From: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V2 #35 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Sunday, 20 December 1992 Volume 02 : Number 035 In this issue: Re: Foggy Trio, Aurora and DynaSoar Re: intercepts Re: Foggy Trio, Aurora and DynaSoar Re: 'intercepts' Re: Lunar Congresscritters RE: Foggy Trio, Aurora and DynaSoar RE: Foggy Trio, Aurora and DynaSoar 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: dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams) Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 03:43:12 MST Subject: Re: Foggy Trio, Aurora and DynaSoar shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes: >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. Right... saw it a while back. They did a very nice job, and it looks real purdy sitting next to the B-52. :-) Is it full scale? I don't quite remember for sure. >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. Some of us here have been following this program for a while now, since it has some interesting aspects all by itself... but there are obviously no connections to anything hypersonic. >I'm sure that everyone can see where the rumor came from and >will be prepared to discount it when it pops up. Yep. I've already had to do that once on another network... >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. This seemed like an unavoidable conclusion to me as well... >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. That WSW profile drawing certainly looked very X-30ish... BTW, I was reading through some old D-21 info recently and I noticed a report that said the first GTD-21B launch tests were done on the NASA B-52. Has anyone heard this before? It does sound reasonable, since the a/c was certainly well suited for such a mission, and it would allow the AF to make some tests before modifying their own 52s... - -dean ------------------------------ From: dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams) Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 08:42:51 MST Subject: Re: intercepts kuryakin@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Rick Pavek) writes: >Thanks Larry, for taking the time to type in that letter from Foggy-trio. Ditto! That was definitely some pretty interesting speculation going on. >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. Yea, i'd sure like to see that. I've owned various scanners, HTs, and other radios for many years now, so that sort of info is always interesting. >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. Well, I have about a 100 page listing of all the bases in California. It's a few years old, but it still seems fairly accurate. I always bring the SIGINT data along when visting the likes of Edwards, Point Mugu, or Vandenberg. Those locals are always good for a thoroughly enjoyable photo/elint recce mission. :-) I've also hacked down some good freqs on my own, especially at Edwards. One thing i've been meaning to do is try some scanning around Plant 42. My list has a few freqs for it, but I have not tried them yet... >I didn't mention it in the regular post but the Intercepts that I got >(Nov issue) talked a lot about the presidential communications as relates >to the scanning community. What is little known outside of the field >is that Air Force 1 radiotelephone traffic is mostly sent in the clear. >If it's not scrambled then you can listen in to the president talking to >senators, reporters talking to their organizations, etc... neato. I've heard a few good things on the 407mhz freq, but never the big guy. SecServ does make for some interesting listening... except that they have an annoying habit of using DES a little too often. :-> - -dean ------------------------------ From: dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams) Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 08:46:38 MST Subject: Re: Foggy Trio, Aurora and DynaSoar thack@antares.Tymnet.COM (Tom Hackwood) writes: >Yay! My first comment... Great ! :-) >>From Larry: >>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? Hmmm? Did one of the lunar astronauts get elected to something? >His return flight, upon reentry, approached Mach 8+? (My memory is a >little fuzzy on this). Well... actually all orbital reentry flights start out at Mach 25, although a returning lunar vehicle would likely be going a little faster than that. The only congresscritters I know of who were "up" would first of course be John Glenn, but then Sen. Jake Garn and Rep. Bill Nelson were given trips on the Shuttle... probably in an attempt to hold off budget cuts. >>program on Discovery Channel this weekend about the X-20 Dyna-Soar >Ohh, my VCR will be working overtime! Yep, same here! It should be a good one. - -dean ------------------------------ From: dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams) Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 08:47:15 MST Subject: Re: 'intercepts' tim@ais.org (Tim Tyler) writes: > 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. Yes, I remember... >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, I noticed that as well, but it is still close to the lower end FLTSATCOM uplink frequency ranges. >since the traffic was secure-mode, I don't think Douglass had reason >to assume it was associated with his UFO-contrail sighting. That I very definitely agree with, and I thought the exact same thing when first reading it in AW&ST. The airwaves are FULL of signals, and just because you see a contrail at the same time the scanner stops on a freq, without some knowledge of what you are seeing and hearing it is a major longshot to expect the two to be connected... > 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. I would expect a lot of radio silence from any Aurora vehicle, and *very* little of anything that one might pick up on a scanner. ------------------------------ From: davem@ee.ubc.ca (Dave Michelson) Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 9:41:19 PST Subject: Re: Lunar Congresscritters Dean writes: > > Hmmm? Did one of the lunar astronauts get elected to something? > Harrison Schmitt was a Senator for a long time.... - -- Dave Michelson davem@ee.ubc.ca ------------------------------ From: beede@SCTC.COM (Mike Beede) Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 15:28:23 CST Subject: RE: Foggy Trio, Aurora and DynaSoar > 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. Gee, I wonder if we could deduce anything about the nearness of guesses from the intervals of silence after their postings? But then again, if anyone _knew_ about this stuff, why would they be on this list? Mike ------------------------------ From: jac@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (John Clear) Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 17:15:01 EST Subject: RE: Foggy Trio, Aurora and DynaSoar At some earlier date, Mike Beede said: > > > > 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. > > Gee, I wonder if we could deduce anything about the nearness of guesses > from the intervals of silence after their postings? But then again, if > anyone _knew_ about this stuff, why would they be on this list? > Maybe they are on this list to 'lead' us off in the wrong direction. If you knew someone was close to the secret, but had a means at your disposal to side track it, wouldnt you use it? I'm not saying there are any reverse informants here, this is just me speculating randomly. I follow this list with interest, and am not meaning to discredit it at all, just looking at it in from a different angle. John (waiting for the DOD to show up in the middle of the night..... ) - -- John `SpaceCadet` Clear -- jac@mentor.cc.purdue.edu, clearja@sage.cc.purdue.edu PP-ASEL C/LTC, CAP-NYW "When you think how well basic appliances work, it is hard to believe anyone ever gets on an airplane" -- Calvin and Hobbes ------------------------------ From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 18:22:47 PST Subject: Foggy Trio, Aurora and DynaSoar On Sat, 19 Dec 92 17:15:01 EST, jac@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (John Clear) said: John> At some earlier date, Mike Beede said: > > > > 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. > > Gee, I wonder if we could deduce anything about the nearness of guesses > from the intervals of silence after their postings? But then again, if > anyone _knew_ about this stuff, why would they be on this list? > John> Maybe they are on this list to 'lead' us off in the wrong direction. John> If you knew someone was close to the secret, but had a means at your disposal John> to side track it, wouldnt you use it? I'm not saying there are any reverse John> informants here, this is just me speculating randomly. I follow this list John> with interest, and am not meaning to discredit it at all, just looking at it John> in from a different angle. John> John (waiting for the DOD to show up in the middle of the night..... ) You're probably safe, John. I hate to say this, but I doubt if anyone thinks that this mailing list poses any threat at all to the national security. As a rule, the rehashing of previously published material is unlikely to lead to any startling breakthroughs, particularly when the rehashers are not part of the aerospace community. In regard to this last point, I'm going to echo something one of my colleagues posted in a newsgroup the other day--we, the flight test community, knew about the F-117 long ago, because we knew that people were vanishing into the project. We knew who was building it, we knew about the first crash, we knew when it became operational. We didn't know what it looked like or what kind of plane it was, but we knew it was there. The same was true of the B-2 before the Administration decided to tell the taxpayers about it, although in this case there was a very strong feeling that it was a flying wing. Regards, Mary 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 #35 ******************************** 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).