Hubbry Logo
Rockwell X-30Rockwell X-30Main
Open search
Rockwell X-30
Community hub
Rockwell X-30
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Rockwell X-30
Rockwell X-30
Rockwell X-30
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The Rockwell X-30 was an advanced technology demonstrator project for the National Aero-Space Plane (NASP), part of a United States project to create a single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) spacecraft and passenger spaceliner.[1] Started in 1986, it was cancelled in the early 1990s before a prototype was completed, although much development work in advanced materials and aerospace design was completed. While a goal of a future NASP was a passenger liner (the Orient Express) capable of two-hour flights from Washington to Tokyo,[1] the X-30 was planned for a crew of two and oriented towards testing.[citation needed]

Key Information

An older design model on display at the U.S. Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville, Alabama; note the conical nose and single-dorsal fin tail that distinguishes it from the newer model.
A newer design mockup on display at the Aviation Challenge campus of the U.S. Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville, Alabama; note the flat, duckbill nose and double-dorsal fin tail that distinguishes it from the older model.

Development

[edit]

The NASP concept is thought to have been derived from the "Copper Canyon" project of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), from 1982 to 1985. In his 1986 State of the Union Address, President Ronald Reagan called for "a new Orient Express that could, by the end of the next decade, take off from Dulles Airport, accelerate up to 25 times the speed of sound, attaining low earth orbit or flying to Tokyo within two hours".[1]

Research suggested a maximum speed of Mach 8 for scramjet-based aircraft, as the vehicle would generate heat due to adiabatic compression, which would expend considerable energy. The project showed that much of this energy could be recovered by passing hydrogen over the skin and carrying the heat into the combustion chamber: Mach 20 then seemed possible. The result was a program funded by NASA, and the United States Department of Defense (funding was approximately equally divided among NASA, DARPA, the US Air Force, the Strategic Defense Initiative Office (SDIO) and the US Navy).[2]

In April 1986, McDonnell Douglas, Rockwell International, and General Dynamics were awarded contracts (each no more than $35 M) to develop technology for a hypersonic air-breathing SSTO vehicle/airframe.[2] Rocketdyne and Pratt & Whitney were each awarded contracts of $175 M to develop engines/propulsion.[2] The airframe contractors would compete and two or three would be eliminated after a year.[2] The plan was that 42 months later (end of 1989), contracts would be awarded to build the flight demonstrator vehicle.[2]

In 1990, the companies joined under the direction of Rockwell International to develop the craft, to deal with the technical and budgetary obstacles.[citation needed] Development of the X-30, as it was then designated, began.[citation needed]

Despite progress in the necessary structural and propulsion technology, NASA had substantial problems to solve.[citation needed] The Department of Defense wanted it to carry a crew of two and a small payload. The demands of being a human-rated vehicle, with instrumentation, environmental control systems and safety equipment, made the X-30 larger, heavier, and more expensive than required for a technology demonstrator. The X-30 program was terminated amid budget cuts and technical concerns in 1993.[citation needed]

Legacy

[edit]

A more modest hypersonic program culminated in the uncrewed X-43 "Hyper-X".[citation needed]

A detailed, one-third-scale (50-foot-long) mockup of the X-30 was built by engineering students at Mississippi State University's Raspet Flight Research Laboratory in Starkville, Mississippi.[3][4][5] It is on display at the Aviation Challenge campus of the U.S. Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville, Alabama.[6]

Design

[edit]
A 1986 artist's concept of the NASP on liftoff
An artist's concept of the X-30 in orbit
An artist's concept of the X-30 on re-entry
An X-30 model in a wind tunnel

The original concept was for a conical nose, this evolved (after 1987?) to a flat shovel shape.[citation needed]

The X-30 configuration integrated engine and fuselage. The shovel-shaped forward fuselage generated a shock wave to compress air before it entered the engine. The aft fuselage formed an integrated nozzle to expand the exhaust. The engine between was a scramjet. At the time,[when?] no scramjet engine was close to operational.[citation needed]

The aerodynamic configuration was an example of a waverider. Most of the lift was generated by the fuselage by compression lift. The "wings" were small fins providing trim and control. This configuration was efficient for high-speed flight, but would have made takeoff, landing and slow-speed flight difficult.[citation needed]

