Aurora - a Famous Speculative Project

[RanulfC]

Arrggghhhh.... "Donuts-On-A-Rope" again... I wonder if that phenomenon will EVER drop off the "Aurora/high-speed/Pulse-Detonation-Engine" listings as "possible" proof of something?

Well, on the OTHER hand I suppose it's always "informative" (to be nice ;D ) to see what kind of mental gymnastics people use to keep it "relevant" to the subject ;D

Randy

 

[quellish]

I think there's some value in adding this, a good Aurora Bibliography originally posted on the Skunk Works List in 1993 by a Larry Smith (http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works/v04.n038). I'm always reminded that despite the passage of time, we still know little more [of substance] today:

Ah, but we do!
Anyone interested in AURORA should read up on the TIER 3/QUARTZ/AARS program. This was running during the same period as the AURORA rumors, and many of the official references to strategic recon programs were clearly references to QUARTZ (for example, the Gen. Dugan comments). At the same time, there are still a few mentions that were clearly NOT in reference to QUARTZ, but another program.

 

[Ian33]

Arrggghhhh.... "Donuts-On-A-Rope" again... I wonder if that phenomenon will EVER drop off the "Aurora/high-speed/Pulse-Detonation-Engine" listings as "possible" proof of something?

Well, on the OTHER hand I suppose it's always "informative" (to be nice ;D ) to see what kind of mental gymnastics people use to keep it "relevant" to the subject ;D

Randy

Because there is a Pulse detonation Engine out there that produces torodial vortices. The engineers of this product would not be drawn into commenting on the 'donoughts on a rope' issue.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Because there is a Pulse detonation Engine out there that produces torodial vortices.

Is there? How certain are you?

Here's how certain *I* am... I've watched *jetliners* produce "donuts-on-a-rope." With my own two eyes. No PDE's needed.

 

[Ian33]

NASA has a "flight experiment" planned for 2001, and has designed a hybrid pulse-detonation air-breather/rocket in conjunction with US company Adroit Systems, which has tested an experimental propulsion tube. Bushnell says that such compressorless engines produce toroidal vortices, but will not comment on strange contrails associated with the "Aurora" - the much-rumoured US military replacement aircraft for the Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1997/11/26/30037/towards-hypersonic-flight.html


^^ Flight Global. 1997 article.

 

[quellish]

NASA has a "flight experiment" planned for 2001, and has designed a hybrid pulse-detonation air-breather/rocket in conjunction with US company Adroit Systems, which has tested an experimental propulsion tube. Bushnell says that such compressorless engines produce toroidal vortices, but will not comment on strange contrails associated with the "Aurora" - the much-rumoured US military replacement aircraft for the Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1997/11/26/30037/towards-hypersonic-flight.html


^^ Flight Global. 1997 article.

Well.
SINCE 1997, PDEs have been much more extensively modeled and even flight tested. There is no reason now to believe that a PDE would produce the contrails described.
And more to the point, there has never been a reason to think any kind of exotic propulsion would be the source of such contrails. As Scott pointed out, these contrails are produced by conventional aircraft regularly. You see them all the time in Southern California.

Popular Science did a pretty good article on PDEs back in 2003:
http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-space/article/2003-08/after-combustion-detonation

 

[Stargazer]

You guys may be right about the contrail thing... or maybe not. I don't see myself how AW&ST and others would have devoted such attention at the time to a phenomenon that was as common as what you described...

Speaking of PDEs, and knowing how there's been a pattern over the past 20 years of technologies being developed in both the "black" and "white" world, and considering the fact that the Rutan-based Borealis was the world's first aircraft to use a PDE in the "white" world, I wonder how many years will pass until the "black" PDE test-bed (probably earlier by a decade I'd say) is revealed in the open (if ever)...

 

[Lauge]

I don't see myself how AW&ST and others would have devoted such attention at the time to a phenomenon that was as common as what you described...

