Talk:Aurora (aircraft)

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)


 * Just the fact that you say "I want" is reason enough not to delete it. "I want" is hardly encyclopedic, is it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.65.143 (talk) 19:57, 17 June 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 (Deletion policy, 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)


 * Agree.


 * It is not confirmed to exist as it is a Black Project and is denied to exist until it is confirmed by the government that it does exist, so i strongly disagree to deletion. who knows? Maybe it DOES exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.230.219 (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

So if the above reasons for deletion hold "true" does that mean we need to go delete the Area 51 Wiki page too? Or any pages on space aliens? Come on guys. Let it stand, it's just as factual as any of the other pages I mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.12.152.225 (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

through a proxy. i added some stuff a few years age and bookmarked this page. it's gone and this person who took over completly reworked the page. i have it saved the version i have with detailed explanations of different aspects of the craft. none to mention now. like the details on how the craft actually gains movement. reg454 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.43.149 (talk) 07:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

several minutes
I assume that the observer was stationary? and i'm guessing these planes were moving at typical flying speed - so it seems unlikely they would be visible for 'several minutes' even if visibility was perfect. I think this sort of atricle is legitamate on Wikipedia - but pared down and largely directed to more specialist websites. Other comments - if it exists then it is quite a well kept 'secret'; it does seem unlikely that the USA would retire the old plane if they did not have something better available (even if not a plane); the staff at Reaction Engines in the UK are sceptical about its existence - but said it should have been a viable project, even 20 years ago, if enough money was available. alice-edmund - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alice-edmund (talk • contribs)

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?  jms tylr  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.

I am admittedly new to the Wiki community, but I did serve in an F/A-18E/F Super Hornet squadron as recently as last year; basically, my point is that I would be surprised if most of the comments in this section were left by anyone who has even been to an airport. Aircraft travel faster at lower altitudes, buddy (I'm not an engineer, that's common knowledge - why do you think the U2 stalls 10 mph slower than max speed at high altitude, or why F-18E/Fs have to do a "swooping" maneuver to break the sound barrier?). As far as the "Aurora" wiki article: it's a bunch of crap, and needs to be toiled over in the general ether of cyber-space, not in an Encyclopedia. I enjoy the Black Project readings as much as the next person, but mostly from a Cold War/recently revealed perspective and not "my cousin made this cool image, let's try and build a military conspiracy around it" perspective. V/R, Petty Officer Second Class Crowley. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.154.6 (talk) 07:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You are aware that civilians have built spacecraft, right? Perhaps you've heard of the X Prize?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.65.143 (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * Leaving the article as largely speculation is likely appropriate, as most of what has been said about Aurora has been presented as speculation, not fact. At least, the three places where I've read about Aurora have:


 * Pentagon Aliens by William R. Lyne (a self-published, conspiracist book, largely about free energy suppression)


 * The Hunt for Zero Point: Inside the Classified World of Antigravity Technology by Nick Cook — again, conspiracist, but by a somewhat reputable individual


 * A magazine article that saw briefly.


 * Any objections?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Blackstar
The article needs to be removed and/or revised based upon the revelations provided by Avaition Week. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)


 * The image at the top of the article is an artists impression of Aurora. It is black because most known super/hypersonic military aircraft are; the black also represents secrecy, black projects.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

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 (, 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)

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)

Speaking of these, there is one picture of doughnuts on a rope I've seen that was actually coming out of an aircraft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NB36H-2.jpg

Maybe someone should add nuclear to the propulsion section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanoth (talk • contribs) 19:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That isn't doughnuts-on-a-rope - it's just the contrails being contorted by the spin of the propellors.

Doughnuts-on-a-rope contrails aren't that rare at all. I've seen them many times, and they have formed behind perfectly ordinary airliners - it just depends on the meteorological conditions whether they go 'doughnuts-on-a-rope' or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.143.221.55 (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Try a screen shot of youtube or 4od, it's the same one he's had for years. What is new is the satellite footage.

jn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.241.4.69 (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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 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)

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)

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 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)

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)


 * It's much simpler than that. All you need is a radio.  Or the internet.  Perhaps you remember
 * a few missions back when ground to shuttle transmissions started showing up on baby monitors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.65.143 (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

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: Deletion policy and 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)


 * Anthony Bradbury is wrong. Wikipedia is not about what is true (no primary sources, no original  research), it is about what is citable.  I'm betting there's an article on God.  Why not try to have that one deleted?
 * Good point, whoever you are. Thanks & Regards, DPdH (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I am quite certain that the Aurora aircraft does not exist, and yet I would object to the removal of the article. Unicorns do not exist either, and there is an article on unicorns. While the Aurora may not be as notable as unicorns, it is still notable, and should have an article. That is not to say I think the article is well-written; it should concentrate on documenting what other people have published about the supposed aircraft, as well as various incarnations in popular culture, and not indulge in speculation about what the aircraft might "really" be. 4.245.108.164 (talk) 02:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

