Aurora - a Famous Speculative Project

AWST Jan 29 1981
That's interesting. I had largely forgotten about that story down. I think there are a couple of typos/editing errors - altitude would be 100,000 feet not SR altitude + 100,000 feet and I suspect an extra zero has crept into the payload.

By the way - date is 1979 not 1981.
 

Attachments

  • AWST Pre-Aurora Jan 1979.jpeg
    AWST Pre-Aurora Jan 1979.jpeg
    410.4 KB · Views: 79
Last edited by a moderator:
Not sure if this has appeared on this long thread. I recall a satellite photo of what looked like a long, pulsed contrail.

"Donuts on a rope" contrails are remarkably common. They are a natural function of jetliners, no need of pulse detonation engines. Also called "contrail lobes."
 
Not sure if this has appeared on this long thread. I recall a satellite photo of what looked like a long, pulsed contrail.

"Donuts on a rope" contrails are remarkably common. They are a natural function of jetliners, no need of pulse detonation engines. Also called "contrail lobes."
It seems invidious to repeat; a scale of tens of metres maybe, tens of kilometres maybe not.
 

By the way - date is 1979 not 1981.
yes yes, but what happened to the Harassment drone w/ the Fuzz Buster and the wooden prop ? :}
The British Harassment Drone is covered in Typhoon to Typhoon. It was of course over-engineered and used bespoke kit, unlike the US one with its Fuzz buster and lawnmower engine. Last time I saw a 'Fuzz Buster' was in New Zealand in 1983. Of course, I never used it. No. Never. No, it didn't warn me of the polis speed trap in Wellington. No, not at all.

Chris
 
Not sure if this has appeared on this long thread. I recall a satellite photo of what looked like a long, pulsed contrail.

"Donuts on a rope" contrails are remarkably common. They are a natural function of jetliners, no need of pulse detonation engines. Also called "contrail lobes."
It seems invidious to repeat; a scale of tens of metres maybe, tens of kilometres maybe not.
A scale of tens of kilometers indicates that the aircraft has an issue that recurs on a very long timespan. If the aircraft was traveling at Mach 5 (or call it 3800 mph or 1.055 miles per second) and the distance between pulses is measured in miles, then the *time* between pulses is measured in seconds. Not fractions of a second, but full seconds. There is no engine operation that recurs that slow. A turbine spins many thousands of times per second; a PDWE goes *bang* many times per second. So a regular pulsation that occurs miles apart is not related to the rate things happen in an engine, but has to be related to something far, far slower. Perhaps ice building up on some structure; a jetliner going Mach .5 would go 0.1 miles per second, and a pulse every five miles would indicate that, perhaps, ice builds up for 50 seconds then breaks off and goes into an inlet or something.

A PDWE goes off on the order of once per millisecond. At Mach 5, that would be once every 0.001 miles or so. A scramjet or a rocket would have a constant-state exhaust with no pulses.
 
A turbine spins many thousands of times per second;

Uhm. Maybe an RC turbine does. ;)
125,000 RPM:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jixLhz-3vXE


Also:
At the large end of the range, the GE90-115B fan rotates at about 2,500 RPM, while a small helicopter engine compressor rotates around 50,000 RPM.

A jet engine for some sort of hypersonic vehicle would doubtless be relatively small in diameter and spin like a maniac.
 
A turbine spins many thousands of times per second;

Uhm. Maybe an RC turbine does. ;)
125,000 RPM:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jixLhz-3vXE


Also:
At the large end of the range, the GE90-115B fan rotates at about 2,500 RPM, while a small helicopter engine compressor rotates around 50,000 RPM.

A jet engine for some sort of hypersonic vehicle would doubtless be relatively small in diameter and spin like a maniac.
Yes but you said "many thousands of times per second". Even just one thousand per second is 60,000 rpms.
 
That fuel usage in real time no different than my dad’s 1974 Chrysler New Port Custom 400cu 4 barrel.
 