Because it makes for a good story, and sells magazine issues, possibly? :

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

 

[Michel Van]

Because there is a Pulse detonation Engine out there that produces torodial vortices.

Is there? How certain are you?

Here's how certain *I* am... I've watched *jetliners* produce "donuts-on-a-rope." With my own two eyes. No PDE's needed.

that true
I live under a Air Traffic "crossroad" (Aéroport de Liège, Maastrich, Köln-Bonn and Düsseldorf Airport)
so i see every day allot "donuts-on-a-rope." in sky

do we need a Pulse detonation Engine ?
SR-71 show that Jet engine & Ramjet engine works fine...

 

[Stargazer]

do we need a Pulse detonation Engine ?
SR-71 show that Jet engine and Ramjet engine works fine...

Sure. But that doesn't mean one shouldn't constantly try to make technological advances and explore new solutions!

 

[RanulfC]

Arrggghhhh.... "Donuts-On-A-Rope" again... I wonder if that phenomenon will EVER drop off the "Aurora/high-speed/Pulse-Detonation-Engine" listings as "possible" proof of something?

Well, on the OTHER hand I suppose it's always "informative" (to be nice ;D ) to see what kind of mental gymnastics people use to keep it "relevant" to the subject ;D

Randy

Because there is a Pulse detonation Engine out there that produces toroidal vortices's. The engineers of this product would not be drawn into commenting on the 'donuts on a rope' issue.

As folks have noted; PDW Engines and "doughnuts-on-a-rope" have pretty much NOTHING in common. Hence my comment

The PDW "demonstrator" flew alright, it powered a modified Long-EZ and if one is following the development of and understands the operations of how a PDW engine works the VERY first thing you will understand is that a PDW CAN'T EVER produce a contrail like the D-on-a-R configuration!

You point out the fact in quoting the cited article: The "toroidal vortices's" are produce during EACH "detonation" at cycles between 100 and 120 Hertz! In other words even a SINGLE "cylinder" PDW engine produces 100-to120 "toroidal vortices's" PER SECOND! Which simply means that the D-o-a-R could NOT be any type of PDW because the observed "toroidal vortices's" (which in the end is what the ENTIRE argument on the 'significance' of "toroidal" doughnuts strung along a "contrail" is based on) would NOT appear as "doughnuts" but instead as a single continuous "trail" with no appreciable 'interval' between 'detonations' hence no "doughnuts-on-a-rope"!

Though as "I" noted, watching peoples process' and mental gyrations to try and KEEP the D-o-a-R phenomanon "applicable" to discussions of advanced propulsion and/or secret aircraft programs is ALWAYS entertaining if not educational

Stargazer: You're correct of course the fact we KNOW something works should never be an excuss NOT to keep pushing the limits. On the other hand if you want to get from experiments to actual operations you have to, at some point, install an engine in an airframe and get to testing.
PDW engines are looking good for future use, but aren't ready to be installed on the next generation 787 let alone a "plane" that has supposedly been flying for a couple of decades

Randy

 

[Dew]

...because the observed "toroidal vortices's" ... would NOT appear as "doughnuts" but instead as a single continuous "trail" with no appreciable 'interval' between 'detonations' hence no "doughnuts-on-a-rope"!

While I am unconvinced with the 'd-o-a-r' as evidence...
example @ SR-71 speeds:
M3.2 is _approximately_ 1km/sec, therefore 'interval' at 120Hz would be 1km/120=~8m or ~27ft (increasing to ~10m/32ft @ 100Hz)
Up at e.g. M6 (6400km/h) the interval would be more like ~15m/49ft (~18m/58ft @ 100Hz).

 

[RanulfC]

Hmm, correct and thanks for the clarification. Probably shouldn't have used the example of a 'single-cylinder' PDW. My understanding is you need muliples and they need to be out of synch by a certain amount to create useful thrust.

