From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #662 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Monday, 3 June 1996 Volume 05 : Number 662 In this issue: Re: power Re: Reply: Declassification of Area-51? 1957 UFO, or Tacit Blue? Re: Reply: Declassification of Area-51? Re: Declassification of Area-51? Re: Reply: Declassification of Area-51? Re: Tacit Blues... Tacit Blues... Re: Tacit Blues... Tacit Blue now at USAF Museum (report) Re: Reply: Declassification of Area-51? Last word on time travel... Re: Reply: Declassificati [none] Re: How fast can we go? U-2 In Desert Storm lists JAST Skunky Noise Reduction Potential ? Northrop Grumman Web Site [none] 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: Brett Davidson Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 14:26:01 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Re: power On Fri, 24 May 1996, Robert Herndon wrote: > I don't see serious interest in the bulk production of antimattter > happening in the next 25 years. I suppose, however, that if it had > turned out that nuclear bombs could not be built, then maybe the nuclear > arms race would have started off with the production of antimatter bombs. > It would probably have taken *at least* three or four times the effort, > cost, and time of the Manhattan Project (assuming nuclear reactors > _were_ feasible). AFAIK, the principal difficulty with nuclear bomb design is maintaining a compact critical mass fast enough and for long enough for a worthwhile reaction against the explosive forces thus produced. Offhand remarks I have read on the subject of matter-antimatter bombs is that because the reaction is SO powerful, containment of large masses would be "impossible." The result would be more of a gamma-ray fizzle than a bang. For engines, however, a fizzle would be fine. On a related area... One of the scientists (can't remember who) working with Bose-Einstein condensates has suggested that their research could lead to an "atom laser", which would have certain interesting (which I forget) applications -mostly inoffensive ones. Now, could such a device conceivably be used for the inertial confinement of fusion reagents, or matter and antimatter? Could it be more efficient than other means? Of course, considering the speculation involved in the original device, this is "speculation squared." - --Brett ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 14:44:47 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Re: Reply: Declassification of Area-51? On Fri, 24 May 1996, OnLine wrote: > BTW...are there any other facilities in the US that 'don't exist' or was > A-51 unique in that sense ? Reminds me of a line from an unknown US State Department official or somesuch: "I do not know of any secret that the Soviets have successfully kept from us." Apart from that paradox, consider "Papoose Lake/S-4" Nonexistence is the ULTIMATE form of security ;-) - --Brett ------------------------------ From: agentx@closer.brisnet.org.au (Matthew Etherington) Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 18:56:44 +1000 Subject: 1957 UFO, or Tacit Blue? I've recently dowloaded a couple of JPEGs of a just-declassified project called Tacit Blue. It's a high-altitude reconnaisance aircraft, which the USAF claims they started flying in 1980, and mothballed it around 1985. However, I've just been looking through some old books, and came across a photo in a book called "Beyond Earth". It was taken in 1957, over Edwards AFB, and is a photo of a McDonell- Douglas aircraft on a test flight. In one corner of this photo, though, apparently tailing the first plane at a distance is an unusual object. But when you look at the blow-up of this object, and compare it to the picture of Tacit Blue, the two are damn near identical. I've attached a pic of Tacit Blue, but I'll have to see if I can get the '57 one scanned. Be seeing you ... AgentX =8^) ------------------------------ From: OnLine Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 13:50:39 Subject: Re: Reply: Declassification of Area-51? Brett writes : > >On Fri, 24 May 1996, OnLine wrote: > >> BTW...are there any other facilities in the US that 'don't exist' or was >> A-51 unique in that sense ? > >Reminds me of a line from an unknown US State Department official or >somesuch: "I do not know of any secret that the Soviets have successfully >kept from us." Hands up...I put that question in an extremely clumsy way. Mixing my tenses in a sentence...arghh...I blame all that talk of time travel ;) I meant to ask...Is there any