From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #182 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Tuesday, 17 January 1995 Volume 05 : Number 182 In this issue: [none] skunk.works charter and paranet Re: Sarbacher Fringes German High-Altitude Plan(e)s The Aurora Myth help Re: The Aurora Myth Re: The Aurora Myth Re: skunk.works charter and paranet Re: The Aurora Myth Re: The Aurora Myth Recent booms 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: Michael.Corbin@f428.n104.z1.fidonet.org Date: Fri, 13 Jan 95 21:32:40 MST Subject: [none] from paranet Received: by paranet.FIDONET.ORG (mailout1.26); Fri, 13 Jan 95 21:31:27 mdt Date: Fri, 13 Jan 95 21:29:46 mdt Message-ID: <14857.2F17539F@paranet.FIDONET.ORG> From: Michael.Corbin@f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) Subject: Filtering To: skunk-works@gaia.ucs.orst.edu X-Mailer: mailout v1.26 released > From scicom.alphacdc.com!gaia.ucs.orst.edu!skunk-works-owner > From: beede@sctc.com (Michael P Beede) > To: skunk-works@gaia.ucs.orst.edu > Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 09:16:50 -0600 > Lately I've been getting a lot of, um, _fringe_ material through > skunk-works. Is there any way the list owner could automagically > filter out some of this stuff? Like for instance anything that says > "paranet" in it.... > I understand skunk-works is a labor of love, and I for one won't stop > reading because I have to get rid of some UFO stuff. I'm more worried > about the professional folks that post here. I'd hate to see them > bail out because they're tired of all these postings about the Greys > and other unskunkly topics. My apologies for offending you or anyone else on this list. That was not my intent. However, I would like to say that your request to "filter" things that has "ParaNet" in it is a most narrow position. I have not posted to this list in, literally, ages. Secondly, I posted in response to two requests concerning Dr. Robert Sarbacher, who I might add was a highly respected scientist who claimed to have knowledge and direct involvement with "alien" spacecraft and beings. Although I am not making a case for this one way or the other, I do feel that it is relevant as it is historical. I would also like to address your concern over the "professional folks" being offended who post "here." It may or may not surprise you to know that there are very many professional folks who participate on ParaNet's network. These include astronomers, physicists and others of that ilk. Finally, ParaNet is considered to be a very level-headed organization with a serious, scientific orientation to the study of aerial anomalies. Whether or not you believe in "UFOs" is irrelevant. What is important is that there *is* a body of scientific data that supports the phenomenon and it is not subject to a person's emotional or philosophical outlook on whether or not it represents alien spacecraft. I feel that Dr. Sarbacher's interest and statements adds credibility to the problem and speaks loudly to the scientific community that something exists which deserves attention. Thank you. Michael Corbin Director ParaNet Information Services (Not an advertisement) - -- Michael Corbin - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG ====================================================================== Inquiries regarding ParaNet, or mail directed to Michael Corbin, should be sent to: mcorbin@paranet.org. Or you can phone voice at 303-429-2654/ Michael Corbin Director ParaNet Information Services ------------------------------ From: Michael.Corbin@f428.n104.z1.fidonet.org (Michael Corbin) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 95 21:38:00 mdt Subject: skunk.works charter and paranet > Larry wrote, about the UFO junk: >> We should not, in my opinion, censor people just because they have 'paranet > ' >> written on their messages. That said, however, we should ask Michael not >> to advertise for paranet on skunk.works. > More important, we should ask Michael not to advertise for the > skunk-works mailing list on paranet. Dick, please elaborate on what you are saying here. I don't advertise this list on ParaNet. Mike - -- Michael Corbin - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG ====================================================================== Inquiries regarding ParaNet, or mail directed to Michael Corbin, should be sent to: mcorbin@paranet.org. Or you can phone voice at 303-429-2654/ Michael Corbin Director ParaNet Information Services ------------------------------ From: CircusMan@aol.com Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 00:40:43 -0500 Subject: Re: Sarbacher - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- STANTON T. FRIEDMAN