Randy

 

[shockonlip]

Arrggghhhh.... "Donuts-On-A-Rope" again... I wonder if that phenomenon will EVER drop off the "Aurora/high-speed/Pulse-Detonation-Engine" listings as "possible" proof of something?

Well, on the OTHER hand I suppose it's always "informative" (to be nice ;D ) to see what kind of mental gymnastics people use to keep it "relevant" to the subject ;D

Randy

Ouch!
Thanks for being kind, I'd hate to see you when you're being nasty!

That Aurora Bib. was intended as a service to those interested, so they could run down
the better information, not as proof of anything. Just as a good bib. in a tech paper
helps (not that I hd written a tech paper).

Also, a better article on our efforts to run down what these sightings (the
better ones) were all about as far as doing our best at the time of running
down potential tech., is contained in AW&ST, Oct 28, 1991; pgs 68-69;
"Renewed Interest In Pulsed Engines My Be Linked To Black Aircraft".
We actually worked with a real PDE development team at the time at SAIC
who actually ran CFD engine run particle traces showing how the doughnuts
could form at Mach 2, and allowed us to publish them in the article.
I also had a real interesting phone conversaion with Paul Czysz where he
gave me an excellent possibility of another mechanism (see below).

As you know, pulsed propulsion cycles have been used in the past for unmanned
drones in actual military missions, so this shouldn't be a surprising development.
In fact the developer of that engine recognized the poor pressurization
of the air/fuel mixture in such engines, and a PDE elegantly and simply solves
that problem. So such a thing should not be a huge stretch.

Plus the first several sightings of whatever it was, and I personally talked
to both, discussed this pulsed engine cycle. The first guy was actually a
guy working on advanced commercial turbofans for GE., so definitely not a
propulsion neophyte. The second, Mr. D.C. Card, a retired mining engineer,
was merely sitting in his backyard one evening, with his grand kids, and
saw this interesting incident over his head (he normally liked to vue the
sky next to the Rocky Mtns at sunset and watch commercial aircraft contrails
as they are quite beautiful as the sky colors change in the evening). Anyway,
these people reported interesting details, out of the blue, no pun intended.
We had to do our best.

We also have no idea what frequency these engines (if they are PDEs), operated
on, and in fact, the very first guy talked about a very low frequency, of around
2-3 Hz. We also considered a beat frequency of multiple engines
out of synch.

Paul's idea was quite interesting. He gave us a hint of a wind tunnel, where
the volume of the model is too large, and the tunnel pulses as a result.
This is a known phenomenon. They invented slotted tunnels to solve this. Perhaps
the slots were not open. Think of a cold flowing ramjet duct perhaps, or a
closed off ramjet duct (maybe over-under config say) that is also
sucking in fuel rich exhaust from the turbo-cycle, again maybe. No proof.
Interesting things to think about though, even if there is no Aurora.

Keep thinking, I liked your technical reasoning.

Regards,

Larry Smith

 

[shockonlip]

Because there is a Pulse detonation Engine out there that produces torodial vortices.

Is there? How certain are you?

Here's how certain *I* am... I've watched *jetliners* produce "donuts-on-a-rope." With my own two eyes. No PDE's needed.

Such contrails are commonplace. I have also seen them and do NOT attribute them to PDEs.

The difference is when the contrail is laid in the sky immediately behind the aircraft.

A PDE would come out the back immediatly as doughnuts-on-a-rope (to coin Mr. Cards term -
he was watching BOTH commercial contrails and this 'thing' at the same time and observed the difference).
The assumption is that the design of the pulsed cycle (whatever it is), could even
make such a d-o-a-r contrail. The PDE's that SAIC was studying could produce such
a contrail.

The contrails you and I have described as like PDE, form over a long time, probably
due to wind shear at altitude and maybe even some rotation still in the post turbine
flow of the engine exhaust trail. They do not come out of the back of the aircraft
looking like d-o-a-r.

