From: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V4 #80 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Friday, 3 December 1993 Volume 04 : Number 080 In this issue: Re: sightings Re: Skunk Works Digest V4 #79 Re: sightings Re: Where, oh where... You're right. I'm sorry... Re: sightings Re: US OTH-B in NW US Re : USAF OTH Re: US OTH-B in NW US OTH OTH (II) Re: Sightings and OTH (II) oth Stealth talk Airships, balloons... 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: dadams@netcom.com (Dean Adams) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1993 02:52:51 -0800 Subject: Re: sightings sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) says: ... >For 12 years I've been wondering what I saw that night, and one theory >that I came up with was that perhaps it might have been some sort of >exotic airship. One possibility could be the 100-200 ft. electric powered flying-wing UAVs that were apparently tested out at Edwards around that time. >But where would something that big be hidden during the day? A big hanger! :) - -dean ------------------------------ From: Bob Zwarick Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1993 09:20:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V4 #79 Just to inform you that three copies of subject have arrived thus far! - -- =============================================================================== Bob Zwarick "Call me by name again, again forever, and never will it sound without response" =============================================================================== ------------------------------ From: PHARABOD@frcpn11.in2p3.fr Date: Thu, 02 Dec 93 16:01:26 MET Subject: Re: sightings >sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) says: >... >>For 12 years I've been wondering what I saw that night, and one theory >>that I came up with was that perhaps it might have been some sort of >>exotic airship. > >One possibility could be the 100-200 ft. electric powered flying-wing >UAVs that were apparently tested out at Edwards around that time. >Dean Adams (Thu, 2 Dec 1993 02:52:51 -0800) It depends on the shape. Remember we were speaking of more or less triangular crafts. The 100 ft flying-wing UAV quoted in the AW&ST article ("Solar-Powered UAV to fly at Edwards", October 4, 1993, p.27) is a very narrow rectangle: __________________________ [________________________] J. Pharabod ------------------------------ From: PHARABOD@frcpn11.in2p3.fr Date: Thu, 02 Dec 93 16:29:21 MET Subject: Re: Where, oh where... >could they hide a big airship? >Just take it up to 50000 ft and hang some lights under it... >Rick Pavek (Wed, 1 Dec 1993 13:27:07 -0800) Could an airship go that high? Dilatable balloons go currently up to 80,000 ft and can reach 130,000 ft. Open balloons go currently up to 130,000 ft. But pressurized balloons generally can only bring a small load (for example, 5 kg) up to 40,000 ft. I don't think that airships are dilatable or open. Also, the triangular or boomerang shape is not good; the ratio volume/surface is far better with spherical, sausage or lenticular shape. A more or less triangular airship would probably be condemned to stay at rather low altitude, where the air is dense. By the way, how about a craft half airship, half plane? A very big ultra light plane with some compartments filled with helium? J. Pharabod ------------------------------ From: Rick Pavek Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1993 10:14:14 -0800 Subject: You're right. I'm sorry... We should trust the government. They know what's best for us. If it is hidden behind the veil of National Security, then it must be ok... I just don't know what came over me. I retract everything I said about the land grab. Hmmmm, what's this headline on the paper? Let's see... NASA implicated in Major Fraud Sting Operation. FBI investigating. Hmmm. Has got to be a fluke. After all, that's NASA they're talking about. Get my point? If you think that hiding a black project for reasons stated as "National Security" do not have the potential to cover up fraud or other crimes then you have a very nieve opinion of the Government. The Government, my friend, is comprised of people. And people have flaws. Like I said before... WE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW ABOUT GROOM LAKE AND ANY OTHER BLACK PROJECT, if only names, costs, contractors, and other general info. Any other opinion is that of a fool. I stand my ground. Rick SR-75/XR-7 _|_*O*_|_ | Rick Pavek \ __|__ / | HA!! kuryakin@halcyon.com \_______/_(O)_\_______/ | Ruby - \___/---\___/ | Galactic Gumshoe ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1993 10:58:20 -0800 Subject: Re: sightings >sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) says: >... >>For 12 years I've been wondering what I saw that night, and one theory >>that I came up with was ... Dean Adams responds: >One possibility could be the 100-200 ft. electric powered flying-wing >UAVs ... J. Pharabod responds: >It depends on the shape. ... Rick Pavek responds: >Just take it up to 50000 ft and hang some lights ... J. Pharabod responds: >Could an airship go that high? > ... >By the way, how about a craft half airship, half plane? A very big >ultra light plane with some compartments filled with helium? Yes, an airship that develops lift not only by displacing air, but also via its airfoil. Anyway. This is a good discussion actually. But, we need to look at the total experience here. It would be nice to start with a set of sightings and then get a complete set of attributes to analyze. For example. Last night I was reading an account of a sighting of a 200+ ft. span boomerang, by many people in different locations, on the Gulf Coast of central Florida back in 1992 (?). One of the people that witnessed it, a policeman on patrol late at night, shined his spotlight or flashlight (I can't recall which) on it several times. He indicated that after the last time that he shined his light on it, it "hauled ass" out to the West, into the Gulf of Mexico. Since he could see a shape in the sky before it left, and he couldn't see that shape after it left, I assume the apparent speed wasn't due to sequenced lights, but I would have to verify those details. All these people also indicated there was no noise at all. I think it was implied that when the aircraft 'hauled ass' out into the Gulf, that it had no sound, but this would have to be checked. Actually I have a problem with how low and close to people these things come. Being seen accidently, as a secret stealth plane works a test range is one thing, but hovering low over peoples heads is another. I'd think the security guys would HAVE A FIT, if such a mission were planned, or if they found out via the press reports that one of their pilots was goofing off playing UFO the past night! I don't think that they would want to establish the fact that such a machine is really a UFO so that if they ever use it in action that people will be in awe of it and not shoot at it. Such a plan would require even more sightings, and there would always be the non-UFO believer with a machine gun, that would 'deflate' your plan :) . So if there was a plan to use a UFO as a ruse, I would expect it to be a very infrequent (one time?) and expensive magic bullet kind of mission, that if you ever did practice it, would be better concealed than these things are. A high altitude bistatic radar reflector would also be quite vulnerable to a ground/air launched missile once it was detected, I should think, unless it was REALLY high, or unless it's reflective properties, or the geometry of its network, were designed to take damage and still function. So I would expect that a bistatic radar reflector would be at a high altitude, and if it were to be seen low, it should be near its launch or recovery point. As Dean, and J. Pahabod indicated, to our knowledge right now, before aerodynamic analysis, just by inspection of what they fly at Edwards these days, a subsonic high L/D, high altitude UAV for reconnaissance say, has a different planform than a delta, or a boomerang shape. So additional questions are: What shape would a high altitude bistatic radar reflector have? - what is the best shape for this mission? - can such a system be designed to take battle damage? - can such a system be networked to take battle damage? Is there aerodynamic/operational reason to design a 'flying' high altitude UAV as a boomerang or delta? Would a large boomerang/delta bistatic reflector be able to accelerate and fly at very fast speeds? I suspect that the thickness of the observed airfoils is not conducive as well. Anyway, just some ideas. This has been worthy of study by black aircraft people for some period of time now. Larry ------------------------------ From: John Erling Blad Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1993 21:30:34 +0100 Subject: Re: US OTH-B in NW US Wrong! Depends on the frequency! There are systems which use the ground wawe. At least one is in a ship. If there is anyone interested I can find some references, but there will be some paperwork. I keep to much garbage! John ------------------------------ From: John Erling Blad Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1993 21:52:53 +0100 Subject: Re : USAF OTH >Transmitter in Moscow (really)??? That was very interesting, does that mean that they use civil broadcasters? Should be possible. >Site was ALWAYS developmental, never part of NORAD, This was new to me. >OTH is NOT the only bistatic radar. There is at least a development project in an eastern country, Urban are you still out there. This was about multistatic radars (landbased). >An airship would be useful for any airborn bistatic. USN had >nonrigids with radar dishes _inside_ in the '50s. Any references? > ONNA other hand, a MODERN OTH, might well use spread spectrum to be >almost "invisible" to the casual listener. Sort of stealth radar. I have never heard of this but I gess it is very difficult because of movment in the different reflecting layers. Short term fluctuations will giva a very low correlation even at stationery targets. >As to where the "big ship" went during daylight, think about hollow >mountains. Or simply deflating it, and storing it in a semitrailer. Any ***good*** rumors about such mountains? Such projects is not easy to hide. The semitrailerconsept is more likly, especial if the system is in an r&d stage. John ------------------------------ From: John Erling Blad Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1993 22:34:51 +0100 Subject: Re: US OTH-B in NW US If someone is out plying ufo at night I think he is in trouble so I agree on that part. >A high altitude bistatic radar reflector would also be quite vulnerable >to a ground/air launched missile once it was detected, Thats the question can it be detected *and* fired at if it stays deep insede USA? I dont think anything like this is for a battlefield use, but it can observe a battlefield from a safe distance. I will like to state one thing, I DO NOT THINK THIS THING EXIST! Then back to the fantacy.. >What shape would a high altitude bistatic radar reflector have? Such a thing is to difficoult to controll so you dont use it as a reflector. If you use it as an reflector you must control all movments very accuratly, at least if it is a mechanical reflector. If you use an electrical reflector, why not receive the transmission and link it to an other site? An OTH radar dont have a heavy antenna array, it have a *big* antenna array. >- what is the best shape for this mission? Maximum volum in minimum surface, something like an old airship. Perhaps in a new fancy plastic. >- can such a system be designed to take battle damage? There was some testing before WWI. The result was simple to predict. In an airship you have some gass, for example helium (hydrogen is not safe..) that is lighter than air. So if you got a hole at the top it disapears. But if you got a hole at the bottom it also dissapears because of the high mobility of the atoms (Sorry for the grammer). The neat result is that if someone shoot at you, you go down. >- can such a system be networked to take battle damage? Anythink can be made failsafe if you pay, but I dont think it is the situation here. John ------------------------------ From: I am the NRA Date: Thu, 2 Dec 93 13:58:27 PST Subject: OTH >>Transmitter in Moscow (really)??? >That was very interesting, does that mean that they use civil broadcasters? >Should be possible. heh. Moscow is a small town in Northern Maine. And i may have the Tx and Rx reversed. But one end IS in Moscow. They may have fed Norad data, but they were never "on line" as part of the system. >>OTH is NOT the only bistatic radar. >There is at least a development project in an eastern country, Urban are you >still out there. This was about multistatic radars (landbased). Bistatic dates back to the earliest days. Monostatic is easier. >>An airship would be useful for any airborn bistatic. USN had >>nonrigids with radar dishes _inside_ in the '50s. >Any references? hmmmm? Any good book on airships will discuss this. I want to say ZPGW7, but that may be wrong. They had several with exterior radomes & at least one with the dish inside. >> ONNA other hand, a MODERN OTH, might well use spread spectrum to be >>almost "invisible" to the casual listener. Sort of stealth radar. >I have never heard of this but I gess it is very difficult because of movment >in the different reflecting layers. Short term fluctuations will giva a >very low correlation even at stationery targets. Pure speculation from "frist principles". But, IMO, valid as speculation... >>As to where the "big ship" went during daylight, think about hollow >>mountains. Or simply deflating it, and storing it in a semitrailer. >Any ***good*** rumors about such mountains? Such projects is not easy to >hide. The semitrailerconsept is more likly, especial if the system is in an >r&d stage. Speculation, as i think i said. Will try to get the blimp ref tonite. (actually, they land it, and it looks like a tent for an army unit on manouvers. 8)>> (The UK & US Used inflatable "tank" & "a/c" decoys in WWII.) regards dwp ------------------------------ From: I am the NRA Date: Thu, 2 Dec 93 14:09:31 PST Subject: OTH (II) My last may not have been clear. (This is all from a very public presentation. My guess is its also been presented in various IEEE papers over the years...) The Tx used in the Maine installation is not a commercial broadcaster. It is (without looking it up) a remotely tunable/electronically tunable MW tranmitter(s), 7-30MHz comes to mind, on the order of 1 MW peak. The antenna array is a series of arrays of 1/4 wave monopoles, with director elements in front and a reflecting screen behind. There is a ground plane under all, and ac leared, fenced, area in front. The main array is actually 1/2 mi or so long, and consists of 3(?) subarrays, each for a different subband. effectively its three seperate arrays, which happen to be colocated, only one of which is active at a time. (they may use one for "sounding" on one band, while "searching" with another, on another band.) Beam steering in azimuth is by phasing the drives to each monopole within a subarray. Beam steering in altitude/range is by finding a particular patch in the ionosphere.... Really. regards dwp ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1993 14:24:47 -0800 Subject: Re: Sightings and OTH (II) dwp writes: > Beam steering in altitude/range is by finding a particular >patch in the ionosphere.... Really. So if I understand what you're saying. A quite reasonable reflector for just about any purpose can be accomplished by controlling the propogation characteristics of some part of the earth's atmosphere. Such a system is immune from traditional attack. Such a 'seeding' could be performed by a rocket or whatever. No need for an aircraft or airship at all! Of course, if such an area already existed in the atmosphere then you wouldn't have to do anything at all, as you said. Larry ------------------------------ From: I am the NRA Date: Thu, 2 Dec 93 15:52:47 PST Subject: oth From: US3RMC::"larry@ichips.intel.com" "MAIL-11 Daemon" 2-DEC-1993 18:42:19.45 To: skunk-works@orchestra.ecn.purdue.edu CC: Subj: Re: Sightings and OTH (II) >Larry >dwp writes: >> Beam steering in altitude/range is by finding a particular >>patch in the ionosphere.... Really. >So if I understand what you're saying. A quite reasonable reflector >for just about any purpose can be accomplished by controlling the >propogation characteristics of some part of the earth's atmosphere. not quite. I was too terse. While "searching" ios going on, another transmitter is "sounding", looking for a _naturally_ _occurring_ patch of ionosphere that gives coverage somewher where its needed. The ASSumption was that, if one looked, and shifted frequencies, and etc, one could find such a patch all the time to give good coverage. A given patch of ionosphere migh cover a given patch of atmosphere for 5-10-15 minutes, meanwhile the sounder had to find others. What was found was that sometimes they couldn't find enough to give the coverage needed to provide defense. (there have been tinkerings with seeding of course, always for other purposes. So they said....) >Such a system is immune from traditional attack. Such a 'seeding' >could be performed by a rocket or whatever. No need for an aircraft >or airship at all! Of course, if such an area already existed in >the atmosphere then you wouldn't have to do anything at all, as you >said. They do exist. Its what makes "short wave" work, on a world wide basis. finding a patch good enough to do 10s of meter resolution "imaging" is a lot harder than finding one to bounce "World Service" off. (IF (and as some else has pointed out its a BIG if, we dunno IF the "big wing" exists, and if so IF it has anything to do with radar), i'd guess the receiver is ON/IN the wing. Phased Array techniques mean the antenna can be "shaped" electronically, or it could be _inside_. Down link the _data_ (or _uplink_). I Am SPECULATING.) regards dwp ------------------------------ From: Tim Date: Thu, 2 Dec 93 16:07:28 PST Subject: Stealth talk This is just a note to those of you in the Ohio area. I got my AIAA flyer today (even though I've been in seattle for 2 years they still seem to think I'm going to go to their events :).. anyways there is going to be a talk on stealth technology given by Bill Sweetman on Dec 9. Place: Holiday Inn, Rockside Rd. Independence near intersection of I77 & I480 Times: Cocktails / cash bar 5:445 Dinner 6:30 Lecture 7:30 Cost: non AIAA members 15/ members 13/ students 11 Reservation req'd by the 6th. Mary Jo Long-Davis Colin Drummond 216.433.8708 216.433.3956 NASA Lerc m/s 86-7 NASA Lerc m/s 77-6 ------------------------------ From: I am the NRA Date: Thu, 2 Dec 93 16:26:51 PST Subject: Airships, balloons... >J. Pharabod >>could they hide a big airship? >>Just take it up to 50000 ft and hang some lights under it... >>Rick Pavek (Wed, 1 Dec 1993 13:27:07 -0800) >Could an airship go that high? We'd need a rigid (8)>>) definition of airship. (I get even worse on airships than OTH....) An airship, rigid, (zeppelin, akron, macon) is just a bunch of balloons tucked in an aerodynamic cover. At lift off, the individual bags are usually modestly underfull. As the ship rises (statically, due to bouyant lift, or dynamically, due to aerodynamic lift, if motors running and ship "pitched up"), the bags "fill" as the gas expands. Typically, the bags fill around 6,000 feet. [1] This is called "pressure height" where the gas pressure inside balances tha outside. Rise above this and the bags burst, except.... The bags are always fitted with pressure safety valves to keep them from bursting. BIG VALVES. To go higher, start with the bags emptier (look at the photos of skyhook ballons. litty-bitty bit of lift gas way up in the top.) This means limited payload, as J. Pharabod notes. However, a "rigid" can be designed for any "pressure height" desired. (at trade off in lift payload). [1] The late WWI rigid zep "high altitude ships" had pressure heights of 15-20,000 ft, to get above the fighters. (just like a U2....). A pet pondering of mine is whether modern materials and turbopumps would make it possible to have light tankage for lift gas on board and do bouyancy adjusting that way. Airships, nonrigid, are pretty much the same, except the pressure inside is always positive, mostly lift, but the "differential" is taken up by an internal "ballonet", pressurized (slightly, adjustably) by a blower, from outside air. The pressure must be positive, since that maintains the ship-shape. (8)>>) >Dilatable balloons go currently up to 80,000 ft and can reach 130,000 ft. >Open balloons go currently up to 130,000 ft. But pressurized balloons >generally can only bring a small load (for example, 5 kg) up to 40,000 ft. It depends on what they are designed for. >I don't think that airships are dilatable or open. I would class them (traditional rigids) as dilatable, up to pressure height, presurized at that height and open when the safeties pop. >Also, the triangular or boomerang shape is not good; the ratio volume/surface >is far better with spherical, sausage or lenticular shape. "better" needs to be defined. Max lift per unit bag material, yah, spherical. is best. If best aerodynamics, for powering/control, then "best" is aerodynamic, if lift, best is wing shaped. Efficient economical utilization of bag material may be way down the list of "bests". >A more or less triangular airship would probably be condemned to stay at >rather low altitude, where the air is dense. I believe it would depend entirely on the payload and design. >By the way, how about a craft half airship, half plane? A very big >ultra light plane with some compartments filled with helium? That may well be what we are discussing (if we are discussing anything that exists. 8)>>) Battle damage: Small arms fire creates slow leaks. The Germans used to fly home, land and patch. Or patch on the way home. And only holes in the top, upper surface really leak. The gas doesnt fall down thru holes in the bottom. (ok, holes in the side leak too...). Common tracer fire passes right thru, usually, the inside is too fuel rich to burn, the fabric exposed for too brief an instant. Itty-bitty exploding bullets are ok, or a hit with a 3" or so shell. These days, seekers would get onto it, with big holes following. It may, despite size (it could be just polyethylene film and cheep motors) be unmanned & expendable.... regards dwp ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V4 #80 ******************************** 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).