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. 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)

The one thing that I know for sure is that in the mid 1980's (1984-1986) a short article appeared in a well known Aviation magazine (Aviation Week?) that mentioned the development of a replacement for the SR-71 capable of mach 5-6 and named 'Aurora'. That likely was the first mention of Aurora. It certainly may have been disinformation and untrue, but the the existance of the article is a fact. IIRC the article was in the left colum, midway down one of the right side pages. --71.214.221.153 (talk) 14:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

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)
 * It might. At any rate, thanks. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

History: the name "Aurora"
From the history section it appears -to me, at least- that the name "Aurora" was made public by AW&ST for the first time in 1990. However, I've got here a 1988 year review of aviation which already mentions "Aurora" by that name. They don't have a source for it, but tend to use AW&ST information. So the name "Aurora" was publicly known at least in 1988, possibly also via AW&ST. Can someone make clear exactly what is implied with the 1990 mention in the History section? Is 1990 just referring to the discovery if the name Aurora IN THE BUDGET, or the discovery of the name "Aurora" itself? Nicolas Herdwick (talk) 13:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * See my comment above. Aurora first mentioned in Aviation Week around 1984-1987. I'm 100% certain the article exists, 90% sure the plane doesn't. --71.214.221.153 (talk) 14:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Conspiracy?
I think that the use of the term "conspiracy theorists" does not fit the definition found on that page. Aurora may be secret, but if it exists, does anyone actually think that it would be illegal?
 * Still, it's deceiving the public, denying the existence of this thing, if it exists. Covering up the death of Paul McCartney may not be strictly harmful, but it's still a conspiracy theory (I don't believe it anyway.) Besides, if Aurora exists, it could be used for fraudulent purposes easily enough. In fact, its existence has been suggested by at least 2 free-energists, Nick Cook and William R. Lyne (no Wikipedia article; author of Occult Ether Physics and Pentagon Aliens). Pentagon Aliens is where I first read about Aurora.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Error in specification section
There appears to be a problem with the data in the Aircraft specifications/switch template. The powerplant section says:
 * Powerplant: (Low Speed) 4× afterburning turbofans, (unknown thrust) each, (High Speed) 4× ramjets, scramjets or pulse detonation engines (267 kN est. thrust) (High Speed) 4× ramjets, scramjets or pulse detonation engines each

Notice the repeated "(High Speed) 4× ramjets, scramjets or pulse detonation engines"? I think this has something to do with the template, but I'm unsure how to fix it. Astronaut (talk) 16:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

How can there even be a specifications section for an aircraft that isn't reliably known to exist. Just because someone guesses that a plane would have certain specs doesn't make it notable. The article is informative, even if it is a patchwork of loosely-backed up theories, but a specifications section seems to be simply misleading. Bonus Onus (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Lazar section
I added a few words to the Lazar section. It was written too much as if it's fact, when even many Ufologists dispute his story. I don't think it needs too much on this, but just a few words to make it more clear that this is just a controversial testimony. I feel my edit was a little clunky, so I hope some one can clean that a little to make it nicer to read. Awareenemy (talk) 22:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I cleaned up the section, so hopefully it reads better and sounds less biased. I must note that I omitted the word "alleged" from the statement that Lazar is a physicist. Though his school records have not been presented as proof of academic achievement, Lazar has proven that he has an advanced understanding of physics, and also possesses tax documentation of his employment as a physicist with the United States Department of Naval Intelligence. http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Bob_Lazar_S4_Disc_Images/Bob_Lazar_W2.gif

This whole section should definetely be deleted. About everything Lazar ever told has been dissected and refuted. He probably never came even near to Area 51. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.129.235.162 (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you have a reference to show that his information has been refuted? - Ahunt (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree that the paragraph should be deleted - material from Bob Lazar does not constitute evidence, and the section is called "Additional evidence". Lazar's claims have never attained any sort of useful evidentiary standard, and genuine physicists trip him up too easily. That the physics of a hypothetical UFO expert might be different isn't the problem... but he ought to have picked up college level physics along the way. A highly unreliable witness. Singe onion (talk) 06:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see any need to delete it, it is cited, is on topic and does add to the article, but I do agree that it isn't really "evidence" so i have retitled the section "Additional claims" since they are all unverified. - Ahunt (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Fox News missile video
Surely someone looking at the video has realized that the "split" cloud is the shadow of the missile exhaust. —Preceding unsigned comment added by William A Roberts (talk • contribs) 08:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hoax
The possibility of this aircraft being a hoax exists. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it is possible that the aircraft itself is a hoax. The article is written to ackowledge that fact.  The lede calls the aircraft a "hypothesised United States reconnaissance aircraft, alleged to be capable of hypersonic flight."  This is an acknowledgement that the aircraft may not be real.  None of this is a reason for the hoax tag on the article.  The coverage of the hypothesised aircraft is real and that is what the article discusses.  That tag is for articles that proclaim to be real and are probably not.  I am going to remove the hoax tag from the article.   GB fan  talk 21:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. It clearly states that the aircraft is in use by US military and has an unknown price in the sidebar. Article continues to use weasel terms like "according to the hypothesis", "it is believed to be" while presenting the Aircraft as real, several times implying that the project was actually real all with the aim of spreading hearsay. The title itself claims that Aurora was a real aircraft. You can't very well start an article saying "According to the hypothesis Santa Claus exists" and then continue to treat the subject matter as factual. That isn't how wikipedia works. For now, I will put weasel word, citation, clarification and other tags where needed, if the matter isn't cleared up the Hoax tag goes back up. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 01:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The only place I can find that it said that the aircraft is in use by US military was in the infobox. I removed the primary user from the infobox because it was not supported.  The article definetly needs to be cleaned up and rewritten but I don't believe the article itself is not a hoax.  It is an article about a airplane that we can not confirm the existence of but we can confirm that some people believe it exists.   GB fan  talk 02:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Absent and unreliable references, dead links
I'm seriously considering removing large sections of this article because of the absence of sources for a lot of the claims which have been made. Also, a lot of the sources which are given have no sources of their own and seem to be only opinion and baseless speculation.

A lot of the claims in the article have been tagged as unreferenced since as far back as 2008 in some cases, so I think it is time to eliminate the more dubious claims, and only add them back in once reliable sources have been found. I won't be removing the entire article, however, since there probably is merit for its existence, it just needs considerably better sources.

What does everyone think? I'll proceed with this in a day or two if their are no objections. I have a work in progress version here. Rtdixon86 (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Lockheed D-21
The only aircraft that really does exist and fits into some of the speculative nonsense in this article is the Lockheed D-21. As that article already exists this one can safely be scrapped. Roger (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a raging debate over the existence of this aircraft, but unless there is a consensus to go to AFD, it will stay. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC).
 * If it should not be deleted then I think this article could be handed over to the "loony-toons nutcase conspiracies" wikiproject together with all the other tinfoil hat wearing, alien abduction, area 51, who really shot JFK, rubbish. It's a better fit there than with the serious, real world, work of the Aviation Wikiproject. Roger (talk) 07:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do not mistake my compliance here; I have no relevant knowledge whether Aurora exists or not, nor am I a proponent of its retention as an article, but since there is no legitimate tinwiki, this is its home for now. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC).
 * I searched around and discovered that there actually is a WikiProject for this kind of stuff - WikiProject Rational Skepticism. I believe they could really help get this article into shape so I'm going to add the Project template. Roger (talk) 12:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, there's a logical conclusion that utterly fails to hang together! Shame on you 8-(   Andy Dingley (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If you think that there isn't enough reliable material to show this aircraft exists then by all means take it to WP:AFD. If it gets deleted it can be added to List of fictional aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 15:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if "not real", this doesn't belong under "fictional" aircraft - it's something different. "Fictional aircraft" imply a fiction, and the aircraft being invented to serve that. Aurora has more in common with the F-19s and the He 113 than a Rutland Reindeer. Besides which, List of fictional aircraft is WP:LISTCRUFT personified and quite nasty enough already. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well if it isn't a real aircraft and face it there isn't much in the way of evidence that it is, and it is not fictional (i.e. made up to be used in a fictional work), then perhaps it would be better classified under Urban legends! - Ahunt (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't argue with that. Maybe under a sub-class of those, related to aviation (see my own talk: too). Andy Dingley (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Any evidence at all?
Since the rather "circumstantial evidence" about the existence of this aircraft has been removed as unreliable, the whole thing seems to now hang on the evidence of Bob Lazar. If you read that bio on him he doesn't seem to be a very reliable source at all either. If you remove his evidence as doubtful, we haven't got much left for an article. Suggestions? Leave it? Afd? Redirect somewhere like Black project (and removed link back to here obviously) - Ahunt (talk) 01:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That was a bad deletion. Although extremely speculative, whoever removed it doesn't seem to have understood the difference between a WP article that is speculative, and one that objectively reports other peoples' widely-recorded and reported prior speculation. This article was never about an aircraft, it was about the urban myth of an aircraft. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * We did touch on the urban myth aspect above. Perhaps the speculative text could be put back in if the lead were changed to indicate more "myth-like stature"? - Ahunt (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem with the content I removed wasn't that I interpreted it as speculative but rather that it was of questionable relevance. Strange contrails could just as easily be attributed to evidence of: God, global warming, UFO's, Russian spy planes etc. It would be inappropriate to synthesis reports of these as evidence of espionage. Marcus Qwertyus   02:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh I agree with your removal of the bulk of that if it is treated as an aircraft article, the "evidence" could be for almost anything. I am wondering though, if we make this more about an urban myth of an aircraft than about a real aircraft if some of that shouldn't be reintroduced as what some people have used as evidence of its existence in the past. In other words "some people have said this is Aurora related and proof of its existence..." - Ahunt (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's an "aircraft article", then it needs to be deleted as there's no reliable evidence for such an aircraft (not that I'd support this, as I see it as a valid large article on the myth).
 * As it is, that deletion is wholly POV where an editor has selected one set of claims that they like (there's very little to link this to the B-2, especially not unless all claims about high speed are dropped), then deleted all the others. We should also remember that sightings don't have codenames. Even if Aurora was indeed the B-2, that means nothing at all for other sightings and certainly not that the "donuts" et al. must have been caused by the same secret project. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Still keep. The amount of theorizing, speculation and rumors makes it still notable. Otherwise I would say redirect to B-2 Spirit but I would want to know how many in the aviation community have accepted Ben Rich's assertion. I do agree with Andy that this article shouldn't be about the aircraft. It should be about the urban myth of the aircraft and so we should stop treating it as a real aircraft by doing things like removing the infobox.Marcus Qwertyus   02:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Changing it to a more urban myth article works for me. Perhaps we should trade the Infobox aircraft pair for Template:Infobox Paranormalcreatures since it is closer to the Loch Ness Monster monster as a subject, than say the Cessna 172? - Ahunt (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay I think we have a consensus here that this is essentially an urban myth, so I have changed the info box to a general one, shifted the one useful ref that was there in the old box and changed the lead para. It is a start, although more can be done. See what you think. - Ahunt (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * As it is a myth are the Hypersonic aircraft and Black project cats appropriate, not sure about fictional aircraft cat either as we dont make any mention that the Aurora exist in fiction. The see also could do with a cull it just seem to be a collection of real and fictional aircraft without any real logic why they are included, for example what the 1950s Republic XF-103 proposal has to do a 21st century myth I dont know. MilborneOne (talk) 23:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Good point - will fix (note used generic "dash" there!) - Ahunt (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I have done some cleaning up and a bit of referenced expansion. See what you think, does anymore really need to be said at this point in time? - Ahunt (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC).


