Aurora - a Famous Speculative Project

[Dew]

It's not like you can fit oversized cargo just because you enlarge the fuselage, those bigger things would still need to enter/exit the aircraft at some point.

Ah I think you mis-understand - once up to cruising altitude the fuselage extensions afford the cargo some extra elbow room and allow it to kick back and relax

 

[CiTrus90]

Well, I have to eat my hat. NASA does indeed operate 2 USAF C-5C aircraft: serials 68-0213 and 68-0216.
Albeit, not with "chipmunk cheeks".

C-5C Space Cargo Modified

Still, it's a pattern seen in much of what Schratt writes/wrote. There are some tidbits of information that are real, like for example the THEME CASTLE name, mixed with full-on fantasy stuff.

Ah I think you mis-understand - once up to cruising altitude the fuselage extensions afford the cargo some extra elbow room and allow it to kick back and relax

Oh, I thought they just opened the windows for the elbow room, my bad!

 

[quellish]

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/lockheed-c-5c-space-cargo-transportation-system-scts.12260/

 

[Q-nimbus]

I disagree with there being no evidence for the so called RQ-180 in the strongest terms. There are three photo’s of an unknown UAV that fit the description, one of which was taken near contested area’s. While that doesn’t prove there’s an RQ-180 flying around, it definitely shows there is an operational UAV flying around that we don’t know about.

There has never surfaced a picture of a classified hypersonic plane, and there has only been one eye witness testimony that is somewhat credible, or at least can not be easily dismissed.

 

[Dynoman]

Aurora funds were allotted for Senior Peg (Lockheed/Rockwell) and Senior Ice (Northrop) and their fly-off competition towards the ATB contract.

The initial SR-71 replacement was ISINGLASS (terminated circa 1968), then Advance Aerodynamic Reconnaissance System (terminated circa 1970), were two boost glide systems proposed by the CIA that resulted in no funding for a prototype aircraft. This program was given to the NRO, who had much larger funds available, but ultimately had no interest in the concept as the direction of their thrust was in space-based reconnaissance systems. Much of the interest in high speed aircraft, particularly TSTO and SSTO, fell under purview of the USAF.

 

[Ninja]

There has never surfaced a picture of a classified hypersonic plane, and there has only been one eye witness testimony that is somewhat credible, or at least can not be easily dismissed.

Phones are very widely available, so taking a photo of a mysterious aircraft wouldn't be hard in today's times. Taking photos of mysterious aircraft back in the 80's or 90's would have been more difficult since not everyone had a camera on them. Also because of the internet, it allows for photos to be widespread (no way the Air Force is taking down every article that has an picture of that Stealth drone). Even if you did take a photo of an mysterious aircraft back then, you wouldn't have a lot of places to share it. You could share it to an Aviation magazine but I don't know the likelyhood of them publishing a story about such thing.

 

[quellish]

Aurora funds were allotted for Senior Peg (Lockheed/Rockwell) and Senior Ice (Northrop) and their fly-off competition towards the ATB contract.

The AURORA PE code was never funded, so it could not have allocated funds to the ATB competition. The AURORA PE code was also for FY 86 and 87, which was LONG after any ATB competition.

 

[quellish]

There has never surfaced a picture of a classified hypersonic plane, and there has only been one eye witness testimony that is somewhat credible, or at least can not be easily dismissed.

Which eye witness are you referring to here?

"AURORA" was associated with several distinct phenomena reported by a number of observers:

- Triangular aircraft with a diamond shaped lighting pattern, larger than F-117s seen with it (AWST 3/9/92, 10/1/90)

- Pulsing roar sound, sometimes with a sound described as "air rushing through a big tube". (AWST 12/18/89, 10/1/90, 5/11/92)

- Object or point of light (sometimes pulsing) in the sky, often moving unusually fast (AWST 12/18/89, 10/1/90, 5/11/92)

- Contrails or exhaust that were "sausage links" or "donuts on a rope" or "honey dripper", sometimes accompanied by pulsing roar (AWST 12/18/89, 10/1/90, 5/11/92, 7/6/92)

- Sonic booms with no attributable source, which triggered seismic activity (AWST 5/11/92, various others)

What is notable about the above is that the various phenomena were described by different observers very consistently and were often co-occurring. For example, the pulsating point of light with the pulsing roar, etc. The pulsing roar sound is the most consistent phenomena observed.

