[FoRK] archives: blackstar, the supposed two-stage spaceplane

Ian Andrew Bell (FoRK) < fork at ianbell.com > on > Tue Mar 7 07:43:10 PST 2006

URL, with photo:


BAD Rohit.


On 6-Mar-06, at 9:57 AM, Rohit Khare wrote:

> Aviation Week & Space Technology   Login|Subscribe  |Register
> Two-Stage-to-Orbit 'Blackstar' System Shelved at Groom Lake?
> By William B. Scott
> 03/05/2006 04:07:33 PM
> 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.
> A large "mothership," closely resembling the U.S. Air Force's  
> historic XB-70 supersonic bomber, carries the orbital component  
> conformally under its fuselage, accelerating to supersonic speeds  
> at high altitude before dropping the spaceplane. The orbiter's  
> engines fire and boost the vehicle into space. If mission  
> requirements dictate, the spaceplane can either reach low Earth  
> orbit or remain suborbital.
> The manned orbiter's primary military advantage would be surprise  
> overflight. There would be no forewarning of its presence, prior to  
> the first orbit, allowing ground targets to be imaged before they  
> could be hidden. In contrast, satellite orbits are predictable  
> enough that activities having intelligence value can be scheduled  
> to avoid overflights.
> Exactly what missions the Blackstar system may have been designed  
> for and built to accomplish are as yet unconfirmed, but U.S. Air  
> Force Space Command (AFSPC) officers and contractors have been  
> toying with similar spaceplane-operational concepts for years.  
> Besides reconnaissance, they call for inserting small satellites  
> into orbit, and either retrieving or servicing other spacecraft.  
> Conceivably, such a vehicle could serve as an anti-satellite or  
> space-to-ground weapons-delivery platform, as well.
> Once a Blackstar orbiter reenters the atmosphere, it can land  
> horizontally at almost any location having a sufficiently long  
> runway. So far, observed spaceplane landings have been reported at  
> Hurlburt AFB, Fla.; Kadena AB, Okinawa; and Holloman AFB, N.M.
> The spaceplane is capable of carrying an advanced imaging suite  
> that features 1-meter-aperture adaptive optics with an integral  
> sodium-ion-sensing laser. By compensating in real-time for  
> atmospheric turbulence-caused aberrations sensed by the laser, the  
> system is capable of acquiring very detailed images of ground  
> targets or in-space objects, according to industry officials  
> familiar with the package.
> THE SPACEPLANE'S SMALL CARGO or "Q-bay" also could be configured to  
> deliver specialized microsatellites to low Earth orbit or, perhaps,  
> be fitted with no-warhead hypervelocity weapons--what military  
> visionaries have called "rods from god." Launched from the fringes  
> of space, these high-Mach weapons could destroy deeply buried  
> bunkers and weapons facilities.
> While frequently the subject of advanced studies, such as the Air  
> Force's "Spacecast 2020," actual development and employment of a  
> transatmospheric spaceplane have not been confirmed officially  
> (AW&ST Sept. 5, 1994, p. 101). However, many sightings of both an  
> XB-70-like carrier and a spaceplane have been reported, primarily  
> in the western U.S. Only once have they been seen together, though.
> On Oct. 4, 1998, the carrier aircraft was spotted flying over Salt  
> Lake City at about 2:35 p.m. local time. James Petty, the president  
> of JP Rocket Engine Co., saw a small, highly swept-winged vehicle  
> nestled under the belly of the XB-70-like aircraft. The vehicle  
> appeared to be climbing slowly on a west-southwest heading. The sky  
> was clear enough to see both vehicles' leading edges, which Petty  
> described as a dark gray or black color.
> For whatever reason, top military space commanders apparently have  
> never been "briefed-in"--never told of the Blackstar system's  
> existence--even though these are the "warfighters" who might need  
> to employ a spaceplane in combat. Consequently, the most likely  
> user is an intelligence agency. The National Reconnaissance Office  
> may have played a role in the program, but former senior NRO  
> officials have denied any knowledge of it.
> One Pentagon official suggests that the Blackstar system was  
> "owned" and operated by a team of aerospace contractors, ensuring  
> government leaders' plausible deniability. When asked about the  
> system, they could honestly say, "we don't have anything like that."
> Aerospace industry contractors suggest that a top secret Blackstar  
> system could explain why Pentagon leaders readily offered the Air  
> Force's nascent unclassified spaceplane project, the briefly  
> resurrected SR-71 program and the Army's anti-satellite program for  
> elimination from budgets in the late 1990s. At the time, an  
> industry official said, "if we're flying a spaceplane, it makes  
> sense to kill these cover programs and stop wasting money on things  
> we can already do."
> U.S. and European aerospace companies have pushed two-stage-to- 
