From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #413 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Friday, 8 September 1995 Volume 05 : Number 413 In this issue: Re: Does a small space glider exist? Re: Mach 8.5 Re: Mach 8.5 RE: Aviation questions Re: Does a small space glider exist? Re: Does a small space glider exist? Re: Mach 8.5 RE: Aviation questions Re: Mach 8.5 Re: Aviation questions 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: David Windle Date: Thu, 07 Sep 1995 18:19:52 Subject: Re: Does a small space glider exist? Jay wrote: >The X-23 & 24 was dropped from NASA's B-52. They were not meant to achieve >orbital flight. I think the X-24 was for low speed research, but I may be >wrong. The X-23 was a tiny pilotless lifting body that was launched from an Atlas ICBM as I recall. It was built to explore high Mach control systems and aerodynamic efficiency etc of that type of re-entry vehicle. It was a glider that flew at around 16,000 mph, having no powerplant of its own. The X-24 had two incarnations: as the A model then the B. The 24 was built to explore the trans sonic/low supersonic speed regime of the L/B design. Relative to the 23 it was a real slow coach at around 1,100 ish mph. It was self powered by rocket motor and it was this a/c that was air launched from the B-52..so as far as I see it, you're only half wrong-or right, depending on whether you're an optimist or not :) The most obvious difference between the two versions was that the re-worked B model has the elongated,sharply pointed nose whilst the A had the classic snub nose. As far as a small space glider already existing, my money's on No, because this is an area which is being investigated, that would be redundant if such a vehicle was already "rubber on the ramp." According to that AW&ST piece the black programme funding doesn't currently run at a high enough level to support the development of a new re-entry vehicle - but there are those who'll think: "Well they would say that wouldn't they." The more I talk to engineers about hypersonics, the more amazed I am that the X-15 programme ever produced the results that it did...let alone, thirty odd years ago! D Jay Miller's X-Plane books are required reading..if you can get them, that is :) ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 14:13:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Mach 8.5 On Thu, 7 Sep 1995, 'totally confused' wrote: > A friend told of a friend of his who was in the Air Force at Nellis AFB > about five years. This friend tracked an object (aircraft?) on radar > traveling at mach 8.5. > The friend said that he didn't report it as they were ordered not to > report anything traveling over Mach 2.5. > So maybe Aurora/? was flying there/then. > > jz1@netcom.com > > It came be the Space Shuttle after the re-entry... The Space Shuttle orbit the earth at Mach 25 if I am not wrong... Live Long and Prosper Su Wei-Jen wsu02@barney.poly.edu ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 14:15:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Mach 8.5 On Thu, 7 Sep 1995, 'totally confused' wrote: > A friend told of a friend of his who was in the Air Force at Nellis AFB > about five years. This friend tracked an object (aircraft?) on radar > traveling at mach 8.5. > The friend said that he didn't report it as they were ordered not to > report anything traveling over Mach 2.5. > So maybe Aurora/? was flying there/then. > > jz1@netcom.com > > It came be the Space Shuttle after the re-entry... The Space Shuttle orbit the earth at Mach 25 if I am not wrong... Live Long and Prosper Su Wei-Jen wsu02@barney.poly.edu ------------------------------ From: "Fowler, Robert A. (SysAdmin)" Date: Thu, 07 Sep 95 17:31:00 P Subject: RE: Aviation questions ---------- From: skunk-works-owner[SMTP:skunk-works-owner@gaia.ucs.orst.edu] Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 1995 23:34 To: skunk-works Subject: Aviation questions 2) I think the USA has a big "gap" in the missiles technology compare the foreign countries. In aviation week and space technology of this week, there is a report of "Russians offer AA-11s to McDonnel Douglas". I know that they are doing some reserch for the AIM-9X. But they are doing any other air-to-air long range missiles project? Because the F-22 mission tried to shot the enemy in long range... But current USA missiles doesn't have a very long range compare with foreign missiles. The French Matra just had a succesful test of a infrared missiles that has a range of approximately 80 mi. (This is almost twice of the max. range of the AMRAAM!!!). You do know what AMRAAM stand for, right? Advanced _Medium_ Range Air to Air Missile. We (the US) took responsibility for developed the