Aurora - a Famous Speculative Project

“AURORA” was an airborne reconnaissance cryptonym, not an acronym
Any documented proof? I'm just asking for a very skeptical friend of mine that does not want to be identified...

I hear you loud and clear. However, when you go back in time and scrutinize some very early highly graded officers interviewed in that subject, at the start of this AURORA craze, they would answer questions using an article, "the" preceeding the code word AURORA. This language slippage led me to believe that AURORA could well be a program acronym, not just a cryptonym. Which leads to another couple of questions: (1) can a cryptonym be an acronym (and of course, vice versa)? (2) case this has already been observed / documented, which past program would support any such hypothesis?

A.
Cryptonyms are never supposed to be acronyms, or indeed anything that would give away information about the program. Think about the cryptonym OXCART for the Lockheed A-12. Cryptonyms are usually single words, and are often themselves classified. Nicknames are usually two words, and are always unclassified. A good example would be the SR-71, which had the classified cryptonym EARNING and the unclassified nickname SENIOR CROWN. The first word in a nickname generally indicates the sponsoring agency or marcom, and the second word is supposed to be selected from an approved list of random words. In practice, these rules are frequently violated. Don't even get me started on acronyms, which can be quite tortured indeed.
 
I really don't hold a strong (or even semi-strong) opinion either way, I'm just asking for supporting evidence for any associated claims.

How is Buz Carpenter's direct testimony not strong supporting evidence?
Dunno - it would be nice if you could/would quote chapter and verse of said testimony verbatim, and also add some short background on who said Buz Carpenter is. I am admittedly a complete agnostic on this dispute, that's why I enthusiastically jumped in with both feet :).
 
Last edited:
I did provide a direct quote. I also named the source of that quote. You can probably find the episode on YouTube or something.
 
I did provide a direct quote. I also named the source of that quote. You can probably find the episode on YouTube or something.
The only thing looking like a direct quote from Mr. Carpenter (I can only assume you're referring to https://airandspace.si.edu/support/wall-of-honor/col-adelbert-buz-carpenter, since you haven't provided any clarification on who he is) in your postings I could discern is “AURORA looked like a reconnaissance program but, in fact, [represented] a lot of production money that was to be used for the B-2.” There is clearly absolutely *NOTHING* in this non sequitur statement at all that makes any proclamation on whether Aurora is a name or an acronym.
 
Last edited:
OK, fine. Rather than ask you to read my earlier posts, I will simply repeat some of the information I provided in them.

AURORA was a secret funding channel for the Advanced Technology Bomber program. The name was created by Col. Adelbert W. “Buz” Carpenter, who managed special access Air Force programs at the Pentagon. In a 2020 interview for Science Channel’s Black Files Declassified, Carpenter explained, “AURORA looked like a reconnaissance program but, in fact, [represented] a lot of production money that was to be used for the B-2.”

That's a direct quote, and I have named the source of that quote. Here is a link to that program:

AURORA is not an acronym. It is a cryptonym. Cryptonyms are never supposed to be acronyms, or indeed anything that would give away information about the program. Cryptonyms are usually single words, and are often themselves classified. Nicknames are usually two words, and are always unclassified. The first word in a nickname generally indicates the sponsoring agency or marcom, and the second word is supposed to be selected from an approved list of random words. An acronym is an abbreviation formed from the initial letters of other words and pronounced as a word.
 
Thank you, that clarification really helped. The only remaining question is whether there is actually any official US government website/link explicitly providing that explanation/policy.
 
Last edited:
Thank you, that clarification really helped. The only remaining question is whether there is actually any official US government website/link explicitly providing that explanation/policy.
There are many, they can be found with a Google search.
 
Deleted some posts which contravened forum guidelines on behaviour.

Please note quellish is a very longstanding member of the forum whose real life identity is known and whose research credentials have been demonstrated many times over many years.
 
Deleted some posts which contravened forum guidelines on behaviour.

Please note quellish is a very longstanding member of the forum whose real life identity is known and whose research credentials have been demonstrated many times over many years.
Hello Paul,

could you then please identify him? It's literally midnight in my timezone and I'd really like to save some effort.

Thanks and best wishes,

Martin Bayer

P.S.: my professional credentials can be found at https://www.linkedin.com/in/martinjbayer/

Note that I don't hide behind some silly pseudonym.
 
Check my message in private conversation Martin.

Users are free to use their personal names or not. Credibility on the forum comes from post history as much as your job title. My own experience with Aeronautical Engineering ended after one year of university.
 

Martin Bayer

Note that I don't hide behind some silly pseudonym.

