Really Top Secret Projects (Ben Rich remark to Jim Goodall)

[Orionblamblam]

The A-12 was flown covertly for years with great success. It's not as hard as you would think.

Mach 3 ain't Mach 6. Twice the speed means at least 4 times the power (and thermal signiture).

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Which is why USAF and DSTO (the Australian DARPA) have the Hypersonics International Flight Research Experimentation (HIFiRE) agreement for use of Woomera. Every good black program has a white world program to hide in...

 

[flateric]

You'd recognize the place - Upper Chamber of LM Helendale Avionics Facility underground. Photographer's name- Eric Schulzinger - must be familiar to you quite well. I've seen a lot of unusual RCS range test articles' shapes, but this one is really weird. Could it be shaped so strange to cause some radar signals go to the 'twilight zone' to make measurements of some specific parts (nose, intakes etc) of the model more exact?

 

[antigravite]

I've seen two pictures of this highly unusual test article which, years ago, raised my attention.
The one Flateric shows is portrait-oriented.
The other one is landscape-oriented. None of them differ in the level of details. Same viewing angle.
This picture was initially described to me as an inlet for F-22. No kidding.
Schultzinzer excels in the art of light painting. For those unfamiliar with studio photography, light works rimes with painting shadows.
Schultzinger's magnificent artworks makes it impossible to reconstruct the volume of this unusual object. Consider this work as a tour-de-force. I know what I am speaking about for I broke my jaws reconstructing 3D this outer shell for this shape.

Those familiar with the history of stealth will remember that skunk works physiscists tested (experimental) all kinds of basic shapes for radar reflectivity testing, without any consideration of propulsive options, to better understand the shaping factor. This particular test article could satisfy this purpose. But this would be very surprising.

This seems to be an "old" project as well.

 

[sferrin]

01234567

 

[Rickshaw]

Which is why USAF and DSTO (the Australian DARPA) have the Hypersonics International Flight Research Experimentation (HIFiRE) agreement for use of Woomera. Every good black program has a white world program to hide in...

Woomera is however not as restricted an area as it once was (my father helped create the Woomera Test Range and once held Security Pass No. 2 as the Project Manager back in 1948). Further, Australia is no where as unpopulated as it once was. Tourists, miners, oil drilling rigs, Aboriginal outstations are now spread all over the outback. Whereas in the 1960s it was possible to drive for days without encountering someone on outback roads, today you'd be unlucky to go half a day before you saw another human being, even in the more remote parts of the continent.

However, there are still large sections of the world's oceans which are extremely remote and which would be perfect for testing aircraft over. Middle of the Indian, Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, well away from the shipping lanes and its pretty lonely I suspect.

 

[AeroFranz]

However, there are still large sections of the world's oceans which are extremely remote and which would be perfect for testing aircraft over. Middle of the Indian, Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, well away from the shipping lanes and its pretty lonely I suspect.

Funny you should mention that. There is a "Buck Danny" comic book episode, "Le Mystère des avions fantômes", that takes place in some arctic area where YF-12 (or A-12, i think they were called) were being tested covertly. For those who have never read Buck Danny, I cannot recommend it highly enough. It tries being accurate both historically and technically, and the illustrations (especially in the later episodes) are just amazing. But the Francophones of the forum probably know that! ;D

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Woomera is however not as restricted an area as it once was (my father helped create the Woomera Test Range and once held Security Pass No. 2 as the Project Manager back in 1948). Further, Australia is no where as unpopulated as it once was. Tourists, miners, oil drilling rigs, Aboriginal outstations are now spread all over the outback. Whereas in the 1960s it was possible to drive for days without encountering someone on outback roads, today you'd be unlucky to go half a day before you saw another human being, even in the more remote parts of the continent.

Yeah of course but that still doesn’t mean you can’t hide a hypersonic test program for a military vehicle out there; because there is no ATC radar coverage and no large collection of people on the ground looking skywards for a very significant piece of airspace. If anyone does hear lots of supersonic booms well there’s HiFire to blame it on. Situations that don’t exist around the US black project bases in the CONUS south west.

