Author Topic: Blackstar: Operational TSTO! (Read 155289 times)

lmike · « **Reply #40 on:** 03/06/2006 07:38 pm »

Isn't pretty much every modern rocket (including ICBMs) an operational TSTO? Atlas-5 (no solids), Zenit-2, etc... 2 stages and you're in orbit.

Dogsbd · « **Reply #41 on:** 03/06/2006 08:04 pm »

Quote

lmike - 6/3/2006 3:38 PM

Isn't pretty much every modern rocket (including ICBMs) an operational TSTO? Atlas-5 (no solids), Zenit-2, etc... 2 stages and you're in orbit.

Yep.

NASA has been flying a manned two stage to orbit spaceplane since 1981.

lmike · « **Reply #42 on:** 03/06/2006 08:05 pm »

While it reads like another area-51 UFO anecdote, if it actually happened, seems it was mothballed for good reasons. My guess is that it was overly expensive in operation, fragile, fussy, had ill-defined or lacked mission entirely, exuberant development costs for little gain in capabilities, better alternatives coming (drones and UAVs maneuvering warheads and what not...) still there's that DARPA Falcon program, maybe they've moved most of the gadgets there (so it does live on, in a way) As for what could be salvaged for civil spaceflight, I don't know really... maybe the cool name.

nacnud · « **Reply #43 on:** 03/06/2006 09:11 pm »

Quote

lmike - 6/3/2006 2:38 PMIsn't pretty much every modern rocket (including ICBMs) an operational TSTO? Atlas-5 (no solids), Zenit-2, etc... 2 stages and you're in orbit.

Yeah I thought that but it was too late to add in TSTO HOTOL

Firestarter · « **Reply #44 on:** 03/06/2006 10:22 pm »

HOTOL was a great ship. Not sure why the UK never pressed ahead with it? Same with Skylon?

rsp1202 · « **Reply #45 on:** 03/06/2006 10:37 pm »

DoD/DARPA is finally turning to hypersonics as next big thing: quick response weapons delivery from CONUS, due date 2015-2020 timeframe. That's Falcon. A lot of program technology will be rolled into it, including the X-craft we know about, and those we don't, probably including Blackstar. But the freewheeling black budgets of the '80s and '90s will not be so freewheeling anymore.

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #46 on:** 03/06/2006 11:17 pm »

Quote

Firestarter - 6/3/2006 11:22 PM

HOTOL was a great ship. Not sure why the UK never pressed ahead with it? Same with Skylon?

Prime Minister Maggie Thatcher killed the UK space program.

Mark Max Q · « **Reply #47 on:** 03/07/2006 02:37 am »

It's fascinating to see what could have been. I'm a bit surprised we aren't hearing more of this from the likes of DARPA, although they always seem to come up with great ideas then get very bored, very fast and end up with nothing.

Avron · « **Reply #48 on:** 03/07/2006 03:02 am »

Nation States at play.... there would be no need for Oribit, but sub-orbit would support the mission..

A bit of smoke, but until we see the fire its just smoke (and that could include some mirrors)..

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #49 on:** 03/07/2006 07:49 pm »

Jim, is that off a website. I'll need a link and copying and pasting copyrighted material is a big no no.

braddock · « **Reply #50 on:** 03/07/2006 08:38 pm »

How much energy for an around-once sub-orbital, vs full orbital?

A Lockheed manager a number of years ago once dropped me a knowing wink and a nod along the lines of "do you really think they would retire the SR-71 without a replacement? And don't you think it would only make sense that a replacement would be ballistic? And is there any reason it would need to be manned?" Now I think I finally know what he was hinting about...

