We all know the SR-71 Blackbird: The American cold war super-spyplane. It was based on the Lockheed A-12 design, which won a competition against Convair in 1959 to produce the iconic aircraft.
But the A-12 was just the 12th design iteration. There were others.
Read on...
It was commissioned to replace the equally iconic, and difficult to fly, U2 'Dragon Lady': A spybird with a 70,000ft service ceiling, whose window of service was expected to be short.
It's successor was required to beat that, using higher speed, higher altitude and lower RCS.
In 1956, Lockheed Chief Engineer Kelly Johnson kicked off project SUNTAN, to which only 25 people were cleared: A Mach 2.5 capable hydrogen fuelled aircraft, capable of a 99,000ft service ceiling, yielding the CL-400 design, a 300ft long hydrogen burning behemoth.
Far ahead of it's time, dogged by technical issues and incapable of long range, SUNTAN was closed down in 1959, setting the stage for the Archangel program.
@ToughSf But Lockheed was not the only company vying to replace the U2. The Convair FISH concept was a ramjet powered & boosted parasite craft launched from a B58. Theoretically capable of Mach 4 & topping out at 90,000ft, it would be boosted by a jettisonable twin ramjet booster.
@ToughSf A lifting body design, it would have managed aerodynamic heating through a 'Pyroceram' ceramic layer on the leading edges over a honeycomb steel structure and would land by opening intakes to two small turbojets.
@ToughSf Recap: A ramjet is a simple form of jet engine for high speed only: Lacking compressors, it compresses air with forward motion, typically decelerating air subsonic for combustion by inlet shock generation. A convergent-divergent duct allows expansion into a supersonic exhaust.
@ToughSf Archangel.
The Lockheed team iterated Archangel 1 & 2: A1 was 167ft long with a Delta wing, cruciform tail & two J58s in wing root pods, designed to cruise at Mach 3 between 83 and 93 thousand feet. It would have a 102,000 lb max takeoff weight.
@ToughSf Archangel 2 was shorter but heavier still, and incorporated two 75 inch ramjets at the wingtip, powered by high energy but volatile and toxic ethyldecaborane for a Mach 3.2 cruise at 94 to 105 thousand feet.
@ToughSf Ethyldecaborane was a high energy fuel Investigated in the 50s to enhance jet aircraft range. Borane fuels have a specific energy potentially 40% higher than kerosene, but the toxic exhaust and corrosive solid products makes them hazardous for turbine engines and ground crew.
@ToughSf Both the A2 & the competing FISH were rejected, specifically for weight on the former and platform risk in the latter. More generically due to the unresolved radar cross section reduction requirement on both.
Rapid design iteration commenced...
@ToughSf The A-3 was smaller, swapping the J58s for 2 modified P&W JT-12 Turbojets, coupled with wingtip ethyldecaborane ramjets on a high wing mount semi-tailless configuration.
The A-4 introduced a blended wing/body planform, the A-5 a triple rocket assist powerplant.
And the A-6...
@ToughSf The A-6 was quite beautiful.
The Lotus Elise of the program so far, it foreshadowed some final design features. A blended low RCS wing/body with inward canted tailfins, it featured a single J58 & two conformal ramjets. Weight was reduced with detachable landing gear.
@ToughSf At this stage both companies' projects were hit with harsh truths:
*Performance and low RCS don't pull in the same direction.
*Parasite craft are too risky.
*HEF fuels are too difficult to handle.
*The lightweight designs can't give enough range.
*The customer wants results!
@ToughSf Focus on the J58!
The Pratt & Whitney J58 was unique. Designed for very high speed use at speeds limiting conventional turbomachinery, it ducted 20% of compressor air to cool & enhance a ram-effect cruise afterburner.
@ToughSf Non-scramjet engines combust air that is compressed & subsonic. This also heats air, & material temperature limits what can be done.
At high Mach (2.5-3) most of the compression work is performed by the inlet & turbomachinery just adds drag, so 'ramjet' functionality is useful.
@ToughSf Johnson went back to the drawing board, optimizing performance focused concepts centred on the J58. The resulting A-11 was elegant if conventional and would complete a 13,000 míle mission with two refuellings.
However it had the RCS of a bomber. Not acceptable. Program extended.
@ToughSf Lockheed's final proposal, the A-12.
Nothing was put to waste, even the fuel doubled as coolant. The fuselage was titanium semi-monocoque, with long leading edge chines assembled with interlocking sawtooth wedges of titanium and radar absorbing composite.
@ToughSf The competition: The Kingfish.
In many ways more ambitious: This stealthy Mach 3.2 delta was Convair's entry for Project Oxcart. In the end however the A-12's lower technical risk, plus Lockheed's history of delivering such projects on-time & budget won. The A-12 was the victor.
@ToughSf And so began the A-12 story with the CIA, and later the SR-71 with the USAF, and the family tree the aircraft spawned. But this, and the manufacturing and design challenges of the aircraft & powerplant, deserve their own thread.
Hope you enjoyed this!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
There are approximately 14.6 million working-age people with STEM degrees in the United States, plus arrivals from outside. There are 29 million in the EU & UK.
