Nasa and US industry are developing reusable launch
vehicle technologies with an eye toward cutting costs
and reestablishing US dominance in the field. The Air
Force, however, has begun to envision RLV applications
that go beyond pure space launch.
In May 1996, officials at Air Force Space Command
and Air Force Materiel Command created a military spaceplane
integrated concept team to capitalize on the NASA-led
effort to produce an RLV demonstrator, the X-33. "The
[AFSPC and AFMC] commanders asked us to look at what
mission areas might be satisfied by this technology,
at the timing, and then to establish a roadmap," said
Brig. Gen. Herbert M. Ward, AFSPC director of Requirements,
in a January interview. The team is not locked into
one mission area--such as space operations, which covers
satellite launch. Instead they envision applications
across all space missions. Hence the use of the broader
term "spaceplane."
The USAF team, which includes NASA and Air Combat
Command personnel, developed a concept of operations
last summer. It envisions aircraft-like operations
with rapid turnaround time; operations to, through,
and from space; multimission capability; and worldwide
operations from continental US basing.
Over the past several months, AFSPC officials pulled
together basic data about the history, critical technologies,
and possible missions in a briefing called "Military
Spaceplanes: The Future."
One key question for the team concerns whether a spaceplane
could help US space forces conduct their tasks more
efficiently and cheaper than they do today. The civil-commercial
RLV effort is geared toward providing lower-cost, reliable,
and fast-turnaround space transportation. That satisfies
only one aspect of the US military space missions:
launch.
The ability to perform space control--that is, ensuring
safe passage of US satellites on orbit and denying
an enemy the ability to use its satellites against
the US or its allies--does not exist today. Nor does
the US possess any capability to apply force from space,
other than with an ICBM, whose trajectory would take
it through space before it plunged back to strike a
target on Earth.
For that reason, the Air Force's team members are
also looking at the potential of military spaceplanes
to provide space control and force application from
space, as well as to provide force enhancement, such
as space surveillance, reconnaissance, warning, and
communications.
A military spaceplane might take military payloads
into orbit, deorbit payloads, or perform on-orbit maintenance.
It might release a satellite in space, then come back
into suborbit and fly around the globe once or twice
to conduct communications support or bomb-damage assessment.
It could take advantage of the high ground of space
and, with operations closely resembling a conventional
airplane's, fly over any region of the globe with impunity.
General Ward emphasized that he is not predisposed
to a particular RLV concept. He said that no decisions
had been made concerning whether the spaceplane should
be manned or unmanned, employ vertical or horizontal
takeoff, or be single-stage or multistage to orbit.
Early successes in NASA's current RLV effort, which
since its inception has included participation by engineers
from USAF's Phillips Lab at Kirtland AFB, N. M., spurred
officials to formalize the operational concept team
to ensure that they would be in a position to use those
technologies when they matured. When that might be
is another question that concerns the team members.
The concept team will try to answer these questions
when it reports this spring. It will also try to determine
what kind of investments to make in research and development
or prototyping to develop that capability for the Defense
Department. "One of our responsibilities is to
go back to our commanders with the roadmap that says
if this technology is mature then we can do the next
step and these are the kinds of funds required," stated
General Ward.
Not Really Déjà Vu
The spaceplane concept is not really new. In fact,
the general idea has been around for more than 50 years.
In 1944, two German scientists, Eugen Sanger and Irene
Bredt, set down their prewar and postwar work into
a concept for a hypersonic rocket-powered aircraft
that could be boosted into orbit, then glide back to
Earth--creating the term "boost glider." NASA
officials credit the Sanger-Bredt work with directly
influencing the shape of the first US spaceplane, the
X-15, conceived in 1954. From it, USAF's Dyna-Soar
X-20A, and the follow-on lifting bodies, the US developed
technologies that led to the space shuttle.
However, today, the Air Force, NASA, and industry
maintain that the technology for turning the original
concept into reality now exists or is very close at
hand.
Both the Air Force and the Navy collaborated with
NASA on the X-15 program, which produced three vehicles
for hypersonic aerodynamic research. In all, 199 flights
took place from 1959 through 1968 in which the X-15s
reached Mach 6.7 and an altitude of 354,200 feet.
The lifting bodies, such as the lightweight M2-F1
and heavyweight M2-F2, HL-10, and X-24A and B, were
wingless vehicles designed to fly back to Earth from
space and land like airplanes. Versions of these lifting
bodies, both powered and unpowered, flew successfully
from 1963 to 1975.
Probably the most recent US research effort was the
high-profile USAF-NASA National Aerospace Plane (NASP),
or X-30. Established at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio,
in 1986, the NASP program heralded some of the same
concepts now set forth by the spaceplane concept team.
However, budget cuts forced the program's demise in
1994.
AFSPC officials point out that timing and technology
separate NASP from the current spaceplane concept.
The technology is more mature now than it was 10 years
ago. They said the key also is to ensure that the system
is affordable, as well as useful.
The US is not the only country interested in spaceplanes.
Britain has developed several spaceplane concepts,
some of which date to the 1950s. Japan began research
into spaceplane technology in 1987. The European Space
Agency had similar thoughts in mind when it designed
its Hermes manned spaceplane.
NASA officials are so confident of RLV technology
that they have already begun to discuss follow-ons
to the X-33.
Today's RLVs
NASA began a three-pronged RLV program in 1994. The
research effort includes technology demonstrations
with the DC-XA, X-34, and X-33--each designed to demonstrate
various technologies that could lead to a commercial
RLV.
NASA and McDonnell Douglas upgraded the DC-X, a subsonic
rocket flown eight times by Phillips Lab from 1993
to 1995. The DC-XA, Clipper Graham, made four successful
flights demonstrating its vertical landing capability.
However, testing ended July 31, 1996, when the vehicle
toppled and exploded after its fourth flight.
The rocket tipped over, according to an incident investigation
released January 7, because "a brake line on the
helium pneumatic system for landing gear number two
was not connected." NASA officials believe the
four DC-XA test flights will aid RLV research but do
not plan to build a follow-on DC-XB.
The second element of the RLV program features the
X-34, a single-engine rocket with short wings and a
small tail surface capable of flying at Mach 8 and
an altitude of 250,000 feet. Orbital Sciences Corp.
is developing the X-34, which will be carried aloft
aboard OSC's L-1011 aircraft. It is scheduled to fly
in 1998.
The final element is the larger, more powerful X-33
test vehicle, which will reach Mach 15 and altitudes
of up to 50 miles. It will be half the size of but
demonstrate all the technologies needed for a full-scale
RLV. NASA selected Lockheed Martin to build the X-33,
based on its lifting-body concept called VentureStar.
It has a new aerospike engine and will launch vertically
but land like an airplane. The first test flight for
the X-33 single-stage-to-orbit vehicle is set for March
1999.
NASA officials stated last year that they are already
working on technology beyond the X-33. They are looking
at air-boosted rocket engines, currently under study,
as well as the possibility for small two-stage vehicles.
Unofficially dubbed "X-37," the effort would
probably include two to four variants rather than one,
as with X-34 and X-33. The only criteria, they said,
is that they be reusable.