From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #496 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Saturday, 4 November 1995 Volume 05 : Number 496 In this issue: Re: AHAA vehicle (As-Heavy-As-Air) Re: "Sound Barrier" Re: F-117A Crash Report Re: AW&ST, October 30, 1995 Re: SR-71 before Mach 1 Re: AW&ST, October 30, 1995 Why Mach1 is called the sound barrier Re: AW&ST, October 30, 1995 Re: Skunk Works History Re: AW&ST, October 30, 1995 Re: SR-71 before Mach 1 Secret West Va site Re: AW&ST, October 30, 1995 Re: Oxcart Re: AW&ST, October 30, 1995 Re: Secret West Va site - duh. 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: "J. Pharabod" Date: Fri, 03 Nov 95 11:04:37 MET Subject: Re: AHAA vehicle (As-Heavy-As-Air) >I understand your quandry here, but is it really? Please describe the >flight characteristics of the Belgium object again? Are they concistent >with a LTA/AHAA (whatever) vehicle? >Larry (Thu, 2 Nov 1995 11:07:35 -0800) Yes, they are consistent. It turned out that the famous interception by two F-16s of the Belgian Air Force (night March 30-31, 1990) could be the interception of ground clutter... (Major (now Col.) Salmon's and Mr. Gilmard's report, 1992). Therefore there is no "proof" of extraordinary abilities (accelerations > 20 g etc...) of this object. Only remain a lot of visual observations, some at very close range, of: >>- a 'manta-ray'/'triangular'-shaped, >>- sometimes silent flying or hovering, >>- sometimes relatively fast flying, >>- relatively big, - probably LTA/AHAA vehicle. In addition to a number of poor quality videos, there is one (and only one) rather good photo of this object, which IMO is probably authentic (I mean, probability between 90% and 99%. I know the details of the story and of the scientific analysis of this photo, but it would be long to relate. The analysis was made at the Royal Military School). Though all this is extremely skunky (if you extend this name to the Dassault, Northrop, MiG etc.. secret plants), and though the evidence is far greater than for the (mythical ?) Aurora, I know that many people in this highly competent discussion group don't want to speak of that, for whatever reason. Therefore I suggest that any interested people e-mail privately to me (as some have already done). J. Pharabod PHARABOD@frcpn11.in2p3.fr ------------------------------ From: Allan Janus Date: Fri, 3 Nov 95 09:26:19 EST Subject: Re: "Sound Barrier" My favorite is the British film "Breaking the Sound Barrier" where the heroic pilot discovers that the secret to breaking the sound barr... I mean the trans-whatever regime - is to "reverse the controls". And there's a wonderful spoof by Sid Caesar & Imogene Coco called "Sneaking through the Sound Barrier" which is still shown daily in the Air and Space Museum - not to be missed! Allan Janus +---------------------------------------------------------------+ Ý Allan Janus 202-357-3133 Ý Ý National Air and Space Museum FAX: 202-786-2835 Ý Ý MRC 322 NASARC07@SIVM.BITNET Ý Ý Washington DC 20560 NASARC07@SIVM.SI.EDU Ý +---------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ From: Mike.Mueller@jpl.nasa.gov (Mike Mueller) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 07:28:08 -0800 Subject: Re: F-117A Crash Report >The crash report states, that engineers said the aircraft was operating >normally when it went down. In the most likely scenario, the automatic pilot >failed to follow the preplanned route, a failure that is apparently quite >common in F-117s! Does anyone have any data to support this last statement? The F-117 auto-pilot is very capable, especially after OCIP, and I think that if the auto-pilot failed to follow the preplanned route that this would be a very high profile issue at LockMart and with the USAF. I know that most of the F-117 accidents have been caused by controlled flight into terrain but auto-pilot failure was not cited to my knowledge in the crash reports before 1992. Another possibility could be that the pilot (by bumping the stick) or some other factor (like rates out of range due to turbulence, etc.) caused the auto-pilot to disengage and the pilot did not realize it before flying into the ground. This is NOT an auto-pilot failure... ------------------------------ From: neil@bedford.progress.COM (Neil Galarneau) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 95 11:02:29 EST Subject: Re: AW&ST, October 30, 1995 > "FOCUSING LIKE A LASER BEAM: Air Force Secretary Sheila Widnall is pushing > hard for the Airborne Laser (ABL) over kinetic-kill vehicles for missile > defense. She says adaptive optics and aircraft stability are the key to > making ABL work, but even having to spend [some money ?] to push those > technologies still makes the oxygen iodine laser the better bet. She said. > 'We would like to have had this in the Gulf.'" How would a laser have stopped the Scuds? Are they talking about burning through the payload? Doesn't that take