AWST: Two-Stage-to-Orbit Manned 'Blackstar' System

AWST: Two-Stage-to-Orbit Manned 'Blackstar' System

Aviation Week & Space Technology

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/new...s/030606p1.xml



Two-Stage-to-Orbit 'Blackstar' System Shelved at Groom Lake?

By William B. Scott

03/05/2006 04:07:33 PM



SPACEPLANE SHELVED?

For 16 years, Aviation Week & Space Technology has investigated
myriad sightings of a two-stage-to-orbit system that could place a small
military spaceplane in orbit. Considerable evidence supports the existence
of such a highly classified system, and top Pentagon officials have hinted
that it's "out there," but iron-clad confirmation that meets AW&ST standards
has remained elusive. Now facing the possibility that this innovative
"Blackstar" system may have been shelved, we elected to share what we've
learned about it with our readers, rather than let an intriguing
technological breakthrough vanish into "black world" history, known to only
a few insiders. U.S. intelligence agencies may have quietly mothballed a
highly classified two-stage-to-orbit spaceplane system designed in the 1980s
for reconnaissance, satellite-insertion and, possibly, weapons delivery. It
could be a victim of shrinking federal budgets strained by war costs, or it
may not have met performance or operational goals.

This two-vehicle "Blackstar" carrier/orbiter system may have
been declared operational during the 1990s.

Damn, I wish my father in law was alive to read this so that I could watch
his face. He was a skunk and would certainly have worked on this if it were
real.


"Jim Oberg" wrote in message
news
AWST: Two-Stage-to-Orbit Manned 'Blackstar' System

Aviation Week & Space Technology


http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/new...s/030606p1.xml



Two-Stage-to-Orbit 'Blackstar' System Shelved at Groom Lake?

By William B. Scott

03/05/2006 04:07:33 PM



SPACEPLANE SHELVED?

For 16 years, Aviation Week & Space Technology has
investigated
myriad sightings of a two-stage-to-orbit system that could place a small
military spaceplane in orbit. Considerable evidence supports the existence
of such a highly classified system, and top Pentagon officials have hinted
that it's "out there," but iron-clad confirmation that meets AW&ST
standards
has remained elusive. Now facing the possibility that this innovative
"Blackstar" system may have been shelved, we elected to share what we've
learned about it with our readers, rather than let an intriguing
technological breakthrough vanish into "black world" history, known to
only
a few insiders. U.S. intelligence agencies may have quietly mothballed a
highly classified two-stage-to-orbit spaceplane system designed in the
1980s
for reconnaissance, satellite-insertion and, possibly, weapons delivery.
It
could be a victim of shrinking federal budgets strained by war costs, or
it
may not have met performance or operational goals.

This two-vehicle "Blackstar" carrier/orbiter system may have
been declared operational during the 1990s.

.

Jim Oberg wrote:
AWST: Two-Stage-to-Orbit Manned 'Blackstar' System

Aviation Week & Space Technology

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/new...s/030606p1.xml



Two-Stage-to-Orbit 'Blackstar' System Shelved at Groom Lake?

By William B. Scott

03/05/2006 04:07:33 PM



SPACEPLANE SHELVED?

For 16 years, Aviation Week & Space Technology has investigated
myriad sightings of a two-stage-to-orbit system that could place a small
military spaceplane in orbit. Considerable evidence supports the existence
of such a highly classified system, and top Pentagon officials have hinted
that it's "out there," but iron-clad confirmation that meets AW&ST standards
has remained elusive. Now facing the possibility that this innovative
"Blackstar" system may have been shelved, we elected to share what we've
learned about it with our readers, rather than let an intriguing
technological breakthrough vanish into "black world" history, known to only
a few insiders. U.S. intelligence agencies may have quietly mothballed a
highly classified two-stage-to-orbit spaceplane system designed in the 1980s
for reconnaissance, satellite-insertion and, possibly, weapons delivery. It
could be a victim of shrinking federal budgets strained by war costs, or it
may not have met performance or operational goals.

This two-vehicle "Blackstar" carrier/orbiter system may have
been declared operational during the 1990s.

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/new...s/030606p1.xml

More from this story:
"... One logical explanation given for why a Blackstar system is
developed says that, after the shuttle Challenger disaster in January
1986, and a subsequent string of expendable-booster failures, Pentagon
leaders were stunned to learn they no longer had "assured access to
space." Suddenly, the U.S. needed a means to orbit satellites necessary
to keep tabs on its Cold War adversaries.