 

[AeroFranz]

Is 127,000 square kilometers big enough to turn a Mach 6.0 air vehicle?

hmmm...i don't know how Woomera is shaped, but making a gross assumption of a square, that gives you 356km sides*.
If you are flying at M6.0 at say, 80,000ft, and perform a 180 degrees turn pulling 2G's, the turn radius is 185km.

from flight performance of fixed and rotary wing aircraft, by Antonio Filippone, p.253

turn radius X = (1/g) * (speed^2) / (sqrt(load factor^2-1))

So I guess it is theoretically possible to fly at M6.0 inside the Woomera test range...assuming you are continuously banking at 2G's! And assuming my math is right, which is the biggest assumption here .

* I checked, it's more like a rectangle but the sides are not that different in length

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Maps are here:

http://www.woomera.com.au/maps.htm

You should also note that much of the space to the west of the WPA is virtually empty desert with no ATC or prying eyes below. So flights could extend out there if needed.

 

[flateric]

Interview that have started the thread. This is Jim Goodall in person.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQqkQdQrsC8

 

[hesham]

Woomera is however not as restricted an area as it once was (my father helped create the Woomera Test Range and once held Security Pass No. 2 as the Project Manager back in 1948). Further, Australia is no where as unpopulated as it once was. Tourists, miners, oil drilling rigs, Aboriginal outstations are now spread all over the outback. Whereas in the 1960s it was possible to drive for days without encountering someone on outback roads, today you'd be unlucky to go half a day before you saw another human being, even in the more remote parts of the continent.

Yeah of course but that still doesn’t mean you can’t hide a hypersonic test program for a military vehicle out there; because there is no ATC radar coverage and no large collection of people on the ground looking skywards for a very significant piece of airspace. If anyone does hear lots of supersonic booms well there’s HiFire to blame it on. Situations that don’t exist around the US black project bases in the CONUS south west.

The HiFire;
http://www.aviationnews.eu/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/HiFire.jpg

 

[flateric]

Hesham, I always thought that this is lockheed RATTLRS on the pic, and seems that I right...
HiFire is a program to support X-51A

 

[Desert Dawn]

Stephane Cochin (Stratosphere Models) discusses here http://groups.yahoo.com/group/space-modelers/message/65311
if some information trails in Lockheed Horizons article on hypersonics tech may be a clue to Renй Francillon's 'manned Mach 6 vehicle'
mentioned in first edition 'Lockheed Aircrafts...'

Hi Flateric,

Since a couple years passed since my posting, i have updated my information (see below). First, there is no proof that René Francillon saw or found something indicating specifically a Mach 6 cruising aircraft test flown by Lockheed. When i started my research on hypersonic aircraft projects in 1999, the only known Mach 6 hypersonic project from Lockheed was the L-301 NHFRF. The X-24 C project was already publicly accessible to some degree if you knew where to look in 1981 (even AW&ST mentionned it along with photo of a desk model of Phase I, from what i remember) and he certainly saw the research that Lockheed did on Lockalloy. Still, althought it was the best candidate for what he states, the L-301 was only designed to cruise for a few seconds with its experimental scramjets. And we all know the project was never built. Although.. (and i will expand on this later as there is stuff i have never posted that is quite interesting).

However, it was quite interesting back then in the early years of 2000 when i was researching the X-24 C project as well as beryllium-aluminium (on which i accumulated quite a lot of material), there was some interesting and discreet disinformation going on about the use of Lockalloy by Lockheed. The official story on the web on Nasa historical webpages was that Lockalloy was developed to be tested on the lower central fin of the YF-12 aircraft as a way to counter vibrations in that fin.

I was finding all that very funny because meanwhile i had the Nasa CASI papers during the same time period and they stated cleary how the Lockalloy was to be used for the X-24C Phase III L-301 NHFRF from Lockheed. Furthermore, Lockalloy was developped by Lockheed in the 1960's for use on a spacecraft project. A very complete technical paper on safety procedures for milling and cutting beryllium-aluminium (whose dust is quite toxic and causes the berylliose illness (similiar to asbetos disease) was also published by Lockheed during the time period of the X-24 C project.

Also, you should have seen the kind of response i got when i tried to get my hands on old Lockheed Horizon magazines back in 2000. I called a branch of Lockheed located where i live which deals with reproduction technology. When i reached the lady there by phone, she had quite a happy and helpful voice. A few days later when i called back to know the result of her search to see if they had any of those magazines at their office, her tone had radically changed and was a lot less helpfull. She basically told me i had to call the Lockheed Skunk Works directly (in California). I later spotted a whole series of those magazines at a local library (the series was mostly complete, but not totally), made photocopies of what i found, came back for a 2nd series of photocopies. Then the weird thing is that on my third trip, all the magazines were removed from the library and moved into a depot.. On further trips when i checked, the books never returned on the shelves where i first found them.

