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.

 

Aurora, Does it exist?

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Well, the Aurora is thought to be a hypersonic bomber (not a spy plane as once thought, as the speed wuld be too great and the photo would be totally blurry. So... I'd say that the Aurora would have to replace the B-2 bomber, and that is fairly new. I'd say the Aurora would be debuted... about the year 2016. That'd be a good run for the B-2 to do enough missions. That date might be sooner as all the tchnology on the B-2 is from the early '80's, but the Aurora technology is years ahead.




posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ulshadow
this is the real deal!



Now this is the real Aurora!



its a launch pad for this




posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 05:39 PM
link   
...and exactly what is that?



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRanchMan
...and exactly what is that?


i do not know at all..



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 08:54 AM
link   
That vehicle supposedly launched from Aurora resembles a lima bean... Eww...lima bean *bleck*...

Anyway...
I think Aurora may be part of HYSTP (pronounced "HI STEP"; Hypersonic Testbed Program). I saw the concept drawings on a video, and they looked remarkably similar to the Above photo (not the lima bean *bleck*) and my sighting sketch and the North Sea sketch. Same triangular "lifting body" with belly mounted engines. But, it also had no similarity to the Oriental Express or the X-33. The aurora is not very similar to these vehicles, only sharing the trianular body shape, but the Oriental Express in more wedge shaed and the X-33 is wider. Beside. Both these projects were terminated and never got any air time, only being fight tested in wind tunnels. Aurora sightings still occur, and the gov't can't say oh, its the Orient Express or the X-33, as they did with the 1991 Los Angelean "sky quakes".


[edit on 12/31/2005 by TheRanchMan]



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 05:44 PM
link   
if any one has a credible picture please contact me



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 11:42 AM
link   
I believe most of you have it wrong. The Aurora isn't a single aircraft. Aurora was the project code name given to multiple secret aircraft under the 1984 U.S. Defense Budget. I think what some call the TR-3B falls under the Aurora project code as the ones seen over Belgium in 1990.



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Can someone explain to me what the big deal is about this plane? I'm too lazy to take the time and read all the other posts :\



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 09:29 PM
link   
My tuppense worth is this that a lot of people are just missing the point about 'aurora'. It just doesn't matter what the name means or what name the military actually use; that's just semantics and irrelevant. What we're all calling 'aurora' is a highly probable program (if not without doubt). Too many people are trying to place it in their own experience of hypersonic or reconnaissance planes. This baby, if she does exist, is testing out something else. Think about it - why the hell would a plane want to travel THAT fast? Okay, you can deliver a payload to a target in a handful of hours to anywhere in the world, but that's old-hat stuff. Satellite Wars will render that kind of use completely redundant. Instead, consider the speed; think of the altitude; imagine what battlefield the next likely step in man's desire to wage war and conquer will be fought in. It's gonna be in space, isn't it? Weve already got space tourists - frankly I'm amazed the military are so far behind. But then they're not, are they! Aurora (or whatever the project is called - unimportant) is a development project for a prototype space fighter. If it's anything!!!

Wakey wakey people.

[edit on 22-3-2006 by nopussyfooting]



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 10:29 PM
link   
I found a real picture of an Aurora:





posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 02:14 PM
link   
That is the stupidest thing I have ever seen



lol, that was funny.

I think there is further evidence that the Aurora is real. Recently, the Untied Stataes Air Force just released information that they are moving closer towards finishing a top secret bomber aircraft project. This, in theory, could be Aurora. They even set a release date of at least the year 2011.



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 12:06 AM
link   
In 1993 I was stationed at Osan Air Base ROK, I was engaged at the time to a woman who was an Intel troop (Photo Interpreter) stationed there. One of her extra duties was to go to Hickam AFB and give a briefing on the Aurora. I out processed from the service in California and we moved to her next duty station which was Beale AFB. She said it was to work with the Aurora that was supose to start flying out of there in 94 but when we got there everyone and their brother knew the plane was comming and is why I think it never got sent there. We split up about 6 months after gettnig there and I moved to Colorado so I dont know what happened from there but, according to her, it was a real plane. and with the job she did I would guess it was a spy plane.

Gman



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 04:42 AM
link   
There are several practical uses for the 'Aurora' - or aircraft meeting its description.

One is, obviously, recon. Technology in cameras (or perhaps they're using radar imaging or something - who knows) would allow for such an aircraft to photograph an area. The altitude would give a greater coverage of an area, and nothing says that the aircraft, itself, takes pictures. It could easily deploy parachute instruments or other such devices that wirelessly communicate with the host aircraft before it disapears beyond the horizon. The 'boueys' then self-destruct to avoid being reverse-engineered.

Another is also obvious - weapons delivery. You could deliver a weapon (much like that lima bean thing shown in the picture) from potentially hundreds of miles away from a combat zone (although, why not use a missile? - answer
- the combined altitude and velocity of the munition would be approaching re-entry speeds and be capable of destroying almost any known bunker (unless it's in the side of a mountain - in which case
- especially if equipped with a tactical nuclear warhead.