But this is a sideshow to the real action in the East…
I used Grok Expert to create a series of estimates for STEM educated populations across the world, excluding social sciences, then used population data to predict changes over time. I analysed USA, China, EU+UK, India, Russia & Japan.
Let's get into it…
USA!
14.6 million.
A low volume of engineers at about 3.7-5.6 million (depending on definition) is powerfully made up for in the sciences, particularly biology & biomedical (2.9 million) and computer science & IT (4.1 million).
It's the greatest story never told: It's the story of how a frugal county in the North of England invented the modern world.
Put on a flat cap and call up the whippet, because this is a thread about my home county, and the inventions that came out of Yorkshire!
Steel!
Benjamin Huntsman invented high homogeneity crucible steel in Sheffield in the 1740s, firing with coke to fully melt the steel and homogenise the carbon content.
This became used… everywhere, and supercharged the ongoing industrial revolution.
Steam trains.
Steam locomotion had been in development for some decades by 1812, but arguably the world's first commercially successful steam locomotive was Matthew Murray's Salamanca. To him, we owe speed.
A liquid rocket boost stage needs to pump fuel and cryogenic oxidiser to the combustion chamber at a rate that beggars belief: The 33 engines on the boost stage of SpaceX's monstrous ‘Superheavy’ booster each chew through about 700 kg of propellant every second. Put all those engines together and the flow rate of liquid fuel & oxygen would be sufficient to empty an Olympic swimming pool in under 2 minutes, if you could find an Olympic swimming pool for cryogenic propellant.
Can you think of any conventional lightweight pump that can do this? Me neither. You need something special…
The turbopump comprises a typically-axial turbine powered by hot, pressurised gas flow that powers centrifugal compressor pumps that pump the colossal quantities of propellant required and pressurize it to, potentially, hundreds of standard atmospheres.
It's a handy, lightweight way to provide pumping power, but it does require that you have a source of hot, high-pressure gas to work with.
Now, where would you find that in a rocket engine?
Indeed. In order to burn fuel, we must pump it. In order to pump it, we may have to burn some of it.
Um…
The Gas Generator Cycle.
A small quantity of the pressurised fuel & oxidiser flows are tapped, brought to a small combustor, vaporised, ignited then expanded through a turbine that powers the fuel and oxygen compressor cycles.
Inevitably the gas generator can't run with a completely nominal fuel:oxy mix, as it would get so hot that it would melt the turbine blades, so typically a gas generator will trade off some efficiency and run fuel rich to power the turbopumps.
-Why not oxy rich? Because fuel has a higher specific heat at constant pressure (Cp) and so you need less mass flow through the gas generator if it's fuel rich than oxy rich, meaning more useful propellant goes to the main combustor & nozzle that moves the rocket.
So the upside of a gas generator cycle is relative simplicity and robustness, which is why it's used on the most reliable rocket motors around, the SpaceX Merlin. The downside is that you trade away efficiency by throwing away some of your propellant, meaning that the tyranny of the Tsiolkowsky rocket equation will kick you where the sun don't shine.
Staged combustion attempts to address this, by taking either a fuel rich or oxy rich preburner, operating at a much higher flow volume than a standard gas generator, and routing the hot gases that leave the turbine straight to the combustion chamber so that they're not lost. This not only increases the average propellant exhaust velocity (since none of it is lost) and therefore efficiency, but also allows a lower average temperature in the preburner and turbine, since there's a higher volume throughput instead.
On the flipside you must deal with hugely increased engineering complexity, an increased potential for feedback control problems between the different parts of the engine, and also a much higher pressure preburner, since it will still need to deliver high working pressures to the combustion chamber after the losses of the turbine and injectors.
The Soviets got there first, and some of their genius manifested in the Russian RD180 oxy-rich staged combustion engine, which was bought by the Americans and used in Atlas rockets for many years. Its unique oxy-rich staged combustion cycle was efficient but not without drawbacks, as high temperature gaseous oxygen is brutal to exposed metal surfaces, demanding an enamel coating on many parts of the engine.
Last month Rolls-Royce won the UK's small modular reactor competition to develop and build SMRs in the UK. It could be a new dawn for nuclear power.
But who else was in the competition, what was special about each design, and which is your favourite?
An SMR thread…
What's an SMR?
A small modular reactor is a way of beating the brutally high capital costs of building nuclear power: By simplifying assembly (modularity) and minimising subsystem size so almost all of it is factory built you harvest industrial learner effects and low costs.
Boiling water vs pressurised water reactors.
All designs in this list are either PWRs or BWRs, the most common reactor styles today. I've a thread on the basics if you need it, but otherwise on with the show!
In April on a mountain in Chile the Vera Rubin observatory gathered first light, and this telescope will be world-changing! -Not because it can see the furthest… but because it can see the fastest!
The Vera Rubin telescope thread! The value of speed, and unique technology…
Who was Vera Rubin?
She first hypothesized the existence of dark matter, by observing that the rotation speed of the edge of the galaxy did not drop off with radius from the centre as much as it should. The search for dark matter, and other things, will drive this telescope…
Does it see a long way?
Yes, but it’s not optimized for that: The battle of the big mirrors is won by the Extremely Large Telescope which, yes, is meant to see a long way. Vera Rubin is not that big, but that doesn’t matter because it has a different and maybe better mission.