PDA

View Full Version : Project Aurora


TheReverend
06-03-2009, 11:53 AM
Supposedly our next super weapon with the same level of secrecy that the stealth bomber received and the SR-71 before that.

If this video is legit, then it's an awesome achievement for mankind, and also explains "Giant Triangle" UFOs that have become semi common place. However, the disappearing act at the end seems fishy to say the least, lol.

Any physicists want to take a stab at howtf something moves like this? Or film graphics students take stabs at it's credibility?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hQ-UUJPpLOM&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hQ-UUJPpLOM&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Beantown Bronco
06-03-2009, 12:02 PM
My first thought was......the person holding the camera better be Nick Nolte-drunk or on a boat in rough waters.

PRBronco
06-03-2009, 12:06 PM
Omg I think it jumped to warp speed.

TheReverend
06-03-2009, 12:07 PM
Here's what leads me to consider that it's NOT fake...

Recent photos of what people think is aurora taking near Area-51:

http://s.mcstatic.com/thumb/1993850/0/4/directors_cut/0/1/ufo_or_aurora_hypersonic_plane.jpg

The military complex is so tech advanced that it wouldn't surprise me. It'd just be cool if they came clean about it so people stop thinking aliens are here.

TheReverend
06-03-2009, 12:09 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/uy1zHRJ0Va8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uy1zHRJ0Va8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Please ignore the horrid beginning with the corny alien head in the bottom right, lol.

Popps
06-03-2009, 12:29 PM
This thread is racist.

TheReverend
06-03-2009, 12:30 PM
This thread is racist.

Ha!

Mane has been a ball of rage all off-season. From Shanahan to Cutler to race, sexism, and anti-mod threads.

TheReverend
06-03-2009, 12:46 PM
Funny (to me, at least) and applicable:

http://ufonews.tv/images/stories/weather_balloon.gif

Beantown Bronco
06-03-2009, 12:50 PM
Ha!

Mane has been a ball of rage all off-season. From Shanahan to Cutler to race, sexism, and anti-mod threads.

don't forget bad parenting a/k/a "the Ghostbusters effect"

Pat Bowlen
06-03-2009, 12:51 PM
Please ignore the horrid beginning with the corny alien head in the bottom right, lol.
"Here is the pictures!"

TheReverend
06-03-2009, 12:55 PM
"Here is the pictures!"

I warned, didn't I?

PRBronco
06-03-2009, 01:12 PM
"Here is the pictures!"

Hahaha yeah I had to tap my Credibility-ometer to make sure it was still working.

gyldenlove
06-03-2009, 01:12 PM
Difficult to say, with no frame of reference it looks like it is not moving at all which makes the wing design quite confusing, since wings do not do anything if you are not moving forwards.

It could be as simple as jump jet, like the Harrier, they can do that. For the JSF project, both Lockheed and Boeing developed a version of the jump jet that was supposed to be able to hover as well as land and take off vertically, both succeeded to some extend, but the Harrier is still better. I think it was Boeing that added a huge propeller in the middle that was driven by the jet engine to create lift when hovering and then using small jet nozzles to control the balance, turning and tilting.

Popps
06-03-2009, 02:32 PM
"Here is the pictures!"

Yea, I loved that.

"... I'm a expert on aircraft..... here is the pictures..."

watermock
06-03-2009, 02:39 PM
Isn't that why he's "outside" area 51?

bronco militia
06-03-2009, 02:42 PM
the aurara project is a space plane, not a UFO/saucer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_(aircraft)

sisterhellfyre
06-03-2009, 02:48 PM
Any physicists want to take a stab at howtf something moves like this? Or film graphics students take stabs at it's credibility?

I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you. The paperwork afterward is just too much hassle.

bronco militia
06-03-2009, 02:50 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IiBsD-cafH8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IiBsD-cafH8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

bronco militia
06-03-2009, 02:53 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/j4KM5aTk4jI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/j4KM5aTk4jI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

;D :giggle:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/khB8NK2d4zQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/khB8NK2d4zQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Bronx33
06-03-2009, 02:57 PM
http://www.eiksoft.com/ghnc/img/granny/granny6.jpg

bronco militia
06-03-2009, 02:58 PM
http://www.eiksoft.com/ghnc/img/granny/granny6.jpg

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

broncosteven
06-03-2009, 03:35 PM
We do not have any craft capable of Mach 3 or higher anymore.

The race to the moon killed them with the focus on rockets that could lift payloads.

