Aurora - a Famous Speculative Project

[Gridlock]

...
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

Got my timelines confused :-\

Interested CFD stuff, thanks. Although if CFD means the end of Mach 22-capable wind tunnels then the world's a poorer place

Tall hangars could mean dirigible or they could mean dorsal-mounted exotica..

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Tall hangars could mean dirigible or they could mean dorsal-mounted exotica..

It could mean a lot of things but most likely mating for piggy back flight. Just the sort of thing you need to do to launch various test aircraft. Having climbed into the pit in the carpark at Edwards where the X-1 was loaded under the B-29 and seen the crazy three point elevator (in the same carpark) there is something to be said for a crane and dorsal carriage and launch of a test vehicle.

The white object looks a lot like a 737 which from a distance has a reasonably pronounced tail uplift. Which is far more likely than a block II B-70 casually left out in the sun for any passing photog.

 

[Gridlock]

The white object looks a lot like a 737 which from a distance has a reasonably pronounced tail uplift. Which is far more likely than a block II B-70 casually left out in the sun for any passing photog.

Agreed - my point is not that LOOK EVIDENCE THEIR MUST BE A LIFTING BODY MACH 12 AURORA but instead that if you believe the witness then this is a photo of a secret project; it's as good as it gets, which apparently is pretty poor.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Tall hangars could mean dirigible or they could mean dorsal-mounted exotica..

It could mean a lot of things but most likely mating for piggy back flight.

It could also mean, "Hey, let's fuck with the Russians. We only need the hangar to be 60 feet tall, but we can make it 120 feet tall for only an extra million dollars, and the Russians will blow a billion dollars trying to figure out what the deal is."

Ahem:

 

[quellish]

It could also mean, "Hey, let's fuck with the Russians. We only need the hangar to be 60 feet tall, but we can make it 120 feet tall for only an extra million dollars, and the Russians will blow a billion dollars trying to figure out what the deal is."

Or it's just a big hangar, like the other big hangars.

 

[The Artist]

My immediate impression on looking at that picture is that the aircraft was either a DC-9 or a C-9. That would indeed make it a huge hangar.

 

[quellish]

My immediate impression on looking at that picture is that the aircraft was either a DC-9 or a C-9. That would indeed make it a huge hangar.

It's a big hangar, but not unusual. There is a hangar at Edwards that is of a similar size. Part of Hangar 18 at Groom Lake is dedicated storage, TACIT BLUE and Bird of Prey were stored there. A lot of it is apparently office space.

 

[Lauge]

It could also mean, "Hey, let's fuck with the Russians. We only need the hangar to be 60 feet tall, but we can make it 120 feet tall for only an extra million dollars, and the Russians will blow a billion dollars trying to figure out what the deal is."

Or it's just a big hangar, like the other big hangars.

To paraphrase Sigmund Freud: "Sometimes, a Big Hangar is just a Big Hangar" :

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

 

[flateric]

It could also mean, "Hey, let's fuck with the Russians. We only need the hangar to be 60 feet tall, but we can make it 120 feet tall for only an extra million dollars, and the Russians will blow a billion dollars trying to figure out what the deal is."

damn, Scott, it was my idea! ;D

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1985.msg17115.html#msg17115

Talking about Groom Lake - didn't you ever thought that, having in a pocket half of a dozen (OK, dozen) classified projects, government just trying to show much bigger entertaiment to our spies, building new hangars and imitating weird cover-up activity - while half of Groom stuff just moving shuttle flights from Mojave and sitting there whole week ...say, drinking bear. Imitation of something larger happening, that's what I mean.

If we will build giant hangar in Severodvinsk, this fact itself will not definitely mean that we are building Super Typhoon armed with 100 Bulavas, but will cause deep thoughts at NSA office.

 

[flateric]

..

 

[mz]

No idea what that is, flateric. LARC did some NASP stuff back in 1990, flutter analysis, maybe it's related to that.

 

[Gridlock]

I wonder what that hole in the centre is, if not just a part of the test setup. Shame there's not also 3 matching holes on the vertices or we could get all excited and start pulling out Belgian photos

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Here's what's really in "Hangar 18"

My source, who wishes to remain anonymous, tells me he heard it from the guy who shares a barracks room with the guy who sweeps the hangar every morning.

B)

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

Tall hangars could mean dirigible or they could mean dorsal-mounted exotica..

It could mean a lot of things but most likely mating for piggy back flight.

It could also mean, "Hey, let's fuck with the Russians. We only need the hangar to be 60 feet tall, but we can make it 120 feet tall for only an extra million dollars, and the Russians will blow a billion dollars trying to figure out what the deal is."