NUCLEAR PHYSICIST - LECTURER 110 Kings College Road Fredericton, New Brunswick E3B 2E7 Canada (506) 457-0232 Mr. William Steinman 15043 Rosalita Dr. La Mirada, CA 90638 USA May 25, 1984 Dear Bill: Re yours of May 18. Some data... I checked telephone information in State College, PA -- home of Penn State after checking the library re Walker. There was no listing so I called the University. I eventually was given a location in South Carolina.. Hilton Head. I got his number there and called. He was out. I left my name and said I would call back the next night when according to his wife he would be in. I did so. He was cagey and careful. There was no admission whatsoever of any involvement with UFOs at all. He did say that the subject had of course been discussed by everybody back then. He did admit to having read the Roswell Incident and threw in some cracks. There is absolutely nothing that can be used in a court of law. He certainly will not respond to pressure. My reaction to how he answered the various questions was that he knew a great deal. He surely wasn't saying that. I think you are probably right about him... his background is certainly impressive and of course Ike had a farm in Gettysburg PA and there were other connections. I don't have a mailing address for him but he does apparently go in to the university still as an ex president. I would certainly agree that HAK was in all the right places at the right times doing the right things for him to have been involved and perhaps still involved in the UFO coverup. I have no idea how to prove that at this time. I have no idea why you want to have the government turn flying saucers over to the scientific community. The security implications of the technology of the saucers are enormous. I do not want technical information made public. Why do you? I want the world to know that indeed our planet is being visited by ETI and that the government knows a great deal. I certainly don't want all the information made public. After all what about all the data obtained by other governments especially the Soviet Union? Do you expect them to make their information available? I would expect them to grab ours and put it together with theirs... A direct frontal approach often calls the troops out of the closet. I certainly appreciate that you have been spending a lot of effort and turning up leads worthy of further attention. But again I must express my strong concern about not going past the data... as was the case with Sarbacher. These guys can't be brow beaten. Impressions and feelings are useful in pursuit of truth but not in establishing it in a courtroom. I appreciate4 the info about Wang, but again his wife's statements to you don't prove anything... about him or HAK. Incidentally I long ago suggested that HAK knew all about UFOs and that was the reason for the embargo raising oil prices because once the truth was out oil would be of much less value... he was closely tied to the Rockefeller interests as you know... But I hadn't checked his early background until you suggested it.... It was probably expected that some of the truth would be released during Nixon's second term.... Hastily, Stan - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - ---- ------------------------------ From: Illya Kuryakin Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 22:32:48 -0800 Subject: Fringes I like the fringe material... as long time skunk-lurkers probably remember. I don't post much (if any) of it, however. And _listen_ guys... if you're REALLY going to get picky about the 'charter' which has always been loose to begin with, then what the heck does Mary flying trinkets on research flights have to do with this list other than the fact that it's done in a blackbird? (Pssst... Mary, don't get me wrong. It's only an example. Really. X} I've known about Corbin for a number of years so he's not some fly by night kook with some kind of passion for regurgitating everything he hears without a filter. We've even talked to each other. (And yes, I do get his newsletter from time to time.) But the point is that from time to time people get wrapped up in the odd discussion and eventually it goes away. That's why courteous people use *** TA DAAAAH *** "Subject:" lines!!! That way you can delete the (personally identified) garbage from your mailbox without it ever being read by you. Ok, it's getting a little fringy in this email... it's late, I'm tired and you jerked my chain, whoever you were. My apologies for playing the cermu... kirm... drat, where's that dictionary? My apologies for playing the heavy. My condolences for being forced to read this drivel. (Well, _I'm_ having fun with it, why don't you? ;) Illya ps Yeah, Mary. I was _kidding_!! I think it's SUPER NEATO you fly those things on habu. :) <=== See??? I'm smiling. ;} Ok, I'll turn this drivel off now. It's just this little chromium switc ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 15:22:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: German High-Altitude Plan(e)s The first German (Budeswehr, not WWII Wehrmacht) high-flying reconnaissance/ intelligence gathering military aircraft were three ex-British Canberras: Company, Type, Version User c/n Phase I Phase II Remarks - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ English Electric (Avro) Canberra: ================================= Canberra B.2 BWB WK130 'D-9569' BWB YA+151 00 01 WTD 61 99+36 to DFVLR (DLR) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Canberra B.2 BWB WK137 'D-9566' BWB YA+152 00 02 BWB 00+02 WTD 61 99+34 starbord-wing from TT.18 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Canberra B.2 BWB WK138 'D-9567' BWB YA+153 00 03 WTD 61 99+35 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Canberra TT.18 BWB for spares only - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ BWB = Bundesamt fuer Wehrtechnik und Beschaffung - (procurement office) WTD = Wehr-Technische Dienststelle - (kinda like Edwards AFB Test Wing) DFVLR = Deutsche Forschungs- und Versuchsanstalt fuer Luft- und Raumfahrt (renamed DLR) - (kinda like NASA) They are officially research aircraft, but it is believed that they were also used for SIGINT missions along the "Iron Curtain" (German-German border). Most ELINT missions are now performed by five Atlantics, which were especially modified under project 'Peace Peek': Company, Type, Version User c/n Phase I Phase II Remarks - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Breguet 1105 Atlantic: ====================== Breguet 1105 Atlantic MFG 3 D 4 UC+311 61+02 ELINT (Peace Peek) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Breguet 1105 Atlantic MFG 3 D 6 UC+312 61+03 ELINT (Peace Peek) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Breguet 1105 Atlantic MFG 3 D 12 UC+315 61+06 ELINT (Peace Peek) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Breguet 1105 Atlantic MFG 3 D 36 61+18 ELINT (Peace Peek) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Breguet 1105 Atlantic MFG 3 D 59 61+19 ELINT (Peace Peek) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ MFG - Marine Flieger Geschwader (Navy Wing) ====== In 1987, the Bundesministerium fuer Verteidigung (BMVg) (Department of Defense) ordered the development of an high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft (LAPAS) (Luftgestuetztes Abstandsfaehiges Primaer-Aufklaerungs-System = Airborne Stand-off-capable Primary Reconnaissance System). It was a joint US-German project, which was also known as 'Senior Guardian'. The aircraft were built by Grob, and the LAPAS 1 equipment, like sensors, data-link, etc. came from E-Systems. A second, modernized version (LAPAS 2), with SAR (Synthetic Aperture Radar), was (or still is) in development. An unmanned 'drone' version, called EVER (Endurance Vehicle for Extended Reconnaissance), was also projected which could have stayed up to 30 days in the air with air-to-air refueling or at least 24 hours without. One prototype, two pre-series test-aircraft, a two-seat trainer, and at least two research versions were built. Company, Type, Version User c/n Remarks, Registrations - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Grob/E-Systems D 500 Egrett (LAPAS I): ====================================== D 500 Egrett I Grob Prototype, 'D-FGEI', E-Systems to USA as 'N14ES', to 'Stratolab 1' - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ D 500 Egrett II Grob/BW ? 'D-FGEE', pre-series - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ D 500 Egrett II Grob 10003 * 'D-FGEO', pre-series, E-Systems to USA as 'N27ES', systems test aircraft - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ D 500 Egrett II Grop/Prisma ? 'D-FGRO', demonstrator - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ D 500 Strato 1 Grob/DLR ? 'D-FDEM', research aircraft - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ D 500 Trainer Grob/BW ? 