Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Aurora Spyplane

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by intensity
Your pops should have spent less time telling you about planes he didn't fly and more time working on your grammer.

Shugo, nothing has been debunked here, everything is still pure speculation. I clued you in to what I believe and you ran with it, which is fine. The logical thing here until someone decided to take the cover of this thing is to keep an open mind about what it actually is. In my honest opinion there isn't a single thing out there that even hints at it's existance, well with a few exceptions.


When you take comparisons intensity, it's right under your nose. In my eyes the Aurora Case is closed. Though from time to time I still can't help but look at the beauty of such a plane.




posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 09:16 PM
link   
i would like to be in a research project for the aurora i could help because my dad was almost gonna test it but then they said they didnt need him and he was given statistics on the aurora and other info and briefing



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by machinegunjordan
i would like to be in a research project for the aurora i could help because my dad was almost gonna test it but then they said they didnt need him and he was given statistics on the aurora and other info and briefing


I'll belive you if and when I see status of what was told to you... it's hard for trust when people claim without displaying information.

But, please share your coments I'd like to hear them.



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 09:31 PM
link   
yes i understand that u dont believe and my dad really wasnt allowed to tell me much but i know that in the late 80s before my time by about 4 years he was testing jets mostly for lockheed hes quit know but he was called and told that he needs to fly blahblah blah so a jet was provided to fly him to cali and they briefed him with a lot of info and showed various videos and documents and even a few models and mock ups of a few forms of it they were debating on and they showed him a model of wat the one he wolud fly would look like but he couldnt tell me exactly wat it looked like(ill try to get it out of him after school tommorrow) but right before he was supposed to fly it they called him and said he can go home they didnt need him didnt say y but ithink because they didnt have their design strait and they were still in the early stages



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 09:32 PM
link   
im sorry but other than that i really have no proof but ill try to get info from him tommorow



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Hey everyone,
I'm new here and just thought I would share some info that you may find interesting about the Aurora.
I live in Toronto Canada, there is a company here called Lindt ( or something like that, I unfortunately can't remember the name, it is however in the Guinness Book of world records of 2000 for the largest patent legal case ). I know a guy who use to work for them, he has since moved to California after being forced from his job as the chemicals seem to have caused Cancer. I will not disclose his name, but he responsible in part for the design of the head's up display in the F-16. A few years back ( about 8 or so ), he was telling me about a secret US project called the Aurora he was working on a radar/heads up display he was working on. About 2 years later, he told me that the project go cancelled and that he was no longer working on it. It seemed to me at the time to be either a cover up as it was secret and did not want anything to leak, or the company lost the contract to the project. As I was rather ignorant at the time, I thought nothing of it, nor did I do any research. As the time pasted, I became more and more interested in the aircraft and decided to do some research, landing me here a while back. I have read on this sight roughly 3 years, and had never bothered signing up for the forum, but I thought I would give it a shot. If anyone has any input or questions, please let me know, and I will try to answer them, as I do still have some what of a connection with him. In my opinion, this does prove that the Aurora exists, or did at the bare minimum.!



posted on May, 28 2004 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Oh for, crying out loud, I'm sick of this buggy Java nonsense. I just lost my entire post by using these blasted quick formatting buttons.

[Edited on 28-5-2004 by Lampyridae]



posted on May, 29 2004 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reset33,

Welcome to the show. Yes, your story is VERY interesting...

It doesn't surprise me, however, that whoever is developing Aurora would "spread" development. Meaning they develop certain aspects of it one place and certain aspects other places. That is done with just about any product and it's even more necessary for secret projects.

What is not in question is Aurora's existance. I think there is enough proof that shows "Aurora" exists. But does THE Aurora, the legendary prototype spyplane that looks like an alien craft and uses ramjet, does THAT Aurora exist? The question has always been what it exists as.

For all we know, Aurora could be a new type of grenade!

One thing is for sure: it's real and somebody doesn't like anybody knowing it's real.



posted on May, 29 2004 @ 10:34 AM
link   
If anything, the most interesting thing about Aurora was that it was designed in the early 1980s.

Tells you A LOT about how much technology the U.S. Air Force (or the entire Department of Defense for that matter) has on it's hands. We didn't even get GPS or the Internet until 1990.



posted on May, 30 2004 @ 03:26 PM
link   
On the Aurora name...

I was talking to an Air Force friend of mine about the RASCAL. He was very confused, as he knew three or four different systems called by that name. I had to explain that I meant the space launch system... plus, Aurora has changed its name many times to throw off black project bloodhounds the likes of Bill Sweetman.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 02:12 AM
link   
This model that shows up in the beginning of this thread was made by Byron Salsbury after I did the drawings. my drawings didnt match at the time of the build, should have just used the sketches that had been provided, based on the eyewittness sightings, it's actually alot more eye candyish than Byron got it. This was his first Scratchbuilt model though, and he took artistic licence to say the least the eintire canopy area is wrong as are the intakes..to me it looks more like a large XR7 Thunderdart without those huge scram jets(pulse detonation engines) and has the intake humps of a YF-23 alot more aggressive looking than Byron ended up with. I do have this model, as I did the drawings so i got a casting. To fix it as per the actual sketches orginally will require alot of work...someday when i tear down some of my current work load I'll fix it and offer a correct kit as to the original sighting sketches.

William



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 02:19 AM
link   
Ohh and yes I still have the original sketch, But I won't post it publically till I make the model. I don't think I'm being unreasonable on this either. If you like that model, you will surely admire the correct one
i mean that in the best possible way too

Best,
William

[edit on 10-3-2005 by Wbnemo1]



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 02:33 AM
link   
found this pic at another site. This is more accurate to the shape at least in the nose/cockpit area. It also has the twin humps I mentioned. Wings are wrong though, They need to be much more triangluar like the ThunderDart!
Best
William




[edit on 10-3-2005 by Wbnemo1]

[edit on 10-3-2005 by Wbnemo1]

[edit on 10-3-2005 by Wbnemo1]



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lampyridae
On the Aurora name...

I was talking to an Air Force friend of mine about the RASCAL. He was very confused, as he knew three or four different systems called by that name. I had to explain that I meant the space launch system... plus, Aurora has changed its name many times to throw off black project bloodhounds the likes of Bill Sweetman.


This is a great point about the name.

The aircraft it's self is not named the Aurora. Aurora was a project line under the ATB (B-2) budget line (if my memory serves me). Hence, the actual aircraft would NOT be named the Aurora, just as the F-117 was not named after it's program name.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by machinegunjordan
ive studied this alot. im sure it exists because my dad was a test pilot in the late 80s and he told me he was briefed and educated to fly a high speed spyplane developed by lockheed but then they said they dont need him. also sattelites couldnt do the job because in battle when a pilot bombs an area and he needs to know the damage and if he needs to fly through again a satelitte could not be able to do this if clouds were blocking its view it would have to get it the next day so the aurora would have to do that. i read that in a book by some dude named bill sweetman


I smell some BS...
The SR-71 was classified for almost over 20 years...
so if your dear old dad was flying Aurora in the late 80s he sure as hell would NOT be telling you about it now!!!!



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 03:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by b777pilot

Originally posted by machinegunjordan
ive studied this alot. im sure it exists because my dad was a test pilot in the late 80s and he told me he was briefed and educated to fly a high speed spyplane developed by lockheed but then they said they dont need him. also sattelites couldnt do the job because in battle when a pilot bombs an area and he needs to know the damage and if he needs to fly through again a satelitte could not be able to do this if clouds were blocking its view it would have to get it the next day so the aurora would have to do that. i read that in a book by some dude named bill sweetman


I smell some BS...
The SR-71 was classified for almost over 20 years...
so if your dear old dad was flying Aurora in the late 80s he sure as hell would NOT be telling you about it now!!!!


The SR-71's existence was classified for maybe ten years, from inception to deployment... about 1957 to 1967. The existence of it was revealed early because of political reasons (Arab-Israeli conflict). Be that as it may, the other suggested designs for the SR-71 are STILL classified, one apparently an almost perfect saucer design.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wbnemo1
found this pic at another site. This is more accurate to the shape at least in the nose/cockpit area. It also has the twin humps I mentioned. Wings are wrong though, They need to be much more triangluar like the ThunderDart!
Best
William

[edit on 10-3-2005 by Wbnemo1]

[edit on 10-3-2005 by Wbnemo1]

[edit on 10-3-2005 by Wbnemo1]


It's a good pic, but I think the tailfins should be canted in or out a la SR-71 to cut down on radar cross section from the sides. Then again, hypersonic flight is well tricky and they may just prefer to have the fins stick straight up.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 04:20 AM
link   
no, you are right, they should be canted out....



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 11:19 PM
link   
Does the "Aurora" Aircraft exist? I believe it was built, flew and decommissioned. Why was it built? To replace the Lockheed A-12, YF-12, SR-71 and D-12. The Blackbird program was initiated to counter at the time Soviet Ballistic Missile threats while conducting Strategic Reconnaissance at high altitude at supersonic speeds. In short the Soviets caught wind that the C.I.A. had a "front" Company in place located in Canada, this front Company's primary objective was to purchase large quantities of titanium from the Soviet Union to build the SR-71 and it's variants, the Soviets found it suspicious and learned through the "grape vine" that the C.I.A. purchased 12 A-12 variant's of the Blackbird.

Therefore; the Soviet's built more sophisticated Ballistic Missles with greater speed capabilities and more sophisticated Guidance Systems...this threatened the SR-71 and it's varient's, so in a "nutshell", Lockheed Skunk Works along with the U.S. Air Force JPL (Jet propulsion Laboratory) devised to build an Aircraft that could exceed Mach 3+... in order to do this, JPL researched Hypersonic capabilities, Propulsion, Delta-Wing Configuration for High Temperature, exotic fuel's (Liquid Methane) most likely! and other aspects in delivering a Hypersonic Aircraft to the U.S. Air Force as well as the C.I.A. to conduct Reconnaissance/Observation, gather Intelligence and conduct Counter Intelligence for Logistical Purposes.

