From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #183 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 183 In this issue: Interesting SR-71 photos Just what is... Aurora whereabouts Interesting SR-71 photos (reply) Re: Recent booms Re: Interesting SR-71 photos German High-Altitude Plane(s) -Reply Re: Interesting SR-71 photos Re: Interesting SR-71 photos free newsletter (NEON AZIMUTH #3) Re: Interesting SR-71 photos Scanning the SR photos Re: The Aurora Myth Re: Interesting SR-71 photos Re: Aurora Re: The Aurora Myth Re: Aurora Re: The Aurora Myth Re: Aurora 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: ron@habu.stortek.com (Ron Schweikert) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 95 11:31:27 MST Subject: Interesting SR-71 photos Hi all. Well I finally found my missing SR-71 slides (still can't find my detail snapshots, but I'm hoping they'll turn up). Anyway, I have about 15 pictures that I think people would find interesting. I took these during my final days at Beale, as well as some at Mildenhall. There are the normal running shots (except these are with the plane taxiing etc., not static display), but the really great ones were taken at the trim pad at Beale one evening. I don't remember the specific circumstances of that evening (it wasn't my plane), but after an engine has been changed or there's been major work on the fuel system (or an engine specialist has to get qualified for after-burner runs) we pull the plane down to a special pad at the end of the runway, tie it down with huge bars and fire it up. I have great shots of the setup of the plane ('972) on the pad including all ground support equipment as well as a PERFECT shot of an engine start (with the TEB explosion out the rear), plus max afterburner runs later in the evening. You can see the plane very clearly, plus flames out the tailpipe about 60 ft. long. Unfortunately the pictures don't show the shock waves in the exhaust, nor convey the trembling ground and TREMENDOUS NOISE, but that's the breaks (as for me, I can still remember them!) Anyway, they're on slides and I'm going to take them in to have prints made (and get negatives for storage, plus blow-ups if need be later). If anyone wants prints, let me know and I'll order them at this time. That'll save me running down later. The prints would be ~35cents each, perhaps a bit more. I'd also ask a dollar perhaps (if it takes that much) for mailing. (John, I already have you down, but will need your address). If you like the prints, I could probably get you a set of negatives, although they're more expensive (let me get my set first and see how they look). If you do get negatives in the future, I'd only ask that if you send them anywhere for publishing (or copy the prints), please give me the credit for the shots, and if you get compensated, well how 'bout cutting me in on a piece of the action? I'll wait a couple of days for the responses. Cheers! Ron ------------------------------ From: Illya Kuryakin Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 10:49:08 -0800 Subject: Just what is... Somebody want to post the 'charter', such that it is? I think some people may be getting carried away with off-topic postings. I'm getting tired of this discussion about what is 'kosher' on this list. We've spent more bytes talking about the 'problem' than we have on the original topic. Illya ------------------------------ From: George Allegrezza 17-Jan-1995 1403 Date: Tue, 17 Jan 95 14:05:47 EST Subject: Aurora whereabouts Re: J. Pharabod's five possible Aurora outcomes, I'd add a sixth: 6. They canceled the sumbitch. (Place $n billion in a dry hole and cover. Repeat as necessary.) Given the (known) history of advanced weapons development in the US in the last 35 years, and the foolishness that typically occurs when the White House changes hands (in either direction), I'd offer this as the most likely outcome. Just MHO. George George Allegrezza | Digital Equipment Corporation | "Dumber than advertised." Mobile Systems Business | Littleton MA USA | -- Dot Warner allegrezza@tnpubs.enet.dec.com | ------------------------------ From: dougt@u011.oh.vp.com (Doug Tiffany) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 95 14:35:49 EST Subject: Interesting SR-71 photos (reply) > Anyway, they're on slides and I'm going to take them in to have prints > made (and get negatives for storage, plus blow-ups if need be later). > If anyone wants prints, let me know and I'll order them at this time. > That'll save me running down later. > > The prints would be ~35cents each, perhaps a bit more. I'd also ask a > dollar perhaps (if it takes that much) for mailing. > Ron, I would greatly appreciate a copy of all your photos. If you would like to send me your home address, I'll send you a check and a self addressed stamped envelope for the pictures. Thanks again!! - -- Douglas J. Tiffany (dougt@u011.oh.vp.com) Varco-Pruden Buildings Northern Division Van Wert OH. (419) 238-9533 ------------------------------ From: "Christian Jacobsen" Date: 17 Jan 1995 12:22:25 -0800 Subject: Re: Recent booms Subject: Time:12:15 PM OFFICE MEMO RE>Recent booms Date:1/17/95 Ron, All I know about unstarts is what Ben Rich said in his book. He said that the act of restarting one of the SR71's engines after an "unstart" caused a big 'ol kaboom. And, he also mentioned that when the pilots got fairly low (~30,000) before they could restart the engine, the sound generally caused a stir in whatever countryside was currently below... - - Christian - -------------------------------------- Date: 1/17/95 12:02 PM To: Christian Jacobsen From: Ron Schweikert >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 - ------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------ Received: by qmgate.arc.nasa.gov with SMTP;17 Jan 1995 12:01:02 -0800 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by gaia.ucs.orst.edu (8.6.8.1/8.6.6) id KAA19444 for skunk-works-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jan 1995 10:16:31 -0800 Received: from stortek.com (stortek.com [129.80.22.249]) by gaia.ucs.orst.edu (8.6.8.1/8.6.6) with SMTP id KAA19428 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 1995 10:16:27 -0800 Received: from schultz.stortek.com by stortek.com with SMTP id AA18646 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Tue, 17 Jan 1995 11:15:31 -0700 Received: from habu.ed.yp.com by schultz.stortek.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA01094; Tue, 17 Jan 95 11:20:04 MST Received: by habu.ed.yp.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA06927; Tue, 17 Jan 95 11:15:16 MST Date: Tue, 17 Jan 95 11:15:16 MST From: ron@habu.stortek.com (Ron Schweikert) Message-Id: <9501171815.AA06927@habu.ed.yp.com> To: skunk-works@gaia.ucs.orst.edu Subject: Recent booms Sender: skunk-works-owner@gaia.ucs.orst.edu Precedence: bulk ------------------------------ From: lhawkins@annie.wellesley.edu Date: Tue, 17 Jan 95 15:36:03 -0500 Subject: Re: Interesting SR-71 photos In your message dated: Tue, 17 Jan 95 11:31:27 MST you write: > >Hi all. Well I finally found my missing SR-71 slides (still can't find >my detail snapshots, but I'm hoping they'll turn up). > >Anyway, they're on slides and I'm going to take them in to have prints >made (and get negatives for storage, plus blow-ups if need be later). These sound really neat, Ron! Why not make 8x10's and scan them? Anyone willing to upload them to their site? Cheers, - --Lee ------------------------------ From: Emory Tate Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 16:12:13 -0500 Subject: German High-Altitude Plane(s) -Reply Andreas, Many thanks for much more of a response than I expected on the Grob Egrett! Thanks again, Emory ------------------------------ From: Jeremy Nygren Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 13:35:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Interesting SR-71 photos On Tue, 17 Jan 1995 lhawkins@annie.wellesley.edu wrote: [slurp] > >Anyway, they're on slides and I'm going to take them in to have prints > >made (and get negatives for storage, plus blow-ups if need be later). > > These sound really neat, Ron! Why not make 8x10's and scan them? > Anyone willing to upload them to their site? I don't have a site, but I agree! Scanning and uploading would be the ideal way to distribute these. All those in favor... Jeremy Nygren nygrenj@ucs.orst.edu ------------------------------ From: czbb062 Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 15:38:25 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: Interesting SR-71 photos On Tue, 17 Jan 1995, Ron Schweikert wrote: Hi all. Well I finally found my missing SR-71 slides (still can't find my detail snapshots, but I'm hoping they'll turn up). Anyway, I have about 15 pictures that I think people would find interesting. I took these during my final days at Beale, as well as some at Mildenhall. There are the normal running shots (except these are with the plane taxiing etc., not static display), but the really great ones were taken at the trim pad at Beale one evening. An idea. I have a Nikon Coolscan 35mm slide