The diameter seems wrong, 66 inches is well under the 92 inch (2.34m) overall diameter and only marginally bigger than the MMIII 3rd stage which is 1.3m overall (rocket motor stated at 52 inches, which is roughly the same). In fact 66 inches sounds more like MMIII 1st stage.Some interesting systems on that page.
The Opfires FSRM (full size rocket motor?) dimensions but also the MX 2nd stage at 66” diameter. Was this a pre-Peacekeeper ICBM option under the whole “Missile Experimental” program?
Aerojet solid rocket engine. Peacekeeper second stage.
AKA: Peacekeeper-2. Status: Retired 2005. Thrust: 1,365.00 kN (306,864 lbf). Gross mass: 27,800 kg (61,200 lb). Unfuelled mass: 2,900 kg (6,300 lb). Burn time: 54 s. Height: 5.40 m (17.70 ft). Diameter: 2.35 m (7.70 ft).
Could it be a whole other system?The diameter seems wrong, 66 inches is well under the 92 inch (2.34m) overall diameter and only marginally bigger than the MMIII 3rd stage which is 1.3m overall (rocket motor stated at 52 inches, which is roughly the same). In fact 66 inches sounds more like MMIII 1st stage.
Astronautix also disagrees:
More here:
66 inches could be the nozzle base diameter:
View attachment 715936
View attachment 715937
8! is 40,320. Is there eight independent factors you are looking at? Probably many more. I'm not saying they are looking at every combination and permutation of everything that goes into designing a new ICBM but getting to the 10s of thousands wouldn't be too difficult IMHO.You know what your payload is going to be. You know what your fuel is going to be. You know it's going to be a cylinder. How did they arrive at 10s of thousands of variations and would you even be able to tell them apart?