From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #128 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Monday, 11 July 1994 Volume 05 : Number 128 In this issue: Black Horse - Misattribution re: SR-71 reactivation Re: SR71 Reactivation Black Horse Blackk Horse Re: SR71 Reactivation re: SR-71 reactivation 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: Frank Markus Date: Sun, 10 Jul 1994 10:26:08 -0400 Subject: Black Horse - Misattribution In my resent message captioned "Black Horse" I attributed the quoted material to the wrong Usenet group. The correct source for the material was sci.spce.tech. - --Frank Markus-- ------------------------------ From: dovergar@nyx10.cs.du.edu (dennis overgard) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 94 09:11:27 MDT Subject: re: SR-71 reactivation In Kelly Johnsons autobigraphy he discusses using a hardened tool-steel gravity bomb travelling in excess of mach 3 as a means of destroying deeply buried bunkers. In Desert storm Lockheed produced a smart bomb based on artillery barrels for the same purpose. In Korea there are rumors of a large number of tunnels through a mountain range just north of the DMZ that would allow large numbers of men and equipment to flood the DMZ in a matter of hours. What if? A. As tensions increased, that these tunnels started collapsing with no sign of explosions and the only evidence being some steel fragments buried deep beneath the floor level of the tunnel (where it would be hard to find) and a small hole far up the mountainside. B. As an invasion started, Both ends of these tunnels collapsed? Of course, to deliver these "tool steel" bombs one would need a platform that was stealthy enough to evade detection and fast enough to impart the required kinetic energy. Dennis Overgard ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Wed, 6 Jul 1994 10:21:00 -0700 Subject: Re: SR71 Reactivation 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. Jamie writes: >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.. Michael J Hoza responds: >>From what I gather I am much less knowledgable about these things than most >of the contributors on this list but I would like to say that enjoy skunk-works >for the informative and courteous manner which is observed here. Compared with >most other net groups the information/ego ratio is very high! Good! But don't be afraid to disagree. Let's not flame however. And let's not carry it too far. It's not necessary to get the last word and still disagree. Let's also backup arguements with facts. Just some ground rules. >Now my question. Is it possible that the SR71 is being considered for >reactivation because Aurora or whatever has been grounded? The probability for >technical difficulties in a mach 4-6 craft would seem high. It could be that a >major problem has Aurora grounded (if it exists) or that overall "down-time" is >unacceptable. Any thoughts on this? I agree somewhat with you Michael that the desire to bring back the SR is genuine. If it gets funded, it really will fly, I have no doubt. NASA may even have trouble holding onto some of its birds, it depends on how many aircraft the eventual operating agency can prove it needs to operate. Certainly the "B" model will be needed for training at least. If there is an 'Aurora' really out there, I look at it like this. The SR is being brought back because it's needed. It's as simple as that. To risk probably a poor example, of something else that was retired but also brought back, if you will, how about the battleship. The battleships were brought back until recently because they were needed. An SR of course is a lot more modern than a battleship. Larry ------------------------------ From: Frank Markus Date: Sun, 10 Jul 1994 21:42:14 -0400 Subject: Black Horse ------------------------------ From: Frank Markus Date: Sun, 10 Jul 1994 21:44:23 -0400 Subject: Blackk Horse ------------------------------ From: John Regus Date: Sun, 10 Jul 1994 22:39:12 -0500 (CST) Subject: Re: SR71 Reactivation I do not hesitate to believe in the existence of the aircraft type know as "Aurora" for one moment.... My views are substatiated by the quotes made by the head of the ESA which can be found in the Feb issue of Popular Science. However, how many of these aircraft exist, versus our national defense needs for continual monitoring of the miltary situation on the Korean penisula would perhaps lend some credence for the rapid re-deployment of these aircraft, and with the death of Kim Il-Sung and the uncertainity of North Korean intentions, the need for continual real-time analysis of NK miltary intentions... well, y'all ketch my drift. Regards, John F. Regus | (713) 960-0045 | SYS/370/390 SYSTEM SOFTWARE ENGINEERING WUI:REGUSHOU | On Wed, 6 Jul 1994 larry@ichips.intel.com wrote: > > > 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. > > Jamie writes: > >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.. > > Michael J Hoza responds: > >>From what I gather I am much less knowledgable about these things than most > >of the contributors on this list but I would like to say that enjoy skunk-works > >for the informative and courteous manner which is observed here. Compared with > >most other net groups the information/ego ratio is very high! > > Good! > > But don't be afraid to disagree. Let's not flame however. And let's not carry it > too far. It's not necessary to get the last word and still disagree. Let's also > backup arguements with facts. Just some ground rules. > > >Now my question. Is it possible that the SR71 is being considered for > >reactivation because Aurora or whatever has been grounded? The probability for > >technical difficulties in a mach 4-6 craft would seem high. It could be that a > >major problem has Aurora grounded (if it exists) or that overall "down-time" is > >unacceptable. Any thoughts on this? > > I agree somewhat with you Michael that the desire to bring back the SR is genuine. > > If it gets funded, it really will fly, I have no doubt. NASA may even have trouble > holding onto some of its birds, it depends on how many aircraft the eventual > operating agency can prove it needs to operate. Certainly the "B" model will be > needed for training at least. > > If there is an 'Aurora' really out there, I look at it like this. > > The SR is being brought back because it's needed. It's as simple as that. > > To risk probably a poor example, of something else that was retired but also > brought back, if you will, how about the battleship. The battleships were > brought back until recently because they were needed. An SR of course is > a lot more modern than a battleship. > > Larry ------------------------------ From: John Regus Date: Sun, 10 Jul 1994 22:47:37 -0500 (CST) Subject: re: SR-71 reactivation I believe the strategy for dealing with the NK tunnels has already been addressed by the Corps of Engineers, ASG and ROK. It would be better to deal with these matters on the ground, when movements through the tunnel could be precisely known by using seis equip. John F. Regus | (713) 960-0045 | SYS/370/390 SYSTEM SOFTWARE ENGINEERING WUI:REGUSHOU | On Sun, 10 Jul 1994, dennis overgard wrote: > > In Kelly Johnsons autobigraphy he discusses using a hardened tool-steel > gravity bomb travelling in excess of mach 3 as a means of destroying > deeply buried bunkers. In Desert storm Lockheed produced a smart bomb > based on artillery barrels for the same purpose. > In Korea there are rumors of a large number of tunnels through a > mountain range just north of the DMZ that would allow large numbers of > men and equipment to flood the DMZ in a matter of hours. > What if? > A. As tensions increased, that these tunnels started collapsing with no > sign of explosions and the only evidence being some steel fragments buried > deep beneath the floor level of the tunnel (where it would be hard to find) > and a small hole far up the mountainside. > B. As an invasion started, Both ends of these tunnels collapsed? > > Of course, to deliver these "tool steel" bombs one would need a > platform that was stealthy enough to evade detection and fast enough > to impart the required kinetic energy. > > Dennis Overgard ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #128 ********************************* 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).