Aurora - a Famous Speculative Project

I belive that the USAF had to be flying a Hypersonic test plane during the late 1980s and 1990s but whatever it was the USAF must have stopped funding it for whatever reason and cancled the program.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Could have been flying? Heck yes, the US .gov has been chasing hypersonic projects more or less since designing the Blackbird!

But as to what it was supposed to be doing? 'Ellifiknow...
Click to expand...
Just going to share some of my research here, some of which I've already forgotten:

Aviation Week reported a few times a "high-speed demonstrator" during what I like to call, the Aurora saga.

There have been some very minor rumors of a high-speed demonstrator that later on crashed around 1993, originating from Dreamland Resort. Just saying, but a crash at supersonic or even hypersonic speeds must be pretty violent. A discussion of this can be found on Page 6 of this thread.

The United States did have a long history of abandoned hypersonic projects too, here's the list I was able to accumulate:
X-15, Brass Bell (later became the X-20), X-20 Dyna Soar, X-24, ISINGLASS, RHEINBERRY, Advanced Aerodynamic Reconnaissance System (ISINGLASS Follow-up), Convair SA-2S, Science Dawn, Science Realm, Have Region, Copper Canyon (birthed the Advanced Aerospace Vehicle), Advanced Aerospace Vehicle (Later became NASP), National Aerospace Vehicle, Lockheed Mach 5 Penetrator, Hypersonic Glide Vehicle/Strategic Boost Glide Vehicle (HGV), and the Advanced Airborne Reconnaissance System (AARS).

Convair had a lot of SR-71 replacement designs, such as the SA-2S. McDonnell Douglass had plenty of hypersonic designs as well. Some examples of MD Hypersonic stuff:


Many just look to Lockheed and point to Aurora. IF there ever was a high-speed demonstrator, I like to think that McDonnell Douglass was one of the more likely contractors for the vehicle. MD seemed to have been pretty serious about their hypersonics, and they go as far back as the 60s. WE know that MD was active in classified work, they worked on the Bird of Prey, and their Phantom Works division was around that time.

Speaking of NASP, before its cancellation, a good amount of work had been accomplished under the program. I could see a "Black" counterpart to NASP, similar to how there may have been parallel black programs to non-classified NASA research programs. For example, NASA's X-Wing Helicopter and X-36 may have had black/highly classified counterparts.

Started in 1986, it was cancelled in the early 1990s before a prototype was completed, although much development work in advanced materials and aerospace design was completed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell_X-30
Click to expand...

Black World Counterpart Stuff:





But where else could a high-speed demonstrator fit you may ask? Here is where AARS comes in.

AARS may have had a high-speed component. Every other component existed in some shape or form, so, where's the hypersonic component? UAV's were still in their infancy in the 90s, so I could see a hypersonic plane being chosen over still unproven/early UAV technology. I've also seen rumors about highly classified Tier 3 hardware/prototypes having been flown at Groom Lake, so maybe that could also include the hypersonic component.


So, either there could have been a black/highly classified counterpart to NASP, or the high-speed component of AARS flew. The topic of a high-speed demonstrator is very debatable.

Cheers.
 
If we agree to define Aurora as a conventional take off and landing air breathing manned hypersonic aircraft then I’ve definitely moved from “there must have been something” to “nope don’t think it ever flew”
 
I think it's possible, even likely, that demonstrators or even prototypes flew but it proved impossible at the time to make them viable.

According to one rumour, it used a pulse detonation engine and some depictions showed a large expansion ramp, as you did on many depictions of hypersonic aircraft in the 70s and 80s. Now you don't see either of those. Only a guess but either or both might have been the Achilles' heel. Deep structural damage due to vibration from the former and heating problems with the latter might have been the issues.

Whether or not Aurora had those features, prolonged hypersonic flight would present problems that may have proved impossible to practically overcome. The Space Shuttle hits the atmosphere at Mach 25 and Aurora supposedly cruised at Mach 6 but the shuttle slowed down quickly so it wasn't 'soaked' in heat for any long period, so in fact thermal management would have been far more of a problem and more difficult to deal with in the slower hypersonic vehicle. Did they rely on active cooling? If so, that would have added weight and complexity, with the testing burden of a major innovation.

Some wag commented that the shuttle was not a 'reusable launch vehicle' so much as a 'rebuildable launch vehicle.' After every flight it had to be stripped down, checked and reassembled and never came close to its promised flight rate. Maybe the same was the case with Aurora, but because of the heat soak and vibration (the latter if it used PDEs), it was even worse: the thing was a hangar queen and the airframe wore out after only a few flights. Because of the long time between missions and the huge expense, satellites and later the 'RQ-180' proved to be better value for money in covering its intended missions.

IMO, Aurora might have flown but proved a bridge too far in the late 80s. Now, maybe not.
 
Last edited:
Rhinocrates said:
Some wag commented that the shuttle was not a 'reusable launch vehicle' so much as a 'rebuildable launch vehicle.' After every flight it had to be stripped down, checked and reassembled and never came close to its promised flight rate. Maybe the same was the case with Aurora, but because of the heat soak and vibration (the latter if it used PDEs), it was even worse: the thing was a hangar queen and the airframe wore out after only a few flights. Because of the long time between missions and the huge expense, satellites and later the 'RQ-180' proved to be better value for money in covering its intended missions.
Click to expand...

Money and man-hours are things the military has not got an infinite supply of, and sometimes not even got a liberal supply of.
In general, the civilian population who have not been personally involved, simply do not grasp the amount of maintenance high performance military aircraft require per amount of active flight time.
And require so that they can have that future high performance flight time.

(although, some who have owned certain makes of 20th century sports cars might readily grasp the concept)
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom