Mar 07 2006
Blackstar Program
** update at end **
There has been a lot of talk about a story in Aviation Week & Space Technology about a mothballed DoD program for a single or two stage to orbit system called “Blackstar”. While it is clear the DoD and NASA have been investigating new ways to get to orbit, they are hardly secret! I saw this article on American Thinker by Thomas Lifson and noted some claims in the original story which just did not ring true. For example. this claim:
…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.
Sorry, but this is just not true, the DoD was not without launch capability. Besides, fixing the launch vehicle issues was, and is, eminently cheaper and quicker than any exotic new system with a brand new bomber-like plane. Listing the shuttle disaster as an issue is a ruse in itself. The DoD had plenty of launch capability on expendable launch vehicles and decided early on to avoid the Space Shuttle (too costly, too many people to hold clearances). Proof: That is what happened.
The story talks about a supersonic bomber based on the Valkyrie from the 1960’s (the best looking bomber we ever flew). The Valkyrie program ended due to cost overruns in the 1960’s, but I seriously doubt they would build another one in the 1980’s using spare parts or based on its old technology when they had an ongoing program to leverage called The Lancer. The B1 was capable of supersonic flight, though I am not sure it could reach the Valkyrie’s Mach 3 target. As far as I know the Valkyrie never did.
But the point is there was an airframe available and a variety of technologies available. The reporting seems to hinge on sightings of return landings across the globe in the 1990’s. Well, who knows which of these advanced systems were visible when (check out the X-34 for comparison)? Maybe it was one of these systems? Why not go with single stage to orbit?
But the point is, with all these options available in the 1990’s, I doubt this program, as presented, is real. It sounds like a conglomeration of ongoing efforts and some ‘what-if’ scenarios which are common in the aerospace community. This could all be people seeing or hearing about all the work being done in this field for the last 20+ years. It is not new.
BTW, I need to also challenge this from another AT author:
Over the years, and after so many disappointments, I’ve learned to be skeptical and cautious of claims about the United States be able to create wonder aircraft. The last one that truly stunned the world was the SR-71.
Actually, the last one to really stun the world was the one going on during this very timeframe. This one was never leaked until it was deliberately made public in 1990.
Finally, I do not expect people not in the business to catch all these inconsistencies. In fact, the story could be 100% right – as the F-117 showed us. But Aviation Week and Space Technology should know better and be clear this is one of their ‘fun speculation’ pieces they run occasionally. What is sad is, if true, they should never have printed the story.
Update: I missed this last link to another post on AT:
But the most likely scenario I can posit for a publication like Aviation Week, which has a sterling national security reputation, is that it has been asked by legitimate authority to leak this “stale†information to send a signal to someone about spectacular US capabilities of the past, thus to encourage speculation about what the US might be capable of today. I wonder who that might be?
Hmmm, maybe. But what would it buy us? Doesn’t Iran know already we can take them out a 100 different ways? If it was to send a signal, it was from the Department of Redundancy Department, probably from the Undersecretary of Overkill.
The B-70 Valkyrie did reach mach 3 during its test flights. Plane 1, they built 2, only did once or twice I think before being restricted to mach 2.5 because of damage to its skin. It used a honeycomb steel for the skin that was ahead of its time and difficult to work with.
Plane 2 had no skin problems and did a 15 minute mach 3 run. She was lost in a mid-air collision that had nothing to do with the design.
Plane 1 is sitting at the USAF museum at Wright-Pat airbase.
Thanks Nomad_990. Sounds like you know the bird. Now I know I have to visit Wright-Pat sometime.
I read this blog daily because A. J. does a great job updating Able Danger and PlameGate information. I’ve seen A. J. get things wrong on occasions, but never so badly as on this one. I think A. J. is so very wrong on this one that I had to register to refute his claims.
First, after the Challenger disaster and a really bad string of launch failures, the DOD did find itself without a reliable launch vehicle. How can A. J. claim otherwise? For about nine months after the Challenger disaster almost every DOD space launch vehicle blew up. Did the DOD have a secret backup system codenamed (and using the physics of) ”The Big Wrist Rocket”? A. J. is simply wrong on this one.
I do agree, however, with A. J. that the cheapest, quickest and most obvious fix was to fix the launch vehicles. And I can’t fault him for doubting that the failures were the genesis for ”BlackStar”. It’s most likely they accelerated a program already in progress.
Read the Aviation Week & Space Technology article and then read the Global Security article:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/
2004/041213-controversial-program.htm
(You’ll have to cut & paste — I’m a newbie here and I don’t know how or if you can link here)
BlackStar sounds a lot like the black program Senator Rockefeller killed by revealing it on the floor of the Senate.
AW&ST says about BlackStar: ”It could be a victim of shrinking federal budgets strained by war costs, or it may not have met performance or operational goals.”
More likely, it was killed by exposure by Senator Rockefeller.
Tinian,
I never said there wasn’t a problem – I recall it well. But it was only 9 months long, they fixed the new launch systems (and yes, they still had the older systems if they needed them). What I said was the launch system problem was not so bad you had to go out and start a multi-billion dollar effort! My proof: the 9 months down time followed by two decades of lauches since.
I also agreed the program sounded like lots of programs and ideas floated from SDI (which I worked) to today. I think we are in violent agreement!
AJStrata
The Air Force & National Air/Space Museums are high on the places I will have to spend days at. 🙂
http://www.labiker.org/xb70.html and http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-70.htm are got info sites about the Valkryie. Lovely plane but too focused on the nuclear strike mission. The B-52/1/2’s are good all purpose bombers.
AJ,
What really infuriates me is that BlackStar sounds way too much like the kind of stealth satellite program that was killed because Rockefeller blabbed.
And why did he blab? He gave two reasons: 1) cost, and 2) it was a bad idea because it would cause some sort of ”space weapons” race.
Reason one (cost) is a joke when it concerns a black program that produces good results. Reason two is also a joke because no adversary is going to drop development of stealth satellite technology or stealth weapon delivery just because we do.
I don’t care why BlackStar was developed but, if it was operational or even near operational, Rockefeller should be wearing an orange jump suit for his loose talk on the Senate floor.
As for all of our launch vehicles that blew up after Challenger, the biggest loss was their payloads. You might be able to press some other vehicles into service but if you have nothing to put in them it doesn’t really matter. You can’t build a Keyhole over the weekend.
Tinian
Does Blackstar exist? I think it could explain the Aurora mystery. DOD retired the SR-71 in the late 1980s. Congress had to force reactivation of the SR-71 in the mid-90s.
Why was DOD willing to retire the Blackbird? The most likely answer is that they had a replacement ready to go.
AJ,
Just a minor quibble, but the USAF announced the F-117A publicly in ’88 wi th a fuzzy picture. The first public display was in ’90. I had the honor to be in the 4450th (then the 37th) at the time. After the ’88 announcement, we were finally allowed to tell our families what we were doing (with no details, of course).
SteveBB,
No quibble, I was aware of the earlier date and simply selected the formal outing in 1990. Man, do I envy you! Thanks for watching our backs.
AJStrata