There is buzz floating around that the US has top secret orbital bases (more than one) and black space planes fly to and from them regularly. Of course, UFO believers and unreliable sources perpetuate such
rumors, which would be great for deniability issues.
Is it impossible for such hugely expensive black projects to exist? Probably, but....
Does the name Millenium Twain mean anything to anyone? He is probably spreading these rumors to bring web attention to himself and his own "out there" pet projects.
But, with the recent sightings of black silent triangles flying over Texas by dozens of eyewitnesses and the Air Forces tardy public explanations, who really knows what highly advanced top secret "toys" we have, right now?
Besides, a slow silent dark craft could just be a blimp with electric fans to move and steer with, and primarily be a distraction to throw the public off the trail of something much more secret.
We aren't meant to know, then are we, so speculation is all we'll ever have. National Security would always prevent disclosure of any such projects, even if they DON'T exist.
Posted by: imayberight8 at January 31, 2008 09:47 AM
Hello, I'm a habitual reader of DefenseTech from Spain and first of all I want to congratulate you for your excellent job. Well, I write you beacause of the recent issue of the Blackstar and the whole lot of reactions it has provoked. I want to send you the direction of a web page you might found interesting (many critics have been directed towards the hypothetical propulsion system of blackstar and the gel-like boron fuel, and this page shows a possible alternative for a two-stage-to-orbit vehicle).The direction is http://www.andrews-space.com/content-main.php?subsection=MTA5 Thanks for your attention.
Posted by: starman2006 at April 28, 2006 03:30 PM
Obergs association of Blackstar's impossibility with the DARPA RASCAL program was predicted by myself months ago. RASCAL was nothing like Blackstar. RASCAL was a fighter sized vehicle saddled with 4 obsolescent stock F-100 engines, absurd reference mission demands that included flying 300 miles to zoom point, loiter time of 30 minutes before zoom, as well as totally absurd hybrid rocket engines (and their horrendously poor Isp) for upper stages, and a requirement to retain fuel for powered flyback and landing. It was essentially designed to "prove" the "impossibility" of spaceplane launchers.
Blackstar allegedly used boron gelled fuels, which would allow Isp of 460 sec if gelled with kerosene, or as much as 600s if gelled with chilled LH2.
Blackstars boron connection is further corroborated by the 1990's federal lawsuit by Groom Lake employees for OSHA violations on base from OSHA violations, specifically the open pit burning of boron containing TPS materials and fuels. At a time when the F-117 no longer operated out of Groom Lake and the base was allegedly closed, employees couldn't get a federal court to force the governments admittance that the base even existed. Why is that?
Posted by: Mike Lorrey at March 8, 2006 10:32 PM
I actually don't see why this is such an exotic idea. It's already been recently done on a smaller scale, and in the privately funded civilian world at that......think Spaceship One (remember the winner of the X-prize).
Posted by: 10th at March 7, 2006 09:04 PM
I know if I say "airship"...that the first thought to come to mind is "blimp". This instead: a very large, RIGID, framed in carbon fiber Lighter-than-Air craft....can indeed reach extremely high altitude, just as stratospheric weather balloons are able to....the only hinderment really is payload. So, launch Pegasus-like from this "mothership"....orbit on demand, more or less.
When DARPA Walrus was first being touted, wording in the solicitation indicated that Pentagon was interested in development of "electrokinetic propulsion" for the airship. Doable, if the craft is big enough for unusual power source. (Like the "Aurora" slip of years back...this wording has been deleted from later writings from DARPA related to Walrus.)
NIDS has postulated on this possible craft. While a lot of that may be dismissed as typical "UFO" hype.....so was stealth technology some years ago.
I vote for this airship. Why? because it is relatively simple, has built in "UFO" deniability, and because it allows the first stage of an orbit on demand system to be somewhat passive....let the actual missile/launch vehicle be the one with the most bugs to work out....
Just a thought....
Posted by: campbell at March 6, 2006 08:04 PM
AFAIK Black Horse/Black Colt were Mitchell Burnside Clapp's ideas for a system of similar capability but operating by in-flight refuelling of the oxidizer after takeoff.
He seems to have been serious about wanting to build one way back when...
I'm thinking Black Horse/Black Colt = Black Star system. Yeah, I know the Black Horse/Colt aircraft were described as SSTO in nature, but I have a feeling that was disinfo.
Posted by: DS at March 6, 2006 06:00 PM
Well let's see here:
1)It's Big
2)Expensive
3)On the verge of useless/inefficient
Yep the Pentagon would have it...
On a side note from what I have heard out of Northrop Grumman, I wouldn't be surprised if they had a hand in this.
A lot of the details soudns pretty dubious, particularly the exotic Boron-based fuel (I believe this was researched previously, without success largely due to environmental concerns), as well as the fundamental structural problems of a craft similar to the XB-70 reaching speed and altitude with such a substantial payload.
Posted by: hughns at March 6, 2006 11:18 AM
I’m with Murc on this one. Sounds like SR-71’s little buddy attachment.
The best place to keep a secret is in plain site with false understated capabilities.
Can the gov keep a lid on such a project? Tip of the ice burg did you notice they said that they have been researching these rumors for 16yrs. There is a 20yr or so disclosure release curve on mill tech.
I still believe today’s UFO’s are just tomorrows front line forces. The stealth halve blue was first flown in the late 60’s and we had operational entire air wings pre-public disclosure.
Posted by: C-Low at March 6, 2006 10:18 AM
It sounds to me like the craft they are talking about is the SR-75, is has many names like Penatrator, Brilliant Buzzard, and Mothership. Which was the successor to the XB-70.
The craft the was attached to the SR-75 was the SR-74 Scramp. (much like how the SR-71 is with the D-21).
But its good to here some more info coming out about this.
Posted by: Murc at March 6, 2006 01:51 AM
On the contrary, I think it'd be quite easy to keep such a project relatively quiet, as long as it doesn't reach a certain stage. If it's well-funded but not extravagant, there's no need to advertise. The people working on the project won't talk.
Reporters and the like aren't exactly watching where academic experts and particular types of engineers are going. Sure, rumors will float inside the classified community (which reporters may hear), but those are rumors -- and more than one rumor has been started by somebody who read too much science fiction and wanted to mess with somebody's head. At least, until the project comes near to fruition, needs a budget upgrade, or runs into trouble, at which point the number of people who need to be briefed in grows by quite a bit.
It was quite a few years before people believed we had a stealth plane, and that was a humongous investment. Even then, a lot of what was going around was sheer speculation, and not that much removed from talk of Area 51, aliens, and flying saucers.
They make this sound like it's a DIFFERENT aircraft than aurora.
Posted by: Sarge at March 5, 2006 11:34 PM
>One anonymous tipster asks, "Is it possible to design,
>build and operate such a complex and expensive system and still keep it secret for so long?"
Nope, not with Pentagon officials having a bad habbit unable to keep and zip their mouth shut, tipping to Noah Shachtman and others about sensitive military information so often.
nice to meet you
Posted by: cheap wow gold at April 13, 2008 09:39 PM