Aurora - a Famous Speculative Project

[Gridlock]

RV in pic is far more interesting.

Looks like a snow-cone maker.


Which has been "M=5"?

 

[LowObservable]

Aurora is a very useful generic illustration for presenters, because its non-classified provenance is unambiguous. Even if it looks like something classified (the Firefox effect) you are in the clear.

 

[Vahe Demirjian]

Regarding the donuts-on-a-rope sightings, there is an article in the March 1998 issue of Popular Mechanics which says that the mystery of the donuts-on-a-rope sightings have been solved.......

http://books.google.com/books?id=UGYEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA24&dq=sr-71+donuts+on+a+rope&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XvakUZniLLKN8gGYkIAY&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=sr-71%20donuts%20on%20a%20rope&f=false

Given the absence of recent reports of donuts-on-a-rope contrail sightings, it appears as if those mysterious contrails were originally pearl-like patterns that were later modified by atmospheric action to give eyewitnesses the illusion that the donuts-on-a-rope contrails were produced by a Mach 5 aircraft. In this sense, photographs confirming that the donuts-on-a-rope contrails were produced by the NASA SR-71s in the mid-1990s constitute one piece of evidence to disprove the existence of Aurora (as a matter of fact, there is no way that the contrails could have been produced by a pulse detonation wave engine because the PDWE was only recently put to the test in flight in 2008).

 

[quellish]

In this sense, photographs confirming that the donuts-on-a-rope contrails were produced by the NASA SR-71s in the mid-1990s constitute one piece of evidence to disprove the existence of Aurora (as a matter of fact, there is no way that the contrails could have been produced by a pulse detonation wave engine because the PDWE was only recently put to the test in flight in 2008).

The donuts on a rope contrails can be seen very regularly over southern california. Commercial aircraft can produce them.
This does not disprove existence of anything but some unusual source for the (some of the) observed contrails.

*A* PDE was flight tested in 2008. It would be very difficult to say that there had never been a PDE tested in flight before. PDEs have a very long history.

 

[shockonlip]

In this sense, photographs confirming that the donuts-on-a-rope contrails were produced by the NASA SR-71s in the mid-1990s constitute one piece of evidence to disprove the existence of Aurora (as a matter of fact, there is no way that the contrails could have been produced by a pulse detonation wave engine because the PDWE was only recently put to the test in flight in 2008).

The donuts on a rope contrails can be seen very regularly over southern california. Commercial aircraft can produce them.
This does not disprove existence of anything but some unusual source for the (some of the) observed contrails.

*A* PDE was flight tested in 2008. It would be very difficult to say that there had never been a PDE tested in flight before. PDEs have a very long history.

They do have a long history. One of the SAIC researchers mentioned to me that they had copies of the design
notes for the WWII Schmidt-Argus pulsejet and it mentions the possibility of using a detonation shock instead of
deflagration (subsonic burning) to get higher pressures in the engine. So the principle was noticed back then.
PDE engines are also simple to construct, as are their ancestor the pulsejet.

Also the 'Aurora' sighting logs online seem so screwed up now. Looking at the Wiki page, reality has been lost.

So when these strange pulsed sounds (very low freq too) were heard in the 1988 or so time frame and the
first doughnuts-on-a-rope contrail were observed/named in 1989 or 1990 (I couldn't find an accurate sighting
log like what were published on the old skunk.works mail list) we didn't have any idea what caused them.
A pulsed detonation wave engine was one theory. Indeed, backed up by supersonic CFD particle flows of
a theoretical test engine, where the CFD work was done by SAIC, seemed to produce a similar contrail. This
line of thought was published in a 1994 AW&ST issue. But there were other experts, who had experience in
ramjet engines and wind tunnel anomolies who mentioned that the effect could be due to an effect similar to
a choked wind tunnel flow which also pulses, and the implication was that perhaps what we were hearing
was the result of a ramjet duct that was cold-flowing but also choked. Just like a choked test section of
a wind tunnel. Who knows.

But those first few sightings were out of the blue and more interesting because nobody had reported this
kind of thing before and there were two seperate people seperated by some distance who didn't know each
other who reported something similar from a high level standpoint, namely a pulsed effect of some sort.

And then over time everyone was reporting these contrails but they weren't the same thing. The real ones
come out the back of the aircraft that way, but the fake ones evolve over time due to winds aloft and other
atmospheric effects.

So who knows.

But PDE's are interesting to modern aerospace propulsion research and interest in them continues.

 

[Stargazer]

*A* PDE was flight tested in 2008. It would be very difficult to say that there had never been a PDE tested in flight before. PDEs have a very long history.

I agree. The "white world" PDE came into existence with the successful flight testing of the Borealis (a Rutan Long-EZ modified by the US Air Force Research Laboratory and partners ISSI and Scaled Composites), but that doesn't preclude the existence of similar "black world" experiments prior to that, to which the general public had no access.