That also gives some plausible deniability to the situation. No aircraft were detected on radar (maybe not even a missile, either - depending upon the 'bomb' used) and no launch of an ICBM was detected, either. The path and damage inflicted by the bomb could be attributed to a meteor. Bonus points if a fusion, rather than a uranium/plutonium fission bomb is used as it would leave fewer traces (however, any radiation could be explained away as being present on the meteor prior to impact). This would allow for a strike at bases developed in mountains - such as NORAD (or Russia's equivelant) to be conducted with a lessened chance of retaliation.

However, any country would be rather suspicious as to why a 'meteor' picked their military command and control center as its point of impact. Odds are WAY against that.

However - my money would be on a different use. I beleive the Aurora, in recent times, has been used for launching satelites into orbit. The launch of delivery missiles can be detected and used to 'guess' the number of satelites being employed. Although most satelites are visible to radar - most aircraft are, as well. A satelite could employ 'stealth' technology just like an aircraft can.

You could have a very different payload with an aircraft such as Aurora - possibly a heavier and much larger load wich could be 'slung' into space (if where the Aurora flies is not considered 'space', already) with little or no assistance from rockets.

This would prevent other nations from detecting the launch of a rocket that is delivering a satelite into orbit. It's probably cheaper, also (per launch) than a rocket. Although this is purely speculation.



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 05:31 AM
link   


Actually i remember hearing on Television that the Aurora was credited with being able to go from Mexico to Canada in 12.5 minutes.... wonder what mach that is..



Dont know if anyone did the math on this but it comes out to approx Mach 10 to achieve this distance in the aforementioned time.



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C

However - my money would be on a different use. I beleive the Aurora, in recent times, has been used for launching satelites into orbit. The launch of delivery missiles can be detected and used to 'guess' the number of satelites being employed. Although most satelites are visible to radar - most aircraft are, as well. A satelite could employ 'stealth' technology just like an aircraft can.

You could have a very different payload with an aircraft such as Aurora - possibly a heavier and much larger load wich could be 'slung' into space (if where the Aurora flies is not considered 'space', already) with little or no assistance from rockets.

This would prevent other nations from detecting the launch of a rocket that is delivering a satelite into orbit. It's probably cheaper, also (per launch) than a rocket. Although this is purely speculation.

Escape velocity from the earth is 7 miles per second, 25,000 miles per hour - or approximately Mach 34. Any object launched into space from a Mach 5 vehicle will still need booster rockets to free it from the gravitational pull of earth enough to achieve orbital status.
Aside from that small glitch in your theory I find your post quite interesting.



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 11:29 PM
link   
My fault - I forgot that escape velocity does not change with the altitude - it's not like putting a ball on a shelf. In my defense - it was like 2 in the morning or some ridiculous hour that I posted that.

Speaking of that - since anything shot into orbit from a hypersonic aircraft would need to be rocket-assisted (or using some sort of unheard of jet engine), what are the detection thresholds for the satelites that the U.S. and Russia have in geo-synch orbit that are used specifically to detect the launch of an ICBM?

You could probably use those to detect the launch of an air-launched vehicle in the same manner - only you wouldn't be able to track it since the satelite is designed to track a signature coming towards it - not going accross it.

I'm not sure of the accuracy - but a book I read had one of those satelites able to detect an air-launched cruise missile of a Russian prototype that was 'officially' never designed (of course, it was fiction - but within some realms of reality/plausability). If this were capable of being done - then there goes my theory.

Unless they were to launch them out over the ocean - assuming no one is watching for an ICBM to pop up out of the water (unless it's a Trident II coming from an Ohio Class boat.... speaking of those things - are they still used? Just seems like so much of this stuff is getting 'old' and being retired left and right).

I got the idea after I saw the drone used on some of the SR-71 Blackbirds, and I thought "Hey... if I had a lot of money I would spend a good deal of time seeing how close I can get that thing to going into orbit.... Among other things - such as seeing how big of a crater it makes in the ground when launched from an SR-71 at full-tilt and plumeting towards the Earth....). It is at this point in my life I realize that I have WAY too much curiosity/time on my hands.... I first saw a bottle rocket and thought that was cool... I then learned how to fold paper airplanes in all different types (I even tried to get some forward swept wings going....) - then I almost instantly put the two together - only to find out that bottle rockets don't have a gradual acceleration and nearly rip the paper airplane apart (and set the tree on fire when it lands in it....).

That, and I spend my time building models of aircraft and designing new ones in a 3d program I have (been working pretty hard on one... I want to get a program to simulate a wind tunnel (and chew up all of my compute cycles for about a week to print out a bunch of charts that I'll have to spend a couple of hours researching so that I know what they are talking about). The wings and body on it look extremely thick to really work .... but there again, so does the B-2....



