From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #420 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Friday, 15 September 1995 Volume 05 : Number 420 In this issue: Re: Star crossed tradition Re: Bombers, F-117s & TLAMs Re: Star crossed tradition Bosnia can't be beat? Darkstar Re: Bosnia can't be beat? A Modest Proposal... A Modest Proposal... [the footnotes] Re: Bosnia can't be beat? Curiosity Skunky Conference in Bodoe Re: Does a small space glider exist? Re: Bombers, F-117s & TLAMs RE: Star Crossed tradition 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: Mike.Mueller@jpl.nasa.gov (Mike Mueller) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 07:17:28 -0700 Subject: Re: Star crossed tradition The Skunk Works has a long tradition of getting flight controls crossed on development and first off the line aircraft. Besides the first production F-117 with pitch and yaw crossed, the first Blackbird of one of the flavors (A-12, YF-12, SR-71?) also had some of its controls crossed and it crashed on its first flight. Could the same reduction in paperwork and streamlined engineering and management structure that has resulted in such great successes also be responsible for these accidents? Both accidents were the result of the drawings not being updated as fast as production line modifications were being made... ------------------------------ From: Tim Ottinger Date: Thu, 14 Sep 95 10:13:22 CDT Subject: Re: Bombers, F-117s & TLAMs :Any army will fight less effectively when it is being hit with air strikes. This is not only the most amusing of the one-liners given in this thread, but probably one of the understatements of the century. It might even make a good tag line. Sorry for off-topic praise. Don't spam me please. - -- Tim - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | You must be open to ideas... even if they're not new. | - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | Tim Ottinger tottinge@csci.csc.com (217)351-8508x2420 | | CSC CIS Champaign, IL - The Silicon Prairie " -7420(fax) | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ From: Tim Ottinger Date: Thu, 14 Sep 95 10:17:55 CDT Subject: Re: Star crossed tradition : :The Skunk Works has a long tradition of getting flight controls crossed on :development and first off the line aircraft. Besides the first production :F-117 with pitch and yaw crossed, the first Blackbird of one of the flavors :(A-12, YF-12, SR-71?) also had some of its controls crossed and it crashed :on its first flight. : :Could the same reduction in paperwork and streamlined engineering and :management structure that has resulted in such great successes also be :responsible for these accidents? Both accidents were the result of the :drawings not being updated as fast as production line modifications were :being made... The same problem is common in software development, too. Designs are current until production begins, and never again. Stopping production to update the designs doesn't happen, and wouldn't work. When you're building some on time and under budget, you can't afford a lot of bureaucracy and a lot of documentation. Even if the producers control the documents, this doesn't happen. It's even more so if the work you are doing is advancing the state of any art. You know less at design time, and learn more during production. I have no solution, and if there is a solution, I'd expect the Lockheed engineers to come up with it before we (software) will. - -- Tim - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | You must be open to ideas... even if they're not new. | - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | Tim Ottinger tottinge@csci.csc.com (217)351-8508x2420 | | CSC CIS Champaign, IL - The Silicon Prairie " -7420(fax) | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ From: Gerald.Welch@Corp.Sun.COM (Gerald Welch) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 08:28:55 -0700 Subject: Bosnia can't be beat? Sorry for the (continued) off topic, but I can't just sit here and have somebody trivialize the effects of air power. >>Those who think the mighty NATO war machine, using mostly air >>power can have a substantive enough effect on the Serbs to get >>them to submit to UN wishes are dreaming. Simply a matter of how many innocent casualties the world is willing to tolerate. Air power can pulverize a nation. Have you seen the effects of carpet bombing? How about fuel-air explosives? Don't ever underestimate the psychological effects of having Hell rained down on you by an enemy that is (for the most part) untouchable. Your statement has merit. From a political perspective the cost of innocent lives may be too great. But from a physical perspective, air power can turn Bosnia into a parking lot. We could level it and build a shopping mall by the end of the year. ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 11:32:04 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Darkstar I'm about to go out and look at the Tier III- Darkstar that's sitting on our ramp. No photos, unfortunately. 