Mysterious X-Plane from NASA

FlyGuy369

FlyGuy369

Flying is fantastic
Joined
15 June 2023
Messages
579
Reaction score
1,702

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20260923_053813_Chrome.jpg
    Screenshot_20260923_053813_Chrome.jpg
    2.5 MB · Views: 316
archipeppe said:
One thought: it looks suspiciously similiar to the Top Gun Maverick's Darkstar.....

View attachment 824568
Click to expand...

That's exactly what it is.

And Isaacman saying that "higher and faster" is more important that "more fuel efficient" is the sort of adolescent posturing we are becoming used to from this administration.

Sad to think that the X-66 got axed to pay for whatever nonsense he's selling.
 
TomS said:
That's exactly what it is.

And Isaacman saying that "higher and faster" is more important that "more fuel efficient" is the sort of adolescent posturing we are becoming used to from this administration.

Sad to think that the X-66 got axed to pay for whatever nonsense he's selling.
Click to expand...
Higher and faster IS more important. We're already doing "more fuel efficient". Our research in the "higher and faster" department is tiny by comparison.

https://www.nasa.gov/aeronautics/ultra-efficient-aviation/

That's just NASA. Boeing, Airbus, etc. are doing their own just to stay competitive. Now show us all the manned hypersonics (or even supersonic) research NASA is doing. (And the X-59 doesn't count as it's purely a boom research aircraft.)
 
Last edited:
I guess NASA refurbish those:

61-7980/NASA 844
61-7971/NASA 832
61-7956/NASA 831
61-7967 USAF

Oh by the way those four are SR-71.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TomS said:
Sad to think that the X-66 got axed to pay for whatever nonsense he's selling.
Click to expand...

NASA should be doing ground-breaking aero, not simping for manufacturers. Get back to quiet supercruise, carbon-titanium composites and NASP - things that will move the state of the art forward, not studying how airlines can save 2 cents per seat mile by flying more slowly.

If Boeing can't even bother dusting-off Hurel Dubois' theories then let them founder.
 
SR-71A (61-7980/NASA 844) is no longer on static display in front of NASA Armstrong. Several sources have suggested there are plans to "make it flyable again."

I can't help feeling that sounds like a terrible idea for a lot of technical and logistical reasons.
 
Sferrin said:
Higher and faster IS more important. We're already doing "more fuel efficient". Our research in the "higher and faster" department is tiny by comparison.

https://www.nasa.gov/aeronautics/ultra-efficient-aviation/

That's just NASA. Boeing, Airbus, etc. are doing their own just to stay competitive. Now show us all the manned hypersonics (or even supersonic) research NASA is doing. (And the X-59 doesn't count as it's purely a boom research aircraft.)
Click to expand...
1000% sferrin push the boundaries of flight again. Excite the nation to the possibilities. I don’t know how many interviews I’ve seen of young engineers said pushing the boundaries not 0.002% increase in efficiency is what they want to do.
 
Even if similiar, this X aircraft doesn't match exactly with an SR-71...
 

Attachments

  • 1790185640058.png
    1790185640058.png
    328.2 KB · Views: 56
  • 1790185699404.png
    1790185699404.png
    197.5 KB · Views: 260
Last edited by a moderator:
Can't help but think the tails look edited in. The smoke + vague tails are giving F-47 rendering vibes w.r.t. the canards.

Either way, interested to see whatever this ends up being.
 
SlothmanAllen said:
It could just be some AI render and whatever high speed project they have in mind might be years into the future.
Click to expand...
I dont think so , there is something coming for sure in the High speed and high altitude domain, I m sure that Lockheed is behind this plane.
 
archipeppe said:
Could it be a Blackstar handed to NASA?
Click to expand...
Like handing Blackbirds (and others) to NASA? But what new ground would they be covering? (Assuming Blackstar existed.) Blackbirds, the Valkyrie, etc. didn't do any work for NASA that pushed performance boundaries IIRC.
 
dark sidius said:
I have a question what are we seeing , the rear or the front of the new Nasa mystery plane ?
Click to expand...
Good question: my catch is that we are seeing the front view.
The twin tails position is the one you expect to see looking from front to rear.
Furthermore, is possible to spot the two element canopy, divided in two halves by a sort of strut....
 
oh goody, another thread with 100's of replies arguing about what may well be an AI created mock up.
 
bob225 said:
oh goody, another thread with 100's of replies arguing about what may well be an AI created mock up
Click to expand...
Stop at each time saying it is AI or you are a AI too. And If You are not interested by the thread you can live.
 
Why do i have this sneaky suspicion that Jared Isaacman want to fly a SR-71 ?
 
dark sidius said:
Stop at each time saying it is AI or you are a AI too. And If You are not interested by the thread you can live.
Click to expand...
how do you know i'm not AI?

The f47 thread is 70+ pages long discussing a highly edited AI image that could look nothing like the final jet, if Boeing are actually capable of producing it.

I'd love to see some proper NASA x-planes, and have a great memories of seeing the SR-71 in real life.

I'm just tired of certain posters making things up to fit their own narrative without looking at the facts and going round in circles ruining threads with endless nonsense

I'm also tired of organisations using poor AI slop in adverts and creatives.

Oh and i said it "may" be AI which i think is the first time i've said that on the site.

I'm interested in the thread and what might come out, i'm not interested in the endless speculation of one placeholder image.

Rant over, enjoy your day
 
bob225 said:
oh goody, another thread with 100's of replies arguing about what may well be an AI created mock up.
Click to expand...
This isn't the case.

Usually is about some grainy image took somewhere or some concept leaked on a magazine (the one we all know).
But here we are discussing something that was voluntarily intoduced and acknowledged by the current NASA Administrator, isn't something that happen all the days...

Until we can get more info and hard data about it, we can only speculate but it is pretty justified given the conditions.
 
The main undercarriage points to it being a bad take on an SR.71

Did I read somewhere a few years back someone trying to recreate a sub scale flying mockup of the Blackbird for airshow use ?

Either way until more details emerge (if ever) surely this discussion thread should be in the 'bar' section, instead of pages and pages of pointless speculation based upon a placeholder image
 
Last edited:
Whisperstream said:
SR-71A (61-7980/NASA 844) is no longer on static display in front of NASA Armstrong. Several sources have suggested there are plans to "make it flyable again."

I can't help feeling that sounds like a terrible idea for a lot of technical and logistical reasons.
Click to expand...
IIRC, the engines were not loaded with long-term-storage preservative oils, so while the blades may not be destroyed the internals are.

Because SecAF who killed them was turned down by the Blackbird program due to not being a good enough pilot and he wanted to make sure that the retirement could not be undone.
 
...
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20260925_004749_X.jpg
    Screenshot_20260925_004749_X.jpg
    557.4 KB · Views: 0

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom