Haven't seen that Blackstar recently?

[archipeppe]

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.

I fully agree.

 

[sferrin]

It sold magazines and got publicity. That's all that matters.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Maybe it was AvLeak's attempt at a speculative sci-fi piece... A genuine example of the phrase "pictures or it didn't happen!"

But I'd really still like to hear more about that lovely '93 Boeing TSTO.

Hell, maybe Blackstar is the '93 TSTO, all wrapped up in your typical AvLeak shiny-cover-story hype. Now wouldn't that be something?

At least there's a paper or brief out there somewhere to back up the '93 concept. For now this is all I have:

Popular Mechanics

Popular Mechanics inspires, instructs and influences readers to help them master the modern world. Whether it’s practical DIY home-improvement tips, gadgets and digital technology, information on the newest cars or the latest breakthroughs in science -- PM is the ultimate guide to our high-tech...

books.google.com

 

[GeorgeA]

Check out the first half-dozen or so entries in this topic.

 

[Stargazer]

Wait, let me just repeat that:

NINE YEARS AGO.

And how many more years since the would-be "Brilliant Buzzard"?? Another 15 years or so...

 

[quellish]

The Boeing "93" concept was BETA II:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5217.0.html?PHPSESSID=5ff9mmid89e4iumnql3psqucg1

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

I can see the resemblance.

 

[sublight_]

The Chinese have taken the concept and ran with it.....

China Reveals Wind Tunnel Tests Of Space Plane-Launching High-Speed Mothership Aircraft

Such a system would give China the ability to rapidly and unpredictably access space with a reusable orbiter.

www.thedrive.com

 

[greenmartian2017]

Ah, come on, you guys.....

This article just saw light today or yesterday...(Sunday or Monday).

Barrett, Rogers consider declassifying secretive space programs

Secretary of the U.S. Air Force Barbara Barrett says that declassifying intelligence is key to combating the growing threat to the the nation's space capabilities, and the sooner the better.

www.defensenews.com

If "Black Star" (or whatever its real name is) exists, it may be coming out as a consequence to this decision publicly declared here. As like with many other historical aerospace vehicles that currently remain "Black" that also may have some declassification done on them.... I have a sense, based on some other things made in comment to me, this might not be a piecemeal dribble this time (as in, incremental declassification, as has been the S.O.P. for a very long time).

The United States does have some unmatched tech nested inside military-oriented space programs. Both current and historical.

Secretary Barrett does say this: "America is the best there is in space."

Does this mean as the article says we can expect revelations galore coming in 2020?

I won't hold my breath.

But I will be a very interested bystander.

 

[Flyaway]

The bit that caught my eye in that article posted above is where it is talking about the issue of over-classification actually impacting the ability of law makers to carry out over-sight of these programs. Though that’s hardly a new issue.

 

[sferrin]

The bit that caught my eye in that article posted above is where it is talking about the issue of over-classification actually impacting the ability of law makers to carry out over-sight of these programs. Though that’s hardly a new issue.

There's a fine line. Too many politicians like to get print by criticizing programs for normal behavior. (Normal to anybody who has a clue anyway.) Next thing you know program costs start to skyrocket due to the effects of meddling.

 

[Flyaway]

The bit that caught my eye in that article posted above is where it is talking about the issue of over-classification actually impacting the ability of law makers to carry out over-sight of these programs. Though that’s hardly a new issue.

There's a fine line. Too many politicians like to get print by criticizing programs for normal behavior. (Normal to anybody who has a clue anyway.) Next thing you know program costs start to skyrocket due to the effects of meddling.

But on the other hand these NRO birds are often some of the most expensive payloads launched into space. Therefore, they really need the strictest financial oversight.

 

[sferrin]

The bit that caught my eye in that article posted above is where it is talking about the issue of over-classification actually impacting the ability of law makers to carry out over-sight of these programs. Though that’s hardly a new issue.

There's a fine line. Too many politicians like to get print by criticizing programs for normal behavior. (Normal to anybody who has a clue anyway.) Next thing you know program costs start to skyrocket due to the effects of meddling.

But on the other hand these NRO birds are often some of the most expensive payloads launched into space. Therefore, they really need the strictest financial oversight.

I'm speaking in general.

 

[blackstar]

The bit that caught my eye in that article posted above is where it is talking about the issue of over-classification actually impacting the ability of law makers to carry out over-sight of these programs. Though that’s hardly a new issue.