The Sr-71 was designed in the 50's. I thought I read somewhere that they pull one or 2 out of mothballs a year or so ago because we didn't have anything.

There was talk of a hypersonic space plane development back 10 years ago which got as far as the x-43a but that is no bigger than a missle and it's funding got used up.

I hope I am wrong and there is a black project for a hypersonic craft that is either ready to go or close to ready.

I think hypersonic testing will take a back seat again to the Constellation project.

fdf
06-03-2009, 03:52 PM
Isn't that why he's "outside" area 51?

Good question. I thought it was funny that a top secret plane was flying over an inhabited city.

TheReverend
06-03-2009, 04:05 PM
Difficult to say, with no frame of reference it looks like it is not moving at all which makes the wing design quite confusing, since wings do not do anything if you are not moving forwards.

It could be as simple as jump jet, like the Harrier, they can do that. For the JSF project, both Lockheed and Boeing developed a version of the jump jet that was supposed to be able to hover as well as land and take off vertically, both succeeded to some extend, but the Harrier is still better. I think it was Boeing that added a huge propeller in the middle that was driven by the jet engine to create lift when hovering and then using small jet nozzles to control the balance, turning and tilting.

I was thinking about the same, and I know the Marines are actually getting a new fighter that does vertical take offs and lands (no, not the real life transformer the "Osprey")

...but supposedly this thing has a different form of propulsion that makes it silent.

elsid13
06-03-2009, 04:07 PM
If it is a real then it most like a fan ducted for the hover capability similar to what the JSF is doing and cruise supersonic like the F-22. Fiber Composites over titanium shell would give it the stealth edges.

TheReverend
06-03-2009, 04:08 PM
the aurara project is a space plane, not a UFO/saucer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_(aircraft)

Who claimed it was an UFO/saucer? In fact, I said this EXPLAINS triangular UFOs that have been spotted...

elsid13
06-03-2009, 04:09 PM
I was thinking about the same, and I know the Marines are actually getting a new fighter that does vertical take offs and lands (no, not the real life transformer the "Osprey")

...but supposedly this thing has a different form of propulsion that makes it silent.

That is JSF (VL) version that coming into service in 2014/2015 and you would be surprise how quite embedded engines can be.

TheReverend
06-03-2009, 04:16 PM
That is JSF (VL) version that coming into service in 2014/2015 and you would be surprise how quite embedded engines can be.

None of the BAE, Boeing or Lockheed models look anything like the photos/video, or did you just mean the same propulsion technology and VL?

elsid13
06-03-2009, 04:25 PM
None of the BAE, Boeing or Lockheed models look anything like the photos/video, or did you just mean the same propulsion technology and VL?

Underlining technology and other stuff. Remember a lot of air spaces get tested and developed that never see wide scale production.

TheReverend
06-03-2009, 04:29 PM
Underlining technology and other stuff. Remember a lot of air spaces get tested and developed that never see wide scale production.

The most promising never see wide scale production for fear of exposure. I know they played with EM fields as a propulsion option, wondering if they managed to make that work and this is a glimpse into the future of air travel.

ScottXray
06-03-2009, 05:49 PM
I spotted (radar tracked) an SR71 way back in 1970 when I was stationed in Korea.
(based on a Nike site there). They used to overfly us on there way to recon runs over China and Russia

They never have put out real info on its top speed, but I calculated that the one I spotted had to have been going about 4200 MPH , and it was at close to 150000 feet. That puppy could flat out GO!

Everytime they have someone set a new speed record, they pop one out and reclaim it.

Started hearing about the Aurora back in 85 or so. It would be another thing that Carter started funding the development on, like the stealths.

Sodak
06-03-2009, 05:50 PM
Interesting thread Rev.

Inkana7
06-03-2009, 06:52 PM
The supposed Auora has existed for a long time. It's said that it can go Mach 6.

broncosteven
06-03-2009, 07:24 PM
If it is a real then it most like a fan ducted for the hover capability similar to what the JSF is doing and cruise supersonic like the F-22. Fiber Composites over titanium shell would give it the stealth edges.

Wasn't there news of a smaller scale UAV that can hover and track targets with stealth both visual and noise? I thought I read an article in Air and Space mag about the new and or proposed UAV's different branches were working on.

elsid13
06-03-2009, 07:31 PM
Wasn't there news of a smaller scale UAV that can hover and track targets with stealth both visual and noise? I thought I read an article in Air and Space mag about the new and or proposed UAV's different branches were working on.

