Category A VERTICAL EMPIRE

One of the ironies of the Blue Streak saga is that the UK spent a very considerable sum on its development and on the Europa satellite launcher as part of ELDO, sums of the order of £200 million at 1950s/1960s prices, with absolutely nothing to show for it at the end of it all.

However, over a period of around 15 years from 1957 onwards, designs and proposals for an indigenous satellite launcher based on Blue Streak came and went. The design which most nearly came to fruition was known inelegantly in official files as the Blue Streak Satellite Launch Vehicle, or BSSLV for short. This chapter looks at the various designs proposed over the years. Not surprisingly, since Blue Streak, Black Knight and Black Arrow were the only liquid fuel ballistic rockets being developed by the UK, most of the designs tended to revolve around these vehicles, but in addition liquid hydrogen stages were often proposed. Alternative HTP designs could have been produced from de Havilland’s Spectre or Armstrong Siddeley’s Stentor motors, but were never considered by the RAE or Saunders Roe, where most of the designs originated.

The design of Blue Streak was finalised by around the start of 1957. At the same time, Black Knight had been set in motion, and it might be useful to give some approximate data for each vehicle.

Blue Streak

Diameter 10 ft

Thrust 300,000 lb

Weight 196,000 lb

Blue Streak was around 15 times more massive than Black Knight, and this highlights one of the difficulties which designers of the time faced. The most efficient way to design a satellite launcher is to match the size and performance of the individual stages, but instead designers of the period were taking rockets designed for entirely different functions and putting them together into a
launcher, however mismatched they might be. This might be less efficient, but it saved time and money.

But to step back for a moment, the origins of the BSSLV are both obscure and interesting.

It is well known that the Pentagon was interested in reconnaissance from satellites in the mid-1950s, but was held back by a legal consideration. Aircraft from one country could not overfly another country without permission – to do so would be violating the second country’s airspace. What had not yet been legally established is the height of a country’s airspace – did it end at the top of the atmosphere or stretch out to infinite space? And how would ‘top of the atmosphere’ be defined?

Thus one of the reasons why the satellite proposed as part of the 1957 International Geophysical Year would be launched by a civilian rocket was so that it could not be described as military in nature by the Soviet Union. Its purpose would be entirely scientific, but at the same time it would set a legal precedent.

All this, of course, became moot with the launch of Sputnik 1. The Soviet Union could no longer complain if American satellites passed over Russian territory, and had no way of knowing what instruments or cameras the satellites were carrying. Over the next few decades, America was to spend literally billions of dollars on satellite reconnaissance. In March 1967, President Johnson was quoted as saying,

… we’ve spent thirty-five or forty billion dollars on the space program. And if nothing else had come out of it except the knowledge we’ve gained from space photography, it would be worth ten times what the whole program has cost. Because tonight we know how many missiles the enemy has and, it turned out, our guesses were way off. We were doing things we didn’t need to do. We were building things we didn’t need to build. We were harboring fears we didn’t need to harbor.’

For comparison, the GDP of the UK in 1967 was $111 billion.

But it was not only America that was interested in reconnaissance. So was Britain.

Towards the end of 1954 the D. R.P. C. appointed a working party to consider the problems of long-range reconnaissance. This working party reported in November 1955 and one of the recommendations in the report was that the most promising line of research and development would be an orbiting satellite to carry optical reconnaissance equipment.1

Desmond King-Hele of the Guided Weapons Department, RAE, was given the task of writing a report outlining the advantages and disadvantages of reconnaissance by satellite. RAE GW reports are usually very prosaic documents, designed to convey technical information only. It comes as something of a surprise, therefore, to read King-Hele’s introduction to his paper2.

Escaping from the earth, this ‘dim vast vale of tears’, has long been one of man’s recurrent dreams, a dream enshrined in primitive myth and exploited in many later European writings, among them Dante’s famous Divina Commedia, which includes visits to all the known planets, the sphere of the fixed stars, and beyond, even to the empyrean. Neither Dante nor most of his successors could specify a realistic means of propulsion, and it is only since the advent of the modern rocket motor the dream has shown any possibility of being fulfilled. Now that plans are afoot in Britain for a long-range ballistic rocket missile, the first step towards fulfilment – an unmanned satellite circling the Earth – has advanced beyond a possibility to a logical development.

The equally recurrent military need for continual reconnaissance also appears to be satisfied by a satellite vehicle, provided its launching is not denounced as a warlike act. If launched in high or middle latitudes it will inevitably pass over enemy as well as friendly territory, and much better photographs should be obtained from a satellite than from high altitude aircraft ‘peeping over the frontier’ through hundreds of miles of haze.

Bringing the satellite safely back to earth would be almost as difficult as placing it in an orbit; so the satellite is here assumed to be expendable, i. e., it is doomed at best to die in a brief blaze of glory, lighting up the night sky to the wonderment of some remote tribe, and at worst to drop with dull thuds in recognisable pieces on an enemy city.

Some of his rhetorical flourishes are not entirely successful: ‘to drop with dull thuds’ strikes a note of surely unintentional bathos, and political correctness today might cause ‘the wonderment of some remote tribe’ to be reconsidered. After this rather ornate introduction, the prose becomes more mundane and more suited to the matter under consideration.

The problems as he saw them were firstly, providing adequate propulsion and structure without exceeding the stringent limits on weight; secondly, methods of guidance, control and power generation; and thirdly, recording and transmitting back to Earth a picture of interesting territory which the satellite passes over.

King-Hele was aware that the satellite would not be able to provide ‘live’ data that is, when it was above the territory to be photographed, it would not be able to relay the information back directly, as the receiving station would be over the horizon and thus out of radio contact. What is slightly more surprising is that he rejected the idea of recovering film directly from the satellite after re-entry on the grounds that atmospheric decay of the orbit would be too unpredictable. The possibility of commanded re-entry did not seem to have been considered at all.

As to the resolution obtainable:

A continuous strip record would be taken while over interesting territory, by infra­red photography. This record would be processed or otherwise stored until transmission back to the ground, which would take place over friendly territory at low data rate. For an orbital altitude of 200 nautical miles quite good resolution, 100-200 ft, should be obtainable with a camera of about 50" focal length, and a strip 40-50 miles could be covered.

Power supply for the satellite was another problem. Among King-Hele’s suggestions was:

A third and more direct method is the Bell solar battery, in which electricity is generated directly by light falling on thin strips of pure silicon impregnated with traces of boron. The first models of the solar battery had an output of about six watts of exposed surface but by improved techniques output has now been raised to about 11 watts (11% efficiency of conversion). The standard 2000 lb satellite assumed here has a surface area of about 150 sq ft, so the area requirements are within the realms of possibility. The present high cost of the Bell device (quoted elsewhere as around half a million dollars per kilowatt) would however have to be reduced.

Interestingly, given the provisional status of Blue Streak at this date, King – Hele suggested that:

It will obviously be advisable to profit as far as possible from work on the Blue Streak surface-to-surface ballistic rocket missile, and accordingly the type of propulsion and structure at present proposed for Blue Streak are used here.

He obviously took this further in a later Guided Weapon Department report of May 1957, entitled ‘The Use of Blue Streak with Black Knight in a Satellite Missile’. This was the first time that a full analysis of Blue Streak as the first stage of a satellite launcher had been carried out… five months before the launch of Sputnik! His calculations showed that the Blue Streak/Black Knight combination could put a payload of 2,280 lb (very close to 1,000 kg) into low earth orbit. The conclusions of the report were that:

It should be possible to place quite a massive satellite vehicle in an orbit by using a three-stage missile which consists of (1) the first stage of Blue Streak, (2) the first stage of Black Knight and (3) the final satellite. Some structural strengthening would be required, in Blue Streak especially: increases in structure weight of 1000 lb on Blue Streak and 100 lb on Black Knight have been assumed here. Under these assumptions, and with an 850 ft/sec advantage from the earth’s rotation, the satellite payload would be about 2400 lb for 200 n. m. orbital altitude and 2200 lb for 400 n. m. orbital altitude.3

That is a remarkably accurate prediction, made all the more impressive since the two vehicles in question were still in existence only on the drawing board! King-Hele’s proposal can be seen in Figure 54. Looking at the design more closely reveals that the 3 ft diameter Black Knight sits uneasily on the 10 ft diameter Blue Streak. Making a one ton satellite that would fit into a 3 ft payload fairing might also be a challenge (for comparison purposes, the average saloon car is about a ton in weight).

In 1957, there was also considerable security surrounding both Blue Streak and Black Knight, and it was not until 1959 that Geoffrey Pardoe of de Havilland was able to present various satellite launcher designs, using the same ideas, to a meeting of the British Interplanetary Society (BIS). The design that emerged as the favourite perhaps took the answer to the geometry problem a little too far: instead of being a slim 3 ft cylinder, the upper stage had become a 10 ft sphere!4 There is considerable logic behind this design, but there was also a practical difficulty relating to cost and facilities, which was much less obvious.

Saunders Roe had designed their test facility at High Down for a 3 ft diameter vehicle; the stands could be relatively easily adapted for designs up to 54 inches Beyond that, there would, apparently, have to be considerable rebuilding. The cost of this was held up as an objection to design after design, until Black Arrow with its two metre diameter lower stage was produced – without any objection from anyone!

Although there was no specific requirement for a satellite launcher, RAE had considerable autonomy and pressed on with studies. The minutes of the ‘First Meeting in Ballistic Missile Division to Discuss the Development of Satellite Vehicles’ are dated February 19585. These meetings were obviously a follow on

from King-Hele’s paper, and discussion centres around Blue Streak. Curiously, the minutes of a later meeting in October 1958 mention that:

Unfortunately, the minutes give no explanation as to why!

In May 1959, Harold Macmillan was asked in the House of Commons by Mr Richard Fort (Conservative Member for Clitheroe; sadly, he was to die in a car accident four days later): ‘if he is yet in a position to make a statement about space research’.

This was probably a ‘planted’ question so as to give the Prime Minister an opportunity to make his statement. As part of his answer, Macmillan said:

Meanwhile, however, design studies are also being put in hand for the adaptation of the British military rockets which are now under development. This will put us in a position, should we decide to do so, to make an all-British effort.

I have asked my noble Friend, the Lord President of the Council, in consultation with my Right Hon. Friend the Minister of Supply and other Ministers concerned, to exercise general supervision of these new developments.

He then went on to say:

I cannot give any figure of the cost of using the British rocket should it be decided to do so. What we are doing now is to spend a substantial but modest sum, more in hundreds of thousands than in millions, first for the design of the instruments, which is the first element, and secondly, for making the necessary designs for modifications of the British military rocket should it be decided when the time comes to use it for this purpose.

There were some sceptics in the House:

Mr. Chetwynd [Labour member for Stockton-on-Tees]: Is the Prime Minister satisfied that there is intrinsic value in this scientific work or is it just an attempt to keep up with the Joneses?

To which the Prime Minister replied in true Macmillan style:

I am not by nature or, I am afraid, by education very favourably inclined to swallow all that the scientists tell me, because, alas, I do not understand it, but I am impressed by the universal opinion of these very distinguished people whom we have consulted, and I feel certain that in this scientific instrument work it is clear that Britain ought to play her part in this advancing scientific effort. As to the method of launching these instruments, what I felt right to do, and what, I think, the House will think sensible, is to make preliminary work at not very large expense which will put us in a position to use our own rocket should, when the time comes, we decide to do so.

As a result of the announcement, Dr Robert Cockburn (who at that time was CGWL) at the Ministry of Supply was asked for design studies for a rocket and for the satellite itself by the Office of Lord President of the Council, Lord Hailsham, who was also acting as Minister for Science6. The RAE set up a series of panels to produce a detailed design late in 1959, resulting in the brochure produced by Saunders Roe, entitled ‘Black Prince’.

It was obvious that Saunders Roe had been involved before the announcement had been made. In a meeting back in April, ‘Saunders Roe tabled and presented several schemes for RAE consideration and discussion’.

