From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V7 #55 Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Sender: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Errors-To: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Precedence: bulk skunk-works-digest Friday, August 28 1998 Volume 07 : Number 055 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: More Greenamyer Re: RE: Lockheed lost its superior technological touch ? RE: Lockheed lost its superior technological touch ? Update!!! Re: Lockheed lost its superior technological touch ? Re: Lockheed lost its superior technological touch ? Aurora Re: Lockheed lost its superior technological touch ? RE: Logic, no SR-71 Replacement ... RE: Logic, no replacement for SR-71 More on ER-2 sensor load Re: More on ER-2 sensor load Re: Aurora RE: Logic, no SR-71 Replacement ... Re: Lockheed lost its superior technological touch ? First Hypersonic Propulsion Hardware Delivered Re: Aurora *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 10:50:14 -0600 From: Brent Clark Subject: Re: More Greenamyer David, Thanks for the info on the F-104 & Red Baron. Brent David Lednicer wrote: > > Is this the same F-104 which was co-operated by Ed Browning of Idaho > > Falls Idaho? > > Ed was Greenamyer's sponsor, hence the -104 had "Red Baron" on the > side in Gold Leaf (not paint!). > > > I know that he had Greenamayer do some flying with his race > > planes at Reno. > > Darryl flew the RB-51 at Reno and won (in 1978?). Mac Maclain had > been pilot, but he was dying of cancer, so Darryl filled in. Steve Hinton > took over the next year. > > > Ed also owned the Red Baron P-51 Mustang which was unique in that it > > was fitted with an Griffin engine-counter rotating propeller. The P-51 > > was once the fastest piston engine driven airplane in the world until is > > was lost in an air race accident at the Reno Air Races. > > This is not the only P-51 that has been reengined with a Griffon. > There is one down in Florida, owned by World Jet (the guy's name escapes > me at the second) and now Bill Rodgers has one. Bill's is sponsored by > Garry Levitz and is named Miss Ashley II. I should note that Bill's > fuselage was built up from scratch, using the drawings available from the > National Air & Space Museum! Bill's airplane has Learjet 23 wings and > horizontal tail. > > The RB-51 was lost at Reno (in 1979?) when Steve Hinton had the > supercharger gears let loose on the last lap. The prop went to flat pitch > and he went down in Lemmon Valley. Luck was on his side and he managed to > survive the crash. Just previous to this, Steve had broken the prop speed > record, flying up at Tonopah. His speed was 499 mph and Shelton broke the > record with Rare Bear about ten years later. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" > Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com > 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (425) 643-9090 > Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (425) 746-1299 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 11:08:16 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: At 08:19 AM 8/26/98 -0500, you wrote: > > >Martin Hurst wrote: > >Has Lockheed lost its superior technological touch, of "quickly, >quietly, and within budget"? >Back in the days of Kelly/Rich and company, they achieved impossible >techno miracles and breakthroughs. >Now a-days it seems that Lockheed has lost that miracle touch. >Could it be that they have become human like the rest of the aerospace >industry? >======================== Tom Robison said: >Kelly Johnson hisself wrote: >"There is a tendency today toward design by committee; reviews and >recommendations, conferences and consultations, by those not directly doing >the job. Nothing very stupid will result, but nothing brilliant either. It >is in the brilliant concept that major advances are made." > >Perhaps the Skunk Works has fallen into this mode. > And then I wrote with astonishment: Where is there any evidence to suggest why we are even discussing this idea??????? patrick cullumber ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 14:51:46 -0400 From: Martin Hurst Subject: RE: Lockheed lost its superior technological touch ? patrick cullumber wrote: > Where is there any evidence to suggest why we are even discussing this > idea??????? ... from an article in AW&ST stating that there was big budget pressure that UAV's like DarkStar was not meeting the military's spec's for a high altitude loiter recon platform. And that other compromise programs were being looked at... Also, that it is taking a long time to deliver such a program, budget overruns, etc. That's what I saying is the alleged evidence. BUT then again, there are most likely many things going on behind the scenes that we will never know about - so keep speculating, that's all we can do. If you read Ben Rich's book, on how the Gov and the mil, almost caused the destruction of the F117 development program, with over-kill QA, over-kill security screening, equal employment pressures and the like - instead of just letting Skunk Works do what they do best, and that is, "quickly, quietly and within budget" - without big gov/mil looking over their shoulders and every move !!!. It is quite possible that the mil is doing the same thing with the DarkStar program, thus greatly limiting Skunk Works ingenuity, skill and genius break-through talent. > -----Original Message----- > From: patrick [SMTP:patrick@e-z.net] > Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 1998 2:08 PM > To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com > Subject: Re: > > At 08:19 AM 8/26/98 -0500, you wrote: > > > > > >Martin Hurst wrote: > > > >Has Lockheed lost its superior technological touch, of "quickly, > >quietly, and within budget"? > >Back in the days of Kelly/Rich and company, they achieved impossible > >techno miracles and breakthroughs. > >Now a-days it seems that Lockheed has lost that miracle touch. > >Could it be that they have become human like the rest of the > aerospace > >industry? > >======================== > Tom Robison said: > > >Kelly Johnson hisself wrote: > >"There is a tendency today toward design by committee; reviews and > >recommendations, conferences and consultations, by those not directly > doing > >the job. Nothing very stupid will result, but nothing brilliant > either. It > >is in the brilliant concept that major advances are made." > > > >Perhaps the Skunk Works has fallen into this mode. > > > > And then I wrote with astonishment: > > Where is there any evidence to suggest why we are even discussing this > idea??????? > > patrick cullumber ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 16:44:35 -0700 From: patrick Subject: RE: Lockheed lost its superior technological touch ? At 02:51 PM 8/26/98 -0400, you wrote: > patrick cullumber wrote: > > Where is there any evidence to suggest why we are even >discussing this > > idea??????? > Martin Hurst wrote ... from an article in AW&ST stating that there was big budget pressure that UAV's like DarkStar was not meeting the military's spec's for a high altitude loiter recon platform. And that other compromise programs were being looked at... The miltary spec for a high altitude loiter recon is a new spec. It is not the spec DarkStar was contracted by DARPA to meet. DarkStar was designed per the orginal spec to fly at +45,000 feet. You are comparing apples to oranges. If DARPA has a newer requirement for a high altitude platform it is totally different from DarkStars mission. Therefore this may obsolete the DarkStar program but can only be achieved by a totally new design not seen yet. If DARPA wants to go higher then they need to let new contracts for new platforms that can be designed to accomplish the newer task. This article you have quoted from is in no way derogatory of DarkStar or Lockheed/Boeing who are building it. patrick cullumber ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 20:45:19 -0400 From: "George W. Cully" <71022.1100@compuserve.com> Subject: Update!!! Got the job! Will go to orientation on Monday, but will not start in total until September 8th. Movers come Tomorrow (Wednesday). Still not sure exactly when we will be able to sleep there (they have to have final inspection). Hopefully no later than Friday...keep your fingers crossed. Phone is to be installed at the house tomorrow (937)2910921. Will send more information when I am not so clautrophobic and tired of all of this. Miss you all! Margaret ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 22:24:33 -0700 From: Ryan Kirk Subject: Re: Lockheed lost its superior technological touch ? Why the sudden gloomy downturn on the list? Doesn't anyone have faith anymore in the Skunk Works? On a semi-related note... Art said: >Secretary of Defense Cohen publicly stated that they had to wait days for weather >to clear before satellites could provide information on whether the missile >strikes worked. This is another indication that there probably ins't a SR-71 >replacement around. If there was, they could have used it and made the >assessments without disclosing what information they had and how they got it. Did I miss something here? This seems like a jump in logic. It could mean this just as easily as it could mean that he's lying and they didn't really use satellites at all, but instead used Aurora. How can you be positive he's telling the truth? Also, what are the "other indications" that there isn't a SR-71 replacement? Ryan ____________________________________________________________ Ryan Kirk Website Architect Topflight Productions http://www.topflight.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Aug 98 06:22:54 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Lockheed lost its superior technological touch ? On 8/26/98 10:24PM, in message <35E4ED91.3178@topflight.net>, Ryan Kirk wrote: > Why the sudden gloomy downturn on the list? Doesn't anyone have faith > anymore in the Skunk Works? > > On a semi-related note... > > Art said: > > >Secretary of Defense Cohen publicly stated that they had to wait days for > weather > >to clear before satellites could provide information on whether the missile > >strikes worked. This is another indication that there probably ins't a SR-71 > >replacement around. If there was, they could have used it and made the > >assessments without disclosing what information they had and how they got it. > > Did I miss something here? This seems like a jump in logic. It could > mean this just as easily as it could mean that he's lying and they > didn't really use satellites at all, but instead used Aurora. Because if they did, they could use the "Aurora" data and either trumpet out "great success", answer some questions or immediately order a restrike if necessary. The world would think the data came from satellites, and we wouldn't dissuade them from thinking so. "Aurora's" secret would be safe. The fact that with all the intense interest on this it was days before we were able to say anything about how we did lends credence to the argument that there wasn't any "Aurora" to use. > How can > you be positive he's telling the truth? > Why lie? > Also, what are the "other indications" that there isn't a SR-71 > replacement? > Primarily the lack of rapid response data from defended areas. The great efforts we go though to look at certain areas. If there was some Operational super-duper system, some of this ancillary effort would be toned down. How far off our estimates were on Iranian and N. Korean long range missile development (and how, even though satellite or HUMINT intel told us when the Iranian test was going to be we couldn't apparently couldn't get the data we wanted because someone goofed on assigning Cobra Ball). Congressional actions by those with stratospheric clearances. The fact that if you wanted to hide "Aurora", you'd want to play up the SR-71 as a cover, not sabotage it. And so on. Gosh! I'd love to be wrong. I have no doubt that we're testing some things that are deeply classified. But it doesn't seem that those things are in service. They may just all be R&D or technology demonstration. Or, given the way the wind blows, they may not be recon vehicles at all, simply because tactical recon doesn not enjoy that high a priority. > Art ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 04:29:53 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Aurora At 10:24 PM 8/26/98 -0700, Ryan Kirk wrote: > >Did I miss something here? This seems like a jump in logic. It could >mean this just as easily as it could mean that he's lying and they >didn't really use satellites at all, but instead used Aurora. How can >you be positive he's telling the truth? > >Also, what are the "other indications" that there isn't a SR-71 >replacement? > - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= It is up to you to offer creditable evidence that something exists......not for us to prove something doesn't exist. patrick cullumber ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 07:59:19 -0500 From: "Tom C Robison" Subject: Re: Lockheed lost its superior technological touch ? Ryan asked... How can you be positive he's telling the truth? - ------------- Do you mean you doubt the statements of a public official? (How cynical we've become...) Inside the Beltway they never lie, they merely engage in terminological inexactitude and rhetorical ambiguity. _________________________________________________ Tom Robison tcrobi@most.fw.hac.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 09:02:07 -0400 From: Martin Hurst Subject: RE: Logic, no SR-71 Replacement ... If there was a replacement for the SR-71 but he didn't want to tell about it, he won't have to lie about it or even mention that there was a 2 day delay in getting the recon data. All Cohen would have to do is state what the recon data revealed (damage assessment, etc.), period, and leave the rest of us assuming that it came from satellites. That's the logic. - -Martin Hurst > -----Original Message----- > From: Ryan Kirk [SMTP:ryan@topflight.net] > Sent: Thursday, August 27, 1998 1:25 AM > To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com > Subject: Re: Lockheed lost its superior technological touch ? Did I miss something here? This seems like a jump in logic. It could mean this just as easily as it could mean that he's lying and they didn't really use satellites at all, but instead used Aurora. How can you be positive he's telling the truth? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 09:06:24 -0400 From: Martin Hurst Subject: RE: Logic, no replacement for SR-71 A very good point, I agree. - -Martin Hurst > -----Original Message----- > From: betnal@ns.net [SMTP:betnal@ns.net] > Sent: Thursday, August 27, 1998 2:23 AM > To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com > Subject: Re: Lockheed lost its superior technological touch ? > ... The fact that if you wanted to hide "Aurora", you'd want to play up the SR-71 as a cover, not sabotage it. And so on. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 09:30:25 -0400 From: "Kim Keller" Subject: More on ER-2 sensor load This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01BDD19D.524EAB80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In reference to an earlier question on what NASA's ER-2 is carrying on = its hurricane study flights, I found some excellent info at: http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd26aug98_2.htm Enjoy. Kim - ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01BDD19D.524EAB80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In reference to an earlier question = on what=20 NASA's ER-2 is carrying on its hurricane study flights, I found some = excellent=20 info at:
 
http= ://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd26aug98_2.htm
 
Enjoy.
 
Kim
- ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01BDD19D.524EAB80-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 10:02:35 -0500 From: "Tom C Robison" Subject: Re: More on ER-2 sensor load Kim wrote In reference to an earlier question on what NASA's ER-2 is carrying on its hurricane study flights, I found some excellent info at: http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd26aug98_2.htm =========== Thanks, Kim! Very interesting stuff! _________________________________________________ Tom Robison tcrobi@most.fw.hac.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 21:06:43 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: Aurora >At 10:24 PM 8/26/98 -0700, Ryan Kirk wrote: >> >>Did I miss something here? This seems like a jump in logic. It could >>mean this just as easily as it could mean that he's lying and they >>didn't really use satellites at all, but instead used Aurora. How can >>you be positive he's telling the truth? >> >>Also, what are the "other indications" that there isn't a SR-71 >>replacement? >> >-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > >It is up to you to offer creditable evidence that something exists......not >for us to prove something doesn't exist. > >patrick cullumber Well, this is an interesting argument. I think patrick is looking for proof that there is a high speed sucessor to the Blackbird that fills the same mission. No, there is little or no evidence of that. The blackbird did many things, and had an ill-defined role in the USAF hierarchy because it was a little too flexible. So what was the SR's mission anyway? And does it matter? Or maybe he's seeking evidence that a program called Aurora existed. There was the line item, but it may have never gotten funded (there's evidence both ways). It's a good name, it probably was used by several agencies for several things at various points in time. Or, perhaps, he is seeking any evidence of hypersonic aircraft operated by USAF secretly within the past, oh, 10 years. There is ample evidence of supersonic/hypersonic aircraft flying over various parts of the world- radar tapes, photos, etc. The seismic data collected by Jim Mori is interesting, but was a bit of a hack, so we won't count that. The radio intercepts of Steve Douglass and others could have been spoofs, etc, but if they were, they were very well done.There have been more than a few sightings of aircraft with unusual acoustic signatures and blended wing-body configurations appropraite for hypersonic flight- but those are, well, sightings. And, of course, the amount of $$ dumped into places like the Skunk Works from black holes in the US budget could easily fund a hypersonic aircraft. I'm not defending either position- I'm just trying to figuire out what patrick's position *is*. Dan _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ "Many computing problems aren't solvable in 3 years, and it's in people's nature not to work on problems they can't solve." - Danny Hillis _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 20:57:06 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: RE: Logic, no SR-71 Replacement ... >If there was a replacement for the SR-71 but he didn't want to tell >about it, he won't have to lie about it or even mention that there was a >2 day delay in getting the recon data. Assuming the delay was in getting the data, not processing it. >All Cohen would have to do is state what the recon data revealed (damage >assessment, etc.), period, and leave the rest of us assuming that it >came from satellites. >That's the logic. Of course, the US has never officially admitted it has reconaissance satellites save for Corona, and it took them how long to unwrap that little gem? Dan _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ "Dreams and beasts are two keys by which we are to find the secrets of our nature.... they are test objects." -Ralph Waldo Emerson _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 23:31:09 -0700 From: Ryan Kirk Subject: Re: Lockheed lost its superior technological touch ? betnal@ns.net wrote: > Why lie? To confuse us, of course. (And doesn't it seem to be working?) And if they used Aurora, then of course he would have to lie. > stratospheric clearances. The fact that if you wanted to hide "Aurora", you'd > want to play up the SR-71 as a cover, not sabotage it. And so on. > Not necessarily. Whether or not they play up the SR-71 doesn't really seem to matter. You are still suspicious that no replacement exists for it, and many people are still suspicious that one does exist. I