From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V7 #62 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 Monday, September 14 1998 Volume 07 : Number 062 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** re: Air Farce RE: More Hypersoar Re[2]: Air Farce Re: More Hypersoar Re[2]: More Hypersoar Re: Re[2]: Air Farce Re[4]: Air Farce Discovery channel RE: Re[2]: More Hypersoar Re[4]: More Hypersoar Re: More Hypersoar RE: More Hypersoar Re: Air Farce Re: Dreamland Re: Shuttle contingency SR-71 aerodynamics question Hypersoar Re: Hypersoar Re[2]: Hypersoar RE: Re[2]: Hypersoar - RLCE Re: Re[2]: Hypersoar - RLCE Darkstar *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 10:10:51 -0500 From: "Tom C Robison" Subject: re: Air Farce Kim wrote: "I used that phrase because USAF has shown itself to be rather sophomoric on its own. When one considers the shenanigans discussed on this list regarding cancellation of SR-71 ops, denying for years the existence of a test facility that they clearly were involved in, and the petty political infighting that takes place between USAF, USN, and the Army, I believe my phrase (which I didn't invent) is accurate." ============= I have to agree with Kim. Uncle Sugar's Air Farce continues to act as though they exist only to please themselves. Of course the Navy and Army do the same. Our armed forces seem to have forgotten that we're all defending the same country here. Tom ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 11:31:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: RE: More Hypersoar > Wrote: Kerry Ferrand [SMTP:kerry@hungerford.chch.cri.nz] > Sent: Friday, September 11, 1998 8:22 AM > The researcher estimated that it would cost a total > investment of almost 500 million U.S. dollars to research and > build a > one-third scale flyable prototype of the HyperSoar aircraft, > which, > he said, would quickly prove its value. > > Does that mean $500million times 3 or $1.5 billion to get a production > model into operation !?!?! Perhaps, perhaps more. > The bottom line is, what is the seat ticket price going to be for a > flight from here to there going to be? How will the passengers and all > their luggage be safe and protected from the intense heat at that speed? We are not talking passengers or luggage at this point in time. This vehicle has a lot of potential as an SR-71 replacement, as a bomber/strike aircraft and as an inexpensive alternative to expendable and non-expendable/reusable launch vehicles. Should this proposal ever prove commercially viable as a very high speed airliner, then perhaps, in the future it could be used for carrying passengers. But the military and the satellite launching versions will have to come first, to prove that the concept works and is economical enough to replace ELV's, the Shuttle and the currently planed SSTO vehicles (X-33, Rocketplane, etc.), however unlikely that might be... > I don't know but it sure seems pretty pie-in-the-sky concept for now, to > be of any real practical use right now. > > --------------------------- > -Martin Hurst This vehicle is intended mainly for the military and NASA anyway, (AWST Sept. 7 pg. 126-131) it least initially. Sam ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Sep 98 11:46:34 -0500 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com Subject: Re[2]: Air Farce Would the collective term be military farces then? Maybe we should pursue bringing the various branches closer together, maybe even merge them again? Seems to me there's enough overlap in all of the branches that this could happen. After all, the Army has aircraft and water craft; the Navy has aircraft; the Marines have everything; even the Coast Guard has aircraft; the only one kind of doing their own thing is the Air Force! The common thread seems to be aircraft! Everyone has various types of aircraft of their own, so....... I don't believe that we could merge the various branches for one minute, but someone's making lots of money off of this duplication of effort and it AIN'T the American public!! I'm not sure we're any better off either! And to tie this to the list..... we have NASA and USAF both running SR-71's and U-2's. Course their missions are totally different.... and I don't see an 'overlap' in the overall mission definition between the two organizations. Greg W. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 17:03:16 +0100 From: Steven Barber Subject: Re: More Hypersoar How does this proposal differ from HOTOL and it's derivatives? Haven't heard much about that for quite a while. Steve Sam Kaltsidis wrote: > > Wrote: Kerry Ferrand [SMTP:kerry@hungerford.chch.cri.nz] > > Sent: Friday, September 11, 1998 8:22 AM > > The researcher estimated that it would cost a total > > investment of almost 500 million U.S. dollars to research and > > build a > > one-third scale flyable prototype of the HyperSoar aircraft, > > which, > > he said, would quickly prove its value. > > > > Does that mean $500million times 3 or $1.5 billion to get a production > > model into operation !?!?! > > Perhaps, perhaps more. > > > The bottom line is, what is the seat ticket price going to be for a > > flight from here to there going to be? How will the passengers and all > > their luggage be safe and protected from the intense heat at that speed? > > We are not talking passengers or luggage at this point in time. > > This vehicle has a lot of potential as an SR-71 replacement, as a bomber/strike > aircraft and as an inexpensive alternative to expendable and > non-expendable/reusable launch vehicles. Should this proposal ever prove > commercially viable as a very high speed airliner, then perhaps, in the future > it could be used for carrying passengers. > > But the military and the satellite launching versions will have to come first, > to prove that the concept works and is economical enough to replace ELV's, the > Shuttle and the currently planed SSTO vehicles (X-33, Rocketplane, etc.), > however unlikely that might be... > > > I don't know but it sure seems pretty pie-in-the-sky concept for now, to > > be of any real practical use right now. > > > > --------------------------- > > -Martin Hurst > > This vehicle is intended mainly for the military and NASA anyway, (AWST Sept. 7 > pg. 126-131) it least initially. > > Sam ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Sep 98 11:55:54 -0500 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com Subject: Re[2]: More Hypersoar Could a vehicle like this be used to move things into orbit? Maybe as the first stage and then, once above 99% of the atmosphere, it would release payloads with a small rocket motor that would boost it the rest of the way? Sort of a mother-ship concept. It could carry alot of small satellites on small rockets. I suppose the military might look at this as a way to deliver a bunch of MIRV's at one time? Greg W. ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: RE: More Hypersoar Author: at INTERNET Date: 9/11/98 11:31 AM > Wrote: Kerry Ferrand [SMTP:kerry@hungerford.chch.cri.nz] > Sent: Friday, September 11, 1998 8:22 AM > The researcher estimated that it would cost a total > investment of almost 500 million U.S. dollars to research and > build a > one-third scale flyable prototype of the HyperSoar aircraft, > which, > he said, would quickly prove its value. > > Does that mean $500million times 3 or $1.5 billion to get a production > model into operation !?!?! Perhaps, perhaps more. > The bottom line is, what is the seat ticket price going to be for a > flight from here to there going to be? How will the passengers and all > their luggage be safe and protected from the intense heat at that speed? We are not talking passengers or luggage at this point in time. This vehicle has a lot of potential as an SR-71 replacement, as a bomber/strike aircraft and as an inexpensive alternative to expendable and non-expendable/reusable launch vehicles. Should this proposal ever prove commercially viable as a very high speed airliner, then perhaps, in the future it could be used for carrying passengers. But the military and