Posted on 03/05/2006 7:23:35 PM PST by anymouse
I didn't see the 71s many times in 69-70 at Kadena. If they had landed and taken of from there I would hav thought they were the most graceful flying machines ever made. But all we had when I was there were strange model F-4s. The gremmies made jokes about the funny F-4s.
> simply because you don't need to glide...
Yes, you do. A military system like this would need considerable crossrange. A second stage, unlike the wholly irrelevant Stardust casule, would need to be able to maneuver aerodynamically; unlike Starduct, it would not have months in which to make course corrections, but instead would have to maneuver aerodynamically in order to land where you want it to. Parachutes are only good for a couple of miles of crossrange. A lifting configuration, even a very simple one, can add several *hundred*. And a sapsule configuration like Stardust woudl be *astonishingly* useless for the TSTO; you can't make the whole second stage capsule-shaped (the first stage airplane would never be able to haul it into the sky... too much drag and where woudl it fit).
Blunt capsules are a great shape for cheap recoverable payloads. But they suck for launch vehicles. For a recoverable stage, you'll want something vastly more aerodynamic.
[Tons of ore, ounces of gold]...
That's completely backwards. Technology yes, components, no. Who has been manufacturing the specialized fuel? How about the tires? Bearings? Spare parts? Who has been overhauling the engines? Where did they get the parts for that?
There is no way that there is an XB-70 flying. There were two prototypes. It never even went into production. It was never tooled up. There are no specialized tools to build the spare parts with. It was cancelled. It's gone.
Personally, I think that this article is a set-up for an April Fool's joke. Let's see what they print on the 1st.
If so, they've been setting it up since 1990 or so. Av Weeks' "Brilliant Buzzard" has been discussed before, as far back as at least 1992.
This also served as the basis for Testor's 1/72 scale "SR-75 Penetrator" model circa 1993.
It's not a new concept, just more info.
I see no advantage in having a crew.
There is nothing they can do that couldn't be done remotely, and the environmental/life-support systems would only add weight and take up valuable space.
This program, if shelved, is likely for budgetary reasons. It still makes sense to have a 'quick-reaction' orbital recon and micro-satellite delivery system.
Particularly one that is robust enough to be deployed in shell-game fashion to make a Chinese/Russian pre-emption more difficult.
Similarly today the Iraq war is sucking up a lot, for the amount of 'bang' we're getting there. That, in conjunction with Treasury Secretary John Snow's requesting Congress permit more debt be sold, i.e., 'raising the debt limit from $8.2 trillion'.
It is clear that the feds are getting seriously strapped for cash again...and hence penny-wise pound foolish "management" is making decisions again. Likely dictating the mothballing of the SR-3...assuming it really exists. The SR-3 is exactly the kind of concept that Rumsfeld would have pushed for. Survivable space access has been a pet concern of his since the mid-90s. For it to be mothballed, assuming it wasn't for technical problems, it would basically have to be over his dead body...just like the MX was decommissioned. Rumsfeld stalled, and quite appropriately, after the stupid Treaty of Moscow, was signed. It took a presidential directive issued to him in person. Meanwhile, the Soviets are keeping their massive SS-18's emplaced and online up through 2017.
Rather than kill off this program, I really wonder why they aren't looking to realize large economies in Iraq...and Dubai. Time to end the dollar diplomacy and get skinflinty with the 'allies of convenience.' Dubai should be paying for the privilege of being defended by us. Ditto Iraq. The free ride is over.
Just looking, no comment.
You've got it backwards. The same TSTO *without* wings is smaller and lighter than with wings.
That translates into less drag and easier orbits. It also reduces costs and manufacturing time.
Drop the wings. Wings are for egos. Wings are for an old way of thinking. Computerized re-entries can be made pinpoint accurate, so you don't need wings to compensate.
There isn't even any debating this point. It's incontrovertible that less weight and smaller size will translate into less drag.
> The same TSTO *without* wings is smaller and lighter than with wings.