Temperatures on the airframe were expected to be 980 °C (1,800 °F) over a large part of the surface, with maxima of more than 1,650 °C (3,000 °F) on the leading edges and portions of the engine. This required the development of high temperature lightweight materials, including alloys of titanium and aluminum known as gamma and alpha titanium aluminide, advanced carbon/carbon composites, and titanium metal matrix composite (TMC) with silicon carbide fibers. Titanium matrix composites were used by McDonnell Douglas to create a representative fuselage section called "Task D". The Task D test article was four feet high by eight feet wide by eight feet long. A carbon/epoxy cryogenic hydrogen tank was integrated with the fuselage section and the whole assembly, including volatile and combustible hydrogen, was successfully tested with mechanical loads and a temperature of 820 °C (1,500 °F) in 1992, just before program cancellation.[citation needed]

Specifications (X-30 as designed)

[edit]

[citation needed]

General characteristics

  • Length: 160 ft 0 in (48.768 m)
  • Wingspan: 74 ft 0 in (22.5552 m)
  • Gross weight: 300,000 lb (136,077 kg)
  • Powerplant: 1 × scramjet

Performance

Design and materials legacy

[edit]

See also

[edit]

Aircraft of comparable role, configuration, and era

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Rockwell X-30

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Rockwell X-30 was an advanced technology demonstrator aircraft developed under the ' National Aero-Space Plane (NASP) program, a joint initiative by , the Department of Defense, and industry partners including , aimed at achieving (SSTO) flight using air-breathing propulsion for hypersonic speeds up to Mach 25, with horizontal takeoff and landing capabilities from conventional runways. Initiated in the mid-1980s following President Ronald Reagan's 1986 State of the Union address calling for revolutionary aerospace advancements, the NASP program evolved from earlier classified efforts like the project, with Rockwell's X-30 selected as the primary vehicle concept by 1988 to validate key technologies for both atmospheric hypersonic cruise and orbital insertion. The program progressed through phases: Phase I (1984–1985) focused on feasibility studies, Phase II (1986–1990) on concept validation and subscale testing, and Phase III planned for full-scale development starting in 1991, with initial flight tests targeted for 1994 and orbital demonstration by 1996. However, only a one-third-scale model of the X-30 was constructed and tested in high-temperature wind tunnels, as the program faced escalating technical risks and costs exceeding initial estimates of $3.9 billion through fiscal year 1996. The X-30's design featured a wedge-shaped resembling a large in scale—approximately 200,000 to 300,000 pounds gross weight, with a around 100 feet and of 118 feet—optimized for hydrogen-fueled engines that would operate from Mach 4 to Mach 25, supplemented by engines for subsonic takeoff and potential rocket augmentation using for orbital ascent. Materials innovations were central, including high-temperature carbon-carbon composites, titanium-beryllium alloys, and corrosion-resistant titanium-matrix composites to withstand extreme thermal loads exceeding 3,000°F during . Challenges included achieving efficient combustion at high Mach numbers, managing structural integrity under , and developing accurate models, which program officials addressed through extensive ground testing but never fully resolved in flight. Funding for the NASP and X-30 was terminated by in 1993–1994 due to persistent technical hurdles, budget overruns approaching $5 billion in total expenditures, and shifting national priorities toward more conventional launch systems, though the program's advanced hypersonic and that influenced later U.S. efforts like the X-43A demonstrator and ongoing programs. Despite its cancellation, the X-30 concept symbolized ambitious goals for reusable, aircraft-like access, inspiring international hypersonic into the 21st century.

Program History

Origins and Announcement

During the , the pursued enhanced reusable space access technologies to counter Soviet advancements in space launch systems, including the Buran reusable orbiter and the Energiya super-heavy-lift rocket, which threatened American strategic preeminence in orbit. The , while operational since 1981, revealed limitations in payload capacity, turnaround time, and vulnerability, as highlighted by on January 28, 1986, prompting a reevaluation of national space policy. In his address on February 4, 1986—just days after the Challenger tragedy—President announced the National Aero-Space Plane (NASP) initiative, envisioning a revolutionary hypersonic vehicle capable of transatlantic flights in under two hours or missions, dubbed the "Orient Express of the ." This announcement framed NASP as a bold response to the shuttle's shortcomings, aiming to integrate and for rapid, cost-effective space access while advancing military responsiveness. The program formalized a tri-agency among , the Department of Defense (DoD), and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency () later in 1986, building on 's prior studies into hypersonic propulsion. Initial funding commitments totaled approximately $3 billion projected over eight years, with DoD providing the majority (about 80%) to support joint research efforts. In 1987, was selected as a prime contractor for the design alongside McDonnell Douglas and , forming the core industry team to advance the X-30 demonstrator concept. Early objectives centered on achieving (SSTO) capability through air-breathing engines enabling sustained , targeting operational readiness by the mid-1990s.