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: hoar@agdis01.newark.af.mil ( Stephen Hoar) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 95 12:28:12 -0400 Subject: Re: Bosnia can't be beat? In your message of 14 Sep 1995 at 1225 EDT, you write: > > Sorry for the (continued) off topic, but I can't just sit > here and have somebody trivialize the effects of air power. > > >>Those who think the mighty NATO war machine, using mostly air > >>power can have a substantive enough effect on the Serbs to get > >>them to submit to UN wishes are dreaming. > > Simply a matter of how many innocent casualties the world is > willing to tolerate. Air power can pulverize a nation. Have > you seen the effects of carpet bombing? How about fuel-air > explosives? Don't ever underestimate the psychological effects > of having Hell rained down on you by an enemy that is (for the > most part) untouchable. > > Your statement has merit. From a political perspective the > cost of innocent lives may be too great. But from a physical > perspective, air power can turn Bosnia into a parking lot. We > could level it and build a shopping mall by the end of the year. > COME ON GUYS! If I wanted geopolitical discussions I would be reading that news group, not this one. You are right, it is off topic. Try another forum. Steve in Newark Ohio ------------------------------ From: "I am the NRA." Date: Thu, 14 Sep 95 09:30:34 PDT Subject: A Modest Proposal... May i MOST HUMBLY request a moratorium on Bosnia discussions?? (OK, some messages are alread in the pipe, here's mine & NO MORE from me... "....destruction raining unstoppably from above..." We know what the world thinks. The world has watched it rain on the Bosnian's for 3 years. And Yawned. [1] And watched rape and genocide and arrant agression against the Bosnian's. And Yawned. If it reacts differently to Serb _Military_ Under the receiving end, the world is an ASS. [2] "... FAEs & carpet bombing..." This is just straw man rhetoric unless these are being used??? Which They are Not, near as i know.... ) ========================================= Obtechnoifnotskonky: While i was on vac, someone said roughly: ...just make the recce platform cheaper than the missile needed to kill it and its OK... War does not work by that sort of accounting. The defense missle can be as expensive as SOME FRACTION OF THE TARGET VALUE. I would cheerfuly use a $10k missle to kill a $1k recce platform to conceal/protect a . regards dwp ------------------------------ From: "I am the NRA." Date: Thu, 14 Sep 95 09:37:17 PDT Subject: A Modest Proposal... [the footnotes] [tried to be too clever...] [1: No direspect, in fact utmost RESPECT for the UNPROFOR folk on the ground and at least some respect for those trying to get peace to break out...] [2: A disservive to a fine, intelligent four legged critter] regards dwp ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Thu, 14 Sep 95 09:18:37 EST Subject: Re: Bosnia can't be beat? ______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________ Subject: Re: Bosnia can't be beat? Author: Bill Riddle at FHU2 Date: 14/9/1995 9:12 AM Well, that is what air power advocates have been saying since WWI. But their words don't match the facts. In all the history of air warfare there is ONLY ONE air campaign that has been decisive. That one only consisted of two strikes: Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So the lesson to be learned is that air power is indispensable but not decisive, unless you want to go nuc. Neither Germany nor Japan (or Iraq for that matter) was brought down by air power. It took grunts on the ground. Bill Riddle Retired Army Aviator and Air Power Realist ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Bosnia can't be beat? Author: Terry Colvin at FHU2 Date: 9/14/95 8:59 AM Sorry for the (continued) off topic, but I can't just sit here and have somebody trivialize the effects of air power. >>Those who think the mighty NATO war machine, using mostly air >>power can have a substantive enough effect on the Serbs to get >>them to submit to UN wishes are dreaming. Simply a matter of how many innocent casualties the world is willing to tolerate. Air power can pulverize a nation. Have you seen the effects of carpet bombing? How about fuel-air explosives? Don't ever underestimate the psychological effects of having Hell rained down on you by an enemy that is (for the most part) untouchable. Your statement has merit. From a political perspective the cost of innocent lives may be too great. But from a physical perspective, air power can turn Bosnia into a parking lot. We could level it and build a shopping mall by the end of the year. ------------------------------ From: dougt@u011.oh.vp.com (Doug Tiffany) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 95 13:23:13 EDT Subject: Curiosity > > In your message of 14 Sep 1995 at 1225 EDT, you write: > > > > Sorry for the (continued) off topic, but I can't just sit Stephan Hoar writes: > COME ON GUYS! If I wanted geopolitical discussions I would be > reading that news group, not this one. You are right, it is off > topic. Try another forum. > I agree. By the way, why is it if people say "off topic" then the off topic discussion is allowed, but they don't say "off topic" the get flamed for it? - -- A hundred years from now, it will not matter what kind of house I live in, how much is in my bank account, or what kind of car I drive, but the world may be a different place because I was important in the life of a child. Douglas J. Tiffany dougt@u011.oh.vp.com Varco-Pruden Buildings Van Wert, Ohio ------------------------------ From: jdonoghue@cclink.draper.com Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 14:16:00 EDT Subject: Skunky Conference in Bodoe I almost missed this on r.a.m. Check out their web pages. Sounds like an interesting program. Joe <<<<<< Attached TEXT file follows >>>>>> File item: coldwar.txt 9/14/95 2:11P - ------------------------------- Message Contents ------------------------------- tp-trd.UNINETT.no!news.uit.no!hsn30_41.hibo.no!TKR From: TKR@postman.hibo.no (Trond Kristiansen) Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military Subject: INFO: Cold War Conference Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 10:45:13 GMT Organization: Bodoe College Lines: 30 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: hsn30_41.hibo.no Keywords: Cold War, U-2, Spyplanes, Military History X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev A] Conference on the Cold War in Bodoe, Norway. You can find more information about the conference arranged by The Cold War Forum on: http://www.hibo.no/asf/Cold_War/ The Cold War conference will attract several interesting lecturers and cover topics such as: * How important was the High North in the Cold War? * Why did the USA