Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: midnight Target on February 04, 2005, 01:43:03 PM
-
Guy I work with insisted the aurora is operational. He says that on some nights it will fly into our local base for a refuel and takeoff under low light conditions. He says only a select group of AF personnel are allowed onto the tarmac when it comes in.
I think the guy is about 3 beers shy of a 12 pack, but he seems pretty intense so I just nod my head to ensure I'm not in the vicinity when he finally snaps. Plus he is a vet whos brother was killed in the Pentagon on 9-11 so I am respectful of his views... at least to his face.
Maybe he does know something???
:confused:
-
I thought the Aurora was more or less a confirmed thing. Isn't it suppossedly responsable for the "donuts on a rope" contrails?
-
Only two were made, one crashed. The other never reached operational status.
-
friend of mine that did flight prep in the navy on a carrier went to a base in utah or nevada for some special training with about 30 others.
said he had to sign some papers just to go there, not to talk about what he saw.
he's not one for "rules" lol
said he saw it in a hangar, they were rushed past it. he said it looked like it couldn't fly for it had no real "wings" or something, had a really hard explaining what it looked like.
that was over 7 years ago.
-
Why the secrecy? It's just an airplane.
-
Well, back when Stealth technology was coming out, we had to keep it secret from the Soviets.
So who are we keeping this secret from?
That means that the government knows of an enemy that we must keep **** secret from (china).
-
Originally posted by CMC Airboss
Only two were made, one crashed. The other never reached operational status.
Yeah, but I ejected safely and walked away from it.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Yeah, but I ejected safely and walked away from it.
Watch out for the scorpions!
-
^ did the scorpion bite hurt?
-
Scorpions? I'm a Hank Williams fan myself.
-
Even after he bit you?!
-
I used to live in Aurora Colorado and I never saw anything.
-
Originally posted by wombatt
I used to live in Aurora Colorado and I never saw anything.
I used to date aurora but then she gained weight so i dumped her.
-
Some theories go that the Aroura is devloped anti-gravity technology
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2157975.stm
http://www.janes.com/aerospace/civil/news/jdw/jdw020729_1_n.shtml
-
Originally posted by CMC Airboss
Only two were made, one crashed. The other never reached operational status.
Are you thinking of the XB-70?
Two were made, one crashed (Well it really broke apart in mid flight, Google for the Video, Its out there). The other resides in the USAF Musuem in Dayton.
Not to sure about the Aurora being operational, But If it is I'm sure its a very hush hush deal.
-
Usually there's something else in the operation if they're going to retire an existing program (SR71).
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Usually there's something else in the operation if they're going to retire an existing program (SR71).
You bet, and it's f*****g awesome! Here's a pic.
(http://tubes.ominix.com/art/landscapes/sky-008.jpg)
-
No, anti Gravity is a dream of Einstein that never got off the ground (hehe).
Basically, the laws and rules of Gravity and Electricity use the exact same equations, so Einstein thought that since you can insulate against electricity, you can insulate against gravity.
But electricity is moving particles. Gravity is an unseen force between objects. While their equations might be the same, they are not the same.
At least not until we figure out what the other dimensions are.
-
Well all I will say is this, the F-117 was around for 12+ years before the general public new anything about it at all, it's first flight was in 1976 (Have Blue program)
so it's very well possible it's flying
-
can I get rated in it? :D
will somebody check me out?
-
Some theories go that the Aroura is devloped anti-gravity technology
On a related note, Boeing is developing a power source for teh anti-gravity machine with another russian high-tech invention.
You remember, cold fusion? :D
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
No, anti Gravity is a dream of Einstein that never got off the ground (hehe).
Basically, the laws and rules of Gravity and Electricity use the exact same equations, so Einstein thought that since you can insulate against electricity, you can insulate against gravity.
But electricity is moving particles. Gravity is an unseen force between objects. While their equations might be the same, they are not the same.
At least not until we figure out what the other dimensions are.
Of course anti-gravity is possible. Haven't you seen David Blaine?
-
When I was a kid in the mid seventies, a kid down the street named Charlie would tell us about this secrete plane the government had that was invisible on radar. He said it had radar obsorbing paint and used a lot of synthetic materials.
His dad told him about it. Nobody really knew what his dad did, but we would always hear cool things about what the military was supposedly working on.
I have been hearing about the Aurora for about, what, 15 years? I wouldn't be surprised if we had them.