'D-F___' (?), two-seater - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ BW = Bundeswehr - (German military) Up to 8 more were planned for the military, but may have been cancelled. * (I am not so sure, if there is another aircraft, which has the registration 'N27ES' and c/n 10003, or if this is the same aircraft as 'D-FGEO') Technical Data (Egrett II): (American units approximately) - ---------------------------------------------------------- Crew: 1 Engine: 1 Garrett TPE331-14F, with four-blade propeller Power: 595 kW ( 800 shp) Length: 12.0 m ( 39 ft. 4 in.) Wingspan: 33.0 m ( 108 ft. 3 in.) Height: 6.0 m ( 19 ft. 8 in.) Wingarea: 40.5 qm ( 436 sq.ft.) Aspect ratio: 27.2 Load (max): 900 kg ( 1,985 lb.) Weight (max): 4,200 kg ( 9,260 lb.) Speed (max): 350 km/h ( 190 kts) Cruise speed: 300 km/h ( 160 kts) Take-off (ap.): 600 m ( 2,000 ft.) Climb rate: 7.5 m/s ( 25 ft./s.) Ceiling (max): 17,000 m (56,000 ft.) Endurance: 6 to 9 h ====== The Bundesministerium fuer Forschung und Technik (BMFT) (Department of Research and Technology) ordered for the Deutsche Forschungsanstalt fuer Luft- und Raumfahrttechnik (DLR) (German Research Institute for Aerospace Technology) -- the German equivalent to the NASA -- an high-altitude research aircraft, to be used for the same kind of missions, NASA used their U-2Cs and WB-57s, and now uses their ER-2s, and Russia markets their 'Mystics' M-17 and M-55 Geophysika. One prototype is under final assembly, and should fly pretty soon. The engines -- very unique Turbo-Compound-Engines -- are located above the wing, and the layout changed from an early puller configuration to a pusher and back to the more conventional puller design. The tail (of the pusher) was a high T configuration, but the final puller has low elevators. The gigantic air-cooler had not enough power and had to be redesigned. The Honeywell avionic alone costs DM 18 million (about $10 million). The wing (with its span of 185 ft.) is the biggest ever built (CF) composite structure. The five-blade (20 ft. diameter) propeller was tested at one of ZAGI's wind tunnels in Moscow. The aircraft will be certified for FAR Part 23, but will probably need a special waiver for the 'high-altitude' missions. All in all, it resembles a big, manned version of Boeings 'Condor' UAV. Company, Type, Version User Remarks, Registrations - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Grob Strato 2C: (the C stands for Compound-engine) =============== Strato 2C Grob/DLR ? Proof-Of-Concept Prototype - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Technical Data: (American units approximately) - ---------------------------------------------- Crew: 2 + 2 scientists Engine: 2 modified Teledyne-Continental TSIO-550, five-blade propellers, diameter: 6 m (20 ft.) Power: 300 kW ( 400 hp) each Length: 22.4 m ( 73 ft. 6 in.) Cabin length: 5.5 m ( 18 ft.) Wingspan: 56.5 m ( 185 ft. 4 in.) Height: 7.76 m ( 25 ft. 5 in.) Wingarea: 145 qm ( 1,404 sq.ft.) Aspect ratio 22 Weight (empty): 5,800 kg (12,785 lb.) Load (max): 1,000 kg ( 2,200 lb.) Weight (max): 11,700 kg (25,800 lb.) Speed: 0.43 Mach Ceiling (max): 26,000 m (85,300 ft.) Range (max): 18,100 km ( 9,770 nm) / (11,300 miles) Endurance: up to 48 h Very ambitious - for a civilian research aircraft! - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl Absolute Software 313 West Court St. #305 schnars@umcc.ais.org Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 - --- --- ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 15:32:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: The Aurora Myth What follows is 100% opinion -- 0% proof! In my opinion, "Aurora" / the "hypersonic reconnaissance SR-71 replacement" never existed. My theory is that the "Aurora" statement in the budget papers and Ronald Reagan's "NASP"/"Orient Express" announcment are part of a big deception, to make the (ex-)Soviet Union believe that the US was far ahead again, as was true with U-2, SR-71 and F-117 before. I come to this conclusion because: - - no real new information about "Aurora" surfaced in the last 5 years, not a single picture, nothing substantial; - - everybody works on the concept of hypersonic flight, and doesn't have anything flying yet, only wind tunnel models; - - it is more than unlikely, that a budget item like "Aurora" is "missed" by the censors, especially in the "classify everything" Reagan area; (the same holds true for the pictures of Ram-K and Ram-L in 1984, for that matter -- they were most likely supposed to be "puplished"); - - it is now known, that several ABM tests were "falsified" to give the wrong impression, the "Star Wars" concept (SDI) would practically work -- another of Ronald Reagans "scare the Russians into bancruptcy" coups; - - Ben Rich said "Aurora" was the B-2 study program and hypersonic flight is at least a decade away -- and that very vehemently; (even though, Lockheed Skunk Work's "Aeroballistic Rocket" design study is now aimed at the X-33 RLV (Reusable Launch Vehicle) -- a SSTO (Single-Stage- To-Orbit) VTOHL (Vertical Take-Off, Horizontal Landing) lifting body, with a linear aerospike rocket engine (exterior surface burning)); - - and now, when there is no 'Evil Empire' any more, the deception is most likely continued to shield all the other 'black