Blackstar: Operational TSTO!

[braddock]

"Later, we were just told, 'Clock it to NASP and don't ask questions.' We never did anything that was really NASP--and money was never a problem." - AWST quote

So, how much of this black money coming from NASA and the NASP then?  NASP ran from '86 to '92...sounds like the likely development timeline for Blackstar.  NASP came right out of the secret Copper Canyon program.

Quote from FAS, 10+ years ago:

"Although the NASP effort was announced by President Reagan in his State of the Union address, much of the project remains shrouded in secrecy. Indeed, the paucity of publicly available information on this project is remarkable, given the scope of the effort to date."

[stargazer777]

I am no engineer, but there have got to be significant advantages to the system described in the AWST article over conventional rockets for at least some purposes.  One big one that comes to mind is how quickly you can go from decision to do a mission to the time you actually fly one.  Certainly rockets are great for many things, but the agonizingly long set up and launch preperation time for all but the simplest rockets coupled with the fact you have to throw practically the whole thing away after every launch is a major drawback not to mention a giant expense.  Even if the supposed Blackstar vehicle can only put a couple of astronauts in orbit and/or a comparatively small payload -- that is still a huge step forward from our current situation.  That is why this kind of system -- even in an initially limited form -- is so intriguing and attractive.  If, and I do mean if, the Airforce or the intelligence agencies have succeeded in building such a capability it would be a tremendous disservice to America -- indeed a betrayal -- to just bury it (and apparently that is what they do) rather than sharing it with NASA and other parts of the government that critically need that technology and the lessons that were learned in developing and utilizing it.

[lmike]

That's an economics angle.  Goes both ways.  High fly rates= a truckload of conventional rockets pre-fabricated (much cheaper), sitting in a hangar and waiting for a launch.  The spaceplane has to prepped as well (see STS)  The faster turnaround of a one of a kind space plane is a hypothesis.

Anyway, even from this rather speculative article about a phantom system, there doesn't seem to be any indication of a truly breakthrough technology in any of this.  Aerospikes, air-launch at m3, boron fuels, horizontal supersonic stage separations, (sc)ramjets, ...  Old hat, been researched around the world, done and shelved for various good reasons (several times).  Searchable on the Internet.  Some details of system integration maybe would be neat to know.  

Anti-grav it ain't.

p.s. btw, Musk's rocket is supposed to be reusable (gonna fish it out like the SRBs)  The only reason rockets have been mostly disposable is , again, the economics...  much less the technological reasons.

[realtime]

stargazer777 - 10/3/2006  5:28 AM

I am no engineer, but there have got to be significant advantages to the system described in the AWST article over conventional rockets for at least some purposes.  One big one that comes to mind is how quickly you can go from decision to do a mission to the time you actually fly one.  ...

That's an operational advantage, which is a big win for military planning.  There's also the "shoot/no shoot" flexibility inherent in manned ops.  Winged vehicles give cross-range capability that increases recovery options.

Rockets are easily tracked from space.  Their launch locations are likely to be fixed.  This beast sounds like it could be launched from anywhere with a long runway.

None of these things are big advantages in the civilian world.  Only the quick-launch capability would be useful for rescue missions.

I think this is a suborbital craft used to deliver the "rods from God" as stated in AWST.  Iran's underground enrichment facilities could be the first target for such weapons.  Blackstar could also launch ASAT weapons.  Now that UAV technology has matured somewhat, I suspect that hypersonic UAVs will soon replace it.

[edkyle99]

Dwayne A. Day has a thoughtful take on this today at:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/576/1

 - Ed Kyle

[Chris Bergin]

Welcome to the site, Ed.

I like what the Space Review does - given they are actually interesting reads, as opposed to the blight of the op-ed style we tend to see a lot of around the media.

[braddock]

edkyle99 - 13/3/2006  4:24 PM
Dwayne A. Day has a thoughtful take on this today at:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/576/1

Wow, that's a great article.  The author just methodically decimates every aspect of the AWST Blackstar report.
Thanks Ed, and welcome to the site.

[RRP]

Excellent article, thanks for posting the link

[vt_hokie]

For what it's worth, I'm betting on the AW&ST article being closer to the truth.  There are some questionable assertions, but I think we'll all agree that there is something to the story.

[Avron]

vt_hokie - 13/3/2006  5:25 PM

For what it's worth, I'm betting on the AW&ST article being closer to the truth.  There are some questionable assertions, but I think we'll all agree that there is something to the story.

Then there is the trusted world of disinformation.. all part of the game..

[realtime]

Very comprehensive rebuttal.  Some good tips there on how not to get taken in.  *sheepish grin*

[edkyle99]

Avron - 13/3/2006  10:07 PM

Then there is the trusted world of disinformation.. all part of the game..

I've been wondering why someone would go to all the trouble to build such a
costly supersonic carrier aircraft with limited payload.  The obvious lower-cost
subsonic alternative, a C-5 with more than four times the hauling capacity of the
B-70, was mentioned right there in the original AWST article.  There was a
proposal years ago to extract-launch a spaceplane, more capable than the "XOV"
described in the AWST article, from within a C-5.  It makes some sense.  If you
wanted to keep your spaceplane secret, wouldn't you want to carry it inside a
regular looking aircraft rather than on the outside of an exotic looking
superplane?  

Maybe the C-5 is the real story.  

 - Ed Kyle

[Jim]

edkyle99 - 14/3/2006  12:07 AM

Avron - 13/3/2006  10:07 PMThen there is the trusted world of disinformation.. all part of the game..

I've been wondering why someone would go to all the trouble to build such acostly supersonic carrier aircraft with limited payload.  The obvious lower-cost subsonic alternative, a C-5 with more than four times the hauling capacity of the B-70, was mentioned right there in the original AWST article.  There was a proposal years ago to extract-launch a spaceplane, more capable than the "XOV" described in the AWST article, from within a C-5.  It makes some sense.  If you wanted to keep your spaceplane secret, wouldn't you want to carry it inside a regular looking aircraft rather than on the outside of an exotic looking superplane?  Maybe the C-5 is the real story.   - Ed Kyle

I think the Space Review article debunked the C-5 angle.  Also the C-5C could be confusing the issue

[vt_hokie]

edkyle99 - 14/3/2006  1:07 AM
I've been wondering why someone would go to all the trouble to build such a
costly supersonic carrier aircraft with limited payload.  The obvious lower-cost
subsonic alternative, a C-5 with more than four times the hauling capacity of the
B-70, was mentioned right there in the original AWST article.  

That may be, but whatever the reason, it does seem that the "Super Valkyrie" exists.  There have been too many sightings...

[edkyle99]

Jim - 14/3/2006  2:03 AM


I think the Space Review article debunked the C-5 angle.  
Also the C-5C could be confusing the issue

D-Day certainly debunked the reported C-5 tail number claim, although I've
noticed that the reported numbers do jive with some C-5 build *contract*
numbers (but for normal aircraft in regular service) and that C-5 aircraft
usually have other numbers on them too - MAC "wing" numbers, for
example.  

At any rate, the best way to "hide" a C-5 would be to do it in plain
sight.  A spaceplane system would have to be self-contained (set up
with palletized support equipment) so that any old C-5 could be
assigned to the mission.  It would take a specially trained crew to fly
the mission, though, so the aircraft would either need to be quietly
taken out of regular service somehow or it would need to be normally
assigned to special duties, like the C-5Cs.      

 - Ed Kyle

[Chris Bergin]

Moving this to Historic to allow for it to keep running without falling down the section.

[publiusr]

Brilliant Buzzard was to have a top-mount craft--like the Delta winged X-15 concept. It may be that folks saw the wedge-shaped intake/nacelle below a "Super-Valk" (perhaps with sensor blisters) and thought that was the craft to be released. The nose gear of such a carrier aircraft is long enough as it stands. A bottom-mounted spaceplane would require the carrier aircraft to all but have stilts for landing gear--like Gump's 747 concept. I have to side with Mr. Day on this one.

Jim - 9/3/2006  3:00 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.

Cargo may be launched atop the stick. I seem to remember unmanned concept art here>

BTE The original Atlas was not too large--in fact it would have been around R-7 class and would have been quite useful. In point of fact the original Atlas was too small--as proved by the fact that folks kept stretching Atlas out--with the current Atlas being pretty close to the original concept in power. I guess I shouldn't complain--right after the standard Atlas was fielded, the warheads were shrunk even smaller and we had the even smaller, soild rocket Minuteman series. Good thing our first ICBM wasn't Minuteman and the Soviets first ICBM wasn't Topol-M--or we wouldn't have much of a space race--without big rockets.

The TSTO Spaceplane concepts are a distraction.

[Jim]

publiusr - 15/3/2006  1:27 PMBrilliant Buzzard was to have a top-mount craft--like the Delta winged X-15 concept. It may be that folks saw the wedge-shaped intake/nacelle below a "Super-Valk" (perhaps with sensor blisters) and thought that was the craft to be released. The nose gear of such a carrier aircraft is long enough as it stands. A bottom-mounted spaceplane would require the carrier aircraft to all but have stilts for landing gear--like Gump's 747 concept. I have to side with Mr. Day on this one.

Jim - 9/3/2006  3:00 PMThe 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.

Cargo may be launched atop the stick. I seem to remember unmanned concept art here>BTE The original Atlas was not too large--in fact it would have been around R-7 class and would have been quite useful. In point of fact the original Atlas was too small--as proved by the fact that folks kept stretching Atlas out--with the current Atlas being pretty close to the original concept in power. I guess I shouldn't complain--right after the standard Atlas was fielded, the warheads were shrunk even smaller and we had the even smaller, soild rocket Minuteman series. Good thing our first ICBM wasn't Minuteman and the Soviets first ICBM wasn't Topol-M--or we wouldn't have much of a space race--without big rockets.The TSTO Spaceplane concepts are a distraction.

ISS cargo is still the CEV but nothing else.

The original Atlas met the requirements it was designed for.  Just because requirements now dictated that it needs to be bigger does mean it was build wrong.  It is like saying the DC-3 was too small.


Not everything is BFR's.   There are more 737's than C_5's and 747's.  There is only one AN-225 and you don't see a production line for them.

HLLV have their place, but only a few missions a year.  There still will be more Delta IV's and Atlas V's

[mlorrey]

simonbp - 8/3/2006  4:42 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

There are other advantages to aerospikes: a) higher T/W ratios. With this system, it is apparent that maximizing volumetric Isp and mass fraction were of paramount importance. Why carry a lot of metal for engine nozzles when your trailing shock wave can do the work for free? This vehicle is allegedly launched at supersonic speeds, so it doesn't have the transonic blip in the Isp that X-33 dealt with.
b) lower thermal signature: with the high expansion of the aerospike, exhaust gasses are more diffuse than with a bell nozzle, so there is a lower thermal signature.
c) how do you know WHAT KIND of aerospike they are talking about? If the AWST author got that info verbally from a contact, he may have confused an aerospike rocket nozzle with an aerospike ram/scramjet intake cone, which is also called an "aerospike". It makes a lot more sense that vanes on the underside of the XOV would be feeding air to actual air breathing engines, perhaps secret RBCC multi-mode ram/scram/rocket engines.

Day's 'debunking' of the boron fuel issue is also itself full of holes. His talk about liquid precipitates were from borane fuels (hydrogen-boron compounds: B2H4, etc..) used in the XB-70 program and how the liquid damages the vanes of turbine engines. Since rockets and ramjets don't have turbines, this would not be an issue there, AND Rocketdyne research showed that injecting a small amount of fluorine in the oxidizer stream eliminated any precipitate problems. BESIDES all that, boron gell fuels are either helium chilled hydrogen mixed with pure boron nanopowder, or kerosene or other hydrocarbons mixed with the same pure boron powder mixed in them. A completely different fuel than boranes.

In addition, the borane precipitate problem was when the fuel was burned with oxygen. There is an alternative of burning boranes with hydrazine and THEN with oxygen. The nitrogen in the hydrazine binds up all the boron in BN molecules, and put the combustion energy into accelerating the hydrogen/oxygen combustion to higher temps and speeds.

The vicious foaming at the mouth of Day, as well as Jeff Bell and other ICBM-industrial complex apologists, in their attempts to debunk this story, last of all, is what gives it the most credence to me. Why would they be so vociferous if this story were no better than a National Inquirer tabloid story? What are they so adamant about hiding?

[Jim]

"Other ICBM-industrial complex"  This doesn't exist.  They are the same contractors that would have fielded this system