Haven't seen that Blackstar recently?

[XP67_Moonbat]

Yes vlada, like that. And Quellish, let's leave Dale Brown novels outta this. I still read em. As FUN fiction, that is.

 

[OM]

Or the one about the secret Yugoslavian space program.

...Hell, we've been waiting for almost a decade for that documentary on how Guam went to the Moon!

 

[Vahe Demirjian]

Has there been any recent mention of the Blackstar in the press? Ever since the possible existence of Blackstar was first posited in the AWST article from March 2006, the US government has been silent on AWST report and refused to confirm or deny its existence.

 

[blackstar]

Has there been any recent mention of the Blackstar in the press? Ever since the possible existence of Blackstar was first posited in the AWST article from March 2006, the US government has been silent on AWST report and refused to confirm or deny its existence. However, my search for an orbital launch that would correlate to the orbital characteristics of the Blackstar spaceplane at N2YO.com was fruitless and all I can say is that the the spaceplane launched into orbit under Project Have Blinders III came down to Earth after only four orbits and that USSPACECOM missed the launch.

I have not seen anything. After the initial article there were some copy-cat articles that essentially repeated what Aviation Week said, and often mentioned my TSR article as well, which was highly skeptical. The author of the original piece hinted that he had some photos of the orbital vehicle, but then he never produced them (which seemed like a bad move--if you're going to claim that you have the goods, then you better produce them at some point). He also stopped writing apparently for personal reasons.

I always thought that the original article was just very sloppy and not based on any hard data. I think that he assembled a lot of pieces of mostly hearsay comments and a few bits of documentation into what he thought was a coherent picture. That's why I titled my article "Six blind men in a zoo"--it's like that old parable of six blind men each describing an elephant, but in this case, everybody was describing different animals, and he was assuming that there was an elephant.

http://thespacereview.com/article/576/1

My suspicion has also always been that the vehicle he described is not physically possible to build. Somebody with some basic aerospace training should be able to crunch the numbers and see. I don't think you can pack enough fuel into such a small aircraft to reach orbit with any kind of payload. Note that things like the Air Launched Sortie Vehicle from years ago always had a huge fuel tank attached. And launching at Mach 3 doesn't really help in any way and primarily complicates things.

 

[Orionblamblam]

My suspicion has also always been that the vehicle he described is not physically possible to build. Somebody with some basic aerospace training should be able to crunch the numbers and see. I don't think you can pack enough fuel into such a small aircraft to reach orbit with any kind of payload.

IIRC, the claim was that the craft used a gel propellant. The only good reason for gelled propellant, so far as I'm aware, is because you are using a finely powdered solid propellant in a liquid suspension. Gelled metal fuel could be quite dense, certainyl so compared to hydrogen. The Isp of some metallic fuels, especially if you use somethign exciting like FLOX for the oxidizer, can be quite impressive... Some, theoretically over 500 seconds (at least one is around 600 seconds, IIRC). So dense fuel, dense oxidizer and high Isp *could* result in an SSTO the size of a fighter plane.

Of course, these propellants have *lots* of problems, which have precluded their being actually used. Metal fuels, for instance, have a tendency to plate the throat and nozzle of the rocket engine, resulting in BOOOOOM. And pumping *grit* is rarely a recipe for success.

 

[airrocket]

Blackstar Aurora....etc.... nothing that sexy ever made it much past CGI or the back of a napkin after the Carter era. The B-58 Hustler and SR-71 is as sexy as it got. Today its stealthy UCAV's mostly those being subsonic. The U2 still flies that is as cutting edge as one will find in this day and age of budget short falls and cuts.

 

[Mr London 24/7]

I don't believe in either system as described, but the expansion at Groom over the last 10 years illustrates that a lot is still being done - despite budgetary concerns. The tail left in Abottabad provides a timely glimpse into the Black World, and it's still very much required and in operation. Yes: 2-4 helicopters perhaps is at the cheaper end of the scale, however the fact that this program got as far as flying hardware?.