projects' -- like the alledged TR-3A, 'A-17' (who came up with this nunber ?) and others -- from too much public interest; You'll never know... - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl Absolute Software 313 West Court St. #305 schnars@umcc.ais.org Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 - --- --- ------------------------------ From: J=ROGERS%MAO%144FW@ANG144FS.ang.af.mil Date: Sun, 15 Jan 95 10:52:55 PST Subject: help help quit ------------------------------ From: "J. Pharabod" Date: Mon, 16 Jan 95 16:38:49 MET Subject: Re: The Aurora Myth >In my opinion, "Aurora" / the "hypersonic reconnaissance SR-71 replacement" >never existed. My theory is that the "Aurora" statement in the budget papers >and Ronald Reagan's"NASP"/"Orient Express" announcment are part of a big >deception, to make the (ex-)Soviet Union believe that the US was far ahead >again, as was true with U-2, SR-71 and F-117 before. >K & A Gehrs-Pahl (Sat, 14 Jan 1995 15:32:44 -0500 (EST)) But this does not explain the rumblings heard in California: [1] Los Angeles Times, April 17, 1992, "Secret Out On 'Quakes': It's Only a Spy Plane", by Edmund Newton; [2] Los Angeles Daily News, May 17, 1992, "New Dawn For Aurora? Series Of Sonic Rumblings May Herald Confirmation Of Secret Lockheed Spy Plane", by Russ Britt. In particular, this does not explain why these rumblings could be followed at Mach 3+ on the sensors of the USGS, apparently moving towards Groom Lake. IMHO, a better explanation is that there were prototypes, but that it was globally unsuccessful. This would explain the come back of the SR-71. Also, last year there have been rumors of a crash of a top secret plane in Nevada or in a neighboring state; it was said that the area had been closed by the military. I think I have seen somewhere a mail from Dean Adams about that (sorry, I did not archive this one). Could this plane be an Aurora prototype ? J. Pharabod ------------------------------ From: jburtens@bournemouth.ac.uk (John Burtenshaw) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 09:41:49 +0000 Subject: Re: The Aurora Myth >>In my opinion, "Aurora" / the "hypersonic reconnaissance SR-71 replacement" >>never existed. My theory is that the "Aurora" statement in the budget papers >>and Ronald Reagan's"NASP"/"Orient Express" announcment are part of a big >>deception, to make the (ex-)Soviet Union believe that the US was far ahead >>again, as was true with U-2, SR-71 and F-117 before. >>K & A Gehrs-Pahl (Sat, 14 Jan 1995 15:32:44 -0500 (EST)) > >But this does not explain the rumblings heard in California: (Stuff Deleted) Nor does it explain the fast-moving aircraft seen by UK Coastgaurds off the north of Scotland in December 1992. Their radar clocked the speed in excess of Mach 3+. Certainly not British, (unless we're building something black) but somhow I doubt it ;-) John ============================================================================= John Burtenshaw BOURNEMOUTH System Administrator, The Computer Centre UNIVERSITY - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -Postal Address: Talbot Campus, Fern Barrow, POOLE, Dorset, BH12 5BB Internet: jburtens@bournemouth.ac.uk Phone: 01202 595089 Fax: 01202 513293 Packet Radio: G1HOK @ GB7BNM.#45.GBR.EU AMPRnet: G1HOK.ampr.org. [44.131.17.82] Compuserve: 10033,3113 ============================================================================= ------------------------------ From: tim@umcc.umich.edu (Tim Tyler) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 10:00:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: skunk.works charter and paranet > However, I'm sure most would agree that there is a fine line on all this. > After all, one side thinks all UFO's are secret military aircraft! The other > side's argument is also valid, namely if UFO's are real, why would one be > interested in the A-12/SR-71/D-21, or NASP NDVs and not be interested in > UFO's as aircraft as well? And since many skunky aircraft start off as wooden models, we should all be members of the National Audobon Society? > because of our interest in 'Aurora'! In fact, when secret aircraft are seen, > the official response you get is essentially that you have seen a UFO! An Unidentified Flying Object?! How silly of them! > Michael Corbin was kind enough to respond to my request for more information > on Robert Sarbacher. If there ever were crashed UFOs, many obvious Yes, but he was ignorant enough to broadcast info for you to all of us, instead of e-mailing it directly to you. That's the problem. > We should not, in my opinion, censor people just because they have 'paranet' > written on their messages. That said, however, we should ask Michael not > to advertise for paranet on skunk.works. And we should ask that everyone keep their postings on-topic! If people are interested in the 'flying saucer' connection to black aviation projects, then subscribe to paranet & skunk-works, just like anyone interested in the connection between trees & black aircraft should subscribe to skunk-works & join the Audobon Society, Nature Conservatory, etc. > Larry Tim - -- Tim Tyler Internet: tim@ais.org Packet: KA8VIR @WB8ZPN.