Talk:Aerojet General X-8

X-8 vs total Aerobee numbers
I took my numbers for X-8 variants from Jay Miller's "The X-Planes X-1 to X-31" The book was published in 1988. Later research may have other totals. Mr. Miller is not always clear with his details. Some times he gives total Air Force and Navy production for virtually identical missiles. For example he lists total production of X-8 and RTV-N-10 as 68. The Encyclopedia Aeronatical list 25 RTV-10 flights and  listed as 34 with the number of flights RTV-A-1s (X-8) as 28 a total of 62. Another 29 flights are listed as "Aerobee XASR-SC-1"

In a photo caption he states that "The Air Force, following the Navy's lead, ordered approximately 60 "Aerobees' under the X-8, X-8A, X-8B, X-8C and X-8D designators."

He has a table listing "all Aerobee launches associated with the various X-8 configuration." There are 13 of those flights are listed as XASR-SC-2s. The XASR-SC-2 flights number SC-10 to SC-10 to SC-17, then SC-27-32 (omitting SC-29). There is the final flight listed as SM1.01! XASR-SC-2 was the Aerojet designation for the X-8 (RTV-A-1) and RTV-N-10). AE's XASR-SC-2 chronology from 1950 lists a bunch of XASR-SC-2 flights, few of them match Miller's table. See /www.astronautix.com/lvs/aersrsc2.htm Then ponder the launch chronology for the X-8 (RTV-1-A and RTV-1-1) http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/aerrtva1.htm Many match Miller's list of X-8 flights, many don't. Check out the RTV-10 variants at http://www.astronautix.com/alpha/a.htm

The "Agency" for all of the XASR-2 flights are listed as "SCEL and were flown at White Sands instead of Holloman AFB where all of the RTV-A-1 and RTV-A-1a (X-8)flights were from. " The USAF flights are listed as "ARDC", Air Research and Development command. SCEL is Signal Corps Engineering Laboratories. All of the SCEL flights had weather related experiments. "The Signal Corps conducted similar studies at the North Pole and made weather observations with rockets at Fort Churchill, Manitoba, Canada. The Corps also explored the upper atmosphere to learn more about its effects on communications." See: http://www.history.army.mil/books/30-17/S_9.htm

The history of sounding rockets is very confused. For an example see the White Sands firing summaries at http://www.wsmr-history.org/FiringRecords1947.asp

The four Aerobee flight listed for 1947 are all described as "Army". In 1948 6 are described as "Army." It is the same until 1952 when the Aerobee listing as "Army, Navy & AF." In 1953 all Aerobees are listed as "Navy." What about Miller's listing of Flights SC-28, SC-30 and SC-32? For 1954 the WS firing summary credit all Aerobees as "Air Force & Navy". All of the AF flights Miller list in 1954 were at Holloman AFB.

The subject is as clear as mud,

Anyone who has better numbers than I have described please list them and your sources.

Mark Lincoln (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

New Numbers: Smith lists 33 Air Force Aerobees (X-8s) launched between 2 Dec. 1949 and 12 Dec, 1952. This agrees with Miller. He lists 51 more from 18 Feb. 1953 and 21 Aug 1957. 21 Applied Physics Laboratory firings between 25 Sept. 1947 and 6 Feb. 1951., 6 NRL firings between 5 Aug 1948 and 3 Aug. 1950. and 35 Signal Corps launches between 9 Dec. 1948 and 10 Aug. 1956. Miller agrees on dates through SC-32 & SM-1.01. Van Allen and Townsend (Newell) support these numbers.

Mark Lincoln (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

X-8 was a version of the Aerobee, not the other way around
"After consulting with representatives of the NRL and it's parent organization, the Office of Research and Inventions (ORI), G. R. Tatum and J. A. Van Allen recommended to the BuOrdon Mar. 1, 1945, that

1. BuOrd negotiate a contract with Aerojet of the Section T type (i.e., with APL acting as the agent of BuOrd in the technical supervision of the work of the contract) for the development and manufacture of 20 nitric acid-aniline powered XASR-1 rockets capable of delivering a payload of 150 lb. to a summit altitude of over 300,000 ft.

2. Fifteen of those rockets be assigned to APL. ..

3. Five of those rockets (production numbers 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 be assigned to the NRL. . ." The same report was repeated by Miller in his chapter about the X-8.

Contract Nord 9837 between the BuOrd and Aerojet was signed 17 May 1946.

"The first forty Aerobeees, officially designated RTV-N-8a1 by the Navy (and XASR-1 or XASR-SC-1 by Aerojet) were powered by 2,600 lb. th. air-pressurized rocket engines. These were followed by 68 Air Force (X-8 [RTV-A-1]) and Navy (RTV-N-10)-sponsored (Aerojet designation was XASR-2 or XASR-SC-2) missiles. . ." (Emphasis mine).

The later RTV-A-1a (X-8A,) the Navy RTV-10a, used the Aerojet AJ10-25 engine, the first use of an engine remained in service through many variants over 63 years. The AJ10 propelled many Aerobee variants, was the second stage of the first missile designed as a Satellite Launch Vehicle, the Vanguard. It also powered the Able second stage, the Delta second stage, was the Apollo Service module engine, and ended it's long service as the space shuttle Orbital Maneuvering System engine.

"While the Navy Bureau of Ordnance funded the compact Aerobee, the Naval Research Laboratory developed the Viking . . ."

The first NRL launch "Areobee NRL-1" (RTV-N-8) was fired on 5 August 1948. The first USAF Aerobe (RTV-A-1, aka X-8) launch was on 2 December 1949.

I think four good sources, one of them written by the man most responsible for the Aerobee, James Van Allen, another the NRL "Summary of Upper Atmosphere Rocket Firings," and a third from the chapter on the X-8 by an acknowledged authority on X-planes, are sufficient to refute the baseless assertion that the Aerobee was developed from the X-8.

Mark Lincoln (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

p.s. Van Allen coined the name Aerobee. Aero was for Aerojet. The "bee" came from the USN/APL Bumblebee project.

What a well written and documented page should achieve
A Wikipedia page on a technical subject should achieve several goals. First it should provide enough information to a casual reader so that they may understand essential facts and sufficient background that they will have a basic understanding of the subject. The article should be well documented so as to provide the more interested reader enough sources to allow them to easily pursue the subject, or related subjects. The article should hew as close to the truth as may be ascertained with the evidence at hand.

For example some 15-20 years ago I had a pleasant conversation with a curator of the New Mexico Museum of Space History about their collection. He told me it included an X8. Knowing that Miller reports that no actual X-8s survived I ask him if it was an actual X-8 and not just an Aerobee (knowing that Miller reports that the NMMSH example is a standard Aerobee). He insisted it was. He certainly is in a better position than I to know. There are 3 X-8Ds I have not been able to account for, and unable to inspect the item (and having no S/Ns for either the rocket, engine or other parts) I am in no position to dispute him. It would make a nice revelation, but without any source aside from hear-say the story does not belong in an article about the historic X-8. He was right about the sled track which is now, it was not then, on display.

I did have to check sources against each other. Especially web sources. There were conflicts, there always are.

There are mostly fine sources, such as Mark Wade's Encyclopedia Astronautica, which I have foud clear errors. For example, he lists the engine of the obscure Hermes A-1 and B-3 as "Nitric acid/Amine Drawing on the German World War II Wasserfall rocket, nitric acid (HNO3) became the early storable oxidiser of choice for missiles and upper stages of the 1950's." He was right about the "upper stages, spell that AJ-10-xx. He was dead wrong about the propellants and engines of the Hermes missiles. The folks at G.E.'s Malta Test Station would find his assertion astounding. Though the aerodynamic shape of the Hermes A-1 (but not the A-3B) was a copy of the shape of the Wasserfall C-2 (to make use of captured German aerodynamic data) that was the limit of their commonality. George Sutton, a recognized expert and a Rocketdyne engineer in the 1950s, visited Malta to see what was going on while the Hermes engines were being developed. He discussed the G.E. Hermes engines at length in his history of LPREs. The Hermes A-2 and B-3A & B-3B were powered by LOX/Alcohol. This pretty much wrecked the prospects of developing the A-1 into a SAM, but made the R&D problem easier (and the prospects of developing much larger boosters like the Vanguard engine much better). He was much impressed with the design of the injector used on the A-1 engine which "became the model for other large U.S. injector designs." He also discusses the combustion instability which delayed the Hermes missiles for years (I always wondered why). I do not mention this to disparage Mark Wade's work. Rather he is an excellent source in most cases and the amount of information on the Hermes program is scarce, often conflicting and seldom documented. One error that has prospered is that the Hermes A-1 was a "copy" of the Wasserfall C-2. It certainly looks the part, but the similarity was just skin deep.

Secrecy was very extensive in the late 40s & early 50s. Aviation Leak and Space Mythology was not taking intense interest in missile until after the end of Hermes, so the excellent reporting of the late 50s and 60s did not exist. I know, I have been mining AvLeak's archives which have been recently released. Alas it is usually cheaper to destroy classified documents (especially embarrassing ones) than declassify them. Others just disappear into the scattered archives and after many agency, service, designation, agency, changes become hard to track.

Trying to sort out the history of the Aerobee family can be a real puzzle. For example the RTV-A-1 became the X-8 which became the RM-84. eventually the PWN-2. . Never mind that Aerojet had it's own names, which sometimes a service might, or might not use. See XASR-1, XASR-SC-1, RTV-N-8. . . Or XASR-2, XASR-SC-2, RTV-A-1, RTV-N-10. . . Not to mention AJ-10-25(or 24), RTV-A-1a, X-8a, which was the Navy RTV-N-10a. Then there was the AJ-10-24, which was also the RTV-N-10b.

Let us not forget the AJ-10-27 aka RTV-N-10c

Then there was the AJ-10-34 which was an Air force AJ-10-24.

Then comes the Aerobee-Hi series. . . There was an "Air Force Hi," a slightly different "Navy Hi," and the "Standard Hi," which was also the Aerobee 150. Add a A to the number of NASA Aerobee and it indicates four rather than three tail fins. ..

No wonder folks get confused. Errors are easily made particularly if you only have one or two sources. Especially if they are web sources. Books never go 404 you.

Mark Lincoln (talk) 01:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)