I think the glass is at least half full: The very public arrival of the Chinese stealth Fighter prototypes provides yet more impetus for the continued R&D - despite sequestration. They look good enough to worry a few Senators at least. If I worked for a US defence contractor I'd want to go and give all those Chinese flight line watchers a great big hug...

 

[blackstar]

I don't believe in either system as described, but the expansion at Groom over the last 10 years illustrates that a lot is still being done - despite budgetary concerns. The tail left in Abottabad provides a timely glimpse into the Black World, and it's still very much required and in operation. Yes: 2-4 helicopters perhaps is at the cheaper end of the scale, however the fact that this program got as far as flying hardware?.

One of the common assumptions over the years has been that expansion at Groom equals more new, or exotic airframes. But that does not have to be the case. There are other things that could account for expansion at Groom. What if they acquired a half dozen Su-27s/MiG-29s or more modern Russian aircraft? What if they decided that they were going to perform more advanced electronics work there instead of at dispersed locations? Expansion could simply be explained by consolidation of work that was being conducted elsewhere.

That's not to say that there are no new advanced aircraft programs being developed there, but people have been predicted handfuls of them for decades now, and we've seen that on average there's about one-two new advanced aircraft program(s) revealed per decade.

 

[bob225]

1-2 let out into the white world per decade, but how many never reach there goals or remain black for whatever reason?


Groom is such a large place, with presumably loads of people that there HAS to be more going on that we just never find out about!!?


And no I don't mean saucers, moon landings etc!!! ;-)

 

[blackstar]

1-2 let out into the white world per decade, but how many never reach there goals or remain black for whatever reason?

We can argue this til we're blue in the face. But what I see with speculation about Groom is what I see in other areas as well (particularly commercial spaceflight), where people get all caught up in wild speculation of "what might be possible" and in all their enthusiasm they get farther and farther away from the actual evidence of what is. I've seen lots of Groom hype since the early 1990s, and yet the revelations since then have been relatively limited (the Bird of Prey, Tacit Blue, RQ-170, and the stealth Black Hawks).

Put another way, I think that the hype has more to do with human psychology--people who want to believe in all kinds of cool stuff because reality is rather dull--than with actual evidence.

Groom is such a large place, with presumably loads of people that there HAS to be more going on that we just never find out about!!?

And as I noted, the explanation for the other stuff going on there doesn't have to be development of classified aircraft. It could be other activities, like operation of a substantial fleet of Russian aircraft, or the consolidation of classified activities from other places.

 

[blackstar]

And here you go...

http://theaviationist.com/2013/03/10/raptor-groom-lake/#.UTzEHhlVcaM


Air Force releases photo of F-22 stealth fighter with Area 51 base in the background
March 10, 2013 Posted by David Cenciotti

Tanker rides are among the opportunity provided to media representatives during Red Flag exercises at Nellis Air Force Base.
Every now and then, reporters and photographers are allowed to board U.S. Air Force KC-135 refuelers supporting the Blue or the Red forces.
However, media embarks can be cancelled if the tanker is scheduled to operate inside areas from where sensitive spots could be seen and photographed. For instance, some days ago, photographers initially cleared to take part to a tanker mission were not allowed to board the KC-135 because the tanker was heading towards one of those areas.
Considered the proximity of Nellis Air Force Base to the legendary Area 51, I was almost sure that most (if not all) photo restrictions in place within the Nevada ranges were aimed to prevent someone from taking pictures of the famous, spooky airfield located on the southern shore of Groom Lake.
Until I saw the following image (click to enlarge).

 

[bob225]

Put another way, I think that the hype has more to do with human psychology--people who want to believe in all kinds of cool stuff because reality is rather dull--than with actual evidence

Exactly, surely everyone here hopes or wishes for a unveiling of WOW! Stuff that's come out of area51, which is much better than the reality of all the cool stuff already being done in the 50's-80's.
leaving us with the rq-170, which I'm sure is difficult to do but it's not exactly a sr71, or our dreamed of follow-ons :-(

 

[blackstar]

Exactly, surely everyone here hopes or wishes for a unveiling of WOW! Stuff that's come out of area51, which is much better than the reality of all the cool stuff already being done in the 50's-80's.

