Author Topic: Blackstar: Operational TSTO! (Read 156319 times)

Stowbridge · « **Reply #60 on:** 03/08/2006 03:16 pm »

I remember reading a report that the VentureStar could be used as a long-range bomber, with short travel times to the target. I'll try and find it, but it was in a big magazine. Pie in the sky?

Launch Fan · « **Reply #61 on:** 03/08/2006 03:56 pm »

Yes, I remember that also. I think it came after the USAF interest in saving the project.

vt_hokie · « **Reply #62 on:** 03/08/2006 04:21 pm »

Quote

Stowbridge - 8/3/2006 11:16 AM

I remember reading a report that the VentureStar could be used as a long-range bomber, with short travel times to the target. I'll try and find it, but it was in a big magazine. Pie in the sky?

Maybe that's why we're hearing about "Blackstar" now! Usually, by the time we hear about it, they've already got something better!

publiusr · « **Reply #63 on:** 03/08/2006 06:05 pm »

Blackstar doesn't impress me in the least. My guess is that it wasn't what they thought it was.

This is what happens when flyboys get too much money--they get a cool looking, souped up hot dog of a craft that makes a lot of noise and scares you to death--but really doesn't DO much.

I know one thing--the next time some punk says "we don't spend enough on aeronautics," I'm going to throw this article up in his face. For all the wing enthusiasts--I want to ask you a simple question. Outside of Blackstar, how many real SPACESHIPS have we built in the past 25 years? Now--how many robotic missions have been launched in that time?

It was nearly 35-40 years between the initial ICBM programs and the current EELVs. In that time period--how many new aircraft have been fielded?

So I don't want to hear any more of this talk about too little being spent on robotics science or avionics in NASA, when I can't get a good HLLV built to save my soul.

Some select quotes from the avweek article:

"Industry engineers said this technology demonstrator
was "a very successful program."

but...

"It could be a victim of shrinking federal budgets strained
by war costs, ***or it may not have met performance or operational goals.*** "

"Although much of the structure was honeycomb, it was "incredibly strong, and would handle very high temperatures," he noted. Inside skin surfaces "were ungodly complicated," though. "

Not that easy to work with, then.

"WORK ON THE ORBITER moved at a relatively slow pace until a "fuel breakthrough" was made, workers were told. Then, from 1990 through 1991, "we lived out there. It was a madhouse," a technician said. The new fuel was believed to be a boron-based gel having the consistency of toothpaste and high-energy characteristics, but occupying less volume than other fuels."

Even so, the orbiter was so tiny--even this little bit must not have gone such a long way.

Another interesting quote:

"We never did anything that was really NASP--and money was never a problem."

"Whether the Blackstar system was ever declared operational or not is unknown, but several orbiters may have flown over the years. A former program manager at a major aerospace company once declared, 'There's no question; Lockheed is flying a two-stage space vehicle.' "

But how much of one?

--how much better is it over simpler all rocket concepts?

Delta STS, etc. are true spacelifters.

Blackstar isn't. Blackstar isn't anything except a great reason why the Air Force needs to be kept away from all things space. The Sovet FOBs system was handle very well with the R-36/SS-9 which we call Tsyclon today. But the pilots mafia wanted this instead. When an ASAT weapon was conceived by the AF, naturally they looked for something to be slung under an F-15. But R-36 was much better in that role.

This proves something I have known for years: that rockets advocates have very little voice in the Beltway as compared to the Air Farce.

http://spacefellowship.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=1662

Jim · « **Reply #64 on:** 03/08/2006 06:20 pm »

Before VSE, name a requirement for a HLLV. Before VSE, name a requirement for another manned vehicle. We never had the requirement for anything larger than the Shuttle or EELV. If VSE were to go away (heaven forbid), then there is no need for a HLLV.

Other than stealth, aircraft haven't changed since the sixties. They still are making 40 year old design 747's.

publiusr · « **Reply #65 on:** 03/08/2006 06:26 pm »

There is plenty of need for an HLLV, just the same as there was a need for the steady increase in metal to wooden ships. If we are going to have the large structures in space we were promised in our youth--it won't come from Blackstar. What do we need that thing for? That is a better question. I can at least get a good SPS power sat wrapped up--all 100 tons of it--inside an big booster. When that thing unfurls--the folks at the Planetary Society will see what a real solar sail looks like.

Yes--VSE is a big requirement--but VSE like HLLV is as do-able as its advocacy. Griffin is an HLLV fan--and I chose to support him.

As far as Blackstar is concerned--it is an expensive joke.

Crispy · « **Reply #66 on:** 03/08/2006 06:39 pm »

The engine interests me most - Has an aerospike engine ever flown in space?

Flightstar · « **Reply #67 on:** 03/08/2006 06:41 pm »

Quote

Crispy - 8/3/2006 1:39 PM

The engine interests me most - Has an aerospike engine ever flown in space?

Short answer: No. At least not that I'm aware of.

Jim · « **Reply #68 on:** 03/08/2006 08:27 pm »

Quote

publiusr - 8/3/2006 1:26 PMThere is plenty of need for an HLLV, just the same as there was a need for the steady increase in metal to wooden ships. If we are going to have the large structures in space we were promised in our youth--it won't come from Blackstar. What do we need that thing for? That is a better question. I can at least get a good SPS power sat wrapped up--all 100 tons of it--inside an big booster. When that thing unfurls--the folks at the Planetary Society will see what a real solar sail looks like.Yes--VSE is a big requirement--but VSE like HLLV is as do-able as its advocacy. Griffin is an HLLV fan--and I chose to support him. As far as Blackstar is concerned--it is an expensive joke.

Who says we need it. SPS concept hasn't be proven. There was nothing promise. Does everybody have an airplane in their garage or gas turbine cars that go 200 mph on the freeways. Not everything that it visualized/forecast for the future. happens.

There is no enabling technology that is preventing the HLLV from being used. There just isn't any economic reason for it. VSE is not an economic driver.

lmike · « **Reply #69 on:** 03/08/2006 08:41 pm »

Quote

Crispy - 8/3/2006 11:39 AM

The engine interests me most - Has an aerospike engine ever flown in space?

Actually this is a pretty weird configuration come to think of it, for other than an SSTO. If you have the second stage already flying way above sea level, would not a (near) vacuum optimized bell nozzle do as well (or better?)

Launch Fan · « **Reply #70 on:** 03/08/2006 09:40 pm »

Seems like an awful lot of vehicle to get a couple of people into LEO.

simonbp · « **Reply #71 on:** 03/08/2006 09:42 pm »

The power of a plug nozzle, like a linear aerospike, comes from the fact that it can adapt to various external pressures, rather than being optimised for a single external pressure, like a normal bell nozzle. Thus, a linear aerospike would give blackstar the ability to perform missions at various altitudes and trajectories with less prior setup/performance loss...

Simon

Propforce · « **Reply #72 on:** 03/09/2006 12:04 am »

Quote

simonbp - 8/3/2006 2:42 PM

The power of a plug nozzle, like a linear aerospike, comes from the fact that it can adapt to various external pressures, rather than being optimised for a single external pressure, like a normal bell nozzle. Thus, a linear aerospike would give blackstar the ability to perform missions at various altitudes and trajectories with less prior setup/performance loss...

Simon

Still... at some altitude (> 30K feet), the additional Isp gain from a bigger nozzle expansion is NOT WORTH the weight incurred on additonal nozzle length.

Yes... even the aerospike nozzle need to address the weight issue. The X-33 aerospike engine has a TERRIBLE thrust-to-weight ration when compared to the traditional bell nozzle.

CEV Now · « **Reply #73 on:** 03/09/2006 01:16 am »

Sorry if this sounds like a rant, but the sooner we move away from these space planes, or at least let the Air Force or private industry work on them, the sooner NASA can pool its resources into doing something it's been wanting to do again for the past 30 years, explore.

The love of space planes is understandable, but let's keep NASA away from this.

PMN1 · « **Reply #74 on:** 03/09/2006 01:09 pm »

A few comments from another board

http://p216.ezboard.com/fwarships1discussionboardsfrm8.showMessage?topicID=2110.topic

vt_hokie · « **Reply #75 on:** 03/09/2006 05:30 pm »

Quote

The love of space planes is understandable, but let's keep NASA away from this.

Why have NASA spend billions to reinvent the wheel if there is already technology that could be applied toward NASA's space transportation needs? I'm not saying that's definitely the case here, but there might be some knowledge and experience that could be transferred.

dmc6960 · « **Reply #76 on:** 03/09/2006 06:33 pm »

Quote

vt_hokie - 9/3/2006 12:30 PM

Quote
The love of space planes is understandable, but let's keep NASA away from this.

Why have NASA spend billions to reinvent the wheel if there is already technology that could be applied toward NASA's space transportation needs? I'm not saying that's definitely the case here, but there might be some knowledge and experience that could be transferred.

There are a lot of wheels already invented and in existance. The wheels that NASA are deciding not to reinvent include... SRB's, SSME's, J2X's, ET bodies. I would classify these as Aluminum car rims. Lots in existance, they can be cheaply made, and lots of people know how to build them. (All relative of course)

When you get into wheels like hypersonic carrier aircraft, we're talking the equivilant of those $2000 a pop 24" Escalade rims. Sure they may look nice, but they are anything but economical ($$$), only practical for show (dont hit any potholes or curbs), and they are very complicated.

Pretty much any airplane larger than a Cessna is expensive to operate. Hypersonic aircraft are obsurdly expensive to operate. Compare the complexity of an SR-71 to an SRB, its like IBM's Deep Blue against a handheld calculator. And which one would you rather pay to replace if it broke? You CANNOT just fuel these and go. Just because we know how to do it doesn't mean we must do it. When factoring in variables like sheer complexity and maintenence, it often isn't worth it.

Even companies that currently use or plan to use aircraft for a first stage stick to a more conventional plane rather than a high-performance top-of-the-line carrier craft. Why? Costs. Orbital uses a commercial aircraft for its first stage of Pegasus. T/Space will use a 747 (although thats not exactly cheap) or a custom plane built by Scaled Compostites which would likely be cheaper to maintain. And then what do they launch? Simple rockets, thats all.

The first stage of a conventional rocket is far simpler and, as I'm hoping SpaceX will soon prove, much cheaper to operate.

vt_hokie · « **Reply #77 on:** 03/09/2006 07:09 pm »

Quote

dmc6960 - 9/3/2006 2:33 PM
Orbital uses a commercial aircraft for its first stage of Pegasus.

Not to get too far off topic, but that's got to be one of the last L-1011's flying in this country. I was always a fan of the Tristar, and I'm kind of sad to see it go. (I think Delta was the last major US carrier to fly them, although ATA had a few as well.)

I think we would need to know a lot more about this "Blackstar" system before being able to draw any meaningful conclusions about its usefulness or its potential influence on civil space transportation systems.

publiusr · « **Reply #78 on:** 03/09/2006 07:44 pm »

Quote

dmc6960 - 9/3/2006 1:33 PM

Quote
vt_hokie - 9/3/2006 12:30 PM

Quote
The love of space planes is understandable, but let's keep NASA away from this.

Why have NASA spend billions to reinvent the wheel if there is already technology that could be applied toward NASA's space transportation needs? I'm not saying that's definitely the case here, but there might be some knowledge and experience that could be transferred.

There are a lot of wheels already invented and in existance. The wheels that NASA are deciding not to reinvent include... SRB's, SSME's, J2X's, ET bodies. I would classify these as Aluminum car rims. Lots in existance, they can be cheaply made, and lots of people know how to build them.

That is a very good point. The Stick all by itself may muscle into EELV payloads, exploding the myth that SDLV vehicles don't have an economical reason to exist--just because one hasn't been found.

This really goes to a bias against rockets. The AF would rather have their tricked-out Ride because of a hatred of anything without wings. Back in the 40's there were probably folks calling the MX-774 tests a waste, while Jim was probably saying "Atlas! that rocket's too big. With the amount of money going into that program, we could build a whole new fleet of V-2s for atmospheric tests. And if you think there will be any commercial use for that outside an ICBM--forget it--your'e dreaming!"

And things have changed very little as you can see.

Just kidding.

Jim · « **Reply #79 on:** 03/09/2006 08:00 pm »

The stick is not going to fly anything other than the CEV.

BTW, the first version of the Atlas was too big. Went from 5 to 3 engines and 12 to 10 feet in diameter.