Dwayne Day doesn't believe in "Blackstar":

it turns out that the atomic-powered bomber never existed, and the plane was never “observed both in flight and on the ground by a wide variety of foreign observers.” It was observed by nobody at all, but that did not prevent the magazine from reporting about it.

It is worth remembering that when you are reading about Aviation Week and Space Technology’s latest report of a top secret aircraft known as the “Blackstar.” According to three articles that appeared in the March 6 issue of the magazine, “Blackstar” is actually a two-stage-to-orbit system consisting of a large mothership aircraft and a small “transatmospheric vehicle” possibly capable of flying into orbit. Despite the fact that it is on the cover of a magazine, there is no reason to believe that Blackstar exists, at least not in the form that the author claims it does.

Like Fox Mulder of The X-Files, the author wants to believe, even when the evidence is lacking. Admittedly, Fox Mulder was actually right. But he was also a TV character...

...These stories sound somewhat like the parable of the six blind men describing an elephant—one feels the trunk, another a tail, another a foot, and so on, creating a description that makes no sense. But what is more likely here is that rather than six blind men describing an elephant, we have six blind men in a zoo, each describing a different part of a different animal, and a reporter assuming that these reports all refer to the same very strange beast.

I think that this is the most likely explanation, given the obvious inconsistenceies in the story. People do tend to lend too much credibility to AvLeak, and it must have been a slow newsweek indeed to let this thing become the cover story.

I remain skeptical as well, despite the fact that Jeffrey Bell agrees with me. Hey, even a stopped clock...

[Update late morning]

The Chairforce Engineer thinks it's Aurora all over again.

Falcon/Dragon comprises a cheap two-stage to orbit with massive capabilities. I'd cancel the Blackstar program even if it was working.

The problem with Sam Dinkin's statement is that while Blackstar likely does not exist, Dragon and Falcon 9 certainly does not either. We hope and trust in the fullness of time that they will, but one should not use the present tense for them quite yet.

The difference being that the Falcon/Dragon *program* exists, whereas there is no evidence that there was even a program, much less bent metal, for Blackstar.

Not that that's a guarantee of success, of course.

one more difference is that even if Dragon/Falcon9 doesnt materialize, others are bound to follow maybe not in the exact shape and form, but they will eventually.

You guys are comparing a Slingshot and a Cherry to a Trebuchet and a Watermelon.

> I remain skeptical as well, despite the fact that Jeffrey Bell agrees
> with me. Hey, even a stopped clock...

Why are planetary scientists considered experts on space transportation, anyway? Not just Bell, but Sagan, Friedman, etc.?

No one assumes geologist to be an expert on land vehicles or the automotive industry; an oceanographer to be an expert on ships and the cruise ship industry; or a meteorologist to be an expert on aircraft and the airline industry.

So, why do people assume that Bell, Sagan, Friedman, etc. are experts on space transportation and space industry -- things that have nothing to do with studying planetary spectra or analyzing rock samples?

I'm not convinced one way or the other on Blackstar.

I am beginning to think that what we're hearing is a very distorted version of whatever original program might have been out there.

OTOH, some of the criticisms, such as Jeffrey Bell's assertion that hydrogen is the be-all end-all of rocket fuels, bother me.

I'm beginning to think that hydrogen is one of those things that's the best fuel to use when someone ELSE is building the rocket.

Maybe the DoD TRIED to make a two-stage launch system, as described by Aviation Week, but it was unsuccessful for whatever reason, and whatever they did developed is whats being mothballed. This would be in keeping for the big government programs that we do know about and that usually do not work as advertised (like the shuttle, Lockheed's Venturestar, and Tokamak fusion).

"So, why do people assume that Bell, Sagan, Friedman, etc. are experts on space transportation and space industry -- things that have nothing to do with studying planetary spectra or analyzing rock samples?"

Thank you for making a point I have long wanted to make.

"Maybe the DoD TRIED to make a two-stage launch system, as described by Aviation Week."

I thought about that. But the problem is that if you take the four articles that Aviation Week has published on this subject (one in 1992, three last week) and you list every single assertion that is made in them, separating out the assertions from the speculation (much of the speculation in the articles is labeled as such by the reporter), there is NO evidence to support that possibility at all.

