From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #464 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Tuesday, 17 October 1995 Volume 05 : Number 464 In this issue: Re: UFO-like secret U.S. aircraft. Lockheed's location? RE: info needed-special purpose equipment Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #461 Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #463 Re FAA, NASA, and how its is vs. was Re: Roadrunner Reunion Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #461 Re: Stealth carriers 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: (Jay Waller) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 95 8:02:12 EDT Subject: Re: UFO-like secret U.S. aircraft. I'm the one that feels like crying. I may have started this mess by answering someone's question on the ATFs. I don't agree with any of this garbage, nor do I like having my messages crossposted without me being asked. That's a hint by the way. Now, where is that SPAM icon I created.................................... - ------------- Original Text From Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl , on 10/13/95 5:36 PM: To: "Skunk Works List" I don't know if I should laugh or cry about that post, and I usually don't mind forwarded messages, but this one should have been forwarded to a trashcan. Really, not only was it full of orthographical and grammatical errors, but also technical, historical and logical flaws, and did not provide a single piece of useful information. - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@raptor.csc.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ From: Adrian Thurlow Date: Mon, 16 Oct 95 13:16:04 +0100 Subject: Lockheed's location? Hi Skunkworkers, As a resident of Suffolk, England and regular visitor to RAF. Mildenhall I am well aware of what a SR-71 looks and sounds like but unfortunately haven't encountered one for somewhile! Now, as luck would have it I will be visiting California in the first week of November and would very much like to go out and see the Skunkworks and/or a SR-71. Could someone please post directions to where they are located or an URL of some WWW site where this information is available ( I think I remember this being done before). Is photography at these locations tolerated from public roads? Is there any chance of seeing some flying? Thanking you in advance. Adrian Thurlow Technology Integration BT Labs Martlesham Heath Ipswich Suffolk United Kingdom Tel. +44 1473 644880 Fax. +44 1473 646534 e-mail: adrian.thurlow@bt-sys.bt.co.uk The contents of this message are not necessarily those of BT. ------------------------------ From: George Allegrezza 16-Oct-1995 0809 Date: Mon, 16 Oct 95 08:25:13 EDT Subject: RE: info needed-special purpose equipment TRADER@cup.portal.com writes: >Given the backgrounds and knowledge of people in this newsgroup, perhaps >someone out there can give me some information. A feasibility study is >being conducted for an intelligence collection platform. The following >items would be needed: >* A CCD panchromatic (i.e., B&W) sensor with a resolution of between >512x512 pixels to 1024x1024 pixels. It has not been decided whether >an optical or near-IR digital sensor should be used. The minimum range >should be 5 bits (32 shades of gray), although 8 bits would be preferable. >* A digital tape recorder capable of storing at least 100 MBytes in a >standard format, such as one of the QIC formats. >* These two items should be lightweight and compact. They should be >capable of operations down to 0 degrees Centigrade and be sealable against >moisture. Also, they would probably be under microprocessor control. >* Power would be provided by a 12 Volt DC or 24 Volt DC source, which >means that smaller voltages could be produced with voltage regulator >circuits. Total power required for both items should be 75 Watts or less. >* military surplus equipment (in working condition) would be preferable. Uh, we're not using our Buzz Lightyear Aero Design Kit to build a little RPV or Balloon to overfly Groom, are we? If so, you people have flipped. Totally. First we have Campbell getting an apartment overlooking the Janet terminal so he can do photo surveillance on the comings and goings there. Now this. May I remind you that the entity you wish to annoy is extremely powerful, and also isn't as stupid as you would like to believe? Aside from the legal issues, you are setting yourself up to be manipulated by the very people you seek to defeat. Think carefully. This is a bit more complex than a literature search or a fashionably subversive home page on the web. If you overfly, you will be breaking the law. You do the math. George George Allegrezza | Digital Equipment Corporation | "Why don't they just shut up and Mobile Systems Business | take their ass-whipping like men?" Littleton MA USA | allegrezza@ljsrv2.enet.dec.com | -- Charles Barkley ------------------------------ From: "David \"Scre^2ch\" Prieto" Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 09:47:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #461 Hmm... what do you see in that? Firing any missile or rocket in the general direction of an aircraft would set off the IR warning, and on top of that the slow closure rate of the missile to the target and the number of missiles you could carry would seem to make it an ineffective weapon. On Sat, 14 Oct 1995, Andrew See wrote: > >Here's the real question on cannons on fighters, to my mind: > > > >Assuming you'd never be in a situation that you'd have to strafe someone (A > big > >and probably false assumption I'll grant you), which would you rather have for > >air-to-air: > > > >A cannon > > > >or: > > > >A better radar and/or passive sensors plus at least an additional two of > >whatever dogfight missile you carry? > > > >'cause that's about the tradeoff in weight, internal structure, vibration > >dissapation, shell and gas disposal, etc. > > If we are talking F-22 here, why not some sort of compact unguided Kinetic > energy missile system. No warhead, just pure kinetic energy. Impacting > projectile would be about the size of a large bannana. > > _--_|\ Andrew See asee@magna.com.au > / \ > \_.