From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #630 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Tuesday, 5 March 1996 Volume 05 : Number 630 In this issue: Web map of Nevada restricted areas Re: Nevada Test Site EIS/hearing (secrets revealed!) re: Nevada Test Site EIS/hearing (secrets revealed!) ER-2 wings Re: Nevada Test Site EIS/hearing (secrets revealed!) Nuclear rockets News Re: Nuclear rockets Re: Weekday WINGS Project Yehudi Test Re: Weekday WINGS MoŠ better rockets Re: ER-2 wings Re: News Senior Citizen finally uncovered! Skyquakes Re: Weekday WINGS Re: Weekday WINGS Video/Archaeology/nukie rockets 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: TRADER@cup.portal.com Date: Sun, 3 Mar 96 23:29:32 PST Subject: Web map of Nevada restricted areas Using a graphics program, and a scanner, I created a Web page that shows a Nevada map that indicates where the secret Groom Lake complex ("Area 51" aka "Dreamland" aka "Watertown Strip) and other places are. It's at: http://www.portal.com/~trader/nv-map.html Also, my previous comments on the NTS EIS have been made into another Web page (with links and more maps) at: http://www.portal.com/~trader/nts-eis.html Paul McGinnis / TRADER@cup.portal.com / PaulMcG@aol.com http://www.portal.com/~trader/secrecy.html ------------------------------ From: Nick Barnes Date: Mon, 04 Mar 1996 09:38:51 +0000 Subject: Re: Nevada Test Site EIS/hearing (secrets revealed!) > Another classified program that is not mentioned is the Air > Force/DOE project code-named Timberwind, that is notorious for > having a classified environmental impact statement. (Another name > for this is the Space Nuclear Thermal Propulsion program.) [...] > if you want a safety hazard, consider a rocket explosion like that > of the space shuttle Challenger, with a nuclear reactor onboard. I know it's off-topic, but as your friendly myth-disposal operative, I feel obliged: Challenger did not explode. It burned. The orbiter's wings &c were then torn off by the hypersonic shock waves. The core of the orbiter, being a sturdy item, survived and hit the ocean intact. Any nuclear reactor on board (being a sturdy item) would very likely have survived the incident with little or no loss of nuclear materials. Some low- and medium- level waste, sure. But nothing to compare with, say, an atmospheric test, or deliberate dispersal of nuclear materials to simulate a bomb, or &c. Having said that, and going even further off-topic, I do not in general trust military and covert organisations to safeguard the environment or the general population. They have a long and disgraceful record of covert experiments with unsuspecting human guinea-pigs. Nick Barnes, speaking for himself ------------------------------ From: TRADER@cup.portal.com Date: Mon, 4 Mar 96 02:43:43 PST Subject: re: Nevada Test Site EIS/hearing (secrets revealed!) In an earlier message, Nick Barnes wrote: > Challenger did not explode. It burned. Hmmm.. it sure looked like an explosion to me... Perhaps, I should have explained a little more about the nuclear rocket technology the U.S. Air Force has in mind. Basically, they want to revise the NERVA program of the late 1960s, that tested at Jackass Flats on the Nevada Test Site. (I'll probably get in trouble with the net.authorities for using the "J" word...) A nuclear rocket uses a nuclear reactor to further heat the hot exhaust gases of a rocket, producing more thrust. Now, picture an "uncontrolled excursion", to use a quaint military euphemism, where your Titan missile or whatever explodes on the ground or during launch. Uranium or plutonium fuel will be vaporized over a wide area. If we have to test such a device, perhaps we should test it in that nice park next to the Pentagon, instead of in Nevada. Nobody would miss a few bureacrats if something happened... Paul McGinnis / TRADER@cup.portal.com / PaulMcG@aol.com http://www.portal.com/~trader/secrecy.html ------------------------------ From: kerry@Hungerford.chch.cri.nz (Kerry Ferrand) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 23:58:36 -1300 Subject: ER-2 wings I can confirm that NASA's ER-2 does indeed have folding wing sections. Last year I attended an "Operation Deep Freeze" open day at Christchurch International Airport...luckily for me this coincided with a deployment of a ER-2 here for sub-antarctic atmosphere research. On the open day the aircraft was parked in the old USAF maintenance hanger with its foward fuselage sticking out. The hanger isnt too wide and the ER-2's port wing was folded to allow it to fit in there. There was also a nice little display with an inflated pressure suit and various related hardware laid out on the tarmac. An Air France Concorde also happened to be in town that day and they had towed it over to the Deep Freeze area...it made an interesting sight beside the C-5, C-141 & C-130s also parked there . I later learnt that when the Concorde left Christchurch a few days later, the ER-2 followed it taking samples in its 