It goes something like this:

1992 article data:
-two unnamed people spotted a large unknown aircraft
-one unnamed person spotted an aircraft-like shape being loaded onto a C-5 Galaxy transport

-AWST speculated that:
a) the two aircraft were associated with each other
b) the smaller aircraft was a spaceplane, not a drone or a mockup or even simply an airbreathing manned stealth prototype

So, even if you accept the claim that all of the data is true, none of that data supports the two-stage-to-orbit spaceplane conclusion. That was the reporter connecting various data points.

The same thing happens with the new articles. There is no piece of evidence that states that DoD "tried" to build such a system, only that it has been proposed. There are separate facts that the reporter has connected.

For instance, the reporter admits that only one person claims to have seen the two planes together. If you assume that the sighting is correct (something that I think is highly doubtful), you are still left asking why the reporter concluded that the smaller aircraft was a hypersonic spaceplane and not, say, a supersonic UAV. It's like that old saying that when you hear hooves, think horses, not wildebeasts.

Now admittedly, assembling a more complete picture from sketchy data is necessary when dealing with still-classified programs. But it is important to be careful to not get too far out in front of your data. Don't over-speculate. So even if we assume that all of these sightings happened, and that the descriptions are accurate (and I'm still puzzled as to what makes a birdwatcher a credible witness of an airplane), then all we have are separate programs, not evidence of a TSTO system, even a failed one.

What I did not mention in the article (it was already way too long) was that Aviation Week was actually very good at figuring out the F-117 stealth fighter program in the early 1980s. They had a reporter by the name of Robinson who clearly had a highly-placed knowledgeable source in the Pentagon. There is a 1981 AWST article that has quite a few details about the stealth fighter program that we now know to be true.

But there is a key difference between that article and the ones that William Scott has written. That difference is that the Robinson article includes lengthy quotes from an anonymous source that is identified as working for the Pentagon. In other words, it is clear from Robinson's article that he directly talked to the source and took detailed notes. In the case of Mr. Scott, it looks a lot like he did not talk to his "sources" directly, but obtained the information secondhand, or indirectly. And it also looks like none of his sources was in a position to know much beyond a small segment of a classified program. He was talking to worker bees, not program managers--people who built the wings for something, but not the guy who flew it or planned the missions, and therefore not even somebody who knows if the wings ever left the ground.

I also suspect that these worker bees all worked on different research projects and probably not actual flight hardware. For instance, there was classified research that led into NASP, so when somebody claimed that they worked on a project that was "not NASP," it is entirely possible that they were working on the predecessor, or on a classified remnant that coexisted with NASP.

When you look at the articles that Scott has produced over a 16-year span, it becomes apparent that he starts from a belief that these things exist, rather than starting from a neutral position and allowing the evidence to lead him where it may. So everything that supports his conclusion gets accepted, and anything that does not (like the fact that the mothership could not deploy its landing gear with the big XOV attached underneath) is ignored.

And you don't ask an oceanographer or a marine biologist about ship design either, but unfortunately, to the general public (and the lazier elements of the press), anything to do with the magic word 'space' just gets lumped under the same banner. Wether it involves a satcom, or an interesting quasar observation.

And oddly, those in space-related basic research, don't seem to be in a hurry to dispel the noton, either. (But in fairness, we may never hear about the ones who say something like; "Hey, I'm a stellar physicist. What do I know about launcher design? Go ask a rocket engineer.")

One good fictional TSTO project deserves another.

Dwayne,

I'm sure you're right. My point is that, if there is any validity to the stories, that an unsuccessful attempt would be the most there could be to it.

Aviation Week does have a track record of climbing out onto the speculative limb about this kind of stuff (examples being the Soviet nuclear-powered bomber in 1957 and the space-based laser and particle beam weapons in the late 70's). What I have read indicates that these speculative articles have come from a small number of writers and that the rest of the AWST staff are level-headed.

It is also worth noting that one of the more far out writers (Nick Cook) has written a book claiming that the Nazis were on the verge of developing craft powered by "zero point energy" at the time of their defeat.

I think this stuff proves your point.

"It is also worth noting that one of the more far out writers (Nick Cook) has written a book claiming that the Nazis were on the verge of developing craft powered by "zero point energy" at the time of their defeat."