 * Yes. As it stands from recently, the article has deleted other sets of myths in favour of a single myth. Big POV problem, especially when the ones deleted include the "donuts on a rope" and the "North Sea refuelling" claims. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem with those claims is that there was nothing to link it to anything called "Aurora", that was just wild speculation on the observers part. I did carefully review the sections that User:Marcus Qwertyus cut and I came to the same conclusion he did - there is nothing in them to connect them to this story. You could claim the contrails were caused by the Loch Ness Monster. In deference to those claims I have included a general statement about them in the "evidence section" with a ref. - Ahunt (talk) 01:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Apart from the contrails, what about the North Sea refuelling, Macrihanish and the rest?
 * The "Aurora" name is one very small part of it all. There's really nothing that claims Aurora (the codename seen in print) was even an aircraft, it could have been anything to do with those programmes (and probably just was for the electric knob warmers on the B2). If we take the "urban myth" view (which I think is the only reasonable approach) then we shouldn't filter out some claims because they have Ben Rich or Bob Lazar's (Lazar FFS!) name on them, yet ignore other stories that were very clearly part of the same myth and reliably commented upon as such (Fortean Times is the usual source of vaguely objective comment on the doings of kooks in the kooksphere, they certainly covered Aurora and included the North Sea claims). Andy Dingley (talk) 12:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally I am not against putting those back in, in fact I read though them to look at doing just that. If they can be reincorporated as part of the myth then that would be find with me. Perhaps if we take an approach like "Stories like this...helped to grow the legend of the Aurora, even though these sightings may have been of completely different aircraft entirely..." Let me see what I can do in that regard and then everyone can have a look and see if it makes any sense or not. - Ahunt (talk) 12:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay I have put some text back in, pared it down and reorganized it and removed a lot of the overlinking, particularly in quotes where links are not supposed to be used. See what you think. - Ahunt (talk) 12:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That looks fine, did a bit of sub-titling to differentiate the claims. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks, okay, my additions were looking a bit "monolithic". I moved part of the Sweetman quote up, he is a fairly credible writer and he believes in the Aurora, so that should probably be mentioned up front to at least show the disagreement. I read his whole article, though and his evidence is pretty flimsy: some missing money, sonics booms and one sighting of "something" over the North Sea, so I don't think his conclusions should be held to show more than disagreement with statements of the aircraft's non-existence. - Ahunt (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Reading though it I think the article is looking pretty good at this stage, at least in comparison to past versions. - Ahunt (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

"Myth"
I didn't remove the clause that contained "myth" because the cites didn't support it; I removed it because it is redundant. The intro already calls the plane "rumored," says there is little evidence that it even existed, cites government denials, and reports that at least one study of the matter found no basis for believing in it. PRRfan (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between a "rumor" and a "myth", they are not really synonymous. We have a consensus above on this talk page (qv) to label it a myth and a ref that supports it. - Ahunt (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh come on; if the government denies it exists, that's only more evidence that it does exist.
 * Psychonaut25 12:05 AM EST, June 29 2011

Conspiracy
I added Category:Conspiracy theories in the United States some time ago. Does anyone object to calling Aurora a conspiracy theory? I'd classify it as such, even though I'm somewhat of a conspiracy theorist myself.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I would say including that category is probably reasonable. - Ahunt (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Another point
The term myth has at least two meanings. The first is mythology. The second is a popular notion that is believed to be false. Both apply somewhat in this case. The first in that it is considered an urban legend, a popular culture notion that is believe to be false, inaccurate, of difficult or impossible to verify. The second in that Aurora's existence is, according to this article, known to be denied by the U.S. gov't.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 04:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Image/Picture
To whomever is doing it, please stop changing the picture from AuroraJet1.jpg or AuroraJet2.jpeg to the artist's conception. I think we all can agree that a real photo is better than an artist's conception, even if the aircraft itself is only rumored to exist. Well, sure it's only a rumor/myth, but the rumor states what the aircraft looks like and it looks exactly like AuroraJet1.jpg and AuroraJet2.jpeg (which I believe are themselves both the same aircraft). Until somebody comes up with evidence to show that this aircraft is not the "Aurora" craft (the name Aurora isn't even the name of the aircraft; according to the rumor, there was a project called Project Aurora which was a project for the development of hypersonic reconnaissance aircraft). So Aurora isn't even the name of the craft, rather it's just the name of the project under which it was developed (albeit one specific craft which was developed under Project Aurora is the one which has the appearance of what Aurora is generally assumed to look like, i.e. like in the two photos, and is thus generally referred to as "Aurora" or "The Aurora Jet")...although the craft in the two photos fits exactly the description of the Aurora craft, and we've no name of it (the craft in the two images is, at present, unidentifiable). As such, could we please leave the actual photo up rather than just the artist's conception?

Psychonaut25 12:25 AM EST, June 29 2011
 * That's NOT a real photo. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC).
 * Not only is is photo itself technically questionable, its origin information is totally unacceptable to Wikipedia and the file will be shortly deleted. If you want to wait until it is deleted to restore the other image then we can do that. - Ahunt (talk) 11:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks like it was a photo of a model that was passed off as a real photo as per File talk:AuroraJet2.jpeg. I have removed it as it is about to be deleted from Wikipedia as well. - Ahunt (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to close this topic, the image has now been deleted as lacking proper licencing information. - Ahunt (talk) 11:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm currently discussing its removal with the administrator who removed it, because it claimed that it did not have any source information, even though I had entered the source info. Also, it is not a photo of a model as it came from my late grandfather's collection of photos from when he was in the Air Force.


 * -Psychonaut25 6:13 AM EST, 12 July 2011


 * Actually you indicated earlier on the image file that you found it on his computer, not that he took it. It could well have been something he saved that he saw on the internet or someone else e-mailed to him. It certainly did look like a website-sized photo, not the original size taken by a digital camera. The admin was right to delete the photo - that you found it on your grandfather's computer is not a sufficient proof of where it came from, so its source is unknown. As noted above it certainly looks like a fake. The internet is full of pictures of the Aurora like this forum site, but they all look different! - Ahunt (talk) 13:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

crashed UAV that looks like the aurora
The story and image looks a lot like the rumored Aurora. http://news.yahoo.com/contact-lost-hypersonic-glider-launch-163016325.html 71.198.209.193 (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * A totally different aircraft, see Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2. The HPV2 is different in many ways from the Aurora - much smaller, unmanned, different mission and most importantly, it exists. - Ahunt (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Donuts on a Rope, Part Deux
Added a few clarifying sentences about Steven Douglas's photograph. I remember reading "Aviation Week"'s report on the photo, and their breathless speculation that this must have been generated by a pulse detonation engine powering the Aurora.

 NOT. 