'wake'. K ------------------------------ From: dadams@netcom.com (Dean Adams) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 03:21:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Nevada Test Site EIS/hearing (secrets revealed!) > > Challenger did not explode. It burned. > Hmmm.. it sure looked like an explosion to me... A strange bit of semantics it seems... I suppose one could accurately say that Challenger itself did not "explode", it was blown up when the ET exploded. The end result is pretty much the same though. As for the few nuclear devices (like RTGs) that have been launched by the Shuttle, they were subjected to tests which far exceeded the maximum explosive potential of the Shuttle, and they remained intact. > Perhaps, I should have > explained a little more about the nuclear rocket technology the U.S. Air > Force has in mind. Basically, they want to revise the NERVA program of > the late 1960s, that tested at Jackass Flats on the Nevada Test Site. (I'll > probably get in trouble with the net.authorities for using the "J" word...) As for Timberwind, I thought that was canceled back when Bush was still in office? Actually it is a rather interesting concept, with the potential to greatly expand our reach when it comes to something like a manned Mars mission. > A nuclear rocket uses a nuclear reactor to further heat the hot exhaust > gases of a rocket, producing more thrust. ...using less fuel than a conventional rocket. > Now, picture an "uncontrolled > excursion", to use a quaint military euphemism, where your Titan missile or > whatever explodes on the ground or during launch. Uranium or plutonium > fuel will be vaporized over a wide area. From what I remember of the concepts, the reactor would remain "safed" and not be activated until reaching Earth orbit. ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 03:59:17 PST Subject: Nuclear rockets I know the flames will follow, but geez, are we going down the nuclear rocket path? You still need to kick the fuel out the ass-end or you have zero thrust. (Newton`s second, F=d(mv)/dt applies to nukes too!) When you use a chemical rocket you can get decent heat transfer rates due to flame propagation. In a nuclear rocket you have to depend on forced convection and radiation. The radiation heat transfer is not as efficient as chemical combustion reactions. The convection, well, even an English major could see the problems there. The only advantage I could foresee would be the use of heavier fuels. Perhaps higher temps could be acheived, raising the speed of sound and allowing for a higher exit velocity...... but man, thats a real stretch. As for fears, this type of reactor would never explode. Plus, the core would be zipping along at a good rate when it impacted after a crash. It would probably get scattered so well the chance of a "meltdown" would be nil. I don`t know. For all my studying I never saw a proposed nuclear engine that would outrun a chemical rocket that wasn`t based on fusion. That being far from our grasp, I don`t see any reason to build a fission rocket. Chuck ------------------------------ From: David Lednicer Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 08:40:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: News > > I think that the basic concept goes back to a British carrier-based attack > plane, the Bucaneer (sp?). Exhaust was bled thru' ducts over the flaps, > using the Coanda Effect to increase lift at T/O & landing... FLIGHT > should have mentioned that. > I don't think so - Boundary Layer Control using blowing is as old as the hills - it was used on the Buccaneer, F-4 Phantom II, MiG-21, etc. I would venture a guess that this is more like the technology tested on the Ball/Bartoe Jetwing, back in the late 1970s/early 1980s. On this testbed, ALL of the exhaust from a P&WC JT15D was routed into the wing and dumped over the entire span of the upper surface. Advantages? Enhanced wing circulation (lift) and a dispersed IR signature. The RAH-66 Comanche uses a similar system for diluting the exhaust signature - - the engine exhaust is vented through a slit over the entire tail cone. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 ------------------------------ From: keller@eos.ncsu.edu Date: Mon, 04 Mar 96 11:16:34 EST Subject: Re: Nuclear rockets >I know the flames will follow, but geez, are we going down the >nuclear rocket path? If you'd paid attention to what's been published in AvWeek over the last several years of what outside advisory panels are saying about manned space exploration, there are plenty people who are saying that if we want to send people to Mars, or colonize the moon, nuclear power is absolutely essential. But, true enough, not much is going on in this field right now. >You still need to kick the fuel out the ass-end or you have zero >thrust. (Newton`s second, F=d(mv)/dt applies to nukes too!) >When you use a chemical rocket you can get decent heat transfer >rates due to flame propagation. In a nuclear rocket