Aurora Project = HyperSoar ?

Originally posted by intelgurl
In the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 - House Report 108-106" (May 16, 2003) p. 214, line item "0603285E Advanced Aerospace Systems (Hypersoar)" had 7.5 million dollars allocated for fiscal year 2003, with a ramp up over the following years of 21.5 million in 2004, 25 million in 2005, 40 million in 2006 and 50 million in 2007, 2008 & 2009.

That's chump change, not even R&D money, not operational money. Strange.

Originally posted by Murcielago
The Aurora couldn't even come close to leaving our atmosphere, let alone going to the moon. It supposedly goes aroung mach 6-7, you need to go at least mach 25 to get to space.

Why, have you flown it? Unless you know something I don't know there is no data, no sightings, no nothing on Aurora, just speculation and what you might have happened to hear from an insider.

intensity - was that quoted text referring to me? Look at what I typed, I said "supposedly", so read it, before you shoot your mouth off.

Another thing, look all over the web and those mach numbers I posted, are what you will find.

Welcome back, intelgurl.

Jerry Pournelle (sci-fi writer, was in space program) once said that to build an reusable space access vehilce you could give $250 million to him and some friends , $2-$4 billion to Lockheed or somebody as a black porject and step the hell out of the way, $10-$20 billion to DARPA or SDI or $40 billion to NASA (who would give you a mountain of paperwork and studies on why it couldn't be done.

If HyperSoar builds on existing technology, such as the Aurora or something else, it would cost even less and take a shorter time to deploy.

During the close of the WWII the Germans had a conceptual design of such an aircraft. It was called the "Sanger American Bomber" and I believe that our government has copied there conceptual ideas.

As I said, I contacted a friend of mine who spoke to Preston Carter @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory who initially headed up the HyperSOAR project for DARPA.

According to Mr. Carter the HyperSOAR project has been put under the name "FALCON".

There have been other posts here on ATS concerning FALCON, the most informative & promenent being ATS member & moderator Zion Mainframe's post "The USAF/ DARPA FALCON program".

Here is the official DARPA web page on FALCON:
DARPA/FALCON

And here is HyperSOAR's originator, Preston Carter's reply to my friend's inquiry:

"About 4 years ago my family and I moved to Washington D.C.
for a four year tour of duty at the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA). We have recently
completed this tour and have returned to LLNL. Anyway,
while I was at DARPA I was a Program Manager within the
Tactical Technology Office and was the leader of programs
related to High-Speed Flight, Space Access, and large
logistic air ships. About 2 years ago DARPA funded a
program to develop the HyperSoar concept. Since I was too
busy with other programs like RASCAL, HyFly, Walrus, MALI,
etc., DARPA gave the program to another Program Manager
(although I initially helped get the program started).
The program is called FALCON. Lockheed Skunk Works
recently won a contract to begin vehicle development.

I am still quite active in a number of high-speed vehicle
efforts, but I have steps out of the lime light concerning
HyperSoar and my DARPA programs. I think you will start
hearing more about HyperSoar in the coming years. People
are just working hard of the technology right now.

Preston"

So there you have it...

HyperSOAR = FALCON

Intelgurl



[edit on 27-9-2004 by intelgurl]

I wish Carter walked around his work place and took pictures.

Good Job Intelgurl.

I think they gave it that name so its harder to search for on the web. There are so many things called Falcon allready its rediculous.

It doesn't suprise me that the contract went to the SkunkWorks, since (more then likely) they built the Aurora spy plane they can use some of there tech and everything they have learned from it to delevop this., just hope light is shed on it in this decade.

Nice Intelgirl, raises a lot of questions. One thing I found interesting is that he said he was involved with high speed flight and space access, which kind of go hand in hand at some point, and than large logistical airships. I find that kind of strange. Most likely he is referring to the BBD programs.

And Murcielago, check out CNN today, a plane just made it into space at only Mach 3.

Intensity
And Murcielago, check out CNN today, a plane just made it into space at only Mach 3.

I know, I've been following Scaled Composites work for a while now, I listened to the flight on XM, since i wasn't near a tv.

Also theres a HUGE difference is sub-orbital space and real space, the spaceship 1 was weightless for only 4 or so minutes. The Nasa Space Shuttle goes 3 times as high. I'm not trying to make this sound like nothing because clearly its a great feat, but it didn't technicaly get to space.

Scaled Composites was shooting for 62 miles up, but they shut the engine down 11 seconds early and still hit to 64 miles up, I wish it didn't do that unexpected roll after 160,000 feet, because then we could of seen how high this thing can really go.

You dont have to tell me about any space related things, I know about all of them.


[edit on 29-9-2004 by Murcielago]

Then you should know you don't need to be going Mach 25 to go into space. That was my only point, and nothing personal.

The shuttle re-enters the atmosphere at around mach 25. Thats where that number comes from, your need to go around that (not much slower or faster).

But Yes, technicaly you can enter space at 1 mph (if you have alot of time to kill).
heres a rocket mph site.
Rockets top speeds

Its all about thrust and momentum. Unless anti-gravity actually exist.(which I doubt)