From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #659 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Wednesday, 22 May 1996 Volume 05 : Number 659 In this issue: Radar absorbant pait Re- Time Travel (off-charte When is Enough Enough? Re: When is Enough Enough? Re: When is Enough Enough? How fast can we go? What's at Tonopah today? What's at Tonopah today? stealthy satellites (was Re: When is Enough Enough?) Re: When is Enough Enough? Re: What's at Tonopah today? Re: How fast can we go? Re: How fast can we go? Re: How fast can we go? Looking for an answer I should know, but don't RE: How fast can we go? Re: How fast can we go? Have Blue color scheme Re: What's at Tonopah today? Re: stealthy satellites (was Re: When is Enough Enough?) Declassification of Area-51? 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: SBinkley@atitech.ca (Scott Binkley) Date: 21 May 96 11:00:36 EDT Subject: Radar absorbant pait I was just reading a catalog of strange stuff you can buy through mail-order, and I came across an add for a gallon of radar absorbant paint. It supposedly has millions of microscopic iron balls in it, to help reduce any return to a radar gun. They also claim that this is the same stuff used on the SR-71. Does anyone out there think it would work (not counting ultrasonic, or laser)?? /sb (time to get back to stealthspeak) ------------------------------ From: "Alun Whittaker" Date: 21 May 1996 08:49:56 -0800 Subject: Re- Time Travel (off-charte Art Hanley (ahanley@usace.mil) submitted for our approval: >> That changing history paradox is the basis for about a zillion >> SF speculations ... >> Probably the ultimate book on these paradoxes was "The Man Who >> Folded Himself", by David Gerrold. ... Like almost everything else in SF, Robert Heinlein did it first and most (if not always best) back in the golden age. His "All You Zombies" has a protagonist (can't really call him the "hero") who used time travel (and a little botched gynecology) to become both his own father and his own mother! ALUN WHITTAKER ------------------------------ From: kelleher@consilium.com (John Kelleher) Date: Tue, 21 May 96 11:04:40 -0700 Subject: When is Enough Enough? To Whom It May Concern: I cannot begin to count the number of messages I've received in the last few weeks that do not even approach the charter of this mailing list. If I want to discuss time travel I'll join a Dr. Who list, or look into the rec.sf discussion groups. When people here go so far as to send, resend, and reply with a subject line that broadcasts "Off Charter" I consider it an insult. There was a time the skunk-works list was the place to discuss legitimate advances in aviation (past and present), research projects just peeking out from under their black cloak of secrecy, exciting new reconnaissance platforms, etc. If that day has passed, let me know so that I might unsubscribe. Thank you. John Kelleher Ex-USAF Imagery Interpreter (20650 & T8045) Ex-USAF Chief of Intel Curriculum Development Non-Ex-Civilian ------------------------------ From: Allan West Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 17:46:54 -0400 Subject: Re: When is Enough Enough? > There was a time the skunk-works list was the place to discuss legitimate > advances in aviation (past and present), research projects just peeking out > from under their black cloak of secrecy, exciting new reconnaissance > platforms, etc. > > If that day has passed, let me know so that I might unsubscribe. Lurk-off It seems, IMHO, that the content of the list has degraded a bit over the last few years. I think the primary reason for this is that many(?) of us have come to the conclusion that Aurora isn't as real as the SR-71, and we're at a loss for an active plane to discuss. I've been lurking for about six years now, since I got my first internet account as a college freshman. When I started lurking, the SR-71 was recently retired, and we all assumed that there must be a follow-on manned recon platform. There may still be such a beast, but my economics background and the fall of most of Europe's communist governments leads me to believe otherwise. These days I lurk in hopes of learning more about the history of black and other exotic aviation. I'll be the first to agree that the posts aren't exactly on-topic all the time, but I still find it worth-while enough keep this list along with my 1-200 other messages a day. If some people are still hoping to hear about the Aurora every other post, maybe it is time they unsubscribe. Lurk-on - -- Allan West allan@ucet.ufl.edu http://www.ucet.ufl.edu/~allan the "Good Times virus" is a hoax. Please do not report it. ------------------------------ From: Greg Weigold Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 18:06:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: When is Enough Enough? <<< leaving lurk mode >>> I totally concur, the whole reason I subscribed to this list for the "skunkie stuff", not this other stuff. >>> back into lurk mode <<< ===== Greg Weigold, Prog/Analyst Supr. ====== Policy Mgmt. Systems Corp. Columbia, SC 29202 voice:(803)-735-6952 fax:(803)-735-5788 or 4131 e-mail:aa103371@dasher.csd.sc.edu ------------------------------ From: ConsLaw@aol.com Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 23:06:42 -0400 Subject: How fast can we go? In an attempt to divert the topic away from turning time 180 degrees, I'd like to ask a more down to earth topic which MIGHT someday have Skunkworks application. If one (or more) of our top aerospace companies were given the green light and an almost blank check to develop a space vehicle designed to go as far and as fast as we can, given the restraints of current and reasonably forseeable (say 20 years) technology, how fast (expressed as a percentage of the speed of light) could we go? Could we make it to 10%? Do we know of ways to go faster than the various planetary probes that we've sent out? If so, could we make it to the nearest star (other than the sun) in one lifetime? Assume the craft would be unmanned, so the overhead of lifesupport systems would not be an issue and that there is no need to land on any surface. What technologies show the most promise? - ------ Steve Hofer Conslaw@aol.com ------------------------------ From: Earl Needham Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 21:54:17 -0600 Subject: What's at Tonopah today? Since the F-117's left Tonopah, I've wondered just what's flying out = there now. After all, it doesn't make much sense that a base would be = built up as much as Tonapah Test Range and then just abandoned like = that. Any ideas? Earl ------------------------------ From: Earl Needham Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 21:46:16 -0600 Subject: What's at Tonopah today? Since the F-117's left Tonopah, I've wondered just what's flying out = there now. After all, it doesn't make much sense that a base would be = built up as much as Tonapah Test Range and then just abandoned like = that. Any ideas? Earl ------------------------------ From: Neil Galarneau Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 22:57:57 -0400 Subject: stealthy satellites (was Re: When is Enough Enough?) John Kelleher wrote: > There was a time the skunk-works list was the place to discuss legitimate > advances in aviation (past and present), research projects just peeking out > from under their black cloak of secrecy, exciting new reconnaissance > platforms, etc. A while back I asked about stealthy (low observable) satellites. To naive uninformed me, they seem both worth-while (recon satellites would like to be invisible) and doable (with work of course), yet I haven't heard anything about them. What do people think? Neil ------------------------------ From: OnLine Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 09:11:17 Subject: Re: When is Enough Enough? >To Whom It May Concern: > >I cannot begin to count the number of messages I've received in the last >few weeks that do not even approach the charter of this mailing list. If I >want to discuss time travel I'll join a Dr. Who list, or look into the >rec.sf discussion groups. When people here go so far as to send, resend, >and reply with a subject line that broadcasts "Off Charter" I consider it >an insult. > >There was a time the skunk-works list was the place to discuss legitimate >advances in aviation (past and present), research projects just peeking out >from under their black cloak of secrecy, exciting new reconnaissance >platforms, etc. > >If that day has passed, let me know so that I might unsubscribe. And where would you go ? I regard this list as a place where discussions along the lines you describe happen regularly. The time travel thread was/is an interesting bit of fun...diversion in the same way that people with a shared interest often cover a variety of subjects which have varying degrees of relevance to each other. Don't be offended that the posts carried that was intended as a light hearted warning not an insult. This discussion group is meant to be enjoyable...lighten up ;) Best David ------------------------------ From: BaDge Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 08:05:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: What's at Tonopah today? On Tue, 21 May 1996, Earl Needham wrote: > Since the F-117's left Tonopah, I've wondered just what's flying out there >now. After all, it doesn't make much sense that a base would be built up >as much as Tonapah Test Range and then just abandoned like that. Any >ideas? > >Earl Well, I just finished visiting Trader's home page, and from there Paul McGinnis had some excellent links to satellite imagery as well as some commentary and mapage of the Tonopah and associated areas. The Desert Rat page has a new link to some pages with other photos of the new vantage spotting site at Groom. regards, ________ BaDge ------------------------------ From: keller@eos.ncsu.edu Date: Wed, 22 May 96 07:55:24 EDT Subject: Re: How fast can we go? Steve Hofer shaped the electrons to say: >In an attempt to divert the topic away from turning time 180 degrees, I'd >like to ask a more down to earth topic which MIGHT someday have Skunkworks >application. >If one (or more) of our top aerospace companies were given the green light >and an almost blank check to develop a space vehicle designed to go as far >and as fast as we can, given the restraints of current and reasonably >forseeable (say 20 years) technology, how fast (expressed as a percentage of >the speed of light) could we go? Could we make it to 10%? Do we know of >ways to go faster than the various planetary probes that we've sent out? If >so, could we make it to the nearest star (other than the sun) in one >lifetime? Assume the craft would be unmanned, so the overhead of lifesupport >systems would not be an issue and that there is no need to land on any >surface. >What technologies show the most promise? I would presume that a nuclear ion rocket would be way to go with this. I don't see having nuclear fusion within 20 years for this, at least not in a form which would beat a nuclear fission powered ion rocket. Does anyone on the list know what sort of specific impulse (Isp) could be foreseably obtained from an ion rocket? If so, then I would be interested in fishing out my old classical mechanics stuff and figuring out what sort of velocities you could get from it, given a reasonable launch reaction mass fraction. I'm inclined to assume 90% reaction mass fraction at launch to all-out. Corrections/suggestions welcome. Offhand, I would say that 10% of c (the speed of light) is not achievable, and that the nearest start is not attainable in one lifetime. As Chuck S. noted, the distances between stars are incredible. By way of comparison, the two Voyager spacecraft are what, 50 astronomical units (AUs 1 AU = distance from the sun to earth) out after 20 years? There have been on again, off-again proposals for a "thousand AU" project, of sending an ion rocket (presumably nuclear powered), out to around 1,000 AUs to explore the solar heliopause and interstellar space, so we could go faster than the Voyagers if we wanted to. By contrast, the nearest star is 270,000 AUs out. (Anyone care to check my math? Even I'm a bit surprised by this. I'm assuming the nearest star is 4.3 light years away, 1 AU=93E6 miles, c=3E8 m/s.) - --Paul Keller ------------------------------ From: "J. Pharabod" Date: Wed, 22 May 96 14:59:42 SET Subject: Re: How fast can we go? >Offhand, I would say that 10% of c (the speed of light) is not >achievable, and that the nearest start is not attainable in one >lifetime. [...] >Paul Keller (Wed, 22 May 96 07:55:24 EDT) Though this is off-charter, and though I suspect that people studying these problems are too optimistic, I think it would be good to look at the sites http://152.2.22.81/lunar/ssdengr.html (Starship Designs) and more specifically http://152.2.22.81/lunar/ramjets.html (Bussard ramjets) BTW, I recently reported to this list the birth of a new site: http://www.fas.org/irp/mystery which is right on-charter, but there were no comments. J. Pharabod ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 06:50:03 PDT Subject: Re: How fast can we go? I`ll see what I can figure out tonight if I get a chance. I need to convert MeV to Isp somehow. I think they do it in the Oates text from the AIAA series. I know he gets into ion propulsion, but no-one ever talks about the power source! Chuck ------------------------------ From: "JOE P." Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 10:49:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: Looking for an answer I should know, but don't When various missle or aircraft tests are scheduled like the STS launches, or other rocket launches, I would have to think that there must be some sort of notice to aviators posted warning them that the area around Kennedy Space Center or CCAFS will be closed. I think that this would be for an area down range where the pieces may fall if something goes blooey. I would think that the actual immediate area arond the launch site would be closed permantly to general civilian air traffic. But I would think that contractor traffic would be flying into/out of the KSC/CCAFS area. Do they receive some special notice to avaitors that the area will be closed which is not available to the public? The same question would be asked for large scale air exercises in the Nevada or California or New Mexico areas surrounding the "non-existent" mythical bases out that way. Now my main question, if there are such notice to avaitor messages posted to the general public, possibly WWW type sites, where would they appear and how long before the actual closing of the area? Direct from the halls of Edinboro University - (814) 732-2484 and directly from the terminal of, - 142 Miller Bldg. - Edinboro Univ. Joe Pyrdek pyrdek@edinboro.edu - Edinboro PA 16444 per UCC 1-207 (all rights reserved) ------------------------------ From: "Paul Heinrich" Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 08:16:37 +0000 Subject: RE: How fast can we go? I just bought a paperback titled "Indistinguishable from Magic" by the physicist and sf writer Robert Forward. Much of the book is devoted to "near-term" and not-very-near-term interstellar propulsion technologies. It might be interesting if some of the engineering and physics types on the list looked it over. If this is too far off charter, maybe we should take it to direct e-mail. Paul PS: Does the skunk-works do any sort of basic research or "paper studies" on this sort of stuff? Paul Heinrich phone: (707) 875-1937 Webmaster fax: (707) 875-2089 Bodega Marine Laboratory www: www-bml.ucdavis.edu Bodega Bay, CA 94923 ------------------------------ From: BaDKaRmA Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 16:19:35 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: How fast can we go? >{BIG SNIP} > Offhand, I would say that 10% of c (the speed of light) is not > achievable, and that the nearest start is not attainable in one > lifetime. As Chuck S. noted, the distances between stars are > incredible. By way of comparison, the two Voyager spacecraft are > what, 50 astronomical units (AUs 1 AU = distance from the sun to > earth) out after 20 years? There have been on again, off-again > proposals for a "thousand AU" project, of sending an ion rocket > (presumably nuclear powered), out to around 1,000 AUs to explore the > solar heliopause and interstellar space, so we could go faster than > the Voyagers if we wanted to. By contrast, the nearest star is > 270,000 AUs out. (Anyone care to check my math? Even I'm a bit > surprised by this. I'm assuming the nearest star is 4.3 light years > away, 1 AU=93E6 miles, c=3E8 m/s.) > > --Paul Keller > > > If we made, and launched these 'vehicles' could they overtake the voyager probes? thus makeing then totally redundent? BaDKaRmA ______________________________________________________________________________ (md1br@herts.ac.uk) [32-11-42-13-51-24-42-34] [#9010-3425-3498-AEG-DIN-TOP] "Once you're dead, you're dead and thats all there is" - BaDKaRmA ______________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ From: Jeff H Clark Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 11:34:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Have Blue color scheme Last year I picked up this little 1/72 model of the Have Blue plane. It had a color scheme on the box which showed a mixture of sand, brown, gray, and black on top, and sand and dark gray on the bottom. I painted it that way. Then the World Airpower special on the F-117 came out with a painting of HB that didn't show the bottom but the side vieews implied the bottom had the same colors as the top. My question is, have any new photos of the HB come out lately? I think I've only seen about 5 pictures of both airplanes. And, does anyone know, (just so I finally know) what the bottom paint scheme looked like? Thanks, Jeff Clark jclark@freenet.fsu.edu ------------------------------ From: BaDKaRmA Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 16:15:54 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: What's at Tonopah today? On Wed, 22 May 1996, BaDge wrote: > On Tue, 21 May 1996, Earl Needham wrote: > > > Since the F-117's left Tonopah, I've wondered just what's flying out there > >now. After all, it doesn't make much sense that a base would be built up > >as much as Tonapah Test Range and then just abandoned like that. Any > >ideas? > > > >Earl > > Well, I just finished visiting Trader's home page, and from there Paul > McGinnis had some excellent links to satellite imagery as well as some > commentary and mapage of the Tonopah and associated areas. hi, could you post the address for the page, im new, and dont have it taa muchly pat joyce > > The Desert Rat page has a new link to some pages with other photos of the > new vantage spotting site at Groom. > > regards, > ________ > BaDge > > > > ______________________________________________________________________________ (md1br@herts.ac.uk) [32-11-42-13-51-24-42-34] [#9010-3425-3498-AEG-DIN-TOP] "Once you're dead, you're dead and thats all there is" - BaDKaRmA ______________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ From: kelleher@consilium.com (John Kelleher) Date: Wed, 22 May 96 11:29:50 -0700 Subject: Re: stealthy satellites (was Re: When is Enough Enough?) Neil Galarneau wrote: >A while back I asked about stealthy (low observable) satellites. > >To naive uninformed me, they seem both worth-while (recon satellites would >like to be invisible) and doable (with work of course), yet I haven't heard >anything about them. > >What do people think? Creating low observables for orbital work is somewhat more difficult that for normal aviation. You have the difficult taks of making both radar absorbent/transparent and optically transparent. While technologies developed at the Skunkworks can help with the radar issue, the techniques generally considered for optical invisibility won't work as well for the satellites. There is a fairly sophisticated world-wide network of professional and amateur astronomers who scan the skies each night looking to put their name on some new star, planet, comet, or chunk of rock. A satellite passing in front of a background star would gain quite a bit of attention, particularly if it wasn't listed as belonging there. Trying to keep it from "blanking" celestial objects would be exceptionally difficult because of the number of angles from which it could be viewed. And given the science of orbital mechanics, the objects would end up being tracked rather quickly. It wouldn't be long before the supermarket rags screamed we were being "watched" by aliens; governmental denial knowledge of the satellites' existence would only add fuel to the fire. The resulting brouhaha would cost far more than just making the things public to start with. Recon from an invisible platform would be nice, but I don't think we're at the stage of development where it is yet practical. John ------------------------------ From: "Arif, Rahan" Date: Wed, 22 May 96 13:13:43 cst Subject: Declassification of Area-51? I have always been interested what caused the corrupt and black world of our Government. I have tried to trace back in time as to where the first form of Government Secrecy that ever took place, maybe it was in George Washington's days. There had to have been some event in our past that caused our Government to first begin hiding and encloaking its actions into a shroud of secrecy. Maybe it was the first World War or even before. Whatever event it may have been it has changed the way our Government has been intended to operate permanently. With its very first action of secrecy, our Government, at certain levels, has begun to operate without any regard to public trust. Our Government, at certain levels, has lost its trust with its people. This is definetly something that out forefathers wouldn't have agreed with. This led me to believe that secrecy itself causes curroption and lies. But secrecy cannot be blamed entirley, because another factor is the fact that our Government fails to give any reason for some of its actions. I mean, I wouldn't be as interested in Area-51 and black programs as I am now, if the Government would atleast give some sort of explanation to its citizens and tax payers for the existense and relevence to our "National Security" of these "black" programs. But NO, the Government has not only failed to give any reason for such operations, but has denied its complete existance. What kind of idiots do those people think we are telling us that a base like Area-51 doesn't exist!!! Well then is it some sort of cool looking hologram, mirage, or apparition, or is it that our eyesight is getting very weak and we are all seeing things that aren't there. The fact that the Government actually denies the existence of Area-51 actually blows me away!!! What level of disgrace and dishonor has our country come down to. Please don't get me wrong, I am not saying that secrecy and confidentiality are bad. They are definetly very important tools in protecting our National Security. But when they get out of hand they can lead to complete chaos. I can't believe its gotten so bad that our own Government is denying things that are physically there. You could if you had the chance to, go out and touch one of the hangars at Area-51. But in our Government's eyes they aren't there, or thats what they want us to believe. All the effort that Glenn Campbell and Paul McGinnis and many others are putting out into atleast asking the Government for a reason through Freedom of Information Act seems to be either ignored or just thrown away somewhere and never looked at. The only reason the Stealth was ever declassified was because it was flying and by chance it was photographed and made public. Then there was no hiding it anymore. For the most part, it all came out. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists came out with figure that the Pentagon has well over 7 million classified secrects in its posession. What ever happened to that bill signed by Clinton that was supposed to declassify atleast some of them? The United States plays a very definite and important role as a World Power, and there is a just and necessary need for security by the Department of Defense for very critical programs. But atleast some reason should be given for the existense of some of them. Thats all I, atleast, would be content with. ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #659 ********************************* 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).