Several of these Aircraft may have been built, one for the U.S Air Force to deliver a Nuclear payload on to high value targets, and the other for the C.I.A. to conduct Reconnaissance. Something "interesting" to note! Shortly after the Blackbird Program was decommissioned; the runway at Groom Lake was extended! This runway is now approximately six miles long, the longest in the U.S. Where is the Aircraft(s) now? Quite possibly Area 51 Groom Lake USAF Instillation, Wright-Patterson AFB, or maybe even Edwards AFB. The author Bill Sweetman wrote a book titled "Aurora", in it there is a real photograph of an unknown Aircraft dubbed JPL-5, it appears to be a prototype or mock-up of an Aircraft that was slated to be built...no it is not Have Blue, the F-117A Night Hawk or the F-117 Night Hawk two-seater proposal or any other F-117 Variant, it is a black triangular aircraft sitting in front of a hanger, wether it is a manned or unmanned aircraft; I do not know, I believe it is a black/white photo.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 07:39 PM
link   
I spoke to a source who is intimately familiar with all past and current U.S. hypersonic programs. He said the AURORA line item in the 1986 budget was not an aircraft program at all, but merely a funding line to support development of the B-2 stealth bomber. Lockheed Skunk Works chief Ben Rich confirmed this in his autobiography. My source also said that there was no hypersonic SR-71 replacement. The "Aurora" rumors of the late 1980s and early 1990s were apparently the result of creative guesswork and wishful thinking.

The SR-71 replaced the A-12, mainly due to the insistence of Gen. Curtis LeMay that Strategic Air Command be responsible for airborne strategic reconnaissance platforms. The YF-12 was an interceptor prototype only, and never went into production. The D-21 drone was originally designed to be launched from an A-12-type aircraft, but a fatal launch mishap resulted in termination of that version. The D-21B, modified for launch from a B-52, performed several operational missions, but failed to return any useful data and was retired.

Bothe the A-12 and SR-71 were designed to survive a high threat environment through a combination of speed, altitude, stealth, and electronic countermeasures. During numerous missions over heavily defended targets no Blackbird was ever shot down. One A-12 picked up a tiny piece of shrapnel from a surface-to-air missile, but it caused no significant damage.

Most hypersonic efforts between 1964 and 1995 were geared toward developing transatmospheric vehicles for improved access to space, and not airborne reconnaissance. During the early 1960s, the USAF Flight Dynamics Laboratory (FDL) designed potential shapes for hypersonic vehicles. The most promising shapes, designated FDL-5, FDL-6, FDL-7 and FDL-8, were optimized for sustained hypersonic gliding and powered flight and re-entry. The basic shape was a 75-degree triangle with various tail and fin arrangements. In the late 1960s, Lockheed and the Flight Dynamics Laboratory built a full-scale mockup of a hypersonic research vehicle using the FDL-5 shape. There was also subscale wind tunnel model test program for the FDL-5 configuration that provided researchers with aerodynamic data, component force and moment data, pressure data, and photographic data for the Mach number range between 1.5 to 20. That seems to be as far as the project ever got, just another roadkill on the hypersonic highway.

Groom Lake (Area 51) does not have the world's longest runway, as some people have claimed. The airstrip in question was originally built for the A-12 because the U-2 runway at Area 51 was insufficient. According to Area 51 Standard Operating Procedures, Landing Area Rules, dated 1 December 1968, the new strip, Runway 14/32, was 8,625 feet long with a 6,000-foot asphalt extension to a concrete turnaround pad followed by another 5,000 feet of asphalt. The asphalt overrun was not lighted, and therefore not considered "remaining runway" during hours of darkness. The lakebed extension was a strictly a safety feature to prevent loss of a high-value asset.

In the Mid-1980s the runway was extended approximately 5,000 feet on its south end because the lakebed end became flooded during the rainy season. Following the extension, its total length was about 13,625 ft plus the 11,000-foot overrun which was beginning to show the effects of age.

Runway maintenance costs began to outweigh the benefits of building a new airstrip. Construction of a new airstrip, Runway 14L/32R, began in 1991. The old airstrip became Runway 14R/32L. As the new airstrip approached completion, the north half of Runway 14R/32L was closed, along with the lakebed extension. At approximately 10,000 feet, the old runway was now the shortest airstrip at Area 51. Eventually it was closed altogether.

The new runway is about the same length as the main portion of the old runway (about 13,000 feet), but does not have a lakebed extension.

There is absolutely no evidence of an operational hypersonic aircraft at Area 51 or elsewhere. In 1983, representatives of the Lockheed Skunk Works briefed NASA on the company's studies and interest in hypersonic vehicles. At that time, most of Lockheed's recent research had been centered around "a vehicle that would have a similar mission to the SR-71 with a higher Mach number and altitude capability, but similar range." Unfortunately, there were a number of obstacles including the lack of a ready supply of liquid hydrogen, the challenge of developing materials that could withstand extreme heating during extended periods of Mach 4 to Mach 5 cruise, and the problems associated with proposed propulsion systems.






top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join