We tend to forget on this forum that one of the A in NASA stands for Aeronautics.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 02/26/2016 09:43 amWe tend to forget on this forum that one of the A in NASA stands for Aeronautics.True I'll admit. I would be curious to know what NASA plans to roll out next for a new plane.
If the study is successful, NASA wants to fund a demonstration programme. Lockheed would test the dual-mode ramjet in a flight research vehicle, and try to find solutions to issues like engine packaging and designing the thermal management system, Bartolotta says.
Quiet Boom demonstrator is the top priority at the moment.
Quote from: Star One on 02/26/2016 03:15 pmQuiet Boom demonstrator is the top priority at the moment.If the tendency is towards greener aviation I fail to see supersonic flight as top priority with or without boom. Hybrids, solar/battery electric more likely.
Hybrids are neat and all, but full-electric is where it's at. Ultra-high-performance lithium-ion and lithium-sulfur can do 300-400Wh/kg, which should do 1000km with some of those advanced designs, if you're clever. With lithium-air batteries (which need a lot of process development to get to any kind of decent cycle life) using the newer designs, you could get range comparable to all current jet liners. And potentially supersonic electric flight.
Why not both?
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/28/2016 01:59 amHybrids are neat and all, but full-electric is where it's at. Ultra-high-performance lithium-ion and lithium-sulfur can do 300-400Wh/kg, which should do 1000km with some of those advanced designs, if you're clever. With lithium-air batteries (which need a lot of process development to get to any kind of decent cycle life) using the newer designs, you could get range comparable to all current jet liners. And potentially supersonic electric flight.Chris, do you have a projected turn-around time for re-charge on such a design?~Rob
I read a while back on the blended body design something I do not quite understand. During a turn passengers seated out towards the wing will experience higher g loads than those seated in the center. Not sure how that works, is the turn radius that small?
Quote from: Rocket Science on 02/28/2016 07:46 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 02/28/2016 01:59 amHybrids are neat and all, but full-electric is where it's at. Ultra-high-performance lithium-ion and lithium-sulfur can do 300-400Wh/kg, which should do 1000km with some of those advanced designs, if you're clever. With lithium-air batteries (which need a lot of process development to get to any kind of decent cycle life) using the newer designs, you could get range comparable to all current jet liners. And potentially supersonic electric flight.Chris, do you have a projected turn-around time for re-charge on such a design?~RobI strongly suppose that if a fully battery operated airplane enters commercial operation, it would need to come with a quick battery swap option to keep turnaround time low and thermal loads acceptable.
Quote from: kevin-rf on 02/27/2016 03:17 amI read a while back on the blended body design something I do not quite understand. During a turn passengers seated out towards the wing will experience higher g loads than those seated in the center. Not sure how that works, is the turn radius that small?Wouldn't that refer specifically to the bank maneuver itself? The rotation of the vehicle would be much more noticeable that far from the roll axis.
any takers on what design concept will be picked?
Quote from: 93143 on 02/28/2016 09:39 amQuote from: kevin-rf on 02/27/2016 03:17 amI read a while back on the blended body design something I do not quite understand. During a turn passengers seated out towards the wing will experience higher g loads than those seated in the center. Not sure how that works, is the turn radius that small?Wouldn't that refer specifically to the bank maneuver itself? The rotation of the vehicle would be much more noticeable that far from the roll axis.Probably refers to rolling in general. An already-banked turn that still has rudder involvement will indeed put higher lateral (not vertical) g-loading on the outer edge, but it's likely to be a very small difference because the turn radius is high.
Hoping for the Hybrid tail fan. Call me a fan
I am rooting for blended wing body. Call me delusional, but I want the future to look (retro)futuristic!
My koolaidX is too dilluted to believe in supersonic electric jets in any near future.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/28/2016 01:59 amHybrids are neat and all, but full-electric is where it's at. Ultra-high-performance lithium-ion and lithium-sulfur can do 300-400Wh/kg, which should do 1000km with some of those advanced designs, if you're clever. With lithium-air batteries (which need a lot of process development to get to any kind of decent cycle life) using the newer designs, you could get range comparable to all current jet liners. And potentially supersonic electric flight.Is there any way a hybrid could benefit from using an engine cycle optimised to take advantage of the lower temperature heat sink of frigid stratospheric air. Thinking here of combined-cycle engine with a potentially 70degC (20degC - -50degC, 223K as opposed to 293K) increase in the heat sink dT? The hybrid would climb to altitude on batteries. (Or would this be better on Titan.)gas-turbine-> steam turbine -> ORC (organic rankine cycle) turbine -> -50degC atmos.diesel --> ORC -> -50deg atmos.steam-piston --> ORC -> -50deg atmos.[using skylon heat exchangers ]
Hybrids are neat and all, but full-electric is where it's at. Ultra-high-performance lithium-ion and lithium-sulfur can do 300-400Wh/kg, which should do 1000km with some of those advanced designs, if you're clever.
Well not to stomp on the parade, and this would be Chris' call, but is seems to me this announcement is in the realm of aeronautics, not spaceflight.(though personally I think it's well overdue to have another supersonic aircraft, and it's wickedly cool stuff)
Quote from: robertross on 02/29/2016 07:55 pmWell not to stomp on the parade, and this would be Chris' call, but is seems to me this announcement is in the realm of aeronautics, not spaceflight.(though personally I think it's well overdue to have another supersonic aircraft, and it's wickedly cool stuff)Have you forgotten what the 'A' stands for in NASA. This is a personal bugbear for me.