Development Phases

The development of the Rockwell X-30, as the demonstrator for the National Aero-Space Plane (NASP) program, progressed through Phase II and the early stages of Phase III from 1985 to 1993, emphasizing technology maturation for . Phase I (1982–1985), known as and led by , focused on initial feasibility and was covered in the program's origins. Phase II, spanning 1985 to 1990, centered on concept validation, including evaluations of , integration, and materials challenges. Key activities involved testing of scale models at NASA's , where facilities like the 3.5-foot hypersonic supported early aerodynamic configurations under simulated high-speed conditions up to Mach 10. These tests, conducted by contractors such as and McDonnell Douglas, helped identify risks in thermal loads and structural integrity, building on prior -led feasibility work. Phase III, planned for 1990 to 1994 but terminated early in 1993, advanced to detailed design and ground testing, leveraging (CFD) simulations to model hypersonic aerodynamics beyond ground test limits. NASA and Department of Defense (DoD) teams, in collaboration with industry partners including , , and Rocketdyne, used CFD tools to predict performance and airflow interactions at Mach 8-25 regimes, refining the X-30's lifting-body shape and forebody inlet . Ground-based validations complemented these simulations, with subscale component tests addressing efficiency and vehicle stability. This phase also incorporated materials for high-temperature environments and culminated in the construction and evaluation of a 1/3-scale demonstrator. The demonstrator, approximately 50 feet long and built by Rockwell with support from , underwent arc-jet facility testing at centers, simulating reentry heating equivalents to Mach 25 conditions to assess thermal protection systems and hydrogen-fueled durability. These tests exposed components to plasma flows exceeding 5,000°F, validating hot structures and insulation materials under extreme aerothermal loads. Throughout these phases, international interest enhanced specific technologies, drawing on parallel efforts like the United Kingdom's HOTOL program with and Rolls-Royce on high-temperature composites and engine concepts such as the RB-545, informing NASP's thermal management approaches, though formal joint programs remained limited due to funding constraints. The effort involved over 5,000 personnel across more than 30 contractors, including , , and and Chemicals. Initial budget estimates of around $3.3 billion for Phases II and III (1985-1994) escalated due to technical complexities and scope expansions, reaching projected totals exceeding $5 billion by the early 1990s and contributing to program strains.

Cancellation and Challenges

The National Aero-Space Plane (NASP) program, encompassing the Rockwell X-30, encountered significant technical hurdles in its propulsion system, particularly with achieving adequate in engines at high Mach numbers. performance relies on supersonic , but was projected to decline rapidly beyond Mach 6 due to challenges in maintaining efficient fuel-air mixing and stability under extreme and pressure conditions. Additionally, the use of as fuel introduced storage complications, as its low necessitated tanks approximately five times larger than those for fuels, leading to substantial weight overruns that compromised the (SSTO) mass fraction goals. Efforts to mitigate this included exploring —a mixture of liquid and —for up to 15% greater and enhanced cooling capacity, though production and transfer issues persisted. Financial pressures intensified these challenges, with program costs escalating beyond initial projections amid post-Cold War budget reductions. By the early , annual expenditures approached $550 million, contributing to total federal investments exceeding $1.7 billion by cancellation, while industry contributions surpassed $500 million. The administration's defense spending cuts, enacted in 1993 as part of broader fiscal austerity following the Soviet Union's dissolution, further strained funding, with the Department of Defense (DoD) facing directives to prioritize near-term military needs over long-duration research. Delays from technical integration issues and ground testing limitations—such as inadequate facilities for Mach 8+ simulations—exacerbated overruns, adding millions per month in contract adjustments. In , the DoD formally terminated the X-30 program, redirecting remaining funds to alternative reusable launch initiatives like the Delta Clipper (DC-X), a rocket-powered SSTO demonstrator deemed more feasible for operational timelines. Officials cited unrealistic schedules for achieving a viable SSTO vehicle, with flight testing originally targeted for but repeatedly deferred due to unresolved propulsion and materials risks. Following cancellation, X-30 design archives and test data were transferred to centers, including Langley and Lewis Research Centers, for preservation and partial integration into subsequent military hypersonic efforts, such as early research for missile applications. The program's scale involved over 5,000 personnel across , industry, and academia by 1990, highlighting its broad impact on the workforce. Advanced computational simulations, including (CFD) models, were heavily utilized to address aerodynamic and thermal challenges, often pushing contemporary hardware to its limits and yielding foundational algorithms for future hypersonic design.

