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 is useless

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 03:38 AM
link   
Purposeful Obscurity


Originally posted by Vinci
ONCE AGAIN, They have a team of a thousand people working on such vessels, I'M SURE, pretty sure, that it's not useless.

Meanwhile, somewhere in Nevada...

Courier: Sir, I've got some bad news.

Commander: What is it, son?

Courier: It's Aurora, sir. Central Command has determined that it serves no purpose.

Commander: What? Then why the heck did we build the darned thing?

Courier: That's the problem, sir. No one seems to know.

Commander: Ah HA! So that's why. I was wondering why no one had ever bothered to tell me what I was supposed to accomplish when I was assigned to this project. Well, I guess we'd better shut all this down, then. Grab a sledgehammer and come with me...

...

I don't think it's unreasonable to speculate that IF Aurora exists, it probably DOES have a purpose.




posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 04:05 AM
link   
The Concorde was built as well, yet seemed utterly useless. It was a great technological innovation, but the disadvantages - limited number of passengers in little space, sonic booms limiting routes, fuel consumption, costs, etcetera - far outweighed the advantages. To me, it seems the advantages a Mach 6 plane would bring, would also be offset by a number of inherent disadvantages, such as the short time over the target, inability to loiter, fuel consumption etcetera. Though people maay be blinded by looking only at the advantages, the fact that it would be very technologically innovative and possibly the desire to handout boatloads of money to military industrial companies won't refrain people from trying to build one.

[edit on 24-8-2005 by Simon666]



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 04:18 AM
link   
Grapes To Oranges


Originally posted by Simon666
The Concorde was built as well, yet seemed utterly useless. It was a great technological innovation, but the disadvantages - limited number of passengers in little space, sonic booms limiting routes, fuel consumption, costs, etcetera - far outweighed the advantages.

A reasonable example in theory, but this is an apples (or perhaps grapes) vs oranges analogy.

Unless I'm hopelessly misinformed, the U.S. government isn't planning to finance Aurora by selling tickets to ride on it.


Certainly, there have been boondoggle projects galore, both public and secret. Maybe this is one of them, I don't know.

But even the boondoggles were developed to serve some purpose, which is why I'm skeptical of the idea that there would be no purpose for Aurora.

Boatload Diplomacy


Originally posted by Simon666
Though people maay be blinded by looking only at the advantages, the fact that it would be very technologically innovative and possibly the desire to handout boatloads of money to military industrial companies won't refrain people from trying to build one.

Despite the Military-Industrial Complex gravy train, most program managers want their work to have a purpose and do something worthwhile. It's human nature.

If nothing else, career options for people and companies whose projects perpetually tank are not as appealing as those of people whose projects are successful and important. That's just the nature of the business.

As for how blind the customer of a project like Aurora might be, I would consider that a relative thing.

At the very least, they know a heck of a lot more about Aurora -- if it even exists -- than anyone outside the program does.

That puts us at something of a disadvantage.



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
That puts us at something of a disadvantage.

At a disadvantage over hypothetical people.
Fact is, a Mach 6-8 plane would be similar to a satellite: you can get only one short pass of at most a few minutes only over a target, with as only advantage you can do so unannounced and with several disadvantages such as fuel costs, probable high maintenance due to the severe temperatures and more. You should ask yourself what the advantage of having something akin to an unannounced satellite is, what could you detect with that that you otherwise couldn't, even if you could detect it, how politically and militarily feasible is it for example to risk overflying say Russia or China with such a thing, and even if is fully feasible, is it worth the effort, would the information be of significant use.

[edit on 24-8-2005 by Simon666]



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 04:43 AM
link   
Purposeful Deliberation


Originally posted by Simon666
You should ask yourself what the advantage of having something akin to an unannounced satellite is, what could you detect with that that you otherwise couldn't, even if you could detect it, how politically and militarily feasible is it for example to risk overflying say Russia or China with such a thing, and even if is fully feasible, is it worth the effort, would the information be of significant use.

Indeed. Perhaps there is no advantage, and Aurora doesn't exist at all.

Or perhaps Aurora serves some other as yet unknown purpose if it does exist.

Heck, for all I know, it could be a space plane, and has been ferrying military payloads in support of the ongoing deployment of SDI for twenty years.

