Black Military Shuttle ?

[digitalman2]

I don't think it is reasonable to compare what the costs are for current design and production of vehicles similar to what NASA had created more than 40 years ago. (The X-15 you mention). Clearly NASA had its work cut out for it at the time and it was leading-edge. The only reason any company in existence today is able to build more efficiently, or to build fantastic new designs is because of all the research and investment and accumulation of knowledge that has occurred over this long period of time. <br /><br />You do a great disservice by not acknowledging that the commercial ventures now contemplated by the various companies like SpaceX, etc., are only possible because, as they say, they are 'standing on the shoulders of giants'.

 

[najab]

><i>That Rutan could essentially replicate the X-15 program for 1% of the cost that NASA....</i><p>SS1 was impressive, but it was nothing even close to the X-15. SS1 at peak altitude had zero velocity, the X-15 was travelling over 3,000mph - that alone makes the X-15 <b>way</b> more complex.</p>

 

[josh_simonson]

B2 bombers cost about 2.2bln each to build and the whole program cost 44bln to produce only 20 planes. An orbital spaceplane would need to be at least as large as a B2 to carry enough fuel to orbit a reasonable sized payload/crew. A spaceplane would also require much more exotic skin than the B2 (requiring stealth TPS or it wouldn't be secret long), add in a multi-mode jet/scramjet/rocket engine that also needs to be developed - it's quite easy to picture the spaceplane unit cost being 5x what a B2 costs. At least a handful would need to be made so that 2 would always be flight ready. It's pretty easy to see such a program getting up around $100bln. Development costs for the shuttle program were $33bln in todays money.

 

[mlorrey]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>SS1 was impressive, but it was nothing even close to the X-15. SS1 at peak altitude had zero velocity, the X-15 was travelling over 3,000mph - that alone makes the X-15 way more complex. <br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Untrue, it was NOT going 3,000 mph at the time. The point in the missions that it reached peak velocity at were at engine burnout and reentry, NOT at peak altitude, just like the SS1. That it had to go faster and reentered faster to reach the same, or slightly lower, altitude than the SS1 is a testament to the superior design of SS1.<br /><br />FYI: According to http://www.astronautix.com/craft/x15a.htm<br /><br />19 July 1963 X-15A VO,UVP,IR,HS,Balloon Test/Technology/Ultraviolet Astronomy mission Program: X-15. Flight Crew: Walker Joseph, Manned flight: X-15 Flight 90. Launch Site: Edwards . Launch Vehicle: X-15A. Apogee: 106 km. <br />Maximum Speed - 5969 kph. Maximum Altitude - 106010 m. Astronaut wings flight. 80 cm diameter balloon dragged on 30 m line to measure air density. First X-15 astronaut flight (FAI definition); fourth astronaut wings flight (USAF definition). <br /><br />106010 meters equals 347801 feet altitude.<br /> 5969 kph = 3708mph<br /><br />The record does NOT say at what point in the flight that speed was achieved, but any rational person can tell it would not have happened at apogee.<br /><br />Likewise, the SS1's entry in Astronautix is as follows:<br />04 October 2004 SpaceShipOne Flight 17P - X-Prize Flight 2 Program: X-Prize. Flight Crew: Binnie, Manned flight: SpaceShipOne Flight 17P. Launch Site: Mojave . Launch Vehicle: Tier One. Apogee: 112 km. Duration: 0.017 days. <br />Objectives of the flight were to win the Ansari X-Prize and break the rocketplane altitude record set by the X-15 in 1963. The Tier One (White Knight/SpaceShipOne) composite aircraft took off at 06:49 PST. Drop of the rockeplane was

 

[dobbins]

Have we finished comparing Apples and Oranges?<br /><br />The X-15 was designed to evaluate hypersonic flight and happened to be capable of reaching a (bad) definition of space that the FAI dreamed up later. The SS-1 was designed to do a stunt to win a prize that was less than half the amount it cost to make the vehicle.<br /><br />

 

[mlorrey]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>B2 bombers cost about 2.2bln each to build and the whole program cost 44bln to produce only 20 planes. An orbital spaceplane would need to be at least as large as a B2 to carry enough fuel to orbit a reasonable sized payload/crew. A spaceplane would also require much more exotic skin than the B2 (requiring stealth TPS or it wouldn't be secret long), add in a multi-mode jet/scramjet/rocket engine that also needs to be developed - it's quite easy to picture the spaceplane unit cost being 5x what a B2 costs. At least a handful would need to be made so that 2 would always be flight ready. It's pretty easy to see such a program getting up around $100bln. Development costs for the shuttle program were $33bln in todays money.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Once more, you are making assumptions of facts not in evidence.<br /><br />a) you assume that the vehicle must be B-2 sized. Untrue. The Blackhorse studies of the 80's conclusively proved that an aircraft slightly larger than a fighter plane could achieve orbit with the right propellant choices and using air-refuelling.<br />b) high-temp AND stealth materials are not needed. F-117 style faceted design would be, but only if stealth were at all needed. Furthermore, stealthing is far more about how you point your vehicle with respect to radar sources. Knowing where the dishes are in your orbital track, and maneuvering to keep your nose pointed at them, is the essence to stealth in orbit.<br />c) A spaceplane launches at a lower G and slower acceleration than an ICBM, so the assumption that black shuttle launches would be mistaken for ICBMs or otherwise easily seen is false. If anything, it would be mistaken for an SR-71 flight, which would actually be to the advantage of the black shuttle, as it would make the enemy start preparing for a recon overflight in several hours, NOT within 45 minutes. It would thus lull them into a complacency that would help achieve tactical sur

 

[tomnackid]

Uh huh. And after the russians observe the shuttle close in and capture the satelite (through the satelites security cameras) the self destruct system blows up the satelite as well as the 100bln spaceplane. <br />-------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />Actually that is precisely why the Air Force insisted that the shuttle have such a large cross range capability. The Idea was that a shuttle could take off from Vandenburg into a polar orbit, capture or examin a Soviet satelite while it was on the far side of the earth from the USSR and land back at Vandenburg--which would have moved eastward with the Earth's rotation--all in one orbit. Without the cross range the orbiter would have to ditch in the Pacific or wait on orbit for a reentry window--neither was an option for this kind of mission. <br /><br />Although this may seem like a highly unlikely scenario the military has to base its strategic decisions on the enemies POTENTIAL CAPABILITIES, not nessecarily what it thinks is most likely.

 

[drwayne]

"Although this may seem like a highly unlikely scenario the military has to base its strategic decisions on the enemies POTENTIAL CAPABILITIES, not nessecarily what it thinks is most likely."<br /><br />True. <br /><br />I think that was in part the reason the Shuttle as a bomber rumor made the rounds.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[darkenfast]

The X-15 was after more than altitude. It was a reasearch craft and a lot of what it was about was flight at very high velocities which could not be done by other aircraft. The trajectory of the X-15 covered about 400-500 miles, it was not simply straight up and down. It's missions were a lot more complex than that of the SS-1, and generated the knowledge that we use today to build things like Rutan's craft. Comparing the two, and then claiming that SS-1 is a superior design ignores the reality of what the X-15 accomplished and was capable of. And finally, you don't get B-52's for free just because you're a government agency. You budget and pay for them.

 

[formulaterp]

<font color="yellow">NASA did run its program for some 99 flights, while SS1 flew 17 times. NASA therefore gets a free operations multiplier of about five for its longer test program. That still leaves Rutan with a factor of 20.</font><br /><br />I'll agree we are comparing apples and oranges, but we might as well count the fruit the same way. The X-15 had 199 powered flights not 99. Of SSO's 17 flights, only 6 were powered. In addition NASA built 3 X-15's while Rutan had just the one copy. <br /><br />NASA's goal was to do research into hypersonic flight capabilities. The X-15 accomplished that task with aplomb.<br /><br />Rutan's goal was to spend 30m dollars to win a 10m dollar prize. SpaceshipOne accomplished that with flying colors.

 

[CalliArcale]

Well, I don't think it was built just to defray its own costs with a $1 mil prize. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> I think the real reason it was built was the same reason people climb Mount Everest -- to say they did it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[pirx_the_pilot]

Just a theory. The Venturestar program led to quiet development of some vehicle by the U.S.A.F. Whatever that vehicle is it comes after the thing which started flying when the Blackbird was retired. Spa ce Maneuver Vehicle?

 

[vt_hokie]

You know, that would be funny. X-33 was the first program I was assigned to at my first job out of college. I was disappointed with what became of it. <br /><br />The utter failure of that program kind of shattered my illusions of the legendary "Skunk Works". I wonder what Kelly Johnson would've had to say about X-33! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[pirx_the_pilot]

Goldin. Mr Ex-black world. Tech transfer from military to the X-33 program. X-33 designed to fail. Fails. Tech transfer from NASA back to military. NASA covers some of the development costs of what ends as a black world program. Thanks NASA! (Seriously. Thanks NASA!)

 

[mlorrey]

Yeah, this is the story, that the x-33 had room between the two hydrogen tanks for a small payload bay. The story that Lockheed failed in producing a composite hdyrogen tank sounded fishy to me, especially given that several other companies have had no problem producing such tanks. Also heard about the launch complex that was secretly modernized in the Rockies and the use of the runway at Dugway Proving Grounds as the landing strip. The longitudinal distance between the two sites is perfect for a vehicle launching on a once-around polar orbit, putting up a sat with a kick-motor on it.

 

[drwayne]

Kelly had some failures in his tenure at the Skunk Works too.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

Very true, the Suntan CL-400 spyplane, which was a mach 2.5, hydrogen powered turbine engined aircraft 200 feet long with a range of less than 2500 km, was a miserable failure. There are, though, still plenty of wingnuts who wax on about hydrogen propulsion in jet aircraft...<br /><br />Johnson spoke openly about the Suntan in the early 70's, and while he proved that handling of hydrogen fuel was not as unsafe as some claimed, its performance as a fuel left much to be desired, a lesson that NASA has yet to learn.

 

[drwayne]

This was another favorite sort-of failure:<br /><br />http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/xfv-1.htm<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

Oh, the POGO!!! I wouldn't call it a failure of Kelly Johnson, it was a failure of P&W in providing the shp it promised. <br /><br />In that, the Pogo wasn't a failure, per se, but was certainly unsufficiently successful.<br /><br />Its one of those planes that is so ugly it's cute, like my sisters Boston Terrier.

 

[josh_simonson]

>capture or examin a Soviet satelite while it was on the far side of the earth from the USSR <br /><br />Like the USSR had a half-planet sized blind spot. This whole theory is sunk by the presence of a soviet satelite communication ships spread across the oceans and soviet satelite states. It's pretty safe to assume that even in the 70's the USSR was in continuous contact with it's satelites. <br /> <br />A spysat could also have automated defences that simply shoot anything that comes close, or self destruct if something comes REALLY close or it gets man-handled.<br /><br />I think many people here irrationally hope that such a craft exists so that some future administration will de-classify it and suddenly we have CATS on a silver platter, fully researched and operational, ready for NASA to start flights next week. While this may be a seductive fantasy, the simple facts of cost and limited military utility make the nonexistence of such a vehicle 99.99% certain in the form you guys envision. Sure there may have been a gemini in a silo ready for a relatively quick scramble in the 60's. But a top-secret orbital spaceplane is the stuff of fantasy, not fact.

 

[CalliArcale]

I'm doubtful any spy sat has ever had effective defense against being stolen in this way. It's not easy to implement. However, I would not be surprised if some of them have had self-destruct mechanisms; that's pretty easy to implement.<br /><br />That said, there have been Soviet military satellites that fell out of orbit prematurely for a variety of reasons and which fell to Earth sufficiently intact that the Soviets were very worried about secrecy. I think there were two that became major international diplomatic incidents: one in Canada and one in Argentina. The Canadian one was especially sensitive because it was powered by a nuclear reactor. (Not an RTG, but an actual reactor.)<br /><br />I could see the Soviets missing a once-around spacecraft; a great deal of satellite detection relies on the sure knowledge that you'll see it again. However, I don't think there would be enough to gain by having such a vehicle to justify its cost. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[n_kitson]

A good summary of what is unfortunately the case. The same is true for Aurora. It is a wild fantasy that somehow, somewhere we have a superfast secret aircraft.<br /><br />I'd like to add to your view about the transferablity of declassified aircraft. We have had supersonic aircraft - both classified and unclassified - for many, many years. Yet not one of these has transferred successfully into the commercial space. Black programs tend to be very specialized, mission specific programs. Even if something somehow existed, the probablity of transfer to commercial use is often remote.

 

[nacnud]

No to dissagree with your point but concorde was a commercial SST.

 

[wdobner]

<i>Like the USSR had a half-planet sized blind spot. This whole theory is sunk by the presence of a soviet satelite communication ships spread across the oceans and soviet satelite states. It's pretty safe to assume that even in the 70's the USSR was in continuous contact with it's satelites. </i><br /><br />It's not unheard of for a satellite to just suddenly stop working, especially in the dirty, conjested space of LEO. Lift some debris, preferably unitary in nature to prevent creating more space debris, and leave that in the same orbit as the target satellite so that the Russians think their satellite simply got fragged by some errant bolt. Another possibility would simply be to disable the communications systems, then do a quick EVA to remove the components you're interested in, leaving the satellite bus in orbit for the Russkies to see when it passes over. That'd be time consuming, so a final option would be to boost a look-alike satellite up with the spaceplane, then deploy that into the same orbit as the target satellite shortly before grabbing the Russian satellite. The boosted lookalike could just be a decoy, made of plastic and such with little in the way of electronics and controls. Presumably it'd just have an apogee boost motor and enough thruster fuel to perform an orbit circularization burn. Hopefully the decoy would remain in orbit long enough for the russians to forget about it's failure, at which time it'd deorbit.<br /><br /><i>A spysat could also have automated defences that simply shoot anything that comes close, or self destruct if something comes REALLY close or it gets man-handled. </i><br /><br />That would be somewhat tricky. Such a defensive system would require the satellite operators to give up bandwidth and payload to a sensor and weapon package which does little or nothing to improve the outcome of the satellite's mission. You probably could have a fun talk with the folks at the NRO, NSA, TRW, Boeing, or Lockheed Martin about whethe

 

[vt_hokie]

<i> The same is true for Aurora. It is a wild fantasy that somehow, somewhere we have a superfast secret aircraft. </i><br /><br />On this I disagree. It may no longer be flying - who knows? But certainly, some classified high speed aircraft was creating sonic booms over southern California 10 or 15 years ago on the way to that 6 mile long runway at Groom Lake.