I later found another source in Canada for some of the magazines that the first library didn`t have. The funny thing there too is that at first, they did pretend to me they did not have any copies of Lockheed Horizons. It is only when i specifically showed them the result of my internet search (with a special search engine we got here for academic use) along with the year and number of the documents i was looking for and which i knew they had, they finally admitted having them in stock..

During another search, when i was in contact with professor Paul Czysz, he gave me a librarian contact of his in the university where he worked where he said i would find copies of Lockheed Horizons. Well, when i contacted that lady by letter, she basically told me that NONE of ALL the university libraries in the US have ANY copy of Lockheed Horizons (!!!).

OK... and my name is Santa Claus..


So i guess Canadian libraries have better material than those in the US, since i found all i was looking for here..

When i first started my research on the FDL-5, 10 years ago, i found a technical paper that specifically said the FDL-5 A (unmanned) was built. It was actually the one version of the FDL-5 for which we know for sure there were components built, including some full-scale components. Another technical paper refered to the FDL-5 A having been built and tested in the HATS facility (a large oven chamber) at Wright Patterson. Since more information have now come out, and it turns out the information that was printed in the 2 tech papers was partly untrue.. Here`s why (and no one can blame someone for quoting what a tech paper was declaring as an accomplished fact): more detailled now declassified technical papers on the full-scale test items for the
FDL-5 A contradict what was said in the earlier papers, in fact, a full size fin and a full size front fuselage only were built and tested in the oven. Now an article even refers to the FDL-5 front fuselage as the 'HATS' (it was not, the HATS was the oven). That front fuselage i now found out was not a test flight article but was actually a simplified FDL-5 A front fuselage (its underside was flat, uncharacteristic of the all the FDL-5 series which have a slightly curved underside), a technical paper on the zirconia-diboride skirt and heat shield as well as an article link it clearly to the FDL-5 (although the article did not say so cleary, it showed it in conjonction with a photo of the FDL-5 mock-up nevertheless), and the heat shield technical paper shows a drawing of that FDL-5A front fuselage test article (to be tested in the oven) with a.. flat underside. End of the mystery.

Sub-scale components were also built to test the heat shield leading edges and nose tip material.

Now do we know everything about the FDL-5 series ? Not yet, by far. A lot of it is still classified, specifically on the later manned versions.

Now what else could Lockheed have built that was hypersonic.

Two things clearly:

FDL-6 SOMV (for which there is a rear fuselage half, and photographic evidence for it, in Lockheed Horizons).
(technical papers on it are still classified by the way, last time i checked, NTIC told me they don`t have any of them, even though i have specific titles and author names for them, as well as numbers).

And:

HGV (this is actually the only one which is confirmed by an FOIA as having been built. That project was a silver bullet weapon that was later on removed from the US arsenal following one of the missiles treaties with the Soviet Union. I have a copy of the document at home).

FDL-6 SOMV is as yet unconfirmed as having been flown. Now, they had to have had `something' hypersonic, based on what Ben Rich says in his autobiography and article. Obviously if you eliminate FDL-5 (which was a pretty much in depth study), and X-24 C (pretty pretty much detailled study too), that leaves only FDL-6 and HGV, one of which only is confirmed (an unmanned boost glide missile).

The other possibility is that there is something ulterior to those projects that we don`t know about yet, something manned, but older than 1981.

 

[Desert Dawn]

You'd recognize the place - Upper Chamber of LM Helendale Avionics Facility underground. Photographer's name- Eric Schulzinger - must be familiar to you quite well. I've seen a lot of unusual RCS range test articles' shapes, but this one is really weird. Could it be shaped so strange to cause some radar signals go to the 'twilight zone' to make measurements of some specific parts (nose, intakes etc) of the model more exact?

Ooh, so Tom`s been flying around Ellendale too..(!)

Very nice one, and very weird too.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

To quote the "Laugh-In" German soldier: : "very interesting!"

 

[sferrin]

Re: The ventral fin on the YF-12A and a vibration problem.

