posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 12:29 AM
looking4truth, I'm not sure how much faith I'd put in your
source article from
InfoBlackOut.com, whoever they are; it looks like the text was lifted verbatim from the
Blackstar article at Wikipedia. Also, I didn't read anything in the
Aviation Week source article about Blackstar sporting an
SSME or any other rocket engine.
I'll echo
Shadowhawk's statement and agree that the Aviation Week article was a combination of bad journalism and bad science. There's no
realistic way that a supposed Blackstar system could do everything William B. Scott says it can - namely, act as a manned two-stage-to-orbit launch
system.
There's really no need for a manned craft to do the work Blackstar was supposed to do - anti-satellite missions could be carried out with an unmanned
missile like the F-15-launched
ASAT. Satellite inspection missions (of hostile satellites) or
more traditional reconnaissance operations could be carried out with much less risk by using an unmanned vehicle, as was attempted with the
D-21 drone craft. This program
suffered serious problems when launching drone craft at speed, and the Blackstar system addresses none of the risks inherent in launching a
"daughter" vessels from supersonic aircraft. In fact, Blackstar would increase the risk of such a situation by adding (at least) a second pilot to
the mix.
Blackstar doesn't make a whole lot of sense as advertised. But, as
looking4truth notes, it is entirely possible that the Aviation Week story
was leaked to cover up something similar.
[edit on 27-12-2006 by PhloydPhan]