The pulsing point of light with pulsing roar observations were very consistent. Many different observers described almost exactly the same thing. The only notable differences reported were how the sound was described. Some heard a high pitched sound ("air rushing over / through a big tube") in addition to the pulsing roar.

The early contrail / exhaust observations were also consistent and exclusive to California and Nevada. Almost all of them thought the object creating the trail was at low altitude. After articles on the "donuts on a rope" contrails were published the observations being reported were much less consistent and were geographically more distributed. "Donuts on a rope" contrails were being reported all over the country (AWST 7/6/92).

Contrails that match the descriptions provided by observers are quite common. In Southern California they can be seen almost every day as airliner contrails degrade/deform due to atmospheric effects.

The sonic booms are not notable just because their source was not known. The sonic booms triggered seismic effects which were measured and analyzed - and the booms were also co-occuring with other phenomena. The seismologists were studying how to use seismic effects to track the Space Shuttle (and later SR-71) and happened across the "mystery booms" during their work. They observed the pulsing sound, etc. while tracking the booms (AWST 5/11/92). Mysterious booms on their own are not compelling.

Since the USGS "mystery boom" articles and papers were published there have been 3 different independent analysis of the data: The 2002 paper I linked earlier, a study done by Lincoln Labs for USAF, and a separate study by a sonic boom expert. I have only seen 1 of the 3 studies but I hope to have the others eventually. I am very curious about the Lincoln Labs study as from what I understand conclusions were reached by looking at only 1 incident (rathar than the 5 or more recorded).

While the "triangular aircraft" is interesting and did co-occured with other phenomena, I have learned to take such (visual) observations with a very large grain of salt.

Here I am using AWST articles as reference because they are relatively easy for the reader to find, read, and reach their own conclusions. There were many more reports of these phenomena than were presented in AWST. The majority of the observers that I was able to contact were unaware of the AWST coverage and of the "AURORA" rumors.

I disagree with there being no evidence for the so called RQ-180 in the strongest terms. There are three photo’s of an unknown UAV that fit the description, one of which was taken near contested area’s. While that doesn’t prove there’s an RQ-180 flying around, it definitely shows there is an operational UAV flying around that we don’t know about.

I never said there was "no evidence", I stated that there was more evidence for AURORA than for the RQ-180 at this point, and I do stand by that. The phenomena I listed above are not all of the "evidence" of "AURORA" or any hypersonic aircraft program from that period.

There are 3 photos of aircraft with a flying wing configuration. Unfortunately this configuration is very generic - if you want to make a 4-spike aircraft, it will end up looking like that. The original ATB design, the LM LRS-B concept, Polecat, Tier III, and many others share this configuration. The shape shown in the photos does not tell us much, and there is no real reason to connect it to an "RQ-180". There isn't even a good reason to assume it is a UAV.

AWST has on at least one occasion backed away from some of their claims about the "RQ-180" :

https://x.com/AvWeekGuy/status/1190379680924225536?s=20

But we do have an RQ-180 thread, and any further discussion etc about that should be held there.

 

[martinbayer]

Phones are very widely available, so taking a photo of a mysterious aircraft wouldn't be hard in today's times. Taking photos of mysterious aircraft back in the 80's or 90's would have been more difficult since not everyone had a camera on them. Also because of the internet, it allows for photos to be widespread (no way the Air Force is taking down every article that has an picture of that Stealth drone). Even if you did take a photo of an mysterious aircraft back then, you wouldn't have a lot of places to share it. You could share it to an Aviation magazine but I don't know the likelyhood of them publishing a story about such thing.

There was a period in the late last century when AvWeek was not shy about discussing more or less speculative projects.