think that either way the public would still believe what they want to believe regardless of how the Air Force and the Sec. of Defense acts. The cover-up comes in when they have to pretend they're using satellites. Then they'll make a statement here, a statement there, and even announce a failure or two (just like the one Cohen announced) to add to the realism. it's almost like a simulation: how realistically can they make it appear as if we use satellites for all our recon? I think Cohen's statement was just part of this overall strategy. As I said before, it it doesn't necessarily mean that "he said it, therefore, he only would have said it if he had to" as some here are saying. It might very well be just another one of those little cover-up lies, with the sole purpose of confusing people. In the end I don't think it really means much. Cohen could be telling the truth, he could be lying, and there isn't a way for us to tell. "Other indications" be they as they may, I don't think this one counts. This statement too easily could be interpreted in either direction and neither of us are really on firm ground. Ryan ____________________________________________________________ Ryan Kirk Website Architect Topflight Productions http://www.topflight.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 08:41:53 -0400 From: Martin Hurst Subject: First Hypersonic Propulsion Hardware Delivered This may be a fairly long article but I couldn't shorten it, for sake of loosing some critical information. I'm kind of surprised that information of this type is being publically announced. I would have thought that it would have been part of some black op's secret program, solely for the purposes of recon intel, etc. !?!?!? Also in this article, "supersonic (faster than Mach 1 or the speed of sound). The fuel for the X-43 will be hydrogen." Wasn't this type of fuel experimented by Ben Rich when they were studying a succussor to the U-2, but Kelly concluded that the actual plane would be to big and the production and storage of the fuel too difficult ? - -Martin > From: NASANews@hq.nasa.gov[SMTP:NASANews@hq.nasa.gov] > Sent: Thursday, August 27, 1998 12:25 PM > Subject: First Hypersonic Propulsion Hardware Delivered > > RELEASE: 98-154 > > FIRST HYPERSONIC PROPULSION HARDWARE DELIVERED > > A revolutionary new engine that ultimately may reduce > the cost of putting payloads in orbit has been delivered to > NASA for testing. > > The 30-inch long "scramjet" engine was fabricated by > GASL, Inc., Ronkonkoma, NY, for the Hyper-X program, an > ambitious research effort to demonstrate hypersonic > propulsion technologies in flight. > > The engine is the first program hardware to be completed > and will be used in high-speed ground tests at NASA's Langley > Research Center, Hampton, VA. > > An identical engine being fabricated now will be mated > to its flight vehicle in February 1999 and delivered to NASA's > Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA, leading to the > first flight of the program in early 2000. > > The contract for flight and ground hardware is > implemented for NASA by a team led by MicroCraft, Tullahoma > TN, and including Boeing, Seal Beach, CA, and Accurate > Automation, Chattanooga, TN. A second contract, to Orbital > Sciences Corp., Dulles, VA, will provide rockets to boost the > research vehicles to test altitude. > > Langley manages the five-year, approximately $170 > million Hyper-X program, and Dryden is responsible for > vehicle fabrication and flight tests. > > Three flights are planned -- two at Mach 7 and one at > Mach 10 (seven and ten times the speed of sound). The flight > tests will be conducted within the Western Test Range off the > coast of southern California. Each of three planned vehicles > will be flown once. > > Hyper-X vehicles, which have been designated X-43, will > be boosted to their test point on the first stage of a > modified Orbital Sciences Corp. Pegasus booster rocket and > will be launched by NASA's B-52 from an altitude of 19,000 to > 43,000 feet, depending upon the mission. For each flight, > the booster will accelerate the X-43 to Mach 7 or 10 at > altitudes up to 100,000 feet, where it will separate from the > booster and fly under its own power. Mach 7 is approximately > 5,000 mph at sea level. Mach 10 is approximately 7,200 mph > at sea level. > > Hyper-X program managers hope to demonstrate "air- > breathing" engine technologies that could ultimately be > applied in vehicle types from hypersonic (Mach 5 and above) > aircraft to reusable space launchers. By comparison, the > high-flying SR-71 reconnaissance airplane, which flies more > than Mach 3, is the fastest air-breathing aircraft to date. > > Although prior flight experiments conducted by the > Russians using a rocket booster have demonstrated air- > breathing engine operation at Mach 5 to 6 conditions, the X- > 43 will be the first free-flying demonstration of an > airframe-integrated, air-breathing engine and will extend the > flight range to Mach 10. > > Extending air-breathing technologies to much greater > speeds requires the development of scramjet engines, the type > that will propel the research vehicles. Unlike a rocket, > which must carry its own oxygen for combustion, an air- > breathing aircraft burns oxygen in air scooped from the > atmosphere. Air-breathing hypersonic vehicles therefore can > be lighter and should carry more cargo/payload than > equivalent rocket-powered systems. > > A ramjet engine operates by subsonic combustion of fuel > in a stream of air compressed by the forward speed of the > aircraft itself, as opposed to a conventional jet engine, in > which the fan blades of the compressor section compress the > air. A scramjet (supersonic-combustion ramjet) is a ramjet > engine in which the airflow through the entire engine remains > supersonic (faster than Mach 1 or the speed of sound). The > fuel for the X-43 will be hydrogen. > - end - > > Images of the Hyper-X/X-43 vehicle and additional > information can be obtained at the following URLs: > > STILLS: > http://lisar.larc.nasa.gov/LISAR/BROWSE/hyperx.html > ANIMATION: http://lava.larc.nasa.gov/BROWSE/hyperx.html > FACT SHEET: http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Hyper-X.html > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 06:58:54 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: Aurora >>At 10:24 PM 8/26/98 -0700, Ryan Kirk wrote: >>> >>> >>>Also, what are the "other indications" that there isn't a SR-71 >>>replacement? >>> >>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >>And then I said: >>It is up to you to offer creditable evidence that something exists......not >>for us to prove something doesn't exist. >> >>patrick cullumber > And then you said: >Well, this is an interesting argument. I think patrick is looking for proof >that there is a high speed sucessor to the Blackbird that fills the same >mission. No, there is little or no evidence of that. The blackbird did many >things, and had an ill-defined role in the USAF hierarchy because it was a >little too flexible. So what was the SR's mission anyway? And does it >matter? > >Or maybe he's seeking evidence that a program called Aurora existed. There >was the line item, but it may have never gotten funded (there's evidence >both ways). It's a good name, it probably was used by several agencies for >several things at various points in time. > >Or, perhaps, he is seeking any evidence of hypersonic aircraft operated by >USAF secretly within the past, oh, 10 years. There is ample evidence of >supersonic/hypersonic aircraft flying over various parts of the world- >radar tapes, photos, etc. The seismic data collected by Jim Mori is >interesting, but was a bit of a hack, so we won't count that. The radio >intercepts of Steve Douglass and others could have been spoofs, etc, but if >they were, they were very well done.There have been more than a few >sightings of aircraft with unusual acoustic signatures and blended >wing-body configurations appropraite for hypersonic flight- but those are, >well, sightings. And, of course, the amount of $$ dumped into places like >the Skunk Works from black holes in the US budget could easily fund a >hypersonic aircraft. > >I'm not defending either position- I'm just trying to figuire out what >patrick's position *is*. > >And then I replied: My point was that if someone wants to discuss a program like Aurora, it is logical that they would need to present evidence that it exists. It is not logical for them to ask me to prove it does not exist. If something isn't there, I cannot prove it isn't there. On the other hand if we are going to turn this list into a ufo type speculative adventure fueled by paranoia and imagination someone better start coming up with something logical, with hard evidence that is conclusive. I am not looking for any evidence or any information on Aurora, or any other program of a speculative nature. patrick ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V7 #55 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe in the body of a message to "majordomo@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