80AFRC25R0006_Final_SOO_(Attach A)_Flt Test Vehicle Study_MACH_20250408.pdf

80AFRC25R0006

Statement of Objectives

Flight Test Vehicle Concept Study for Making Advancements in Commercial Hypersonics (MACH)

NASA Hypersonic Technology Project

April 9, 2025

National Aeronautics and Space Administration Armstrong Flight Research Center Edwards, California

ATTACHMENT A

Table of Contents

I. Background

II. Program Objectives

III. Contract Objectives

IV. Deliverables

V. Special Considerations

VI. Acronyms

VII. References

I. Background

The Hypersonic Technology Project (HTP) under NASA’s Aeronautics Mission Directorate (ARMD) Advanced Air Vehicle Program (AAVP) sustains the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) competency in airbreathing, reusable hypersonic flight. This is accomplished by developing and utilizing analytical tools, test techniques, and capabilities to advance critical technologies in support of the nearer-term Department of Defense (DoD) hypersonic missions and to enable a potential U.S. commercial hypersonic market.

Airbreathing hypersonic flight has the potential to transform the aerospace industry and assist the U.S. in maintaining its economic advantage in aerospace while significantly advancing its military capability. NASA intends to advance fundamental airbreathing hypersonic technologies to enable a revolutionary advancement in routine, reusable high-speed flight. Technologies developed by the HTP will enable two-stage to orbit vehicles with a reusable airbreathing primary stage and a rocket second stage. In the commercial aviation world, there is a growing interest within industry that sees the potential emerging market for commercial high-speed vehicles capable of point-to-point missions. Technologies developed by the HTP will also help enable this emerging commercial market.

Given recent Congressional interest in the formation of a proposed new program entitled, ‘Making Advancements in Commercial Hypersonics’ (MACH) [Ref. 1], NASA is focused on the commercial hypersonic industry to support future hypersonic flight test capabilities. NASA HTP is developing a range of hypersonic technologies; however, existing ground test capabilities do not fully replicate hypersonic flight environments. This shortfall in environment replication has hampered NASA in advancing these technologies for commercial use. The proposed MACH program will expand upon current efforts to provide an affordable bridge between hypersonic ground tests and system level flight tests. This will reduce overall hypersonic development risks and provide rapid transition of innovative hypersonic technologies to the commercial sector.

II. Program Objectives

NASA, under this ‘Flight Test Vehicle Concept Study’ supporting the proposed Making Advancements in Commercial Hypersonics (MACH) program, is seeking solutions from industry for high-speed flight testing to mature technologies related to reusable hypersonic vehicles. The proposed MACH program seeks to expand and enhance industry’s hypersonic flight test capabilities. Although similar to the DoD’s Multi-Service Advanced Capabilities Hypersonics Test Bed (MACH-TB) [Ref. 2] in that both MACH and MACH-TB seek to improve the nation’s hypersonic flight test capability, MACH is focused on expanding the flight test capabilities required to further the development of technologies for routine, reusable hypersonic applications.

The desired end state of the proposed MACH program is to define a collaborative hypersonic test program that meets government and industry needs to enhance testing in relevant hypersonic environments. The MACH program should improve flight testing capabilities and significantly increase the cadence at an affordable cost to more rapidly transition new technologies to the commercial sector.

The objective of this current solicitation, ‘Flight Test Vehicle Concept Study for MACH’, is for industry to: (1) define flight vehicle capabilities needed to achieve NASA’s flight test requirements for reusable, airbreathing hypersonic vehicles and (2) support possible formulation of a MACH program including rough order-of-magnitude (ROM) cost estimates and schedule requirements to develop future proposed flight vehicle capability. The results of the award(s) will assist HTP in making an evaluation of the proposed MACH program. It is anticipated that HTP’s evaluation of the MACH program will address the Heilmeier Catechism [Ref. 3]. NASA seeks to make multiple awards with the actual number and value of the awards depending on the quality and content of the proposals received.

