From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #666 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Thursday, 13 June 1996 Volume 05 : Number 666 In this issue: Re: TACIT BLUE (Ken Dyson) Flying Wing Re: Flying Wing Re: Richard Bissell, Jr Re: Delta Clipper Re: SR-71 Glide Landings Jane's on Skunk Works, Phantom Works etc. AAAARRGGGHHH!!!! [none] Re: AAAARRGGGHHH!!!! Re: AAAARRGGGHHH!!!! Re: AAAARRGGGHHH!!!! Re: AAAARRGGGHHH!!!! Re: AAAARRGGGHHH!!!! Re: AAAARRGGGHHH!!!! SR-71 Follow on aircraft..... Re: SR-71 Follow on aircraft..... 1957 UFO, or Tacit Blue? Re: SR-71 Follow on aircraft..... Anybody read Nickel and Wohlfahrt? i have a new Internet userid 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: hendefd@tech.duc.auburn.edu (Frank Henderson) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 08:28:46 -0500 Subject: Re: TACIT BLUE (Ken Dyson) > From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl > Lt. Col. (USAF) Norman Kenneth "Ken" Dyson was the first USAF pilot to fly a > Lockheed HAVE BLUE aircraft, and the only pilot to fly the second HAVE BLUE > prototype (HB-1002) from 07/20/1978 until 07/11/1979, when it crashed on its > 52nd flight. Lockheed test pilot William M. "Bill" Park flew all 36 flights > with the first HAVE BLUE (HB-1001) from 12/01/1977 until its crash on > 05/04/1978. All HAVE BLUE flights were made from Groom Lake, and both > aircraft crashed and were subsequently buried there. How many HAVE BLUE were built? Related question: What HAVE aircraft was sent to Wright-Pat around 1992 (give or take a year)? # Frank Henderson | Div. of Univ. Computing # Network Services /0\ Security Administrator # X-500/Gopher Manager \_______[|(.)|]_______/ # Auburn University o ++ 0 ++ o hendefd@mail.auburn.edu ------------------------------ From: David Lednicer Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 08:39:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Flying Wing >All the Northrop designs had symmetrical sections. They were >proprietary to the corporation. Almost Chuck - To quote Bill Sears, in "The Evolution of Wing Design", "the wing profiles chosen for the XB-35 were the NACA 65,3-0XX family, in view of their favorable properties". He later presents a table which says that for both the XB-35 and YB-49, the root airfoil was a NACA 65,3-019 and the tip airfoil was a NACA 65,3-018. Yes, these are symmetrical, but not proprietary. According to Hans Grellman's AIAA paper "B-2 Aerodynamic Design" (90-1802), the B-2 wing is composed of custom designed supercritical airfoils, which are proprietary, but not symmetrical. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 08:57:47 PDT Subject: Re: Flying Wing OK, from memory those do look like 63 series stuff. Lots of pressure recovery aft of 0.5c. I guess I was thinking of the others as well. N1,N9`s etc. I`m still pretty sire they were "based on" and then tweaked. I`ll ask Irv Ashkenas (via Bill). He would know for sure. In fact, come to think of it I have some of his papers at home. I`ll see what I can dig up. Chuck ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 12:04:35 -0700 Subject: Re: Richard Bissell, Jr >For the hard core skunk works enthusiast an interesting new source: > >Reflections of a Cold Warrior by Richard M. Bissell, Jr., with >Jonathan E. Lewis and Frances T. Pudlo published by Yale >University Press, 1996. > >The book was released last week ... Thanks for the heads up Byron! I have been waiting for this release myself as well. I'm sad to hear Mr. Bissell died. Given my interest in high speed aircraft technology and the history of such programs, I had corresponded with him regarding the competition for a U-2 successor. I always found him to be a very classy guy. Larry ------------------------------ From: dosgood@proxima.gsfc.nasa.gov (Dean Osgood) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 16:54:16 +0027 Subject: Re: Delta Clipper FYI Also note subscription information at bottom Dean Osgood - -------------------- Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 12:00:38 -0400 From: NASANews@luna.osf.hq.nasa.gov (NASA HQ Public Affairs Office) To: press-release-nasa@mercury.hq.nasa.gov Subject: Revolutionary New Launch Vehicle Named for Space Pioneer Sender: NASANews@hq.nasa.gov Precedence: bulk James Cast Headquarters, Washington, DC June 7, 1996 (Phone: 202/358-1779) RELEASE: 96-114 REVOLUTIONARY NEW LAUNCH VEHICLE RENAMED FOR SPACE PIONEER NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin today announced that the Agency's experimental DC-XA flight vehicle -- a vertical takeoff and landing rocket ship -- will be re-named "Clipper Graham" in honor of the late Lt. General Daniel O. Graham. "NASA is committed to developing and demonstrating reusable launch vehicle technologies. Graham was a visionary who championed the promise of fully reusable single-stage-to-orbit vehicles at a time when the majority of the space community were skeptics. We're doing this in commemoration of his vision in opening the space frontier," Goldin said. Formerly called the Delta Clipper, the four-story DC- XA is currently conducting a series of unmanned flight tests in New Mexico for NASA. The project was conceived to provide NASA's Reusable Launch Vehicle Program with an early, small scale flight demonstration of advanced technologies required by reusable launch vehicles. The DC- XA, developed by the Department of Defense, incorporates