A team of contractors apparently stepped forward, offering to build a
quick-reaction TSTO system in record time. The system could ensure
on-demand overflight reconnaissance/surveillance from low Earth orbit,
and would require minimal development time. Tons of material--including
long-lead structural items--for a third XB-70 Valkyrie had been stored
in California warehouses years before, and a wealth of data from the
X-20 DynaSoar military spaceplane program was readily available for
application to a modern orbiter (see following articles). ..."


SO... How credible is the concept of "build a quick-reaction TSTO
system in record time"? Just how long does it take? I said a SSTO
could reach orbit at LEO to ISS by 2011, but that was predicated on not
haveing an Uncle Sugar Deep-Pockets, and paying for it the honest way.

According to AVIATION WEEK, which is not entirely ignorant of flight
characteristics, this TSTO may have flown in the early 1990s. Or less
than 4 years from the Uh-Oh moment of the Challenger wreck.

The first Lifting Body, the M2-F1 was operational within a year of
conception, built for $30,000. If they had our materials and our
knowledgebase that we have now, It probably could have made a re-entry
from ISS and survived the trip to land. That was 1962 technology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_M2-F1


Ten years after the First SSTO arrives with a cargo of 40 tons to LEO
and lands at an airport of choice, there will be nobody left on Earth
who even thinks it is difficult. There are at least some who don't
think it is difficult (or "impossibly difficult") right now before it
has been done.

There's a lot of flak being shot at anybody who even wants to talk
about it. part of that might be from wounded ego, "If I couldn't think
of it, then surely nobody else can either".

But some of it might be coming from those who want to keep their "area
51" toy the king-of-the-hill, and chase off anybody from figuring out a
better, bigger, cheaper solution that somebody is sure to think up some
day no matter how hard they try to hold a monopoly.

Again, going back to the link:
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/new...s/030606p1.xml
"... In XB-70 Valkyrie: The Ride to Valhalla, Jeannette Remak and Joe
Ventolo, Jr., wrote: "One version of the B-70 could have been used as a
recoverable booster system to launch things into low-Earth orbit. . . .
The DynaSoar program, the first effort by the [U.S.] to use a manned
boost-glider to fly in near-orbital space and return, was considered in
this context in November 1959. The B-70 was to carry the 10,000-lb.
DynaSoar glider and a 40,000-lb. liquid rocket booster to 70,000 ft.
and release them while traveling at Mach 3. With this lofty start, the
booster could then push the glider into its final 300-mi. orbit." ..."

A 10,000 pound payload is far short from 80,000, but a
robotically-controlled orbiter can insert signficant quantities in
orbit if it flies 8 missions to any SSTO's one. Both parts of the
system are presumably re-usable with minimal overhaul down-time between
flights -- almost touch-and-go pitstops.

The total fuel for both stages is far below the 8,000,000 pounds the
shuttle uses for only five times the payload. The mother ship spends an
hour or two in the air. The orbiter burns for an hour or less. It
hardly seems sensible that they both need to go into the shop for two
months of overhauls?

Jim Oberg wrote:
AWST: Two-Stage-to-Orbit Manned 'Blackstar' System

Aviation Week & Space Technology

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/new...s/030606p1.xml

When I read these stories, I keep reminding myself that
one of the most important tools of the intelligence trade
is disinformation.

- Ed Kyle

ed kyle wrote:
Jim Oberg wrote:
AWST: Two-Stage-to-Orbit Manned 'Blackstar' System

Aviation Week & Space Technology

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/new...s/030606p1.xml

When I read these stories, I keep reminding myself that
one of the most important tools of the intelligence trade
is disinformation.

- Ed Kyle

Maybe. It would be pretty cool if we actually had such a plane. If so,
tossing it would seem to be throwing away a great asset and a great
advantage in the space race.

David E. Powell wrote:
ed kyle wrote:
Jim Oberg wrote:
AWST: Two-Stage-to-Orbit Manned 'Blackstar' System

Aviation Week & Space Technology

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/new...s/030606p1.xml

When I read these stories, I keep reminding myself that
one of the most important tools of the intelligence trade
is disinformation.

- Ed Kyle

Maybe. It would be pretty cool if we actually had such a plane. If so,
tossing it would seem to be throwing away a great asset and a great
advantage in the space race.

Think about this one.

If the U.S. did have a quick response orbital surveillance system,
what are the ethical considerations of it not being used to have
a close look at Columbia in orbit back in 2003?

I think it is possible that the U.S. developed an SR-71 replacement
for quick response surveillance missions, but I'm not sure it would
need to have been an orbital system.

- Ed Kyle

"Jim Oberg" wrote in message
news
AWST: Two-Stage-to-Orbit Manned 'Blackstar' System

Aviation Week & Space Technology

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/new...s/030606p1.xml



Two-Stage-to-Orbit 'Blackstar' System Shelved at Groom Lake?