"P> I believe that I read in Miller's book on the Skunk Works that the
P> YF-12As were build with the folding fin (because of the
P> almost-bulbous nose housing the radar), but NASA found that it
P> wasn't necessary and took it off at some point in their use of the
P> aircraft. Presumably it was removed from 934 (?) before it was
P> wrecked and rebuilt into the SR-71C, and you saw what was left.

Er, we didn't exactly take it off. We lost it.


We took off with it and returned without it.


Since the pilots hadn't noticed its absence, we had some analysis done
and discovered that the plane was sufficiently stable without it, so
we didn't replace it.


One of the first papers I was on the peer review panel for was on the
YF-12s and this incident was very casually alluded to in the text. As
I recall, the Description of the Test Aircraft section included a
sentence saying that the first n flights were flown with the ventral
fin and the remainder were flown without it, as it had been lost. I,
not knowing the history of the project, questioned the author somewhat
closely on this subject, as I couldn't believe it as it was written.
They gave me the explanation in the first two lines of my reply and I
suggested that it might be better to say that it was lost overboard
during a flight. The original sounded like we took it off and set it
down in the hangar and couldn't find it when the time came to put it
back on. The final version of the paper included just such an
explanation. I guess they thought that others might be equally
confused.


--
Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer Of course I don't speak for NASA "


That was off r.a.m. in 1997 (sheesh where does the time go). Given that the YF-12A didn't actually need the fin it seems unlikely that Lockheed would spend the time and effort to cure a perceived problem in a single aircraft that flew relatively few missions.

 

[Desert Dawn]

Re: The ventral fin on the YF-12A and a vibration problem.

"P> I believe that I read in Miller's book on the Skunk Works that the
P> YF-12As were build with the folding fin (because of the
P> almost-bulbous nose housing the radar), but NASA found that it
P> wasn't necessary and took it off at some point in their use of the
P> aircraft. Presumably it was removed from 934 (?) before it was
P> wrecked and rebuilt into the SR-71C, and you saw what was left.

Er, we didn't exactly take it off. We lost it.


We took off with it and returned without it.


Since the pilots hadn't noticed its absence, we had some analysis done
and discovered that the plane was sufficiently stable without it, so
we didn't replace it.


One of the first papers I was on the peer review panel for was on the
YF-12s and this incident was very casually alluded to in the text. As
I recall, the Description of the Test Aircraft section included a
sentence saying that the first n flights were flown with the ventral
fin and the remainder were flown without it, as it had been lost. I,
not knowing the history of the project, questioned the author somewhat
closely on this subject, as I couldn't believe it as it was written.
They gave me the explanation in the first two lines of my reply and I
suggested that it might be better to say that it was lost overboard
during a flight. The original sounded like we took it off and set it
down in the hangar and couldn't find it when the time came to put it
back on. The final version of the paper included just such an
explanation. I guess they thought that others might be equally
confused.


--
Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer Of course I don't speak for NASA "


That was off r.a.m. in 1997 (sheesh where does the time go). Given that the YF-12A didn't actually need the fin it seems unlikely that Lockheed would spend the time and effort to cure a perceived problem in a single aircraft that flew relatively few missions.

I will dig out the paper or web page that refered to the Lockalloy fin story.

Stephane.

 

[sferrin]

Now, they had to have had `something' hypersonic, based on what Ben Rich says in his autobiography and article.

As I recall, the only thing he said in "Skunk Works" about Mach 6 was "no way". I don't recall him implying Lockheed ever built anything. On the other hand SOC has a handfull of Blackbird papers that all mention a "notional Mach 6 aircraft" for some curious reason.

Towards the bottom here:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3780.0/highlight,blackbird.html

 

[sferrin]

I will dig out the paper or web page that refered to the Lockalloy fin story.

Stephane.

Don't bother, I'm agreeing with you. I was merely adding that bit in in support of the claim that Lockalloy was invented (or going to be used) to solve a vibration problem on the YF-12's folding ventral fin sounded fishy.

 

[Desert Dawn]

Now, they had to have had `something' hypersonic, based on what Ben Rich says in his autobiography and article.

As I recall, the only thing he said in "Skunk Works" about Mach 6 was "no way". I don't recall him implying Lockheed ever built anything. On the other hand SOC has a handfull of Blackbird papers that all mention a "notional Mach 6 aircraft" for some curious reason.

Hi Mary, i think i remember seeing your posts on the Skunk Works list, all the way back in 1999-2000 (!). How time flies, indeed !!

The quote i remember is from him being interviewed in either Pop Science or Pop Mechanics which included some quotes from his book. He said he send his advanced development people to `doodle all kinds of fantasies, flying at better than Mach 6' to fly over Soviet air defense radars, and, 'i wish i had a revelation' (to solve the problem the USAF had shown them during a briefing where basically they said that most of the aircraft in the US inventory would be destroyed in a matter of days if there was a war where they had to penetrate Soviet air defense (missiles and all). That was in the 70`s, and then the story tells how a mathematician from Lockheed looked at the Ufimtsev equation and found an answer that would lead to the Hopeless Diamond and eventually lead to Have Blue and the F-117.

There is plenty of published material showing that Lockheed did work on many project studies for better than Mach 6 aircrafts since the early 1960`s (of which i named only a few). So that`s why i say they had to have 'something' to show up for all those studies. At least one prototype (well, if not them, then one of their competitors).

 

[sferrin]

I'm not Mary, I was quoting something Mary said 12 years ago.

 

[Desert Dawn]

I'm not Mary, I was quoting something Mary said 12 years ago.

Hi, Sorry Sferrin, i should have asked (I almost did..

 

[Orionblamblam]

This response has been left blank because, let's face it, who gives a damn?

 

[quellish]

This response has been left blank because, let's face it, who gives a damn?

Because you shouldn't have to mention the X-7, right?

 

[sferrin]

This response has been left blank because, let's face it, who gives a damn?

Because you shouldn't have to mention the X-7, right?

What's the X-7 have to do with this?

 

[quellish]

What's the X-7 have to do with this?

They're pretty, fast, and Lockheed.

 

[sferrin]

What's the X-7 have to do with this?

They're pretty, fast, and Lockheed.

So's a .50 cal bullet. And about as relevant.

 

[quellish]

What's the X-7 have to do with this?

They're pretty, fast, and Lockheed.

So's a .50 cal bullet. And about as relevant.

Well, the X-7 helped start up other small, focused special projects development teams within Lockheed. It served as a template for taking some of the skunk works methods out of the skunk works. It was also a high supersonic air breathing aircraft, and actually flew. Some of those flights, if I recall correctly, used powerplants that are still sensitive.
LMSC's special projects groups were later involved with the programs speculated about in this thread, and others not yet mentioned. LMSC has always been quite active in hypersonics, including HGV and maneuvering RVs. There was always more money, and more interest there than in hypersonic or high supersonic cruisers.

 

[sferrin]

By that rational the U-2 could be said to qualify. More so in fact as Area 51 was originally built for that program. The fact is neither has anything to do with the subject of the thread as far as I can tell.

 

[shockonlip]

By that rational the U-2 could be said to qualify. More so in fact as Area 51 was originally built for that program. The fact is neither has anything to do with the subject of the thread as far as I can tell.

And FDL's, and X-7 PTV's, and X-24C's wouldn't qualify either!

Because per Flateric's posted video of what started this whole thing,
Jim Goodall said Ben told him: "Jim, we have things out in the desert that
are 50 years beyond what you can comprehend."

I'm not even sure what to make of such a comment.

Was he saying that Goodall wasn't up to the task, or perhaps more reasonably,
that he Ben Rich didn't understand it as well? Who knows? What would even
qualify to fit in that domain?

 

[airrocket]

50 years...Yes and I think I know what it is. See the photo below what you can't see it hmmmmmmmmm. Not all secret Area 51 craft have to be hyper some could be Romulan like.

 

[flateric]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEo12tUBwtg

 

[flanker]

Amazing stuff Gregory. Thanks for uploading and showing.

 

[bobbymike]

Neat video but I have always been of two minds on this issue. 1) I look back historically at what was being conceived in the 50's and 60's and think they must have developed something by now (what that something is maybe can be gleaned from Goodall's remarks) and; 2) There is a lot of disinformation an maybe what is in the desert is 'next generation" but we would not necessarily be "stunned" by the technology.

Jason Bourne taught me "there is no coincidences" so is it just a coincidence that Goodall is in the Air Force Reserve.

 

[quellish]

Neat video but I have always been of two minds on this issue. 1) I look back historically at what was being conceived in the 50's and 60's and think they must have developed something by now (what that something is maybe can be gleaned from Goodall's remarks) and; 2) There is a lot of disinformation an maybe what is in the desert is 'next generation" but we would not necessarily be "stunned" by the technology.