Sigh. No, not for military misisons such as this. If you ahve a *fixed* based, and always operate on *fixed* inclinations, TSTOs like the SpaceX Falcon are just dandy. But if you want to have a vehicle that militarily flexible, such as this highly hypothetical one, then you have a problem. How do you transport it to a different launch site? "Blackstar" flies itself there, and presumably can in-flight refuel. Launch from over the ocean at whatever latitude you like, get whatever orbital inclination you want, and rendezvous with LEO sats at leisure. These are virtually impossible for ballistic vehicles.
> Wings are for egos.
Indeed? No more B-52, no more B-2, no more C-130, no more C-17? Just lob everything ballisticaly, eh?
> It's incontrovertible that less weight and smaller size will translate into less drag.
And less operational utility.
> There isn't even any debating this point.
Apparently there isn't when you choose to ignore military requirements.
> I'm saying that the knowledge gained from the XB-70 program, from the X-15s, the NF-104s, etc., that knowledge and technology didn't simply evaporate into thin air.
Actually... that's pretty much *exactly* what happens whena program is terminated. Program cancels, the workers disperse and retire and die; the paper *may* be left over, and *if* you can find it, and *if* you can make heads or tails of it, you *might* glean some useful data. But for complex vehicles, you can't just take some old reports, plug them into an NC mill and stamp out a fully functional copy. It's a situation I've been involved with myself.
I used to work at the United Tech rocket plant south of San Jose, CA, until just before it went under; the programs were spread to other contractors, alogn with all the data. Thing is, more than a year and a half later I still get calls wanting me to explain certain things. And this is when there was a fairly smooth transfer of an *existing* program from one company to another. Cancel a program and wait ten years, much less twenty, and you'll pretty much have to start from scratch.
The military requirements were:
1. Get orbital
2. Do it fast
3. Make it reliable
4. Do it cheaply
The obvious to answer to such requirements is to use off-the-shelf components (e.g. Apollo era parachutes, existing rocket engines, existing rocket fuel, existing carrier aircraft, existing avionics, etc.).
You don't gamble on lifting bodies (complex flight controls) or add weight by attaching wings to meet the above specs.
TSTO on the cheap, done quickly, done reliably, is very, very doable.
But that craft won't have wings (too much weight during the ascent phase, too much complexity on the re-entry phase).
You've confused yourself into thinking that "no wings for the spacecraft" somehow means no wings for the carrier aircraft.
BlackStar has 2 stages. The first stage was a piloted, winged aircraft that carried the little spacecraft to a desirable speed, location, and altitude.
Just because the little spacecraft is wingless...has no bearing on the carrier aircraft and rendevous capabilities.
> The military requirements were:
> 1. Get orbital
WHAT orbit? You conveniently forget that.
> The obvious to answer to such requirements is to use off-the-shelf components (e.g. Apollo era parachutes, existing rocket engines, existing rocket fuel, existing carrier aircraft, existing avionics, etc.). But that craft won't have wings....
Hmm. An existing carrier aircraft without wings. A blimp? A ballon? Very limiting.
> BlackStar has 2 stages. The first stage was a piloted, winged aircraft that carried the little spacecraft to a desirable speed, location, and altitude.
Indeed so. And if you want to get the second stage *back*, it'd damned well better have some lifting capability as well. A capsule won't do it, and would be less than useless for reusability. How are you planning on recovering the propulsion system? How about the avionics and tanks?
If you want the thing to be oparationally cheap, it's got to be reusable. That means no throwing those components away. That means that a single stage vehicle capable of getting from 90,000 feet and Mach 3 or so to orbit has to be reasonably badass from a propulsion standpoint AND recoverable AND capable of fitting within or on or under the carrier aircraft with minimal aerodynamic drag. This means long and relatively thin, NOT fat like a capsule.
Dropping stuff all over hither and yon is ok for a launch system you have no problem with people knowing you have and are using. But it's an exceedingly bad idea for a secret *and* operational launch system.
Nonsense. Lifting capability has no meaningful bearing on recovering a spacecraft.
Moreover, capsules can be re-used if desired.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.