The latest technology that we are working on is airbreathing/space going fighters and bombers capable of hypersonic flight. They supposedly want to develope a "strike anywhere in the world" capability from the continental US.
These planes would be able to take off normally, then get going fast enough to enter low earth orbit and attack any target, anywhere on earth within a very short notice.... while remaining almost impossible to defend against.
If I can find the article I have read about it, I'll post it here.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Basically, the laws and rules of Gravity and Electricity use the exact same equations, so Einstein thought that since you can insulate against electricity, you can insulate against gravity.
I think you may be confused.
In the last half of his life Einstein tried to discover a unified field theory, which could treat electromagnetism, gravity, and the weak and strong nuclear forces, but was unsuccessful. Einstein had problem accepting that relavistic theory was for big stuff and quantum mechanics was for small stuff.
No Grand Unified Theory has been found yet, although multidimensional superstring seems closer than we ever have ever been.
Einstein developed the field theory of gravity that large masses warp spacetime in a way we perceive as gravitational force.
Magnetism, the field phenomenon related to electricity, surrounds any conductor through which electrical current passes. The voltage element of electricity is insulated but the magnetic field exists outside the wire insulation. I am unaware of insulation that works against a magnetic field.
Both feilds follow the inverse square law, but due to the polar difference, magnetic and gravitational feilds have different shapes.
You can counteract a magnetic field with a opposite poled magnetic field, but as there is no pole associated with gravity it would be difficult to counteract a gravity field with an opposite poled field.
-
Has anyone ever explained what causes gravity?
-
Nobody has fundamentally explained any of the basic forces, we can only observe their effects.
Electricity is due to charges particles but why the charges exist remains unanswered.
If you subcribe to string theory, all forces and particles fundamentally exist as vibrating strings. What makes them vibrate? Only --- knows.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
When I was a kid in the mid seventies, a kid down the street named Charlie would tell us about this secrete plane the government had that was invisible on radar. He said it had radar obsorbing paint and used a lot of synthetic materials.
His dad told him about it. Nobody really knew what his dad did, but we would always hear cool things about what the military was supposedly working on.
I have been hearing about the Aurora for about, what, 15 years? I wouldn't be surprised if we had them.
The latest technology that we are working on is airbreathing/space going fighters and bombers capable of hypersonic flight. They supposedly want to develope a "strike anywhere in the world" capability from the continental US.
These planes would be able to take off normally, then get going fast enough to enter low earth orbit and attack any target, anywhere on earth within a very short notice.... while remaining almost impossible to defend against.
If I can find the article I have read about it, I'll post it here.
rumor has it, the rooks have been a useful resource in the developement of this technology.
;)
-
(http://www.fas.org/irp/mystery/aurora.jpg)
http://www.fas.org/irp/mystery/aurora.htm
Reports of plans for a high-performance piloted replacement for the SR-71 date back more than a decade. In 1979 it was reported that a:<41>
"... Mach 4, 200,000-ft.-altitude 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 Division and Lockheed."
As previously noted, reports of the existence of a successor to the SR-71 surfaced repeatedly during the debate over termination of the SR-71. Subsequent observations of mysterious aerial phenomena have been connected with the 1988 reports that Aurora was a Mach 6 stealthy reconnaissance aircraft that was being developed to replace the SR-71.<42>
Noted aerospace analyst Wolfgang Demisch, of First Boston Company, suggested that the $10 billion program would result in the production of about 30 aircraft.<43> More recently, Kemper Security analyst Lawrence Harris concluded that Lockheed was involved in a:<44>
"... hypersonic replacement for the Mach 3 plus SR-71 reconnaissance aircraft. Circumstantial evidence suggests that this project has been underway since 1987 and that a first flight occurred in 1989... Aurora could be operational in 1995, six years after the probable first flight."
This analysis suggested that the total development costs for Aurora might range from $4.4 billion to $8 billion, with the procurement of 24 aircraft costing an additional $10 billion to $24 billion.
According to another report, by mid-1992:<45>
"... Aurora was being flown from a base in the Nevada desert to an atoll in the Pacific, then on to Scotland to refuel before returning to the US at night. Specially modified tanker aircraft are being used to top up Aurora's tanks with liquid methane fuel in mid-air... The US Air Force is using the remote RAF airbase at Machrihanish, Strathclyde, as a staging point... The mystery aircraft has been dropping in at night before streaking back to America across the North Pole at more than six times the speed of sound... An F-111 fighter bomber is scrambling as the black-painted aircraft lands, flying in close formation to confuse prying civilian radars."
