Does looking and measuring the runways at Area 51 prove that Aurora exists?

i mean we are trying too hard to wait until some witness or a picture of the super secret aircraft wen we can just look at the satellite photos of Area 51 and conclude that the runways over there was built specifically for some super fast aircraft. and dat means Aurora.

honestly i dont think there is an "aurora" sure there are secret spy planes that have been built since the SR-71, but a token "aurora". nope. I think it has been discussed that aurora was a code word for the B-2 bomber in a budget one year.

It is important to remember that the runway at Groom is no longer than the runway at Edwards (a bit shorter, in fact).

The long strip that extends onto the dry lakebed was originally an 85,00-foot concrete runway with an asphalt emergency overrun. It was built for the Lockheed A-12 in 1960. The overrun portion was not designed to handle regular takeoff and landing activities. The concrete portion was extended 5,000 feet on the south end in the 1980s becasue the north end was getting damaged by intermittent flooding of the lakebed. In any case, that entire airstrip is closed and no longer used.

Even if there has been a high-speed technology demonstrator of some sort (one that was tested on that airstrip when it was still open), the length of the runway doesn't tell us that it exists.

What you have to remember, "Area 51" will get mpost of its supplies/equip from the air. they need a long runway for any large tranpost planes toland/take off. The distance to land/take off can vary depending on weight, and any aircraft which is carrying food or even spy planes will need extra runway

It doesn't prove it exists, but large transports do need a long runway, but anything with a delta wing also needs a long runway, such as concorde needed a long runway.
The thing is how long the burnt rubber black streaks on it are, this would suggest something fast is going on it.

It doesn't prove it exists, but large transports do need a long runway, but anything with a delta wing also needs a long runway, such as concorde needed a long runway.
The thing is how long the burnt rubber black streaks on it are, this would suggest something fast is going on it.

A51's 1.5 mile runway is long eg two 747 landing at each toward each other and should be able to stop long before there's "conflict of runway airspace".

Aurora on the other hand, requires little if any runway. I call it the TR3-B Black Manta but others may disagree. But from my research, it seems to be a craft that moves anyway it's pilots want it to go. Straight up being the most reported from the get-go.

Apparently it's triangular though even I have some trouble believing the larger craft is actually 360 feet in length x 240 feet wide.

However, I have consistant reports of it's power, i.e.: a circular excellerator within the triangle which utilizes a "mercury based plasma, revolving at 60.000 rpm. Pressurized to 40,000 atmospheres and super-cooled to 150 degrees Kelvin (all appx). Which accounts for the glowing red/orange haze at center-bottom.

What I have real trouble understanding is the "three rockets on each of it's three lower point extremities". Simply I don't believe this part as witnesses indicate "NO NOISE".

Anyway, this report has been consistant throughout 1991-1999.

Dallas

Originally posted by apex
It doesn't prove it exists, but large transports do need a long runway, but anything with a delta wing also needs a long runway, such as concorde needed a long runway.
The thing is how long the burnt rubber black streaks on it are, this would suggest something fast is going on it.

Longer "rubber streaks" are usualy caused by lots of inconsistant landings. landing fore and aft of the target area on the runway. Another reason for longer runways in this area is heat. The hotter the ambiant tempreture, the longer the runway needs to be for takeoff.

Streaks on the runway are caused by the tires going from stationary to hitting concrete at a high rate of speed. It leaves little bits of rubber. You can look at a plane tire and tell which portion of the tire has hit the runway because there are little cuts in the surface of the tire caused by the runway.

Originally posted by Dallas

A51's 1.5 mile runway

I thought it was 6 miles long, not 1.5, I may be wrong, but it looks a lot longer.

Originally posted by apex

Originally posted by Dallas

A51's 1.5 mile runway

I thought it was 6 miles long, not 1.5, I may be wrong, but it looks a lot longer.

There is no way Groom lakes runway is 1.5 miles thats just bad information

www.lasvegasnow.com...

If thats 1.5 miles then I am Mickey Mouse

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Streaks on the runway are caused by the tires going from stationary to hitting concrete at a high rate of speed. It leaves little bits of rubber. You can look at a plane tire and tell which portion of the tire has hit the runway because there are little cuts in the surface of the tire caused by the runway.