a LOT of energy? Neil ------------------------------ From: David Windle Date: Fri, 03 Nov 1995 17:48:07 Subject: Re: SR-71 before Mach 1 Mary wrote: ...... >By all means, cling to the pseudo-romantic term "sound barrier" if you >wish, but don't be surprised if you get written off as someone who has >watched too many old movies and read too many sensationalist old books. >Your choice.... Clearly,there are always problems when it comes to putting technological concepts into terms that can be readily understood by the general public. You're talking from your perspective as a professional aeronautical engineer and I naturally respect that. However...if I wrote about the "Transonic Regime" it would mean very little to those readers who aren't interested in aircraft technology per se, but who are fascinated by what high speed a/c are capable of doing..like when you used the SR as a surrogate satellite in the Iridium tests, or flew Prof Al Wong's Ozone experiments last year at HIPAS etc,etc. Spare a thought for those of us who write about technology and have to wrestle with making often very complex issues understandable to well educated non-specialists. The Sound Barrier has captured the imagination of people the world over for many decades, and even if it is a pseudo-romantic term, it's instantly undestandable to just about everyone who hears the expression. Anyway..I'm just off to watch Plan Nine from Outer Space and attempt to eat my body weight in popcorn. BTW..what's the betting that when Richard Noble's World Landspeed challenging car, the SSC goes very fast on the flats, there won't be a mention of Transonic Regime in the media..If it does what it should, the headlines will be S**** Barr*** Broken On Land.. but then you know what incurable pseudo-romantics journalists are:) Tongue in Cheek Best D ------------------------------ From: keller@eos.ncsu.edu Date: Fri, 03 Nov 95 13:59:31 EST Subject: Re: AW&ST, October 30, 1995 > >> "FOCUSING LIKE A LASER BEAM: Air Force Secretary Sheila Widnall is pushing >> hard for the Airborne Laser (ABL) over kinetic-kill vehicles for missile >> defense. She says adaptive optics and aircraft stability are the key to >> making ABL work, but even having to spend [some money ?] to push those >> technologies still makes the oxygen iodine laser the better bet. She said. >> 'We would like to have had this in the Gulf.'" >How would a laser have stopped the Scuds? Are they talking about burning >through the payload? Doesn't that take a LOT of energy? The idea is to either burn through the propellent tanks, or weaken the structure sufficiently to cause a structural failure. Liquid propellent missiles and rockets are structurally fragile, still, yes, this does take a LOT of energy. Maintaining an adequate dwell time on the target, that is, illuminating the target for a sufficient period of time to deliver enough energy to damage it is one of the more difficult problems for directed energy weapons. Thus, the emphasis on aircraft stability. Does anyone on the list know anything about the oxygen iodine laser mentioned here? Is that a chemically pumped laser? Paul Keller keller@eos.ncsu.edu ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 11:01:21 PST Subject: Why Mach1 is called the sound barrier I was talking with Stefan and relating this thread and he looked at me like I was crazy. He reminded me that to engineers Mach1 IS an physical , uncrossable barrier. Remember the Raleigh line! You get a flow to sonic and its game over. All jet engines and rocket comustion chambers are limited to Mach1. Whether you slow a supersonic flow or accelerate a subsonic flow, Raleigh showed us that you have reached a physical barrier that says you can add no more energy to the flow. This is where the term "sonic barrier" comes from. It doesn`t take a lot of imagination to get from "sonic" to "sound". We all missed the obvious here. Sorry I had to get a commie to straighten me out. So much for Jankee ingenuity. Chuck ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Fri, 3 Nov 95 12:04:53 ÿÿÿ Subject: Re: AW&ST, October 30, 1995 If a laser such as the Air Force proposes to deploy in a 747 had been available and in position in the Gulf War, it would have stopped the Scuds. You don't need to actually melt the entire target or payload, just do enought damage to the delicate parts so that it won't detonate, or will go way off course. In fact, if you mess up the aerodynamics of the vehicle with a beam, it'll tear itself apart in flight. Surprisingly, once detected a missile is an easier target for a laser at the present level of technology than an aircraft (although that will change). A missile is predicatble, doesn't maneuver, carries no countermeasures and is much more delicate. Sure it's much faster than an a/c, but relative to the beam, they're both motionless! Art Hanley T'woulds be the basest flasehood if thou didst imply that M'Lords and Ladies, who most