There are number of new UAVs in the pipeline. Both the Predator and Raptor while effective are getting older and we should be seeing replacement soon.

broncosteven
06-03-2009, 07:33 PM
The supposed Auora has existed for a long time. It's said that it can go Mach 6.

the x-43a does Mach 9.6

It's Official. X-43A Raises the Bar to Mach 9.6
Guinness World Records recognized NASA's X-43A scramjet with a new world speed record for a jet-powered aircraft - Mach 9.6, or nearly 7,000 mph. The X-43A set the new mark and broke its own world record on its third and final flight on Nov. 16, 2004.

In March 2004, the X-43A set the previous record of Mach 6.8 (nearly 5,000 mph). The fastest air-breathing, manned vehicle, the U.S. Air Force SR-71, achieved slightly more than Mach 3.2. The X-43A more than doubled, then tripled, the top speed of the jet-powered SR-71.

broncosteven
06-03-2009, 07:36 PM
I spotted (radar tracked) an SR71 way back in 1970 when I was stationed in Korea.
(based on a Nike site there). They used to overfly us on there way to recon runs over China and Russia

They never have put out real info on its top speed, but I calculated that the one I spotted had to have been going about 4200 MPH , and it was at close to 150000 feet. That puppy could flat out GO!

Everytime they have someone set a new speed record, they pop one out and reclaim it.

Started hearing about the Aurora back in 85 or so. It would be another thing that Carter started funding the development on, like the stealths.

That is cool, I don't think they ever admitted to the full top speed, I want to say it set the cross country record, from LA to NY in under an hour. Everything I read had it around mach 3.

Rock Chalk
06-03-2009, 07:36 PM
Difficult to say, with no frame of reference it looks like it is not moving at all which makes the wing design quite confusing, since wings do not do anything if you are not moving forwards.

It could be as simple as jump jet, like the Harrier, they can do that. For the JSF project, both Lockheed and Boeing developed a version of the jump jet that was supposed to be able to hover as well as land and take off vertically, both succeeded to some extend, but the Harrier is still better. I think it was Boeing that added a huge propeller in the middle that was driven by the jet engine to create lift when hovering and then using small jet nozzles to control the balance, turning and tilting.

VTOL jets are incredibly loud and require tremendous amounts of fuel to "hover". The second reason I dont think its that is that VTOL engines are merely jet engines with the nozzle pointed downward. With the energy required, the exhaust in a nightvision camera would be plainly visible.

From a physics standpoint it could be that the military has unlocked a great secret of being able to manipulate gravity. While the standard physics model says that it is impossible, quantum physics leans towards a "maybe". Another option may be that they have figured out a way to create a repulsive effect similar yet opposite of the effect that allows gecko's to climb polished glass walls.

And beantown, it is not easy to keep a steady camera when it is zoomed in a great deal as this camera appeared. That being said, the edges around the craft looked a bit supicious to me. The problem is, without the original video I couldnt be certain ans YouTube degrades a video quality considerably on upload.

TheReverend
06-03-2009, 08:32 PM
VTOL jets are incredibly loud and require tremendous amounts of fuel to "hover". The second reason I dont think its that is that VTOL engines are merely jet engines with the nozzle pointed downward. With the energy required, the exhaust in a nightvision camera would be plainly visible.

From a physics standpoint it could be that the military has unlocked a great secret of being able to manipulate gravity. While the standard physics model says that it is impossible, quantum physics leans towards a "maybe". Another option may be that they have figured out a way to create a repulsive effect similar yet opposite of the effect that allows gecko's to climb polished glass walls.

And beantown, it is not easy to keep a steady camera when it is zoomed in a great deal as this camera appeared. That being said, the edges around the craft looked a bit supicious to me. The problem is, without the original video I couldnt be certain ans YouTube degrades a video quality considerably on upload.

People shouldn't forget the US military's cutting edge techs are 20-30 years more advanced than the civilian world.

I'm insanely curious to find out just wtf this thing is and how it works.

TheReverend
06-03-2009, 08:32 PM
the x-43a does Mach 9.6

It's Official. X-43A Raises the Bar to Mach 9.6
Guinness World Records recognized NASA's X-43A scramjet with a new world speed record for a jet-powered aircraft - Mach 9.6, or nearly 7,000 mph. The X-43A set the new mark and broke its own world record on its third and final flight on Nov. 16, 2004.

In March 2004, the X-43A set the previous record of Mach 6.8 (nearly 5,000 mph). The fastest air-breathing, manned vehicle, the U.S. Air Force SR-71, achieved slightly more than Mach 3.2. The X-43A more than doubled, then tripled, the top speed of the jet-powered SR-71.