medium range missile for NATO and our European partners took responsibility for developing the long range missile. Weather we by the design from France or get a case of NIH syndrome and develop our own, AMRAAM is not supposed to be long ranged. Besides the fact that BVR is almost always excluded by the rules of engagement. Phoenix is our long range missile, and it has never been fired in anger. ---- Disclaimer: Even if my employer had a position on the subject, I probably wouldn't be the one stating it on their behalf. "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden "An armed society is a polite society." -- Robert A. Heinlein The government which fears arms in the hands of its people ... should. ------------------------------ From: megazone@world.std.com (MegaZone) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 19:39:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Does a small space glider exist? Once upon a time JOE P. shaped the electrons to say... >a non-traditional mode. Several years back there was a program, >I believe, that had a small gliding reentry type vehicle undergoing >some tests. In fact, as I recall it the opening footage of the >old TV show "The Six Million Dollar Man" had video of a crash while You are talking about the HL-20, X-23A, and X-23B programs. Lifting body research - yes, directly related to the shuttle which is a partial lifting body. Some of the early proposals were almost enlarged X-23Bs. >be designed as a single person high speed, HIGH altitude, not be >included on a classified shuttle launch. They weren't especially high speed vehicles. >day flights, under manual/auto control with an eventual small >retro rocket motor (as was used on Apollo capsules) and attitude >control systems to return it to earth. This might be either manned Sure - WHY? They were rocket planes already. You'd need to boost them into orbit somehow, and they are quite large enough to be seen with a telescope. >this not only reenter at Mach 8.5 (or similar speeds) but probably MUCH faster, the shuttle hits the atmostphere at like Mach 20+... But for these to be reentry vehicles, they'd need to be much larger and then have the tiles, etc... Hard to hide (it is harder to hide a satellite than an aircraft.) And if they are unmanned - it is a waste, just use a conventional recovery capsule nothing is gained by the lifting body shape. >base? Has any unusual activity ever been noted around these bases >in Nevada a day or two or three after some shuttle missions? The shuttle is under constant observation from ameteur astromomers all around the world, they've always reported the descriptions of what the shuttle launches - and this would be very distinct. They'd also be able to track it all the way to reentry. In other words - no, I wouldn't believe this was happening for a minute. - -- megazone@world.std.com 510-735-8583 MegaZone's Waste Of Time Moderator: anime fanfic archive, ftp.std.com /archives/anime-fan-works; rec.arts.anime.stories - Maintainer: Ani Difranco Mailing List - Mail to majordomo@world.std.com with 'subscribe ani-difranco' in the body. ------------------------------ From: megazone@world.std.com (MegaZone) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 19:42:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Does a small space glider exist? Once upon a time Jay.Waller@analog.com shaped the electrons to say... >only one intended for orbital flight was the X-20 Dyna-Soar ('59) which was >never built. The others included the X-23A ('66) and the X-24A & B ('70). Oops - in my letter I said 23A and 23B -crossed my circuits. 23A and 24A and 24B (and HL-20) is what I meant. >The X-23 & 24 was dropped from NASA's B-52. They were not meant to achieve >orbital flight. I think the X-24 was for low speed research, but I may be They were rocket powered I believe, high speed craft. - -- megazone@world.std.com 510-735-8583 MegaZone's Waste Of Time Moderator: anime fanfic archive, ftp.std.com /archives/anime-fan-works; rec.arts.anime.stories - Maintainer: Ani Difranco Mailing List - Mail to majordomo@world.std.com with 'subscribe ani-difranco' in the body. ------------------------------ From: kuryakin@arn.net (Rick Pavek) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 22:32:07 -0500 Subject: Re: Mach 8.5 Jim Goodall related a story to me about an Air Traffic Controller in Oregon... who calculated the blip he saw was travelling at Mach 15. When he reported it (to the USAF, methinks) an Air Force Captain came and told him that "He didn't see anything, you understand?" (or words to that effect). The old-timer Controller told him to "Get the hell out of my face" and refused to cooperate with the officer. Later, a much friendlier Colonel came and tried to