Not a new issue at all. I know somebody who worked in the intelligence field in the 1980s and 90s. He told me that there were several factors, of which classification was one of them. NRO could, and did, use classification to keep people from exercising oversight. They restricted who had access to detailed information, often who had knowledge that a program even existed. Then, when it ran over budget, very few people were aware of that fact.

There have been several cases where that bubbled out into the public:

-One notable one was the "scandal" over the NRO's new headquarters in the early 1990s. Several members of Congress claimed that they were unaware that NRO was spending the money, or the amount of money, on their headquarters, and there were hearings. I put "scandal" in quotes because I suspected at the time that this was more a case of politicians wanting to embarrass intelligence officials for other things, but using the HQ issue as the excuse.

-Another example was the mid-1990s "forward funding" scandal where it was discovered that NRO was keeping unspent funds in hidden accounts in order to spend them in the future. They got caught with something like several billion dollars (a major fraction of their budget) that had not been spent and they were holding it in reserve. This was a serious issue for boring federal budgeting reasons that I won't go into here, and it resulted in the NRO director getting fired. That's a case where members of Congress should have known about this excess money, but it was hidden behind walls of classification.

-The issue over the funding of the MISTY stealth satellite in (iirc) the early 2000s. That's a case where a very very expensive spacecraft was built and NRO wanted to build another one, but lots of people were kept in the dark about how much it cost. (The actual cost would shock you.)

But in addition to those cases where classification kept legislators in the dark, the guy I mentioned above also told me that NRO was very good at dog and pony shows. They could dazzle legislators with incredible pictures and other data, then ask for more money. They were really good at this and at deflecting hard questions about how much stuff really cost and whether there were cheaper alternatives. I don't have any good examples, but I can certainly believe it happened.

 

[In_A_Dream]

What does the NRO use for On-Demand intelligence gathering?

 

[Flyaway]

What does the NRO use for On-Demand intelligence gathering?

For photo and radar reconnaissance from what I’ve read they increasingly use commercial operators for quick first looks.

 

[Vahe Demirjian]

The Chinese have taken the concept and ran with it.....

China Reveals Wind Tunnel Tests Of Space Plane-Launching High-Speed Mothership Aircraft

Such a system would give China the ability to rapidly and unpredictably access space with a reusable orbiter.

www.thedrive.com

I remember that the XB-70 was considered by North American Aviation in the late 1960s as a mothership for the X-15. The question is if China can afford to develop a high-speed aircraft to carry a spaceplane into orbit when it has successfully tested hypersonic weapons and only time the Chinese have used a large plane to carry a spaceplane was in the early 2010s when the Shenlong spaceplane carried out its first free suborbital flight from an H-6 bomber. None of China's current supersonic warplanes can carry the weight of an X-15 type spaceplane, and China could be better off using elements from the Tu-160 to create a delta wing cruise missile carrier that could one day launch a spaceplane into orbit at a speed of Mach 2.

 

[blackstar]

Ah, come on, you guys.....
This article just saw light today or yesterday...(Sunday or Monday).

Barrett, Rogers consider declassifying secretive space programs

Secretary of the U.S. Air Force Barbara Barrett says that declassifying intelligence is key to combating the growing threat to the the nation's space capabilities, and the sooner the better.

www.defensenews.com

I won't hold my breath.

But I will be a very interested bystander.

I just read through this thread again and saw this post, from December 2019. It referred to the Secretary of the Air Force suggesting that they might declassify some space programs soon.

"Barrett, Rogers consider declassifying secretive space programs"

Two years later and they have not done that. So yeah, we're still waiting.

But note that the Blackstar article by William Scott appeared in Aviation Week in March 2006. So we are coming up on the 16th anniversary of that article, and yet no more evidence of Blackstar has come out in those 16 years. None.

I went back and looked at my own article about the Aviation Week Blackstar article, and note this:

"In 1990 Scott wrote an article about so-called top secret, or “black,” aircraft developed by the U.S. government in the 1980s (“Scientists’ and Engineers’ Dreams Taking to Skies as ‘Black’ Aircraft,” December 24, 1990, p. 41). Scott speculated that the Air Force had developed a hypersonic bomber capable of carrying multiple nuclear warheads in vertical ejection racks. Sixteen years later, no such plane has ever been declassified, seen, or photographed.


