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.

 

The Aurora Top-Secret Hypersonic Spy Plane

page: 10
20
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 11:15 AM
link   
I spoke to a high-level Pentagon 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 for facilities to support development of the B-2 Advanced Technology Bomber.

He also said 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.

Two programs to watch now are Blackswift and X-51. While Blackswift offers a sexier platform (i.e. a global flyer), it has a long way to go, technologically, toward achieving any sort of practical operational system. The X-51 Scramjet Engine Demonstrator/WaveRider project offers more in the short term. Technology from X-51 will eventually have applications for air-breathing access to space, but more readily provides a system that could easily be adapted to hypersonic weapons.




posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadowhawk
 


Thanks for the info shadowhawk. I guess I just can't buy that the aurora project came from the B-2 without some more details. The guess work used though to try and prove aurora by some can at times get crazy but I do agree with the fact that space obsurvation and U2's could od all the work. I brought up the issue of cost but does anyone know how much it costs to run the SR-71 programe a year.

[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowhawk
I spoke to a high-level Pentagon 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 for facilities to support development of the B-2 Advanced Technology Bomber.


This is of course corroborated by Ben Rich in his book Skunkworks.

This is not a one line post



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 12:45 PM
link   
I blew the dust of my copy of "Skunk Works" by Ben Rich. He does indeed say that "Aurora was the code name for B-2 competition funding."

My source specifically stated that it was funding for facilities. At any rate, the name "Aurora" should not be used for any hypothetical hypersonic aircraft program. It has seen such wide usage among enthusiasts that it is practically a generic term (like the brand names Kleenex and Xerox).

Another thing Rich and my source have in common is their assertion that "there is no code name for the hypersonic plane because it simply does not exist."

Hopefully, we can abandon "Aurora" fantasies and concentrate on the current state-of-the-art in hypersonics.



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Well, that clinches it for me - if it's featured in an episode of Spooks, it MUST exist!

But seriously, why all the argument? A hypersonic spyplane would be well handy - travelling at over a mile a second it could reach, say, the Middle East in a matter of minutes (from the UK). Rapid Response to new intelligence, for instance. Anyway, even IF it were a daft idea, that ain't gonna stop the USAF et al playing around with the idea - they like toys. Of course it exists. The only real question is will it ever actually need to be used.
Here endeth the lesson.



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 01:53 PM
link   
I remember when the sr-71 Blackbird was puroprted to be a myth. I talked to a pilot that flew one. The fuel is more expensive than the finest scotch whiskey.



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadowhawk
 


I'd have to agree Shadowhawk. When I first go into the Aurora idea I had to wade through all sorts of UFO material and supposed similer projects until I finally saw that well there isn't any evidence that any high speed plane ever was called that name. Sure their are booms that people claim is Aurora but thats just so they can put a name to it. We need to look past the name and see say when high speed test are being done on the Falcon programe etc for overlap or maybe its testing we don't know about. But if its testing its not the Aurora in the classic sense. It was a nice idea.



posted on Nov, 3 2007 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Look, why do you guys get so hung up over something so irrelevant as a name??? It's a moniker - it really doesn't MATTER what it's really called (by the men in white coats - you know, the ones who never see the light of day?). The project is not defined by, proven by or disproved by the legitimacy of the goddam name that the USAF use for it - we all know it by 'Aurora' - that's how we know what we.re talking about! If we all called a cow a pig, we'd still know what we were talking about.
Forget about the name - to us on the 'outside', it's Aurora. Get over it. What actually matters is the science behind the concept of hypersonic air travel. Call it Samantha if you want, so long as everyone else knows what you're talking about.
Incidentally, any project like this one will almost certainly be in development (or production) OFF American soil - easier to cover up, and makes more sense as far as fast reaction to events in most of the world is concerned (bar the Pacific, I guess).
That's my ha'penny's worth.
Boom boom.



posted on Nov, 4 2007 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by nopussyfooting
 


Wow, Worked up much? Thats alot of bashing for someone in your postion. Considering your new you may want to review the way you go about responding to posts. This isn't like other forums where you can shoot off your mouth.

All that Shadowhawk and myself where stating is that the name Aurora has a cult following now and the way they interpert the "evidence" for said aircraft/UFO is not the way SH or myself think the idea behinf the "Aurora" should be looked at. I'd be interested in hearing what you actually think this plane is before you attack my opinion. But as it stands you could say at most there is a 50/50 chance it ever existed and a 1/100 chance it was called the Aurora. Does that mean we have to stop calling it that no. But I think the problem is that people who don't know what something is are to quick to call it a spaceship or the Aurora.



posted on Feb, 11 2008 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by planeman
It is my considered belief that the "Aurora" aircraft does not exist. It really comes down to a lot of wishful thinking by aircraft enthusiasts.


Realy?
so your that narrow minded huh?

U.S. Government's old gravity-control formula:

[a] phi(x) = + &phi(x), where is the vacuum expectation value, and m2^^2 represents the particle's density of the ground state in the non-relativistic limit. The action of this field in the presence of gravity is...intrinsic gravitational cosmological constant Lambda/ 8piG receives a contribution (1/2) m2^^2

It suprises me that they are still using Fossil Fuel Technolagy.

@ Nopussyfooting

production off american soil....except for the fact that the american government realises the best place to hide something is where someone wont look, right in front of their eyes.

its like a marijuana grow opperation.
u could grow it in your house...where people cant see through walls, and cover all the windows, then u look suspitious and get cought.
but if you grow it in say...a 5 ton Cube Van W~ portable power source then you look like ur just a moving company instead of a pot grower.

so...buy land off of american soil, create an underground base/testing facility, and watch people track the paperwork and talk to the construction contractors, The USAF has made that mistake 1 to many times, They realise if they want to hide something, they use one of the facility's they have already paid for and constructed.

[edit on 11-2-2008 by Infadel]



posted on Mar, 12 2008 @ 02:40 PM
link   
I realize this thread is a few years old but I wanted to add an opinion. I grew up near Edwards Air Force Base in Southern California. Palmdale Ca is where the Skunk Works Dept for Lockheed has been for a lot years (Not sure if it is still there). I had a good friend whose Dad was a Test Pilot at Edwards and an equally good friend that was an Air Traffic Controller at Edwards. The one that was an Air Traffic Controller described a plane referred to as the Aurora to me while I was having dinner with them in approximately 1990. He talked about it being completely Stealth and capable of cruising at Mach 6. He said that he never actually saw the plane but talked about how the pilot would radio in to them to let them know he was there. It had and on board device that when activated would allow him to show on radar. The device would make it show up as a P-51 or other old type of aircraft. He was instructed to never talk about the plane but he leaked it to us. We were amazed. As far as there not being sightings of this aircraft? It is completely believable that there has never been an actual sighting. Hell it goes to fast. On top of that there would not be a lot of these planes in existence anyway. There is no need. They are not going into combat. They fly their missions, take some pictures and come back. They do a lot of this at night, considering the rate of speeds and the altitude they fly at no one would see them. As far as Satellites replacing aircraft go, they will never get rid of aircraft entirely.

Based on what I know. What I have seen around Edwards and that people I know I believe the Aurora did exist but who knows if it still does. And owe by the way there is always a reason to keep it from the public.

The SR-71 was doing Mach 3+ in the 70's. We have not advanced beyond that yet? Please don't be ignorant. Take a look around at the Technology the common person has and ask yourself if that is possible.



posted on Mar, 12 2008 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by 14mykey
Based on what I know. What I have seen around Edwards and that people I know I believe the Aurora did exist but who knows if it still does. And owe by the way there is always a reason to keep it from the public.

The SR-71 was doing Mach 3+ in the 70's. We have not advanced beyond that yet? Please don't be ignorant. Take a look around at the Technology the common person has and ask yourself if that is possible.


14mykey,
Your assumptions regarding the level of tech today compared to that of the 1960's and 70's when the SR-71 was being developed and built is right on target.

Welcome to ATS and thanks for the post, it was a good read.



posted on Mar, 12 2008 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Well . . . I've seen the pulsating trails in the sky of the so called Aurora, and that's all that I've seen, but, the First Aurora before the people in DC jumped on the word, was a four place small aircraft, that could burn three different fuels, yes, turbine. It was to be used in rescue, police, business, and other fields, it was brought to the prototype stage by Moser Engineering in California. A short time after the so called secret craft came to note, the above craft was stopped. I talked with people there and given vague answers, but a very firm " it has been stopped!"
A friend made the suggestion that the Aurora as well as another super large craft, had been taking people to and from the moon for years, I don't know about that, but, someday the truth will come out - let us hope.



posted on Mar, 12 2008 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Enough about the Aurora -
the Blackswift has gone "black" - Darpa is trying to mask it behind a new funding drive - opening the hypersonic field up to the best bidder.
Don't be fooled by this - the Mach 6 Blackswift is Lockheed's and it always has been. Everything else is smoke and mirrors attempting to divert your attention. There is a new hangar at Groom Lake for it, there are facilities made for it in Britain and Australia.

NOW I sound like a conspiracy theorist.... ;-)



posted on Mar, 12 2008 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Where are the Australia facilities?



posted on Mar, 12 2008 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeltaNine
Where are the Australia facilities?

That has not been specified - however I hear there is new construction going on at Alice Springs. Is that something you would be able to confirm from your vantage point? Are you down under?



posted on Mar, 13 2008 @ 12:04 AM
link   
I'm in New Zealand but I could make inquires from this end.



posted on Mar, 13 2008 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by intelgurl
 


For the british end as well I'm assuming the site hasn't been made public. Mind you a lot less space to hide the thing so a lot easier then Aus to try and track down.



posted on Mar, 13 2008 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Hello Intelgurl,
Why, you say the Blackswift is going in the black. You think the new hangar in Groom lake is for a new classified x-plane?



posted on Mar, 13 2008 @ 06:58 PM
link   
The "pulse jet" design works and is in operation---look for "doughnuts on a string" con trails.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join