develop spy planes and spy sattellites? * How much did the Norwegian authorities know about the activities of the spyplanes? * What were the ambitions of the Soviet Union in her policy towards Norway and the High North? * Why was there a Cold War? * What is the present status and the future of the Northern Region after the Cold War? Lockheed Martin Skunk Works will have a display special to the conference on the operational history of the U-2. For more information about the conference and how to register check out our URL. If You Have publications You want to put on display at the conference please contact us for more information. This will be an Cold War event You dont want to miss. Trond Kristiansen Dept. of Social Sciences Bodoe College Norway ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 12:09:07 -0700 Subject: Re: Does a small space glider exist? >FORWARDED FROM SPACE TECH LIST: >Date: Thu, 07 Sep 95 11:18:53 EST >From: Terry Colvin >Subject: 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. ... Yes. It was also known as project PRIME. >The X-24 had two incarnations: as the A model then the B. ... Yes. There was also a proposed C model which would have been a hypersonic testbed for a number of hypersonic applications. There was a complete nose-to-tail hypersonic CFD study of it done. In fact, as I think of it, it achieved some firsts in this area. >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." What better way to verify your predictions that to go fly? A classified testbed perhaps? > 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." Or, it was done some time ago, when budgets weren't so tight. >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! Many people are amazed because they had no idea how into hypersonics we were back in the 50's and 60's! X-15 was very impressive yes. In fact they actually HAD a program there to fly a manned scramjet. But there were other programs that flew much higher into the hypersonic regime, although they were unmanned (in some cases just initially unmanned). You mentioned the X-23 program which got into the Mach 20's area. There were others like ASSET which also got up to the Mach 19 area. Project FIRE which Republic did to verify the Apollo capsule could reenter safely at escape velocity of over Mach 30. Reentry F to study aerodynamics issues associated with ICBM RV's. The above of course must also include the manned missions into this regime, namely the 3 early manned programs and eventually Shuttle. We also had in the 50's and 60's and into the 70's, over 2 times the number of hypersonic tunnels for R&D than we have now. So it was no accident or fluke that these systems worked at such high Mach numbers, especially since some of them were manned. So to summarize, why did we have these hypersonic capabilities? We had these capabilities back then because of the ICBM reentry vehicle (RV) work and the man in space/orbit/on the moon objectives. Of course these applications were mostly for non-airbreathing and also for one time use (except for X-15 and Shuttle of course). There were groups exploring the use of hypersonic airbreathing that also built some real engines. In some cases, these systems piggybacked on the ICBM requirements to achieve funding. In other words, they would have been proposals for missiles, but would have also taught us things we needed to know for manned airbreathing hypersonic systemsm, as well as helped develop an infrastructure. Other proposals were for manned systems for orbit, orbit like capabilities, or reconnaissance or whatever. Larry ------------------------------ From: Doug Geddes Date: 15 Sep 1995 00:52:22 GMT Subject: Re: Bombers, F-117s & TLAMs >:Any army will fight less effectively when it is being hit with air strikes. > >This is not only the most amusing of the one-liners given in this thread, >but probably one of the understatements of the century. It might even >make a good tag line. > >Sorry for off-topic praise. Don't spam me please. >-- >Tim >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >| No Spam I agree, armies don't fight as effectively when being pounded from the air, even in mountainous terrain, but they still fight if they are determined enough. I think we should arm the Bosnians, get out and let them all fight it out to the end. They have been wanting to do this for hundreds of years. Guess we better let this list get back on topic now. I didn't mean to lead us all so far astray with my remarks, but it has been fun. ------------------------------ From: JOHN Date: Thu, 14 Sep 95 21:42:13 EDT Subject: RE: Star Crossed tradition : > :Could the same reduction in paperwork and streamlined engineering and > :management structure that has resulted in such great successes also be > :responsible for these accidents? Both accidents were the result of the > :drawings not being updated as fast as production line modifications were > :being made... > > When you're building some on time and under budget, you can't afford a > lot of bureaucracy and a lot of documentation. Even if the producers > control the documents, this doesn't happen. Production and engineering have to work hand in hand to make sure things are documented, but there are times paperwork just gets extreme. I believe that Wernher Von Braun said during the Apollo program "When the weight of the paperwork, equals the weight of the launch stack, then, its time to launch." Kidding aside, I work in design engineering, and there are times that the paperwork never keeps up the with the design changes, OR once the parts is finished to specs, the REVISED drawings show up and you have to start the same job all over again. :( John Szalay jpszalay@tacl.dnet.ge.com DISCLAIMER: ? GE & I rarely see eye to eye; So why should I attempt to speak for them ? ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #420 ********************************* 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).