From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #123 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Wednesday, 6 July 1994 Volume 05 : Number 123 In this issue: Groom Lake Hot Spots? Groom Lake Hot Spots? Re: NYT Article - 7/4/94 Re: NYT Article - 7/4/94 Re: NYT Article - 7/4/94 Re: NYT Article - 7/4/94 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: BWS@dev1.mdc.com Date: Tue, 5 Jul 1994 6:33:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Groom Lake Hot Spots? Skunk-Works bws 5-JUL-94 5-JUL-94S 3 8 58 62 66  CN 10.......1.........2.........3.........4.........5.........6....R....7.........8.........9.........10........11........12........13. Does anyone out there have any detailed information on getting to Groom Lake? Anything like e-mail addresses, BBS's, where to write, who to contact, etc. I'd like to travel out there to see the strange things that go on for myself.  THANK YOU! Brad Sharples McDonnell Douglas Corporation-Douglas Aircraft ------------------------------ From: BWS@dev1.mdc.com Date: Tue, 5 Jul 1994 6:41:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Groom Lake Hot Spots? Skunk-Works bws 5-JUL-94 5-JUL-94S 3 8 58 62 66  CN 10.......1.........2.........3.........4.........5.........6....R....7.........8.........9.........10........11........12........13. Does anyone out there have any detailed information on getting to Groom Lake? Anything like e-mail addresses, BBS's, where to write, who to contact, etc. I'd like to travel out there to see the strange things that go on for myself.  THANK YOU! Brad Sharples McDonnell Douglas Corporation-Douglas Aircraft ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Tue, 5 Jul 1994 11:51:14 -0700 Subject: Re: NYT Article - 7/4/94 Thanks to Frank Markus for pointing out the 7/4/94 NYT piece on the proposed reactivation of the SR-71. This article is interesting in that it's the second 'death' of a SR-71 successor program! Death 1: - -------- An Aerospace Daily, January 13, 1993 piece that allegedly debunked Aurora. In that article, AW&ST's sister daily publication was told that the aircraft, originally envisioned as succeeding the SR-71 in the 1990 timeframe, was being developed at least in part by Lockheed's Advanced Development Co. or "Skunk Works" unit in Burbank, Calif., but was cancelled about 1986. Rebirth? - -------- Contrast this with a early 1988 New York Times cover story, the 'first' hint from an inside source that we are developing a Mach 5 SR-71 successor. In this piece the NY Times source indicated that the USAF had been working on this capability for some time. This piece also quoted the inside source as saying that with the SR-71 they knew we were there but couldn't touch us, with the new technology, they won't even know we're there. By the way, there was an SR-71 successor story in AW&ST later that same year (1988) that echoed that proposals were being sought (a confirmation of a sort of rebirth). Death 2: - -------- Now we have the 7/4/94 New York Times piece that indicates a "very fast" SR-71 successor program collapsed after spending "several hundred million dollars" sometime after 1990 and before 7/4/94. The recent NYT article doesn't seem to indicate if hardware was flown. Probably not for only several hundred million dollars. Isn't that convenient! Well they haven't explained it away to my satisfaction yet. If they really want to do it, they know what they have to do! I wish the NYT was as careful at tracking this confusion as they are at tracking politicians' girl friends! Larry ------------------------------ From: dougt@u011.oh.vp.com (Doug Tiffany) Date: Tue, 5 Jul 94 16:02:43 EDT Subject: Re: NYT Article - 7/4/94 ***Stuff Deleted*** > > Death 2: > -------- > Now we have the 7/4/94 New York Times piece that indicates a "very fast" SR-71 > successor program collapsed after spending "several hundred million dollars" > sometime after 1990 and before 7/4/94. The recent NYT article doesn't seem > to indicate if hardware was flown. Probably not for only several hundred > million dollars. Isn't that convenient! > > Well they haven't explained it away to my satisfaction yet. If they really > want to do it, they know what they have to do! > > I wish the NYT was as careful at tracking this confusion as they are > at tracking politicians' girl friends! Am I the only one who thinks that all this was "leaked" just to throw people off track? It just seems awfully odd that there would be sightings of an exotic contrail, models of the aircraft & satellite pictures, trying to get a land grab, numerous articles over the past year, and now someone conveniently says ........just kidding. I don't buy it. I think the people in Nevada and the people planning to visit should flock to Freedom Ridge. Sounds to me like there planning on moving whatever is out there. - -- Douglas J. Tiffany (dougt@u011.oh.vp.com) Varco-Pruden Buildings Northern Division Van Wert OH. (419) 238-9533 ------------------------------ From: John Regus Date: Tue, 5 Jul 1994 22:55:44 -0500 (CST) Subject: Re: NYT Article - 7/4/94 I believe the stories about the reactivation of the SR71 are as artful as if they had been designed in the 1st Directorate, Section S of the SVR (formerly the KGB). Come on... some of us are analysts... not merely technicians... who do we not want to know about our advanced aircraft designs.... The Russians?... Hell no... How many of you are familiar with our "transferance and sharing of technology" programs with our friends. If our friends started pressing the issue of holding back information about technical specs on our black projects, that they could approach our higher levels of government about being treaty or agreement bound to share with them, what type of Pandora's box would we open be even allowing them remote access to our advanced technology designs. P.S. My apology to Larry@chips about the D-21. I dug my old copy of "Deep Black" off the shelf and there was a picture of it... I went back through the book and if you read between the lines, it shows how "Aurora" got its funding in the beginning, i.e. by showing that our KH sat program was vulnerable and a superior replacement was needed. John F. Regus | (713) 960-0045 | SYS/370/390 SYSTEM SOFTWARE ENGINEERING WUI:REGUSHOU | On Tue, 5 Jul 1994, Doug Tiffany wrote: > ***Stuff Deleted*** > > > > > Death 2: > > -------- > > Now we have the 7/4/94 New York Times piece that indicates a "very fast" SR-71 > > successor program collapsed after spending "several hundred million dollars" > > sometime after 1990 and before 7/4/94. The recent NYT article doesn't seem > > to indicate if hardware was flown. Probably not for only several hundred > > million dollars. Isn't that convenient! > > > > Well they haven't explained it away to my satisfaction yet. If they really > > want to do it, they know what they have to do! > > > > I wish the NYT was as careful at tracking this confusion as they are > > at tracking politicians' girl friends! > > Am I the only one who thinks that all this was "leaked" just to throw > people off track? It just seems awfully odd that there would be > sightings of an exotic contrail, models of the aircraft & satellite > pictures, trying to get a land grab, numerous articles over the past > year, and now someone conveniently says ........just kidding. > > I don't buy it. I think the people in Nevada and the people planning > to visit should flock to Freedom Ridge. Sounds to me like there > planning on moving whatever is out there. > > > > -- > Douglas J. Tiffany (dougt@u011.oh.vp.com) > Varco-Pruden Buildings Northern Division > Van Wert OH. (419) 238-9533 ------------------------------ From: Jamie Aycock Date: Wed, 6 Jul 1994 00:45:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: NYT Article - 7/4/94 On Tue, 5 Jul 1994, Doug Tiffany wrote: > Am I the only one who thinks that all this was "leaked" just to throw > people off track? It just seems awfully odd that there would be > sightings of an exotic contrail, models of the aircraft & satellite > pictures, trying to get a land grab, numerous articles over the past > year, and now someone conveniently says ........just kidding. I'll second that... And a "rebirth" of the SR-71 would lend an air of truth to the whole story.. It sounds awful hokey to me.. Jamie ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #123 ********************************* 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).