the satellite launching versions will have to come first, to prove that the concept works and is economical enough to replace ELV's, the Shuttle and the currently planed SSTO vehicles (X-33, Rocketplane, etc.), however unlikely that might be... > I don't know but it sure seems pretty pie-in-the-sky concept for now, to > be of any real practical use right now. > > --------------------------- > -Martin Hurst This vehicle is intended mainly for the military and NASA anyway, (AWST Sept. 7 pg. 126-131) it least initially. Sam ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 11:40:33 -0500 From: "Tom C Robison" Subject: Re: Re[2]: Air Farce Greg W. wrote: "the only one kind of doing their own thing is the Air Force!" =============== But they don't seem to want to do it! They own one of the finest ground attack aircraft ever built, but they continue to make noises about getting rid of it, to which the Army replied "fine, give them to us, we'll use 'em!" and or course AF said "No. We don't want to fly 'em, but you can't have 'em either." The same attitude exists with the SR-71. They won't fly it but won't let anyone else fly it. It goes on and on... If you folks haven't read it yet, I heartily recommend "Saving the SR-71" (most of which was written by Art) on John Stone's web site. It's a real eye-opener. Here's a quote from that article: "At a joint forum one Air Force General said 'I will never allow the SR-71 to deploy in my Air Force'. He was rebuked by an Army General who said 'It's not your Air Force, General. It belongs to the American people'." This is but one example of the attitude these folks take when dealing the defense of this, OUR country. Whose side are they on, I wonder? Remember the old posters? "Rest easy, your Air Force is awake tonight" or something like that? I don't rest easy with that thought any more. It's not just the Air Force, though. All the services exhibit similar attitudes. They seem to have forgotten the bottom line... Tom ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Sep 98 12:59:25 -0500 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com Subject: Re[4]: Air Farce I can't agree more. The whole thing has gotten to be a power struggle between the branches and the various members of the JCS. Its hard to imagine that a general would NOT want the SR-71 and the recce that it can provide..... but I know its true. As you said Tom, they seem to have forgotten the bottom line.... protecting the citizens and interests of the US! But with a commander-in-chief like the current one, who can blame them?!!? Greg W. Tom wrote: It's not just the Air Force, though. All the services exhibit similar attitudes. They seem to have forgotten the bottom line... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 10:07:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Discovery channel Key Skunkers, check out http://www.discovery.com/sched/domestic/episode/70/20078003.html I saw the Discovery program last night and it was really nice. I don't know if it is old news. May the Force be with you Wei-Jen Su E-mail: wsu@cco.caltech.edu "The first time I ever saw a jet, I shot it down." General Chuck Yeager, USAF, describing his first confrontation with a Me262. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 13:17:24 -0400 From: Martin Hurst Subject: RE: Re[2]: More Hypersoar Wrote: gregweigold@pmsc.com [SMTP:gregweigold@pmsc.com] Friday, September 11, 1998 12:56 PM ... release payloads with a small rocket motor that would boost it the rest of the way? Wasn't a drone released in similar fashion from an SR-71 (M-12 I believe) which then rocketed itself for high-speed recon-intel. But the main problem with that was getting past the shock wave itself which cause a catastrophic failure when it was released - they lost the mother ship and one crew member. Wouldn't the shock wave be a similar problem with this Hypersoar bird especially at mach 10 !!!!, in regards to releasing payloads? - --------------------------- - -Martin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Sep 98 13:38:38 -0500 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com Subject: Re[4]: More Hypersoar How much shock wave is there if you're above the atmosphere? That was the concept here, wasn't it? Greg W. ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: RE: Re[2]: More Hypersoar Author: at INTERNET Date: 9/11/98 1:17 PM Wrote: gregweigold@pmsc.com [SMTP:gregweigold@pmsc.com] Friday, September 11, 1998 12:56 PM ... release payloads with a small rocket motor that would boost it the rest of the way? Wasn't a drone released in similar fashion from an SR-71 (M-12 I believe) which then rocketed itself for high-speed recon-intel. But the main problem with that was getting past the shock wave itself which cause a catastrophic failure when it was released - they lost the mother ship and one crew member. Wouldn't the shock wave be a similar problem with this Hypersoar bird especially at mach 10 !!!!, in regards to releasing payloads? - --------------------------- - -Martin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 19:24:01 From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David) Subject: Re: More Hypersoar Steve Barber wrote: >How does this proposal differ from HOTOL and it's derivatives? Haven't heard much >about that for quite a while. The most obvious difference is that HOTOL was an SSTO spacecraft, whereas HyperSoar is a trans atmospheric hypersonic a/c. from what I understand so far. Alan Bond, HOTOL's air breathing engine designer and one of the leading rocket engineers in the world, moved on to form his own company, Reaction Engines with some of the other key engineers such as Richard Varvill. The British gvmt. classified HOTOL's engines then as you'd expect did nothing with them. If memory serves, they were de-classified some time later and available for anyone to go to the Patents Office to buy copies...How dumb can you get ? Not to be outdone, Bond and his team have spent years designing a much improved SSTO called Skylon with Synergetic Air Breathing Rocket Engines or SABREs. Fairly recent tests of one of the SABRE's heat exchangers more than validated Reaction Engines' calculations..it's really something. Sadly, because the British National Space Centre's top brass is fixated on EOS they haven't given the team funding necessary to attract further big investment, though private investors who have more vision keep coming forward. I can't help but think that if Bond and his team had been brought in for the X-30, things would be so much better for everyone and that hypersonic research a/c would be flying as we speak...after all, it was the perceived technological threat that HOTOL represented that led to the funding of the NASP...even though HOTOL is called HOTEL in the Congressional White Paper. The US tried to go one better than Bond's deep pre-cooling approach and sadly the technology proved to be too much of a stretch...but at least they gave it a serious shot with proper funding and very able engineers on the progamme. If you run a web search on Reaction Engines Ltd or Skylon you'll find how much work they've done without the help of HMG. I just hope now that Peter Mandelson's in charge at the DTI things will change. Sorry for the semi-rant, but the UK hasn't got a clue when it comes to innovative engineering and support of scientists and it makes me MAD :) If there's a fast buck in it fine, but if it's a long term capital project forget it or get other countries in on it like the EF2000 or Chunnel. Best D ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 14:59:52 -0400 From: Martin Hurst Subject: RE: More Hypersoar Wrote: win@writer.win-uk.net [SMTP:win@writer.win-uk.net] Friday, September 11, 1998 3:24 PM The most obvious difference is that HOTOL was an SSTO spacecraft, whereas HyperSoar is a trans atmospheric hypersonic a/c. from what I understand so far. Alan Bond, HOTOL's air breathing engine designer and one of the leading rocket engineers in the world, moved on to form his own company, Reaction Engines with some of the other key engineers such