From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #721 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Wednesday, 23 October 1996 Volume 05 : Number 721 In this issue: Edwards Open House Report British Stealth More sea stealth Re: Edwards Open House. re: 5/1/60 Again Re: Edwards Open House. Air Force publications online re: Edwards Open House (mini Travelogue) re: Edwards Open House British Stealth - a report. Re: British Stealth - a report. Meteor or Space Plane? re: Meteor or Space Plane? re: Meteor or Space Plane? Re: Meteor or Space Plane? 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: Eric Chevalier Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 22:52:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Edwards Open House Report Well, folks, the word from today's Open House at Edwards Air Force Base is....wind. Unfortunately, there was a lot of it and it came from the wrong direction. Crosswind problems at the Open House caused many of the aerial displays--including the SR-17--to be curtailed. Apparently the wind was so strong that it exceeded the crosswind landing limitations of many of the aircraft that were scheduled to perform. At 10:00am an F-15 carrying Chuck Yeager flew supersonic over the base to deliver a sonic boom that opened the aerial displays. The next major performance was by a Canadian group called the "Northern Lights", flying German "Extra 300s". I was impressed by the complexity of their performance, especially given the windy conditions at the time. They were followed by a C-17 flyby, but no parachute drops. Also performing were a glider, F-15, A-10 and a team of three F-117s. A B-2 and B-1 performed extended flybys over the ramp, as well. Unfortunately, despite several valiant efforts, the B-2 was unable to land after its performance and was diverted to Plant 42. The static displays included a C-5, KC-10, C-141A, the NASA 747 Shuttle Carrier Aircraft. One of the reactivated Air Force SR-71s was present, as well as one of Beal's classy black T-38s. All in all, the air show wasn't quite up to the last few years efforts, but that's no reflection at all on the folks at Edwards. They just had the bad luck to get hit by some very unusual weather conditions. But keep your calendars open for next year's show; the announcer said that next year, to celebrate the Air Force's 50th anniversary, Edwards will hold a two-day event tentatively scheduled for October 18 & 19! ------------------------------ From: John Burtenshaw Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 09:04:53 +0100 Subject: British Stealth Hi All It has just been announced on the BBC that a British company, Vosper Thorneycroft, has been working on a Stealth Warship (which they call the Stealth Corvette). A model of it will be unveiled at a Paris Defence show on Monday 21 October. Amongst its features are water sprays which envelops the entire ship in mist to decrease infra-red detection, an ability to change its radar signature by hydraulic structures (apparently to appaer to be bigger than it really is or to mimic a civil ship (!) ) as well as the usual stealth techniques (RAM, specially shaped structures etc). At the moment this is a private venture but the company has a history of selling to middle-east navies so this may end up in a Sultan's Navy somewhere. On another matter I read of a report of a possible Stealth aircraft being test flown from British Aerospace's factory in Warton (there is an area there called the "Skunk-Works" :) ). It is reportedly a delta design with an approx 30ft span. It has been seen in company of a Tornado and also operating near to some defence ranges in the North of England. Rumour has it is a Stealth replacement to the Harrier as this aircraft has been seen in a hover. This may explain some of the reports of the Silent Vulcan that has been seen over this part of Britain. I recall a report in Aviation Week that it was also being tested at Area 51, but I cannot remember the date of the magazine. Anyone else remember this report? ------------------------------ From: Andy C Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 19:04:59 +0100 Subject: More sea stealth From the Telegraph (A UK newspaper) web page and infact this has been=20 all over the news today.: A BATTLE of the stealth warships will erupt this week as two British = companies unveil rival designs for revolutionary "invisible" ships aimed = at Ministry of Defence and world markets. The designs, to be shown at the Euronaval '96 exhibition in Paris, = incorporate technology making them extremely difficult to detect by = radar, infra-red or other sensors. The success of the American F-117A Stealth fighter in the Gulf War, = when it remained undetected and was able to strike at the heart of = Baghdad, has convinced scientists that stealth know-how is crucial for = future equipment designs. Critical to both ships is an innovative hull and superstructure which = produces a confused radar signature. Computer simulation tests by MoD = scientists have shown that one of the designs, Vosper Thornycroft's Sea = Wraith, looks