From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #528 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Thursday, 30 November 1995 Volume 05 : Number 528 In this issue: Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #526 Laser power requirements Hypersonic speed -MOSTLY- evades shooting down ! Re: Hypersonic speed -MOSTLY- evades shooting down ! Pulse detonation fuels Re: Ramjet Efficiency/Design Considerations Chinese Spy Satellite Chinese Spy Satellite SR-71 Pilot Manual Re: Mac(h)rihanish Re: Chinese Spy Satellite Re: Chinese Spy Satellite [none] Tear apart Re: SR-71 Pilot Manual Re: Chinese Spy Satellite Re: Ramjet Efficiency/Design Considerations Today's Quiz... back issues RE: Chinese sat... RE: Chinese Spy Satellite Re: Today's Quiz... BQM-74 / Chukar Rumors... 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: ffeer@ucla.edu (Fred Feer) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 01:07:31 -0800 Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #526 Got a first look at Rich's book on the history of the Skunk Works today and just glanced at the index to see what he had to say about the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. Left me confused and some of you experts may be able to help. He claims that an SR-71 flight flew in the early hours of the war. According to Crickmore's "lockheed SR-71: The Secret Missions Exposed" the first SR-71 was not flown until 12 October 1973. The only other SR-71 flight during the war was flown on 25 October. Also, the story presented about the lethality of the Egyptian missile air defense system in the first phase of the 1973 war is much exaggerated. Rich, however, attributes that to a briefing from military intelligence officers a couple of years after the war. Losses undoubtedly were high, especially as they occurred in a conpressed time/space period. But not as bad as presented and not due to the tactics cited. I had thought to buy the book, but I think I might be better off to find it in a library. I'd appreciate comments. Is it Crickmore or Rich? As for the briefing, well, contractor's should always salt any briefings they get. ------------------------------ From: celestine@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Stockton) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 95 11:20 GMT Subject: Laser power requirements Surely a direct feed to a nuclear power station would be the answer in practical terms. The technology is there but as to whether in this day and age now it is likely to ever be taken to that limit I doubt. (BTW A few years ago down here in Cornwall England we used to get an enormous electric ~draw~ from an unknown to the public source in this country rural area. The size of the power draw was large and the question as to its reason large but answers were very small!! There were and still are quite a few ~odd ~ establishments down in this area. This draw was usually at night but whether that would have changed in war times I don't know. ) I wonder what sort of megawatt would be needed to supply a ground laser of sufficient power to bring down a missile or aircraft? Grahame Stockton celestine@compulink.co.uk ------------------------------ From: Paul Adams Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 06:42:00 -0600 Subject: Hypersonic speed -MOSTLY- evades shooting down ! How about the most mundane use of lasers to shoot down an aircraft? Simply use the laser to blind the pilot. Check out the Nov. 20 issue of AvLeak, page 92 for a real life story. The power required to blind the eye is much less than the power required to kill an aircraft at any speed. Yeah, I know that there is an international treaty just signed that bans lasers for this use (AvLeak Oct 2, p70 and Nov 6, p17), but who really believes that it will hold up over time. Paul \ ___ / Paul Adams \ /___\ / paul@erc.msstate.edu ____________\___/__.__\___/____________ YF-22 \ \ / / \__/\___/\__/ ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 11:17:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Hypersonic speed -MOSTLY- evades shooting down ! On Thu, 30 Nov 1995, Paul Adams wrote: > > > How about the most mundane use of lasers to shoot down an aircraft? > Simply use the laser to blind the pilot. Check out the Nov. 20 > issue of AvLeak, page 92 for a real life story. The power required > to blind the eye is much less than the power required to kill an > aircraft at any speed. They even have or had research to protect the pilot's eyes using a special glases against laser beam. May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu ------------------------------ From: celestine@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Stockton) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 95 17:02 GMT Subject: Pulse detonation fuels larry said on 29th Nov Water might have been one of them or part of a mix? Apply your very excellent knowledge to that one for a minute and see if it comes up with anything positive? Or am I thinking too laterally Grahame celestine@compulink.co.uk ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 09:04:21 PST Subject: Re: Ramjet Efficiency/Design Considerations The ramjet tip concept has been used on commercial helicopters in GB. They didn`t receive a lot of orders because of the noise. Chuck ------------------------------ From: kklapper@vt.edu (Kevin Klapperich) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 12:28:48 -0400 Subject: Chinese Spy Satellite The recent news of the Chinese spy satellite in decaying orbit has left me wondering about where it will strike. It's suppose to hit in early April and it was also designed to withstand re-entry. I would be willing to speculate that there are already people who know where it is going hit. In fact, I don't think it takes very much calculating to determine that spot within say 300mi or so. Personally, I think it's going to strike the ocean about the size of the moniter you're looking at right now. I would greatly appreciate hearing any other predictions on this subject. Thanks Kevin Klapperich kklapper@holodeck.cc.vt.edu P.O. Box 10542 Blacksburg, Virginia 24062-0542 ------------------------------ From: dougt@u011.oh.vp.com (Doug Tiffany) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 95 14:09:47 EST Subject: Chinese Spy Satellite Kevin Klapperich writes: > The recent news of the Chinese spy satellite in decaying orbit has left me > wondering about where it will strike. It's suppose to hit in early April > and it was also designed to withstand re-entry. > > I would be willing to speculate that there are already people who know > where it is going hit. In fact, I don't think it takes very much > calculating to determine that spot within say 300mi or so. > > Personally, I think it's going to strike the ocean about the size of the > moniter you're looking at right now. > > I would greatly appreciate hearing any other predictions on this subject. Thanks > In the Reuters News I read the other day, they said the US would love to get their hands on the Chinese satellite, but it was going to land in the ocean. Now my personal opinion: I side with you, I'm sure they can calculate relatively close as to where it will land, probably even closer than 300 miles. I'd be willing to bet that there will be several ships in the area, and several planes in the sky to track it and grab it asap! - -- 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: Wei-Jen Su Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 14:04:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: SR-71 Pilot Manual Does anybody know where I can buy the famous declasified "SR-71 Pilot Manual"? May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu ------------------------------ From: chosa@chosa.win.net (Byron Weber) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 13:38:58 Subject: Re: Mac(h)rihanish > >K&AG> Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 08:29:01 -0500 (EST) > > From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl > > Subject: Mac(h)rihanish > >......deleting some very interesting reading to keep this short.. > >K&AG> Sometimes a rumor is just a rumor. :) > >Your statement above is certainly true, but if it wasn't for rumors, >lots of writers would be out of work! :) > Regarding a replacement for the SR-71, ie Aurora or whatever it's name, yes, that may be just rumor. But, it cannot be denied that the airfoce has gone to great lengths to protect a project or projects at Area 51. They are test flying something and it isn't just drones or the Tiers. Recall, the president himself has recently come to their rescue, denying access to the facility by other government agencies. Whatever they have there is obviously damn important. Consider the benefit of exoatmospheric flight capabilities, real time data with the security of a satelite platform. Byron ------------------------------ From: "JOHN F. REGUS" Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 14:47:09 -0600 Subject: Re: Chinese Spy Satellite The Air Force Institute of Technology did maintain a ftp site that had a (several) satellite tracking program(s) that ran on windows that was written by Dr. Thomas Kelso. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + John F. Regus + SYS/370/390 SYSTEMS SOFTWARE, DATA AND + TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERING ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + internet: wizard@sccsi.com + internet: jregus@aol.com + voice : (713) 960 0045 + data : (713) 960 0015 (SECURED) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 13:20:52 PST Subject: Re: Chinese Spy Satellite Well, Skylab showed how difficult it can be to predict. Remember the Gemini flights where the capsules would float for 20 -30 minutes before they found them? It really depends on a lot of things. If you are in an orbital decay mode and tumbling out of control, you can`t really do better than guess. As the energy loss becomes greater and greater you can get better and better predictions. The problems are 1) Orbital decay results from atmospheric friction. Contrary to popular belief, the atmosphere doesn`t end at a finite distance from sea level. Also, it "boils" from day to day. 2) The drag is coefficient is attitude dependent, unless your spherical. If the spacecraft is tumbling out of control you can`t really determine the drag. 3) When the big day comes, you can`t really tell what will break off and when, so the drag coefficient on re-entry is a guess. On a re-entry vehicle, the geometry, attitude and velocity are strictly controlled. Big problem with "prediction" by theory is that