you have to >depend on forced convection and radiation. The radiation heat >transfer is not as efficient as chemical combustion reactions. >The convection, well, even an English major could see the >problems there. >The only advantage I could foresee would be the use of heavier >fuels. Perhaps higher temps could be acheived, raising the >speed of sound and allowing for a higher exit velocity...... >but man, thats a real stretch. One of the advantages of nuclear rocket engines is that they can use pure hydrogen as reaction mass, thus reducing the molecular weight of the exhaust. Since specific impulse (Isp) is proportional to the square root of the reciprocal of the molecular weight of the exhaust, the nuclear rocket's hydrogen has a big advantage over what's basically steam coming out the back end of an LH2-O2 chemical rocket. If you're an aero, Chuck, you should know this. Here are a few numbers from a couple of seminars I had a chance to attend several years ago as a grad student during President Bush's short-lived space exploration initiative. One was given by NASA's guru of nuclear rocket propulsion (Borowski?, guy from NASA-Lewis with a Polish last name, maybe Mary or someone else knows him). For reference, the SSME's are the highest Isp chemical rockets flown to date, with a vacuum rated Isp around 450 sec.. Back in the late 60's & early 70s, NASA was close to a flight-qualified solid core nuclear rocket engine with an Isp around 800 sec. With a current technology composite core, it's now possible to get 900. A carbide core, which would involve a relatively low-risk development effort, should get 1000 or more. According to AvWeek, Project Timberwind's engine was supposed to be able to produce an Isp of 1000. The second seminar came from a guy from United Technologies (UT) Research Center, who gave a talk on nuclear light bulbs. The nuclear light bulb is one of the leading concepts for a gas cored nuclear rocket engine. UT did a fair bit component research on this concept for NASA during the early 70's, in particular, microwave-heated tests of uranium hexaflouride plasmas in quartz tubes, and apparently solved the transmissivity problem. The plasma temperatures achieved in those tests would equate to an Isp of around 1800 sec. Temperatures equivalent to an Isp of 3600 should be achievable. Admitedly, this one is a pretty far out concept. >As for fears, this type of reactor would never explode. Plus, the >core would be zipping along at a good rate when it impacted >after a crash. It would probably get scattered so well the >chance of a "meltdown" would be nil. >I don`t know. For all my studying I nev>er saw a proposed >nuclear engine that would outrun a chemical rocket that >wasn`t based on fusion. That being far from our grasp, >I don`t see any reason to build a fission rocket. There are mission concepts floating around for placing a Galileo-class probe in orbit about Pluto in 5-7 years transit time on an Atlas-class booster using a current technology solid cored nuclear rocket engine as an upper stage. Not possible with chemicals. Having said all of this, I won't condone SDIO's apparent plans for Timberwind. From the only semi-technical stuff which was published in AvWeek a few years ago, their concepts were to use their nuclear rocket as an upper stage on existing Atlas and Titan rockets as a quick and, literally, dirty, way to get a heavy lift to LEO capability. Fortunately, it appears that this project has been canceled. All of the civil deep space exploration concepts involve launching uranium fueled reactors cold, and then not starting them up until a high, stable orbit has been achieved. This is a safer business than launching plutonium-238 fueled RTGs, such as those which power Galileo. No one, civil or military, has ever proposed launching plutonium fueled reactors into space, cold or otherwise. Joining Art's run-off-at-the-keyboard club... Paul Keller keller@eos.ncsu.edu My opinions, not my employer's. ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Sun, 3 Mar 1996 19:14:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Weekday WINGS On Thu, 29 Feb 1996, BaDge wrote: > > Friday's show, the first 'skunky' on in a while is on the evolution of > spy aircraft from Hot air baloons to Jets. As usual 1800-1900 EST, the > Discovery Channel. > Does anyone tape this episody? I believe is "Eye in the Sky" where U-2 landed on a carrier. I will pay the tape plus the ship... May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu ------------------------------ From: CULLY@svr81trw.kee.aetc.af.mil (CULLY, George Mr) Date: 04 Mar 96 13:45:10 EST Subject: Project Yehudi I've been meaning to look up an article on this, and found it this weekend. See John C. Reilly, Jr., "Project Yehudi; A Study of Camouflage by Illumination, 1935-1945" in the Journal of the American Aviation Historical Society, Vol 10, No. 4 (Winter 1970). The idea to use counter-lighting as a way to reduce visual signatures apparently started in WWI, but the US Navy seriously pursued it initially in 1936-37, and again in WWII. A Grumman Avenger fitted with Yehudi lights was able to come within 3,000 yards of a ship without being seen, but by that time (1944), sea-search radar had made the technique irrelevant. The USAAF tested a B-24 fitted with Yehudi lights at Wright Field, but came to the same conclusion. George Cully Keesler AFB ------------------------------ From: CULLY@svr81trw.kee.aetc.af.mil (CULLY, George Mr) Date: 04 Mar 96 13:11:07 EST Subject: Test Test. George Cully Keesler AFB ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Sat, 2 Mar 1996 21:07:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Weekday WINGS On Thu, 29 Feb 1996, BaDge wrote: > > Friday's show, the first 'skunky' on in a while is on the evolution of > spy aircraft from Hot air baloons to Jets. As usual 1800-1900 EST, the > Discovery Channel. > Does anyone tape this episody? I believe is "Eye in the Sky" where U-2 landed on a carrier. I will pay the tape plus the ship... May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 11:18:01 PST Subject: MoŠ better rockets Paul Keller writes: _____________________________________________________________________ One of the advantages of nuclear rocket engines is that they can use pure hydrogen as reaction mass, thus reducing the molecular weight of the exhaust. Since specific impulse (Isp) is proportional to the square root of the reciprocal of the molecular weight of the exhaust, the nuclear rocket's hydrogen has a big advantage over what's basically steam coming out the back end of an LH2-O2 chemical rocket. If you're an aero, Chuck, you should know this. ______________________________________________________________________ (end quote) True Paul, but to quote I beleive, Shakespeare, "all that glimmers is not gold.." The lower the propellant mass, the lower the density. The lower the density, the more volume it takes up. The more volume it takes up, the more drag you create getting it out to the thin air of space. Also, the more volume, the greater the mass of the containment vessel. Now you need more mass.............. How many m/sec 2 you looking to get? For a nuker I would think you wan`t a slow, steady motor. These have pretty low T/M ratios (obviously ah, duh.... sorry ) so extra tank mass would be restrictive. The Thiocol engines have aluminum added to the fuel to ADD mass to the exhaust. (Hey, maybe its just "stop leak" radiator sealer) Good clue there for budding rocket scientists. What this all means is that for any specific rocket propulsion mission there is an optimum molecular weight for the fuel(s). With a nuclear rocket this may be much more restrictive than first realized. The low density of pure hydrogen means that you will be lugging around a lot of unused tank. Remeber your "pi" ratios, they apply in space, also. You can blow off smaller tanks as they used up, but the shift in center of mass and resulting control inputs may negate the effectiveness of such a plan. (Ever notice Voyager and others carried empty tanks around!) Many feel the use of LH2 was a big mistake for the Rockwell system. It nessecitated a HUGE propellant tank. The extra drag and structural weight reduced its payload (though it ain`t bad). A lot of guys I`ve talked with think good ol` RP would have worked better, and the Arabs would have loved it, too. A think a very real problem with a nuclear rocket would be chugging. Think about it. In a chemical rocket chugging is only due to fuel flow problems. If you add the heat flow and reactor temperature transients you will have a very complicated system indeed. The characteristic is certain to have imaginary roots, so you have control problems. I`m certaintly no expert on nuclear reactors, but from what little I know I don`t think the rapid heat flow adjustments required would be feasible. Are you guys aware of any study along these lines? Chuck ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 16:43:52 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: ER-2 wings On Mon, 4 Mar 1996, Kerry Ferrand wrote: > the C-5, C-141 & C-130s also parked there . I later learnt that when the > Concorde left Christchurch a few days later, the ER-2 followed it taking > samples in its 'wake'. > Uhhh... Legally or unlegally? May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 10:58:23 +1300 (NZDT) Subject: Re: News On Mon, 4 Mar 1996, David Lednicer wrote: > > plane, the Bucaneer (sp?). Exhaust was bled thru' ducts over the flaps, > I don't think so - Boundary Layer Control using blowing is as old > as the hills - it was used on the Buccaneer, F-4 Phantom II, MiG-21, etc. Ah, thank you. I was getting into my "good idea that had the misfortune to be British" mode... ie: that that there was this fantastic idea that could revolutionise aviation, but everyone ignored it. - --Brett ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 03:02:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: Senior Citizen finally uncovered! Satire