Back around 2000 or so one of the aviation magazines (I'll have to look for it) had a series of 2-3 articles written by a couple of guys who used fake names from the Ren and Stimpy cartoon. Their articles recounted how they slept out in the desert near Groom Lake to watch for top secret aircraft. Their radio came alive and they saw some super-sexy larger version of an F-117 taking off. Alas, they conveniently forgot to grab their camera, despite the fact that this was exactly the reason they were there (funny how that happens, huh?). Anyway, the magazine had a great artist's impression of the aircraft, which looked sort of like a cross between a Blackbird and an F-117:

http://www.dreamlandresort.com/trip_reports/trip_020.html

Now I thought that was cool. Another "black jet" like the F-117! Except that thinking about it for a couple of minutes the whole story started to look really fishy: cutesy phony names, conveniently forgetting to get their camera, and an airplane that, if it was real, was using technology from 1982 rather than the technology that was incorporated into later aircraft like the B-2, F-22, and F-35. All in all, it was entertaining, but nothing much more than that. But I understand the appeal. A new black jet is way cooler than another F-16 variant, right?


(I looked it up elsewhere on this site: "SECRETS OF AREA 51", Parts 1 to 6, in UK-based AIRCRAFT ILLUSTRATED magazine, issues March to August 2000." But you can find more on the link posted above. Anyway, they supposedly made their sighting 14 years ago and nobody has seen or heard of that plane since. So did it even exist?)

 

[quellish]

And as I noted, the explanation for the other stuff going on there doesn't have to be development of classified aircraft. It could be other activities, like operation of a substantial fleet of Russian aircraft, or the consolidation of classified activities from other places.

The facility is a test and evaluation asset that supports a number of programs. For example, every operational VLO aircraft at some point uses the dynamic RCS tests capabilities at Groom Lake. EW related activities are a large portion of the work done there. Flight test is much smaller.

There are photos of various Russian aircraft operating in the area in the public domain. There are also satellite photos of the facility that clearly do not show liquid hydrogen, liquid methane, or gelled fuel production and storage facilities large enough to support a large, fast aircraft.

Most of the construction at the base in the last decade has been to update or upgrade existing capabilities or to keep pace with existing organic growth. The base finally has the power lines it needed 5 years earlier, they have some more office space, etc.

 

[blackstar]

I don't really follow Groom stuff all that closely. But I've always had the impression that some people leap to conclusions instead of walking to them.

So, for instance, they build a big new hangar at Groom and people say "Ah ha! It must be to house a big new aircraft!" But another explanation is that maybe they want to be able to work on a B-52 or a JSTARS there inside an air conditioned hangar instead of outside on the tarmac. Or maybe they have traditionally unloaded their transport aircraft (C-5, C-117) outside and they prefer to do it inside so they built the hangar. Before picking the sexiest explanation for something new, you should try out the more reasonable (and dull) explanations for what is going on. A few years ago a satellite photo showed a couple of F-16s parked at Groom, which indicates that not every plane that is being used there is necessarily super secret.

 

[Mr London 24/7]

What if they acquired a half dozen Su-27s/MiG-29s or more modern Russian aircraft?

And the reason for this large fleet to be procured?: acknowledged programs show that only a very few examples of each type were in operation at the same time historically. The FME program certainly continues at Groom, but with only a few flying airframes required.

What if they decided that they were going to perform more advanced electronics work there instead of at dispersed locations? Expansion could simply be explained by consolidation of work that was being conducted elsewhere.

Programs requiring the location are either sight sensitive, breakthrough or Intelligence related. I don't doubt that EW takes some of the expansion, but equally not all.

That's not to say that there are no new advanced aircraft programs being developed there, but people have been predicted handfuls of them for decades now, and we've seen that on average there's about one-two new advanced aircraft program(s) revealed per decade.

