Talk:Aurora (aircraft)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aurora (aircraft) article.
Article policies
AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Black Project

This article deals with a military black project.

Because of the nature of such projects, the most authoritative sources (any involved governments and defense contractors) may not even acknowledge its existence. The most reliable sources may be highly speculative.

Please ensure that the article is well and reliably sourced and does not contain unverifiable information or vague predictions.

Contents

[edit] Proposed Deletion

Unless you folks can come up with a decent reason not to, I want to see this article deleted. It's utterly ridiculous. This isn't ATS. If someone can pare it down to something sane and containing some actual facts, I'd be in favor of it staying. But as it stands, this article needs to be gone. -- Johnny Wishbone (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. As I've said in the "Facts" section of this talk page, after reviewing the policies that might justify the deletion of this article (Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not) I'm not convinced that deletion is justified.
I concur that more verifiable sources are be needed, and that the article needs much improvement. I also suggest that adequate tagging should be kept to inform the readers that the article is disputed (I've also liked the tag about "Black Project", new for me).
To sum up, please do NOT delete and improve. Thanks and regards,DPdH (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Since PROD is for routine and uncontroversial deletions, the PROD tag is coming off. This deletion is obviously contested. Before taking this to AfD, please note that, real or not, the Aurora project has sustained WP:RS interest going back to the mid-1980s. Who is saying what is easily verifiable here. As long as a disputed subject like this one treats conflicting claims in a balanced manner, WP:V is satisfied. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Armed Variant?

Ok, assuming the US Government would want a recon and strike aircraft, the article notes the the retired Phoenix would be the missile for the job. I'm not saying that the military wouldn't bring it back out, but how are you goning to fit it in there? I've looked at and examined nearly every possible extimated shape out there, and none of them have anything suggesting the capability of harboring missiles. Internal storage? All the possible power sources- Pulse Jet (unlikely), ScramJet (likely), or some methane-fueled monstrosety, all take up large amounts of space. The pulse jet is unlikely for low thrust, but Scramjet are characteristically large things that take up the majorety of the plane. I definetly think that the whole armament section should be taken off, it just seems to unlikely. While not wihtout precedent, see the RS-71 naming, i just don't think that the government would use it to strike when we have so many better things for the job. my two cents The Walkin Dude 02:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

  • You're forgetting that there's a terminal velocity to any weapons fired. Terminal velocity is where the force of acceleration and the force of drag are equal. Given that bullets are fired with a certain and given amount of force, they would likely hit the terminal velocity the moment they leave the barrel. Not good. Missiles have a similar problem but can overcome it more easily by virtue of having their own engine. Still, the engine only goes so far. A variant of the SR-71 was outfitted with 3 missiles but they never used it because it was too expensive to launch a measily 3 anti-aircraft missiles. As a bomber, it would likely fail again. I heard from someone who is a retired high ranking airforce accountant that the "SR-71 and its realitives were going to be bombers, but inorder to bomb Moscow from that altitude and speed, you'd need to drop the bomb over the atlantic. The resulting margin of error makes it unfeasible to use as a bomber. So they stuck cameras on it instead." Granted, this was an accountant and not an engineer, but they were involved in briefing top brass about budget and had to read reports on R&D to make decisions on budget. I don't know how accurate "drop it over the Atlantic" is but if it's unrealistic to make a bomber out of something that goes Mach3 at high altitudes, it's even more unrealistic to do so with something that goes twice as fast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.141.144 (talk) 05:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I should maybe also say that this relative of mine who is the retired accountant says that she knows nothing about the Aurora and had never heard of it. She retired some time in the mid 1980s. I don't know much other than she ate lunch in the Pentagon's courtyard, briefed generals, and had a GS-14 paygrade. 24.254.141.144 05:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • It would be possible to kick out a missile and delay firing for a moment. And internal payload bays are hardly a new thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sukiari (talk • contribs) 23:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Graphic

The graphic is the most rediculous thing I've ever seen. It looks like a flying killer whale. 22:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

None of the graphics in the article convey the shape of the airplane. If there is any shape that is. -broodlinger 24.184.67.122 22:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General discussion

I want to add some reference to what many say Aurora really was ( the codename for the B-2 fly-off), I figure a separate section of the article would be more appropriate?

