From: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V2 #34 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Saturday, 19 December 1992 Volume 02 : Number 034 In this issue: 2 somewhat interesting shows (fwd) Things to see at Wright-Patterson Dayton Re: Things to see at Wright-Patterson Interesting INTERCEPTS Letter B-36 at SAC The letter Offut AFB museum Foggy Trio, Aurora and DynaSoar 'Intercepts' Newsletter Re: Foggy Trio, Aurora and DynaSoar [none] Foggy Trio, Aurora and DynaSoar See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the skunk-works or skunk-works-digest mailing lists and on how to retrieve back issues. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: agbrooks@teaching.cs.adelaide.edu.au (Zoz) Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 0:00:06 CST Subject: 2 somewhat interesting shows (fwd) |> The other show was A&E's "First Flights with Neil Armstrong". This episode was |> about supersonic jet fighters. It covered the F-100, F-102, F-101, F-4, F-16, |> F-15, F/A-18, YF-22, and F-117 (in that order). Nothing too exciting, but ^^^^^ |> somewhat interesting. Isn't this a bit strange for a show on supersonic jet fighters? Perhaps I am misinformed, but I was told that the F-117's top speed was high subsonic. Also, despite its designation, it's not really a fighter. Oh well. I just wish we got these shows here in Oz :( - -- ______ _____________ ______________________ ______ /\####/\ / / / / /\####/\ / \##/ \ /_______ / / _ ______ / / \##/ \ /____\/____\ / / / / \ \ / / /____\/____\ \####/\####/ / /____\ \_/ / / /_______ \####/\####/ \##/ \##/ / / / / \##/ \##/ \/____\/ /_____________________/ /____________/ \/____\/ agbrooks@teaching.cs.adelaide.edu.au ------------------------------ From: rschnapp@metaflow.com (Russ Schnapp) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 08:48:10 PST Subject: Things to see at Wright-Patterson I'm leaving to go home to Cleveland for the holidays today. I'm planning a trip to Wright-Patterson AFB. Any requests or recommendations? As an aside, I told my parents that I thought it was odd that I had never been there (we lived in Cleveland until I was 7 and moved back later). They pulled out pictures of me in front a few displays and planes. I was 5. Well, I haven't been to Dayton for over ten years, but I'm absolutely certain that the Air Force Museum is worth the visit. In fact, it may be the only thing worth seeing in Dayton (I spent a month there one Thanksgiving weekend!). The only surviving XB-70 is there, as is the only intact B-36. The X-3 is there, as is an X-15 (the other X-15 is in the Smithsonian NASM). The Goblin (an experimental parasitic fighter that used the B-36 for an aircraft carrier) is there. They've got a YF-12 and an SR-71 and a U-2. When I was there last, there were dozens of unique and irreplaceable aircraft sitting out on the tarmac, being subjected to the Ohio elements. Even the XB-70 was out in the weather. It was very sad. I've heard that they have since obtained more indoor display space. I sure hope that the B-70 is indoors now. If I had to say which was the better museum, between the Smithsonian NASM and the AFM, it would be a very tough call. Right now, I think I'd rather see the AFM, mostly because I've been to NASM 6 times, and AFM only twice, and much less recently. ...Russ Schnapp BIX: rschnapp Email: netcom!metaflow!rschnapp or rschnapp@metaflow.com Metaflow Technologies Voice: 619/452-6608x230; FAX: 619/452-0401 La Jolla, California Unless otw specified, I`m speaking only for myself! ------------------------------ From: kuryakin@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Rick Pavek) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 09:43:33 PST Subject: Dayton In Russ Schnapp's message concerning the things to see in Dayton, he mentions they have the only intact B-36. When I was at Omaha I could have sworn they had an intact B-36 in addition to all their other stuff. Anybody else that can confirm/disprove that? Thanks, Rick - --------- #include #include #include main() {} $ segmentation fault - core dumped ------------------------------ From: Geoff.Miller@Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 09:57:03 PST Subject: Re: Things to see at Wright-Patterson Russ Schnapp writes: >The only surviving XB-70 is there, as is the only intact B-36. I read about ten years ago that there was another B-36 at Amon Carter Field in Foat Wuth, Texas, and some enthusiasts wanted to restore it. I never heard anything more about it, though. I don't know anything about Amon Carter Field. Is it a former military base? If not, I'd be interested in finding out how a B-36 got there. Isn't there a B-36 at the SAC museum at Offutt AFB? - --Geoff ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 11:05:02 -0800 Subject: Interesting INTERCEPTS Letter I was rather intrigued by the following letter that several people gave me a copy of, so I decided to contact the publisher of the publication in which it appeared for permission to post it on this mail list, for discussion purposes. He graciously agreed. I decided that it was fair to also post the address where one may order this interesting newsletter. The following is from the November 1992 INTERCEPTS copied by permission of Steve Douglass, publisher. An INTERCEPTS subscription is available for $18.00/yr (foreign: $5.00 extra for postage) from: Steve Douglass 6303 Cornell Amarillo, TX 79109 Senior Citizen and Foggy Trio - ----------------------------- A very interesting letter concerning the top-secret Senior Citizen program from an aerospace employee, calling himself "Foggy Trio" caught our attention and we just have to pass it on. Dear Steve, As an active aerospace employee who has a fertile mind and some time on my hands I chose to do some speculation. Of interest to me is the "Aurora" or "Senior Citizen" project. My interest stems from the frequent sonic booms we are exposed to here in the Los Angeles area. I build space based sub-systems and since I'm not working Aurora, I am free to indulge my curiosity with some degree of expertise. I have a masters in physics and have studied applied astrodynamics including orbit selection and mission analysis. As a scientist lets start with known facts, proceed to hypothesis and then on to suggest some tests. FACTS: 1. Los Angeles is subjected to an uneven series of sonic booms. They always occur on Thursday at or slightly before day break. The boom is not sharp and seems to have a double impact followed by 1 second or so of rumbling. 2. The USGS has used sensors to conclude that the source is a Mach 5+ vehicle going over Catalina Island and moving North North East. 3. Aurora is the name for the Roman goddess of dawn. Similar classes of antiquarian god/goddess name have been issued for a variety of highly classified programs, e.g. Rhyolite, Argus, etc. 4. No owner of an operational or potentially discoverable classified program will do anything which will draw attention to it if there is anyway to avoid it, especially hit a city of 7 million people with the shock of a sonic boom every time you operate. 6. People in DOD research labs and NASA have spent a lot of effort in support of National Aerospace Plane (NASP) technology despite some rather uncertain funding for the thing. Do they have a second use? 7. The space shuttle makes early morning landings to maximize use of cool (dense) desert air and minimal winds and turbulence. 8. Three + years ago we heard reports of unknown sonic boom sources in the interior west. These have ended and been replaced by coastal disturbances. First level conclusions: A. The vehicle can not avoid creating a sonic boom near the end of its mission. B. The profile is very similar to a shuttle re-entry which sounds almost the same. C. Test flights were begun and ended at Groom Lake. Testing was completed three years ago and operational missions are underway. This also coincides well with the retirement of the SR-71. The Service branch has NEVER been known to retire a working program with out already having a replacement in hand. D. The visibility of a vehicle landing at Edwards or China Lake is too high. I agree that the field of choice is Groom Lake. This would require a subsonic glide ratio 4X better than the shuttle, a perfectly believeable improvement. E. The vehicle does not fly well, if it could it would go subsonic out to sea and not bother us here in L.A. F. The approach from L.A. to Groom lake is equivalent to an ORBITAL inclination of about 58 degrees. This is the minimum needed to cover Soviet targets. Any reconnaissance wehicle/platform must be able to cover primary areas of concern, e.g. the former Soviet Union/Mideast etcetera. Second level conclusions: I. The Aurora program is a strategic reconnaissance project. II. The vehicle is a manned trans-atmospheric hypervelocity hybrid between an SR-71 and a free flying close look spacecraft. III. If desired, the mission can operate with an inclination of 60+ degrees, 100 mile altitude for roughly 1-2 days. The SR-71/U-2 type mission require a 1 day pilot prep. If the Aurora customer is keeping bankers hours the time line is: Monday - Vehicle readiness review/mission planning. Tuesday - Pilot prep possible early departure. Wednesday - Mission ops. Thursday - Recovery, vehicle safeing, sensor download. Friday - Vehicle turn-around. IV. Back calculating for the last two reentries over L.A. at 7:04 a.m. local and 06:43 a.m. local, a 58 degree inclination and a 180 mile orbit, the daylight passes for the vehicle in the previous 24 hours blanket the Soviet Union with maximum latitude occurring between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon local time. This is ideal for most optical imagers and most likely to catch potential targets at work. V. The vehicle can probably "dip" into the atmosphere gather intelligence and to affect both orbit inclination and phasing (mean anomaly). Only a small energy penalty is incurred and the body can easily use the atmosphere to "skip" back into space with only the need for a perigee raising maneuver at apogee. VI. There is argument as to whether it is a single vehicle to space, or piggy backed or dropped from a B-52 ala the X-15 and lots of other programs. Single vehicle is attractive for reduced complexity but air launch recovers a big fuel penalty. It also permits the use of alternate power plants which need high starting air speeds. Suggestions for Intercept's monitors. 1. On Tuesdays and Wednesdays listen for B-52 Special Air Missions in the Western U.S. or tanker missions for the same. The missions would be an air launch for the Aurora/Senior Citizen. Early AM (just prior to daybreak) local would be going northeast, PM would be southeast. 2. Coordinate desert California and Nevada listeners and Hams to snap into action on receipt of a Thursday morning sonic boom. Listening for military traffic which might be associated with a shuttle like recovery effort, chase planes, ground support (yeah right from Groom Lake to anywhere on vhf/uhf - good luck.) Since this gets reasonably sensitive you will understand if I opt to forgo a common signature. Think of me as Foggy-trio. ------------------------------ From: pthomson@iastate.edu Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 13:13:34 CST Subject: B-36 at SAC Well I haven't been to the SAC museum in a few years, but they did have one sitting outside when I was there last. Most of there aircraft are outside..including an example of the Golbin, sitting under the wing of the B-36 on a dolly. They seem to have all the bombers and cargo aircraft used by SAC (or Army Air Corps), I can't think of any that were represented. Paul | | ______________________________|_______________________________ ----\--||___||--/---- \ :==^==: / \| o |/ Paul Thomson, PP-ASEL-IA \_____/ Iowa State University pthomson@iastate.edu / | \ Atmospheric Science Dept. (515) 292-8705 ^/ ^ \^ Boundary Layer Meteorology U U U Office: 294-9384 ******************************************************************** 'There is no better way for man of science to destroy his reputation with his peers that to attempt to predict the weather.' -- unknown ******************************************************************** ------------------------------ From: kuryakin@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Rick Pavek) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 11:50:10 PST Subject: The letter Thanks Larry, for taking the time to type in that letter from Foggy-trio. I get that newsletter, too, and wondered if I wanted to type that whole thing in... and had almost decided to. :-) It is an excellent newsletter, and let me point out that if you do sub you get your choice of the frequencies of any military facility you want. Rather you get a printout of all the known frequencies of any mil facility you want. I got Nellis/Tonapah already. If any of you subscribe, let me know and we'll figure out what to ask for so we don't overlap... :-) The material isn't copyrighted and is public domain anyhow, so we should try to get Washington DC/Langley, White Sands, Vandenberg, Edwards, etc. It's neat stuff for anyone who has a scanner. Rick ------------------------------ From: kuryakin@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Rick Pavek) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 11:56:53 PST Subject: Offut AFB museum They have lots 'o types. B-17, HU-16, B-58, B-57, B-66, C-47, T-33, etc. Also, in addition to the B-36 in Fort Worth, they have the C-99 (Transport version one-of-a-kind of the '36) at Kelly or Lackland in Texas. The C-99 was a prototype but was actually used by the Air Force to shuttle troops in the Korean War era. Ugly beastie... 8-} Rick - ----- #include #include #include main() {} $ segmentation fault - core dumped ------------------------------ From: freeman@MasPar.COM (Jay R. Freeman) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 14:29:32 -0800 Subject: Foggy Trio, Aurora and DynaSoar I will take this opportunity to repeat the speculation of my friend Alan Stein (who did Okay that his name be used), that I posted a month or two ago here, that Aurora is in fact a vehicle resembling the "DynaSoar" orbiting spacecraft for a time under development in the 1960s. DynaSoar was a small, low-orbit space-plane, perhaps with "dip" capability but certainly with enough cross-range to make once-around-and-return-to-base feasible. I believe the target launcher ended up being some kind of Titan, though -- more interesting in this context -- the concept was a natural for a piggy-back launch on some kind of high-speed, fly-back booster. My friend reasoned similarly to "Foggy Trio", as follows: There seem to be at least two interesting "black" vehicles that might be involved, first the fighter-sized, at least hypersonic vehicle commonly called "Aurora", and second an unnamed, transport-sized thick-bodied vehicle that has unknown performance. If there are really two vehicles, perhaps the small one is the DynaSoar orbiter and the large one is the fly-back booster. Possibly there is an interim stage of some sort, as well. There would be a great advantage to a booster that could get the orbiter (and its possible interim stage) up to, say 30 or 40 Km altitude and Mach several, pointed in the right direction with tanks topped. I posted my friend's speculations here on 10 October, but no one picked up on them. -- Jay Freeman ------------------------------ From: tim@ais.org (Tim Tyler) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:50:57 -0500 (EST) Subject: 'Intercepts' Newsletter While I cannot comment on the tremendous speculation Mr. Douglass makes about AURORA, stealth, etc. in his 'Intercepts' newsletter, I do have a strong opinion in regards to other aspects, such as the information related to communications monitoring. I'm not a subscriber to the 'Intercepts' newsletter (marketed to 'the serious military [communications] monitor'), but I have some familiarity with some of the frequencies, callsigns, & communications systems which his newsletter deals with. A friend let me borrow 4 or 5 'Intercepts' issues from earlier this year, & I was amazed at some of the gross inaccuracies to be found. Many of the things he got wrong (in particular, 'static' tactical callsigns) were things that someone with minimal knowledge in military systems should have been able to properly figure out. If I still had the issues in question, I'd be happy to provide specific examples. Mr. Douglass is the photographer of the well-known 'doughnuts-on-a-rope' photographs which appeared in AW&ST, and again, I'm not in a position to add enlightenment about AURORA, but the same AW&ST article quotes Douglass as being a communications monitoring enthusiast, and that he heard strange radio-traffic on military frequencies during the time he witnessed the mysterious contrails in the sky. 288.0MHz was mentioned as being a military SATCOM frequency that was active with secure ('scrambled') traffic, & that Douglass hadn't previously heard any traffic on that frequency since DESERT STORM. 288.0MHz is not in the military satellite band plan, & since the traffic was secure-mode, I don't think Douglass had reason to assume it was associated with his UFO-contrail sighting. Further, Douglas makes reference to hearing the callsign "DARKSTAR," and possibly associating it with AURORA. As many monitoring enthusiasts know, DARKSTAR is one of several callsigns used by a battlestaff position aboard an E-3 Sentry AWACS aircraft. These aircraft are often monitorable in Texas while they are on training and/or narcotics interdiction missions. The only speculation that *I* care to make about AURORA is that I think it is safe to say that any high-priority, 'black' aircraft operations would use radio-communications systems which would normally not simply be scrambled, but would also utilize low-probability of (radio) interception techniques such as frequency-hopping or direct sequence spread spectrum, let alone radio-silence. Mr. Douglass makes a lot of speculation --some of it might undoubtably be accurate-- as well as a lot of wild guesses, without much differentiation between the two. It could be said that we all do that here in skunkworks, but the difference is that we're not making money doing so. - -- Tim Tyler Internet: tim@ais.org MCI Mail: 442-5735 GEnie: T.Tyler5 P.O. Box 443 C$erve: 72571,1005 DDN: Tyler@Dockmaster.ncsc.mil Ypsilanti MI Packet: KA8VIR @KA8UNZ.#SEMI.MI.USA.NA 48197 PADI, USPA, AFCEA, INEOA, ARRL, RACES, APCO, P226, VFR700, AOSC, RACC, NPIA & National Big Boy Club ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 15:40:14 -0800 Subject: Re: Foggy Trio, Aurora and DynaSoar Jay Freeman writes: > I will take this opportunity to repeat the speculation of my friend >Alan Stein (who did Okay that his name be used), that I posted a month or >two ago here, that Aurora is in fact a vehicle resembling the "DynaSoar" >orbiting spacecraft for a time under development in the 1960s. DynaSoar >was a small, low-orbit space-plane, perhaps with "dip" capability but >certainly with enough cross-range to make once-around-and-return-to-base >feasible. I believe the target launcher ended up being some kind of >Titan, though -- more interesting in this context -- the concept was >a natural for a piggy-back launch on some kind of high-speed, fly-back >booster. > > My friend reasoned similarly to "Foggy Trio", as follows: There seem >to be at least two interesting "black" vehicles that might be involved, >first the fighter-sized, at least hypersonic vehicle commonly called >"Aurora", and second an unnamed, transport-sized thick-bodied vehicle that >has unknown performance. If there are really two vehicles, perhaps the >small one is the DynaSoar orbiter and the large one is the fly-back >booster. Possibly there is an interim stage of some sort, as well. >There would be a great advantage to a booster that could get the >orbiter (and its possible interim stage) up to, say 30 or 40 Km altitude >and Mach several, pointed in the right direction with tanks topped. > > I posted my friend's speculations here on 10 October, but no one >picked up on them. I picked up on them Jay but didn't repond because I agree with your friend that such a concept could make a lot of sense. I had thought of an X-20 type (orbital) or X-15 type (suborbital) vehicle myself, long ago. As a matter of fact, there are interesting thoughts that run through ones mind when one considers how a space-bourne object might solve certain high-speed stealth problems, and also how a high-speed booster could even assist a stealthy parasite/orbiter with the goal of remaining passive, as well as other applications (how about chase/tanker as well). I will also point out other hints at the X-15 ++ kind of thing: There was an old Jim Goodall/John Andrews rumor, from Air and Space magazine, back in 90 or 91: "We've heard that Aurora looks like an X-15 on steroids". Since the X-15 also got over Mach 6 several times, when one hears the term Mach 6, one sometimes thinks of the X-15 (at least I do). Thus the following: The Jane's crowd has been active in this Aurora stuff before. Someone once told me that John W.R. Taylor, of Jane's fame, once wrote that a few US Congressmen saw and rode in a Mach 6 capable aircraft in the late 1970s (aint disinformation wonderful!) Has anyone else seen this? Something of the same rumor was in Sweetman's late 70's book "High Speed Flight" (I think that was the name and year). In that book he mentioned that Lockheed had flown a manned aircraft to Mach 6. I believe this reference was falsely attributed by T.A. Heppenheimer, in the Nov. 1988 Popular Science Aurora cover story, to Rene Francillon. I've never been able to find a reference in any of Francillon's books to a Mach 6 Lockheed vehicle (has anyone found such a reference, by the way?) I have also found it odd that certain things are posted and no comments are received. I agree that it can be frustrating. I wouldn't take it as people ignoring you. Some people don't respond on this list for other reasons. By the way, as I understand it, there will be a program on Discovery Channel this weekend about the X-20 Dyna-Soar (Dec. 19th). So, anyway Jay! Thanks for the posting! Larry ------------------------------ From: thack@antares.Tymnet.COM (Tom Hackwood) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 16:44:57 PST Subject: [none] Yay! My first comment... From Larry: (I was a bit too agressive with the editor here...) >Someone once told me that John W.R. Taylor, of Jane's fame, once wrote that >a few US Congressmen saw and rode in a Mach 6 capable aircraft in the late >1970s (aint disinformation wonderful!) Has anyone else seen this? Not really..... Let me see, what congress critter went to the moon? His return flight, upon reentry, approached Mach 8+? (My memory is a little fuzzy on this). >By the way, as I understand it, there will be a program on Discovery Channel >this weekend about the X-20 Dyna-Soar (Dec. 19th). Ohh, my VCR will be working overtime! Tom Hackwood ------------------------------ From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 19:43:55 PST Subject: Foggy Trio, Aurora and DynaSoar By the way, there is a rumor floating around that has just a tiny kernel of truth. I haven't seen it here, but I've heard it elsewhere. Read what I'm about to write very carefully, so that you don't go away with the wrong idea. As I say, it's _almost_ totally untrue. The rumor is that Dryden is building/has built/has obtained a new X-15-like vehicle that is flying hypersonically (and that may be Aurora). First--it's true that we have a new X-15-like vehicle; it's a _mock-up_ of the X-15 that was built in the shops here over the last few years, in people's slack time. It's NOT flight-worthy. It's not even an airplane; it's just a mockup. Secondly, Dryden is involved in a program to buy two high-altitude vehicles (I think they're called Perseus but I've lost track of the acronyms/names) from a company named Aurora. There was a press release about this in sci.space.news recently. I'm sure that everyone can see where the rumor came from and will be prepared to discount it when it pops up. Here's one last comment--one of the rules of security is to neither confirm _or_ deny printed reports. To do so is a well-defined breach of security. I find it hard to believe that all these fathers of friends (FOAFs, for alt.folklore.urban readers), etc, are not conscious of this rule. In fact, I'm inclined to believe that they're pulling peoples' legs. People don't last in this industry if they're blabbermouths. Loose lips sink careers. Now, on the basis of the LA Times, Jane's, AvLeak, and random gossip, I'd say it's an air-launched Mach 5 vehicle. Probably airbreathing, possibly not manned. Probably a lifting-body-ish shape. But I'm a good example of someone who is careful about security, so you can tell immediately that I really don't know anything more than anyone else. Just remember that I'm guessing, too. But I'm guessing based on physics as well as the press. Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov Of course I don't speak for NASA "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all." Unknown US fighter pilot ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V2 #34 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe skunk-works-digest in the body of a message to "listserv@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu". If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-skunk-works": subscribe skunk-works-digest local-skunk-works@your.domain.net A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "skunk-works-digest" in the commands above with "skunk-works". Back issues are available for anonymous FTP from harbor.ecn.purdue.edu, in /pub/skunk-works/digest/vNN.nMMM (where "NN" is the volume number, and "MMM" is the issue number).