From: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V4 #111 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Saturday, 8 January 1994 Volume 04 : Number 111 In this issue: Re: booms, F-117 Re: booms, F-117 Re: booms Re: Groom Lake Field Trip, Jan. 15 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: PHARABOD@frcpn11.in2p3.fr Date: Fri, 07 Jan 94 16:58:42 MET Subject: Re: booms, F-117 >>Is it possible to know: >>- why this experiment has been made ? >>- who decided that it should be made ? >> >>J. Pharabod >Certainly. The experiment was performed because it was considered by >project and facility management to be an appropriate use of the resources. >It was also considered to be cost-effective. > >If you're asking how you can get an SR-71 to do something for you, the >easiest way is to send money. Lots of money. The next best is to come up >with something that has a good purpose and a low cost. Don't ask for mods >to the aircraft unless you're prepared to a) fund them and b) take >responsibility for their flightworthiness. > >Mary Shafer (Thu, 6 Jan 1994 10:51:02 -0500 (EST)) I understand that the USGS (US Geological Survey?) asked for the experiment and gave the money. Am I right ? J. Pharabod ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Fri, 7 Jan 1994 12:08:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: booms, F-117 I haven't the faintest idea. First, it happened before I came onto the programs and second, I don't worry about management stuff like this. The Chief Engineer is responsible for _technical_ issues. The Project Manager is responsible for the money. Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com On Fri, 7 Jan 1994 PHARABOD@frcpn11.in2p3.fr wrote: > >>Is it possible to know: > >>- why this experiment has been made ? > >>- who decided that it should be made ? > >> > >>J. Pharabod > > >Certainly. The experiment was performed because it was considered by > >project and facility management to be an appropriate use of the resources. > >It was also considered to be cost-effective. > > > >If you're asking how you can get an SR-71 to do something for you, the > >easiest way is to send money. Lots of money. The next best is to come up > >with something that has a good purpose and a low cost. Don't ask for mods > >to the aircraft unless you're prepared to a) fund them and b) take > >responsibility for their flightworthiness. > > > >Mary Shafer (Thu, 6 Jan 1994 10:51:02 -0500 (EST)) > > I understand that the USGS (US Geological Survey?) asked for the > experiment and gave the money. Am I right ? > > J. Pharabod ------------------------------ From: rschnapp@metaflow.com (Russ Schnapp) Date: Fri, 7 Jan 94 09:59:41 PST Subject: Re: booms John Erling Blad writes: Can you please explain this, because if Im not in error (I usually are) I think you will estimate the speed and direction of the traveling wave. No, you are not mistaken -- the proposed configuration does indeed only measure the velocity and direction of the shockwave front. From this, though, you can roughly derive the velocity and direction of the vehicle generating the shockwave. The shockwave velocity for a vehicle traveling at the speed of sound is apx 1.414 times the speed of sound. As the vehicle speeds up, the shockwave velocity actually slows down to approach the speed of sound. (Why? Exercise is left to the reader.) The shockwave front velocity then gives you an approximate vehicle velocity. The shockwave orientation gives you two possible vehicle tracks. Adding another sensor or two ought to provide vehicle direction on each of the possible tracks. ...Russ Schnapp Email: netcom!metaflow!rschnapp or rschnapp@Metaflow.com or rschnapp@ACM.org Metaflow Technologies Voice: 619/452-6608x230; FAX: 619/452-0401 La Jolla, California Unless otw specified, I`m speaking only for myself! ------------------------------ From: johng@oce.orst.edu (John A. Gregor) Date: Fri, 7 Jan 94 14:05:03 PST Subject: Re: Groom Lake Field Trip, Jan. 15 > Bill Sweetman, Jim Goodall, John Andrews and other black aircraft gurus and > adventurers will be hiking Freedom Ridge to view the secret Groom Lake test > facility on Sat. Jan. 15, 1993. Everyone's invited! Is anyone from the PDX or Seattle area heading down with room for another? Thanks, - -JohnG - -- Me: John A. Gregor USmail: College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences E-mail: johng@oce.orst.edu Oregon State University Voice #: +1 503 737-2839 COAS Admin Bldg. #104 Fax #: +1 503 737-2064 Corvallis, OR 97331-5503 ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V4 #111 ********************************* 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).