Jim · « **Reply #51 on:** 03/07/2006 09:35 pm »

Quote

braddock - 7/3/2006 3:38 PMHow much energy for an around-once sub-orbital, vs full orbital?A Lockheed manager a number of years ago once dropped me a knowing wink and a nod along the lines of "do you really think they would retire the SR-71 without a replacement? And don't you think it would only make sense that a replacement would be ballistic? And is there any reason it would need to be manned?" Now I think I finally know what he was hinting about...

about 10k mph, but that is for ICBM"s. This would fly closer to the atmosphere.

braddock · « **Reply #52 on:** 03/08/2006 12:54 am »

Quote

Jim - 7/3/2006 5:35 PM

Quote
braddock - 7/3/2006 3:38 PM
How much energy for an around-once sub-orbital, vs full orbital?

about 10k mph, but that is for ICBM"s. This would fly closer to the atmosphere.

Hrm, so I was just playing with Orbiter to see if I understand the orbital dynamics of that (I'm learning..).

If you want a once-around recon, but you want to stay close to the atmosphere to take pretty pictures, then you end up having to either do a continuous low-intensity burn, or you have to reboost yourself every so often? In fact, it almost seems like the resulting amount of energy is nearly as much needed for orbit anyway?

Then there is the complication that if you take a non-equatorial route to your target, that the earth will rotate under you during your "orbit" and you end up a thousand miles away from your launch site unless you use yet more energy to adjust your trajectory.

Do these conclusions mesh with reality? So this thing must have a vacuum-restartable (and reliable) engine, and/or can actually put itself damn close to being into LEO?

Of course, one of the sightings mentioned was in Okinawa, so maybe it doesn't return all the way to the point of departure.

rsp1202 · « **Reply #53 on:** 03/08/2006 02:12 am »

The program has just the barest hint about it of an advanced version of Soviet's Fractional Orbital Bombardment System (FOBS) from the 1970s-80s. A recon version reads like a difficult mission; couldn't imagine it being unmanned, but you never know. As mentioned earlier, we may have more astonauts than we imagine.

vt_hokie · « **Reply #54 on:** 03/08/2006 02:33 am »

I wonder why Aviation Week ran this story now. It seemed to come out of the blue, so to speak! I hope that it's a sign that the program is being declassified.

Despite being a lot of supposition and conjecture, this is some of the most exciting and intriguing news to come out of the aerospace industry in a while, imo! Now, if only some of the research into high speed vehicles could be applied not only to future space transportation systems, but also a new generation of high speed commercial airliners. Somehow, I find Boeing's 787 and Airbus' A380 cattle herder to be less than inspiring. They may be attractive to the bean counters, but I think it's time to move commercial aviation beyond the Mach 0.85 barrier!

simonbp · « **Reply #55 on:** 03/08/2006 04:47 am »

Quote

braddock - 7/3/2006 7:54 PM
Hrm, so I was just playing with Orbiter to see if I understand the orbital dynamics of that (I'm learning..).

If you want a once-around recon, but you want to stay close to the atmosphere to take pretty pictures, then you end up having to either do a continuous low-intensity burn, or you have to reboost yourself every so often? In fact, it almost seems like the resulting amount of energy is nearly as much needed for orbit anyway?

Then there is the complication that if you take a non-equatorial route to your target, that the earth will rotate under you during your "orbit" and you end up a thousand miles away from your launch site unless you use yet more energy to adjust your trajectory.

Do these conclusions mesh with reality? So this thing must have a vacuum-restartable (and reliable) engine, and/or can actually put itself damn close to being into LEO?

Of course, one of the sightings mentioned was in Okinawa, so maybe it doesn't return all the way to the point of departure.

You could do a skip-orbit, like the Sanger bomber was designed to do in WWII (and Dyna-Soar later on)...