In 1991 Scott was back, this time with an article about a top secret stealthy reconnaissance aircraft called the “TR-3 Manta” (“Triangular Recon Aircraft May be Supporting F-117A,” June 10, 1991, p. 20). He wrote that “about 25–30 of the special reconnaissance aircraft—designated the TR-3A Black Manta—could be placed in service eventually, based at Holloman AFB, NM, and Tonapah, Nevada.” He continued: “Several TR-3As are believed to have been deployed temporarily to Alaska, Britain, Panama and Okinawa. More recently, they are believed to have supported F-117A operations in the Persian Gulf War.”


So we can see that while he was writing for Aviation Week, Scott wrote a number of articles about top secret aircraft and then no further information has appeared about them. Thirty-two years and no hypersonic bombers, thirty-one years and no TR-3 Mantas, sixteen years and no Blackstar.

What do the 2019 article and the 2006 Blackstar article have in common? They're both examples of how you shouldn't get too excited about this stuff. You gotta stay calm and have some perspective. Revelation may not be right around the corner.

 

[sublight_]

Revelation may not be right around the corner.

That is an understatement. At some point the DoD devolved from "declassify stuff once in a while so historians and students can learn something" to "dont declassify anything EVER". I would really like to know why the doctrine changed and when exactly it changed. Yes, I am aware that Hexagon related information has been trickling out, but pretty much nothing else has.

 

[blackstar]

That is an understatement. At some point the DoD devolved from "declassify stuff once in a while so historians and students can learn something" to "dont declassify anything EVER". I would really like to know why the doctrine changed and when exactly it changed. Yes, I am aware that Hexagon related information has been trickling out, but pretty much nothing else has.

That's not accurate. DoD is a big entity, and what gets declassified varies a lot by organization. My impression is that USAF doesn't really declassify much, and their FOIA system is a mess. I have been waiting five years for them to declassify some documents from 1959, and their attitude is clearly to do very little very slowly.

On the other hand, the National Reconnaissance Office has an active and regular declassification program. They declassify major programs regularly. Off the top of my head:

2011-GAMBIT and HEXAGON programs declassified
2012-QUILL program declassified
2015-MOL/DORIAN program declassified
2016-2019-Low altitude SIGINT programs declassified (STRAWMAN, P-11/P-989, POPPY)
2018-TAGBOARD program declassified
2021-Many documents leading up to KH-11 program declassified

Add to that the CIA declassifying the AQUILINE program. And the NRO does regular document releases that cover a bunch of programs.

But we're also mixing a bunch of different things here. I don't think that there is a Blackstar program that can be declassified. I think that William Scott imagined that program existed. I think that he strung together a bunch of rumors that he did not hear from people who actually knew anything, and he imagined a program that was never real. I think he did the same thing with some of his earlier stories, although my suspicion is that in the case of the hypersonic bomber and the TR-3 he heard about studies and research work, NOT actual aircraft test programs.

 

[sublight_]

That is an understatement. At some point the DoD devolved from "declassify stuff once in a while so historians and students can learn something" to "dont declassify anything EVER". I would really like to know why the doctrine changed and when exactly it changed. Yes, I am aware that Hexagon related information has been trickling out, but pretty much nothing else has.

My impression is that USAF doesn't really declassify much, and their FOIA system is a mess.

Its funny because the Air force made this web site in 2011 and then proceeded to never update it. It was like they were complying with some executive order, then figured out a bureaucratic way around complying with it.

But we're also mixing a bunch of different things here. I don't think that there is a Blackstar program that can be declassified. I think that William Scott imagined that program existed.

I think a lot of classified attempts at a TSTO program probably did occur, and he was just not capable of discriminating the actual signal from the deliberate heaps of misinformation being thrown at him as an Aerospace journalist.

 

[flateric]

Bill Scott is a journalist, a writer, and a good one. His AWST B-2 series and book still one of the best sources on program history.
If journalist picked up a deliberately thrown disinformation piece on a verge of early 90s when a whole number of programs were declassified, it means that he did believe his sources on certain reasons. I will not continue with Aurora stuff etc.

 

[sublight_]

The journalism of Bill Scott has taken a different turn after his family tragedy, which I mentioned because it isn't some personal tragedy that I have revealed, but one that has shaped the direction of his writing, and he himself has evangelized publicly. I thought it was entirely relevant that this was the reason he hasn't followed up on any of his past work. I see no need to edit my post and remove mention of this, unless you totally believe it was meant to disparage him, which it was not.

 

[Nigelhg]

The journalism of Bill Scott has taken a different turn after his family tragedy, which I mentioned because it isn't some personally tragedy that I have revealed, but one that has shaped the direction of his writing, and he himself has evangelized publicly. I thought it was entirely relevant that this was the reason he hasn't followed up on any of his past work. I see no need to edit my post and remove mention of this, unless you totally believe it was meant to disparage him, which it was not.

I'd no idea about this.... Just awful for him and his family.

 

[blackstar]

Its funny because the Air force made this web site in 2011 and then proceeded to never update it. It was like they were complying with some executive order, then figured out a bureaucratic way around complying with it.

I have only had limited dealings with them on FOIA, but it has been a pain. At one point--I don't know if this is still true--they required you to create a FOIA account with a 16-digit password. But if you did not revisit that account at least every six months they would deactivate your account. Considering that it usually takes them years to respond to a FOIA request, it seemed pretty crazy to require you to keep revisiting your account. After they deactivated your account you could reactivate it, but it was pretty nutty to require this. Obviously their IT people were paranoid and didn't want open accounts, but that requirement came across as antagonistic toward the users, like "Go away!"

There are other things they do too. I filed a request for a document that I was told was at Edwards AFB (I was told that by a retired general who had actually read the document at the Edwards archives). Edwards looked, said "We don't have it," and then closed my request. Ideally, they should have (are probably required to) forward my request to the proper USAF office. Nope, once again it was "Go away!"

Most recently I had a request that I filed in 2017 for a 1960 document denied in full. They claimed they cannot release any of that document. I have appealed, pointing out that it's been 60 years, and all of the systems discussed in that document have not been used for decades. Now I wait.

That's just my recent experiences. Back in the 1990s I had some annoying experiences with the Los Angeles AFB FOIA office, where their FOIA officer was clearly untrained and did not have any knowledge of their history. At one point I requested photos of the deployment of the DSCSIII comsats from a classified shuttle mission. I got a phone call from a confused FOIA officer who told me that the space shuttle was owned by NASA, so I should have filed my request with NASA. I informed him that his office owned the payload and had oversight of the mission, so it was their responsibility. A few days later I got a letter in the mail telling me they closed my request. (In other words: "Go away!") So I appealed, and surprisingly, only three weeks later I got an envelope in the mail with several photos of the DSCSIII deployment. So I published those photos, the first time anybody had published photos of the deployment of a primary payload from a classified shuttle mission.

I don't lose any sleep over dealing with Air Force FOIA people. I learned a long time ago to not get angry over it. But it's clear that they don't give a damn, and they don't give a damn from the top of the organization.

 

[Vahe Demirjian]

Ah, come on, you guys.....
This article just saw light today or yesterday...(Sunday or Monday).

Barrett, Rogers consider declassifying secretive space programs

Secretary of the U.S. Air Force Barbara Barrett says that declassifying intelligence is key to combating the growing threat to the the nation's space capabilities, and the sooner the better.

www.defensenews.com

I won't hold my breath.

But I will be a very interested bystander.

I just read through this thread again and saw this post, from December 2019. It referred to the Secretary of the Air Force suggesting that they might declassify some space programs soon.

"Barrett, Rogers consider declassifying secretive space programs"

Two years later and they have not done that. So yeah, we're still waiting.

But note that the Blackstar article by William Scott appeared in Aviation Week in March 2006. So we are coming up on the 16th anniversary of that article, and yet no more evidence of Blackstar has come out in those 16 years. None.

I went back and looked at my own article about the Aviation Week Blackstar article, and note this:

"In 1990 Scott wrote an article about so-called top secret, or “black,” aircraft developed by the U.S. government in the 1980s (“Scientists’ and Engineers’ Dreams Taking to Skies as ‘Black’ Aircraft,” December 24, 1990, p. 41). Scott speculated that the Air Force had developed a hypersonic bomber capable of carrying multiple nuclear warheads in vertical ejection racks. Sixteen years later, no such plane has ever been declassified, seen, or photographed.


In 1991 Scott was back, this time with an article about a top secret stealthy reconnaissance aircraft called the “TR-3 Manta” (“Triangular Recon Aircraft May be Supporting F-117A,” June 10, 1991, p. 20). He wrote that “about 25–30 of the special reconnaissance aircraft—designated the TR-3A Black Manta—could be placed in service eventually, based at Holloman AFB, NM, and Tonapah, Nevada.” He continued: “Several TR-3As are believed to have been deployed temporarily to Alaska, Britain, Panama and Okinawa. More recently, they are believed to have supported F-117A operations in the Persian Gulf War.”


So we can see that while he was writing for Aviation Week, Scott wrote a number of articles about top secret aircraft and then no further information has appeared about them. Thirty-two years and no hypersonic bombers, thirty-one years and no TR-3 Mantas, sixteen years and no Blackstar.

What do the 2019 article and the 2006 Blackstar article have in common? They're both examples of how you shouldn't get too excited about this stuff. You gotta stay calm and have some perspective. Revelation may not be right around the corner.

The very William Scott who wrote the Blackstar story also wrote the story about the alleged TR-3 Black Manta tactical reconnaissance stealth flying wing. In both cases, the Pentagon and USAF Space Command (now the US Space Force) refused to confirm or deny rumors about the TR-3 and Blackstar, but we now know, in the wake of the operational use of the X-37B and RQ-170 Sentinel, that neither the TR-3 nor the Blackstar existed (I've always considered reported TR-3 sightings to be subscale tech demonstrators for the canceled Tier III reconnaissance drone, and it is possible that one B-1B was used to launch a suborbital technology demonstrator for an orbital reconnaissance spaceplane because the B-1B's canards are similar to those of the alleged carrier plane for the Blackstar).

 

[publiusr]

What strikes me as odd is that spysat program histories seem more available than some winged projects. I’m surprised that even Hexagon is known to a general (though limited) public. Could it be that a TSTO was attempted, but still fell short of what a modest Delta II could orbit…and they just didn’t want to look foolish? For example, I never believed in Aurora…but even if there had been…it would not have been as good as they thought it was.


I think even Seymour Bogdanoff lamented that a simple rocket will beat any (even classified) winged design…even if it does give itself away with a pop-up plume. Maybe materials advances and such will change that.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

it is possible that one B-1B was used to launch a suborbital technology demonstrator for an orbital reconnaissance spaceplane because the B-1B's canards are similar to those of the alleged carrier plane for the Blackstar).

The logic of this completely escapes me. Are you suggesting that people mistook a B-1B for a 'B-70 like vehicle' because the canards were similar?

 

[Vahe Demirjian]

it is possible that one B-1B was used to launch a suborbital technology demonstrator for an orbital reconnaissance spaceplane because the B-1B's canards are similar to those of the alleged carrier plane for the Blackstar).

The logic of this completely escapes me. Are you suggesting that people mistook a B-1B for a 'B-70 like vehicle'?

That's a possibility because (1) Mark Wade questions William Scott's claim about the rumored SR-3 carrier aircraft being powered by surplus J93s on the grounds that the use of J93s being stored for twenty years with no existing logistics chain was very unlikely (2) any construction of a new 'B-70 like vehicle' to carry a spaceplane would have required huge investments; and (3) Scott mentions in an article in the Smithsonian magazine reports of XB-70-like aircraft over Georgia and Pennsylvania in the 1990s, but it's unclear that those sightings were of aircraft similar to the XB-70, even though the reported Georgia sighting described an aircraft painted white. Recall that in his book Dark Eagles, the late Curtis Peebles argued that the triangular aircraft seen refueling from a KC-135 in August 1989 was an F-111 with its wings fully sweptback and noted that most sightings of the Brilliant Buzzard are attributable to the Rutan Long-EZ, so it is possible that the alleged SR-3 was merely a B-1B with its wings fully sweptback, since the B-1B would have to fully sweep its wings to reach Mach 1 and fly fast enough to potentially release smaller machines at high altitude. William Scott retired as a journalist for AWST in 2005 (he had wanted to write the Blackstar story for a long time, but didn't get it published until 2006), and because Scott concedes that Aurora was the codename for the ATB competition rather than a putative hypersonic spyplane.

 

[blackstar]

and (3) Scott mentions in an article in the Smithsonian magazine reports of XB-70-like aircraft over Georgia and Pennsylvania in the 1990s, but it's unclear that those sightings were of aircraft similar to the XB-70, even though the reported Georgia sighting described an aircraft painted white.

