From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #650 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Monday, 22 April 1996 Volume 05 : Number 650 In this issue: Re: Why? Re:Classified Programs and Product Development Time Re: Why? Re: Why? Interesting commercial CNN news segment about the Blackbird Re:Classified Programs and Product Development Time Re: CNN news segment about the Blackbird Re: Spy Satelite Images + Al Franken Re: CNN news segment abou Please take me off the list! Intelligence Community Budget Lockheed Aircraft Since 1913 CNN news segment about the Blackbird (re) 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: quellish@shore.intercom.net (Dan Zinngrabe) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 15:28:31 -0500 Subject: Re: Why? >On Apr 16, 1995 02:20:10, 'quellish@shore.intercom.net (Dan Zinngrabe)' >wrote: > > >>> >From: David Lednicer >>> >Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 15:00:02 -0700 (PDT) >>> >Subject: Why? >>> ...... >>> >example - the X-36 was a deep dark secret until the day they rolled it >out. >>> >What was gained by keeping it secret during the time they were building >it? >>> ...... >>> >>> Yes. Would anyone care to offer an explanation of what was conceivably >>> gained by keeping this thing under wraps?? >>> >>> ____________________________ >>> >>> John Pike >>> Director, Space Policy & CyberStrategy Projects >>> Federation of American Scientists >>> 307 Massachusetts Ave. NE >>> Washington, DC 20002 >>> V 202-675-1023, F 202-675-1024, http://www.fas.org/ >>> >> >>One of the "UCAV" demonstrator aircraft flying out at Groom may very well >>be the "flip side" of the X-36 project. The X-36 is to examine the >>manueverablity of a stealthy, no vertical tail aircraft. The wing that >McDD >>is *probably* flying out at Groom might be to see how stealthy a tailless >>unmanned aircraft could be. I've got a database of 14 sightings of what I >>think is the McDD UCAV a/c.... something like the pre-83 B-2 design and >>with the X-36 platypus nozzle. There is a lump where a cockpit should be, >>and there are conflicting reports as to wether it is clear or opaque. >>Datalink blist maybe, ala Predator and GlobalHawk? >> >> >> >I still don't get it. If the X-36 is the cover for a black program, what >purpose is served for keeping it secret? X-36 is not a cover for a black aircraft, per se, it is more like a parallel program, mauch like the X-wing in the late '80s. On the X-wing, NASA investigated the broader aerodynamic qualities of the concept, while DARPA was much more interested in RCS. Sikorsky built the NASA X-wing, while supposedly McDD built it's black brother. They were both very different aircraft, as one was optimized for aerodynamics research, the other for RCS work. The X-36 is designed around investigating the aerodynamic whatnots of a stealthy, tailless design. The black aircraft was optimized for LO. It demonstrated a LO version of the platypus "vectoring" nozzle that is on the X-36. Whatever else it did is uncertain, though it certainly was constructed with advanced RCS reduction technologies in mind. It is possible that Aurora was a similar parallel program to the X-30. NOT a cover. It's interesting that very little had been released on how the X-30 was supposed to go from takeoff to scramjet operating speeds. This would "coincidentally" be an Aurora-type aircraft's operating range, from Mach 0-8 or so. And of course, don't get me started on pulse detonation engines.... ------------------------------ From: mcnuttrt@MIT.EDU (Ross T. McNutt) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 96 15:57:50 EDT Subject: Re:Classified Programs and Product Development Time Caution verbose: Secrecy and Military Systems One reason that we have classified programs is that if a program is understood by an enemy they can develop counter measures or change their policies to mitigate the effectiveness of our new and expensive systems. Take for example the KH-11 Keyhole Spy Satellite. The Soviets thought that the satellite that we launched was a failure becasue it did not radiate anything back to Earth. It wasn't until the a US spy sold the KH-11 Operations manual to the Soviets that they figured out that it was transfering its information up to another satellite that they figure it out. From that point on everytime the satellite flew overhead the Soviets would simply push what ever they wanted to keep secret inside and out of view of our satellite. The simple understanding of the system allowed the Soviets to change their practices and significantly reduced the effectiveness of our multibillion dollar program. People such as yourselves are smart and so are other people and they can put the peices together and figure out how things work from only a little informantion and a little imagination. By denying then as much information as possible we may be able to increase the time before they either figure out our systems capabilities or to develop a counter measure that reduces the advantange of our systems. This problem is compounded by our extremely long DoD product development cycles. If we announce a new system 20 years before it is operational, that give any potential adversary 20 years to develop a countermeasure to our planned system. For exampole the opoerational requirements document for the F-22 was signed in 1981 and the B-2 before that. The objectives of the Aircraft were known at that point to most people who cared. If I were a potenial enemy, I would develop a system designed to oppose our F-22 and B-2 and I would have 20 years to produce and field the system as that could reduce any advantage. The time until enemy fielding of a system could be increased by keeping the capabilities secret but this has proven very hard, if not impossible in a democracy for programs lasting 20 years or more and costing tens or hundreds of billions of dollars. While I am not a fan of black programs and secrecy in Government I do see its necessity. But There is an alternative method to mainitianing superiority and lessening the requirement for secrecy and that is to reduce the DoD product development time significantly through commercial product development practices. If you could build systems quickly, you could field systems before any enemy could field a response. In the Commerical market this buys both market share and higher profits. In the military field this buys competitive advantage on the battle field. It allows you to field more up to date technologies, faster, cheaper and in a wider array of products. The commercial world has found that by reducing product development time through lean product development practices, you can increase your technology level faster, you can develop higher quality products, you can develop a wider array of systems that meet different needs, and you can develop them for significantly less money. (Refences: _The Machine that Changed the World_ or Clark and Wheelwright _Managing New Product and Process Development_ or a host of other commerical product development books) Also by having a fast product development cycle time you reduce your exposure to opponents newly developed systems. Take the AA-11 Archer and the AIM-9X for example. We identified the AA-11 in 1985 and our counter to that systems will be operatiuonal in 2002. Eight years from now and 17 years of vulnerability that eleminates the advantage or places at a significnat disadvantage our F-15 and F-16 in a close in fight. Beyound Visual range arguement is not credible based on the history and the Russians have high quality longer range missiels also. The Isrealis fielded a response system the Python system in 5 years after identifying the real threat. They thus had only a 5 year window of vunerability. There are many other reasons to reduce product development time such as dealing with changing world situation, fast changing technologies, and uncertain threats and requirements. If you do not think these are improtant considerations just look at the three main DoD systems Milstar, the B-2 and the F-22. All were being designed for the cold war mission based on a Soviet Style threat. Milstar was designed with the stategic misison in mind and now is sold a sa tactical system. The B-2 changed from a nuclerar penatration bomber to a conventional, and the F-22 being pushed into an air to ground role. None of these systems were designed for the new missions and all are not the optimal systems to meet these new missions. Are their successful examples of this type of reduced product development times in DoD - Yes. The Shunkworks is famous for developing high quality systems quickly and cheaply. Many would argue that it was not because of the viel of secrecy that they succeded but because they set out to accomplish things quickly and with a firm focus of what they wanted to build. Would it be better to have this kind of attitude in all our DoD developments? Ross McNutt ------------------------------ From: fmarkus@pipeline.com (Frank Markus) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 21:01:05 -0400 Subject: Re: Why? On Apr 19, 1996 15:28:31, 'quellish@shore.intercom.net (Dan Zinngrabe)' wrote: >>On Apr 16, 1995 02:20:10, 'quellish@shore.intercom.net (Dan Zinngrabe)' >>wrote: >> >> >>>> >From: David Lednicer >>>> >Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 15:00:02 -0700 (PDT) >>>> >Subject: Why? >>>> ...... >>>> >example - the X-36 was a deep dark secret until the day they rolled it >>out. >>>> >What was gained by keeping it secret during the time they were building >>it? >>>> ...... >>>> >>>> Yes. Would anyone care to offer an explanation of what was conceivably >>>> gained by keeping this thing under wraps?? >>>> >>>> ____________________________ >>>> >>>> John Pike >>>> Director, Space Policy & CyberStrategy Projects >>>> Federation of American Scientists >>>> 307 Massachusetts Ave. NE >>>> Washington, DC 20002 >>>> V 202-675-1023, F 202-675-1024, http://www.fas.org/ >>>> >>> >>>One of the "UCAV" demonstrator aircraft flying out at Groom may very well >>>be the "flip side" of the X-36 project. The X-36 is to examine the >>>manueverablity of a stealthy, no vertical tail aircraft. The wing that >>McDD >>>is *probably* flying out at Groom might be to see how stealthy a tailless >>>unmanned aircraft could be. I've got a database of 14 sightings of what I >>>think is the McDD UCAV a/c.... something like the pre-83 B-2 design and >>>with the X-36 platypus nozzle. There is a lump where a cockpit should be, >>>and there are conflicting reports as to wether it is clear or opaque. >>>Datalink blist maybe, ala Predator and GlobalHawk? >>> >>> >>> >>I still don't get it. If the X-36 is the cover for a black program, what >>purpose is served for keeping it secret? > > >X-36 is not a cover for a black aircraft, per se, it is more like a >parallel program, mauch like the X-wing in the late '80s. On the X-wing, >NASA investigated the broader aerodynamic qualities of the concept, while >DARPA was much more interested in RCS. Sikorsky built the NASA X-wing, >while supposedly McDD built it's black brother. They were both very >different aircraft, as one was optimized for aerodynamics research, the >other for RCS work. The X-36 is designed around investigating the >aerodynamic whatnots of a stealthy, tailless design. The black aircraft was >optimized for LO. It demonstrated a LO version of the platypus "vectoring" >nozzle that is on the X-36. Whatever else it did is uncertain, though it >certainly was constructed with advanced RCS reduction technologies in mind. >It is possible that Aurora was a similar parallel program to the X-30. NOT >a cover. It's interesting that very little had been released on how the >X-30 was supposed to go from takeoff to scramjet operating speeds. This >would "coincidentally" be an Aurora-type aircraft's operating range, from >Mach 0-8 or so. And of course, don't get me started on pulse detonation >engines.... > Alas, I STILL don't get it. Assuming that there are parallel 'visible' and black programs, wouldn't it make sense that maximum attention be drawn to the 'visible' program in order to distract from the black program? Your examples of parallel black and visible program are pursuasive (and I can add more) but they do not explain the secrecy that has been accorded to the X-36 if it is meant to run interference for a stealthy aircraft testing the LO properties of the platypus exhuast nozzles. ------------------------------ From: quellish@shore.intercom.net (Dan Zinngrabe) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 22:28:44 -0500 Subject: Re: Why? >>X-36 is not a cover for a black aircraft, per se, it is more like a >>parallel program, mauch like the X-wing in the late '80s. On the X-wing, >>NASA investigated the broader aerodynamic qualities of the concept, while >>DARPA was much more interested in RCS. Sikorsky built the NASA X-wing, >>while supposedly McDD built it's black brother. They were both very >>different aircraft, as one was optimized for aerodynamics research, the >>other for RCS work. The X-36 is designed around investigating the >>aerodynamic whatnots of a stealthy, tailless design. The black aircraft >was >>optimized for LO. It demonstrated a LO version of the platypus "vectoring" > >>nozzle that is on the X-36. Whatever else it did is uncertain, though it >>certainly was constructed with advanced RCS reduction technologies in >mind. >>It is possible that Aurora was a similar parallel program to the X-30. NOT > >>a cover. It's interesting that very little had been released on how the >>X-30 was supposed to go from takeoff to scramjet operating speeds. This >>would "coincidentally" be an Aurora-type aircraft's operating range, from >>Mach 0-8 or so. And of course, don't get me started on pulse detonation >>engines.... >> >Alas, I STILL don't get it. Assuming that there are parallel 'visible' and >black programs, wouldn't it make sense that maximum attention be drawn to >the 'visible' program in order to distract from the black program? Your >examples of parallel black and visible program are pursuasive (and I can >add more) but they do not explain the secrecy that has been accorded to the >X-36 if it is meant to run interference for a stealthy aircraft testing the >LO properties of the platypus exhuast nozzles. I too am not sure of the reasoning behind running black and white parallel programs either. Perhaps it allows DARPA to use NASA facilities and personnel with raising too much security concerns and thus cost (the NASA people would have no knowledge of the black efforts, except as rumors or information distributed at a high level within the white effort). It is very obviously not for reasons of drawing attention from the black programs. Those who were interested in learning details of black aircraft would have their own sources and methods. It is possible that the X-36 was orginally a black program but it was deemed beneficial to make it a white project. Again, maybe because of the costs of secrecy, or to make further use of NASA facilities or personnel. The X-36 spent an unusally long period in the design and development phase, which may be due to the "whitening" of the project, or a decision to change the mission requirements. For example, if it was originally designed to be a stealthy, agile dogfighting demonstrator (manned or unmanned), whoever originally funded the program may have cut it back to cut costs. Off comes the stealth materials and coatings, etc. The UAV/UCAV tailless aircraft flying at Groom was very obviously not designed with agility (low aspect ratio flying wing, root mounted inlets). ------------------------------ From: Mike Smith Date: Fri, 19 Apr 96 23:51:00 CDT Subject: Interesting commercial Just saw an interesting commercial for the Oldsmobile Aurora. The voice over said, "Top Speed: 3500 MPH, oh, that's the Air Force's Aurora. Ours has never been clocked over Mach 3." I got a kick out of it. Mike Mike Smith msmith2@tandy.com Ft. Worth, TX ------------------------------ From: albert.dobyns@mwbbs.com (ALBERT DOBYNS) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 96 11:56:00 -0500 Subject: CNN news segment about the Blackbird I just saw a news report on CNN Headline News about the status of the SR-71's missions. One person made a claim that I find hard to believe. He said that the plane was so expensive to operate that the cost of each picture taken was a million dollars!!! But another person said that the cost to fly the SR is about $40,000 per hour. These two points seem to contradict each other to the extreme, in my opinion. I find it easier to accept the cost per flying hour than I do for the cost of each photo! I guess there is still quite a bit of resistance in the Air Force to have to continue the SR-71 program. People are still saying the spy satellites do the job better than the SR, and that with the new UAVs being tested, we are wasting money by trying to keep the SR's mission ready. I continue to feel like there are other things of unknown characteristics that are behind the termoil but the general public isn't allowed to know all the details. Am I just being paranoid? Is there a conspiracy behind all this? (sarcasm mode in effect for the previous sentence!) I welcome anyone's opinions on the news report and my comments. ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 20:37:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re:Classified Programs and Product Development Time On Fri, 19 Apr 1996, Ross T. McNutt wrote: > Caution verbose: > > Secrecy and Military Systems > One reason that we have classified programs is that if a program > is understood by an enemy they can develop counter measures or change > their policies to mitigate the effectiveness of our new and expensive > systems. Take for example the KH-11 Keyhole Spy Satellite. The Soviets > People such as yourselves are smart and so are other people and > they can put the peices together and figure out how things work from > only a little informantion and a little imagination. By denying then as > much information as possible we may be able to increase the time before > they either figure out our systems capabilities or to develop a counter > measure that reduces the advantange of our systems. > This problem is compounded by our extremely long DoD product > development cycles. If we announce a new system 20 years before it is > operational, that give any potential adversary 20 years to develop a well... How about the story of the bomber that born dead... I have two version about it... I don't know which one is correct, or both are correct or both are incorrect stories... I someone "out there know the true" please correct me. Version 1: When the XB-70 Valkyrie (by the way, one of my favorite aircraft), was "born", it already have a enemy to counter that aircraft... which is the Mig-25. That's why after the building of two prototipe they cancelled the project. People said because it is economical reason (plus the crash of one of them). Chuck Yeager claims: "It (XB-70) was a shame to see a good program and godd equipment ruined by bad piloting." Version 2: The B-1A born with a mission of supersonic high altitud bomber. But with the mission of Mig-25 which is to intercept high alititud supersonic aircraft, they redesign it to a B-1B version which its mission is a low flying subsonic bomber with stealth characteristics. May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein ------------------------------ From: BaDKaRmA Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 14:16:18 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: CNN news segment about the Blackbird It seems expensive at $1mil per photo but is that the cost based of the entire spending during design and development? Does anyone have a figure for this amount? ______________________________________________________________________________ "Did ya, did ya really?" "He said.........maybe" "Damm fine walls" "Look, I'm really not sure about this" "WHERE did you leave it!" "Dai Taoloth" "I can't, I mustn't, please dont make me" "I can hear you staring at me!" "Once you die, you're dead, and thats all there is!" ______________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ From: ConsLaw@aol.com Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 12:48:53 -0400 Subject: Re: Spy Satelite Images + Al Franken Tomas Stephanson wrote: I think you are referring to the pictures which a naval analyst named Morrison (I can't remember his first name, but I think he was either the son or grandson of Samuel Elliott Morrison, the Navy's chief historian in World War II). Morrison leaked the pictures to British Publisher Jane's because he believed the U.S. was underestimating the Soviet blue ocean naval threat. He was prosecuted under the Espionage Act and convicted. Partially because of his arrest and the associated publicity, the pictures were reprinted in a variety of publications including the major national newsmagazines. (I think you can find at least one of the pictures reprinted in the book "Deep Black" which should be available at your local library.) Morrison's conviction was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Morrison. Does anyone know Morrison's current whereabouts? The pictures did shed light on the capabilities of U.S. spy satelites, and to my knowledge, no new comparable images have been released since. Pictures with similar resotion should become commonplace in the next year or two (from 7m to <1m resolution) as commercial satelites with similar capabilities will be selling their output on the open market. OFF THE SUBJECT. I've been reading "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot" by SNL writer Al Franken. Al Franken mentions in an off-hand way Groom Lake and its function in the black helicopter/new world order conspiracy theory. (In case I didn't make myself clear, he mocks the conspiracy theory.) I was impressed that Groom has made its way into the general cultural literacy that other than its name, no other identification of the base was necessary. Al is cool. - -Steve Hofer aka conslaw@aol.com ------------------------------ From: albert.dobyns@mwbbs.com (ALBERT DOBYNS) Date: Sun, 21 Apr 96 14:50:00 -0500 Subject: Re: CNN news segment abou BA> Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 14:16:18 +0100 (BST) > From: BaDKaRmA > Subject: Re: CNN news segment about the Blackbird BA> It seems expensive at $1mil per photo but is that the cost based > of the entire spending during design and development? Does anyone have a > figure for this amount? I thought it might be worth "re-cycling" a message I sent to another skunkworks fan. ba> Hi Al, ba> I wonder about that exhorbitant cost figure too. I bet they mean each > -mission- in toto costs 1M, and not just one photo. You know they put up > two tankers each refueling, in case there's a glitch, and then they > probably are figuring in the support crew, and all their fuel and > personnel costs too. Since the retired General (I think) didn't go into the details on what he is basing his ridiculous figure on, it's hard to take him seriously. My theory/guess is that some of them seem to want to include every dollar spent on the entire Blackbird program from the very first day of designing it. Naturally if you add up all the money spent over 30+ years, it will come to a large sum. But money that has already been spent should not be included in figuring out what it costs to operate the current flyable ones! Even if all that money was added up and if the total number of phots taken was known, I seriously doubt if it would come anywhere near $1mil per photo! As far as the $40,000 per hour of flight cost, I don't know if they are including the costs of the tankers. I can believe the SR-71 can burn up that much fuel/money per hour. I think Mary Shafer has quoted a figure that is close to that. In my far from humble opinion, the outrageous cost numbers some military people quote is nothing more than an attempt to convince the general public (who knows nothing about the real costs) to urge their Senators and Congressmen to push the Blackbird back into retirement again. My gut tells me that we will have to use the SR-71 over North Korea again. Things keep becomming more and more unstable every day, and we need a way to gather info quickly. I guess it's obvious I'm very biased about the value of the Blackbirds to our country. Maybe I'm just having a hard time accepting the fact that eventually we will have something to replace it (not neccessarily the "Aurora"). ba> If they're gonna make a sweeping statement, you'd think they'd quantize > it a little better. They sure as hell should be required to do that. I think the guy should receive a reprimand from his bosses, but since he is retired I guess it's too late to do anything about it. Now if he was being grilled by some Congressional committee, then I think he should have to provide all the details that went into making such a statement. I'd like to see 60 minutes do an investigation into these arguments that the Blackbird is too expensive and too old and not able to do the job it was designed for. I doubt if they could get verifiable cost figures but it still could turn out to be educational. ba> regards, > ________ > BaDge > end of included note............ Does anyone want to speculate on how long the restored SR's will continue to fly? Once again I think it's going to be only a few years before they are retired again. So why doesn't the NRO and NSA use some of their funds to keep the SR's mission ready? They probably get to see most of the info gathered, and if that's true then I think they have responsibility to pay for what they get. I think I better stop before I start to sound like a nut of some kind. - -Al- For those who keep track of where the remaining Blackbirds are, 17961 is inside a portion of the Cosmosphere and Space Museum in Hutchinson Kansas. A wooden box-like structure has been built around it so the restorers can work on it without spreading dust, old paint flakes, titanium chips(?) into the rest of the museum. It may be ready for display before the end of this year. I will keep everyone posted as I get new news (from a BBS in Hutchinson that I call now and then). * SLMR 2.1a * SR-71: Your tax dollars at work...............at Mach 3! ------------------------------ From: Steve Birmingham Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 15:53:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Please take me off the list! I unsubscribed and sent mail to all the known "-request" addresses that may apply to this list, but can't seem to get off. I've been trying to get off for the last couple of months to no avail. Please help!! Regards, Steve Birmingham E-mail: smb@odo.cypress.ca.us Phone: (714) 779-6640 "The way to make a small fortune in the commodities market is to start with a large fortune." -- Anonymous ------------------------------ From: "Mark E. Schmidt" Date: Sun, 21 Apr 96 21:25:24 UT Subject: Intelligence Community Budget REQUEST: 5555 REPORT ON INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY BUDGET--April 9, 1996--The President today forwarded to the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence the Report on Executive Branch Oversight of the Intelligence Community Budget. This report describes actions taken: to improve budget formulation and execution for national intelligence agencies; to establish more effective financial management throughout the intelligence community, with particular emphasis on the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO); and to reduce the forward funding balances of the NRO. ------------------------------ From: quellish@shore.intercom.net (Dan Zinngrabe) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 00:34:45 -0500 Subject: Lockheed Aircraft Since 1913 The other day I finally managed to get Rene Francillon's book Lockheed Aircraft Since 1913. Of course, only after reading it did I discover that it was a revised 1987 edition, not the 1982 edition I was searching for! So, if anyone wants a brand new book (the definitive text on Lockheed), I'd really like to trade it for a 1982 edition, but I'll also sell it if nobody on the list can trade. E-mail me if you're interested (no need too fill up the listserver with this stuff) ------------------------------ From: dougt@u011.oh.vp.com (Doug Tiffany) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 96 6:58:14 EDT Subject: CNN news segment about the Blackbird (re) ALBERT DOBYNS writes: > I just saw a news report on CNN Headline News about the status of the > SR-71's missions. One person made a claim that I find hard to believe. > He said that the plane was so expensive to operate that the cost of each > picture taken was a million dollars!!! But another person said that the > cost to fly the SR is about $40,000 per hour. These two points seem to > contradict each other to the extreme, in my opinion. I find it easier > to accept the cost per flying hour than I do for the cost of each photo! > I guess there is still quite a bit of resistance in the Air Force to > have to continue the SR-71 program. People are still saying the spy > satellites do the job better than the SR, and that with the new UAVs > being tested, we are wasting money by trying to keep the SR's mission > ready. I continue to feel like there are other things of unknown > characteristics that are behind the termoil but the general public isn't > allowed to know all the details. Am I just being paranoid? Is there a > conspiracy behind all this? (sarcasm mode in effect for the previous > sentence!) I welcome anyone's opinions on the news report and my > comments. > You're not alone, I saw that same broadcast Sunday morning and I got the feeling that there was more to it than what they were telling us. They also made the comment that the Blackbird was the fastest plane in the world that the Pentagon was willing to tell us about. That comment made me go...hmmm. - -- 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 ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #650 ********************************* 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).