Design Features

Aerodynamic Configuration

The Rockwell X-30 employed a aerodynamic configuration, which integrated the vehicle's and wings into a single structure to generate lift without relying on traditional high-aspect-ratio wings, thereby optimizing performance across subsonic, supersonic, and hypersonic regimes. This design choice facilitated efficient airbreathing propulsion integration and provided the necessary for missions. The overall shape resembled a flattened in planform, with the vehicle's size conceptualized between that of a and a DC-10 to accommodate operations and requirements. Key features included diamond-shaped wings with a low , which ensured longitudinal and at velocities up to Mach 25 by minimizing and promoting attached flow at high angles of attack. The wedge-shaped forebody was engineered to function as a pre-compression ramp for airflow, generating waves that slowed incoming air while reducing drag and structural loading. This forebody design also contributed to the vehicle's overall aerodynamic efficiency during hypersonic cruise at Mach 5 to 14 and altitudes between 80,000 and 150,000 feet. Control surfaces were adapted for the dual demands of atmospheric and exo-atmospheric flight, including all-moving trailing-edge elevons on the wings for roll and pitch authority, body flaps on the aft fuselage for trim and stability during reentry, and ailerons and rudders for low-speed maneuvering. Reaction control systems using thrusters supplemented these during transitions, enabling precise attitude control without aerodynamic aids. The encompassed horizontal on conventional 10,000-foot runways, acceleration from Mach 0.25 to Mach 25, and unpowered glide from orbital insertion back to , all without external staging. Aerodynamic heating management was achieved primarily through the vehicle's shape, where carefully designed shock waves from the wedge forebody and low-aspect-ratio wings reduced peak surface temperatures by distributing heat loads and lowering local pressures on critical areas. This approach, combined with the lifting body's inherent low-drag profile, limited thermal exposure during peak heating phases at Mach 17 or higher, supporting sustained hypersonic operations. The configuration's forebody also briefly referenced integration with propulsion inlets to channel compressed air effectively into the , though detailed engine interactions were secondary to the external .

Propulsion System

The propulsion system of the Rockwell X-30 was designed as a hybrid air-breathing and architecture to support (SSTO) missions, integrating multiple engine modes for efficient performance across a wide range of speeds. This combined cycle approach aimed to leverage atmospheric oxygen for initial and mid-flight phases before switching to onboard oxidizer for vacuum operations. The system employed turbine-based combined cycle (TBCC) engines for the subsonic to Mach 4 regime, where turbine components compressed incoming air and combusted to generate , providing high at lower speeds. Transitioning seamlessly at around Mach 4, the propulsion shifted to mode—a supersonic combustion that maintained above sonic speeds within the —operating effectively up to Mach 25. These used to achieve specific impulses up to 2,000 seconds in the atmosphere, significantly outperforming traditional rockets by utilizing ambient air for oxidation. For the final orbital insertion, linear aerospike rocket engines augmented the air-breathing system, delivering 1,370 kN of vacuum thrust to overcome the limitations of atmospheric at high altitudes. The fuel system relied on (LH2) as the primary for both air-breathing and modes, paired with (LOX) for the rocket phase, stored in insulated composite tanks to minimize boil-off and structural weight. Total propellant mass was targeted at approximately 200,000 lb to achieve the required delta-v for SSTO. Mode transitions between TBCC, , and operations were managed by integrated control algorithms that optimized airflow, fuel injection, and for uninterrupted acceleration, with the forebody compression briefly aiding inlet efficiency during the handover. This architecture prioritized conceptual synergy between propulsion and to maximize overall vehicle performance.