historical precedent forthe "non-existence" of a research/mil base other than A-51..but then you knew that you rascal ! Is it that the Consitution doesn't apply to somewhere that doesn't exist ? >Apart from that paradox, consider "Papoose Lake/S-4" Nonexistence is the >ULTIMATE form of security ;-) Now you've done it.....that's UFO talk 'round these parts pardner...I'll leave you to contemplate your wickedness...! Best David ------------------------------ From: BaDKaRmA Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 16:05:01 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: Declassification of Area-51? This has probably all ready been asked, but if Area 51 doesn't officialy exist then why cant you just go there? of course a problem would arise if you were shot and killed by the guards that dont exist, because you couldent have gone to a place that isnt there! P.Joyce ______________________________________________________________________________ (md1br@herts.ac.uk) [32-11-42-13-51-24-42-34] [#9010-3425-3498-AEG-DIN-TOP] 'If you never happen to get this mail, Will anybody read it? I hope it makes the journey. The words I write matter to me, it would be a shame if they were wasted, and lost in an electronic void, for an eternity' -P.Joyce 1996 ______________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ From: fmarkus@nyc.pipeline.com (Frank Markus) Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 22:42:12 GMT Subject: Re: Reply: Declassification of Area-51? On May 26, 1996 13:50:39, 'OnLine ' wrote: >Brett writes : >> >>On Fri, 24 May 1996, OnLine wrote: >> >>> BTW...are there any other facilities in the US that 'don't exist' or was >>> A-51 unique in that sense ? Weren't the main Manhattan District sites non-existant? I seem to recall that Los Alamos was a total secret until after August 1945. Mail was sent to a post office box in Las Vegas, not on any map, and could not be mentioned by name etc. I'm not sure about the facilites at Hanford, Washington or Oak Ridge, Tenn. ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 03:44:23 PDT Subject: Re: Tacit Blues... nope, standard Garret practice. Check out Oates. Chuck ------------------------------ From: David Lednicer Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 08:27:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Tacit Blues... Several people have asked what Compass Cope was. Compass Cope was an USAF program to produce a high altitude UAV, back in the 1970s. Ryan and Boeing produced prototypes, but the program never made it to production. The Ryan prototype (YQM-98A) was powered by a Garrett ATF3 and the Boeing prototype (YQM-94A) by a GE J97. Production versions of the Boeing vehicle would have been powered by GE TF34s. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: David Lednicer Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 08:23:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Tacit Blues... > nope, > standard Garret practice. Check out Oates. > Chuck > Bullshit - dig a little deeper. Garrett has only made two turbofans - the TFE731 and the ATF3. The TFE731 is a "standard practice" flow-thru turbofan. The ATF3 is, to quote the 1977-78 Jane's, "is a turbofan of unusual layout". The ATF3 is the ONLY turbofan with a reverse flow turbine. As far as I know, the only other piece of aeronautical turbomachinery with a reverse flow turbine is the Allison 250 turboshaft, used primarily on helicopters. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Jeff H Clark Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 17:10:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Tacit Blue now at USAF Museum (report) I was reading rec.models.scale, and found this message. Since nobody else here so far has reported seeing the airplane, I thought the list might be interested. mikek92888@aol.com wrote on May 27 in rec.models.scale: I went to the AF Museum and saw the latest addition, the "TACIT BLUE", an experimental stealth aircraft with a SLR that was flown from 1982-85. It was added just weeks after it was shown in AW&ST. It's really interesting to look at, it has no visible seams to speak of and is finished in a pebble grained light gray. what is amazing is the fit of the cockpit windows. It looks like the forward fuselage was made of clear plastic, then they masked over the areas for the windows then sprayed over them and then removed the mask, the seams are that flush. It's hard to see inside the cockpit but there's a single ejection seat in the center of the very wide flight deck. The resemblance