What was the Pratt&Whitney engine that was not man rated at that time. The RL-10 ? They are talking Mach 20 and 200,000 fett so I am assuming a rocket engine.
Quote from: agman25 on 08/07/2009 05:15 PMWhat was the Pratt&Whitney engine that was not man rated at that time. The RL-10 ? They are talking Mach 20 and 200,000 fett so I am assuming a rocket engine.I doubt it was the RL-10, because the memo on the briefing of 26 April 1966 mentions that DDR&E assistant director John Kirk was concerned that P&W wouldn't be able to man-rate the engine within 31 months. Surely by the spring of 1966 the RL-10 was a well-known quantity.It's made clear that this is a rocket-boosted glider rather than a rocket-propelled airplane, which is listed as the next thing to be developed, to be followed in turn by a scramjet. On the whole, this seems like an attempt to resurrect Dyna-Soar, albeit on a somewhat smaller scale, three years after its death. And the scale isn't really that much different in that the speed--Mach 20-plus--is nearly orbital.To Blackstar: If you have any further "guilt" that needs to be "assuage," I'm sure we would all be only to happy to help! Thanks a lot.
It's difficult to believe that with all of this interest in such a vehicle over the last several decades, nothing has ever come of it!
Mulready's book about advanced engine development at Pratt and Whitney says that they designed and built a reusable staged combustion LOX/LH2 engine for some secret Air Force project, and used the knowledge from that project in their unsuccessful SSME bid. I don't have it with me so I can't look up the name of the engine, but it seems likely that this is the engine that is being discussed. I seem to recall it was around 200klb thrust, which at two engines a vehicle means that this would be pretty damn large for an air-dropped system.The use of the term "man-rate" is interesting.Mulready's book also has a mention of an impressive-sounding fabrication technology to make titanium sandwich structures with conventional steel-rolling technology.
A question if I may.I came across this interesting article in Janes:http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jidr/jidr000105_01_n.shtmlAfter reading this (and with our thread here in mind) I was wondering if it may be russian, overflights?
Kelly Johnson had stated in 1981 the SR-71 had over 1000 missles launched against it, none successful.I'm assuming the Open Skies Treaty establishes some "etiquette" for such flights and getting shot at is no longer an occurance (with Russia at least)? True? Partially true? I suppose the public will never really know and I should do some more research on OST.I wonder about the frequency of Russian overflights and at what speed & altitude they may fly.
Not really. There are plenty of things that have been studied intensely for a short period of time and never turned into a real program.
1-There is a whole laundry list of books I'd like to get, once some of our damn bills are paid, and Shades Of Gray: National Security And The Evolution Of Space Reconnaissance by L. Parker Temple is one I was thinking about.Has anyone read it? Amazon gave it an ok rating.2-I have to say Blackstar, you get access to some pretty neat stuff.
I saw this stealthy "thing" at the Air Force Museum a few weeks ago. It was hard to photograph. The damn thing is still almost invisible! You can't see its means of propulsion from the public viewing spots.
Thanks for the feedback. I'm surprised SR-71 didn't overfly the Soviets. Years ago I had read a book on converted bombers that overflew the soviets in the 50's (some were downed) and I just assumed overflights continued in later decades.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 08/14/2009 02:10 PMI saw this stealthy "thing" at the Air Force Museum a few weeks ago. It was hard to photograph. The damn thing is still almost invisible! You can't see its means of propulsion from the public viewing spots.Teledyne-Ryan Compass Arrow
That's right! It was designed to overfly mainland *China*, at 78,000 feet, to photograph nuclear sites, unmanned. Its jet engine was mounted on top, and its underside was shaped to minimize radar cross section. This was an early "stealth" plane! It would have been air-launched from a C-130-something and recovered while it dropped under a parachute, by a helicopter. This was an extension of the Ryan unmanned drone effort during Vietnam. Teledyne-Ryan was all set to go, then Nixon went to see Mao and the program had to be shut down!
There's a picture of one of these pancaked on a highway somewhere. I think they had a flight control failure. If memory serves, that exposed the program. It is also shown, but not explained, in the book Lightning Bugs and Other Reconnaissance Drones. (There's a story behind that book. I don't know the full details, but apparently it was a classified drone history that somebody let get public by accident.)
1-Would it be fair to say the need for a winged vehicle to make a high speed intel run is history with the advance of sats? As much as I'd like to hope there was a follow on to the A-12, I just can't see what you could do that a sat couldn't.2-Tactical & loiter are another thing of course.3-I was wondering if anyone could recommend a good book on the P3 Orion that had to land in china? Any comment on how much damage was done or did the crew manage to take care of the critical items? Sorry for getting off topic.
In your last article you mentioned Dwayne Day watches too much bad television and needs to read more books.
Pratt & Whitney engineers obviously felt they had a superior product, but what happened to it and why probably requires further investigation.
You can download the report on the XLR-129 engine here:http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/AD881744WARNING: this is a 17 megabyte file!
Interesting, if the Space Review article is correct all documentation on this engine was supposedly destroyed...
Quote from: Graham2001 on 04/13/2010 05:14 PMInteresting, if the Space Review article is correct all documentation on this engine was supposedly destroyed...That's not what the article says. It says "Pratt & Whitney employees later claimed that they were told to destroy their blueprints and test data to “avoid embarrassing NASA."
Even though CIA officials talked about OXCART missions over the USSR, some of them even flying missions coordinated with satellites far overhead, both politics and the perceived vulnerability of the OXCART to sophisticated defense prevented this from ever happening.
I have a vague and very possibly incorrect memory that some flights were made over the Barents Sea parallel to the coast of the Kola Peninsula to get looks inland. Beyond that, a circuit of the Barents going on past Cape Kanin Nos and up the west coast of Novaya Zemlya would have afforded opportunities to see interesting things while staying out of Soviet airspace.
As for ISINGLASS, it remains an interesting mystery. I really wonder about the performance. Somebody should be able to take those dimensions and work out how much fuel it could carry. From there they could work out performance characteristics. I assume that any first-year aerospace engineering student could do that. It's just volume and then the rocket equation. It should be easy to get maximum values.
...A search for "Convair" turned up three documents that I've requested:"ADDITIONAL TASKING OF CONVAIR FORT WORTH, FOR SIMULATION [Sanitized]," 18 Nov 63;"TASKING FOR CONVAIR," 12 Feb 64; and"TASKING FOR CONVAIR," 21 Feb 64....
In the middle of 2001 (i.e. before 9-11) I attended an unclassified symposium at the Defense Intelligence Agency. It was about historical overflight. As part of the symposium we got a tour of the DIA's imagery analysis center, which at the time was pioneering the government use of commercial remote sensing imagery. The value of such imagery was that it could be freely distributed to allies, law enforcement, etc., because it was unclassified.At the end of our tour we saw the room where they processed U-2 film. There was a light table there with some U-2 imagery on it. I took a look and saw an image of several C-17s on a ramp.* We were told that this was Open Skies imagery. The US and the Russians took imagery of either sides' installations and apparently shared their imagery. We used the U-2's film cameras (I think) because it was old technology and we didn't want to show them our current digital capabilities.Open Skies was not really about intelligence, it was a confidence-building exercise intended to get the two countries talking to each other.