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.