scanner. I would like to offer to scan your best slides (or, better, copies thereof) and perhaps the skunk-works listowner could obtain some space on the orst.edu server where folks could down-load them for viewing on their monitors. Perhaps 640x480 scans in .gif or .jpg format. What do you think, Ron? Michael Eisenstadt (czbb062@access.texas.gov) ------------------------------ From: TRADER@cup.portal.com Date: Tue, 17 Jan 95 13:49:38 PST Subject: free newsletter (NEON AZIMUTH #3) Issue #3 of my electronic newsletter NEON AZIMUTH has just been released. NEON AZIMUTH discusses the "sources and methods" (to borrow an intelligence world phrase) that can be used to uncover secret military programs. Issue #3 deals with remote sensing technologies, such as aerial & satellite photography, and digital radar, and how to use remote sensing to "look" inside restricted military areas. If you're not on the mailing list and want to be, let me know, and I will add you. I can't predict when (or if another issue) will appear though. There were some users on the mailing list who had to be removed, because their hosts "bounced" the mail with "user unknown" messages. Paul McGinnis / TRADER@cup.portal.com / PaulMcG@aol.com Anonymous FTP access to files dealing with excessive military secrecy is available from Internet host ftp.shell.portal.com (IP address 156.151.3.4) in the /pub/trader directory. Read the 00readme files for descriptions of the files. Writings from Glenn Campbell, author of the "Area 51 Viewer's Guide" are available in /pub/trader/secrecy/psychospy. ------------------------------ From: Kean Stump Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 14:43:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Interesting SR-71 photos I've access to a greyscale scanner. If your slide scanner does color, lets do it. 640x480 or 800x600 jpeg would be preferable (smaller and I can slide them into the ftp area no problem). Kean Kean Stump Information Services kean@ucs.orst.edu Oregon State University OSU doesn't pay me to have official opinions. (503)-737-4740 ------------------------------ From: ron@habu.stortek.com (Ron Schweikert) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 95 15:49:57 MST Subject: Scanning the SR photos Thanks for the response so far folks! A couple people have offered to scan these for the group and I think that's great. I don't have a scanner, but I'll submit the photos. Ideally a high-quality color scan would be best. I can turn over the slides or negatives *once I get copies.* I'm a bit leery of losing them via snail mail, but if I get a copy that'd be okay. They're the only ones I have. As an update, I'll be collecting your names and addresses until Friday. On Saturday (barring any weird interruptions) I'll take the slides to a quality photo place and get the copies made. As soon as I know the final price I'll let everyone know via email. At that time I'll also send my snail mail address. Cheers! Ron ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 15:32:27 -0800 Subject: Re: The Aurora Myth Andreas Gehrs-Pahl writes: >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; > ... I believe there was a need for something: Defense News 6/18/90: interview of Gen. Larry Welch (then USAF Chief of Staff - now retired) (pg 40). "The SR-71 is no longer appropriate for the SR-71 mission". Defense News 6/25/90: (pg 38), the subject is recon. vehicles during an interview with Ben Rich: "You need satellites and airplanes. Airplanes are much more flexible than satellites. You cannot do one exclusively of the other. So there will be airplanes needed for surveillance - they do not all have to be manned - ...". The Scotsman; Feb. 18, 1992: "Hot on the Trail of America's Biggest Flying Secret". Ben Rich tells Janes Defense Weekly: "There is a need for some vehicle - I didn't say SR-71 - to complement the satellites. I won't tell you what it is, but there is a need." Based on the sightings reports mentioned by others, and the fact that there are others on file that haven't been published yet, I feel that there is a vehicle that exhibits a high speed capability. As to how high that speed is, I don't know. The picture of U.S. hypersonic capability that Andreas paints is not accurate. Also, my experience is that many people don't understand the differences in effort between fielding a NASP say, and a Mach 6 'AURORA'. I will also say again, that space today grows in importance every day. Both as a domain to protect, as a domain with existing assets, and as a domain to use to ones advantage in interesting new ways. I wouldn't be surprised if there were efforts right now at exploring that, using the technology base this country has invested in, going back over 30 years. Ben also mentioned in his book that the trend for system development in the future would be to build, fly, and evaluate prototypes. By definition, that is going to cause us more of the same problem, not less! Larry ------------------------------ From: czbb062 Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 20:18:52 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: Interesting SR-71 photos On Tue, 17 Jan 1995, Kean Stump wrote: I've access to a greyscale scanner. If your slide scanner does color, lets do it. 640x480 or 800x600 jpeg would be preferable (smaller and I can slide them into the ftp area no problem). Kean Kean Stump Information Services kean@ucs.orst.edu Oregon State University OSU doesn't pay me to have official opinions. (503)-737-4740 My scanner does do color; a 640x480 .jpg scan is about 50K; a 800x600 .jpg is about 80K. Michael Eisenstadt (czbb062@access.texas.gov) ------------------------------ From: Curtiss Cicco <1CMC3466@ibm.MtSAC.edu> Date: Tue, 17 Jan 95 17:31:22 PST Subject: Re: Aurora On Tue, 17 Jan 95 14:05:47 EST you said: >Re: J. Pharabod's five possible Aurora outcomes, I'd add a sixth: > > 6. They canceled the sumbitch. (Place $n billion in a dry > hole and cover. Repeat as necessary.) > >Given the (known) history of advanced weapons development in the US in the last >35 years, and the foolishness that typically occurs when the White House >changes >hands (in either direction), I'd offer this as the most likely outcome. Just >MHO. > >George > Granted this isn't the right time to go out and spend billions on a plane, but I personally think that the project was successful though, so much so that the project isn't dead, just shelved 'til a later date. Here are some of my thought on the Aurora 1. There weren't any rumored crashes out here in California that I have heard of, unlike when the B-2 was being developed and it's existance being denied there were a few crashes that got out to the public. 2. About 4 and 1/2 years ago, the government allowed the Concord Jet to fly from the east coast to the Ontario International airport on the west coast. My supposition for this is that our government was giving its approval to this because our military had something to gain from this, such as research data. The concord was supposedly to not be go ing mach-1 or faster unless it was over mountain ranges and other ap proved locations in its flight path, but a couple days after the flig ht there were complaints that it broke the sound barrier where it was n't supposed to, whether this was the case or not, I don't know, but I do know they did test the limits. This all ties into the projects that were on the drawing board at the time, such as the YF-21 and the Aurora. At the time, General Electric was developing the new engines That were used on the YF-21, and after the military was comfortable with the performance of those engines they began building the engines used on the Aurora. Shortly after that, the unexplained sonic booms began here in California, which was, if I recall correctly was close to the time when the space shuttle started landing at Edward's Air Force base in Southern California. The sonic booms from the space sh uttle are always pre-announced in the respect that we are given a ti me approximation to as when they will occur before landing. 3. A year and a half ago, newer and better lens's were made available, which in turn made surveilance cameras more sophisticated and allow ed for the Hubble telescope to be repaired. This is one of the reaso ns that some of the SR-71's were re-commissioned and had new cameras installed. Another reason for the return of some SR-71's is that our spy sattellite network has some gaps in it and isn't as flexible as the SR-71 in terms of flight trajectory, plus the SR-71's are already paid for. With the SR-71 back in operation, the surveilance capabilities of the Aurora are no longer needed at this time, which was its major premace to begin with. Because of this, the project has been shelved until a later date when it is needed. With this decreased need for the Aurora it is safer to shelve the project than acknowledge its existance and risk a picture of it becoming available and possibly its technology falling into the wrong hands. With the military no longer controlling who has access to supercomputers, and more countries now having them, it