The rationale used most frequently by the Department of Defense for the SR-71's termination was financial. The Blackbird's operation and maintenance costs were very high. According to some reports, the SR-71's O&M costs were nearly $710- million in FY-90 and FY-91.<46> Furthermore, they argued, imaging satellites could now conduct worldwide surveillance more efficiently and less expensively than manned reconnaissance aircraft.
Independent aerospace analysts, however, deflated this argument somewhat by pointing to the unique advantages aircraft bring to the reconnaissance arena. Aircraft, for example, are inherently flexible and unpredictable. Though not as fast as satellites, they can fly lower and the interval between over the horizon arrival and time-over-target is just as short. Aircraft have a wide choice of routes, so tracking ships are unlikely to see it on the way in. Application of low observable technology could further reduce warning time.<47> Thus, it appears plausible that aircraft may still have a role in global reconnaissance.
Another analyst has considered the possibilities of "Aurora's" characteristics and capabilities. A long-range reconnaissance follow-on to the SR-71 would be a blended delta with 75 degree leading-edge sweep and retractable low-speed foreplanes. It would be powered by two regenerative air-turboramjet (RATR) engines of 180 kN sea-level static thrust. It would carry a crew of two and use a synthetic aperture radar with real-time datalink for reconnaissance (Figure 4). It is suggested that this type of platform could be very responsive, much more easily maintainable than the SR-71 and could deliver imagery of most points of interest within six hours of the decision to go. A speed between Mach 5 and Mach 6 and a cruising altitude of 40 kilometers would make the aircraft invulnerable to any current missile system.<48>
-
gunslinger
i heard the exact same flight plan years ago in a report from sizemotolgists.
seems they were tracking some odd sizemic events, and were able to identify a flight line for the plane. they tracked it to a base in nevada, then tracked it to scottland by the sizemic trail it left. there was no sonic boom at those altitudes that we could hear, but the turbulence left a very small signature behind it.
they estimated the speeds in excess of mach 9 out over the pacific doing manuevers
-
If Aurora did Mach 9 years ago, seems like they wasted some money on the X-43.
(http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/tb_0106STSPWFCA-LEAD.jpg)
They could have said "Been there... done that"
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Has anyone ever explained what causes gravity?
Yes..., it is a distortion of Space cause by matter. Since it require 'a lot' of matter to be noticed only large objects like the Sun, Earth and Moon ever really effect anything.
If you remove one dimension and think of Space as a flat service, say a large sheet of rubber, and you set a Bowling Ball in the middle to represent the Earth. The depression caused by the ball is Gravity. The Moon 'rolls' around in the depression because it's velocity keeps it from falling into the Earth yet it does not have enough speed to roll 'up' the side and out into space.
The same with the Sun and the Earth..
-
Otto, that doesn't explain what causes gravity, just it's effect.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Has anyone ever explained what causes gravity?
Anna Nichol-Smith?
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Anna Nichol-Smith?
She's just a description of the effects of gravity.
The short answer, Nuke, is no... nobody has ever explained what causes gravity.
Physics explains observable phenomonon... it does not fundamentally explain why it is there.
Similar to the way religion does not explain why God exists. Dogma says He exists and has always existed.
In either case, when the child continues to ask a chain of 'whys', mortal man runs out of answers.
-
ZING!
But it was einstein who did the anti gravity thing. He couldn't get anywhere with it, but switched over to the string theory.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
But it was einstein who did the anti gravity thing. He couldn't get anywhere with it, but switched over to the string theory.
Einstein was a string theorist?
As string theory was first voiced in the late 60's, that's news to me.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Guy I work with insisted the aurora is operational. He says that on some nights it will fly into our local base for a refuel and takeoff under low light conditions. He says only a select group of AF personnel are allowed onto the tarmac when it comes in.
I think the guy is about 3 beers shy of a 12 pack, but he seems pretty intense so I just nod my head to ensure I'm not in the vicinity when he finally snaps. Plus he is a vet whos brother was killed in the Pentagon on 9-11 so I am respectful of his views... at least to his face.
Maybe he does know something???
:confused:
Wasn't this guy was it?
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/xfiles/images/340/csm01.jpg)
Tronsky
-
anti-grav in planes is a joke. Anti-grav is a joke. They use magnetic levitation on the trains that "hover". Mag-Lev. anti-gravity is about as feasible right now as time travel.
