From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #685 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Thursday, 25 July 1996 Volume 05 : Number 685 In this issue: Re: B2 (was #1m dent as jumbo lands with a bump) Re: follow-up Re: some help with terminology Florida Keys Mach and other units of speed measurement Re[2]: some help with terminology Re: Mach and other units of speed measurement Re: B-2 re: B2 (was #1m dent as jumbo lands with a bump) RE: Florida Keys Re: Airbreathing Rockets #1m dent as jumbo lands with a bump Re: B-2 landing gear. Re: Airbreathing Rockets Re: #1m dent as jumbo lands with a bump Re: Florida Keys Re: Florida Keys Re: Airbreathing Rockets 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: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 04:03:09 PDT Subject: Re: B2 (was #1m dent as jumbo lands with a bump) AS far as I can tell, used parts are SOP for new designs. General Dynamics pioneered it in production aircraft with the Viper. If you`re old enough to remember, the F-16 was supposed to be an *inexpensive* fighter. (insert chuckle here.) The use of reclaimed parts (especially the undercarriage) was part of the program. I guess it was part of the Air Force`s "Think globally, act locally" recycling proram! Chuck ------------------------------ From: fmarkus@nyc.pipeline.com (Frank Markus) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 12:02:48 GMT Subject: Re: follow-up On Jul 25, 1996 10:05:06, 'agentx@closer.brisnet.org.au (Matthew Etherington)' wrote: << STUFF OMITTED >> >Frightening thought, isn't it? I heard a similar report along the >lines that Soviet ex-military top brass have been selling weapons-grade >plutonium to the highest bidder ... and the starting price is pretty low. Just think ... we could take up a collection and be the first mailing list with a nuclear deterent! Sort of like an old Mickey Rooney-Judy Garland movie, "Hey kids, I know what we'll do! Let's get some money, buy some plutonium and rule the world!" ------------------------------ From: Jeff H Clark Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 09:48:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: some help with terminology I would guess that the "aerosat" you heard might really be "aerostat", the large tethered radar balloons that the USAF and Customs use along the southern borders. I have seen the USAF aerostat site on Cudjoe Key in the Florida Keys, and they are large (Goodyear-blimp size) and I have heard they can be reeled out to 10000 feet up, which is something a pilot would be worried about if it got loose. I think they have aerostats along the Mexican border as well. Jeff Clark jclark@freenet.tlh.fl.us ------------------------------ From: dougt@u011.oh.vp.com (Doug Tiffany) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 96 11:00:50 EDT Subject: Florida Keys Jeff H Clark writes: > > I would guess that the "aerosat" you heard might really be "aerostat", > the large tethered radar balloons that the USAF and Customs use along the > southern borders. I have seen the USAF aerostat site on Cudjoe Key in the > Florida Keys, and they are large (Goodyear-blimp size) and I have heard they > can be reeled out to 10000 feet up, which is something a pilot would be > worried about if it got loose. I think they have aerostats along the Mexican > border as well. > Yes, I saw that blimp a year ago April. Thanks a lot! We all wondered what that was. While in Key West, I also saw a white ship that resembled a Navy Destroyer that had all sorts of spheres on it. It was a ways out and still quite small through the binoculars. Any ideas what it would have been? - -- A hundred years from now, it will not matter what kind of house I live in, how much is in my bank account, or what kind of car I drive, but the world may be a different place because I was important in the life of a child. Douglas J. Tiffany dougt@u011.oh.vp.com Varco-Pruden Buildings Van Wert, Ohio ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Thu, 25 Jul 96 09:28:51 GMT Subject: Mach and other units of speed measurement Forwarded from the Space Tech list: Date: 24 Jul 1996 15:17:58 GMT From: Alain Fournier Subject: Orbital Mach No. and Lockheed Skunk Works Orbital Capabi Terry Colvin (colvint@fhu.disa.mil) wrote: > Author: larry@ichips.intel.com at smtp-fhu > >I think Mach 25 is pretty fast for orbit. > Oops, I missed this one. Chuck scoops it up! > I don't know how many Lockheed Skunk Works engineers know how to design > a system that goes to orbit, but the real point is that the Skunk Works > could indeed design and field such a system. They've been a part of many > such studies going way back. They obviously convinced somebody, as they > won the X-33 bid, even against Rockwell, who was bidding a Shuttle evolution. > Mach 25 is about orbital velocity. About 17,500 mph. You are correct > Chuck about the wierdness about mach number and velocity in some > of these regimes. > My favorite effect is the effect at hypersonic speeds. > For those who aren't so familiar with this: > At hypersonic speeds, with hypersonic high temperature effects, the Mach > number and the velocity can become quite out of sync due to what the > high temperature does to speed of sound (it raises it): > speed