as small as a fishing boat on conventional radar. The Sea Wraith's hull and superstructure are shaped to confuse radar = and constructed using special radar-deflecting panels. At the same time = all external equipment, such as radar dishes and antennae, is built into = a radar-reflective housing. To make detection even more difficult, the = mast containing satellite communications, electronic antennae and = navigation lights can be raised or lowered to change the ship's shape. Vosper Thornycroft said the superstructure design would actually = reflect radar in a way which generated disturbance and confused the = guidance systems of incoming missiles. But the Sea Wraith's most radical new feature is a top-secret = water-spray system which envelops the ship in a fine mist, blanking out = its profile and shielding hotspots such as the exhaust from heat-seeking = missiles. The mist will also blend with the grey of sea and sky, making the new = ship difficult to see with the naked eye. The idea, borrowed from the = United States "Arsenal" ship concept, is a first for Britain. High-speed waterjet propulsion will reduce the engine heat and noise Vosper, based in Southampton, is working with the MoD on the Sea = Wraith, which could - if it overcomes substantial financial hurdles - be = in service with the Royal Navy and foreign navies early next century. The rival design, the BAeSEMA's "Project Cougar", is less ambitious, = but still represents what its owners call a "fundamental rethinking" of = traditional corvette design. The hull is much steeper and narrower than = normal to reduce the ship's radar cross-section. High-speed waterjet propulsion will reduce the engine heat and noise = which can be detected by enemy forces. BAeSEMA, owned by British = Aerospace, is marketing the design particularly for Pacific Rim nations. Potential roles for both types of stealth corvette include long-range = patrols into enemy waters and anti-smuggling patrols. Weapons are expected to include surface-to-air systems, long-range = surface-to-surface missiles, and shore bombardment weapons with an = anti-submarine warfare capability. The Sea Wraith could also carry an unmanned aircraft equipped with = electronic counter-measures and a range of sensors to search for enemy = contacts and assess the probability of destroying them with long-range = weapons. Brian Spilman, the head of Vosper Thornycroft's Future Projects Group, = said: "Sea Wraith contains features which modern navies will need to = take on board if their fleets are to remain effective fighting forces in = the next century." - -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - ----------------- Andy C ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 18:16:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Edwards Open House. Well, this is the first time NASA Dryden had offered an SR-71 aerial display (I wouldn't exactly call it a demo, myself). However, high winds forced cancellation of the SR flight for safety reasons. 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 Sat, 19 Oct 1996, Wade Lengele wrote: > > I hope someone on this list is going to the Edwards Open house so they > can tell me all about it. I couldn't make it this year. I was really > looking forward to seeing the SR-71 demo. Do they have this kind of > great line up every year? > > Thanks > Wade > > > Home page > http://www.starlink.com/~wade/planes.html > > ------------------------------ From: betnal@ns.net Date: Mon, 21 Oct 96 22:44:58 GMT Subject: re: 5/1/60 Again Just to further muddy the waters, here's how Sukhoi described the incident: In April of 1960, early production SU-9s were in service, and an attempt was made to intercept a flight by a U-2 over the southern Soviet Union. As the pilots were not very experienced in the SU-9, and as there were guidance errors as well, the effort was foredoomed to failure. By May 1st, more experienced SU-9 pilots were stationed in this area, and the testing was complete on the T-3-51 intercept system. However, Powers' flight did not pass through this area. Attempts were made to intercept the U-2 with Mig-19s along his flight path, but these didn't have anything like the performance necessary. Strictly by chance, Mentyukov happened to be at Sverdlovsk with a SU-9 he was ferrying from Novosibirsk. The aircraft either had no guns or they weren't loaded, and since this was a ferry flight there were no missiles around. Despite this, since this was the only aircraft that had a chance of making an intercept, orders were given to intercept and destroy the U-2. Although not explicitly stated, clearly this meant ramming. Although the SU-9 launched, officially it never found the U-2. Later on, the U-2 flew into the missile barrage. This is also where MiG-19 pilot Safronov was killed. This offers three possibilities: 1. Mentyukov really never did intercept the U-2. This would be the only safe thing to report at the time. 2. He did intercept the U-2, but missed. If he reported this, he'd probably have been shot. 3. He did intercept the U-2, but decided that his dedication to the Leninist ideal didn't extend to a suicide mission against an unarmed plane (pressure suit or no, a ramming at that altitude would have been the end of comrade M.). If he reported this, he'd probably have been shot twice, along with his family on general principles. I think Chris is right, Mentyukov is embellishing the incident. The question is, is he embellishing to the point where he's describing an intercept that never occurred? Or, is he just embellishing his role at the intercept itself (In Western parlance, "Why, shore, Ah coulda kilt him effen Ah wan-ted tew, but Ah jest decide ta wing the varmint and let the Marshall take care of him".)? Art "Cowboyski" Hanley ------------------------------ From: chosa@chosa.win.net (Byron Weber) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 18:13:59 Subject: Re: Edwards Open House. > >I hope someone on this list is going to the Edwards Open house so they >can tell me all about it. I couldn't make it this year. I was really >looking forward to seeing the SR-71 demo. Do they have this kind of >great line up every year? > >Thanks >Wade > > >Home page >http://www.starlink.com/~wade/planes.html > Can't add much to the other posts about Edwards Open House except to say even with the wind (a real sandblasting desert windstorm), what a treat. The extended flights of the F-117s, the B-1 (especially agile for such a big plane in heavy wind) and the B-2 easily made up for the canceled SR-71 demo. The B-2 simulated bomb drop was a nice touch, too, and made my 4 year old's day. My compliments to the men and women who hosted the show. Their politeness and quiet, respectful military bearing sharply contrasts with the likes of most people in nearby, insane Los Angeles. A refreshing contrast. Byron ------------------------------ From: PaulMcG@aol.com Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 23:21:03 -0400 Subject: Air Force publications online I'd like to thank Howard German (hgerman@banmail.ml.com), for pointing me towards http://afpubs.hq.af.mil/elec-products/ where the Air Force now has a number of forms and manuals available for downloading. I think the Air Force should be thanked for making these manuals, such as the security document AFI 31-701, "Program Protection Planning", available to the public. I happen to know that the Air Force has more manuals available electronically, such as Air Combat Command manuals or some from the Air Force Flight Test Center (AFFTC) at Edwards AFB that are now available only to military or government sites, that should also be made publicly accessible. (As a side note, it saves the Air Force doing this would probably prevent a number of Freedom of Information Act cases for these manuals.) I'm not sure why the Air Force insists on putting the message "COMPLIANCE with Air Force Instructions is MANDATORY!" in red on every screen at this site though. The documents are mostly in Microsoft Word 6 .DOC format (for Windows or Macs), but some are in Adobe Acrobat .PDF format. (You might be able to use the MS-Word 5.1 file converter (for Mac) or MS-Word 2.0 converter (for Windows) for MS-Word 6 documents, available from http://www.microsoft.com/ to convert these .DOC files to earlier versions.) The files are stored as PKZIP .EXE files, that are self-extracting archives on PCs. For Mac users, the process gets more complicated. First, you will need to use ZipIt to decompress the files -- the latest version can be found at ftp://info-mac/cmp/zip-it-135.hqx although it may be advisable to just connect to ftp://info-mac/cmp/ to see if there is a newer version. ZipIt must be properly configured to extract the files cleanly. Go to the Preferences menu and set Compression Prefs to never use MacBinary. Then, you will need to map the PC suffix (.DOC or .PDF) to the appropriate Mac application. (Mac files have a hidden 4-character file type and creator that associates a file with a program and its icon.) Under the Preferences menu, select Extensions. Put DOC in the Extensions box, TEXT in the File Type box, and MSWD in the Creator box. Clicking on the Add button means that .DOC files will automatically be unZIPped as Microsoft Word files. Also, Put PDF in the Extensions box, PDF (with a space as the 4th character) in the File Type box, and CARO in the Creator box for the Adobe Acrobat files. Then, if you use the option "Look Inside Files" after you've downloaded the PC .EXE files, ZipIt should be able to properly decompress the Air Force documents on the Mac. Also, unless install the PC fonts such as Times Roman New and Courier New that come with MS-Word for the Mac 6, the files will not print out properly. Paul McGinnis / PaulMcG@aol.com http://www.frogi.org/secrecy.html [military secrecy site] http://members.aol.com/paulmcg/ [home page] ------------------------------ From: betnal@ns.net Date: Tue, 22 Oct 96 05:35:03 GMT Subject: re: Edwards Open House (mini Travelogue) Well, Wade, last Saturday I was at the Edwards show and had a great time. The flying display ended up being cut short because of a great deal of wind and sand. I