Ahem:

Who is this Jasper?

 

[Orionblamblam]

Who is this Jasper?

Jasper Maskelyne, a stage magician in the employ of the British military during WWII. Using his skills, he and his team made Alexandria vanish, among other tricks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasper_Maskelyne

Knowledge of what a small group of motivated people can do in the field of trickery makes automatically believing in the fantastical less sensible.

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

Who is this Jasper?

Jasper Maskelyne, a stage magician in the employ of the British military during WWII. Using his skills, he and his team made Alexandria vanish, among other tricks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasper_Maskelyne

Knowledge of what a small group of motivated people can do in the field of trickery makes automatically believing in the fantastical less sensible.

Great man. He should have gotten more recognition.

Thanks.

 

[Vulcan652]

The Aurora legend certainly took on a life of it's own.
By the mid-90s Aurora was supposedly an operational cryogenically fueled hypersonic reconnaissance aircraft meant to replace the SR-71.
Even a very small number of such aircraft would leave a huge logistical footprint, and that never materialized. The strategic reconnaissance mission of the SR-71 had long been orphaned, and other than for a few specific needs the tide was turning in favor of persistent surveillance rather than quick reaction.

That said, there is still considerable anecdotal information that suggests a small test force of very fast and/or unusually propelled aircraft were being flown at the time. There was also a role for such an aircraft in SAC's planning at the time, supporting the B-2 in prosecuting strategic relocatable targets (i.e. locating mobile ICBMs and telling B-2s where the haystack is).

It's a fascinating set of mysteries.

According to the Area 51 historian Peter Merlin there may have been a high-speed test aircraft flown out of Groom Lake that used multiple types of propulsion and later crashed.

And quellish, do you think you would be able to recover your unfinished Aurora pages from those old hard drives you mentioned some time ago?

Can you please point me to where I can get more information about this "high-speed test aircraft flown out of Groom Lake that used multiple types of propulsion and later crashed"? Is it in Peter Merlin's book about X Plane crashes, or do I need to look elsewhere? Thanks in advance.

 

[quellish]

Can you please point me to where I can get more information about this "high-speed test aircraft flown out of Groom Lake that used multiple types of propulsion and later crashed"? Is it in Peter Merlin's book about X Plane crashes, or do I need to look elsewhere? Thanks in advance.

You can always ask him on the DLR forum:
http://www.dreamlandresort.com/team/peter.html
I do not think it is in the X-Plane crashes book, but I have not gotten a copy yet

In 1993 (or so) there were rumors that a "high supersonic" aircraft crashed on the Nevada ranges, and was not manned. I was never able to get any more information or confirmation.

EDIT: Found one of Peter's posts that mentions it:
http://www.dreamlandresort.com/forum/messages/33320.html
http://www.dreamlandresort.com/forum/messages/33305.html

 

[Tuomasn]

Peter also mentioned it in http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread360970/pg1 (scroll near the end of the page). As to "more information", what has been said is essentially all the information we have.

 

[Vulcan652]

Can you please point me to where I can get more information about this "high-speed test aircraft flown out of Groom Lake that used multiple types of propulsion and later crashed"? Is it in Peter Merlin's book about X Plane crashes, or do I need to look elsewhere? Thanks in advance.

You can always ask him on the DLR forum:
http://www.dreamlandresort.com/team/peter.html
I do not think it is in the X-Plane crashes book, but I have not gotten a copy yet

In 1993 (or so) there were rumors that a "high supersonic" aircraft crashed on the Nevada ranges, and was not manned. I was never able to get any more information or confirmation.

EDIT: Found one of Peter's posts that mentions it:
http://www.dreamlandresort.com/forum/messages/33320.html
http://www.dreamlandresort.com/forum/messages/33305.html

Thanks very much for the info and links, quellish. That's fascinating, and it'll be interesting to see what comes to light in due course... if anyway! I noticed in the first post Peter Merlin attributes the Aurora line item to the B2 development programme. I know there's been a lot of debate over this one. At this stage, is that thought to be the most likely explanation? My belief was that the B2 was no longer in the black world by that time?

 

[Vulcan652]

Peter also mentioned it in http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread360970/pg1 (scroll near the end of the page). As to "more information", what has been said is essentially all the information we have.

Thanks for the info Meteorit. Fascinating stuff!

 

[Stargazer]

I noticed in the first post Peter Merlin attributes the Aurora line item to the B2 development programme. I know there's been a lot of debate over this one. At this stage, is that thought to be the most likely explanation? My belief was that the B2 was no longer in the black world by that time?

