SR-71, The Blackbird
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not an A-12.
NASA operated SR-71 with a prototype linear aerospike engine mounted on top. Search Wikipedia.
My wife worked on it as an intern at NASA Dryden - got at signed picture of it on the office wall.
NASA operated SR-71 with a prototype linear aerospike engine mounted on top. Search Wikipedia.
My wife worked on it as an intern at NASA Dryden - got at signed picture of it on the office wall.
The first wind tunnel experiment I helped on was the YF-12 intake. We were sub contracted to Lockheed to run a model of it in our supersonic tunnel. The point went in and out and the petals of the cone behind the spike expanded and contracted to vary the rake of the cone and the gap to the intake rim. The edges of the intake were razor sharp and had to be treated with caution.
Last edited by Ninthace; 23rd Nov 2021 at 21:32.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Just Around The Corner
Posts: 1,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JSF-TC
Not an A-12.
NASA operated SR-71 with a prototype linear aerospike engine mounted on top. Search Wikipedia.
My wife worked on it as an intern at NASA Dryden - got at signed picture of it on the office wall.
NASA operated SR-71 with a prototype linear aerospike engine mounted on top. Search Wikipedia.
My wife worked on it as an intern at NASA Dryden - got at signed picture of it on the office wall.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/...ain_H-2280.pdf
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Lounge
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My initial guess that it was the drone mount on the M-21 stands corrected by JSF-TC's interesting insight. Oxcart Project Pilot Frank Murray touches on the drone concept briefly in this excellent talk on his involvement with the A-12, in which he also disparagingly refers to the SR-71 at the "family model" of the Blackbird variants.
If the link below doesn't work, search Youtube for "The Oxcart Story - Frank Murray".
If the link below doesn't work, search Youtube for "The Oxcart Story - Frank Murray".
Originally Posted by Rug
...in which he also disparagingly refers to the SR-71 at the "family model" of the Blackbird variants.
Salute!
No way is "family model" disparaging. It has been used for decades when the primary model is single seat and the trainer or special mission model requires two seats.
Gums sends...
No way is "family model" disparaging. It has been used for decades when the primary model is single seat and the trainer or special mission model requires two seats.
Gums sends...
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Lounge
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“They built more of this model here [SR-71] which I call the family model. I’m sorry if any of you guys are SR drivers, I don’t have a helluva lot of good to say about it. I never flew that thing either thank God…”
Not a glowing opinion by any means but yes, all delivered with a smile and to laughter so friendly rivalry no doubt.
Not a glowing opinion by any means but yes, all delivered with a smile and to laughter so friendly rivalry no doubt.
Originally Posted by Flugplatz
I think that was part of the tech risk reduction for the X-33 as described. Seem to remember they couldn't get the thing from not leaking fuel or something
The sad result was the entire effort was cancelled, a major loss imho. It signaled the beginning of the era of stagnation in the US space program, decades of Titan and Delta launches with no expectations of anything better.
If you listen to Musk in this recent 21-Nov-2021 talk and Q&A etc with (US) National Academies of Sciences (etc)
(or https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/in...?topic=55237.0) he discusses the issues with composite tanks. It is a long talk and worth listening to in its entirety. In respect of the tanks he notes the porosity/leaks aspects, the flammability aspects (LOX + carbon + high pressure = bang), the weight, the strength (at pressure + low temp), the cost, and the re-entry (heated strength) and the overall airframe weight fraction that comes from this. That is what led to Space-X's decision to ultimately select and develop a stainless steel grade for the Starship as he explains. He also explains the corresponding decisions on Falcon 9. Remember that Space X started off with some very big composite structures in the early stages of Starship, back when they were going with conventional wisdom, so it is not as if Space-X didn't try the composite route. You can see some of the composite tooling etc that was their original pathway for Starship in ( https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-all...p-super-heavy/ )
So you could say that the lessons of X-33 were learnt, eventually.
So you could say that the lessons of X-33 were learnt, eventually.
Agree Etudiant,
Not following through with the X-33 tests of represents (to me) when NASA sort of lost their 'mojo' in terms of cutting edge launch vehicles/aerodynamics. They've still got it with their exploration spacecraft and science goals, but I guess the baton has now been passed to innovators like Space X. At least NASA have got behind Space X and that arrangement seems to be working pretty well.
Actually, the Lockheed team did build a metal internal tank, which eventually came within the required weight, so it could have been used. The testimony of NASA director Ivan Bekey was pretty much the final nail in the coffin. There is something about the whole project, which is sadly reminiscent of the dumping of the TRS 2
Not following through with the X-33 tests of represents (to me) when NASA sort of lost their 'mojo' in terms of cutting edge launch vehicles/aerodynamics. They've still got it with their exploration spacecraft and science goals, but I guess the baton has now been passed to innovators like Space X. At least NASA have got behind Space X and that arrangement seems to be working pretty well.
Actually, the Lockheed team did build a metal internal tank, which eventually came within the required weight, so it could have been used. The testimony of NASA director Ivan Bekey was pretty much the final nail in the coffin. There is something about the whole project, which is sadly reminiscent of the dumping of the TRS 2
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Just Around The Corner
Posts: 1,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ORAC , that’ s where the pictures come from .
They where testing the plumbing of the system ( cold flow ) in a series of flights , they ignited the propellant only in ground test .
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/...sre/index.html
They where testing the plumbing of the system ( cold flow ) in a series of flights , they ignited the propellant only in ground test .
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/...sre/index.html
Originally Posted by Nick 1
@ORAC , that’ s where the pictures come from .
They where testing the plumbing of the system ( cold flow ) in a series of flights , they ignited the propellant only in ground test .
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/...sre/index.html
They where testing the plumbing of the system ( cold flow ) in a series of flights , they ignited the propellant only in ground test .
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/...sre/index.html
How robust the whole thing would have been is unknown, but weight was always the SSTO bugaboo, so margins were minimal everywhere.