Nick Cook wrote for Jane's Defence Weekly and was an editor. His book is pretty outrageous. But it does demonstrate the point that it is still possible for somebody from a highly reputable organization to embrace a dubious story.

"Aviation Week does have a track record of climbing out onto the speculative limb about this kind of stuff (examples being the Soviet nuclear-powered bomber in 1957 and the space-based laser and particle beam weapons in the late 70's). What I have read indicates that these speculative articles have come from a small number of writers and that the rest of the AWST staff are level-headed."

It is possible to argue that a reporter (or magazine) is only as good as its sources. If the sources provide bad information, then the reporter and magazine will produce a flawed story.

However, I think that's a little too simplistic. The reporter and editors have to be diligent. They have to be careful and always skeptical. And the more important the issue, or the more extraordinary the issue, then the more careful they have to be. If you are going to make bold claims about large secret aircraft and spaceplanes, those are extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence. A photograph would be solid evidence. So would documents. If all you have is witness sightings, then you should realize that eyewitness reports are inherently weak evidence, and so you must buttress them in some way. One way to do that is with corroboration. If somebody saw something at some point, then find another witness (most preferably one with no connection to the first) who saw something similar. It is basic detective work.

But what this also requires is a willingness to reject evidence that may be true but is weak. If you cannot corroborate a piece of evidence, such as a witness sighting, then you should be wary of using it.

I have to make some minor corrections to my earlier post. When I mentioned the 1992 article that stated that the object being loaded into a C-5 was the spaceplane, I may have been incorrect. The article _implies_ that it is the spaceplane. But a photo caption states that it _may_ be the forward section of the large aircraft. There was also an accompanying article with the one that I referenced. The problem is that these articles are not as specific as they should be.

I was unclear with this post:
"One way to do that is with corroboration. If somebody saw something at some point, then find another witness (most preferably one with no connection to the first) who saw something similar. It is basic detective work."

I should have specifically said that this second witness is necessary for the same event. So if somebody says "I saw an odd airplane flying over the city on date X," then what you need is another witness for the same incident, not another witness for an incident six years later.

Kurt wrote:
"Aviation Week does have a track record of climbing out onto the speculative limb about this kind of stuff (examples being the Soviet nuclear-powered bomber in 1957 and the space-based laser and particle beam weapons in the late 70's)."

I think that it is always worthwhile to ask how this happens. One possibility is that the magazine was used by people with an agenda. I have heard (I haven't done the research on it) that the 1958 Aviation Week article about the nuclear-powered bomber came at the time when the U.S. nuclear-powered aircraft program was being canceled. It is therefore possible that somebody who wanted to continue the US program gave phony information to the magazine to buttress their story. The magazine assumed that it was reputable intelligence information and ran with it. But did they ever realize that they had been used? When did they realize that they were wrong? And did they acknowledge this mistake?

I am unfamiliar with the Soviet particle weapons story, but that may be a similar case. Somebody may have given the magazine information that was bogus, or highly speculative, and the magazine ran it without realizing that it was being used.

This leads back to my above comment that a reporter is only as good as his sources. But it does not absolve them of culpability. One solution is for them to do a mea culpa article where they explain what they got wrong and why. That kind of internal self examination is not a bad idea.

One way that the F-117 program was confirmed to exist may help in looking for this: which contractors had a revenue stream that can't be accounted for?

I'm a long time, proud member of the military industrial complex, and I gave up on getting reliable information from AWST many years ago. It is basically an aerospace industry insider's newsletter, and most of it is news about industry deals, government contract awards, airline regulations and such. In what I would call their speculative articles they lean heavily towards anything with a high gee-whiz factor, evidence (and sometimes even physics) be damned. Take them with large doses of salt.

> And you don't ask an oceanographer or a marine biologist about ship design
> either, but unfortunately, to the general public (and the lazier elements
> of the press), anything to do with the magic word 'space' just gets lumped
> under the same banner.

Sadly, Space Daily used to be one of the better sources for space news.

Laziness is a poor excuse, though, especially for an Internet publication. Unlike a newspaper, a web site doesn't have to fill a certain number of column inches. If they are short of good material on a particular, they can simply post less material. There's no need to publish "filler."