However, people also seem to forget the name of this site: NASASpaceflight.
Quote from: robertross on 02/29/2016 10:28 pmHowever, people also seem to forget the name of this site: NASASpaceflight. Not NASASpaceflight Of course in the old days the S used to be a C, NACA!
Oh my, checked whois and NACASpaceFlight.com is available! Quick, hit the mod button and let Chris know!Kinda bummed it wasn't something that had more near term potential. Like the blended body or the turbo electric hybrid fan. I wonder why they went for sizzle.
Quote from: rocx on 02/28/2016 09:10 amQuote from: Rocket Science on 02/28/2016 07:46 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 02/28/2016 01:59 amHybrids are neat and all, but full-electric is where it's at. Ultra-high-performance lithium-ion and lithium-sulfur can do 300-400Wh/kg, which should do 1000km with some of those advanced designs, if you're clever. With lithium-air batteries (which need a lot of process development to get to any kind of decent cycle life) using the newer designs, you could get range comparable to all current jet liners. And potentially supersonic electric flight.Chris, do you have a projected turn-around time for re-charge on such a design?~RobI strongly suppose that if a fully battery operated airplane enters commercial operation, it would need to come with a quick battery swap option to keep turnaround time low and thermal loads acceptable.That is an option, but why?
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/28/2016 01:59 amHybrids are neat and all, but full-electric is where it's at. Ultra-high-performance lithium-ion and lithium-sulfur can do 300-400Wh/kg, which should do 1000km with some of those advanced designs, if you're clever.I did the math here, with some assumptions.For a vehicle like a 737, a 1000km flight will consume 7,500kg of fuel or the energy in a 62,500kg 400Wh/kg battery (with 100% conversion efficiency to shaft power). Aerodynamic and propulsion efficiency isn't going to close that gap....
Quote from: Lee Jay on 02/29/2016 06:22 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 02/28/2016 01:59 amHybrids are neat and all, but full-electric is where it's at. Ultra-high-performance lithium-ion and lithium-sulfur can do 300-400Wh/kg, which should do 1000km with some of those advanced designs, if you're clever.I did the math here, with some assumptions.For a vehicle like a 737, a 1000km flight will consume 7,500kg of fuel or the energy in a 62,500kg 400Wh/kg battery (with 100% conversion efficiency to shaft power). Aerodynamic and propulsion efficiency isn't going to close that gap.......except that's exactly what NASA aeronautics are proposing. Distributed propulsion and the blended wing concept, sucking the slowed boundary layer into the turbofans can make a huge difference. Some of the concepts are capable of 50% or even 60% reduction in fuel consumption. To take your example, that would mean 31,250kg battery mass versus 85100kg for 737-800 maximum take-off weight.Consider that long-range jets like the 777 can be 50% fuel by mass. But you could increase that to 60 or even 75% (GlobalFlyer was able to achieve over 80%), combined with improvements in structural mass, perhaps even using the batteries as structural elements, would allow 1000km to definitely be possible with the battery tech I described. I had also done these calculations, I wasn't just making them up.As I said, you have to be clever which you weren't bothering to do.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 03/01/2016 12:32 amQuote from: rocx on 02/28/2016 09:10 amQuote from: Rocket Science on 02/28/2016 07:46 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 02/28/2016 01:59 amHybrids are neat and all, but full-electric is where it's at. Ultra-high-performance lithium-ion and lithium-sulfur can do 300-400Wh/kg, which should do 1000km with some of those advanced designs, if you're clever. With lithium-air batteries (which need a lot of process development to get to any kind of decent cycle life) using the newer designs, you could get range comparable to all current jet liners. And potentially supersonic electric flight.Chris, do you have a projected turn-around time for re-charge on such a design?~RobI strongly suppose that if a fully battery operated airplane enters commercial operation, it would need to come with a quick battery swap option to keep turnaround time low and thermal loads acceptable.That is an option, but why? Do you realize how much power you're talking about here?Putting, say, 25MWh into a plane in, say, 30 minutes is going to take 50 MW of power. That's more than comes into the entire airport, most likely. Now multiply by, say, 40 planes on charge at once. That's 2,000MW which is about half of the average power consumption in my entire control area.And do you know what a cable carrying 50MW safely looks like? It's going to have to be medium voltage. Let's say it's 13.2kV three-phase. That's 2,200A. That's 4 3-conductor 500kcmil mining cables, each one 3 inches in diameter weighing 6 pounds and costing about $50 per foot.
