From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #702 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Wednesday, 4 September 1996 Volume 05 : Number 702 In this issue: Costs and Numbers of programs Fw: Costs and Numbers of programs Area 71??? Bell textronics homepage! Re: Area 71??? THE ENTERTAINMENT SECTION F-15 ASAT Re: HAARP & RAINBOW Re: Costs and Numbers of programs Re: Is the Defense Budget Really being cut? (Long, again) BDA Re: F-15 ASAT Re: F/A-18 story re: BDA Anti-gravity ??? 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: betnal@ns.net Date: Mon, 02 Sep 96 06:55:09 GMT Subject: Costs and Numbers of programs Eric, I used different sources than you in coming up with the "which is larger" statement, which shows how tough it is to make comparisons. It has been reported in both trade journals and various reports that the Super Hornet is now going to be the most expensive program, but as always it's hard to really pin down which beans the bean counters are counting (USAF and USN, for example, figure program costs differently). There is more and more speculation that although the official number remains over 400, actual F-22 production may get cut to 300 or less, which will reduce program cost substantially (although it will drive flyaway costs up). The Hornet, on the other hand has always been an untouchable program and remains so for now. There have also been reports that although R&D is on track, the actual production costs of the aircraft are going to be well above that of the C/D models. Some, I believe have said as high as $20 million more apiece. This makes the oft-cited program costs suspect. Again, it's like trying to get a firm grip on Jello. ON the size of the JSF program. The planning numbers for now remain as follows: 80-100 for the Royal Navy; 300 for the USN; 632-700 for the USMC and the Air Force has been cited in various places as 1,800 to 1,900. Potential export orders (such as Norway, who is trying to buy into the program or the RAF, etc.) have not been included in the total cited production run. It is true that an ex-USAF Congressional staffer has put forth a ploy to wipe out Marine Air (I mentioned something about this a while back), but at present it is expected that this will get reversed and the STOVL version will stay on track. It might be noted that if it doesn't, the RAF order also disappears. This will substantially drive up costs on the remaining aircraft. In addition, we'd probably have to refund the UK the 10% share of the R&D they've been kicking in so far. It would also make us look even more untrustworthy (remember Pakistan) as a seller or partner and I don't think anyone wants that. Art "When is a Dollar Not a Dollar" Hanley ------------------------------ From: betnal@ns.net Date: Mon, 02 Sep 96 06:57:23 GMT Subject: Fw: Costs and Numbers of programs - --------------------------Forwarded Message------------------------------ Eric, I used different sources than you in coming up with the "which is larger" statement, which shows how tough it is to make comparisons. It has been reported in both trade journals and various reports that the Super Hornet is now going to be the most expensive program, but as always it's hard to really pin down which beans the bean counters are counting (USAF and USN, for example, figure program costs differently). There is more and more speculation that although the official number remains over 400, actual F-22 production may get cut to 300 or less, which will reduce program cost substantially (although it will drive flyaway costs up). The Hornet, on the other hand has always been an untouchable program and remains so for now. There have also been reports that although R&D is on track, the actual production costs of the aircraft are going to be well above that of the C/D models. Some, I believe have said as high as $20 million more apiece. This makes the oft-cited program costs suspect. Again, it's like trying to get a firm grip on Jello. ON the size of the JSF program. The planning numbers for now remain as follows: 80-100 for the Royal Navy; 300 for the USN; 632-700 for the USMC and the Air Force has been cited in various places as 1,800 to 1,900. Potential export orders (such as Norway, who is trying to buy into the program or the RAF, etc.) have not been included in the total cited production run. It is true that an ex-USAF Congressional staffer has put forth a ploy to wipe out Marine Air (I mentioned something about this a while back), but at present it is expected that this will get reversed and the STOVL version will stay on track. It might be noted that if it doesn't, the RAF order also disappears. This will substantially drive up costs on the remaining aircraft. In addition, we'd probably have to refund the UK the 10% share of the R&D they've been kicking in so far. It would also make us look even more untrustworthy (remember Pakistan) as a seller or partner and I don't think anyone wants that. Art "When is a Dollar Not a Dollar" Hanley ------------------------------ From: "Ori" Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 15:46:19 MGT-200 Subject: Area 71??? The post about area 71. Don't you mean area 51? ______________________________________________________________________ Ori Zakin http://www.makash.ac.il/students/2/orihp.htm(temporarily down) oriz@www.makash.ac.il - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: "Ori" Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 15:43:07 MGT-200 Subject: Bell textronics homepage! Does anyone know if bell has a homepage? ______________________________________________________________________ Ori Zakin http://www.makash.ac.il/students/2/orihp.htm(temporarily down) oriz@www.makash.ac.il - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: freeman@netcom.com (Jay Reynolds Freeman) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 06:21:30 -0700 Subject: Re: Area 71??? > The post about area 71. Don't you mean area 51? Certainly not, I presume -- that one's a secret! :-) ------------------------------ From: "Anderson, Rick" Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 08:37:00 -0700 Subject: THE ENTERTAINMENT SECTION 1) For any 'skunky' stamp collectors out there - this month the Republic of Palau (a former US Trust Territory) is issuing a sheetlet of stamps highlighting the technologies of stealth, surveillance, and electronic warfare. Among the aircraft featured on the stamps are the U-2, F-117, and the Darkstar UAV. For further info contact IGPC@aol.com 2) For those in the area, the Beale AFB open house (AirFest '96) is coming up on September 21. The theme this year is "Women in Aviation" and one of their special guests is scheduled to be Marta Bohn-Meyer - NASA's SR-71 backseater. For more info, the public Affairs Office is at 916-634-8890. Th-th-th-thats all folks. Rick Anderson ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Tue, 03 Sep 96 09:24:35 GMT Subject: F-15 ASAT Date: 3 Sep 1996 00:00:09 GMT From: Dwayne Allen Day Subject: Sat shot down by aircraft - Any truth in it ? Wood, Victor (RM4Y@DLRVMS.GO.DLR.DE) wrote: : Hi, : I saw on discovery that on one occasion an american fighter aircraft shot : down a sattellite. Is this true and if so can someone email me more info? Yep, it's true. The US had an interesting ASAT program in the mid-1980s that relied on an air-launched Miniature Homing Vehicle (MHV) to collide with its target. The ASAT itself used a SRAM (air-launched nuclear missile used to suppress Surface to Air Missile defenses) booster and a custom, infrared seeker vehicle. It was launched from an F-15. There was a single full test of this weapon in the mid-80s (without looking it up, I believe it was in 1984) against a Navy scientific satellite known as SOLWIND. SOLWIND was still returning data, but wasn't all that sexy a satellite. ASAT blew it into thousands of itty bitty pieces. I believe that there was at least one other test of the missile fired against a point in the sky. This was also considered a success. The F-15 ASAT (funny, they never came up with a name for the thing other than "MHV" or "ASAT"--I would have picked something sexy like STARKILLER) was effectively canceled by Congress, which took away money for further testing. The Air Force saw the writing on the wall and pulled the plug. From an operational standpoint this was a less than desirable weapon. One of the biggest problems was that it created an awful lot of debris. This is not good for all the other satellites flying around up there. It's also not good from a public relations standpoint, since simply testing it pisses off a lot of scientists and other government agencies. A newer ASAT in off-again/on-again development mode, uses a nylon "paddle" to whack its target and envelop it, hopefully not producing too much debris. It is ground-launched and is an Army program. The F-15 ASAT was also apparently undesirable due to its high cost. This is something I never really understood, though. It supposedly cost a lot because there was going to be an entire squadron of F-15 satellite killers. But why they couldn't simply a) build carrying kits into all new F-15s, or b) develop an easily-installable carrying kit, is unclear to me. Why not simply store them like every other high-tech weapon in the arsenal and retrieve them when necessary? From a political/bureaucratic standpoint there is a fascinating story to be told about US ASAT weapons. The unclassified Air Force has always thought that these things were cool and essential for warfare. The Intelligence Community (which also includes big parts of the Air Force) has always felt that it was best not to muck around too much in this area out of fear of provoking the Soviets into a) building better ASAT weapons of their own (although the ones they had weren't bad), and b) possibly knocking some of ours down in peacetime. The vulnerability of our own reconnaissance satellites has been known since the very early days and the official diplomatic strategy was to not do anything to draw attention to the desirability of knocking out reconnaissance satellites in general (indeed, a substantial amount of early US space policy hinged on this entire point). The Soviets also developed an air-launched ASAT that would be fired from underneath a MiG-31. They have released pictures of it and apparently even claimed to have tested it (entirely possible, since they could do this on their side of the planet without us ever tracking it). But I do not know the status of this program and MiG-31 upgrades are apparently no longer forthcoming (it's an expensive monster). Anyone who has any information on this program should please post it. D-Day - -- "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."