> orbit (TSTO) spaceplane concepts for decades. Most large U.S.  
> airframe manufacturers designed spaceplane-type vehicles during the  
> 1950s and '60s, and XB-70 program documents include a concept for  
> carrying and launching a low-Earth orbiter. Two former test pilots  
> and executives for North American Aviation (later, Rockwell) said  
> the company had a technically viable plan for such a system in the  
> 1950s (AW&ST Aug. 24, 1992, p. 25).
> Boeing is believed to be one of several major aerospace companies  
> involved in the Blackstar program. On Oct. 14, 1986, Boeing filed a  
> U.S. patent application for an advanced two-stage space  
> transportation system. Patent No. 4,802,639, awarded on Feb. 7,  
> 1989, details how a small orbiter could be air-dropped from the  
> belly of a large delta-winged carrier at Mach 3.3 and 103,800-ft.  
> altitude. The spaceplane would be boosted into orbit by its own  
> propulsion system, perform an intended mission, then glide back to  
> a horizontal landing. Although drawings of aircraft planforms in  
> the Boeing patent differ from those of the Blackstar vehicles  
> spotted at several USAF bases, the concepts are strikingly similar.
> 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).
> DYNASOAR WAS TERMINATED shortly after President John F. Kennedy was  
> assassinated in 1963, after $430 million had been spent on the  
> spaceplane's development. Political opposition and the fatal crash  
> of XB-70 No. 2 on June 8, 1966, contributed to the bomber program's  
> being canceled before Air Vehicle No. 3 could be built. However, at  
> one time, there had been plans to mate the two vehicles.
> 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."
> The two-stage U.S. spaceplane concept apparently has undergone  
> several iterations since then, but the basic idea remained--launch  
> a manned boost-glide vehicle from an XB-70-like platform (AW&ST  
> Dec. 24, 1990, p. 48; Sept. 24, 1990, p. 28). An aerospace industry  
> source said the Air Force once used the "Blackstar" moniker, but  
> others suggested the intelligence community referred to this TSTO  
> combination as the "SR-3/XOV" system. The SR-3 is the large, XB-70- 
> like carrier aircraft, while the small orbital vehicles drop- 
> launched at high speed are called XOV-1, XOV-2 and so forth. At one  
> time, the XOV designator meant "experimental orbital vehicle."
> Based on information gleaned from multiple industry sources, the  
> SR-3 features:
> *A roughly 200-ft.-long, clipped-delta-winged planform resembling  
> that of the North American Aviation XB-70 trisonic bomber. The  
> forward fuselage is believed to be more oval-shaped than was  
> depicted in a 1992 artist's rendering (AW&ST Aug. 24, 1992, p. 23).
> *Canards that extend from the forward fuselage. These lifting  
> surfaces may sweep both fore and aft to compensate for large center- 
> of-gravity changes after dropping the spaceplane, based on multiple  
> sighting reports.
> *Large, outward-canted vertical tail surfaces at the clipped- 
> delta's wingtips.
> *At least four engine exhaust ports, grouped as two well-separated  
> banks on either side of the aircraft centerline.
> *Very loud engines. One other classified military aircraft may have  
> used the same type of powerplant.
> *Operation at supersonic speeds and altitudes up to 90,000 ft.
> During the system's development cycle, two types of spaceplane  
> orbiters may have been flown. Both were a blended wing/fuselage  
> lifting-body design, but differed in size. The smaller version was  
> about 60-65 ft. long and may have been unmanned or carried a crew  
> of two, some say. Industry engineers said this technology  
> demonstrator was "a very successful program."
> The larger orbiter is reportedly 97.5 ft. long, has a highly swept,  
> blended wing/body planform and a short vertical fin. This bulky fin  
> apparently doubles as a buried pylon for conformal carriage of the  
> spaceplane beneath the large SR-3. The "Q-bay" for transporting an  
> optics-system pallet or other payloads may be located aft of the  
> cockpit, with payload doors on top of the fuselage.
> Outboard sections of the spaceplane's wing/body cant slightly  
> downward, possibly for shock-wave control and compression lift at  
> high speeds while in the atmosphere, whether on ascent or reentry.  
> The only visible control surfaces are flap- or drag-type panels on  
> the wing's trailing edge, one section on each side of the stubby  
> vertical fin. A relatively large, spade-shaped section forward of  
> the cockpit--which gives the orbiter a "shark-nose" appearance--may  
> provide some pitch stability, as well.
> The orbiter's belly appears to be contoured with channels, riblets  
> or "strakelets" that direct airflow to engine inlets and help  
> dissipate aerodynamic heating. These shallow channels may direct  
> air to a complex system of internal, advanced composite-material  
> ducts, according to an engineer who says he helped build one  