 

[bobbymike]

http://killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/07/24/the_pentagon_finally_wants_a_new_stealth_spy_plane?wpisrc=obinsite

 

[quellish]

I agree. The "white world" PDE came into existence with the successful flight testing of the Borealis (a Rutan Long-EZ modified by the US Air Force Research Laboratory and partners ISSI and Scaled Composites), but that doesn't preclude the existence of similar "black world" experiments prior to that, to which the general public had no access.

It's especially interesting to see significant funds HYPOTHETICALLY being spent to solve problems that would have (only) arisen during flight test of such a thing, at a particular scale.... almost twenty years before one was publicly flown.

That would be hypothetically interesting.

 

[RGClark]

Lockheed has announced plans to develop a hypersonic successor to the SR-71 based on the recent tests of a scramjet engine:

Exclusive: Skunk Works Reveals SR-71 Successor Plan.
By Guy Norris ****@aviationweek.com
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_11_01_2013_p0-632731.xml

Bob Clark

 

[Byeman]

Lockheed has announced plans to develop a hypersonic successor to the SR-71 based on the recent tests of a scramjet engine:

Read again. It has developed plans. It is not developing the vehicle at this time

 

[Mr London 24/7]

I'm still waiting for Mr. Sweetman to PROVE that Aurora actually exists.-SP

The most recent publication where Bill Sweetman takes pains to defend the existence of Aurora is the 2006 Popular Science article "Secret Warplanes of Area 51" (http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-space/article/2006-10/top-secret-warplanes-area-51). However, the state of hypersonic air-breathing technology in light of the X-51 program raises questions about whether the USAF had a research program for a methane-fuelled hypersonic technology demonstrator back in the 1980s, given that Aurora was reportedly fuelled by methane (a hydrocarbon-based fuel) and the X-30 was designed to use liquid hydrogen. As a matter of fact, the X-51 uses a hydrocarbon-based fuel instead of liquid hydrogen, so could Aurora be a technology demonstrator for a new generation of supersonic civil aircraft?

Within the last few days I note recent posts of this:


http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3afc82f807-1fca-4164-bbbf-b768c178baeb


And then this:


http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a68dd2a12-18f8-43bb-b51c-372cae98e8e3&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest


What ARE you trying to tell us Bill?

 

[Ian33]

My money is on: He knows, has been briefed, and the US DoD have sat on a promise that he gets to roll it out in a massive 4 page spread when the successor starts flying and the 'Aurora' gets rolled into daylight after 12 years sat in a hanger gathering dust some where.

 

[quellish]

My money is on: He knows, has been briefed, and the US DoD have sat on a promise that he gets to roll it out in a massive 4 page spread when the successor starts flying and the 'Aurora' gets rolled into daylight after 12 years sat in a hanger gathering dust some where.

I think its more like:
- There is compelling circumstantial evidence that there were one or more high supersonic air breathing flight test programs from the late 1970s to the early or mid 1990s
- The Air Force's push to retire the SR-71 created an environment that had people looking for such programs
- There were mission requirements that would have been serviced by such a platform, or that platform as one element of a system of systems
- The known SR-71 successor program was not able to meet all of the requirements/needs of the mission(s)
- At least some of the infrastructure required to support development of a high supersonic or hypersonic cruise vehicle was being put in place in crash programs - for a while, then at least some of it stopped.

At the same time:
- Methane. Ha.
- The usual pointing to activity in Nevada. "New hangar! OBVIOUSLY, AURORA!"
- There were not-insignificant efforts across the services in hypersonic vehicles that were also sensitive, and at least one was flight tested.
- The SR-71 retirement was for a lot of reasons. AARS was the successor, the most visible part of which was QUARTZ - about as different from the SR-71 as you can get.
- A number of things that would have to be in place to support a manned hypersonic flight test program were not, as far as anyone can tell at this point. Aircraft traveling at these speeds require a lot of room and a lot of support assets, and then when things go wrong how does your crew escape and recover?

Yadda yadda. I could go on and on.

 

[Tuomasn]

- At least some of the infrastructure required to support development of a high supersonic or hypersonic cruise vehicle was being put in place in crash programs - for a while, then at least some of it stopped.

Any chance you could elaborate a bit on this?

 

[Mat Parry]

Going slightly off topic, I do think it's interesting that we (myself included) bemoan the sorry state of US air-breathing hypersonic research, yet we've been pretty successful with rocket-powered hypersonic vehicles for decades.

Indeed


From the SR-72 avation week article "This left the Skunk Work designers with a familiar problem: how to bridge the gap between the Mach 2.5 maximum speed of current-production turbine engines and the Mach 3-3.5 takeover speed of the ramjet/scramjet. “We call it the thrust chasm around Mach 3,” he adds."


This is an old problem... old solutions to this problem have looked at rockets, see SA-2S


http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=92


"This configuration was an enlarged version of VSF-4 powered by two Pratt & Whitney J52 turbojet engines for takeoff and cruise. A solid rocket, the first stage from a SCOUT rocket, was used to accelerate the aircraft to supersonic speeds necessary to start its two Marquardt ramjet engines"


EDIT
Note these were of course only studies from the early 60's no evidence exists that a prototype was built

 

[quellish]

Going slightly off topic, I do think it's interesting that we (myself included) bemoan the sorry state of US air-breathing hypersonic research, yet we've been pretty successful with rocket-powered hypersonic vehicles for decades.

There has been plenty of research. These are difficult problems to solve.

 

[sferrin]

There has been plenty of research. These are difficult problems to solve.

Without question. The efforts have been well-documented on these pages. However, the institutional lack of commitment in the US government during the past couple of decades to solving these issues has led to a series of fits and starts, dead ends, and promising approaches dying off. The history of such things as ICBM development or the creation of satellite reconnaissance shows that advanced technologies need broad political support and tolerance of failure in order to reach important national goals. We don't have that today in hypersonic research and, avoiding any black-world mumbo jumbo, we don't seem to be on a steady path to achieve it.


My other point is that "we" seem to be focused on scramjets, and there are other technologies available to solve the hypersonic propulsion problem, some of them less efficient, admittedly, but perhaps easier to attain. I can't help but believe in my tiny layman's brain that a conventionally-armed Skybolt equivalent would be an ideal A2/AD weapon. But, I just know what I read on the Internet, so I'm probably wrong there.

Like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCUwZs6BK0w


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaurya_%28missile%29

 

[Mr London 24/7]

New Year, New Aurora Thread revival!... No?:

In case you missed Orionblamblam's Blog (like me... 2 years ago...)

Interesting in time frame and concept, from the Penland Files perhaps?

 

[Mr London 24/7]

Likely description (and depiction - of integrated) of same LaRC study, from McClinton et al:

During the 1970’s and early 1980’s, NASA Langley was engaged in an in-house program to develop an airframe-integrated scramjet concept and ground demonstrate its performance potential. This program included research on engine components (inlets, combustors, and nozzles), computational fluid dynamics for internal reacting and non-reacting flows, component integration (sub-scale engines), high-temperature materials and structures, and flow diagnostics. In addition, the Department of Defense (DoD) and industry were also involved in this technology development, again only at modest level of effort.These research efforts were substantially augmented during the National Aero-Space Plane (NASP) Program that spent over $3B between 1984 and 1995.

http://www.cs.odu.edu/~mln/ltrs-pdfs/NASA-2001-15isabe-ak.pdf

 

[Dynoman]

Interestingly I found a document from the CIA that was received from the ISINGLASS files for a vehicle study, dated Oct 1969, for an Advanced Aerodynamic Reconnaissance System. The CIA was looking for money to develop the concept in FY1970. They proposed a boostglide type system similar to ISINGLASS and was looking at the cost estimates using ISINGLASS as a model. I'll post the few documents I have as soon as I get near a scanner.

 

[Dynoman]

Here is the document.

The CIA's Office of Special Activities conducted a study for a boost-glide vehicle, known as the Advanced Aerodynamic Reconnaissance System, that followed the cancellation of the ISINGLASS project. Additional documentation shows meetings with McDonnell Aircraft Co., concerning this new reconnaissance study. Money was sought for further concept evaluation.

I don't know where this study led, if anywhere, however it does show continued interest in an operational boost-glide reconnaissance system into 1969, based on the ISINGLASS concept.

 

[Mr London 24/7]

British Tabloid rag 'The Daily Mail' serves as the source for yet another SP post....

Listen to mysterious explosions that have puzzled a nation

The sounds were reported last night from Aberdeen to West Sussex to Devon and Twitter users blamed meteors, fireworks, aliens and 'the end of the world' alongside experimental jets.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[CJGibson]

It's deja vu all over again!

Chris

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj9OYFkB2y8

 

[Mr London 24/7]

They might contact you for some Background?

Wait, where are those KC-135T's this week....

 

[CJGibson]

They'll have to make a rather hazardous climb up the platform legs to doorstep me at the moment as it's a bit rough out here.

I think it has been sufficiently documented in the past. I'd only be interesting in a tyre-kicking trip.

Anybody mentioned seismic responses? Course not, they'll be from fracking.

Chris

 

[Mr London 24/7]

New Year, New Aurora Thread revival!... No Wait... again?:

Anyway - just to point out Buz Carpenter making a cheeky reference to his own former 'Aurora' program in this book review for the AF Historical Foundation

Must be talking about that Bill Sweetman? ]

 

[Flyaway]

They'll have to make a rather hazardous climb up the platform legs to doorstep me at the moment as it's a bit rough out here.