That's what makes black projects so much fun.

You never really know.



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simon666

You watch too much bad Hollywood movies. The cameras of high altitude spy planes and satellites aren't remotely good enough to identify people or license plates and only allow identification of some larger structures in case of a characterizing, obvious shape.


You simply do not know what you are talking about. You are clueless, and you are making things up so you can push some agenda.

An example of how you are wrong about what the cameras can do:




How good are the cameras on the aircraft? They can photograph a golf ball on the green from 80,000 feet.


Link



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simon666

Originally posted by Vinci
Oh, and you're just assuming they're using the most advanced cameras...that you know of. They can shoot a rocket down a vent of a building. In the 60's the NRO built cameras on satelites which could photograph in, not GREAT detail, but good enough.

You're assuming that over time linear or better improvements can be made to cameras without limits. Not so, there are on theoretical grounds limits to the resolution of telescopes, look it up, it is known as the diffraction limit.


They also use to say the sky is the limit. How's that for irony?



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
An example of how you are wrong about what the cameras can do:

Exactly how would that prove me wrong? When looking straight down to what's underneath, to detect a golf ball you need a camera with an iris of above around 32 cm, which is feasible. That is however probably for looking straight down from 80.000 feet and under good to perfect atmospheric conditions. Detecting a golfball from such altitude and under such conditions is however still insufficient to read license plate and keep in mind that the resolution gets worse when looking under an angle, at larger distances, under atmospheric disturbance and especially if your aircraft is surrounded by sizzling hot trembling turbulent air, which would most likely occur on a Mach 6-8 spy plane.



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 02:38 AM
link   
We have to remember these are all assumptions and guesses. For all we know the Aurora might be a transport plane! Ever think of that?! Sure it might be very costly, but if theres a nuclear bomb heading towards the president, aboard the Aurora we go!



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 05:47 AM
link   
I have to Disagree that Aurora and other spy planes are useless! Allow me to explaine why we still need spy planes:

It's called crises management. As we can all tell from watching the news, there are a lot of "Hot Spots" around the world where things can blow up into a war with little warning. For example, look at the Middle East, Isrieal and Palistine are having a lot of problems and things can change from hour to hour (LITTERALY). In a situation where you need to be able to watch things so closely, a sattelite that can only make one or two passes a day won't be of much help. What you need is the ability to show up at any time and hang around to keep an eye on things. This is where the spy plane comes in. You can circle the area for a while, go out to sea to refule from a tanker, and return a few minutes later.

The best idea is to have both. Sattelites can't replace airplanes, and airplanes can't replace sattelites. It like the hammer and the screw driver in your tool box: the hammer will NEVER replace the screw driver, and the screw driver will NEVER replace the hammer. You need to look at what job you're doing, and then decide which tool you need! It doesn't work the other way!

Tim



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghost
I have to Disagree that Aurora and other spy planes are useless! Allow me to explaine why we still need spy planes:

Noone said other spy planes were useless.



Originally posted by ghost
In a situation where you need to be able to watch things so closely, a sattelite that can only make one or two passes a day won't be of much help. What you need is the ability to show up at any time and hang around to keep an eye on things. This is where the spy plane comes in. You can circle the area for a while, go out to sea to refule from a tanker, and return a few minutes later.

A Mach 6 to mach 8 spy plane, which is what many claim the Aurora is, simply can't hang around and circle above an area. The time over the target would be minimal and the turn radius would be immense due to the speed.

[edit on 25-8-2005 by Simon666]



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Simon666

Noone said other spy planes were useless.

A Mach 6 to mach 8 spy plane, which is what many claim the Aurora is, simply can't hang around and circle above an area. The time over the target and the turn radius would be immense due to the speed.


Hey, I'll give you that! I misread the point that was bieng made in the thread. I agree with you, a plane flying at 6 to 8 times the speed of sound isn't very practical. I'm wrong, and I'll admit it. I didn't read the point of his atatement correctly, and I made a statement that was irrelivent to the disscussion. Sorry folks, noone is perfect!

Tim



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 07:41 AM
link   
Is it possible to transit into operation are with mach 6-7, and then slow down into mach 2-3 for actual recon operation and when desired result are obtained speed back up to mach 7 and speed back home before the supper gets cold



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ludo182
Aurora is a piece of crap as a lot of American projects. Honestly do you think that it's worth spending all that money in those projects? You'd better spend that money to curb on the number of poor people in the US, to have a better educational system ( in France we speak at least two languages and often 3, i doubt it's the same in the US)...

[edit on 6-8-2005 by ludo182]


Hmmm, let me think here... America has pioneered almost every single useful military technology available on the planet earth. I would think that the development and successful demonstration of pulse detonation aircraft will prove to be highly useful to our military and, eventually, to the world over. Let's think of a few more wasteful American projects: Like the internet, modern aviation, satellite guidance and communication technology, supersonic jet propulsion, amphibious assult vehicles (Which liberated France in WWII, by the way!) etc... I'm fairly certain that the human race is somehow benfitting from those wasteful projects.

And as far a learning 3 languages in France... So what!? It's probably necessary because NOBODY speaks French and almost EVERYONE speaks English. See the difference?



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo

Hmmm, let me think here... America has pioneered almost every single useful military technology available on the planet earth.


True, but it's kind of dumb that the most advanced technology and expensive technology is geared toward blowing the crap out of other humans and nations.


Originally posted by kozmo

I would think that the development and successful demonstration of pulse detonation aircraft will prove to be highly useful to our military and, eventually, to the world over. Let's think of a few more wasteful American projects: Like the internet, modern aviation, satellite guidance and communication technology, supersonic jet propulsion, amphibious assult vehicles (Which liberated France in WWII, by the way!) etc... I'm fairly certain that the human race is somehow benfitting from those wasteful projects.


I have to agree here. A lot of modern day inventions would not have come nearly as fast without the US.


Originally posted by kozmo

And as far a learning 3 languages in France... So what!? It's probably necessary because NOBODY speaks French and almost EVERYONE speaks English. See the difference?


Canada makes us learn French.... I hate French. I never been to Quebec (or France), don't wanna go to Quebec, and never intend to go to quebec.



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Yeah there were a lot of military inventions, but let's look at all the non-military things that have come from them. Commercial jet aircraft- the first jets were military. Those wonderful highways, like the Autobhan in Germany, and the ones in the US that make it so convenient for people to get anywhere, were built for military use, etc. A LOT of things that were developed for the military have a lot of non-military uses that we just take for granted.



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Yeah there were a lot of military inventions, but let's look at all the non-military things that have come from them. Commercial jet aircraft- the first jets were military. Those wonderful highways, like the Autobhan in Germany, and the ones in the US that make it so convenient for people to get anywhere, were built for military use, etc. A LOT of things that were developed for the military have a lot of non-military uses that we just take for granted.


How could they not?



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 02:39 PM
link   
This is a true story but take it for what it's worth.

My parents own a sound and lighting company and do roll-outs all the time for when a new plane comes out. They have several military accounts and private sector accounts. I think we even did the public unveiling of the SR-71... I think... I know we have a bunch of pictures of our equipment around the SR-71 in our office. Well one day my mom went to go do a bid on a show (meaning she goes to where they're going to have a show and they show her what they want and then she gives them a estimate) well this bid was on McCord AFB (I think that's how it's spelled... the AFB that's about two or three hours from Seattle and close to Ft. Lewis). She came back and told us how strange the bid was. I mean normally we do just regular transport planes and such but this time they wanted to roll out this strange black plane that she had never seen before. At the time I was a huge airplane buff and I just happened to have a magazine (I think it was popular mechanics... or something like that) that had a whole article on the Aurora. I showed her the drawings they had in the magazine and she said that the plane looked a lot like that but had different wings and wasn't shaped right. Anyway, the show got cancelled soon afterwards and nothing really ever came of it. But it's a pretty cool real story.

...My dad also dropped a microphone down George Bush Sr's pants when he was president and went to get it and almost got tackled by the secret service, but that story isn't really relevant to this story



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Wow, that's pretty cool. Cool mom. :-)

How do you drop a micophone down someone's pants by accident?



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Second Opinion


Originally posted by Vinci
How do you drop a micophone down someone's pants by accident?


"It's technical."



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join