BLACKSTAR: an operational USAF TSTO spaceplane?, page 1

posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 11:25 PM

link

Smoking gun material:

Aviation Week and Space Technology has an article on the highlly classified BlackStar system: a composite, boron-gel fuel, two stage to orbit system designed in the "1980s for reconnaissance, satellite-insertion and, possibly, weapons delivery". This is not a paper airplane folks. Even if it is now canceled, bludgened by budget cuts, there is an excellent possibililty that BlackStar was operational during the 90's.

The link:

www.aviationnow.com.../030606p1.xml

The article:

Two-Stage-to-Orbit 'Blackstar' System Shelved at Groom Lake?
By William B. Scott
03/05/2006 04:07:33 PM

SPACEPLANE SHELVED?

For 16 years, Aviation Week & Space Technology has investigated myriad sightings of a two-stage-to-orbit system that could place a small military spaceplane in orbit. Considerable evidence supports the existence of such a highly classified system, and top Pentagon officials have hinted that it's "out there," but iron-clad confirmation that meets AW&ST standards has remained elusive.

[edited cut-n-paste to use ex tags -nygdan]

[edit on 6-3-2006 by Nygdan]

NWguy83

posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 11:54 PM

link

I wouldn't be surprised at all, I mean with all of those reusable 'X' space planes they were working on. You'd think at least one was actually flying around.

planeman

posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 07:47 AM

link

Yet another "wannabe Aurora". Cool. No hard evidence as usual....

ElTiante

posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 08:42 AM

link

For me, this story calls into question all of that UFO / alien tech / antigravity / black triangle stuff. Why would the US go to the trouble of building sort of a super secret space shuttle using conventional chemical rockets if they have all of this exotic tech?

BTW I'm cross posting here because the thread in which I first post was locked.

Nygdan

posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 09:38 AM

link

For reference, there is a duplicate thread on this, now closed, that provides additional information:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Canada_EH

posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 09:39 AM

link

so far the only type of evidence i see in the article is the patent 3 which i searched and found to be valid. heres the link which is pretty indepth.
www.desertsecrets.com...
Alot of what i was reading though sounds more like a story/novel then a magazine providing proof (hard proof) of the darkstar.
Nice post and interesting idea but thats about all until they declassify the plane and orbiter.

carcharodon

posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 10:05 AM

link

I guess its only another rumour until it comes out. My guess would be that they are switching technology. My guess, they are planning to use a X-43A derivative to perform such missions.
Or maybe they are going to release it to scare the crap out of Iran...

"Look we are 20+ years ahead of everybody else, if we want to bomb your nuclear installations we will and you cannot stop us..."

Just a wild theory...

SkyBlueTwo

posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 10:13 AM

link

This did come from the usually very reliable AvLeak you know...
Not your average Hilly Joe Bob self proclaimed UFO/aviation expert and observer. I personally think this is the most fantastic, compelling news from the blackworld in years.

Originally posted by Canada_EH
so far the only type of evidence i see in the article is the patent 3 which i searched and found to be valid. heres the link which is pretty indepth.
www.desertsecrets.com...
Alot of what i was reading though sounds more like a story/novel then a magazine providing proof (hard proof) of the darkstar.
Nice post and interesting idea but thats about all until they declassify the plane and orbiter.

[edit on 6-3-2006 by SkyBlueTwo]

Shadowhawk

posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 11:11 AM

link

The AW&ST article seems to be a collection of unconfirmed rumors and statements by anonymous sources.

The serial numbers for the modified C-5 aircraft are wrong and the description of the "chipmunk cheek" modification for the C-5 seems questionable. Wouldn't someone have photographed this by now? NASA doesn't have any C-5s in their inventory. Why would the CIA call attention to their alleged C-5 by painting a big red CL on the tail?

Why would a Top Secret airplane overfly a major city in daylight?

Wouldn't someone track the spaceplane in orbit? Amateur astronomers regularly track and photograph satellites and space shuttles.

Nacnud

posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 12:10 PM

link

The modified C-5 is called a C-5C SCM (Space cargo modification), google to find out more.

mustang_dvs

posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 12:24 PM

link

Originally posted by Shadowhawk
The serial numbers for the modified C-5 aircraft are wrong and the description of the "chipmunk cheek" modification for the C-5 seems questionable. Wouldn't someone have photographed this by now? NASA doesn't have any C-5s in their inventory. Why would the CIA call attention to their alleged C-5 by painting a big red CL on the tail?

You mean photos like these? www.globalsecurity.org...

And info like this:
www.globalsecurity.org...
or this:
www.theaviationzone.com...
or this:
quest.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by Shadowhawk
Why would a Top Secret airplane overfly a major city in daylight?

It is an odd claim, but if it is a high-demand reconnaissance asset, they might not have the luxury of waiting 12 hours for darkness. Furthermore, technical/mechanical/electrical problems and operational demand may have required expediency to trump operational security.

Originally posted by ShadowhawkWouldn't someone track the spaceplane in orbit? Amateur astronomers regularly track and photograph satellites and space shuttles.

These amateur astronomers have the benefit of launch dates, times and (usually) inclinations, even when dealing with secret payloads. On the other hand, a secret launch, from a variable location, at an unknown time doesn't give you a whole lot of clues to start from, especially if the craft is in orbit for less than a day. Most of the guys and gals who track KH-11s and Lacrosse sats also rely on the highly reflective solar arrays to start the initial track. A spacecraft needn't be so reflective.

MadGreebo

posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 12:33 PM

link

Nice sky blue very nice.

I agree with the reliability of 'aviation leak' as the united States Airforce call it, and does any one remember about two years before the B-2 was unveiled, they had an artists impression of it? The only detail that was wrong was the rear exhausts...

Im rooting for an aviation week scoop on this one...

Nice post

[edit on 6-3-2006 by MadGreebo]

intelgurl

posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 12:59 PM

link

More conjecture on undeclared "black project" systems - which is not a bad thing as long as the detective work offers up enough reputable eyewitness accounts and cirmcumstantial evidence. We should certainly not expect the USAF or any other entity to acknowledge this aircraft - especially under Rumsfeld's watch.

AW&ST is generally pretty reliable and if they are digging something up then you can bet someone in the know pointed them in the right direction. AW&ST is not a tabloid National Enquirer rag for aviation fanboys.

I know that there are quasi-reliable rumors abounding throughout the industry regarding a single stage to orbit vehicle in play and I'm sure AW&ST has heard these rumors as well. It could very well be that in their digging for information on that they may have stumbled across enough circumstantial proof and eye witness accounts on BlackStar that they felt compelled to write this article up.

MadGreebo

posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 01:22 PM

link

Intelgurl can I have your informed opinion on some thing?

Its just that an article from aviation week was posted about 'flying triangles' and their mach 5-7 performance, and now, one issue later we have got this mega article about Senior Sister program / Black star mother ship and its supposed dimensions and uses.

You say rumsfield would never reveal anything, so do you think insiders are spreading the word because of disilusionment within the Black avitaion world? and in doing so trying to force some ones hand?

Conjecture I know, but I would like oppinions : )

[edit on 6-3-2006 by MadGreebo]

Pyros

posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 01:35 PM

link

Its been my experience that these types of rumors appear in AW&ST (which we in the security world refer to as Aviation Leak & Secret Technology) in the run-up to a drowngrading of classification.

Usually, some bigshot somewhere makes the executive decision to bring something out of the black. Now, you just can't pull the sheet off the operation in one day. There is intense planning and review to decide what can be disclosed, whan cannot, what facts and dates are unclassified, and what little tidbits should remain secret. Then there is the training, re-briefing, and preparation cycle. All this takes week and months. It is usually during this time that some engineer or BD guys decides it safe to "leak" some of the details to AW&ST, figuring that the program is coming out shortly so it is safe. Im sure someone's palm was greased.

I'm guessing a 75% likelihood of this becoming an acknowledged program by the end of the year, if AW&ST is going with the story in this level of detail (which to me indicates substantial inside knowledge).

MadGreebo

posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 01:56 PM

link

Cheers for that..... oooohhhh im getting excited already!!

Oh I so badly want to see this in a nice crisp colour photo ...

Thanks for the reply to my question

acura_el2000

posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 02:20 PM

link

I always thought Blackstar was Mos Def and Talib kweli?
sorry I couldent resist

Shadowhawk

posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 04:35 PM

link

Originally posted by Shadowhawk
The serial numbers for the modified C-5 aircraft are wrong and the description of the "chipmunk cheek" modification for the C-5 seems questionable. Wouldn't someone have photographed this by now? NASA doesn't have any C-5s in their inventory. Why would the CIA call attention to their alleged C-5 by painting a big red CL on the tail?

Originally posted by mustang_dvs
You mean photos like these? www.globalsecurity.org...

And info like this:
www.globalsecurity.org...
or this:
www.theaviationzone.com...
or this:
quest.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by Shadowhawk

This is exactly what I mean. There is a great deal of information about the SCM C-5C and lots of good photos. None of them support the claims of a "chipmunk cheek" modification or a CL tail code.

FredT

posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 05:12 PM
link

Originally posted by planeman
Yet another "wannabe Aurora". Cool. No hard evidence as usual....

Well your not going to get a smoking gun if thats what you mean, however, AWST is as credible source as we are likely to get on this IMHO.

Couple of things that can be checked on.

1) There is mention in the article of specialy modified C-5's to transport the spacecarft:

(from the source above)

Regardless of where they land, spaceplane orbiters usually are retrieved by one or more "fat" C-5 Galaxy transports. Three of the oversized aircraft were modified with 8-ft.-wide "chipmunk cheek" extensions on each side of the cargo compartment aft of the nose hinge point; an extra six-wheel set of landing gear that partially retracts up against the aft fuselage, forward of the ramp; a shortened upper deck,

and

In 1994, NASA sources confirmed that two of the C-5s (Tail Nos. 00503 and 00504) were listed on NASA's inventory--although the aircraft did not "officially" exist, according to the agency's public records

I admit I do not know of the specs of the C-5'C" model but is this what they are describing or a whole new variant? I follow the goings on at NASA as closely as I can (The Ames research center is just down the road) but have never heard of them using C-5's. They do fly the C-141 and a rare short variant is almost always sitting on the tarmac there.

While people may not want to admit it, this may be the Aurora that we have kicked back and forth for so long. The description fits especially with the description of "loud engines" It also jives with the report of an British aircraft spotter in the North sea of a XB-70 lookalike (I forget his name)

Either this is a carefull bit of disinformation that the government played on AWST or the Aurora project was a whole smokescreen to cover this project. I am leaning towards the latter. The evidence fits to a tee IMHO. The concept of a hypersonic air breathing a/c given the technology of the time seems a bit too advanced. This project is much more plausable if you factor in the Boeing patents, the avalible technology past and (DYNASOAR) during the purported development of this a/c.

Nacnud

posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 05:58 PM
link

I follow the goings on at NASA as closely as I can (The Ames research center is just down the road) but have never heard of them using C-5's.

A C-5C was used to deliver the HSC and Node 1 (unity) of the ISS among others.