Cancelation of Aurora? Whats next?

Actually the term "Fastmover" is not for one particular aircraft but for any supersonic (or faster) vehicle.

Also, I'm not so sure the aircraft that was the fruition of the 1980's Aurora budget line has been given to NASA... (I'd like to hear Valhall's thoughts on that)

I do however strongly believe that a waverider design is currently operational and flying recon sorties for the intelligence agencies.

Originally posted by TheButcher
So i was watching modern marvels on the history chanell (it was on jet engines) and about 2 mins before it ended they made reference to the Aurora (they claimed it would probably be Mach 8....or was it Mach 5? sorry can't remember). Anyways, at the end they interviewed an aviation historian working for Edwards AFB (again, I think) and he said something like 'in my opinion, the Aurora existed for a period, but was decomisioned.'

Now if this is true, seeing as how every Intel guy in the world will tell you that sat intel is NOT suffecient, and that you have to have some sort of on demand spy plane, what has the USAF/CIA/NSA cooked up now?

They would be working on a 4th gen spy plane (U-2, SR-71 blackbird, the aurora or SR-75 as I have seen it called). What would this 4th gen spy plane be capable of?

A theory of mine, is that it would be nuclear powered, whatever it is and if it exists. Both the US and Russia were trying to power a plane with a nuclear reactor as early as the 50's because of the unlimited range and loiter time. I am sceptical though of any "anti grav" type theories, as i simply doubt we are at the point where we can harness a gravity field (at least without help from our local friendly greys)

I have also read of some supposedly triangle shaped craft that somehow reduces its wieght by 89%. Anyone know anything of this?

Please give opinions and if you can givee any links and/or facts.

NOTE: I Recently introduced my friend Jerry to this forum. As he is away from home and helping me with a project here, where I live, I opted to allow him to reply to this topic. A little unusual I must admit, however be assured Jerry will be joining ATS when he returns home, and I am sure we can all look forward to his insights and understanding of various topics he is well versed with. He will soon be a valued member of ATS.



I do believe I have some information of interest to the topic.

Let me give myself a brief introduction. I am Jerry Clay. I am a metallurgical engineer by training with twenty years experience.

One odd fact that I have gleaned in my research is the eccentric behavior of the metal bismuth under the influence of a magnetic field. I do believe that a persistant researcher could find references to this apparent loss of mass, although I do not personally have the references at my fingertips at present.

On the other hand, I have run the experiment myself with an old (but extremely sensitive) mechanical microbalance composed entirely of non magnetic materials such as austenitic stainless steel. Standard quantitative laboratory procedures for measuring mass were maintained, simply using a commercial pvc weighboat and manipulating clean objects on the balance with tongs or tweezers. My experimental method is also as simple as it sounds, viz. taring out the balance and weighing the lump of bismuth metal under the "normal" background magnetic flux of the earth. The bismuth was then removed from the weighboat, and I did observe the balance return to zero, the laboratory indication that a correct mass number of grams and a little change was measured by the machine.

Next, with the balance still tared at zero, a large horseshoe magnet was carefully slid around the weigh platen supporting the weigh boat. The balance remained tared at zero without even a momentary deflection or bobble being induced from the magnetic field.

The lump of bismuth was then replaced in the weighboat, and a new 'apparent' mass recorded. As I remember, the apparent loss of mass (really a loss of weight (force), that is the result of the mass of bismuth being subject to the acceleration of earth's gravity) as being on the order of 12%. After the lump of bismuth was removed the tare of the scale remained at 0.

Other objects and materials (non magnetic by necessity) placed in the weighboat showed the same mass whether the magnet was in place or not. The client (actually co-researcher) who requested the test be run would (I believe) still have the original laboratory notes. He is an ex-placer miner from Nome, Alaska. I have a copy too, but it is just the raw calculations from my daily notebook. Next time I see him I will ask after the data.

In any case, the experiment is simple and should be readily reproducible. On the other hand, like most scientific data, the results beg a whole series of more extensive and variable testing. I.e., does the bismuth have the same resistance to the various forms of penetrating radiation saturated with magnetism as it does under control conditions? What are the optimum levels of magnetism? Do N or S magnetism have different effects? I can think of many more questions to try to answer by simple practical research.

I choose to hypothesize that the mass of the bismuth remains the same in the magnetic field. This could be proven by the radiation shielding experiments. Therefore (if the data supports the hypothesis) by the simple equation of Force = Mass x Acceleration (in this case the acceleration is 'g' the acceleration due to gravity on earth) if the force of weight of the object decreases, either the mass has decreased or the acceleration due to gravity has decreased, or both. If the radiation blocking shows that the metal is still shielding radiation while subject to a magnetic field just as it does in control conditions, then it follows that it is the acceleration due to gravity that has been locally altered by the experiment. The force required to lift the bismuth has been reduced. Strange enough.

My experience in physical metallurgy leads me to believe that anyone with half a brain, given that natural observation and the opportunity to perform some hard work could compose an alloy that might maximize these effects.

Thank you for letting me impose on your forum unregistered etc. I most likely will sign up into 'Above Top Secret' at some point, but right now I have rather limited internet access, as I am away from home. It is better for me right now to just read what is going on for a little while longer anyway.

There is a sign behind the bar where my miner co-experimenter and I occasionally wet our whistles. It says something like "You can sit on your stool and remain silent, and everybody here will think you are a fool. Or, you can open your mouth and remove all doubt."

So please excuse me for holding some of my wild speculations close to my chest for the present. This should be enough information to allow further references to be found and interesting experiments conducted, in any case.

Interesting experiment Jerry Clay,

It inspired me to web search about bismuth and I found this:

...a property of bismuth [is] diamagnetism. Diamagnetism is a property of a substance to be repelled instead of attracted by a magnet. It also has the peculiar property of not trying to rotate the magnet away from it during the repulsion. A diamagnetic material will be repelled from a magnet no matter what pole it is near.

home.earthlink.net...

Is the apparent reduction of weight due to the bismuth's repulsion of the magnet?

I agree Intelgurl that fast mover is not just one plane. But it could be what ever exotic planes they have at Groom Lake. I just used the " manta tr-3b" as an example.

As far as if it was given to NASA well if you look at the general idea of aurora " the rumored specs" and you look at hyper X its pretty darn close to me . Im not saying its an exact copy" why would nasa need a spy/stratigec hypersonic bomber" Its probably been reworked to serve as a RLV for NASA.

quote NASA

"In Phase I of the Hyper-X Program, three 12-foot-long, unpiloted aircraft designated X-43A were designed and built to fly up to ten times the speed of sound to demonstrate "air breathing" engine technologies. Although the first vehicle was lost in June 2001 due to a booster problem, two X-43A flights remain.

The program's X-43A research vehicle attempted its first flight on June 2, 2001. It was unsuccessful, due to a rocket booster failure. A thorough investigation has been completed and analyzed in preparation for the next flight scheduled for fall of 2003. Assuming a successful reflight, it will mark the first time a non-rocket, air-breathing scramjet (supersonic-combustion ramjet)
engine has powered a vehicle in flight at hypersonic speeds � speeds above Mach 5 or five times the speed of sound. Mach 5 is equivalent to about one mile per second or approximately 3,600 miles per hour at sea level and far faster than any air-breathing aircraft has ever flown.

As envisioned, payload capacity will be increased by discarding the heavy oxygen and associated tanks that rockets must carry by using a propulsion system that uses the oxygen in the atmosphere as the vehicle flies at many times the speed of sound. Hydrogen will fuel the program's research vehicles, but it requires oxygen from the atmosphere to burn."

KEY WORDS-AIR BREATHING, SCRAMJET

The very name 'Aurora' implies that it might have an electrokinetic drive component to use in low-earth orbit. The atmospheric ionization caused by the electric propulsion may have inspired the craft's name.

Very speculative, I know, but worth considering, especially if there are sightings of glowing triangles by astronomers (I don't know of any).

If the B-2 has supplemental electrokinetic drive they'd be crazy not to try it on a very high-flying vehicle like the Aurora, IMO.

[Edited on 4-2-2004 by Condorcet]

While there may be other, more exotic aircraft flying, I believe that the Aurora is a "conventional" air-breathing hypersonic waverider. It's advanced enough to get the pics taken when it matters, not get shot down but also not to cause a UFO-type flap if one DOES go down... the SR-71 and A-12 caused a lot of speculation even when made public (such as people wondering why there was gold plating on the inside of the fuel tanks...)

Well there are two facts we need to remember here:

1. Aurora first appeared as a line in a buget request, so it's a Code Name for something that they are or were working on; individual code names are decommisioned every so often and replaced for security reasons (For example: the B-2 origionally started out with the code name Senior CJ and Later Became Senior Ice)

2. Second, their may be a new version of the plane flying under the control of a new user, so it useing a new name. (For Example: the Blackbirds first flew as the CIA owned A-12 under the Code Name Oxcart and the later SR-71 used the Code Name Senior Crown)

So hold off on assuming the plane is being withdrawn from service or cancelled until we have had more time to look into all of the facts. You might be correct, or the goverment may have covered their tracks in an effort to throw us off the trail. It's too early to know for sure.

