NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20418
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
This study was supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration under contract No. NASW-4938 Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 97-69127
International Standard Book Number 0-309-05878-3
Available for sale from:
National Academy Press
Box 285 2101 Constitution Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20055 800-624-6242 202-334-3313 (in the Washington Metropolitan Area) http://www.nap.edu
Copyright 1997 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
COMMITTEE ON HIGH SPEED RESEARCH
RONALD W. YATES (chair),
U.S. Air Force (retired), Monument, Colorado
DONALD W. BAHR,
General Electric Aircraft Engines (retired), Cincinnati, Ohio
JAMES B. DAY,
Belcan Engineering Group, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio
ANTONY JAMESON,
Stanford University, Stanford, California
DONALD T. LOVELL,
Boeing Commerical Airplane Group (retired), Bellevue, Washington
JOHN M. REISING,
U.S. Air Force Wright Laboratory, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio
DAVID K. SCHMIDT,
University of Maryland at College Park
DANIEL P. SCHRAGE,
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta
CHARLOTTE H. TEKLITZ,
American Airlines, Dallas-Fort Worth Airport, Texas
EARL R. THOMPSON,
United Technologies Research Center, East Hartford, Connecticut
DIANNE S. WILEY,
Northrop Grumman, Pico Rivera, California
Staff
ALAN ANGLEMAN, Study Director
JOANN CLAYTON-TOWNSEND, Director,
Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board
MARY MESZAROS, Senior Project Assistant
AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ENGINEERING BOARD
JOHN D. WARNER (chair),
The Boeing Company, Seattle, Washington
STEVEN AFTERGOOD,
Federation of American Scientists, Washington, D.C.
GEORGE A. BEKEY,
University of Southern California, Los Angeles
GUION S. BLUFORD, JR.,
NYMA Incorporated, Brook Park, Ohio
RAYMOND S. COLLADAY,
Lockheed Martin, Denver, Colorado
BARBARA C. CORN,
BC Consulting Incorporated, Searcy, Arkansas
STEVEN D. DORFMAN,
Hughes Electronics Corporation, Los Angeles, California
DONALD C. FRASER,
Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts
DANIEL HASTINGS,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
FREDERICK HAUCK,
International Technology Underwriters, Bethesda, Maryland
WILLIAM H. HEISER,
U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, Colorado
WILLIAM HOOVER,
U.S. Air Force (retired), Williamsburg, Virginia
BENJAMIN HUBERMAN,
Huberman Consulting Group, Washington, D.C.
FRANK E. MARBLE,
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
C. JULIAN MAY,
Tech/Ops International Incorporated, Kennesaw, Georgia
GRACE M. ROBERTSON,
McDonnell Douglas, Long Beach, California
GEORGE SPRINGER,
Stanford University, Stanford, California
Staff
JOANN CLAYTON-TOWNSEND, Director
Preface
The United States leads the world in the manufacture of commercial aircraft, and civil aviation is an important part of American life, providing safe travel and important economic benefits. However, the United States did not always hold this preeminent position in aeronautics, and there is no guarantee that the current success will last indefinitely. Continued leadership will depend upon many factors, including successful innovation in the design and manufacture of safe and affordable aircraft.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is currently developing advanced technologies as a foundation for the next breakthrough in civil aviation: an economically viable, environmentally acceptable supersonic transport. The High Speed Research Program is working with industry to identify and address critical technological challenges that must be overcome to initiate commercial development of a practical supersonic transport.
In support of the High Speed Research Program, NASA requested that the National Research Council conduct an independent assessment of the program's planning and progress. Areas of particular interest include the ability of technologies under development to meet program goals related to noise, emissions, service life, weight, range, and payload.
In response, the National Research Council established the High Speed Research Committee. The study committee met five times between June 1996 and January 1997, collecting information, assessing relevant issues, and generating appropriate recommendations. As detailed herein, the committee concluded the High Speed Research Program is well organized and has made substantial progress. Even so, significant changes are needed to enable the program to meet its stated objectives.
Gen Ronald W. Yates, U.S. Air Force (retired)
Chairman, High Speed Research Committee
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. William A. Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.
Tables, Figures, and Boxes
TABLES
1-1 |
HSR Program Work Breakdown Structure |
|||
1-2 |
Total NASA Funding for the HSR Program from Program Inception in FY 1990 through Planned Completion in FY 2002 |
|||
1-3 |
HSR Funding Allocation by Technology |
|||
2-1 |
HSCT Schedule between New York City (NYC) and London Heathrow (LHR) (local times) |
|||
2-2 |
HSCT Schedule between Tokyo (NRT) and Los Angeles (LAX) (local times) |
|||
2-3 |
Risk-Weighting Factors |
|||
2-4 |
Key Product and Process Characteristics Ranked by Risk-Weighted Importance |
|||
3-1 |
Calculated Steady-State Total Column Ozone Change between 40°N and 50°N Averaged over a Year |
|||
3-2 |
Concerns and Risks Associated with Ultralow NOx Combustors |
|||
3-3 |
Suggested Time Line for Combustor Development |
FIGURES
ES-1 |
Time line for comprehensive risk reduction program leading to program launch |
|||
1-1 |
Critical enabling technologies for a commercially viable HSCT |
|||
1-2 |
Schedule of top-level milestones and objectives |
|||
1-3 |
HSR integrated product and process team hierarchy |
|||
1-4 |
HSR Program technology integration |
|||
1-5 |
Blank technology audit data sheet |
|||
1-6 |
Definition of TRLs |
1-7 |
Time line for a comprehensive risk reduction program leading to program launch |
|||
2-1 |
HSCT/HSR QFD product planning matrix |
|||
2-2 |
Market, technology, and financial uncertainties |
|||
3-1 |
Conceptual HSCT engine and nozzle (without air intake) |
|||
3-2 |
HSCT engine and exhaust nozzle |
|||
4-1 |
Predicted equilibrium skin temperatures for a Mach 2.4 HSCT |
|||
4-2 |
Estimated thermal stability of potential HSCT structural materials (20-year service life) |
|||
4-3 |
Materials and structures baselines for the TCA |
|||
4-4 |
Structures challenge |
|||
4-5 |
Current levels of technology readiness of composite materials are unequal, jeopardizing development of structural concepts |
|||
4-6 |
Full-scale large component test articles |
|||
5-1 |
Difference in frequency between unstable attitude mode and the lowest structural vibration mode frequency of the TCA design |
|||
5-2 |
APSE effects interact with many other issues and design activities |
|||
5-3 |
Droop nose versus synthetic vision for approach and landing |
|||
5-4 |
Artist's concept of one possible flight deck |
|||
5-5 |
Object detection and collision avoidance—conventional window versus external visibility system |
|||
5-6 |
Surface Operation Research and Evaluation Vehicle (SOREV) |
|||
5-7 |
Comparison of the SOREV and TCA designs (side view) |
|||
5-8 |
Flight deck system program schedule |
|||
6-1 |
Comprehensive risk reduction program leading to program launch |
BOX
3-1 |
Conceptual propulsion system |