 

[Stargazer]

Lots of very nice technical info here. Thanks! However, I have one question: most of us refer to the PDE (Pulse Detonation Engine) while RanulfC talks about the "PDW". What is this for, and is there any difference? Or do these two acronyms refer to the same technology?

 

[dickie]

PDE = Pulse Detonation Engine

PDW or PDWE = Pulse Detonation Wave Engine

2 different concepts.

 

[shockonlip]

Thanks Stargazer.

>However, I have one question: most of us refer to the PDE (Pulse Detonation Engine) while RanulfC talks about the "PDW".
>What is this for, and is there any difference? Or do these two acronyms refer to the same technology?

Sorry for the delayed response, but I just saw your question here.

We need to be somewhat specific here to avoid confusion. Maybe that is what dickie is referring to.

At the time of the work AW&ST did with SAIC, they essentially were the same. Some of SAIC's
technical papers on this subject called them PDWE's and others mentioned PDE's, but the engines
discussed were the same.

But today, as I think of the complexity of this, and all of the engines that use detonation shocks in their mechanisms
that I've heard of and looked at, I want to say that a detonation engine (notice I did NOT say pulsed yet)
is also a detonation wave engine (again, I did not say pulsed yet), because a detonation causes a shock
wave, and a detonation wave is the shock wave created by a detonation. So kind of the beginning (detonation)
and then the result (a detonation wave propogates).

So to me, in a loose sense, the two, are the same. "Detonation Engine" says detonations are employed
(which it is understood cause detonation waves to propogate for each detonation), and "Detonation
Wave Engine" says explicitly that detonation waves are employed, which implies there are detonations
employed to create these waves. This is why I claim in a loose sense they are the same.

Then there is the word Pulsed.

Not all of these engines that employ detonations are pulsed. Some are continuous, and not pulsed,
like some forms of a detonation wave ramjet.

But I think you are really more interested in the engines that employ pulsed detonation.

The concept that a detonation is employed is critical in these engines, as that shock wave, created
by the detonation, is used to pressurize the air/fuel mixture.

Using one or more shocks to pressurize the air is of course used in all supersonic inlets today.
However, those shocks are generated by pieces of the inlet designed and shaped for that purpose.

But PDE's/PDWE's create those shocks via shock waves generated by detonations which are
either chemically generated with a detonaion fuel and a energy source, or generated by gas dynamics effects
(like in a shock tunnel). (this is not to prohibit a normal supersonic inlet from being used to pressurize
the air as well - but let's not go there for simplicity).

In the SAIC engines AW&ST wrote about it was O2 (Oxygen), and a spark plug and spark plug
firing mechanism from a car, generated the proper dE/dT (change in energy over change in time)
above the detonation threshold for O2, causing an explosion (detonation) instead of just
burning (deflagration).

There are a lot of different forms of these engines. To avoid talking about each one I know
about, I am trying to take this to fundamental common principles.

The danger these days is that these engines look different from each other, but when you take
it down to fundamental principals, there are similarities, which I have tried to discuss above.

So for our purposes, I would say they are the same.

 

[Stargazer]

Thank you very much for such a clear explanation!

 

[Triton]

Conjectural artist's impression of Aurora by Kollect Pty. Ltd.

Source:
http://www.kollected.com/#437879

 

[Stargazer]

Beautiful! But here it looks like an unmanned variant, doesn't it?

 

[Tuomasn]

Beautiful! But here it looks like an unmanned variant, doesn't it?

Unless you notice the two hatches on top with (ejection seat) markings...

 

[RanulfC]

Arrggghhhh.... "Donuts-On-A-Rope" again... I wonder if that phenomenon will EVER drop off the "Aurora/high-speed/Pulse-Detonation-Engine" listings as "possible" proof of something?

Well, on the OTHER hand I suppose it's always "informative" (to be nice ;D ) to see what kind of mental gymnastics people use to keep it "relevant" to the subject ;D

Randy

Ouch!
Thanks for being kind, I'd hate to see you when you're being nasty!