didn't realize just how bad it was until I looked over by a C-5 and saw Peter O' Toole on a camel. Because of the wind a number of the flying exhibits had to be cancelled, and in fact some of the aircraft that were already airborne had to be held in the air because the crosswind component was too large to land on the runway. Here's some observations that might be interesting: In one open hangar, there was an extensive display of homebuilt aircraft. As is becoming more and more common nowadays, the majority of these were built of non-traditional material. At the rear of the hangar, totally unannounced, was possibly the biggest example of an aircraft made from non-traditional materials: a B-2, AV #5. You could get within about 1/2 wing span of it. If you didn't happen to look over where the guards were you might miss it (even though it's Big) because they called absolutely no attention to it. It was just There. It was kept in the darkened area of the hanger in front of back-covered windows, probably to forestall detailed photography (area was dark and windows reflected back flash). *They didn't allow for ASA 1600 film, though* In addition, the number 1 YF-23 was on display on the ramp. It's no longer owned by NASA, they gave it to the Edwards museum at the end of July. One thing interesting about the two Northrup products is that the composite material they are made of doesn't really look like metal as on other planes. What they look like is wood. It was interesting seeing the YF-23 again, because Lord that's a handsome plane! Too bad it'll never fly again. Another thing that isn't so obvious form most YF-23 photos is how high up the pilot sat. One of the reactivated USAF SR-71s was also on static display, and it constantly drew the most knowledgeable people. There was a continuous stream of people all through the show who either worked on the plane, worked with the plane or knew a lot about it. It was particularly interesting to talk with crews that were there, given how open they are now compared to how it was pre 1990 (lots of kids getting their picture taken in front of the SR-71 with a crew member, RSO's openly talking about the use of the aircraft, etc.). Regarding what flying display there was, which was still pretty good, the aircraft of most interest to skunkers would be the F-117, B-1 and B-2. The F-117 demo opened with three aircraft in a V formation and they then separated to do individual maneuvers, primarily performed by one aircraft. Having not seen a 117 demo before, this was particularly interesting. The 117 is more maneuverable in the horizontal than I expected, although its vertical performance isn't that spectacular. Certainly nothing on the order of a modern fighter, although it did do one wide loop. Think of a pre-Phantom fighter that turns tight and you've got a good idea. The B-2 got the biggest rush from the crowd when it came by. This is a spectacular aircraft to see in flight. It doesn't look like anything else. One thing about its display was that it would make a pass and go way out and then come back and make another single pass and demonstrate something else. It made no tight maneuvers at all and took by far the most airspace of any aircraft that flew...maybe they were just being cautious. It did do a flyby with weapons doors open. It also took advantage of the wind to really demonstrate slow flight. One thing that was interesting to me, was that of all the aircraft that were trapped airborne by the wind, the B-2 was the only aircraft that attempted a landing while I was there. The B-1's flight was spectacular because this is a bomber, not a fighter. I've seen B-1s put through their paces on test flights and demos before but it's still quite a sight. Basically, it flies maneuvers like the F-4, including in the vertical. If I ever had to go attack somewhere where they were going to shoot at me, I'd hope to be in an F-117 or a B-2 unless they actually saw me. Then, I'd really want to be strapped into a B-1. Probably the biggest disappointment for the crowd was the announcement that the SR-71 flight had been scrubbed (I'll bet if Mary were there they wouldn't have dared not fly!). You could hear an audible moan throughout the crowd. Since I hadn't seen an SR in the air since 1989 and this was the main reason I came to the show I left about an hour early while A-10s were doing their demo so I don't know if that decision was reversed. This is a worthwhile show because you'll see things here that you wont see anywhere else. It's not as big as El Toro, but well worth it in its own right. Next year for the first time, the show will run two days honoring USAF's 50th anniversary. There will also be more coporate sponsorship because avaialbe funding has been cut for these displays (F-117s towing Coors Light banners? B-2 crews in Nikes?). According to one paper they may even have a flying replica of the X-1, maybe even flown by Chuck Yeager, who opened the show this year with a sonic boom [from an airplane, Charles!]. Chuck Yeager is famous enough that I doubt that even the FAA will try to go after his license regardless of his age! Art "Newly Pitted Windshield" Hanley ------------------------------ From: tonydinkel@clubnet.net (Tony Dinkel) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 01:41:59 -0700 Subject: re: Edwards Open House I got some video of the B1B and B2. Also various other static shots. I have some friends on other lists that have expressed an interest in jpeg or gif frames. Anyone on here interested? I am not sure how this will turn out as I was having to work hard at standing upright, not to mention holding the camera still at tight zoom. Lets hope for better wx next year. Tony "Newly Pitted Pair of Glasses" Dinkel not to mention my cam-corder lens and face! ------------------------------ From: John Burtenshaw Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 09:46:30 -0100 Subject: British Stealth - a report. Hi Folks Following my post on British Stealth I am posting a report that first appeared on British-based aircraft spotters list which deals with UFO's in a manner not unlike those in this list, so it should be looked upon as being, in part, based on facts. The fact that there are lots of aircraft spotters in the UK who can identify all the planes in use by the RAF and would certainly note something unusual flying with a Tornado is, in my opinion, enough to give this report some credence. The British Ministry of Defence also has a form of Black Budgets in as much as some costs are debated in Parliment but not made public. Hansard which is the record of all Parlimentry proceedings censors any material that may endanger "national security". The cost of the Tornado was hidden for a long while in the late 1970's by this method during a time of fiscal restraint by the Labour Government, so it is quite possible for British Aerospace (BAe) to develop a Stealth demonstrator without pubilic knowledege. Also of interest was a recent BBC TV programme that investigated the "Flying Triangle" sightings and asked BAe if they had anything flying that matched the description. A BAe press spokesperson replied that it did not match anything in their current product list, which to me at least, implies that it is not a production aircraft but a prototype or test vehicle. And BAe Warton has opened a "Special Projects" department nicknamed "The Skunk Works" which is as secretative as its Lockheed predecessor. Enough ramblings- here is the original report: ***Begins*** First an apology..this is not strictly in line with normal spotters bulletins,but I hope that it will be of interest to fellow enthusiasts in the Uk ,and indeed throughout Europe,where similar events may be taking place. There appears to be something strange flying around North West England..so strange that the folks who live on the Lancashire coast are winding themselves into a frenzy over sightings..."UFO" sightings. Now we all know this can't be,but...there is substance in the various reports,and they all seem to indicate a dark triangular shape,with the ability to hover,and climb away at high speed. The epicentre of this activity seems to be BAe Warton...a few miles south of Blackpool. Despite continual denials by BAe officials,it has been reported in a number of publications,.."Janes" included, that a special projects section has been set up to develop and test a new stealth type a/c..a possible "son of Harrier" vectored thrust type. Its interesting to note that the "sightings" all happen within an area bounded by Kendal to the north,Barrow to the west , and Warton to the south...indicating that perhaps the craft is working in the D406 and Eskmeals ranges. Now,if BAe is testing some secret a/c,then fine...I'm sure we will find out eventually,but if the media continue the UFO theme ,then the hysteria will grow,making a farce out of the whole situation...and creating a home grown Area 51! As an aviation enthusiast,I have been following local events with interest, over the last 18 months, and wondered if any subscribers here in the North West have spotted the object. The info so far available is very sketchy.... There IS a special projects hangar at Warton. The a/c is probably unmanned,and highly agile. An object is reported to have been seen, in the circuit, in tandem with a Tornado. When flying "locally" it seems to remain within the River Ribble estuary area. It may well take the odd excursion to the ranges,north of Warton, Delta 406,or Eskmeals...hence the significance of the Kendal and Barrow sightings. The object is triangular in shape,with a "span" of about 30 feet. If you are associated with British Aerospace,my apologies for what may seem like interference,however I do feel that its about time the hysteria stopped,and common sense prevailed. I have contacted BAe on a couple of occasions requesting a press release on the subject,..this way the rumours could be scotched once and for all,but to no avail. So,if you have seen our mysterious Flying Triangle,please let me know..meamwhile,if you live within a 50 mile radius of Warton,...keep 'em peeled! One final point,if we assume that the descriptions above are accurate,and the object is unmanned,what would happen if the telemetry malfunctioned, and the a/c took a trip into controlled airspace...? ..See C.A.T Airmiss Report 2/95 ****Ends**** Cheers John =========================================================================== John Burtenshaw Internet Applications Developer The Computer Centre, Bournemouth University - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Postal Address: Talbot Campus, Fern Barrow, POOLE, Dorset, BH12 5BB U.K. Internet: jburtens@bournemouth.ac.uk Phone: 01202 595293 Mobile: 0850 240931 =========================================================================== ------------------------------ From: "J. Pharabod" Date: Tue, 22 Oct 96 11:13:09 SET Subject: Re: British Stealth - a report. Many thanks to John Burtenshaw for his very interesting posting of Tuesday, 22 Oct 1996 09:46:30 -0100: [snip] >There appears to be something strange flying around North West England.. >so strange that the folks who live on the Lancashire coast are winding >themselves into a frenzy over sightings..."UFO" sightings. > >Now we all know this can't be,but...there is substance in the various >reports,and they all seem to indicate a dark triangular shape,with the >ability to hover,and climb away at high speed. Now a question: is this craft really silent ? I have read somewhere that the spotters call it the "Silent Vulcan". J. Pharabod ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Tue, 22 Oct 96 08:40:06 GMT Subject: Meteor or Space Plane? Forwarded from the Space Tech list: Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 23:51:15 -0400 From: Joe Leikhim Subject: Was big "Meteor" over SoCal and NM really a Space Plane test?????? When I read the recent article in the AP which quoted John Wasson of UCLA and Mark Boslough of Sandia Nat'l labs claiming that this "meteor" "first entered the atmosphere near Las Cruces N.M., traveled over Artesia N.M, traveled 1 1/2 hours around the earth and re-entered over PT. Conception CA and continued its journey north of Bakersfield,,, traveled northeast of Kernville CA "where sonic booms were widely heard"" My suspicions were raised. Take a map out and check where Las Cruces and Artesia N.M are.Right on either side of White Sands Missile Base. Right??? Now run a straight line across PT Conception through Kernville. What do you find to the east??? Nellis Airforce Range!!!! This "Meteor" is no Meteor!! - -- Joe Leikhim Jleikhim@nettally.com "tv dinner by the pool, i'm so glad i finished school"-F.Zappa 1967 ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Tue, 22 Oct 96 9:46:46  Subject: re: Meteor or Space Plane? Ok, I meant Black Horse. I'm still disoriented by the sandstorm. Art Hanley To those that wouldst query, "Dost thou speaketh for thine employer?", I say thee, "Nay"! ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Tue, 22 Oct 96 9:44:37  Subject: re: Meteor or Space Plane? Dark Horse Lives! 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. ------------------------------ From: "J. Pharabod" Date: Wed, 23 Oct 96 10:21:35 SET Subject: Re: Meteor or Space Plane? It seems that it was *really* a meteor (see the posting below, from the sci.space.* groups). J. Pharabod - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date: 22 Oct 1996 02:12:20 GMT From: Frank Crary Subject: Was big "Meteor" over SoCal and NM really a Space Plane test?????? In article <3269A1B3.513D@nettally.com>, Joe Leikhim wrote: >When I read the recent article in the AP which quoted John Wasson of >UCLA and Mark Boslough of Sandia Nat'l labs claiming that this "meteor" >"first entered the atmosphere near Las Cruces N.M., traveled over >Artesia N.M, traveled 1 1/2 hours around the earth and re-entered over >PT. Conception CA and continued its journey north of Bakersfield,,, >traveled northeast of Kernville CA "where sonic booms were widely >heard"" My suspicions were raised. >Take a map out and check where Las Cruces and Artesia N.M are.Right on >either side of White Sands Missile Base. Right??? Now run a straight >line across PT Conception through Kernville. What do you find to the >east??? Nellis Airforce Range!!!! >This "Meteor" is no Meteor!! It's a meteor. The time and distance between the New Mexico and California events exactly matches what you'd expect for a meteor which hit the atmosphere over New Mexico, was slowed by atmospheric drag into a nearly circular orbit, and re-entered over California. A missile trajectory would not match that time and distance, unless they were trying to do something pointless to attract attention. A missile would also be unable to produce the New Mexico event, which was clearly something in the upper atmosphere, not a rocket launch. As for a "straight line", that doesn't make sense at all. If the object had been traveling through the atmosphere in a straight line, then it would have been seen at all points between New Mexico and California. It was not. Frank Crary CU Boulder ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #721 ********************************* 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).