Again, this is what is ALREADY done for electric cars. No doubt we'll be /more/ clever about this in the future, not less.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 03/01/2016 12:48 amQuote from: Lee Jay on 02/29/2016 06:22 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 02/28/2016 01:59 amHybrids are neat and all, but full-electric is where it's at. Ultra-high-performance lithium-ion and lithium-sulfur can do 300-400Wh/kg, which should do 1000km with some of those advanced designs, if you're clever.I did the math here, with some assumptions.For a vehicle like a 737, a 1000km flight will consume 7,500kg of fuel or the energy in a 62,500kg 400Wh/kg battery (with 100% conversion efficiency to shaft power). Aerodynamic and propulsion efficiency isn't going to close that gap.......except that's exactly what NASA aeronautics are proposing. Distributed propulsion and the blended wing concept, sucking the slowed boundary layer into the turbofans can make a huge difference. Some of the concepts are capable of 50% or even 60% reduction in fuel consumption. To take your example, that would mean 31,250kg battery mass versus 85100kg for 737-800 maximum take-off weight.Consider that long-range jets like the 777 can be 50% fuel by mass. But you could increase that to 60 or even 75% (GlobalFlyer was able to achieve over 80%), combined with improvements in structural mass, perhaps even using the batteries as structural elements, would allow 1000km to definitely be possible with the battery tech I described. I had also done these calculations, I wasn't just making them up.As I said, you have to be clever which you weren't bothering to do. It's still 4 times the mass of the fuel it replaces, and that's way too much.
It means lower efficiency because you have to carry the batteries around.
Batteries aren't even ready for prime time for cars yet, much less airplanes.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 03/01/2016 12:55 amAgain, this is what is ALREADY done for electric cars. No doubt we'll be /more/ clever about this in the future, not less.Batteries have to get about 5 fold better than they are in energy density and cost per kWh before they are ready for this type of thing. Baring a breakthrough, that's a long way to go.
A $130,000 Tesla P90D couldn't even get me to visit my family, and it's only 2 hours away. No Superchargers along the way, 290 mile round trip, can't charge there,...
Quote from: Lee Jay on 03/01/2016 01:05 amA $130,000 Tesla P90D couldn't even get me to visit my family, and it's only 2 hours away. No Superchargers along the way, 290 mile round trip, can't charge there,...Your family doesn't have a 120V outlet?
That I find hard to believe. Additionally, the fact there are not superchargers along the way is a temporary problem. And a larger battery could also be used except for the cost. 500 mile range could easily be done with existing batteries.I don't know what your off-topic anecdote is supposed to mean except that you can find corner cases where electric cars have trouble (but again, no 120V outlet? I don't believe you).
Quote from: Robotbeat on 03/01/2016 01:20 amQuote from: Lee Jay on 03/01/2016 01:05 amA $130,000 Tesla P90D couldn't even get me to visit my family, and it's only 2 hours away. No Superchargers along the way, 290 mile round trip, can't charge there,...Your family doesn't have a 120V outlet?Not outside and not out on the street where I park. Besides, 4 miles per charge hour would barely make a dent. Maybe I'd get 30-40 extra miles of range, which is far from enough.Quote That I find hard to believe. Additionally, the fact there are not superchargers along the way is a temporary problem. And a larger battery could also be used except for the cost. 500 mile range could easily be done with existing batteries.I don't know what your off-topic anecdote is supposed to mean except that you can find corner cases where electric cars have trouble (but again, no 120V outlet? I don't believe you).A supercharger station is not a useful thing anyway. Too slow. I can put 7 miles of range in my current car every second. The effective charge rate is about 5MW - 40 times faster than the highest power supercharger.I could give you dozens of other cases of places I've been where a P90D couldn't go without a tow back.
Quote from: Star One on 02/29/2016 10:06 pmQuote from: robertross on 02/29/2016 07:55 pmWell not to stomp on the parade, and this would be Chris' call, but is seems to me this announcement is in the realm of aeronautics, not spaceflight.(though personally I think it's well overdue to have another supersonic aircraft, and it's wickedly cool stuff)Have you forgotten what the 'A' stands for in NASA. This is a personal bugbear for me.Not at all. I have also been following this thread. I also follow the yearly budgets and appropriations that define the aeronautics portion of NASA's budget.However, people also seem to forget the name of this site: NASASpaceflight. This is about all things related to space. Certain relates topics have been challenged before, such as unmanned spaceflight & science, as there are
Actually, that's not true. NASA is doing a bunch of X-Planes, the Quiet supersonic transport being just one of them. Many are electric propulsion (usually hybrid as the goal, but will still use batteries, and the early prototypes are all pure electric since that's a lot simpler).
I'm not arguing, just pointing the obvious. Anyhow, what is on topic now in this thread? Is it the announced quiet boom X plane only or other concepts illustrated in FP?IMHO the quiet boom choice was strange when they seemed to emphasize greener stuff. Boom or no boom supersonic flight causes a lot worse passenger miles per gallon figures than conventional speeds. Or passenger miles per kWhr too if one dreams of electric flight. I fail to see how trying to enable very expensive overland supersonic trips for a few HNWIs is greener act. Concorde was economic flop despite heavy subsidies and investment write-offs by France and UK.Could this enable supersonic Roc overland launches? Maybe. But I think Vulcan Aerospace will soon fold even as is.Shove the HNWIs into near vacuum metal tube to travel quickly from coast to coast.
I'm not arguing, just pointing the obvious. Anyhow, what is on topic now in this thread? Is it the announced quiet boom X plane only or other concepts illustrated in FP?
Specific things that the NASA press release, or speakers at the announcement, spoke about are on topic. General aviation stuff is not. Battery tech is not. Straighten up and fly right.
Any common hardware elements/techonology from the lower fuel burn airplanes to 'space' should be on topic, especially if folks want NASA to return to a NACA role since 'everything else' is done better in private companies.