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 08:45 PM
link   
Aurora was a PROJECT stated after project bule book..The ship are now allm,ost space craft now with the new egine..whight feild has on in it hanger under ground base their with the aleins...most alein information in at wright feild dayton ohio....look it up on utube..aurora as a new craft to get to all place of [\earth"[[][[]][[]][[]]]]]]]]][[[[[[]]]]][[][under the tubes is were don;t need to see/. it a very fast craft aurora saw just the other day near west side of northern ohio



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 03:37 PM
link   
It is believed by some that the Aurora project was canceled due to a shift from spyplanes to high-tech unmanned aerial vehicles and reconnaissance satellites which can do the same job as a spyplane, but with less risk of casualties or loss of highly expensive, sensitive equipment.
Lockheed's Skunk Works has been suggested as the prime contractor for the Aurora. Throughout the 1980s, financial analysts concluded that Lockheed had been engaged in several large classified projects, but the known projects could not account for the declared net income. Financial analysts at Kemper Securities have examined Lockheed Advanced Development Company's declared revenues from Black programs:

* Returns for 1987 were $65 million.
* Returns for 1993 were $475 million.

The only declared Lockheed Black Projects are the U2-R and F-117A upgrade programs, and nothing new has been announced between 1987 and 1993. It was also discovered that the total U.S. budget allocation for Project Aurora for 1987 was no less than $2.27 billion. According to Kemper, this would indicate a first flight of around 1989. The spread of U.S. Government payments to Lockheed indicate that the aircraft was probably about one-fifth (20%) of the way through its development program as of 1992, or has been "extensively prototyped." Around $4.5 billion has already been spent.

Chris Gibson sighting

In late August 1989, while working as an engineer on the jack-up barge "GSF Galveston Key" in the North Sea, Chris Gibson and another witness saw an unfamiliar isosceles triangle-shaped delta aircraft, apparently refueling from a KC-135 Stratotanker and accompanied by a pair of F-111 fighters. Gibson and his friend observed this spectacle for several minutes, until the aircraft went out of sight. Having dismissed the F-117, Mirage IV and fully-swept wing F-111 as the identity of this unfamiliar aircraft, Gibson drew a sketch of the formation. Gibson was a member of the Royal Observer Corps (ROC) — and more importantly, had been in the ROC's aircraft recognition team since 1980 — but was unable to identify this aircraft.

When the sighting was made public in 1992, the British Defence Secretary Tom King was told, "There is no knowledge in the MoD of a 'black' programme of this nature, although it would not surprise the relevant desk officers in the Air Staff and Defence Intelligence Staff if it did exist."

Sonic booms

A series of unusual sonic booms were detected in Southern California, beginning in mid to late 1991. On at least five occasions, these sonic booms were recorded by at least 25 of the 220 U.S. Geological Survey sensors across Southern California used to pinpoint earthquake epicenters. The incidents were recorded in June, October and November 1990, and late January 1991. Seismologists estimate that the aircraft were flying at speeds between Mach 5 and 6 (3,300-4,000 mph) and at altitudes of 8-10 km (26,200-32,800 ft). The aircraft's flight path was in a north-northeast direction, consistent with flight paths to secret test ranges in Nevada. Seismologists say that the sonic booms were characteristic of a smaller vehicle than the 37-meter long shuttle orbiter. Furthermore, neither the shuttle nor NASA's single SR-71B was operating on the days the booms were registered. It is not definitively known if these events can be tied to the Aurora program or to other acknowledged or secret programs.

Steven Douglas sighting

On March 23, 1992, near Amarillo, Texas, Steven Douglas photographed the "doughnuts on a rope" contrail and linked this sighting to distinctive sounds. He described the engine noise in the May 11, 1992, edition of Aviation Week & Space Technology as a:
strange, loud pulsating roar, unique... a deep pulsating rumble that vibrated the house and made the windows shake... similar to rocket engine noise, but deeper, with evenly timed pulses.

Thy Dude



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Aurora was a PROJECT stated after project bule book..The ship are now allm,ost space craft now with the new egine..whight feild has on in it hanger under ground base their with the aleins...most alein information in at wright feild dayton ohio....look it up on utube..aurora as a new craft to get to all place of [\earth"[[][[]][[]][[]]]]]]]]][[[[[[]]]]][[][under the tubes is were don;t need to see/. it a very fast craft aurora saw just the other day near west side of northern ohio


How the blolody hell does this crap get approved? Seriously, what value does this sort of infantile rubbish bring to either this thread, this forum or indeed the entire ats site?!

Anonymous posts were the worst idea this board has ever had.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 11:36 PM
link   
Detailed sighting reports, if reliable, are quite interesting. Sonic boom "skyquakes" (I personally experienced one in the late 1980s or early '90s) are somewhat intriguing. The so-called "doughnuts on a rope" contrails seem to be ordinary subsidence phenomena and are probably not very helpful.

The AURORA budget line item is right out!

We have to remove the AURORA line item from the equation entirely because it was not an aircraft program. It was simply funding for B-2 stealth bomber construction and testing infrastructure; facilities, not airplanes.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join