Skeptical view on 'Blackstar'

Somebody else's opinion (and he has LOTS of those grin),
but lots of good points....

- Blackstar: False Messiah From Groom Lake

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Bl...room_Lake.html

Honolulu HI (SPX) Mar 10, 2006 - Many Space Cadets have gone gaga over
the
report in Aviation Week that the US military has developed a secret
reusable
spaceplane. It seemingly confirms a long-standing fantasy in the space
community. For years a lot of us have been hoping that some "black"
program
like this will someday go public and solve all our spacelift problems.

Well . . . he sounds like he knows what he is talking about . . . a lot
did ring awfully true . . . just wish he was wrong (and just wishing
never changed a darn thing).

John

"Jim Oberg" wrote in
:

Somebody else's opinion (and he has LOTS of those grin),
but lots of good points....

- Blackstar: False Messiah From Groom Lake

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Bl...siah_From_Groo
m_Lake.html

Honolulu HI (SPX) Mar 10, 2006 - Many Space Cadets have gone gaga
over the
report in Aviation Week that the US military has developed a secret
reusable
spaceplane. It seemingly confirms a long-standing fantasy in the
space community. For years a lot of us have been hoping that some
"black" program
like this will someday go public and solve all our spacelift
problems.

Not a new theory, of course; it's championed by Henry Spencer in a thread
over in sci.space.policy.

The fact that someone of Henry Spencer's credibility believes it makes me
more likely to believe it.

The fact that someone of Jeffrey Bell's credibility believes it makes me
less likely to believe it.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 08:45:37 -0600, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:

The fact that someone of Henry Spencer's credibility believes it makes me
more likely to believe it.

The fact that someone of Jeffrey Bell's credibility believes it makes me
less likely to believe it.

....This deserves to be someone's .sig. Good one, Jorge!

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

"Ed Kyle" wrote in message
ups.com...
Jim Oberg wrote:
Somebody else's opinion (and he has LOTS of those grin),
but lots of good points....

- Blackstar: False Messiah From Groom Lake

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Bl...room_Lake.html

Honolulu HI (SPX) Mar 10, 2006 - Many Space Cadets have gone gaga over
the
report in Aviation Week that the US military has developed a secret
reusable
spaceplane. It seemingly confirms a long-standing fantasy in the space
community. For years a lot of us have been hoping that some "black"
program
like this will someday go public and solve all our spacelift problems.

I agree with his thesis - that AvWeek's story has obvious errors
and can't represent the true story. However, I am not convinced
that AvWeek's story isn't based on *some* truth.

The author mentions that a simple look at the rocket equation
proves that a 50,000 lb drop mass at Mach 3 can't result in
a 10,000 lb mass in orbit (at least with known rocket technology).
Fair enough. But has he considered that the mass numbers
presented might be the result of handwave-rounding? Run that
rocket equation again for a 9,000 lb mass in orbit with a 465 sec
specific impulse and a Mach 3.3 drop velocity. I have become
convinced that something like this is within the realm of
possibility. Whether it happened is another matter.

- Ed Kyle


I am not a physicist so I can't comment on those ascpects.

However I do think the claim that workers on the project, were told to bill
their expenses to other projects, to help conceal the true nature of their
work, is interesting. Why scuttle those other projects unless they are
working on something even better?

Is this also what really caused the cost overruns which led to demise of the
X-33 which seemed to show so much promise as a shuttle replacement?

Katipo

"Ed Kyle" wrote in message
ups.com...
Jim Oberg wrote:
Somebody else's opinion (and he has LOTS of those grin),
but lots of good points....

- Blackstar: False Messiah From Groom Lake

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Bl...room_Lake.html

Honolulu HI (SPX) Mar 10, 2006 - Many Space Cadets have gone gaga over
the
report in Aviation Week that the US military has developed a secret
reusable
spaceplane. It seemingly confirms a long-standing fantasy in the space
community. For years a lot of us have been hoping that some "black"
program
like this will someday go public and solve all our spacelift problems.

The author mentions that a simple look at the rocket equation
proves that a 50,000 lb drop mass at Mach 3 can't result in
a 10,000 lb mass in orbit (at least with known rocket technology).
Fair enough...Run that rocket equation again for a 9,000 lb mass in
orbit with a 465 sec specific impulse and a Mach 3.3 drop velocity.
I have become convinced that something like this is within the realm of
possibility. Whether it happened is another matter.

Exactly right. He has some good points, although he went a little
overboard. Using the same rocket equation that "proves" it can't work,
plugging in 465 sec Isp, 50,000 gross weight, 5,000 lb dry weight, and
2,500 lb payload, and you get 8821 m/s delta V, more than enough to
achieve orbit.

