It was mostly TikTok dance videos at the time.“Websites” and “blogs” were not really popular during the Reagan administration
It was mostly TikTok dance videos at the time.
Combined responsesI'm surprised to see no patch for any hypersonic air force plane/program pop up on ebay, considering other weird and obscure patches have washed up there
Combined responsesI'm not.
That's kinda the point, guys. No hypersonic USAF program, not patches to flog on evilBay.There has to be a program first.
So, from what I've seen these are the CLOSEST things to Aurora: ISINGLASS, INCAAPS Mach 5 Strike Aircraft, Lockheed ADP/NASA Langley 1990 Mach 4-5 methane fueled studies, Advanced Aerospace Vehicle (AAV), and the X-15. If I missed any other obscure hypersonic concept, I'll be happy to learn more.
So, from what I've seen these are the CLOSEST things to Aurora: ISINGLASS, INCAAPS Mach 5 Strike Aircraft, Lockheed ADP/NASA Langley 1990 Mach 4-5 methane fueled studies, Advanced Aerospace Vehicle (AAV), and the X-15. If I missed any other obscure hypersonic concept, I'll be happy to learn more.
Any pictures or data on Avocet I or II?
NASA's Contributions to Aeronautics, Volume 1 - NASA
Since its creation, NASA has steadily advanced flight within the atmosphere, repeatedly influencing aviation’s evolution by extending the rich legacy of itswww.nasa.gov
Might actually be in vol 2, but it’s in there
Well honestly I'd say AAV, ISINGLASS and INCAAPS in terms of looks and roles, considering the X-24C wasn't produced either. But another good addition to the list nonetheless.The closest thing to an actual Aurora (that you don't mentioned) is the Lockheed-Martin X-24C NHFRF of the late 70's.
It's a real photo...of a fake modelSo I was doing some digging around the internet to see if I can find any convincing/ real photos that suggest that the Aurora is real. Take a little looksie at what I found. Im pretty convinced that this is a real photo.
Another weird thing is, has anyone ever tried to look up the kc-135 that was refueling the Aurora and Aardvarks?
I doubt anyone had any radios or anything good enough onboard an oil-rig to listen to radio chatter. However, throughout the years other weird stuff has been caught on radios relating to classified aircraft.Another weird thing is, has anyone ever tried to look up the kc-135 that was refueling the Aurora and Aardvarks? Maybe a flight history or radio convos?
If you would spend several minutes more (like: reverse image search) you would rediscover that these are 20+ years old photos of flying model feeded from RC modelling forum to believers from RensedotcomSo I was doing some digging around the internet to see if I can find any convincing/ real photos that suggest that the Aurora is real. Take a little looksie at what I found. Im pretty convinced that this is a real photo.
Aye, we vigorously wave our arms to flag down passing choppers when we want to go home and those flares are actually navigation aids for the pilots.I doubt anyone had any radios or anything good enough onboard an oil-rig to listen to radio chatter.
I should have clarified, military grade radios or very high quality radios. Hope the choppers spot you guys!Aye, we vigorously wave our arms to flag down passing choppers when we want to go home and those flares are actually navigation aids for the pilots.
Chris
Especially next week.I should have clarified, military grade radios or very high quality radios. Hope the choppers spot you guys!
I don't really find this to be useful because that unidentified aircraft could be anything. We are talking about the SR-91 Aurora/Darkstar. But I will admit, the article is actually pretty interesting.Article on NKC-135R tanking a classified aircraft around Area 51. The NKC-135R is configured for testing operations.
NKC-135R Tanker From Edwards AFB Flew This Peculiar Track Over Area 51 Last September
Exotic and highly secretive aircraft in flight testing need gas too.www.thedrive.com
sorry im trying to contributeIf you would spend several minutes more (like: reverse image search) you would rediscover that these are 20+ years old photos of flying model feeded from RC modelling forum to believers from Rensedotcom
What page? It's a very long file.It's in Volume 2.
NASA's Contributions to Aeronautics, Volume 2 - NASA
The second volume includes case studies and essays on NACA-NASA research for contributions including wind shear and lightning research, flight operations,www.nasa.gov
What page? It's a very long file.
"I can't be bothered to search, can you do it for me?"What page? It's a very long file.
Been a lot of that lately."I can't be bothered to search, can you do it for me?"
My google drive search function wasn't working. Also, I don't see what's wrong with asking for a bit of help."I can't be bothered to search, can you do it for me?"
Someone already went to the trouble of locating the correct PDF for you. It's not really that difficult to search the PDF for the right page in Adobe Reader.My google drive search function wasn't working. Also, I don't see what's wrong with asking for a bit of help.
I can assure you im not lazy, but whatever suits you best.Someone already went to the trouble of locating the correct PDF for you. It's not really that difficult to search the PDF for the right page in Adobe Reader.
Asking someone else to do it for you makes you appear to be lazy and entitled, like you can't be bothered to make the slightest effort to acquire the information yourself.
In the early 1990s, a researcher at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) claimed to be able to track supersonic air vehicles by using the array of seismometers deployed throughout southern California. These seismom- eters were placed across the region to monitor seismic activity, but the researcher found that the shock wave generated by a supersonic air vehicle was sufficient to register on surface-mounted, as opposed to underground, seismometers, and that the time history of seismometer signals recorded across the array could be used to infer speed and location (in two dimen- sions). Using these data, the researcher successfully tracked several space shuttles coming in for landing at Edwards Air Force Base while they were passing over the Los Angeles basin at supersonic speeds.
While this bit of work was interesting, though perhaps not of great mil- itary significance, it got much more interesting when this same researcher claimed that he had seismometer data indicating the existence of a here- tofore unacknowledged supersonic aircraft, which he assumed was the legendary Aurora spy plane. Specifically, there were several months of anom- alous seismometer data indicating atmospheric shock waves, all occurring on Thursdays in the early morning. The researcher concluded that the air shocks were consistent with a hypersonic (in excess of Mach 5), high-alti- tude air vehicle.
As usual, such a claim attracted notice, and the request to investigate the validity and potential military utility of this technique rolled downhill until it reached my level. We got our hands on the seismometer data and did our own maximum-likelihood-based analyses. Try as we might, using exactly the same data as the USGS researcher, we always arrived at barely supersonic solutions for all the anomalous cases.
Finally, we considered the hypothesis that the USGS researcher had sim- ply made a mistake. This conjecture turned out to be exactly the case, and the mistake was a consequence of his making an inappropriate trigonometric approximation that was valid only if whatever was causing the atmospheric shocks was actually hypersonic, such as a reentering space shuttle.
Further investigation showed that the Navy had been conducting testing with F-14s off the coast of California at the same time that these anomalous events occurred, and that the testing involved supersonic flight that came close to land. The sonic booms were the result of some of the pilots trying to decelerate below the sound barrier before going feet dry and not taking into account the fact that sonic booms generated over the water would propagate for some distance over land before dissipating.
I think Ben Rich was lying. I don't believe the funding was ATB related, but was for something else Lockheed was ankle deep into, and it wasn't a go fast platform.
Non need to overcomplicate things - next time just use a *basic* google search or the resident website search function (located in the upper right hand corner of this page) instead. Tally-ho!My google drive search function wasn't working. Also, I don't see what's wrong with asking for a bit of help.