The B-2 was no longer "black" as early as 1989. The "Aurora" mention dates back only to 1992, if memory serves. It definitely could NOT have been the B-2.

 

[firepilot]

I am quite sure the Aurora mention predates 92, and was around 87 or 88 timeframe. I think Bill Sweetmans Aurora book was from 92 though

 

[Tuomasn]

Thanks very much for the info and links, quellish. That's fascinating, and it'll be interesting to see what comes to light in due course... if anyway! I noticed in the first post Peter Merlin attributes the Aurora line item to the B2 development programme. I know there's been a lot of debate over this one. At this stage, is that thought to be the most likely explanation? My belief was that the B2 was no longer in the black world by that time?

From http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,7886.msg79559.html#msg79559:

[quote author=quellish]
AURORA was PE 0101119F, which translates roughly to "Strategic, Basic Research, Unknown R&D Category, Military Sciences, Serial 19, Air Force" according to my secret decoder ring (http://homepage.mac.com/quellish/bd2/pe2.html) . It appeared only in 1986 budget documents, and then disappeared as a line item/independant PE code. For FY 1987 it was projected to eat $2.2B, which was a large increase over the 1986 request. It is true that the money was never allocated to that PE code, however other budget activities received a boost of about that amount for both years.
ALMOST the same thing happened with J-UCAS recently. In 2005 the Air Force pulled out of the program, and the Navy was slotted to have the Air Force's money, real and projected, allocated to their effort. That happened in the budget request, but in closed session Congress removed an equivalent amount. Those amounts appeared in the Air Force's black hole line items for those years.
Gee, I wonder what for! There's more to THAT story...

Now, the idea that AURORA was a line item for B-2 competition funding does not (at this time) hold water given the public information available. For one, the B-2 was no longer classified as in competition at that point, it was entering into procurement or advanced development. For another, the budget simply does not operate that way. A Program Element is what it says it is - in this case basic research for a strategic air force system that was filed under airborne recon. They don't hide money in bogus program element codes, for that they have the catch all "Selected Activities" and the like.
A determined researcher could now audit most of the B-2's budget history and find out if during those years there was an influx of those amounts. I have not yet had the time to do so, but it may solve this mystery once and for all.

What was AURORA? The PE code decoder used above is based on updated PE code information from the late 90s, it may not be 100% accurate for a 1986 PE code but should be close (it calls the PE code for the ACM during that time basic research as well!) . AURORA was a strategic program, apparently in it's early stages. It is very likely that it had something to do with airborne reconnaissance. The funding profile is unusual, it went from $80M to a requested $2.2B a year. This may indicate that USAF was taking over the program from another owner. It was still a little too early to be funding for AARS/QUARTZ/TIER 3, though it is possible that it was part of USAF's participation in that program or one of its precursors.
[/quote]

I would say Peter has been mistaken in this case.

 

[quellish]

Thanks very much for the info and links, quellish. That's fascinating, and it'll be interesting to see what comes to light in due course... if anyway! I noticed in the first post Peter Merlin attributes the Aurora line item to the B2 development programme. I know there's been a lot of debate over this one. At this stage, is that thought to be the most likely explanation? My belief was that the B2 was no longer in the black world by that time?

I've discussed this with Peter a bit, so let me clarify...
AURORA was definitely not B-2 competition funding (which was Ben Rich's comment in his book). Peter's source indicated that AURORA was actually funding for B-2 program support/logistics - which would make more sense. This would be something like test support infrastructure for the program, like AIRSAR development or things of that nature. In 1986/87 B-2 fabrication was getting started and they were gearing up for the testing program.

The AURORA name dates back to 1985/1986 when the PE number appeared. By that time there had already been rumors of more than one high speed Lockheed program. The PE number appeared filed under "Airborne Reconnaissance", so given the amounts requested it was inferred that this was an expensive, high speed replacement for the SR.
There was never a solid case for replacing the SR though, especially not with a faster, more expensive aircraft. In the late 1970s the KH-11 KENNAN satellite changed the strategic reconnaissance game. Previous to that satellites had limited utility because they would drop film every X months - hardly a solution for timely strategic reconnaissance. With KH-11, images were transmitted in real time/near real time. This made the SR much less relevant.

Given that, it would be difficult to justify a high speed reconnaissance aircraft in that climate. There are very few missions where the speed (and expense) would be justified. Getting in front of bombers to find mobile targets would be one of those.