Quote from: muomega0 on 03/01/2016 01:56 pmAny common hardware elements/techonology from the lower fuel burn airplanes to 'space' should be on topic, especially if folks want NASA to return to a NACA role since 'everything else' is done better in private companies.I don't know, quite spike with all the new tech they are adding is reminding me of the X-33. I hope it doesn't go the same way. This airframe is more than just the airframe. Thrust vectoring, enhanced vision, ect...Also, industry has been doing pretty good with fuel burn improvements on commercial airliners. The 787 has a 20% block burn advantage over the 767 it replaced, Same with the a350, Pratt's new geared turbo fan seems to be a game changer (If you are willing to wait for it to start), You are starting to see 3D printed parts in jet engines, The laminar flow tail Boeing added to the 787-9, ect. I think planes like MOM and NSA that we should see in the near future where incorporate many of these improvements.
SST has always been the next logical step in air transport for the civil aviation industry, it is purely the issue of the noise overland that has held it back. I imagine this will be particularly attractive to the biz jet sector where already a conventional SST is being developed.
If we're going to have driverless cars on our roads in large numbers in 10-20 years (and who here thinks that that is not going to happen?)
It would be easier to acknowledge that this news contains no spaceflight related topic to stay on.
IMHO the quiet boom choice was strange when they seemed to emphasize greener stuff. Boom or no boom supersonic flight causes a lot worse passenger miles per gallon figures than conventional speeds. Or passenger miles per kWhr too if one dreams of electric flight. I fail to see how trying to enable very expensive overland supersonic trips for a few HNWIs is greener act. Concorde was economic flop despite heavy subsidies and investment write-offs by France and UK.
I'm sick of decades of stagnation in aerospace (the only advances being structural carbon fiber, higher bypass ratios, wingtips, but nothing exotic or game-changing)
Quote from: R7 on 03/01/2016 11:02 amIMHO the quiet boom choice was strange when they seemed to emphasize greener stuff. Boom or no boom supersonic flight causes a lot worse passenger miles per gallon figures than conventional speeds. Or passenger miles per kWhr too if one dreams of electric flight. I fail to see how trying to enable very expensive overland supersonic trips for a few HNWIs is greener act. Concorde was economic flop despite heavy subsidies and investment write-offs by France and UK.I think those are all legitimate points (indeed, I have heard them made by a very smart top aeronautical scientist who works for one of those companies that puts engines on big jets).And a legitimate related point is why did NASA choose this particular technology to advance at this time? Well, I don't know the specifics of the decision, but I am familiar with some of the background. Several years ago an independent study recommended that NASA start conducting more flight research (meaning actually flying aircraft). http://www.nap.edu/catalog/13384/recapturing-nasas-aeronautics-flight-research-capabilitiesLook at the findings and recommendations in the summary there. The options included environmentally responsive aviation, low boom supersonics, and hypersonics. Hypersonics is a bugaboo, with other issues. I think that low boom supersonics is something for which there is clear industry interest, although it is a niche. <snip>
I could also see military applications for quiet sonic booms. A supersonic bomber or tanker/transport flying over "denied territory", on a strike mission or troop deployment for example.
But it would still likely have a big radar signature.
I did not watch the Monday press conference/announcement, but did they say anything about initiating future flight projects? Are they perhaps thinking about starting a new one each year for the next several years?
Lockheed is pursuing the HWB concept with funding support from the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) under its Revolutionary Configurations for Energy Efficiency program, which ends in 2017. The company will complete a study for AFRL of a manned HWB demonstrator this fall, he says. A commercialization study for NASA, looking at a freighter variant, will finish around the same time.NASA has unveiled budget plans to fly a 50%-scale hybrid wing body demonstrator after 2020 as the second in a proposed series of large-scale X-planes. To date, the agency’s definition of HWB has been synonymous with Boeing’s Blended Wing Body configuration, but Lockheed plans to propose its HWB concept, and NASA says selection of the X-plane will be an open competition. “We do qualify to play in the HWB plans, and are working with NASA to make sure that we do,” says Hooker.
Quote from: Bubbinski on 03/02/2016 06:34 pmI could also see military applications for quiet sonic booms. A supersonic bomber or tanker/transport flying over "denied territory", on a strike mission or troop deployment for example.But it would still likely have a big radar signature.
Quote from: Blackstar on 03/02/2016 08:33 pmQuote from: Bubbinski on 03/02/2016 06:34 pmI could also see military applications for quiet sonic booms. A supersonic bomber or tanker/transport flying over "denied territory", on a strike mission or troop deployment for example.But it would still likely have a big radar signature.Yeah. So you are going to lit up the ground surveillance and target acquisition radars like beacons for the Anti-Radiation missiles of the strike package to home in on. Will be interesting.However quiet supersonic strike aircraft will be useful to take out targets without radar capability. Since the target will have little or no warnings from picket observers listing for noise from approaching aircrafts.
There are a number of different aspects to this project which I'd summarize as:-technical feasibility-regulation (how much noise is allowed)-commercial interest and feasibilityNASA is tackling aspects of the first two, but they're complex. For instance, if they can prove the concept on this test vehicle, can that be scaled up to a larger vehicle that can carry passengers? And the regulation is a multi-pronged issue too, because the noise will vary based upon altitude, humidity, other atmospheric issues. I heard a NASA guy explain how he had been on the ground during a supersonic flyover by a military jet and never heard a sonic boom at all because the atmosphere had mitigated it. So there's a lot of factors that go into how the noise is detected and even defined.
Right. I think this is why they went with an actual piloted vehicle instead of a more subscale robotic one.A crewed vehicle makes this a lot more /real/ to commercial interest and investors. It's also a camel nose under the tent of regulators, as you can start doing real cross-country demo flights.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 06/15/2016 04:15 pmRight. I think this is why they went with an actual piloted vehicle instead of a more subscale robotic one.A crewed vehicle makes this a lot more /real/ to commercial interest and investors. It's also a camel nose under the tent of regulators, as you can start doing real cross-country demo flights.They have already done subscale camel noses on the F-5 and F-15. Time to go larger.
After minimizing sonic boom, reducing airport noise is seen as the next biggest barrier to commercially viable future supersonic transports. As it works toward flying an X-plane in 2019 to demonstrate low-boom design technology, NASA is conducting ground tests of an engine nozzle that could make a small supersonic airliner as quiet as current subsonic transports.The model tests underway at NASA’s Glenn Research Center will validate design tools and concepts for an integrated propulsion system that would enable a quiet supersonic airliner with the seating capacity of a regional jet to have a cumulative noise level 10 EPNdB below current Chapter 4 limits.
Nasa has decided to invest $2.9m (£2.19m) in order to realise an innovative plane concept invented by MIT and Aurora Flight Sciences in 2008 which could make subsonic planes much more efficient than they are today.The Aurora D8, which flies at a speed of Mach 0.764 (582 mph, 936 km/h), was originally developed by Aurora Flight Sciences and MIT as part of Nasa's N+3 Program, which provided funding of technologies for new aircraft that would be substantially more efficient to aeroplanes today, that would be put into service in the 2030s.
Rather than chasing supersonic flight with quiet sonic booms, wouldn't it be more effective for NASA to be working on an integrated travel infrastructure that eliminates these bottlenecks? As long as getting from home to the aircraft and the aircraft to the final destination is not considered part of air travel, supersonic flight will not speed up the process. The problem these days is not slow planes, it's a kludged-together transport system.
NASA will soon ask companies to bid for a contract to build a supersonic X-plane whose preliminary design review was completed on 23 June by Lockheed Martin.
It also will serve as a testbed for other technologies. Instead of a forward windscreen, the X-plane pilot will view the aircraft’s forward path from a ultra high-definition video produced by a camera installed in a fuselage-mounted fairing, says David Richwine, who managed the preliminary design project called the Quiet Supersonic Transport (QueSST).
A newly-released rendering of Lockheed’s preliminary design reveals other features of the highly-swept, delta-wing jet. A row of eight vortex generators are arrayed over the top of the fuselage just aft of the cockpit and a set of moving forward canard surfaces.
NASA remains committed to its goal of returning to X-plane flight demonstrators, but at a slower pace that has some in industry concerned about their priority and relevance.When the agency unveiled its New Aviation Horizons initiative in 2016, it planned a sequence of X-plane programs initiated as frequently as 18 months apart. But NASA did not receive the significant boost in aeronautics funding it sought, and its fiscal 2018 budget request is lower still.The $624 million sought in 2018 is sufficient to launch the first X-plane, the Quiet Supersonic Technology (QueSST) low-boom flight demonstrator planned to fly in 2021. But under current plans the first of a series of Ultra-Efficient Subsonic Technology (UEST) X-planes will not follow it into the skies before 2026.
The agency is taking a similar approach to the first subsonic X-plane, having begun with contracts to define system requirements for five different configurations. Under current plans, a draft request for proposals (RFP) for the “UEST1” X-plane is to be released in fiscal 2018, says Fay Collier, IASP associate director for flight strategy.The final RFP is to follow in fiscal 2019, with the intent to competitively select two concepts to take through to preliminary design reviews. One configuration will then be selected for the X-plane. First flight is planned for fiscal 2026, but “we are looking at ways to bring that to the left a bit, somewhere between fiscal 2024 and 2026,” Collier says. A second “UEST2” X-plane would follow five years later.
The slowing of the X-plane initiative highlights a growing tension between the pace with which industry is evolving and the speed at which NASA can respond. The agency is looking at how it can support the emerging urban air mobility market, and the earliest it could have a dedicated program in place is fiscal 2021, says Jaiwon Shin, associate administrator for aeronautics. This contrasts with Uber’s ambitious plans for experimental flights in 2020 and commercial service by 2023.
A series of wind tunnel tests revealed the unusual engine inlet positioning for NASA’s supersonic X-plane meets the performance goals for the Lockheed Martin-designed aircraft, a NASA Glenn Research Center aeronautics engineer says.
A series of wind tunnel tests revealed the unusual engine inlet positioning for NASA’s supersonic X-plane meets the performance goals for the Lockheed Martin-designed aircraft, a NASA Glenn Research Center aeronautics engineer says.The quiet supersonic transport (QueSST) X-plane demonstrator will begin a series of flight tests in 2020 with an inlet placed atop the fuselage and behind the cockpit, a rare configuration for a supersonic aircraft not seen since early 1950s designs, such as the Douglas X-3 Stiletto and Convair F2Y Sea Dart.The unusual engine placement is driven by the purpose of the QueSST demonstrator, explains Ray Castner, a NASA Glenn engineer, speaking at the Experimental Aircraft Association’s annual event in Oshkosh, Wisconsin on 25 July.