I think it has been sufficiently documented in the past. I'd only be interesting in a tyre-kicking trip.

Anybody mentioned seismic responses? Course not, they'll be from fracking.

Chris

Suggesting this is fracking is even more unlikely than a secret aircraft.

 

[quellish]

New Year, New Aurora Thread revival!... No Wait... again?:

Anyway - just to point out Buz Carpenter making a cheeky reference to his own former 'Aurora' program in this book review for the AF Historical Foundation:

As best I can tell, Carpenter was in the USAF special projects office from 1981-1984/85. ATB RFP was in 1980, with source selection ("competition") happening through most of 1981. The "AURORA" PE code (0101119F) first appeared publicly in a FY86 budget document. There has never been anything to indicate that PE code had been around longer.

 

[Mr London 24/7]

Indeed there hasn't - one can only agree my dear quellish!

The original Carpenter-Aurora link was made in the Rich/Janos 'Skunk Works' book, and is cited in the public domain much since.

I'm reminded of one of my favourite quotes!:

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know"

 

[tacitblue]

I wonder if anyone here remembers the year 1987 and the news reports on the radio (an AM station where I lived at the time) that "the USAF had begun flight testing a mach 6 spy plane in the Nevada desert" that was going to replace the SR-71. The reporting lasted for a day or two before never being heard again. Major news outlets don't just make stuff like that up out of thin air, especially in 1987 LONG before there was even public/fan speculation about "Aurora". This was also long before most people knew about Groom Lake. If only I had made a recording of that. . .

 

[LowObservable]

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/10/us/us-is-developing-surveillance-jet-that-eludes-radar.html

 

[Stargazer]

Yes, but there is a marked difference between saying in 1988 that they were "developing" something and saying in 1987 they were "flight testing" something!

 

[quellish]

I wonder if anyone here remembers the year 1987 and the news reports on the radio (an AM station where I lived at the time) that "the USAF had begun flight testing a mach 6 spy plane in the Nevada desert" that was going to replace the SR-71. The reporting lasted for a day or two before never being heard again. Major news outlets don't just make stuff like that up out of thin air, especially in 1987 LONG before there was even public/fan speculation about "Aurora". This was also long before most people knew about Groom Lake. If only I had made a recording of that. . .

Rene Francillon, who was well regarded and considered a reputable source published in 1982/83 that Lockheed had flown a Mach 6 aircraft.
By 1985/86 there were rumors and speculation of a USAF Mach 6-8 aircraft. In 1987/88 the AURORA PE code became public and was linked to the Mach 6 rumors by the press.


The press was aware of Groom Lake in the early 80s for a number of reasons - the LVRJ reporting, Bill Lear, etc.

 

[Triton]

From 2006:

Secret UK report points to existence of 'Aurora'
Skies fill with hypersonic black helicopters
15 Jun 2006 at 14:35, Lester Haines

Source:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/15/aurora/

 

[marauder2048]

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/10/us/us-is-developing-surveillance-jet-that-eludes-radar.html

The reference to the "F-19" makes this article truly classic.

Once the genuine efforts under ADI like TAV got put under SDI they also came under the Weinberger directed disinformation campaign. This article (and probably much else) is a likely outgrowth of that campaign.

 

[CJGibson]

'The reference to the "F-19" makes this article truly classic.'

Aye, maybe with the benefit of hindsight. Back in January 88, nobody knew, so calm down laddie.

B-2: Unveiled end of 88, F-117: November 88. If my memory serves me. Prior to that, we only had rough ideas to go on and any clues were seized upon.

Give us old hands a break. There was a Cold War on.

Chris

 

[Stargazer]

B-2: Unveiled end of 88, F-117: November 88. I my memory serves me.

I think the F-117 was unveiled some time during Spring 1989. I still have the AW&ST article somewhere.

 

[Steve Pace]

B-2: Unveiled end of 88, F-117: November 88. I my memory serves me.

I think the F-117 was unveiled some time during Spring 1989. I still have the AW&ST article somewhere.

The F-117 was publicly announced on November 10, 1988 by Pentagon spokesman Dan Howard. -SP

 

[Ian33]

There was something manned, flown and tested that was far higher and faster than an SR71.

SR71 pilot shared an amusing account where they did a speed run, and found out it was a cover for a higher faster test - by the ground team giving a far higher and faster speed by mistake.

 

[marauder2048]

There was something manned, flown and tested that was far higher and faster than an SR71.

SR71 pilot shared an amusing account where they did a speed run, and found out it was a cover for a higher faster test - by the ground team giving a far higher and faster speed by mistake.

Could it have been the X-15? They did overlap in time and might have overlapped in space.