From: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V2 #67 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, 31 January 1993 Volume 02 : Number 067 In this issue: Re: January 1993 issue of Air Force Magazine Re: January 1993 issue of Air Force Magazine Confirm or deny? Re: Confirm or deny? Different Shape Required Re: Identify please! Re: Identify please! Timberwind Schmimberwind Re:Timberwind Schmimberwind Re: D-21 RE: D-21s recovery M/HC-130 recovery systems Re: F-22 Sidewinder Firing 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: George Allegrezza 29-Jan-1993 1008 Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 10:14:55 EST Subject: Re: January 1993 issue of Air Force Magazine Thomas J Klotzbach writes, re: "Air Force" magazine: >. . . there are a couple of interesting articles in the January issue: > - "A Checklist of Major Aeronautical Systems" which states that a >Hypersonics program is ongoing under the Wright Laboratory/Flight Dynamics >Directorate. These program reviews are good first-level sources to find out what's going on in various technology areas in the AF. There's one for electronic systems, aeronautical systems, and space and missile systems, spread across various issues during the year. Also good is (or was) their annual survey of Soviet airpower. Not sure if they still do this for the successor states. I used to be able to get the magazine at an old hobby shop in Connecticut that has long since gone to Chapter 11 heaven. Is there any way to get this mag without joining the AFA? Like, can you just subscribe? George George Allegrezza "Nobody can own two NFL teams, even if Digital Equipment Corporation they are Italian." Littleton MA USA -- Billy Clyde Puckett, "Semi-Tough" allegrezza@tnpubs.enet.dec.com ------------------------------ From: Blair Haworth Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 11:02:22 EST Subject: Re: January 1993 issue of Air Force Magazine George Allegrezza writes-- >I used to be able to get the magazine at an old hobby shop >in Connecticut that has long since gone to Chapter 11 >heaven. Is there any way to get this mag without joining >the AFA? Like, can you just subscribe? I believe that subscribing bestows nominal membership in the AFA, the same as with, say, the National Geographic Society or the NRA. I suspect that individual subscription go at a loss, with the real action coming from corporate dues and advertising. -- Blair Haworth ------------------------------ From: Bruce Henderson Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 09:57:38 -0800 Subject: Confirm or deny? Project Timberwind In the wake of the announcement of the Strategic Defense Initiative ballistic-missile defense program by then-President Reagan in 1983, a number of "black" ( ultra-secret ) weapons programs were begun by the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization ( SDIO ) and various other military and intelligence services of the US government. In 1991, rumors began to circulate in the aerospace and defense industry about one such project said to be currently in operation, a project code-named Timberwind. Timberwind was a project intended to create an NTR-powered heavy-lift launch vehicle for carrying heavy SDI payloads into space. The project began in the mid-1980s with the design and construction of a new type of NTR engine, the Particle-Bed Reactor ( PBR ). The PBR is a variation on the solid-core NTR in which the fuel elements ( carbon-coated uranium oxide ) are machined into .05mm-diameter spheres instead of hexagonal fuel rods as in the NERVA. Since the sphere has the greatest surface area relative to volume of any shape, the PBR core has a much larger radiating surface than a conventional core, which in turn exposes more reaction mass to the radiation and, as a result, increases both thrust and I. In 1985, the nuclear engineering firm Babcock & Wilcox produced a prototype PBR engine called PIPE, which was used to conduct proof-of-concept tests. The most recent data on Timberwind describe a PBR for use as a second-stage engine in a modified Titan IV or Atlas-Centaur launcher. The largest Timberwind engine proposed would be almost the same height and diameter as an SSME, but would outweigh it by nearly five thousand pounds. In return, however, the Timberwind PBR exceeds the Shuttle engine in thrust by some twenty thousand pounds, and more than doubles its I at 1000 seconds. Three smaller 75,000-lb.