Freethought & Rationalism Archive

elwoodblues · 10-18-2002, 12:56 PM

As the article states, it's a 'once or twice in a decade' event.

<a href="http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviation/article/0,12543,365576,00.html" target="_blank">popular science</a>

Interestingly enough, the article states that the plane is flown entirely manually. Without computer assistance. Considering how damned much computer assistance is needed on the B-2 and F-117, that's pretty amazing.

elwoodblues · 10-18-2002, 01:07 PM

On a likely-to-be-related side-note, anyone have info on Project Aurora? My dad's in aerospace and has been hearing about this for years; can't tell if it's a smokescreen to draw the whackos or if it's legit. I'd appreciate any information one way or the other.

Abacus · 10-18-2002, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by elwoodblues:
<strong>On a likely-to-be-related side-note, anyone have info on Project Aurora? My dad's in aerospace and has been hearing about this for years; can't tell if it's a smokescreen to draw the whackos or if it's legit. I'd appreciate any information one way or the other.</strong>

I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.

[ October 18, 2002: Message edited by: Abacus ]</p>

Abacus · 10-18-2002, 01:18 PM

That thing looks like a spaceship. I wonder how many times it has been reported as a UFO sighting?

Copernic · 10-18-2002, 01:30 PM

Considering that B-2 and F-117s were developed in the late 70's and early 80's only to be presented roughly a decade later respectively, my head spins thinking about the cool stuff still in skunkworks.

I'll reference Moore's law here and venture to speculate that there is some wild technology coming down the pipeline.

J

Liquidrage · 10-18-2002, 01:39 PM

The aurora was most likely retired in much the same way as the plane in the article was.

It was designed, tested and served it purpose.
But was most likely never put to production.

Though we can never be sure since the military has often hidden planes every well until such time
as they are needed.

Lets not forget that what we do currently have is rather <a href="http://www.lmaeronautics.com/gallery/products/combat_air/f22/images/f22_6.jpg" target="_blank">bad ass</a> to say the least.

elwoodblues · 10-18-2002, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Considering that B-2 and F-117s were developed in the late 70's and early 80's only to be presented roughly a decade later respectively, my head spins thinking about the cool stuff still in skunkworks.

Boy, times have changed. The SR-71 went from the drawing board to breaking speed and altitude records in about 18 months.

But, yeah, this thing was just a demonstrator and proof-of-concept thingy in the mid-90's (ie, about 6-8 years ago). Project Aurora doesn't seem so damned wacky anymore.

Liquidrage · 10-18-2002, 01:55 PM

Yup, the blackhawk was a cold war plane.

It really was an amazing <a href="http://aae.www.ecn.purdue.edu/AAE/Images/SR-71.jpg" target="_blank">plane</a> and doesn't look out of place at all when compared to modern war planes. To think it's allmost 50 years old.

And the Aurora drawings that appeared in Popular Science (what was that 15 years ago?) looked a lot like a SR-71 to me

NialScorva · 10-18-2002, 01:58 PM

I've been working for military contractors for the past couple years, and I have to say that the military is an odd mixture of technology. There's some bleeding edge kick ass things, then there's rooms full of 25 year old computers they still use on a daily basis. In my experience there isn't much of a middle ground, they're either better than you can imagine, or worse than you'd imagine.

wdog · 10-19-2002, 04:32 AM

Nial,

it's all in how the money flows. some things get fat, others are starved.

The big ticket aerospace stuff is neat, but the low end gadgets are going to be pretty boggling as well. Engineers are trying to emulate the flight abilities of the small scale (all depends on the reynolds number) like hummingbirds, flys, ect. The intelligence agencies want small spyplanes that can fly into ductwork and other stuff. Big problem though with attaching transmitters, ect.

10-18-2002, 12:56 PM	#1
elwoodblues Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Dunmanifestin, Discworld Posts: 4,836	USAF 'Bird of Prey' revealed As the article states, it's a 'once or twice in a decade' event. <a href="http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviation/article/0,12543,365576,00.html" target="_blank">popular science</a> Interestingly enough, the article states that the plane is flown entirely manually. Without computer assistance. Considering how damned much computer assistance is needed on the B-2 and F-117, that's pretty amazing.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-18-2002, 01:07 PM	#2
elwoodblues Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Dunmanifestin, Discworld Posts: 4,836	On a likely-to-be-related side-note, anyone have info on Project Aurora? My dad's in aerospace and has been hearing about this for years; can't tell if it's a smokescreen to draw the whackos or if it's legit. I'd appreciate any information one way or the other.

10-18-2002, 01:18 PM	#4
Abacus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: South Dakota Posts: 2,214	That thing looks like a spaceship. I wonder how many times it has been reported as a UFO sighting?

10-18-2002, 01:30 PM	#5
Copernic Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: St. Louis, MO, USA Posts: 446	Considering that B-2 and F-117s were developed in the late 70's and early 80's only to be presented roughly a decade later respectively, my head spins thinking about the cool stuff still in skunkworks. I'll reference Moore's law here and venture to speculate that there is some wild technology coming down the pipeline. J

10-18-2002, 01:39 PM	#6
Liquidrage Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Tallahassee Posts: 1,301	The aurora was most likely retired in much the same way as the plane in the article was. It was designed, tested and served it purpose. But was most likely never put to production. Though we can never be sure since the military has often hidden planes every well until such time as they are needed. Lets not forget that what we do currently have is rather <a href="http://www.lmaeronautics.com/gallery/products/combat_air/f22/images/f22_6.jpg" target="_blank">bad ass</a> to say the least.

10-18-2002, 01:55 PM	#8
Liquidrage Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Tallahassee Posts: 1,301	Yup, the blackhawk was a cold war plane. It really was an amazing <a href="http://aae.www.ecn.purdue.edu/AAE/Images/SR-71.jpg" target="_blank">plane</a> and doesn't look out of place at all when compared to modern war planes. To think it's allmost 50 years old. And the Aurora drawings that appeared in Popular Science (what was that 15 years ago?) looked a lot like a SR-71 to me

10-18-2002, 01:58 PM	#9
NialScorva Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Median strip of DC beltway Posts: 1,888	I've been working for military contractors for the past couple years, and I have to say that the military is an odd mixture of technology. There's some bleeding edge kick ass things, then there's rooms full of 25 year old computers they still use on a daily basis. In my experience there isn't much of a middle ground, they're either better than you can imagine, or worse than you'd imagine.

10-19-2002, 04:32 AM	#10
wdog Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Ohio, USA Posts: 1,547	Nial, it's all in how the money flows. some things get fat, others are starved. The big ticket aerospace stuff is neat, but the low end gadgets are going to be pretty boggling as well. Engineers are trying to emulate the flight abilities of the small scale (all depends on the reynolds number) like hummingbirds, flys, ect. The intelligence agencies want small spyplanes that can fly into ductwork and other stuff. Big problem though with attaching transmitters, ect.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.