flateric

ACCESS: USAP
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
1 April 2006
Messages
12,024
Reaction score
13,945
ASPEN BACKGROUND
In the 1950s and 1960s, many potential uses of nuclear power were explored, such as NTRs. An NTR uses a nuclear reactor to heat a working fluid, such as hydrogen, and exhaust this fluid in a nozzle for thrust. Many studies of this technology were conducted, and prototypes were built and tested.

ASPEN (AerospacePlane With Nuclear Engines) was originally a classified study conducted at the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory in 1961 by R. W. Bussard. It was an SSTO vehicle that used turbojets and ramjets followed by an NTR to provide the final boost into orbit. The study was declassified and approved for public release in 1995.

ASPEN Reactor Shielding
Shielding is a major concern for nuclear reactors, and is of particular interest in aerospace applications due to the large weight. In a crewed vehicle, the radiation dose must be limited to certain levels for
crew safety. Payloads may also have shielding requirements, but these are usually much less stringent and can usually be included in the payload design.
Terrestrial reactors typically completely surround the reactor with several inches of lead and other shielding materials. In order to minimize the shielding weight for space applications, it is desirable to use a shadow shield, which only shields radiation in one direction. This technique places a shield between the reactor and the crew, but does not completely surround the reactor. With this configuration, the portion of the vehicle aft of the shield would become radioactive due to the neutron flux while the reactor is at power. The effect of this on operations was not analyzed in this study.
ASPEN Configuration ASPEN is a traditional wing-body vehicle with a high fineness ratio. Small turbojet and ramjet inlets are integrated onto the underside of the fuselage. The NTR engines are placed on the aft base area of the fuselage. An internal payload bay is provided between large internal hydrogen (LH2) tanks. A crew cabin is placed near the nose of the vehicle. ASPEN takes off and lands horizontally on retractable landing gear.

ASPEN Configuration
ASPEN is a traditional wing-body vehicle with a high fineness ratio. Small turbojet and ramjet inlets are integrated onto the underside of the fuselage. The NTR engines are placed on the aft base area of the
fuselage. An internal payload bay is provided between large internal hydrogen (LH2) tanks. A crew cabin is placed near the nose of the vehicle. ASPEN takes off and lands horizontally on retractable landing gear.

ASPEN Mission
The original ASPEN vehicle used LH2 turbojets for take-off and to accelerate to Mach 2.5 at 60,000 ft. At this point, the subsonic combustion ramjet engines would accelerate it to Mach 11 at 120,000 ft. (Note: contemporary wisdom would include a switch to supersonic combustion scramjets above Mach 5 or 6. Conceptual design tools now available were not able to duplicate the ASPEN ramjet performance to Mach
11.). From Mach 11, the NTR would provide the final acceleration to put the vehicle in an orbit with perigee of 80 nmi and apogee of 300 nmi. Radiation can scatter off the atmosphere and reach the crew even if
no direct path from the reactor to the crew is left unshielded. For this reason, an NTR powered vehicle should not bring the reactor up to full power until it is high in the atmosphere in order to reduce shielding requirements. Figure 3 shows the proposed trajectory for the original ASPEN vehicle. The flight corridor shown diverging below the main corridor above 12,000 ft/sec flight speed in Figure 3 was a proposed flight corridor for a NASP-like vehicle that accelerated to orbital velocity using only air-breathing engines. As the NASP program later showed, acceleration to Mach 25 using only air-breathing propulsion is now considered highly unlikely.

The Isp assumed for the original ASPEN vehicle is shown in Figure 4. The supersonic burning region shows the projected performance of a scramjet engine, but the ASPEN concept utilized subsonic combustion ramjets to Mach 11, as previously noted.

The thrust-to-weight and drag-to-thrust ratios from the original analysis are shown in Figure 5. The vehicle thrust-to-weight (T/W) is 0.3 at takeoff, which equates to 150,000 lbs. of turbojet thrust. At rocket
takeover, the T/W is 0.6 and the vehicle is about 82% of GLOW, which equates to about 245,000 lbs. of NTR thrust. Note that the predicted D/F of only 0.2 between Mach 6 and Mach 11 (thrust-to-drag ratio of
5) must be viewed with some degree of skepticism. Even well designed contemporary air-breathing RLV configurations are unable to achieve this level of acceleration at higher Mach numbers.