Isn't X-43 a rocket, technically?

garandman
06-03-2009, 08:49 PM
Anyone listen to Art Bell when he was on, this stuff reminds me of his show. Very entertaining to say the least...

gyldenlove
06-03-2009, 08:55 PM
VTOL jets are incredibly loud and require tremendous amounts of fuel to "hover". The second reason I dont think its that is that VTOL engines are merely jet engines with the nozzle pointed downward. With the energy required, the exhaust in a nightvision camera would be plainly visible.

From a physics standpoint it could be that the military has unlocked a great secret of being able to manipulate gravity. While the standard physics model says that it is impossible, quantum physics leans towards a "maybe". Another option may be that they have figured out a way to create a repulsive effect similar yet opposite of the effect that allows gecko's to climb polished glass walls.

And beantown, it is not easy to keep a steady camera when it is zoomed in a great deal as this camera appeared. That being said, the edges around the craft looked a bit supicious to me. The problem is, without the original video I couldnt be certain ans YouTube degrades a video quality considerably on upload.

The harrier is not that loud and in the resolution and focus the exhaust wouldn't necesarily be visible.

As to the shape, I doubt that is the final shape of the craft, I would assume they would obscure the actual shape of the craft when flying it over non restricted airspace.

bronco militia
06-03-2009, 09:30 PM
you guys are nuts if you thought the night vision vid was real....

footstepsfrom#27
06-03-2009, 10:08 PM
We do not have any craft capable of Mach 3 or higher anymore.

The race to the moon killed them with the focus on rockets that could lift payloads.

The Sr-71 was designed in the 50's. I thought I read somewhere that they pull one or 2 out of mothballs a year or so ago because we didn't have anything.

There was talk of a hypersonic space plane development back 10 years ago which got as far as the x-43a but that is no bigger than a missle and it's funding got used up.

I hope I am wrong and there is a black project for a hypersonic craft that is either ready to go or close to ready.

I think hypersonic testing will take a back seat again to the Constellation project.
Is that what you'd like us to believe? ;D

bronco610
06-03-2009, 10:11 PM
Is that what you'd like us to believe? ;D

LOL LOL LOL

broncosteven
06-04-2009, 03:10 PM
Isn't X-43 a rocket, technically?

They lauch it with a rocket like a missle but then the SCRAMJET kicks in and takes it hypersonic, I think the scramjets need to be going supersonic until they work.

They have a lot more work to do but scramjets could be more efficent than rockets.

broncosteven
06-04-2009, 03:13 PM
Is that what you'd like us to believe? ;D

I read a book about a project that got a lot of funding and was seriously being considered.

They were going to use A-bombs to launch payloads into space and then keep using them to build up speed for long distance spaceflight.

I still do not know how they planned on riding the shockwaves into orbit. They would have to launch from Olegs sonofwhoreland Chechene(sp?)

Just think about the fallout from tens if not hundreds of bombs being set off per launch!

ghwk
06-04-2009, 03:21 PM
The supposed Auora has existed for a long time. It's said that it can go Mach 6.

I hear there is a big silver handle on the dash board that you have to slide forward to make it go faster. Unfortunatly this one design element continued to make its way forward in time to the early model NCC 1701 series of speedy space ships. And yes I am from the future. Hilarious!

ScottXray
06-05-2009, 12:06 PM
They lauch it with a rocket like a missle but then the SCRAMJET kicks in and takes it hypersonic, I think the scramjets need to be going supersonic until they work.

They have a lot more work to do but scramjets could be more efficent than rockets.

The SR71 also was a scramjet too, but used its own engines to get up to enough speed for the scramjet to kick in. Obviously not as efficient as the x43.

I saw one flying up close one time in Korea also. It was making what must have been an emergency landing at Kunsan AB there during daylight, and I happened to be near there at the time. I was amazed how maneuverable it was considering its wingspread, but those two big engines must have been at near full power to keep it from stalling as low and slow it was going. Still had to have been over 200 MPH, but it wasn't more than 150 feet high and making crazy banks and turns to line up on the runway. When we got to the base they had it locked down.

broncosteven
06-05-2009, 12:19 PM
The SR71 also was a scramjet too, but used its own engines to get up to enough speed for the scramjet to kick in. Obviously not as efficient as the x43.

