Author Topic: Blackstar Budget Line Item Found? (Read 32804 times)

mlorrey · « **on:** 07/02/2006 01:11 am »

FY 1997 US Air Force RDT&E Budget, tactical programs:
R-1 Line:148
Program Element: 0207424F
Description: evaluation and analysis program
Dollar amoung: $85.521 million

special access program -- this program was known as COPPER COAST until fiscal year 1994. Phase 2 of hypersonic aircraft studies the Air Force conducted under the COPPER CANYON (phase 1) program.

COPPER CANYON was, of course, the slightly well known USAF studies for a scramjet/combined cycle SSTO generally attributed to be a version of the X-30 "National Aerospace Plane".

Other line items that may pay for other aspects of this program:
150
0207433F
advanced program technology
$72.501 million
special access program -- this program was known as "tactical improvement program" until fiscal year 1994.

152
0207433F
advanced systems improvements
Dollar amount: [classified]
special access program

154
0207591F
advanced program evaluation
$198.327 million
special access program -- this program was known as OMEGA until fiscal year 1994. Rumored to be funding a high-speed aircraft.

Related program code names:
Have Blinders (I)
USAF TPS project, looked at limited visibility for NASP

Have Blinders II
USAF TPS project, looked at limited visibility for NASP

Have Blinders III
USAF TPS project, looked at limited visibility for NASP

Have Key
USAF Special Access Program; allegedly design effort by General Dynamics, as part of the design work that led to the A-12A Avenger II, though note that A-12A was a NAVY aircraft, and Blackstar is alleged to have poached budget money from the A-12 program.

Have Region
USAF (TAC ?) project, follow-on to Science Realm, production of [redacted]

Science Dawn
USAF HQ/SAC project, concept study for RLV, 3 different manufactures, 1 SSTO, 2 assisted SSTO

Science Realm
USAF HQ project, follow-on to Science Dawn, production of [redacted]

HAVE REGION and SCIENCE REALM appear to be the production phase of the three RLV projects. A declassified RAND Corporation report states that all three projects test flew, two were failures, while one was considered a "partial success". It stands to reason that an airlaunched SSTO would be an "assisted SSTO", and thus Blackstar may be the "partial success" of the RAND report. RAND states that these programs led into the COPPER CANYON, which was likely the test flight phase, and COPPER COAST was thus the evaluation of the entire flight regime and reconaissance capabilities of the vehicle... by 1997's budget year, it was a "special access program" without code name.

http://orbat.com/site/andreas/U_S_%20Military%20Code%20Names.htm

http://www.fas.org/irp/mystery/nasp.htm

PurduesUSAFguy · « **Reply #1 on:** 07/02/2006 05:23 am »

There is more then enough room in the black budgets of both the intelligence community and the DOD from the mid 80s to early 90s to fund the blackstar and whatever happened to replace it. (Not to mention money from the NASP and A-12 both of which are now increasingly obvious fronts for funding other projects) It's just a question of what they called it under which line items.

The thing I am perplexed about is if the AvWeek article is accurate and the TSTO system was shelved what it is being replaced with. Getting a launch-on-demand reconnaissance capability is more needed now then ever before, and global strike through hypersonic orbital/suborbital systems is going to be the force multiplier we are going to need in the 21st century. Given the merit of the Douglas VTVL SSTO proposal in the early 90s I would sort of wonder if something like the DC-Y is in operation somewhere out there. It would explain the disinterest from the USAF in pursuing the X-33 program after NASA walked away and the shelving of the alleged blackstar.

Thinking about what the DC-X managed to pull off given its budget is really impressive; I would like to think that the next step in that program would have been taken somewhere.

[img=http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/d/dcycu.jpg]

Jim · « **Reply #2 on:** 07/02/2006 12:26 pm »

Hiding aircraft flights is one thing, hiding rockets launches is another.
The NRO realized that long ago that it couldn't and accept that fact wrt security. Even with Minuteman launches; prelaunch, T-0 could be kept secret but once it launched, people on the west coast knew.