Neither quellish nor I are in any way hidden behind our "silly pseudonyms." That is kind of the entire gag. We have such vast footprints on the interwebs as the result of spending decades establishing our credentials as subject matter experts in the history of aerospace projects and the "black world" that it is quite amusing when forum readers don't actually know who we are.

I understand your frustration. I really do and if I seem to be taking the piss, just a wee bit, it's not intended to be malicious.
 

Martin Bayer

Note that I don't hide behind some silly pseudonym.

Neither quellish nor I are in any way hidden behind our "silly pseudonyms." That is kind of the entire gag. We have such vast footprints on the interwebs as the result of spending decades establishing our credentials as subject matter experts in the history of aerospace projects and the "black world" that it is quite amusing when forum readers don't actually know who we are.

I understand your frustration. I really do and if I seem to be taking the piss, just a wee bit, it's not intended to be malicious.
My apologies for my intemperate overreaction.
 
Last edited:

Martin Bayer

Note that I don't hide behind some silly pseudonym.

Neither quellish nor I are in any way hidden behind our "silly pseudonyms." That is kind of the entire gag. We have such vast footprints on the interwebs as the result of spending decades establishing our credentials as subject matter experts in the history of aerospace projects and the "black world" that it is quite amusing when forum readers don't actually know who we are.

I understand your frustration. I really do and if I seem to be taking the piss, just a wee bit, it's not intended to be malicious.
Well I know who Whisperstream and Quellish are and I highly value their knowledge, expertise and opinions.

So now that I have your attention: do you think a hypersonic aircraft that more or less follows the popular description of the so-called Aurora was flown somewhere in the ‘80’s and/or ‘90’s?
 
An Aurora from a book of my childhood, Timelines: Flight, Fliers and Flying Machines by David Jefferis, 1994.
Aurora was firmly in the consciousness by then to appear in a spread of aircraft of the future, including the YF-23, LHX, Commanche, Grumman-Sukhoi SSBJ, the Boeing 2707 SST (oddly) and a strange Yak-38 crossover.

This one looks to be based on Bill Sweetman's speculative design.
 

Attachments

  • TFL Aurora.png
    TFL Aurora.png
    223.3 KB · Views: 110
The CIA reading room has many media articles from the 80s. Quite useful, really,
 
So why would a newspaper article be classified for 27 years?
Obviously, the article itself was never classified. Anyone wishing to read it had only to look up a copy of that issue of the Washington Post online or at a library. Something written or stamped in the upper right corner of the CIA's photocopy of the article was classified, and has been redacted from the released copy.
 
The CIA reading room has many media articles from the 80s. Quite useful, really,
CIA collects news stories with anything even remotely related to their interests. Pretty much any article about the intelligence community or military was saved, which is probably what happened here
 
The CIA reading room has many media articles from the 80s. Quite useful, really,
CIA collects news stories with anything even remotely related to their interests. Pretty much any article about the intelligence community or military was saved, which is probably what happened here
The intelligence referred to in the Term "Central Intelligence Agency" may not really mean what smart and reasonable laypersons might think...
 
Last edited:
Not sure if this has appeared on this long thread. I recall a satellite photo of what looked like a long, pulsed contrail. The suggestion at the time was that it might be a hypersonic plane or missile, possibly powered by a then-fashionable aerospike engine, perhaps even the elusive Aurora.

I did wonder about the geographical scale of the pulses and which of the three possibilities - contrail, cloud or photoshop - might be the truth of the matter. Was any verdict ever arrived at?
 
Not sure if this has appeared on this long thread. I recall a satellite photo of what looked like a long, pulsed contrail. The suggestion at the time was that it might be a hypersonic plane or missile, possibly powered by a then-fashionable aerospike engine, perhaps even the elusive Aurora.

I did wonder about the geographical scale of the pulses and which of the three possibilities - contrail, cloud or photoshop - might be the truth of the matter. Was any verdict ever arrived at?
IIRC, vortices affecting an otherwise ordinary vapour trail were given as an explanation for the knotted string appearance.
 
Not sure if this has appeared on this long thread. I recall a satellite photo of what looked like a long, pulsed contrail. The suggestion at the time was that it might be a hypersonic plane or missile, possibly powered by a then-fashionable aerospike engine, perhaps even the elusive Aurora.

I did wonder about the geographical scale of the pulses and which of the three possibilities - contrail, cloud or photoshop - might be the truth of the matter. Was any verdict ever arrived at?
IIRC, vortices affecting an otherwise ordinary vapour trail were given as an explanation for the knotted string appearance.

A remarkable thing if true, a perfect meteorological vortex running horizontally without any significant wiggle, on a continental scale. Would have taken many hours, even days, to develop and propagate over such a distance, unless it was already there when the plane flew down its axis like it was fixed to a zipwire. The "safe" explanation no doubt, but believable?
 