I saw one flying up close one time in Korea also. It was making what must have been an emergency landing at Kunsan AB there during daylight, and I happened to be near there at the time. I was amazed how maneuverable it was considering its wingspread, but those two big engines must have been at near full power to keep it from stalling as low and slow it was going. Still had to have been over 200 MPH, but it wasn't more than 150 feet high and making crazy banks and turns to line up on the runway. When we got to the base they had it locked down.

SR-71 used RAMJET, SCRAMjet tech is built off RAMjet.

Plus the SR-71 used it's afterburners for extened periods to reach top speed of Mach3.

TheReverend
06-05-2009, 12:32 PM
SR-71 used RAMJET, SCRAMjet tech is built off RAMjet.

Plus the SR-71 used it's afterburners for extened periods to reach top speed of Mach3.

Less talk about Aurora's failed off-shoots and more talk about the potential that it's actually been built and working, please.

orinjkrush
06-05-2009, 12:46 PM
X-43 is so old school:

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/air/jdw/jdw090520_1_n.shtml

PS...you can COUNT on the USAF having amazing, great stuff you never heard of, in development.

broncosteven
06-05-2009, 01:32 PM
Less talk about Aurora's failed off-shoots and more talk about the potential that it's actually been built and working, please.

Did you know the pilot episode of south park was the Visitor episode where Cartman had a satelite dish implanted in his rectum?

9mmbhp
06-05-2009, 02:54 PM
I read a book about a project that got a lot of funding and was seriously being considered.

They were going to use A-bombs to launch payloads into space and then keep using them to build up speed for long distance spaceflight.

I still do not know how they planned on riding the shockwaves into orbit. They would have to launch from Olegs sonofwhoreland Chechene(sp?)

Just think about the fallout from tens if not hundreds of bombs being set off per launch!

Project Orion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)) is still a viable concept for an interplanetary exploration vehicle.

George Dyson's retrospective (http://www.amazon.com/Project-Orion-Story-Atomic-Spaceship/dp/0805059857) is an excellent read.

TheReverend
06-05-2009, 02:56 PM
Project Orion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)) is still a viable concept for an interplanetary exploration vehicle.

George Dyson's retrospective (http://www.amazon.com/Project-Orion-Story-Atomic-Spaceship/dp/0805059857) is an excellent read.

Yes!

Every thread starter than manages to coax a lurker into posting deserves one free "Break the rules but don't get banned"

TJ-Amirite?

sisterhellfyre
06-05-2009, 03:10 PM
Project Orion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)) is still a viable concept for an interplanetary exploration vehicle.

George Dyson's retrospective (http://www.amazon.com/Project-Orion-Story-Atomic-Spaceship/dp/0805059857) is an excellent read.

IIRC, there was at least one big-name SF novel where an Orion-type spaceship was an integral part of the plot. "Footfall," by Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle? Launching the ship took out Tacoma & Seattle, I think, but it did get up to orbit to battle the bad guys.

broncosteven
06-05-2009, 04:21 PM
Project Orion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)) is still a viable concept for an interplanetary exploration vehicle.

George Dyson's retrospective (http://www.amazon.com/Project-Orion-Story-Atomic-Spaceship/dp/0805059857) is an excellent read.

I dunno, I bought the hardcover and started reading it, I got to the point where they lost funding and they were talking about people trying to keep the concept alive and I lost interest. I don't think I ever finished it, I ended up donating the book to my local library.

I was kinda let down.

I still don't see how this would work as a launch platform but I could maybe see where it would be an option for space travel.

I loved the pictures of the concept of the ship and where they had the room where the bombs were stored and "dropped" out of the ship for propulsion.

BroncoLifer
06-05-2009, 04:27 PM
IIRC, there was at least one big-name SF novel where an Orion-type spaceship was an integral part of the plot. "Footfall," by Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle? Launching the ship took out Tacoma & Seattle, I think, but it did get up to orbit to battle the bad guys.

I believe that they launched from Bremerton to take on the "Snouts" but yes, that's the book. First time I had ever heard of Orion.

9mmbhp
06-05-2009, 05:33 PM
I still don't see how this would work as a launch platform but I could maybe see where it would be an option for space travel.


It was always intended for planetary exploration. Ted Taylor and Freeman Dyson knew chemical rockets weren't practical for the kinds of payloads true exploration would require. But NASA was enamored with Von Braun and the cold-war political climate at the time focused NASA on getting to the moon before the Russians. That left Orion the option of getting the military interested to provide further funding.

George Dyson does make the point that a lot of the work his father did for Orion provided the foundation for SDI's space-based weaponry.


I loved the pictures of the concept of the ship and where they had the room where the bombs were stored and "dropped" out of the ship for propulsion.

I liked the anecdote about some of the Orion engineers visiting Coca-Cola and looking at the mechanical designs for their vending machines. Scaled up, the basic design could easily have been used to cycle and eject Orion's 55gal drum-sized 'propulsion units.'

elsid13
06-05-2009, 06:10 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/W3n5cUaG5fg&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/W3n5cUaG5fg&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


SKUNKS WORKING

Lockheed Martin Advanced Development Projects is making perhaps the first realistic tests of a hybrid airship--a concept that dates back many decades but that is just now being tried at a significant scale.

The Skunk Works had secretly built the craft and hoped for a quiet first flight at its Palmdale, Calif., facility, but a few passers-by noticed the strange object in the sky.

The Defense Dept. is showing interest in two categories of airships--those that can carry large cargo at low altitude, exemplified by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) Walrus program, and those that can operate in high-altitude low-wind conditions and remain on station for long periods of time. The configuration of the Skunks Works ship indicates it is the former--a hybrid heavy-load carrier.

The interest is across the services and the notional applications are diverse, ranging from logistics--delivery of an integrated fighting unit within theater, for example--to sensor, communications and even laser-weapon relay platforms.

But airships aren't there yet. Major unresolved issues could derail the airship dream, such as their traditional delicate ground handling, and possibly prohibitive economics and vulnerability. These issues have been debated endlessly on paper, and now Lockheed Martin, a prime airship proponent, is investing to seek real answ

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/020606p2.xml

broncosteven
06-05-2009, 07:25 PM
It was always intended for planetary exploration. Ted Taylor and Freeman Dyson knew chemical rockets weren't practical for the kinds of payloads true exploration would require. But NASA was enamored with Von Braun and the cold-war political climate at the time focused NASA on getting to the moon before the Russians. That left Orion the option of getting the military interested to provide further funding.

George Dyson does make the point that a lot of the work his father did for Orion provided the foundation for SDI's space-based weaponry.



I liked the anecdote about some of the Orion engineers visiting Coca-Cola and looking at the mechanical designs for their vending machines. Scaled up, the basic design could easily have been used to cycle and eject Orion's 55gal drum-sized 'propulsion units.'

You rock and need to post more!

I forgot about the Coke anecdote! REP

BTW Have you ever read and or Memorized "Failure is not an Option"?

broncosteven
06-05-2009, 07:27 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/W3n5cUaG5fg&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/W3n5cUaG5fg&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


SKUNKS WORKING

Lockheed Martin Advanced Development Projects is making perhaps the first realistic tests of a hybrid airship--a concept that dates back many decades but that is just now being tried at a significant scale.

The Skunk Works had secretly built the craft and hoped for a quiet first flight at its Palmdale, Calif., facility, but a few passers-by noticed the strange object in the sky.

The Defense Dept. is showing interest in two categories of airships--those that can carry large cargo at low altitude, exemplified by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) Walrus program, and those that can operate in high-altitude low-wind conditions and remain on station for long periods of time. The configuration of the Skunks Works ship indicates it is the former--a hybrid heavy-load carrier.

The interest is across the services and the notional applications are diverse, ranging from logistics--delivery of an integrated fighting unit within theater, for example--to sensor, communications and even laser-weapon relay platforms.

But airships aren't there yet. Major unresolved issues could derail the airship dream, such as their traditional delicate ground handling, and possibly prohibitive economics and vulnerability. These issues have been debated endlessly on paper, and now Lockheed Martin, a prime airship proponent, is investing to seek real answ

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/020606p2.xml

Didn't all the Airship stuff die out a year or 2 back? I remember reading in Air and Space some articles on them makeing a comeback but there were a lot of obstacles. Then I remember reading a year or 2 later that most of those projects died off.

El Guapo
06-05-2009, 09:15 PM
They've been talking about Aurora since the F-1117A. It would be REALLY interesting to see this bad boy come out.

People think it isn't practical, but with countries out there like China, N. Korea and Iran... hell, we might need instantaneous air superiority. Of course, who knows what this thing is actually capable of.

Always cool to speculate!

elsid13
06-06-2009, 06:27 AM
Didn't all the Airship stuff die out a year or 2 back? I remember reading in Air and Space some articles on them makeing a comeback but there were a lot of obstacles. Then I remember reading a year or 2 later that most of those projects died off.