Structural Materials and Thermal Protection

The Rockwell X-30 relied on advanced materials, including titanium-aluminide alloys and carbon-carbon composites, to minimize empty weight while withstanding the intense of . Titanium-aluminides, such as Ti₃Al and TiAl variants produced via rapid solidification technology, provided high strength and stiffness at elevated temperatures up to 1,800°F, achieving roughly half the density of prior nickel-based alloys for structural elements. Carbon-carbon composites, reinforced with 100% in a carbon matrix, served as primary hot-structure materials for skins and aerodynamic surfaces, offering exceptional thermal resistance and reusability. Thermal protection systems for the X-30 integrated and passive elements to endure peak surface temperatures approaching 3,000°F during sustained Mach 25 cruise. Transpiration cooling, achieved by bleeding supercooled through porous metallic or composite surfaces, dissipated heat effectively in high-heat-flux areas like the and wing leading edges. Complementary radiative coatings, applied to carbon-carbon components, enhanced oxidation resistance and to radiate heat away from the structure, supporting multi-flight durability goals of up to 100 missions. Key manufacturing techniques emphasized precision and scalability for these exotic materials. , utilizing rapid solidification processes, enabled the production of large quantities of titanium-aluminide alloys with fine microstructures for improved and temperature performance in components. For carbon-carbon composites, and densification methods were refined to create load-bearing panels with integrated cooling channels, optimizing strength-to-weight ratios. The program's design philosophy targeted empty weights around 200,000 to 300,000 pounds, aiming for a structural mass fraction significantly lower than the Space Shuttle's through multifunctional materials that combined structural, thermal, and cryogenic roles—a dramatic improvement enabled by advanced composites and alloys. This integrated approach enhanced propellant efficiency for capability. Ground testing confirmed material viability under simulated hypersonic environments, with arc-jet facilities at centers exposing samples to extreme heat fluxes and validating structural integrity. Carbon-carbon composites, for instance, endured cyclic exposure equivalent to 200 hours of operation (simulating 100 flights) without significant degradation, while titanium-aluminides maintained performance in high-temperature oxidation tests. These outcomes supported the X-30's goal of reusable thermal structures far beyond contemporary capabilities.

Technical Specifications

General Characteristics

The Rockwell X-30 was designed as a two-person crewed , featuring a compact to accommodate pilots during hypersonic and orbital missions. It included capacity for an orbital of several thousand pounds of instrumentation to while prioritizing technology demonstration over commercial operations. The 's gross takeoff weight was estimated at 300,000 lb (136,000 kg) when fully fueled, reflecting advanced lightweight materials to achieve efficiency. Dimensions included a length of 160 ft (49 m) and of 74 ft (23 m), supporting horizontal takeoff and landing on conventional runways, with internal volume optimized for fuel storage, , and propulsion systems to minimize drag and maximize structural integrity. Avionics systems incorporated controls providing quadruple-redundant flight management and global positioning navigation to handle extreme aerodynamic regimes. The operational concept emphasized reusability, targeting at least 150 flights per vehicle with minimal refurbishment, supported by automated ground systems for a 24-hour turnaround between missions to enable rapid rates akin to conventional .

Performance Metrics

The Rockwell X-30 was engineered to attain a maximum speed of Mach 25, corresponding to roughly 16,000 mph (25,800 km/h), during near-space operations as part of its envelope. This velocity was central to demonstrating the feasibility of seamless transitions from atmospheric flight to orbital insertion using air-breathing . Intended mission profiles included (SSTO) capability reaching a 300 km altitude, enabling rapid global deployment within 45 minutes from select bases, alongside suborbital hops spanning up to 10,000 km for point-to-point transport, such as Washington, D.C., to . These profiles emphasized horizontal takeoff and landing from conventional runways, with hypersonic cruise altitudes between 80,000 and 150,000 feet to optimize aerodynamic efficiency. The integrated propulsion system, combining , , , and modes, supported the demanding ascent requirements. Acceleration reflected the vehicle's lightweight composite structure and high-energy fuel. was a key focus, with overall far exceeding traditional engines due to air-breathing augmentation that reduced onboard oxidizer needs. This metric underscored the X-30's potential for reusable, cost-effective access to space while minimizing propellant mass fractions to around 0.74 for SSTO viability.

Legacy and Influence

Technological Advancements

The Rockwell X-30 program advanced technology through extensive ground testing of components, achieving the first sustained supersonic combustion in near full-scale modules up to Mach 8 conditions. These tests, involving over 20,000 hours of wind-tunnel operations and more than 500 shock-tunnel experiments on over 50 engine elements, validated and performance essential for hypersonic air-breathing . In , the program pioneered metallic thermal protection systems (TPS) using rapid solidification technology to produce alloys that were approximately 50% lighter than prior superalloys while maintaining high-temperature resistance. These innovations, including super alpha-2 and composites, enabled durable, lightweight structures capable of withstanding hypersonic heating without the fragility of ceramic alternatives like tiles. Computational advancements featured early deployment of supercomputers, such as the , for three-dimensional Navier-Stokes (CFD) modeling of hypersonic flows from Mach 8 to 25. This approach reduced reliance on physical wind-tunnel testing by providing predictive accuracy within 1% after against experimental data, facilitating rapid design iterations for and integration. For hydrogen handling, the X-30 developed cryogenic storage systems utilizing supercooled liquid or to minimize boil-off during prolonged exposure to . These systems incorporated advanced tankage materials and coatings to maintain integrity, allowing to serve dually as and without significant losses. The program provided key lessons in integration by designing automated flight control systems capable of seamless autonomous transitions between modes, from subsonic to supersonic and operations. Supported by quadruple-redundant backups and global positioning integration, these systems ensured stable vehicle management across the full .

Impact on Future Programs

The technologies developed under the Rockwell X-30 program as part of the National Aero-Space Plane (NASP) initiative were directly transferred to the X-33 program (1996-2001), particularly in the areas of composite fuel tanks and thermal protection systems. The X-33 incorporated cold integral graphite/epoxy tanks and carbon/silicon-carbide thermal protection systems derived from X-30 designs, enabling advancements in structures that aimed to reduce operational costs for space access. These transfers built on NASP's extensive materials research, which emphasized lightweight, high-temperature composites capable of withstanding hypersonic reentry conditions. NASP data and lessons significantly influenced military hypersonic programs in the , including 's Falcon Hypersonic Technology Vehicle (HTV) efforts. The Blackswift program, a key component of , capitalized on NASP's foundational work in heat-resistant materials and propulsion to address past challenges like structural integrity at extreme temperatures, targeting initial Mach 6 flights with plans for unmanned HTV tests from . Similarly, databases and design methodologies from the X-30 informed the tests, which demonstrated sustained hypersonic flight using hydrocarbon-fueled engines evolved from NASP's dual-mode validations spanning Mach 3 to 16. This heritage extended to the USAF HyTech program and 's Advanced Rapid Response Missile Demonstrator, enhancing air-breathing propulsion for tactical applications. The X-30's innovations continue to echo in contemporary hypersonic initiatives up to 2025, with and materials research influencing programs like the X-43A, which achieved Mach 9.6 flight in 2004 using NASP-derived engine concepts. Reusable technologies from NASP composites have parallels in modern designs, though direct citations to X-30 are limited in public records. Internationally, NASP's materials and propulsion research contributed to shared advancements, such as Japan's H-2 LACE engine studies and the UK's HOTOL program, which drew on global hypersonic collaboration during the era. X-30 designs and NASP documentation are preserved in archives, including the NASA Historical Reference Collection, facilitating ongoing academic and studies into hypersonic systems. Declassifications in the have further enabled analyses of NASP's thermal management and , supporting current U.S. hypersonic development under programs like the .

References

  1. https://www.nasa.gov/image-article/rockwell-x-30/
  2. https://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk1/1989/8927/892707.PDF
  3. https://aviationweek.com/podcasts/check-6/check-6-revisits-hypersonic-hopes-legacy-x-30-orient-express
  4. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/nasp.htm
  5. https://www.orlandosentinel.com/1986/02/05/reagan-proposes-aerospace-plane-futuristic-plan-may-mean-2-hour-trip-from-us-to-tokyo/
  6. https://aerospace.csis.org/around-world-60-minutes-less/
  7. https://www.gao.gov/assets/nsiad-88-122.pdf
  8. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-10-08-fi-12934-story.html
  9. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20180000116/downloads/20180000116.pdf
  10. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19910029849
  11. https://www.gao.gov/assets/nsiad-91-194.pdf
  12. http://www.astronautix.com/x/x-30.html
  13. https://www.gao.gov/assets/nsiad-93-71.pdf
  14. https://www.wcu.edu/pmi/1992/92PMI490.PDF
  15. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20040171838/downloads/20040171838.pdf
  16. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA535843.pdf
  17. https://secwww.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/content/techdigest/pdf/V11-N3-4/11-03-Barthelemy.pdf
  18. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20030000444/downloads/20030000444.pdf
  19. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADB121965.pdf
  20. http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk1/1989/8927/892711.PDF
  21. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20160001278/downloads/20160001278.pdf
  22. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19910010764/downloads/19910010764.pdf
  23. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19920012291/downloads/19920012291.pdf
  24. https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/sp-4232.pdf
  25. https://www.militaryaerospace.com/home/article/16706919/darpa-black-swift-seeks-to-capitalize-on-lessons-learned-from-nasp
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.