#SEMI.MI.USA.NA P.O. Box 443 C$erve: 72571,1005 GEnie: T.Tyler5 AOL: Hooligan Ypsilanti MI 48197 Blah blah blah... ------------------------------ From: "J. Pharabod" Date: Tue, 17 Jan 95 17:27:44 MET Subject: Re: The Aurora Myth >>But this does not explain the rumblings heard in California: >>(Stuff Deleted) >Nor does it explain the fast-moving aircraft seen by UK Coastgaurds off the >north of Scotland in December 1992. Their radar clocked the speed in excess >of Mach 3+. Certainly not British, (unless we're building something black) >but somhow I doubt it ;-) >John Burtenshaw (Tue, 17 Jan 1995 09:41:49 +0000) It appears that now three hypotheses about Aurora have been formulated on skunk-works, and I will add two more. 1) The old "standard" hypothesis: there was and is really an Aurora project, it works, there are Aurora prototypes, there are or will be Aurora standard planes. 2) K&A Gehrs-Pahl's hypothesis: there was never a real Aurora project, the leaks were part of a big deception, to make the (ex-)Soviet Union believe that the US was far ahead again. Note: this does not explain the observations in California and Scotland (idem if there were not even leaks and if it were pure self-deception). 3) My favorite hypothesis: there was an Aurora project, there were prototypes, but they did not work well, and the project was cancelled (from what I have read, it seems that this is also Dean Adams' favorite hypothesis). 4) New hypothesis number 1: the SR-71 were in fact never completely retired, at least a small number are still in use for aerial recce. I think that this hypothesis could rather easily be checked by some of our subscribers. 5) New hypothesis number 2: the Russians succeeded where the U.S. failed, and are flying super-spy planes over any country they want. Take your pick... J. Pharabod ------------------------------ From: "Christian Jacobsen" Date: 17 Jan 1995 09:31:01 -0800 Subject: Re: The Aurora Myth Subject: Time:9:17 AM OFFICE MEMO RE>>The Aurora Myth Date:1/17/95 I don't know. Aurora seems like a neat idea, but as Andreas says, there have not been any sightings or new information in a long time... I find it hard to believe that in this day the government could keep anything secret. (In the days of Kelly Johnson and Ben Rich, I can believe. But now, I think people are too disillusioned to keep quiet.) Anyway, after reading Ben Rich's book "Skunk Works" I am inclined to believe that the big "BOOMs" that have been so common of late are SR-71 unstarts. Or, more likely, restarting the engine at a lower altitude. In Rich's book one pilot tells of restarting the engine at about 30,000 feet in the Chicago area, and it caused a great deal of hubbub. Anyone else have thoughts on my theory? - - Christian ------------------------------ From: ron@habu.stortek.com (Ron Schweikert) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 95 11:15:16 MST Subject: Recent booms >From: "Christian Jacobsen" >Subject: Re: The Aurora Myth [munch] >Anyway, after reading Ben Rich's book "Skunk Works" I am inclined to believe >that the big "BOOMs" that have been so common of late are SR-71 unstarts. Or, >more likely, restarting the engine at a lower altitude. In Rich's book one >pilot tells of restarting the engine at about 30,000 feet in the Chicago area, >and it caused a great deal of hubbub. > >Anyone else have thoughts on my theory? >- Christian Kinda curious. If an engine is *restarted*, I don't know why that'd cause a sonic boom by itself. If they were supersonic when the engine failed (yikes!), restarting shouldn't cause a new boom should it? Would an unstart cause an "additional" boom? An unstart of course is different than a *restart*. An unstart occurs when the shock wave is "lost" by the spike and is no longer routed around the engine (via a 5/8" "shock trap" inside the nacelle). This results in a violent yaw due to the sudden drag on that side, causes the affected spike to be slammed all the way forward and then retracted via computer to "recapture" the wave properly. The engine is still running full-tilt at this point. Would that cause an extra boom? Just a question from a software guy! Ron ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #182 ********************************* 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).