-
Well it seems to me if they have retired the SR-71 they would have a replacement flying. They definatly need a spuer fast spy plane to cover what statalites cant see and were its to dangerous for the slower u-2.. And as far as why it would be a secret ? well the sr-71 was secret "back in the day" as was the u-2. so is the aurora.
its not just the stealth but all the other technologies in it. i heard it has in flight movies and wireless internet for them long missions. Also heard the pilots get free porn ...guess its an incentive kinda thing
-
Is there a replacement to the SR-71? If you ever read Curtis Peeles book Dark Eagles he seems to think 'no'. He believes, like some have said here, that a manned replacement was attempted, but failed. My feeling is that a 'hands on' reconnaissance asset that can arrive any place at any time to photograph the situation in 'real time' is too valuable to just walk away from. Plus, it is well within our Technology.
I'm guessing that the 'follow on' Blackbird is a rocket powered UAV that's launched from a 'Mothership' somewhere in the United States and has Mach 5+ top speed. It starts it's missions so high that there's no chance of anyone hearing it, and returns in darkness.
Just one man's guess....
-
String theory as in the idea of one all encompassing equation.
I'm not saying that Einstein did major research into anti gravity either. He just played around with the idea.
-
>>Basically, the laws and rules of Gravity and Electricity use the exact same equations, so Einstein thought that since you can insulate against electricity, you can insulate against gravity.
<<
And I thought Einstein viewed gravity as warps or bends in (the fabric of) space.
-
For the last few decades of his life, Einstein tried to find a Grand Unified Theory where Electromagnetism, Gravity, and the Weak and Strong Nuclear forces could be explained with a simple single theory.
General Relativity explains gravity, and quantum explains the nuclear forces. The two theories, which are experimentally extremely efficient at explaining phenomenon, are incompatible.
Relativity breaks down when trying to explain the extremely small, and quantum is pretty much unusable when explaining the macro world.
The GUT is still the holy grail of physics and string theory is a possible way of getting there. GUT is what Einstein was devoted to but string theories had yet to be developed before Einstein’s death.
TweetyBird:
Einsteins general theory does explain gravity as warping of the fabric of spacetime by the effect of a large mass.
This explains how light, which has no mass, could be effected by gravity. Light always travels in a straight line but "straight" is relative to the space in which it defined.
If the spacetime is curved then 'straight' turns out to be curved as it follows the warped fabric. So the path light travels appears to be bent due to the effect of gravity.
-
I know.
But Light does have mass. They can tell because it has momentum.
-
Even before it was known that light is composed of photons it was known that light carries momentum and will exert a pressure on a surface. This is not evidence that it has mass since momentum can exist without mass.
Photons have energy because they have frequency. Because they have energy and E=Mc2, they have "relavistic" mass.
Relativistic mass is a measure of the energy E of a particle which changes with velocity. By convention relativistic mass is not usually called the mass of a particle in contemporary physics so it is wrong to say the photon has mass in this way. But you can say that the photon has relativistic mass if you really want to.
In modern terminology the mass of an object is its invariant mass which is zero for a photon.
-
the airforce took the SR71 off their opperational lists, but it is still flying for the CIA and NASA with AF pilots and maint people.
you can shield small magnetic fields, computer hard drive motors.
-
Everyone knows our galaxy is just one cell of a higher being, with the other galaxies being the other cells. The Milky Way happens to be the cochlea of you guessed it, God almighty himself.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Has anyone ever explained what causes gravity?
ummm probably no
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen99/gen99150.htm
but there are some theories
http://www.antigravity.org/InertialTheoryOfGravity.html
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/topic/t-52482_Mass_and_gravity.html
geeez what a boring theme :D
-
If it has momentum, it has energy. It can't have energy if it doesn't have mass, even if it's incredibly incredibly tiny.
-
Because light travels at the speed of light, all of it's mass has already been completely converted to energy.
Because relativity shows that mass increases as velocity increases, then if a photon (which travels at the ultimate speed) had any mass at all it must be infinite.
Therefore at its natural state, velocity=c, the photon's mass must be zero.
-
The first link actually calculates the mass, but it is beyond me to confirm it.
http://lqfp.nease.net/new-13/new_page_309.htm (http://lqfp.nease.net/new-13/new_page_309.htm)
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/961102.html (http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/961102.html)