People do, but I hope you don't count me amongst them - since I have made no such prediction. For every program revealed, there will be several cut-up, perhaps a notable moved to the classified storage. It's clear (from Test Pilot resume's for example) that the scant few revealed are equally not the sum total tested. More importantly (and the reason for my carefully worded OP) this effort continues, and continues to bear fruit, and all hope is not lost...

 

[quellish]

Or maybe they have traditionally unloaded their transport aircraft (C-5, C-117) outside and they prefer to do it inside so they built the hangar. Before picking the sexiest explanation for something new, you should try out the more reasonable (and dull) explanations for what is going on.

Edwards has large hangars too, and they tend to hold multiple aircraft as well as office space. Edwards also has one hangar which is nearly identical to the new large hangar at Groom Lake.

A few years ago a satellite photo showed a couple of F-16s parked at Groom, which indicates that not every plane that is being used there is necessarily super secret.

If you mean the F-16s commonly seen on Google Earth images parked at the north ramp, near 4 hangars (hangars 5,4,6 and 7, oordinates 37.244922, -115.816564), these are chase and support aircraft. If you look a little to the east and north of these hangars ( 37.246718, -115.812020), you can usually also see parked H-60 helicopters. These are not secret stealth Blackhawks, they are also support aircraft that provide SAR, security, and other services.

 

[sublight_]

Occam's Razor. We've seen people make stuff up / misidentify things FAR more often.

It also applies if he does have photographs, because then the most likely explanation for their non-appearance is that somebody gave him an uncomfortably personal briefing on various National Security laws. Or offered him a scoop when/if it goes white world in exchange for the negs. Or both.

The laws don't work like that. They can be used to prosecute people for leaking, but not journalists who have received classified material.

Is it easier to believe that there were Men in Black, or that he was making stuff up?

In light of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court orders that have been given out like candy to American citizens lately, one has to wonder if the DoD could have a similar mechanism for classified gag orders.

NOTE: I'm not implying the gag orders make the vehicle's existence any more plausible, just that they could contribute to peoples tendency to suddenly do an about face on a story.

 

[SOC]

And the reason for this large fleet to be procured?: acknowledged programs show that only a very few examples of each type were in operation at the same time historically. The FME program certainly continues at Groom, but with only a few flying airframes required.

Buying extra airframes gives you the ability to cannibalize them for spares to keep one or two flying. You can also take the extras apart to test various things like the radar or engines without compromising your flight test aircraft.

 

[poru4646]

The question that has always bothered me is why the facility has such a long runway. The USGS satellite photo from 1968 shows a runway over 20,000 feet long. The latest google earth shows x's for an inactive portion but the high speed run off is still visible carved into the lakebed. How fast or how heavy does an aircraft need to be to need that stopping distance.

 

[Stargazer]

The question that has always bothered me is why the facility has such a long runway. The USGS satellite photo from 1968 shows a runway over 20,000 feet long. The latest google earth shows x's for an inactive portion but the high speed run off is still visible carved into the lakebed. How fast or how heavy does an aircraft need to be to need that stopping distance.

That's quite a sensible question. Maybe they built it like that "just in case", to be sure that whatever future vehicles they might be testing, they wouldn't have any trouble taking off and landing from the site. I should think that USAF aerospaceplanes such as the X-20 Dyna-Soar might have needed something of that size.

 

[blackstar]

Very heavy aircraft also need long runways, especially if they have to abort a takeoff.

 

[SOC]

Very heavy aircraft also need long runways, especially if they have to abort a takeoff.

They also sometimes require more distance if it's really hot and they're heavily loaded, which might happen quite a bit in Nevada!

 

[Mat Parry]

http://www.dreamlandresort.com/forum/messages/35638.html


Peter Merlin has made many valiant attempts to de-mistify "the longest runway in the world" claims.


http://www.dreamlandresort.com/forum/messages/21159.html

 

[poru4646]

Thanks for the info Mat Parry!

 

[Maverick Pilot321]

I am some what new to this website and with that, I posted something about project black star (mine is a wright brothers post compared to this though) and did not know that this post was up. if you interested in my post and/or willing to help me out on this fascinating subject feel free to check out........ "Project Black Star.........Back from the dead the Resurrection of the XB-70" ...................but remember I am new to this site so don't start giving me crap ok??


From: Maverick Pilot321

 

[blackstar]

I am some what new to this website and with that, I posted something about project black star (mine is a wright brothers post compared to this though) and did not know that this post was up. if you interested in my post and/or willing to help me out on this fascinating subject feel free to check out........ "Project Black Star.........Back from the dead the Resurrection of the XB-70" ...................but remember I am new to this site so don't start giving me crap ok??


From: Maverick Pilot321

Okay, we won't start giving you crap, as you kindly requested.

May I be so bold as to point out that when you ask somebody to check out something that you have written, perhaps--maybe?--you should provide a link to it?

Just sayin'...

 

[Maverick Pilot321]

Extra images

To: Flateric. you have put a lot of work into looking at project Black star.

I am interested in the pictures and large amounts of comprehensive information on this so called "black project"

But one picture caught my interest, it was one of the two aircraft conjoin and what they would look like together. I believe it was sketch 6, and if you don't feel like replying to any of this that's fine as well, but if you are interested,respond please do so because I may have some interesting theories on this subject

 

[Desert Dawn]

Look at it this way- Think of the V-22, F-22, and F-35 programs. Hell, look at the Boeing 787. If it takes years of protracted development, blind alleys, massive delays and cost overruns to make stuff that while advanced, is nowhere near these "secret" projects. Why would they bother? How come these super advanced projects don't run into delays and overruns? Consider what these projects cost. You can't hide that kind of dough, you can't counts and lots and lots of people keeping their mouths shut.

I wouldn't go that far. The Blackbird was flying before anybody knew about it. The F-117 was in service before anybody knew about it. The Boeing Bird of Prey had finished it's entire flight test program and retired without anybody knowing about it.

.

 

[Desert Dawn]

Back in those days everybody assumed it was the "F-19" but yeah, there were a lot of rumors about it before it was announced officially. There were also rumors of what ended up being Tacit Blue circulating around that time. "Shamu" as I recall.

July 1986, Further publicity about the stealth fighter resulted when one crashed in California on a night training mission. The drastic security measures taken during the incident attracted media attention. The aircraft crashed at approximately 2 A.M. on a night training flight and started a fierce brushfire near Bakersfield, California. The fire was so severe that it took some 16 hours to extinguish.38 The crash site was proclaimed a national security area, which made overflights within five miles at altitudes less than 8,500 feet illegal. The ground area was also sealed off to the point that fire fighters were not allowed into the immediate area.39 While the Air Force refused to comment on what type of aircraft the pilot had been flying or where the flight originated, there was no doubt in anyone's mind what had crashed. Aviation Week & Space Technology ran detailed articles on the incident, including an analysis of local airways and military operations areas. In a fashion typical of the popular media, Newsweek ran a story that contained several serious inaccuracies. The report indicated that over 72 stealth fighters were in operation and that any debris from the crash could be analyzed and information obtained that "the Kremlin would love to get its hands on." As a result of this, the article claimed, Pentagon officials "wondered if they'd have to keep the entire area cordoned off--forever."




Sounds a lot like the volcano-like fire on the mountain at the end of the runaway at Groom Lake a few years ago, the photos of which were published at the Dreamlandresort website. Whatever crashed that day had to be large or contain something that burned at a high temperature and for the long time (it was still burning the next day, there seemed to have been no attempt to stop the fire). They officially said a B-52 had lost one drop tank. Yeah... and my name is Santa.
[/sup]

 

[Stargazer]

I wouldn't go that far. The Blackbird was flying before anybody knew about it. The F-117 was in service before anybody knew about it. The Boeing Bird of Prey had finished it's entire flight test program and retired without anybody knowing about it.