--._/<-Sydney, Australia-It doesn't get any better than this. > v > "doh" -Homer Simpson > "it won't happen overnight, but it will happen." -Rachel Hunter. > > ------------------------------ From: JMTN47A@prodigy.com (MR DEAN W SMEATON) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 14:04:03 EDT Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #463 Thanks for the reply re: Salton Sea. I intend to 'dig' around down there a little more, and if anything interesting turns up, I'll let you know. Now, regarding your request. Check out a magazine called PHOTONICS SPECTRA. No guarantee you'll find exactly what your'e looking for, but it is chock full of high-tech 'goodie' advertising. They also publish (within the magazine), what they call a 'mini-magazine' with a special emphasis on a certain product, ie: lasers, etc.... Maybe they've done one on CCD imagaing. Lastly, they have a section in the regular magazine where you can ask a question that they'll publish for all to see! Another source might be NASA TECH BRIEFS. I've seen some pretty interesting advertising in there too. Good luck, and when the video is ready, please invite me over for popcorn. ------------------------------ From: BilBK@aol.com Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 15:27:59 -0400 Subject: Re FAA, NASA, and how its is vs. was On Fri, 13 Oct 1995 Mary Shafer electronically verbalized: # I know, from reading Air Force and FAA publications, that FAA personnel # are regularly informed of SR-71 flight when the Air Force operates the # aircraft and I know, from being in the room when the phone calls were # made, that NASA spent a great deal of time coordinating air-space # clearances and usage, even when we are going to be flying at 80,000 ft, # well above the FAA's control. No one ever sorties a Mach 3 plane over the # FAA's airspace with out letting them know about it (mostly because there # will be hell to pay if you don't). # # That story about descending to FL600 is apocryphal, by the way. An urban # myth, as it were. Mary, I cannot disagree with what you said in the first paragraph as related to TODAY's FAA and airspace. However, keep in mind: 1. The incident I related occurred about 25+ years ago and had nothing to do with NASA; 2. The FAA, NASA, and Air force only tell you what THEY want you to know, (Ex: As a controller at Knoxville, I worked a squadron of Tenn. ANG KC135's. We had a transient Q model come in one day. I issued his departure clearance which took him towards the east coast. I asked if he would be refueling an SR71. He replied he couldn't reveal that information. This was in 1980 or 81. A controller, as well as anyone else in a sensitive position, gets information only on a "need to know basis"); 3. The original message DID state that a waiver was required within CONUS to exceed MACH 1, no altitude limit is specified in the FARs; 4. Dale and the FAA knew about the flight (obviously since there was an IFR flight plan), he just didn't know what an SR71 was. Re: paragraph two: 1. I haven't seen Dale in 20 years, so I can't verify the authenticity of his story; 2. The story was intended to amuse the reader anyhow; 3. Urban legends generally have some root in truth; 4. However: "All generalities are false." - Think about that one! Bill Kunce (I don't speak for anyone but myself - and neither does my Congressman.) ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 14:49:40 -0700 Subject: Re: Roadrunner Reunion Thanks Joe for the post on the reunion. >It had been expected that there would be film from the old TAGBOARD D-21 >program at the reunion, but a problem in getting authority to release >the footage developed. Maybe next time. Interesting! Hmmm. I wonder what the problem is. Maybe it's the 941 incident beinf added to the film that's holding things up. I had known about this footage for some time now and have wanted to see it. I had heard that they were going to commemorate the first flight of the MD-21 pair in Nov. 1964 (same day as first flight of SR-71 at Palmdale) at this years function. Did they do that or postpone till the video was available? Larry ------------------------------ From: "JOHN F. REGUS" Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 21:53:21 -0600 Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #461 Date: Mon, 16 Oct 95 18:42:47 CDT From: sylvest@asl1.dseg.ti.com (Joe Sylvest 0130776) To: wizard@friday.houston.net Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #461 What about the Akula? Remember when the Japanese sold a Toshiba milling machine to the Sovs a few years ago? The big flap was because the milling machine could remove the scarring on the screws that caused so much cavitation. Check out the book Sub v. Sub, by Compton-Hall... there is mention of the Victor III and Akula boats that supposedly were so much more quiter...problem is they gave off a greater MAD signature. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + John F. Regus ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + internet: wizard@sccsi.com + internet: STRATACOM_WORLDNET@msn.com + internet: jregus@aol.com + voice : (713) 960 0045 + data : (713) 960 0015 + "Computer Scientist to the Stars" ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ------------------------------ From: "Robin J. Lee" Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 19:43:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Stealth carriers On Thu, 12 Oct 1995, George Allegrezza 12-Oct-1995 1534 wrote: > amraam@netcom.com (Robin J. Lee) wrote: > > >Now *that* would be a challenge. One estimate of ship RCS puts a > >94,000-ton aircraft carrier at between 3 - 10 MILLION square meters (on a > >scale that puts the B-1B at 1 sq meter). > > Unless, of course, it was submersible. Very true, and it trains good pilots, too. The incentive to catch the three-wire goes up considerably when missing the wires means smacking into the sail. ;) ____________________________________________________________________________ Robin J. Lee amraam@netcom.com Vulture's Row Worldwide Web Page URL: http://webcom.com/~amraam/ ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #464 ********************************* 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).