From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #48 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Tuesday, 29 March 1994 Volume 05 : Number 048 In this issue: RE: Skunk Works Digest V5 #45 SR-71 to study "skyquakes" SR-71 to launch drones Re: SR-71 to launch drones 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: russellk@BIX.com Date: Mon, 28 Mar 1994 09:17:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: RE: Skunk Works Digest V5 #45 I have what is probably a stupid question, but this seems like the best place to ask it. I read a book last summer, bought on the remainder tables, entitled "Blackbird." (I don't remember the author, offhand.) This is a "technothriller" sort of in the Dale Brown genre, though not as well written. It centers around the decommissioning of the SR-71s and their use in some international conflict thereafter. The question is about a wierd thing related to sonic booms. According to the book, people on the ground could tell that an SR-71 had passed at Mach 3+ because they could count three sonic booms. At one point, where an upgraded blackbird could do mach 4+, the story involved hearing *four* sonic booms. I don't really know much about the physics of sonic booms, but this behavior seems totally made-up. Certainly I've never seen or heard any other reference to multiple sonic booms. Anyone care to enlighten me? Thanx. -- Russ ======================================================= Russell Kay, BYTE Magazine, russellk@bix.com 603-924-2591 ======================================================= ------------------------------ From: Paul Adams Date: Mon, 28 Mar 94 08:23:32 CST Subject: SR-71 to study "skyquakes" In the same article I referrenced in my previous post, it has a paragraph that says : "Green said the NASA SR-71 has proved to be a highly successful research platform. Representative projects completed, underway or planned include: ... Studies of "skyquakes" or sonic booms that activate seismic sensor networks. A joint study by the California Institute of Technology aeronautics and geology departments is examining how sonic booms excite vibrations in Los Angeles buildings, then couple into the Earth and trigger seismic sensors." Is this a completed project, underway project, or planned project? If it is a planned project, I wonder if the Air Force will be visiting NASA soon to have it axed so that any useful data about Aurora (assuming it exists) will be revealed. If it is a completed project, I'd love to know the results. \ ___ / Paul Adams \ /___\ / paul@erc.msstate.edu ____________\___/__.__\___/____________ YF-22 \ \ / / \__/\___/\__/ ------------------------------ From: Paul Adams Date: Mon, 28 Mar 94 08:23:30 CST Subject: SR-71 to launch drones Maybe I missed seeing skunk-works discuss this, and if so forgive me for rehashing it. In the March 21st issue of Aviation Week there is an article on how the SR-71 may be used to lauch targets for missle defense tests. A NASA Blackbird would carry aloft a Coleman Research HERA Target System mated to an M57A1 Minuteman 1 third stage booster. The system would be carried aloft contained in a protective shroud and at approx. 80K ft and Mach 3 the Blackbird would launch the HERA/M57A1 target. It would be carried aloft either as in the D-21 configuration above the fuselage or below the fuselage. Basically the reason they want to use the Blackbird is that they can get around ABM treaties & the environmental concerns of using ground launch sites. Two immediate problems come to my mind. a) We had problems before jetisoning the protective cone on the D-21 so we probably will have those same problems again. b) We lost an M-12 when the D-21 was launched, hit the plane's shockwave, bounced back downward and broke the back of the M-12. More importantly than the M-12 was the loss of human life that occurred. So why do we want to try something so risky again? \ ___ / Paul Adams \ /___\ / paul@erc.msstate.edu ____________\___/__.__\___/____________ YF-22 \ \ / / \__/\___/\__/ ------------------------------ From: dadams@netcom.com (Dean Adams) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 1994 23:37:17 -0800 Subject: Re: SR-71 to launch drones says... >In the March 21st issue of Aviation Week there is an article on how >the SR-71 may be used to lauch targets for missle defense tests. Yep. Very interesting. I hope it gets approved, I have a feeling the Blackbird program could use the funding! Also once DoD pays for the drone/launch modifications, it could probably be put to use for some future science missions as well. >A NASA Blackbird would carry aloft a Coleman Research HERA Target >System mated to an M57A1 Minuteman 1 third stage booster. The system >would be carried aloft contained in a protective shroud and at approx. >80K ft and Mach 3 the Blackbird would launch the HERA/M57A1 target. >It would be carried aloft either as in the D-21 configuration above >the fuselage or below the fuselage. >Two immediate problems come to my mind. >a) We had problems before jetisoning the protective cone on the D-21 > so we probably will have those same problems again. Probably not. The main "cone" problem with the D-21 was with it causing problems with the drone itself when shroud fragments were ingested by the ramjet. In this case it looks like the shroud is being used as FOD protection for the payload when carried in the lower fuselage position, although there could also be aerodynamic reasons involved. In the lower position the shroud could likely be easily jettisoned with little or no danger involved. From the drawing at least, it doesn't look like the pylon mounting position uses a shroud. >b) We lost an M-12 when the D-21 was launched, hit the plane's shockwave, > bounced back downward and broke the back of the M-12. More importantly > than the M-12 was the loss of human life that occurred. True... but the dynamics of launching a missile with a solid rocket motor do not seem quite as problematic as a more complex vehicle like the D-21. > So why do we want to try something so risky again? If it was up to me i'd vote for the below fuselage carry method, therefore eliminating all the "D-21" type risks. One good reason for wanting to do something like this is to give an important new mission for the Blackbird. Considering the kind of HUGE budget cuts NASA is getting (and expecting) these days, the last thing we want is for "our" last flying Blackbirds to run out of either money or missions. - -dean ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #48 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe skunk-works-digest in the body of a message to "majordomo@mail.orst.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@mail.orst.edu" or, if you don't like to type a lot, "prm@mail.orst.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 mail.orst.edu, in /pub/skunk-works/digest/vNN.nMMM (where "NN" is the volume number, and "MMM" is the issue number).