at hypersonic velocities the Navier-Stokes equations break down. This is because the bow shock becomes thick enough you can no longer use the discontiuity approach. Its almost like predicting when a leaf will hit the ground when dropped from a building. Too many variables for any real accuracy. Chuck "Aerospace Engineer to the Stars" ------------------------------ From: JMTN47A@prodigy.com (MR DEAN W SMEATON) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 17:19:10 EST Subject: [none] Has anyone ever heard of 'BQM-74 / CHUKAR'? It may have been a Lockheed or Northrop cruise missle (?) project. ------------------------------ From: celestine@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Stockton) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 95 22:24 GMT Subject: Tear apart Steve says I always thought that the actual damage inflicted was expected to be very small, it is the speed of the object and the degree of balance in craft at such speeds that is where the killing potential lay. Any slight damage deep or otherwise is sufficient to let heat and wind force finish the job. You can't exactly kill your speed that quickly! BTW What chance has the pilot ejecting at mach 5....say no more I suppose unless he is podded as in F-111 Grahame Stockton celestine@compulink.co.uk ------------------------------ From: Moroni Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 18:35:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SR-71 Pilot Manual Try asking under the freedom of Information Act.The Air Force . Bye moroni On Thu, 30 Nov 1995, Wei-Jen Su wrote: > > Does anybody know where I can buy the famous declasified "SR-71 > Pilot Manual"? > > May the Force be with you > > Su Wei-Jen > E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu > ------------------------------ From: sschaper@mo.net (Steve Schaper) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 17:00:32 -0600 Subject: Re: Chinese Spy Satellite Only if it is a controlled re-entry. The upper atmosphere isn't constant, and it is bumpy. Likely they have very little idea of where it will land. ------------------------------ From: Daga1@aol.com Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 18:04:37 -0500 Subject: Re: Ramjet Efficiency/Design Considerations Se Wei-Jen responded previously with the following: >>The problem is if you put a engine on the blade tips of a helicopter, the stress on the blades will increase because there is a additional weight on the extreme (the worse case in centrifuga forces), plus the speed that will increase the stress. This will rip appart the blades. And how you going to control the direction of the trust??? Maybe this is important. I know that some idea was using trust on the tip of the blades but with the engine inside of the fuselage of the helicopter and the gas exhaust was driving throught a pipe inside of the blade. But, what I know, they never built it.<< Here's a crazy idea or two: Could the engines be mounted inboard of the tips? Less leverage at this point, but also, potentially anyway, less stress. Or, perhaps even better, mount the engines on a separate rotor disk of smaller diameter, riding above the main rotor, and using a geared linkage to drive the main rotor. The arms or rotors of the engine-mount disk might counter-rotate (which might reduce vibration and increase stability?), and need not be lifting devices -- possibly just strong, stiff arms with a reasonable drag-reducing cross-section. Conceivably the mass of the engine-mount rotors, being considerably smaller, though inclusive of the mass of flowing fuel and ramjets, could be reasonably close to the mass of the main rotor. Also, the efficiency of the system might improve since the rotational speed of the engine-mount rotors could be independent of the main rotor, and so the ramjets could swish around at a higher speed than the main rotor tips. I'd hate to think of the shock wave problems that this might cause at M1 though, so the idea is probably untenable. Also, any imbalance would surely rip the craft apart in a hurry (but this would be true in a very high speed conventional ramjet-on-the-tips design to, I suppose). But, it's fun to think about. After some thought, it becomes clearer why channeling engine thrust (from fuselage-mounted engines) through the rotors may be a more attractive alternative. Andy Collegeville, PA ------------------------------ From: BaDge Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 18:12:48 -0500 (EST) Subject: Today's Quiz... What aircraft can go from brake-release to A-98 in just over three minutes? [Andreas can't play] ;-) regards, ________ BaDge ------------------------------ From: kerry@Hungerford.chch.cri.nz (Kerry Ferrand) Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 12:20:40 -1200 Subject: back issues Now that I have my address back, I'd like to catch up on the digest issues that I missed out on (V5 #512-522), the listed FTP site doesnt seem to accept anon. logins anymore..anyone know of an alternate archive? K. ------------------------------ From: JOHN SZALAY Date: Thu, 30 Nov 95 21:04:54 EST Subject: RE: Chinese sat... > Subj: Re: Chinese Spy Satellite > > The Air Force Institute of Technology did maintain a ftp site that had > a (several) satellite tracking program(s) that ran on windows that was written by > Dr. Thomas Kelso. > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >+ John F. Regus that is ftp://archive.afit.af.mil/pub/space/ that is also the site that maintains the latest set of TLE's for most sats. Myself, I use STSPLUS for sat tracking. (MSDOS machines) its available from ftp://seds.lpl.arizona.edu This site also has tracking programs for most all computer platforms. another site is the amsat.org , they also have programs for most systems. IHMO: and as far as being able to predict the exact location of impact, lots of luck, the last Chinese sat that "lost it", dispite all the guessing, it came down in the Pacific, off the coast of Peru, if I remember correctly. once they start to tumble, all bets are off.... John Szalay ------------------------------ From: "Ralph S. Hoefelmeyer" <70436.511@compuserve.com> Date: 30 Nov 95 21:15:49 EST Subject: RE: Chinese Spy Satellite Hi, Based on my experience in the space surveillance arena, no, one can't calculate the spot the satellite will come down at. The radar observation errors, noise errors from the radar, binary representations of real numbers, gravitational variances due to the orbital path, atmospheric drag differences and algorithmic errors propagate over the time period to such and extent that any answer that far in the future is quite problematic. They might be able to get closer as the time approaches, but as has been pointed out, this isn't a "reentry" vehicle per se. Ralph ------------------------------ From: albert.dobyns@mwbbs.com (ALBERT DOBYNS) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 95 20:49:00 -0500 Subject: Re: Today's Quiz... DA> Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 18:12:48 -0500 (EST) > From: BaDge > To: skunk-works@gaia.ucs.orst.edu > Subject: Today's Quiz... BA> What aircraft can go from brake-release to A-98 in just over three > minutes? I'll pitch my guess that it was the stripped-down version of the F-15A that was used to set several records back in 1975. I think it reached 30,000 meters in 207.8 seconds on Feb 1st. Pilot's name was Smith I think. BA> [Andreas can't play] ;-) How come?? :-) - --- þ SLMR 2.1a þ "You spent HOW MUCH on an aviation book??" :) ------------------------------ From: Gschaffe@michp7.redstone.army.mil Date: Thu, 30 Nov 95 22:35:18 CST Subject: BQM-74 / Chukar BQM-74 family is a US target drone. Current production version is the E-model, and the Navy has used C's recently. Chukar is the commercial name (not official DoD name) used by Northrop for direct sales to foreign buyers. Some Specs (BQM-74C) Length 3.95m Height 0.71m Wingspan 1.76m Gross flight weight 205kg Speed (variable) 371-871 km/h (200-470 kts) Altitude 4.5 to 10,670m (15 to 35,000 ft) Engine 86-kg thrust turbojet (Williams?) Data source: Northrop advertising The E-model is up-engined to give the target a little more speed. The target is recoverable by parachute. It's capable of launch from sea, land, or aircraft (mainly A-6 and C-130). It carries various payloads, including radar augmentation, miss- distance scoring, emitter simulators. It's commonly used as an anti-ship cruise missile replicator. The Army did not select this target in a fly-off competition in the mid-70's, picking the Beech MQM-107 instead, which has also received several upgrades (also to E-model, coincidence), now in production by Tracor. US Services' currently operational targets in the subsonic, "subscale", jet-powered class: Army: MQM-107 (Beech, Tracor); BQM/MQM-34 (Teledyne-Ryan) Navy: BQM-74 (Northrop); BQM-34 Air Force: MQM-107; BQM-34 Really interesting note, source Northrop advertising again, the BQM-74 was used in a combat role in Desert Storm as aerial decoys early in the air battle, when Iraq still had significant air defenses. It was a real hurry-up operation, run by the Air Force. The targets (er, decoys) were ground launched. The mission was "successful," and I don't think I can say much more about it. Other than it occurred. Northrop may be able to tell you more if you really want to know. (310) 332-1000 should still be a good phone number for them. Glenn Schaffer Army Targets Management Office Redstone Arsenal, AL "All information above taken from public sources and previously released." ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 23:47:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: Rumors... If Sigmund Freud had been talking about someone else's dream, he probably would have said something like: "Where there is smoke, there must be fire," instead of "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." All Aurora fans (including me) would rather believe that all these rumors are based on some sort of really existing vehicle, rather than dismiss all speculation about Aurora-like aircraft because of lack of hard evidence. But that should make us not too unsceptical toward some rumors, like the Mac(h)rihanish connection of F-117s and SR-71s, which, I must say, seems unrealistic to me. That does not discount any other Aurora rumors, sightings and evidence, which should be evaluated on a case by case basis. - -- 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/ - --- --- ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #528 ********************************* 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).