From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #675 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Tuesday, 9 July 1996 Volume 05 : Number 675 In this issue: In case of any Emergency Re: LMSW wins X-33 competition Re: LMSW wins X-33 competition Re: topic list Re: LMSW wins X-33 competition Re: topic list lkj Re: rotary engines Item in 7/1/96 AW&ST Electrogravitics Re: Item in 7/1/96 AW&ST bell official homepage?? x-29 Re: x-29 Re: Item in 7/1/96 AW&ST B-2 thrust A-12 photo observations Re: A-12 photo observations J58-Powered Navy Projects Re: Item in 7/1/96 AW&ST / Spaceplanes &c. re: B-2 thrust 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: Wei-Jen Su Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 18:31:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: In case of any Emergency The problem of the Skunk Works mailing list last week makes me wonder if "anyone" wants to shut our mouth up... they just destroy the mailing list. I send the message to everybody about the problem on the list, and about 10% of the people can not get the mail because their system has problems, their mail-box was full, etc. Most of them are e-mail from military sites, and aerospace company sites... wonder why... conspiracy maybe?? Or just a coincident :) It has been about three days that I send the message, and less than 30% of the original people on the list re-subscribe again. I just want your opinion to find a method to keep us in contact if this list will "destroy". Maybe meet in irc to find a new site if this is the case. May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu "Chew, if only you could see what I've seen with your eyes!" Roy Batty (Blade Runner) ------------------------------ From: C.R.Harding@massey.ac.nz (Craig Harding) Date: Thu, 04 Jul 1996 11:17:15 +1200 Subject: Re: LMSW wins X-33 competition Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl wrote: > About an hour ago, Lockheed Martin Skunk Works was announced as the winner > of the X-33 competition for a subscale test vehicle of a new SSTO > (Single-Stage-To-Orbit) RLV (Reusable Launch Vehicle). Vice President Al > Gore and NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin unveiled a model of the LMSW > X-33 VentureStar at the press conference, held at the JPL in Pasedena CA. Obviously LMSW were awarded the contract due to their extensive (but highly-classified) experience in designing and building actual flying examples of very high-mach aircraft!! :-) Seriously though, I do have a question: in this kind of contracting process, how much information can an organisation such as Lockheed provide about their classified activities and experience? Is the evaluation process itself classified in parts? -- C. - -- Craig Harding Editor, Massey University Television Production Centre "I don't know about God, I just think we're handmade" - Polly ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Thu, 4 Jul 1996 11:38:59 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Re: LMSW wins X-33 competition On Thu, 4 Jul 1996, Craig Harding wrote: > Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl wrote: > > > About an hour ago, Lockheed Martin Skunk Works was announced as the winner > > of the X-33 competition for a subscale test vehicle of a new SSTO > how much information can an organisation such as Lockheed provide about > their classified activities and experience? Is the evaluation process itself > classified in parts? I don't know about the X-33, but according to the ex-director of the Space Telescope Science Institute, Eric Chaisson (ref "The Hubble Wars" HarperCollins, read it- it's good), they had tremendous problems with Hubble because of classification. Lockheed built the Hubble structure and they also build Keyholes. The mirror was by Perkin-Muller (sp?), who also do Keyhole mirrors. There were a number of technical problems with Hubble that Chaisson supposes plagued early Keyholes, but were since sorted out - the mirror, fluttering solar panels under thermal stress, communication difficulties in the "South Atlantic Anomaly" etc etc. Because of compartmentalisation, the scientists/clients of Hubble were not made aware of likely problems or solutions already in use. Lockheed most likely knew, but were prevented by classification strictures from doing anything about it... or they simply chose not to. As for the X-33, it is a Skunk-Works design, and IF they do have experience with large hypersonic vehicles, it may be incorporated discretely into the design. Or maybe not. - --Brett ------------------------------ From: dick@smith.chi.il.us (Dick Smith) Date: Thu, 4 Jul 96 3:37:10 CDT Subject: Re: topic list Matthew Etherington wrote: > Ah, I'm not the only one who wants to join a mailing list > that discusses classified, or at least sensitive, information. Classified material is specifically off-topic on this list. Please let's keep it so. There are people on this list who know classified. They have enough sense to keep quiet. They have to do so, or they get in very bad trouble. It's not useful to do a lot of random guessing. And, having seen enough of it in my several years participation in this list, it's mostly boring. Best, - -- Dick Smith dick@smith.chi.il.us Web page returns: http://www.rice.iit.edu/~rgrhs393 ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 16:04:04 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Re: LMSW wins X-33 competition Just an addendum to my earlier comments about the technical problems with Hubble caused by excessive secrecy in response to a private query. I don't think that the problems of the Hubble programme, specifically the