(Scott Lowther) wrote in message . com...
(Len) wrote in message . com...

I was rather surprised to see this in print, Scott,
since it was rather closely held for a long time.

A non-classified (or at least, a document that was not labelled as
classified) review of the GRM-29A was forwarded to me by Jess Sponable
back in '98 or '99. If it's still classified... well... all I can say
is that I got it through a public source and it's not labeled as
classified. The Boeing RASV design was in the same review, and it's
pretty declassified.

Oh, I wasn't challenging anything--just that I have not
kept up to date on the status.

I did the original concept design for this configuration
--and all of the competing configurations by the other
companies--while a consultant at ANSER. The engine
arrangement is a little different from what you mention,
but I do not feel free to say more.

Might be a different version (the drawing sdo show two slightly
different wing/body arrangements). The version desribed has three
SSME's in the tail, two with extendable cones for high altitude, and a
further SSME in the nose. All engines could pivot through at least 90
degrees.

The overall project was derailed by false NASP promises
--not by technical barriers.

My own view is that the added mass of the pivots, along with an SSME
that's only used for 50 or so seconds, did not scream "SSTO mass
fraction." But I don't have the detailed design data, so there ya go.

There were earlier versions that did not have some of
the problems that you mention. Again, I do not feel
free to say more.

Best regards,
Len