NASA desires flight-test vehicles to provide sustained, repeatable, and recoverable experiments from takeoff speeds to hypersonic conditions (greater than Mach 5), at altitudes from 50,000 to 120,000 ft, and for durations on the order of tens of minutes. Vehicles should be capable of carrying and testing payloads, both internally and externally, that test technologies including, but not limited to propulsion, materials/structures, and flight systems under conditions not achievable through current ground- or flight-test capabilities. Additionally, NASA values the ability to conduct and host multiple hypersonic technology experiments on the same vehicle and flights.

Example flight mission profiles for an operational point-to-point cruise vehicle and space access vehicles are shown in Figure 1. NASA desires a flight test capability for future hypersonic flight test experiments that can provide flexible and highly tailorable trajectories.

Figure 1: Sample mission profiles for a hypersonic point-to-point mission (top) and a space access mission (bottom).

While success of the program is not defined by a specific number of flights per year, the proposed MACH program aims to achieve a high cadence of flights with a short turnaround time for repeated testing of the same payloads.

Performers should propose solutions that achieve this “high cadence” within the first 2-years of contract award. A good solution provides the capability to assemble, integrate, and test hypersonic technologies at cadence and support throughput with teaming and facilities available to accomplish the goal. Solutions should provide a defendable, integrated plan to achieve stated objectives with enablers, and identify gaps that can be met through teaming with industry partners. Preferred solutions will prioritize affordability of the proposed MACH program to meet stakeholder needs and minimize non-recurring engineering to drive flight test costs down.

Specific vehicle technologies that require enhanced flight-testing capabilities may include:

Propulsion o High-speed turbine engines o Scramjet engines o Dual mode ramjet (DMRJ) inlet and isolator o DMRJ inlet and combustor o Combined cycle inlet or nozzle o Other propulsion technologies such as gas generator/pre-combustion systems, rotating detonation engines

Hot Structures and Thermal Protection Systems o Acreage thermal protection materials including ablative and non-ablating systems o Leading edge materials (C/C, C/SiC, SiC/SiC) o Nose caps o Integrated hot structures

Vehicle Power / Thermal Management, Fuels, and Actuation (PTFA) Technologies o Ram air turbine o Heat exchanger o Catalytic reactor o Fuel heat sink

Instrumentation and Flight Control o Integrated Vehicle Health Management (IVHM) systems o Advanced structural, thermal, and flow diagnostic and measurement systems o Adaptive controls o Automated flight termination systems

NASA has classified the types of flight tests and associated vehicle modifications according to cost and complexity. This classification is expressed in tiers ordered in decreasing complexity and presumably cost:

Tier 1 – Experiments requiring major outer mold line or primary structural modifications Add on externally mounted propulsion systems Aerodynamic improvements to achieve higher flight speeds and or durations

Tier 2 – Experiments requiring moderate outer mold line modifications Modified leading edges, nose structures, acreage areas Modified control surfaces

Tier 3 – Experiments requiring integration and access modifications to vehicle areas Sensor, data acquisition, IVHM, and flight control experiments

Tier 4 – Experiments within existing vehicle capabilities or specifications

Table 1 provides an overview of the potential vehicle technologies and flight conditions that NASA has identified for flight testing. Conditions in Table 1 are indicative, but not all encompassing, of the conditions that may ultimately be warranted.

Table 1. NASA identified technologies for flight testing

Mach Number Range

Dynamic Pressure (psf)

Altitude (kft)

Steady State, Continuous /

Variable, Both

Test Duration

Combined Cycle Inlet Ground to flight vs CCE Minutes CCE

DMRJ Inlet/Isolator Operability, dynamics, control, bleed, etc. M4.0 - M7.0 500 - 2000 55 - 120 Both Minutes 1X

DMRJ Inlet + Combustor Obtain non-viated tests at high Mach Number M4.0 - M7.0 500 - 2000 55 - 120 Both Minutes 1X

"Other" Propulsion Technologies Solid (fluidized) fuels, gas generator/pre-combustion systems with or without APU, Rotating Detonation Engines

M0.9 - M8.0+ 500 - 2000 20 - 120 Both Minutes 1X

Composite Component Swap Swap existing component (leading edge, control surface, etc.) with new, more capabable reusable component.