Even if is was tested outside the US, Johnston Island for example, long range launches (longer than the DC-X) require more assets than just the launch crew.

mlorrey · « **Reply #3 on:** 07/02/2006 06:05 pm »

Quote

Jim - 2/7/2006 7:13 AM

Hiding aircraft flights is one thing, hiding rockets launches is another.
The NRO realized that long ago that it couldn't and accept that fact wrt security. Even with Minuteman launches; prelaunch, T-0 could be kept secret but once it launched, people on the west coast knew.

Even if is was tested outside the US, Johnston Island for example, long range launches (longer than the DC-X) require more assets than just the launch crew.

That is the interesting thing, Jim, at least one of the reports of a Blackstar sighting was over San Francisco, lots of people saw it, but the media blacked it out. Air launches over open ocean are much easier to hide.

As for ground launched DC-Y... I have an idea about that, a purloined letter, hidden in plain sight. You may recall reports of a number of ABM system launches that were reported as "failure to intercept". I suspect that it would be easy to disguise a DC-Y type launch as an ABM test, so long as the launch site is remote from public view. Discerning one from a real ABM launch would require that you track the vehicle and measure a noticably different acceleration/climb rate than the typical high boost ABM launcher.

SpaceCat · « **Reply #4 on:** 07/02/2006 07:19 pm »

See those guys out in your dirveway? Tampering with your brakes?

I think there were too many things shown wrong with that particular AvWeek article to take it at face value- still, 'where there's smoke.....'
I would be much more worried if the military did NOT have secret projects in the works. But- DARPA continues to put R&D into X-37, and I wonder why they'd be doing that if Blackstar were for real?

Anyway- just stumbled across this handy wrap-up of RLV works- military, NASA, private and foreign- from Hobbyspace:
http://www.hobbyspace.com/Links/RLV/RLVHistory.html

meiza · « **Reply #5 on:** 07/02/2006 07:23 pm »

what about launching in an opposite orbit like the israelis do? Or straight up in the first stage?

mlorrey · « **Reply #6 on:** 07/02/2006 07:40 pm »

Actually, since the Vandenberg launch corridor for polar or SSO is due south, approaching Russia from the Indian Ocean, it explains why the Russians have so many radar ships and ELINT trawlers, as this mandates an entirely separate early warning system from those focused solely on detecting ICBMs coming over the poles. Anything used to observe Russia requires high inclination, polar, or SSO (sun synchronous orbit is a slightly retrograde polar orbit). This is probably what would make a big mothership like that alleged for Blackstar so useful: being able to fly to stage out of various bases depending on where all the Russian trawlers were to plot a trajectory that both avoids these trawlers and gives a useful 1st or 2nd orbit over target territory.

The Israelis launch due west because that is their only access to open seas, having a launcher fail and drop a payload on muslim territory would be a serious intelligence loss and failure.

mlorrey · « **Reply #7 on:** 07/02/2006 07:53 pm »

Quote

SpaceCat - 2/7/2006 2:06 PM

See those guys out in your dirveway? Tampering with your brakes?

I think there were too many things shown wrong with that particular AvWeek article to take it at face value- still, 'where there's smoke.....'
I would be much more worried if the military did NOT have secret projects in the works. But- DARPA continues to put R&D into X-37, and I wonder why they'd be doing that if Blackstar were for real?

Who knows. What I do know is that in the late 1990's, a number of workers at Area 51 sued the federal government, represented by a well known Georgetown law professor, Jonathan Turley, (who is currently suing the government over the Gitmo prisoners), for OSHA violations that involved the open pit burning of waste materials, some of which contained boron, in order to avoid an opsec intel leak through the EPA hazardous waste tracking system, which is all open and unclassified. As a result, and while the suit was dismissed (though the families of the victims seem to have been compensated), a special arrangement was made with the EPA to allow for the classification of USAF hazardous waste from classified projects, particularly those coming out of Groom Lake.