PPGMD


The 'fireball' video looks quite like sunlight reflecting off a contrail at sunset. 67.187.48.82 20:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Or swamp gas from Venus reflecting off a weather balloon. Joffeloff 12:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Added new information from Popular Science's new issue. Feel free to refute it. Jerr 01:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a competition. PPGMD 01:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gibson Sighting - how could a KC-135 offload methane fuel to an Aurora

I want to add something to the Gibson sighting section that poses a serious question to this formation. How would a KC-135 Stratotanker offload fuel in liquid methane form to the Aurora? This puts serious holes in the Gibson sighting. The Gibson sighting needs to be subjected to heavy censure.

--Mickrussom 16:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Who says this vehicle used liquid methane? You seem to forget that everything about this vehicle is pure speculation.

--Kelly Bushings 10:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

In order to go mach 6+ you would not be using a turbofan, and higher speed scram/ramjets cannot be run easily on kerosene.

What I'm saying is that the "Spotting" of the wedge is dubious. On one hand he claims to see a KC-135 with the old engines, on the other hand we get a nebulous description of a flying wedge. I think casting doubt with regards to how the types of fuel required to fuel scram/ram jets and the fact this unlikely offload able from a KC-135 is warranted.

The other possibility is that a KC-135Q which can offload JP7 fuel for the P&W J58 engines could be what is involved here. I believe most Q's were turned into KC-135T after a re-engining.

I just get the sense from all the talk here that this was probably an SR-71 under a KC-135Q or KC-135T. Even though the SR-71 had been retired by April 1989 and by some other reports "The United States Air Force retired its fleet of SR-71s on January 26, 1990", the SR-71 was clearly restorable as it was revived from 1995 to 1998.

To me this article should focus more on facts, like the line item on the budget - not "sightings." Much has been done in the article to boost the sightings credibility, something should be done to deconsruct the speculation as well.

--mickrussom 17:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Ramjets will happily run on kerosene, so your JP7 (a triple-distilled kerosene with teflon additive) speculation is more than plausible, but you are assuming (again) that this vehicle, as described, does Mach 6+. Check out a Handley Page HP.115: same planform, very subsonic. You also assume ram /scram jets in use. This is again speculation. You could also speculate that it could just be boring old J58s (a bypass turbojet) or an over/under combination engine as planned for the XF-103.

It was not an SR-71. Nor was the tanker a re-engined model. In the sighting situation as described the formation was silhouetted against high level cloud, essentially an aircraft recognition gift, but with no detail visible. Also, a Q was at Mildenhall around the same time.

--Kelly Bushings 16:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Minor point - how do we know there was a KC-135Q at Mildenhall? This being an encyclopaedia, does anyone have a verifiable reference for that? --Nickj69 17:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually that whole section (last three points on Gibson sighting) are pure supposition. I'm going to remove them. The Gibson sighting is notable because it was reported in the press and am happy to leave the factual bulk of it (i.e. what he was reported to have seen). --Nickj69 18:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I followed discussions on this subject since the nineties, when speculations about the existence of Aurora came up. Although I appreciated any attempts from aerospace-buffs to make sense of all these sonic booms and sightings and found it sensible to assume the existence of a secret hypersonic reserach program, there was one thing I never understood. Usually, in all these discussions the retirement of the SR-71 was used as a major argument for the existence of a hypersonic follow-up. However, from a purely operational point of view, it would have been much more sensible for the US military in the eighties to develop a SR-71 follow-up with the same top-speed but much more stealth capability. According to infos reported in Bill Sweetman's "Aurora". back in the eighties the soviets were developing anti-aircraft-missiles with the capability to intercept the SR-71. As the F-117 was in development at the same time it would have been logically for the US military to lean on this stealth technology as the most promising option for a SR-71 follow-up. That doesn't exclude that they were also starting programs for Hypersonic technology, SSTO or TSTO concepts. It makes sense that the USAF gave these concepts a serious priority after the challenger desaster. But as these concepts were still at their very beginnings at this time, and as aircraft development usually takes a decade or so, it would have been unresonably to see them as the only realistic option for a new recon aircraft that would have been needed until the end of the eighties.
Therefore, if a follow-up was in service at the time when the SR-71s were mothballed in 1991, it would have probably been a very stealthy Mach 3+, not a more or less still experimental hypersonic whatsoever. And to my opinion, this non-hypersonic but highly stealthy SR-71-follow-up was the plane that Chris Gibson observed in 1989 over the North Sea and that was mentioned - but censored - in the UAP-Study of the British MoD. 141.2.22.211 13:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pure speculation

The article is self-admittedly pure speculation, and is in desperate need of references and weeding out of weasel words. Sentences such as There is a recent report that it may use a pulse detonation wave engine. are just laughable without a link to the report. I can only spot one solid fact in this article: namely, that an item marked "Aurora" appeared on a Pentagon budget. Could some knowledgeable aircraft buff mark all the other claims with links to who is doing the claiming? jmstylr 12:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


I took out some of the wilder claims and toned down some of the language. Basically this is an urban myth story. John

It also bears stating that the speeds attained by this alleged aircraft are approximate to those of the X-15. At a certain point the altitude required to attain a certain speed with reasonable efficiency and heat control becomes so high that the craft becomes a spacecraft. The whole idea of this Aurora nonsense is flawed.


The basic problem is clearly visible: this article (like others about black projects, i.e. Blackstar, TR-3 Manta) is not refering to real entities but to hypothesis. Concepts like Blackstar, Aurora, et al., are conceptual constructions, not observations. They are constructed by airplane-buffs to make sense out of a bundle of rumours, hearsay, sightings (alleged or real) and a very small number of hard facts (budget lines, sonic booms, retirement of SR-71, etc.). The hypothetical status is indicated in the introduction, and that's ok so far.
However, what's still missing in the rest of the article, is this: The available "data" (I will call it so just for the argument) is not really conclusive. Especially, there is no evident pattern in the data, as the single observations and statements are not in a way empirically interrelated which is independent from the hypothesis one uses to interpret them. For example, if psychiatrists are detecting a new syndrom, they are describing a pattern of symptoms which are associated by causal relations and which can be observed in this special pattern. The validity of such a hypothetical pattern can be empirically tested by statistical methods, i.e. Cluster analysis. But this is not the case for the data we're speaking about in the field of black projects.
As I just wanted to demonstrate in my posting to the section above, Aurora is for example not the only possible explanation for the Gibson-sighting. One can easily make a case of it's own from the Gibson-sighting. And there's no way to decide which classification is true or false. The same is true for the UAP-report of the british MoD. It's sensible to interpret a certain, censored part of this report as evidence for the existence of two "black" US-planes and for the assumption, that these planes could have been visble to observers in the UK at one time or another. But this evidence does in no way deliver any further informations. As it was censored, it is absolutely unclear which planes they had exactly mentioned in their report. So one could use it as "support" for Aurora, or for Blackstar, or for any other hypothetical plane, or for any combination.
And that's what's - in my humble opinion - still wrong with this article. It's not only explaining the meaning of a concept that has relevance for understanding certain discussions in the subcultures of airplane-buffs and others. That's something the wikipedia should do. But I have the impression, that this article as a whole (with the exception of the introduction) suggests a level of empirical validity for the Aurora-hypothesis that is simply not justified. There should a least be a "Final conclusion" underlining again the inconclusiveness of the "data". It would be even better, if "data" and "interpretations" or "Interpretations proposed by different authors" would be described in different sections. 141.2.22.211 14:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
In other words, the Aurora doesn't exist?
When I was a kid, the F-19 "Aurora" was a constant subject in aircraft magazines, but the F-19 never made an appearance in real life. The most interesting words in this Aurora article are the words "$2.3 billion". -broodlinger 24.184.67.122 22:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blackstar

The article needs to be removed and/or revised based upon the revelations provided by Avaition Week. [1] The plane sighted in 1989 is probably the Blackstar "carrier" plane. Matt V

We have an article about Blackstar based on the Aviation Week story. While SR-3 and Aurora sound, in some respects similar, we've no way of knowing that they are the same, or whether both or either actually exists. A lot said about Aurora doesn't match SR-3 (the former reportedly being an airbreathing hypersonic recon plane with exotic engines, the latter a fairly conventional supersonic aircraft used only (seemingly) to lift a spaceplane. Merging the two based on the incredibly scant evidence would be like merging yeti with bigfoot. I've put in a mention of Aurora into Blackstar, mentioning that they might really be the same; I think this artcle should have a (similarly equivocal) mention of Blackstar. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] North Sea "seismic" activity

"3) Something in the air was triggering seismic sensors in the south-west United States."