the latest advances in technology, propulsion systems and composite materials. A West Point graduate, Graham served in a number of high military and government posts including Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. He also founded and became Chairman of the Space Transportation Association to assure continued U.S. leadership and superiority in providing reliable, economical space transportation systems. - end - NASA press releases and other information are available automatically by sending an Internet electronic mail message to domo@hq.nasa.gov. In the body of the message (not the subject line) users should type the words "subscribe press-release" (no quotes). The system will reply with a confirmation via E-mail of each subscription. A second automatic message will include additional information on the service. NASA releases also are available via CompuServe using the command GO NASA. Dean Osgood dosgood@proxima.gsfc.nasa.gov OR dlonsi@www710.gsfc.nasa.gov ------------------------------ From: betnal@ns.net Date: Sat, 08 Jun 96 04:56:52 GMT Subject: Re: SR-71 Glide Landings I'm only reading the digest right now, so I suspect that there will be some responses from others more knowledgeable than me on this that I haven't seen yet, but just in case: Folks, step back and think on this for a second. If you're flying THE FASTEST AIRPLANE IN THE WORLD, you know that there will never be any more built so each one you lose means one less for-ev-er, you can get all the tanker support you could ever need (after all, you've already used them on your mission and now you're on your way home, so what range are you trying to stretch anyway?), this really isn't something that there's been the resources to remain proficient on, you know you're gonna lose hydraulics if the engines windmill below 1500 rpm (do you really want to be in a ballistic rock on final?), and you've got no way to get off the runway if you make it, WHY-WOULD-YOU-WANT-TO-DO-THIS? (Now watch someone write in with 25 SR missions under their belt and say they did it all the time; Oh well, I 've learned to tolerate the taste of crow over the years) (But I'll bet no one like that writes in). Art ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Sun, 9 Jun 1996 15:44:01 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Jane's on Skunk Works, Phantom Works etc. Jane's Defence Weekly, 29 May 1996, pp 18-24. Longish article on the various black aerospace divisions in the US. Mostly on business practises, similarities and differences between operating methods, eg: large and relatively public (!) L-M Skunk Works v "small and hungry" Martin Marietta Advanced Development Operations (now part of L-M, of course) etc. McD-D Phantom Works acknowledged to counter publicity given L-M and also to reposition the company in a changing aerospace market. Comments that fighters are becoming increasingly uneconomic and radical development and production changes will have to be made, some aspects of JSF a part of this process. Northrop Grumman's Advanced Technology and Development Center doesn't have a dedicated protoype shop (unlike the Skunk Works), they consider it to be too expensive. Sidebar by Bill Sweetman on the black budget: notes a slight increase (accounting for inflation) when total Pentagon budget has fallen, total black Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation budget for Fiscal Year 1997 is $US 11 000 000 000. This is a 12% increase over 1993, and more than the US Army spends on all RDT&E _AND_ procurement. A few quotes by Jack Gordon, current SW president. Says he has worked on 15 real, flying aircraft (most engineers are lucky with one or two) ... and can only cite 12 of them. A wall chart in his office shows something sleek and apparently very fast contemporary with YF-22 and named "Astra"... officials later claim that the chart is a mistake and "Astra" was an SST project from the 1970s ... but no history of L-M mentions it... hmmm... Sidebar on Kingfish(er). Its real name is classified, much of the technology still is. Speculation that Convair, later General Dynamics, now Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems is an overlooked element in the "Aurora" saga. Implied that Kingfisher contributed to Aurora, which may really be called Astra... Well, maybe. Of course I'd like to believe it... Good read anyway. Also, Flight International, 5-11 June 1996 has a comprehensive Military Satellite Directory listing communications, recon, research etc satellites of all spacefaring nations. - --Brett ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Sun, 9 Jun 1996 16:54:59 +1200 (NZST) Subject: AAAARRGGGHHH!!!! News item here (New Zealand) recently. The DC-XA, I am told (though it was not mentioned by name) is THE Space Shuttle replacement, and will also carry passengers around the world. It was also mentioned that it was cone-shaped. This was correct. I feel ill. Any humourous anecdotes on the idiocy of the mass media in other parts of the world? - --Brett ------------------------------ From: "Frank A. Petillo" Date: Sun, 09 Jun 1996 13:33:00 -0400 Subject: [none] unsuscribe _\\|//_ (-0-0-) +-----------------------------------ooO-(_)-Ooo------------------------------+ | Frank A. Petillo | | URL:http://www.monmouth.com/user_pages/fpetillo | | | | Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ || || ooO Ooo ------------------------------ From: Dave Cox