of sound = sqrt(lamda x R x Temp). So as Temp goes up, speed of > sound goes up. > And: > Mach number = velocity/speed of sound. I hate this idea of using mach numbers for orbital speed. The speed of sound in vacuum is zero. Mach number = velocity/speed of sound. In vacuum mach 1 has no meaning. And on the way up, the meaning of mach 1 changes. Mach numbers are good for people doing fluid dynamics since there are some important effects which happen at mach 1, so if you are doing fluid dynamics you want to know your speed relatively to mach 1. But if you want to talk about the speed of a vehicle km/h or km/s are better (please none of those nation specific and/or ancient units, miles, nautical miles, lieues, lis etc.). Alain Fournier ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Thu, 25 Jul 96 09:55:18 GMT Subject: Re[2]: some help with terminology Yes, several aerostats are positioned along the U.S./Mexico border. I can see one from my test lab. The Kevlar cable stretches at least 10,000 feet above the site in the Huachuca Mountains which is at ~6,000 feet. Lost one a few years back during tornadic canyon winds. Terry ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: some help with terminology Author: Jeff H Clark at smtp-fhu Date: 25/07/96 7:41 I would guess that the "aerosat" you heard might really be "aerostat", the large tethered radar balloons that the USAF and Customs use along the southern borders. I have seen the USAF aerostat site on Cudjoe Key in the Florida Keys, and they are large (Goodyear-blimp size) and I have heard they can be reeled out to 10000 feet up, which is something a pilot would be worried about if it got loose. I think they have aerostats along the Mexican border as well. Jeff Clark jclark@freenet.tlh.fl.us ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 10:04:25 PDT Subject: Re: Mach and other units of speed measurement Alain Founier writes >Mach numbers are good for people doing fluid dynamics since there are >some important effects which happen at mach 1, so if you are doing fluid >dynamics you want to know your speed relatively to mach 1. But if you >want to talk about the speed of a vehicle km/h or km/s are better (please >none of those nation specific and/or ancient units, miles, nautical miles, >lieues, lis etc.). Oh Contraire, The Mach number means everything! The angle of the compression (Theta-Beta-M diagrams!)and expansion waves (Prandtl-Meyer function) are Mach number dependent. And 10000Km/sec through the Jovian atmosphere is different from 10000Km/sec throught the solar atmosphere or Earth`s. The Mach number is perfect because its the same regardless of what units you use! So, for a stealth aircraft you want to know the angle the shock cone makes with the body (see SR71)- and make sure you have put enough distance between you and the listener once detected. > But if you >Want to talk about the speed of a vehicle km/h or km/s are better >none of those nation specific and/or ancient units, miles, nautical miles, >lieues, lis etc.). It is customary in aircraft design and flight dynamics to use English units. Saying KPH makes you look like a rookie. (Why??? I have no idea. Anybody know?) Chuck ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 10:58:35 -0700 Subject: Re: B-2 Terry Colvin forwards: Graeme@Sandra's writes: >... >Almost as emarrassing as, but not nearly as sinister as, the Stealth B2, >which just collapsed as it was wheeled out in front of the same people who >were fairly interested in what they were getting for $2 billion. WHAT????? This incident is news to my reality! When did this happen? >The aviation world's version of trainspotters who were peeking took down >the model number visible on the under-carriage, as they were suspicious of >the world's most advanced and most expensive military aviation technology >being so badly designed that it couldn't FERGING ROLL ALONG THE RUNWAY. The >whole of the landing gear was second-hand, old, cheap landing gear from an >airplane completely unconnected with the Stealth project. I vaguely recall the B-2 test pilots talking about a landing gear problem early in the program, that would occurr just after landing, but a landing gear collapse of a B-2 is news to me! Again, when did this allegedly happen? >Odd, at the least. You can say that again! Larry ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Thu, 25 Jul 96 11:09:20  Subject: re: B2 (was #1m dent as jumbo lands with a bump) Graeme: Lockheed and the Skunk-Works didn't build the B-2, that was Northrop's design. Lockheed's design was smaller. As to the B-2 billions being a cover for something else, it's not surprising that it was so expensive. Virtually all the materials and construction technology had to be invented as they went along. There was a precision required in fabrication that was unprecedented. The fact that there was very little that could be adapted from the civil world didn't help a lot. They often had to invent the tools to build the tools to build the aircraft. Plus, the cost of setting up a very very sophisticated production line to produce 100+ of these aircraft wasn't cheap, especially when you consider how much paperwork is involved to comply with DoD, EPA, OHSA and who knows who else's regulations. Add the security requirements on top of that and it really gets expensive. A true story illustrating how much overhead costs can come in. Whenever Northrop would hire an engineer or other person who would be working on the design or research or some of the testing of the aircraft, that employee had to have a very high security clearance. If the employee didn't already, then the clearance had to be obtained from the Government. However, it took a year for the Government to do the thorough investigation necessary. Until the clearance came through, the engineer couldn't work on the project. Still, the employee had to be paid during the interim since it was the customer saying that they weren't allowed yet to work on the program they were hired for. If they didn't obtain the clearance the employee was released, and the whole process had to start over! USAF's decision to change the specifications to include low altitude penetration involved a major redesign of the aircraft well after the design had been finalized and that added a lot of bucks. There's still a lot of controversy about the aircraft itself, and that's another issue. There probably isn't a need, thought, to wonder where else the money might have been going. There was plenty of stuff going on in the R&D for that aircraft to eat up tons of money by itself. Art Hanley To those that wouldst query, "Dost thou speaketh for thine employer?", I say thee, "Nay"! ------------------------------ From: JOHN SZALAY Date: Thu, 25 Jul 96 14:16:18 EDT Subject: RE: Florida Keys > that resembled a Navy Destroyer that had all sorts of spheres on it. > It was a ways out and still quite small through the binoculars. Any > ideas what it would have been? The Navy has several ships used for missile tracking and telemetry use.. Nasa used to use them as well before the TDRS sats were launched. There are also several "spy" ships such as the "Observation Island" plus some of the "Cobra ---- " series... OR it could have been one of the Coast Guard buoy tenders, with some of the "buoys" on deck. :) As for the "AEROSTATS", the charts show a restricted flight area north Key West to an altitude of 15,000ft for the aerostats, there is also one at Cape Canaveral. I,d have to check the charts, I,m sure there are several near Texas as well. John Szalay jpszalay@tacl.dnet.ge.com ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 11:45:15 -0700 Subject: Re: Airbreathing Rockets Byron writes: >>>> nuclear (thermionic tests and >>>>Tokamak) tests as impractical due to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test >>>>Ban Treaty and by implication stating air breathing rockets are best. Chuck responds: >>>huh?????? My feelings exactly! At first we're talking about nuclear stockpile issues and tests to verify theories about how well nuclear weapons age, and then suddenly airbreathing rockets are brought into the picture as being related! Say what? Byron responds: >>Tokamak-ion plasma engine, thermionic heat transfer. I know of two >>ongoing projects, studies for their possible use as a means of space >>propulsion. Space propulsion does not imply atmospheric or even exoatmospheric (on the way to orbit) propulsion. Please be more clear as to what they're thinking about. There are proposals to use nuke powered engines in space only, like between planets. That's what "space propulsion" means to me. Chuck responds: >>BTW, what is an air-breathing rocket? Byron responds: >>Ok Chuck, only an engineer would make me go through this: >>air-breathing rocket "engine." As I was falling off to sleep last >>night I recalled the ommission and knew for sure someone would >>challange me. Thanks for the making me clear that up. >> >>But, did you get the main idea? .... ?? Allow me a quick explanation. The answer is that it isn't formally defined (one could I guess, use the term for any airbreathing engine cycle that has a rocket anywhere in any of the flowpaths), but there is an understood meaning of the term. That is, an airbreathing duct, that has a rocket ejector (or rocket exhaust) somewhere in the direct flow path of the air. There are many, many, many different configurations. Many use the fuel rich rocket ejector as the source for fuel in the airbreathing cycle and also the static thrust source to get the airbreathing cycle up to an efficient Mach number. Some use the rocket exhaust as the primary flow of an ejector, where the secondary flow is from the flow of air through the duct. The rocket exhaust has also been known to act as a thermal throat and fuel source for a duct that can function as a ramjet or a scramjet. There have been ramjet and scramjet versions of many of these engines actually tested. ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Thu, 25 Jul 96 11:55:18 GMT Subject: #1m dent as jumbo lands with a bump Related 747 story which spawned the B2 comment. Source and accuracy of the B2 comment are unknown. Terry ______________________ Forward Header __________________________________ Author: forteana@lists.primenet.com at smtp-fhu Date: 24/07/96 14:12 The following was reported by Roy Stilling using the Fortean Times - On line reporting service - ----------------------------------------------------------- Seen in Electronic Telegraph on 24/7/96 By Sean O'Neill THE reappearance of a 26-year-old Boeing 747 after a lengthy overhaul was to have been a special occasion. Senior figures from the owners, the French airline Corsair, had flown to Cardiff to see their 5 million plane emerge from the British Airways maintenance centre. They planned to fly it home. But as the jumbo was towed from the hangar, someone pushed the wrong button, the undercarriage retracted and the plane fell backwards with a thump that could be heard half a mile away. It took five hours to lift it off the ground, using airbags. The plane is now back in the hangar and BA has had to acquire spare parts from the United States to repair damage estimated at 1 million. "British Airways is proud of its facilities and wanted to make an occasion of it," said a depot worker. "But as the plane was being towed out, the undercarriage retracted. "As the plane collapsed under the weight of its fuel load, the nose lifted into the air and carried the towing truck with it. "There was a lot of panic and shouting and there were red faces all round. Apparently someone in the cockpit hit the undercarriage button by mistake." Laurent Bayol, Corsair's engineering manager in Paris, said: "I'm afraid it is true. There was severe damage to the fuselage and to the landing gear. It is now a matter for the insurance company." British Airways said: "There were no passengers on the plane and no one was injured. The cause of the accident is being investigated. We have had to send for spare parts from Boeing in America." Contact email address: rpjs@stilling.ftech.co.uk - -------------------------------------------------------------- This has been reported via the Fortean Times On-line Reporting service at >>> http://alpha.mic.dundee.ac.uk/ft/ft.html ------------------------------ From: Side Show Marc Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 13:48:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: B-2 landing gear. Hey All, A long time ago when there was still a lot (more than now) of speculation about the B-2 I remember reading that the landing gear on the prototype was either from or based on that of a Boeing 767. The author of the article (who's name and publication elude me right now) used that as a basis to come up with a set of preformance figures regarding take off weight and speed. ___________ Marc Studer ___________________________________________ "Life is a fair approximation of reality." - Jacques Portman "Two plus two equals Duh." - Jacques Portman ______________________________________ mstuder@spu.edu ___________ > Graeme@Sandra's writes: > >... > >Almost as emarrassing as, but not nearly as sinister as, the Stealth B2, > >which just collapsed as it was wheeled out in front of the same people who > >were fairly interested in what they were getting for $2 billion. > > > >The aviation world's version of trainspotters who were peeking took down > >the model number visible on the under-carriage, as they were suspicious of > >the world's most advanced and most expensive military aviation technology > >being so badly designed that it couldn't FERGING ROLL ALONG THE RUNWAY. The > >whole of the landing gear was second-hand, old, cheap landing gear from an > >airplane completely unconnected with the Stealth project. > ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 10:00:00 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Re: Airbreathing Rockets On Thu, 25 Jul 1996 larry@ichips.intel.com wrote: snip... > That is, an airbreathing duct, that has a rocket ejector (or rocket exhaust) > somewhere in the direct flow path of the air. > > There are many, many, many different configurations. Many use the fuel rich > rocket ejector as the source for fuel in the airbreathing cycle and also > the static thrust source to get the airbreathing cycle up to an efficient > Mach number. There are also Liquid Air Cycle Engines. Cryogenic fuel is used to cool and condense air entering an inlet and that is then fed into the combustion chamber of a fairly (!) conventional rocket. A LACE was the basis for HOTOL and its successor, Skylon, and also a Japanese spaceplane proposal. I don't know if there have been any benchtop LACE demonstrations, but from what I gather, Skylon has been pretty thoroughly developed as a detailed design concept. On a tangent, anyone want to discuss or elaborate on Skylon? It looks like a great idea, but I keep thinking HOTOL, Interim HOTOL, TSR-2, Bristol 188 (almost a British Blackbird), Black Arrow, the original Skylon (it was a monument -hey, I'm an architect!)