to the B-2 is notable. On some areas of the leading edge of the wing it's sort of ruff, like it's hand laid fiberglass. It uses the T-38/F-5 landing gear and they look really tiny on this aircraft. It has no forward radome or pitot tubes to speak of, but has a beveled "shovel" chine at the front probably to keep the boundary layer of air flowing over the top and into the top mounted intake. ------------------------------ From: chosa@chosa.win.net (Byron Weber) Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 18:49:31 Subject: Re: Reply: Declassification of Area-51? > >Apart from that paradox, consider "Papoose Lake/S-4" Nonexistence is the >ULTIMATE form of security ;-) > >--Brett Ah, truly one of my pet peeves, S-4. Has anyone, besides Lazar, claimed knowledge of or otherwise legitimately hypothesized its existence? Like the rest of Lazar's mythology, it is woven from frayed bits and pieces of the past. S-4 was a secretariat in Britian's Air Force Department, under the MoD, responsible for handling public complaints about ufos in 1964. Coincidence? Not if you look at the rest of his story. The pattern is obvious. The big question is, why? Byron ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 18:38:05 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Last word on time travel... To anyone who WANTS to travel to the past: DENTISTS! - --Brett(who has to see a dentist in the near future) ------------------------------ From: albert.dobyns@mwbbs.com (ALBERT DOBYNS) Date: Wed, 29 May 96 17:27:00 -0500 Subject: Re: Reply: Declassificati BW> Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 18:49:31 > Subject: Re: Reply: Declassification of Area-51? > From: chosa@chosa.win.net (Byron Weber) BW> > > >Apart from that paradox, consider "Papoose Lake/S-4" Nonexistence is the > >ULTIMATE form of security ;-) > > > >--Brett BW> Ah, truly one of my pet peeves, S-4. Has anyone, besides Lazar, > claimed knowledge of or otherwise legitimately hypothesized its > existence? Like the rest of Lazar's mythology, it is woven from > frayed bits and pieces of the past. S-4 was a secretariat in > Britian's Air Force Department, under the MoD, responsible for > handling public complaints about ufos in 1964. Coincidence? Not if > you look at the rest of his story. The pattern is obvious. The > big question is, why? BW> Byron Oh, maybe you missed the reference to S-4 in the Testors 1/32 scale model of the F-117A. Sure surprised the heck out of me when I read that part! :) As for why, I think it may be that many people enjoy believing in conspiracies. Perhaps this is the modern equivilant of the tall tales that people would listen to as they gasthered around a good campfire on a dark, cold night. * SLMR 2.1a * This is getting to be an expensive hobby!! ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Fri, 31 May 96 09:29:45 GMT Subject: [none] Forwarded from the Space Tech list: Date: 29 May 1996 15:35:14 -0700 From: Timothy Manley Subject: How fast can we go? In sci.space.tech "Terry Colvin" said: >Forwarded from the Skunk Works list: > >___________________ Forward Header __________________________________ Subject: >Re: How fast can we go? >Author: chosa@chosa.win.net (Byron Weber) at smtp-fhu >Date: 22/05/1996 2023 > >>Paul Keller wrote: >>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. >> >The most promising technology for "fast" space travel is still nuclear pulse >engines driven by hydrogen bombs (miniature bombs detonated behind the vehicle >create waves to ride on), fusion rockets and possibly antimatter engines. (the >first hydrogen antimatter molecules were made only a month ago at Cern). The >maximum estimated attainable speed, based on known technology, is about 1/3 the >speed of light. That would put in reach 17 star systems within 40 years! > >More speculative is an interstellar ramjet designed by R.W. Bussard in the >early 60's that would scoop up hydrogen atoms into a fusion reactor and >accelerate a vehicle almost to the speed of light. At that speed a trip from >earth to the other side of the Milky Way would take 42 years their time, sixty >thousand years our time. > >I know JPL is working on a nuclear engine/rocket. Maybe someone from there can >tell us about their progress? > >Byron > Actually, they even test fired the nuke rocket (I've seen footage) but it was in the late 70s I think. I remember reading the Specific Impulses for the Orion, don't remember the numbers, but it even put the Flourine models to shame. I think they killed it due to the publics fear of nuclear power, esp a nuke rocket. - -- tim - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 16:48:32 -0700 From: John Dreher Subject: Interstellar Probes Simon Rowland wrote: > This is totally possible. at 0.1% the speed of light, it'll take 50 years > to reach Proximi Centauri, though. > Umm, (4 ly)/(0.001 c) = 4000 y, no? - ------------------------------ Date: 29 May 1996 15:40:54 -0700 From: Timothy Manley Subject: Ion Rockets [[was power]] In sci.space.tech "Terry Colvin" said: >Forwarded from the Skunk Works list: >______________________________ Forward Header >__________________________________ Author: robert.herndon@Central.Sun.COM >(Robert Herndon) at smtp-fhu >Date: 24/05/1996 1148 > >Re: rockets for the long haul, ion rockets do have a very high Isp >compared w/ chemical fuels, but they're still an order of magnitude too small >to get up to decent speeds, relativistically speaking. > >In order to get a mass to 86% of the speed of light, a mass of the same size >has to be completely converted to propulsive energy. > >Since a nuclear reactor (fission) can convert about 1% of its mass to energy, >we're not going to go too fast if we have to accelerate the reactor too. >Fusion could conceivably do better, from memory (I don't have a good periodic >table here) about 3%. Still not great, unless you can avoid carrying the fuel >(e.g., Bussard ramjet). > >Of course, this just means that we'd have to use a much higher >propellant&power/payload ratio, or go to external propulsion. > >If one really wants to be serious about interstellar (or even rapid >intra-stellar-system) travel, then antimatter starts becoming a serious choice. > The problem then becomes learning how to manufacture (and store and >manipulate) it. It's not something we'd want to be doing on earth, given the >potential for disaster. On the other hand, anti-matter itself, at least, >doesn't have the problems that fission and fusion have -- neutrons. >(Irradiation by neutrons makes things radioactive, creating all kinds of nasty >waste disposal problems for nuclear reactors.) > >I don't see serious interest in the bulk production of antimattter happening in >the next 25 years. I suppose, however, that if it had turned out that nuclear >bombs could not be built, then maybe the nuclear arms race would have started >off with the production of antimatter bombs. It would probably have taken *at >least* three or four times the effort, cost, and time of the Manhattan Project >(assuming nuclear reactors _were_ feasible). > >Sounds like a premise for a science fiction novel. > >/r We've been producing anti-matter, maybe a gram a year (?) for a while. And, in proton anti-proton annhiliation a Z particle is the product. And, we're still not sure if the neutrons put off by fusion is hazardous or not, unless there's current research I don't know about. And, I think nuclear rockets are very viable for rapid intra-system travel. Also, fusion rockets increase, theoretically, by an order of magnitude (if I remember college physics) the Isp over the nukes. Really, for system to system travel, I think AM becomes probably the best fuel. But, it's not far future sci fi. Most likely closer than true AI is. - -- tim - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 16:26:12 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Ion Rockets [[was power]] In article <9604248329.AA832981562@fhu.disa.mil> "Terry Colvin" writes: >...I suppose, however, that if it had >turned out that nuclear bombs could not be built, then maybe the nuclear >arms race would have started off with the production of antimatter bombs. Very unlikely, actually. Antimatter does not make good bombs. Even more ordinary nuclear bombs can "fizzle" unless carefully designed: the reaction gets going but too slowly, so the bomb blows itself apart before the reaction can proceed very far. With antimatter this problem is far worse, because while fission and fusion occur throughout the reaction volume, the matter-antimatter reaction occurs only on a contact surface. It's exceedingly difficult to get a major explosion with antimatter. (Tiny ones are not hard, since the square-cube law gives you more surface area per volume as the scale shrinks.) Also, with production technology we can reasonably foresee, antimatter is impossibly expensive for weapons applications. Even the US military has finite budgets. The cost of burning a city down with conventional weapons is large but not infinite. - -- If we feared danger, mankind would never | Henry Spencer go to space. --Ellison S. Onizuka | henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Fri, 31 May 96 17:35:03 GMT Subject: Re: How fast can we go? Forwarded private e-mail from the Space Tech list: _______________ Forward Header __________________________________ Subject: Re: How fast can we go? Author: forrestb@ix.netcom.com (Forrest Bishop) at smtp-fhu Date: 25/05/1996 0505 You wrote: > >Forwarded from the Skunk Works list: ____________________ Forward Header______________________________ >Subject: Re: How fast can we go? >Author: keller@eos.ncsu.edu at smtp-fhu >Date: 22/05/1996 0755 > >>--Paul Keller > Check out: http://www.speakeasy.org/~forrestb for a new proposal. Forrest ------------------------------ From: drbob@creighton.edu Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 11:27:07 -0500 (CDT) Subject: U-2 In Desert Storm For those members of the Skunk Works net who may not already be aware of it, 9th RW historian Coy Cross has written an unclassified history of U-2 and TR-1 operations in Operations DESERT SHIELD and DESERT STORM. It is entitled "The Dragon Lady Meets the Challenge." Copies may be available from the 9th RW HO at Beale AFB, California. Overall the history is worthwhile, especially for readers who might not otherwise have seen previously published works such as the Gulf War Air Power Survey (GWAPS) and other official volumes. A substantial amount of this new history is organizational, stressing the difficulties inherent in the establishment of U-2/TR-1 operations in Saudi Arabia. There are some "nuts and bolts" discussions that might appeal to the "hardware" types, in particular a day-by-day sortie breakdown of hours flown and sensor type carried. Most interesting are the citations for Distinguished Flying Crosses for U-2 fliers---the stories are pretty exciting and show that the "pressure breathers" did more than just drill holes in the sky at 70,000 feet. All in all, this is a nice summary of U-2 and TR-1 operations in the Gulf, but carefully omits details that some "bolt counters" may deem essential. Robert Hopkins ------------------------------ From: BaDKaRmA Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 17:27:37 +0100 (BST) Subject: lists how can i get a list of other mail lists on this server?? taa all ______________________________________________________________________________ (md1br@herts.ac.uk) [32-11-42-13-51-24-42-34] [#9010-3425-3498-AEG-DIN-TOP] 'If you never happen to get this mail, Will anybody read it? I hope it makes the journey. The words I write matter to me, it would be a shame if they were wasted, and lost in an electronic void, for an eternity' -P.Joyce 1996 ______________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 18:20:19 -0400 (EDT) Subject: JAST I don't remember if someone in the list post this address already... If it is so, forget it. Here is the site of the Lockheed martin Join Strike Fighter: http://www.lmtas.com/JAST/ May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu "Well, here is a new ship (NCC-1701D)... But she got the right name (Enterprise)... Now, you remember that, do you? You treat her like a lady, and she will always bring you home." Dr. McCoy (Star Trek) ------------------------------ From: "Mark E. Schmidt" Date: Mon, 3 Jun 96 00:02:24 UT Subject: Skunky Noise Reduction Potential ? Skunkers talk a lot about radar and IR stealth, with one recent thread about visual stealth, so here's something that may be heading for noise stealth . .. ------------------------------ From: Jim Blue Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 02:10:02 -0500 Subject: Northrop Grumman Web Site Northrop Grumman has a nice Web Site at "http://www.northgrum.com". Guest interviews (JSTAR syatem review), a photo gallary, and business information make for a nicely done site. Enjoy, Jim Blue... ------------------------------ From: "Stefan 'Stetson' Skoglund" Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 10:17:50 +0200 Subject: [none] >>>>> ""Terry" == "Terry Colvin" writes: "Terry> Actually, they even test fired the nuke rocket (I've seen "Terry> footage) but it was in the late 70s I think. I remember "Terry> reading the Specific Impulses for the Orion, don't "Terry> remember the numbers, but it even put the Flourine models "Terry> to shame. "Terry> I think they killed it due to the publics fear of nuclear "Terry> power, esp a nuke rocket. It was killed because of the ban on atom explosions in space. ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #662 ********************************* 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).