What has this to do with something happening in the North Sea (halfway around the world)? If the mystery plane was causing shock waves that registered on seismographs, then I'm thinking it would shake the hell out of the eastern UK and Norway, or at least reach the local papers, before the faintest remnants reached seismic sensors in the US. I'm cutting this. Hasty Fool 17:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Not so hasty there... A quick surf will show up that such seismic activity has been registered in the North Sea area. One such event was over Texel Island off the Dutch coast. Also an unidentified sonic boom was blamed for the deaths of Norwegian soldiers in an avalanche. Cut away, keeps me amused.

--Kelly Bushings 10:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UK MoD report

I'm an interested agnostic on Aurora but I've added in a section on the newly released UK MoD report because unusually in this rumour-filled area it is an official report which deals with sightings of "Black" projects. I am asking the MoD to consider releasing the blanked out sections. I've also tweaked the line saying "no conclusive evidence supporting the existence of a hypersonic plane has ever reached the public domain" in case it came as a bit of a surprise to old X-15 pilots. Newsnightmeirion

Very interesting news article. Also, I've linked some of the words & expressions in your text. Some of them, such as "transatmospheric", remains to be defined or have their articles created on Wikipedia. --Henrickson 09:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You might want to know that the aerospace industry does not always "check the wiki" before arriving upon a self descriptive technical term. http://www.reference.com/search?q=trans%20atmospheric&r=d&db=web Batvette 09:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic Egyptian Aircraft?

I am not sure why, under the video game section, it describes and "Islamic" aircraft. I do not believe that aircraft can become Islamic, any more than the Aurora is christian...

Here, "Islamic" refers to Fundamental/Extremist Islam, and members of insurgent militias following to such ideology (which most likely fights to remove foreign armed presence from their country and topple the government to replace it with a theocracy). The interceptor aircraft the insurgents use are probably stolen or captured from the Egyptian Air Force (where such a feat, if happening in real life, would be considered very spectacular, formidable and terrifying — can you imagine dozens of fighter jets (fully armed with guns, bombs & missiles) in the hands of terrorists?), or leased from another country's air force. (Whether the insurgents are trained in combat aircraft or not, or hired mercenary pilots, is another question.) --Henrickson 21:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I have the game in question. The game was made in the mid-90s (pre War on Terror), and the scenario is a civil war between the radicalised Egyptian military ("Islamic Egyptian") and the secular Egyptian government ("Arab Egyptian"). FiggyBee 23:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] templates

This article currently has three templates trying to tell the reader that its a sack of bollocks - I believe one is sufficient. The 'black project' template is a new one I haven't seen before. We should decide which ones to keep. Joffeloff 15:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I like the black project one, but I don't believe it's strong enough. Also the clean up one would still hold true, this articles needs alot of work. PPGMD 15:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
It is quite specific though - it states that the article does NOT contain speculation, it states that the article contains the only 'verifiable' information, in which case this one will need a lot of weeding. I think what it needs is citations, especially for all the aviationleak references, the oil worker spotting, the MoD report, and so on. Joffeloff 15:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm I might add something to the effect, that any information here may be found as false in the future, and should not be relied on as the sole source for future research. PPGMD 15:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shortened the Intro

I removed alot of the junk from the Intro, just way too much information, much of it contradictory, and confusing. Intros should be short and to the point. PPGMD 11:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Intro better for removing specualtion but key elements are hypothesis and the only two bits of evidence from official sources especially as MoD 2006 relates to 2000 not 1986 and shows controversy is not just ancient history.(I'm an Aurora agnostic) Newsnightmeirion 13:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Just keep the intro short and sweet IMO, and about what people themselves believe the aircraft to believe, evidence, or the lack there of should be in the article itself. PPGMD 20:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The claimed Mach numbers for Aurora (if it exists) change every day on this site. Can we just agree on Mach 4+? I have also changed United Kingdom air defence area back to UK air defence area because it has a specific - unambiguous - military meaning and that's what it says in the report. Newsnightmeirion 07:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Falcon Project

In the section on the UK MoD report there is the sentence, "The Mach 8-12 aircraft may refer to what the USAF announced as the Falcon Project in 2003 but this is the first official mention of a USAF plan for an Aurora-like Mach 4-6 vehicle." However, there is nothing about this 'Falcon Project' that I can find on Wikipedia or the internet. Can somebody provide a link for some information about it? If there is info about it, and it's a real project, it should have its own Wikipedia article. Grant 09:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If you just Google Falcon USAF hypersonic or go the DARPA site you'll find plenty.

