Aurora: is it real?

Discussion on Specific Aircraft Types. Close up photos particularly welcome. Please keep ON TOPIC :)

Re: Aurora: is it real?

Postby Jakemaster » Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:36 pm

Wow, for like 2 pages it was about Spelling and Grammar.
I too am 14 in the UK, I used to not be able to spell and use grammar but I grew out of it :D


[self banter]Some of us are over 14, have degrees and all sorts and still have occasional lapses, normally due to typos and general dullness... ;) ;D[/self banter]


I'm over 14!!!! Yay me!!!!

/me feeling VERY hyper for some reason
Jakemaster
 

Re: Aurora: is it real?

Postby an-225 » Fri Aug 17, 2007 5:18 am

Yay, I'm 13, I...don't know. Mature for my age.

@ Spelling: My eyes, they hurt!

Back on topic...

Do I think Aurora exists? Possibly, but then again, the years in which "Aurora" was spotted, were the years during which the B-2 was being developed. Codename, possibly? Triangular shape, elongated, possibly a prototype for the B-2? And at any rate, it would take YEARS worth of technology to design an engine that could propel a conventional aeroplane to speeds of Mach 6/20+, unless it was supposed to propel itself to an altitude beyond the atmosphere, take photos, and re-enter, reaching speeds of Mach 20 on descent, in order to make a high speed get away. No one knows its been there, if they do know, they cannot identify which faction it belongs to.

Boy, I hope I'm wrong with this theory...do I now know too much?  :o

;)
an-225
 

Re: Aurora: is it real?

Postby Jakemaster » Fri Aug 17, 2007 8:23 am

Yay, I'm 13, I...don't know. Mature for my age.

@ Spelling: My eyes, they hurt!

Back on topic...

Do I think Aurora exists? Possibly, but then again, the years in which "Aurora" was spotted, were the years during which the B-2 was being developed. Codename, possibly? Triangular shape, elongated, possibly a prototype for the B-2? And at any rate, it would take YEARS worth of technology to design an engine that could propel a conventional aeroplane to speeds of Mach 6/20+, unless it was supposed to propel itself to an altitude beyond the atmosphere, take photos, and re-enter, reaching speeds of Mach 20 on descent, in order to make a high speed get away. No one knows its been there, if they do know, they cannot identify which faction it belongs to.

Boy, I hope I'm wrong with this theory...do I now know too much?  :o

;)


13?  Psh, that's nothing ::)

Again, with the technology for the speed it's possible that the military guys are years ahead of us and just not saying anything.  I doubt it, but then again it's happened in the past I'm sure.
Jakemaster
 

Re: Aurora: is it real?

Postby C » Fri Aug 17, 2007 9:14 am

Yay, I'm 13, I...don't know. Mature for my age.

@ Spelling: My eyes, they hurt!

Back on topic...

Do I think Aurora exists? Possibly, but then again, the years in which "Aurora" was spotted, were the years during which the B-2 was being developed. Codename, possibly? Triangular shape, elongated, possibly a prototype for the B-2?


Many such aircraft exist, and are in fact in the public domain, such as "Have Blue" (a proof of concept aircraft for the F-117a) and "Tacit Blue", a technology demonstrator for the B2, which flew from 1982 to 85, but was not revealed publically until 1996 (it's now on public display!).

My own personal view is that Aurora is a name that has been continually over used over the years, genarally by UFO enthusiasts and "plane spotters". I expect several projects that have been "called" Aurora over the past 30 years have appeared under "real" code names, such as those above.

http://www.fas.org/irp/mystery/index.html
Last edited by C on Fri Aug 17, 2007 9:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
C
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 11977
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 1:04 pm
Location: Earth

Re: Aurora: is it real?

Postby Jakemaster » Fri Aug 17, 2007 12:58 pm

Yay, I'm 13, I...don't know. Mature for my age.

@ Spelling: My eyes, they hurt!

Back on topic...

Do I think Aurora exists? Possibly, but then again, the years in which "Aurora" was spotted, were the years during which the B-2 was being developed. Codename, possibly? Triangular shape, elongated, possibly a prototype for the B-2?


Many such aircraft exist, and are in fact in the public domain, such as "Have Blue" (a proof of concept aircraft for the F-117a) and "Tacit Blue", a technology demonstrator for the B2, which flew from 1982 to 85, but was not revealed publically until 1996 (it's now on public display!).

My own personal view is that Aurora is a name that has been continually over used over the years, genarally by UFO enthusiasts and "plane spotters". I expect several projects that have been "called" Aurora over the past 30 years have appeared under "real" code names, such as those above.

http://www.fas.org/irp/mystery/index.html


Tacit blue is so odd....the plane that is *cough* ;D

I'm sure there will be many similar cases in the years to come....because pretty much for every new military plane there's a counterpart developed either as a proof of concept or in competition for a contract.
Jakemaster
 

Re: Aurora: is it real?

Postby Splinter562 » Tue Aug 28, 2007 11:56 pm

Boy oh boy, there is a lot of information / disinformation in this thread. As far as question of if a still classified super/hypersonic reconnaissance aircraft has been or is still being used, I cannot say one way or the other. I can say that the days of manned aerial reconnaissance are fast drawing to a close. Modern UAVs have several advantages that make them more appealing for these types of operations. I won't get into too many details on that end because it would get too long and boring.

Now something I can talk is the specifications listed in the original post (I do have a degree in this sort of thing):

Mach 20? I don't think I've seen the (unclassified) speed of a SAM above Mach 10. The extra weight from airframe, engines, and fuel requirements to run at that speed would really not buy you anything extra as opposed to running at lower speed. Mach 6-8 would really make the most sense for this type of aircraft.