Oh that's easy... When I'm being "nasty" I make more "phtthhhttt!" and "Nah-Nah-Nah!" noises along with adding a lot of butty-face icons...

;D

Also, a better article on our efforts to run down what these sightings (the
better ones) were all about as far as doing our best at the time of running
down potential tech., is contained in AW&ST, Oct 28, 1991; pgs 68-69;
"Renewed Interest In Pulsed Engines My Be Linked To Black Aircraft".
We actually worked with a real PDE development team at the time at SAIC
who actually ran CFD engine run particle traces showing how the doughnuts
could form at Mach 2, and allowed us to publish them in the article.
I also had a real interesting phone conversaion with Paul Czysz where he
gave me an excellent possibility of another mechanism (see below).

I'll have to look that one up, thanks. Though on the CFD, I was under the impression that the majority of D-o-a-R sightings were below 30,000ft which would make Mach-2 kinda hard on an airframe??

Paul's idea was quite interesting. He gave us a hint of a wind tunnel, where
the volume of the model is too large, and the tunnel pulses as a result.
This is a known phenomenon. They invented slotted tunnels to solve this. Perhaps
the slots were not open. Think of a cold flowing ramjet duct perhaps, or a
closed off ramjet duct (maybe over-under config say) that is also
sucking in fuel rich exhaust from the turbo-cycle, again maybe. No proof.
Interesting things to think about though, even if there is no Aurora.

Hmm, I recall Bill Sweetman mentioning a similar phenomon with ejector ramjets with multiple nozzle ejectors. At rest and low speed the pressure would slowly build up within the ramjet duct and periodicly release with a low frequency rythm.

Randy

 

[Gridlock]

Laugh if you will, but interested to hear thoughts about this photo. Obviously there's no detail (see Trevor Paglen's latest project...) but it does certainly appear to be a very large white aircraft and the photographer, who has also using a large telescope visually, called it an XB-70-a-like.

If X24-C flew in the 60s (high M6!) and there's still nothing but rumour and a disputed squadron patch to show for it the mind boggles about just what the US taxpayer is paying for and when they might get to take a look...

 

[Stargazer]

Where the heck can you see a white XB-70 lookalike here, let alone an aircraft, in this blurry picture? Either you've shrunk the pic way too much or you are very, very imaginative...

 

[archipeppe]

The aircraft shape that is barely seen in this very blurry photo (I agree with Stargazer) could be anything, ranging from to Boeing 737 (the usual Area 51 shuttle) to any other big aircraft we could (or would) at least imagine.

Anyaway if X-24C indeed existed (and it is still to proof, at least to me) it should have flown not before the very end of '70s or early 80's but absolutely not in the '60s!!!!

 

[Orionblamblam]

Where the heck can you see a white XB-70 lookalike here, let alone an aircraft,

You have to zoom in quite a bit. But once you do, and throw in some "image enhancement," you can clearly see the plane. It's not a B-70, though.

 

[Gridlock]

Hangar 18 (IIRC) is the big, big one towards the centre right. Out in front of it is a hazy white line - if you have nothing but the photo to go on then yeah, 707 or 737 or whatever would be an obvious guess. But the photographer states it resembled the XB-70, except with an SR-71-style nose. A description we've seen elsewhere, I think.

Obviously his telephoto lens wasn't as good as his telescope but I do like to think of this picture as being perhaps the only black-world aircraft photographed that is not currently declassified - in the public domain, at least. Who knows who is sitting on what out of patriotism or fear or what have you.

If nothing else this photo stands as testimony to the effectiveness of the Federal Government owning 86% of Nevada...