explain to him the need for secrecy... The actual speed they calculated was something like 10,200 MPH or something. Jim was very confident in the reliability of the report, the ATC was a longtime friend or something. Now... this _could_ have just as easily have been an errant Minuteman or something, it occurs to me. Rick At 14:15 9/7/95, Wei-Jen Su wrote: +On Thu, 7 Sep 1995, 'totally confused' wrote: + +> A friend told of a friend of his who was in the Air Force at Nellis AFB +> about five years. This friend tracked an object (aircraft?) on radar +> traveling at mach 8.5. Rick Pavek | Hate OZ. Took the Shoes. kuryakin@arn.net | Find your own way home. Graphics and HTML for hire |____________________Toto http://northshore.shore.net/~wxcentrl/uncle/index.html ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 01:52:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: RE: Aviation questions On Thu, 7 Sep 1995, Fowler, Robert A. (SysAdmin) wrote: > > You do know what AMRAAM stand for, right? Advanced _Medium_ Range Air to > Air Missile. We (the US) took responsibility for developed the medium > range missile for NATO and our European partners took responsibility for > developing the long range missile. Weather we by the design from France > or get a case of NIH syndrome and develop our own, AMRAAM is not supposed > to be long ranged. Oh yes??? I never know about this. What is the current name or project of the European and USA missiles long range cooperation? It is still working on it? I only know that USA have cooperation with ASRAAM (for short range) with European country (I believe is U.K. only). And some technology cooperation with Israel. I never heard about a long range missile cooperation. > > Besides the fact that BVR is almost always excluded by the rules of > engagement. Phoenix is our long range missile, and it has never been > fired in anger. > > But in this days, the only aircraft that can carry the Phoenix is the F-14 Tomcat. Maybe the B-1B too but I am not sure... Live Long and Prosper Su Wei-Jen wsu02@barney.poly.edu ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 23:45:24 -0700 Subject: Re: Mach 8.5 Rick writes: >Jim Goodall related a story to me about an Air Traffic Controller in >Oregon... who calculated the blip he saw was travelling at Mach 15. When >he reported it (to the USAF, methinks) an Air Force Captain came and told >him that "He didn't see anything, you understand?" (or words to that >effect). The old-timer Controller told him to "Get the hell out of my >face" and refused to cooperate with the officer. Later, a much friendlier >Colonel came and tried to explain to him the need for secrecy... > >The actual speed they calculated was something like 10,200 MPH or something. > >Jim was very confident in the reliability of the report, the ATC was a >longtime friend or something. My goodness! Things must be quiet, we're dusting off some of the old unpublished AURORA stories! Always a fun thing to do! Yes, I was there when Jim told Rick this story. Rick got the location of the radar operator wrong however (but maybe he did this intentionally to protect the Center involved). Jim did mention the Center that the operator worked in, and it wasn't in Oregon. The bogey was flying over Oregon however, perhaps that is where Rick got confused. The rest of the story Rick told correctly. Jim was told that the bogey covered "20.3 miles in 7 seconds". That's 2.9 miles/sec or 15,300 ft/sec, or roughly Mach 15. ------------------------------ From: megazone@world.std.com (MegaZone) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 02:56:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Aviation questions Once upon a time Wei-Jen Su shaped the electrons to say... > But in this days, the only aircraft that can carry the Phoenix is >the F-14 Tomcat. Maybe the B-1B too but I am not sure... The only aircraft designed to carry the AIM-54 are the F-111B and F-14. Now we all know trhe F-111B is the cancelled naval version and the F-14 was developed to fill the same role. And the Phoenix and associated systems evolved from the AIM-47 carried by the Lockheed (<- connection to list) YF-12 Blackbird. Which in turn we developed from the systems developed for the cancelled F-108 Rapier. Where did you get the nutty idea the B-1B carried air to air weapons? - -- megazone@world.std.com 510-735-8583 MegaZone's Waste Of Time Moderator: anime fanfic archive, ftp.std.com /archives/anime-fan-works; rec.arts.anime.stories - Maintainer: Ani Difranco Mailing List - Mail to majordomo@world.std.com with 'subscribe ani-difranco' in the body. ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #413 ********************************* 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).