design solutions used on Keyholes not being used on Hubble because of security compartmentalisation, to the detriment of Hubbles performance and reliability. Here's why: It may be that Dan Goldin has made the right changes at how things are done at NASAs end. Also, the Skunk Works has been shifting more of its business into the "white" world and the X-33 is very much in-house. L-M isn't guaranteed the RLV contract yet - the X-33 is only a demonstartor and they should pull out all the stops to keep the contract, since there is still a possibility of private-sector competition (Russia, Arianespace, and possibly MDCs Delta Clipper design). This is quite unlike the case with Hubble, which was a monopoly and a one-off. In short, I'm not so pessimistic myself - fingers crossed! - --Brett ------------------------------ From: OnLine Date: Fri, 05 Jul 1996 10:31:01 Subject: Re: topic list Dick Smith writes: >Matthew Etherington wrote: >> Ah, I'm not the only one who wants to join a mailing list >> that discusses classified, or at least sensitive, information. > >Classified material is specifically off-topic on this list. Please >let's keep it so. I understood Matthew's statement to mean that he was interested in speculation on classified work not in the dissemination of classified data. You will notice that Aurora is specifically mentioned as an 'on topic' subject for this list..if that isn't an invitation to speculate it follows that it must be rubber on the ramp...hmmm ! > >There are people on this list who know classified. They have enough >sense to keep quiet. They have to do so, or they get in very bad >trouble. I don't think that's exactly news...it's always been understood. > >It's not useful to do a lot of random guessing. And, having seen enough >of it in my several years participation in this list, it's mostly >boring. We all have areas of special interest and many list members have expertise in those fields..I'm particularly interested in LTA, Lifting Body and Hypersonic research...that could have been regarded as a little flakey a while ago, now VentureStar has put two of those subjects very much back on the agenda. One of the strengths of this group is the diversity and quality of its members..and the subjects covered. Any disclosure of classified material is irresponsible and dangerous...that's set in stone. But how can well informed speculation ever be boring ? Best David ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 05:51:11 PDT Subject: lkj Hey, old airplane buffs. Someone asked me a great question and I don`t know the answer. I`m sure someone on "the list" knows though. Question: On the old WWI - era rotary engines such as the Gnome, how was the fuel delivered from the tank to the cylinders? Thanks, Chuck ------------------------------ From: John Clear Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 13:07:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: rotary engines Previously, Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com said: > > Question: > On the old WWI - era rotary engines such as the Gnome, > how was the fuel delivered from the tank to the > cylinders? Through the crankshaft, as you would expect. For those of you not familiar with rotary engines, the prop is bolted to the engine, and the engine and prop spin together. This was done on some early planes for better cooling effects. Having seen some old rotaries fly up at Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome, they are some interesting sounding planes. Rotary engines have two setting, on and off. The mixture is set on the ground, and that is it. You have a toggle switch to blip the engine on and off to control speed. Just dont leave it off for too long since it probably wont start again... HTH, John ------------------------------ From: fmarkus@nyc.pipeline.com (Frank Markus) Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 19:11:57 GMT Subject: Item in 7/1/96 AW&ST There is an interesting item on page 25 the July 1 Aviation Week. In an article on the schedule of space launchs in July, the following paragraphs appear: "The sceduled July 1 launch from pad 40 of a $500-million-1-billion-class secret military payload on board a Lockheed martin Titan 4 heavy booster will begin an extremely unusual flight. "Unlike most Titan 4s launched by the 5th Space Launch Sqdn. from the Cape Canaveral Air Station in the past, this mission carries o large upper stage -- a configuration that rules out a high inclinaton or geosynchronous orbit mission. The mission characteristics are indiciative of a one-of-a-kind military research and development payload. The unique military spacecraft is believed also to be equipped with its own propulsion system. Titan 4s configured like the one planned for liftoff on July 1 can booste 15-ton clas payloads into medium or eliptical orbits." To me this sounds like it could describe a small space plane (or its engine system.) No doubt there are many other (probably better) explanations. What sort of payload would fit the very odd charactaristics of this launch -- high value, high weight, low-altitude, low-inclination orbit, self-propelled, military? ------------------------------ From: simon_stafford@VNET.IBM.COM Date: Sat, 6 Jul 96 08:33:13 EST Subject: Electrogravitics Hi I don't know if this has been covered previously as I'm only a recent addition to the mailing list ... I recently read a FOI declassified report from (supposedly) 1956 discussing the R&D of these gravity defeating systems. The authenticity of the report is unverifiable but it was an interesting read none the less. Is anyone aware of such systems in R&D or is the report likely to be fake? For those not familiar with the report it's here ... http://www.padrak.com/ine/INE24.html Simon. ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 16:10:30 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Re: Item in 7/1/96 AW&ST On Fri, 5 Jul 1996, Frank Markus wrote: > To me this sounds like it could describe a small space plane (or its > engine system.) No doubt there are many other (probably better) > explanations. What sort of payload would fit the very odd charactaristics > of this launch -- high value, high weight, low-altitude, low-inclination > orbit, self-propelled, military? Could be, but apart from the low inclination bit, I think that it's more likely to be an adavanced Keyhole or suchlike. - --Brett ------------------------------ From: "Ori" Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 11:57:56 MGT-200 Subject: bell official homepage?? does anyone know if bell has an official homepage? thanks ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ Ori Zakin http://www.makash.ac.il/students/2/orihp.htm oriz@www.makash.ac.il - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: "Ori" Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 11:58:23 MGT-200 Subject: x-29 is the x-29 supersonic? ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ Ori Zakin http://www.makash.ac.il/students/2/orihp.htm oriz@www.makash.ac.il - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: OnLine Date: Sun, 07 Jul 1996 12:16:54 Subject: Re: x-29 Ori Zakin writes: >is the x-29 supersonic? The aircraft had a maximum operating altitude of 50,000 feet, a maximum speed of Mach 1.6, and a flight endurance time of about one hour. (Source: NASA - Dryden FRC) Best David ------------------------------ From: fmarkus@nyc.pipeline.com (Frank Markus) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 13:43:31 GMT Subject: Re: Item in 7/1/96 AW&ST On Jul 07, 1996 16:10:30, 'Brett Davidson ' wrote: > > >On Fri, 5 Jul 1996, Frank Markus wrote: > >> To me this sounds like it could describe a small space plane (or its >> engine system.) No doubt there are many other (probably better) >> explanations. What sort of payload would fit the very odd charactaristics >> of this launch -- high value, high weight, low-altitude, low-inclination >> orbit, self-propelled, military? > >Could be, but apart from the low inclination bit, I think that it's more >likely to be an adavanced Keyhole or suchlike. >--Brett > > Not only is the inclination too low, but the altitude is also too low for an effective spy satellite. Granted the payload has its own engine, it seems silly to use that engine to duplicate the normal upper stage of the Titan booster. The price of the payload seems to preclude a low -level one-shot satellite to observe something (what?) near the equator. Also that the launching was apparently long planned rather than in response to an immediate need. ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 20:42:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: B-2 thrust Does anyone know how much percent of the thrust is need it for a B-2 to take off??? Let's said in operating weight (175,000 lb). I hear someone told me that in Discovery channel mention something like only 20% of the total thrust is need it for the B-2 to take off (I don't know in what it was her weight during the take off). I will appreciate your answer. May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu "Chew, if only you could see what I've seen with your eyes!" Roy Batty (Blade Runner) ------------------------------ From: habu@why.net (habu) Date: Sun, 07 Jul 1996 21:15:21 -0700 Subject: A-12 photo observations While surfing the skunk works photo gallery, I saw something on a photo of an A-12 (or M-12 or M-21 or whatever...) while carrying a D-21 I had not noticed before. On the leading edge of each wing, inboard of the engine nacelles, was what appeared to be some sort of pitot tube. Was this unique to the D-21 carriers? or standard for all A-12s? I have not seen these devices on any SR-71... Any info would be appreciated. The photo can be seen at: http://www/lmsw.external.lmco.com/lmsw/images/D21LNCH.gif or on p. 137 of Jay Miller's Skunk Works Official History book (and probably in other Blackbird books as well) Greg Fieser Since I am self-employed, the above views DO represent those of my employer... ------------------------------ From: habu@why.net (habu) Date: Sun, 07 Jul 1996 21:38:48 -0700 Subject: Re: A-12 photo observations Correction (duh!) > The photo can be seen at: > > http://www.lmsw.external.lmco.com/lmsw/images/D21LNCH.gif > Sometimes you can't see the forest for the trees... Greg ------------------------------ From: CULLY@svr81trw.kee.aetc.af.mil (CULLY, George Mr) Date: 08 Jul 96 08:33:30 EDT Subject: J58-Powered Navy Projects John Szalay asked about cancelled Navy J58-powered projects. I don't have the entire answer, but I do have a piece of the puzzle. In the spring of 1958, BUAER asked Convair to examine "various applications of the J58 engine," including a supersonic attack seaplane (suggesting that there may be other projects...). For this analysis, BUAER specified a max take-off weight of 200,000 lbs; armament weight of 6,000 lbs; combat radius of no less than 1,500 NM; cruise speed of not less than Mach 3; and cruise altitude of not less than 80,000 ft. Convair did preliminary analyses on three variations of a Mach 4 vehicle powered by three J58 engines. All were based on a stainless steel structure; the primary differences involved engine inlet arrangements. Convair claimed a 1,675 NM radius w/6,000 lb weapon load and 200,000 lbs gross take-off weight, predicated