Simon

stargazer777 · « **Reply #56 on:** 03/08/2006 10:52 am »

As exciting as AWST's disclosure of the Blackstar program is (and yes, I do believe it) what this really underscores to me is how insane and utterly self-defeating the barriers between the civilian and military space programs have been to the unified goal of developing safe, reliable and effective vehicles that both the military and civilians could use to put astronauts and/or cargo into orbit. The Pentagon had to have spent many billions of dollars developing this from scratch while NASA is stuck flying (or trying to fly) a dangerous and out-of-date orbiter and the entire civilian manned space program teters on the brink of catastrophe. At the end what has the Pentagon actually got? Billions apparently wasted and nothing to show for it -- and they are no closer to having a quick and reliable way up to orbit and back vehicle than they were before. Unless they have some alien spacecraft lying around, they are out of luck until DARPA or some black program can make scram jet technolgy work reliably. And the concept that this technology will be denied to NASA is an absolute outrage. I don't want to hear "thats the way it is", it doesn't have to be that way if sane and reasonable people can have a say about this. Their secrecy is actually killing their own programs, not to mention the civilian side. As for NASA, it sounds like the aerospike engines and the new rocket fuel alone could be crucially important to the VSE and its successors, not to mention the design lessons learned from the rest of the vehicles. We will never succeed in space if NASA has both hands tied behind its back while the Pentagon spends space dollars like a drunken sailor.

Dogsbd · « **Reply #57 on:** 03/08/2006 11:58 am »

Quote

stargazer777 - 8/3/2006 6:52 AM

As exciting as AWST's disclosure of the Blackstar program is (and yes, I do believe it) what this really underscores to me is how insane and utterly self-defeating the barriers between the civilian and military space programs have been to the unified goal of developing safe, reliable and effective vehicles that both the military and civilians could use to put astronauts and/or cargo into orbit.

I don't see the correlation. The Shuttle is a 100 ton plus space freight hauler and the Blackstar orbiter is (supposedly) a two man recce vehicle, the technology used in one does not necessarily directly transfer to the other. And in all likelihood the Blackstar orbiter probably uses very little technology that is more advanced than what Shuttles uses, IE there may be very little to gain from using the Blackstar tech to build an STS replacement.

The US was flying a very large Mach 3 aircraft (the XB-70) in the 1960's, to use your logic it would follow that large Mach 3 passenger aircraft would be the norm by now. The technologies just don't transfer so readily and military aircraft (bombers, fighters, orbital space planes) operate in a totally different economic reality that non-military craft.

stargazer777 · « **Reply #58 on:** 03/08/2006 12:44 pm »

Because NASA and the military programs are on seperate tracks, the money and political energy/muscle to replace the shuttle has apparently been bled off to fund this project. And don't kid yourself, this aircraft will undoubtedly prove to have been much more advanced than the old XB-70. Thats not even counting the tremendous cost of developing apparently several orbital or suborbital vehicles and all the inevitable related expenses. The cost of these programs combined with the NASA funding for such a project could have come up with a workable replacement that would have met the needs of both NASA and the military. It seems we aren't smart enough -- or rich enough -- to do two programs, one secret one public, successfully.

Jim · « **Reply #59 on:** 03/08/2006 02:33 pm »

Quote

stargazer777 - 8/3/2006 7:44 AMBecause NASA and the military programs are on seperate tracks, the money and political energy/muscle to replace the shuttle has apparently been bled off to fund this project. And don't kid yourself, this aircraft will undoubtedly prove to have been much more advanced than the old XB-70. Thats not even counting the tremendous cost of developing apparently several orbital or suborbital vehicles and all the inevitable related expenses. The cost of these programs combined with the NASA funding for such a project could have come up with a workable replacement that would have met the needs of both NASA and the military. It seems we aren't smart enough -- or rich enough -- to do two programs, one secret one public, successfully.

The military already replaced the shuttle multiple times. The replacements are called Titan-IV, Delta II, Delta IV, Atlas II and Atlas V. These also meet some of NASA's needs.

The Blackstar system was totally for military needs that the shuttle could never meet and that NASA doesn't need.

NASA needs cheap and reliable access to space. This system, if real, apparently didn't do this either.

NASA requirements don't necessarily mean it has to have wings and land on a runway.