500 - 2000 65 - 120

Light(er) Weight Structures

Test components lighter than standard flight weight components (as distinct from "Composite Component Swap"). Testing FTSI prediction capabilities or combine with adaptive controls (see below).

500 - 2000 65 - 120

Materials Evaluation Next generation material evaluations (might be the same as "Composite Component Swap"). Replace trade material selection with same component but with updated materials.

500 - 2000 65 - 120

Integrated Hot Structure Structures that can simultaneously carry mechanical load and operate at high-temperatures (i.e., leading edges, control surfaces, etc.).

500 - 2000 65 - 120

Material Repairs Flight Test Exposure for Performance Evaluations of Potential TPS Repair Options

500 - 2000 65 - 120

Ram Air Turbine Evaluate component survivability and power generation from bleed or ram air.

M2.5 - M8.0+ 500 - 2000 35 - 120 Both Minutes No 1X+

Brayton Cycle Evaluate component survivability and power generation/thermal balance. M2.5 - M8.0+ 500 - 2000 35 - 120 Both Minutes No 1X+

Fuel Heat Sink Evaluate heat sink capability and secondary effects of cracking both standard/logistical and advanced endothermic fuels.

M3.0 - M8.0+ 500 - 2000 45 - 120 Both Minutes No 1X+

Heat Exchanger Flowpath-integrated or secondary heat exchanger technology evaluation. M2.5 - M8.0+ 500 - 2000 35 - 120 Both Minutes No 1X+

Catalytic Reactor Evaluate component survivability and outlet fluid properties. M4.0 - M8.0+ 500 - 2000 Both Minutes No 1X+

ModSim Digital Twin Development and evaluation of digital twin model of test models identified for various disciplines.

Adaptive Controls Evaluate adaptive control algorithms using both traditional and intentionally damaged/distorted control surfaces.

500 - 2000 65 - 120 No

Mission Management Evaluate control algorithms for automated weather avoidance, trajectory optimization, etc.

500 - 2000 65 - 120 No

Flow Diagostics Next generation on-board flow diagnostics. 500 - 2000 65 - 120 OML Surface

Integrated Health Management Integrated health management technology evaluation, including advanced sensors (e.g., strain)

500 - 2000 65 - 120 Sensor network on available vehicle structures

Automated Flight Termination Evaluation of automated flight termination systems without vehicle termination.

500 - 2000 65 - 120

Instrumentation / Avionics M5.0 - M8.0+ Both 10s of

Minutes

Power / Thermal Management, Fuels, and Actuation (PTFA)

Test conditions based on selected test article(s).

GNC M5.0 - M8.0+ Both 10s of

Minutes

Propulsion Yes, Externally

Mounted

Materials & Structures M5.0 - M8.0+ Both 10s of

Minutes

No, Same OML, Component Swap

Yes, Integrated Off a Test Pod / Body /

Hardpoint External to

OML

Discipline Test Article Reason to Flight Test / Test Objectives

Test Conditions Requires Test Vehicle OML

Change

Scale / Mass /

Size

III. Contract Objectives

In response to the RFP, the offeror shall provide information based upon three tasks. Offerors are required to provide information on the following three tasks:

Task 1: Technical description of current reusable, hypersonic flight test capabilities beneficial to NASA that require no vehicle modifications or insignificant changes in operational procedures (Tier 4). The response under Task 1 shall include:

a. Sample trajectories (Mach, altitude, or dynamic pressure) as a function of time.

b. Payload size, weight, and power that can be accommodated.

c. Turnaround time to fly the same payload.

d. Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) cost per flight.

e. Required government-furnished equipment.

f. Location of suitable test range(s).

g. Other information as identified by the contractor.

Task 1 shall be completed within 1.5 months after contract award.