on JP6--'hi-energy fuel' would improve mission radius "from 24 to 27 percent." Take-off run was to be 7,000 ft. and take 40 seconds (but no mention of sea state rqmts). All three variations were fitted with canards and modified delta wings capped with vertical fins (as in the Rockwell XFV-12); landing was by hydroski (as in the XF2Y). Configurations 1-3 were 54'3" wide (w/a 100"-wide hull). Config 1 was 19'4" high and 118'9" long; Config 2 was 18'6" high and 118'9" long; Config 3 was 19'8" high and 123'6" long. Two-man crew, and in Configs 1-2, the crew was housed in an escape capsule that was elevated for forward vision during take-off and landing; Config 3 had a 'normal' cockpit arrangement. This data is from Convair Report ZP-214, dated 25 Jul 1958. I found it in a block of material given to the San Diego Aerospace Museum by Convair last year; I understand they have received more Convair records since, including much rocket & space material. I find the development of the J58 to be almost as fascinating as the story of the blackbird itself, and would like to hear from others who have add'l parts of this lesser-known aspect... Geo. Cully Chief Historian, Keesler AFB ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 11:06:35 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Re: Item in 7/1/96 AW&ST / Spaceplanes &c. On Sun, 7 Jul 1996, Frank Markus wrote: > Not only is the inclination too low, but the altitude is also too low for > an effective spy satellite. Granted the payload has its own engine, it > seems silly to use that engine to duplicate the normal upper stage of the > Titan booster. The price of the payload seems to preclude a low -level > one-shot satellite to observe something (what?) near the equator. Also > that the launching was apparently long planned rather than in response to > an immediate need. Curiouser... I'm going to indulge myself in some completely unwarranted speculation here, which need not be specifically linked to this launch: Equatorial regions are still interesting -Iran, Iraq for example. Low payload tho'? Would an ELINT satellite be particularly massive? An engine could be used for orbital plane changes, but low initial alt...? Hmmmmmmm..... OK, haven't got my references handy, but something like SWERVE (Sandia Winged Entry Research Vehicle) from the 80s perhaps? Possibly something associated with the BMDO? (Star Wars) Target or interception? There's been a lot of speculation about a small USAF spaceplane, not to mention a lot of practical research by the USAF... it is a very tempting interpretation. One technology that I imagine that the intelligence community would be interested in is aerobraking. If a recon satellite has to make frequent orbital changes, aerobraking would be very handy and there would probably be a requirement for a low or elliptical orbit. Fuel is a problem for spysats. The KH-12 was designed to be launched and serviced/refuelled in orbit by Space Shuttles. After Challenger, the USAF? (which accronym is appropriate here?) went off having to depend on the Shuttle and a lighter version sometimes refered to as KH-11+ was launched by Titan IV. That could not be serviced in orbit. One of the missions proposed for the Soviet minishuttle (Uragan "Hurricane" - - see "Spaceflight" series on the Soviet Shuttle programme, four issues in 1995) was servicing satellites; likewise with Black Horse. Now, I don't see much of a need yet for a fully fledged crewed space shuttle in the black sector - crewed vehicles, especially spacecraft, are EXPENSIVE - - but something like the Japanese HOPE (maybe a bit more advanced). With modular payloads, it might be handy for simple logistics, one-off recon, in-orbit inspection and interception missions. If there is a black spaceplane project, maybe that is what it is and does - or will. It actually seems a bit more useful than "Aurora" would be: more versatile and less predictable than a Keyhole and less vulnerable than a Blackbird. Economical launch would be a hell of a problem though, and I don't think that expendable boosters would be the way to go - something like the X-34 in its original incarnation. That was cancelled because it was deemed to be commercially non-viable, not technically. A Black Horse-type "1 1/2 stage" solution would make sense, but there would be control problems with mid-air refuelling of a drone (?). Obviously, I'm just indulging myself here, and saying that a possible need for a piece of hardware is not the same as saying that it actually exists or is under development, or has been done that way. If that launch has anything to do with such a programme (why the hell don't they use transparent payload shrouds?! ;-) , it would be at the level of technology demonstartion. If you don't mind, I'll go and take my medication now. - --Brett ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Tue, 9 Jul 96 8:45:23  Subject: re: B-2 thrust Since the empty weight of the B-2 is 153,700 lbs, 175,000 is not a realistic operating weight. Gross weight on the aircraft has been cited from 336,500 lbs. all the way up to nearly 400,000. Given the thrust of the F118 engines (19,000 lbs. each), what Discovery probably really said was that at takeoff a B-2 would have a thrust to weight ratio of around 20%, which would mean they're using a middle figure of 380,000 lbs. for gross weight. Art Hanley Those that seek to find a relationship between what I've written here and what my employer may believe, seek something that can't be found. ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #675 ********************************* 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).