Two-Stage-to-Orbit 'Blackstar' System Shelved at Groom Lake? [Aviation Week & Space Technology}

Aviation Week & Space Technology ^ | 3/5/2006 | William B. Scott

[orionblamblam]

> I see no advantage in having a crew.

Decison-making, especially important with a recallable, nuke-armed vehicle. With an ICBM, you're comitted the moment you hit the "launch" button. With a manned bomber, you're comitted the moment the weapon leaves the bomber.

[orionblamblam]

> He told me it was from the leading edge of the wing and it was incredibly heavy

Unlikely that it was the leading edge of the *shuttle* wing. Some other leading edge concept, perhaps, such as a nuke re-entry vehicle, or perhaps for some hypersonic aircraft (a NASP-specific concept, perhaps). Might've been the same material, but solid rather than a thin shell. Or for extra heavy goodness, a solid tungsten leading edge. Even a thin-walled tungsten shell will hurt you. But the Shuttle uses CC panels that are about 1/16 inch thick... as we've found, suseptible to damage from foam.

The leading edge of a hypersonic-cruise aircraft would have to be *substantially* more Manly than for the Shuttle. Orbital re-entry is rough, but sustained hypersonic flight is on a whole other level of Damned Rough On The Structure.

[LS]

That was the point of my post. Even with what we had, it wasn't enough, and it still required "active cooling" of pumping slush H2 through the wings and fuselage.

[orionblamblam]

> That was the point of my post.

Ah. In post 18 you seem to be suggesting that the Shuttle leading edge was originally far heavier. It's the actively cooled hypersonic structures that tend towards massive heaviness, rather than radiatively cooled structures like the Shuttle leading edge.

There are annoyingly good reasons why hypersonic aircraft are a wee bit of a rarity.

[PAR35]

Now the question is why did they shut it down?

Because it uses 20 to 40 year old technology. They likely have something better now that will appear in the press in another 20 years.

[narby]

Orbital re-entry is rough, but sustained hypersonic flight is on a whole other level of Damned Rough On The Structure.

Once up to a significant hypersonic speed, I'd think the smart thing would be just punch on up to orbit rather than burn away in the atmosphere at mach 10 or something. Sounds like what this thing was doing. And since accelerating after mach 10 or so would have to be rocket, you might as well zoom on up above the atmosphere to do it.

[narby]

The image here is labeled XB-70 and X-15, but I think that it is rather the DynaSoar launching from underneath the XB-70. It must have been an old concept image from before this thing went black.

Note the scramjet looking ramp on the bottom. That's not the X-15. Vertical tail is wrong too.

Remember that one of the last X-15 flights was a test of a scramjet engine, so this stuff has been under development for a long time.

With 20/20 hindsight, was the XB-70 ever supposed to be a "bomber" at all, but instead a first stage of an orbital system.

[JoeFromSidney]

I have a hunch that this might form part of our missile defense program; the US has talked before about actually shooting down ballistic missiles in space.

Ironically, the first story I ever sold to ANALOG science fiction magazine, was about a manned ICBM interceptor. I couln't interest the Air Force in the idea, so I did the next best thing. The story, PUSHBUTTON WAR, appeared in the August 1960 issue.

[orionblamblam]

> Note the scramjet looking ramp on the bottom. That's not the X-15. Vertical tail is wrong too.

Nope, that's the X-15. X-15 A-3, to be exact, which was to have an extended fuselage, a larger expansion-ratio engine and delta wings. The problem you're ahving with the dorsal fin is that the A-3 was also to have wingtip fins; the "scramjet ramp" on the underside is actually the port delta wing.

There *were* airbreathing X-15's studied, such as the SERJ-equipped concepts from Marquardt, see below. However, the B-70/X-15 concept shown was for a regular rocket version, just capable of higher speed. However, as the D-21/M-12 disaster showed, launching off the back of a supersonic aircraft is a recipe for total vehicle loss. Best to drop from underneath.

[narby]

Interesting. They did studies on all kinds of stuff back then....

[orionblamblam]

Yes. And then they stopped. Yay, Johnson...

[Robert A Cook PE]

Why did they stop?

May not have worked as well as as they wanted.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Congratulations on your sale to Analog!

[kimosabe31]

Something we could use on Iran, maybe?

Once in orbit, this system can reach any target on the entire planet within about 30-50 minutes. Abinajab (or whatever that iraniac kooks name is) couldn't even finish takin a crap before one of these birds launched and was overhead targeting him with hypervelocity rods.

[lonestar1]

> What do you have against humans in space?

> Granted, for a military mission they're not necessary

That depends on the military mission. Piloted aircraft are far more flexible than drones. The military missions currently done in space don't require humans, for obvious reasons, but there are things on the horizon. Like inserting small units or special forces from space ("Hot Eagle").

[lonestar1]

> Why did they stop?

Because Kennedy and Johnson wanted manned spaceflight to be reserved for NASA, for propoganda reasons. The Dyna-Soar prototype was 80% complete when the program was cancelled.

"Blackstar" is almost certainly fiction. There's no reason to believe the US has this type of capability -- yet -- but it should have.

[hattend]

Bttt