 

[publiusr]

I looked forward to Detroit spy reports on cars....there has been a falling away...a pessimism. Musk looks to perfect Starship---but things felt more positive in the 1980's. I can't put my finger on it.

 

[CiTrus90]

In the hope that this can be of interest to the discussion, here's a bit more insight (from cia.gov) that can explain why the reconnaissance mission is the most plausible explanation for an "Aurora", with the rationale being put into the context of 1966 and looking at the coming 5, 10 and 15 years into the future.





And a couple more interesting pages with scrubbed references:
1 - airborne platforms in early development stages or forecasted to enter inventory in the years from 1970 to 1975


2 - inter-relations of various aerodynamic reconnaissance vehicles


The need to obtain a survivable recon system persevered even after ISINGLASS was terminated, with more studies funded with an eye towards achieving a quick reaction strategic recon asset capable of penetrating the defenses of the Soviet bloc in the 1975 to 1980 time period.

 

[TMA1]

Those redacted boxes are tantalizing. Also never heard of Isinglass II.

 

[Ninja]

May I ask what ISINGLASS is?

 

[Byeman]

Well, I have to eat my hat. NASA does indeed operate 2 USAF C-5C aircraft: serials 68-0213 and 68-0216.
Albeit, not with "chipmunk cheeks".

C-5C Space Cargo Modified

NASA does not operate them. The Air Force does. They have occasionally supported NASA (by delivering spacecraft to the launch site) maybe 5 times since the 80's. But it is for delivering DOD payloads to the launch sites. But mostly they are just part of the normal C-5 fleet.

 

[Dew]

Those redacted boxes are tantalizing. Also never heard of Isinglass II.

It's likely the distinction is between 'early' GD studies of '64-'65 and the MCAIR effort thereafter. Now, how & when Rheinberry fits into this...

 

[Byeman]

And I would also hazard to say that the X-37B might be a successor, overlapping some of the capabilites an "Aurora" might have had.

Just no.
a. It can only carry 500lbs of equipment (which also has to include the support structure). Hardly enough for a surveillance system. This mass would also have to include transmitter and antenna for downlinking the data.
b. It is hasn't flown in any surveillance orbit. Most inclinations were less than 50 degrees.

 

[Dew]

May I ask what ISINGLASS is?

Yes, you may

 

[Byeman]

Actually...never.

The THEME CASTLE link to the C-5 was something Micheal Schratt (self professed military aviation historian and mistery aircraft expert) came up with.

You can find more "information" about what this supposed aircraft and its mission are here on this page.
Here's an excerpt about it:

Mind the fact that NASA does not operate the C-5 Galaxy [correction NASA operates 2 C-5Cs aircraft of the USAF], same for the CIA (claimed as the user of the third airframe in another part of the article), nor are there any C-5s with the referenced tail numbers.

But just using a bit of logic, one could ask themselves what the point of adding side extensions to the fuselage would be, since neither the frontal access ramp, nor the rear one, appear to be changed in Schratt's drawing and description of the C-5 THEME CASTLE variant.
It's not like you can fit oversized cargo just because you enlarge the fuselage, those bigger things would still need to enter/exit the aircraft at some point.

again, Just no.

No such aircraft as the "THEME CASTLE".

The C-5 SCM modification was to do that exactly. They have modified rear doors, removed the upper seating area aft of the wing and moved the aft pressure bulkhead.

 

[Dynoman]

It's likely the distinction is between 'early' GD studies of '64-'65 and the MCAIR effort thereafter.

My thought on at least one of the missing data blanks prior to ISINGLASS, was the Alpha Draco (MDAC Model 122B) boost glide rocket with reconnaissance payload. Three successful launches from CCAS in 1959. It's research was very valuable to ISINGLASS and a reconnaissance payload variant of the Model 122B was compared to ISINGLASS during a CIA comparative analysis.

 

[CiTrus90]

Byeman, is there really a need to sound so confrontational?