Date: Sun, 9 Jun 1996 14:50:28 Subject: Re: AAAARRGGGHHH!!!! > News item here (New Zealand) recently. The DC-XA, I am told (though it > was not mentioned by name) is THE Space Shuttle replacement, and will also > carry passengers around the world. > It was also mentioned that it was cone-shaped. This was correct. > I feel ill. > Any humourous anecdotes on the idiocy of the mass media in other parts of > the world? Actually, I saw a snip on CNN that pretty much got it spot on; something to the effect of "The first in a series of technology demonstrators which will hopefully lead to a Shuttle replacement". They also showed illustrations of the Rockewell and Skunkworks X-33 concepts. Pretty damn good for TV. Closer to home, any word on LASRE, Mary? - --dave ------------------------------ From: fmarkus@nyc.pipeline.com (Frank Markus) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 11:44:56 GMT Subject: Re: AAAARRGGGHHH!!!! On Jun 09, 1996 14:50:28, 'Dave Cox ' wrote: >> News item here (New Zealand) recently. The DC-XA, I am told (though it >> was not mentioned by name) is THE Space Shuttle replacement, and will also >> carry passengers around the world. >> It was also mentioned that it was cone-shaped. This was correct. >> I feel ill. >> Any humourous anecdotes on the idiocy of the mass media in other parts of >> the world? > >Actually, I saw a snip on CNN that pretty much got it spot on; something to >the effect of "The first in a series of technology demonstrators which will >hopefully lead to a Shuttle replacement". They also showed illustrations of >the Rockewell and Skunkworks X-33 concepts. Pretty damn good for TV. > >Closer to home, any word on LASRE, Mary? > >--dave I saw what I suspect was the same report that you did on CNN (in the USA.) It was even worse than you have reported. The source of the statement that the Delta Clipper (as it was then) was going to be the Space Shuttle replacement was NOT some blow-dried twinkie but rather a high official at NASA (perhaps a deputy director!) If MDD wins, I suspect that this quote will appear in legal pleadings. Incidentally, the Graham Clipper (as it is now to be known), is NOT really conical. From the side, it is cone-shaped but its base is a square with rounded corners. So the got everything wrong. Except, perhaps, for the winner of the X-33 contract. ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 15:31:28 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: AAAARRGGGHHH!!!! We're slipping, but more slowly than we have been--our CST or hangar radiation text (I forget which) might be tomorrow. There's some sort of valve problem, too. I don't know exactly what it was and I've heard conflicting stories, so I'll just leave it at that. Anywhat, this has slowed the firing of the rocket engine up at Phillips Lab. However, we'll keep pressing. We've been disconnected from the X-33 and X-34 contract decisions which takes a lot of the pressure off the experiment folks. Regards, Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end.... On Sun, 9 Jun 1996, Dave Cox wrote: > Closer to home, any word on LASRE, Mary? > --dave ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 15:37:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: AAAARRGGGHHH!!!! The winner of the X-33 contract will not be announced until 1 July, as will the winner of the X-34 contract. The DC-XA is, I think, a contender for the X-34, not the X-33, but I could be wrong. The press release was about renaming the Delta Clipper to the Graham Clipper, not that it had been selected for either contract. Regards, Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end.... ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 15:15:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: AAAARRGGGHHH!!!! A case of anticipation, not total error. A version of the DC-XA is an entry in the X-34 competition (along with about 8 others). So the DC-XA might be a Space Shuttle replacement and it would carry people around the world, since the whole idea of the X-34 (as well as the X-33) is an RLS that can land just about anywhere after going to the Space Station. I'd say this isn't the worst one I've ever read, but you might wish to suggest to your paper that they read the press releases a little bit better. My idea of the worst aeronautical errors isn't a _mass_ media error, which is why it peeves me so much. Our in-house newpaper, the X-Press, labeled an F-14 as an F-15. The on-base newspaper, the Desert Wings, called a T-38 an F-4. If people right on the spot, surrounded by people who can tell the aircraft apart in a heartbeat, can't get it right, why be so hard on the folks that don't know any better and don't have anyone to ask? Of course, this comes from a woman who finds almost all general aviation aircraft to be UFOs, because they all look alike to me (OK, I can tell high-wing from low-wing, but let's not push it). Regards, Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end.... On Sun, 9 Jun 1996, Brett Davidson wrote: > News item here (New Zealand) recently. The DC-XA, I am told (though it > was not mentioned by name) is THE Space Shuttle replacement, and will also > carry passengers around the world. > It was also mentioned that it was cone-shaped. This was correct. > I feel ill. > Any humourous anecdotes on the idiocy of the mass media in other parts of > the world? > --Brett > > ------------------------------ From: chosa@chosa.win.net (Byron Weber) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 19:14:05 Subject: Re: AAAARRGGGHHH!!!! Mary, everything I've read to date said the decision would be this month on the X-33. Too bad. Care to speculate on the winner for us? Boeing/Douglas' vehicle looks like something out of a '58 Buck Rogers movie and for that alone, I prefer Lockeed Martin's design. Its also smaller and lighter for a quicker turn around time. Byron >The winner of the X-33 contract will not be announced until 1 July, as >will the winner of the X-34 contract. The DC-XA is, I think, a contender >for the X-34, not the X-33, but I could be wrong. > >The press release was about renaming the Delta Clipper to the Graham >Clipper, not that it had been selected for either contract. > >Regards, >Mary > >Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com >URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html >Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard >Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end.... > > > ------------------------------ From: John Stone Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 19:59:29 -0400 Subject: SR-71 Follow on aircraft..... Hello All, Just got finished reading Coy Cross' "Draon Lady Meets the Challenge: The U-2 in Desert Storm". Great monograph on the U-2 and how it deploys and operates. There was an interesting statement in it, that is apparantly taken from a House Report titled "Intelligence Successes and Failures in Operations Desert Shield/Storm". The statement pertains to the lack of the capability to supply "wide area imagery with sufficient resolution", "The committee found that the retirement of both the SR-71 and a wide-area satellite imagery system simultaneously without follow-on systems was short-sighted". An interesting quote! Later, John | / ^ \ ___|___ -(.)==<.>==(.)- --------o---((.))---o-------- SR-71 Blackbird U-2 Dragon Lady John Stone jstone@thepoint.net U-2 and SR-71 Web Page:http://www.thepoint.net/~jstone/blackbird.html ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 13:03:46 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Re: SR-71 Follow on aircraft..... On Tue, 11 Jun 1996, John Stone wrote: > The statement pertains to the lack of the capability to supply "wide area > imagery with sufficient resolution", "The committee found that the > retirement of both the SR-71 and a wide-area satellite imagery system > simultaneously without follow-on systems was short-sighted". Just a thought that came to me, insert disclaimers here, I do not mean to imply that "Aurora" really exists etc... Anyway, against this statement and others like it, IF "Aurora" or whatever exists and it is a recon craft, it would appear that it is so secret that it can't be used effectively... which recalls the preference for unclassified but relatively vulnerable F-111 over the F-117 in the mission to bomb Tripoli in the 80s... Aside from the public's right to know (and the rights and wrongs of bombing Libya for that matter...), one starts to wonder exactly where security ceases to be tactically advantageous. One quote I read regarding the cancelled Tier III was to the effect that if it crashed while over its target nation, the crash site would have to be bombed - hardly a covert mission then! Where is the line between prudence and stupidity, under what circumstances does it change? - --Brett ------------------------------ From: agentx@closer.brisnet.org.au (Matthew Etherington) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 15:32:23 +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. Unfortunately, I don't have a scanner, so I can't send y'all a pic of the UFO. But does anyone know anything more about this, or have any comments? Be seeing you ... AgentX =8^) ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 12:29:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SR-71 Follow on aircraft..... On Tue, 11 Jun 1996, John Stone wrote: > The statement pertains to the lack of the capability to supply "wide area > imagery with sufficient resolution", "The committee found that the > retirement of both the SR-71 and a wide-area satellite imagery system > simultaneously without follow-on systems was short-sighted". > > An interesting quote! And a terrible pun, although probably unconscious. Regards, Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end.... ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 11:03:39 -0700 Subject: Anybody read Nickel and Wohlfahrt? Does anybody have an informed opinion of the book "Tailless Aircraft In Theory And Practice" by Nickel and Wohlfahrt? I understand it covers only inherently stable designs. Any other words of wisdom? Larry ------------------------------ From: albert.dobyns@mwbbs.com (ALBERT DOBYNS) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 96 13:17:00 -0500 Subject: i have a new Internet userid For anyone who is interested, please send mail to my new Internet address: ahdobyns@ix.netcom.com My old one (albert.dobyns@mwbbs.com) expires on July 1 and I dont plan to continue my subscription to that one. Thanks in advance and I know this isn't very on-topic. Al (heaven to me is a mint condition 1967 Toronado with unlimited hi-octane gas, and an SR-71 for those long vacation commutes) :) ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #666 ********************************* 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).