So, if boron is as nasty and toxic as is claimed by those who are critical of the AvLeak story, the Area 51 worker suit both corroborates that claim AND the claim that boron was used on a classified aircraft program at Groom Lake, which thus corroborates the AvLeak story, so the claim of toxicity as an excuse to discredit the boron-gel fuel claim is instead additional proof, and could be a very good reason why the program was allegedly shut down, under the expectation that a newer non-toxic system was in the offing.

As for X-34, X-37 and the like, note that X-34 was also to test a scramjet (and may yet) or combined cycle engine in its belly. I myself see little reason for the vehicles. They don't appear to break any new ground. IMHO they are a cheap cover story to deflect attention (just as F-117 flight test/training radio chatter was covered by flights of A-7s).

Jim · « **Reply #8 on:** 07/02/2006 09:50 pm »

Quote

mlorrey - 2/7/2006 1:52 PM

Quote
Jim - 2/7/2006 7:13 AM

Hiding aircraft flights is one thing, hiding rockets launches is another.
The NRO realized that long ago that it couldn't and accept that fact wrt security. Even with Minuteman launches; prelaunch, T-0 could be kept secret but once it launched, people on the west coast knew.

Even if is was tested outside the US, Johnston Island for example, long range launches (longer than the DC-X) require more assets than just the launch crew.

That is the interesting thing, Jim, at least one of the reports of a Blackstar sighting was over San Francisco, lots of people saw it, but the media blacked it out. Air launches over open ocean are much easier to hide.

As for ground launched DC-Y... I have an idea about that, a purloined letter, hidden in plain sight. You may recall reports of a number of ABM system launches that were reported as "failure to intercept". I suspect that it would be easy to disguise a DC-Y type launch as an ABM test, so long as the launch site is remote from public view. Discerning one from a real ABM launch would require that you track the vehicle and measure a noticably different acceleration/climb rate than the typical high boost ABM launcher.

DC-Y is alot bigger than a ABM booster and slower as you said. I could tell the difference between a Minuteman and Altas launch visually from Los Angeles.

But going to orbit would use other assets for tracking and telemetery. Even for the blackstar, if if went to orbit. That is harder to hide. All NRO spacecraft have to use them and the fact they are flying is not hidden.,

hop · « **Reply #9 on:** 07/02/2006 10:16 pm »

Quote

Jim - 2/7/2006 5:13 AM

Hiding aircraft flights is one thing, hiding rockets launches is another.
The NRO realized that long ago that it couldn't and accept that fact wrt security. Even with Minuteman launches; prelaunch, T-0 could be kept secret but once it launched, people on the west coast knew.

Even if is was tested outside the US, Johnston Island for example, long range launches (longer than the DC-X) require more assets than just the launch crew.

There is also the danger that someone will notice and assume it is a missile launch. Given that we do announce spysat launches and missile tests, this could cause serious diplomatic problems. The Russians early warning systems are in bad shape since the fall of the USSR, but would we be really be confident enough that neither Russia nor China would notice and spark an international incident ? In the post-coldwar era, it's hard to see it resulting in actual shooting war, but it might mean that those nations would stop announcing their own tests, which would be bad for everyone in the long run.

People have claimed that blackstar wouldn't look like an ICBM launch, but even so you can't get to orbit without a big IR signature. If you did detect it, you wouldn't know whether it was a space launch or some previously unknown missile system.

vt_hokie · « **Reply #10 on:** 07/02/2006 10:28 pm »

I was always amazed (and saddened) by the reports of burning toxic materials in open pits at Groom Lake. Couldn't they find some more responsible, common sense approach toward waste disposal? I mean, come on...it doesn't take a Ph.D. to figure out that you shouldn't burn toxic waste in your backyard!

stargazer777 · « **Reply #11 on:** 07/03/2006 03:49 am »

I am not sure about the SF sighting, but I think that some of those people who so quickly dismissed the Blackstar story and the reporter who authored it might want to reconsider their position. There are many ways that the budget for such a project could have been hidden from all but a few. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Captain Scarlet · « **Reply #12 on:** 07/03/2006 10:44 am »

Quote

vt_hokie - 2/7/2006 5:15 PM

I was always amazed (and saddened) by the reports of burning toxic materials in open pits at Groom Lake. Couldn't they find some more responsible, common sense approach toward waste disposal? I mean, come on...it doesn't take a Ph.D. to figure out that you shouldn't burn toxic waste in your backyard!

Groom Lake? Isn't that what they call Area 51? Or was that Hollywood giving it that name?

mong' · « **Reply #13 on:** 07/03/2006 12:23 pm »

the base is built on a dry lake(like edwards) named Groom Lake, hence the name, but there are many other designations, the hollywood name is 'dreamland'

Jim · « **Reply #14 on:** 07/03/2006 01:05 pm »

Quote

Captain Scarlet - 3/7/2006 6:31 AM

Quote
vt_hokie - 2/7/2006 5:15 PM

I was always amazed (and saddened) by the reports of burning toxic materials in open pits at Groom Lake. Couldn't they find some more responsible, common sense approach toward waste disposal? I mean, come on...it doesn't take a Ph.D. to figure out that you shouldn't burn toxic waste in your backyard!

Groom Lake? Isn't that what they call Area 51? Or was that Hollywood giving it that name?

Area 51 was the name for the restricted (airspace?) area around Groom lake

rsp1202 · « **Reply #15 on:** 07/03/2006 02:02 pm »

First came across the name "Dreamland" in Tom Clancy's "Red Storm Rising." If Clancy was using it, my guess is it was being used by insiders, long before Hollywood discovered it.

meiza · « **Reply #16 on:** 07/03/2006 03:57 pm »

Quote

mlorrey - 2/7/2006 8:27 PM
The Israelis launch due west because that is their only access to open seas, having a launcher fail and drop a payload on muslim territory would be a serious intelligence loss and failure.

I know this, but wouldn't one avoid detection launching west from some pacific island / from an aircraft over the pacific, it's not very populated territory after all.

rsp1202 · « **Reply #17 on:** 07/03/2006 06:37 pm »

Specific to the Israeli issue, they have cooperated militarily in the past with the South Africans and visa versa, maybe still do. (Google "Vela Incident," circa 1979, for one such--speculated--cooperative venture.) S.A. could launch polar, assuming the facilities were available.

mlorrey · « **Reply #18 on:** 07/03/2006 09:19 pm »

Quote

hop - 2/7/2006 5:03 PM

People have claimed that blackstar wouldn't look like an ICBM launch, but even so you can't get to orbit without a big IR signature. If you did detect it, you wouldn't know whether it was a space launch or some previously unknown missile system.

This isn't necessarily so. A ballistic missile follows a ballistic flight path: highly parabolic, which is like nothing else that flies, and its IR signature is primarily the launch plume from ground to 100,000 ft of the first stage overcoming all that gravity drag.

An air launched spaceplane would follow a much different trajectory, particularly if it used any air augmentation from its launch point up to practical ramjet max speeds. Its trajectory would be much flatter, and its launch plume, under a large aircraft at 70,000 ft, would be significantly less than the launch plume of an ICBM taking off from the ground. Furthermore, if it used aerospike engines, its plume would also be far more distributed within the tail shock of the vehicle (as the tail shock forms part of the thrust nozzle, the shock won't glow like a hot engine nozzle.

vt-hokie:
The whole reason they burned the toxics at Groom was for operations and information security: they had no authorization to build a hazardous waste dump, and the EPA wouldn't let them classify their toxics documentation until after the Turley suit. If an enemy state keeping track of public records here notices a lot of kerosene-boron gel waste being shipped from Noplace, NV to EPA toxic waste sites, they are going to wonder what it is for, and thus start looking for who is producing the fuel in the first place (I know of a few companies still producing JP-7, JP-8, and JP-10 in large quantities even though there are no aircraft publicly known that use these fuels). An intel agent can discern a lot of things from logistics paperwork.

vt_hokie · « **Reply #19 on:** 07/03/2006 11:09 pm »

Still, to burn toxic material in open pits and kill your workers in the process seems like insanity to me.