> version of the orbiter in the early 1990s. Air is directed to what  
> is believed to be aerospike engines similar to those once planned  
> for use on the NASA/Lockheed Martin X-33.
> A former Lockheed Skunk Works official once expressed confidence in  
> the X-33 prototype orbiter's powerplants, noting that "they have  
> history." Whether this implies the aerospikes had flown before,  
> perhaps on an XOV, or simply referred to ground test-firings is  
> unknown. The X-33 was a prototype of what was to be the single- 
> stage-to-orbit Venture Star (AW&ST Nov. 10, 1997, p. 50).
> Technicians who worked at a McDonnell Douglas plant in St. Louis in  
> the late 1980s and early 1990s said much of the XOV's structure was  
> made of advanced composite materials. Some wing skin panels  
> measured 40 ft. long and 16 ft. wide, yet were only 3/8 in. to 1/2  
> in. thick.
> "Two people could pick them up; they were very light," one said.  
> These panels were stacked in a sandwich structure to obtain the  
> required thickness, then machined to shape. Although much of the  
> structure was honeycomb, it was "incredibly strong, and would  
> handle very high temperatures," he noted. Inside skin surfaces  
> "were ungodly complicated," though.
> WORK ON THE ORBITER moved at a relatively slow pace until a "fuel  
> breakthrough" was made, workers were told. Then, from 1990 through  
> 1991, "we lived out there. It was a madhouse," a technician said.  
> The new fuel was believed to be a boron-based gel having the  
> consistency of toothpaste and high-energy characteristics, but  
> occupying less volume than other fuels.
> Regardless of where they land, spaceplane orbiters usually are  
> retrieved by one or more "fat" C-5 Galaxy transports. Three of the  
> oversized aircraft were modified with 8-ft.-wide "chipmunk cheek"  
> extensions on each side of the cargo compartment aft of the nose  
> hinge point; an extra six-wheel set of landing gear that partially  
> retracts up against the aft fuselage, forward of the ramp; a  
> shortened upper deck, and two internal harness/cradle supports.  
> These alterations originally were made to enable carriage of dome- 
> topped containers measuring 61.2 ft. long, 17.2 ft. wide (maximum)  
> and 16.7 ft. tall at the highest point. The containers normally  
> protected satellites during transit to launch sites.
> In 1994, NASA sources confirmed that two of the C-5s (Tail Nos.  
> 00503 and 00504) were listed on NASA's inventory--although the  
> aircraft did not "officially" exist, according to the agency's  
> public records. Both transports apparently were deployed only upon  
> orders from the administrator's office. The third oversized C-5  
> once had a red "CL" on its tail, and supposedly was used by the  
> Central Intelligence Agency. All three C-5s may have been retired  
> in recent years, according to a NASA contractor.
> CRITICS ARGUE that there was never enough money hidden in  
> intelligence and military budgets to fund a small fleet of  
> spaceplanes and carrier aircraft. However, those who worked on the  
> system's development at several contractor sites say they charged  
> time-and-materials costs to a number of well-funded programs.  
> Lockheed was the lead contractor for Blackstar orbiters being  
> fabricated at McDonnell Douglas in the early 1990s, and workers  
> there typically logged their time against a specific Lockheed  
> charge number associated with that project. But their time might  
> also have been charged to the National Aero-Space Plane (NASP) and  
> the Navy's A-12 fighter accounts, they say. Both multibillion- 
> dollar programs were canceled with little but technology  
> development gains to show for massive expenditures.
> "At first, [supervisors] said we were working on NASP, but this  
> thing never looked like anything the public was shown," a McDonnell  
> Douglas technician who worked in the company's "black hole"  
> facility said. "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."
> Whether the Blackstar system was ever declared operational or not  
> is unknown, but several orbiters may have flown over the years. A  
> former program manager at a major aerospace company once declared,  
> "There's no question; Lockheed is flying a two-stage space vehicle."
> Interestingly, after both Lockheed and Boeing pulled out of the  
> NASP competition (or were "eliminated") in the 1980s, they may have  
> collaborated to develop the two-stage-to-orbit Blackstar system  
> under a highly classified "fast-track" program. However, many other  
> contractors' "deep-black" teams probably also were involved in  
> order to bring the nation's best expertise to bear on what must  
> have been daunting technical challenges.
> From http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp? 
> id=news/030606p1.xml
> _______________________________________________
> FoRK mailing list
> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork

More information about the FoRK mailing list