From: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V2 #50 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Tuesday, 12 January 1993 Volume 02 : Number 050 In this issue: JDW AURORA Article Summary Re: tonapah [none] TR-3A Re: TR-3A TR-3A Atlas rockets Second batch of images Re: Atlas rockets Re: Hovering Images Titan accident USAF TV Add with AURORA Seattle area lurkers Re: USAF TV Add with AURORA Re: Seattle area lurkers Re: Seattle area lurkers 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: larry@ichips.intel.com (Larry Smith) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 00:30:59 -0800 Subject: JDW AURORA Article Summary Janes Defense Week Vol 18, No 24/25, 12 December 1992. (A summary for purposes of discussion) Hypersonic Aurora: a secret dawning? Written by Bill Sweetman. Based on an eyewitness sketch of an aircraft seen over the North Sea in August 1989, the US Air Force has secretly produced a high-speed reconnaissance aircraft to replace the SR-71. A tentative analysis suggests that the aircraft is a manned vehicle, roughly the size of an SR-71. The cruising speed could be as high as Mach 8 (5300 mph/ 8530 km/h), possibly powered by a combined-cycle engine burning liquid methane. Oil drilling engineer Chris Gibson saw the aircraft from the rig Galveston Key. The unidentified aircraft was apparently refuelling from a KC-135 and was accompanied by two F-111s. The unknown aircraft was directly overhead and silhouetted against high cloud. The aircraft was too high to make out any details. Gibson was 12 years with the Royal Observer Corps and was a member of the ROC international aircraft recognition team. After seeing the aircraft in 1989, as he was still a member of the ROC, he decided not to take the sketch to the media. It was later, after seeing a similar design in JDW that he took the drawing to JDW consulting editor Bill Sweetman. The unknown aircraft's planform was a perfect 75 deg swept triangle. This corresponds almost exactly to hypersonic aircraft designed at McDonnell Douglas between the late 1960s and early 1980s, according to Paul Czysz, professor of aerospace engineering at St. Louis University. The sketch, he says, "shows the correct sweep angle for a hypersonic lifting body aircraft." Czysz worked on hypersonics at McDonnell Douglas, including the company's National Aerospace Plane (NASP) proposal, and has studied hypersonic technology inside and outside the USA. The configuration suggested by Gibson's sketch and the McDonnell Douglas studies resembles another drawing obtained by Bill Sweetman in late 1989. According to the source, it depicts the rear view of an aircraft seen at a USAF flight test base in 1987. The witness who produced the rear-view drawing says the aircraft's engine was making a unique low-frequency, very high-amplitude "pulsing" sound. Similar reports have emanated since 1989 from Edwards AFB, Beale AFB and the USAF's secret flight-test centre at Groom Lake in Nevada. According to Czysz, the only engines known to make such noises in normal operation belong to a specific class of composite propulsion systems developed since the 1960s for hypersonic aircraft. The North Sea aircraft appears to be up to 27 m long, with a 14-15 m span. This agrees with US Geological Survey data on unexplained sonic booms over Los Angeles, in that the USGS's data indicates an aircraft significantly shorter than the 37 m Space Shuttle orbiter. The North Sea aircraft would have an operating empty weight similar to or greater than the 25 t SR-71, and a maximum all-up weight between 70 t and 80 t. A hypersonic aircraft uses fuel as a heat sink by circulating it through the hottest parts of the airframe, ie. the nose, leading edges and inlet lips. The most likely fuel for the unknown aircraft, according to Czysz, is liquid methane (CH4), three times more dense and easier to handle than liquid hydrogen (LH2). Inflight refuelling has even been studied and poses no problems. "If it was a hydrogen aircraft it would be larger," Czysz says. With active cooling, most of the structure can then be made from higher temperature titanium alloys, such as the Timet Beta-21S, baselined for NASP. Design studies indicate such a vehicle, of the size seen over the North Sea, could have an unrefuelled range of more than 9000 km, have a crew of two, and a maximum cruising speed of Mach 8. At that speed, the aircraft would operate at altitudes between 100 000 ft and 130 000 ft (30 500-40 000 m). Because of the speed and altitude of such a hypersonic aircraft, it could not be confined to night operations within the USA, unlike the F-117A. Realistic operational tests would be impossible within the continental USA. The aircraft instead could fly to an over-water area close to a suitable tanker base, such as the North Sea, refuel and return. The highly swept leading edge shape strongly resembles the original 'Hopeless Diamond' planform which was the starting point for the F-117. However with such a hypersonic aircraft, stealth may be of little relevance, as it would be virtually invulnerable to any air defense system. The most likely mission for such a vehicle is reconnaissance, complementing USAF's constellation of satellites. Satellites are economical for long-term, repeated coverage of an area. An aircraft is more responsive. At Mach 8 the flight time to any point on Earth is under three hours. Also unlike a satellite, the aircraft can pass over a target at any desired time of day with less warning time for defences. The aircraft's engines can also generate power for reconnaissance sensors. With satellites, for example the USAF's radar reconnaissance satellite Lacrosse, you must store energy to power the system for nocturnal reconnaissance (in earth shadow). Each reconnaissance aircraft could cost as much as $1 billion, equivalent in price to a satellite. An aircraft can operate longer than a satellite however, as in the case of the SR-71s which operated for more than 20 years. No satellite has lasted longer than five years. Lockheed Advanced Development Company (LADC) - the Skunk Works - is likely the prime contractor for the new aircraft. Given the Skunk Work's reputation, Lockheed's financial figures have also indicated a continuing, large flow of income from "classified" and "special mission" aircraft. The existence of a hypersonic follow-on to the SR-71 would explain a number of anomalies. The most glaring is the retirement of the SR-71 which was the only occasion in USAF's history that the service voluntarily relinquished a manned mission in favour of unmanned vehicles. Also, Lockheed's lobbyists - uncharacteristically - did not fight the decision. The first flight probably took place in 1985 or 1986, given the North Sea sighting in 1989 and the SR-71 retirement in early 1990. This would suggest placing the start of full-scale development in the early years of the Reagan Administration, in late 1981 or early 1982. The new spyplane programme would have been launched at about the same time as the B-2. Surprisingly, that contract went to Northrop, Boeing and Vought. The losing team, interestingly was Lockheed and Rockwell. The Rocketdyne division of Rockwell International may well be involved as the propulsion contractor for the combined-cycle engine, which appears to be closer to a rocket than to a turbojet. The hypersonic aircraft also explains some aspects of the NASP programme. NASP research focused from the outset on the Mach 8-plus regime. While some information about the higher Mach number parts of the NASP programme has been available, the low-speed portion of the propulsion system has been secret. Both these observations are consistent with the hypothesis that NASP was conceived as an outgrowth of the hypersonic reconnaissance programme, using a higher-energy fuel (slush hydrogen), more advanced materials, and a modified propulsion system with scramjet and rocket modes. ------------------------------ From: dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 07:59:18 MST Subject: Re: tonapah kuryakin@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Rick Pavek) writes: >Jim Goodall, in a post-recon phone call, related that he and others had >heard the Aurora at Groom Lake at a distance of 18 miles Sounds like fun! >He also indicated that Tonapah is currently empty but being configured >for new 'customers'. Much civilian traffic but little military at this >time. Later this month the customer will supposedly move onsite. Hmmm... I would have thought our old friend the TR-3A would have been occupying that facility since the 117's departure. It's strange how we have not heard anything about this thing since the AW&ST article. I'd hate to see it go the way of the "F-19". I would have liked to see this "mini flying wing" show up on the airshow circuit one of these days! :-) - -dean ------------------------------ From: Stefan Skoglund Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 15:03:44 -0100 Subject: [none] From: gwh@lurnix.COM I lied. It's 79. something degrees sweep on the inner section, not 89. (Duh, it's not STRAIGHT back 8-) BTW, does anyone know who's got the privately owned Draken in the US? I know someone has one, saw it flying somewhere... -george Well, the swedish air force museum wanted a spitfire so FMV ( Swedish defence material adm. ) sold a Draken without engine to an american collector. The guy got an engine from somebody else and an ex-finnish air force technist for the repair job. That aircraft is in fact a movie-star. - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Stefan Skoglund I Home : 0500 450878 sp2stes1@obelix.his.se, I ----------------- University of Skoevde, Sweden I +46 500 450878 Int ------------------------------ From: kuryakin@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Rick Pavek) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 09:49:10 PST Subject: TR-3A Dean writes: Hmmm... I would have thought our old friend the TR-3A would have been occupying that facility since the 117's departure. I respond: I'm still of the opinion the TR-3A is a non-entity. As for the 'rumors' of a delta winged vehicle that does recon... I'm thinking of the Ryan-Teledyne delta mini-rpv that's been published. Perhaps what's been providing those nice, near-hovering pictures above the targets in Iraq are this type of RPV? Or perhaps a scaled-up version? You know, those FLIR images showing the bunkers getting hits. Some of them were obviously taken from a moving a/c. Others were stationary over the target. How _did_ they do that? Maybe some of those high-flying long-endurance birds are being used already? Rick ------------------------------ From: Belly up to the Clue Bar and have one on me. 11-Jan-1993 1300 Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 13:06:49 EST Subject: Re: TR-3A Rick Pavek writes: >I'm still of the opinion the TR-3A is a non-entity. In terms of the THAP-derived design described in AW&ST in the summer of 1991, you may be right. (Only the USAF and the contractors know for sure.) But, as reported then, _something_ is operating with the F-117s in daylight, and that something is larger and quieter than the 117s. It could be an RPV, but it would have to have enough range and endurance to fly a strike package with the 117s. There are data-link issues for an RPV operating in this scenario, as well. George ------------------------------ From: kuryakin@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Rick Pavek) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 10:46:31 PST Subject: TR-3A If the RPV was indeed of a new, larger variety of stealthy drone with long endurance, the vehicle wouldn't have to go in with the F-117A, just be there at the same time. For data-link issues... hmmm. Could JSTARS be involved somehow? A wild guess... but with the black and white picture, it wouldn't be as hard... some kind of encoded, directional signal? Directional as in above the wingplan only? So nothing electronic strays below the platform.. or it's relayed from satellite somehow... except that this is getting far-fetched. I agree, it appears there is something. But an rpv would let the airforce say "No, we didn't have any airplanes like that" when they don't put rpv's in the same aesthetic category with airplanes. Plus they'd be somewhat safer for the pilot. And remember, they used RPV's with weaponry in the Nam. Rick ------------------------------ From: Stefan Skoglund Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 19:46:46 -0100 Subject: Atlas rockets Some weeks ago I saw an film at TV about an Atlas ( old strategic rocket ) which exploded in its silo. The warhead was blown away a bit but the Air Force found it intact. While refueling the bird somebody dropped a socket wrench, the socket perforated one tank in stage one. Here comes the question : Where was it and when ? What fuel sort of fuel was it in that tank ? I'know it's outside of the charter for the list. - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Stefan Skoglund I Home : 0500 450878 sp2stes1@obelix.his.se, I ----------------- University of Skoevde, Sweden I +46 500 450878 Int ------------------------------ From: brndlfly@Athena.MIT.EDU Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 14:28:59 EST Subject: Second batch of images The next nine images are on their way. I've gotten some mail from people with 2400 baud modems, so in the future all my images will be under 200K. Except one (insert impish grin here). Descriptions - b17s.jpg: For Fortress lovers everywhere, here's an image of four B-17s in formation flight, Sentimental Journey leading. Nice. Taken from the Smithsonian Book of Flight (I think). concorde.jpg: A Concorde zips past a solar eclipse. How do you suppose they got that picture? Some dither problems, but neat anyway. psaurora.jpg: Artists impression of the Aurora spyplane as appeared in Popular Science with their article some years back. You know what really gets to me? Supposedly this is a very stealthy aircraft. So what does every aviation artist do first thing? Show it cruising along with a white-hot exhaust plume announcing its presence in no uncertain terms. Hollywood. skunkers.jpg: U-2, SR-71, and F-117 in close proximity at Kadena. Taken from SR-71: Inside Lockheed's Blackbird. sr71_1.jpg: a pair of blackbirds on the apron at Kadena. All sr71_*.jpg images are from SR-71: Inside Lockheed's Blackbird. sr71_2.jpg: Two blackbirds tail to tail. These guys were pulled out of their hangars at Kadena and set up specifically for a photo shoot right before their retirement. Another jpeg of this to follow. sr71_3.jpg: One of NASA's birds with the flight crew in from of its hangar at Ames. I'm sure Mary can tell us more about the people in the picture. I recognize Marta Bonn-Meyer, but that's all. sr71_4.jpg: Front cockpit of the SR-71A. On a good monitor you can read the instruments. sr71_5.jpg: Marta Bonn-Meyer in the rear cockpit of a NASA SR-71. Quality is about the same as sr71_4.jpg. That's is for now. Images should appear on the archive soon. More stuff to follow, and something you've NEVER seen before (well, most of you). -T T Velazquez MIT Aero/Astro brndlfly@athena.mit.edu "Crayolas are one of the few things the human race has in common." -Robert Fulghum ------------------------------ From: "Philip R. Moyer" Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 14:35:44 EST Subject: Re: Atlas rockets >Some weeks ago I saw an film at TV about an Atlas ( old strategic rocket ) >which exploded in its silo. > >The warhead was blown away a bit but the Air Force found it intact. > >While refueling the bird somebody dropped a socket wrench, the socket >perforated one tank in stage one. > >Here comes the question : > >Where was it and when ? >What fuel sort of fuel was it in that tank ? >I'know it's outside of the charter for the list. There have been three accidents involving nuclear weapons on missiles. Here are the summaries: June 7, 1960 A BOMARC aird defense missile in ready storage at McGuire AFB in New Jersy exploded because a high pressure helium tank failed and ruptured the fuel cells. December 5, 1964 A retrorocket in the spacer under the RV fired while still in the silo at Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota. The warhead fell 75 feet to the floor of the silo. September 19, 1980 A Titan II ICBM exploded in the silo in Damascus, Arkansas. As far as I can tell, they weren't refueling at the time. A worker dropped a socket (not the wrench) which bounced off the side of the silo and perforated the fuel tank. The missile complex was evacuated and a team of experts from Little Rock AFB tried to contain the leak. 8.5 hours after the incident, the fuel vapors exploded, killing 1 and injuring 21 others. The warhead was blown clear, but recovered intact I'm pretty sure it was the Titan you're thinking of. I'm not sure what fuel it used. Philip R. Moyer ------------------------------ From: Rick Lafford Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 14:48:48 EST Subject: Re: Hovering Images >what's been providing those nice, near-hovering pictures above the >targets in Iraq are this type of RPV? Or perhaps a scaled-up version? >You know, those FLIR images showing the bunkers getting hits. >Some of them were obviously taken from a moving a/c. Others were >stationary over the target. How _did_ they do that? Maybe some of >those high-flying long-endurance birds are being used already? Is it possible that the "near hover" images look that way because of the altitude of the imaging aircraft. Remember that these imagers are gyro stabilized and pointed at a specific point on the ground. The effects of the relative motions on the image are not noticable unless the aircraft is moving very rapidly or quitel low. The low altitude guided munitions strike images really show both the movement and bank attitude of the aircraft. An additional note, some of the images released of building and bunker strikes were taken buy the guidance aircraft, not the drop aircraft. The use of one aircraft to designate the target while another flies the delivery profile allows great flexibility. Note that the bombs dropped down the vent shafts of both bunkers and the Ministry of Defense were falling almost vertically. Not the typical path an object dropped from a low fast flying aircraft would take. Using two aircraft, the first could toss the bomb into the "basket" and the second could designate the impact point. Hence, the images of the MoD strike were almost from verticall overhead when the bomb(s) struck. (The other) Rick - --------------- Rick Lafford Eastman Kodak Co. lafford@serum.kodak.com ===================================== ------------------------------ From: Belly up to the Clue Bar and have one on me. 11-Jan-1993 1447 Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 15:06:27 EST Subject: Titan accident Phil Moyer writes, in reference to the 1980 Damascus silo explosion: >I'm pretty sure it was the Titan you're thinking of. I'm not sure what >fuel it used. It was the Titan II, which used a combination of UDMH and nitric acid for propellants. Note that these are hypergolic, meaning they ignite on contact. Hypergolics were chosen for Titan for two reasons: - storability (although the maintenance requirements are significant) - in 1955, ignition of upper stage rocket engines was sufficiently chancy that hypergolics were specified to insure successful ignition and a successful mission Note that the Titan program itself was started as a backup to Atlas, to insure that at least one US ICBM would be operational during the projected "missile gap" of the late 1950s. The Teapot Committee under Trevor Gardiner, and later the Ramo-Woolridge Corporation and the USAF Western Development District, were established to insure that these very advanced weapons would be developed without interference from the "traditional" R&D/procurement agencies in the Air Force (mostly AMC and ARDC at the time). These programs were each as large, relatively speaking, as the ATB program that developed the B-2. Looking back from 1993, it's hard to understand just how frightening the Soviet military capabilities, and the possibilities of a Soviet lead in ICBMs, were. The missile programs mentioned above, plus Polaris, Thor, Navaho, Jupiter, and Skybolt, were considered absolutely crucial to the survival of the Free World. There was an enormous (and quite intentional) duplication of missions and capabilities, and a near-wartime level of mobilization of academia and industry to achieve success in the "missile race". Note also that US military spending approached 11% of GNP in the mid-1950s, as compared to 8.5% during the Kennedy years and 5.5-6.5% during the Reagan years. Sorry for the digression, Phil, but you asked! George ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 13:51:10 -0800 Subject: USAF TV Add with AURORA Here's an interesting incident. Did anyone see the add (USAF?) featuring an SR-71 and a conceptual SR-71 follow-on aircraft, that aired on ABC network Monday Night (1/4/93) during the showing of the Monday Night Movie: "The Running Man" ? I missed it as well, but two people have now told me about it. Evidently the add started by showing an SR-71 taking off. The add then showed a drawing of a hypersonic vehicle flying at a very high altitude. My sources are not really sure what the verbage said but it sounded like a recruiting add. This was either a real commercial or a part of the movie. We now know this is NOT a part of the VCR-rental version of the movie because I rented it to check this out and it's not there. Maybe it's a part of the TV version of the movie. Anyway, I'm somewhat embarrassed at how obsessive I've gotten about this, but ABC in New York says it was not a national commercial or public service announcement, and the local ABC affiliate says it wasn't an add inserted locally. USAF Advertising, told me they haven't bought TV time in years (ABC New York disagrees with this). Anyway, it seems as though it wasn't a real commercial. Must be part of the TV version of the movie! Does anybody know? Did anyone else see this video on that evening as well? I'm going to drop it unless someone has additional information. Larry ------------------------------ From: kuryakin@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Rick Pavek) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 14:50:55 PST Subject: Seattle area lurkers I've come to realize that there are _many_ Pacific NW skunkers out here that have been lurking. Geez, some even work for an unnamed, large aerospace firm. Here's an idea. How about all you skunkers that would enjoy getting together and forming a SIG email me with your address. We can meet somewhere (Museum of Flight would be an aesthetically pleasing choice) and talk about this for hours. I could even offer, (I presume he'd agree) to get Jim Goodall to put on a presentation on what he knows of the neat stuff. No promises... Heck, I'll bet there are even people down south as far as Portland that would come... How about it? All those interested email me. We'll set something up. Rick Rick Pavek | Never ask a droid to outdo its program. kuryakin@bcstec.ca.boeing.com | Seattle, WA | It wastes your time | and annoys the droid. ------------------------------ From: tom@gordian.com (Tom Ambrose) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 15:03:28 PST Subject: Re: USAF TV Add with AURORA From larry@ichips.intel.com: > Here's an interesting incident. > > Did anyone see the add (USAF?) featuring an SR-71 and a conceptual SR-71 > follow-on aircraft, that aired on ABC network Monday Night (1/4/93) > during the showing of the Monday Night Movie: "The Running Man" ? I saw it. > I missed it as well, but two people have now told me about it. Evidently > the add started by showing an SR-71 taking off. The add then showed a > drawing of a hypersonic vehicle flying at a very high altitude. My > sources are not really sure what the verbage said but it sounded like a > recruiting add. It had some shots of the Blackbird and some computer pictures of a hypersonic vehicle. It looked like some simulations with airflow and/or heat flow. It was a recruiting ad. They talked about opportunities in the Air Force. I remeber saying something to my roommate about the chances of working on something really cool probably being pretty low. > This was either a real commercial or a part of the movie. It was during a commercial break, I think. I was only halfway watching. I know some people that watched it as well. I'll ask around. I know someone that works in Hollywood. I'm going to see him tonight a movie premier (its nice to have connections; it got me to a party at the Playboy mansion!). I'll ask him if knows or knows anyone that knows. > We now know this is NOT a part of the VCR-rental version of the movie > because I rented it to check this out and it's not there. Maybe it's a > part of the TV version of the movie. > > Anyway, I'm somewhat embarrassed at how obsessive I've gotten about this, > but ABC in New York says it was not a national commercial or public service > announcement, and the local ABC affiliate says it wasn't an add inserted > locally. USAF Advertising, told me they haven't bought TV time > in years (ABC New York disagrees with this). Anyway, it seems as though > it wasn't a real commercial. Must be part of the TV version of the movie! It very well could be. TV movies usually have seens that weren't in the theatrical version. > Does anybody know? Did anyone else see this video on that evening as well? > > I'm going to drop it unless someone has additional information. > > Larry - -tom ------------------------------ From: "John A. Gregor" Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 15:56:40 -0800 Subject: Re: Seattle area lurkers > Heck, I'll bet there are even people down south as far as Portland that > would come... There might even be a few folks even further south than PDX that would come. Some of us might even be persuaded to give other(s? -- small car) a lift. - -JohnG - -- John A. Gregor College of Oceanography E-mail: johng@oce.orst.edu Oregon State University Voice #: +1 503 737-3022 Oceanography Admin Bldg. #104 Fax #: +1 503 737-2064 Corvallis, OR 97331-5503 ------------------------------ From: davem@ee.ubc.ca (Dave Michelson) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 17:14:28 PST Subject: Re: Seattle area lurkers > Heck, I'll bet there are even people down south as far as Portland that > would come... There might even be a few folks from up north that would come :) - -- Dave Michelson University of British Columbia davem@ee.ubc.ca Antenna Laboratory ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V2 #50 ******************************** 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).