Couldn't agree more. And in this respect I'll say that I trust far more a corporation to manage such feats than the military of government agencies. Many of the secret aircraft that were revealed much later were flight-tested while at the company and without any markings. Think of the Angel, Blackbird, Have Blue, Tacit Blue, , Ryan classified RPVs such as the Manta Ray, Bird of Prey (which, by the way, was a McDONNELL DOUGLAS program that Boeing conveniently rebadged on takeover when it was nearly completed...). It may be easier to keep something secret when it involves only corporate personnel who fear they might lose their jobs in case of leaks rather than civil servant or military personnel (especially if these have any quarms about the way public money is getting used or if, say, they have a bone of contention with their hierarchy.)

 

[Byeman]

Couldn't agree more. And in this respect I'll say that I trust far more a corporation to manage such feats than the military of government agencies.

Quite the opposite. Snowden, Boyd, etc. Civil servant or military personnel will lose their jobs if leaking classified info. They have no extra benefits over contractors. I have personal experience working classified programs as a military, civilian and contractor person.

 

[OM]

I have personal experience working classified programs as a military, civilian and contractor person.

...Interesting. Care to share any details that might substantiate these claims?


:OM:

 

[DSE]

I have personal experience working classified programs as a military, civilian and contractor person.

...Interesting. Care to share any details that might substantiate these claims?


:OM:

One of the most notorious corporate examples was Charles Miller working at N-G on a S project and wanted to get a TS clearance to be able to work on the B-2. However, he was in debt too much to ever get a TS clearance and to get $$ he sold secrets from the lower level program, unwittingly to undercover FBI. Classic case still used in security training today.

 

[OM]

One of the most notorious corporate examples was Charles Miller working at N-G on a S project and wanted to get a TS clearance to be able to work on the B-2. However, he was in debt too much to ever get a TS clearance and to get $$ he sold secrets from the lower level program, unwittingly to undercover FBI. Classic case still used in security training today.

...Heh, a story I've heard before from some of my old college friends working as defense and aviation contractors. On the other hand, some of us have come across those types online who claim to have worked at Company X in Position Y, and claim to have "first-hand knowledge" of Project Z, only to find out that Y is "facilities site conditions engineer", which is Company X's job title for a janitor.

 

[Mat Parry]

...Heh, a story I've heard before from some of my old college friends working as defense and aviation contractors. On the other hand, some of us have come across those types online who claim to have worked at Company X in Position Y, and claim to have "first-hand knowledge" of Project Z, only to find out that Y is "facilities site conditions engineer", which is Company X's job title for a janitor.

it's usually pretty straightforward to read what these types say (and often more importantly what they do not say) and make a judgement.FWIW In this specific case (which to be fair to you was an amusing little trap) I have no doubts about their claims

 

[OM]

it's usually pretty straightforward to read what these types say (and often more importantly what they do not say) and make a judgement.FWIW In this specific case (which to be fair to you was an amusing little trap) I have no doubts about their claims

...After almost three decades dealing with online forums, mailing lists and even localized message boards, I've usually been pretty good at spotting the cranks and crackpots from those who actually have the skills/experience(s) they claim. Especially when they're willing to back said claims up with proof. A snotty attitude doesn't help their cause by one iota, tho. Even if they do happen to be what they claim, and not, say, a janitor who was fired from Lockmart because he was a nut.


...Ah well, we'd better put this forum back on track before the derailment winds up breaching the nuclear waste containers after all


:OM:

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Getting back on track, does anyone have a project name or paper title for Boeing's 1993 TSTO concept?

 

[blackstar]

This just reminds me that Scott wrote his Aviation Week cover story in March 2006--nine years ago, and we...

Wait, let me just repeat that:

NINE YEARS AGO.

And since then, no confirmation at all. In 2007 he did an interview where he said that he had conclusive proof, in the form of photographs, and then he didn't produce them. And this kind of behavior is just rather, well, aggravating, because that's the kind of bullshit that somebody pulls when they don't have proof but want to get their critics to shut up (trust me, I've heard it before from people who claim to have earth shattering evidence that nobody else has and then they never ever produce it). And then the story fades and everybody forgets. But we're at nine years and this Aviation Week cover story has not gained any confirmation at all. None. Nada. Zippo.

We now return you to your regular broadcast.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

That sucks! :-\