ASPEN Sizing Results
The ASPEN vehicle was designed to carry two passengers into orbit and remain in orbit for two days. The vehicle design parameters are listed in Table 1. The original payloads for the ASPEN vehicle are presented in Table 2. The vehicle was sized for a constant gross weight of 500,000 lb. The payload was allowed to vary in order to close the vehicle. As a baseline case, an NTR ISP of 800 sec was used. The report also considers an improvement in NTR ISP to 1000 sec. If the air-breathing engines could be replaced with “advanced chemical engines”, the orbital payload with an NTR ISP of 1000 sec increases to 80,000 lbs to a 300 nmi equatorial orbit. Payload mass fractions for the original ASPEN vehicle range from 6% - 16% for an equatorial orbit. By comparison, contemporary SSTO designs using traditional chemical rockets have propellant mass fractions of only 1% - 2%.

sources:
1). ASPEN - An AerospacePlane With Nuclear Engines
(Title Unclassified)
R. W. Bussard
LOS ALAMOS SCIENTIFIC LABORATORY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ALAMOS NEW MEXICO
REPORT WRITTEN May 1961
REPORT DISTRIBUTED: September 2’7, 1961

2). AIAA 2001-3514
ASPEN Revisited: The Challenge of Nuclear Propulsion for ETO
John E. Weglian, John R. Olds, Leland Marcus, James McIntire, Douglas Nelson
 

Attachments

  • ASPEN.jpg
    ASPEN.jpg
    35.6 KB · Views: 72
  • ASPEN-1.jpg
    ASPEN-1.jpg
    82.3 KB · Views: 72
  • ASPEN-2.jpg
    ASPEN-2.jpg
    172.4 KB · Views: 71
  • aspen-fig3.jpg
    aspen-fig3.jpg
    110.8 KB · Views: 66
  • aspen-fig4.jpg
    aspen-fig4.jpg
    105.8 KB · Views: 46
  • aspen-table1.jpg
    aspen-table1.jpg
    69.2 KB · Views: 57
  • aspen-fig5.jpg
    aspen-fig5.jpg
    109.3 KB · Views: 48
  • Untitled.jpg
    Untitled.jpg
    130.8 KB · Views: 58
  • Untitled2.jpg
    Untitled2.jpg
    200.9 KB · Views: 66
Last edited:
that bloody thing ignite its NTR engine at 37 km altitude !
too low for my taste...
 
It was starting impulse for M-19 studies

Makes a lot of sense when you think about it... the Soviets certainly knew about Los Alamos and Bussard reputations... with such heavy weights behind it no surprise they took it seriously.
 
The full "ASPEN : An Aerospace Plane With Nuclear Engines" report is at
https://sgp.fas.org/othergov/doe/lanl/lib-www/la-pubs/00384860.pdf

Los Alamos report LA-2590, May 1961
Contract W-7405-ENG. 36 with the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission

Diving deeper, there is an interesting set of reports on page 81. Plus report numbers. Anyone has any leads on these ? AD numbers? I could not find much on the quick. Love to read them all :)

ASP;1960, reports on chemical aerospaceplane concepts as follows:
- Douglas Aircraft Company; “A Discussion of the Orbital Airplane Concept”, SM Report 30467, 1 December 1960
- Convair Division, General Dynamics Corporation; “Spaceplane; Presentation to Scientific Advisory Board”, ZPM-59-005, December 1960
- Lockheed Aircraft Corporation; “The Lockheed CL-510 Orbital Airplane; Status Report”, LAC 555293, LR 14809, 6 October 1960
- Marquardt; “Marquardt Air Collection Engine System; Applied Research Program “, MP-903, December 1, 1960
- Boeing Aero-Space Division; “Text of Presentation to the Scientific Advisory Board on Aero-Space Plane Development”, D2-10345, December 1, 1960
- Republic Aviation Corporation; “Project 730; Orbital Airplane”, Report No. RAC-730-901 (110), 21 October 1960
and​
RITA; 1961, Douglas Aircraft Company, “RITA, The Reusable lnterplanetary Transport Approach; An Informal Proposal”, Douglas Report SM-38456-A, April 1961

EDIT: OCR typos/errors
 
Thank you so much for sharing ! That document is a bombshell.
 
Thank you so much for sharing ! That document is a bombshell.
While I am reading in detail, I wonder what you like about it most? On my side, I like the mass fraction analysis. They also used Sängers work as basis "mass fractions based on the I_sp parameter" and I wrote a little about that earlier as well in "EUROSPACE and the European spaceplane (part 2)" https://www.thespacereview.com/article/5088/1

There were also nuclear spaceplane projects in Europe and this is an interesting project to compare with it seems.
 
Well I'm less on the equations and more on the historical side. And the Aerospaceplane section was pretty interesting : Bussard point of view in 1961. A talented engineer POV right in the middle of Aerospaceplane life (1958 - 1961 - 1964) before they shifted to TSTO, in despair...

The issues with scramjets and air collection SSTOs haven't changed much, 65 years after 1961 next year... Skylon, cough. Well the issues with RLVs by large haven't changed much, nor the available options : air collection, scramjet, all rocket, multistage.

I wondered why so many sources mentionned Robert W. Bussard, but he is actually the author (d'oh, silly me) : hence quoting himself in third person like Jules Cesar or the late Alain Delon.
 
Well I'm less on the equations and more on the historical side. And the Aerospaceplane section was pretty interesting : Bussard point of view in 1961. A talented engineer POV right in the middle of Aerospaceplane life (1958 - 1961 - 1964) before they shifted to TSTO, in despair...

The issues with scramjets and air collection SSTOs haven't changed much, 65 years after 1961 next year... Skylon, cough. Well the issues with RLVs by large haven't changed much, nor the available options : air collection, scramjet, all rocket, multistage.

I wondered why so many sources mentionned Robert W. Bussard, but he is actually the author (d'oh, silly me) : hence quoting himself in third person like Jules Cesar or the late Alain Delon.
I continue to be mildly amused/annoyed/bewildered/irritated by the fact that some forum members still appear to have issues with the idea/concept of RLV staging, but please, correct me if I'm wrong? Remember the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Mayo_Composite? An SSTO RLV sure does sound like fun (as does FTL space travel, for that matter!), but in the meantime, let's stay in actual/physical/technological reality, ok?
 
Last edited:
There are two additional ASPEN papers by Bussard : dated 1962 (declassified in 1967) and 1971. @leovinus2001 would you be interested in tracking them ?

Capture d’écran 2025-11-30 093803.png

Circa 2001 a couple of tech papers reworked ASPEN calculations - with negative results.
 

Attachments

  • 6.2001-3515.pdf
    1.1 MB · Views: 9
  • aiaa_2001-3514.pdf
    339.5 KB · Views: 11
Last edited:
There are two additional ASPEN papers by Bussard : dated 1962 (declassified in 1967) and 1971. @leovinus2001 would you be interested in tracking them ?

View attachment 793620

Circa 2001 a couple of tech papers reworked ASPEN calculations - with negative results.
Thanks for those. Additional understanding of the project is always welcome :)
When I search for the "LA-2680" report then I find first
and then
The "search" does not work anymore which is way I could not map "LA-2680" to any 0xxxxx.PDF at
Maybe you have better luck?
In any case, fascinating project.
 
PS: There were also these NTRS reports. Not public atm but someone might be able to FOIA or find them.
19640058873 ,"Aspen propulsion system fourth quarterly progress report, period ending 30 jun. 1960", 1960,
19660091448 , Aspen single gas generator engine system final report, 1961,
19660091544 ,"Aspen propulsion system final report, part i", 1961,
19660091736 ,"Aspen propulsion system, part ii final report", 1960,
19660091737 ,"Aspen propulsion system, part ii final report", 1960,
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom