skunk-works-digest Friday, October 31 1997 Volume 06 : Number 084 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Gates Re: Gates Still looking for Hi-Spot/SRA info Metallic snowstorm, El Paso, Texas October 9th For Your F-117 Diaries F-117 Update Re: skunk-works-digest V6 #83 Re: skunk-works-digest V6 #83 Re: Thrust SSC shocks vs Needham's Racer's shocks X-33 Program Successfully Completes Critical Design Review; Media Telephone Conference Set for 11 a.m. EST Monday, Nov. 3 *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 08:54:27 -0700 (PDT) From: David Lednicer Subject: Gates In the interest of setting the story straight, I will go off topic and correct some misinformation. I live in Redmond, home of the evil Borg, Microsoft. The full story is that Gates was leaving a party in Kirkland and got stopped for doing something like 45 in a 35 zone. It was approximately 35 minutes after midnight and the cop discovered that Gates' insurance had lapsed at midnight. The cop was supposed to give him 30 days grace on the insurance, but instead tried to nail him. Gates got off quite easily, but the cop got fired for being such a SOB. Yes, Gates and Paul Allen both bought Porsche 959s. However, US Customs impounded them as Porsche never did a crash test on the model, and hence they can not be legally licensed in the US. I think the cars were finally released when they swore up and down that they would never drive them on the street. According to a recent check of DMV records, published in the Seattle Times, Gates owns the Lexus, a Ferrari, a Porsche and a pickup truck. I have seen him driving the Lexus several times. I pass the main Microsoft campus every day on my to and from work. With the recent construction, I now actually pass through the campus. Additionally, my office is three blocks away from main campus. Yes, there are a lot of fancy Ferraris, Acura NSXs, Lotuses, etc. coming and going from there every day. However, you also see a lot of "average" cars too. I think I have even seen a very beat up Pinto driving into Microsoft. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 10:15:24 -0700 From: larry@ichips.intel.com Subject: Re: Gates > In the interest of setting the story straight, ... OK, could we leave this topic now? I'm amazed at how we can discuss off topic items like this and when someone posts something with meat in it, nobody even discusses it! I'm gonna kick Pat's butt when I see him next for starting this! Have a nice day! Larry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 18:45:11 From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David) Subject: Still looking for Hi-Spot/SRA info A while ago, I mentioned my interest in the Lockheed Hi-Spot & SRA proposals and I remember someone saying they had a picture of Hi-Spot that used to hang in their father's? office. If anyone does have info. on the concepts I'd very much appreciate hearing from them. Thanks David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 11:47:49 -0700 From: "A.J. Craddock" Subject: Metallic snowstorm, El Paso, Texas October 9th On October 9th there was a huge explosion over El Paso, Texas. Many observers thought something had been shot down. A local sheriff interviewed on the radio reported lightweight metallic flakes raining out of the sky. Government scientists claim it was a meteor. Check out the report at http://www.cseti.org/crashes/crash.htm Tony Craddock ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 03:51:41 -0800 From: patrick Subject: For Your F-117 Diaries > > Copyright 1997 The Houston Chronicle Publishing Company > The Houston Chronicle > > October 24, 1997, Friday 3 STAR EDITION > >HEADLINE: Air Force to check jets > >SOURCE: Staff and wire reports > >DATELINE: MIDLAND > > BODY: > MIDLAND - The Air Force has dispatched crews to Midland to check out >engine trouble that forced an F-117 Stealth fighter jet to make an unscheduled >landing. > > No one was injured in the landing. The pilot was the only person aboard. > > The plane is part of the 8th Fighter Squadron from Holloman Air Force Base in >Alamogordo, N.M. It is expected to be flown back to the base following repairs. > > The two-engine jet was on a routine training flight, the Air Force said. It >is being held out of sight at a Midland International Airport hangar. > > A similar F-117 fighter jet crashed on Sept. 14 during a Maryland air show. > >LANGUAGE: ENGLISH > >LOAD-DATE: October 25, 1997 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 15:25:59 -0800 From: patrick Subject: F-117 Update Regarding the F-117 that diverted to Midland, TX. It landed at approximately 4:30 pm on 22 October after requesting clearance to land due to an engine malfunction. The newspaper reporter who wrote the story for the local paper claims to have heard the plane but did not see it. He describes the sound as very unique in that he heard one of the two engines cycling up and down while the other remained constant. The plane made a safe landing and was shut down at the end of the runway. It was then towed to a city owned hangar. And then some things happened..... On Sunday, 26 October the F-117 departed Midland at 5:30 pm along with a T-38 chase plane had from Holloman. Editor's note: The western third of Texas is where a lot of the training missions are flown. patrick cullumber patrick@e-z.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 10:40:34 GMT From: abeaumont@canterbury.kent.sch.uk (Adrian Beaumont) Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V6 #83 >------------------------------ > >Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 11:40:22 >From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David) >Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V6 #82 > >Adrian Beaumont writes: > >> >>>It seems we..or certainly I have overlooked the fact that Hal Needham broke >>>the sound barrier with his rocket powered car, aptly named 'Budweiser >>>Rocket' in December 1972 at EAFB, but failed to make the second run. > >>Is it not true that on that occasion the speed of the Budweiser Rocket was >>measured with a radar system that was aimed by means of an operator >>following a picture on a TV screen, and even worse, the system was neither >>accurate nor was it calibrated or tested? (Source: Guiness Book of >>Records). The claim of an accuracy in measurement of 1 part in 750,000 is >>ludicrous. Under such circumstances an accuracy of 1 part in 10 or maybe >>20 is all that any scientist would be willing to pin his/her academic >>reputation on. Surely if the driver really believed that the car could do >>it, he would have attempted a run with the proper approved accurate >>measuring equipment! Or did he know what most of us suspect........ > >Thanks for the detailed background. Here's a snip from the letter that made >me think that the car had exceeded Mach 1: > >....SNIP > >...Having been involved in supersonic research since the days of the XS -1 >rocket plane, which I flew on the first supersonic flight on October 14, >1947, there is no doubt in my mind that the rocket car exceeded the speed of >sound on its run on December 17, 1979. > >(Signature of Charles E. Yeager) > >Charles E. Yeager >Brigadeer General USAF, Retired > >------------------------------ >Thank you for the information. I don't know what Yeager based his opinion on, but there must be a great suspicion that he is wrong on this point. The ThrustSSC team have been making diligent inquiries into the Budweiser Rocket, and have (as at a couple of weeks ago) been unable to find anyone who had been present at the time who had heard any trace of a sonic boom. ThrustSSC has proved all too clearly that the double bang is distinctive and would have been recorded, recognised, and commented on at the time - yet it wasn't. Furthermore, we now know that the shock wave from a car at supersonic speeds has a marked effect on the ground, causing physical damage to the surface over a band some 100 metres wide in the case of ThrustSSC. No such effects were reported or recorded in the case of the Busweiser Rocket - so far as I have been able to find out. There would appear to be a severe lack of acceptable scientific evidence................ Adrian Beaumont Science Faculty Ther Canterbury High School ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 11:43:50 -0500 (EST) From: Mary Shafer Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V6 #83 My husband and I both heard a weak boom on 17 Dec 79. As for "damage" to the lakebed, I wouldn't expect to see much. The lakebed itself is as hard as concrete when it's dry and they'd cleaned it off pretty well with their practice runs. There was no great amount of dust, such as you usually see when, for example, a plane lands on the lakebed, although there had been earlier. Furthermore, the radar being used was an FPS-16 tracking radar which was (and is) very well calibrated and tested, being used for data acquisition for flight research and flight test. With the vehicle as close as it was, I would expect a very small error. I don't think they were doing a skin track; rather, I think the Bud Rocket carried a radar beacon. We use radar to calibrate our air data systems to within a knot or two, by the way. 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 Wed, 29 Oct 1997, Adrian Beaumont wrote: > > >------------------------------ > > > >Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 11:40:22 > >From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David) > >Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V6 #82 > > > >Adrian Beaumont writes: > > > >> > >>>It seems we..or certainly I have overlooked the fact that Hal Needham broke > >>>the sound barrier with his rocket powered car, aptly named 'Budweiser > >>>Rocket' in December 1972 at EAFB, but failed to make the second run. > > > >>Is it not true that on that occasion the speed of the Budweiser Rocket was > >>measured with a radar system that was aimed by means of an operator > >>following a picture on a TV screen, and even worse, the system was neither > >>accurate nor was it calibrated or tested? (Source: Guiness Book of > >>Records). The claim of an accuracy in measurement of 1 part in 750,000 is > >>ludicrous. Under such circumstances an accuracy of 1 part in 10 or maybe > >>20 is all that any scientist would be willing to pin his/her academic > >>reputation on. Surely if the driver really believed that the car could do > >>it, he would have attempted a run with the proper approved accurate > >>measuring equipment! Or did he know what most of us suspect........ > > > >Thanks for the detailed background. Here's a snip from the letter that made > >me think that the car had exceeded Mach 1: > > > >....SNIP > > > >...Having been involved in supersonic research since the days of the XS -1 > >rocket plane, which I flew on the first supersonic flight on October 14, > >1947, there is no doubt in my mind that the rocket car exceeded the speed of > >sound on its run on December 17, 1979. > > > >(Signature of Charles E. Yeager) > > > >Charles E. Yeager > >Brigadeer General USAF, Retired > > > >------------------------------ > >Thank you for the information. I don't know what Yeager based his opinion > on, but there must be a great suspicion that he is wrong on this point. > The ThrustSSC team have been making diligent inquiries into the Budweiser > Rocket, and have (as at a couple of weeks ago) been unable to find anyone > who had been present at the time who had heard any trace of a sonic boom. > ThrustSSC has proved all too clearly that the double bang is distinctive and > would have been recorded, recognised, and commented on at the time - yet it > wasn't. Furthermore, we now know that the shock wave from a car at > supersonic speeds has a marked effect on the ground, causing physical damage > to the surface over a band some 100 metres wide in the case of ThrustSSC. > No such effects were reported or recorded in the case of the Busweiser > Rocket - so far as I have been able to find out. There would appear to be > a severe lack of acceptable scientific evidence................ > > Adrian Beaumont > Science Faculty > Ther Canterbury High School > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 12:00:13 -0800 From: larry@ichips.intel.com Subject: Re: Thrust SSC shocks vs Needham's Racer's shocks Adrian Beaumont writes: > ... >wasn't. Furthermore, we now know that the shock wave from a car at >supersonic speeds has a marked effect on the ground, causing physical damage >to the surface over a band some 100 metres wide in the case of ThrustSSC. >No such effects were reported or recorded in the case of the Busweiser >Rocket - so far as I have been able to find out. There would appear to be >a severe lack of acceptable scientific evidence................ Jeez, here we go again! I can't win! :) I would be cautious about such claims of physical damage to the ground. The proper analysis of this requires consideration of the strength of the shocks involved. That in turn is dependent on the shapes of the vehicles involved. And as Mary said, the ground's susceptability is a factor too. Needham's car, if I recall correctly, had a very streamlined nose which would have put out a cone shaped shock. I don't recall much about its aft configuration. Thrust SSC had a streamlined nose with a cone shock but was flanked by those flat mouthed nacelles which may have caused (depending on back pressure) a stronger normal shock when supersonic. Plus the SSC had the effect of multiple shocks up front. So, I would expect, just from first level analysis, that Needham's car would put out a weaker shock system when supersonic, at least in just the front end, compared to Thrust SSC. Needham's car may have been expected to have some normal shock action in the aft end when supersonic, I don't know, and I can't recall clearly its aft configuration. Larry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 19:04:51 -0500 (EST) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: X-33 Program Successfully Completes Critical Design Review; Media Telephone Conference Set for 11 a.m. EST Monday, Nov. 3 The list is either dead or pretty slow, so the following will serve also as a test. I have attached an interesting NASA press release, and will forward also a second one. ***** Begin of Forward ***** Jim Cast Headquarters, Washington, DC October 31, 1997 (Phone: 202/358-1779) Dom Amatore Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL (Phone: 205/544-0031) Ron Lindeke Lockheed Martin Skunk Works, Palmdale, CA (Phone: 805/572-4153) RELEASE: 97-250 X-33 PROGRAM SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETES CRITICAL DESIGN