Of course, the faster you go, the harder the job of reconnaisance gets. At high supersonic mach numbers it gets a lot more difficult to take photos or use a SAR. Temperature, turbulence, ionization, all work against you. Interestingly enough, during the late 90s at least two major aerospace companies seemed to be working on some of these problems.

 

[shockonlip]

I am quite sure the Aurora mention predates 92, and was around 87 or 88 timeframe. I think Bill Sweetmans Aurora book was from 92 though

Allow me to help.

The title of the document is:

"Procurement Programs (P-1); Department of Defense Budget For Fiscal
Year 1986; February 4, 1985"

So the document is dated Feb. 4, 1985.

There's no page number, but you want:
Exhibit P-1;
"Strategic Reconnaissance" Section; "Other Aircraft" Category.

Line No. 28: Aurora
Ident Code: B
No Procurement (dollars) in FY 1984
No Procurement in FY 1985
In 1986: No number under 'quantity' but 80.1 million
dollars under 'cost'.
In 1987: No number under 'quantity' but 2,272.4 million
dollars under 'cost'.

Line Nos. 29 and 30 are both TR-1/U-2 Procurements with aircraft quantities
written in under the 'quantity' columns.

Regards.

 

[quellish]

I have been working to refine the decoding of PE codes, and as a result I have what should be a more accurate description of the AURORA PE code now:
Strategic Forces, Offense, Unknown Activity Code/Application, Serial 19, Air Force

The changes are a result of finding more information on how PE codes are structured. There are still knowledge gaps (for the activity code segment of a PE code, I only have information that allows for decoding R&D programs), but this should be helpful to someone.

 

[Gridlock]

What is that 'offense' designator generally used for?

You don't get much more strategically offensive than a £2bn dollar B2 so I can see how this might support the infrastructure/testing theory.

 

[quellish]

What is that 'offense' designator generally used for?

You don't get much more strategically offensive than a £2bn dollar B2 so I can see how this might support the infrastructure/testing theory.

Well, for Strategic major force programs, the second two digits in the number can represent Offense or Defense. A defensive system might be early warning or BMD, offensive would be just about anything else. NORAD air defense interceptors were Defense, for example.
SR squadrons were filed as Offense:
0101133F SR-71 Squadrons
As were KC-135s:
0101142F KC-135 Squadrons
And Harpoons (these would be USAF Harpoons for B-52s)
0101124F Harpoons:
And environmental programs:
0101853F Environmental Conservation

And yes, so were B-2s and a lot of other things.

 

[Gridlock]

Thanks - enlightening as ever.

They could have saved the Internet a lot of wasted speculation (that ATS thread was shocking) if they just printed SENIOR CORNFLAKE or whatever by mistake instead

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

 

[Orionblamblam]

They could have saved the Internet a lot of wasted speculation (that ATS thread was shocking) if they just printed SENIOR CORNFLAKE or whatever by mistake instead

Keeping the idiots in a lather about fantasy programs probably has value. It doesn't cost the DoD doodly squat, but those who spend their lives digging into a program that probably doesn't exist just might've spent their efforts instead on digging into programs that *do* exist. This goes not only for goofballs on the internet, but also the US mainstream media and foreign intelligence services (but I repeat myself).

Keeping doubt in the Soviets minds about the existence of a Mach 6 operational aircraft means that the Soviets would devote more effort towards countering that aircraft than if they had no doubt that the Aurora *doesn't* exist. Most of that effort would be wasted time and funds. What positive results they get can then be promptly stolen by the CIA. Ta-da.

 

[Stargazer]

They could have saved the Internet a lot of wasted speculation (that ATS thread was shocking) if they just printed SENIOR CORNFLAKE or whatever by mistake instead

Keeping the idiots in a lather about fantasy programs probably has value. It doesn't cost the DoD doodly squat, but those who spend their lives digging into a program that probably doesn't exist just might've spent their efforts instead on digging into programs that *do* exist. This goes not only for goofballs on the internet, but also the US mainstream media and foreign intelligence services (but I repeat myself).

Keeping doubt in the Soviets minds about the existence of a Mach 6 operational aircraft means that the Soviets would devote more effort towards countering that aircraft than if they had no doubt that the Aurora *doesn't* exist. Most of that effort would be wasted time and funds. What positive results they get can then be promptly stolen by the CIA. Ta-da.

Gosh. We have found Tom Clancy's successor!

 

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Keeping doubt in the Soviets minds about the existence of a Mach 6 operational aircraft means that the Soviets would devote more effort towards countering that aircraft than if they had no doubt that the Aurora *doesn't* exist.

I agree. Similiar tactics can be employed even with programs that do exist. For example, saying that the space shuttle will significantly reduce launch costs. It so obviously wasn't true that the Soviets were convinced it must have a military purpose and so they spent billions of roubles on Buran!