Yes, I realize this, I notice them everytime I preflight an aircraft. But they are usualy longer on runways that have aircraft landing quite often, and thus, are not touching down in the same area. the streaka are usualy no more than a few feet for larger aircraft, unless you ass is on the brakes.

but surley if the "aircraft" can accelerate (sp?) at great speeds then it needs less runway, im not a pilot but use alot of certified Flight Sims (X-Plane etc) and when you use a Fast Fighter it uses much less runway than say a B52. Since the "Aurora" is said to be extremly fast then it would use less runway. like i said im not a pilot im goin on Flight Sims and Hopfully Common sence. Speculation hasit that the Aurora doesnt exist when it became well known and it got replaced with another project using the Aurora's fundimentals but different design and code name.

cheers

Originally posted by PrimalDeaf
but surley if the "aircraft" can accelerate (sp?) at great speeds then it needs less runway, im not a pilot but use alot of certified Flight Sims (X-Plane etc) and when you use a Fast Fighter it uses much less runway than say a B52. Since the "Aurora" is said to be extremly fast then it would use less runway. like i said im not a pilot im goin on Flight Sims and Hopfully Common sence. Speculation hasit that the Aurora doesnt exist when it became well known and it got replaced with another project using the Aurora's fundimentals but different design and code name.

cheers

That depends on weight. In a fighter simulation, you can pull back at half runway, and climb fast. But with an increse in top speed of the plane, you usualy have to make a sacrifice in wing lenght/shape. Look at the SR-71. Due to this sacrifice, you have a higher stall speed, and thus a faster landing speed.

Originally posted by wiggy

Originally posted by PrimalDeaf
but surley if the "aircraft" can accelerate (sp?) at great speeds then it needs less runway, im not a pilot but use alot of certified Flight Sims (X-Plane etc) and when you use a Fast Fighter it uses much less runway than say a B52. Since the "Aurora" is said to be extremly fast then it would use less runway. like i said im not a pilot im goin on Flight Sims and Hopfully Common sence. Speculation hasit that the Aurora doesnt exist when it became well known and it got replaced with another project using the Aurora's fundimentals but different design and code name.

cheers

That depends on weight. In a fighter simulation, you can pull back at half runway, and climb fast. But with an increse in top speed of the plane, you usualy have to make a sacrifice in wing lenght/shape. Look at the SR-71. Due to this sacrifice, you have a higher stall speed, and thus a faster landing speed.

Cheers for that, i thought it was sumthing along those lines

Just not in the romantic manner you think it does.

Want to see Aurora?

In the FY 1986 DOD budget request, under the heading "air breathing reconaissance" there was a line item labeled "AURORA" funded for $80 million with a projected spending level in FY 1987 of $2.272 billion.

How much does a B2 cost? About two billion no? Do you really expect them to put "B-2 Bomber"? It was cover for the purchase of the first unit.

The bomber was announced shortly after in 1988.

The first B-2 was publicly displayed on Nov. 22, 1988, when it was rolled out of its hangar at Air Force Plant 42, Palmdale, Calif.

AURORA also appeared in the 1988 and 1989 budgets, but recieved no funding. This was due to the fact that there was no need to hide the purchase since the existance of the aircraft was previously made public.

[edit on 29-9-2005 by crisko]

The short answer is NO!

The lenght of the runway can have many explainations. For exampe, the runway could be used for aircraft that don't always have very good aerodynamic characteristics. A good example is the Have Blue (forrunner of the F-117) the aircraft was subsonic, but because of it's unusually poor lift to drag ratio, it needed more then 3/4's of the Groom Lake runway to reach take off speed.

Also, Groom Lake is used for testing! When thing are tested they don't always work well. What do you do if a plane lands and the breaks fail? With a long runway, You can bring the engins back to idle and let it roll out until it slows down on it's own. Most strange things have more then one possible answer. (I have found that often the simple ones are usually the closest to the truth.)

Tim

[edit on 18-10-2005 by ghost]

Along the lines of what ghost said I would think with test aircraft they would want a long runway to just get up to takeoff speed without taking off and slow back down for testing but maybe they don't need to do that?? With a runway that long they could take off climb just a few feet to see how it feels etc.. and put it back down with no worries