Now, could there be an advantage of moving a point of ignition and combustion up and down the length of a tube…perhaps with ablative inserts? This would allow propellants that would melt conventional metals, and allow a varying contrail both?

Maybe an exhaust construct that opens in a RENE…open and close to check performance. Periodic water injection…something to get a standing wave then letting it slough off…
 
Not sure if this has appeared on this long thread. I recall a satellite photo of what looked like a long, pulsed contrail.

"Donuts on a rope" contrails are remarkably common. They are a natural function of jetliners, no need of pulse detonation engines. Also called "contrail lobes."
It seems invidious to repeat; a scale of tens of metres maybe, tens of kilometres maybe not.
A scale of tens of kilometers indicates that the aircraft has an issue that recurs on a very long timespan. If the aircraft was traveling at Mach 5 (or call it 3800 mph or 1.055 miles per second) and the distance between pulses is measured in miles, then the *time* between pulses is measured in seconds. Not fractions of a second, but full seconds. There is no engine operation that recurs that slow. A turbine spins many thousands of times per second; a PDWE goes *bang* many times per second. So a regular pulsation that occurs miles apart is not related to the rate things happen in an engine, but has to be related to something far, far slower. Perhaps ice building up on some structure; a jetliner going Mach .5 would go 0.1 miles per second, and a pulse every five miles would indicate that, perhaps, ice builds up for 50 seconds then breaks off and goes into an inlet or something.

A PDWE goes off on the order of once per millisecond. At Mach 5, that would be once every 0.001 miles or so. A scramjet or a rocket would have a constant-state exhaust with no pulses.
Yes, that's more like it. My first thought was a phugoid pitch oscillation brought on by shockwaves not behaving quite as the computer predicted, and the control system reacting barely fast enough.
 
Yes but you said "many thousands of times per second". Even just one thousand per second is 60,000 rpms.

Pfff. Details, details. And what if a minute *identifies* as a second? Huh?

You should be a politician - never admit a mistake. ;)

Better still, edit your original post and claim that others have misquoted you - you might make President then!
 
I think it's scientific convention on units notation. I was told never to pluralise units abbreviations or have a space between the abbreviation and the number.

I could go on, but I'm helping my Uncle Jack off a horse...

Chris
 
Last edited:
if we are all correcting history, could we correct rpms to rpm. Thank you.
Nobody likes a grammar Nazi.
But grammar Commies? They're awesome!

giphy.webp
 
I think it's scientific convention on units notation. I was told never to pluralise units abbreviations or have a space between the abbreviation and the number.

You want rage? Show me a BBC report about "Nasa," rather than NASA. I understand it's because BbC policy is to not fully capitalize acronyms that are pronouncable. But the bBc also has a policy of referring to people based on the gender they "identify" as, yet they refuse to refer to NASA by the letters *they* identify with. GRRRR.

How does this relate to Aurora? I don't know. Hand wave something-something "Bbc journalistic integrity is as non-existent as the Aurora," or something equally non-controversial.

Or how about this: "blah blah blah uses a GPS system."

330px-Trollface_non-free.png
 
if we are all correcting history, could we correct rpms to rpm. Thank you.

I have some historical elections I'd like to correct while we're at it.
We've all been there, less alcohol will help.
Or maybe more. That might be my problem... my lifelong refusal to indulge in mind altering substances. Maybe those are what's needed to come to acceptance with the state of the world.
 
I think it's scientific convention on units notation. I was told never to pluralise units abbreviations or have a space between the abbreviation and the number.

I could go on, but I'm helping my Uncle Jack off a horse...

Chris
I still rely on my memo writing course, courtesy of the RAF.
 
I think it's scientific convention on units notation. I was told never to pluralise units abbreviations or have a space between the abbreviation and the number.

I could go on, but I'm helping my Uncle Jack off a horse...

