UPSTAGE and the strange and very long race for hypersonics

UPSTAGE was going to be used for ABM around important military sites like the never built MX missile silo complex.



as seen in this picture is the whole UPSTAGE system heading towards a MARV and using little jets to re orient its self and could withstand something like 600G's lateral change and here is a pic of that system that was controlled from the ground.




the thing I find funny about upshot is that it is a lifting body that would fit with some of todays models




here is a high altitude shot of the 'warhead' separating

and a launch



all of this was done in the 70's and early 80's and if we could intercept MARV's back then and a controllable hypersonic warhead(granted for a short time) gives a rather interesting view at the real progress in hypersonic development.

the US plays in the media like we are playing catch up to China and Russia. Putin brags about basically advanced MARV warheads and China is all happy about their carrier killer HGV and playing with ideas that the us was doing before I was even born.

With the material and computer modeling we have today I don't know what the big deal is, we have being doing this for almost 50 years

a reply to: penroc3

Thanks for reassuring my belief that we already had this technology and more... I have to admit I was doubting myself.

Yeah, I think any serious adversary that challenges the United States is gonna be stunned by what our military rolls out.
When it finally comes out of wraps, wonder what paint scheme and insignia will be sported by that 46 foot tic-tac?

All sides are playing games. The bragging of having outdated weapon systems as your most advanced in use is an old tactic to fool others into a false sense of security. But, then again, all these ''sides'' today, might just be orchestrating an enormous mind-# on humanity. Which is quite telling these days.

All sides get massive perks for domestic policies by having so called bigtime enemies. No one loses. Everyone profits. Except the people, ofcourse.

The real challenge people are trying to conquer is in air-breathing hypersonic flight which would grants you operationally useful benefits. Nothing terribly difficult about hypersonic flight. Look at the X-15 dating to the 50's.

Biggest problem is longevity of the structural materials in high heat.Is ok in something like the Space Shuttle but something smaller the heat tiles are pretty heavy..Tic Tacs are yesterdays Triangles?

originally posted by: penroc3
With the material and computer modeling we have today I don't know what the big deal is, we have being doing this for almost 50 years

Really? Maybe you can point out out all the successful intercept tests that have happened in the last 50 years. Oh wait, they're all classified, right?

originally posted by: Blackfinger
Biggest problem is longevity of the structural materials in high heat.Is ok in something like the Space Shuttle but something smaller the heat tiles are pretty heavy..

The space shuttle is just plowing through the air generating aerodynamic heating.

To make an air breathing jet engine, the engine has to slow and compress and then heat the air entering the intake even higher to produce thrust. Each step drives temps way, way up -- and is on top of the rest of the aerodynamic heating.

To borrow from myself in another thread: If the air coming in is slowed and heated, then the combustor isn't adding very much heat to the flow -- which means much less thrust. Higher drag-less thrust. You hit a wall where the physics are concerned. It's also a lot less efficient as you near the wall because you're creating drag and getting less thrust for the same fuel burn.


And yes, making an engine from those materials is difficult, and generally involves weight penalties. That's why big money is being thrown at precoolers as one potential solution.

a reply to: RadioRobert

Not to mention if you want the missile to be maneuverable and stay closer to the Earth's surface. Interested to see how that plays out.

a reply to: Zaphod58

the first letter/image i posted is a congratulations letter for the program going so well.

allot of the program is still classified but if you read between the lines its pretty obvious not to mention it was going for over 7 years, i dont think they would be trowing money away like that unless they had success

a reply to: penroc3

So a program going well in 1972 means we have successful missile defense systems now? The program did go well, but never advanced to an actual intercept. It's also completely irrelevant to now.

a reply to: Zaphod58

of course not, how could something older than i am be better than systems being made today.


i was just highlighting a cool thing i found online and thought other might enjoy it.


and I might learn something,

a reply to: penroc3

I get that, but the part of your post that I quoted sure sounded like you were saying we have existing programs because that one was successful.

a reply to: Zaphod58

'success' is relative