From: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V3 #54 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, 8 June 1993 Volume 03 : Number 054 In this issue: stranger lights still.... Re: stranger lights still.... stranger lights still.... miscellany 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: u9044817@athmail1.causeway.qub.ac.uk Date: Mon, 07 Jun 93 18:38:18 BST Subject: stranger lights still.... Hi, While the discussion appears to be on the topic of strange lights aka (by definition) UFO's I'd like to 'submit something for your perusal' (thankyou Rod Serling). A while back a 'well informed' friend (who is a senior person in the aerospace industry in the USA) and I had an interesting conversation on the subject of stealth technology. Basically it amounted to him declaring that stealth was an unparalleled leap in aerospace technology (and to cut a long story short) he believed that reference to an alien tecnology had been made. Still reading? Now just to silence the stirring masses I am not one to be taken in by UFOlogy, but certain things that were said etc lent a certain credence to what was being suggested. I'd be very interested to hear if anyone has any strong views on the subject. If possible lets make these views (be they for or against) opinions based on evidence rather than a posting from those who merely disbelieve in such phenomena and wish to state the fact for all to see. Roger. ------------------------------ From: fpaterra@apu.cta.com (Frank Paterra) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:32:10 EDT Subject: Re: stranger lights still.... I'd be interested in hearing what the "certain things that were said etc" were. I am very ignorant in stealth technology, but I thought that the major factors were - a) scattering the signal that hit the bird so that the return is not direct, and therefore smaller -- Blackbird internal wing structure is an example. and b) absorbing the signal as it hits to reduce the return. This could be accomplished by causing the signal to bounce around inside small particles in the skin (paint) to cause loss of energy and absorption like food in a microwave. We've all have heard stories of the "discovery" of microwaves to apply heat as a offshoot of radar transmission. Neither of these technologies would require ET to develop, so unless a different technology is used (remember, I'm ignorant in the was of the stealthy world), I don't see a link to ET and stealth. Frank Paterra fpaterra@cta.com ------------------------------ From: serafini@nas.nasa.gov (David B. Serafini) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 93 14:17:45 -0700 Subject: stranger lights still.... From: u9044817@athmail1.causeway.qub.ac.uk Date: Mon, 07 Jun 93 18:38:18 BST Sender: skunk-works-owner@ecn.purdue.edu Hi, [...] A while back a 'well informed' friend (who is a senior person in the aerospace industry in the USA) and I had an interesting conversation on the subject of stealth technology. Basically it amounted to him declaring that stealth was an unparalleled leap in aerospace technology (and to cut a long story short) he believed that reference to an alien tecnology had been made. [...] I'd be very interested to hear if anyone has any strong views on the subject. [...] Roger. There are two separable problems in 'stealth' (or in any new) design technology - design analysis and production. I can't speak for production, but in analysis, stealth is based on the numerical solution to Maxwell's equations. Advances in numerical fluid dynamics have made many techniques for the solution of systems of nonlinear partial differential equations available. Lots of money has been spent in this area and there are lots of results to show for it. A lot of the capability in RCS analysis derives from this. Another thing that has driven 'stealth technology' has been the realization that it is doable, and the perceived need to do it. It is well documented that concern about radar reflection signature existed as long ago as the development of the A-12/SR-71 in the 60's, but it wasn't a first-order concern. Now it is. The combination of the need to do something about it and the ability the work on the problem is what I think has driven the advances. For example, the F117 design reflects the limited capabilities of the designers to analyze complex shapes. The F117 geometry is piecewise linear. The recently revealed Lockheed Sea Shadow is similar. The B-2 geometry is smooth, presumably to 2nd or 3rd derivatives, which is a much more difficult problem to solve. In addition, it is a much more flexible design than the faceted design of the 117, so the designers had much more work to do. My area of knowledge is numerical fluid dynamics and nonlinear design, so most of what I've said is extrapolated to RCS, although I do know some people at NASA who are working in this area. It's a hard problem, but I don't believe any magical alien technology is needed to explain what has happened. One speculation about the production side (emphasis on speculation). I think (not sure) that a critical aspect of the 'stealth' materials is their non-homogenousness. Advances in carbon-graphite/epoxy composites may have been the driving technology in making the complicated stealthly materials possible. - -David David B. Serafini Scientific Computing/CFD consultant serafini@ra-iris.arc.nasa.gov or @amelia.nas.nasa.gov c/o NASA/Ames Research Center MS 227-6 (415)604-6233 FTS: 464-6233 Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000 ==== ------------------------------ From: rh@craycos.com (Robert Herndon) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 93 18:06:11 MDT Subject: miscellany I was talking with some of the older EAA (homebuilder) A&Ps around my home field earlier this week, and they mentioned that there had been a "shady lady" (U2 pilots) reunion in texas a few weeks ago, followed by the blackbird reunion the week after in Reno (which was mentioned in this group). They also got to talking about reconnaissance in the 50s and 60s, and made the claim that the RB-57 was a much better platform for recon than the U-2 (saying that it flew as high or higher, and faster) but that it was so big that it made much too big and obvious a target. Being unfamiliar with the RB-57, I wonder if this is true (sorry, I'm cheap and don't have the right refs), and if so, then it would seem to lend credibility to the idea that stealth was considered a major design aspect of both the U-2 and SR-71. Comments? - -r ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V3 #54 ******************************** 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).