 

[royabulgaf]

One thing that puzzles me with with these super secret technology, and secret alien technology, and secret Nazi technology, is how come we never see any of it? If it is so good, why did aircraft technology plateau in the 1980s at an unsurprising level? Where is the anti-gravity? Where are themoon bases? Bottom line: Any of this "secret" technology would revolutionize the aerospace industry, and incidentally make a fortion for the company that marketed it. We can all rattle off the names of the aircraft companies that were merged away or simply closed their doors. Do you think these companies would willingly take the secrets to their corporate graves?

Just something i wanted to get off my chest.

 

[Orionblamblam]

One thing that puzzles me with with these super secret technology, and secret alien technology, and secret Nazi technology, is how come we never see any of it?

One arguement I've seen fairly often is that we *have* seen it. Numerous books have put forward the notion that all the technology advances since WWII - fiber optics, IC chips, composite materials, genetic engineering, etc. - come from either reverse engineering crashed aliens ships, or through some sort of technology assistance.

Personally, the notion offends me.

Just as I find one of the most offensive lines in movie history to be in Close Encounters: near the end when the FLight 19 crew steps off the ship, having age not in the slightest despite having been abducted 30 years prior, Character A says: "Einstein was right."
Character B goes on to piss me off by saying "Einstein was probably one of them."

Basically, the idea is that humans are too stupid to come up with these things on our own. Or that humans are too stupid to realize that these inventions are the results of long trains of developments that can be traced back decades, not notions that sprung out of thin air.

 

[bobbymike]

Actually it looks like a business jet.

 

[quellish]

Obviously his telephoto lens wasn't as good as his telescope but I do like to think of this picture as being perhaps the only black-world aircraft photographed that is not currently declassified - in the public domain, at least. Who knows who is sitting on what out of patriotism or fear or what have you.

Oh, there are photos of black aircraft out there in the public domain. There are a handful of photos of Flankers and Fulcrums that operate out of Groom Lake that have been published.

 

[Gridlock]

Actually it looks like a business jet.

Then you underestimate the size of the adjacent hangar, or have a more opulent taste in business travel than I.

 

[Stargazer]

Then you underestimate the size of the adjacent hangar, or have a more opulent taste in business travel than I.

What is actually more striking about this hangar is not so much its width or length as it HEIGHT.
A stealth blimp, perhaps?

 

[archipeppe]

Personally, the notion offends me.

Basically, the idea is that humans are too stupid to come up with these things on our own. Or that humans are too stupid to realize that these inventions are the results of long trains of developments that can be traced back decades, not notions that sprung out of thin air.

I quote Scott's thought, word by word....

 

[Stargazer]

I was just kidding, archipeppe!
But "thin air" is quite appropriate when dealing with blimps, isn't it?

 

[shockonlip]

...
If X24-C flew in the 60s (high M6!) ...

Ah, ... no.

X-24C was never built. They were supposed to mod the X-24B into it, but it was not done.
And X-24B flew from the early to mid 1970's. So X-24C could not have flown in the 60's.

Actually, X-24C flew for the first time in 1986 ... inside a computer!!
It was quite significant too!!
At the time it was the first time in the history of aerodynamics that the "ultimate
of the ultimate" hypersonic viscous flow calculation was done, namely a full
Navier-Stokes calculation of the flowfield, over a complete 3-D airplane configuration.
(John D. Anderson - Hypersonic And High Temperature Gas Dynamics, First Ed. - 1989; pg 354)
"Navier-Stokes Solution for a Complete Re-Entry Configuration", Journal of Aircraft, vol 23, no 12; 12/1986; pg 881-886
by Shang, J.S. and S. J. Scherr

 

[flateric]

yes, I have these...

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Of course, X-24C flew in the late 1970s, but then when it exceeded the speed of light going round the sun anticlockwise it went back in time.
;D

 

[Stargazer]

Of course, X-24C flew in the late 1970s, but then when it exceeded the speed of light going round the sun anticlockwise it went back in time.

... by only three decades, and crash landed in Roswell. The USAF markings had been burned off by the sun, the pilot's dead body had started evaporating and had shrunk, and that was the start of all the small gray (grey) alien stories.