[edit] Aurora/SR71 image ?????

Image is not Aurora or SR71 but X48B - the scaled down Blended Wing Body built at Cranfield UK for Boeing Shadow Works - being wind-tunnel tested at Langley before flight trials. X48B is 8.5% model of giant 90 metre wingspan proposed military transport/airliner. Newsnightmeirion 11:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BBC paper

I think the BBC paper is laughable. Who drew all this little crosses? It looks like a hoax from a 12-year-old. -- 790 12:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

In this case 790 you have misread the article. Read it again and you will see that this is not a BBC paper but a British Ministry of Defence secret document which has recently been declassified in response to a Freedom of Information request from the academic David Clarke. The first reference in the article takes you directly to the MoD website where you can pore through the hundreds of pages of the UAP report. The little crosses were drawn by someone in MoD - presumably someone with a very high security clearance - before the rest of the report was declassified. The idea of some Defence Intelligence spook sitting there with a ruler drawing lines of crosses by hand is comical but nonetheless it is exactly what happened. I have asked MoD to reveal what is in those lines but of course they have declined to do so. The Americans usually white out text which they want to redact before declassifying reports, The British usually put marker lines through the text before release - although that sometimes can leave clues which allow us to work out the original meaning. None of this tells us whether Aurora or anything similar exists - all it tells us is that the British MoD discussed whether two covert American projects might be mistaken for UFOs - and they still do not want to reveal their speculation about those projects. Newsnightmeirion 14:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok you're right I misread the source. Still, this whole thing just doesn't look proper. There's no use in drawing this little crosses after blanking the text. Furthermore, at least one of the documents ([2], p5) has handwritten notes saying "not ralevant" (sic!). What could be the relevance of a document they would leave to such a dork to prepare it before publication? -- 790 17:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm always right but seriously "ralevant" is a surprisingly common mistake. You'll find it in printed documents issued by Harvard University, World Bank and US Department of Defense let alone handwritten notes which are more like quick email comments often full of mistakes as I'm sure you would acknowledge - your use of "this" instead of "these" twice for instance. As a veteran of many an FOI request I can tell you that the "not relevant" applies to the names of officers which are redacted on the grounds that they are irrelevant not to the relevance of the document. Defence Intelligence spent a long time putting together this report. Whether you or I think that was a worthwhile expenditure of British taxpayers money is neither here nor there. It is a proper report which aimed to settle the question of the UFO question to the satisfaction of the UK MoD.Newsnightmeirion 22:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User testimonials

If you are a Wikipedia user and claim to have spotted the Aurora aircraft yourself or knows someone who did, please tell us your story here.

The following info are needed: who, what, when, why, how.

  • Who: The person who spotted the Aurora (yourself, your spouse, your children, your parents, your friend, your neighbor, etc).
  • What: A brief description of the aircraft spotted and its contrail (delta shape, donuts-on-a-rope, etc).
  • When: The day and time of the sighting. If time is unknown, please provide the moment of day (morning, afternoon, evening, etc).
  • Why: What makes the spotter think that the aircraft he/she spotted was the Aurora (was travelling faster than airliners, was flying very high, etc).
  • How: The way the aircraft was spotted (by eye looking north, with binoculars looking west, etc).