Of course what makes this even funnier is that congress was actually the intended party to be misled, so that funding would be approved. Confusing the Soviets was an added bonus ...

 

[Stargazer]

Whether there was an aircraft corresponding to Aurora remains to be seen. However, I would like to share with you these images found on the What If forum of a splendid Thunderdart model completed reworked with more realistic and stealthy air intakes. Now see what the modeler has to say about it, especially the part i put in bold type:

[quote author="General Melchet"]It follows on from the Aurora I did earlier and is basically another study of the hypersonic Thunderdart strategic recon element of the concept. I have acquired some drawings showing a very different engine and tail arrangement on this particular version and have modified the model accordingly. I wasn't happy with the podded engines plonked on top of the rear fuselage and thought that the idea of blended intakes,buried air breathing engines, more highly raked tail fins, underwing fins and a revised undercarriage would be more suitable to the design. (...)

The model was on show at Telford and attracted a lot of positive comments from folks, including some US aircraft workers hanging around the USAF table who had heard of certain 'projects' being undertaken back in the eighties. (...) A couple of ex US aerospace chaps I spoke to said that they didn't realise that a kit of this particular aircraft was available, where could they could get the kit from and just how did they get the information about the engine design .................spooky [/quote]


More pictures and explanations here: http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,30447

 

[Matej]

Very nice model! It has a few absurd solutions (such as the extremely big/unnecessary side cockpit glass), but in this case it doesn't matter. It was built to look cool and that was well done.

 

[flateric]

I bought SR-75 from Testors without XR-7 just because I thought that SR-75 shape at least was something that appeared in AWST...

 

[fireflash]

Hi chaps, glad you like my effort and have to agree that some of the design features of the kit are way off target but it made for an interesting project. As for the SR-75 element I finished the Italeri model earlier this year in a fictitious USAF scheme. Both of these were on display at the recent Telford Scale Model World show and garnered a lot of attention. The guys who were enquiring about the models were former US aerospace engineers, (though they wouldn't say what areas they were specialized in!) and wondered where I had got the information for the engine layout on this particular version from!....

Thanks for kind comments,

Andy



Here's the SR-75/XR7 combo, this one has the ludicrous podded turbofans plonked rather unthoughtfully on the rear fuselage completely negating the idea of any stealth properties spectacularly. I plan to replace it with another couple of modified versions soon....

And for size comparison along side my Italeri YF-12A....

 

[aliensporebomb]

A patch from 51 area Special Projects Flight Test Squadron . I think the red after wizard is strange .

Hello all.

Finally SOMEONE noticed that besides myself. Overhead plan view of a nice looking a/c I suspect. Speculative fiction or real bird?

Speaking of nice looking aircraft, my hats off to the modeler at the end of this thread. Stunning! My models from days of yore looked like really bad kites that have impaired functionality.

I'll introduce myself. This has long been a topic of interest since 2/14/89 when I saw two previously unacknowledged stealth VS/TOL prototype hovering over a field in Biscay, Minnesota (my post about them has been floating around the internet for years, I know it was at Glenn Campbell's old site at the very least).

I've got a stack of magazines about this (Steve Douglass' Wired magazine article, Popular Mechanics, Popcomm) and of course read avidly Dan Q's excellent website before it sort of stopped being maintained and the even older Aurora website. But I digress.

At any rate, I'll be on here and lurking and learning.

 

[shockonlip]

Hi chaps, glad you like my effort and have to agree that some of the design features of the kit are way off target but it made for an interesting project.
...
Here's the SR-75/XR7 combo, this one has the ludicrous podded turbofans plonked rather unthoughtfully on the rear fuselage completely negating the idea of any stealth properties spectacularly. I plan to replace it with another couple of modified versions soon....

And for size comparison along side my Italeri YF-12A....

Welcome!

I previously posted some of your efforts here on this forum:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,11722.0.html

I admire your work, and also loved your 'production' B-70A !!

The late famous John Andrews of Testors was the designer of the SR-75/XR-7 pair.
I think he intended the podded engine pair on the top back of the XR-7 to
be his interpretation of PDE's (Pulsed Detonation Engines). But no matter, they
can be whatever the modeler intends them to be. Your modification looks
very interesting!

We have a number of cool never built designs documented on this forum that
would be wonderful to model.

Some of the Republic hypersonic concepts, the Convair Super Hustler and FISH
versions, and others.

Maybe you'll decide to take a shot at these sometime. If not, no problem.

A big welcome to you!!