Talk:Blackstar (spacecraft)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Space Daily reference[edit]

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.) —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 proposal. 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[edit]

The result of the debate was don't move. —Nightstallion (?) 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 Wikipedia: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 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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Who the hell is Dr. Day?[edit]

TR-3[edit]

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?[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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