-thrust versions of this engine would be fitted into the second-stage of the Titan IV derivative, enabling to push nearly 70 tons to low Earth orbit ( LEO ). The Atlas deriviative would be capable of lifting less than 25% of that to LEO ( 13.5 tons max ), but would be able to lift twelve tons to the 220-nautical mile orbit of Space Station Freedom. A PRR-driven Titan could therefore deliver twice the payload of the Shuttle to LEO, while the Atlas-dervitive could lift half as much--but both with much better efficiency. ( Shuttle takeoff weight = 2200 tons; Atlas/PBR = 156 tons ). Timberwind is still highly classified. In fact, neither SDIO nor Pentagon sources will admit that such a program exists at all, due in part to secrecy and in part to fear that public outcry against a nuclear-powered, ground-launched booster would be politically embarassing to the program. However, it is generally accepted that Timberwind or a program similar to it in scope continues to operate at the super-secret Saddle Mountain National Test Site in the Nevada desert. As of January 1993 the status of Timberwind remains a mystery. ------------------------------ From: tom@gordian.com (Tom Ambrose) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 10:59:08 PST Subject: Re: Confirm or deny? At Carnegie-Mellon, I took a class called "Military and Civilian Applications of Space". Everyone had to do an oral presentation for a final grade in the class. I did a group project on a lunar base as a platform to get to Mars. One of my partners researched heavy lifters. She had come across a few references to Timberwind. When she brought this up with our professor, Dr. Benoit Morel, he told her that he could not discuss that with her. When she pressed him, he said he could "neither confirm, nor deny" the existance of such a project. He did seem to know quite a bit about heavy lifters and nuclear power. As far as I know, he is pretty well know as both a physicist and space policy expert. He was often leaving right after class to rush off to Washington. - -tom ------------------------------ From: I am the NRA Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 11:00:51 PST Subject: Different Shape Required From: GGONE::PIERSON "I am the NRA" 29-JAN-1993 13:52:27.56 To: TUNER::ROBERTS_J CC: PIERSON Subj: skonk >Timberwind was a project intended to create an NTR-powered heavy-lift >launch vehicle for carrying heavy SDI payloads into space. The project >began in the mid-1980s with the design and construction of a new type of >NTR engine, the Particle-Bed Reactor (PBR). The PBR is a variation on the >solid-core NTR in which the fuel elements (carbon-coated uranium oxide) are >machined into .05mm-diameter spheres instead of hexagonal fuel rods >as in the NERVA. Since the sphere has the greatest surface area relative to >volume of any shape, ahhhhh, the sphere has the _least_ surface are relative to volume.... >the PBR core has a much larger radiating surface than a conventional core, >which in turn exposes more reaction mass to the radiation and, as a result, >increases both thrust and I. regards dwp ------------------------------ From: megazone@wpi.WPI.EDU (B Bikowicz) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 14:52:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Identify please! Once upon a time Wayne Fiori shaped the electrons to say... >How were these drones recovered?? Parachute to a predetermined landing sight >sounds like the only option. I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong.... I believe the D-21 paradropped the flim/data after crossing the target. This was caught in the air by special C-130s (MC-130s?) with the pincers on the nose. The actual drone was unrecovered. ############################################################################### # I have one prejudice, and that is against stupidity. Use your mind, think! # #Email megazone@wpi.wpi.edu Moderator, WPI anime FTP site 130.215.24.1 /anime# ############################################################################### ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 12:05:53 -0800 Subject: Re: Identify please! Wayne Fiori writes: >How were these drones recovered?? Parachute to a predetermined landing sight >sounds like the only option. Although there is much information we don't know yet about these drones (and that we may learn soon since they're going to museums now) the current knowledge says that they were designed to eject a tape cartridge of some sort that was to be recovered by air, sea or land pickup. The drone was to then destroy itself. It was an expensive program! Brian (Nuclear J-58 Powered Blackbird) Bikowicz :) writes: Once upon a time Lee Levine shaped the electrons to say... >>What's an A-12 and a D-21? >The A-12 is the original Blackbird, ancestor to the YF-12 and SR-71 >Sometimes mistakenly called the A-11. Yes. And a little detail on A-11. The design Lockheed proposed to the joint DOD/USAF/CIA selection panel on 20 August 1959 was one that Lockheed called the 11th 'Archangel' design (known to them as the A-11). That design won the bid. During development, after several changes in the A-11 design, it was renamed A-12. >The D-21, also referred to as the GTD-21 is a drone that was designed to be >carried to high altitude and speed by a modified A-12, referred to as an M-12. >(M for mothership, the in D-21 was for Drone)... >It was capable of long range recon at speeds and altitudes in excess of those >obtained by the Blackbird. >After a midair collision between an M-12 (one of only 2) and a just released >D-21, the D-21 was modified to be launched from the pylons of a B-52. The >drone was boosted to speed and altitude by a solid rocket. Yes, we're not actually sure of when the accident happened relative to things, but we now know that there were 5 successful Mach 3 launches from an M-12, as specified in the Lockheed SR-71 Researcher's Guide, published last year. We don't know which M-12's these were from. Some more interesting notes on the D-21 gathered from an M-12 restoration party I attended, with many Lockheed luminaries in attendance: There were many launch attempts from the M-12s. Not all were successful (you mentioned 941's last unfortunate launch attempt). The M-12's NEVER flew an operational mission. All operational D-21 missions used the B-52H launcher. The B-52 based D-21 missions were launched from Beale, some of them during daylight! Participants were amazed that nobody ever discovered the D-21 program while it was operational. Some were launched right over LA! They even flew daylight missions out of Beale! There are no declassified 'good' photos of the D-21B plus booster on the B-52H. Hopefully now that the drones are going to museums, some of these will be released. For the B-52H launches, a solid rocket booster was attached to the D-21, making it the B-model. B-52's have a hard time getting up to Mach 3. :) The booster was longer than the D-21B in both front and rear with a little propeller (like the Me-163) on its nose for power generation, and there was a stabilization fin under the nose that could move up or down. Neat little D-21B war story: Back in 1967 they flew a D-21B mission over China. Something malfunctioned and the D-21 proceeded to fly into Russia by mistake! In approx. 1978 or so, a government guy showed up at the Skunk Works with a piece of metal, and showed it to Ben Rich. He asked Ben if he knew what it was from. Ben said, "Yes, that's a piece of a D-21!". The government guy said that the KGB presented this with greetings to the CIA and said that they thought they had a piece of THE secret American Stealth airplane. Ben said, "well if they want to think that, let them!". He said, "of course they're wrong". "This is a piece of a D-21B that flew by mistake into Russia back in 1967". Evidently the errant drone eventually hit a mountain destroying itself (normal D-21 recovery technique). It was buried under snow for years. There was a thaw and the pieces were uncovered and eventually found. The Marquardt RJ-43 ramjet used platinum sponge on the edges of combustor components to enhance combustion. The RJ-43 used a dump combustor or sudden expansion combustor. Actually several steps, or a string of dumps is used. Some foreign aerospace engineers actually asked American aerospace engineers, at aerospace conferences, about this platinum sponge. This was a dead giveaway that they had seen information on crashed D-21s. The RJ-43 was the only ramjet that used this material. The fuel control for the Marquardt RJ-43 ramjet was set on the ground before the mission. The fuel control could be set for up to Mach 4.5! The MINUMUM altitude for a D-21 mission was 90,000 feet! Since mounting the D-21 to the M-12's tail added weight and drag, they experimented using the ramjet in the drone to help the M-12 accelerate transonic. This was done once. It didn't work too well. Pure ramjets aren't very efficient at that slow a speed. To reduce drag with the drone in place, they experimented with streamlined shrouds over the nose and tail of the drone The nose shroud was attached to the D-21's inlet spike. To get rid of the nose shroud, the D-21A's inlet spike was to be retracted, splitting the inlet shroud apart into smaller pieces that would fly away without causing damage to drone or mothership. On one mission though, the D-21A inlet INJESTED the split apart shroud (OUCH!!)!! M-12 No. 940 carried a dent at the base of her right vertical, allegedly from one of these shroud seperations. There were so many problems with the shrouds that they stopped using them. Larry ------------------------------ From: George Allegrezza 29-Jan-1993 1600 Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 16:41:18 EST Subject: Timberwind Schmimberwind Bruce Henderson submits a long article on Project Timberwind. In part, it reads: >Timberwind was a project intended to create an NTR-powered heavy-lift >launch vehicle for carrying heavy SDI payloads into space. More correctly, Timberwind was a development program for a nuclear thermal rocket. The Titan/Atlas upper stage thing appeared in Aviation Week a while back -- don't know if it ever was confirmed. On 15 January 1992, yours truly wrote: >Some details about Timberwind, the black USAF nuclear rocket engine >program, have been revealed at the Space Nuclear Power Conference in >Albuquerque this week. Timberwind is a particle bed reactor with 75K >thrust (equivalent to NERVA 1), 30:1 thrust-to-weight ratio, and 1000 sec >Isp (better than NERVA). The fuel pellets can withstand temperatures up to >5000 F (!). The project is four years old and was initiated by the SDIO. >$130 million of a projected $800 million has been spent, with the effort >spread over nine states. Grumman is prime, with Babcock & Wilcox, Sandia >National Labs, and Brookhaven National Labs also involved. There's been more released over the past year, including a presentation to the AIAA/ASME Joint Propulsion Conference last summer. USAF was shopping this program (SNTP) around to NASA, which has it's own NTR program based at Lewis. The AF inherited it from SDIO, which is supposedly out of the loop (ouch). Bruce writes: >The largest >Timberwind engine proposed would be almost the same height and diameter as an >SSME, but would outweigh it by nearly five thousand pounds. In return, >however, the Timberwind PBR exceeds the Shuttle engine in thrust by some >twenty thousand pounds, and more than doubles its I at 1000 seconds. Ba-da-bing, as my ancestors would say. Sounds like a good deep-space engine to me, about 90% more thrust than NERVA II. >Three smaller 75,000-lb.-thrust versions of this engine would be fitted into >the second-stage of the Titan IV derivative, enabling to push nearly 70 >tons to low Earth orbit ( LEO ). Clustering nuclear rockets is a non-trivial exercise. There are weird interactions between the reactors. >Timberwind is still highly classified. In fact, neither SDIO nor Pentagon >sources will admit that such a program exists at all [. . .] They've more or less come out of the closet on the rocket portion. The intended application is still murky. >[. . .] due in part to >secrecy and in part to fear that public outcry against a nuclear-powered, >ground-launched booster would be politically embarassing to the program. I find it hard to imagine that a program in as much political deep doo-doo as SDI would willingly add to its troubles on the Hill by proposing routine use of an in-atmosphere nuclear rocket. >However, it is generally accepted that Timberwind or a program similar to >it in scope continues to operate at the super-secret Saddle Mountain National >Test Site in the Nevada desert. As of January 1993 the status of Timberwind >remains a mystery. Don't know if the semi-black SNTP thing was funded in FY93 or covered in the FY94 Bush request. Regarding applications, I wrote (1/15/92), >Larry Smith writes: >>A friend also mentioned a SDIO ABM interceptor that used a nuclear rocket >>engine, that was written about in the New York Times somewhat recently. >>If anybody has details I'd appreciate it. >This was the conjecture of Steven Aftergood, Federation of American >Scientists, discussed when the FAS leaked the existence of Timberwind last >year. Frankly, I can't think of a *less* suitable mission for a nuclear >rocket. An ABM has to sit in a launcher unattended for long periods. >Maintenance on a reactor, base safety issues, and the re-loading of the >propellant would be big operational headaches. Plus, cost is a factor; you >want the ABM to be cheap enough to be affordable in large numbers. >No, Timberwind was intended for something else. . . . and I've yet to be convinced otherwise. Rgds, George PS: Cowboys in 10. George Allegrezza "Nobody can own two NFL teams, even if Digital Equipment Corporation they are Italian." Littleton MA USA -- Billy Clyde Puckett, "Semi-Tough" allegrezza@tnpubs.enet.dec.com ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 14:20:27 -0800 Subject: Re:Timberwind Schmimberwind Bruce Henderson submits a long article on Project Timberwind: >>The largest >>Timberwind engine proposed would be almost the same height and diameter as an >>SSME, but would outweigh it by nearly five thousand pounds. In return, >>however, the Timberwind PBR exceeds the Shuttle engine in thrust by some >>twenty thousand pounds, and more than doubles its I at 1000 seconds. George Allegrezza responds: >Ba-da-bing, as my ancestors would say. Sounds like a good deep-space engine >to me, about 90% more thrust than NERVA II. > ... >>[. . .] due in part to >>secrecy and in part to fear that public outcry against a nuclear-powered, >>ground-launched booster would be politically embarassing to the program. >I find it hard to imagine that a program in as much political deep doo-doo as >SDI would willingly add to its troubles on the Hill by proposing routine >use of an in-atmosphere nuclear rocket. I've wondered for a long time if the concerns you mention about such a thing are still such a big issue during a nuclear war, and if someone might have actually explored such a thing to the development stage. In other words such a vehicle would only be used in certain scenarios where it's drawbacks didn't matter any longer. Does this sound feasible? One loose-end that bothers me are those three people badly radiated in their automobile, by what appeared to be a nuclear rocket, in Dec. 1980 near Houston Texas. The so-called Cash-Landrum case. Larry ------------------------------ From: dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 93 04:53:23 MST Subject: Re: D-21 megazone@wpi.WPI.EDU (B Bikowicz) writes: >>How were these drones recovered?? Parachute to a predetermined >>landing sight sounds like the only option. >I believe the D-21 paradropped the flim/data after crossing the target. Well, after crossing the border at least... :-) >This was caught in the air by special C-130s (MC-130s?) with the >pincers on the nose. That would likely be the HC-130, Aerospace Rescue and Recovery Service birds. They also used to catch the re-entering film capsules from KH-9 satellites. MC-130 is the Combat Talon, used by Special Forces. >The actual drone was unrecovered. Yep... Too bad those couldn't have been recovered as well. - -dean ------------------------------ From: beagle!chandler@PacBell.COM (Jim Chandler) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 93 11:55:25 PST Subject: RE: D-21s recovery PacBell.COM!nyx.cs.du.edu!dnadams (Dean Adams) writes: > > > > > That would likely be the HC-130, Aerospace Rescue and Recovery Service birds. > Actually, the JC-130 was used for such recoveries. They were based in Hawaii. The unit was disbanded around 1985-86. ------------------------------ From: kuryakin@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Rick Pavek) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 93 15:35:15 PST Subject: M/HC-130 recovery systems Since the MC-130 uses the same Fulton recovery system, I'd presume the bird _could_ be used for the purpose of recovering film cannisters, but I have no idea if they would have been. Personnel extractions were the main purpose. Rick ------------------------------ From: wcsswag@alfred.ccs.carleton.ca (The Charlatan) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1993 06:00:19 GMT Subject: Re: F-22 Sidewinder Firing [interesting info F-22 deleted] This questioning reminded, that this idea was also tried on the Avro Arrow(Cf-105), back when they developing it in 1958-1959. I don't know if they solved this before it was scrapped:-(. But, it would interesting to see what solution they used for this problem. Becuase of course the missile of that era where certainly less complex than today. All my Arrows ref, are back home in Toronto. But I believe they were planning on using Falcon missiles, and most probably Genies as well(no need to worry missile accuracy, on the last one:-) The system was exactly like the idea of the f-22, but the entire weapons system was a intregal pack(a la b-58), and could be replaced on the flight line. Just some thoughts Alex ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V2 #67 ******************************** 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 To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command: unsubscribe skunk-works-digest in the body. Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent to either "skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu" or, if you don't like to type a lot, "prm@ecn.purdue.edu". 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).