Talk:Blackstar (spacecraft)

Space Daily reference
This needs to be brought into context. It's easy for a nothing media outlet such as Space Daily to point fingers at one of the big boys of aerospace media (AW&ST.) &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 12:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I did note a few errors in the Spacedaily article and mentioned them here. Is there any other context that isn't provided by linking to Aviation Week & Space Technology and Spacedaily? Benabik 13:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that more than a one-liner about spacedaily belongs in the opening section, and instead we should have a "reaction to the story" section, which had a few sentences about SpaceDaily, mentions of other media outlets that picked up the story, and (perhaps) a reaction to SpaceDaily. I'm feel rather more comfortable if the text we have about the SpaceDaily article (including any corrections or refutations of it) themselves being sourced.  If SpaceDaily isn't a terribly reliable source (I don't know anything about it) then the best thing we can do is only briefly mention it (and not bother refuting it).  One thing I've realised when working on article, such as this, which are briefly in the white-heat of events - that we'll all forget about the article soon enough (I don't expect to see a Blackstar in the Smithsonian any time soon) and that when viewed in a few months the detailing of arguments between aviation journalists will seem rather trivial (and all the moreso if the Government does announce Blackstar). Like most articles, our coverage of the controversy should be broad and shallow. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I know just enough about this sort of stuff to get in trouble, but not to respond to the SpaceDaily article. I thought about adding a response section, but could only add one or two sentences about obvious mistakes and didn't want to add such a small section.  But I didn't like having a link to an article with obvious (to me at least) errors without comment.  I don't know about the reliability of the site so can't comment on that, but pretty much otherwise agree with you Finlay. Benabik 00:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Move
don't move. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 20:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

As the main designation (purportedly) is SR-3 Blackstar, I believe the article should be moved to that title. Posted at Requested moves to that effect... - Aerobird 03:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * OPPOSE according to the AW&ST article, the entire thing is called Blackstar, and not the SR-3. This article is about the entire thing, and not just the SR-3. Therefore moving to SR-3 would be incorrect. I suggest moving it to Blackstar. 132.205.44.134 00:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose (both the move to Blackstar and the proposed move to SR-3 Blackstar. In the latter case I agree with 132.205.44.134, in the former we have articles BlackStar, Blackstar (band), and Blackstar Airlines - so I think Blackstar should be a disambig. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * OPPOSE As stated above, the purported code-name for the system is Blackstar, which consists of the XOV and SR-3 carrier aircraft, in the same manner than Senior Bowl consisted of an M-12 (Oxcart) and a D-21 (Tagboard). Mustang dvs 04:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

about Jeff Bell's article
I would like to point out what I believe is a misunderstanding of a point Jeff Bell made about the laser on the imagery payload described in the Blackstar article of Aviation Week. He does not suggest that the laser is used as a weapon. What he explaines is that for the laser to be used in conjuction with the adaptive optics it has to be fired towards the object to be imaged. This laser is no weapon, but it is used to calibrate the adaptive optics in order to account for atmospheric effects. Even if the laser is not visible, a potential targets may notice that a laser is being pointed at them. That is why Jeff Bell suggests that it makes little sense to use that type of equipment for imaging.

In addition, a clear difference should be made between suborbital flight, such as the type Tier One has achieved and orbital flight, which is what in the Aviation Week story it is said that Blackstar achieves.

Unless new evidence is presented, Jeff's rebuttal of the original article is conclusive.

Vortex
I heard years ago that this vehicle visited a satellite named Vortex which has huge antenna farms attached.

Supercool Dude 23:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

TR-3
After some discussions, have added the possibility that the "XOV" component is the mooted "TR-3", meaning that the Blackstar "system" would be TR-3 + ST-3 Bill Martin 21:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That makes no sense, the TR-3A Black Manta is a subsonic spy plane, used for laser designation of bombing targets of F-117A Nighthawk stealth fighters in the first Gulf War, and is based off the F-117. 132.205.99.122 20:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

What's the difference between Blackstar and Brilliant Buzzard?
Or, are they two names (and where are they from) for the same thing? ~ender 2008-03-31 16:01:PM MST

What About the X-37?
Blackstar is the reported codename of a secret United States orbital spaceplane system... the impetus for Blackstar was to allow the United States government to retain orbital reconnaissance capabilities jeopardized following the 1986 Challenger disaster. The Aviation Week report was dismissed a few days later as "almost certainly bogus" and the project termed a "technical absurdity"...

It seems to me that the concept described in the introduction is not only not a "technical absurdity", but is in fact orbiting the Earth right now.

Given that, it's strange that the article doesn't even mention the X-37. Yes, the X-37's launch system is very different, but so what? Maybe early concepts for the X-37 had it being launched from a carrier aircraft (like White Knight, strangely also not referred to in the article). Maybe it was codenamed Blackstar. In any case, reading the article, my overwhelming response was "they're talking about X-37", so at least a mention of that project would seem appropriate. --johantheghost (talk) 09:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Blackstar (spacecraft). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060128062629/http://observer.guardian.co.uk:80/international/story/0,6903,529208,00.html to http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,529208,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Very, very poor data
I can see hardly any sources that would be accepted for other articles, this is an article about a hypothetical spaceplane which may or may not ever have been a serious project. The 70's, 80's and 90's are full of these kind of completely unsubstantiated reports.

Its even mentioned in the lede that its probably all bo*&ocks andthen the article goes on to say things like "It is unclear if the Blackstar program became fully operational..." implying that it was likely partially operational. And other such things.

May as well have a referenced article on unicorns.

This article should be renamed "Aviation week article titled: Blackstar"

But it would be absurd to write articles about articles wouldnt it?

How do I nominate this thing for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.194.114.50 (talk) 16:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "May as well have a referenced article on unicorns". I have some bad news for you. It doesn't matter how hypothetical it was, or whether or not it was a serious project. It meets GNG, the same as Black triangle (UFO), Loch Ness monster, and Boeing X-20 Dyna-Soar. It attracted attention to become notable, and Notability is not temporary; also things do not have to have been built, or even real, to be notable to be covered in Wikipedia, even if they were intended as hoaxes. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Point taken about the articles about fictional things, but this article is not about a fictional spacecraft, it is about an article about a fictional spacecraft. If that makes senese to the wikipedia powers-that-be then fair enough, but it irks me something rotten. The article has gained fame by being the most speculative conjecture and then being soundly debunked. I think the tone of the article needs to reflect this and talk far less about what the capabilities of the fictional spacecraft written about in the article that the wiki is about references. Catch my drift? In my opinion, this article has no place in an encyclopedia, any more than an another article about this article about an article would be. ::If I get a chance, I might re-write some parts, but that takes a lot more time that this.

Kind Regards 212.194.114.50 (talk) 09:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We have articles on hoaxes and other questionable beliefs. And we have Piltdown Man as an article. There's no problem with this topic having an article, or even with the stated believed characteristics of the plane. Just because it isn't true, was proven false, or otherstuff, doesn't mean it cannot have an article. Nibiru is covered. 2012 apocalypse is covered. Y2K apocalysm is covered. Modern flat Earth societies is covered. -- 70.51.203.56 (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)