Talk:Blackstar (spacecraft)

message: 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)
thread_title: Vortex

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: TR-3

message: 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)
thread_title:  What About the X-37? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Very, very poor data