“Most supersonic aircraft have the engines near the front on the nose or underneath in the clean air flow,” Castner says. “We now have our engine up top and that’s for boom-shielding. That way, the disturbance from the engine goes up, and does not propagate down to the ground and contributes to boom signature.”NASA’s Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, Ohio, performed 73h of testing of a model of the X-plane in the facililty’s 8ft X 6ft wind tunnel, the first such laboratory tests of such an engine inlet position for a supersonic aircraft of which the agency is aware.The result satisfied NASA’s engineers that the X-plane’s unique inlet position will work.“This inlet is actually more efficient than I thought it would be,” Castner says. “It was about 96-98% efficient, so that’s pretty good.”
Although the positioning was different, the nature of the NASA’s QueSST demonstration allowed Lockheed to use a relatively simple inlet design. NASA plans to have the aircraft take-off, make two passes over a city at Mach 1.4, then land. The design includes a diverterless bump to steer boundary layer airflow away from the inlet, but requires no moving pieces required for supersonic aircraft designed to cruise at higher speeds.“It’s a [sonic] boom demonstrator. It’s not an inlet demonstrator. There is a higher performing inlet that we could have chosen, but a lot of those inlets have moveable parts,” Castner says.NASA’s concerns about boundary layer flow over the top of the fuselage with the inlet’s placement drove other design decisions, he adds. After Lockheed completed the preliminary design, NASA released an image of the demonstrator with six vortex generators set between the cockpit canopy and the engine inlet. Lockheed placed the vortex generators there to energise the boundary layer flow and prevent the inlet from ingesting that relatively stagnant air, he says.
Residents along Florida’s Space Coast will soon hear a familiar sound — sonic booms. But instead of announcing a spacecraft’s return from space, they may herald a new era in faster air travel.NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida is partnering with the agency’s Armstrong Flight Research Center in California, Langley Research Center in Virginia, and Space Florida for a program called Sonic Booms in Atmospheric Turbulence, or SonicBAT II. Starting in mid-August, NASA F-18 jets will take off from the Shuttle Landing Facility (SLF) and fly at supersonic speeds while agency researchers on the ground measure the effects of low-altitude turbulence on sonic booms.
According to John Graves of NASA Flight Operations in Kennedy’s Spaceport Integration and Services, for projects such as SonicBAT, NASA coordinates with Space Florida who manages the facility’s schedule.“Working with representatives from the Armstrong center, we go through Space Florida to request use of the runway,” he said. “It’s an arrangement that works very well.”The F-18 will begin flights on Aug. 21, flying two to four times a day over a period of ten days. But the actual test window may be two weeks to allow for weather and other possible delays.Graves explains that SonicBAT is an unusual test in that it uses a typical military aircraft with its loud sonic boom to help engineers better understand the sounds from future quiet supersonic aircraft“We’re hoping we can eventually lower sonic booms to a low rumble,” he said. “The goal is to eventually accommodate jets that can fly from New York to Los Angeles in two hours.”Armstrong started SonicBAT investigations at Edwards Air Force Base last year. This will be the second round of tests.“Edwards is a hot, dry environment,” he said. “The team at the Armstrong center wants to now try to collect similar data in the hot, humid climate we have here.”
Interesting discussion, but I am a little confused. Why are they saying this is the first time an above the fuselage supersonic inlet has been tested. Does the Mach 2 capable F-107 not count?
Lightweight megawatt-scale drive systems are essential if electric propulsion is ever to succeed in commercial aircraft. Systems much more powerful than those in cars and far lighter than in ships are required. NASA has launched research into electric motors and power converters at the megawatt level, as these could support the near- or medium-term development of partially turboelectric and hybrid-electric propulsion systems for aircraft up to single-aisle airliner size. Hardware is already ...
NASA is preparing to test a redesigned lithium-ion battery module for its first electric propulsion demonstrator, the X-57 Maxwell, as it moves toward a maiden flight planned for early in 2018. The ground test will replicate one performed in December that resulted in a destructive thermal runaway and required the packaging to be redesigned. That test involved deliberately initiating a short circuit in one battery cell to ensure the overheating did not spread to other cells—but it ...
We may not recall them all, but those we do remember hold special places in aviation history. The X-1 in which Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier in 1947. The X-15 in which Pete Knight reached Mach 6.7 in 1967. The X-43 that hit Mach 9.6 on scramjet power in 2004. They are the X-planes. Aviation afficionados will recall even more: the X-5 that pioneered variable wing sweep, the X-24 lifting bodies, forward-swept-wing X-29 and thrust-vectoring X-31—the international X-plane. Then ...
NASA's next X-plane, the all-electric X-57 Maxwell, is getting closer to its maiden flight. Engineers at Scaled Composites in Mojave, California, along with prime contractor on the program Empirical Systems Aerospace (ESAero), are preparing to integrate electric systems into a Tecnam P2006T to convert it to the X-57. The first electric version of the aircraft, known as Mod II, will replace the P2006T's gas-driven Rotax engines with electric motors and a battery pack to power the plane.
