US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.

GeorgeA said:
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.
 
airrocket said:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
quellish said:
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
 
"Quote" deleted :-X

So the FLD7 (1967) was a result of the MDD model 176 (1964), not the contrary?
 
Retrofit, do you know term 'extensive overquoting'?
 
flateric said:
Retrofit, do you know term 'extensive overquoting'?

At least break the quote up a bit into easy-to-digest pieces.
 
blackstar said:
flateric said:
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!
 

Attachments

  • Delta body spacecraft development.jpg
    Delta body spacecraft development.jpg
    89.8 KB · Views: 1,550
Retrofit said:
"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
 
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?
 
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.
 

Attachments

  • $(KGrHqRHJBwE-dspTE4EBPynQ0Km!w~~60_57.JPG
    $(KGrHqRHJBwE-dspTE4EBPynQ0Km!w~~60_57.JPG
    302.8 KB · Views: 243
  • $(KGrHqJHJDYE-8ydmlv6BPynRH51Rw~~60_57.JPG
    $(KGrHqJHJDYE-8ydmlv6BPynRH51Rw~~60_57.JPG
    321.5 KB · Views: 205
  • $(KGrHqRHJCwE-lKk!5FbBPynRm8BKg~~60_57.JPG
    $(KGrHqRHJCwE-lKk!5FbBPynRm8BKg~~60_57.JPG
    332.9 KB · Views: 181
  • $(KGrHqNHJFYE-k9SlcRuBPynSFmZug~~60_57.JPG
    $(KGrHqNHJFYE-k9SlcRuBPynSFmZug~~60_57.JPG
    267.2 KB · Views: 190

Attachments

  • $(KGrHqJ,!l4E-dtfzOG,BPtY,PbMcg~~60_57.JPG
    $(KGrHqJ,!l4E-dtfzOG,BPtY,PbMcg~~60_57.JPG
    373.6 KB · Views: 62
  • $(KGrHqV,!lkE-dBvrl)pBPtY,JvCOw~~60_57.JPG
    $(KGrHqV,!lkE-dBvrl)pBPtY,JvCOw~~60_57.JPG
    386 KB · Views: 63
  • $(KGrHqF,!rkE-Y-SuH5cBPtY,HjLk!~~60_57.JPG
    $(KGrHqF,!rkE-Y-SuH5cBPtY,HjLk!~~60_57.JPG
    537.5 KB · Views: 69
  • $(KGrHqV,!qcE88ftTVwTBPtYZ-CcFg~~60_57.JPG
    $(KGrHqV,!qcE88ftTVwTBPtYZ-CcFg~~60_57.JPG
    516.1 KB · Views: 90
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.
 
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?
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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?
 

Attachments

  • wind tunnel model p92.jpg
    wind tunnel model p92.jpg
    299.7 KB · Views: 97
  • wind tunnel model p80.jpg
    wind tunnel model p80.jpg
    832.9 KB · Views: 364
  • wind tunnel model p78.jpg
    wind tunnel model p78.jpg
    136.2 KB · Views: 451
  • wind tunnel model p77.jpg
    wind tunnel model p77.jpg
    244.5 KB · Views: 468
  • wind tunnel model p71.jpg
    wind tunnel model p71.jpg
    279.9 KB · Views: 486
  • wind tunnel model p56.jpg
    wind tunnel model p56.jpg
    215 KB · Views: 538
AMARV tunnel model, from ADA-A276 296
 

Attachments

  • amarv_model.png
    amarv_model.png
    307.5 KB · Views: 968
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.
 

Attachments

  • Winged HyFAC.jpg
    Winged HyFAC.jpg
    278.1 KB · Views: 194
  • HYFAC.gif
    HYFAC.gif
    90 KB · Views: 156
  • HSRA.gif
    HSRA.gif
    110.7 KB · Views: 151
  • WHRA-52.jpg
    WHRA-52.jpg
    345.8 KB · Views: 158
  • X-24C-12I Force Model (part).gif
    X-24C-12I Force Model (part).gif
    128.4 KB · Views: 697
  • X-24C-12I General Arrangement.gif
    X-24C-12I General Arrangement.gif
    180.4 KB · Views: 730
  • X-24C-10.jpg
    X-24C-10.jpg
    279.5 KB · Views: 758
  • X-24C-9.jpg
    X-24C-9.jpg
    463.5 KB · Views: 807
Stargazer do you have a PDF of that wonderful 93 page document?
Stargazer2006 said:
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.
 
bobbymike said:
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.
 

Attachments

  • fig13.gif
    fig13.gif
    18.8 KB · Views: 107
  • fig12.gif
    fig12.gif
    15.5 KB · Views: 104
  • fig07.gif
    fig07.gif
    19.3 KB · Views: 112
  • fig06.gif
    fig06.gif
    16.1 KB · Views: 109
  • fig05.gif
    fig05.gif
    18.4 KB · Views: 109
  • fig04.gif
    fig04.gif
    16.3 KB · Views: 109
  • fig02.gif
    fig02.gif
    15.1 KB · Views: 118
  • fig01.gif
    fig01.gif
    12.3 KB · Views: 120
As some of these studies come from the Ballistic Missile Office I wonder what other studies are available as you can see below the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent PMO recently reviewed more than 250 prior studies to do with all aspects of a future ICBM which I assume included RV technologies.