As a result of all this work, a brochure for a launcher was ready in time for the military cancellation7. The brochure was prepared by Saunders Roe and RAE, and the vehicle is called, rather optimistically, Black Prince. Its design is very conventional: Blue Streak as the first stage, a 54-inch Black Knight second stage, with the Gamma engine uprated to 25,000 lb thrust, and various configurations suggested for a third stage, depending on the mission. This would also use HTP and kerosene, with a small four chamber rocket motor, designated the PR.38, from Bristol Siddeley.

The weight breakdown for the launcher in the initial design brochure was:

All burnt weight First stage 12,500 lb Second stage 1,520 lb Third stage 500 lb

This would mean that the upper stages would be about 1/10th of the vehicle weight – a distinctly inefficient design. The vehicle would have a first stage diameter of 10 ft; the upper stages 54 inch or 4% ft. It would be nearly 98 ft tall.

But the brochure points up another flaw in the whole project. Different versions of the third stage were to be tailored to three specific missions: a low earth orbit of 300 nm ‘for experiments in stellar U. V. spectroscopy’, a 300/7000 nm orbit ‘enabling investigations of the Earth’s radiation belts to be undertaken’, and a 300/100,000 nm orbit for a ‘Space Probe’. Such imprecise missions do not engender confidence, nor answer the question: what was the point of Black Prince?

However, as part of the announcement of the cancellation of Blue Streak as a weapon in April 1960, stress was laid on its conversion to a satellite launcher. To be cynical, it could be said that this was a useful ploy to deflect criticism; it was argued by Watkinson, the Minister responsible for the cancellation, that the considerable expenditure to date had not been wasted, since Blue Streak was now being used for another purpose. The hollowness of this argument can be demonstrated by the fact that the expenditure to date had been in the order of £60-80 million; another £60 million would be needed to complete the project, and yet no Ministry was prepared to put up more than a few million pounds out of their own budgets. Watkinson, against the advice of his civil servants such as Sir Edward Playfair, was prepared to offer £5 million, but this would have to come out of existing budgets – not an easy option. Similarly, Hailsham was not
prepared to raid the science budget, and there seemed no obvious other source of finance, unless the Treasury were to fund it over and above existing expenditure – which was highly unlikely!

This is shown very clearly in a letter from Hailsham to Sandys (now Minister of Aviation) in April 1960, just after the announcement of the cancellation of Blue Streak as a military weapon.

The Advisory Council on Scientific Policy said in its last report that to leave vital scientific needs unsatisfied ‘in order to shoulder the crippling cost of a large programme of space exploration on a purely national basis would be, in the Council’s view, the grossest folly.’ At that time, of course, we were going ahead with Blue Streak for military purposes and the Council said ‘we do not consider that the technological advantages likely to accrue from the development of a British rocket and satellite programme designed for civil purposes over and above the effects of the existing military missile programme, would be sufficient to justify the very considerable expenditure involved’.

Using vehicles already developed for military purposes was one thing, but for the science budget to take on all the development costs of a launcher would be a very different matter. If Blue Streak had gone ahead as a military missile, then most of the development costs would have been covered by the defence budget, but that was no longer an option. Certainly the cost of the programme could not be justified from a very limited science budget.

There was little military interest too: the Chiefs of Staff, in conjunction with the DRPC stated in December 1959 that ‘The Committee agreed that, while
satellite research was important nationally, there were not at present any strong reasons to justify the spending of Defence funds on it.’

On the day the announcement of the cancellation was made, CGWL at the Ministry of Aviation (Sir Steuart Mitchell had returned to the post) wrote to all the firms involved – Rolls Royce, de Havilland, Sperry and others – and mentioned: ‘The Government is now considering whether to continue Blue Streak in the role of a Satellite Boost Vehicle, but it is unlikely that a decision will be reached on this until about June.’ Optimistically, he noted that ‘The intention would be to complete development by early 1964 with the firing of not more than 8 rounds, at a rate of approximately 3 per year’. (There was a curious British usage of the time which referred to the launches as ‘rounds’, rather as if they were shells or bullets.) At a meeting between RAE and Saunders Roe in May, the firing programme was outlined thus:

The initial 1st stage firing would be planned for October 1961. Thereafter there would be three firings in 1962, three in 1963 and one in 1964. The following more detailed firing breakdown was given: –

(a) 1st firing – As Blue Streak F1 but simplified…

(b) 2nd firing – As above.

(c) 3rd firing – Plus separation bay and dummy 2nd and 3rd stages.

(d) 4th and 5th firings – As above.

(e) In 1963 – 6th firing using live 2nd and 3rd stages plus a small simple satellite.

In the event, not even the first flight had occurred by early 1964!

Later in April Mr Syme of the Ministry of Supply in Melbourne, Australia, noted:

The programme would involve firing three Blue Streak missiles of current design, three modified ones carrying dummy upper stages, and two complete three stage versions, making eight firings in all, extending from the first firing in mid 61 to the last in early 64 at about four monthly intervals.

And the Ministry of Aviation had similar visions:

… [the] first missile on the launcher by April 61, static firing in July and first flight October 1961. Thereafter flights in March, July and October 1962 and 1963, terminating with the eighth flight in March 64.

Flights one and two would be unmodified Blue Streaks; firings 3, 4, and 5 would carry dummy upper stages; firings 6, 7 and 8 real upper stages. In addition, the Black Knight plus third stage require firing from Area 5 [the Black Knight launch site at Woomera]. Three flights suggested between September 1962 and May 1963.

The latter reference is to separate flight testing for the second stage. Thus the first complete vehicle would be F6 in March 1965.

To further these considerations, a Cabinet committee was set up, chaired by the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Norman Brook. Not surprisingly, he took advice from the Government’s Chief Scientist, Sir Solly Zuckerman, who did not have a high opinion of Blue Streak and its technology. A flavour of the advice he gave can be seen in a quote from Brook: ‘The main advantage would be to keep a leading position in liquid fuel technology, but this was an obsolescent skill.’

The value of his advice can be gauged from the consideration that derivatives of both the Thor and Atlas rockets, somewhat older than Blue Streak, are still in regular use 40 years after this advice was given, and there are still no large satellite launchers that do not use liquid fuel in at least part of their design. To be fair, however, from the military point of view he was quite correct. Then there was the question of cost: Zuckerman pointed out that ‘the whole UK R&D expenditure is £500M [per annum],’ of which £238 million was for defence, whereas the launcher would cost £15 million per annum, with a total cost of £64 million. (Much later, in June 1966, Zuckerman was to say of the launch of the first French satellite: ‘We could have anticipated and greatly exceeded this achievement had we decided in 1960 to adapt Blue Streak for this purpose and added Black Knight to it as a second stage’. It is a pity he had not been more forceful at the time.)

Senior civil servants are not noted for their extravagant use of language, yet in all the files that survive from the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Aviation, no enthusiasm for the project ever shines through. Instead, Blue Streak, even in a civilian guise, is seen as an unfortunate inheritance from a military programme, and the very strong impression is that the project is maintained for political reasons rather than through any intrinsic merit.

But to return to money: cost estimates for aerospace projects are a notorious minefield, and the launcher was to prove no exception. Hasty initial estimates gave £35 million.8 This was solely for vehicle development costs. But there would be other costs as well – the vehicles themselves (around £2 million each) and the satellites that would be carried. This pushed the total estimate up to £64 million by July – although this included in addition the cost of three satellites, which the early estimate did not. An analysis was also done of the unit cost of a launcher, once development was complete, and these estimates were in the region of £1.8-£2.1 million, depending on the number of launches per year.

After the cancellation, a Missile Conversion Committee was set up, and the Ministry of Aviation gave some costings for the programme:

£31.0 m

2 firings £15.8 m

3 firings £13.4 m

3 firings £9.7 m

If the same programme of work were spread over five years, then:

£31.4 m

2 firings £12.4 m

2 firings £10.2 m

2 firings £10.2 m

2 firings £9.1 m

In total, the four year programme would cost £69.9m; the four year programme £73.3m.

But, noted the Treasury gloomily,

… the Ministry of Aviation… have very grave doubts about the five year programme on technical grounds. They are not at all sure that a firing every six months is in fact a viable arrangement. [ELDO managed only one launch a year between 1968 and 1971, with one gap lasting 16 months.] It would inevitably mean that many of the expert staff would be twiddling their thumbs for some time between each firing.

Later, the memo summarised the position by saying:

. the most that can be said is that the five year programme might put off by a year the (? evil) day when the scientists would be able to come along with their next big leap into space.

The difference in US and UK resources, or the proportion of their resources that they were prepared to devote to space research, is shown up quite starkly in a conversation recorded by Zuckerman in December 1960 with the US Assistant Secretary for War, who suggested that the UK joined the US in space work. ‘When I told him our total [annual defence] budget for R and D was £220M, he immediately replied that, even if we put all our defence R and D money in, we were obviously not starters in a US/UK collaboration programme in rocketry and satellites’9. If £220 million was not enough, how far would £15million take the

UK?

Funding for Blue Streak itself after the cancellation was kept at a ‘tick over’ rate, and although the Chancellor had initially agreed to provide money for the project, the beady eye of the Treasury was always on it. But this points up
another factor: the lack of any firm decision. This was summed up in an internal Ministry of Aviation paper soon after the cancellation:

The current BLUE STREAK programme will have run down to the level needed for the development of a satellite launcher by about the middle of July. A decision on the future of BLUE STREAK must therefore be taken within the next few weeks.

The possible courses are:

(a) To cancel BLUE STREAK completely.

(b) To undertake a programme of space research based on the joint Anglo/Australian development of BLUE STREAK as a satellite launcher.

(c) To undertake a programme of space research as at (b) and to explore the possibilities of co-operative programmes with European and Commonwealth countries.

(d) To take no final decision on space research, but to continue the development of BLUE STREAK at the minimum level while the possibilities of co-operation with Europe and the Commonwealth are explored.

If course (d) were adopted, then interim measures would be needed to ensure that this country retains the ability to develop a satellite launcher and undertake a space research programme, until the necessary decisions are made. The extension of the current BLUE STREAK contracts on a month-by-month basis could not last for

more than 2 or 3 months, since it would be unsatisfactory and uneconomic, and would prevent contractors from entering into the longer term commitments involved in the supply of materials. Contracts would probably have to be extended for at least 12 months. In practice course (d) would be difficult to present to Parliament and the public, particularly if it resulted in the abandonment of space research after a year or so.

But, as we can see, course (d) is what the Government ended up with. Often a lack of any firm decision is worse than any of the decisions that could have been taken. Immediate cancellation would have saved money, pressing on with the project would have produced an end product.

There was no room in the military budget despite Watkinson’s offer. There was little money for anything: the Ministry of Aviation had been given £50,000 for the initial design study for a satellite launcher, and they were told by the Treasury in April 1960 that if they want £250,000 for wider studies then they must apply for it. More realistically, Sir William Downey asked for another £35,000 in May. This is hardly an extravagant budget. In addition, money had to be provided for the ‘tick over’ contracts at the likes of de Havilland and Saunders Roe.

So in May meetings began between RAE, Saunders Roe and Bristol Siddeley to continue the development of the design. Mention was made of an intention to ground launch the upper stages as part of the development programme. Saunders Roe set about the business of designing the second stage in detail and producing a test tank structure. De Havilland began the design of the interstage section, and Bristol Siddeley was keen to press on with the new engine for the third stage.

The RAE took the design very seriously: just as there had been a series of panels for the missile on guidance, propulsion and so on, a series of similar panels were set up for Black Prince. However, in July CGWL wrote a memo decreeing that:

It has been decided that the proposed 3-stage satellite launching vehicle based on Blue Streak, Black Knight, and a third stage, and the subject of current project design studies, shall be known as the BLUE STREAK SATELLITE LAUNCHER.

The names Black Prince and Blue Star, which have been used semi-officially, are not to be used.

But even so, there was continued Government vacillation on the programme. The then Minister of Aviation, Peter Thorneycroft, had visited both Canada and Australia, and, as part of his mission, had attempted to interest both countries in a Commonwealth satellite launcher.

Canada’s reply was that she was already investing enough in space; privately the Canadians told the British that they were spending considerable sums on Alouette, a Canadian satellite to be launched by NASA, and on various sounding rocket programmes. Indeed, they admitted that the total expenditure was far more than publicly acknowledged, and no other commitments were possible. Similarly Australia was not

High Down, the greatest diameter possible would have been 58 inches and Saunders Roe were asked to produce a design for such a stage.

The third stage design is shown in Figure 58, with the PR.38 motor on the right. Some test chambers for the motor were constructed and fired, as can be seen in the photographs10 in Figure 59.

However, the initial performance calculations for Black Prince gave a figure of around 1,750 lb in low Earth orbit. Communications satellites needed to be in a much higher orbit – preferably geosynchronous, although RAE and the Post Office had been interested in 8-hour and 12-hour orbits as alternatives. In addition, Woomera is poorly placed for launching such satellites, with its range restrictions necessary to prevent overflying of populated areas, and also too far south for geosynchronous launches. Estimates of the cost of an equatorial launch site were in the region of £20-30 million. Black Prince’s payload decreased rapidly with altitude and with launch direction: it was estimated that for a 2,500 nm orbit at 40°W of N, the payload was down to 600 lb.

Two stage. Launched 21 June 1960 at 19:35. Apogee 301 miles.

BK09, the second two-stage vehicle, was very successful. Separation of the second stage, initiation of the second stage boost and separation of the head from the second stage boost was satisfactory. The second stage boost ignited at the correct height on the downward trajectory prior to re-entry, and a re-entry velocity of 15,000 ft/second was achieved at 200,000 ft. The tape recorder in the head recorded data during re-entry down to 80,000 ft. Just prior to this an abnormal and completely unexpected increase in head oscillation occurred. The head broke up shortly after this and unfortunately the last inch or so of tape which had passed through the tape head was lost. This corresponded to the period immediately prior to head break-up. The break-up of the head at a low height during re-entry indicated that either the plank construction of the head was unsatisfactory or abnormally high loading was applied during re-entry, maybe resulting from an unstable oscillation.

The attempt to observe the re-entry with the Gaslight system showed that the instruments were not sensitive enough, that a better acquisition system was necessary, and that increased Black Knight performance was needed to raise the level of observables.

BK07

Single stage. Launched 25 July 1960 at 21:24. Apogee 330 miles.

BK07 was a single-stage vehicle with a high drag heat shield head equipped to give data on heat transfer and re-entry dynamics. Extensive instrumentation was put in the motor bay to investigate base heating and pressure distribution. In addition, lightly loaded spring flaps were fitted to the pressure bleed holes in the propulsion bay to check the direction of flow through these holes. Their movement was monitored by telemetry.

Propulsion was satisfactory except that towards the end of the burning phase one of the four motors reverted to ‘cold’ thrusting and this resulted in a reduced re-entry velocity. This motor fault was subsequently attributed to a failure of a kerosene feed pipe.

The head separated from the main body but the additional thrust units in the head, provided to give increased separation, did not operate, nor did the turn over and spin thrust units. However, the head did re-enter nose first, but at a large initial incidence. The recovered head shows that impact was on the nose and that there was no re-entry burning on the afterbody. Head telemetry was extremely good and re-entry data was obtained. Complete dynamic analysis of the re-entry head was possible and head temperatures during re-entry were obtained.

The tracking lamps which were fitted for the first time to this vehicle were seen clearly by the guidance telescope operator and the kinetheodolite operators after engine flame-out until about 200 seconds. The electronic flash unit failed to function.

Some of the most interesting moments in the history of a project may never be recorded on paper, since they happen as a result of casual conversation, or, at least, not in meetings with formal minutes. It is not recorded when it was first suggested to develop Black Knight into a satellite launcher, but judging from the various sketches and proposals that began appearing at the end of the 1950s, the idea took root fairly quickly.

The original Black Knight was not well suited as a satellite launcher. It was simply too small, and could not carry any significant weight in the form of upper stages. Here, for comparison, is some data for Black Knight and various small satellite launchers:

These figures are only approximate, and total impulse is not the only measure of how effective a rocket stage may be, but it gives a good indication. Scout does

not appear to be that powerful, but it was a four stage vehicle, which improved its efficiency as a launcher. Vanguard was not the first American launch vehicle (although it was intended as such); Diamant A was the first French satellite launcher.

Black Knight had originally been designed with the Gamma 201 motor in mind, which had a thrust of only 16,400 lb, limiting its all-up weight to around

14,0 lb. The Gamma 301 had a greater thrust, which meant that in theory Black Knight could now carry more in the way of upper stages. The Gamma motor could have been further uprated to 25,000 lb thrust, but increasing the thrust without increasing the fuel load means reducing the burn time – the total impulse will stay very much the same. The proposed 54-inch Black Knight is getting closer to Vanguard, although with some way to go.

At around this time, RAE were also becoming seriously interested in liquid hydrogen as a fuel. There was considerable experimental work being carried out at RPE, and also the proposed liquid hydrogen third stage for Blue Streak. Black Knight offered a way of building and testing a liquid hydrogen stage, and producing a satellite launcher at the same time. There are various sketches of such vehicles, but most of the work was summarised in a publication from Space Department of RAE entitled ‘The Orbital Capabilities of Black Knight with a Hydrogen-Fuelled Second Stage’ dated April 19631. Four vehicles are studied, with first stage thrusts of 21,600 lb, 25,000 lb, 40,000 lb and 50,000 lb. Version 1 is 36 inches diameter, all the others are 54 inches. It is not made very clear how the thrusts of 40,000 and 50,000lb are to be achieved. Various combinations of upper stage are modelled – a pump-fed or pressure-fed liquid hydrogen second
stage with a solid fuel third stage. Again, what emerges fairly clearly is the inadequacy of Black Knight as a first stage. The most that could be put into orbit using a pump fed second stage is 88 lb, 102 lb, 324 lb and 377 lb respectively. Given that only versions 1 and 2 relate directly to Black Knight, then this is not very impressive.

The conclusions of the report were that:

This study of the possible use of enlarged versions of Black Knight together with a second stage using liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen as propellants indicates that such a vehicle can place a payload of about 80 lb into a circular polar orbit at an altitude of 300 nautical miles. Addition of a third stage using a solid propellant increases the payload to about 375 lb.

The advantages of turbo-pump feed for the second stage engine compared to the use of pressurised tanks is quite clear at the stage sizes considered and the payloads just given are for the turbo-pump version. A pressure-fed version would not be capable even of placing the second stage in orbit and in the three stage version, would substantially reduce the payload.

The results of the trajectory calculations for this class of vehicles show that the second stage thrust should be at least twice the total initial mass of the upper stages and payload. This means that the engine developed for this second stage might well have applications for larger upper stages on other vehicles.

There is, of course, another option: using strap-on boosters. This was not considered in the context of the liquid hydrogen stages, but there is no doubt that it would have improved performance very considerably. On the other hand, the idea of Black Knight with added boosters did arise in an entirely different context – RAE was asked by an official at the Ministry of Aviation in October 1961: ‘What has the RAE done on solid propulsion and what has been done on smaller rockets? (Opinion and any possible objections)’

The context is not entirely clear (the document seems to be the transcript of a telephone call), but Dr Schirrmacher gave a fairly lengthy reply, and part of this reads:

For smaller satellites two solutions are worth mentioning:

Black Knight boosted by two Ravens and carrying a Rook as 2nd stage with a Cuckoo as 3rd stage. One will get 100lb into a 200mile orbit. Present development at Westcott for an improvement of the mass fracture [sic – probably fraction] indicates that the payload could probably be increased by a factor 2 [sic].

It is at the moment not clear whether the Black Knight has to be structurally altered. In this case it is estimated that there are altogether two years of development time with Saunders Roe at £650,000 per year and the probable alteration to the gantry. £1.5M would be a likely sum.2

The ‘two solutions’ mentioned is probably a reference to an RAE report written in January 1961 headed ‘Black Knight as a Satellite Launcher’. It takes as its starting point the 36-inch Black Knight ‘Dazzle’ vehicle, with a thrust of 21,600 lb. It mentions that extra fuel could be carried in the main stage (i. e., Black Knight) but without specifying exactly how much. In true RAE style, the report also tends to the theoretical when it uses solid motors ‘similar to’ the Rook, Raven or Cuckoo. It is also not clear why only two Raven strap-on boosters would be used: using four would be almost as easy and would improve the performance considerably (near the end of the Black Arrow programme, RAE did begin investigating an uprated Black Arrow with four such boosters). The conclusion to the report states: ‘It is clear from these results that, unless exotic fuels are used [a reference to liquid hydrogen], the potentialities of Black Knight as a satellite launcher are very limited.’3

The later 54-inch Black Knight is rather a different, and quite a respectable launcher could be made from it using contemporary solid motors. Such a possibility is explored further in Appendix B.

There was another contender for an all-British small satellite launcher, one with a somewhat curious history. In October 1958, David Andrews of Bristol Siddeley Engines (BSE) produced a brochure for an IRBM fuelled by kerosene and HTP, using four of the large Stentor chambers clustered together in a configuration similar to that of the Gamma 3014. Using HTP rather than liquid oxygen as an oxidant in a missile has very clear and definite advantages, as the HTP can be stored in the vehicle for long periods, and there is no problem with ice etc. As a single stage vehicle, its payload over the 2,000 miles range required was small if not minimal. The brochure does not give any breakdown for the weight of the vehicle, but it does give some very detailed drawings of the engine. On the other hand, lightweight warheads were now a possibility after the negotiations with the US concerning atomic weapons, and, failing that, a small solid or HTP stage could have been added. Two stages had been avoided in the design of Blue Streak owing to lack of experience in staging, but by late 1958 this was hardly a novel technique.

The brochure seems to have produced no official reaction at all, even during the Skybolt crisis when it looked as though Britain might be thrown back onto its own resources. On the other hand, dropping the development of Blue Streak for an entirely new design would have been difficult for many reasons: writing off the work done so far would have been difficult politically, and by then Blue Streak had a strong grip on both industry and the Government. In these circumstances a momentum develops: the new design did not have enough to offer to make the change worthwhile.

The vehicle was a good deal smaller than Blue Streak. The design sketch indicates a diameter of 6 ft and a height rather less than 50 ft – effectively an enlarged Black Knight. This would have made the silo smaller and cheaper. The Stentor motor was already under development for Blue Steel: it might have been quicker and cheaper than finishing the development of the RZ 2. Most important of all, using a non-cryogenic fuel would have increased its credibility immensely. The American Titan II missile, which used storable liquid propellants, and was housed in a silo whose design owed something to the Blue Streak silo design, remained in service until the mid-1980s.

However, it was not to be.

Figure 106. Proposed IRBM design using Andrews did not forget the HTP/kerosene as fuels. idea, however, and later issued

a brochure entitled ‘A Three Stage Satellite Launcher Based on Black Knight and its Technology’5. The brochure is undated, but probably originates from 1962 or 1963. He was an engine designer, and so whilst that part of the brochure is again covered in great detail, there is no General Arrangement drawing, merely an artist’s impression of what the vehicle might look like. A payload of 650 lb to a 300 nautical mile orbit is given, but this is more of an educated guess rather than a figure derived from detailed calculation.

The Bristol Siddeley proposal and the Black Arrow design were costed against each other by RAE with the following breakdown:6

Andrews at Bristol Siddeley had said that his design might cost £10 million, but this was almost certainly a guess rather than a detailed estimate. It rather looks as though the breakdown by RAE is designed to arrive at that figure! On the other hand, a figure of nearly £6 million for the structure and systems for the first stage is absurd. It is a cylinder 6 ft in diameter. The first stage of Black Arrow is a cylinder 2 metres (slightly more) in diameter. Why the Bristol Siddeley first stage should cost 30 times as much as the Black Arrow stage is a mystery.

Then some additional items are thrown in – launch sites, range additions and so on – which brought the grand total thus:

Bristol Siddeley: £11,470,000

Black Arrow: £2,915,000

The costing was done at RAE, and Black Arrow was the design produced by Saunders Roe in collaboration with RAE. If BSE were to have seen these figures, they might have had legitimate grounds for complaint!

Plans for enlarging Black Knight had been under consideration for some time. The liquid hydrogen proposals had sketched out vehicles with larger thrust, but without any detailed plans for how this might be done. During 1962, Saunders

Roe turned their attention to a variety of configurations for six and eight chamber motors. The six chamber arrangement was awkward; an eight chamber version was both more logical and more powerful. The next question was how the chambers should be arranged. One possibility was to have four fixed chambers and four swivelling, but control of the vehicle became more difficult. The question was whether the existing arrangement in the Gamma 301 was powerful enough to swivel two chambers rather than one, and tests showed that it was. The motor bay size had not been fixed, and Saunders Roe gave different configurations with diameters of 57.5 inches, 63 inches and 64 inches. In the end, other considerations fixed the size of the bay, as we shall see.

Arrangement drawing in imperial units – pounds, ft, inches, except one. The diameter of the first stage is 2.0 metres. There is an odd rationale behind this.

Europa 1, the ELDO vehicle, was a combination of Blue Streak plus the French and German upper stages. The French stage, Coralie, had a diameter of

2.0 metres, and so the first stage of Black Arrow was given this diameter as well, so that there was still the possibility of mating Black Arrow to the pre-existing interstage adapter if the opportunity arose – effectively a new version of Black Prince.8 Sadly, the occasion never did arise.

The first stage consisted of engine bay, HTP tank, intertank bay for electronics, kerosene tank and the interstage separation bay. There would be some weight saving if the two tanks shared the same bulkhead, but the decision was taken to separate them to prevent problems if one tank leaked into the other. The HTP tank but not the kerosene tank was pressurised with nitrogen from bottles in the intertank section.

The first stage engine bay had the eight rocket chambers arranged in four pairs of two. Each of the pairs was mounted radially, and were gimballed for vehicle control. Two turbopumps were used to feed the engines. The tanks contained 28,700 lb of propellants, which were consumed in 130 seconds giving a thrust of 50,000 lb at sea level. There was a mixture ratio control keeping the HTP to kerosene ratio to 8.2 : 1.

The separation sequence began as the first stage engines ran short of HTP, and soon after the first stage acceleration fell below 3 g, eight explosive bolts were to blow the two stages apart. At the same time four Siskin solid fuel rockets ignited on the second stage – at that point it would be in free fall, and so the propellants would be literally floating in their tanks. The motors provided the force needed to settle the propellants in their tanks (these are sometimes referred to as ‘ullage rockets’). HTP to start the second stage ignition was held in bottles in the interstage section, being forced in under the pressure of nitrogen gas. When the Siskin boosters had burned out, eight more explosive bolts blow off the interstage section.

The second stage used rocket motors which were almost identical to those in the first stage, except that they had extended expansion nozzles for high altitude operation, where there was a much lower external pressure, and there were, of course, only two motors instead of eight. They consumed 6,725 lb of propellant in 125 seconds for a thrust of 15,300 lb. The engines were fully gimballed for control. There was a fuel ratio control system as in the first stage, and, like the first stage, it shut down when the HTP was exhausted. Both tanks were pressurised with nitrogen.

The second stage diameter of 54 inches was a hangover from the 54-inch Black Knight: ‘the second stage, of 54” diameter, is derived from the vehicle being developed for the defence penetration programme’.9

So the second stage had the motor bay, the HTP tank, an intertank bay, the kerosene tank and the separation bay. The electronics were contained in the sealed intertank bay, and included the flight sequence programmer, the attitude reference unit, telemetry, the tracking beacon, the command destruct receivers, the control system servo amplifiers and power supplies.

After the second stage had exhausted its propellants and cut out, it separated, and the third stage plus payload would coast for around 300 seconds towards the apogee of the transfer orbit ellipse. During this time the vehicle would be stabilised by a nitrogen gas attitude control system. Then six solid fuel motors were fired to spin-stabilise the third stage and satellite to around 20 radians per second or about 200 rpm. Five seconds later the third stage and satellite were released.

The vehicle’s third stage was a specially designed solid propellant motor called Waxwing, with 695 lb of propellant, burning for around 55 seconds and producing an average thrust of 3,500 lb. The motor was very efficient, having a ratio of fuel/total mass close to 0.9. The satellite separated from the empty casing of the Waxwing 120 seconds after its ignition by firing gas-generating cartridges. (It turned out that not even this was a sufficient time: it is thought that some residual thrust from the Waxwing caused it to collide with Prospero after it had separated.) This meant three separate objects were put into orbit: the empty motor casing of mass 77 lb, the motor/payload separation bay of mass 31 lb, and the satellite itself.

The Waxwing was sometimes referred to as an apogee motor since it was not ignited until it was near the top of the sub orbital trajectory provided by the first two stages. At this point the third stage and payload would have fallen back to Earth, but the Waxwing gave sufficient extra velocity to put into the payload and itself into a near circular orbit.

The payload shroud or nose cone was made of magnesium alloy. Designed in two parts, it had an overall length of 11 ft 6 inches and a maximum diameter of 54 inches with a mass of 150 lb. Attached to the second stage, it was jettisoned 185 seconds into the flight, during the second stage burn.

When designing small satellite launchers, it is important to get the design right first time. The payload of Black Arrow was only 132 lb from a total lift-off weight of 40,000 lb. If the vehicle has to be redesigned or modified for whatever reason, and ends up not very much heavier (132 lb on the third stage obviously reduces the payload to zero, but there is more latitude on the lower stages), then the payload becomes zero! 132 lb is only 0.33% of the total vehicle weight. Losing 132 lb from a payload of a ton or more has a lot less impact.

The design having been finalised, the project was put to the Cabinet by Julian Amery, then Minister of Aviation. Again, there was Treasury resistance. A compromise was eventually reached whereby Black Arrow could only go ahead if Crusade and the 54-inch Black Knight were cancelled, with a saving of £4.8 million,10 and Black Arrow was chosen in preference to further re-entry studies.11 In addition, Westland Aerospace, who had taken over Saunders Roe, and Bristol Siddeley, who were to build the new engine, offered to pay a substantial sum, £1 million, towards the development costs. Not surprisingly, Amery greeted this offer with delight. A letter from Westland in February 1965 noted: ‘We expect you to make Management arrangements comparable with the excellent ones you have achieved on the present Black Knight programme. This has been RAE based.’12

However, in retrospect it seems odd that the two projects should conflict: the first stage of Black Arrow would have suited Crusade well. This, however, needs to be seen within the context of British deterrent. By 1964, the UK was committed to the Polaris programme, and Polaris in its original form was considered too small for an extensive system of decoys, and so the later Chevaline system sacrificed one of the three warheads to carry the decoys. When the idea of flight trials for the Chevaline system was considered, Black Arrow was deemed too expensive for the purpose.

The decision to go ahead with Black Arrow was taken in the last days of the Douglas Home Government, and this was to have serious consequences for the project. The incoming Labour Government, not surprisingly, wanted to review many of the major military and technical aerospace projects, and Black Arrow was put on hold. For a Government whose leader won an election with speeches about ‘the white heat of the technological revolution’, the attitude to technology was ambivalent. To put Frank Cousins, a trade union leader with few apparent qualifications for the position, as Minister of Technology was a breath-taking piece of political cynicism on Harold Wilson’s part. To be fair, part of Wilson’s policy was to reduce the number of highly skilled or qualified people working on these projects, so that they could become available for civil work, helping the export drive and so on.

The Treasury got their chance to oppose Black Arrow once again when they prepared a brief for the incoming Chancellor, Jim Callaghan. The brief would have been one of many prepared for him, and this one concerned the space programme and ELDO. (A full version of the brief can be found in Appendix A. It is a very good summary of the Treasury’s position throughout the 1950s and 1960s.) The paragraph on Black Arrow reads as follows:

Apart from some effort within Ministry of Aviation establishments, and a limited amount of research by industry (at government expense) into the basic technology of building satellites, the principal commitment of the UK ‘national civil space programme’ is the development [handwritten: ‘at an estimated cost of £10m.’] of the small satellite launcher based on the military research rocket Black Knight. The decision to go ahead with this development was taken at the beginning of September by the late government. It was justified [handwritten: ‘by the protagonists’] on the grounds that, if Britain is to go in with Europe in collaborative launcher and satellite
development programmes, it was necessary for Britain to have her own ‘research tool’ which would provide her with the necessary technological know-how and an opportunity to test in flight bits of the communications satellites which she will be contributing to the European programme. But no decision has yet been taken on whether the UK should in fact participate in any further European launcher or communications satellite programmes-as stated above, the Treasury would be opposed since to such participation. Until the decisions on this have been taken, it is in the Treasury’s view wholly premature to embark on the development of the United Kingdom small satellite launcher. We recommend therefore that until Ministers have had the opportunity to consider collectively the future course of UK space policy, no work should proceed on a small satellite launcher, and that the project should be regarded as in abeyance. If the Chancellor agrees, we will submit a draft minute for him to send to those of his colleagues who are concerned with these

13

matters.

Figure 113. One of the two Black Knight gantries was rebuilt for Black Arrow. In the distance is the equipment centre, from where the launches were controlled.

To be fair to the Treasury, there was an economic crisis at the time (when is there not?), and Wilson had made great play with the trade deficit in the election campaign – something which rather backfired on him, as it put sterling under further pressure (those were the days of fixed currency rates, with the pound being worth $2.80).

The firms that were to be involved in Black Arrow, Saunders Roe (who were now part of Westland) and Bristol Siddeley Engines, were given three monthly holding contracts merely to keep the project ticking over. The bigger problem was that as Black Knight wound down, then the teams of engineers and designs involved would disperse unless there was something to keep them usefully employed – which a holding contract did not really do. The offer the two firms had made to contribute towards the development costs faded away as the delays dragged out, and whilst more and more defence work was being cancelled.

Review after review took place14, and each time the project was opposed by the Treasury, which did make some valid points. These points were tied up with general British space policy, which was in a muddle. The new Government wished to withdraw from ELDO but to do so with the least political damage. In particular, they were worried not to give any impression of lack of enthusiasm for joint European projects, and so withdrawal from ELDO at the same time as approving Black Arrow was felt to be giving the wrong signals. On the other hand, if Britain did withdraw from ELDO, Black Arrow could be used to counter arguments that Britain was withdrawing from space research altogether. As usual with such contrary policies, inertia ruled.

There were economic reviews too, to determine whether Black Arrow would be ‘profitable’ or not. It is surprising that no one made the analogy with the likes of the Gloster Whittle aircraft: that was certainly not profitable, yet without it, or other test vehicles like it, there would be no jumbo jets. Was the Wright Brothers’ aircraft ‘profitable’? And the papers are not helped by the jargon used by the economists: one phrase to be found in the papers is ‘exogenous stochastic error’ when talking of the development costs of the vehicle, which in the context appears to refer to unpredicted cost overruns with external origins – in other words, it might end up costing more. The reviews also involved RAE in a good deal of work, having to put forward justifications (usually the same ones) for the vehicle almost every few months.

The arguments for Black Arrow were that it gave British scientists experience in space research at minimal cost, to which the Treasury reply was why did the scientists need such experience? The scope for research satellites was felt by the Treasury to be negligible, Black Arrow was far too small to be of any use in launching communications satellites, and there seemed to be few other uses which would benefit the UK. In many ways the Treasury was right, but the project was fought for by the Ministry of Aviation since it was seen as the last chance for British rocketry: if Black Arrow did not go ahead, the British space effort, or at least rocketry effort, would die.

The Treasury’s attitude to the project was summed up in a letter from FR Barratt in Treasury Chambers to Walter Abson at the Ministry of Aviation in April 1965:

It is claimed that the launcher would be of value in giving UK scientists and technicians experience of injecting satellites into orbit and controlling them, and would also enable us to test satellites and components in an actual space environment. But why should we in fact wish to give UK scientists and technicians this experience? What satellites is the UK going to be putting up? And for what reasons? No decision has yet been taken in regard to a programme of communication satellite and development. Ministers have not yet even been invited to consider the possibility of such a programme. Nor has any military requirement for a UK satellite launching capability been stated. The indications are that no such requirement will arise.

It is suggested that possession of a small satellite launcher will enable us the better ‘to compete for contracts for space projects’. I must remind you that the Working Party… concluded that export prospects in the space field were relatively quite small… It might be as well if you were to specify what contracts we are more likely to get if we have a small satellite launcher. I should myself be very surprised if there was anything significant. If there isn’t, I suggest that you would do better to drop this particular argument.

… I do not myself understand how the development of a small launcher on the basis of ‘proven techniques’ will have much relevance to ELDO activities on, say, high energy upper stages. Doubtless you can explain this. In any event, however, Ministers have yet to reach a final decision on UK policy towards ELDO: it is possible, to say the least, that they will ultimately take the view that we should aim to withdraw from ELDO activities. It is also possible that the attitude taken by the Italians and others at the recent ELDO conference will lead before long to the collapse of the organisation. It cannot therefore be assumed at this stage either that ELDO will continue to exist or that, if it does, the UK will continue to participate in it, or will wish to influence its activities.15

Apart from anything else, this is a marvellous example of the Civil Service at work. The sentence ‘Ministers have not yet even been invited to consider the possibility of such a programme’ tends to suggest how much policy was actually made by the senior civil servants rather than by ministers, and there is also a slight implicit suggestion that options are put up to Ministers to be rubber stamped. And then there is the put down in the third paragraph: ‘Doubtless you can explain this.’

It is also worth noting the attitude to ELDO. But, more importantly, this is a very neat summary of the official attitude to most of these projects. When the Ministry of Technology again tried to get Cabinet approval in 1966, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Jim Callaghan, wrote a three page letter of protest reminiscent of those written by Selwyn Lloyd on Blue Streak. Again, the project had to be referred back for further economic studies before it was resubmitted to Cabinet. And the idea of economic reviews, cost benefit analysis, and the like was a new phenomenon. In the 1950s, projects were given a go-ahead mainly on their technical merit. Now the economists were creeping in. This is not intended to be an entirely pejorative comment. The costings of a good number of earlier projects had been completely unrealistic, and a sharper eye on estimates would be welcome. But that is not what the economists were looking at. How do you try to estimate an economic return from basic research? But it was probably the earlier gross under-estimates of earlier projects that made the Treasury so sceptical.

In addition, there were even those in the Space Department at Farnborough who felt that a satellite launcher took up too much of the space budget, to the detriment of other projects. Others in the Ministry of Defence felt that the offer of free launches from the Americans should be used instead, or, even if they did have to pay for them, then it was still cheaper than developing a British launcher. Needless to say, once Britain’s last vehicle was cancelled, the offer of free launches evaporated with it.

There were further financial problems: the Ministry of Defence wanted nothing to do with the funding of the programme. This meant that there might have been potential problems with the use of Woomera, as Black Arrow was, strictly speaking, a civilian programme, and so did not fall under the Joint Agreement between Britain and Australia. And indeed at this time the future of Woomera was being reconsidered – ELDO was moving to South America and thus there would be no more Blue Streak launches, and the number of new missiles under test was shrinking fast. Thoughts turned to alternative Black Arrow launch sites. Barbados was high on the list, but the RAE also looked at launch sites in the UK

Britain is not well situated geographically for satellite launching (but neither was Woomera). Payloads can be boosted by firing the rocket in the same direction of the spin of the Earth: eastwards. But this would mean that the spent rocket stages would fall on Europe, and, not surprisingly, people in Europe might object to this. The only clear path would involve launches almost due north, into polar orbit, and for this, two sites were considered. One was the existing rocket test site on the islands of North and South Uist in the Hebrides; the other was on
the north coast of Norfolk in the region of Brancaster. South Uist was ruled out on grounds both of accessibility and of infrastructure – indeed, it was considered by the Ministry of Aviation to be less accessible than Woomera. Certainly the weather in the Outer Hebrides would have posed a problem. The planned flight paths are shown in Figure 114. The first stage impact points are shown, and the second stage would impact close to the North Pole, north of the 85° parallel.

A team went from RAE to look at the area, and concluded:

No particular site has been

chosen at this time. There Figure 114. The flight path of Black Arrow launched are several areas north of from Norfolk the coastal road which

appear adequate. Ideally a suitable site would be within about five miles of a disused airfield or W. D.-owned site with existing roads and buildings. All that would be required in these circumstances would be the construction of a launch site on the coast line and all the other operations could be conducted at the other site, the two being linked together by microwave and hard wire links.16

A further memo in October 1966 noted that:

For Black Arrow, a site in East Anglia for polar launching has been studied in considerable detail by Space Department, RAE, and found to be technically very attractive. Their itemised estimate for equipment gives a figure of around £1M, to which must be added the complementary civil engineering costs to cover installation and general services. These latter costs are very dependent on the site chosen and at a first broad estimate might amount to as much as £2M, making a grand total of perhaps £3M; a considerable reduction should be available if a suitable disused camp
or airfield became available. Such a site would supersede Highdown for vehicle check-out and static firing purposes, and would have the simplest (and cheapest) supply and maintenance problems.

Polar launching of Black Arrow from N. Uist appears quite feasible, but such a site would not supersede Highdown, and would have substantial technical and logistical disadvantages compared with East Anglia; clearly the remoteness of the area would increase considerably installation, operation and maintenance costs.

The Norfolk launch site looked quite promising until someone realised that the North Sea was beginning to fill up with oil rigs. A chart was rapidly fetched from the Ministry of Power:

…discussions have been held with the Ministry of Power, and a chart obtained showing the position of existing and proposed oil rigs. Although it would be possible to show statistically that the chances of hitting an oil rig would be acceptably low, it seems probable that political considerations would inhibit the establishment of a launch site in Norfolk.

The chances of a spent first stage falling on an oil rig were minute, but given the consequences if one did, the proposal was dropped. The other launch sites being considered were outside the UK (although it is slightly surprising that the Lossiemouth/Inverness area was not considered) and were too expensive to set up. It was back to Woomera.

[Handwritten on the top of the document: ‘This is one of the background of briefs prepared for new ministers in October 1964. ’]

Recommendation.

Some big decisions will be needed very soon about UK space policy. There is to be a meeting of the ELDO Council around the end of the year (it was fixed for mid-December but is now likely to be deferred), at which the UK will be expected to show its hand. All this will be submitted to the Cabinet in due course. In the meantime there is an urgent need to put into cold storage a project authorised at the beginning of September by the last government-namely the development of a small satellite launcher based on Black Knight.

The four aspects of space.

2. The problems of UK space policy fall under four heads:

(i) The scientific space research programme.

(ii) UK participation in European efforts on launchers and communications satellites.

(iii) Military space.

(iv) The so-called “national programme”

To take each of these in turn:

The scientific research programme.

3. This is the programme of scientific investigation into what happens in space: expenditure on it is financed from the so-called “space research budget”, the level of which is now £3*4 m a year and is expected to rise to £6m towards the end of the decade. The biggest single item in this is the UK contribution to the European Space Research Organisation (ESRO) and the development of the UK 3 space research satellite (to be put up by an American launcher). The Treasury is not at this time pressing for the termination of this programme, taken as a whole, or our withdrawal from ESRO.

The European effort on launchers and communications satellites.

4. The UK is a member of ELDO (along with France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Austria). The ELDO launcher to be developed in accordance with the Lancaster House agreement of 1961 will consist of a UK first stage (the old Blue Streak), a French second stage and a German third stage. The whole launcher was originally estimated to cost £70m. It is now estimated at least £90 m. (of which the UK pay about 40 per cent) and will almost certainly rise further. For all this money (now around £6m a year on the Ministry of Aviation vote) we will get a launcher which is likely to have little, if any, practical use. What has gone wrong, we understand, is that the engineering of the launcher has not been up to the standard of the original design (which was largely cribbed from the US anyway). This means that the ELDO launcher when it is ready to be fired (probably in 1967/68) will not be powerful enough to put a satellite of any size in to a high orbit. Since communication satellites tend to be big and to operate most satisfactorily in high orbits, the launcher as developed under the initial ELDO programme ELDO-A) will not be able to be used to put communications satellites into orbit. (Whether ELDO-A could have any other, not communications, uses is quite uncertain.)

5. A proposal has therefore now been canvassed (it will be put before the meeting of the ELDO council around the end of the year) to develop an apogee motor (a device to give a satellite an extra “kick” into orbit) so as to enable the launcher to put communications satellites into high orbit. The cost of this is estimated at up to £20m (our share, say, £7m). Beyond this the clouds of very much larger projects are already looming. The first such project would be the development of the so-called ELDO-B launcher; this would involve the introduction of liquid hydrogen propellant for the upper stages of the launcher, and development might start around the end of 1965. The cost of this might be of the order of £50-100m. (UK share say around £20-40m.). This could be followed – towards the end of the decade – by ELDO-C, which would be a completely new launcher using liquid hydrogen as a propellant and the cost of which can only be guessed at now (£100-200m.).

6. There is also the prospect of a collaborative European effort on developing and constructing communications satellites to be sold to the world communications organisation – if that organisation will buy them – and the question of whether the UK should participate in this programme will arise.

7. By the beginning of the 1970s, we could be spending up to £30-40m. a year on all these “European” activities, and on the associated “national programme” referred to below. We should have established a big new growing point, both the public expenditure and for the use of fallible human resources (scientists and technologists).

8. The Treasury view is: –

(i) This is not expenditure which we are likely to be able to afford or which has any prospect of bringing us a commensurate economic return.

(ii) We should therefore contract out of all these activities; if Europeans wished to go ahead wasting money on space, that is their affair.

(iii) The crucial decision in our view is on the apogee motor; if we go on with this – the first addition to the initial ELDO programme – we shall find that our room for manoeuvre at later stages will be drastically reduced. At every stage it will be argued-as it was argued when was first set up – that, although large sums and money had been admittedly spent to no purpose in the past, all will be well if we will only spend some more. What is needed in the Treasury view is the decision to go no further in the construction of launchers and communications satellites. But there are political, and perhaps also defence, implications which Ministers have to consider in due course.

Military space.

9. There are some big unresolved questions here. The military are hankering after a defence satellite communications system. The Treasury believe that this is likely to be a great deal more expensive than can be afforded out of a tolerable defence budget, and that, if we were in fact to maintain our military posture east of Suez at all, the military will have to do make do with some relatively inexpensive improvements to the existing means of communication with Singapore etc. But the issues here have not yet been fully explored. At the moment the military are contemplating two possible alternative lines of approach – one to go in with the US on the joint defence satellite communications system which the Americans are likely to set up; and the other to construct some limited defence satellite communication capability of our own. The former course would not be cheap, but the latter would almost certainly be fearfully expensive.

The so-called “national space programme”.

10. Apart from some effort within Ministry of Aviation establishments, and a limited amount of research by industry (at government expense) into the basic technology of building satellites, the principal commitment of the UK “national civil space programme” is the development [handwritten: ‘at an estimated cost of £10m.’] of the small satellite launcher based on the military research rocket Black Knight. The decision to go ahead with this development was taken at the beginning of September by the late government. It was justified [handwritten: ‘by the protagonists’] on the grounds that, if Britain is to go in with Europe in collaborative launcher and satellite development programmes, it was necessary for Britain to have her own “research tool” which would provide her with the necessary technological know-how and an opportunity to test in flight bits of the communications satellites which she will be contributing to the European programme. But no decision has yet been taken on whether the UK should in fact participate in any further European launcher or communications satellite programmes – as stated above, the Treasury would be opposed since to such participation. Until the decisions on this have been taken, it is in the Treasury’s view wholly premature to embark on the development of the United Kingdom small satellite launcher. We recommend therefore that until Ministers have had the opportunity to consider collectively the future course of UK space policy, no work should proceed on a small satellite launcher, and that the project should be regarded as in abeyance. If the Chancellor agrees, we will submit a draft minute for him to send to those of his colleagues who are concerned with these matters.

(F. A. Barrett) 19th October 1964

[From TNA: PRO T 225/2765. Ministry of Aviation space programme: future policy.]

This page intentionally left blank

The strongest political personality that looms out of this story is Duncan Sandys, who made an early reputation for himself during the Second World War in the context of German guided weapons. He was an effective if abrasive Minister, being Minister of Supply in the early 1950s, then Minister of Housing and Local Government. In that context he was also responsible for setting up the Civic Trust. In 1957 he was appointed Minister of Defence by Macmillan, and was arguably the first to get a grip on the Ministry with its divergent Service interests. Before Sandys there had been a rapid turnover of Ministers, who did not have time to stamp their authority on their Ministry. Certainly, he retains a considerable notoriety among aircraft buffs for the 1957 Defence White Paper, with its unspoken ‘no more manned aircraft’ philosophy. Given the speed of the White Paper, he was probably implementing policy that had been already laid out by others, principally Sir Frederick Brundrett, Chief Government Scientist at the Ministry, and also Chairman of the influential DRPC. A further motive behind Sandys’ appointment was to cut the cost of defence in general, and he was not a man to be easily deflected from his objectives. Certainly, he reduced defence expenditure to 7% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) at which level it broadly remained for many years. Part of the increased dependence on nuclear weapons was to cut the cost of conventional defence.

Sandys started the ball rolling for Blue Streak whilst Minister of Supply, and he remained a vigorous proponent whilst at Defence. At the end of 1959, he was moved to a new Ministry, Aviation, which took over many of the functions of Supply. It has been asserted that Macmillan appointed him to this post to start the rationalisation of the aircraft industry. It also cleared the way for a new Minister of Defence, Harold Watkinson, to cancel Blue Streak. Watkinson’s ministerial career was relatively short. It is quite likely that the fallout from the cancellation led to Sandys’ sideways move to Colonial Secretary, although this too was a post that would require a man not afraid to take unpopular decisions. As Aviation Minister he was succeeded by Peter Thorneycroft, who had previously resigned from the Macmillan Government as Chancellor over the level of government spending, and it was Thorneycroft who began the Anglo-French talks which later led to ELDO. Thorneycroft later became Minister of Defence.

The Wilson Government, despite its rhetoric of the ‘white heat of technological revolution’ cannot be seen as a government that pushed British technology. Beset by economic problems, research and development (R & D) is an easy target for politicians looking for economies. Few in his Government were scientists or technologists: to make Frank Cousins, a trade union boss of the old school, Minister of Technology was no doubt politically astute, but can be seen as typical of the political cynicism with which Wilson operated. He was succeeded as Minister of Technology by Tony Benn, who seems to have had enthusiasm for but not a great deal of understanding of modern technology.

Crossman, another important Minister of the Wilson Government, writing in his diaries, bemoans time spent in cabinet discussing Black Arrow. Technology had no appeal for him either. But how was Britain going to survive in the latter part of the twentieth century without exploiting advanced technology?

The Wilson Government from 1964 onwards brought a number of economists in to evaluate programmes on a cost-benefit analysis basis (Wilson himself had been an economics don at Oxford). The problem was that research programmes were analysed for their economic benefits, and this is a difficult if not impossible task. One of the points of starting research programmes is that their outcome is not always predictable, since the object of research is to look at matters that are uncertain or unknown.

Surprisingly, the greatest number of files on Blue Streak in the Public Record Office relate to the Foreign Office. This is as a consequence of the attempt to convert Blue Streak into a European satellite launcher. Hence it is not surprising that the Foreign Office were firm advocates of the project irrespective of any technical or economic merit.

The US comes into the picture indirectly, since, with its vastly greater resources, it had covered most of the ground in space and rocket technology before the UK. The warheads that would equip Blue Steel and would have equipped Blue Streak were of American origin, as was a good deal of the technology that went into Blue Streak. Competing with the US in space research or satellite launching was also often thought by those in Government to be pointless, given the progress that had been made in America and the resources available to the American Government. The closeness of the US and UK defence, intelligence and research establishments also often meant that the UK concentrated on certain rather narrow areas (for example, re-entry research) so as to have useful information to trade with the US. (The US would never give information away for nothing, but it would exchange information on a fairly generous basis.)

The SR53 was a relatively small aircraft, only weighing 7,400 lb empty, but 18,400 lb fully fuelled. It was an extremely elegant aircraft, its only drawback in looks being a slightly tubbiness in the fuselage as a consequence of the large amount of fuel that needed to be carried. The wing span without missiles was 25 ft 1 inch, and it was 45 ft long.

The P177

This project grew from the realisation of the limitations of the SR53. It would have been a larger aircraft, with a much more powerful jet engine: the balance of jet and rocket would be almost equal. In addition to the de Havilland Spectre motor, capable of 8,000 lb thrust, it would also have a de Havilland Gyron Junior turbojet, also of 8,000 lb thrust. In addition, it was given a limited Air Interception capability, which extended the range of weather conditions and night time operations. Coincidentally, the Navy was looking for a high-flying supersonic interceptor at the same time, and both Services, rather unusually, concluded that the same aircraft would suit them both. Proposals were sent to the Ministry of Supply in March 1954 and a design contract was placed with the company in May 1955. With remarkably little fuss, development of the P177 began in autumn 1955, and work proceeded steadily throughout 1956.

A memorandum by the First Lord of the Admiralty in April 1956 set out the Navy’s case for the aircraft5:

The P.177 is a single seat high altitude fighter capable of operating at a sustained speed of M = 1.4 in the 40,000 to 60,000 ft height band; its ceiling will be in the region of 75,000 ft and it will be capable of reaching M = 2 for short periods. It will be armed with 2 Blue Jay Mark 3 air to air Guided Missiles, with unguided rockets as an alternative armament. It will be equipped with AI [AI = airborne interception] and will have a limited capacity for night operations…

The P.177 was selected by the Naval Staff because:-

(i) It is one of the very few British aircraft likely to be better than anything American when it comes into service.

(ii) It is the only aircraft required by both the Navy and the RAF.

(iii) Its engine, radar and weapons are already being developed for other air-craft, so that the development costs should be comparatively low.

(iv) It is smaller and cheaper than the N.113 [Supermarine Scimitar] and its early substitution for that aircraft will save production expenditure.

However, two factors now intervened to threaten the project. One was a change in defence policy with regard to manned aircraft, and the second was a need to reduce the UK’s defence spending. With the arrival of Duncan Sandys at the Ministry of Defence, and the resultant 1957 Defence White paper, the RAF version was cancelled forthwith. As the White Paper put it:

Work will proceed on the development of a ground-to-air missile defence system, which will in due course replace the manned aircraft of Fighter Command. In view of the good progress already made, the Government have come to the conclusion that the R. A.F are unlikely to have a requirement for fighter aircraft types more advanced than the supersonic P1, and work on such projects will stop.

Given the extent to which the RAF was threatened, the P177 was relatively small fry, and the P1 interceptor, or Lightning as it became known in service, gave many years of service in a very similar role.

However, the Navy was still very insistent that they needed the P177, and at the same time, Aubrey Jones, who was Minister of Supply, wanted to keep the project going since there was some German interest in the aircraft. A prolonged Whitehall battle then ensued. Sandys told the Navy quite firmly that the aircraft, irrespective of merit or the Navy’s need, could not be afforded. In the same way he told Jones that if the Ministry of Supply wanted to keep the project under way then it would have to go on his budget, not Sandys’.

All this wrangling cannot have helped the progress at Saunders Roe, or the prospect of trying to sell it to the German Air Force. After all, if the RAF version had been cancelled and then the Naval version, this cannot have inspired confidence in the project. In addition, not everyone wanted to sell it to the Germans. Sir Frederick Brundrett, Chief Scientist at the Ministry of Aviation is on record as saying that the German requirement.

.. .was for a high-altitude quick climbing defensive weapon. There was no doubt that they would be best satisfied with a guided weapon and in his view the right course was to interest them in our own Stage 1 and Stage 1 and a half guided weapon developments rather than the P.177.

The Germans did not share his view, however, and in December 1957 the project was finally cancelled.

Would the P177 have lived up to expectations? There is a strong probability it would have done: its smaller sibling, the SR53, did all that was expected of it. The RAF was left with the Lightning, the Navy with nothing. It could be argued that the P177 would have been too specialised for the Navy: it would not have been able to maintain a continuous Combat Air Patrol as its endurance was too limited, although it was intended to fit a probe for air-to-air refuelling. But that was not its function: it was intended to by-pass the patrolling function by its ability to reach high fast targets quickly. The concept was never put to the test, but by the late 1950s it was becoming obvious that jets such as the Lightning with re-heat on the engines could do the job as effectively as rockets.

The Lightning, however, went on to prove its usefulness against the Soviet aircraft that during the 1960s and 1970s attempted to probe British airspace. A manned aircraft does have some advantages over missiles, as the Falklands demonstrated. In reality, both are needed since they are complementary.

The Germans went on to buy Lockheed F-104 Starfighters, as did many other NATO countries. Saunders Roe was a minnow by comparison with Lockheed, and whether as many P177s would have fallen out of the sky as F-104s is also an interesting question. But the most fascinating image is of the P177 in Luftwaffe colours!

The P177 was a good deal less elegant in appearance than the SR53, the rather bulbous fuselage and pointed nose above the air intake detracting from its appearance. It was twice the weight at 14,500 lb empty, and 28,000 lb at extended load. The span was 27 ft, and it was 50 ft 6 inches long. It was within about six months of its first flight6 when the project finally cancelled in December 1957.

A history of the SR53 and P177 projects written by the Air Ministry can be found in Appendix A. [2]

One way round this limitation was to use a high energy upper stage, and so at the same meeting in December 1960 Saunders Roe were asked to consider a liquid hydrogen third stage with 4,500 lb of propellants. The brochure they produced was up to their usual high standard, laying down the problems clearly, and describing the solutions equally clearly. This design and that of RPE has been described in the chapter on rocket motors, so no more about the designs themselves need be said here. The cost of developing a liquid hydrogen stage for the BSSLV was put at between £5.5 million and £7 million.

Saunders Roe did hedge their bets somewhat at the instigation of RAE: the design might have been tailored to the BSSLV, but it was also drawn up with the possibility of mounting it on the French second stage which was now being negotiated. The prolonged European negotiations were slowly getting somewhere, although it would take many more months before any clear shape would emerge. At a meeting in March 1961 at Cowes, the RAE had to tell Saunders Roe that it had now been definitely decided that the second stage would be of French design. Saunders Roe and Bristol Siddeley were to continue with the design for the third stage, with particular emphasis on liquid hydrogen. At the same meeting, Saunders Roe reported that manufacture of the second stage tank structural test specimen was about 25% complete. Although it might seem that the work on the HTP second stage had been wasted, it carried through first to the 54-inch Black Knight and then to the second stage of Black Arrow.

In a further Design Study Progress meeting in July, the chairman noted that the situation was very vague (which, given the ELDO negotiations, was probably an understatement). He hoped that Saunders Roe would play a part in any future design studies and that they would continue to maintain a design study team. At the same meeting, Saunders Roe presented a brochure for the HTP/kerosene third stage, which would involve both high thrust and low thrust stages; a 2V hour period of low thrust was mentioned, and in addition, there was a further report on their liquid hydrogen stage. But this is effectively where work on Black Prince, or BBSLV, comes to a halt. Instead, attention turned to ELDO and Europa.

It might be thought that the creation of ELDO would have finally put the lid on any further thoughts of a BSSLV, but RAE was still doing its best to resurrect the idea. Throughout 1963 and 1964, meetings were being held between RAE and Saunders Roe on ‘medium energy upper stages’. This is a euphemism for HTP stages. In a meeting in June 1963, the chairman of the Working Party, H. G.R. Robinson of RAE, stated that ‘a study of upper stages for Blue Streak were needed as a back-up of the system studies for the E. L.D. O. launching vehicle, in case the latter was not available, or unsuitable’10.

The RAE was considering designs for circular equatorial orbits of either 13,740 km or 36,060 km height – i. e. 12-hour or 24-hour orbits. This would need an apogee motor for a final stage. In a follow up meeting, Saunders Roe were told that they would be given design contracts for ‘An Investigation on British End Stages in combination with the Blue Streak Launcher Vehicle’, and ‘in view of possible ELDO
involvement, RAE recommended that the proposed body diameter be 2 metres (i. e. 6.5 ft.)’11. Although Saunders Roe duly undertook the design studies as requested, they never went past the paper stage. On the other hand, the link to what would become Black Arrow becomes more obvious.

During 1963 and 1964, the design for what would become Black Arrow was evolving. Amongst all the imperial measurements of feet, inches and pounds is a first stage diameter of 2.0 m! This mixing of units not only seems odd but also would seem to have no connection with Blue Streak. However, the ELDO vehicle was being designed with a French second stage, which was also to be of

2.0 m diameter. The idea was then that if the Blue Streak interstage were to be suitable for the French vehicle, it would also be suitable for Black Arrow. In the event, there was a problem, since the Blue Streak side of the interface was much wider; the French stage was to have a skirt that would mate with the lower stage. So this odd metric feature was included in case, as seemed possible in 1963, ELDO did not go ahead, or, for whatever reason, was not a success.

Figure 60 shows a comparison between Blue Streak with Black Arrow mounted on top and Europa. The 54-inch diameter of the payload shrouds may have been a problem for a conventional satellite, although not for a communications satellite, where the payload might be quite small. The other problem was that Blue Streak might have been struggling to lift the 40,000 lb weight of Black Arrow.

But the design for Europa did materialise, and it might then be thought that all further suggestions for a solely British launcher might have died forever. However, there was one enthusiast for space exploration in the House of Commons, the Conservative MP Neil Marten, who asked a Question in the House about the possibilities of the Blue Streak/Black Knight combination. This might well have been a put up job, but it gave RAE the excuse to work the figures for a Ministerial reply, a task they set to work on with eagerness.12

This was in March 1968, when Europa, despite problems with its second stage, still looked viable. Two versions were considered. The first employed the first stage only of Black Arrow, with four of the eight chambers and one of the turbopumps deleted. The payload estimate was for 1,800 lb in a 200 NM polar orbit (750 kg at 500 km); however, extended nozzles on the motors (as in the Black Arrow second stage) resulted in an improvement on this of ‘some 20% to 25% giving a performance appreciably greater than ELDO A’. Adding the third stage of Black Arrow – the Waxwing motor – would increase payloads ‘by about
200 kg’. This would put the maximum payload up to 1,100 kg. Development costs were put at £1 million, and the unit cost per vehicle at £1.5 million.

A follow-up note gives some interesting comparisons between ELDO A and the Blue Streak/Black Arrow combination.

* from stage itself (m/s) ** from stage when used as part of multi-stage vehicle

This shows the potential of a Blue Streak/Black Arrow combination. It also shows up very clearly the structural efficiency of Black Arrow as opposed to the ELDO second stage.

Equally interesting are the costings, for what they are worth:

HSD for work on Blue Streak:

Rolls Royce for work on Black Arrow motor: Westland – Black Arrow modifications Motor bays

Ground equipment modifications:

Modifications at Woomera say Total

[sic – total is actually £860k!]

Cost of first flight vehicle: Blue Streak £1000k

Black Arrow £400k – say £1500k total.

To carry out the modifications and launch one test vehicle for £2Уг million seems a touch on the optimistic side.

There were, of course certain snags. To do this in parallel with Europa would have been politically unacceptable (but it would have been interesting to see the reactions if the Blue Streak/Black Arrow combination had reached orbit by 1970). There was also the question of payload – but the Perigee Apogee System (PAS) design could have been adapted from ELDO to give a geostationary capability.

At around the same time, Saunders Roe produced their own brochure for a Blue Streak/Black Arrow combination. The skirt to the engine bay was flared out to match the Europa interface, as originally intended. They went through all the permutations with their usual thoroughness, considering eight chamber and four chamber variants, two – and three-stage versions, and also reviving the liquid hydrogen third stage possibility. Their payload calculations were on the optimistic side, however, since they estimated that Blue Streak and Black Arrow together could put as much as 3,000 lb in low earth orbit, and even a few hundred pounds in a geosynchronous orbit.

It is interesting to note that Saunders Roe were obviously thinking of communications satellites as an application for the launcher. Under the payload shroud the satellite is sketched with two solid fuel motors: one which would convert a low Earth circular orbit into a highly elliptical geotransfer orbit, and the second of which would then act as an apogee motor to convert the elliptical orbit into a circular geosynchronous orbit. In this context, it should be noted also that although the US was prepared to sell launchers to other countries, this offer was subject to considerable restriction and would almost certainly not have included commercial communications satellites. Britain’s military communications satellites, Skynet, were launched by the US only as a result of the close military ties between the two countries. Thus Britain might have been able to produce a low cost launcher for communication satellites – but not a very powerful one.

However, there was a considerable divergence in views between the establishments and the Ministries. The RAE and its associated establishments were constantly producing ideas based on Blue Streak, yet it was obvious that the Ministry of Technology, as the Ministry of Aviation had then become, was firmly set against any idea of a British-based launcher, and certainly, as already mentioned, it would have been politically unacceptable whilst ELDO was still in existence. It would also have been financially unacceptable as far as the Treasury was concerned.

Single stage. Launched 7 February 1961 at 22:16. Apogee 427 miles.

BK13 was a single-stage vehicle with a double cone eroding head similar to BK05 and BK06 except for the substitution of a low-power telemetry beacon plus a tape recorder in place of the normal telemetry sender (BK05) or tape recorder (BK06), the use of a cine camera for filming the head wake during re­entry, and the deletion of the recovery parachute system. As in BK07, further measurements were made in the motor bay to investigate base heating and pressures.

Propulsion was good and a re-entry velocity of 10,870 ft/second was achieved at 200,000 ft. The flaps over the base bleed holes opened before take-off and closed later as in BK07. The kerosene level sensor and HTP probes worked and
propellant usage in flight was determined. The head separation, turnover and spin systems were faultless, as were the pyrotechnic flashes on re-entry.

Unfortunately, due to an incorrect setting of the switch, the tape recorder in the head started too soon and the tape had run out before re-entry; for the same reason the camera in the head did not record the re-entry wake. The durestos nose cone and materials specimens were recovered and erosion measurements were made. The electronic flashes were observed clearly but the tracking lamps were not seen.

R0 – 28 June 1968

R0 was launched on a trajectory to the north west, towards Talgarno in Western Australia. The first two stages were live; the third stage was inert.

The launch procedure was that the vehicle was held down on the launch pad by a ball and claw mechanism, the engines were started, and when full thrust was reached, which took around 4 seconds, the vehicle was released. But as soon as it cleared the pad, the vehicle immediately developed a large rolling oscillation. The cause of the fault was an open circuit in the feedback loop that controlled one of the pairs of motors: a wire had probably broken.

At about 64 seconds into the flight, the control system could not cope and the vehicle tumbled. One of the payload fairings broke away, followed by the payload, then the Gamma 8 first stage motor stopped working. The vehicle was destroyed by ground command when it was at an altitude of 9,000 ft on its descent.

The response of the motor pair concerned was normal up to about 4.1 seconds after opening the first stage engine start valve, 0.5 seconds before the release jack was opened. Loss of the signal meant that the pair of motors concerned would swing to their full extent and back again on receiving a correction, instead of the small deflection needed to put the vehicle back on to its correct course.

This can be seen quite clearly in the film of the launch, where one of the set of rocket exhausts can be seen swinging from side to side. Figure 115 shows the vehicle a few seconds after lift-off, and one of the sets of exhausts can be clearly seen pointing to one side.

Eyewitness statements were taken from those who had been watching the flight.

One, by Ken Smith of RAE, reads as follows:

Ignition was seen to occur just after zero time, and the vehicle lifted off as expected a few seconds later. The ascent appeared normal, and the downrange pitch programme was clearly occurring. Just after the time count of 60 seconds, two or three glowing fragments were detached and fell away from the ascending vehicle.

Immediately afterwards, the clean flame pattern changed to an intense white smoky trail. The vehicle pitched violently, then appeared to recover to its original path, but the rate of ascent diminished. Then tumbling began; the vehicle turning slowly nose over tail several times and beginning to descend. The intercom call was made ‘vehicle descending’. The FSO announced that break-up would be initiate when the vehicle reached 9,000 ft on the descent. After a short interval, the vehicle still falling and tumbling, he announced break-up ‘NOW’. An instant later the vehicle disintegrated in a bright luminescent explosion. The loud sharp detonation was hard several seconds later.17

There is a reference made in a file in the Public Record Office1 to a telephone conversation in which the RAE was asked by an official at the Ministry of Aviation in October 1961:

What has the RAE done on solid propulsion and what has been done on smaller rockets? (Opinion and any possible objections).

The context is not entirely clear, but Dr Schirrmacher of RAE sent a fairly lengthy reply, and part of this reads:

(b) For smaller satellites two solutions are worth mentioning:

Black Knight boosted by two Ravens and carrying a Rook as 2nd stage with a Cuckoo as 3rd stage. One will get 100lb into a 200mile orbit. Present development at Westcott for an improvement of the mass fracture [sic – probably ‘fraction’] indicates that the payload could probably be increased by a factor 2 [sic].’

Dr Schirrmacher was referring to a report which was written at RAE in January “ 1961 as part of a more general paper on the

possibilities of using Black Knight as a satellite launcher, and the study was based around what might be called the ‘Dazzle’ Black Knight – i. e., the 36-inch vehicle with a lift-off thrust of 21,6001b.2

It is also interesting to note, in the Black Knight context, that Saunders Roe’s Aerodynamics Department and Computing Department had produced a joint report of a vehicle which they christened LOVER, standing for Low Orbit Vehicle for Experimental Research. This was

nothing more than the 54-inch Black Knight together with the Kestrel motor (but pointing upwards). Somewhat optimistically, it concludes that

The proposed satellite launcher using a 4′ 6" diameter Black Knight as a first stage and a “Kestrel” powered second stage can be used to inject a small satellite into orbit at an altitude of between 100 and 200 n. miles.. .3

The 54-inch Black Knight is a rather more plausible contender for a satellite launcher than original 36-inch version, and in the context of what might have been possible in 1963, some performance figures would be helpful:

Why 1963? This was the time when the design which would become Black Arrow was evolving. Instead of Black Arrow, this section will consider the possibilities of a launcher using Black Knight as a central core and adding assorted solid motors, both as strap-on boosters and as upper stages.

Adding solid fuel boosters to Black Knight:

Initial Thrust Total impulse (lb) (lb. seconds)

36-inch Black Knight + 2 Ravens 36-inch Black Knight + 4 Ravens 54-inch Black Knight + 2 Ravens 54-inch Black Knight + 4 Ravens Black Arrow

The total impulse could be increased even further by ‘stretching’ the Black Knight stage – that is, increasing the size of the fuel tanks. The Raven is the most suitable, since it has a relatively long burn time, so that the central core has had time to burn off some of its fuel. Total impulse is, of course, not the only criterion by which a rocket motor should be judged, but it is useful in this context as a rough and ready guide.

There would be very little extra development work needed to be done, since by 1961, the Raven, Rook and Cuckoo were fully developed – the Raven and Cuckoo were in use on the Skylark rocket, and the Cuckoo II was also the second stage for the 36-inch Black Knight. The Kestrel was to have been the second stage for the 54-inch Black Knight, and so if we have the 54-inch Black Knight, we also have the Kestrel. Waxwing is the only rocket not available in 1963, since it was developed specifically as the apogee stage for Black Arrow.

In a launcher which has several stages, it helps if they are well matched in weight. For reasonable performance, very roughly the first stage might be around 60% of the all up weight, the second stage perhaps 30%, and the third stage 10% or so. They also need to be matched in thrust: if the first stage only has a limited thrust, it cannot lift the upper stages. One of the points of the strap-on boosters is to give that extra thrust, so that when they have burnt out, the main stage has used up enough fuel to carry on by itself.

Another consideration is geometry, and this is where the idea of using the Rook and Cuckoo as second and third stages falls down. The Rook had a diameter of only 17 inches (at this time, 17 inches was the largest solid motor made in the UK). The Kestrel would have had a 24-inch diameter. The largest motor made in the UK was the Stonechat at 36-inch, but this would have been too heavy to use as a second stage. Larger diameter solid fuel motors were produced on an experimental basis at Westcott in the 1960s. Bristol Aerojet Ltd (BAJ) produced high strength steel tubes using the helical welding process, and Westcott developed the propellant charge design. Tubes up to 54 inches in diameter were produced, and one such tube was filled and fired at Westcott.4

Fitting a 17-inch motor onto a 54-inch stage would have been awkward, but the bigger limitation would have been in the size of satellite carried. Even the smallest satellite would have been more than 17 inches across, and so an extremely bulbous fairing would have to be fitted on top. Even with a Kestrel, the geometry looks awkward, as the diagrams in Figure 121 demonstrate.

The Rook would seem to be better than the Kestrel on grounds of total impulse, but was less structurally efficient. On the other hand, there is no reason why two or even three Kestrels could be used – two Kestrels give nearly the same impulse as the Rook, they are structurally more efficient, and staging improves that efficiency.

In either case, the payload would be in the region of 200 lb or so – possibly more. In fact, the payload could be increased further: the total mass of the launcher would have been in the region of 29,000 lb or so, whereas the lift-off thrust was 75,000 lb. As mentioned, this gives the possibility of ‘stretching’ the Black Knight stage by lengthening the tanks to carry more fuel. By the time the boosters have burned out, the extra fuel will also have been burned off. This is quite efficient – the extra structural weight added is merely that of the thin walled tank.

Why is this a good deal cheaper than developing Black Arrow? There is very little in the way of development costs. By the time of the cancellation of the re­entry experiments, BK26, the first 54-inch Black Knight, was quite well advanced in construction. The development costs of the Black Knight and the Kestrel would already have been absorbed by the re-entry programme. One of the major development costs for Black Arrow was the design and testing of the Gamma 8 and Gamma 2 motors. Developing more capable solid fuel motors is a good deal cheaper.

So, it might well have been possible to develop a Black Knight launcher costing not much than around £2 million which might have been able to put 200­300 lb into orbit, compared with Black Arrow costing £10 million… and which could put around 150 lb into orbit.

1 TNA: PRO AVIA 65/1567. ELDO satellite launcher system.

2 Black Knight as a Satellite Launcher. AP Waterfall, Guided Weapons Department, RAE. 18 January 1961 (Science Museum Library and Archive).

3 Black Knight LOVER, Saunders Roe, May 1963.

4 Moore PO, 1992. Stonechat, JBIS, Vol 45, pp.145-148.

This page intentionally left blank

[1] R. Maudling. Memoirs. (1978). Sidgwick & Jackson Ltd.

2 The National Archives (TNA): Public Record Office (PRO) DEFE 7/2245.

Development of Blue Streak.

3 TNA: PRO DEFE 13/193. Development of Blue Streak missile.

4 TNA: PRO DEFE 7/2245. Development of Blue Streak.

5 Ibid.

6 TNA: PRO AVIA 92/24. Blue Streak: correspondence leading to the Cabinet decision to cancel as a weapons system.

[2] WJ Boyne, Clash of Wings. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994.

2 TNA: PRO AVIA 65/546. SR53 Finance and Policy. The details of the proposed improvements are outlined in a series of papers in this file.

3 TNA: PRO AVIA 65/287. F138D Saunders Roe rocket interceptor aircraft for RAF.

4 TNA: PRO BT 233/40.

5 TNA: PRO AVIA 65/649. Saro rocket interceptor: RN aircraft NA 47.

6 Ibid.

[3] TNA: PRO AVIA 65/91. Propelled air-to-surface missiles for ‘V’ class bombers: application to Vulcan aircraft.

2 TNA: PRO AVIA 65/1687. Blue Steel. Development programme.

3 TNA: PRO AVIA 65/91. Propelled air-to-surface missiles for ‘V’ class bombers: application to Vulcan aircraft.

4 TNA: PRO AVIA 65/1289 Blue Steel. Main propulsion unit.

5 TNA: PRO AVIA 65/1467 Blue Steel. Management Board.

6 TNA: PRO AVIA 65/1468 Blue Steel. RAE Study Group.

7 Ibid.

8 TNA: PRO AIR 20/12143. Proposals for OR 1149.

9 TNA: PRO AVIA 65/1697. Stand off bomb, OR 1159: research and development.

[4] TNA: PRO AIR 2/13206. ATOMIC (Code B, 12): Long range surface to surface weapons.

2 TNA: PRO AVIA 48/7. Rocket Research Panel: minutes of meetings.

3 TNA: PRO DEFE 7/2245. Development of Blue Streak. The Operational Requirement for a Medium Range Ballistic Missile system. Note by DCAS 9 August 1955.

4 TNA: PRO AVIA 65/1193. Warhead for a medium range missile: Air Staff requirement OR 1142 Orange Herald (DAW plans action). This file is the source for all the quotes in this section.

5 Ibid.

6 TNA: PRO AIR 2/13745. Warhead for medium range ballistic missile Blue Streak (OR 1139 and 1142).

7 TNA: PRO AIR 20/10299. Ballistic missiles: minutes of Joint US/UK Medium Range Ballistic Missile Advisory Committee and related papers.

8 TNA: PRO AVIA 6/17210. Application of solid propellant motors to medium range ballistic missiles. Technical Note RPD 156. WR Maxwell, December 1956.

9 TNA: PRO AVIA 54/2141. Blue Streak development: A1 Coordination Panel; minutes of meetings.

10 TNA: PRO AVIA 54/2146. Blue Streak development: Joint US/UK Advisory Committee; technical correspondence.

TNA: PRO DEFE 7/2245. Development of Blue Streak.

[5] TNA: PRO AVIA 68/23. Work supporting development of an underground launching system for Blue Streak. RPE Technical Note No. 170. BWA Ricketson and ETB Smith.

2 Ibid.

[6] was surprised and encouraged today that amongst those who are advising both the PM & the Chancellor there is a pronounced feeling that if we are to go on with the deterrent it should only be on the basis of Polaris.

[7] TNA: PRO AVIA 65/352. Space research vehicle design and performance: potential of reconnaissance satellites.

2 TNA: PRO DSIR 23/25364. Preliminary assessment of an earth satellite reconnaissance vehicle (RAE TN GW 393).

3 TNA: PRO AVIA 6/19852. Technical report G. W.455. The Use of Blue Streak with Black Knight in a Satellite Missile. D. G. King-Hele and Miss D. M. Gilmore. May, 1957.

4 TNA: PRO AIR 20/10573. Blue Streak: possible use as satellite launcher.

5 Science Museum Library and Archive

6 TNA: PRO AVIA 65/351. Space Research Vehicle Design and Performance: British Studies.

7 Saunders Roe Technical Publication 435.

8 TNA: PRO AVIA 66/4. Blue Streak as a satellite launcher.

9 TNA: PRO DEFE 7/1397. UK space research programme. 19 December 1960

10 RAE Communication Satellite Study. Working Party No. 2 meeting of 10 June 1963. (Science Museum Library and Archive)

[8] RAE Communication Satellite Study. Working Party No. 2 meeting of 17 June 1963. (Science Museum Library and Archive)

12 TNA: PRO AVIA 13/1351. Space policy: Black Arrow review 1967.

13 TNA: PRO DSIR 23/39853. Blue Streak/Centaur launcher.

1 TNA: PRO AVIA 66/4. Blue Streak as a satellite launcher.

Ibid. 3 Ibid.

Ibid.

5 TNA: PRO AVIA 65/1708. Blue Streak satellite launcher development: European co­operation.

6 TNA: PRO AVIA 66/7. Blue Streak satellite launcher project: Pt B.

7 Ibid.

8 TNA: PRO AVIA 65/1708. Blue Streak satellite launcher development: European co­operation.

9 TNA: PRO AVIA 66/4. Blue Streak as a satellite launcher.

10 Anglo-French technical proposals for the development of a satellite launching vehicle system / Propositions techniques Franco-Britanniques pour la mise au point d’un porteur de satellite; document elabore par le Ministere de l’aviation du Royaume-uni et le Ministere de l’air francais.

[10] TNA: PRO AVIA 66/8. Blue Streak satellite launcher project: Pt C.

Historical Archives of European Union, Florence, ELDO 118. Technical Definition of the Initial launching System. October 1963.

13 TNA: PRO EW 25/52. Review of UK space policy including European Launcher Development Organisation (ELDO).

14 Ibid.

15 HAEU, Florence, ELDO 828. Alternative Development Programme.

16 TNA: PRO T 225/2765. Ministry of Aviation space programme: future policy.

17 TNA: PRO EW 25/52. Review of UK space policy including European Launcher Development Organisation (ELDO). FR Barratt, 26 March 1965.

18 HAEU, Florence, ELDO archives.

19 TNA: PRO AVIA 92/259. UK withdrawal from European Launcher Development Organisation (ELDO).

20 Private communication.

21

Ibid. 23 Ibid.

[11] This is the mean thrust (in the original French ‘la pousee moyenne – 550 kN’ as opposed to ‘la pousee maximum – 630 kN’).

[12] to geostationary orbit

As can be seen from the figures for the estimated performance, the boosters produce a useful payload increase – but even 300 kg is distinctly inadequate for a

[13] HAEU, Florence, ELDO 80.

2 Design Studies On A High Energy Third Stage For The European Launch Vehicle. Dietrich Koelle, May 1963. (Private collection.)

3 TNA: PRO DSIR 23/31973. Flight trial of F1 of EUROPA 1 (ELDO satellite launcher system – first stage). RAE TM Space 45, August 1964.

4 HAEU, Florence, ELDO. F6/1 launch, September 1967.

5 HAEU, Florence, ELDO archives.

6 Ibid.

7 HAEU, Florence, ELDO 3569. E. L.D. O. B1 & B2 Vehicles Oxygen/Hydrogen Upper Stages. Rolls-Royce Thrust Chamber Design Study to E. L.D. O. Contract CTR/17/7/10. February 1967.

8 TNA: PRO AVIA 65/1567. ELDO satellite launcher system.

9 HAEU, Florence, ELDO 3515.

10 HAEU, Florence, ELDO 3035.

[14] HAEU, Florence, ELDO 1561. Low cost launchers – conclusions of the EUROPA II AD HOC group. 30 May 72.

12 HAEU, Florence, ELDO 4287. Europa IIIC with 4 RZ 2 engines.

[15] TNA: PRO AVIA 92/128. Policy and financial control of Westland Aircraft Ltd on Black Knight project,

2 TNA: PRO AVIA 48/58. Black Knight: trials. Preliminary Post Firing Meeting Friday October 3rd, 1958. Guided Weapons Department, RAE.

3 TNA: PRO AVIA 13/1268. ‘Black Knight’: hot tests on inertia navigator head. Summary of Direct Kinetic Heating Measurements on Black Knight, Dommett RL and Peattie IW. Guided Weapons Department RAE, 3 November 1961.

4 Interim Report on the Range Safety Proving Trial. Space Department, RAE. 2 January 1964. (Science Museum Library and Archive)

5 TNA: PRO DSIR 23/35658. Project dazzle Pt 5.

6 Minutes of a meeting at Osborne House 19 July 1962. (Science Museum Library and Archive.)

7 TNA: PRO AVIA 65/667. ‘Black Knight’ project: policy and financial control. PD Irons of Saunders Roe to WG Downey at the Ministry of Supply, 30 October 1958.

8 TNA: PRO T 225/2124. Space and general guided projectile research: Black Knight test vehicle; Ministry of Aviation firing programme. Memo by JA Marshall, 2 January 1961.

9 Ibid.

[16] If RAE had decided to go ahead with Crusade and the 54-inch Black Knight, but adapted as a launcher using solid motors as described earlier. Now let us imagine a timeline thus:

[17] If the French proposal for dropping ELDO A and going straight to ELDO B had won the day in 1965. One can sympathise to some extent with the Government’s position on ELDO, but again it lacked the courage of its own

[18] TNA: PRO AVIA 65/1851. WS-138A: Skybolt policy.

2 Ibid.

3 TNA: PRO DSIR 23/ 31835. Performance capability of Black Knight rocket in various roles (RAE TN Space 60).

[19] TNA: PRO AVIA 66/7. Blue Streak satellite launcher project: Pt B.

2 TNA: PRO CAB 129/127. Space Policy. Report by the Official Committee on Science and Technology. November 1966.