How far did the X-30 design get?

[willpittenger]

I know the X-45 models use the same aerodynamics. However, did the X-30 design reach the point where they looked into how it would take off or fly at subsonic speeds?<br /><br />The more I look at that design, I can see no place for conventional jet engines. Where they going to mount it on a parent aircraft like Enterprise was for the glide tests? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[edkyle98]

My understanding is that the NASP/X-30 effort vanished <br />into the world of "technology demonstration effort" <br />during the early 1990s and was ultimately cancelled in <br />1995. Some reports say that it might have gone black.<br /><br />http://www.fas.org/irp/mystery/nasp.htm<br /><br />The timing of X-30's disapperance jives with the <br />startup era of AvWeek's supposed Blackstar <br />system. A lot was happening in hypersonic R&D <br />during the late '80s and early '90s. It was in the <br />news. Then, suddenly, it all vanished. <br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[edkyle98]

As for the X-45, it is an unmanned jet-powered fighter <br />concept (UCAV). You may be thinking of the X-40 (the <br />"Space Maneuver Vehicle") that was supposed to be <br />carried on a shuttle for a reentry test. An operational SMV<br />would have needed a rocket booster stage.<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[propforce]

Interesting reading. Thanks for the link.<br /><br />Even though it's been 10 years since NASP, I believe much of its content is still classified. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

Sorry. I attempted to pull the number off the top of my head. The X-plane in question looked like a miniature X-30. It is launched with help from a Pegasus. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

You did not answer my question. Did they ever do any attempts to simulate subsonic flight? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[edkyle98]

"Did they ever do any attempts to simulate subsonic flight?"<br /><br />I think you are referring to the X-43A scramjet R&D project. <br />http://www.nasa.gov/missions/research/x43-main.html<br />This vehicle flew three times, with the first launch suffering<br />a Pegasus control systems failure and the last two flights <br />successfully reaching Mach 6.8 and Mach 9.6, respectively. <br />Both flights were rocket-propelled to scramjet start speed. <br />The X-43 propulsion unit could not be started below about Mach 4.<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[edkyle98]

And since the official NASA site seems to have expunged <br />any record of the first X-43 failure, here is a link to the <br />real story!<br /><br />http://www.air-and-space.com/NB-52B%20X-43A.htm<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[willpittenger]

I was only bringing up the X-43 since it used the same basic shape. How would that shape fly at subsonic flight. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[edkyle98]

"I was only bringing up the X-43 since it used the same<br />basic shape. How would that shape fly at subsonic flight?"<br /><br />An operational version would had to have used a <br />multi-mode (combined-cycle) propulsion system to get <br />it up to scramjet start-up speed. That might have <br />meant rockets or an SR-71-like jet/ramjet engine <br />with moving air intakes, etc., to work at different <br />airspeeds until the scramjet portion could start.<br /><br />The aircraft itself would have spent as little time as <br />possible at subsonic speeds.<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[willpittenger]

Well, I was thinking of a combined SR-71 style engine -- only coaxial in nature. That allowed me to bypass the turbine and compressor blades at high speed protecting them from the heat. Fuel cells would power the vehicle in this configuration. I have a much larger post on this coming shortly. The text is written. I want time to review it in a few days. My understanding of the X-30 was critical. The biggest issue I saw with that design was getting off the runway (or back onto it). My concept would hopefully do better. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>