Posted on 11/27/2002 9:42:53 AM PST by Young Werther
June Malone Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville, Ala. (Phone: 256/544-0034)
RELEASE: C02-gg
NASA AWARDS CONTRACTS FOR FLIGHT DEMONSTRATORS
NASA today awarded contracts under the Cycle 2 Space Launch Initiative (SLI) solicitation to two companies for flight demonstrator technologies. The awards for flight demonstrators are required at this stage to mature technologies needed to support full-scale development design of a future competitively selected Orbital Space Plane under the restructured SLI effort.
The Boeing Company-Phantom Works Division, Seal Beach, Calif., was awarded approximately $301 million (including options through 2006) to continue the development of the X-37 flight demonstrator. This contract includes a progressive series of approach and landing tests and a space transportation research orbital vehicle. The atmospheric tests are scheduled for mid-2004 and the orbital flight is scheduled for mid-2006.
The Lockheed Martin Corporation, Denver, Colo., was awarded a contract valued up to approximately $53 million (including options through 2006) to develop a reusable launch pad abort demonstrator. The contract includes a full-scale reusable system that will provide the capability to test technologies in a launch pad abort situation.
The solicitation was issued in January, as part of the second generation SLI, and requested proposals for a broad range of research and development activities for technology risk reduction activities.
"The work that will result from these contracts is an important investment for NASA and the U.S.," said Dr. Jerry Creedon, Associate Administrator, NASA's Office of Aerospace Technology. "This is a crucial step that will greatly enhance our understanding of key technologies for a new flight system."
The Boeing developed X-37 vehicles will be used as flight demonstrator test beds. These technology demonstrators will test key embedded technologies and flight experiments in relevant environments of ascent, on-orbit, and descent and landing phases of flight. An initial list of experiments and technologies to be tested includes: advanced guidance, navigation and control, thermal protection systems, high temperature structures, conformal reusable insulation, high- temperature seals, and tile leading edges.
The Lockheed-Martin launch pad abort demonstrator will be used as a test-bed to demonstrate crew escape technologies and to validate analytical models necessary for future crew escape systems. The launch pad abort demonstrator test bed will use fully instrumented mannequins to provide data on crew environments during the test and check out of crew escape propulsion systems, parachute deployment, vehicle orientation, landing techniques, and external aeroshell configurations. This vehicle may be upgraded to test additional maturing launch pad abort technologies to improve crew safety and survivability.
Flight demonstrators provide the opportunity to test key technologies in their actual working environment. "Many tests can be conducted using ground facilities, but there are key technologies that must be tested in flight," said Dennis Smith, NASA's manager for the SLI program. -end-
Name three.
--Boris
I'll spit out one for sure.
There's a concept presented by an ex-air force guy to develop a three stage launcher that seems very practical to me.
The primary vehicle is similar to the Shuttle, but with standard turbojets and one rocket engine. It launches on the turbojets like a regular aircraft (stage 1), but with virtually empty fuel tanks. Climbs to altitude and hits a tanker just like an F-15. Then cranks up the kerosene/LOX rocket engine (stage 2), and accelerates to around Mach 10 and 75 miles. At that altitude, it opens its shuttle like doors, and kicks out an upper stage of some kind (stage 3).
Such a vehicle should be able to launch every day, between scheduled maintenance. The launch profile includes flying under turbojet power a thousand miles or so before the speed run to suborbit.
It seems to me to be a very practical system, virtually identical to everyday military operation, done with off-the-shelf technology.
LETS BUILD IT!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/794354/posts
DISCLOSURE POSTS ARE AT:
POSTS NUMBERED:
184, 234, 235, 236 & 287
Please keep any flames to yourself or expect them to be ignored.
Blessings,
They paid me to study far-out propulsion schemes for many years (I have a different job now, for about 6 months) and the only ones that looked "possible" were the Podkletnov devices (probability: 0.001) and the various "lifter" devices (but they can't lift much weight).
--Boris
You may be thinking of Black Horse by Mitchell Burnside Clapp. Also see this
There have been numerous horizontal-take-off concepts. Most are duds. Some (like NASP) fail because the materials do not yet exist to make them feasible. My one-size-fits-all comment on NASP-like vehicles: "Every ten years we dust them off and study them all over again. Every ten years we find that the materials are not there, but 'might' be in ten years...so back on the shelf until another ten years goes by."
The altitude and velocity you can get by "climbing to altitude" are negligible fractions of what you need. And being refueled in flight imposes some monstrous problems. I'll mention one: if you are optimized for Mach 8-10, you will have an SOB of a time flying formation with a KC-135 at 400 knots.
Also you will find that ram/scram engines that can work at the kinds of mach numbers required are very rare (there aren't any), and will require (guess what?) billions of $$$ of high-risk, high-payoff research...just like, um, X33 for example.
In other words, the technology you claim we "have"...we don't have, except on paper and in wet dreams. A minimum of 10 years to develop the technology to the point where hardware exists and you can find somebody silly enough to plant his butt in the pilot's seat. And Congress doesn't like expensive 10-year programs; they tend to cancel/redirect/export/ignore them to death.
--Boris
from http://www.aerotechnews.com/starc/1999/111999/X33_Shakeup.html
Please cut and paste. I am HTML dyslexic and can't hyperlink.
This contract was awarded in a corrupt fashion, highly atypically without competition. I am of the distinct impression that bribe money flowed as a result of this billion dollar fraud to the DNC bigwigs and especially the Clintons.
Both Clintons got 8-10 million each dollar book advances upon leaving office, hefty sums for books no one will ever read. I would be very interested in the financing of these advances. I wonder if Lockheed Martin does any book financing.
Tracking the flow the bribe money is always the great mystery. Pooling bribes with the Chinese military to finance the $16-20 miilion in book advances for Hillary and Bill books no one will ever buy is a plausible place to look. X-33 bribe money also probably shows up of course in campaign contributions as well as the $150,000 a night Bill Clinton speaker's fees.
An investigative reporter could easily win a Pulitzer if they ever bothered to look behind the Clinton curtain...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