... all good ideas that were allowed to wither (I was about to say "shafted"). - --Brett ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 10:17:56 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Re: #1m dent as jumbo lands with a bump On Thu, 25 Jul 1996, Terry Colvin wrote: > Related 747 story which spawned the B2 comment. Source and accuracy of the > B2 comment are unknown. Terry ........snip.... > But as the jumbo was towed from the hangar, someone pushed the wrong > button, the undercarriage retracted and the plane fell backwards with a > thump that could be heard half a mile away. James Goodall's book, "SR-71 Blackbird" has a photo on page 51 of something similar happening. I quote the caption: "No one is perfect are they? This is what happens when you are not paying complete attention to the checklists. This SR-71 reveals what happens when you turn on the aircraft's hydraulic system, forget to install the landing gear locking pins on all wheels, then cycle the gear handle to the up position. The end result is several million dollars in damage to the aircraft and a few lost stripes to the ground crewman." Ouch. - --Brett ------------------------------ From: Jeff H Clark Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 18:51:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Florida Keys On Thu, 25 Jul 1996, Doug Tiffany wrote: > Yes, I saw that blimp a year ago April. Thanks a lot! We all > wondered what that was. While in Key West, I also saw a white ship > that resembled a Navy Destroyer that had all sorts of spheres on it. > It was a ways out and still quite small through the binoculars. Any > ideas what it would have been? > Most likely it was a missile/rocket tracking ship; inside the spheres are big antenna dishes for receiving telemetry and tracking rockets. It is probably stationed at Port Canaveral where I've seen one or two others like it. Or, there is some kind of ACM range around the keys, and the ship could be involved in tracking airplanes for mock war games. In general, big domes usually mean a big dish is inside, wherever you see it. Jeff Clark jclark@freenet.tlh.fl.us ------------------------------ From: Edward Burton Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 19:27:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Florida Keys I don't know how I got on th"skunk works" mailing list, but I want to get off of it. I have no interest in aircraft and don't even know what this stuff is about. Thanks for your cooperation. jburton1@eagle.tricities.net ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 16:45:21 -0700 Subject: Re: Airbreathing Rockets Larry wrote: >> That is, an airbreathing duct, that has a rocket ejector (or rocket >>exhaust) > somewhere in the direct flow path of the air. >> >> There are many, many, many different configurations. ... Brett responds: >There are also Liquid Air Cycle Engines. Yes. Another good example of one of the many ways in which a rocket can be inserted in the flow path, and an excellent example of the term 'airbreathing rocket' versus 'ducted rocket'. > A LACE was the >basis for HOTOL and its successor, Skylon, and also a Japanese spaceplane >proposal. Indeed! > I don't know if there have been any benchtop LACE >demonstrations, I can imagine that RR did some experiments with HOTOL's RB545, and I'm also sure the Japanese did some as well with their concepts. I need to consult my histories for details. But I happen to know of one published account of a working LACE here in the US in the 60's. It was at Marquardt and they showed video of it at an aerospace conference in the 60's. I have one black and white photo of the test fixture. I read about it in a great paper on LACE engines written by Bill Escher who is the current head of the NASA propulsion and power directorate (I think I have the title correct). Bill worked on a lot of this stuff at Marquardt back in the 60's. I'd love to know if Bill has that old Marquardt movie on videotape! From memory of Bill's description of the film, the engine ran outside in the ambient air at Marquardt until it fouled due to too much ambient humidity. The film sounds pretty impressive and I guess it was the hit of the conference. In Escher's paper, he indicated that the next step was to fix the fouling problem, which he says was done. So it sounds like we have some pretty far along LACE technology here in the States as well (if you talk to the right person). > but from what I gather, Skylon has been pretty thoroughly >developed as a detailed design concept. I'm sure it has. >On a tangent, anyone want to discuss or elaborate on Skylon? I know of one reference for information on HOTOL's RB545, namely: "HOTOL's Secret Engine's Revealed" May 1993, Spaceflight but I need a copy of that paper. Anybody have one they could send me a photocopy of? I'd like some details on SKYLON's SABRE engines. Anybody have a reference, or even better, some copies? For those of you who are techies and interested in LACE cycles, you might want to look at the thermodynamic analysis of LACE cycles that Fred Billig (Mr. Scramjet) published in a paper in the book entitled: "High Speed Flight Propulsion Systems" published by the AIAA. The paper was entitled something like: "Propulsion Cycles From Runway To Orbital Speed". The Escher paper I mentioned above is also quite good. It is historical, but also quite informative. The impression one is left with after reading Escher's paper is that you really didn't know much about LACE before you read his paper. It certainly doesn't seem that a lot of people know about these alternative paths! > all good ideas that were >allowed to wither (I was about to say "shafted"). Yes. It certainly seems like someone could maybe break things wide open given a little capital, and access to the experts, doesn't it! ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #685 ********************************* 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).