Jim, thanks for posting that. The article has much more information than
the technically threadbare popular press articles (your own excluded, of
course). It makes a good case something like that existed.
However -- basic calculations and commonsense weigh somewhat
in opposition:

(1) There's less performance advantage to air launching than is commonly
thought. According to this AIAA paper:
http://mae.ucdavis.edu/faculty/sarig...a2001-4619.pdf

"Surprisingly, a typical straight and level subsonic horizontal air launch
such as used by the X-15 research rocketplane does not result in any
significant changes in the delta V requirement as compared to a baseline
vertical surface launch."

Of course if you launch at Mach 3, you'll get about 3 Mach numbers
(out of 25 required) advantage.

(2) The AW&ST article said using warehoused XB-70 structural
elements expedited completing the mothership. The actual B-70 would
have had a 20,000 payload. That's not nearly enough
for a man-carrying orbiter. The X-15A2 weighed 56,000 lbs and couldn't
remotely achieve orbit.

(3) Actual mothership payload requirement for orbital captive vehicle
with meaningful payload is huge, unless *very* exotic fuels are used.
The X-15A2 only achieved about 6% of orbital energy. You
can't count velocity or altitude as a % of orbit, but must count
kinetic energy (KE=1/2*m*v^2).

(4) The article is right about needing a superfuel. To achieve
orbit from a Mach 3 air-dropped X-15A2-size/weight vehicle with a
an approx. 0.9 mass fraction and a 5,000 lb payload, you'd
need about 500 seconds specific impulse. IOW you'd need
to burn liquid fluorine and liquid lithium, or something similar.
Delta-V calculator:
http://www.strout.net/info/science/delta-v/intro.html

(5) High cost of developing launcher. The XB-70 was very
expensive in the 1960s, and an improved version would likewise
be expensive today. It's a big Mach 3 aircraft, for crying out loud!

(6) Amateur observation from the ground means it's unlikely
an orbital military spaceplane would long remains secret. As you
can see from this image, a large group of amateur satellite
observers are constantly scouring the sky for anything new,
and they have equipment for fairly high resolution imaging:
http://tinyurl.com/k4aqc

A small spaceplane would be harder to spot, but it would
eventually be seen. And of course some foreign powers have
much more sophisticated satellite observation methods.

So is it possible the Blackstar orbiter and XB-70-type launcher
existed? Sure. However the cost seems very high relative to the
returned capability.

-- Joe D.

Joe D. wrote:

(6) Amateur observation from the ground means it's unlikely
an orbital military spaceplane would long remains secret. As you
can see from this image, a large group of amateur satellite
observers are constantly scouring the sky for anything new

You are overly optimistic about hobbyist capabilities. A very small
number of us have the required skills, and we do not constantly scour
the sky for anything new.

To identify a new secret orbiting object we must: spot it, make
positional observations sufficient to compute a preliminary orbit, make
additional positional observations over several days, refine the
orbital elements, and compare them against those of known objects.

Worldwide, there are about 20 hobbyist observers who make the precise
positional observations required to determine an object's orbital
elements. Only about half a dozen are very active, most of whom are
located within a small geographical area, so our coverage is poor.

Instead of scanning for new objects, virtually all of our effort goes
into tracking about 150 objects that we have previously discovered over
many years, for which official orbital elements are not published. If
we do not track them regularly and update their orbital elements, we
will lose them.

Of course, we see many other objects at random, but we seldom have the
time or interest to make the measurements required to identify them.

Despite these limitations, experience has shown that we are reasonably
likely to randomly detect and determine the orbit of a bright new
object, say, magnitude 2 or brighter, within about 3 to 12 months of
launch.

I suspect that the orbital mission of a spaceplane would be fairly
brief, so unless they were launched very frequently, and were very
bright, we would have been very lucky to spot and identify it as
something new.

We might expect better luck with a spaceplane's payload, if
sufficiently bright and long-lived in orbit.

Ted Molczan

"Joe D." wrote wisdom


Thanks, Joe-D. You be a real rocket scientist, fer shoor.

On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 17:14:28 -0600, "Joe D."
wrote:

(5) High cost of developing launcher. The XB-70 was very
expensive in the 1960s, and an improved version would likewise
be expensive today. It's a big Mach 3 aircraft, for crying out loud!

AvLeak says it might have been limited to Mach 1 or 2 to save money
and ease construction (although that seems at odds with their
suggestion that it was built from spares leftover from the XB-70
program.) Also, note that the new theorized mothership only has four
engines, not the XB-70s "six pack" and the XB-70 engines weren't
exactly whimpy to start with. I doubt the mothership could do Mach 3.



Brian