Testimonial example:

Spotted today 2007-01-09 by myself, Karl Boucher and a few other witnesses in South San Francisco making an afternoon flight around 3:00 [pm] over the city coming from the south San Jose area headed north towards Alaska, most likely over the pole and on to Iraq. Moving at supersonic speeds, and remarkably without any sonic boom possibly due to high altitude or compensating technology. The plane had the unmistakable supersonic "V" fuselage shape and was painted white underneath. The pulsed jet vapor trail did not resemble the "doughnuts" others have seen, so I doubt they actually saw the aurora. Judging from the comercial aircraft that came back into the area (SF0 is nearby) the plane was longer and had larger wingspan than a jumbo jet. I at first thought it was a large asteroid skipping on the atmosphere or a SkyLab like vehicle crashing to earth, but once overhead the pointed "V" shape made me realize it was the aurora.[sic] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.105.225.166 (talk • contribs).
--Henrickson 17:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Testimonial of Tetsuru (Real name Omitted)

I have seen Aurora craft on several occasions as a teenager. I am an insomniac with a sleeping disorder so I was often awake and outside during the early ams. I also happened to live in a house located directly under the landing route aircraft would need to take to land on an airfield at the airbase located not far from my home. I was aware of this, and often watched military craft land. The Aurora is not the only strange craft I witnesses in the early AM's however its the only one I see a real public interest in and that I can identify other then "Unknown Aircraft". The first time I observed this plane was late at night as I observed it coming in for an unusual landing. It was a full moon with a clear sky, meaning that objects usually not visiable in the night sky could be. My bedroom window had a view of the landing path planes would take. It was around 2 am, and I generally entertained myself trying to spot stealth aircraft landings. So I knew this wasn't a standard plane when it was coming in as the outline of it was not that of a stealth fighter or bomber. It was flying with no identification lights that other aircraft usually have (The blinking light). The one thing that stood out about it was it was moving faster then anything I had seen before. It also was taking an irregular flight path towards the airbase. It was not descending like it should have been in my opinion. When it finally reached the airbase at a speed I thought would cause a runway wreck, it emitted some form of braking mechanism I had NEVER seen before. A blue glow was emitted from behind the craft and that back of the airplane elevated slightly. It then seemed to hover for a second right over the airbase(I could not see the actualy runway there is a hill obstructing the view.) and proceeded to land vertically. By that I mean it went from up in the air down to behind the hills from directly above the base. Thats the first time I witnesses an Aurora plane. I saw this thing land several times since then, however I have NEVER seen the thing take off. It must have some kind of stealth takeoff that doesn't make much noise, and they probably only flew that thing at night. (Its the only time I ever saw it). I'm reluctant to say which Air Base it was, because hell if we go to war with any real military force I'm sure an enemy would love to bomb the hell out of my neiborhood if they knew we had those things here. I will say it was not Area 51, and I have seen other non-conventional aircraft in the area. Most people I talk to think they are UFOs, but having a view of the base ment I could actually see craft interacting with the base as aposed to "Strange Objects in the Sky". I'm no scientist so I assume the blue light the aurora uses to slow down is some kind of reverse thruster? (It did not emit the light while flying, unless it was gliding or it uses some other means of lift to move forward.

--Tetsuru

I will say it if no one else will: I don't doubt your experience was, in your perception, exactly as you described. I do doubt that there was any evidence contained within to suggest the existence or non existence of Aurora. Example: What was its flare speed? Batvette 11:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doughnuts on a rope

The “Doughnuts on a rope” contrail may have been cased by ordinary sonic booms, as seen in the URL below.

http://www.vinland.com/SonicBoom.html

Not sure if this should be added to the article or not. Xargon666x6 12:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discovery Channel Program

  • I watched a Discovery Science (Malaysia) program yesterday about the Aurora "plane". In that program, they interviewed a British military trained airplane-spotter who claims to have seen a black triangular shaped airplane flying behind a refueling tanker aircraft. The black triangular airplane was flanked on the left by a conventional jet. He made a sketch of what he saw, anyone have links to this? Maybe we can put it up. --Pavithran 04:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Can't find any links, but you should check out the Chris Gibson (North Sea Delta witness) article. It has more details on this aircraft recognition expert. --Henrickson 02:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Cook's History Channel Program

I looked all over the internet for the satellite image that we do not cite and, alas, I could not find it. If we are not going to source the claim or show the actual image we should pull the section.

I totally agree. Perhaps someone could contact Mr. Cook and ask him where it might be possible to obtain the photograph, or if it falls under fair use guidelines? Worth a try...

--Sturmwehr 03:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speculative Specifications

The specifications section should at least refer to quoted estimates by known scientists, rather than devolving to speculation. For instance, the amount of energy required for the necessary acceleration rules out several of the fuel types just by energy density and conversion efficiency alone. For independent maneuvering, the craft must carry its energy source! "magnetohydrodynamics" would require a huge electrical current and enormous coil of (possibly cryo-cooled) wire to generate thrust using the rarefied atmosphere at such altitude. Bear in mind many similar projects have used booster rockets to achieve the necessary velocity. Though little is known about the aircraft, it is unlikely to use concepts that have not been tested both theoretically and in the laboratory.130.207.156.23 21:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:AceCombat3 Aurora 1.jpg

Image:AceCombat3 Aurora 1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merger of eyewitness account

The account appears to have little notability of its own outside of this aircraft, so I propose merging what is useful and redirecting here. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 07:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's not a real biography, just an account of a sighting. I'm not even sure if we should have the verbatim account on Wikipedia - it seems like it'd be better in Wikisource. Will Beback NS (talk) 01:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it's pretty non-notable. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 03:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I've redirected Chris Gibson (North Sea Delta witness) here without merging anything for the time being, because nothing in that article is referenced to a reliable source. If such sources turn up later, some content can be merged from the history. Sandstein (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Testors Aurora Collage 1.jpg

Image:Testors Aurora Collage 1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 09:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This doesn't seem to make sense

In the Steven Douglas sighting section, there is the sentence "Joshua controllers were vectoring Gaspipe into Edwards AFB, using terminology usually used during Space Shuttle recoveries." ... and a few lines later ... "but it is unlikely that they [hoaxers] would have access to the terminology used in the transmissions." Apart from being unreferenced speculation, this is assuming people would not be able to access terms cunningly concealed on the Internet, in books etc etc. Disingenuous at best. Davidelit (talk) 12:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Facts

Reading through this article, the most striking thing to me is the almost complete absence of verifiable factual data concerning the supposed Aurora aircraft. The peripheral items about the SR-71 are not arguable, nor is the fact of the actual existence of the supposed witnesses; although what they saw, as opposed to what they believed (or hoped) that they saw, is less definite. And of course the statement that "Aurora" in the Lockheed context referred to the B-2 is backed up by an appropriate reference within the article. In view of the length of the article, and the number of contributors, it would be a brave editor/admin combination who deleted it, but in reality we have here little more than a mass of speculation which does not deserve a place in an encyclopedia. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 13:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Have to agree. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Disagree. I've been reviewing the policies that might justify the deletion of this article (as for example: Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not) and I'm not convinced fully that deletion of the article is justified based on them. I suggest the article is improved, and adequate tagging is kept to inform the readers that it is currently disputed. Please do NOT delete. Thanks and regards, DPdH (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Aurora name

One of the parts of the story that seemed particularly weak was the name. "Aurora" was selected because it appeared as a line item in a budget document. I am currently reading a National Academy of Sciences report called "Review of the Department of Energy’s Inertial Confinement Fusion Program", which was published in September 1990. The paper discusses a variety of issues relating to controlled fusion experiments, and led indirectly to the current National Ignition Facility efforts. Why do I mention this? Well on the very first page I found:

...and a subsequent meeting was held in La Jolla on August 21, 1990, to consider future experiments possible with the AURORA facility.

Aurora was a high-power KrF ICF laser built at Los Alamos.[3] Given the time frame, the general secrecy surrounding these machines, and the common name, is there any chance the line item in question was the budget for this laser?

Maury (talk) 12:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Testimonial of Mike Jentzen

It was late August 1990 about 50 miles South of Amarillo, TX. It was about 10:00PM and I was in the yard working on my car's engine. (With a flashlight.) I looked up by chance to swat a mosquito and noticed what looked like the yellow/orange blast of a missle heading due North towards Amarillo. No sound, and it was moving fast. It was a uniform glow, not like the streak of a meteor. I remember being a little scared thinking that someone had launched an ICBM at the Pantex plant in Amarillo. It flew directly overhead and was near the horizon to the North when I heard jet engines, the out of phase sound of more than one. Then I saw 2 fighter jets long and sleek like F-16's or F-111's fly right in front of the moon which was in the West at this time. They were in chase with the craft I saw moving so fast a few seconds before.

None of them had any type of lights on or blinking. If the 2 fighters had not flown by the moon I would have thought the sound was comming from the first craft.

I don't know if this helps anyone, but after reading this article I thought I would chime in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.41.47.8 (talk) 22:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)