Alert... :) This is a quote from an official Reuter news report from 03/04/1996, about French procurement plans regarding the FLA (Future Large Aircraft), a replacement for European military transports, like the Transall C.160 and C-130 Hercules transporters. French Defense Minister Charles Millon was interviewed: Asked whether he ruled out buying the McDonnell Douglas C131 Hercules transport plane, Millon said: "Buying an American plane off the shelf would not be a success. That's putting it mildly." This innocent sounding question of the reporter -- probably an agent of the FSB (Russia's Federal Security Service, a follow-on to the KGB) -- uncovers one of the biggest, most secret aircraft development programs in the history of the USA -- the "Senior Citizen". McDonnell Douglas apparently bought the production rights for Convair's Models 240/340/440/580/600/640, the C-131 Samaritan, from General Dynamics, when they sold the Fort Worth Division to Lockheed, and closed down the San Diego Division. McDonnell Douglas' Phantom Works must have secretly updated the design with C-17 Globemaster III technology and other things like stealth and V/STOL characteristics, possibly utilizing some of the recently retired CAF (Canadian Armed Forces) CC-109 Cosmopolitans, and in a blow to its biggest competitor in military transport development, named the aircraft Hercules, after Lockheed Martin's famous C-130 Hercules. The code name "Senior Citizen" probably relays to the age of the original design of the Convair Model 240 Convair-Liner, dating back to 1945. They also directly compete with Lockheed Martin's newest designs, the C-130J Hercules II and its little brother the C-27J Spartan II, which is based on the Chrysler C-27A Spartan, a modified Alenia (ex Aeritalia, ex Fiat) G222 transport. A truly global conspiracy of the Industrial-Military-Complex! - -- 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: "J. Pharabod" Date: Tue, 05 Mar 96 14:59:27 MET Subject: Skyquakes Probably many of you remember... There was great excitement in 1992 about "skyquakes" in the Los Angeles area, occurring generally on Thursday mornings, and sometimes followed at Mach 3+ on the sensors of the USGS, apparently moving towards Groom Lake. Here are a few references: [1] Los Angeles Times, April 17, 1992, "Secret Out On 'Quakes': It's Only a Spy Plane", by Edmund Newton. [2] Los Angeles Daily News, May 17, 1992, "New Dawn For Aurora? Series Of Sonic Rumblings May Herald Confirmation Of Secret Lockheed Spy Plane", by Russ Britt. [3] Wall Street Journal, ? November or December 1992, "Magazine Suggests Aircraft Has Flown Mach 8 for Years". Here is an excerpt from this last article: [...] . The Jane's report suggests: The planes cost about $1 billion each; they first flew in about 1985; and they have been the source of a series of strange earth-quake-like rumbles still occurring in Southern California and other areas of the world. [end of excerpt] What is the status of these "skyquakes" ? Are they still heard / felt ? What is the present explanation (if there is one) ? J. Pharabod ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Tue, 5 Mar 96 8:16:17  Subject: Re: Weekday WINGS Next Monday night the Discovery Channel will be doing a special on "Spies in the Sky". It is focusing on recon. sattelites. Part of the advance advertising pitches the "ominous" observation going on by the CIA Right! Now! while we Least! Expect! It! This may be like a some of the WINGS shows. "Where we're good, we're really good; But where we're wrong, we're really, really wrong". Art Hanley Don't even think, not for a second, That what I said above has anything To do with my employer's position. ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 09:23:00 PST Subject: Re: Weekday WINGS Art, be carefull, they can tell who is typing what! These are part of an alien conspiracy to dominate the humans. And remember....... Look to the Skies! Chuck These opinions are mine, and sometimes they are nearly as bizzare as some of my employer`s! ------------------------------ From: Dave Pierson: I am the NRA Date: Tue, 5 Mar 96 12:05:36 EST Subject: Video/Archaeology/nukie rockets By an ODD coincidence... TLC (cable, US) Archaeology show (mondays, 8pm EST, reruns Sat or Sunday, evenings, (so still time to catch...) Last nite they had an episode of 'recent term' archaeology, which is being done at the artifacts/sites of the nuclear age, including the nukie rocket program. The rocket piece was brief, well into the ep. There is a secondary relavance to discussions here. Paraphrasing, it was asserted: '.... all those barracks and such were built and obviously not abandoned....' Well. In this case, they WERE abandoned. A few bits were rad-hot, but much other stuff, labs, video monitors, whole buildings were not. And were just walked away from. regards dwp ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #630 ********************************* 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).