Chris
I still rely on my memo writing course, courtesy of the RAF.
The "Raff"? ;)

Would the Raf have operated the Aurora? Would the Uk mOd have allowed the USAF to fly it from bRitish air bases? Hmmm...
 
I think it's scientific convention on units notation. I was told never to pluralise units abbreviations or have a space between the abbreviation and the number.

I could go on, but I'm helping my Uncle Jack off a horse...

Chris
I still rely on my memo writing course, courtesy of the RAF.
The "Raff"? ;)

Would the Raf have operated the Aurora? Would the Uk mOd have allowed the USAF to fly it from bRitish air bases? Hmmm...
Who knows!!
 

Or how about this: "blah blah blah uses a GPS system."
Gone well of topic. Which is nice. Maybe start a new thread like Pedantry Corner in Private Eye?

Anyway, I do love asking car salesmen what a 'heads up display' is.

Chris

You have made the news today nice interview...



cheers
 

Or how about this: "blah blah blah uses a GPS system."
Gone well of topic. Which is nice. Maybe start a new thread like Pedantry Corner in Private Eye?

Anyway, I do love asking car salesmen what a 'heads up display' is.

Chris

You have made the news today nice interview...



cheers
How bizarre. It's 1993 all over again

1) never heard of this journalist
2) have never spoken to this journalist
3) have never claimed to have seen the so-called 'Aurora' (I'm not that stupid). I don't know what I saw.
4) ROC did not track aircraft over the UK while I was a member.
5) Wasn't over Britain, was over the North Sea
5) I suspect this is a spoiler for an interview I actually did give recently.

There is something going on that I can't quite put my finger on as interest in this stuff has picked up in the last couple of weeks.

Chris
 
Last edited:

Or how about this: "blah blah blah uses a GPS system."
Gone well of topic. Which is nice. Maybe start a new thread like Pedantry Corner in Private Eye?

Anyway, I do love asking car salesmen what a 'heads up display' is.

Chris

You have made the news today nice interview...



cheers
How bizarre.

1) never heard of this journalist
2) have never spoken to this journalist
3) have never claimed to have seen the so-called 'Aurora' (I'm not that stupid) I don't know what I saw.
4) ROC did not track aircraft over the UK while I was a member.
5) I suspect this is a spoiler for an interview I actually did give recently.

There is something going on that I can't quite put my finger on as interest in this stuff has picked up in the last couple of weeks.

Chris

Curious isn't it and why now? Also with LM Skunkworks giving help to construct 'Darkstar' Mach 10 prop for TGM....and the shape funnily enough resembles what peeps (both eywitness and aerospace professionals witness over the decades)..

cheers
 
quellish said:
airrocket said:
Aurora was and is a great urban-legend manifested in the demise of the SR-71, mock-ups of some of the FDL lifting bodies and the emergence of early stealth technology. Closest we've ever got to Aurora is the X-43 and X-51. My opinion the Aurora concept has morphed into Blackswift which even today only exist in the CGI world. China will probably fly an Aurora knock-off before the US gets around to it. :(

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.

Yes there are still loose ends.

I guess you could call them UnFunded Opportunities! :)

UFOs do exist lol according to the DLR (German Aerospace Center)


cheers
 
1) never heard of this journalist
2) have never spoken to this journalist
3) have never claimed to have seen the so-called 'Aurora' (I'm not that stupid) I don't know what I saw.
4) ROC did not track aircraft over the UK while I was a member.
5) I suspect this is a spoiler for an interview I actually did give recently.
Well.
There are 2 options.
The easily explainable one is that (most) journalists are terrible people and they intentionally write poorly researched and sensationalist articles to clickbait and rack up views.
Or...somebody didn't like the interview you gave to The Sun and has prepared the field by publishing (in advance) a rubbish article to discredit the validity of your account.

There is something going on that I can't quite put my finger on as interest in this stuff has picked up in the last couple of weeks.
Top Gun: Maverick.
I don't think we're ever going to see the real deal.
 
