It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is the Aurora spy plane retired or was it just a myth?

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 08:26 PM
link   
In recent years I've heard nothing new about the famous mysterious Aurora spy plane. I'd imagine a plane like that would be very expensive to build and keep in service so a short retirement would have been inevitable especially in this economy.

Other projects like the F-22 and F-35 fighter programs would take a huge chunk of the Air Force's yearly budget so keeping a spy plane like the Aurora in service in this and last decade would be financially irresponsible especially now we use satellites as a cheaper alternative to the SR-71 which was an extremely expensive program.

I also believe there's a strong possibility it was an out right myth so that people can write books and try to make money off of the legends. What leads me to believe it to be a myth is the lack of evidence and the evidence that exists can easily be explained.

For example the famous doughnuts on a rope contrail this aircraft is supposed to leave behind can be explained as deformed normal airliner contrails. Or contrails of existing military aircraft that may have been deformed by certain weather conditions. Although the D.A.R.P.A falcon HTV-2 leaves behind a similar contrail as seen in the test video on YouTube. The test was aborted but it did leave a doughnuts on a rope like contrail before the malfunction.

Another hint that has me thinking myth is the fact that new spy plane programs are starting to emerge like the D.A.R.P.A. falcon project and the lockheed SR-72 hypersonic spy drone. It has me thinking if the Aurora did exist there wouldn't be much need for the SR-72 or falcon projects. The SR-72 is only a concept but they would have not needed to draft it if the aurora existed.

edit on 17-11-2014 by paranormal78 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: paranormal78

Didn't it recently return from a mission?

Sorry: Thats a different bird, I guess.

link
edit on 17-11-2014 by intrptr because: link



posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: paranormal78

Aurora was the code word for the classified B-2 funding that hit right about the time that the SR-71 was retired. Someone saw the name, looked at the "evidence" for a high speed platform, including the donuts on a rope, and an internet legend was born and grew legs.



posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

The X-37B isn't Aurora. Aurora was allegedly flying in the 1990s.

It's just an internet myth based on some misunderstood information.



posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

And not confused with it by some, either?



posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

So was the big drone explosion the thing thg eased Air Force and other controllers to let the sr-71 go so easy? As far as I've read it was downright one if the most important programs alive and no one so much as whimpered when it ended?



posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Considering that Aurora was supposedly a high speed atmospheric platform using a PDWE, how could it be confused?



posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: mindseye1609

No, Congress and the newer leadership were convinced that satellites could do the same mission, for much cheaper than an SR-71, and the cost of the Blackbird was going through the roof. It was between $27,000 and $38,000 an hour to operate it, depending on total flight hours involved, plus tanker support, T-38 support, etc. Then there was the specialized fuel, TEB, parts that were no longer made, etc.



posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

actually i remember being younger when the "aurora" myth was floating around...popular science did an article on it and they showed what looked like the Raptor on the cover...ill try to see if i can dig it up...i remember they estimated it to go like mach 6 or higher based on some people seeing it in the sky and timing it from one end of the sky to the other...i may be mixing up 2 articles now actually.



posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: intrptr

Considering that Aurora was supposedly a high speed atmospheric platform using a PDWE, how could it be confused?

Well from where you are sitting , maybe its a little clearer. Here, I googy it'd…

Auro ra, space plane
edit on 17-11-2014 by intrptr because: link



posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: rockpaperhammock

No, that's the one. It exploded onto the net in the 90s, after funding for the B-2 made it into the budget list.

There was a lot of early speculation that there was a program to replace the SR-71, which was the only reason that they would agree to retire it.



posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

It's clear from anywhere.

Aurora = Non-orbital, Pulse Detonation Wave Engine, Mach 6-12 manned platform (allegedly), first flight supposedly as early as the 1980s, departs and lands on conventional runway, became popular in the 1990s.

X-37B = Orbital unmanned platform, unpowered return, rocket launch, conventional runway return, first flight 2004 during glide testing, first orbital flight 2011.

I just don't see how anyone can confuse the two, no matter where you're sitting.

Even with your Google link, it still wasn't a space plane. Supposedly it was capable of going to 200,000 feet, but that's still not a space plane. A hypersonic plane isn't a space plane, no matter how hard you try.

fas.org...


edit on 11/17/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



edit on 11/17/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Ah yes, the Aurora, project..

I read it was using anti gravity propulsion etc.

stolen from roswell etc.



posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

www.anomalies.net... scroll down and see the popular science pic..thats what i was referring too...and since i got you here can you answer this :

I once read the stealth fighter is bomber however to get funding they had to classify it as a fighter as they already had the stealth bomber....any insight on that? Just kind of cracked me up when I first heard that cause that is totally how the government works.



posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


Even with your Google link, it still wasn't a space plane. Supposedly it was capable of going to 200,000 feet, but that's still not a space plane.

My link to images was just to vet the static about it being real or not. There has been a lot of conjecture for a very long time. Being that these missions are classified even more so.

Looking back from where we sit now is different.



posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: rockpaperhammock

Not quite. The OFFICIAL story is that they labeled it a fighter to confuse the issue. The reality is more mundane than that, and comes down to ego.

If you look at the history of the Air Force Leadership, especially in the 70s and early 80s, all of the Chief of Staff office holders came up through the Tactical Air Command, which means they were fighter pilots. That means that they wanted to have all fighters, but the F-117 was neither animal, vegetable, or mineral. It didn't fit as a fighter, because it had no air to air capability. It wasn't TECHNICALLY a bomber, because bomber has come to cover strategic platforms, not tactical. And it certainly wasn't a fighter bomber.

But since they were all fighter pilots, and couldn't be seen to be buying non-fighters, for THEIR service, it got labeled a Fighter, and the rest was history.



posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

The evidence has ALWAYS been spotty at best as to it being real. Every one of those images is fake.



posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

thx zaph...you probably dont hear this enough but its always nice having an ats expert around!

and to stay on topic...what do you think they are working on now...what is the future going to lead to?



posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: rockpaperhammock

Interesting times. There's some evidence out there of some really interesting times ahead in the next 5 or 6 years.



posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


The evidence has ALWAYS been spotty at best as to it being real. Every one of those images is fake.

I know. That was my point. Thats what comes up when you google Auro ra space plane.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join