wouldn't be too difficult from a picture to develop a model, test it in a wind tunnel, then build a prototype, though inner workings of the plane would be just guesswork, but valuable data can be obtained nowadays with a picture and a supercomputer and some smart engineers. Why risk losing an obvious edge when it isn't necessary to use it? There is no need as far as I'm concerned at this time. In conclusion, the Aurora project existed and has been shelved until there is a clear need for it and there is another Reagan type presid ent occupying the White House. I also think the military wants to av oid another B-2 like fiasco. - -CmC ------------------------------ From: Curtiss Cicco <1CMC3466@ibm.MtSAC.edu> Date: Tue, 17 Jan 95 19:22:58 PST Subject: Re: The Aurora Myth On 17 Jan 1995 09:31:01 -0800 you said: > 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 > That's why prototype planes are now basically flown over mountain ranges as to keep the possibilty of sightings down to a minumum. If all those sonic booms people heard out here in California are indeed from SR-71's, They sure made a habit out of doing restarts at lower alttitudes. It still wouldn't explain why the military refused to acknowledge what we were hearing here all that time. - -CmC ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 00:28:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Aurora You don't mean the B-2, you mean the F-117. They haven't lost a B-2 yet and it was so well publicized that we got to watch the first flight on TV (which was kind of schizoid, since I could hear it out the window as well as see it on the tube). On the other hand, they did lose at least two F-117s of varying marques (as our UK and Commonwealth readers would say) long before we were supposed to know about the project. I might point out that many of us knew that there was a black project being flown by Lockheed and after the first loss we knew it was a single-seater--most of this knowledge being based on who suddenly wasn't talking about what they were working on and by the info from the wives' network after the crash, but I have to admit that it helps to live in the same neighborhood with the right people.... Unless the rest of your logic is a lot better than your first point, your argument is on pretty shaky ground. Regards, Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end.... On Tue, 17 Jan 1995, Curtiss Cicco wrote: > 1. There weren't any rumored crashes out here in California that I have > heard of, unlike when the B-2 was being developed and it's existance > being denied there were a few crashes that got out to the public. ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 00:40:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: The Aurora Myth Sonic booms come from shock waves caused by supersonic flow over the airframe. In particular, each sticky-outy bit produces a shock at both the leading and trailing edges. We've been taking pictures of these in flight. The SR-71 seems to have a bow shock, a small canopy shock, an inlet shock, a wing leading edge shock, a vertical leading edge shock, and a trailing edge shock. There's no shock from the engine. In fact, a unstart is caused when the inlet shock gets swallowed. However, even with all these individual shocks coming off the plane, by the time they get to the ground (even from a measly 30,000 ft) they've coalesced into the classic N-wave, just like every other sonic boom. I'm sorry that physics and reality have to intrude on the lovely fantasies here, but that's the way it goes. I should mention that were starting a 6-flight program where we're mapping the SR-71 flow field. We're using an instrumented F-16XL to probe the near field (about 200 ft below the SR--this is about 4 or 5 times further away than we were in the original flights in 94), an instrumented F-18 to probe the mid to far field (at about 15,000 to 20,000 ft below the SR), and an array of ground sensors (on the ground, of course). We're also photographing the flow field, making in-flight Schlieren photos. Regards, Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end.... ------------------------------ From: Illya Kuryakin Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 22:40:53 -0800 Subject: Re: Aurora Mary said: Unless the rest of your logic is a lot better than your first point, your argument is on pretty shaky ground. I say: Well struck, Mary. ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #183 ********************************* 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).