Last edited:

A remarkable thing if true, a perfect meteorological vortex running horizontally without any significant wiggle, on a continental scale. Would have taken many hours, even days, to develop and propagate over such a distance, unless it was already there when the plane flew down its axis like it was fixed to a zipwire. The "safe" explanation no doubt, but believable?
Scraping the precambrian layers of my memory here, but vortices generated by the aircraft itself, I think. Not meteorology.

My personal hypothesis is that a hypersonic PDE aircraft was flown in at least demonstrator form but proved to be impractical because the engine itself did long-term permanent damage to the airframe ,or required heavy maintenance, or just didn't deliver the advantages that it promised on PowerPoint. Nobody talks about PDEs now, it's all helical combustion, and mostly in relation to expendable missiles.

Come to think of it, we don't see much of the big expansion ramps integrated into the airframe that were a feature of renderings of the X-30, or on the X-43. More recent concepts for vehicles that are capable of sustained hypersonic flight and are reusable (Blackswift, SR-72, Valkyrie II, HVX) don't have that feature or Mach 10 performance targets. Are these the dogs that didn't bark?

(Mind you, I'd take the HVX with a grain of salt - it's presented as a generic concept and they're pretty coy about the exhaust configuration.)
 
Last edited:
...vortices generated by the aircraft itself, I think. Not meteorology.

My personal hypothesis is that a hypersonic PDE aircraft was flown ... the engine itself did long-term permanent damage to the airframe

Yes, that makes more sense, thank you.

The observed period of oscillation (seconds to minutes) is not really consistent with vortex creation by any means, unless perhaps the craft suffered from an unexpected phugoid instability, but then vortices would not need to come into it, just the bumpy ride.

Pulse detonation engines would presumably have suffered the same issues as the German WWII pulsejet-powered manned prototypes; shaken 'til their vision blurred and they could no longer read the instruments. Still, if the V1 could survive an hour or so, perhaps a modern cruise missile could too.

Seems to me that pre-cooling the compressed intake air would be a better bet. Oh, wait... ;)
 
Last edited:
One of the things seen in tornadoes are odd horizontal vortices. 2011 Tuscaloosa had them. I also seem to remember doughnuts-on-a-rope spotted on other contrails IIRC.
 
One of the things seen in tornadoes are odd horizontal vortices. 2011 Tuscaloosa had them. I also seem to remember doughnuts-on-a-rope spotted on other contrails IIRC.
Blobs measured in a few tens of metres maybe. Blobs measured in a few tens of kilometers, maybe not.
 
Shot in the dark here (and possibly referenced already upthread, not sure), but I remember hearing something about a university seismological research group in southern California working out a way to track supersonic aircraft by spotting the shockwave on seismometers over a sufficient area - kind of land-based SOSUS for planes.

As I remember it, they detected a signature from something absolutely hauling ass over the Mojave at either ridiculous speed or with an unusual shockwave pattern. The Air Force explained it as being the result of an atmospheric anomaly bouncing sonic booms from training out at sea, I think, the research group accepted that and nothing much was ever heard from that project again. But it makes you wonder...
 
Shot in the dark here (and possibly referenced already upthread, not sure), but I remember hearing something about a university seismological research group in southern California working out a way to track supersonic aircraft by spotting the shockwave on seismometers over a sufficient area - kind of land-based SOSUS for planes.

As I remember it, they detected a signature from something absolutely hauling ass over the Mojave at either ridiculous speed or with an unusual shockwave pattern. The Air Force explained it as being the result of an atmospheric anomaly bouncing sonic booms from training out at sea, I think, the research group accepted that and nothing much was ever heard from that project again. But it makes you wonder...

 
I have even heard SANTA CLAUS

No idea if this SANTA CLAUS thinggy is a joke, but HAVE NOT was a real code name, related to a hypersonic boost glide project in the late 1980s or early 1990s first mentionned in an ANSER paper. Needless to say, HAVE NOT was, by its linguistic nature, rather difficult to querry (HAVE BLUE, for instance, was a so unusual linguistic combination, it became easily scrappable for match ups).

A.
 
Shot in the dark here (and possibly referenced already upthread, not sure), but I remember hearing something about a university seismological research group in southern California working out a way to track supersonic aircraft by spotting the shockwave on seismometers over a sufficient area - kind of land-based SOSUS for planes.

As I remember it, they detected a signature from something absolutely hauling ass over the Mojave at either ridiculous speed or with an unusual shockwave pattern. The Air Force explained it as being the result of an atmospheric anomaly bouncing sonic booms from training out at sea, I think, the research group accepted that and nothing much was ever heard from that project again. But it makes you wonder...