There's no question fuel is absolutely critical -- you've got to have very
high energy fuel to make it work. It would work *today* with exotic liquid
propellants like liquid fluorine and liquid lithium. I wouldn't want to be
within 50 miles of it, but it would probably work. Are there any other
dense liquid propellants that give 450 sec Isp and are actually usable?
I don't know.

It just seems like an incredible expense for one big advantage: surprise
overflights.

Presumably the thing was manned, essentially a hyper-SR-71. However
with today's (or even 1995) technology why have a super-expensive manned
hypersonic recon aircraft? We don't have people riding shotgun in KH-11
satellites.

In 1995 the unmanned Dark Star stealth recon aircraft was already built
and in testing. That technology and reasoning existed back then, so
an air-dropped X-15/SR-71 that requires a secret XB-70 to launch it
strains logic a bit. I agree it would be cool, sort of like Thunderbirds
in real life.

The same justification problem exists for a hypersonic manned "bomber".
Why do that? This isn't 1955. We have the technology to deliver any
weapon we can dream up within feet. If you want "rods from God" it
can be done, but it doesn't require a Thunderbirds launch platform to do it.

That leaves human transport to orbit as the remaining possible
justification. But why? To make surprise calls on ISS? Let me guess:
there was a secret military space station the secret military shuttle was
to visit. Ah, that's the ticket!

I think the technology exists for the AvWeek scenario, but I just don't
see a need that would justify the expense. But historically that reasoning
hasn't always carried the day, so I don't know for sure.

-- Joe D.

Joe D. wrote:
Presumably the thing was manned, essentially a hyper-SR-71. However
with today's (or even 1995) technology why have a super-expensive manned
hypersonic recon aircraft? We don't have people riding shotgun in KH-11
satellites.

I think it would have been unmanned, if it existed at all, but there
is one possible reason that it might have to have been manned.
If it carried a nuke, there is, apparently, a kind of requirement for
winged aircraft that would require it to be manned. But why on
Earth would it have carried a nuke?

That leaves human transport to orbit as the remaining possible
justification. But why? To make surprise calls on ISS? Let me guess:
there was a secret military space station the secret military shuttle was
to visit. Ah, that's the ticket!

I keep thinking that there must be a reason, but nothing seems
obvious. But then, it was never obvious that the U.S. would have
built and installed and, with specially built and outfitted submarines,

regularly visited and serviced massive undersea cable taps in Soviet
waters. Maybe there is something in orbit that the U.S. wanted to
get close to for a similar reason. Maybe there was a job to do up
there that simply required gloved hands - something that robotics
couldn't handle.

- Ed Kyle

Jim Oberg wrote:

Somebody else's opinion (and he has LOTS of those grin),
but lots of good points....

- Blackstar: False Messiah From Groom Lake


http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Bl...room_Lake.html

Honolulu HI (SPX) Mar 10, 2006 - Many Space Cadets have gone gaga over
the
report in Aviation Week that the US military has developed a secret
reusable
spaceplane. It seemingly confirms a long-standing fantasy in the space
community. For years a lot of us have been hoping that some "black"
program
like this will someday go public and solve all our spacelift problems.

Once again this analysis assumes that the upper stage is a pure rocket.

Yet from the article the thing has air intakes which suggests an air
breather. Note also the apparent need for new high-temperature materials
and geometry for radiating heat which wouldn't be needed for a rocket
ascent trajectory.

The upper stage (if Blackstar exists) is IMHO a scramjet with a subsidiary
rocket motor for initial acceleration and orbital insertion.

Note that the boron fuels failed for *turbojets*. For a scramjet launched
at high altitude and probably designed for a limited number of flights with
a blank checkbook the problems are not critical. (Remember how the U-2 was
initially designed for a fatigue life of only c. 20 flights). My guess is
that the rocket component is much more conventional apart from the
aerospike nozzle.

I think it's quite possible, although like Henry I doubt it would be
cost-effective.

--
Malcolm Street
Canberra, Australia
The nation's capital

Hey, quick question. In his article, Jeffrey Bell says, "In the 1980s
and 1990s AvWeek ran lurid pictures of hypersonic 'Aurora' vehicles."
Does anyone here know what ever happened to that plane? I was living
in San Diego in late 1991 and early 1992 when something was generating
sonic booms over Southern California on many Thursday mornings. The
last report of it on the Federation of American Scientists website
(http://www.fas.org/irp/mystery/aurora.htm) was from 1996.


Patty

On 11 Mar 2006 20:47:53 GMT, (Patty Winter) wrote:

Hey, quick question. In his article, Jeffrey Bell says, "In the 1980s
and 1990s AvWeek ran lurid pictures of hypersonic 'Aurora' vehicles."
Does anyone here know what ever happened to that plane?

....I own one. It's in my back yard, waiting for the day I find at
least two of the nuke ejector modules on eBay. When I get those, I
fully intend to drop both on Jeff Bell and put him out of our misery
once and for all.

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[