Google "donuts on a rope" and you will find many photos of other conventional aircraft that generate this kind of contrail also. This fact needs to be mentioned in this article. "Donuts on a rope" contrails absolutely do not contribute meaningful evidence for the Aurora's existence. They are of interest only in a historical context as Douglas's photo greatly excited the folks at "Aviation Week", and caused them to speculate further about the fact that this was evidence that the Aurora had a pulse detonation engine. We now know that "donuts on a rope" contrails don't mean anything other than that some sort of an aircraft has passed overhead. The second reference I listed points out that a real pulse detonation engine operating at Mach 5 would most likely have a cycle rate closer to 1500 cycles/sec (the Wikipedia article says so, so it must be true!), which would neither sound like a "low rumble" nor would it generate visibly separated donuts, since the donuts would be too close together.

FYI, if you want to check out how something of a certain cycle rate (Hz) sounds, here's a good website that generates these sounds for you:

http://www.ronelmm.com/tones/

To me, a "low rumble sound" would be anything below 100Hz, and typically below 60Hz. 1500 Hz sounds high pitched to me, a high soprano tone, not a low rumble at all.

The V1 pulse jet engine, according to the wikipedia article, operated at 43 cycles/sec, hence its low rumbling "buzz bomb" sound. Couple of Youtube videos of real V1 engine sounds:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1qsBGTkVSk&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8Q9oAPrvZo A Mach 5 aircraft would hardly be able to operate with such a low cycle rate for its engine.

DarthRad (talk)

Impressive!
"Obviously they didn't think anybody was out there. It was thirty below zero - probably ninety below with the wind chill factor"

According to this calculator, this would have required a wind speed over 1000 km/h. Very impressive! It's also impressive that the base temperature of -30 seems highly suspect by itself, given that the record low for Tonopah is -10. So basically this report is highly suspect based on his weather report alone.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That is why the article is about a "myth" and not an aircraft. Everything about it is mythical, or at least apocryphal! - Ahunt (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

what is it?
the article doesn't say what aurora is? what makes it special? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.180.194.3 (talk) 09:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The opening sentence says "Aurora was a rumored mid-1980s American reconnaissance aircraft." Does that not say what it is? - Ahunt (talk) 10:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Evidence to the contrary
Might evidence for Aurora's lack of existence, such as the failures of the X-43 and X-51 programs make a good section of this article? NobodyMinus (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Only if you have refs that discuss the Aurora and not other, probably unrelated programs. - Ahunt (talk) 12:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

UFO Connection
The Aurora aircraft UFO connection has been talked about by Ufologists and has been mentioned in many UFO books and documentaries and as stated by another user a section with in the article also mentions the Aurora-UFO connection and government response to UFOs and thats the reason for the inclusion of the UFO template and the UFO related categories.

Here are links that references the Aurora-UFO connection


 * http://www.slideshare.net/mufonnexus/mufon-ufo-journal-1990-7-july
 * http://www.nationalufocenter.com/curiousities/aurora.shtml
 * http://www.ufocasebook.com/auroramystery.html
 * http://www.popularmechanics.co.za/features/pm-investigates-ufo-myths-something-in-the-sky/
 * http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/ufo/6039934/UFO-files-secret-US-spy-plane-Aurora-could-be-behind-sightings.html

164.106.202.50 (talk) 12:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay thanks for posting those refs. I think we can agree that an article shouldn't be tagged with "UFO" nav box and cats just because an object might be mistaken for a UFO. If that were the case then articles on weather balloons, lenticular clouds and just about every kind of aircraft would be similarly tagged. So let's look at what your refs say. The first one seems to just indicate that the Aurora might have been based near the same place in Nevada that it is claimed that real UFOs were studied, so no connection there between the two subjects. The second and third refs discuss the possible design of the Aurora and indicate that it may have been mistaken for a UFO by observers. The fourth ref only mentions the Aurora very briefly and again as something that may have been mistaken for a UFO. The last ref says that the Aurora again may have been mistaken for a UFO. I don't think you have made your case that the nav box and cats are justified. The fact that until you added the Aurora to the nav box after we started this discussion, that there were no other aircraft types in the nav box actually strengthens the case that aircraft types should not be listed there. It is not a UFO, it is just something that might have been mistaken for a UFO. The nav box and cats are not justified and neither is it appearing in the nav box. - Ahunt (talk) 23:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay the addition of the "UFO" nav box and cats has now been removed by three different editors, showing a strong consensus that they do not belong in this article. Also as noted by me above you haven't made a case for including them in the article. I think that at this point that this issue can be closed . - Ahunt (talk) 19:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Like the user said the Aurora aircraft has been discussed by ufologists and been mentioned about in UFO books and magazines. Also the purpose of the UFO nav box and category is to illstrate the Government responses to UFOs (i.e. using UFO techology to build aircraft such as the aurora and other aircraft) and again the Aurora-UFO connection has been referenced with in the article (Bob Lazars acount of the aircraft and Area 51 (a ufo related topic)), even the See also section has links to the Black Triagnle UFO. 98.174.223.41 (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You can disagree all you like, but you haven't presented any refs that support those ideas and thus haven't successfully made your case here and, by editing, consensus is clearly that this doesn't belong. - Ahunt (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There was never a "concensus" to begin with and its apparent you did not read the arguments made by the previous user. Here's the links that shows the Aurora-UFO connection.
 * http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1586.htm
 * http://www.hidden-truth.org/secrecy/unknown-crafts/black-triangle-ufo-tr-3b-qastraq
 * http://www.loris-hemlof.com/UFO.html
 * http://www.paranormalworld.com/component/k2/itemlist/tag/Aerospace,%20technology,%20Aurora,%20hypsersonic%20spaceplanes,%20UFOS
 * http://www.rense.com/general47/secetr.htm


 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.106.202.50 (talk)


 * Actually as explained at WP:EDITCONSENSUS consensus on articles is most usually achieved by editing and the fact that three regular editors on this article (me, Bzuk and Alexf) removed the "UFO" nav box and cats does indeed show that the consensus is that they shouldn't be in this article. From my ref-by-ref analysis above I think it is pretty clear that I read them.


 * Thanks for posting those new refs, let's look at what they say and how reliable they are:
 * http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1586.htm - this one questions whether the Aurora could be the so-called "black triangle" UFOs spotted or not. This is a reprint of http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread60765/pg1, which is a reprint from UFO Magazine. This can probably be considered a WP:RS, but, as above, it is saying that the Aurora was possibly mistaken for a UFO.
 * http://www.hidden-truth.org/secrecy/unknown-crafts/black-triangle-ufo-tr-3b-qastraq - this says that the Aurora was really a nuclear powered aircraft called the TR-3, but it is an anonymous post on an anonymously-published website that doesn't even come close to WP:RS.
 * http://www.loris-hemlof.com/UFO.html - this one claims that the Aurora is able to fly to the moon, but then it is WP:SPS and not a reliable reference
 * http://www.paranormalworld.com/component/k2/itemlist /tag/Aerospace,%20technology,%20Aurora,%20hypsersonic%20spaceplanes,%20UFOS - this article is a bit better thought out and describes some speculation about what the Aurora might be like, including the question of whether it uses UFO technology or not, without coming to a conclusion, but the website is WP:SPS and not a reliable sources for Wikipedia refs.
 * http://www.rense.com/general47/secetr.htm - This article claims that the US government basically made up UFO stories as a cover for experimental aircraft development. An interesting theory, but no evidence is presented. Furthermore Renses' website carries a pretty extensive disclaimer that essentially says the stories on the website are not to be considered reliable information, but are to further discussion.


 * So in summary here we don't have much beyond the opinion that some people think that the Aurora might have been mistaken for a UFO. As I noted above, almost every object in the sky, from lenticular clouds to Cessna 172s have been mistaken for UFOs at some point. That isn't enough reason to tag any particular aircraft article with "UFO" nav box and cats. As above I don't think you have made a good case for adding these to the article. - Ahunt (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And as other users previously stated, this is not about whenever or not the aircraft or anyother object in the sky is mistaken for UFOs and thats not the reasoning for the inclusion of the UFO navbox and categories (see discussion below). 68.106.152.102 (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I have asked members of WikiProject Aircraft to participate in this discussion to help come to a more conclusive consensus on this issue. - Ahunt (talk) 15:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The UFO connection is not significant to Aurora, it is the other way round. A brief and referenced mention that Aurora is of interest to ufologists, with an associated link, is the maximum exposure UFOs should get here. [Update 16:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC) : the current See also link looks about the right level of exposure.] Now on my watchlist. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I concur that a "see also" to Black triangle (UFO), along with a referenced mention of its connection to UFO theories in the text, is the extent of what is needed here. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay a week has gone by with no further debate, so as per WP:SILENCE I think we now have a solid consensus not to include the cats and nav box. I will also remove the link to this article from the nav box. - Ahunt (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, its common knowlege that the Aurora aircraft and other similar aircraft such as the B-2, the flying flapjack, F-117 has been talked about and referenced about in UFO literature and as the other users have argued, been the subject of many UFO conspricy theories, especally regarding UFO related topics such as Area 51 and alleged use of extraterrestrial techology in building such aircraft (which is why the categories Govenment Repsonses to UFO was put in the article and the reason the Aurora aircraft article was put in the conspiricy theory section of the navbox). Also this is not a valid concensous since the only thing you did was just go to one wikiproject and i sense this is the case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 68.106.152.102 (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, yeah, now you can stop edit warring. I don't care for your "common knowlege" (sic) approach, nor do I care for argument against a "valid concensous" (sic).  Stop edit warring.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay we had a complete discussion, came to a consensus and now you can WP:DROPTHESTICK. - Ahunt (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Concur, drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass please. "Common knowledge" is not acceptable for use on Wikipedia, continued edit-warring about this will result in blocks and/or the article being protected. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Personal experience (admittedly trivial and unspecific)
I can't tell you WHAT it was, but I can tell you they were flying SOMETHING over southern CA early on Wednesday mornings for a few weeks in late 1992. I lived there at the time and managed a small store. Right before dawn one morning, something rattled my windows. This being southern CA, I assumed it was an earthquake. I mentioned this later in the day to a customer at my store, and he said no, it's a plane of some sort they're testing -- it flies over on Wednesday mornings. While he hadn't seen the "donuts on a rope" contrail, he said a friend of his had. (yep, a friend of a friend!) Sure enough, the next two Wednesdays, at roughly the same time, the same thing happened: something rattled my windows. Then it stopped.

I said it was trivial! Something rattled windows a bit north of LA a few times in the early 90s. But, for what it's worth, that's what happened in this Wikipedia editor's personal experience. Not encyclopedic, of course, but I thought I'd throw it out there just for interest. Worldwalker (talk) 13:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTFORUM - Ahunt (talk) 15:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * If you want your experience to be a citable source for Wikipedia, write it down somewhere, like in a newspaper, which will be a verifiable source.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Aurora (aircraft). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aemann.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/aircraft/black/aurora/aurora5.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040114222420/http://www.aeronautics.ru:80/archive/vvs/from_pdf/aurora.htm to http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/vvs/from_pdf/aurora.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080725123842/http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/aurora.asp to http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/aurora.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Aurora (aircraft). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070706051254/http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviationspace/95e16f096bd8d010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html to http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviationspace/95e16f096bd8d010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20040114222420/http%3A//www.aeronautics.ru%3A80/archive/vvs/from_pdf/aurora.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Can these images be added if permission is granted from the creator of these images?
Found some much better renders of the hypothetical craft made about a year ago by Rodrigo Avella on Behance. If permission can be granted from the rights holder, can one of the images be used as a replacement for the low quality one in the article? Not only are they higher quality, but I feel that they are more representative of what a current-gen aircraft design would be. https://www.behance.net/gallery/33912352/Aurora-Aircraft Wolven1 (talk) 06:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The creator would basically have to release it under a free licence, as there is no justification for a non-free image for this article. The easy way to have them do this is for them to upload it to commons themselves and indicate the licence. - Ahunt (talk) 12:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Should be merged with the DARPA Falcon project, which is the current name for this plane
The Aurora is very clearly the same aircraft, or line of aircraft, that are now declassified as the DARPA Falcon Project. Although the artist's conception given in the present Aurora-article is very misleading, the actual photographs and drawings that exist of the Aurora fit perfectly with the Falcon. The description of the Aurora by aviation experts as being built for hypersonic flight and using some sort of experimental ramjet also fits perfectly with the description of the very real Falcon. This can be seen in [|this documentary] - which is THE authoritative source on the Aurora, containing interviews with all key witnesses, but which is conspicuously not referenced in the present article. I tried to edit in a reference to this fact, but it was promptly removed by user:Ahunt, who is an officer in the US military. He dismissed referencing the main description of the Aurora as "original research". Very obviously this entire article is written to suit a US military narrative, and censorship like this is a disgrace to Wikipedia, and will forever taint its name. Fake news! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.209.63.246 (talk) 02:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "user:Ahunt, who is an officer in the US military" - LOL, no I am not. If you check my user page you will see that I am a Canadian, never served in the US military. I removed your text because it was WP:OR, as I indicated. The You Tube link you provided is to a copyright violation version of an old documentary. For why we can't link to copyright violations see WP:COPYLINK. You can note that everything of substance mentioned in that documentary is already in the article, referenced to print sources. But let's get to your theory that a rumoured 1980s spyplane is the same as a 2000s reusable spacecraft. Where is your ref for that? The documentary certainly doesn't mention it. - Ahunt (talk) 13:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Darkstar
Its was also called project Darkstar 103.226.236.201 (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reference that says that? We have an article on Project Darkstar, but that is a video game and also Lockheed Martin RQ-3 DarkStar, which is probably what you are thinking of. - Ahunt (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Aurora witnesses
I have been told by an airfield worker who years ago (90s ?) working at Machrihanish Scotland, that the Aurora would arrive and depart at night time, the airfield was long enough to take the space shuttle, and the airfield lighting was installed with the shuttle in mind. I also knew a retired mil radar op in the UK who told me he would be briefed when the Aurora would show on the scope. All this was years ago, it appears the Aurora had a short life. 2A00:23C7:7946:4D01:5070:3A3C:9967:47F4 (talk) 10:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so we don't deal in unsubstantiated rumours. You can note Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing vague rumours. Talk pages are only for suggesting improvements to the article and require citing reliable sources. - Ahunt (talk) 13:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)