Tim
ATS Director of Counterignorance

[Edited on 4-2-2004 by ghost]

originally posted by: ghost
Well there are two facts we need to remember here:

1. Aurora first appeared as a line in a buget request, so it's a Code Name for something that they are or were working on; individual code names are decommisioned every so often and replaced for security reasons (For example: the B-2 origionally started out with the code name Senior CJ and Later Became Senior Ice)

2. Second, their may be a new version of the plane flying under the control of a new user, so it useing a new name. (For Example: the Blackbirds first flew as the CIA owned A-12 under the Code Name Oxcart and the later SR-71 used the Code Name Senior Crown)

So hold off on assuming the plane is being withdrawn from service or cancelled until we have had more time to look into all of the facts. You might be correct, or the goverment may have covered their tracks in an effort to throw us off the trail. It's too early to know for sure.

Tim
ATS Director of Counterignorance

[Edited on 4-2-2004 by ghost]

Ben Rich wrote in his 1994 memoir recounting his experience as head of the Lockheed Skunk Works that Aurora was merely a Pentagon codename for funding B-2 production, and Pentagon official Colonel Adelbert W. “Buz” Carpenter in an interview in the documentary American UFOs admitted that he applied the name Aurora to funding for the B-2.

The reactivation of the SR-71 in 1995 called into the question the argument by Bill Sweetman and a few other aviation gurus that the SR-71 had been retired in 1990 due to the USAF fielding a hypersonic spyplane, but we now know that the CIA, NRO, and USAF had a program in the late 1980s and early 1990s for a giant unmanned strategic reconnaissance flying wing, Project Quartz (aka AARS), which was canceled in 1992 and replaced by the short-lived Tier III program.

Link:
www.secretprojects.co.uk...

originally posted by: TheButcher
So i was watching modern marvels on the history chanell (it was on jet engines) and about 2 mins before it ended they made reference to the Aurora (they claimed it would probably be Mach 8....or was it Mach 5? sorry can't remember). Anyways, at the end they interviewed an aviation historian working for Edwards AFB (again, I think) and he said something like 'in my opinion, the Aurora existed for a period, but was decomisioned.'

Now if this is true, seeing as how every Intel guy in the world will tell you that sat intel is NOT suffecient, and that you have to have some sort of on demand spy plane, what has the USAF/CIA/NSA cooked up now?

They would be working on a 4th gen spy plane (U-2, SR-71 blackbird, the aurora or SR-75 as I have seen it called). What would this 4th gen spy plane be capable of?

A theory of mine, is that it would be nuclear powered, whatever it is and if it exists. Both the US and Russia were trying to power a plane with a nuclear reactor as early as the 50's because of the unlimited range and loiter time. I am sceptical though of any "anti grav" type theories, as i simply doubt we are at the point where we can harness a gravity field (at least without help from our local friendly greys)

I have also read of some supposedly triangle shaped craft that somehow reduces its wieght by 89%. Anyone know anything of this?

Please give opinions and if you can givee any links and/or facts.

the B2 wing was changed???

or are you talking about a clearly still active aircraft

originally posted by: intelgurl

Actually the term "Fastmover" is not for one particular aircraft but for any supersonic (or faster) vehicle.

Also, I'm not so sure the aircraft that was the fruition of the 1980's Aurora budget line has been given to NASA... (I'd like to hear Valhall's thoughts on that)

I do however strongly believe that a waverider design is currently operational and flying recon sorties for the intelligence agencies.

Are you now ATS member WAVE LENGTH?

a reply to: takeonlywhatyouneed

The B-2, which is still very active, was designed as a high altitude, stealthy penetrating platform but at some point after the initial design phase the Air Force decided they wanted to add a low altitude capability as well. The design for the two roles is not the same, so it required a pretty significant change to the airframe.

a reply to: Zaphod58

most expensive remodel, the double W that is


makes you wonder if they kep a few like they were thought up as, maybe as stealth IRS with maximum stealth and payloads(nuclear)


we have been working on hypersonics before my mom was born and i'm 38.

there is no way there isnt a few fast movers around.

I've seen a yellow, candle yellow do a great impression of an etch a sketch scroll.

I've seen things that if they are human and im pretty sure they are we haven't seen anything.

the B21 maybe other than computing and coating is a 1990's projects.


keep all the cool stuff in contractors safe from FOIA and National Security evoked in all cases.


new hangers out in the islands