--Carl Sagan ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Tue, 03 Sep 96 13:25:04 GMT Subject: Re: HAARP & RAINBOW _________________ Forward Header __________________________________ Author: forteana@lists.primenet.com at smtp-fhu Date: 8/08/96 14:04 > Is HAARP still being funded? I had hoped it would be abandoned. It > reminds me of Tesla wanting to light the atmosphere. Tell us more? Oh, yes, the horrible HAARP is still being readied to play in the heavens. The most current article on the project to burn a hole in the ionosphere is at: http://www.conspire.com/haarp.html and I can post it to the group if you like. Spot on about Tesla, too, as the article drags old Nik's contribution into the mix that is HAARP. > Was project rainbow the philadelphia experiment, or the alleged > philadelphia experiment? Either way, did you really find nothing at all, > or anything intyeresting? Storytime, kiddies! Ready? Back when I was working for a private firm that made FOIA (Freedom Of Information Act) requests to the FDA, I was given a project to determine how FOIA requests were processed at other government offices. I made several routine requests, then decided I would try something with the military-specific ones. I asked for everything on "Blue Book" and "Blue Paper" from Army and Air Force offices, and everything on "The Philadelphia Experiment" and "Project Rainbow" from the Navy. Here's what I got: "Blue Book" (the original UFO project) No files are kept or undated in this project anymore and all existing files have been transfered to the National Archive, where they may be accessed. And I did visit the ol' archive, and sure enough the was a drawer full of Blue Book on microfilm spools. I grazed and printed some files, but there was some purging and everything that remained seemed to be the predominantly hoaxed stuff. There were the "unexplained" cases, too, but nothing earthshaking. Nice picture of a shaved monkey as a dead alien, though. "Blue Paper" (the black project continuation of Blue Book) No such project exists in past or current records. This request was at a time when Blue Paper may have still been in effect, so no surprises there, either. BTW, I think I may have asked about that odd project involving green Mexican UFOs, "Starlight" or something like that. If I did, the reply must have been similar to one of the Blue answers, because it didn't leave any special impression. "The Philadelphia Experiment" (popular name for Project Rainbow) No listing matches your request. So either still a secret or they never called it that. Or it never happened. "Project Rainbow" (an experiment in "electronic camoflage", aka invisibility, using a black box) The code name Rainbow involves contigency projects to deal with the Axis powers. Please contact the us and let us know why you think the Navy was involved. Well, this sent a shiver right up me. When I did get back in touch with Navy, they informed me that they didn't know anything about Rainbow but that files that old would have been destroyed. So I didn't officially find out anything about Rainbow, but I feel I'm a bit wiser anyway >;) Questions and replies welcome! Hex Project Rainbow will always be my watershed obsession... ------------------------------ From: Brentley Smith Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 16:42:45 -0400 Subject: Re: Costs and Numbers of programs >The Hornet, on the other hand has always been an >untouchable program and remains so for now. Could you, Art, or someone else give us some background on the politics surrounding this issue? What is it with this plane? Is it just a case of home-state pork-barrelling in congress? Ever curious, Brentley ------------------------------ From: chosa@chosa.win.net (Byron Weber) Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 18:37:13 Subject: Re: Is the Defense Budget Really being cut? (Long, again) Art wrote: >Another long one from "Motorfinger", again... etc, etc. ....and, I actually read it all, in addition to Eric's and Robert's posts. Is this the final backlash to the low productivity and declining real incomes brought about by Keynesian macroeconomics, a situation in which our possessions possess us? Anyone have a realistic estimate on the billions worth of warehoused, half used, technologically outdated, maintanence demanding military hardware laying around? Isnt there some way to sell the unused assets, even at half the depreciated price, to help finance future procurements? Whose fault is this, anyhow, that we have to spend roughly the same amount of money now, as we did in 1990, with less than half the purchasing power? Byron ------------------------------ From: blackbird@mail.telis.org (Jon Price (PJ)) Date: Wed, 04 Sep 1996 01:32:50 GMT Subject: BDA OK. The events in Iraq prompts the following question. What system(s) will be used to accomplish the BDA? Satellites, F-14 w/tarps, UAV's, U-2, Or my personal choice, then SR-71. Since the USAF does not seem to have any money to fly the SR's for the rest of this Fiscal year, maybe we could take up a collection or something;-} . I realize that since this is more of a tactical situation there are probably more suitable assets than the SR, but we have them back, so lets use them. I look forward to opinions from those more knowledgeable in this area than myself. Jon - -- ************************************************** Jon Price If only Naval Aviators flew SR-71's, I'd be happy. Just imagine. "O.K. 3 wire Blackbird"! A PROUD member of the Tailhook Association. I am NOT known for being politically correct. *************************************************** ------------------------------ From: habu@why.net (habu) Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 21:12:15 -0700 Subject: Re: F-15 ASAT Terry Colvin wrote: > Yep, it's true. The US had an interesting ASAT program in the mid-1980s that > relied on an air-launched Miniature Homing Vehicle (MHV) to collide with its > target. The ASAT itself used a SRAM (air-launched nuclear missile used to > suppress Surface to Air Missile defenses) booster and a custom, infrared seeker > vehicle. It was launched from an F-15. >True - the seeker/guidance unit was developed by LTVMissile&SpaceDiv, (since LoralVoughtMissiles, now LockheedMartinVoughtMissilesSystems...) and integrated with the booster (a Boeing AGM-69 first stage, and a Thiokol AltairIII second stage, which was used as a fourth stage on LTV's Scout launcher) and MDD handled the aircraft integration. > There was a single full test of this weapon in the mid-80s (without looking it > up, I believe it was in 1984) against a Navy scientific satellite known as > SOLWIND. SOLWIND was still returning data, but wasn't all that sexy a > satellite. ASAT blew it into thousands of itty bitty pieces. I believe that > there was at least one other test of the missile fired against a point in the > sky. This was also considered a success. > True - the "point-in-the-sky" was actually a specific star (used to know the name...) The seeker actually homed on IR energy from the star... > The F-15 ASAT was also apparently undesirable due to its high cost. This is > something I never really understood, though. It supposedly cost a lot because > there was going to be an entire squadron of F-15 satellite killers. But why > they couldn't simply a) build carrying kits into all new F-15s, or b) develop an > easily-installable carrying kit, is unclear to me. Why not simply store them > like every other high-tech weapon in the arsenal and retrieve them when > necessary? > The problem, I believe, was that this were to be two dedicated squadrons (36 AC) with x birds always on alert. The F-15 had to fly a very precise insertion path, all precalculated and (I believe) controlled from the ground. This wasn't a case of cruising the skies waiting/hunting for a satellite. The mission profile assumed a hot bird on the ramp with INS aligned, etc. The program was supposedly preceded by 'CALSPHERE', launched via Thor rocket in the mid '60s, 'SQUANTO TERROR' (!), also launched on a Thor in the mid '60s, and the 'STARFISH' test in '62, when AEC & USAF detonated a nuclear warhead in outer space. I don't know that LTV had any involvement in these programs, however. I have found two other 'names' for the ASAT program: ALMV - Air Launched Miniature Vehicle PMALS - Prototype Miniature Air Launched Segment I've always heard it called ASAT, though... The IR seeker was from Hughes, and the laser gyros were from Singer Kearfott, all spinning at ~1200 rpm. Small solid propellant motors were contained in the spinning seeker, and were fired radially to guide the missile to impact, or at least close enough that - well, never mind... After ASAT, the same guidance technology mutated into a ballistic projectile interceptor program known as SR-HIT, then FLAGE, and was then used on ERINT. I believe this led to it's also being used on the new PAC-3 Patriot replacement... To be perfectly clear, *None* of the above information is classified, and was all obtained from public sources... Greg Fieser "although I'm no longer self-employed, it's a safe bet my employer has no idea what I'm talking about..." ------------------------------ From: betnal@ns.net Date: Wed, 04 Sep 96 03:18:11 GMT Subject: Re: F/A-18 story > > >The Hornet, on the other hand has always been an > >untouchable program and remains so for now. > > Could you, Art, or someone else give us some background on the > politics > surrounding this issue? What is it with this plane? Is it just a > case of > home-state pork-barrelling in congress? > > Ever curious, Brentley > Curious Brentley: This is mostly outside the charter of this list, so I'll be brief (for me) and maybe tie it in. This is all my personal, though hopefully semi-informed, opinion. The Hornet concept started with a very powerful group in the Pentagon and Congressional staffers who were part of what was known as the "fighter mafia". They originally were pushing a concept of a very cheap, light short-ranged fighter--sort of an American Mig-21. Their ideal aircraft was the YF-16 and YF-17 (they criticized the growth of the F-16 as not being true to the concept). The F/A-18 sort of originated in their concept so they felt very protective towards it. When Congress canceled The Naval Air Combat Fighter Program and directed that a derivative of one of the USAF Air Combat Fighter Program candidates be used, they "took possession" of the program and have been totally behind it ever since. I believe it sort of became a Beltway ego thing and eventually developed unstoppable momentum. It was ordered into production for both the fighter and attack roles despite the Navy's own Operational Test and Evaluation Force recommendation that it needed substantial improvement for one role and was unacceptable in the other. The Hornet program never suffered any serious cuts. It became a case of "We're getting an economy fighter no matter how much it costs". Although a marvel of technology, specs it didn't meet were reportedly changed to whatever it could do. When it started rising in costs, more Hornets were ordered. Although the Marines were developing the AV-8B, it was ordered canceled by Carter's Secretary of Defense and Hornets were ordered instead. When the AV-8B was restored, the additional Hornets were not canceled. Similar things happened with the new F/A-18E/F. The F-14D was sacrificed, and the A-6 is being retired early in order to fund the Super Hornet. Keep something in mind: Despite all the costs associated with bringing the E/F on line, its improvements over the C/D are limited, to say the least. It's hoped for a 28% increase in range over the C/D through carrying a lot more fuel and lower drag in the non-cruise portion of the mission (the E/F's new engines have a higher fuel flow than the C/D's), although it still won't have the payload range of The F-14 or A-6. It is planned to be able to return to the carrier with 3,000 lbs. more fuel and ordnance still aboard than the C/D can. It's somewhat better protected against ground fire and it's radar return from the front is reduced (though by no means is this a stealth aircraft) from earlier versions. That's about it. The avionics and sensors planned for the aircraft are the same ones that have been on the C/D for years. The towed decoy could also be towed by other aircraft. A certain number of the 1,000 E/Fs were earmarked for the Marines. The Marines made it clear that they would not operate the plane since it did nothing for them. Instead of planned production being reduced, the quantity for the Marines was reassigned to the Navy in addition to what it was already buying. Here's where it ties in to the list. When budgets got tighter, the stealthy A/FX's planned service entry date was moved back so that its funding "bubble" wouldn't come too close to the E/F's. When it got even tighter, the Navy was told it could have the A/FX (which looked like it would have been a Great aircraft) or the Hornet E/F but not both. It abandoned the A/FX in favor of the Hornet E/F. It has since been disclosed that on April 30 the Navy reportedly indicated that it didn't want to develop the F-117X, a true stealth aircraft with good payload range, preferring to put the money into the Hornet E/F. If it came to a choice between the F/A-18E/F and the far superior JSF, I'm not sure who would survive (actually, yes I am, darn it). I don't think it's pork barrel as much as a program with enormous momentum, incredible bureaucratic support and a need to have a project to keep MDD in the tactical aviation game. The latter is a worthy and probably necessary goal, but is this the way to do it? That's why I hope Macair wins JSF, so then there is a reason to let the Hornet go. I will Not discuss this from my work account by the way. Art "Swatter" Hanley ------------------------------ From: "Earl Needham, KD5XB, in Clovis, NM" Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 21:55:38 -0700 Subject: re: BDA > From: blackbird@mail.telis.org (Jon Price (PJ)), on 9/4/96 1:32 AM: > Jon Price > > If only Naval Aviators flew SR-71's, I'd be happy. > > Just imagine. "O.K. 3 wire Blackbird"! *I* want to hear "Blackbird ball"! 7 3 Earl Needham, KD5XB, in Clovis, NM (DM84) Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia, Pi Chi '76 Have you really jumped ROUND PARACHUTES? (Overheard at the Clovis Parachute Center) ------------------------------ From: "J. Pharabod" Date: Wed, 04 Sep 96 16:35:11 SET Subject: Anti-gravity ??? From sci.physics . Looks a priori like cold fusion, but who knows ? J. Pharabod Subject: Tampere Anti-Gravity Experiments From: robert@skylink.net (Robert Stirniman) Date: 1996/09/02 Message-Id: <50djcb$93m@news.skylink.net> Organization: Skylink Networks (http://www.skylink.net/) Newsgroups: sci.physics Article in Sunday Telegraph (UK), September 1 1996, page 3. BREAKTHROUGH AS SCIENTISTS BEAT GRAVITY. by Robert Matthews and Ian Sample SCIENTISTS in Finland are about to reveal details of the world's first anti-gravity device. Measuring about 12in across, the device is said to reduce significantly the weight of anything suspended over it. The claim -- which has been rigorously examined by scientists, and is due to appear in a physics journal next month -- could spark a technological revolution. By combatting gravity, the most ubiquitous force in the universe, everything from transport to power generation could be transformed. The Sunday Telegraph has learned that Nasa, the American space agency, is taking the claims seriously, and is funding research into how the anti-gravity effect could be turned into a means of flight. The researchers at the Tampere University of Technology in Finland, who discovered the effect, say it could form the heart of a new power source, in which it is used to drive fluids past electricity-generating turbines. Other uses seem limited only by the imagination: Lifts in buildings could be replaced by devices built into the ground. People wanting to go up would simply activate the anti-gravity device -- making themselves weightless -- and with a gentle push ascend to the floor they want. Space-travel would bitcome routine, as all the expense and danger of rocket technology is geared towards combatting the Earth's gravitation pull. By using the devices to raise fluids against gravity, and then conventional gravity to pull them back to earth against electricity-generating turbines, the devices could also revolutionise power generation. According to Dr Eugene Podkletnov, who led the research, the discovery was accidental. It emerged during routine work on so-called "superconductivity", the ability of some materials to lose their electrical resistance at very low temperatures. The team was carrying out tests on a rapidly spinning disc of superconducting ceramic suspended in the magnetic field of three electric coils, all enclosed in a low-temperature vessel called a cryostat. "One of my friends came in and he was smoking his pipe," Dr Podkletnov said. "He put some smoke over the cryostat and we saw that the smoke was going to the ceiling all the time. It was amazing -- we couldn't explain it." Tests showed a small drop in the weight of objects placed over the device, as if it were shielding the object from the effects of gravity - an effect deemed impossible by most scientists. "We thought it might be a mistake," Dr Podkletnov said, "but we have taken every precaution." Yet the bizarre effects persisted. The team found that even the air pressure vertically above the device dropped slightly, with the effect detectable directly above the device on every floor of the laboratory. In recent years, many so-called "anti-gravity" devices have been put forward by both amateur and professional scientists, and all have been scorned by the establishment. What makes this latest claim different is that it has survived intense scrutiny by sceptical, independent experts, and has been accepted for publication by the Journal of Physics-D: Applied Physics, published by Britain's Institute of Physics. Even so, most scientists will not feel comfortable with the idea of anti-gravity until other teams repeat the experiments. Some scientists suspect the anti-gravity effect is a long-sought side-effect of Einstein's general theory of relativity, by which spinning objects can distort gravity. Until now it was thought the effect would be far too small to measure in the laboratory. However, Dr Ning Li, a senior research scientist at the University of Alabama, said that the atoms inside superconductors may magnify the effect enormously. Her research is funded by Nasa's Marshall Space Flight centre at Huntsville, Alabama, and Whitt Brantley, the chief of Advanced Concepts Office there, said: "We're taking a look at it, because if we don't, we'll never know." The Finnish team is already expanding its programme, to see if it can amplify the anti-gravity effect. In its latest experiments, the team has measured a two per cent drop in the weight of objects suspended over the device -and double that if one device is suspended over another. If the team can increase the effect substantially, the commercial implications are enormous. ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #702 ********************************* 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).