Yeah, that's the one. I can't quite figure out how to get at the full paper, but that's right around the timeframe and area where the alleged Aurora platform would've been tested.

Also, re: SANTA CLAUS, I've heard (from some dubious and admittedly fringe/conspiratorial sources) that that was the codeword for use over open channels to refer to sighting of a UFO.
 
Last edited:
Mach 4, 200,000-Ft. -Altitude Aircraft Defined

Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio—Mach 4, 200,000-ft.-a|titude
aircraft that could be a follow-on to the Lockheed SR-71
strategic reconnaissance vehicle in the 1990s has been defined
by the Air Force Aeronautical Systems Div. and Lockheed.
Studies on the concept have identified only what could be
done. Neither Strategic Air Command nor any other organization
involved in strategic reconnaissance has issued a requirement
statement for such a vehicle. The study data will remain viable
for use in the future. however.

In addition to flying about Mach 1 faster and about 100,000 ft.
higher than the SR-71 for added survivability, the vehicle would
be able to relay its imagery or radar intelligence data via satellite
to a ground station in real time so they could be recorded and
observed instantaneously. The satellite relay would mean that
the aircraft’s post-mission destination or even its survivability
out of the target area need not be a pivotal factor in obtaining
the reconnaissance data successfully.

The current SR-71 remains a viable strategic reconnaissance
platform and planners/engineers here believe Strategic Air
Command or intelligence organizations have not shown strong
interest in a follow-on because of the cost of developing the new
aircraft and the somewhat marginal increase in survivability that
the additional speed and altitude could guarantee.
The only current threat to the SR-71 is the radar-guided
Soviet SA-5 surface-to-air missile, with an altitude capability of
at least 100,000 ft.

Development of a new engine for the vehicle would be the
major cost element. The engine envisioned would be a turboramjet.
It would use an existing turbine engine core, such as the
Pratt & Whitney’J58 used on the SR-71, with the ramjet wrapped
around it. Both Pratt & Whitney and General Electric have
estimated that development of such an engine could require $1
billion.

Basic aircraft structure would be a Lockalloy material, an
aluminum/beryllium combination.

The mission on which the size of the new aircraft was based
involves takeoff from the U. S. and flight with aerial refueling to
the vicinity of a reconnaissance target. There, the aircraft would
be refueled and capable of high-altitude/high-speed flight for
about a 4,400 mi. mission. The aircraft would have a payload of
about 40,000 lb. of reconnaissance equipment.

Exterior appearance of the vehicle would be delta-like configuration
similar to the Martin Marietta X-24B lifting body.

in addition to this version that could be flying as early as the
1990s, Lockheed also identified a higher-capability SR-71
follow-on that could be viable after 2000. This aircraft is envisioned
to have a Mach 7, 250,000-ft.-altitude capability using
supersonic cruise ramjet (scramjet) propulsion.

Advances in technology to support hypersonic flight, including
reconnaissance vehicles, are being pursued by both the Flight
Dynamics Laboratory and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration.

A number of approaches have been taken to hypersonic
cruise flight vehicles, but the activities have been reduced
considerably because of lack of a mission requirement for
hypersonic aircraft designs.
AWST Jan 29 1979
 
Last edited:
Basic aircraft structure would be a Lockalloy material, an aluminum/beryllium combination.
According to Wikipedia, "Lockalloy is an alloy that consists of 62% beryllium and 38% aluminum. It was used as a structural metal in the aerospace industry because of its high specific strength and stiffness. The alloy was first developed in the 1960s by Lockheed. The material was used in the YF12 and LGM-30 Minuteman missile systems. In the 1970s production difficulties limited the material to a few specialized uses and by the mid 1970s Lockalloy was no longer commercially available."
However other Al-Li alloy products are still available.
 
Last edited:
One of the things seen in tornadoes are odd horizontal vortices. 2011 Tuscaloosa had them. I also seem to remember doughnuts-on-a-rope spotted on other contrails IIRC.
Blobs measured in a few tens of metres maybe. Blobs measured in a few tens of kilometers, maybe not.

Speaking of which---It looks like turbulence studies may have been simplified:

https://phys.org/news/2022-08-physicists-uncover-dynamical-framework-turbulence.html
Now, physicists from the Georgia Institute of Technology have demonstrated—numerically and experimentally—that turbulence can be understood and quantified with the help of a relatively small set of special solutions to the governing equations of fluid dynamics that can be precomputed for a particular geometry, once and for all.

Have not heard of HAVE NOT ;)
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom