From: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V2 #51 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Wednesday, 13 January 1993 Volume 02 : Number 051 In this issue: pending unpleasentness (Saddam's peeing into the wind; again pending unpleasentness... Re: pending unpleasentness... General nonsense U2s The assasination Gambit Re: The assasination Gambit Fast apology - do a little sidestep... Stoopid question Re: Titan accident Re: Titan accident JDW AURORA Article Summary (last one) JDW AURORA Article Summary (last one) Video notes Re: JDW AURORA Article Summary (last one) 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: "S.K. Whiteman" <@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU:WHITEMAN@IPFWVM> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 08:39:05 EST Subject: pending unpleasentness (Saddam's peeing into the wind; again Anyone heard of any unusual movements. From the news I get, it would seem that Iraq is stirring up trouble due to the impending change in the White House. I guess that Saddam can't resist one last shot at George, or maybe a small test for Slick. At any rate this could be a good opportunity to see the odd and unusual bits of military hardware; if one were in the right place... \ /___________________ Sam \_____/ Flood City | IBM Systems Programmer Chicago/ |The Army Corps of * | O Indiana University - I |Eng not with- Ft. Wayne | H Purdue University at Fort Wayne L |standing. 1794-1994 | Fort Wayne, Indiana USA ------------------------------ From: Pat Hayes Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 11:47:27 -0600 (CST) Subject: pending unpleasentness... S.K. Whiteman ... + shot at George, or maybe a small test for Slick. At any rate this + could be a good opportunity to see the odd and unusual bits of + military hardware; if one were in the right place... + \ /___________________ Sam - -- Sam, Don't mean to get self-righteous or anything, but, IMHO, the only thing the world needs right now is the something on the order of the cold, firm grip of a SEAL or DELTA commando's hands on the windpipe of the instigator of the problem. When A-6's hit the pickle button, lots of "innocent" folks go to Allah. I'm sure we can figure out a more creative way to resolve this problem... - -- <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pat Hayes, Meteorology, Texas A&M University......phayes@tamu.edu O&M 1008, TAMU, CS, TX 77843-3150....days:(409)845-1680 fax:(409)862-4466 ------------------------------ From: tom@gordian.com (Tom Ambrose) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 10:43:28 PST Subject: Re: pending unpleasentness... Pat Hayes writes: > Sam, > Don't mean to get self-righteous or anything, but, IMHO, > the only thing the world needs right now military hardware> is the something on the order of the cold, firm > grip of a SEAL or DELTA commando's hands on the windpipe of > the instigator of the problem. > When A-6's hit the pickle > button, lots of "innocent" folks go to Allah. I'm sure we can > figure out a more creative way to resolve this problem... > -- > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Pat Hayes, Meteorology, Texas A&M University......phayes@tamu.edu > O&M 1008, TAMU, CS, TX 77843-3150....days:(409)845-1680 fax:(409)862-4466 Pat, It sounds like a great idea, but we can't do it. Its against the law (our own law) to assasinate anyone. The White House has run into this problem before in Panama, Libya, El Salvadore, just to name a few. Read "Veil: The Secret Wars of the CIA 1981-1987" and "The Commanders" both by Bob Woodward for a look at this problem. We always have to come up with a different, usually less effective method, such as propaganda or supporting the political opposition. I'm sure the CIA is engaged in both of these currently. - -tom ------------------------------ From: "S.K. Whiteman" <@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU:WHITEMAN@IPFWVM> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 14:02:53 EST Subject: General nonsense Pat: the only thing the world needs right now military hardware> is the something on the order of the cold, firm >grip of a SEAL or DELTA commando's hands on the windpipe of >the instigator of the problem. > When A-6's hit the pickle >button, lots of "innocent" folks go to Allah. I'm sure we can >figure out a more creative way to resolve this problem... I don't see anything self-righteous about having a reasonable viewpoint. I/we have and are being effected by war and the out- comes of war both good and bad. I certainly wish that we could get about the business of exploring the universe rather than expending our resources in pursuit of one- ups-manship. I, for one, have better things to do with my life than shoot at someone else. But, for good or ill, Saddam Hussein is determined to be So-Damn Insane and try face saving. Such is the way of the world in the late twentieth century and I for one, while I don't like it, am one of the spectators. You know me, the US taxpayer, we are the people who pay. BTW just where is my 'peace dividend'. Maybe Slick can find it. On the other hand, without the threat, real or imagined, of armed conflict we would not have anything to talk about.... Who would need the SR-71? (sound of a soap box being pushed under a desk) I've been Ayn Randed and nearly branded a communist cau's I left handed If thats the hand they use..... Sam Simon & Garfunkle ------------------------------ From: tslage78@Calvin.EDU (Thomas Slager) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 15:18:02 EST Subject: U2s Stupid Question to follow: Is the U.S. still currently using the U-2 for recon? I have read twice in the past week, once in Newsweek and once in the local paper, about information gained by "sattelites and aerial recon." If not the U-2, then what else would they be using? - -- Little pieces of me keep breaking off, | tslage78@ursa.calvin.edu It hurts--but I am getting lighter..... | ------------------------------ From: kuryakin@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Rick Pavek) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 12:19:52 PST Subject: The assasination Gambit My brief (since it's sorta off the beaten path of the maillist) $.02 is that Phil Moyer writes: It sounds like a great idea, but we can't do it. Its against the law (our own law) to assasinate anyone. This is one way to look at it. The problem is that if you assasinate the leader you make a martyr of him, and a corollary of murphy's law is that "The next guy is ALWAYS worse". The next guy's always love to use martyrs. Better still to take a high-power laser and boresight it with a telescope from a point within lineofsight to the target. When the target arrives, burn his retinae. A blind man can neither be a ruler nor a martyr. I wouldn't ever suggest that anyone actually do this. But it would be the lesser of two evils. particularly if the other evil was the opression and murder of millions of innocents by the target. I'd be interested in following up defense strategies via email, and to take this subject off the mailing list... as a diversion only. rick Rick Pavek | Never ask a droid to outdo its program. Moved | Left no forwarding address. | It wastes your time | and annoys the droid. ------------------------------ From: "Philip R. Moyer" Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:25:57 EST Subject: Re: The assasination Gambit >Phil Moyer writes: >It sounds like a great idea, but we can't do it. Its against the law (our own >law) to assasinate anyone. Bzzzt. Just to set the official record straight, I didn't say that. :-) I have made no comment on this subject as yet. >Rick Pavek Philip R. Moyer ------------------------------ From: kuryakin@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Rick Pavek) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 12:31:47 PST Subject: Fast apology - do a little sidestep... Egad. Phil. I'm sorry. I was looking at the From line in the wrong part of the darned message. That's the account name of the sender of the exploder for the mail list. The actual sender of the message I was replying to was: From: tom@gordian.com (Tom Ambrose) I'll beg your pardon, too. Rick "Sometimes a little too quick on the draw" Pavek 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: kuryakin@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Rick Pavek) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 12:35:29 PST Subject: Stoopid question really isn't. Since the USAF doesn't publish it's active rosters in local papers, sometimes it's hard to tell. I had no idea the F-105 was still flying in the reserves as long as it had, until they retired the last one. Yes, the U2R is still flying. Does anybody know if it is still in production? I think the answer is no on that one... Rick ------------------------------ From: gwh@lurnix.COM Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 13:30:34 -0800 Subject: Re: Titan accident allegrezza writes: >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: To digress further, in the name of accuracy, the Titan I-Titan IV (I and II were missiles, II, III, and IV are launch vehicles) all use engines burning Aerozine (50% Hydrazine, 50% UDMH (unsymetrical dimethyl hydrazine)) and Nitrogen Tetroxide (N2O4), not plain Hydrazine and Nitric Acid. - -george william herbert Retro Aerospace gwh@retro.com gwh@lurnix.com ------------------------------ From: Belly up to the Clue Bar and have one on me. 12-Jan-1993 1707 Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 17:07:54 EST Subject: Re: Titan accident George, Thanks for the clarification on the Titan propellants. Another confirmation of the value of the "look it up before posting" method. :-) Rgds, George A. ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:19:24 -0800 Subject: JDW AURORA Article Summary (last one) Janes Defense Week Vol 18, No 24/25, 12 December 1992. (A summary for purposes of discussion) (I can fairly say that I also made the description a bit more understandable) Radical Engine Technology Written by Bill Sweetman. The hypersonic aircraft may be powered by a type of combined cycle engine, studied in the 1960s by Dr. Fred Billig at the Applied Physics Laboratory of John Hopkins University. The Billig-cycle engine uses cryogenic fuel and combines features of a ramjet, a rocket and a turbojet engine. It is lighter than a classic turbo-ramjet and unlike a rocket/ramjet combination, it can operate efficiently across the entire speed range. The engine is based on a ramjet duct, which incorporates both a ramjet fuel injector, a group of small rocket nozzles protruding into the ramjet duct on a retractable strut, and a turbine-driven compressor. To sink heat from the airframe at high speed, methane is pumped through the aircraft's skin, where it is heated to ambient temperature. The heated methane fuel then drives the compressor's turbine where it expands from a liquid to a gas. Both the high-pressure air from the compressor and the expanded methane from the turbine are delivered to the rocket-type nozzles in the ramjet duct, where the compressed air/methane mixture is ignited. The high-velocity rocket exhaust in the ramjet duct draws more outside air through the ramjet duct, using the ejector principle. At certain regimes (take-off, climb and transonic acceleration) the compressed air oxidizer can't provide the needed thrust in the rocket nozzles, so at those times liquid oxygen (LOX) is added along with the air, to the rocket nozzles. This increases rocket nozzle exhaust velocity, draws additional air through the ramjet duct and increases the pressure ratio to the point where more methane can be added (through the ramjet fuel injector) and burned in the duct. At idle and low speeds, however, the ramjet duct is too large for the airflow. [What I think he meant to say here is that the total flow is too large for the ramjet duct] The flow becomes discontinuous, with a cyclic build-up and release of pressure in the duct, producing the distinctive noises associated with these unidentified aircraft. The engine needs less oxygen as the vehicle accelerates, firstly because more air is flowing into the ramjet duct; and secondly, increased skin friction means that the methane driving the turbine has more energy, so the compressor is delivering more air pressure to the rocket nozzles. The LOX flow is gradually reduced, reaching zero at about Mach 2.5. At higher speeds, the methane supply to the rocket nozzles may be shut down and methane fuel delivered through the ramjet fuel injector only. The compressor exhaust however can supercharge the ramjet until Mach 6, when the compressor inlet closes and the strut with the rocket nozzles retracts to reduce drag. The engine can then run as a pure ramjet to Mach 8. ------------------------------ From: serafini@nas.nasa.gov (David B. Serafini) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 19:01:34 -0800 Subject: JDW AURORA Article Summary (last one) From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:19:24 -0800 Sender: skunk-works-owner@ecn.purdue.edu Precedence: bulk Janes Defense Week Vol 18, No 24/25, 12 December 1992. (A summary for purposes of discussion) (I can fairly say that I also made the description a bit more understandable) Radical Engine Technology Written by Bill Sweetman. [...deleted...] The engine is based on a ramjet duct, which incorporates both a ramjet fuel injector, a group of small rocket nozzles protruding into the ramjet duct on a retractable strut, and a turbine-driven compressor. [...deleted...] At higher speeds, the methane supply to the rocket nozzles may be shut down and methane fuel delivered through the ramjet fuel injector only. The compressor exhaust however can supercharge the ramjet until Mach 6, when the compressor inlet closes and the strut with the rocket nozzles retracts to reduce drag. The engine can then run as a pure ramjet to Mach 8. Is this saying that the compressor/turbine pair is not inline with the inlet/duct? I have trouble imagining that the compressor/turbine is retracted. I'm really curious about how the compressor inlet is "closed". [In '81, a design for a Mach 5 plane proposed by Lockheed had a turbojet and a ramjet with separate flow paths fed by one inlet, with a door in the inlet feeding the turbojet which would be closed around Mach 3 or so. NASA has been testing the ramjet part of the engine inlet for years, but just recently starting looking into the turbojet path. There are concerns that the ramjet inlet path won't work as long as the turbojet path is open. Anyway, Lockheed dropped the whole project a long time ago. (Or did they? :-)] - -David ------------------------------ From: dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 20:32:45 MST Subject: Video notes There was a program on Discovery Channel last night called "Spytech" that was rather interesting. One of the main focuses was recon satellites, but they also covered the U-2 and SR-71, including some of the always enjoyable footage of SRs under construction. There were a few of the almost requisite inaccuracies. One of the worst was referring to the Advanced KH-11 and Lacrosse satellites as a single bird called "KH-12", but it was still worth watching. There will be a repeat showing on Sunday 01/17 at 11am (pst). Discovery also has a new series called "The X-Planes" that is well worth watching. This airs at 6pm and 9pm (pst) on Saturdays. One other note, next weeks "NOVA" on PBS (01/19) is about precision bombing and the Gulf war and will feature the F-117, among other things. It's called "Can Bombing Win a War?". Looks pretty good. - -dean ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 23:43:04 -0800 Subject: Re: JDW AURORA Article Summary (last one) > From: larry@ichips.intel.com > (A summary for purposes of discussion) > (I can fairly say that I also made the description a bit more understandable) > > Radical Engine Technology > Written by Bill Sweetman. > [...deleted...] > The engine is based on a ramjet duct, which incorporates both a ramjet > fuel injector, a group of small rocket nozzles protruding into > the ramjet duct on a retractable strut, and a turbine-driven compressor. > [...deleted...] > At higher speeds, the methane supply to the rocket nozzles may be shut > down and methane fuel delivered through the ramjet fuel injector only. > The compressor exhaust however can supercharge the ramjet until Mach 6, > when the compressor inlet closes and the strut with the rocket nozzles > retracts to reduce drag. The engine can then run as a pure ramjet to > Mach 8. > David B. Serafini writes: >Is this saying that the compressor/turbine pair is not inline with the >inlet/duct? No information was given as to the placement of the compressor inlet relative to the ramjet duct. I can also imagine that at Mach 6 you might have that compressor built out of some magical stuff! Could we build such a compressor today? But Billig does talk a lot about pre-cooling of inlet air in some of his papers, to reduce the weight of his turbo-machines, and also putting off the ramjet to scramjet transition. > I have trouble imagining that the compressor/turbine is >retracted. I'm really curious about how the compressor inlet is >"closed". No, the compressor wasn't retracted the rocket ejectors (nozzles) were. The compressor face was described as being 'covered'. In paper 90-3284 by Petley (NASA Langley) and Jones (Lockheed) entitled "Thermal Management for a Mach 5 Cruise Aircraft Using Endothermic Fuel" (thanks again George A. for the copy) they show an over-under (turbojet over the ramjet duct) turboramjet design with both the ramjet duct and the turbojet's compressor being fed from the same 2-D inlet. >[In '81, a design for a Mach 5 plane proposed by Lockheed had a >turbojet and a ramjet with separate flow paths fed by one inlet, with >a door in the inlet feeding the turbojet which would be closed around >Mach 3 or so. The same paper above has three NASA publications referring to a mid-80's Lockheed, Pratt and Whitney and NASA Mach 5 study, papers which you can probably get your hands on. I unfortunately cannot. CP-2398 "Mach 5 Cruise Aircraft Research"; April 85 (DOMESTIC RESTRICTED) CR 3830 "Design of a Mach 5 Inlet System Model"; Aug. 84 (CONFIDENTIAL) CR 3932 "Performance Sensitivities of a High Altitude Mach 5 Penetrator Aircraft Concept"; Sept. 85 (SECRET) For the benefit of the rest of the list let me briefly quote a paragraph from the 1990 Mach 5 study about the 1985 Mach 5 Lockheed/NASA/P&W study: "The propulsion system concept incorporated in this (1990) aircraft was derived from a Mach 5 penetrator study done in the mid-1980s as a joint effort between NASA, Lockheed California, and Pratt and Whitney. That system consisted of an over/under turbo/ramjet design that utilized a F-100 class turbofan integrated with a two-dimensional ramjet. That system was designed for liquid methane fuel. The system designed for the current concept is similar to the Lockheed P&W concept in that both use a two- dimensional mixed compression inlet design with a variable geometry ramp system scheduled to position the shocks for efficient operation." I called Petley to see if there was a paper available on the propulsion system for the 1990 paper. He said no. He did tell me that a similar system was the subject of a paper at this weeks (?) Reno conference. That system was integrated into a waverider. I heard that Pegg was the lead on that paper. That system also uses an endothermic fuel. >NASA has been testing the ramjet part of the engine >inlet for years, but just recently starting looking into the turbojet >path. There are concerns that the ramjet inlet path won't work as >long as the turbojet path is open. Does the problem you mention also exist in the above studies? Are you referring to one shock being used for both inlets, and how pressure changes (door closing, unstarts, transients) in one or both paths could change the shock position and therefore the performance? Can you share what the concern is? How about a wrap-around concept? > Anyway, Lockheed dropped the whole >project a long time ago. > (Or did they? :-)] Paul Czysz has heard Billig's engine run!! It did beat at a low frequency!! But that was on a test stand. I'm not saying it's the pulser but it's interesting! Larry ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V2 #51 ******************************** 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).