Just reading his account of the alleged witness sighting in Pennsylvania is head-scratching. An "avid birdwatcher" saw a large white bomber-like aircraft flying at 200 feet over Pennsylvania? Because we all know that the military likes to test their top secret aircraft in daylight at 200 feet over Pennsylvania. He didn't exactly think that one through.

But I'd note that he wrote that in 2010 and he mentioned the Blackstar. But three years earlier (in 2007) he claimed that he had actual photos of the spaceplane. If he had the photos then, why didn't he publish them in his 2010 article? It's been 15 years and no photos.

His claims just didn't make sense. Looking at these various articles, he starts to look like a guy who had a lot of imagination.

Here's his 2007 claim:

http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0702.html

[link is now dead, but it's probably archived somewhere]

It dates from April 2007. In it Scott states:
"Ref. the Blackstar system: I now have several photos of the XOV spaceplane sitting on a Lockheed Martin flightline ramp, so the vehicle definitely exists. Based on 15+ years of sighting reports, inside sources, etc., I determined that Blackstar's SR-3 carrier aircraft and several versions of the XOV were built and flown."

 

[Dew]

It dates from April 2007. In it Scott states:
"Ref. the Blackstar system: I now have several photos of the XOV spaceplane sitting on a Lockheed Martin flightline ramp, so the vehicle definitely exists. Based on 15+ years of sighting reports, inside sources, etc., I determined that Blackstar's SR-3 carrier aircraft and several versions of the XOV were built and flown."

It can't be that the pictures are the FDL-5 mock-up sitting outside the Flight Test Hangars at Area B WPAFB ?

 

[Byeman]

A it is possible that one B-1B was used to launch a suborbital technology demonstrator for an orbital reconnaissance spaceplane

No. Because there is no advantage over using the existing B-52.

 

[flateric]

It dates from April 2007. In it Scott states:
"Ref. the Blackstar system: I now have several photos of the XOV spaceplane sitting on a Lockheed Martin flightline ramp, so the vehicle definitely exists. Based on 15+ years of sighting reports, inside sources, etc., I determined that Blackstar's SR-3 carrier aircraft and several versions of the XOV were built and flown."

It can't be that the pictures are the FDL-5 mock-up sitting outside the Flight Test Hangars at Area B WPAFB ?

Do you think that ex-AWST editor didn't know of existence of FDL-5 in 2007?

 

[Dew]

It dates from April 2007. In it Scott states:
"Ref. the Blackstar system: I now have several photos of the XOV spaceplane sitting on a Lockheed Martin flightline ramp, so the vehicle definitely exists. Based on 15+ years of sighting reports, inside sources, etc., I determined that Blackstar's SR-3 carrier aircraft and several versions of the XOV were built and flown."

It can't be that the pictures are the FDL-5 mock-up sitting outside the Flight Test Hangars at Area B WPAFB ?

Do you think that ex-AWST editor didn't know of existence of FDL-5 in 2007?

Do you think the "XOV" is not related to FDL-5 ?

 

[RanulfC]

Its funny because the Air force made this web site in 2011 and then proceeded to never update it. It was like they were complying with some executive order, then figured out a bureaucratic way around complying with it.

(I hate that I can't figure out how I managed "un-nest" replies on here ;( )

Anyway, you're likely right in that there was an attempt around that point (a few years earlier which would be around a 'typical' military/government "we'll get to it soon" timeline ) to declassify information and 'un-load' the classified system. (Worked about as well as you'd imagine it would ) In context the site name ('secretsdeclassified') should give the game away I'd think.
AF: "See? We complied but no one every checks the website..."
(Not that it's maintained at all so there's that )

it is possible that one B-1B was used to launch a suborbital technology demonstrator for an orbital reconnaissance spaceplane because the B-1B's canards are similar to those of the alleged carrier plane for the Blackstar).

The logic of this completely escapes me. Are you suggesting that people mistook a B-1B for a 'B-70 like vehicle' because the canards were similar?

People have 'mistaken' something flying overhead for other things that never flew overhead all the damn time It's not like most people "know" what they are seeing most of the time anyway. My key here would be that because what he 'saw' was white and he'd never seen a white "bomber" other than the B-70 he assumed that's what he saw.
This isn't that much of a stretch and media (including private groups such as MUFON-et-al) get their "facts" wrong all the time. The supposed sighting "over Salt Lake City" was in fact never anywhere but over the desert to the South-West, (likely nearer Wendover but also just as likely one of the numerous 'auxiliary fields' on the west side of the Great Salt Lake...) aka around the Utah Test and Training Range.

People living right off base here in Utah were panicking after 9/11 because they saw aircraft taking off with "huge air-to-air missiles" even though those same aircraft had been taking off with drop-tanks for decades...

Randy

 

[RanulfC]

It dates from April 2007. In it Scott states:
"Ref. the Blackstar system: I now have several photos of the XOV spaceplane sitting on a Lockheed Martin flightline ramp, so the vehicle definitely exists. Based on 15+ years of sighting reports, inside sources, etc., I determined that Blackstar's SR-3 carrier aircraft and several versions of the XOV were built and flown."

It can't be that the pictures are the FDL-5 mock-up sitting outside the Flight Test Hangars at Area B WPAFB ?

Do you think that ex-AWST editor didn't know of existence of FDL-5 in 2007?

Maybe the context of the "pictures" he had/has/may-not-have were such that he simply didn't think of them AS the FDL-5? The article and illustrations show what amounts to the FDL-5 'shape' so confirmation bias might make him think "that's the XOV" rather than "that's the FDL-5" of the picture(s) are not from an angle or of a model he was familiar with.

I mean even the most simple things about this 'mystery' tend towards "I-want-to-believe" more than "proof". Take "SR-3" for example, exactly wrong designation for a supposed 'carrier-aircraft' that the military would not use. "SR" is Strategic Reconnaissance something the vehicle most assuredly is NOT so why such a designation?

Randy

 

[blackstar]

It dates from April 2007. In it Scott states:
"Ref. the Blackstar system: I now have several photos of the XOV spaceplane sitting on a Lockheed Martin flightline ramp, so the vehicle definitely exists. Based on 15+ years of sighting reports, inside sources, etc., I determined that Blackstar's SR-3 carrier aircraft and several versions of the XOV were built and flown."

It can't be that the pictures are the FDL-5 mock-up sitting outside the Flight Test Hangars at Area B WPAFB ?

Do you think that ex-AWST editor didn't know of existence of FDL-5 in 2007?

Maybe the context of the "pictures" he had/has/may-not-have were such that he simply didn't think of them AS the FDL-5? The article and illustrations show what amounts to the FDL-5 'shape' so confirmation bias might make him think "that's the XOV" rather than "that's the FDL-5" of the picture(s) are not from an angle or of a model he was familiar with.

I mean even the most simple things about this 'mystery' tend towards "I-want-to-believe" more than "proof". Take "SR-3" for example, exactly wrong designation for a supposed 'carrier-aircraft' that the military would not use. "SR" is Strategic Reconnaissance something the vehicle most assuredly is NOT so why such a designation?

Randy

Well, not to be flip, but in the end it doesn't really matter, does it? He said in 2007 that he had "proof" and then he never produced that proof. Fifteen years is plenty of time to produce the proof. The 2010 article he wrote could have included the proof. Clearly there was a reason that it did not include the photos.

We could come up with a list of possible reasons why. Something I would put on that list is that he was lying about his "proof" and that it never existed and he just wanted to silence anybody who might question him. But maybe some people want to give him the benefit of the doubt and maybe another 15 years to produce the proof. After awhile, this starts to seem like finding Bigfoot.

 

[Flyaway]

You think this is bad in the US try the British Royal Family. There was a podcast link below, talking about Queen Victoria’s extensive intelligence network and they were saying virtually nothing of this has ever been declassified by the Windsor Castle archives and much of that is well over 150 years old.

https://www.historyextra.com/period/victorian/queen-victorias-spy-network/

 

[Dew]

Maybe the context of the "pictures" he had/has/may-not-have were such that he simply didn't think of them AS the FDL-5? The article and illustrations show what amounts to the FDL-5 'shape' so confirmation bias might make him think "that's the XOV" rather than "that's the FDL-5" of the picture(s) are not from an angle or of a model he was familiar with.

This was essentially the point of my (hasty) post, but actually made in an understandable form ! Thank you !

 

[Hood]

Given the hassle Jim Goddall had over classified Senior Prom photos that LM wouldn't endorse in his Skunk Works book it doesn't seem a stretch to say that even if a journalist had photographic proof he might never be able to publish it unless they took 100% of the personal risk. Either way either the DoD or LM would soon be making displeased noises about leakage of declassified material.

Its Schrodinger's Spaceplane - it exists and doesn't exist at the same time and you can't prove it either way.