Oct 162012
A mid-1970’s graphic from the collection of a former NASA-Langley engineer shows the development schedule for “HTDA.” This I think stands for “Hypersonic Technology Development Aircraft,” and was to be a Mach 5+ airbreathing lifting body research plane that looks strikingly like the supposed “Aurora spyplane” that was so popular in the 1990’s. HTDA airframes 1 and 2 were most likely pure rocket vehicles, with a scramjet being integrated onto airframe 3.
Unconcclusive proof that the Aurora exists. About all we know is that the technologies for the Aurora do exist and they’ve been tested and developed. You’d think by now someone would have come up with evidence that would prove or disprove its existence.
The next thing we know you’ll find some forgotten Aurora blueprints and surprise everyone.
Beyond the unlikeliness of that (I personally expect that nothign remotely akin to “Aurora” was actually built), if I did come across such, I’d have to think long and hard about what to do with them, and whether I wanted to risk Leavenworth or a bullet out of the blue…
> I personally expect that nothign remotely akin to “Aurora” was actually built
Why’s that? Is it because all of the technologies that would have went into an “Aurora” kind of seemed to dead end.
I’m betting if “Aurora” was built, it probably never made it past the testing stage with only a few prototypes built.
> Is it because all of the technologies that would have went into an “Aurora” kind of seemed to dead end.
Pretty much. Especially the hypersonic airbreathing propulsion system… a quarter of a century on, there’s no evidence of anyone getting even *close* to a meaningful demonstration (and by meaningful I mean full thrust for more than a few seconds). Additionally, apart from a few intriguing instances, where are the observations? Something the size of an SR-71 blitzing along at Mach 5+ wouldn’t go un-noticed. Hell, an SR-71 flew over my work site years back and we thought someone had nuked Denver.