Task 2: Technical description and supporting analysis to demonstrate feasibility of modifications needed to reach NASA-specified flight requirements (according to the four tiers defined above and Table 1). The response under Task 2 shall include:

a. Description of related technology development needs.

b. Description of required ground tests/flight experiments to validate vehicle modifications.

c. Estimated cost, with supporting basis of cost estimate, and schedule for the vehicle modifications.

d. Needed government furnished equipment (GFE) or expertise required for technology development/validation.

e. Description of partnering arrangements (e.g., subcontractors, other funded efforts) that may be leveraged in support of these vehicle modifications.

f. Estimated schedule to first flight.

g. Major risks associated with vehicle modifications

h. Other information as identified by the contractor.

Task 2 shall be completed within 4 months after contract award.

Task 3: Technical description and supporting analysis of future reusable, hypersonic flight test capabilities/Concept of Operations (CONOPS) incorporating the modifications identified in Task 2 and according to the four tiers and Table 1 defined above. The response under Task 3 shall include:

a. Representative trajectories (Mach, altitude, or dynamic pressure) as a function of time that can be flown.

b. Payload size, weight, and power that can be accommodated.

c. Proposed CONOPS.

d. Turnaround process and time to fly the same payload.

e. ROM cost per flight (Tier 4 minimum).

f. Required GFE required for flight testing.

g. Location of suitable test range(s).

h. Other information as identified by the offeror

Task 3 shall be completed within 6 months after award.

For each task/sub-task, the offeror shall provide a total cost estimate to complete the identified efforts.

IV. Deliverables

Offerors shall provide the following:

From Task 1:

o The technical information, useable upon receipt, to support independent trajectory, aerodynamic performance, propulsion performance, structural and thermal analyses to assess feasibility of the current vehicle concept.

o Aircraft CONOPS, including information on assumptions and constraints, modes of nominal and off-nominal operation, definition of flight phases, nominal climb, cruise, and descent information, flight envelope (e.g., V-n diagram), ground system requirements, airport requirements (e.g., runway length).

o Oral presentation of results in Microsoft PowerPoint format.

From Task 2:

o List of specific vehicle modifications (i.e., systems, materials, structural configurations) and resulting impact on vehicle weight, performance, and

CONOPS.

o Information, cost, and schedule estimates for each of the vehicle modifications.

o Oral presentation of results in Microsoft PowerPoint format.

From Task 3:

o The technical information, useable upon receipt, to support independent trajectory, aerodynamic performance, propulsion performance, structural and thermal analyses to assess the feasibility of the proposed testbed.

o Aircraft CONOPS, including information on assumptions and constraints, modes of nominal and off-nominal operation, definition of flight phases, nominal climb, cruise, and descent information, flight envelope (e.g., V-n diagram), ground system requirements, airport requirements (e.g., runway length).

VI. Acronym List

AAVP

ARMD

CCE

CONOPS

DoD

DMRJ

GFE

HTP

IVHM

MACH

NASA

PTFA

RFP

ROM

WBS

VII. References

Advanced Air Vehicles Program Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate Combined Cycle Engine Concept of Operations Department of Defense Dual Mode Ram Jet Government Furnished Equipment Hypersonic Technology Project Integrated vehicle health monitoring Making Advancements in Commercial Hypersonics National Aeronautics and Space Administration Power/Thennal Management Fuels and Actuation Request for Proposal Rough Order of Magnitude Work Breakdown Stmcture

Ref. 1: Appropriations Bills & Committee Report; FY 2024 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 Explanato1y Statement (https://www.nasa.gov/ocfo/appropriations-bills committee-reportsO.

Ref 2: Strategic & Spectnun Missions Advanced Resilient Tmsted Systems (S2MARTS) Request for Solutions (RFS) in support of Multi-Service Advanced Capabilities Hypersonic Test Bed (MACH-TB) 2.0 Project No. 24-02 Announcement, https://sam.gov/opp/a28bd7023948490ea591b75c7f57b 163/view, accessed Januaiy 7, 2025.

Ref. 3: Heilmeier Catechism (https://www.dai-pa.mil/about/heilmeier-catechism).

Page 11 ofll