There still out there. DARPA is still funding studies for both heavy lift and sensor platforms. DoN's ONR was still playing around them. But right now the cost/performance isn't there. Everyone wants them to be large (for lift capability) and manned. I expect that if they ever come back into use they will be small and unmanned sensor/communication platform. They would providde that cheap last mile communication network hub that we are missing when troops deploy. One gets shot down, there another one up in 2 hours.

elsid13
06-06-2009, 06:35 AM
Less talk about Aurora's failed off-shoots and more talk about the potential that it's actually been built and working, please.

Those aren't failed technologies, those are very much the technologies that are in play right now. Remember sometimes great ideas from 50 to 60 years ago need the right convergence of other technologies to be game changers. See the B-2 as prime example. Before computers and fly by wire it wasn't a viable airframe, but with them it become a force multiplier.

TheReverend
06-06-2009, 12:44 PM
Those aren't failed technologies, those are very much the technologies that are in play right now. Remember sometimes great ideas from 50 to 60 years ago need the right convergence of other technologies to be game changers. See the B-2 as prime example. Before computers and fly by wire it wasn't a viable airframe, but with them it become a force multiplier.

Misinterpreted. I meant they were failed attempts at making Aurora, not that they weren't successful for their own purposes.

TheReverend
06-06-2009, 12:46 PM
Two Questions:

USA vs China&Russia

USA (with a functional Aurora--without knowing what it does) vs China&Russia

broncosteven
06-06-2009, 06:48 PM
Two Questions:

USA vs China&Russia

USA (with a functional Aurora--without knowing what it does) vs China&Russia

I think China could be attempting moon landings or at least navagation to moon with in 2-3 years if they are on pace.

It scares me a little that Commies could have this power.

Inkana7
06-06-2009, 10:16 PM
China is not truly Communist, at all, and they rely on the global economy to power their powerhouse economy. They will not be at war with anyone anytime soon. No, if China does choose an attempt at global domination, it will be economically. And they are already doing so.

ScottXray
06-06-2009, 11:19 PM
SR-71 used RAMJET, SCRAMjet tech is built off RAMjet.

Plus the SR-71 used it's afterburners for extened periods to reach top speed of Mach3.

You're right... my bad.

loborugger
06-07-2009, 12:00 AM
The supposed Auora has existed for a long time. It's said that it can go Mach 6.

I remember hearing about the Aurora back in the day - early 90s.

So, going back to Desert Storm - the original Gulf War.

I worked in combat on a ship that was cruising back from Desert Storm. We were off the east coast of India - a couple hundred miles off shore - headed home. It was middle of the day. One afternoon, one of the ships in our group picked up a track at 50 thousand feet (I think, cant remember exactly, but it was HIGH). It was also traveling at Mach 3. It was about 300 miles out traveling from the Southeast - like it had come from Australia.

We all had a meeting of the minds and said, "this aint possible." So, we called up the ship tracking the aircraft, and told them they had a phantom track.

At about the we decided this, every ship in the group picked up the track. We had a carrier in the group of ships, and the carrier was gonna send up a fighter to check it out. However, by the time the decision was made, the track was already overhead and moving out at Mach 3. We had nothing that could catch it. Not even close. So, the carrier never launched.

The long and short of it is this - we tracked a target for 600 miles - 300 inbound, 300 outbound. It traveled at 50000 feet at Mach 3 the whole time, not ever varying its path. We scratched our heads. Nothing we could think of could do that - besides maybe an SR-71. And why would an SR-71 be out over the Indian Ocean and the SR-71 had been retired at that time.

I stuck this story in my head as a "wow, that was odd."

2 years later, I was out of the Navy and in college. I met a guy who knew a guy who was on my ship, and had worked in the combat area of a different ship. We started to tell stories. And oddly enough, the dude tells me that he was in the same area of the world and they tracked the same kinda thing. And after the event happened, something different in his group happened.

A member of the admiral's staff came in their space. He grabbed the log book (stuff was still written down in log books back then), took a big black magic marker, passed it over the entry marking the event, and told everyone, "that never happened, and you never saw anything."

So, ya, there is stuff out there that is very classified and very advanced.

9mmbhp
06-07-2009, 10:39 AM
SR-71: Now That Was Some Airplane (http://blogs.jobdig.com/wwds/2007/11/19/sr-71-now-that-was-some-airplane/)

I've been up-close-and-personal with one. :thumbsup:

My father was director of maintenance operations at Hill AFB in the late 70s/early 80s. His primary responsibility was for F16s but SR71s would make emergency stops every once in a while. I got to meet the crew and a tour of the airplane during one of these. The fuel leaking out of the airframe was completely mind-blowing.