LH2/LOX is rocket fuel. It's what the Space Shuttle engines use. That fuel is totally incompatible with any air breathing engine design (hence the requirement for liquid oxygen). In addition rocket engines are good for making things go fast for a shot period of time. They are not really a good choice for cruising an aircraft for an extended period of time.

Engines:
Lots of choices out there, a lot of them have some significant problems with practical implementation in an operational aircraft. The hybrid turbo/ramjet would probably be my choice because of previous experience with the technology on the SR-71.
User avatar
Splinter562
2nd Lieutenant
2nd Lieutenant
 
Posts: 219
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 1:56 am
Location: Tampa, FL

Re: Aurora: is it real?

Postby spitfire boy » Wed Aug 29, 2007 6:53 am

I have a friend from... the Shetland Islands


wherabouts in shetland? You never know - I might know them - I go up there every year and stay in the reawick area... great fun.... :D

And on the subject of being able to understand about one in three words he speaks - I have a rather more disturbing version of that condition - sometimes I find it perfectly easy to understand whole sentences, other times all I hear is mumbling....
Image


[center]
User avatar
spitfire boy
Major
Major
 
Posts: 2587
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 4:46 pm
Location: Wherever you think I'm not

Re: Aurora: is it real?

Postby DONTREADMYUSERNAME » Sun Sep 16, 2007 9:40 pm

I seriously doubt the government would be this inept at keeping something secret....
We live in an age when pizza gets to your home before the police.
-- Jeff Marder

Stupid Sox Fans
Image

Image
DONTREADMYUSERNAME
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 699
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 5:00 pm

Re: Aurora: is it real?

Postby Felix/FFDS » Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:02 am

I seriously doubt the government would be this inept at keeping something secret....



Remember, the best sort of secrecy is the "Clairol" method  - "Is she, or isn't she?"  (of course, I may be dating myself with that phrase).
Felix/FFDS
User avatar
Felix/FFDS
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 16776435
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 9:42 am
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Aurora: is it real?

Postby expat » Wed Sep 19, 2007 1:00 am

I seriously doubt the government would be this inept at keeping something secret....



Remember, the best sort of secrecy is the "Clairol" method  - "Is she, or isn't she?"  (of course, I may be dating myself with that phrase).



If you can remember the "Not The Nine O'clock News" version, then yes you are  ;D

Matt
"A bit of a pickle" - British translation: A catastrophically bad situation with potentially fatal consequences.

PETA Image People Eating Tasty Animals.

B1 (Cat C) licenced engineer, Boeing 737NG 600/700/800/900 Airbus A318/19/20/21 and Dash8 Q-400
1. Captain, if the problem is not entered into the technical logbook.........then the aircraft does not have a problem.
2. And, if you have time to write the fault on a napkin and attach to it to the yoke.........you have time to write it in the tech log....see point 1.
User avatar
expat
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 8679
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 3:06 am
Location: Deep behind enemy lines....

Re: Aurora: is it real?

Postby Ashar » Wed Sep 19, 2007 10:28 pm

The Aurora was in the movie Executive Decision...You'll know when you see it ;) :P
Blabbing Away at SimV Since June 8, 2004
Ashar
Major
Major
 
Posts: 4041
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 4:13 am
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

Re: Aurora: is it real?

Postby expat » Thu Sep 20, 2007 4:28 pm

The Aurora was in the movie Executive Decision...You'll know when you see it ;) :P


It must be real, Hollywood has made a movie about it  ;D ;D

Matt
"A bit of a pickle" - British translation: A catastrophically bad situation with potentially fatal consequences.

PETA Image People Eating Tasty Animals.

B1 (Cat C) licenced engineer, Boeing 737NG 600/700/800/900 Airbus A318/19/20/21 and Dash8 Q-400
1. Captain, if the problem is not entered into the technical logbook.........then the aircraft does not have a problem.
2. And, if you have time to write the fault on a napkin and attach to it to the yoke.........you have time to write it in the tech log....see point 1.
User avatar
expat
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 8679
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 3:06 am
Location: Deep behind enemy lines....

Re: Aurora: is it real?

Postby Dr.bob7 » Wed Jan 09, 2008 8:26 pm

wow... some people think a aircraft this day ina age like a bomber can hit mach 20???
Dr.bob7
Major
Major
 
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 11:03 pm
Location: Castle Rock Colorado

Re: Aurora: is it real?

Postby elite marksman » Wed Mar 12, 2008 9:24 pm

No, not a bomber, it is supposedly a spy plane.
Another reason why I don't think it exists is that its capabilities are no longer what is required of a reconnaissance aircraft. Due to the nature of current conflicts, a plane that that watch an area of a long period of time is much more valuable to us than a plane that can take a few photos and leave (possible one reason that the -71 was retired). Because of this, UAVs like the Predator and Global Hawk were developed because they can sit over a target for 12-24 hours continuously taking and transmitting real-time video... and they don't get tired.

Also, I find it highly unlikey that any manned aircraft could hit Mach 6, or anything even remotely close. The X-43 hit approximately Mach 10, but that was basically an engine with wings. I think it is impossible with current technology to achieve Mach 10 with an aircraft of significant size.
Last edited by elite marksman on Wed Mar 12, 2008 9:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
elite marksman
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 854
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 7:35 pm

Re: Aurora: is it real?

Postby Slotback » Fri Mar 14, 2008 12:01 am

Been studying Aurora since the late 90's. Not once, have I ever seen any true evidence of 'Aurora'.

There has been rumors of a Mach 6 plane however.  :o
Slotback
 

PreviousNext

Return to Specific Aircraft Types

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 572 guests