In an Oct. 31 email provided by a Kirtland AFB spokesman, GBSD Provisional Program Manager Antonio Rendon said the Air Force has completed a number of activities since February, including reviewing more than 250 studies in an effort to properly leverage previous GBSD-related findings.
 
bobbymike said:
In an Oct. 31 email provided by a Kirtland AFB spokesman, GBSD Provisional Program Manager Antonio Rendon said the Air Force has completed a number of activities since February, including reviewing more than 250 studies in an effort to properly leverage previous GBSD-related findings.

Military jargon. Blah.
 
blackstar said:
Military jargon. Blah.

Maybe, maybe not...

Here's another very nice piece of the X-24C puzzle, a 159-page document dated April 1975 which goes over the design's inception and compares the different versions' merits. The study sort of contradicts itself at times as to what version carries which designation, but here is probably the most reliable breakdown:
  • X-24C-9: Feasibility study, 46.1-foot long (1973).
  • X-24C-10: Concept I, 48.5-foot baseline configuration, with internal propellant tanks (August 1974).
  • X-24C-10B: Concept II, recommended enlarged baseline with improved shape, conical nozzle, 65% ramp and increased propellant capacity (November 1974).
  • X-24C-11: Concept II, 53-foot variant, 43% ramp.
  • X-24C-11B: Concept II, 50.4-foot variant, improved shape, 65% ramp.
  • X-24C-10C: Concept III, 48.5-foot variant with full-depth payload bay, conical nozzle, 82% ramp and external droppable propellant tanks (January 1975).
  • X-24C-12: Concept III, similar to X-24C-10C but with a 46% ramp.
Final recommended version is X-24C-10C, but in other pages it seems to be X-24C-12. This leads me to wonder if the latter is not just a redesignation of the former, though the inclination of the lower surface ramp is doubled on the -10C variant.
Once again, the attachments below have been heavily reworked and enhanced from a very lousily scanned set of documents. More will follow.


Source:
Experiments Impact on X-24C Flight Research Vehicle
Martin Marietta, April 1975
 

Attachments

  • X-24C configuration evolution.gif
    X-24C configuration evolution.gif
    70.3 KB · Views: 168
  • X-24C-10C - Final recommended X-24C configuration.gif
    X-24C-10C - Final recommended X-24C configuration.gif
    545.4 KB · Views: 197
  • X-24C-12 - Internal Propellant Configuration.gif
    X-24C-12 - Internal Propellant Configuration.gif
    307.4 KB · Views: 178
  • X-24C-10B - All propellant configuration.gif
    X-24C-10B - All propellant configuration.gif
    407.6 KB · Views: 166
  • X-24-10 Study Baseline Configuration.gif
    X-24-10 Study Baseline Configuration.gif
    454.6 KB · Views: 198
  • three configurations studied.gif
    three configurations studied.gif
    103.3 KB · Views: 199
Stargazer2006 said:
Final recommended version is X-24C-10C, but in other pages it seems to be X-24C-12. This leads me to wonder if the latter is not just a redesignation of the former, though the inclination of the lower surface ramp is doubled on the -10C variant.
Once again, the attachments below have been heavily reworked and enhanced from a very lousily scanned set of documents. More will follow.

It seems that the X-24C-12I was the basic configuration for the next researches (NHFRF),
Then the X-24C-12IBT (Boat Tail), the X-24-X1, the X-24-L16 and finally the X-24C-L301.

Sources:
http://crgis.ndc.nasa.gov/crgis/images/3/36/PEN00280.pdf Page: 22/142
http://crgis.ndc.nasa.gov/crgis/images/4/47/PEN00275.pdf Page 1/104
 

Attachments

  • X-24C config..jpg
    X-24C config..jpg
    96.1 KB · Views: 171
  • X-24C-12IBT.jpg
    X-24C-12IBT.jpg
    137.6 KB · Views: 189
Here is a poor pic of the screen of the Lockheed Film "Hypersonics," showing the mockup of the HLD.
 

Attachments

  • HLD Mockup.GIF
    HLD Mockup.GIF
    201.9 KB · Views: 191
Here are a couple more from the same film.
 

Attachments

  • HLD Mockup2a.GIF
    HLD Mockup2a.GIF
    87.3 KB · Views: 187
  • HLD Mockup3a.GIF
    HLD Mockup3a.GIF
    85.9 KB · Views: 227
dannydale said:
I think this might be it. I searched "hypersonic" on that site for the lulz and found awesome!


...Yessir, either that's the clip, or at least the clip encompasses the footage in question. Excellent bit of detective work, sir. A tip of the OM Hat goes your way, natch! ;)
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom