Haven't seen that Blackstar recently?

[RanulfC]

So if you want to have some fun, go back to the beginning of this thread and start skimming it from there. Make sure to read the dates.

This thread started in 2009. The Blackstar article appeared in 2006. That was 18 years ago, the thread started 15 years ago. Where's the evidence in those 18 years? Nothing. Now think about what that means, and think about how you can apply that example to other claims and stories. It helps to develop skeptical reading and evaluation skills.

There were a lot of things that bugged me about the original Blackstar article, but one of them was that I thought that the author should have called up an aerospace engineering professor at a big school like Purdue or MIT and asked him to do some of the basic math. Assume a plane the size of a B-70. How big an aircraft could it carry on its back (or underneath)? And how much fuel could that spaceplane carry? What would be the maximum performance it could achieve to orbit? I'm sure that a smart aerospace engineer could figure out the ballpark performance, and I'm sure that it would have been unimpressive.

But we have so much evidence that blackstar exists how could we possibly doubt it?

Randy

 

[Deleted member 4286]

So if you want to have some fun, go back to the beginning of this thread and start skimming it from there. Make sure to read the dates.

This thread started in 2009. The Blackstar article appeared in 2006. That was 18 years ago, the thread started 15 years ago. Where's the evidence in those 18 years? Nothing. Now think about what that means, and think about how you can apply that example to other claims and stories. It helps to develop skeptical reading and evaluation skills.

There were a lot of things that bugged me about the original Blackstar article, but one of them was that I thought that the author should have called up an aerospace engineering professor at a big school like Purdue or MIT and asked him to do some of the basic math. Assume a plane the size of a B-70. How big an aircraft could it carry on its back (or underneath)? And how much fuel could that spaceplane carry? What would be the maximum performance it could achieve to orbit? I'm sure that a smart aerospace engineer could figure out the ballpark performance, and I'm sure that it would have been unimpressive.

You are right but we can also question of the seriousness of Aviation Week when posting such article. And its author already posted a similar article as early as 1992.

 

[Deleted member 4286]

But we have so much evidence that blackstar exists how could we possibly doubt it?

Randy

Because the author’s article writes it had been shelved.

 

[Archibald]

The maths doesn't even works. A Mach 3 mothership removes 2000 m/s from an ascent to orbit 9000 m/s. Except the rocket equation is exponential in nature. Hence the called XOV would need terrific mass fraction and specific impulse to lift a very small payload to orbit.

Plus the drag and danger of dropping a pylon-mounted vehicle at Mach 3 (M-21 / D-21, cough). The expense of developping a XB-70 size aircraft (or finishing AV-3 out of stored spares 30 years after its 1961 cancellation) would be eye watering. Same for XOV.

And the thing could not be hidden: no way.

Crucially, as far as SR-71 replacement was concerned, stealth (drones) replaced hypersonics sometimes in the early 1970's. After ISINGLASS / RHEINBERRY Mach 4 / Mach 9 / Mach 20 & 200 000 ft performance was rejected by the NRO as unpractical (good luck building a camera that can look through an hypersonic shockwave) - or just not enough against nuclear tipped SA-5 SAMs. Or A-135 ABMs.

And with the advent of the D-21B, then COMPASS ARROW, then COMPASS COPE. And then QUARTZ.

We know that the official SR-71 replacement was AARS - QUARTZ. Stealth, subsonic, ultra-high flying drone. Nowadays it has been reborn as the RQ-180.
SR-71 replacement was not Aurora or Darkstar or any other shit like that. Hypersonics are way too hard, even more manned. And orbital spaceplane(s) is order of magnitude worse.

 

[RanulfC]

Because the author’s article writes it had been shelved.

Hint: Take a look at who I replied to... the joke writes itself

Randy

 

[martinbayer]

Hint: Take a look at who I replied to... the joke writes itself

Randy

I really would hope that especially in this forum people would either actually stop blowing smoke and spill the beans or just shut the fudge up.