I was also at Oshkosh one year when both an SR-71 and a Concorde were there. Favorite part of the daily airshow was the SR doing low-level passes in full afterburner... the diamond shock-wave out the exhaust was very cool.

http://www.geocities.com/kyvivek/bb04.jpg

Hulamau
06-07-2009, 04:12 PM
Supposedly our next super weapon with the same level of secrecy that the stealth bomber received and the SR-71 before that.

If this video is legit, then it's an awesome achievement for mankind, and also explains "Giant Triangle" UFOs that have become semi common place. However, the disappearing act at the end seems fishy to say the least, lol.

Any physicists want to take a stab at howtf something moves like this? Or film graphics students take stabs at it's credibility?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hQ-UUJPpLOM&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hQ-UUJPpLOM&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Ask Art Bell ;D

broncosteven
06-07-2009, 06:00 PM
SR-71: Now That Was Some Airplane (http://blogs.jobdig.com/wwds/2007/11/19/sr-71-now-that-was-some-airplane/)

I've been up-close-and-personal with one. :thumbsup:

My father was director of maintenance operations at Hill AFB in the late 70s/early 80s. His primary responsibility was for F16s but SR71s would make emergency stops every once in a while. I got to meet the crew and a tour of the airplane during one of these. The fuel leaking out of the airframe was completely mind-blowing.

I was also at Oshkosh one year when both an SR-71 and a Concorde were there. Favorite part of the daily airshow was the SR doing low-level passes in full afterburner... the diamond shock-wave out the exhaust was very cool.

http://www.geocities.com/kyvivek/bb04.jpg

That is awesome!

The SAC museum somewhere in or around Nebraska had a decommisioned one hanging in the atrium very close. They are simply awesome.

orinjkrush
06-07-2009, 07:59 PM
Sittin in a SR 71 cockpit was pretty interesting too. The A/S indicator was windowed so you couldn't see the top end. Mach Three PLUS and 80K PLUS. Weird controls for ARMING....yeah, cameras.

If we retired them, it's because....

El Guapo
06-08-2009, 07:11 AM
Those are awesome planes. Just imagine the possibility today as those things were first commissioned over 45 years ago.

Here's the SR spoken of above:

http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/wallpaper/index.php?file=wallpaper-17964-1024x768.jpg

elsid13
06-08-2009, 03:15 PM
Spies in the sky

Jun 4th 2009
From The Economist print edition


SPYING is a sophisticated and expensive business—and gathering military intelligence using unmanned aircraft can be prohibitively so. Predator and Global Hawk, two types of American drone frequently flown in Afghanistan and Iraq, cost around $5,000 and $26,500 an hour respectively to operate. The aircraft themselves cost between $4.5m and $35m each, and the remote-sensing equipment they carry can more than double the price. Which is why less elegant but far cheaper balloons are now being used instead.

Such blimps can keep surveillance and ordnance-guiding equipment aloft for a few hundred dollars an hour. They cost hundreds of thousands, not millions, of dollars. And they can stay in the air for more than a week, whereas most drones fly for no more than 30 hours at a time. They are also easy to deploy, because no airfield is needed. A blimp can be stored in the back of a jeep, driven to a suitable location, launched in a couple of hours and winched down again even faster.

Unlike other aircraft, blimps do not need to form a precise aerodynamic shape. This means they can lift improbable objects into the sky, such as dangling radar equipment. At altitudes of just a few hundred metres, a blimp carrying 20kg of remote-sensing electronics (including radar and thermal-imaging cameras) can identify, track and provide images of combatants dozens of kilometres away, by day or night. It can also help commanders aim the lasers that guide their missiles.

Blimps often operate beyond the range of machine-guns and rocket-propelled grenades. Even if they are hit, though, they do not explode because the helium gas that keeps them airborne is not flammable. (Engineers abandoned the use of hydrogen in 1937 after the Hindenburg, a German airship, was consumed by flames in less than a minute.) Moreover, they usually stay aloft even when punctured: the pressure of the helium inside a blimp is about the same as that of the air outside, so the gas does not rush out. Indeed, towards the end of 2004, when a blimp broke its tether north of Baghdad and started to drift towards Iran, the American air force had trouble shooting it down.

http://www.economist.com/science/tq/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13725815

OBF1
06-08-2009, 05:10 PM
The Aurora "project" is myth....atleast that is what I was told by a few engineer types, after they found out I did not have level III clearance while I worked at NASA :thumbs: