Author Topic: Blackstar: Operational TSTO! (Read 133554 times)

nacnud · « **on:** 03/06/2006 08:49 am »

Aviation Week & Space Technology has revieled what it knows about a possible TSTO space plane, if true this is amazing!

Quote

Two-Stage-to-Orbit 'Blackstar
By William B. Scott
03/05/2006 04:07:33 PM

This two-vehicle "Blackstar" carrier/orbiter system may have been declared operational during the 1990s.

A large "mothership," closely resembling the U.S. Air Force's historic XB-70 supersonic bomber, carries the orbital component conformally under its fuselage, accelerating to supersonic speeds at high altitude before dropping the spaceplane. The orbiter's engines fire and boost the vehicle into space. If mission requirements dictate, the spaceplane can either reach low Earth orbit or remain suborbital.

RRP · « **Reply #1 on:** 03/06/2006 10:06 am »

Is it possible that this could operate for such a length of time with no knowledge? What benefit over rockets? Are there orbits that would be desired for observation sats that wouldn't be achievable with rockets such that a mobile capabiltiy is needed? Would the need for a supersonic aircraft be needed? Seems incredible that this is operational. An explanation of some theoretical benefits might help me understand. Thanks.

nacnud · « **Reply #2 on:** 03/06/2006 10:32 am »

The main benifit is the short response time. The first you'd know about this coming would be when it appeared over the horizon, you wouldn't have time to hide. There is more in the article.

Hotol · « **Reply #3 on:** 03/06/2006 12:16 pm »

Now that's what I'm talking about!

JamesSpaceFlight · « **Reply #4 on:** 03/06/2006 12:23 pm »

What the hell? Have they been hacking into British Aerospace's computers? This has ruffled a few feathers here as that's a little bit too much like a couple of our old projects.

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #5 on:** 03/06/2006 12:29 pm »

Quote

JamesSpaceFlight - 6/3/2006 1:23 PM

What the hell? Have they been hacking into British Aerospace's computers? This has ruffled a few feathers here as that's a little bit too much like a couple of our old projects.

Looks like Hotol and the front and Concorde at the aft, but can you say anymore on what you mean above?

nacnud · « **Reply #6 on:** 03/06/2006 12:37 pm »

Aparently it used a boron gel fuel, I've not heard of a UK project that used such a fuel, were there plans here for this stuff?

MSNBC also has an article on the concept complete with a couple of experts sugesting why such a system would be unworkable in their opinion.

JamesSpaceFlight · « **Reply #7 on:** 03/06/2006 12:54 pm »

I'm bring a few people who know better to the forum.

vt_hokie · « **Reply #8 on:** 03/06/2006 01:08 pm »

Quote

Hotol - 6/3/2006 8:16 AM

Now that's what I'm talking about!

Amen, brother!

David BAE · « **Reply #9 on:** 03/06/2006 01:18 pm »

Quote

JamesSpaceFlight - 6/3/2006 7:54 AM

I'm bring a few people who know better to the forum.

Thanks James.

This goes back, way back, to a paper by Francis Rogall. Some of his conceptual ideas were dismissed by NASA, at a time we were warming to Delta wing research, all pre and during pre-post Vulcan and pre-Concorde. A number of his papers were used by Aerospatiale on a concept which we adopted during schematic phases of using the baseline as a potential space bomber.

While I only worked with the aerodynamics, what you're looking at is our very own Project BSST1-A. It is so similar it's almost convincing this is ours.

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #10 on:** 03/06/2006 01:21 pm »

Welcome to the site David.

I'm getting no joy from Google on the Project name, but are you saying the US bought the idea, or stole it? Also, would you say this would have worked, as there's some people on the MSNBC article saying it wouldn't of?

nacnud · « **Reply #11 on:** 03/06/2006 01:25 pm »

How similar? There have been quite a few goes at developing a system like this i.e. Spiral etc

Edit: Here are some more images from AWST: 1 2 3 4

David BAE · « **Reply #12 on:** 03/06/2006 01:29 pm »

Quote

nacnud - 6/3/2006 8:25 AM

How similar? There have been quite a few goes at developing a system like this i.e. Spiral etc

Yes, this is hardly an exclusive design as you say, but this is ours. I went white as a sheet the second I saw it.

vt_hokie · « **Reply #13 on:** 03/06/2006 01:35 pm »

Quote

MSNBC also has an article on the concept complete with a couple of experts sugesting why such a system would be unworkable in their opinion.

The orbital vehicle is quite a revelation, but the existence of the "Super Valkyrie" has been known for some time. The evidence of its existence is pretty irrefutable.

dmc6960 · « **Reply #14 on:** 03/06/2006 01:43 pm »

Aerospikes, nice.

SimonShuttle · « **Reply #15 on:** 03/06/2006 02:05 pm »

Cool looking, but what exactly would it do? Take a couple of people a few hundred miles up and get to a bombing range faster?

That's not what I call a "space program".

vt_hokie · « **Reply #16 on:** 03/06/2006 02:08 pm »

Quote

SimonShuttle - 6/3/2006 10:05 AM

Cool looking, but what exactly would it do? Take a couple of people a few hundred miles up and get to a bombing range faster?

That's not what I call a "space program".

Whatever its military use, the technology could certainly be applied toward an ISS crew transport!

Jim · « **Reply #17 on:** 03/06/2006 02:14 pm »

Altohough the article says it went to orbit and since nothing has been comfirmed, it possibly could have been only suborbital, i.e. once around.

Hotol · « **Reply #18 on:** 03/06/2006 02:25 pm »

Quote

vt_hokie - 6/3/2006 9:08 AM

Quote
SimonShuttle - 6/3/2006 10:05 AM

Cool looking, but what exactly would it do? Take a couple of people a few hundred miles up and get to a bombing range faster?

That's not what I call a "space program".

Whatever its military use, the technology could certainly be applied toward an ISS crew transport!

Why would that work, it would be a very expensive way to send people to the ISS?

vt_hokie · « **Reply #19 on:** 03/06/2006 02:32 pm »

Quote

Hotol - 6/3/2006 10:25 AM]Why would that work, it would be a very expensive way to send people to the ISS?

Well, we don't even know whether this thing really exists/existed, much less how expensive it is to operate. But clearly, the motivation behind such a system would be more routine access to space, so I don't see it being more expensive than using STS-era conventional launch vehicles to send crews into orbit.