REVIEW; MEDIA TELEPHONE CONFERENCE SET FOR 11 A.M. EST MONDAY, NOV. 3 Government and industry representatives today successfully completed a comprehensive design review of the X-33 technology demonstration program, giving the program a vote of confidence and the go ahead for fabrication of all remaining components, completion of subsystems and assembly of the subscale prototype launch vehicle. "We've had an excellent review of the program, and we're ready to go ahead with all remaining fabrication and assembly for the X-33," said NASA X-33 program manager Gene Austin of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL. The five-day operations and systems Critical Design Review (CDR) held this week at Edwards Air Force Base, CA, was the culmination of 51 subsystems and component CDRs held since January. Some 600 representatives from NASA, industry team lead Lockheed Martin, industry partners and the U.S. Air Force participated in this final design review of the X-33 Program. They planned the integration of the various systems and components into the operational vehicle, and finalized plans for the launch, landing and flight support infrastructure. The review also served as an opportunity for program officials to announce resolution of issues that arose earlier this year regarding vehicle weight and aerodynamic stability and control. Since then the X-33 team's weight reduction efforts, modifications to the design of the vehicle's canted and vertical fins, and plans to use densified propellants to carry additional fuel have paved the way for a successful program, Austin said. "I'm very pleased with the technical definition of the program," said Cleon Lacefield, Lockheed Martin Skunk Works X-33 program manager. "All the team members have done an outstanding job bringing together all the design elements of the program. "We are now ready to focus on vehicle fabrication and launch site construction," Lacefield added. "We are on schedule for the flight demonstration program to begin in mid-1999." The flagship vehicle in NASA's Space Transportation Technology Enterprise, the X-33 is a subscale prototype of a full-scale, commercially developed Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) which Lockheed Martin has named "VentureStarTM," planned for development after the turn of the century. A single-stage- to-orbit RLV could dramatically reduce the cost of putting payloads into space from $10,000 per pound to $1,000 per pound. "Everything we have learned leading up to our Critical Design Review about the development of this prototype vehicle will be directly applied to the design of the full-scale vehicle," Austin said. "We've already earned the price of the X-33 program for what we've learned for the RLV." The next major milestones for the more than $1 billion X-33 Program are completion of the Environmental Impact Statement process, with the signing of the Record of Decision, and groundbreaking for the launch facility site on the eastern portion of Edwards Air Force Base, both planned for early November. The first arrival of a major vehicle component at the X-33 assembly facility in Palmdale, CA -- the aluminum liquid oxygen tank from Lockheed Martin Michoud in Louisiana -- is scheduled for January. The X-33 is scheduled to make as many as 15 test flights beginning in July 1999. Launched vertically from Edwards, it will fly up to 15 times the speed of sound at altitudes approaching 60 miles. Planned landing sites are located at Dugway Proving Ground, UT, and Malmstrom Air Force Base, MT. - -end- NOTE TO EDITORS: NASA and Lockheed Martin have scheduled a media teleconference with program officials to discuss the Critical Design Review beginning at 11 a.m. EST on Monday, Nov. 3. Gene Austin, NASA X-33 program manager; Jerry Rising, Lockheed Martin Skunk Works vice president X-33/RLV; and Cleon Lacefield, Lockheed Martin Skunk Works X-33 program manager, are scheduled to participate. Media wishing to participate should call 205/544-6903 and enter Conference Code # 1779 at the voice prompt. ***** End of Forward ***** - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@acm.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.ais.org/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V6 #84 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe in the body of a message to "skunk-works-digest-request@netwrx1.com". 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 local-skunk-works@your.domain.net To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command: unsubscribe in the body. Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent to georgek@netwrx1.com. 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 viewing by a www interface located at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works If you have any questions or problems please contact me at: georgek@netwrx1.com Thanks, George R. Kasica Listowner