Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Confirmation of Existence of Aurora?

page: 5
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 04:59 PM
link   
I don't believe the Aurora exists (at least as a hypersonic aircraft).

Reasons being:

- no filtering down of material knowledge.
- no fundamental aerodynamic research has ever been kept secret before (see x-1 etc).
- why the super expensive NASA hypersonics program.
- no mention of plasma use for stealth (in US), so why would I believe the US has it for hypersonic aerodynamics.
- why the study to see if the performance envelope of the SR-71 could be improved, the conclusion it could, but the expense was not worth it.
- how can the USAF justify the expense on such a program when they have been cutting back drastically.
- Satellites offer a global response, I seriously doubt Aurora can respond as quick to tasking as satellites.

gotta go, more reasons, be back later hopefully




posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
I don't believe the Aurora exists (at least as a hypersonic aircraft).

gotta go, more reasons, be back later hopefully


Really? How about these responses to your questions - just for starters?

Reasons being:

- no filtering down of material knowledge. - to the public, but to others?
- no fundamental aerodynamic research has ever been kept secret before (see x-1 etc). - except for the F-117 and B-2.
- why the super expensive NASA hypersonics program. - smokescreen?
- no mention of plasma use for stealth (in US), so why would I believe the US has it for hypersonic aerodynamics. - good reasons that haven't been disclosed to the public?
- why the study to see if the performance envelope of the SR-71 could be improved, the conclusion it could, but the expense was not worth it. - on that particular aircraft?
- how can the USAF justify the expense on such a program when they have been cutting back drastically. - USAF needs the $ for Aurora?
- Satellites offer a global response, I seriously doubt Aurora can respond as quick to tasking as satellites. - satellites offer a regularly timed overflight capability which gives the 'enemy' the opportunity to hide. The orbits are also difficult and expensive to change. Interesting items can be more quickly and easily targeted with aircraft


[edit on 1/30/2006 by centurion1211]



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
Really? How about these responses to your questions - just for starters?
Reasons being:

- no filtering down of material knowledge. - to the public, but to others?
- no fundamental aerodynamic research has ever been kept secret before (see x-1 etc). - except for the F-117 and B-2.
- why the super expensive NASA hypersonics program. - smokescreen?
- no mention of plasma use for stealth (in US), so why would I believe the US has it for hypersonic aerodynamics. - good reasons that haven't been disclosed to the public?
- why the study to see if the performance envelope of the SR-71 could be improved, the conclusion it could, but the expense was not worth it. - on that particular aircraft?
- how can the USAF justify the expense on such a program when they have been cutting back drastically. - USAF needs the $ for Aurora?
- Satellites offer a global response, I seriously doubt Aurora can respond as quick to tasking as satellites. - satellites offer a regularly timed overflight capability which gives the 'enemy' the opportunity to hide. The orbits are also difficult and expensive to change. Interesting items can be more quickly and easily targeted with aircraft


[edit on 1/30/2006 by centurion1211]



- No, the F-22 uses commerically available materials for the engine, if high temperature materials were available, they would have been used. And if high temperature resistant RAM was developed umpteen years ago, there would have been absolutely no talk of speed limiting by thermal considerations.

- Point out the fundamental aerodynamic research on the B-2 and F-117... it'll be news to me.

- Very expensive "smokescreen", considering its also disclosing the fact the USA will have hypersonic craft shortly - so its giving the "secret" away in a sense.

- No, look, its widely known the use of plasma can reduce RCS, now, if you can do one, you can do the other - if the plasma tech is available, why is it not being used on the JSF/F-22 etc.

- Thats my point - the USAF doesn't need the Aurora, whats the point knowing what the baddies are up to if you can do jack s__t about it?

- Quickly and more easily targetted? Take, say a location in the middle east, thats what? 7-8000 miles from a US home airbase, say 7500 - ok, so the Aurora is good for Mach 5, thats 5 x 760 mph (for groundspeed) = 3800 mph.
Now, you can be sure the Aurora cannot make that trip without refuelling at least once on the way to and once on the way from the target, so its around 2 hours travel + refuelling time + flight preperation time (again, such a machine will not be a case of turn the key and away you go). So it could reasonably be expected the response time of an Aurora is 4 hours+ - hardly the tactical response time many would seem to think/like.



I know some will not like the idea that the Aurora doesn't exist, and that the USAF are not 100+ years ahead of the rest of the world etc etc, but I still see no reason for the existence of Aurora as a serviceable, hypersonic, recon aircraft.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316



Hey, the point was that they tell you what they want you to know - and sometimes false things to throw people off on a different track. Hard to say if Aurora exists based on anything but circumstantial evidence. However, your argument sounds a lot like the "no, it was just swamp gas" explanation put out by the government when faced with UFO evidence that it didn't know what to do with.

Oh, and regarding satellites. Do you know anything about what it takes to change orbits for a recon satellite? The very limited fuel on board that can't be replaced? The other important targets that will now be missed when you move the satellite? The problems with atmospheric interference? The ability of an enemy to time their activities so as not to be seen by a satellite? An Aurora-type recon aircraft would have none of these issues, which is exactly why it would be a valuable asset that any government would like to have - if they could build one.

Don't be too hasty to dismiss this. How long was the F-117 (BTW, an aerodynamic flying brick) kept under wraps?

An enemy can't defend against what they don't know about ...

[edit on 1/31/2006 by centurion1211]

[edit on 1/31/2006 by centurion1211]



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Of course they lie... sure isn't that what this place is all about?


For it to have existed for as long as some say without any evidence emerging? Sorry, don't believe it.


re satellites, not my exact field, but the shuttle was designed to deal with that (replenishing) and has demonstrated it in the past. I assume the replacement will be able to do the same.

The Aurora will have to deal with atmospheric and ionisation interference.

As I pointed out earlier, I guesstimate the response time for a Mach 5 aircraft to be around 4 hours to the middle east - not exactly the same as a predator UAV or a darkstar type machine, which is designed to be there as it happens.


I still don't see the evidence of existence, evidence of knowledge gained from such a machine, or the necessity justifying the expenditure to say there is an Aurora.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 09:27 AM
link   
The idea of the hypersonic programme being a decoy to hide the existance of the hypersonic Aurora is, in my opinion, a nonsense. Someone once also tried to tell me that the F-22 was only a cover for the real and secret fighter programmes too, these types of views show a lack of a grasp on reality.

Name one other research programme that was subsequently shown to be a decoy for something else already developed and put into service? There aren't any because such a practice would be hugely expensive, demanding and wasteful and nobody is stupid enough to try it.

I agree with kilcoo on this. In respect of the F-117, F-22 and B-2 also their appearance was kept under wraps but their existance was known right from the get go, or at least two years before its operational debut in the case of the F-117. The notion of a completely secret hypersonic spy plane thats been around for 25 years without any solid evidence for its existance is just too much of a stretch and far removed from any of the three previously mentioned programmes.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 06:06 PM
link   
You want confirmation? I got yer confirmation right here:










posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Confirmation of what? That you have a reasonable graphics suite? Give planeman a call, he's lookng for some graphics help.

Shame the artist stuffed up by making the bottom picture look nothing like the top two
What happened to the wings, they not only can droop down like the XB-70'S, but they can also change from pointy tips to trapezoidal shape too! Not to mention the way the upper fuselage wing blending can change at will as well


[edit on 2-2-2006 by waynos]



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Confirmation of what? That you have a reasonable graphics suite?


Nope. No graphics suite. Just a camera.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orionblamblam

Originally posted by waynos
Confirmation of what? That you have a reasonable graphics suite?


Nope. No graphics suite. Just a camera.


Waynos...Actually all 3 pictures are the same aircraft...and everything does line up.

Orion...What proof do you have that this is the "Aurora"?
It doesn't gain much credability with the pictures linked to a site that has several pictures of 3d modeled concept aircraft.


It looks cool though...The bottom is a little funky though...Obviously its a scramjet...Do you have anymore pictures of it? At different angles?



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 11:44 PM
link   
While I have my doubts that it's a real image, it is a nice design (from the top, at least - from the side it's kind of ugly). It's far more likely for there to be an image from the ground of it flying than a great quality "promo shot" style photo.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Murcielago, OK hands up. I blame the darkness and resolution of my monitor for making the straight wingtips invisible in the lower shot. I followed the link to a website that sells plastic models of unbuilt projects - well suited to the Aurora then, perhaps



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orionblamblam
You want confirmation? I got yer confirmation right here:









isn't that the f-19? though did see a scale model of that plane in a toy store.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
The "aurora" is in use.
Numbers are unknown.


Did you just imply this...solidly?


While I agree, I'm somewhat of a perfectionist..........so SHOW US WHERE YOU GOT THE IDEA!...:S because I wouldn't only think 2 if any. Unless of course you mean the B-2 project.

Orion: I've seen those pictures on the internet, sorry, photoshoped. Please post REAL proof.

[edit on 2-3-2006 by Shugo]



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 02:00 PM
link   
the top and bottom pic are IMHO a different item - as the top pic has a flat wing - the bottom has down canted wingtips



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 02:20 PM
link   
I thought that too, but if you can turn the contrast/brightness up you will see that the wing IS flat and what you (and I) took to be inverted wingtips actually look like ventraql fins. Its still a fictitious model though.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 02:30 PM
link   
the cockpit/nose of that model is off an SR-71.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 03:37 PM
link   
It's not Photoshopped, I think. It's just a model that's photographed.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoganCale
It's not Photoshopped, I think. It's just a model that's photographed.


There was an analysis on another site I believe that concluded it was photoshoped. I will look for it. Needless to say, the pics a fake, it wasn't really taken with a camera.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 03:45 PM
link   
The only thing leading me to consider the possibility that it's Photoshopped is the similarity between an SR-71 cockpit section and this one. Otherwise, to me, it looks very much like a photograph of a scale plastic model. Which could also explain the SR-71 cockpit styling. The design is not publicly known, so a model company would be making up the design or using someone's made up design.






top topics



 
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join