Something else that's going on is that the world has been getting a hell of a lot twitchier since Certain Geopolitical Events that started half a year ago. It is in the US's interests that no more of these ill advised adventures take place, so *perhaps* someone might be thinking it's a good idea to reveal new weapons and recon systems to persuade anyone else currently contemplating a conquest of a neighbor that that might not be such a great idea. A hypersonic recon platform implies a hypersonic strike capability, so... shrug.
 
I could see the point if someone has turned up something new on this, but as far as I know there's nothing new to report. Occasionally I come across someone offshore who remembers it from way back in the 90s, but they usually just ask if I ever got to the bottom of it, which prompts questions from the other lads in the teashack, so I tell them the story. It usually concludes with 'I haven't a clue.' Then they take the piss, standard procedure in my business.

I haven't looked at this for 20+ years. My files are up in the attic, unopened until a couple of weeks ago after I was contacted by a journalist (who blindsided me as I thought they wanted to know about Buccaneers in the Falklands) who didn't seem too interested in the Air-to-Air Refuelling Areas of the North Sea, F-111s and KC-135Qs .

I wonder if somebody is working on a book?

Chris
 
Last edited:
Just seen this article in the Sun - I’m presuming this is the interview Chris is referring to a few posts back. Still a fascinating sighting all these years later, and great to see a (previously unseen?) sketch from 1989 by Chris himself in there.


I wonder whether the sudden spike in interest by the press has something to do with all of the Calvine photo hoo-ha that was doing the rounds recently?
 
Too many journos have obviously gotten carried away watching Top Gun 2 and somehow someone old enough to remember 1989 or (more likely) nerdy enough to know about the story thought it was very topical again.

If Aurora really was the most secretive top secret pinnacle of all secret technology development ever achieved in aviation then it flopped because it certainly was never secret. Even children's books in the early 1990s were telling readers what to look out for, today it has become such a meme it's now in a Hollywood blockbuster designed by the company who might have built the real thing.

Let's face it, if Aurora had been flying since the early/mid-1990s then Maverick's Darkstar is waaay behind the curve, he's 30 years too late to the hypersonic party and it's no wonder the old boy of prefers flying a vintage F-14A...
 

The thing about the steep triangle is that it is a hypersonic waverider, it would be too inefficient at lower speeds to have a viable operational range. Simple trigonometry of the leading-edge sweep gives you the minimum cruise Mach number (which is also the max for a conventional supersonic wing):
45 deg = tan-1 i.e. Mach 1​
63 deg = tan-1 i.e. Mach 2​
72 deg = tan-1 i.e. Mach 3​
76 deg = tan-1 i.e. Mach 4​
79 deg = tan-1 i.e. Mach 5​
etc.​

How much above that number the cruise speed can go depends on various complications.
We know that the Blackbirds were comfortable until they ran into overheating issues a bit above Mach 3. Even getting there demanded black paint to help radiate the heat. Last I looked, that "bit" was still classified. So a refresh with updated materials and improved knowledge might well extend it significantly.
We also know that the JT-11D (J58) engine intakes were a relatively safe but possibly sub-optimal design to cover such an unprecedented speed range, chosen to minimise technical risk and development time. Add in that time and a more sophisticated two-dimensional intake would be a likely outcome.
Put the two together and you get a Mach 4-ish black triangle at about the right time, still running on the same special fuel - and hence using the same special tanker - as the Blackbirds.
Sweetman, credited in the article, would have known all that perfectly well, hence his willingness to take the sighting seriously.

But was it using a Blackbird-compatible fuelling point? Might it have been not Aurora but an early HAVE BLUE stealth experiment on a special mission? Or even a plywood spoof to discredit real "black triangle" sightings being reported in the States, just as the CIA had promulgated the UFO myth over preceding decades?
 
Last edited:
It's completely possible that any SR-71/A-12 successor(s) were three-letter assets and thus, why you'd never hear anything about them.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom