From: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V2 #76 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, 10 February 1993 Volume 02 : Number 076 In this issue: SR-71 Cost What hypersonic technology and RS-71 cost Re: SR-71 Cost Re: SR-71 Costs... Re: Hypersonics Technology SR-71 Budget Yes I'm kidding Re: Sr-71 Cost 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: gt6745b@prism.gatech.edu Date: Tue, 9 Feb 93 11:54:43 EST Subject: SR-71 Cost David Ciochetto once transcribed an article on the Aurora: > without explanation, is the retirement of the > sucessful, relatively inexpensive SR-71 spy plane in > 1990. Interestingly enough, I think this is the first time I have ever heard the SR-71 and "relatively inexpensive" in the same sentence together. I realize the potential cost of an Aurora would be great in comparison, but I was under the impression the Blackbirds were retired because of operating and maintenance costs. I seem to recall reading that to refine and produce the fuel alone was costing several billion dollars. And this is relatively inexpensive? How about sending some of this overbearing wealth my way! I only ask for a million, that should be drop in the bucket. -Michael Michael David Knight gt6745b@prism.gatech.edu * In this world and the next,* Georgia Institute of Technology * fight to live, and retreat * Atlanta, Georgia 30332 * only into happiness and * Aerospace Engineering (404)676-0520 * success. * ------------------------------ From: "S.K. Whiteman" <@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU:WHITEMAN@IPFWVM> Date: Tue, 09 Feb 93 13:41:45 EST Subject: What hypersonic technology and RS-71 cost Michael, are referring to your 'peace dividend'? Talk to Clinton. As noted on another list: >From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >Subject: space news from Nov 16 AW&ST >To: sci-space-news@news.arc.nasa.gov >Hypersonics program leaders from various nations to meet in December >in hopes of laying groundwork for a multinational program. The >biggest obstacle will probably be the US belief that the US has all >the worthwhile technology and shouldn't give it away to competitors. What? What hypersonic technology? The US has hypersonic technology? You know trouble when your dogma attacks your sacred cows.... \ /___________________ Sam \_____/ | IBM Systems Programmer Chicago/ | * | O Indiana University - I | Ft. Wayne | H Purdue University at Fort Wayne L | 1794-1994 | Fort Wayne, Indiana USA ------------------------------ From: gt8303a@prism.gatech.edu (The Great and Mighty Confused) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1993 14:30:10 -0500 Subject: Re: SR-71 Cost I'm not sure what the figures are, but one of the guys I work with is a "Skunkworks History Buff." According to him, the SR-71 was a rush order, delivered quickly (from design to production) and well below budget. I'll try to find him and get whatever specifics he has. Andy Entrekin gt8303a@prism.gatech.edu ------------------------------ From: john@percy.rain.com (John Cavanaugh) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1993 13:10:18 +0000 (WET) Subject: Re: SR-71 Costs... I thought I had remembered hearing somewhere that it costs $100K every time they started the engines up on a Blackbird...Not exactly cheap... - -- John Cavanaugh "There can be only one." ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1993 13:24:09 -0800 Subject: Re: Hypersonics Technology From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >>Subject: space news from Nov 16 AW&ST >>To: sci-space-news@news.arc.nasa.gov >>Hypersonics program leaders from various nations to meet in December >>in hopes of laying groundwork for a multinational program. The >>biggest obstacle will probably be the US belief that the US has all >>the worthwhile technology and shouldn't give it away to competitors. Sam Whiteman responds: >What? What hypersonic technology? The US has hypersonic technology? You're kidding right? The first hypersonics applications that I know of were reentry applications to predict materials properties and reentry L/D. All successful reentries are testimony to the existence of some form of hypersonics technology. As far as the airbreathing stuff is concerned, we could have done something in the late 60's, if we wanted to. We're still not sure we want to, that's what bothers me. Larry ------------------------------ From: TOM PETRISKO <0004343121@mcimail.com> Date: Tue, 9 Feb 93 21:20 GMT Subject: SR-71 Budget From what I have read, the SR-71 was a very expensive aircraft to operate in fuel and maintenance. It probabaly had the equivalent maintenance budget of a B-52 aircraft. The Air Force "claimed" they had to deactivate them, in order to use the money for new spy satellites. They said they could not afford both elements. ------------------------------ From: "S.K. Whiteman" <@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU:WHITEMAN@IPFWVM> Date: Tue, 09 Feb 93 16:54:43 EST Subject: Yes I'm kidding I forgot the mega :-(); sorry.... But; What with the recent denials concerning other classified projects it wouldn't surprise me to find that the gov'mnt disavowing any knowledge of anything; there by confirming what we all suspect: our gov'mnt doesn't know anything. which means that our leaders can happily join the rest of us in our ignorance. Sam What was that...I'm from the government, I'm here to help. ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1993 14:15:46 -0800 Subject: Re: Sr-71 Cost David Ciochetto once transcribed an article on the Aurora: >> without explanation, is the retirement of the >> sucessful, relatively inexpensive SR-71 spy plane in >> 1990. Michael David Knight responds: > >Interestingly enough, I think this is the first time I have ever heard >the SR-71 and "relatively inexpensive" in the same sentence together. I think the "piece of mind" that these systems have provided during some crisis were probably worth the cost of development and continued deployment. Michael David Knight responds: > I seem to recall reading that to >refine and produce the fuel alone was costing several billion dollars. >And this is relatively inexpensive? John Cavanaugh responds: >I thought I had remembered hearing somewhere that it costs $100K every time >they started the engines up on a Blackbird...Not exactly cheap... Hey guys! The references please!! :) Here's one I've found: AW&ST 1/22/90, pg.40: "The SR-71 is considered expensive at $200-$300 million per year. In 1983, operating costs were about $18,000 per hour for fuel maintenance and crew, according to a former SR-71 pilot". pg. 38: "The main users of the SR-71's reconnaissance have been the Navy, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Defense Intelligence Agency, and they received intelligence data free of charge" 2 points: Gee, there's that Navy reference again!! You may have something there Bruce about the new airplane! Hmmm ..... ! I guess those three groups would say the SR was one of the cheapest systems they ever operated! pg. 39: "The Senate Armed Services Committee was supporting the SR-71 program, but the House Armed Services Committee wanted to phase it out and proceed with a classified airborne reconnaissance program, ... . The classified program was in the early stages of development at best, and would not be available for years, if at all. The House and Senate conferees for the appropriations bill made an amendment providing $210 million for all aspects of the SR-71 ... . The amendment also allocated an additional $130 million for airborne reconnaissance research and development for the classified program" pg. 41: "Some SR-71 crews have been on the program for more than 15 years, and they are upset by the aircraft's demise and by some of the justifying "facts" given by the corporate Air Force." Larry ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V2 #76 ******************************** 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).