Jason Bourne taught me "there is no coincidences" so is it just a coincidence that Goodall is in the Air Force Reserve.

No. Jim Goodall is honestly relaying what his sources told him. It is up to you to decide what they mean.
"Out of this world" after all could mean a TSTO system like "blackstar", for instance.

 

[Andreas Parsch]

No. Jim Goodall is honestly relaying what his sources told him. It is up to you to decide what they mean.
"Out of this world" after all could mean a TSTO system like "blackstar", for instance.

I certainly don't blame Mr. Goodall, because - as you say - he simply quotes his sources.

But what should I make of phrases like "better than Star Trek"?! Even to get equal to Star Trek would mean that you'd have to completely dump some of the best tested and verified laws of nature that we know. I'm sorry, but I'm definitely not ready to believe that without really good evidence. Of course not all claims in the short clip are of this nature (e.g. a Mach 6 aircraft is certainly not pushing the limits of the known laws of physics), but the mixture of somewhat believable and totally outlandish claims makes it very difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff.

In short, the interview is certainly interesting, but adds hardly anything to the pool of knowledge about "Area 51".

 

[shockonlip]

No. Jim Goodall is honestly relaying what his sources told him. It is up to you to decide what they mean.
"Out of this world" after all could mean a TSTO system like "blackstar", for instance.

I certainly don't blame Mr. Goodall, because - as you say - he simply quotes his sources.

But what should I make of phrases like "better than Star Trek"?! Even to get equal to Star Trek would mean that you'd have to completely dump some of the best tested and verified laws of nature that we know. I'm sorry, but I'm definitely not ready to believe that without really good evidence. Of course not all claims in the short clip are of this nature (e.g. a Mach 6 aircraft is certainly not pushing the limits of the known laws of physics), but the mixture of somewhat believable and totally outlandish claims makes it very difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff.

In short, the interview is certainly interesting, but adds hardly anything to the pool of knowledge about "Area 51".

I agree with much of what you said Andreas.

But I think you are being too literal on Star Trek tech. I interpret it to mean laws of nature the general populace isn't
familiar with ... yet, or maybe we are aware of such laws, but are unfamiliar with how they can be used in advanced
aerospace applications.

For example, I always thought the Magneto Aerodynamic research stuff from the 1950s and early 1960's was very cool.
Aircraft with magnets in them that manipulate the plasma flow around the vehicle as it re-enters the atmosphere
from orbit say. John Sears, the famous aerodynamicist who helped design the Northrop flying wings, worked on this
stuff back then.

It's been awhile, so I may not remember this clearly, but I read a paper by him where Alfven waves emited by such a
vehicle would have very strange properties.

For example, a case where the speed of the Alfven wave in the medium was greater than the speed of sound (or speed
of pressure wave disturbances), and you get a shock wave spreading FORWARD FROM THE TAIL of the aircraft !!

I need to find the paper at home to verify, but I think that's what it was.

Now that would be an example of this strangeness I think.

Modern hypersonics reseach is still interested in such configurations for dynamically increasing drag in re-entry without
vehicle configuration changes, namely by being able to orient and switch on a vehicle magnet.

And then we have the worm hole stuff, etc.

 

[DWG]

But what should I make of phrases like "better than Star Trek"?! Even to get equal to Star Trek would mean that you'd have to completely dump some of the best tested and verified laws of nature that we know.

One way of reading 'better than Star Trek' would be 'actually pays attention to engineering reality/the laws of physics'. 'better than Star Trek' may simply mean reality rather than fiction.

 

[Matej]

Too much attention than the phrase deserves. For me it is a simple metaphor, nothing more. If I say "hot as in hell", I does not mean some exact temperature or the place (besides who knows what temperature is in the hell and even if the hell exists). I simply want to tell that it is hot much more than the usual. And when he said "better than Star Trek", he very likely means better than you usually expect, not directly the warp drive, transporters and replicators. This can be manned hypersonic vehicles, visual stealth, partially morphing fuselage and such a things. The technology for that is already here for years, the only task is to mature it. So we should expect some new technology demonstrators being declassified, probably some low rate production machines in service at Area 51, but don't want me to expect the USS Enterprise flying over my head!

Besides - holding my cell phone with the TV, GPS, video, photocamera, etc.. in hand, I already have the device far more advanced than any that Startrek presented...