NASA does not operate them. The Air Force does. They have occasionally supported NASA (by delivering spacecraft to the launch site) maybe 5 times since the 80's. But it is for delivering DOD payloads to the launch sites. But mostly they are just part of the normal C-5 fleet.

Would you have preferred the term "NASA has operated them/NASA did operate them"? I'm not an English native speaker, so I recognize that "supported" might have been the proper term to pick here.
Still, I wrote "NASA does indeed operate 2 USAF C-5C aircraft" pointing at the fact that the aircraft are actually USAF ones.

again, Just no.

No such aircraft as the "THEME CASTLE".

The C-5 SCM modification was to do that exactly. They have modified rear doors, removed the upper seating area aft of the wing and moved the aft pressure bulkhead.

If you could take a moment to read what I've written, instead of just telling me how wrong I am, you could notice that that's exactly what I'm saying: there's no link between THEME CASTLE and the C-5Cs.
And the modifications claimed by Schratt are not the ones present on the C-5Cs.

Just no.
a. It can only carry 500lbs of equipment (which also has to include the support structure). Hardly enough for a surveillance system. This mass would also have to include transmitter and antenna for downlinking the data.
b. It is hasn't flown in any surveillance orbit. Most inclinations were less than 50 degrees.

ORS-5 is 140kg/226 lbs. I understand it looks at near-space, rather than the "ground", but I wouldn't posit beyond the technical capabilities of today's technology to come up with remote sensors in the same weight class that could do that or collect other kinds of intelligence (which is not necessarily IMINT).
I wouldn't expect that the state of the art of sensors like, just to say one, SAR imaging to have remained stuck at the 11000kg of the SIR-C.

But as I said, it's something that I "hazard to say".
It's my belief, I don't have to convince anyone and you can tell me I'm wrong.

 

[Byeman]

I think the recon mission is the one that makes the most sense for an "Aurora".
Putting it into the context of its time, when satellites weren't as present/persistent as today, having an asset that could be deployed in hours and different trajectories offered its advantages.

Nuclear strike with such a platform wouldn't really offer much over contemporary ICBMs.
Conventional strike, as a Prompt Global Strike predecessor? Again, I don't think that's something that would make much sense. If you were to use such an important platform to conduct a single conventional strike, the implications would be that said target is extremely important and is a well defended one. If you are striking this sort of enemy, you are most likely going to face a strong retaliation that will, in all probability, devolve in a nuclear exchange.

Then again, even as a recon platform this thing would only be able to take a snapshot of a certain location at any given time. Things may or may not happen during an overpass.
It would be a one trick pony. Extremely expensive at that, but pretty much unstoppable.

Maybe such a platform was meant to substitute for satellites in case of all out war. If satellites started to get taken out, having this sort of recon asset would make sense.
And maybe that's why it's still classified today. Not because of the technology involved, but because it's a back-up plan, something whose true worth would come out only at desperate times.

No, again.

Such a platform doesn't work for overflight. Still vulnerable to SAMs.
And most importantly, imaging systems don't work at hypersonic speeds. Lenses can't handle the heat nor is it feasible to image through the heat

 

[Byeman]

1. Would you have preferred the term "NASA has operated them/NASA did operate them"? I'm not an English native speaker, so I recognize that "supported" might have been the proper term to pick here.
Still, I wrote "NASA does indeed operate 2 USAF C-5C aircraft" pointing at the fact that the aircraft are actually USAF ones.


2. ORS-5 is 140kg/226 lbs. I understand it looks at near-space, rather than the "ground", but I wouldn't posit beyond the technical capabilities of today's technology to come up with remote sensors in the same weight class that could do that or collect other kinds of intelligence (which is not necessarily IMINT).
I wouldn't expect that the state of the art of sensors like, just to say one, SAR imaging to have remained stuck at the 11000kg of the SIR-C.

But as I said, it's something that I "hazard to say".
It's my belief, I don't have to convince anyone and you can tell me I'm wrong.

1. NASA has nothing to do with the ownership or operations of the C-5C. It is all USAF. Built buy USAF for USAF requirements. The USAF did use them to transport a few NASA satellites (Hubble, ISS Node 1, ISS Lab module, and AXAF).

2. It is looking at the equivalent of stars and not detailed imaging. Again, also ignoring the orbit coverage. SAR takes power and antenna size for resolution.

 

[martinbayer]

May I ask what ISINGLASS is?

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/search/519300/?q=isinglass&o=relevance

 

[Ninja]

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/search/519300/?q=isinglass&o=relevance

So pretty much Aurora's predecessor? Also pretty cool find from the people here, each day I learn something new here.

 

[Ninja]

And most importantly, imaging systems don't work at hypersonic speeds. Lenses can't handle the heat nor is it feasible to image through the heat

Im pretty sure they would have developed new technology to help with that, just how they develop new technology to help with every challenge in a new platform/system. It feels like youre taking youre anger out on everyone here too.

 

[Byeman]

Im pretty sure they would have developed new technology to help with that, just how they develop new technology to help with every challenge in a new platform/system. It feels like youre taking youre anger out on everyone here too.

There isn't any "new" technology to help with that. Just like atmospheric distortion can't be eliminated.

I have no "anger". Just don't like people posting misinformation.

 

[Ninja]

There isn't any "new" technology to help with that. Just like atmospheric distortion can't be eliminated.

I have no "anger". Just don't like people posting misinformation.

No one is posting misinformation. Also with an multi-billion dollar budget, im sure the Americans found a way to make an hypersonic plane work. Bold of you to assume to no new tech is made just because we don't know about it

 

[Byeman]

Aurora funds were allotted for Senior Peg (Lockheed/Rockwell) and Senior Ice (Northrop) and their fly-off competition towards the ATB contract.

The initial SR-71 replacement was ISINGLASS (terminated circa 1968), then Advance Aerodynamic Reconnaissance System (terminated circa 1970), were two boost glide systems proposed by the CIA that resulted in no funding for a prototype aircraft. This program was given to the NRO, who had much larger funds available, but ultimately had no interest in the concept as the direction of their thrust was in space-based reconnaissance systems. Much of the interest in high speed aircraft, particularly TSTO and SSTO, fell under purview of the USAF.

And with the NRO and CIA dropping airborne systems in 1974, the money went away for follow on systems. The USAF had no money for follow ons.

 

[Byeman]

No one is posting misinformation.

There is a crap load of it on this thread.
An example is any posts on modified C-5 for "aurora" or another aircraft. The mods were for carrying a large container and it needed more vertical clearance and so it was carried behind the wing box. Most other containers are loaded in the front.

 

[CiTrus90]

1. Would you have preferred the term "NASA has operated them/NASA did operate them"? I'm not an English native speaker, so I recognize that "supported" might have been the proper term to pick here.
Still, I wrote "NASA does indeed operate 2 USAF C-5C aircraft" pointing at the fact that the aircraft are actually USAF ones.


2. ORS-5 is 140kg/226 lbs. I understand it looks at near-space, rather than the "ground", but I wouldn't posit beyond the technical capabilities of today's technology to come up with remote sensors in the same weight class that could do that or collect other kinds of intelligence (which is not necessarily IMINT).
I wouldn't expect that the state of the art of sensors like, just to say one, SAR imaging to have remained stuck at the 11000kg of the SIR-C.

1. NASA has nothing to do with the ownership or operations of the C-5C. It is all USAF. Built buy USAF for USAF requirements. The USAF did use them to transport a few NASA satellites (Hubble, ISS Node 1, ISS Lab module, and AXAF).

2. It is looking at the equivalent of stars and not detailed imaging. Again, also ignoring the orbit coverage. SAR takes power and antenna size for resolution.

I feel like I'm having a stroke.
How does that differ from what I wrote?

There isn't any "new" technology to help with that. Just like atmospheric distortion can't be eliminated.

Optical systems are not the only things that can be used to conduct surveillance.

And with the NRO and CIA dropping airborne systems in 1974, the money went away for follow on systems. The USAF had no money for follow ons.

So NASP had no potential military applications looked into and didn't receive any funding, correct?
From Hypersonic Technology for Military Application

There is a crap load of it on this thread.
An example is any posts on modified C-5 for "aurora" or another aircraft. The mods were for carrying a large container and it needed more vertical clearance and so it was carried behind the wing box. Most other containers are loaded in the front.

In the previous page a respected user and author, Hood, talked about THEME CASTLE in a dismissive way and rightly so.
Quellish, another more than respected user, responded pointing out that THEME CASTLE is an airlift program, with no known connections to C-5 or hypersonic programs.
Another user then, Adventurer104, calmly asked what connection is there between the C-5 aircraft and THEME CASTLE name.
I then replied that the link is a FICTIONAL story that Micheal Schratt came up with.

NOBODY is arguing that the C-5s are used to transport "Aurora" or anything of the sort, and actually all of us are dismissing the notion.
So if you want to point out the "disinformation" in this thread, feel free to do so, but at least make an effort to read what is actually being said, please.

Also, this is the Theoretical, Fake and Generic Projects section, so I think a bit of leeway is a prerogative of this space, but I'll gladly remove anything the moderators and the owner of the site deem necessary to.

 

[Byeman]

I feel like I'm having a stroke.
How does that differ from what I wrote?

Very different. NASA did not "operate" or "support" any C-5

 

[Byeman]

Optical systems are not the only things that can be used to conduct surveillance.

The only reason for high speed airborne surveillance would be optical. RF surveillance needs loitering

 

[Byeman]

Potential applications does not equate to feasible or viable applications

 

[Ninja]

Ok now youre just making circles.

 

[quellish]

The only reason for high speed airborne surveillance would be optical. RF surveillance needs loitering

No, radar based reconnaissance and target acquisition is a viable role for high speed airborne reconnaissance in addition to optical reconnaissance.

As far as optical reconnaissance there were several organizations working on solving the problems of optical reconnaissance for hypersonic vehicles in the 1980s. At least one made significant progress (for a specific application).

 

[Byeman]

No, radar based reconnaissance and target acquisition is a viable role for high speed airborne reconnaissance in addition to optical reconnaissance.


As far as optical reconnaissance there were several organizations working on solving the problems of optical reconnaissance for hypersonic vehicles in the 1980s. At least one made significant progress (for a specific application).

And put a large target on the vehicle

40 years ago, still not solved. there would be more information available on this if it were solved. It would have other applications.

 

[Ninja]

And put a large target on the vehicle.

Weren't we just talking about hypersonics?

 

[Byeman]

Weren't we just talking about hypersonics?

Yes, but any vehicle using radar is going to announce itself and provide a beacon.

 

[quellish]

Yes, but any vehicle using radar is going to announce itself and provide a beacon.

Low probability of intercept radars are a thing.

 

[CiTrus90]

Very different. NASA did not "operate" or "support" any C-5

NASA hitched a ride on USAF C-5Cs...more appropriate?

The only reason for high speed airborne surveillance would be optical. RF surveillance needs loitering

As written by Quellish "radar based reconnaissance and target acquisition is a viable role for high speed airborne reconnaissance in addition to optical reconnaissance.".

The SR-71 for example, employed a side looking radar and a synthetic aperture radar. They didn't slow down to use them as far as I know.

I also seem to recall having found a specific dtic paper on solving the optical apertures issues at hypersonic speeds some time ago. I'll try to dig that up in the next few days, but unfortunately can't guarantee much.
But still, optics are not necessarily the system of choice.

Yes, but any vehicle using radar is going to announce itself and provide a beacon.

Before using a radar could become an issue, the thermal signature of the vehicle would have already been noticed by the right sensors.
The survivability here would be mostly provided by the speed, as opposed to other assets that use stealth (like for example, a "RQ-180" type).

40 years ago, still not solved. there would be more information available on this if it were solved.

I wouldn't be so confident in saying something like that with a straight face.