors'.

Rumors are say that Lockheed had a crewed vehicle with an air-breathing propulsion that went somewhere to Mach 6 to 8 in mid-1970s...
The engine was built by Marquardt.

Interestingly that such an aircraft was mentioned in Preface of first edition of "Lockheed Aircraft" by Rene Francillon (I can't check it up as I have second edition) ....this mention was taken out completely in the 2nd edition...

Rene Francillon declined to comment the removal being asked several times back in the mid-1990s. Usually very friendly and helpful correspondent, he didn't want to talk about it.
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1601
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #13 on: April 01, 2007, 10:21:07 am »
Woody, I said 'rumors'.

Rumors are say that Lockheed had a crewed vehicle with an air-breathing propulsion that went somewhere to Mach 6 to 8 in mid-1970s...
The engine was built by Marquardt.

Maybe the engine could be this fabulous "supercharged ejector ramjet" proposed in June 1969 (on a modified
X-15)
Comme par hasard, a subscale model of the RJ-176 engine had been tested successfully in the late 60's...


Conservatoire de l'Air et de l'Espace d'Aquitaine - Bordeaux - Mérignac / Dassault aviation museum
http://www.caea.info/en/plan.php

Offline elmayerle

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1164
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #14 on: April 01, 2007, 03:08:56 pm »
I can't help but wonder how a X-24C compares in size and mass to a D-21.  If they're reasonably close, I could see a modified M-21 or NASA's "YF-12C" serving as a launch vehicle for a higher starting point.

Offline Matej

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2617
  • Multiuniversal creator
    • Hitechweb - bizare aviation
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #15 on: April 29, 2007, 09:54:21 am »
I don't think its the good idea. Two manned planes at so high speed.... And also remember how one M-21/D-21 ended.

X-24C internal view from AWST Sept. 17, 1973, pg. 85

Bizarre aviation expert.

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1601
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #16 on: April 29, 2007, 11:30:57 am »
I really think that a mach 4 -mach 5.5 , ramjet powered vehicle was feasible with late 70's technology.
- The X-15s structure resisted to 200 flights up to mach near mach 7
- high-speed ramjets had been mastered since the early 60's (the ONERA Stataltex had pushed their speeds up to mach 5.5) 
- turboramjets and their derivatives (such as the SERJ mentioned above) worked quite well...
- Convair was able to proposed a mach 4.2 vehicle in the late 50's (even a compromised design), and its research kept on all along the 60's...

They had more or less all the elements needed to build such a machine... but its speed would have been limited to mach 6 at best, as scramjets were (are,) still in the limbos today...

X-24C or Aurora!!!
Conservatoire de l'Air et de l'Espace d'Aquitaine - Bordeaux - Mérignac / Dassault aviation museum
http://www.caea.info/en/plan.php

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20699
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #17 on: May 17, 2007, 10:59:02 am »
Hi,

The McDonnell Douglas Model-176 was hypersonic spacecraft,but when
I search about it I found a Models of hypersonic aircraft not known,
see the picture,
« Last Edit: May 18, 2007, 04:35:56 am by hesham »

Offline Firefly 2

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 461
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #18 on: May 17, 2007, 01:08:58 pm »
The bottom two picks I remember from my Aurora book, just a sec.

Offline Firefly 2

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 461
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #19 on: May 17, 2007, 01:15:02 pm »
Hi,

The McDonnell Douglas Model-176 was hypersonic spacecraft,but when
I search about it I found a Models to hypersonic aircraft not known,
see the picture,

From Bill Sweetman- Aurora: the Pentagon's secret hypersonic spyplane

Second pick: described as being the Lockheed FDL 5 fitted with conformal collar tanks. To be airlaunched by B52. This was to be a hypersonic research aircraft.

Third pick shows all the shaped considered in the FDL hypersonic study.

Offline Dew

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 16
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #20 on: May 17, 2007, 03:05:01 pm »
Bottom pic left to right, top row: (1) FDL-8, (2) WADD II, FDL-6, unknown, (10) FDL-6, ( 8 ) MDF-1, (7) HLD-5, (5) X-20, (6) unknown
middle row: FDL-5A, FDL-8, (9) PRIME/SV-5, (4) FDL-7
bottom centre: (3) ASSET

Identified by Stephane Cochin of Stratosphere Models.

There's some info about the FDL-5 MA here...

http://www.ninfinger.org/~sven/models/stratosphere/fdl5_announce.html
« Last Edit: May 17, 2007, 03:53:35 pm by Dew »

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20699
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #21 on: May 18, 2007, 04:04:10 am »

     Thanks.


Offline zhuravlik

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #23 on: June 07, 2007, 05:34:52 am »
Lovely plane, i'd like to do an R/C model of that.
Surely would require a pitch gyro.
Meanwhile look at this beautiful scratchbuilt model:
http://hyperscale.com/features/x24cpb_1.htm
by"Bondo" Phil brandt.
I love those lifting bodies...

Best regards

Zhuravlik

Offline Sentinel Chicken

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 577
  • American 71 Heavy, contact departure 126.47
    • TAILS THROUGH TIME: Short Trips on the Long Road of Aviation History
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #24 on: June 18, 2007, 03:20:42 pm »
"Bondo" Phil does some great work. Several years ago his scratch built 1/72 scale Boeing XB-55 could be seen at the annual ScaleFest events here in the DFW area.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8210
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #25 on: August 08, 2007, 01:41:59 am »
Hesham provided a hint for finding this:

http://www.americanantigravity.com/articles/589/1/Model-176-Hypersonic-Shuttle/Page1.html
http://www.americanantigravity.com/documents/Aerospace-Design-Notes.pdf
http://www.americanantigravity.com/documents/Hypersonic-SpacePlanes-History.pdf
http://www.americanantigravity.com/documents/Paul-Czysz-Hypersonic-Interview.pdf

Historical Notes & Technical Data

This document provides detailed notes outlining the McDonnell Aircraft Company's "Model 176" hypesonic glider, and describes how this technology could be used to produce a hypersonic glider for use in resupplying a Manned Orbiting Laboratory in the 1960's. It is a more rugged concept than the Space Shuttle, and could have begun flying over a decade earlier. Furthermore, and most importantly, this document describes heat-dissipation testing that would have completely eliminated the need for the ceramic tiles used on today's shuttle.

"The United States Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory fabricated a half-scale mock-up of the stage and one-half Model 176 configuration. Strap-on tanks provided propellants to about Mach 6 or 7 and then the mission continued on internal propellants. The intent was to provide the United States Air Force with an on-demand hypersonic aircraft that could reach any part of the earth in less than a half-hour and return to its launch base or any base within the Continental United States (CONUS).

In a 1964 brief, Rollie Quest of McDonnell Douglas Astronautics, St. Louis, presented a fully reusable hypersonic glider, the so-called model 176, intended to be the crew delivery, crew return, crew rescue, and re-supply vehicle for the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) crew. One vehicle was to be docked with the MOL at all times as an escape and rescue vehicle. It could accommodate up to 13 persons, and like BURAN all components were recoverable.

Given the space infrastructure of the 21st Century, it is important to recall that rescue and supply of the manned space facilities requires the ability to land in a major ground based facility at any time from any orbit and orbital location. The cross and down range needed to return to a base of choice also requires high aerodynamic performance, mainly dependent on high lift over drag ratios." - Prof. Paul Czysz

Paul Czysz is the former Chief Scientist for the National Aerospace Place (NASP) project, and now the CEO of his hypersonic research company, Hypertech Concepts, LLC.

"In a 1964 brief, Roland Quest of McDonnell Douglas Astronautics, St. Louis, presented a fully reusable hypersonic glider, the so-called model 176, intended to be the crew delivery, crew return, crew rescue, and re-supply vehicle for the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) crew (see discussion of its requirements in Chapter 1). One vehicle was to be docked with the MOL at all times as an escape and rescue vehicle. It could accommodate up to 13 persons, and like BURAN all components were recoverable. Given the space infrastructure of the 21st Century, it is important to recall that rescue and supply of the manned space facilities requires the ability to land in a major ground based facility at any time from any orbit and orbital location. The cross and down range needed to return to a base of choice also requires high aerodynamic performance, mainly dependent on high lift over drag ratios. Although the airbreathing propulsion concepts that are limited to Mach 6 or less, an excellent inward turning, retractable inlet [DuPont, 1999] can be integrated into the vehicle configuration derived from the FDL series of hypersonic gliders and developed by the Flight Dynamics Laboratory [Zima, 1985] and from the work of the McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company. Collaboration in hypersonic work between the McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company and the McDonnell Aircraft Company, McDonnell Douglas Corporation, and also between the USAF Flight Dynamic Laboratory and McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company provided the impetus and the hardware technology basis to make the space and atmospheric vehicle developments converge to a common set of characteristics.
The Model 176 began with the collaboration of Robert Masek of McDonnell Douglas and Alfred Draper of AFFDL in the late 1950’s on hypersonic control issues. After a series of experimental and flight tests with different configurations the “X” tail configuration and the FDL-7C/D glider configurations emerged as the configuration that was inherently stable over the Mach range and had earth circumferential glide range. The result was the FDL-7MC and then the McDonnell Douglas Model 176. Figure 3-14 compares the two configurations. In the early 1960’s both configurations had windshield for the pilots to see outside. However with today’s automatic flight capability visual requirements can be met with remote viewing systems. The modified FDL-7 C/D configuration was reshaped to have flat panel surfaces, and the windshield provisions were deleted, but it retains all of the essential FDL-7 characteristics. To assure the lift-to-drag ratio for the circumferential range glide, the Model 176 planform was reshaped for a parabolic nose to increase the lift and decrease the nose drag. A spatular nose would have also provided the necessary aerodynamic margin, but the original configuration was retained, with just the windshield provisions deleted. The Model 176 was proposed for the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) described in Chapter 1. It was a thoroughly designed and tested configuration with a complete all metal thermal protection system that had the same weight of ceramic tile and carbon-carbon concepts used for the US Shuttle, but was sturdier."
« Last Edit: April 18, 2008, 05:21:45 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline starviking

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 862
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #26 on: August 08, 2007, 05:46:57 am »
Looks interesting, but a few inaccuracies lead me to wonder if things have been 'Jazzed Up'.

In a 1964 brief, Rollie Quest of McDonnell Douglas Astronautics, St. Louis, presented a fully reusable hypersonic glider, the so-called model 176, intended to be the crew delivery, crew return, crew rescue, and re-supply vehicle for the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) crew. One vehicle was to be docked with the MOL at all times as an escape and rescue vehicle. It could accommodate up to 13 persons, and like BURAN all components were recoverable.

McDonnell Douglass was formed by a merger in 1967.

Buran was not fully recoverable. The main tank with the primary engines was emphatically not recoverable, the boosters might possibly been recoverable. I think they had parachute clusters attached for that purpose, but whether that capability was actually tested I don't know.

The Model 176 as shown is also not fully recoverable. The evolved version still has to drop its tanks.

The ship doesn't seem to be too far removed from the McDD ILRV designs, as posted on Marcus Lindroos' Hallowed Site http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/SpaceLVs/Slides/sld018.htm
See attached pic.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8210
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #27 on: August 08, 2007, 06:12:31 am »
Looks interesting, but a few inaccuracies lead me to wonder if things have been 'Jazzed Up'.
McDonnell Douglass was formed by a merger in 1967.

Yes, looks strange for McDonnell veteran...may be breach in memories or typo...

Buran was not fully recoverable. The main tank with the primary engines was emphatically not recoverable, the boosters might possibly been recoverable. I think they had parachute clusters attached for that purpose, but whether that capability was actually tested I don't know.

Formally, Buran itself was recoverable, talking about Energia-Buran system, Block A (first stage) save was implemented from the beginning - note that huge bulbs on top and bottom of every block to hold landing gear. It was never tested operationally - Energia just didn't arrive to this step of flight tests. I have very interesting computer animation of how it would look like. Regarding Block C - it would become reusable in future development of Energia - GK-175 and Uragan, getting Buran wing. Parachute recovery of Block C as shown on Czysz's drawing, was considered at the early stages, but winged design was choosen. http://www.buran.ru/htm/41-3.htm
« Last Edit: August 08, 2007, 06:32:02 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline starviking

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 862
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #28 on: August 08, 2007, 06:40:47 am »
Looks interesting, but a few inaccuracies lead me to wonder if things have been 'Jazzed Up'.
McDonnell Douglass was formed by a merger in 1967.

Yes, looks strange for McDonnell veteran...may be breach in memories or typo...

Buran was not fully recoverable. The main tank with the primary engines was emphatically not recoverable, the boosters might possibly been recoverable. I think they had parachute clusters attached for that purpose, but whether that capability was actually tested I don't know.

Formally, Buran itself was recoverable, talking about Energia-Buran system, Block A (first stage) save was implemented from the beginning - note that huge bulbs on top and bottom of every block to hold landing gear. It was never tested operationally - Energia just didn't arrive to this step of flight tests. I have very interesting computer animation of how it would look like. Regarding Block C - it would become reusable in future development of Energia - GK-175 and Uragan, getting Buran wing. Parachute recovery of Block C as shown on Czysz's drawing, was considered at the early stages, but winged design was choosen. http://www.buran.ru/htm/41-3.htm

Ah, you're right. I guess the way he used English in his article, i.e. "Buran...fully recoverable" mislead me. After all, why shouldn't a winged orbiter be fully recoverable. Do we refer to 747's as fully rcoverable aeroplanes?  ;)

Interesting winged concept for the Energia core there.

Starviking


Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10307
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #29 on: October 06, 2007, 04:01:59 pm »
Lockheed X-24C desktop model from beautiful Chad Slattery site http://home.earthlink.net/~chadslattery/
© 2008 Chad Slattery
« Last Edit: April 30, 2008, 04:43:05 am by flateric »
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10307
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #30 on: October 06, 2007, 04:02:37 pm »
Renamed topic
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3723
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #31 on: October 07, 2007, 02:27:34 am »
Quote
I don't remember where I got this pdf, AFAIR it's readily aviable at NTRS server.
there are very good PDF about X-24C study

19790008668_1979008668.pdf
"CONFIGURATION DEVELOPMENT STUDY OF THE X-24C HYPERSONIC RESEARCH AIRPLANE- PHASE II"

19790007769_1979007769.pdf
"CONFIGURATION DEVELOPMENT STUDY OF THE X-24C HYPERSONIC RESEARCH EXECUTIVE SUMMARY"

and HL-10 Program
"FULL-SCALE WIND-TUNNEL INVESTIGATION OF THE HL-10 MANNED LIFTING BODY FLIGHT VEHICLE"
19710070745_1971070745.pdf

source
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp

I love Strange Technology

Offline borovik

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 769
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #32 on: February 01, 2008, 02:22:29 pm »
 Little additional info from: "Aurora. The Pentagon's Secret Hypersonic Spyplane" B.Sweetman

Offline archipeppe

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1464
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #33 on: February 03, 2008, 02:57:09 am »
I enclose my personal contribution about this matter...

Offline Justo Miranda

  • Secret Projects Master
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3261
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #34 on: February 03, 2008, 10:54:58 am »
I enclose my personal contribution about this matter...

Excelent info!

Offline dickie

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #35 on: February 19, 2008, 12:46:35 pm »

Interestingly that such an aircraft was mentioned in Preface of first edition of "Lockheed Aircraft" by Rene Francillon (I can't check it up as I have second edition) ....this mention was taken out completely in the 2nd edition...

Rene Francillon declined to comment the removal being asked several times back in the mid-1990s. Usually very friendly and helpful correspondent, he didn't want to talk about it.

well, if the first edition was published in 1982, its available on half.com for a paltry sum and may shed some light on your quest...

http://product.half.ebay.com/Lockheed-Aircraft-Since-1913_W0QQprZ4648431QQitemZ340464578391QQtgZvidetails

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20699
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #36 on: March 13, 2008, 10:09:50 am »

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8210
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #37 on: March 13, 2008, 10:55:54 am »
I sure it was not.
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20699
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #38 on: March 13, 2008, 11:06:20 am »
I sure it was not.

Dear flateric,can you identify it ?.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8210
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #39 on: March 13, 2008, 11:39:11 am »
Identifying: one of zillion Martin lifting-body orbiter projects from 1963.
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6813
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #40 on: March 13, 2008, 02:50:31 pm »
I sure it was not.

Somewhere in my pile (not as vast as Miller's, but vast enough) I have a scrap from a technical paper that shows that particualr design.  It was a modification of an FDL design; a minor study, no more.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

avatar

  • Guest
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #41 on: March 13, 2008, 11:47:47 pm »
The FDL concepts were the most promising anyway

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8210
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #42 on: March 14, 2008, 05:17:39 pm »
Nice ASSET photo
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline cat-shot

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 11
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #43 on: April 06, 2008, 02:44:33 pm »
Hi,

I think it was early Martin X-24C concept.
http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1963/1963%20-%201715.html
It is the Martin SV-25, designed by Hans Mullthop. Total length of this spacecraft is 38ft.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2008, 02:58:19 pm by flateric »

Offline cat-shot

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 11
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #44 on: April 06, 2008, 02:48:54 pm »
Hi,

The McDonnell Douglas Model-176 was hypersonic spacecraft,but when
I search about it I found a Models of hypersonic aircraft not known,
see the picture,

Comments to picture names in the first post:
'Model 176' is true Model 176
But 'Model 176(2)' is FDL-5
Model 176 is a derivative of FDL-7MC
« Last Edit: April 06, 2008, 02:57:35 pm by flateric »

Offline archipeppe

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1464
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #45 on: April 07, 2008, 04:15:58 am »
I always belived that ASSET prototypes was tightly connected with the "Winged Gemini" project, heavily sponsorized by USAF at that times.

In effect if you take an ASSET vehicle you may find out that it is a perfectly subscale model (1:2) of Winged Gemini, the thing takes more reason if you notice that McDonnell was in charge of production and development of both ASSET and Gemini.

Strangely the ASSET programme was always connected with X-20 Dynasoar project, neverthless the two vehicles had radical different configurations and not the same prime contractors as well (McDonnell vs Boeing).

Offline Barrington Bond

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 924
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #46 on: April 07, 2008, 10:10:41 am »
Well this article links an augmented ASSET program with a lifting body vehicle for use with MOL and it would replace Gemini.

"It hasn't squeaked in a week!"

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8210
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #47 on: April 18, 2008, 05:31:05 am »
Source: AIAA 2004-5888
An Essential Element in Affordable Space Access is the Return Vehicle. A Historical Perspective Based on Support Vehicles
for the Manned Orbiting Laboratory, circa 1964
Paul A. Czysz
HyperTech Concepts LLC, St. Louis, Missouri 63141, U.S.A.
Claudio Bruno.
University of Rome,<LA SAPENZA> Rome Italy
Ying-Ming Lee
MSE Technology Application, Butte, Montana. U.S.A.
Space 2004 Conference and Exhibit
28 - 30 September 2004, San Diego, California

Photo shows the array of delta planform configurations that the Flight Dynamics Laboratory had considered in the 1958 to 1968 time
period. Specifically identified on the photo are:

Configuration 2 was a higher wing loading, relatively blunt all body with an upswept spatular nose that is not
unlike the BOR series of Lozino-Lozinski hypersonic gliders from Russia. Because of the longitudinal extent of the
former USSR compared to the USA, the minimum lift-to-drag ratio to assure a landing on the continental USSR
land mass. The USSR requirement is for an L/D of about 1.7, whereas for the USA it is about 2.7. Thus, the lower
lift-to-drag ratio minimizes the possibility for a Russian spacecraft to land in the continental United States without a
long waiting period.
Configuration 3 was a subscale research vehicle to evaluate the thermodynamics and materials for hypersonic
gliders. The nose and leading edge radii were full-scale size of the X-20. ASSET was successfully flown on a Thor
IRBM booster. One that was recovered from its landing in the ocean was for a time on display in the USAF Museum
in Dayton, Ohio.
Configuration 4 was a product of cooperation between the Flight Dynamics Laboratory (Alfred Draper) and
McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company, St. Louis (Robert Masek) to develop a vehicle to support the Manned
Orbiting Laboratory (MOL). This concept was briefed to the US Air Force in 1964. The variable geometry
switchblade wing permitted landing with heavy loads returning from space, and could eventually permit horizontal
takeoff. The tail configuration was an experimentally determined configuration feature. This configuration was
wind tunnel tested and demonstrated inherent stability and control over the speed range from Mach 22 to landing
speed. Paul Czysz was at the Flight Dynamics Laboratory from 1956 to 1963 and at McDonnell from 1963
onwards witnessed these configurations being developed.
Configuration 6 was a product of the Flight Dynamics Laboratory (Richard D. Neumann) to reduce the drag
of hypersonic gliders. Based on the physics that a two-dimensional wedge has less drag the a right circular cone of
the same volume, Neumann devised the “spatular leading edge”.
It is essentially a Spatular nosed version of Configuration 5. John (Jack) Pike of the RAE and Cranfield Technical Institute developed analogous configurations independently and published the wind tunnel and analytical work in 1973. Robert Krieger of McDonnell Douglas Astronautics, St. Louis also developed a Newtonian analysis of spatular noses8. The wind-body configuration was
the basis of the X-20.
Configuration 7 and the other lifting body configurations were FDL-7C/D class of configurations with a partial
horizontal surface and a vertical control surface. Without the “X” type tail configurations of the FDL-7C/D the
control capability was reduced and the usable lift-to-drag ratio was less. But nevertheless proved instrumental in
developing the FDL high lift-to-drag ratio configurations.
Configuration 8 is a FDL version of the NASA Langley HL-10 hypersonic glider.
Configuration 9 is a model of the Ames/Eggers M2/F2 half-cone derived configuration.
Configuration 10 is an adaptation of the Russian “Star Body” concept that The limitation is the configuration
concept is severely volume limited and had a high ratio of wetted (surface) area per planform area. This is an
adaptation of that concept to the FDL class delta gliders to evaluate the controllability provided by the star configuration.
In the process of adapting the star body configuration to the FDL delta configuration, the ability to have an
independent entry orientation was lost.
Configuration 1 is the X-24B or its AFFDL counterpart the FDL-8. It represents the different approach to hypersonic glider configurations by NASA and AFFDL. Martin Marietta built the X-24A at its Denver, Colorado facilities. The X-24A is a round fuselage configuration with outboard high dihedral angle vertical tails typical of the Ames Eggers vehicles and the Langley HL-19. All the configurations of this type have serious lateraldirectional stability problems at low speeds and tend to roll about the horizontal axis. One designer who solved the problem with variable dihedral vertical tails (+60 to –10 degrees) was Gleb Lozino-Lozinski of Russia. The Flight Dynamics Laboratory solved the problem by using flat bottom configurations. Under a USAF Flight Dynamics Laboratory program, Martin modified the X-24A into flat-bottomed configuration with trailing edge elevons called the X-24B. Bill Dana was the NASA pilot that flew the X-15, X-24A and X-24B. His comments about the change in slow speed performance with the X-24B confirmed the advantage of the Flight Dynamics Laboratory approach. The basis of the X-24B was the FDL-8 configuration.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2008, 05:33:04 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8210
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #48 on: April 18, 2008, 05:41:18 am »
Model 176 in wind tunnel
Model 176 surface temperature distribution
« Last Edit: April 18, 2008, 05:43:00 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1009
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #49 on: April 20, 2008, 04:27:38 pm »
How does the Resupply Vehicle work if it's unmanned?  Wouldn't that make it only suitable for sending payload up to the station?  What about taking the people from the station and allowing them to come down!? 

BTW:  How did the heat-dissipation system work? 

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20699
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #50 on: April 22, 2008, 02:35:52 pm »
Hi,

the Lockheed space vehicle project of 1968 was described as "a breakthrough
in the design of the space re-entry vehicles.
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1968/1968%20-%200064.html

Offline archipeppe

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1464
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #51 on: April 23, 2008, 12:12:04 am »
It seems to be some FDL-design configuration...

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8210
« Last Edit: April 23, 2008, 09:50:52 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline robunos

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1661
  • You're Mad, You Are.....
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #53 on: April 23, 2008, 03:01:12 pm »
Quote
the Lockheed space vehicle project of 1968 was described as "a breakthrough
in the design of the space re-entry vehicles.

looks a lot like this image, from 'frontiers of space', bono/gatland, page 55,

cheers,
         Robin.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2008, 04:44:52 am by flateric »
Where ARE the Daleks when you need them......

Offline archipeppe

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1464
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #54 on: April 24, 2008, 01:02:51 pm »
It was the same FDL-5A object of a well known mock-up shots of late 60s???

Offline airrocket

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 291
  • Dreams To Reality
    • Retro Flight
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #55 on: April 24, 2008, 05:04:30 pm »
FDL lifting bodies featured sharp edges and flat bottoms. NASA came close with the X-24B but then reverted back to blunt bodies? The sharp bodies are good handling much better than blunt bodies. NASA went blunt to avoid all weather metal military type TPS with piped coolant LE in favor ceramic and carbon/carbon tiles. To bad after all these years and data to the contrary NASA remains blunt minded
Vis Viva

Offline airrocket

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 291
  • Dreams To Reality
    • Retro Flight
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #56 on: April 24, 2008, 10:22:52 pm »
The variable geometry switchblade wing permitted landing with heavy loads returning from space

Many of the FDL and McD ILRV designs utilized switchblade wings. There were many more FDL lifting body configurations tested than pictured. I have many photo's of such however they are not yet for public consumption.

Flateric.....very impressed with your historical knowledge. I must say this forum is more grounded than others I have visited.   
Vis Viva

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8210
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #57 on: April 25, 2008, 05:54:30 am »
Thanks for the kind words, Doug. At least we are trying to...

Adding some more pics on Model 176 and FDL-7C/D
BTW, if I understand right, operational vehicles like Model 176, would be covered with *shining* reflectory metal TPS?

« Last Edit: April 25, 2008, 06:07:19 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8210
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #58 on: April 25, 2008, 06:43:48 am »
Add-on to AFFDL lifting bodies configurations collection
FDL-8 (8MX) was an interesting one, pre-pre X-33
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline airrocket

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 291
  • Dreams To Reality
    • Retro Flight
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #59 on: April 25, 2008, 07:37:20 am »
Very good illustration as I had mentioned there were many other configurations tested. However most follow the same general planar wedge shape planform. I hope to release large scale RC model rocket boost glide and EDF versions (kits) of some of the switchblade designs next year.


if I understand right, operational vehicles like Model 176, would be covered with *shining* reflectory metal TPS

This I can not answer for certain. Most of my data from 60's 70's era depict darker finish or coating. That could be attributed to artistic rendering in some instances. The recent Planet Space version appears to be uncoated metallic and shinny. I will pose that question to Paul when I have an opportunity. Much of the information I have gleaned comes from direct contact with some of the "Old Timers" engineers from that era. Unfortunitly they are becoming fewer in number and much of that valuable brain trust will soon be lost.
Vis Viva

Offline Dew

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 16
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #60 on: April 25, 2008, 10:33:55 am »

Configuration 9 is a model of the Ames/Eggers M2/F2 half-cone derived configuration.

This is actually incorrect. If you take a look at any picture of the M2-F2 it clearly has a generally flat upper fuselage surface and vertical stabilisers. The model shown is the PRIME / SV-5 / X-23/4A series.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8210
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #61 on: April 26, 2008, 01:22:12 pm »
More on FDL-5 and FDL-8
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline airrocket

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 291
  • Dreams To Reality
    • Retro Flight
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #62 on: April 26, 2008, 07:16:17 pm »
StarClipper baseline...early versions utilized switchblade wings a well.
Vis Viva

Offline mz

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 682
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #63 on: April 27, 2008, 05:25:23 am »


Planetspace's Silver Dart re-entry vehicle based on FDL-8. It's a small company trying to raise funds for building something, they have multiple projects...

http://www.planetspace.org/lo/silver_dart.htm
http://www.planetspace.org/lo/dart_images.htm

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1009
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #64 on: May 01, 2008, 12:34:53 pm »
What do you folks think the odds of the Silver-Dart making it to actual service are?  (I mean after Spaceship One it does seem possible -- but I've seen all too many times a great design is conceived and ends up never making it to service)  Also, will the production Silver-Dart have provision for a cockpit as the prototype does, (as there's a picture of a pilot in a cockpit like area) as it will be unmanned?  (With a provision for being manned)

I'm glad to see someone made something out of that light-weight metal TPS system -- sure beats the ceramic tiles used on the shuttle and elaborate cooling systems like used on many high-speed designs.  I take it the heat-pipe is only used in the leading edge.

According to what I found on wikipedia, Paul Csysz is working on the design...


Kendra Lesnick
BTW:  I don't think I went off topic, but if I did I'm sorry

Offline airrocket

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 291
  • Dreams To Reality
    • Retro Flight
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #65 on: May 01, 2008, 09:50:39 pm »
Planet Space appears to have loss out of the NASA COTS funding. I fear the Silver Dart is now a lost cause again as well. This design had great promise only Planet Space has yet to fly anything. Like many of the small private funded space companies big plans always looking for investors then never follow through. Take the money and run?????
Vis Viva

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8210
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #66 on: May 11, 2008, 09:18:05 am »
Interesting, it resembles a game of finding hidden objects on a picture. Look at the black object at the table.
We have Model-176 here...and now no questions of it's proposed color - black silicon carbide layer as on X-20.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2008, 02:28:56 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline airrocket

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 291
  • Dreams To Reality
    • Retro Flight
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #67 on: May 11, 2008, 10:08:44 am »
The tragic irony of all these lifting body design studies is that to date nothing significant beyond the Space Shuttle abomination (bus) has ever came of them.  The X-24B demonstrated the advantages of flat bottomed sharp wedge profiles. The failure to follow-on with the development of the X24-C test program including more robust TPS is a historic and tragic milestone in US manned space exploration. One which continues to haunt and impact the US space industry to date and into the foreseeable future. We totally "screwed the pooch".
Vis Viva

Offline airrocket

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 291
  • Dreams To Reality
    • Retro Flight
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #68 on: May 11, 2008, 10:28:16 am »
The model which sets next to Mr. Czysz phone (only the white conical lower toss back stage is visible) appears to that of the MOL "toss-back" TSTO lifting body concept. I find it to be the most promising TSTO VTHL RLV concept I've ever seen.
Vis Viva

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1009
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #69 on: May 11, 2008, 07:12:12 pm »
Look at the black object at the table.
We have Model-176 here...and now no questions of it's proposed color - black silicone carbide layer as on X-20.

I'm still not entirely so sure, as the Silver-Dart was to use the same basic TPS principle that the Model 176 was to use and is shimmering silver.   


Kendra Lesnick

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1601
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #70 on: May 12, 2008, 01:01:16 am »
Quote
The failure to follow-on with the development of the X24-C test program including more robust TPS is a historic and tragic milestone in US manned space exploration. One which continues to haunt and impact the US space industry to date and into the foreseeable future

What do you mean exactly ?
Conservatoire de l'Air et de l'Espace d'Aquitaine - Bordeaux - Mérignac / Dassault aviation museum
http://www.caea.info/en/plan.php

Offline airrocket

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 291
  • Dreams To Reality
    • Retro Flight
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #71 on: May 12, 2008, 04:30:35 pm »
NASA made some bad decisions in the 70's. Mainly the monster white elephant shuttle which sucked the funding from many high return programs such as X-15/X-24B follow-on. Stopped incremental lifting body and air breathing propulsion development. Scuttled heavy lift and abandoned the Skylab. All the infrastructure was in place in the mid seventies to develop a high flight rate RLV program to support Skylab and future deep space projects. In one clean sweep NASA burnt the bridges and chucked it all for the monster shuttle…..hindsight!
Vis Viva

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8210
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #72 on: May 13, 2008, 02:34:40 am »
Look at the black object at the table.
We have Model-176 here...and now no questions of it's proposed color - black silicone carbide layer as on X-20.

I'm still not entirely so sure, as the Silver-Dart was to use the same basic TPS principle that the Model 176 was to use and is shimmering silver.   


Kendra Lesnick

I'm judging from the several model pics and artist's impressions of Model 176 and its derivative vehicles of the era, Silver Dart being apart. Seems there were no problem to make 'em shiny silver?
Term 'refractory' not always mean 'silver'. SR-71A paint is also serves the same purpose.
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20699

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6813
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #74 on: May 13, 2008, 06:47:19 am »

if I understand right, operational vehicles like Model 176, would be covered with *shining* reflectory metal TPS

This I can not answer for certain. Most of my data from 60's 70's era depict darker finish or coating. That could be attributed to artistic rendering in some instances. The recent Planet Space version appears to be uncoated metallic and shinny.

Virtually every serious proposal for a spacecraft using metallic heat shields is black. The metal itself is generally a tungsten molybdenum alloy... extremely high melt temperature. The moly alloys I've seen have tended to be a rather dull "metallic" color... not shiny, but certainly not black. The black comes from a disilicide coating to prevent oxidation (even TZM alloys will oxidize at these temperatures), and a coating of silicon carbide to greatly enhance emissivity. A white or shiny metal will take a bit longer to heat up due to radiatiative heating since it will reflect some of that heat away... but a black metal will re-radiate away that heat a lot faster. It's a tradeoff... one that has almost invariably traded in favor of black coatings.

As to why Silver Dart is silver... dunno. Marketting? Black Dart might not sound right. Or it might be silver for suborbital trials, where the heating laod is far lower and the black coating would not be as useful.

Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline airrocket

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 291
  • Dreams To Reality
    • Retro Flight
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #75 on: May 13, 2008, 04:47:49 pm »
MRS - again very black finish.
Vis Viva

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8210
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #76 on: May 30, 2008, 06:32:28 am »
1,2). FDL-5A desktop model
3,4). FDL-5A brochure
5,6,7). FDL-5A based Space Shuttle configurations studied (60s-80s(?))
8). FDL-5A evolution chart

from AIAA 2008-2611
FDL-5A - Precursor to High Performance Lifting Entry Spacecraft: An Historical Review
by Carl F. Ehrlich, Jr.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2008, 06:45:49 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8210
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #77 on: May 30, 2008, 06:36:33 am »
1). FDL-5A shape derived Rockwell International AMSC concept from 80s
AMSC = Advanced Military Spaceflight Capability Technology Identification Study
2). FDL-5A based air-launched vehicle (inspired by successful Minuteman airlaunch experiments)
3). FDL-5A configuration with cockpit anf VG wing
« Last Edit: May 30, 2008, 06:46:48 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline archipeppe

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1464
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #78 on: May 30, 2008, 06:38:01 am »
AAHHH......WONDERFUL!!!!!!

Many, many thanks flateric!!!

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3723
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #79 on: May 30, 2008, 01:50:40 pm »
yeeeeessss new stuff for me
thanks flateric!!!
I love Strange Technology

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2103
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #80 on: May 30, 2008, 02:14:29 pm »
Flateric,

Your postings are impeccable as always.
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8210
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #81 on: June 03, 2008, 06:36:57 am »
1966 GD/Convair offer of post-Mercury lifting body manned orbiter. Still looking sexy.

from
THE FIRST MANNED LIFTING ENTRY VEHICLE CONFIGURATION
ROBERT A. LYNCH
General Dynamics / Convair
San Diego, California
AIAA Paper No. 66-959
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3723
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #82 on: June 04, 2008, 07:58:11 am »
some very old stuff found in ILR archive in Aachen Germany

Source:

Principles of guides missile design from 1960

note: picture taken with digicam

I love Strange Technology

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8210
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #83 on: June 05, 2008, 04:23:31 am »
Another FDL-5 mock-up pic
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline starviking

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 862
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #84 on: June 05, 2008, 04:50:53 am »
some very old stuff found in ILR archive in Aachen Germany

Source:

Principles of guides missile design from 1960

note: picture taken with digicam

I could swear I've seen those on the forum before - but where - I can't say  ???

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8210
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #85 on: June 05, 2008, 05:16:16 am »
Stephane Cochin (Stratosphere Models) back on track with his beautiful models
http://www.picturetrail.com/gallery/view?p=6&uid=2335047&
Photos (c) Stratosphere Models.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2008, 05:22:35 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Barrington Bond

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 924
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #86 on: June 05, 2008, 10:26:44 am »
tRY SEARCHING UNDER naca 1958 SPACECRAFT DESIGNS. ;)
"It hasn't squeaked in a week!"

Offline archipeppe

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1464
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #87 on: June 05, 2008, 12:32:00 pm »
Another FDL-5 mock-up pic

Wonderful!!
This shot is really UNSEEN to me!!

Many thanks flat.... :D

Offline mz

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 682
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #88 on: June 05, 2008, 04:05:55 pm »
Another FDL-5 mock-up pic

Wonderful!!
This shot is really UNSEEN to me!!

Many thanks flat.... :D

How long before this makes rounds and ends up with some people thinking it is a real craft?

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20699
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #89 on: June 06, 2008, 04:24:15 am »

Offline airrocket

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 291
  • Dreams To Reality
    • Retro Flight
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #90 on: June 06, 2008, 10:03:05 pm »
awesome
Vis Viva

Offline Barrington Bond

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 924
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #91 on: June 08, 2008, 08:20:00 am »
Just came across a folder of stuff I printed off of Astronautix.com back in 2001 before I had a computer at home. I looked through it and thought I'd double check to see if the stuff had been updated but strangely there was a lot I couldn't find (big site though it could be buried somewhere there?!) So I've scanned the images and here they are...


Regards,
Barry

"It hasn't squeaked in a week!"

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3723
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #92 on: June 08, 2008, 10:34:37 am »
note the last picture is a fake from Internet

this Gemini "lifting body" is model after ASSET
I love Strange Technology

Offline Barrington Bond

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 924
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #93 on: June 08, 2008, 11:48:02 am »
So that's why it disappeared ::)

Chiz for that.
Barry
"It hasn't squeaked in a week!"

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20699

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8210
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #95 on: September 05, 2008, 04:40:36 am »
Very bad quality reproduction of FDL-7 shape at landing.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2008, 04:46:06 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20699

Offline antigravite

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 572
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #97 on: September 06, 2008, 08:51:19 am »
This definitely interesting Air Force Flight Test Center (AFFTC) "Advanced Manned Aircraft" patch depicts an hypersonic aircraft design.
It may refer to the X-24B but I have not been able to determine this.

 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
L e t   b o l d s   b e   l i g h t
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9830
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #98 on: September 06, 2008, 10:10:19 am »
Looking at that patch and assuming that's the moon in front. . . :o
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6813
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #99 on: September 06, 2008, 11:08:18 am »
Hi,

unknown lift body.

*Not* unknown. That's Martin's Dyna Soar entry, as designed by Hans Multhop.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20699

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8210
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #101 on: September 14, 2008, 09:03:52 am »
Read carefully. This is Lockheed's. And was here about an year ago already
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,722.msg21661.html#msg21661
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2103
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #102 on: September 14, 2008, 12:54:23 pm »
Good call. I was just going to remark that Bill Rose's book shows it being Lockheed's 301 for the X-24C.
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20699

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8210
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #104 on: October 13, 2008, 02:37:31 am »
Martin 4-man crew SV-32 ca.1966
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8210
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #105 on: October 14, 2008, 04:38:45 pm »
This is (un)complete zoo of NASA Langley hypersonic research aircrafts studied.

'Figure shows four of the prinicipal configurations that were tested[..].

Structures, thermal protection, scramjet engine integration and aerodynamic performance
across the speed range were among the requirements which shaped each configuration.

The configurations are shown in the chronological order in which they were conceived
but do not necessarily reflect continuing trends in design.

The first and third configurations were generated in-house at Langley, while the second
was heavily influenced by cooperation with the Air Force X-24C program (Martin Marietta X-24C? - Flat.).

The fourth configuration was generated by a contractor to provide an alternate approach (Lockheed X-24C - L-301?- Flat.) (an additional alternate approach was also generated by a contractor under Air Force sponsorship (Rockwell HYTID - Flat.)

The first , third , and fourth configurations are airplane - like in character, whereas the second has features more in common with a high cross-range reentry vehicle. Although similar in overall design and purpose, these four configurations provided quite different problems from a fluid dynamic and heating standpoint."

Source
AIAA-81-1145
A survey of heating and turbulent boundary layer characteristics of several hypersonic research aircraft configurations
LAWING, P. L., NASA, Langley Research Center, Transonic Aerodynamics Div., Hampton, VA
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Thermophysics Conference, 16th, Palo Alto, CA, June 23-25, 1981
« Last Edit: October 15, 2008, 02:29:15 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8210
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #106 on: October 22, 2008, 02:17:09 am »
comparison of fuselage cross-sections of configurations I-IV at the intake lip station
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8210
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #107 on: October 23, 2008, 01:32:49 am »
Following is excerpt from a beautiful paper by Curtis Peebles
"The X-43A Flight Research Program: Lessons Learned on the Road to Mach 10"
(full-text document available here http://hdl.handle.net/2060/20070021686)

Chapter gives quite an clear timeline of hypersonic projects considered by NASA and DoD in 1970s
I've added links to various programs already depicted at SPF to make a picture wider.

NHFRF
The development of the airframe-integrated scramjet came at a time of little
interest in such advanced concepts. The 1970s saw the end of NASA’s Apollo program,
and a halt in U.S. manned spaceflights for half a decade. The unmanned planetary
missions approved in the late 1960s and early 1970s were launched, but proposed
advanced follow-on flights failed to gain approval.

Aeronautical research experienced a similar decline. The X-15 program ended in
1968. The lifting body program was still under way in the early 1970s, with research
flights by the HL-10, X-24A, and M2-F3 vehicles, but its end was approaching. The final
lifting body was the X-24B. This was actually the X-24A fitted with a modified longnose
delta fuselage. This shape had two applications. It gave a better cross-range
capability to a vehicle re-entering from orbit, and could also be used by a hypersonic
cruise vehicle powered by advanced air-breathing engines. Flight tests of the X-24B
began in 1973 and ended in 1975; bring the lifting body program to a close.

The end of the X-15 research and the winding down of the lifting body programs
left a void in aeronautical research. The development of a new hypersonic vehicle had
wide appeal within both the Air Force and NASA. In 1972 the Air Force Flight Dynamics
Laboratory (FDL) proposed delta-wing test vehicle that would fly at speeds between
Mach 3 to 5
. The following year, the FDL offered a plan for an Incremental Growth
Vehicle
, so named because it would initially fly at Mach 4.5, but then be upgraded to
reach Mach 6, and finally Mach 9. At the same time, Langley Research Center engineers
had ideas of their own. Their initial vehicle concept was the Hypersonic Research Facility
(HYFAC)
which was designed to reach a top speed of Mach 12 – twice the X-15’s
maximum speed. This was followed in 1974 by a proposal for a less exotic vehicle, called
the High-Speed Research Aircraft (HSRA), with a top speed of Mach 8.

All of the FDL and NASA proposed concept vehicles had provisions for testing of
air-breathing propulsion systems. The proposals differed in their research goals, however.
The FDL vehicles focused on designs that would be suitable for military roles such as
interception, reconnaissance, or strike. The NASA proposals were for long-range
hypersonic cruise vehicles and space launchers. None of the concepts received official
support to begin development.

This nearly changed with another FDL proposal, which overlapped the more
advanced concepts. At about the time the X-24B made its first flights, the FDL engineers,
who had developed the X-24B shape, began studying a hypersonic version called the “X-
24C.”
Two different vehicle concepts were proposed – one with cheek inlets for an airbreathing
engine, and a second powered by an XLR-99 rocket engine. The target speed
would be Mach 5. X-24C program costs were estimated to be around $70 million.

The advantage of the X-24C proposal was that it was largely an “off-the-shelf”
design in terms of shape, equipment, and technology. This made it a much more practical
design than the more complex FDL and NASA proposals. The X-24C gained the support
of Gen. Sam Phillips, the head of the Air Force Systems Command and a former senior
official in the Apollo program.

Both the X-15 and lifting body programs had been run as joint NASA/Air Force
efforts, so it made sense to do the same for the emerging X-24C. In December 1975, a
month after the final X-24B flight, NASA and the Air Force formed an X-24C Joint
Steering Committee. This consisted of the commanders of the Air Force Flight Test
Center and the FDL, and the directors of NASA’s Flight Test Center (now Dryden Flight
Research Center) and Langley Research Center.

Over the next several months, the group moved away from the relatively simple
X-24C concept, toward the larger, more complex vehicles proposed by Langley and the
FDL. The rationale was that a joint NASA/Air Force “research facility” should be
designed to undertake research into a wide range of “pacing technology” in hypersonic
flight, and serve as a focus for U.S. research efforts in the field. This, planners
envisioned, would combine a wide range of research goals into a single vehicle.
The Air Force wanted to test military-related technology experiments –
photography, weapons separation, radome heating, nose tip erosion, thermal protective
systems, and removable fins. Different air-breathing propulsion systems were to be
tested, including integrated rocket ramjets, as well as subsonic combustion ramjets. To do
this, designers moved away from the X-24C shape, toward a design more akin to those of
the Langley concepts. The vehicle would have a modular configuration, with a removable
center section of the fuselage, to accommodate the different experiments. With the
connection to the original X-24C vehicle now gone, the program received a new name.
The traditional X-plane designation was abandoned and replaced with the awkward
“National Hypersonic Flight Research Facility,” (NHFRF, but pronounced “nerf”).

The proposed NHFRF gained favor within NASA, as it fulfilled a number of
research and institutional needs. For the NASA Flight Research Center, the X-24C was a
continuation of the previous three decades of research into high-speed flight, revitalized
the role of aeronautics within NASA, and provided a major role for the center during the
Shuttle era. For Langley aeronautical and propulsion engineers, the vehicle was the
culmination of all their efforts in high-speed flight and air-breathing propulsion system.
They also saw it as a means to “cover the whole hypersonic waterfront and do it before
we’ve lost all the hypersonic talent we developed from the X-15 program.”
The planned performance of the NHFRF was impressive. After launch from the
B-52B mothership, the vehicle could reach a maximum speed of Mach 8 under rocket
power. It also was designed to cruise at a speed of Mach 6+ for 40 seconds. This was an
extremely demanding requirement. The project engineers envisioned construction of two
NHFRF vehicles, to be used in a 200-flight research program beginning in 1983, and
spanning a decade. This effort was estimated to cost $200 million.

Despite the support for the NHFRF by both NASA and the Air Force, however,
trouble for the project was ahead. Much of NASA’s budget was committed to the Space
Shuttle, and both technical problems and high inflation were causing the program’s costs
to balloon. At the same time, the Air Force was introducing a new generation of fighter
aircraft, against a background of funding cutbacks and poor morale. The increasing
complexity of the NHFRF had, by early 1977, raised the estimated cost to as much as
$500 to $600 million. NASA Headquarters was unwilling to foot the ever-growing bill,
and in September 1977 cancelled the agency’s participation in the project. James J.
Kramer, the acting NASA associate administrator for aeronautics and space technology,
stated that, “the combination of a tight budget and the inability to identify a pressing
near-term need for the flight facility had led to a decision by NASA not to proceed to a
flight test vehicle at this time.” The Air Force could not take over full funding of the
NHFRF, and ended its support for the effort.

Although the X-24B was the last rocket-powered research aircraft to fly, it was
the failure of the X-24C/NHFRF to receive approval that ended the thirty-year era of
rocket planes, flying to ever higher speeds and altitudes. The era had begun in 1946 with
the glide flights of the X-1, in a blaze of publicity. The era ended with a memo, and its
passing went unnoticed. The end of NHFRF dealt a hard blow to morale at the Flight
Research Center, and recriminations soon followed. Some blamed over-management.
Objections were also raised about the 40-second cruise requirement. This added
considerable cost and difficulty to development of the NHFRF. Some argued it would
have been better to build the original X-24C design rather than a more advanced and
complex vehicle designed to be all things to all people.

In retrospect, it seems unlikely that even the original X-24C concept would have
been approved. The reasons were not technical, as with the Aerospaceplane. There would
certainly have been difficulties and setbacks, especially with the more complex NHFRF
concepts, but engineers could have drawn on the technology and experience from the X-
15 and lifting body programs in solving those difficulties. The real problem preventing
the project from gaining support was that the time was simply not right for a project like
the X-24C/NHFRF. At the time, the research focus at NASA was shifting to such projects
as supercritical wing designs, winglets, and digital-fly-by-wire. While a scramjetpowered
vehicle could serve as a second-generation space vehicle, the Space Shuttle had
yet to fly; it was far too early to begin work on a replacement. Finally, the “me
generation” mentality that marked the 1970s was unfavorable to the bold challenges of
flying at high speeds and altitudes that had so captivated engineers in the previous three
decades.

Among the lessons that can be drawn from the X-24C/NHFRF is that it is not
enough for a project to be technically feasible, and that its data would be valuable. As
with the NACA’s research activities, NASA aeronautical efforts were publicly funded
projects. They had to relate to national needs. The supercritical wing designs and
winglets both offered major improvements in fuel economy; a major public and
commercial issue in the wake of the sharp increase in fuel costs in the early 1970s. Flyby-
wire technology opened new possibilities in aircraft design, in that this removed the
need for an aircraft to be inherently stable.

Over the following decades, supercritical wings became standard on business jets,
airliners, fighters, and heavy transports. Winglets appeared on sailplanes, light aircraft,
business jets, airliners, and heavy transports. Virtually all new military and many airliners
built during this period used fly-by-wire control systems. In terms of the impact on
aeronautics, the government research funding provided for these areas was justified.
The “need for speed” and ever-higher altitudes, in contrast, which had been
driving forces in both civilian and military aircraft design, were no longer critical issues.

Supersonic Transports were uneconomical to operate due to high fuel prices. Strategic
bombers now flew at low level to strike their targets, while the emerging stealth
technology was incompatible with supersonic flight. The airliners, fighters, and bombers
built in the latter part of the 20th century all flew within the speed and altitude envelopes
of aircraft built during the late 1950s and early 1960s.

Beyond these public policy issues, another factor was the lack of focus in the
research goals for the X-24C/NHFRF. Trying to accomplish a wide range of goals made
the vehicle more complex, and the heritage from the X-24B shape and systems was lost.
This resulted in rapid cost increases even before the program was approved. In contrast,
with the X-15, the original research goals were limited to high-speed/high-altitude flight.
The vehicle had enough “stretch” built into it to later accommodate scientific and
engineering experiments.

As a result of the failure of the NHFRF to gain approval, nearly a decade would
pass before a major scramjet development effort would again be made. The new effort
was to be much more ambitious, but would still suffer from the same old flaws.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2008, 06:24:04 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8210
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #108 on: October 23, 2008, 06:15:26 am »
some evolution graphics
« Last Edit: October 23, 2008, 06:18:28 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8210
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #109 on: October 27, 2008, 06:11:35 am »
As US flying bodies thread starts to look like weird zoo, I'll extract (a little bit later) all X-24C stuff in this separate thread as this craft deserves it's own one IMHO.

Following are early stages of X-24 evolution up to 1975 - from modified X-24B to something that have only common designation with the vehicle it have started its iterations. Main driving factors were wish to increase speed, sustain given Mach number at this speed for a certain amount of time (= to have appropriate aerodynamics, engine and fuel amount) and to place (in modular way) all the experiments that NASA and (mostly) USAF wanted to carry with the vehicle (including replacable payload section).

I still try to understand the difference between (early) Lockheed's and Martin's entry in X-24C (visible on factory desktop models are just difference in wing/empennage trailing edge). As I understand, Lockheed's X-24C-121 was an early entry, that later transformed to larger X-24C-L301, which already became an NHFRF (National Hypersonic Flight Research Facility).
« Last Edit: October 27, 2008, 06:22:07 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8210
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #110 on: October 27, 2008, 06:12:55 am »
next mutations
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8210
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #111 on: November 27, 2008, 04:12:14 am »
This is Rockwell's HRA (Hypersonic Research Aircraft), as it goes from the schematics above, it was 1973 Mach 10 subscale prototype of HSRA.
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Barrington Bond

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 924
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #112 on: February 21, 2009, 06:40:05 am »
Not sure if this belongs in this particular topic or not?!

"It hasn't squeaked in a week!"

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2103
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #113 on: February 21, 2009, 07:03:01 am »
I'd buy that for a dollar! ;)
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1882
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #114 on: March 02, 2009, 05:53:08 am »
BB - Is that not an Isinglass configuration?

Offline HyperTech

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • **
  • Posts: 16
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #115 on: March 02, 2009, 01:40:44 pm »
Al Draper headed the AF Flight Dynamics Lab post Sputnik.  He and his team created ASSET, Model 122, BGRV and the FDL-1 to at least FDL-8 (X-24B).  Al had proposed an FDL-7C/D hypersonic glider demonstrator as part of a USAF experimental aircraft program.  NASA at the same time was proposing a scramjet demonstrator to congress.  Congress is all its wisdom decided that since both flew at hypersonic speeds they could be merged.  The result was NHFRT.  A project the ruined the Earth circumferential glide of the FDL-7 and ruined the performance capability of a good scramjet design.  Al battled hard to save the USAF position but in the end NASA's inability to limit the scope of any project and the impossible compromises imposed by forcing a hypersonic glider into the same moldlines as a scramjet cruiser were too hard to overcome and so overran the budget by that it was canceled.

McDonnell Douglas had a version of the FDL-7 called the Model 176 that was proposed as the support vehicle for the USAF MOL.  When the USAF lost all space responsibility the Model 176 was also lost.  10 aircraft and 4 spares were designed to each fly 150 flights over a 15 year lifetime to average 10 flights per year, or a fleet rate of 100 flights per year.  The MINIMUN flights to support the 24 person crew was 74.

Offline HyperTech

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • **
  • Posts: 16
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #116 on: March 02, 2009, 01:47:16 pm »
That's fantastic Greg. Do you know more accurately which is which and whether any of them actually flew? I was always disappointed by how slow the HL-10 and X-24s were compared to the X-15, did any of this lot do any better?
Cheers, Woody

None of the subsonic glider experiments were designed to fly fast.  All the full scale vehicle should have been capable of orbital reentry.  Tjhe X-24C would have been a Mach 6 plus test bed.  ASSET flew off a Thor booster in excess of 15,000 ft/sec.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8210
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #117 on: March 02, 2009, 01:58:21 pm »
cool stuff on Model 176, thanks!
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8210
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #118 on: March 02, 2009, 01:59:39 pm »
BB - Is that not an Isinglass configuration?

Was Isinglass designed to be *so* fast?
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline HyperTech

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • **
  • Posts: 16
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #119 on: March 02, 2009, 03:45:11 pm »
BB - Is that not an Isinglass configuration?

Was Isinglass designed to be *so* fast?
Some years ago it was a federal offense just to speak or write Isinglass!  Absolutely.  One was a rocket boosted boost glide with circumferential glide range (about 22,500 ft/sec) and the other a Mach 12 cruiser.  A model out of the past.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8210
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2103
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #121 on: March 03, 2009, 01:01:06 pm »
Ah, it's the good 'ol HGV again. Always cool.
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2103
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #122 on: March 07, 2009, 01:52:20 pm »
Folks,

Looks like PlanetSpace is making some moves. Be interesting to see to how far they can keep it going with their effort. And it's always nice to see an FDL shape take flight.

http://www.planetspace.org/lo/index.htm

Moonbat
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline airrocket

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 291
  • Dreams To Reality
    • Retro Flight
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #123 on: March 08, 2009, 02:56:51 pm »
yes....FDL lifting body lives on.....
Vis Viva

Offline ouroboros

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 339
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #124 on: March 12, 2009, 07:38:56 am »
Odd wide blunt nose on the planetspace models, I don't remember that in the older FDL designs...

Offline airrocket

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 291
  • Dreams To Reality
    • Retro Flight
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #125 on: March 20, 2009, 10:03:48 pm »
The 2D wedge insert is very much FDL and MCD tech. Its merely the FDL-7 shape with a 2D wedge inserted to add internal volume and or additional motors. I'll post the diagram when I have time to look it up. Note 2D has less drag than 3D a very good method to add volume without adding drag. Also instead of designing a new larger propulsion unit for every incremental size increase one merely adds the 2D wedge with more of same size propulsion units...= less development cost and time.
Vis Viva

Offline Desert Dawn

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 191
    • Stratosphere Models
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #126 on: March 24, 2009, 06:37:40 pm »
Folks,

Looks like PlanetSpace is making some moves. Be interesting to see to how far they can keep it going with their effort. And it's always nice to see an FDL shape take flight.

http://www.planetspace.org/lo/index.htm

Moonbat

The problem with trying to build and fly a 40 plus years old FDL-7 derivative design for paying space tourists is that it is akin to aeronautical archeology.

Imagine if people had decided to fly a replica of the Wright Brothers aircraft in the 1950`s and presented it like `cutting edge` technology or a `good business plan` and had flown it for paying customers. That would have been called non-sense.

They have also only met the first 5 Nasa milestones that were requested from them if they wanted their spaceplane to be accepted for transport to the ISS (a competition they now lost) : They only made it to the wood mock-up stage with truck tires taken from the local dump.. While there were at least 30 Nasa milestones to meet (including of course cutting metal and making the actual super alloy skin and structures, and test flights (several of those). Needless to say, they never made a single part that i know of for the full-size vehicle project. And now they are going to fly 1/4 size R/C models... (why...? It`s been all done by Dale Reed in the 60`s...). Well.. I have my little idea about this, and it is not the one you think.

Although we have yet to see spaceplanes fly with cooled or insulated metallic skin protection, the cutting edge today for space tourism airplanes are Burt Rutan`s SpaceShip One and SpaceShip Two. You build you spaceplane with modern materials (carbon fiber), your assembly and building are ULTRA simple (you just TAPE the whole thing together (!!), molds are very easy to make (no expensive, very complex stiffened metal panels, no complicated internal cooling channels and retainer clips), the heat shield is jokingly simple (and high tech too: an ablative coating made with silk from a South America spider, which works)(unlike the old X-15 ablative system), an innovative hybrid rocket system and simple ablative rocket nozzle, and a truly revolutionnary aerodynamic system for a low temperature reentry, safe and simple. Pure genius.

Now i can`t wait to see what Burt will come up with when they will make the boost-glide version of their SpaceShip Two.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2009, 04:49:17 pm by Desert Dawn »

Offline Desert Dawn

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 191
    • Stratosphere Models
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #127 on: March 24, 2009, 06:56:59 pm »
Hi,

the Lockheed space vehicle project of 1968 was described as "a breakthrough
in the design of the space re-entry vehicles.
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1968/1968%20-%200064.html


It`s called MRS : Manned Reusable Spacecraft. It was an earlier, smaller (about 46 feet long) and failed proposal that preceded the version seen in the mock-up that the Wright Patterson Labs built of the larger 63 feet plus Lockheed design. The problem was that not only you had to carry those large fold-out variable geometry wings all the way to orbit, but you also had carry the extra dead-weight of the (not so small) jet engine that was used for landing only.. Plus this version was too small and could not carry much internal fuel.

Offline Desert Dawn

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 191
    • Stratosphere Models
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #128 on: March 24, 2009, 07:24:12 pm »
The variable geometry switchblade wing permitted landing with heavy loads returning from space

Many of the FDL and McD ILRV designs utilized switchblade wings. There were many more FDL lifting body configurations tested than pictured. I have many photo's of such however they are not yet for public consumption.

Flateric.....very impressed with your historical knowledge. I must say this forum is more grounded than others I have visited.   

The problem with switchblade wings if they are 'used to land with heavy loads returning from space' is that, although it makes sense in the case of the FDL-7 C/D and FDL-7 Model 176 which were to be used as crew rescue and crew transport vehicles for the MOL space station where they had to carry 12 to 13 persons back to Earth, it does not make much sense at all for the FDL-5 (unless it was used as a contingency for a launch abort, in which case i say this is overkill, too much dead weight to carry all the way to orbit), or... to snatch 'someone else`s satellite' and bring it back to Earth maybe...? 

I say the fold-out wings (at least on FDL-5) were there actually to get more control during landing (to get a more stable platform for the pilot), and to get a slower landing speed. The FDL-5 A was known to be unstable below Mach 1.5. So, that`s the reason the fold-out wings were there in his case.

Offline Desert Dawn

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 191
    • Stratosphere Models
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #129 on: April 07, 2009, 11:17:50 pm »


This is an update of my results for identifiying the AF-FDL shapes on this picture.

I have technical paper references, or picture or drawing for each of them, except for the two shapes located in the back row, at the right (the spatular nose aircraft and the X-20-like derivative).

Also, the only reference i have on the finless FDL-6 shape is this photo. All the others i have identified so far.

I will post more about the later version FDL-5 later on. This was a 4 engine version (the two fairing bumps you see on the rear fuselage are covering two of these engine nozzles).

Now i'd like to get my hands on more material on Wadd II, i have very little on it, anyone who's got drawings or photos, please email me, i would like to make a model of it eventually, to complete my AF-FDL resin model kit collection of lifting bodies (which keeps growing)(more news about those soon).
« Last Edit: April 07, 2009, 11:20:27 pm by Desert Dawn »

Offline Desert Dawn

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 191
    • Stratosphere Models
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #130 on: April 08, 2009, 12:08:59 am »


Fathers of the AF-FDL shapes, standing in front of the FDL-5 manned spacecraft mock-up.

The gentleman in the middle is Al Draper.

I'll get the name of the two others soon (somewhere in my pile of papers).

One of the other engineers in the photo worked on the FDL-5 shapes (Goetsche, if i remember well).

Offline zhuravlik

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #131 on: April 17, 2009, 02:03:05 am »
I've just scanned this photo from "Macchine bizzarre nella storia dell'aviazione" II vol. by Giorgio Evangelisti.
The caption says that, after its first flight, the Martin X-24B lands on a dry lake.
But it doesnt says anything about that fence or panel visible right ahead the fin root.
What is this?


Offline kenneth

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #132 on: April 23, 2009, 02:56:31 am »
in reply 43 there is a reference to the Martin SV-25 designed by Multhrop. are you sure of this designation SV-25?

Offline zhuravlik

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 43

Offline Desert Dawn

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 191
    • Stratosphere Models
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #134 on: April 27, 2009, 04:42:08 pm »


Ok, here I have the names.

The gentleman on the left is William H. Goesch. In the middle is Alfred C. Draper, and to the right is Melvin L. Buck.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2009, 04:45:00 pm by Desert Dawn »

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20699

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2103
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #136 on: June 11, 2009, 02:38:31 pm »
Configuration development study of the X-24C hypersonic research airplane

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19790007769_1979007769.pdf

I heard Geocities is going bye-bye this summer and I saw this on there. So I figured I may as well post it while its still around. Enjoy.

Here's the Geocities page itself:
http://www.geocities.com/bobandrepont/xplanespdf.htm

I think we should save these links on behalf of all SPF users. Mods, what do think?

Moonbat
« Last Edit: June 11, 2009, 02:46:57 pm by XP67_Moonbat »
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline airrocket

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 291
  • Dreams To Reality
    • Retro Flight
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #137 on: June 19, 2009, 10:05:15 pm »

The problem with trying to build and fly a 40 plus years old FDL-7 derivative design for paying space tourists is that it is akin to aeronautical archeology.

The MCD FDL-7 based lifting bodies are "back to the future" as in intense 60's design study which was and is advanced beyond what we do present day. The all weather TPS also well beyond our current composites technology. Most of the old MCD engineers are of a dying or dead bred who unfortunately have taken a great wealth of knowledge to the grave. Knowledge that we can not afford to duplicate today.
Vis Viva

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2103
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #138 on: July 01, 2009, 05:38:52 pm »
NASA study for an HL-10 type lifting body/Saturn 1B combo.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710064943_1971064943.pdf
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline Desert Dawn

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 191
    • Stratosphere Models
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #139 on: July 23, 2009, 08:34:46 pm »

The problem with trying to build and fly a 40 plus years old FDL-7 derivative design for paying space tourists is that it is akin to aeronautical archeology.

The MCD FDL-7 based lifting bodies are "back to the future" as in intense 60's design study which was and is advanced beyond what we do present day. The all weather TPS also well beyond our current composites technology. Most of the old MCD engineers are of a dying or dead bred who unfortunately have taken a great wealth of knowledge to the grave. Knowledge that we can not afford to duplicate today.

** Most of that data is still available (and it getting declassified, albeith slowly, and if you are a US engineer who works for the industry, you can easily get access to all of it if you need it for any current aerospace project (or even for non-aerospace projects)(and contrary to what i had been told 14 years ago by one of the famous persons involved with the FDL shapes that "all those who worked on the FDL-5, FDL-7 now passed away" (turns out i found two of them who are very much alive and quicking (and still publishing), including the person who had told me that), and have since been updated, improved upon, or squarely replaced by new, better technologies. Believe me, spent 14 years researching it. The FDL-7 derivative for space tourism is based on technologies that have long been outdated. And i am do not make any comparison between the Space Shuttle and the FDL-7 and so on. To give you an exemple, one thing which is already a bit old already: the X-33 considerably improved upon the metal shingle outer skin  panels of the FDL-7, FDL-5 & all by installing them in a losange pattern, and without those draggy and problematic external  retaining straps, and with considerable improvements on the stand-on posts as well and better sealing. The material for the metal skin panels for the X-33 was also more advanced than that of the FDL-7, FDL-5, FDL-6 (which would have DEEPLY oxidized after ONE SINGLE REENTRY (in the case of the X-20 Dynasoar)(and just a handfull of flights with the FDL lifting bodies) and that's even WITH the PROTECTIVE CARBIDE COATING !! That's telling how the technology was still not mature. (You should see the pictures showing the level of depletion of some of the metals in those alloys). When you basically have to put new skin panels after each flight or every 4 or 5 flights, it was not really practical. Also, leading edge skirts and nose coatings were subject to cracking, some of which could have proven catastrophic, these coatings have been much improved today with new research (see Indian ceramics research for di-boride materials for more details)(from the Elsevier website), they have wide-ranging applications, what was once the prerogative of classified hypersonic programs is now widespread in fields such as foundry, armour, rocket nozzle coatings, etc.

Did you ever ask yourself why we are not seeing more FDL shapes flying ? Last i checked the Europeans, the Italians, the Chinese, The USAF, Nasa, and Scaled Composites all stayed away from lifting body shapes. There are very good reasons for that (though i am sure if someone threw a few hundred  of millions at it, they could probably solve some of those problems. Take a look at the X-37 project from the USAF. If they wanted a lifting body, they would have built one. If you take a look at new cermet materials, you will get an eyefull, and you will not lament the passing of the 1960's metal skin panels concepts.

Now i'm not saying they could not improve on it with new alloys and coatings (think TAV and NASP), but the 1960's concepts were awfully complex and costly compared to what can be done today with the new materials. It find it funny that the FDL-7 C/D version that got sold by an old hand to the wannabe space tourist co. is that it is neither the best variant nor the one that was classified.. (the FDL-7 Model 176 was the later variant, and even the FDL-7 MA was designed as a later variant (!) if a remember well . Even the
FDL-7 Model 176 version that i modelled on my website was not the ultimate version (there was a B version which was more elongated and more classified, and then there is still more stuff, such as Rheinberry... Could explain why they sold them the older, outdated version of all the FDL-7 series..)


Ceramics of the Space Shuttle are outdated, yes, since it is a material that was designed in the 1960's !! (but certainly not the NEW cermets of today ! It's like light and day).

Website: Picturetrail.com/stratospheremodels
« Last Edit: July 25, 2009, 11:52:44 pm by Desert Dawn »

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2103
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #140 on: July 24, 2009, 07:31:14 am »
How about Isinglass? Did it have any special TPS as well?
« Last Edit: July 24, 2009, 12:15:44 pm by XP67_Moonbat »
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline Desert Dawn

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 191
    • Stratosphere Models
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #141 on: July 25, 2009, 11:56:22 pm »
You could ask MDD-Boeing and see if you get better luck, or make an FOIA.

It would not have been much different since it was the same time period and FDL-5,6,7 were already the cutting edge at that time. I think the project is just more classified only because it was sponsored by the CIA and was for reconnaissance.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2009, 12:30:05 am by Desert Dawn »

Offline antigravite

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 572
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #142 on: August 17, 2009, 09:50:08 am »
Bouncing back on Low Observable's comments (ISINGLASS stuff)
In the mid-late 1960s, Lockheed completed for the AFRPL a small shuttle study based on the FDL-5 configuration.
Much was advertised, and the whole thing became known as MRS.
These shots come from a confidential report issued in 1970, declassified in 1986.

The marketing effort for FDL-5A series might have come from ISINGLASS' demise. Although I'm not sure anymore as we know today that there was something around known as ISINGLASS-II whose timeline remains unknown (to me)...

Connections between ISINGLASS and MRS are, among others : timelines, XLR-129 engines reference, etc.

Hope this helps
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
L e t   b o l d s   b e   l i g h t
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Offline airrocket

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 291
  • Dreams To Reality
    • Retro Flight
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #143 on: August 17, 2009, 05:55:20 pm »
TPS...I like the MCD FDL series concept which utilized liquid filled tubing to cool the LE and sharp corners. Better coatings, metals, and composites certainly exist today, and X-33, SHARP was an improvement; however the concept of utilizing durable metallic shingles, and liquid cooled LE seems superior to anything flying today that I'm aware of. All the supersonic X-plane flights today have been expendable single use not re-useable...not very impressive. If we've developed better TPS then we must have overlooked how to apply it? I’ve flown FDL based designed RC and find the sharp LE, flat bottom X fin based designs to be stable. FALCON Black swift utilized similar platform, that machine really impressed me. DARPA seems to go way out on the propulsion envelope…perhaps to far out. AFRL seems more grounded in their propulsion approach. I can see FDL 7 linage in the X-51A profile. Would be interested in more information X-51A TPS.
Vis Viva

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2103
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #144 on: August 19, 2009, 08:04:44 am »
Airrocket,

Did you get to help PlanetSpace on their remote control FDL? I thought that was pretty cool.
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline airrocket

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 291
  • Dreams To Reality
    • Retro Flight
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #145 on: August 21, 2009, 05:53:28 pm »
Help Planet Space....I could only dream of such an opportunity. Nope just doing my own thing through Retro Flight. Using Pilot View FPV. Fly RC rocket from cockpit negates line site requirements.


http://vcshobbies.com/product1836_lastcat242.ihtml

Don't tell the FEDS something as much fun as this would have to be confiscated.
Vis Viva

Offline airrocket

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 291
  • Dreams To Reality
    • Retro Flight
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #146 on: August 21, 2009, 05:56:36 pm »
Well that didn't work ...just google this you'll find it.

Weaponized-RC-Planes
Vis Viva

Offline Desert Dawn

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 191
    • Stratosphere Models
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #147 on: September 29, 2009, 03:42:29 pm »
``TPS...I like the MCD FDL series concept which utilized liquid filled tubing to cool the LE and sharp corners.

I’ve flown FDL based designed RC and find the sharp LE, flat bottom X fin based designs to be stable. FALCON Black swift utilized similar platform, that machine really impressed me. ``


Not anymore. This is what the Falcon project looks like now:

(at least, what they are ready to publicly show us)



Stéphane.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2009, 04:59:46 pm by flateric »

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8210
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #148 on: September 29, 2009, 05:04:26 pm »
1). This is HTV-3X Blackswift in it's final pulicily shown iteration (RIP 2008)
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1985.msg58012.html#msg58012
2). I'd be cautious saying that final iteration of HTV-3X would match externally FALCON HCV OV (Operational Vehicle)
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Desert Dawn

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 191
    • Stratosphere Models
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #149 on: September 29, 2009, 05:56:13 pm »
1). This is HTV-3X Blackswift in it's final pulicily shown iteration (RIP 2008)
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1985.msg58012.html#msg58012
2). I'd be cautious saying that final iteration of HTV-3X would match externally FALCON HCV OV (Operational Vehicle)

I didn`t say so, that`s why i said 'what they are willing to show us publicly' ;)
The final project`s real shape we don`t know, or we won`t know until the project stops evolving and gels into a final configuration and they tell us it's the final one (and even then, i'd wait 30 years down the line to see what declassified papers would come out and show us).

Here is the link:

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/09/airforce_blackswift_092208w/

This is not the one i had in mind when i posted the pictures (which i found from another link a few days ago). I will try to find the original link, as it was the one that said the twin fin Blackswift shape was the one that was cancelled (and the new single fin double delta would be the one that is current).
« Last Edit: September 29, 2009, 06:23:35 pm by Desert Dawn »

Offline vulture

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 96
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #150 on: October 15, 2009, 01:40:29 am »
Does anyone have images of the Lockheed  Skunk Works L301/X-24C desktop model?
It was featured in a book by Dennis R. Jenkins - images provided by one Tony Landis.

Vulture

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10307
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #151 on: October 15, 2009, 01:53:28 am »
Merged to existing topic. Vulture, check through this topic for Lockheed X-24 images / info.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2009, 01:58:33 am by overscan »
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline mz

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 682
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #152 on: November 22, 2009, 12:36:03 pm »
http://contrails.iit.edu/DigitalCollection/1967/AFFDLTR67-137.pdf

Assessment of the Factors Affecting Advanced Lifting Entry Vehicles
Alfred C. Draper
Melvin L. Buck
(those are two of the guys in the photo a few pages back)

I don't think this has been posted, at least didn't find it with search. A nice overview of general configurations and their L/D, temperature, internal volume and mass fraction properties...

It's an overview and hence not too in-depth, but that's good.
Attached are some pictures from the document, there are more in the pdf.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8210
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2103
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #154 on: December 06, 2009, 03:55:28 pm »
The forebody with upturned wingtips catches my eye. Any idea if it is anything specific? Or is it just a generic concept?
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline airrocket

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 291
  • Dreams To Reality
    • Retro Flight
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #155 on: December 06, 2009, 06:03:54 pm »
Wow that closely resembles the most recent iterations of my Hyper Hawk inward ATR design. See attachment of early concept iteration just remove the 2D center section volume wedge and there is a resemblance. Most strange I recently removed the two all moving vertical stabs blended and radiused the upper structure and adopted a FDL7-176 spatula style nose to test compression sharing concept this summer.  While this most recent design iteration is still proprietary it has an uncanny resemblance to the Lockheed missile concept (minus the 2D volume center section wedge). I hope to unveil the HyHawk later this summer in sub-scale rocket thrust augmented RC RPV form through Retro Flight. Feed up with the FED and DOD proposal hassles and hoops…going Rogue.
Vis Viva

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2103
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #156 on: December 06, 2009, 06:43:31 pm »
Good work, Airrocket! I'm definitely feeling that.
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline airrocket

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 291
  • Dreams To Reality
    • Retro Flight
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #157 on: December 06, 2009, 07:16:24 pm »
I wonder if the Lockheed missile utilized thrust vectoring I'm unable to discern control surface details so only guessing.  I plan to utilize compression sharing for hands-off vertical transonic and M1.5 ascent and perhaps thrust vector for subsonic loiter, landing (recovery) and cruise. I assume the Lockheed missile mission would be oneway with no need for landing.
Vis Viva

Offline Dynoman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 587
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #158 on: December 07, 2009, 05:38:18 am »
Great find flateric!
As soon as I saw it I thought of the Sortie type vehicle depicted in the two pictures above (137_02.png and 137_03.png). It shows a manned system with a 'hidden-line' drawing illustrating a break in the verticle stabilizer.

I'm wondering if that model was tested without the verticle stabilizer and is reflected in the unknownmissile picture. The 'inlets' reminded me of the manned FDL-5 cockpit windows.

The missile is shown above the launch aircraft, so I assume the vehicle will climb after launch.
I would think that the raised 'inlet' area would be better positioned on the bottom, or symetrically positioned on the top and bottom for uniterrupted flow, especially at hypersonic speeds.

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 675
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #159 on: January 09, 2010, 07:59:53 am »
I always belived that ASSET prototypes was tightly connected with the "Winged Gemini" project, heavily sponsorized by USAF at that times.

In effect if you take an ASSET vehicle you may find out that it is a perfectly subscale model (1:2) of Winged Gemini, the thing takes more reason if you notice that McDonnell was in charge of production and development of both ASSET and Gemini.

Strangely the ASSET programme was always connected with X-20 Dynasoar project, neverthless the two vehicles had radical different configurations and not the same prime contractors as well (McDonnell vs Boeing).

You are making the connections the wrong way.  ASSET existed before Gemini in support of Dynasoar.   The fact that the  configuration of ASSET was different than Dynasoar and had different contractors is not relevant.  Testing materials does not require the same contractor or vehicle. 
 

Mercury > Mercury Mark II  > Gemini  >  Winged Gemini
                        ASSET                      ^

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1984
  • I am not actually here.
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #160 on: January 11, 2010, 11:50:13 pm »
The forebody with upturned wingtips catches my eye. Any idea if it is anything specific? Or is it just a generic concept?

I am pretty sure I recognize it as a post AMaRV RV, though the name of the program I can't recall.
Semi-related:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12061&page=89

The unknown lockheed missile, I think, maybe be a hypersonic strike missile they were shopping around in the late 80s. Not to be confused with the boost-glide weapon that was an anti-airfield weapon (see http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=3721.0 )
« Last Edit: January 12, 2010, 12:00:22 am by quellish »

Offline Desert Dawn

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 191
    • Stratosphere Models
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #161 on: January 22, 2010, 04:28:24 pm »
http://www.mri.psu.edu/Events/MaterialsDay/2004/kramer.pdf

Nice ones Flateric. The Lockheed vehicle illustration strongly mirrors the Flying Wind tunnel concept though they are obviously two different projects from different companies (but perhaps with the same ancestor).

Nice one with the model of the General Dynamics HGV.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2010, 04:43:12 pm by Desert Dawn »

Offline Desert Dawn

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 191
    • Stratosphere Models
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #162 on: January 22, 2010, 04:29:49 pm »
Great find flateric!
As soon as I saw it I thought of the Sortie type vehicle depicted in the two pictures above (137_02.png and 137_03.png). It shows a manned system with a 'hidden-line' drawing illustrating a break in the verticle stabilizer.

I'm wondering if that model was tested without the verticle stabilizer and is reflected in the unknownmissile picture. The 'inlets' reminded me of the manned FDL-5 cockpit windows.

** No relation.

The missile is shown above the launch aircraft, so I assume the vehicle will climb after launch.
I would think that the raised 'inlet' area would be better positioned on the bottom, or symetrically positioned on the top and bottom for uniterrupted flow, especially at hypersonic speeds.
[/quote]
« Last Edit: January 22, 2010, 04:51:48 pm by flateric »

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1636
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #163 on: March 15, 2010, 02:26:12 pm »
Anybody got a copy of this (the pdf only shows the first page):

http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyMISPHST08_1877/PV2008_2611.pdf

FDL-5A
Precursor to High Performance Lifting Entry Spacecraft
An Historical Review

Carl F. Ehrlich, Jr.


I'm doing a follow-up to my ALSV article and the FDL-5A shape was one of the vehicles considered around this timeframe.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9468
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
« Last Edit: April 23, 2010, 07:16:47 pm by Triton »

Offline RanulfC

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 418
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #165 on: May 04, 2010, 03:07:25 pm »
http://www.mri.psu.edu/Events/MaterialsDay/2004/kramer.pdf
Old topic a bit but something that caught my eye here was the bottom pic of an "unknownlockheedmissile" which pretty much fits the FDL-5/7 mock-up images and it got me thinking...
I KNOW all the info says the flat surfaces on the mock-up are windows, but something about them always bothered me. Mostly I suspect the "angle" they are at, especially given the overall "nose-high" landing mode always shown for the design. Combined with the ninefingers models model and now this pic it occurs to me: What if they weren't 'windows' but intakes?
Sure having your intakes on the upper surface actually costs you some perfomance, (and makes rapid changes of AOA a stone-..er.. bear ;) ) but this isn't actually (from what I've been reading on the subject in various places) as critical for a hypersonic cruise vehicle. Manned or unmanned.

Am I crazy? (Ok, any more than NORMAL maybe... ;) )

Randy

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1984
  • I am not actually here.
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #166 on: May 04, 2010, 03:38:27 pm »

Sure having your intakes on the upper surface actually costs you some perfomance, (and makes rapid changes of AOA a stone-..er.. bear ;) ) but this isn't actually (from what I've been reading on the subject in various places) as critical for a hypersonic cruise vehicle. Manned or unmanned.

Am I crazy? (Ok, any more than NORMAL maybe... ;) )

Randy

No, this is not crazy. I have seen some serious work done on "dorsal" inlets for hypersonic cruise aircraft, but not accelerators.

Offline Desert Dawn

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 191
    • Stratosphere Models
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #167 on: May 04, 2010, 04:32:28 pm »
Hi Randy,

The FDL-5 and other low lift-to-drag ratio hypersonic reentry vehicles like FDL-6, FDL-7, FDL-8, etc, never fly at a nose high attitude. The Space Shuttle have an entry angle of about 40 degrees. The FDL family of hypersonic vehicles were designed to fly with very minimal nose high attitude (way below 40 degrees). The way the Wright Patterson FDL-5 mock up is built (and my resin scale models of it) shows it without its window shrouds. You cannot fly hypersonic speed in the atmosphere with the nose angle at nearly level flight with flat or slightly angles windows at the speeds at which the FDL-5 and X-20 fly. That's why the X-20 had a jettisonable window shroud. The windows would have been visible only in the last moments of the flight (shortly before touch-down), they are used only for visual final approach. In orbit, video cameras and optical periscopes would have been used (by the way, i spotted two small window fairings on a higher resolution picture of the manned FDL-5 mock-up that would correspond to that).
The 64 feet long FDL-5 manned would have flown its mission on instruments, the window shrouds being jettisonned only shortly before landing (and only after completing its reentry). There would not have been anything retractable to cover the windows and the area in front of the windows (way too complicated, heavy and risky). Just a note, i took the artistic license to photograph my resin kit model of the FDL-5 "in space" and without window shrouds simply because the window shrouds have never been shown and because we better know the mock-up in its without-window-shrouds configuration (and admitedly because it looks more interesting that way). For the sake or realism anyone who wants to represent the FDL-5 manned as it would really look like in orbit can always cover the area in front of the windows with plasticard and it will give a good idea of what it would look like with window shrouds in place.

About the dorsal inlets for hypersonic airbreathers, there are not tons of them out there, and the Flying Wind Tunnel was not built. Usually the best place to put your inlets is under the fuselage, with at least 3 ramps to compress the air to the engine modules. Their are several axi-symmetric inlet designs too including some that were flown (Russia, Australia) which use a cone in the inlet for compression. X-43, X-51, X-30, etc, all use ventral inlets with compression ramps. It's interesting to note that even for the Mach 3 plus D-21 drone, the ramjet used to blow-out during turns but would re-ignite during straight flight due to the heat of the engine walls alone (!). A dorsal inlet for a maneuvering hypersonic vehicle might experience more blow-outs than a model with a ventral inlet.

Stephane.
Stratosphere Models



http://www.mri.psu.edu/Events/MaterialsDay/2004/kramer.pdf
Old topic a bit but something that caught my eye here was the bottom pic of an "unknownlockheedmissile" which pretty much fits the FDL-5/7 mock-up images and it got me thinking...
I KNOW all the info says the flat surfaces on the mock-up are windows, but something about them always bothered me. Mostly I suspect the "angle" they are at, especially given the overall "nose-high" landing mode always shown for the design. Combined with the ninefingers models model and now this pic it occurs to me: What if they weren't 'windows' but intakes?
Sure having your intakes on the upper surface actually costs you some perfomance, (and makes rapid changes of AOA a stone-..er.. bear ;) ) but this isn't actually (from what I've been reading on the subject in various places) as critical for a hypersonic cruise vehicle. Manned or unmanned.

Am I crazy? (Ok, any more than NORMAL maybe... ;) )

Randy


« Last Edit: May 04, 2010, 04:42:43 pm by Desert Dawn »

Offline fightingirish

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1936
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #168 on: May 31, 2010, 08:42:00 am »
HL-10, one picture shows HL-10 Logistics Vehicle and a launch mock-up.
Link: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/4589926701/
Slán,
fightingirish

Slán ist an Irish Gaelic word for Goodbye.  :)

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3723
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #169 on: May 31, 2010, 10:56:53 am »
this look like Martin Lifting body (and MOL Mockup ?)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/4590546198/sizes/o/in/photostream/
I love Strange Technology

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 675
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #170 on: May 31, 2010, 11:57:16 am »
this look like Martin Lifting body (and MOL Mockup ?)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/4590546198/sizes/o/in/photostream/


That is the booster for the lifting body

Offline archipeppe

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1464
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #171 on: May 31, 2010, 12:04:03 pm »
this look like Martin Lifting body (and MOL Mockup ?)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/4590546198/sizes/o/in/photostream/


That is the booster for the lifting body

It appears also in the Jenkins' "X-Planes Scrapbook".

Offline The Artist

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 517
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #172 on: May 31, 2010, 08:21:12 pm »
This looks like the place and time to post this. I've had this photo in my collection since the 80s or early 90s.
"Thank you for summing that up."

Hiccup Horrendous Haddock III

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8210
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #173 on: May 31, 2010, 10:45:22 pm »
oh...what a present. thanks!
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Retrofit

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 494
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #174 on: May 31, 2010, 11:03:52 pm »
This looks like the place and time to post this. I've had this photo in my collection since the 80s or early 90s.

Indeed, thanks a lot Artist!
Very interesting 2- (or 3-) place HL-10 type lifting body mock-up.
And only with "US Air Force" markings?
Any other information concerning the background and the actual status of this vehicle?

Thanks in advance,

Philippe

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 12939
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #175 on: June 01, 2010, 12:50:33 am »
This looks like the place and time to post this. I've had this photo in my collection since the 80s or early 90s.

When you think you've seen it all, there's always something new and amazing to come your way...

I visited the Cradle of Aviation Museum back in 1993 and also some of its workshops (they were rebuilding a Savoia-Marchetti S.56 flying boat) but I never saw that thing. Do they still have it or was it swapped? Scrapped?

Anyway, thanks for sharing!

Offline The Artist

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 517
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #176 on: June 01, 2010, 09:31:45 pm »
I posted that picture hoping that someone else would know something about it. I'm going to have to dig for what little information I have on the thing. I want to say that Robert McCall referred me to the Cradle of Aviation Museum about that thing. (That was a long time ago) I had seen one of his paintings depicting a vehicle of this design and the caption referred to the vehicle as the Dynasoar. I called him to ask about that designation as I had not seen that shape in any of the Dynasoar images I had seen by then. Anyway. I called the museum and asked about the mock-up Bob had mentioned and they sent the photograph.

Now. The information I'll have to dig for is what little I learned about the thing some time later. While the thing may have been used as a training aid or design tool, it had been used in an exhibit - World's Fair - I believe. I have seen a photo of this, or something like it, hanging with a small space station module and an astronaut in EVA suit. I saw that picture in - I believe - an article about that mock-up being moved from the Cradle of Aviation Museum to its new home in another location. If I find the article I'll post it.
"Thank you for summing that up."

Hiccup Horrendous Haddock III

Offline Barrington Bond

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 924
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #177 on: June 02, 2010, 01:44:50 am »
The World Fair you mention is in Robert Godwin's Dyna-Soar: Hypersonic Strategic Weapons System I believe.

Regards,
Barry
"It hasn't squeaked in a week!"

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2103
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #178 on: June 02, 2010, 08:54:46 am »
Try this on for size!  :)



"Rendezvous In Space", a film made for the '64 World's Fair. Not bad as far old cartoons go. Goes dark from 4:38 to 6:57. But at least you still get to see the landing sequence.

It's funny how I noticed the voice talent and sound effects on this one.

I recognize some of the voices from "Looney Tunes" (ironically, the carrot had to be the voice of Bugs Bunny) and the computer sound effects remind me of that whole teleportation bit from the original Chocolate Factory movie.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2010, 09:30:47 am by XP67_Moonbat »
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline The Artist

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 517
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #179 on: June 02, 2010, 09:18:57 am »
Thank you. Yes. That's the bit I saw about it being moved.

On the illustration page facing page 321 there is a contact sheet of 25 exposures of the thing in the process of being installed in the new location. On the preceding page are three small pictures of the mock-up from the right side. The caption identifies it as "The Martin World's Fair X-23A version in Oklahoma." However. The background in these three shots does not match the surroundings visible in the contact sheet images. I believe these shots were taken in the same location as the photo I posted.

In the color section between pages 128 and 129 is a picture of the display in the 1964 New York World's Fair. The caption is as follows.

Quote
The Martin Dyna-Soar on display at the New York World's Fair in 1964. The Shape bears some resemblance to thew Martin X-23A/SV-5D reentry model and appears to be an interim design falling between the X-20 and later lifting bodies such as the X-24, the M2-F2, and the HL-10. This life-size model shown docking with a space station was animated. It ended up at the Oklahoma Omniplex and may be the nearest thing left in existence to a Dyna-Soar.

I guess my memory was wrong about the EVA astronaut as none is visible in the picture. I'll try to scan and post the color image - if posting from this book is permitted - or if anyone else is in a position to do so then go ahead and post it. Meanwhile, I'll keep digging because I think I've got something else on this from a magazine.

Edit - note: this is in response to Barrington Bond's message. The animation was posted while I was composing the message.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2010, 09:21:17 am by The Artist »
"Thank you for summing that up."

Hiccup Horrendous Haddock III

Offline The Artist

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 517
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #180 on: June 02, 2010, 08:46:57 pm »
Here is the World's Fair Exhibit picture from Dyna-Soar: Hypersonic Strategic Weapons System. Additionally, I'm posting a copy of the Robert McCall painting to illustrate my above comment.
"Thank you for summing that up."

Hiccup Horrendous Haddock III

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2273
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #181 on: June 03, 2010, 03:04:50 am »
Actually it wasn't Dyna Soar, it was a Martin's exhibit. The lifting body was a reduced version of the SLOMAR proposal (MB-2 shape)

Offline The Artist

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 517
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #182 on: June 03, 2010, 07:08:50 am »
Actually it wasn't Dyna Soar, it was a Martin's exhibit. The lifting body was a reduced version of the SLOMAR proposal (MB-2 shape)

Yes, and I see another problem with that caption from the book. The mock-up should have been said to resemble the HL-10, not the X-23A/SV-5D. (Did he mean to say X-24A?)
"Thank you for summing that up."

Hiccup Horrendous Haddock III

Offline Retrofit

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 494
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #183 on: June 03, 2010, 09:59:29 am »
Actually it wasn't Dyna Soar, it was a Martin's exhibit. The lifting body was a reduced version of the SLOMAR proposal (MB-2 shape)

Yes, and I see another problem with that caption from the book. The mock-up should have been said to resemble the HL-10, not the X-23A/SV-5D. (Did he mean to say X-24A?)

Perhaps some relation with Martin "3/D" proposal detailed in NASA report CR-66358 "Study of the influence of size of a manned lifting body entry vehicle on research potential and cost. Final report; Part VII: Selected Entry Vehicle Design":
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700076975_1970076975.pdf

But the Martin's contrat with NASA ref. NAS 1-6209 is dated April 1966, two year after the World Fair, and Martin's final report is dated May 1967.
In the meantime, NASA published a report NASA TM X-1321 on "Effects of various canopies on the aerodynamic characteristics of a manned lifting entry vehicle at Mach O.O6 to 6.8", dated Decembre 1966:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700078696_1970078696.pdf

Offline Justo Miranda

  • Secret Projects Master
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3261
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #184 on: June 03, 2010, 11:10:45 am »
Some classic stuff here
Post-1
From
-Faster than sound -by Bill Gunston
-Air Enthusiast /Eight
-Aviation History -July 1997
-The Eagles Talon INC.

Offline Justo Miranda

  • Secret Projects Master
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3261
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #185 on: June 03, 2010, 11:15:21 am »
Some classic stuff here
Post-2
From
-Faster than sound -by Bill Gunston
-Air Enthusiast /Eight
-Aviation History -July 1997
-The Eagles Talon INC.

Offline Justo Miranda

  • Secret Projects Master
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3261
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #186 on: June 03, 2010, 11:30:56 am »
Some classic stuff here
Post-3
From
-Airpower -Sept.2003
-Air International-Oct.2001
-Spaceflight-June 1999
-The X-Planes by Jay Miller

Offline Justo Miranda

  • Secret Projects Master
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3261
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #187 on: June 03, 2010, 11:47:20 am »
Some classic stuff here
Post-4
From
-Le Fanatique de l'Aviation
-Unknown source

Offline Justo Miranda

  • Secret Projects Master
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3261
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #188 on: June 03, 2010, 12:12:37 pm »
Some classic stuff here
Post-5
From
-Le Fanatique de l'Aviation
-Jet & Prop 5/98
-The Eagles Talon INC.
-Airpower-Sept 2003
-Air International-Oct.1996
-Air Enthusiast-Eight
-The Dream Machines-by Ron Miller
-Unknown source

Offline Justo Miranda

  • Secret Projects Master
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3261
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #189 on: June 03, 2010, 12:15:52 pm »
Some classic stuff here
Post-6
From
-Le Fanatique de l'Aviation
-Jet & Prop 5/98
-The Eagles Talon INC.
-Airpower-Sept 2003
-Air International-Oct.1996
-Air Enthusiast-Eight
-The Dream Machines-by Ron Miller
-Unknown source

Offline Justo Miranda

  • Secret Projects Master
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3261
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #190 on: June 03, 2010, 12:36:17 pm »
Some classic stuff here
Post-7
From
-Wingless Flight by R.Dale Reed-NASA 1997

Offline Justo Miranda

  • Secret Projects Master
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3261
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #191 on: June 03, 2010, 12:54:42 pm »
Some classic stuff here
Post-8
From
-Le Fanatique de l'Aviation

Offline Justo Miranda

  • Secret Projects Master
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3261
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #192 on: June 03, 2010, 12:56:18 pm »
Some classic stuff here
Post-9
From
-Le Fanatique de l'Aviation

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3723
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #193 on: June 03, 2010, 12:57:25 pm »
THX for Picture Justo


never know this had a rocket engine

normally it was pull by Cadillac or a aircraft
I love Strange Technology

Offline Justo Miranda

  • Secret Projects Master
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3261
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #194 on: June 03, 2010, 01:16:50 pm »
Landing-assist rocket device...no propulsion engine.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6813
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #195 on: June 03, 2010, 01:23:15 pm »
Landing-assist rocket device...no propulsion engine.

"Instant L/D"
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Justo Miranda

  • Secret Projects Master
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3261
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #196 on: June 03, 2010, 03:07:17 pm »
Some classic stuff here
Post-10
From
-Airpower-Sept.2003
-The Dream Machines by Ron Miller
-Flight International-January 2000
-The X-Planes by Jay Miller
-Air International-Oct/Nov 1996
-Aeroplane Montly-August 1978

Offline Justo Miranda

  • Secret Projects Master
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3261
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #197 on: June 03, 2010, 03:11:21 pm »
Some classic stuff here
Post-11
From
-Airpower-Sept.2003
-The Dream Machines by Ron Miller
-Flight International-January 2000
-The X-Planes by Jay Miller
-Air International-Oct/Nov 1996
-Aeroplane Montly-August 1978

Offline Justo Miranda

  • Secret Projects Master
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3261
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #198 on: June 03, 2010, 03:25:29 pm »
Some classic stuff here
Post-12
From
-Dyna Soar by Robert Godwin

Offline Justo Miranda

  • Secret Projects Master
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3261
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #199 on: June 03, 2010, 03:27:35 pm »
Some classic stuff here
Post-13
From
-Space Shuttle by Dennis R. Jenkins

Offline Justo Miranda

  • Secret Projects Master
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3261
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #200 on: June 03, 2010, 03:40:37 pm »
Some classic stuff here
Post-14
From
-Space Shuttle by Dennis R. Jenkins
-Dyna-Soar by Robert Godwin

Offline Justo Miranda

  • Secret Projects Master
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3261
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #201 on: June 03, 2010, 04:54:22 pm »
Some classic stuff here
Post-15
From
Unknown Source

Offline Justo Miranda

  • Secret Projects Master
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3261
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #202 on: June 03, 2010, 04:57:08 pm »
Some classic stuff here
Post-16
From
Unknown Source

Offline Justo Miranda

  • Secret Projects Master
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3261
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #203 on: June 03, 2010, 04:59:51 pm »
Some classic stuff here
Post-17
From
Unknown Source

Offline Justo Miranda

  • Secret Projects Master
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3261
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #204 on: June 03, 2010, 05:03:08 pm »
Some classic stuff here
Post-18
From
Unknown Source

Offline Justo Miranda

  • Secret Projects Master
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3261
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #205 on: June 03, 2010, 05:10:07 pm »
Some classic stuff here
Post-19
From
Unknown Source

Offline Justo Miranda

  • Secret Projects Master
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3261
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #206 on: June 03, 2010, 05:21:52 pm »
Some classic stuff here
Post-20
From
Unknown Source

Offline Justo Miranda

  • Secret Projects Master
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3261
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #207 on: June 03, 2010, 05:23:30 pm »
Some classic stuff here
Post-21
From
Unknown Source

Offline Justo Miranda

  • Secret Projects Master
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3261
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #208 on: June 03, 2010, 05:25:29 pm »
Some classic stuff here
Post-22
From
Unknown Source

Offline Justo Miranda

  • Secret Projects Master
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3261
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #209 on: June 03, 2010, 05:26:33 pm »
 :P

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3723
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #210 on: June 03, 2010, 11:58:14 pm »

that's German Saenger II concept


That's Star-H (H for Hermes)
a French porposal for a Airlaunch Hermes like Sprial 50-50
I think this was from Aerospacial
I love Strange Technology

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2273
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #211 on: June 04, 2010, 01:11:46 am »
Answer to Retrofit reply, some time ago. Martin studied the basic lifting body shape (called MB-2) since late 1959, and used for multiple purposes. The mentioned SLOMAR studies is just one, but there was Apollo, Prime, X-24, Orbital X-24, that was larger and very similar in concept to the SLOMAR vehicle (8-person crew/passengers versus 6 for SLOMAR), and other we don't know for sure (e.g. military derivatives). So the World Fair concept could be a derivative of one of these.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2010, 01:17:43 am by Skybolt »

Offline Retrofit

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 494
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #212 on: June 04, 2010, 02:30:00 am »
a French porposal for a Airlaunch Hermes like Sprial 50-50
I think this was from Aerospacial
Hi Michel,
The Star-H proposal was from Dassault Aviation

Hi Skybolt,
Thanks for the information.
Any more detail available on the Martin Orbital X-24?
« Last Edit: June 04, 2010, 02:35:19 am by Retrofit »

Offline archipeppe

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1464
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #213 on: June 04, 2010, 02:50:47 am »
a French porposal for a Airlaunch Hermes like Sprial 50-50
I think this was from Aerospacial

It was a sort of French late answer to the German Sanger II proposal, trying to reutilize the troubled Hermes more than something related to the 50-50 Russian concept.

Only a beautiful scale model but nothing more than that, anyway Sanger II was deeply investigated by Germans and it was more "real" project.

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 12939
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #214 on: June 04, 2010, 03:05:18 am »
Sanger II was deeply investigated by Germans and it was more "real" project.
Not that it made much of a difference in the end, anyway...  ::)

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 589
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #215 on: June 04, 2010, 03:18:47 am »
a French porposal for a Airlaunch Hermes like Sprial 50-50
I think this was from Aerospacial
Hi Michel,
The Star-H proposal was from Dassault Aviation

We mustn't forget the earlier 60s British design study for EAG.4396/4413, covered in another thread ;)



Offline archipeppe

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1464
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #216 on: June 04, 2010, 04:55:53 am »
We mustn't forget the earlier 60s British design study for EAG.4396/4413

Absolutely right!!
Too bad that Great Britain was unable to utilize its enormous aeronautical heritage in manned space activities.

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 12939
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #217 on: June 04, 2010, 05:31:27 am »
We mustn't forget the earlier 60s British design study for EAG.4396/4413

Absolutely right!!
Too bad that Great Britain was unable to utilize its enormous aeronautical heritage in manned space activities.

The only real successes of European aviation for 40 years have been those products that were produced as part of an international consortium:
- BAC/Aerospatiale Concorde supersonic airliner
- Dassault-Bréguet/Dornier Alpha Jet primary trainer
- SEPECAT Jaguar combat aircraft
- Airbus A300/310 airliner series
- Airbus A319/320/321 airliner series
- Airbus A330/340 airliner series

Everytime one of the European manufacturers has been staunch on not collaborating and keeping their design to themselves, the commercial results were much more contrasted: AMD-BA Rafale, Saab Gripen...

So I guess the same can be said about space programs. If the British, German and French teams had set about working together early in the 1960s, there would be a truly competitive European aerospace today on a global scale!

Offline archipeppe

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1464
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #218 on: June 04, 2010, 05:35:38 am »
The only real successes of European aviation for 40 years have been those products that were produced as part of an international consortium:
- BAC/Aerospatiale Concorde supersonic airliner
- Dassault-Bréguet/Dornier Alpha Jet primary trainer
- SEPECAT Jaguar combat aircraft
- Airbus A300/310 airliner series
- Airbus A319/320/321 airliner series
- Airbus A330/340 airliner series


E-emh... don't forget the MRCA Panavia Tornado as well....  B)

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 12939
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #219 on: June 04, 2010, 05:36:42 am »
E-emh... don't forget the MRCA Panavia Tornado as well....  B)

Yep... right! I soooo dislike that aircraft that my mind just blanked out over it!!!  :-X

Offline Desert Dawn

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 191
    • Stratosphere Models
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #220 on: June 07, 2010, 10:25:58 am »
This looks like the place and time to post this. I've had this photo in my collection since the 80s or early 90s.

Neat !!

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1636
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #221 on: June 07, 2010, 12:59:52 pm »
Some classic stuff here
Post-22
From
Unknown Source

That's from a British aviation magazine ca 2004 or so.  I have it somewhere.  It accompanied an article that was really pretty dubious.  It was supposedly written by two plane-spotters who used pseudonyms from the Ren and Stimpy cartoon.  Now I don't have a big problem with pseudonyms, but the article never stated that these were not their real names.  The authors claimed to have gone to the mountain that allowed them to view Groom Lake on a planespotting expedition.  They were there to spot secret aircraft.  They claimed that they did spot one--and that they completely forgot to use their camera to take a picture.

This is a theme that has been repeated by a number of supposed plane-spotters: they see the Super Secret Airplane that they were looking for, and then they forget to use their camera, or the batteries go dead, or something like that.  It's always a fish story about the one that got away.

Once you read their account, and noticed the cartoon names, it was really hard not to conclude that they made the story up as a joke.

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2103
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #222 on: June 07, 2010, 01:08:57 pm »
I remember seeing that same design on Dreamlandresort.com about 10 years ago. The so-called "Fastmover". Grain of salt.
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6813
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #223 on: June 07, 2010, 01:11:55 pm »
two plane-spotters who used pseudonyms from the Ren and Stimpy cartoon. 

PLEASE tell me that one of them was "Stinky Wizzleteats."
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1984
  • I am not actually here.
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #224 on: June 07, 2010, 01:30:00 pm »
Some classic stuff here
Post-22
From
Unknown Source

That's from a British aviation magazine ca 2004 or so.  I have it somewhere.  It accompanied an article that was really pretty dubious.  It was supposedly written by two plane-spotters who used pseudonyms from the Ren and Stimpy cartoon.  Now I don't have a big problem with pseudonyms, but the article never stated that these were not their real names.  The authors claimed to have gone to the mountain that allowed them to view Groom Lake on a planespotting expedition.  They were there to spot secret aircraft.  They claimed that they did spot one--and that they completely forgot to use their camera to take a picture.

This is a theme that has been repeated by a number of supposed plane-spotters: they see the Super Secret Airplane that they were looking for, and then they forget to use their camera, or the batteries go dead, or something like that.  It's always a fish story about the one that got away.

Once you read their account, and noticed the cartoon names, it was really hard not to conclude that they made the story up as a joke.

Original story (getting off topic):
http://www.dreamlandresort.com/trip_reports/trip_020.html

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1636
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #225 on: June 07, 2010, 03:01:17 pm »
The magazine article is: "SECRETS OF AREA 51", Parts 1 to 6, in UK-based AIRCRAFT ILLUSTRATED magazine, issues March to August 2000.

I'll have to look, but I'm pretty sure that they used pseudonyms in that article.  But if they're using their real names on the website, why use pseudonyms in print?

And I still really have a problem with the idea that they went up there to photograph a top secret airplane and then conveniently forgot to use their cameras when they actually saw one.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6813
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #226 on: June 07, 2010, 03:14:03 pm »
And I still really have a problem with the idea that they went up there to photograph a top secret airplane and then conveniently forgot to use their cameras when they actually saw one.

There have been times when I've had a camera *at* *hand* and I saw something truly photo-worthy... and was too startled, dumbfounded or dull-witted to take a decent picture, so on the one hand I can kinda buy the general concept. On the other hand, I'd hardly publish an article that basically boiled down to either "I'm an idiot" or "I was too drunk."
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1984
  • I am not actually here.
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #227 on: July 05, 2010, 01:05:58 am »
There have been times when I've had a camera *at* *hand* and I saw something truly photo-worthy... and was too startled, dumbfounded or dull-witted to take a decent picture, so on the one hand I can kinda buy the general concept. On the other hand, I'd hardly publish an article that basically boiled down to either "I'm an idiot" or "I was too drunk."

A lot of people who live near the places where spooky things happen just don't care. They don't notice, because it's routine, or they don't "tattle" because the local economy is supported by spooky things, or they are just not interested. There's also a general wierdness factor that people who live near such facilities take for granted. I interviewed someone in the late 90s who reported a neighborhood garage door opening on its own late at night near Edwards. I was able to connect that with flights of a particular aircraft from a particular runway (former USCG C-130 with radome IIRC).

A couple of examples:
- Regularly late at night you will find highway patrol cars and motorcycles escorting convoys from the satellite contrator facilities near LAX to airfields, railway cars, or by road to Vandenberg. For a while it was common enough to be a nuisance. I've not seen photos or reporting on it.

- Whatever flys high and fast and makes a chest rattling rumble on Thursday mornings still makes regular appearances.

- Locals out near Tonopah had been seeing the RQ-170 for some time. They kept quiet about it and the new unit based out there because it brought new business to the area.

- There were people sitting on photos of the F-117 before it was revealed for various reasons. One I talked to just was not able to connect what they had captured with the stealth fighter in the press because it did not look at all like any of the "artist's concepts".

I don't read too much into the "it's not real without a photo!" bs for this and many other reasons.

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 12939
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #228 on: July 05, 2010, 03:00:06 am »
I don't read too much into the "it's not real without a photo!" bs for this and many other reasons.

Yeah, me neither. Back in early 1989, a French Armée de l'Air officer was positive that while on a Spanish base in 1986, at the time of the Libyan crisis, he'd seen a covered, strangely shaped aircraft being taken out of a C-5 Galaxy. All the information he could gather then was that the U.S. was going to use a classified aircraft to kick the Libyans' butt in a heartbeat and bring a quick end to the crisis. When the F-117 was revealed weeks later, he was convinced that it was the bird in question. However, we know very well the F-117 could NOT be used in a dogfight against a MiG. It's a ground attack plane, NOT a fighter! I have never doubted that story, nor the fact that there MUST have been some other classified bird under the covers, perhaps only in prototype form. The fact that there are no photos or that no evidence has leaked does not make the story any less real or plausible to me.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6813
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #229 on: July 05, 2010, 05:48:18 am »
I don't read too much into the "it's not real without a photo!" bs for this and many other reasons.

And thus, *everything* is real. Nuclear powered hypersonic VTOL interceptors? Sure! SSTO space fighters with antimatter engines? Sure! Nazi azntigravity flying saucers? Sure! Skepticism is BS!

Bah.

Once you have declared that the insistence upon evidence is BS, you have made whatever it is you're obsessed about a *religion.*
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 12939
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #230 on: July 05, 2010, 06:26:15 am »
The fact that faith needn't be based on solid, circumstanciated evidence doesn't necessarily make one a fanatic, does it?

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6813
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #231 on: July 05, 2010, 07:57:48 am »
The fact that faith needn't be based on solid, circumstanciated evidence doesn't necessarily make one a fanatic, does it?

Faith that is countered by the facts (creationism, flat-earthism, young-earthism, hollw-earthism, socialism, etc.) makes one a fanatic. But this forum, unless I miss my guess, is *not* a religion-forum. ATS, on the other hand, *is.*

While Paul is the final arbiter of such things, seems to me that aircraft designs that are *not* supported by actual evidence are out of place here.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1636
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #232 on: July 05, 2010, 08:10:21 am »
The fact that there are no photos or that no evidence has leaked does not make the story any less real or plausible to me.

Here's the problem: photos and things like official confirmation are very powerful pieces of evidence.  They have high confidence levels.  It's really hard to say that something does not exist when there is a photo of it.  (Yeah, photos can be faked or misinterpreted.  Let's not go there for now.)

But without that powerful evidence, then what do you have?  You have weak "circumstantial" evidence.  And one of my big problems with the whole secret aircraft spotting crowd is that they don't really know how to do solid research or how to gather evidence.  They take a circumstantial report at face value and then ask if it is credible or not, they rarely try to actually verify the evidence.

A good example was Bill Scott's cover story on Aviation Week several years ago concerning the "blackstar" spaceplane.  If you read that article carefully, you would see that it was based upon very weak, second-hand "evidence."  For example, the reporter mentioned a couple of eyewitness sightings of the mothership aircraft.  But there was no indication that the reporter himself had actually interviewed the eyewitnesses.  The article strongly implied that he was simply repeating things made by other plane-spotters.  And after a story gets repeated and repeated again its accuracy goes down.

So, an "eyewitness account" could be accurate.  But it's very weak evidence.  And the only way to strengthen it is to gather similar accounts and to check the credibility of the witnesses--in other words, interview them yourself, and interview people who know them (asking questions like "are they crazy?").

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2103
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #233 on: July 05, 2010, 10:34:54 am »
Yeah!
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

sublight

  • Guest
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #234 on: July 05, 2010, 11:29:08 am »

A good example was Bill Scott's cover story on Aviation Week several years ago concerning the "blackstar" spaceplane.  If you read that article carefully, you would see that it was based upon very weak, second-hand "evidence."  For example, the reporter mentioned a couple of eyewitness sightings of the mothership aircraft.  But there was no indication that the reporter himself had actually interviewed the eyewitnesses. 
But look at Bill Scott's resume, its pretty impeccable. He either made a mistake (as people sometimes do) or he did a "favor" for his NSA buddies in putting out some disinformation....

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1636
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #235 on: July 05, 2010, 11:47:39 am »
But look at Bill Scott's resume, its pretty impeccable. He either made a mistake (as people sometimes do)

I'm a little thick, so I don't know if this is intended to be humor or not.  But I never thought that his record was "impeccable."  In fact, he wrote some rather incredulous stories for Aviation Week over the years, and never followed up with hard evidence.  I didn't know much about him before the Blackstar incident, but when I went and looked back at his previous stories, I got the impression that he was willing to run rumors without actually checking them.  Doesn't that go on his "resume" as well?

And in fact, I don't think he has helped his case:

http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0702.html

That is an interview with Scott from April 2007.  In it Scott states:

"Ref. the Blackstar system: I now have several photos of the XOV spaceplane sitting on a Lockheed Martin flightline ramp, so the vehicle definitely exists. Based on 15+ years of sighting reports, inside sources, etc., I determined that Blackstar's SR-3 carrier aircraft and several versions of the XOV were built and flown."

Now that was three years ago that he claimed to have photos which he has never produced.

or he did a "favor" for his NSA buddies in putting out some disinformation....

How would that help his credibility any?

But that's not really relevant here.  Somebody may have a good resume and a history of producing excellent information.  But that only goes so far.  It does not constitute "proof."  Bob Woodward has a history of getting powerful people to tell him secrets, but if he ran an article claiming that flying saucers are real, I'd want to see his evidence.

sublight

  • Guest
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #236 on: July 05, 2010, 12:03:33 pm »
Well if this doesn't look pretty impeccable, I don't know what does....

"Bill is a Flight Test Engineer (FTE) graduate of the U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School and a licensed commercial pilot with instrument and multi-engine ratings.  In 12 years of military and civilian flight testing, plus evaluating aircraft for Aviation Week over 22 years, he’s logged approximately 2,000 hours of flight time on 80 aircraft types. He holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from California State University-Sacramento.


During a nine-year Air Force career, Bill served as aircrew on classified airborne-sampling missions, collecting nuclear debris by flying through radioactive clouds; an electronics engineering officer at the National Security Agency, developing space communications security systems for satellites; and an instrumentation and flight test engineer on U.S. Air Force fighter and transport aircraft development programs. He also served as a civilian FTE/program manager for three aerospace companies:  General Dynamics (F-16 Full Scale Development), Falcon Jet Corp. (Coast Guard HU-25A development and certification), and Tracor Flight Systems Inc. (Canadair Challenger development and certification, plus numerous fighter, transport and helicopter test programs)."

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1636
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #237 on: July 05, 2010, 12:23:37 pm »
But why would that make him an authority on things after he left the Air Force?  I would assume that more important would be his credibility as a reporter.  How many of his stories about super-secret extraordinary aircraft proved to be true?  And how many were either unproven, or disproven?

Similarly, you can look at what happened to Nick Cook.  He had a lot of credibility as an editor at Janes.  But then he started writing about anti-gravity devices and Nazi UFOs.

And as I noted, a person's previous record only gets them so far.  It does not substitute for lack of evidence.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  And when it came to Blackstar, there was no good evidence.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2010, 01:16:10 pm by blackstar »

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2103
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #238 on: July 05, 2010, 01:29:49 pm »
Yeah, I'm gonna go with Dwayne on this one. Need I point out Dan Rather and the fiasco that turned his cred as a "respected journalist" into the-now train wreck of a career path he's been on since. There you go. You can take that to the bank.

Let's what Bill Scott will serve up for Act III.
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1984
  • I am not actually here.
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #239 on: July 05, 2010, 03:41:46 pm »
I don't read too much into the "it's not real without a photo!" bs for this and many other reasons.
Once you have declared that the insistence upon evidence is BS, you have made whatever it is you're obsessed about a *religion.*

Sorry, after re-reading my post I can see how it was less than clear. I was absolutely not arguing against the insistence of evidence, I was arguing against the insistence of *photographic* evidence.
For example, imagine someone saying the KH-11 is not real, because it has not been photographed (close up).
Or someone saying that TSSAM never flew. It did, records of the flight tests are all over the place, but photos are hard to come by.

Really. I've heard this line time and time again.

Was more than one cooling method proposed for the X-24C?

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1636
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #240 on: July 05, 2010, 06:55:23 pm »
But photographic evidence is some of the strongest possible evidence for certain things.  Yes, there are many other things that can constitute evidence.  But what you cited--an eyewitness account--generally ranks as one of the weakest (or lowest confidence) forms of evidence.  That's what really kicked off the discussion.

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1984
  • I am not actually here.
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #241 on: July 05, 2010, 09:51:23 pm »
But photographic evidence is some of the strongest possible evidence for certain things.  Yes, there are many other things that can constitute evidence.  But what you cited--an eyewitness account--generally ranks as one of the weakest (or lowest confidence) forms of evidence.  That's what really kicked off the discussion.

Sorry, I wasn't citing eyewitness accounts. I was giving examples of things that people do not bother to report on, or snap a picture of. I'm not sure how my post was taken as an eyewitness account

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 12939
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #242 on: July 05, 2010, 11:40:57 pm »
Perhaps I was responsible for the confusion, although my example was not used to justify the notion of eyewitnessing. Rather the point I was trying to make is that I'm more willing to believe a high ranking officer telling me something he witnessed firsthand than what an average soldier or a lazy journalist might report having heard about. The difference doesn't lie only in how credible the story is, but how reliable the source is, depending on their professional status and references.

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2103
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #243 on: July 06, 2010, 03:54:37 pm »
I don't know. In my experience, an officer can be just as full of it as your enlisted grunt. If an officer wanted to pull your leg or just embellish something ordinary for own his tale's sake, he's gonna do so.

In a COMPLETELY TOPIC RELATED question, was there any specific payloads or experiments intended for the small payload bay on Lockheed's variant of the X-24C?
« Last Edit: July 07, 2010, 05:56:18 pm by XP67_Moonbat »
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline edwest

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 209
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #244 on: July 07, 2010, 06:54:44 pm »
To airrocket -


I don't know why you're so puzzled about NASA's decision making. The US Government has the final say as far as I'm concerned.

Regarding a few lifting body designs - where does the lift come from? Honestly, I've seen one shape that reminds me of a guy sitting in a bathtub. Just looking for a little help here. :)





Ed

Offline mz

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 682
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #245 on: July 12, 2010, 10:47:58 am »
well, almost anything has lift. And if you fly fast enough, that lift keeps you in the air. After spending the rocket fuel, these things are not very heavy. When touching down, you need to flare to avoid a large vertical speed though.

Offline edwest

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 209
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #246 on: July 12, 2010, 04:10:48 pm »
Thank you. (Now I understand why Superman has lift :))




Ed

Offline airrocket

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 291
  • Dreams To Reality
    • Retro Flight
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #247 on: August 02, 2010, 04:25:57 pm »
Any pics of the SV-5J turbine powered X-24A? I wonder where the jets where mounted. What pics I have seen are of the SV-5J that was converted back to rocket power for display at WRP Ohio.
Vis Viva

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2103
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #248 on: August 02, 2010, 04:49:16 pm »
Try this out:
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline The Artist

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 517
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #249 on: August 02, 2010, 08:44:40 pm »
Any pics of the SV-5J turbine powered X-24A? I wonder where the jets where mounted. What pics I have seen are of the SV-5J that was converted back to rocket power for display at WRP Ohio.

The single engine would have been in the same location as the rocket engine on the X-24A. The picture posted by XP-67 Moonbat shows the intake location and type on the first of the SP-5J aircraft. Photos in Jay Miller's (Jay Miller so I can't post them here) The X-Planes X-1 to X-29 (and . . . X-1 to X-31) show both the first and the second aircraft. One of those photos shows the vehicle from the back with an empty engine bay.

The caption on one of the photos says that the second SP-5J was missing the intake. I'm not so sure that it was missing. I vaguely remember seeing a drawing back in the 70s showing an SP-5J with a NACA style intake on the bottom. Does anyone else remember seeing that?"
"Thank you for summing that up."

Hiccup Horrendous Haddock III

Offline Dynoman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 587
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #250 on: August 03, 2010, 04:19:25 am »
The SV-5J was to have flown with the J60-PW-1 (prototype designation) jet engine, which later becomes the JT12A. Martin was encouraged to develop the SV-5J concept after Chuck Yeager, head of the Aerospace Research Pilots School (to train USAF astronauts), suggested that he could use such an aircraft to help train his future military-men-in-space. Martin developed two 'shells' of the SV-5J and approached Milt Thompson to flight test it. Engineers were concerned about the stability of the vehicle during its powered climb to altitude. 

Offline airrocket

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 291
  • Dreams To Reality
    • Retro Flight
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #251 on: August 06, 2010, 07:18:09 pm »
looking at moonbat pic I gather that dark object underneath between the wing wheels is the funnel like shape intake?
Vis Viva

Offline The Artist

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 517
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #252 on: August 06, 2010, 10:29:30 pm »
Yes, that is the intake on the underside of that one.
"Thank you for summing that up."

Hiccup Horrendous Haddock III

Offline Dynoman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 587
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #253 on: August 09, 2010, 04:27:20 am »
Picture from Airliners.net taken outside of USAFA. Interesting to note the "Beware of Blast" decal on the aft fuselage indicating a propulsion unit.  :P

Offline Retrofit

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 494
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #254 on: August 16, 2010, 01:11:52 am »
Hi,
3 (V1, V2 & V3) ASSET configuration proposals. The last V3 one was selected.

Sources: AGARD Lecture serie 42 volume 1: "Aerodynamic problems of hypersonic vehicles", pages 151-152/238.
AD number: AD0747878
http://www.dtic.mil/srch/search?template=%2Fdtic%2Fsearch%2Fresults-template.html&changequery=1&hl=y&s=1&searchview=d4&enableLemmatization=yes&site=dticst&q=AD747878&s=1&c=t3&submit.x=12&submit.y=11.

Is there a 3V drawing of the MARTIN X-24C' proposal available (All the X-24C' 3V in this thread seem to be related to the LOCKHEED proposals)?
Note: Perspective drawing and:
Martin X-24C desktop model from beautiful Chad Slattery site http://home.earthlink.net/~chadslattery/
© 2008 Chad Slattery
Thanks in advance
« Last Edit: August 16, 2010, 01:24:32 am by Retrofit »

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8210
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #255 on: August 16, 2010, 02:32:48 am »
Sources: AGARD Lecture serie 42 volume 1: "Aerodynamic problems of hypersonic vehicles", pages 151-152/238.
AD number: AD0747878
http://www.dtic.mil/srch/search?template=%2Fdtic%2Fsearch%2Fresults-template.html&changequery=1&hl=y&s=1&searchview=d4&enableLemmatization=yes&site=dticst&q=AD747878&s=1&c=t3&submit.x=12&submit.y=11.

It's me only who recieves

"No full text document exists for this AD Number.
Content-type: text/html ERROR: Can't write to the log file."

message at DTIC site trying to access full-text pdfs recently?
[/quote]
« Last Edit: August 16, 2010, 03:11:20 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1636
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #256 on: August 16, 2010, 04:38:50 am »
Yeah, I think they are having computer problems. I downloaded a document Friday morning and then by Friday afternoon I got the same message you got.  So their computer is down or something.

Offline robunos

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1661
  • You're Mad, You Are.....
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #257 on: August 16, 2010, 08:40:33 am »
 
   I get "No full text document exists for this AD Number."


cheers,
         Robin.
Where ARE the Daleks when you need them......

Offline Dynoman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 587
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #258 on: August 21, 2010, 07:26:51 pm »
May have been posted earlier, but I couldn't find it in the search. Here are FDL-3H, FDL-3J, FDL-3K, and I think FDL-3O(?).

Offline Desert Dawn

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 191
    • Stratosphere Models
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #259 on: August 24, 2010, 03:52:02 pm »
May have been posted earlier, but I couldn't find it in the search. Here are FDL-3H, FDL-3J, FDL-3K, and I think FDL-3O(?).

FDL-2,  bottom right corner. Posted earlier by someone else.

Offline nivek626

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 5
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #260 on: September 06, 2010, 04:30:50 pm »
I am sure some of you have already found this but there is some great info on the early X-24C at the NTRS but beware it is a large file 15.07 MEG. IT includes some good info on landing gear ,rocket motors, construction and such. enjoy          http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19790007768_1979007768.pdf

Offline dannydale

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 212
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #261 on: September 07, 2010, 12:33:32 pm »
Nivek, I wonder why your post didn't form a link. Let's try that again.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19790007768_1979007768.pdf

Offline nivek626

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 5
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #262 on: September 07, 2010, 05:25:17 pm »
thanks for the help  new at this

Offline DSE

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 444
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #263 on: September 08, 2010, 04:17:05 pm »
I am sure some of you have already found this but there is some great info on the early X-24C at the NTRS but beware it is a large file 15.07 MEG. IT includes some good info on landing gear ,rocket motors, construction and such. enjoy          http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19790007768_1979007768.pdf

If anyone is interested ina color schlieren photro see:
http://lisar.larc.nasa.gov/UTILS/info.cgi?id=EL-2001-00415

Offline Tailspin Turtle

  • Naval Aviation Author
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 669
    • U.S. Navy Aircraft History
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #264 on: September 08, 2010, 10:12:56 pm »
I was a flight test engineer for McDonnell, assigned to Edwards Air Force Base from late 1966 to mid 1968. One of several memories of other test activities at that time was watching an unpowered lifting body test flight, probably the HL-10. The drop was made directly over the Edwards Lake Bed at an altitude of 45,000 feet, about eight miles above the lake bed. You could see the B-52 and contrails from three chase F-104s flying roughly north in formation to the drop point. When the formation was adjacent to and a bit east of the touchdown point, there was suddenly another contrail going ballistic, with the chase planes pushing over to follow it. They all came out of contrail altitude pretty quickly and were difficult to see with the naked eye, so we shifted our gaze to the west, above the hills. After about three minutes, the lifting body and the chase planes came into sight, sinking fast, probably coming through 10,000 feet, having made a U-turn following the drop for a landing on lake bed runway 18, which was about 23,000 feet long. The 104s had their gear down, with one on each side of the lifting body and fairly close and the third somewhat farther out. The pilot would flare, the gear would pop out, and it would touch down at something on the order of 200 knots. The 104s would not touch down but would go into burner, clean up, and climb out while the lifting body was careening across the lake bed trailing dust for quite some distance. (Imagine an elongated, upside-down, Volkswagen Beetle, going like stink.) Total flight time was about four minutes from 45,000 feet, which given the altitude of Edwards, was an average rate of descent of a bit over 10,000 feet per minute, or a little over 200 knots straight down. My impression was that the "glide" angle was about 30 degrees but it may not have been that steep. It was quite a sight.

An interesting summary of the HL-10 program: http://dtrs.dfrc.nasa.gov/archive/00000234/01/RP1332.pdf
« Last Edit: September 08, 2010, 10:17:26 pm by Tailspin Turtle »

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3723
I love Strange Technology

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10307
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #266 on: October 26, 2010, 02:10:53 am »
I am sure some of you have already found this but there is some great info on the early X-24C at the NTRS but beware it is a large file 15.07 MEG. IT includes some good info on landing gear ,rocket motors, construction and such. enjoy          http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19790007768_1979007768.pdf

Nice... missed this.

CONFIGURATION DEVELOPMENT STUDY OF THE X-24C HYPERSONIC RESEARCH AIRPLANE - PHASE I [Lockheed]
Quote
Four hypersonic research airplane configurations found to be the most cost effective were selected for further refinement. The selection was based on a systematic analysis and evaluation of realistic designs, involving nine different configurations, evolving from three different structural/thermal concepts, coupled with existing rocket and sustainer engines. All configurations were constrained by the mission profiles, research requirements, aerodynamic envelope and maximum launch weight established by NASA.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19790007768_1979007768.pdf

CONFIGURATION DEVELOPMENT STUDY OF THE X-24C HYPERSONIC RESEARCH AIRPLANE - PHASE II [Lockheed]
Quote
The X-24C Hypersonic Research Vehicle, configured with a heat-sink structure, a launch mass limit of 31.75 Mg and powered by an LR-105 Rocket Engine plus 12 LR-101 Sustainer Engines, was found to be the more cost effective of the candidate configurations. In addition, the configuration provides the maximum off design growth potential capability and subsequently, was selected as the candidate configuration to be subjected to the design refinement study in the remaining segment of the study. Selection of this configuration was based on the analytical study conducted on the performance growth capabilities of the candidate configurations selected from the Phase 1 Study.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19790008668_1979008668.pdf

CONFIGURATION DEVELOPMENT STUDY OF THE X-24C HYPERSONIC RESEARCH AIRPLANE - PHASE III [Lockheed]
Quote
The conclusion evolved from the three phased study on the configuration development of the X-24C Hypersonic Research Airplane makes it evident that it is practical to design and build the high performance National Hypersonic Flight Research Facility airplane with today's state of the art within the cost and operational constraints established by NASA. The vehicle launched at 31.75 Mg from the B-52 can cruise for 40 seconds at Mach 6.78 on scramjets. Without scramjets it can approach Mach 8 with a 453.6 Kg payload or do 70 seconds of cruise at Mach 6 with a 2.27 Mg payload. Reduction in cost is possible with a vehicle scaled to a lesser mass and capability.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19790008669_1979008669.pdf
« Last Edit: October 26, 2010, 02:17:33 am by overscan »
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1636
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #267 on: October 26, 2010, 09:57:12 am »
I took this photo a few weeks ago while at Edwards on business.

Offline airrocket

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 291
  • Dreams To Reality
    • Retro Flight
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #268 on: October 30, 2010, 05:30:58 pm »
Amazing after all those flights ending with X-24B which demonstrated sharper nose flat bottom planform was far superior to the blunt bodies with vertical winglets. FDL-7 planform series incorporated these design attributes. So what does NASA and mainstream aerospace do? They ignore all that and to this day NASA is still generating blunt designs? Did a generation of engineers forget the lessons of the past?
Vis Viva

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1636
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #269 on: October 30, 2010, 07:47:47 pm »
Amazing after all those flights ending with X-24B which demonstrated sharper nose flat bottom planform was far superior to the blunt bodies with vertical winglets. FDL-7 planform series incorporated these design attributes. So what does NASA and mainstream aerospace do? They ignore all that and to this day NASA is still generating blunt designs? Did a generation of engineers forget the lessons of the past?

Is that a rhetorical question or are you assuming that they're all idiots?

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7677
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #270 on: January 28, 2011, 12:16:12 am »
Fifty year old article on space planes from the Air Force Association:

The Spaceplane—Toward a Space-Age Kitty Hawk
By J. S. Butz, Jr.
Technical Editor

A sizable number of aeronautical experts in industry, government research agencies, and the Air Force believe they can achieve the marriage of airplane and space vehicle in the decade ahead. The result would be a gigantic step forward. If, as Air Force planners logically contend, the atmosphere and space are a single operating con­tinuum called aerospace, the inexorable pressure of operational requirements on technology must event­ually marry the airplane to the space vehicle. The object of the wedding is to conceive a winged offspring which can fly into orbit, rather than being shot there with large rocket boosters, and which can take off from and land on conventional airfields. The first successful flight of such a vehicle, into orbit and return, will truly mark the Kitty Hawk milestone of man's conquest of space.

The "Spaceplane" concept has an awesome set of general requirements. It is envisioned as a self-con­tained, one-stage vehicle which uses air-breathing engines to maneuver in the atmosphere and to ac­celerate itself to satellite speed of about 18,000 mph. It must either carry enough fuel into orbit to maneuver extensively in space or be able to collect this fuel as it orbits in the upper atmosphere. Finally, the Space-plane must be able to withstand the heat of reentry, maneuver at very high speeds in the atmosphere as it returns to the earth's surface, and land under power at relatively low speeds at any desired airfield.

Militarily, the attractiveness of Spaceplane is un­questionable. However, the first glance from the tech­nical viewpoint indicates defiance of many of the physical laws which govern the design of aircraft, air-breathing engines, booster rockets, and reentry vehicles. It certainly pushes current technology to its limits, and in many areas the concept cannot be proved or disproved until more research is completed. As with all vehicles which strain existing knowledge, Spaceplane has both strong proponents and strong critics. The argument is primarily over where Space-plane fits into the time schedule. Few people contend that Spaceplane could never be built, but many question whether it could fly in the next ten years, even if it were given the highest national priority in a crash development program.

These critics point to the host of separate vehicles now under development, which considered in the aggregate could accomplish all of the missions Space-plane can and perhaps better. An example is the fact that large boosters such as Nova can put more weight into orbit in much less time. The reconnaissance and early-warning satellites, such as Samos and Midas, can accomplish these missions as well and perhaps as cheaply as Spaceplane. It is also probable that the Spaceplane, which will need a very large volume to carry its load of hydrogen fuel, will never be able to maneuver as well during reentry as a heavier-for-its-­size Dyna-Soar-type hypersonic glider.

In effect, it is the multipurpose aircraft require­ment carried over into the space field. It is very diffi­cult to say whether it is better to have a group of high-performance specialized vehicles or a multipurpose vehicle which can do many of the necessary jobs but none of them at top performance. But the increas­ing cost and complexity of individual weapon systems make the multipurpose approach an attractive one. The Spaceplane proponents do not suggest that the current space programs be canceled and that all effort be put on the all-purpose vehicle. They do believe emphatically that a single-stage vehicle capable of aircraft-type takeoffs and landings, which can carry men and a sizable payload in between the atmosphere and space almost at will, will be the foundation of the space-vehicle program during the 1970s.

The best indication available today that the Space-plane is feasible and can be flown before 1970 is that a sizable group of aeronautical experts sprinkled through industry, government research agencies, and the Air Force not only believe that it can be done but are enthusiastic about it. Several manufacturers have already submitted pre­liminary type Spaceplane proposals to the USAF. These have been evaluated and considered in the light of proposals from government laboratories and from within the Air Force. The USAF budget for fiscal 1962 contains money for more detailed Space-plane studies and for state-of-the-art experiments.

Not even the enthusiasts, however, claim that Space-plane will be an easy technical development. Much of the current US research and development effort, such as Dyna-Soar, the X-15, and state-of-the-art work in high-temperature structures, high-speed stability and control, etc., will feed valuable information into the Spaceplane project. But one field of experimental re­search vital to the project has been virtually abandoned in recent years, and there can be no sensible hope for a true one-stage Spaceplane unless large-scale research in this area is revived. The missing technical link in the Spaceplane con­cept is the air-breathing engines that can operate at hypersonic speeds. Air-breathing propulsion systems theoretically can eliminate the need for high-thrust rocket boosters by drawing their oxidizer supply from the atmosphere. Since the weight of oxygen needed is much larger than the fuel weight, hypersonic air-breathers offer the hope of very light, orbital propul­sion systems.

The key to hypersonic air-breathing engines is the ability to burn the fuel externally. In effect, the en­gines must be turned inside out so that their hot parts will be exposed and can be cooled by radiation. The air entering a conventional enclosed engine at hyper­sonic speeds would be literally too hot for the engine component to handle. And there would be no way to further raise temperature and therefore produce thrust by adding "fuel to the flame." External burning has been studied theoretically for many years, but the only extensive experimental re­search effort was conducted at the Lewis Laboratory of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics in the middle 1950s. This research proved conclusively that external burning would work at relatively low Mach numbers. It also cleared up enough theoretical unknowns to convince many thermodynamicists and engine designers that it would work through the high Mach number range right on up to orbital speeds and at very high altitudes.

The external-burning effort was not continued, however, and it was abandoned along with all other air-breathing engine research when the NACA be­came the National Aeronautics and Space Administra­tion. The decision to drop all other air-breathing work was perhaps the most controversial one yet made by NASA. It raised strong protests from within industry, the military, European aeronautical circles, and within NASA itself. It forced the professional reorientation of the research scientists at Lewis Laboratory who had achieved worldwide eminence for their efforts with air-breathing engines. The decision not only weakened any Spaceplane or air-breathing booster development but limited hypersonic aircraft configurations to the essentially one-shot, rocket-powered, boost-glide type.

During the past couple of years theoretical work with external burning has continued, primarily in industry. Further experimentation is needed immediately, however, to obtain detailed design data and to bring the Spaceplane onto more solid ground technically. The development problems of a Spaceplane extend far beyond external burning, and they occur in three of its basic modes of operation, which are flight into orbit, maneuvering in space, and reentry into the atmosphere. When the Spaceplane takes off in the conventional manner and accelerates to a speed of around 18, mph while climbing to an altitude of 200 miles or more, its flight will resemble much that of a large rocket as of an airplane. An analysis of this flight into orbit must be made from the standpoint of both types of vehicles.

Fundamentally, the rocket vehicle is much easier to analyze than the hypersonic airplane. There are two basic factors which influence the ability of the ICBM-type rocket or a large space booster to ac­celerate to orbital speed, and they are just as impor­tant to the Spaceplane as they are to the rocket. These factors are the vehicle's mass ratio and the specific impulse of its propellants. The mass ratio is the total takeoff weight of the vehicle divided by its weight after all fuel has been consumed and the engines stop. Mass ratio is an indication of the lightness and efficiency of the vehicle's structure, and it is a dimensionless number. The specific impulse is a measure of the energy released by each pound of propellant. Its definition is the pounds of thrust produced by each pound of propellant burned each second, so that the specific impulse is given in seconds for each propellant combination of fuel and oxidizer.

In terms of practical numbers the propellants currently used in operational rocket boosters have specific impulse ratings of around 250 seconds or a little more This means that a single-stage rocket would have t have a mass ratio of around fifteen to achieve orbit speed if it carried very little payload. Adding a large payload—so that something useful can be done with the rocket after it is in orbit—means that the mass ratio would have to be increased significantly. Unfortunately, the best mass ratio that can be achieved with any large single-stage vehicle today, using the construction materials which are available, is only about seven or eight. So it is not possible to use single-stage boosters to put even an empty shell into orbit. The effective mass ratio of large rocket booster systems is increased by using the stage or step prin­ciple by which it is possible to discard dead weight in flight. For example, the effective mass ratio of a three-stage rocket is approximately the product of the mass ratios of the separate stages. This powerful design tool makes it possible to take three sturdy, structur­ally conservative rocket stages with mass ratios of three and connect them with equally sturdy and re­liable interstage structures and come up with a com­plete vehicle that has a mass ratio potential of nearly twenty-seven. Therefore, such a vehicle could carry a sizable payload into orbit using current propellants. Five stages are about the practical limit.

As long as the multistage principle is the only method used to increase performance, the size of the complete booster vehicle goes up rapidly when the payload is increased. The Saturn and Nova vehicles now under development are good examples. While it will be available in several configurations, the Saturn's capability generally is to put approximately 35,000 pounds up into a low orbit with a total vehicle takeoff weight of around 1,350,000 pounds. Prelimi­nary designs on the Nova show that it will be able to put up about 400,000 pounds in a low orbit for a maximum vehicle weight somewhere around 10,000,­000 pounds. The other route to better rocket vehicle perform­ance is to use improved propellants with increased specific impulse. The liquid hydrogen-liquid oxygen high-performance propellant combination now coming into wide use will give an improvement of twenty-five percent or better over liquid oxygen-kerosene, which is the most common operational combination today. Specific impulse of the hydrogen-oxygen sys­tem is over 300 seconds in most engines, but this still isn't high enough to get a one-stage vehicle into orbit with any kind of a payload.

Big improvements in specific impulse are in the de­velopment mill and undoubtedly will become opera­tional around 1965 or shortly thereafter. The nuclear rocket being pursued in the NASA-Atomic Energy Commission Project Rover will have a specific impulse of around 700 and possibly much better. Thus the Rover rocket will be able to put a one-stage vehicle into orbit if it is possible, from a civil safety point of view, to operate nuclear rockets in the atmosphere. If not, the nuclear rocket will be sent into orbit by chemical boosters where it will be started and used to send large payloads farther out into space. A new chemical rocket (described on page 108), which combines the liquid- and solid-fuel ideas into one engine, has shown the potential of achieving a specific impulse of 500 seconds or so. This hybrid rocket could place a large payload into orbit using a single-stage vehicle, and it is possible that it could be ready for service long before the Rover rocket.

However, strictly from the specific impulse point of view there are no large-thrust engines on the horizon that have the potential of the system planned for the Spaceplane. The Spaceplane propulsion system will burn hydrogen fuel with air, and its fuel specific im­pulse will be about 6,000 seconds. All air-breathing propulsion systems have much larger fuel specific im­pulse figures than rocket engines through burning the oxygen in the atmosphere rather than carrying an oxidizer along in the vehicle. Fuel specific impulse of good hydrocarbon-fueled turbojets is about 2,000 seconds, and the hydrogen is better because its energy per pound is much higher.

The very high specific impulse of air-breathing en­gines does not automatically mean that they have the potential of propelling a single-stage vehicle into orbit. There is the major problem of keeping the air-breath­ers operating at all of the necessary speeds and alti­tudes. However, even if this were no problem, hydro­carbon engines probably would not be able to send a one-stage airplane into orbit because the require­ments for mass ratio and aerodynamic efficiency would get too high. Several factors combine to make the hydrogen en­gines proposed for the Spaceplane marginal for their task of sending the one-stage airplane into orbit. These are the factors which have always plagued air­craft designers when they were trying to reach higher speeds or provide more range. The factors are the, airplane's lift/drag ratio and the excess power avail­able under all flight conditions.

The lift/drag ratio depends upon the total aero­dynamic efficiency of the airplane, its wings, fuselage, tail surfaces, etc. If the lift/drag ratio is high, then the power required is low. The dramatic effect of improving lift/drag ratio was evidenced with the B-70 supersonic bomber. When the design was first studied it was predicted that a lift/drag ratio of four would be available at the Mach 3 cruise speed. This meant that the engine thrust must be one-fourth of the weight of the airplane. It was impossible to carry enough fuel to achieve long range with this sort of aerodynamic efficiency. Through an extensive research effort the lift/drag ratio was raised to eight so that the power required for the B-70 was cut in half, as was the fuel consumption.

The other vital factor to a constantly accelerating airplane is the excess thrust available at all flight speeds and altitudes. If the thrust available is just equal to the total drag in pounds, the aircraft can maintain level flight, but it cannot accelerate or climb. If only a ten percent margin of power is available, then the aircraft will accelerate so slowly that it probably will consume its fuel long before it reaches orbital speed. Modern supersonic aircraft need at least a thirty percent power margin over most of their speed range to accelerate efficiently to their top speeds. It is probable that the Spaceplane will need a substantially higher margin of excess power to reach orbital speed.

In many ways the rocket is the ideal engine for acceleration and climb. Its performance gets better as the altitude increases, and it consumes fuel rapidly so that the vehicle weight goes down quickly. The excess power margin therefore goes up rapidly during a rocket flight. Also the rocket leaves the atmosphere so rapidly that its aerodynamic efficiency can be dis­regarded in a general discussion. In contrast, the airplane's climb and acceleration performance is extremely critical because the thrust of air-breathing engines decreases at the higher alti­tudes and the lift/drag ratio decreases at the higher speeds. Therefore, the power available decreases as the power required increases. In this situation the thrust margin for acceleration and climb can quickly get too small for efficient flight or can disappear al­together so that a definite limit is placed on maxi­mum speed and altitude performance.

The Spaceplane proponents believe that they will be able to maintain a satisfactory power margin over the entire range of the Spaceplane flight speeds. At subsonic speeds, for takeoff and acceleration through the very high drag region near Mach 1, the Spaceplane undoubtedly will have some sort of turbofan engine. Somewhere near Mach 2 the external burning will be initiated, with the turbofans probably shut down and the ducts closed off somewhere around Mach 3. In theory, it now appears possible for the external-burning engines to maintain an adequate margin of excess power on up to orbital speeds.

It is certainly conceivable that the excess power available will go to zero sometime during the Spaceplane flight either because the engine thrust drops off in a certain speed range or the lift/drag ratio gets very low. If this is impossible to correct, then con­sideration probably will be given to carrying rocket engines along to provide the power necessary to pass through the critical speed range.

Proper operation of the external-burning engines is keyed to one main question. The hydrogen fuel must be burned in a supersonic flow when the Spaceplane is flying at high hypersonic speeds, and it has not been positively established that supersonic com­bustion is possible. In the external-burning experi­ments conducted to date the free stream Mach num­ber has been around 2 to 6 so that the flow on the after portions of the wing has been slowed down through a couple of strong shock waves and is still subsonic. If supersonic combustion proves possible, then the efficiency of conventional enclosed ramjets can also be increased significantly in the Mach number region of about 4 to 8. External-burning systems must also be integrated into an aircraft configuration with more care than conventional engines. It apparently will be possible with external burning to improve the pressure distri­bution around a hypersonic airplane and improve its lift/drag ratio considerably.

Once the Spaceplane has achieved an orbit, there are many missions possible for it to perform. These missions include: rendezvous with other space vehi­cles to either join or inspect them; launch of both offensive and defensive weapons; provide long-term observation and reconnaissance and maintain an advantageous position from which it may launch a glide attack into the atmosphere. All of these mis­sions have one requirement in common, and that is a need for maneuverability. The most effective space vehicles will undoubtedly be those which have the greatest maneuvering capability. Two general cate­gories of engine are now being developed or are available to maneuver in space. First, there is the chemical rocket which will provide high thrust and rapid maneuverability but needs a large supply of propellant. Second, there are the electric engines, the ion and plasma rockets, which provide low thrust and slow maneuvers. These engines do not need a large supply of propellant, but they require a large fixed weight in the electrical-generating machinery, which supplies them power.

It is probable that the Spaceplane and other mili­tary vehicles operating in space near the earth will need to maneuver rapidly and will use chemical en­gines to do this. Most of the Spaceplane ideas being studied today incorporate a novel idea which will provide the Spaceplane with a good maneuvering capability even though it doesn't carry a large pro­pellant load into orbit. This idea is to carry some light machinery which can liquify the atmospheric oxygen available at an orbital altitude of sixty to seventy miles. The machinery would be run by liquid hydrogen. Studies of this system show that a Spaceplane with a takeoff weight of about 500,000 pounds can climb into orbit with the necessary machinery and hydrogen fuel load to store about 500,000 pounds of liquid oxygen taken from the atmosphere. There will still be enough hydrogen aboard to burn with the 500,000 pounds of liquid oxygen in a rocket and provide a large maneuvering capability near the earth. Eight times more weight of oxygen than of hydrogen is re­quired in the chemical rockets so that less than 50,­000 pounds of hydrogen fuel needed by the rockets plus a much smaller weight of hydrogen fuel for the oxygen collector must be carried into orbit to provide the maneuvering potential. The drag of the Space-plane while it is collecting the oxygen will be over­come by external burning or possibly by a small rocket.

From the military point of view there is still one major drawback to the oxygen-collection system, which has been studied extensively by Antonio Fern of the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn and Sterge T. Demetriades of the Northrop Corporation. With the presently proposed systems the oxygen cannot be collected quickly, and it will take in the neighborhood of 100 days to store 500,000 pounds of liquid oxygen with a system that can be carried in the Spaceplane. Fundamentally there are two basic space maneuvers. One is to change orbital altitude while staying in the same orbital plane, and the other is to change planes while holding altitude. There are an infinite number of powered maneuvers which are combinations of these two. Changing orbital planes requires considerably more energy than changing altitude so that the plane of the original orbit of a Spaceplane will have a strong influence as to whether it can accomplish any given task. To illustrate the comparative energy require­ments, it takes a velocity change of around 14,000 feet per second to change the orbital plane forty de­grees at an altitude of 1,000 nautical miles, and it requires a velocity change of about 1,400 feet per second to change from a circular orbit 500 miles high to one 1,000 miles from the earth.

The Spaceplane will make a glider-type reentry, probably similar to what is now planned for the Dyna-Soar. Initially, the angle of attack will be very high, close to ninety degrees, and this will be held during the very high heating period. Consequently, the bottom of the Spaceplane will be of heavier, more heat-resistant construction than the top surfaces. Some­where below Mach 15 the angle of attack will be reduced, and the Spaceplane will fly more like an airplane. There is one major design difference between the Spaceplane and the Dyna-Soar. The Spaceplane will be a very large vehicle, probably well over 150 feet long, and it will have a very large tank space for the liquid hydrogen it must carry. Liquid hydrogen weighs only about four pounds per cubic foot as compared to kerosene and liquid oxygen, both of which weigh around sixty pounds per cubic foot. Since a Spaceplane weighing 500,000 pounds at takeoff would have to carry in the neighborhood of 200,000 pounds of liquid-hydrogen fuel, its tank space would be some­thing like 50,000 cubic feet just for the hydrogen, which results in a very large vehicle.

During the reentry, however, this almost empty tank volume aids the Spaceplane considerably. The Space-plane will essentially be a large empty shell on the way to the ground, and its wing loading will be very low. The low wing loading results in a low heating rate, and it is presently believed that the heating rate is so low that the Spaceplane structure can be cooled completely by radiation. If complete radiation cooling is possible, then the skin can be very thin; very little insulation and no cooling system will be required under it. In other words, the Spaceplane can be built with much the same structural concepts used on cur­rent Mach 2 aircraft because essentially all of the heat generated by air friction will be radiated away by the skin. Therefore, the main structural problem is to get skin materials which have slightly better radi­ation efficiency than those available today. It is be­lieved that this will be possible in the next four or five years.

The Dyna-Soar heating problem is more severe be­cause it is a small dense vehicle with a relatively heavy wing loading. The higher wing loading raises the heating rate and requires the heavy use of insula­tion and cooling equipment for certain types of reentry along with radiation cooling. The Spaceplane's very light wing loading will make its landing a relatively simple matter regardless of the configuration that is finally chosen for it. Its land­ing speed and sink rate will be well below those ex­perienced with the X-15 and the Dyna-Soar.
“I judge civilization by simple tests What is the degree of freedom possessed by citizen or subject Can he think speak & act freely under well established well known laws? Judging by these standards Great Britain & the United States can claim to be in the forefront of civilized communities Churchill

Offline Barrington Bond

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 924
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #271 on: January 30, 2011, 01:53:32 am »
Anyone got a clue as to what this is? It appeared in a 60's comic Space news section.

Chiz,
Barry

"It hasn't squeaked in a week!"

Offline mz

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 682
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #272 on: January 30, 2011, 11:42:35 am »
Quote
what about -1 through -4? Any pictures or information on any of them would be greatly appreciated.

This may be of a little use.

Regards,

Greg

Where's the picture with the collection of FDL Hypersonic models from? Asking if it can be republished somewhere...

Offline Retrofit

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 494
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #273 on: February 06, 2011, 12:19:31 am »
The FDL series 5, 6, 7, 8 and well as the F-4, F-5 and HLD-35 have been quite well described in this thread and others. http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,11504.msg109405.html#msg109405

But is there some more information (2V or 3V drawings) available about the AFFDL previous models such as the AF, V and FV series, the FDL-1 to FDL-3 (ref.: Dynoman's previous post in this thread) and ... the WADD I & II.

Thanks in advance!
« Last Edit: February 06, 2011, 12:36:27 am by Retrofit »

Offline Graham1973

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 901
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #274 on: February 06, 2011, 01:07:12 am »
Just for the sake of completeness, from the now defunct Model Builders Reference Vault, the X-RV from Marooned.

Offline Retrofit

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 494
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #275 on: February 06, 2011, 01:32:34 am »
Just for the sake of completeness, from the now defunct Model Builders Reference Vault, the X-RV from Marooned.

Interesting, thanks Graham!
What is this history of this design?
Sorry, forget my question:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,7459.msg64777.html#msg64777
« Last Edit: February 06, 2011, 01:41:53 am by Retrofit »

Offline OM

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 753
    • OMBlog
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #276 on: February 11, 2011, 10:55:54 pm »
Just for the sake of completeness, from the now defunct Model Builders Reference Vault, the X-RV from Marooned.

...Last word I got Phil Broad was going to either find a new and cheaper hosting service and put the site back up, or get someone to volunteer to take the site and its contents over. In either case, he's limited in how much time he can spend on keeping things updated.

Offline George Allegrezza

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 709
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #277 on: March 19, 2011, 08:37:14 am »
3-man Titan III-launched orbital HL-10:

http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19760073130

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1636
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #278 on: March 21, 2011, 03:16:58 pm »
3-man Titan III-launched orbital HL-10:

http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19760073130

That's neat.  Alas, the one thing--okay, two things--that made the HL-10 such a cool vehicle was that bubble canopy up front, and the smooth overall lines, particularly the upper fuselage, and this vehicle eliminates both of them.  It is interesting that they proposed parachute recovery.  They obviously figured out that the high landing speeds for lifting vehicles were not good.

Offline Howedar

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 58
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #279 on: March 29, 2011, 10:46:29 am »
Amazing after all those flights ending with X-24B which demonstrated sharper nose flat bottom planform was far superior to the blunt bodies with vertical winglets. FDL-7 planform series incorporated these design attributes. So what does NASA and mainstream aerospace do? They ignore all that and to this day NASA is still generating blunt designs? Did a generation of engineers forget the lessons of the past?
In case this isn't a rhetorical question, Fay and Riddell demonstrated (at least for stagnation regions) that convective heat flux into a leading edge scales as the inverse of the square of the nose radius.

I measured X-24B's nose radius some time ago as on the order of 2-3". HL-10 is probably in excess of a foot. This is a heating rate different by a factor on the order of 20-30.

Orders of magnitude matter.

Offline airrocket

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 291
  • Dreams To Reality
    • Retro Flight
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #280 on: March 29, 2011, 04:25:46 pm »
There was a way to deal with the "sharp" nose heating issue. If one studies detailed drawings of the FDL-7 "sharp" LE the solution for the LE was very simple yet effective. Similar to a double pane glass window.
Vis Viva

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1984
  • I am not actually here.
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #281 on: April 11, 2011, 07:48:35 pm »
Alpha Draco is covered pretty extensively in "Engineering the space age: a rocket scientist remembers"

Most of the book is available freely online:
http://books.google.com/books?id=y-_qkTUY_MMC&lpg=PA163&ots=eDE15HvshG&dq=%22low%20level%20run%20in%22%20reentry&pg=PR6#v=onepage&q=alpha%20draco&f=false

There is some mention of ASSET as well.

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2103
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #282 on: April 12, 2011, 09:06:32 am »
Alpha Draco! I've always like that one. Thank you.
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline DSE

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 444
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #283 on: April 12, 2011, 12:38:32 pm »
Alpha Draco is covered pretty extensively in "Engineering the space age: a rocket scientist remembers"

Most of the book is available freely online:
http://books.google.com/books?id=y-_qkTUY_MMC&lpg=PA163&ots=eDE15HvshG&dq=%22low%20level%20run%20in%22%20reentry&pg=PR6#v=onepage&q=alpha%20draco&f=false

There is some mention of ASSET as well.

Or grab a copy of the PDF: http://aupress.au.af.mil/digital/pdf/book/brulle_engineering_space_age.pdf

Offline Retrofit

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 494
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #284 on: May 13, 2011, 10:49:58 am »

"Quote" deleted :-X

So the FLD7  (1967) was a result of the MDD model 176 (1964), not the contrary?
« Last Edit: May 14, 2011, 09:56:19 am by Retrofit »

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8210
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #285 on: May 13, 2011, 02:52:01 pm »
Retrofit, do you know term 'extensive overquoting'?
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1636
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #286 on: May 13, 2011, 03:09:07 pm »
Retrofit, do you know term 'extensive overquoting'?

At least break the quote up a bit into easy-to-digest pieces.

Offline Retrofit

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 494
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #287 on: May 14, 2011, 09:25:58 am »
Retrofit, do you know term 'extensive overquoting'?

At least break the quote up a bit into easy-to-digest pieces.

Sorry All for my previous TTGTB post. I was trying to plot, years by years, the different AFFDL lifting bodies researches and I was just wondering about the following comment by Paul Czyst (presented in Flateric's post #25 dated August 08, 2007):

"In a 1964 brief, Roland Quest of McDonnell Douglas Astronautics, St. Louis, presented a fully reusable hypersonic glider, the so-called model 176, ...
The Model 176 began with the collaboration of Robert Masek of McDonnell Douglas and Alfred Draper of AFFDL in the late 1950’s on hypersonic control issues. After a series of experimental and flight tests with different configurations the “X” tail configuration and the FDL-7C/D glider configurations emerged as the configuration that was inherently stable over the Mach range and had earth circumferential glide range. The result was the FDL-7MC and then the McDonnell Douglas Model 176."

In  the here-attached chart named "Delta body spacecraft development", the FDL-7 is dated around 1967.

Therefore my previous post' interrogation "So the FLD-7  (1967) was a result of the MDD model 176 (1964), not the contrary?"

Sorry again for the confusion!
« Last Edit: May 14, 2011, 09:29:10 am by Retrofit »

Offline Desert Dawn

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 191
    • Stratosphere Models
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #288 on: May 28, 2011, 10:38:34 pm »

"Quote" deleted :-X

So the FLD7  (1967) was a result of the MDD model 176 (1964), not the contrary?

Hi Retrofit:

The family tree for FDL-7 is (in progressing order):

FDL-7 C/D

FDL-7 MC (that's the one with the more rounded fuselage shape (but cross section still fairly trapezoidal) in the group photo of USAF lifting body desk models)

FDL-7 Model 176 A

FDL-7 Model 176 B (longuer than the A version).

(and without counting all the little sub-variants, like the earlier conical nose variants of Model 176).

Model 176 was the most recent one and the one that most recently started to get declassified.

Stephane
Stratosphere Models
Website:   http://www.picturetrail.com/stratospheremodels
« Last Edit: May 28, 2011, 10:42:42 pm by Desert Dawn »

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2103
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #289 on: April 26, 2012, 06:30:10 pm »
Lookin through DRJ's 2001 edition of SPACE SHUTTLE, in the color pages I saw an image of an M2-F2 atop a Titan II. Was there actually a serious proposal for that? And where can I find it?
« Last Edit: April 28, 2012, 05:37:33 pm by XP67_Moonbat »
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9830
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #290 on: May 27, 2012, 03:33:43 pm »

 
(Forward to 11:55 for ASSET)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

sublight

  • Guest
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #291 on: May 27, 2012, 04:44:34 pm »
The system kills the part of the link that starts the vid at 11:55.  This linky works.

http://youtu.be/nkIJS7bNoNc?t=11m55s
« Last Edit: May 27, 2012, 04:47:30 pm by sublight »

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6813
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #292 on: May 27, 2012, 05:34:04 pm »
Lookin through DRJ's 2001 edition of SPACE SHUTTLE, in the color pages I saw an image of an M2-F2 atop a Titan II. Was there actually a serious proposal for that?

Yes.
 
Quote
And where can I find it?

In my files, somewhere...
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9830
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #293 on: May 27, 2012, 06:09:25 pm »
The system kills the part of the link that starts the vid at 11:55.  This linky works.

http://youtu.be/nkIJS7bNoNc?t=11m55s

Thing is there is other interesting stuff on that video too.  Hound Dog launch, Titan II RV reentry, conical Atlas RV, Mace launch, etc.   
« Last Edit: May 27, 2012, 06:12:14 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9468
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #294 on: June 04, 2012, 10:51:03 am »
McDonnell ASSET model found on eBay.

URL:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/RARE-TOPPING-MCDONNELL-ASSET-RE-ENTRY-VEHICLE-DESK-SHELF-MODEL-/180897860383?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2a1e5a4b1f

Seller's Description:

RARE TOPPING MODEL OF THE MCDONNELL "ASSET"  RE- ENTRY VEHICLE. DESIGNED IN 1960 - THIS SUB-SCALE VEHICLE WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED TO VERIFY THE INTEGRITY OF THE HEAT SHIELD ON THE BOEING X-20 DYNASOAR PROJECT VEHICLE. LATER USED FOR SPACE SHUTTLE RE-ENTRY DATA. SIX WERE BUILT, SEVERAL LAUNCHED,  AND ONLY ONE SURVIVES. MODEL AND STAND IN EXCELLENT CONDITION - ORIGINAL DECALS INTACT. NOSE AND BOTTOM OF DELTA PAINTED AS IF IN RE-ENTRY MODE - SEE PHOTOS.  MEASURES 3.5" LONG & 2.75" W/S.   VERY COLORFUL MODEL IS SOLID AND STRAIGHT - DISPLAYS VERY WELL.  VERY HARD TO FIND IN ANY CONDITION.   
« Last Edit: June 04, 2012, 10:57:06 am by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9468
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #295 on: June 11, 2012, 10:42:54 am »
Northrop HL-10 heavyweight lifting body contractor model found on eBay.

URL:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/HL-10-Contractor-Model-NASA-Northrop-in-house-model-/180900000363?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2a1e7af26b

NOTE: Mistake corrected in text and title.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2012, 01:59:08 pm by flateric »

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2103
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #296 on: July 24, 2012, 10:36:22 pm »
Anybody have copy of this study from Northrop? 

Fallis, William B.:    Feasibility Study of Minimum Manned Lifting Body Entry Vehicle. Vol. I.    Publication NB 66-9 (Contract No. NAS 4-840), Northrop Norair, Jan. 1966.

I saw it referenced in James Sparks' Winged Rocketry, tracked the title down, but only managed one hit on Google, as a reference in another report.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2012, 10:50:21 pm by XP67_Moonbat »
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2103
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #297 on: July 25, 2012, 10:32:45 pm »
MANEUVERING AEROTHERMAL TECHNOLOGY (MAT) PROGRAM

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA118876

Found this while looking for the Northrop study.

Arrow down to Page 81. There's a reference to Hoyt, T. L., "Small Evader Vehicle (SEE) Feasibility Study AerodynamicFinal Report," (U) GE-ALDM-72-120, November 1972 (Secret).

Anyone ever hear of the Small Evader Vehicle?
« Last Edit: July 25, 2012, 11:26:52 pm by XP67_Moonbat »
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2103
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #298 on: July 25, 2012, 11:01:29 pm »
Here's a 1960 report from Convair, HYPERSONIC GLIDE VEHICLE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS. It's actually kinda "meh".

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/681567.pdf

In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2103
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #299 on: July 25, 2012, 11:23:08 pm »
Here's a nice one, EVOLUTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF HYPERSONIC COlFIGURATIONS 1958-1990

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA242768

128 pages including all the cover pages and bibliography. Check out the illustrations on 70,84,85, 99, & 108. From 111 on, Beta shows up.

Some of these drawings were in Sweetman's Aurora book.
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 12939
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #300 on: July 26, 2012, 02:04:23 am »
The Small Evader Vehicle is mentioned in an interesting post here:
http://www.espacial.com/contacto/10/viewtopic.php?f=10&p=25161&sid=a2ab1deec35f16c410cacad9f710a003

Offline Meteorit

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 427
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #301 on: July 26, 2012, 05:22:02 am »
Thanks for these. But when, oh when, will we get three-view drawings of any of the MDC Mach 6/Mach 12 designs from the 1960s-1980s?


Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 12939
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #302 on: November 01, 2012, 06:38:07 pm »
I could be wrong, but I don't think I have seen any reference to this PDF document before.

It's a 102-page file about Lockheed's X-24C proposal which contains sketches and data, and a lot of wind-tunnel model photographs (I've attached six of them, which I found representative and interesting):

STRESS ANALYSIS OF THE 1/30-SCALE X-24C HYPERSONIC RESEARCH VEHICLE WIND TUNNEL MODEL

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1984
  • I am not actually here.
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #303 on: November 01, 2012, 06:47:33 pm »
AMARV tunnel model, from ADA-A276 296

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 12939
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #304 on: November 05, 2012, 08:35:10 am »
A lot more X-24C in this fantastic 93-page file:

JOINT USAF/NASA HYPERSONIC RESEARCH AIRCRAFT STUDY

Frank S. Kirkham and Robert A. Jones, NASA Langley Research Center
and Melvin L. Buck and William P. Zima, Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory
August 4-8, 1975

Passing mention is made of the following design variations (bold type indicates images):
  • X-24C-9
  • X-24C-10
  • X-24C-12-I
  • X-24C-12-X
  • X-24C-12-X2
  • WHRA-52
  • HSRA
  • HYFAC
  • Winged HYFAC
I suggest the X-24C be split and made into a separate topic.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2012, 12:22:33 pm by Stargazer2006 »

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7677
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #305 on: November 05, 2012, 12:17:06 pm »
Stargazer do you have a PDF of that wonderful 93 page document?
Quote from: Stargazer2006

link=topic=722.msg166362#msg166362 date=1352133310
A lot more X-24C in this fantastic 93-page file:

JOINT USAF/NASA HYPERSONIC RESEARCH AIRCRAFT STUDY
Frank S. Kirkham and Robert A. Jones, NASA Langley Research Center
and Melvin L. Buck and William P. Zima, Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory
August 4-8, 1975

Passing mention is made of the following design variations (bold type indicates images):
  • X-24C-9
  • X-24C-10
  • X-24C-12-I
  • X-24C-12-X
  • X-24C-12-X2
  • WHRA-52
  • HSRA
  • HYFAC
  • Winged HYFAC
I suggest the X-24C be split and made into a separate topic.

“I judge civilization by simple tests What is the degree of freedom possessed by citizen or subject Can he think speak & act freely under well established well known laws? Judging by these standards Great Britain & the United States can claim to be in the forefront of civilized communities Churchill

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 12939
Re: US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.
« Reply #306 on: November 05, 2012, 12:33:01 pm »
Stargazer do you have a PDF of that wonderful 93 page document?

Silly me! I forgot to include the link (I have fixed that mistake now, the link has been added).

However, please keep in mind that the pics in the original report are far from being as clean as the attachments here. I did a heavy amount of cleaning-up and enhancing on them, in fact, I nearly spent the whole afternoon just on this handful of scans... but I really believed they were worth it!

This being said, the rest of the document (hand notes, etc.) is priceless as it is for anyone with a serious interest in the lifting bodies and spacecraft projects of the 1960s and 1970s, especially since it describes the parallel design evolution of USAF and NASA projects—all culminating into the X-24C—and the engine choices that were considered.