NASA Prepares for Future of Supersonic Experimental Flight
X-59 is only barely civilian. This subscale one is basically a weirdly shaped fighter jet.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 06/22/2019 12:35 pmX-59 is only barely civilian. This subscale one is basically a weirdly shaped fighter jet.It's not much of a fighter jet (with all those stabilators and canards and no signature control, it would never be allowed to fly), but there's little doubt that Lockheed's interested in the less-civil applications of quiet, sustained supersonic flight.
Does LM currently produce any civilian products? Lockheed crashed out of civilian air transport about 50 years ago, and I wouldn't think it's commercial reflexes would have been sharpened by decades of NASA/military contracting.
Quote from: Star One on 08/23/2018 08:26 pmNASA Prepares for Future of Supersonic Experimental Flight And it's being built by LM.I'm not sure how long it's been since LM did a civilian crewed aerospace programme after the X33.Let's hope it's more X-15 than X33 in terms of success.
It's not much of a fighter jet (with all those stabilators and canards and no signature control, it would never be allowed to fly), but there's little doubt that Lockheed's interested in the less-civil applications of quiet, sustained supersonic flight.
Didn’t imagine it as found a news article about it.https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/supersonic-airplane-qsta-lockheed-martin/index.html
What we do know about LM is it's remarkable adeptness for extracting money from the USG. Time will tell if this one off experimental aircraft gets built and (much more problematic) wheather LM goes on to build any kind of commercial follow on. IIRC the last time this story was run it was with the X33. Nothing ever flew but LM hoovered up about $1.1Bn to implement a very high risk design, cutting off the funds to substantially lower risk concepts and preserving their launch business. Let's see what story they tell this time.
NASA spent $992M and LM $357M. The X-33 project required some skin in the game from the contractor.
The Clinton administration did go for the highest risk and most expensive design.
Quote from: john smith 19 on 06/22/2019 11:25 amQuote from: Star One on 08/23/2018 08:26 pmNASA Prepares for Future of Supersonic Experimental Flight And it's being built by LM.I'm not sure how long it's been since LM did a civilian crewed aerospace programme after the X33.Let's hope it's more X-15 than X33 in terms of success.We know one thing for certain.....The track record of LMSW far exceeds that of REL...or any other British aerospace company.
NASA has successfully tested a large microphone array in California’s Mojave Desert as part of a flight series in preparation for the agency’s quiet supersonic X-plane, the X-59.Flying at speeds faster than Mach 1, the speed of sound, typically produces a loud sonic boom heard on the ground below. NASA’s X-59 Quiet SuperSonic Technology X-plane, or X-59 QueSST for short, will fly over select communities around the U.S. to demonstrate the ability to reduce that sonic boom to a quiet thump. The data from these flights will be turned over to the Federal Aviation Administration to possibly establish new sound-based rules for supersonic flight over land. This could open the door to future faster-than-sound commercial cargo and passenger air travel.Before these community overflights take place, however, the X-59 will first undergo an acoustic validation phase, during which NASA will deploy an approximately 30-mile-long array of specially-configured microphones to measure the X-59’s thumps, to verify that they are as quiet as predicted.The recently-completed Carpet Determination In Entirety Measurements flight series, or CarpetDIEM, was NASA’s “first practice” for the X-59’s acoustic validation flights.
NASA’s first large scale, piloted X-plane in more than three decades is cleared for final assembly and integration of its systems following a major project review by senior managers held Thursday at NASA Headquarters in Washington.
QuoteNASA’s first large scale, piloted X-plane in more than three decades is cleared for final assembly and integration of its systems following a major project review by senior managers held Thursday at NASA Headquarters in Washington.https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-s-x-59-quiet-supersonic-research-aircraft-cleared-for-final-assembly
Here's the image that went with the release.
Quote from: Steven Pietrobon on 06/18/2020 10:25 amHere's the image that went with the release.Still looks a long way from done to me.
Mark the big one-of-a-kind engine, designed and built just for NASA, as delivered.Nearly 13 feet long, three feet in diameter, and packing 22,000 pounds of afterburner enhanced jet propulsion, the F414-GE-100 engine is now at NASA’s Armstrong Flight Research Center on Edwards Air Force Base in California.There it will be checked out and inspected before it is transported to nearby Palmdale for eventual installation into NASA’s X-59 Quiet Supersonic Technology airplane, which is now under construction at Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works factory.
For now, assembly of X-59 is taking place at Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works facility in Palmdale, California, where with each construction milestone, the airplane is taking shape – literally.One of those milestones is with the X-59’s eXternal Vision System, or XVS, which is a forward-facing camera and display system that allows the pilot to see outside the aircraft via augmented reality.The XVS is NASA’s solution to the aircraft’s lack of a forward-facing window – a result of the need to place the cockpit lower and farther back on the airplane because of its unique, elongated nose and fuselage profile.The innovative XVS system underwent successful flight tests in August 2019 and passed several rounds of qualification testing in January of this year.Major progress was also made on the aircraft’s wing thanks to the Skunk Works’ Combined Operation: Bolting and Robotic Auto-drill (COBRA) system. This advanced robotic technology enhances production by drilling and inspecting hundreds of holes on the wing that are part of the assembly process.
NASA now expects the X-59’s assembly to be complete and major ground testing to begin in summer 2021, leading to a target date for first flight in summer 2022.
NASA has announced that technicians working on assembling the X-59 airplane completed a major milestone in its construction back on November 5. On that day, technicians were successfully able to close up the airplane’s wing, encasing interior components that will never be touched by human hands again.
U.S. arms maker Lockheed Martin Corp has released a photo of the first prototype of its supersonic X-plane, the X-59 Quiet SuperSonic Technology (QueSST), during the beginning of the final assembly process.
We (quietly) rung in the new year with the gift of speed.The X-59 QueSST arrived in Texas, wrapped and topped with a bow. The aircraft is undergoing structural tests before returning to Skunk Works’ headquarters for completion, first flight and delivery to @NASAaero.
NASA’s X-59 Kicks Off 2022 in Texas for Ground Testing2021 saw significant milestones achieved in the assembly of NASA’s X-59 Quiet SuperSonic Technology aircraft (QueSST), and all eyes now look forward to a pivotal 2022. Following the X-plane’s temporary move from Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works in California to their facilities in Texas, the X-59 is set to start 2022 with critical ground testing, as progress continues toward NASA’s target of the aircraft’s first flight later this year.While in Texas, ground testing of the X-59 will be done to ensure the aircraft can withstand the loads and stresses that typically occur during flight. The team will also calibrate and test the fuel systems before the X-59 makes the journey back to California for more tests and completion.
This thread is irrelevant to the scope of this forum because the X-59 QueSST, as a supersonic experimental aircraft, is not designed for suborbital space travel and is meant to test technologies to reduce sonic booms generated by a new-generation SST.
Welcome back, X-59!The X-59 has returned to Skunk Works headquarters in California after finishing ground testing in Texas. The tests confirmed the aircraft’s ability to handle the intense stresses of supersonic flight.
NASA’s X 57 Maxwell Powers Up
X-59 Finally unveiled in hanger rollout:
I'm thinking it will be re-named "The Platypus"? Love that front profile.
Quote from: Stan-1967 on 07/26/2023 04:43 amI'm thinking it will be re-named "The Platypus"? Love that front profile.Maaate, with the nose on that thing, that ain't no Platypus!!I'm thinking "Pinocchio" and guessing they'll sharpen it with a whetstone before every mission.
Quote from: Star One on 07/25/2023 07:49 pmX-59 Finally unveiled in hanger rollout:Finally seen side on.. just whoa! I for one (a) sure wouldn't want to try any tight turns in that thing ('cause it probably won't) and (b) expect it'd have to line up to land from a very, very long way out! Plus, a bird strike would be pretty bad for the bird.
Quote from: CameronD on 07/26/2023 04:08 amQuote from: Star One on 07/25/2023 07:49 pmX-59 Finally unveiled in hanger rollout:Finally seen side on.. just whoa! I for one (a) sure wouldn't want to try any tight turns in that thing ('cause it probably won't) and (b) expect it'd have to line up to land from a very, very long way out! Plus, a bird strike would be pretty bad for the bird. The X-59 is a Chimera of the experimental F-16 blended wing airframe with a DC-10 like dorsal engine nacelle along with a slightly enlarged version of the DARPA's STAR/space cruiser as the nose.However it should be more maneuverable than a standard F-16 due to more wing surface area and larger tailerons.Lining up for landing will have to be aided by cameras and/or FLIR imagers on the bottom of the plane for a regular landing approach.link to the DARPA's STAR/Space Cruiser video posted on the forum thread covering the videos by Hazegrayart on youtube: Hazegrayart Master Updated thread
Flying from New York City to London up to four times faster than what’s currently possible may sound like a far-off dream, but NASA is exploring whether the commercial market could support travel at such speeds.NASA recently investigated the business case for supersonic passenger air travel aboard aircraft that could theoretically travel between Mach 2 and Mach 4 (1,535-3,045 mph at sea level). By comparison, today’s larger airliners cruise at roughly 600 mph, or about 80% of the speed of sound.The NASA studies concluded potential passenger markets exist in about 50 established routes that connect cities. Since the U.S. and other nations prohibit supersonic flight over land, the studies’ findings covered transoceanic travel, including high-volume North Atlantic routes and those crossing the Pacific.
NASA’s Advanced Air Vehicles Program (AAVP) is now moving into the next phase of the high-speed travel research, which includes issuing two 12-month contracts to companies to develop concept designs and technology roadmaps. The roadmaps will explore air travel possibilities, outline risks and challenges, and identify needed technologies to make Mach 2-plus travel a reality.Boeing is leading the first team, with partners Exosonic, GE Aerospace, Georgia Tech Aerospace Systems Design Laboratory, Rolls-Royce North American Technologies, and others. Northrop Grumman Aeronautics Systems lead the second team, with partners Blue Ridge Research and Consulting, Boom Supersonic, and Rolls-Royce North American Technologies.
@NASA and Skunk Works will reveal the X-59 quiet supersonic flight demonstrator on January 12. Get ready for the first look at the future of supersonic flight.
NASA’s X-59 quiet supersonic research aircraft sits on the apron outside Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works facility at dawn in Palmdale, California. The X-59 is the centerpiece of NASA’s Quesst mission, which seeks to address one of the primary challenges to supersonic flight over land by making sonic booms quieter.Photo Credit: Lockheed Martin Skunk Works