generously sign my meager checks, had in any way a foreknowledge or didst bless that which has been scriven above. ------------------------------ From: Greg Fieser Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 15:02:20 -0600 Subject: Re: Skunk Works History > My question was why wasn't there a smaller SR-71 a la A-12 or is it a case of > there being another F117 look-a-like out there that we don't know about. Remember, the logo was designed by Lockheed, not by Jay Miller. My best guess is that, while the Have Blue and F-117 have similar profiles (the logo in question features side views), they are quite different in size. In the scale shown, most of us would be hard pressed to differentiate between an A-12 and an SR-71. If both an A-12 and an SR-71 were depicted, what would explain the absence of the YF-12? An astute observer might notice the lower ventral fin on a YF-12 but, as I understand it, the major differences in the three types were internal i.e. gross weight, fuel capacity, avionics, etc. Dimensionally, they were nearly identical. Not so with the Have Blue/F-117. > Now I have a new question....Why was the logo left out of the new book? The original edition was commissioned by Lockheed as part of their 50 year celebration. The aforementioned logo was also part of the 50 year celebration. The new edition has some updated information, but is not the "official" 50th anniversary issue. This, along with the new title "Lockheed Martin" on the cover, differentiate between the two. I guess such things are important to collectors and such.... Speaking of collectors, the original printing of the book included a few (50 or so?) leather bound, hardbacked editions, all autographed on the title page by Ben Rich, Dick Abrams, and Jay Miller. In summary, I don't think there were any deep dark secrets leaked in the book logo, and it wasn't pulled from the 2nd edition for any security related reasons - it was all related to the 50th anniversary of the Skunk. Greg Fieser (No, I am not employed by Jay Miller...) ------------------------------ From: "R. Lee Hawkins" Date: Fri, 03 Nov 1995 17:00:20 -0500 Subject: Re: AW&ST, October 30, 1995 In your message dated: Fri, 03 Nov 1995 12:04:53 you write: >missile is predicatble, doesn't maneuver, carries no countermeasures and is Actually, ICBM's sometimes do carry countermeasures, in the form of dummy RV's Cheers, - --Lee ------------------------------ From: TODD R CASPELL Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 15:03:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SR-71 before Mach 1 RE PS. Yes I believe the design was copyed from the one thing KNOWN capable of supersonic flight at that time,the 50 cal.mg bullet. TR On Thu, 2 Nov 1995, Mary Shafer wrote: > You can call it whatever you want, but there's no barrier there and > calling it the sound barrier makes you sound like a real hick, someone > who's watched too many bad movies from the late '40s. > > The reason that I make this point is because of the misinformation that > was generated in the '40s and still hangs on. Engineers and scientists > never thought that we couldn't go over Mach 1 (after all, Ernst Mach took > a schlieren photo of a supersonic bullet in the 1800s) but somehow the > press got this idea that there was a sound barrier that we couldn't get > through (unfortunately they probably got this idea when some engineer > flashed some charts showing the transonic drag rise or something). The > press wandered around predicting gloom, doom, and death awaiting the puny > mortals who attempted to break through this barrier and lo, incredibly bad > movies were produced (watch Rocket Ship X-15 some time--and it was from > the late '50s or early '60s). I think that some of those folks were > disappointed when Chuck Yeager didn't die. > > I've gone supersonic three time and at no time did I ever feel a damned > thing. No buffet, no nearly unbearable shaking, no nothing. Watching > those movies would convince most people that it's agonizing to go > supersonic. There's no barrier there. None. And to say there is is > intellectually dishonest, no matter how fond you are of some phrase. > > By all means, cling to the pseudo-romantic term "sound barrier" if you > wish, but don't be surprised if you get written off as someone who has > watched too many old movies and read too many sensationalist old books. > Your choice. > > Regards, > Mary > > PS. If you look at the fuselage of the X-1, you will notice that > it is exactly the shape of a rifle bullet, only larger. > > > 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.... > > > EVERYONE wants T R Caspell mr. Toads wild ride. Todd Royall Caspell RIDE LOTS Tord and sundry (expressed opinions not necessarily of my brain) ------------------------------ From: BaDge Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 18:31:40 -0500 (EST) Subject: Secret West Va site This is only a somewhat skunky topic, but I'm sure many members would like to see this: Tonight at 2100, EST, the cameras go underground at the hotel in West Virginia that was developed during the Cold War to house Congress in the event of an attack. As most know, when revealed publically, it caused a minor scandal, and was 'dumped' at that time, and opened for public scrutiny. Way cool shots of them opening those awesome 'blast doors' and soforth... regards, ________ BaDge ------------------------------ From: TODD R CASPELL Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 15:49:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: AW&ST, October 30, 1995 Well from the little I have read(Sea.Times)The thinking is you have to get the scuds on liftoff as the Gulf war showed you cant count on the patriots stopping incomeing. They are talking about putting a huge nose turrent on a 747. Guess they need mass payload for power (batteries? N reactor?steam engine?) So yes with that kind of juice I guess they are planning to blow the fuel.Would be interested in any more informed input. Does Boeing have a operational Osprey?Thought I saw one hovering near B. field in Seattle. thanks Todd On Fri, 3 Nov 1995, Neil Galarneau wrote: > > > "FOCUSING LIKE A LASER BEAM: Air Force Secretary Sheila Widnall is pushing > > hard for the Airborne Laser (ABL) over kinetic-kill vehicles for missile > > defense. She says adaptive optics and aircraft stability are the key to > > making ABL work, but even having to spend [some money ?] to push those > > technologies still makes the oxygen iodine laser the better bet. She said. > > 'We would like to have had this in the Gulf.'" > > How would a laser have stopped the Scuds? Are they talking about burning > through the payload? Doesn't that take a LOT of energy? > > > Neil > EVERYONE wants T R Caspell mr. Toads wild ride. Todd Royall Caspell RIDE LOTS Tord and sundry (expressed opinions not necessarily of my brain) ------------------------------ From: Clyde Prichard Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 16:58:26 -0700 Subject: Re: Oxcart I have a copy. If you want one then email me and I'll reply with it. Or, since it very skunky, I can post it again. - - Clyde - CLYDE PRICHARD EMAIL: pricharc@agcs.com ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Fri, 3 Nov 95 16:46:34 ÿÿÿ Subject: Re: AW&ST, October 30, 1995 Lee, I believe the AW&ST article is talking about tactical ballistic missiles (haven't got my issue yet so I'm not sure) 'cuase that's what the USAF system is designed to combat. It's true that some ICBMs could be capable of carrying RVs, especially when the Soviets were around and feared we might get SDI operational, but if you think about it, that would be counterproductive. Here's why: An ICBM launches vertically, which means it can only lift a given weight. To go a given distance, a certain amount of fuel must be used (incl. any reserve). Therefore, since everything else is fixed, if you want to put decoys on you must take off weight from the only variable you've got left, warheads. On an ICBM, you've got to make your decoy able to survive reentry and act like a real RV or it's too easy to pick out the decoys. Essentially, you'll have to build an actual RV with everything except the warhead. The minimum of RVs you can remove to put in however many decoys is one, because you're going to take off vertically and the amount of weight you can throw all the way is fixed. If, say, your ICBM carried five RVs, to put in decoys you'd have to take off a warhead. Therefore, the defender has "killed" 20% of your capability without firing a shot and before your missile ever leaves the launch site! You might as well leave the real RV on. To a lesser extent, this would also be true of Tactical Ballistic Missiles. Unless you're willing to give up range, which is an option if you can get the missile closer before launch, you're still going to have to give up payload (submunitions, warheads, etc.). It's probably more effective not to bother with decoys. Here comes the relevance to the list: Your best option would be some way to "stealth" the missile (I have NO idea how) so that the defending weapon can't track it.. A laser weapon's no good if it can't see what it's supposed to shoot at. Art Hanley Despite all appearances to the Contrary, my employers have nothing to do with any of the above ------------------------------ From: BaDge Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 23:07:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Secret West Va site - duh. Shoot, I failed to post the channel for this gem. It was Dateline NBC. Someone's sure to have the name of the Hotel, too, I just couldn't find my file on it, nor did I hear more than 10 sec. of the promo. - all I could manage was that 'air ball'. Sorry. regards, ________ BaDge ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #496 ********************************* 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).