 

[quellish]

Crucially, as far as SR-71 replacement was concerned, stealth (drones) replaced hypersonics sometimes in the early 1970's. After ISINGLASS / RHEINBERRY Mach 4 / Mach 9 / Mach 20 & 200 000 ft performance was rejected by the NRO as unpractical (good luck building a camera that can look through an hypersonic shockwave) - or just not enough against nuclear tipped SA-5 SAMs. Or A-135 ABMs.

And with the advent of the D-21B, then COMPASS ARROW, then COMPASS COPE. And then QUARTZ.

In the 1970s drones were a dead end. It had little to do with stealth, the primary threat to their survivability was... themselves. Drones were unreliable and after the experiences with TAGBOARD and COMPASS ARROW the NRO and Air Force were not enthusiastic about using them over denied areas:

Mr. Packard said tha.t he was not sure we can obtain per- mission from the 40 Committee to operate the drone over denied territory. A good example is the TAGBOARD program. Mr. Helms said that he was not enthusiastic about· PINE RIDGE, not only was there a policy question of its ~se but he would question what it could be used against. Mr. Packard said that it was not a question of radar cross-section, it was a question of reliability. After all, the drone might come down in Peking. Dr. McLucas noted that such circumstances had a finite probability--an Army general flew into Russia recently in a manned aircraft.

With COMPASS COPE, the Air Force simply lost interest.

QUARTZ was unreliable and expensive.

While ISINGLASS/RHEINBERRY was impractical for many reasons, in the 1980s the Air Force pursued a hypersonic aircraft that performed reconnaissance, strike, and interceptor roles. They believed that imaging at hypersonic speeds was a solvable problem and there is evidence to support that - though the primary sensor would be, like with the SR-71, radar.

We know that the official SR-71 replacement was AARS - QUARTZ. Stealth, subsonic, ultra-high flying drone. Nowadays it has been reborn as the RQ-180.
SR-71 replacement was not Aurora or Darkstar or any other shit like that. Hypersonics are way too hard, even more manned. And orbital spaceplane(s) is order of magnitude worse.

AARS was described as an "SR-71 replacement" by some at the time of the program termination in 1992-1993. Earlier in the program - from 1981 until 1990 when a related "classified reconnaissance aircraft program" was terminated - QUARTZ was described as a TR-1 replacement.

 

[publiusr]

In the same way automobile mechanics can tinker with an actual junker thinking it could charge itself while driving, perhaps a smaller one off was made that wasn't quite what they thought it would be.

There are lots of UFO believers in the Beltway---but they didn't know how to weld.

One reason for secrecy might be to cover for some over-eager types who thought they could prove eggheads wrong--and wound up an embarrassment.

The Top Gun sequel recce plane might not have been the only thing bodged together.

They have given U-2s rhinoplasty after all.

 

[Byeman]

In the same way automobile mechanics can tinker with an actual junker thinking it could charge itself while driving, perhaps a smaller one off was made that wasn't quite what they thought it would be.


One reason for secrecy might be to cover for some over-eager types who thought they could prove eggheads wrong--and wound up an embarrassment.

yes, these were typical occurrences at arsenals, but not for secret projects

 

[Tuomasn]

While ISINGLASS/RHEINBERRY was impractical for many reasons, in the 1980s the Air Force pursued a hypersonic aircraft that performed reconnaissance, strike, and interceptor roles. They believed that imaging at hypersonic speeds was a solvable problem and there is evidence to support that - though the primary sensor would be, like with the SR-71, radar.

Also the DF-7 hypersonic cruiser project which evolved through USAF Global Reach studies over the 1990s displays both IR and SAR sensors.
Is it posible this 1980s project could be related to the "pulser" high-speed aircraft sightings of the late 1980s/early 1990s?

 

[aliensporebomb]

publiusr has a good point - you wonder if existing completely normal platforms might have been "modified" for higher performance and ended up not getting better performance, just something they tried and was not successful. Why publicize a failure or unsuccessful experiment?

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Also the DF-7 hypersonic cruiser project which evolved through USAF Global Reach studies over the 1990s displays both IR and SAR sensors.
Is it posible this 1980s project could be related to the "pulser" high-speed aircraft sightings of the late 1980s/early 1990s?

I doubt it.