as Richard Varvill. Thanks for the insightful information from the other side of the pond. It truly is too bad and sad that the UK govt. didn't look further than beyond their Royal noses with this major technical breakthrough !?!?! Don't see much difference with the govt. on this side of the pond either \:| - --------------------------- - -Martin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 18:48:34 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: Re: Air Farce Agree the Services are sometimes too competitive for the collective good. I worked in message format conformance and interoperability testing for six years and witnessed Service representatives, notably the Navy guy, who thought their systems were special due to the unique mission. We in the purple suiter environment marveled when on occasion the Services did work together. The Air Taking Order environment is the best example, an outgrowth of correcting the problems coordinating the Air Force and Navy fast movers during Desert Storm. Marine and Army aircraft, helicopters, and all slow movers (cargo, VIP transport, MEDEVAC, etc.) have been integrated. Terry - -------------------- Tom C Robison wrote: > > Kim wrote: > > "I used that phrase because USAF has shown itself to be rather sophomoric > on > its own. When one considers the shenanigans discussed on this list > regarding > cancellation of SR-71 ops, denying for years the existence of a test > facility that they clearly were involved in, and the petty political > infighting that takes place between USAF, USN, and the Army, I believe my > phrase (which I didn't invent) is accurate." > ============= > > I have to agree with Kim. > Uncle Sugar's Air Farce continues to act as though they exist only to > please themselves. Of course the Navy and Army do the same. Our armed > forces seem to have forgotten that we're all defending the same country > here. > > Tom - -- Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean@primenet.com > Home Page: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/8832 Sites: Fortean Times * Northwest Mysteries * Mystic's Cyberpage * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program - ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: http://www.seacoast.com/~jsweet/brotherh/index.html Southeast Asia (SEA) service: Vietnam - Theater Telecommunications Center/HHC, 1st Aviation Brigade (Jan 71 - Aug 72) Thailand/Laos - Telecommunications Center/U.S. Army Support Thailand (USARSUPTHAI), Camp Samae San (Jan 73 - Aug 73) - Special Security/Strategic Communications - Thailand (STRATCOM - Thailand), Phu Mu (Pig Mountain) Signal Site (Aug 73 - Jan 74) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 01:00:12 EDT From: Xelex@aol.com Subject: Re: Dreamland Over the years, there have been a variety of "black" aircraft (demonstrators, prototypes, and special modifications) that have flown, and not yet been declassified. From what I hear, some of them looked pretty far out. Some were piloted, some un-piloted. The only reason I bagged on Phil Patton about the TR3A was that he referred to it as if it was a rock-solid fact. If he had called it the "alleged TR3A" then I wouldn't have mentioned it. I did notice another error on P. 145. Patton writes: "In June 1977, a small unmarked passenger plane landed on the runway at Groom Lake and from it emerged President Jimmy Carter's national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski. He met Rich and walked around Have Blue sitting in its hangar, and was briefed in a secure room." That must have actually occurred at Burbank, because HAVE BLUE was first transported to Groom on 16 November 1977. Peter W. Merlin ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 01:03:20 EDT From: Xelex@aol.com Subject: Re: Shuttle contingency Groom Lake was never considered as a contingency landing site for the Space Shuttle. It was, however, one of the contingency lakebeds for the X-15. Considering the number of emergency X-15 landings during the program, it is amazing that it never had to use Groom. Peter W. Merlin ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 08:30:48 -0700 From: "Erik Hoel" Subject: SR-71 aerodynamics question This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01BDDFB9.F9D52080 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Here is a question that I'm sure many of you can answer for me - I've always wondered why the engines on the Blackbird are mounted at an angle (when viewed from the side) that appears different than that of the fuselage. More specifically, the engines seem to be pointed slightly downward with respect to the fuselage. I'm really curious to understand why this is done. Thanks, Erik - -- Erik Hoel mailto:ehoel@esri.com Environmental Systems Research Institute http://www.esri.com 380 New York Street 909-793-2853 (x1-1548) tel Redlands, CA 92373-8100 909-307-3067 fax - ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01BDDFB9.F9D52080 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef; name="winmail.dat" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="winmail.dat" eJ8+IjAPAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQ2ABAACAAAAAgACAAEGgAMADgAAAM4HCQAOAAgAHgAAAAEAEwEB A5AGADwHAAAnAAAACwACAAEAAAALACMAAAAAAAMAJgAAAAAACwApAAAAAAADADYAAAAAAB4AcAAB AAAAHAAAAFNSLTcxIGFlcm9keW5hbWljcyBxdWVzdGlvbgACAXEAAQAAABYAAAABvd/0pfakQ6UX S+UR0pk3AAD4A3K0AAACAR0MAQAAABQAAABTTVRQOkVIT0VMQEVTUkkuQ09NAAsAAQ4AAAAAQAAG DgAMBIn0370BAgEKDgEAAAAYAAAAAAAAAJss7MJTGtIRmP8AAPgDcrTCgAAACwAfDgEAAAADAAYQ ywrOvwMABxDVAQAAHgAIEAEAAABlAAAASEVSRUlTQVFVRVNUSU9OVEhBVElNU1VSRU1BTllPRllP VUNBTkFOU1dFUkZPUk1FLUlWRUFMV0FZU1dPTkRFUkVEV0hZVEhFRU5HSU5FU09OVEhFQkxBQ0tC SVJEQVJFTU9VTgAAAAACAQkQAQAAAK8CAACrAgAA6AMAAExaRnUwE9oSAwAKAHJjcGcxMjUWMgD4 C2BuDhAwMzOdAfcgAqQEZAIAY2gKwOBzZXQwIAhVB7ICgx8AUARWEZ4OUAPVVGFomwNxAoB9CoAI yCA7CW89DjA1Fi8KYAKACoF1Y6MAUAsDdWxuAiBlC6YkIEgEkGUgBAAgYUQgcQpQc3RpAiAgBnQR EAVASSdtIHMHCHAaoAOBeSBvZiCyeQhgIGMDkQBxdxHhpwIQBcAHgCAtG+F2GqDRB0B3YXkEIHcC IASBewmAHzBoHLAboBqgCfBnLwuAB5EbcxqgQgtgY2v8YmkLIBrgHFIIYAIwH6HTG8EdU2dsGqAo H9AJ8PwgdgiQHbAfsANSIAMAkIUBACkblGFwcGURIfQgZAaQZhqBAjAbkhuFMxzRIBJmdRFAC2Bn Zd4uBdAFsCShJZBjBpAN4LEHQGx5LCALEUBlJGHIbyBiGqBwbwuAImLAc2xpZ2h0KTAl4Hhvd24e 8CGxA/AboCD/F5AokiZxKpAnbBvyF5ApEv8dMAhxCGAEICqBIkAEgRtAvwBwH7YawRrBK/AZwC4K oosKhAqAVCaha3MsMYhTCzAAQCBFBRBrMYQtri0xhDOiGmBvJ9AgNV9/Nm8I0ABBGYAccQMQKoA6 tmUU4CfQQAeQBRAuBaDebTeBDlAZhTR0biPAA2B+bgeAAjAHQAYAHxAiYG39BCBSB5AloREAG+AA gBtQHHR1ImA3LCugdHA6aC8vdz4wLjjfOeYzNjgRcAfCWQWwNPBTdA8J0QVAQT9BYDkwOS0ANzkz LTI4NTMBI1B4MS0xNTQ4ryUBJ9AxhDvAZA8BZDKQRRMgQUJRMjM3QtA4jw9AEXBF/0IJMzA3R7Fk Njcd4GF4MYUUIzF+NzK6N5AC0QvFMZMVQQABS3AAAwAQEAAAAAADABEQAAAAAAsAAYAIIAYAAAAA AMAAAAAAAABGAAAAAAOFAAAAAAAAAwAQgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAUoUAAOMVAAAeABGA CCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAABUhQAAAQAAAAQAAAA4LjUACwAVgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYA AAAABoUAAAAAAAADABaACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAABhQAAAAAAAAsAH4AIIAYAAAAAAMAA AAAAAABGAAAAAA6FAAAAAAAAAwAggAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAEIUAAAAAAAADACGACCAG AAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAARhQAAAAAAAAMAI4AIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAABiFAAAAAAAA HgAzgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAANoUAAAEAAAABAAAAAAAAAB4ANIAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAA AABGAAAAADeFAAABAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAeADWACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAA4hQAAAQAAAAEA AAAAAAAACwA9gAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAgoUAAAEAAAALAD+ACyAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAA RgAAAAAAiAAAAAAAAAsAQYALIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAAAWIAAAAAAAAAgH4DwEAAAAQAAAA myzswlMa0hGY/wAA+ANytAIB+g8BAAAAEAAAAJss7MJTGtIRmP8AAPgDcrQCAfsPAQAAAH8AAAAA AAAAOKG7EAXlEBqhuwgAKypWwgAAUFNUUFJYLkRMTAAAAAAAAAAATklUQfm/uAEAqgA32W4AAABD OlxXSU5OVFxQcm9maWxlc1xlcmlrXEFwcGxpY2F0aW9uIERhdGFcTWljcm9zb2Z0XE91dGxvb2tc b3V0bG9vay5wc3QAAAMA/g8FAAAAAwANNP03AAACAX8AAQAAADEAAAAwMDAwMDAwMDlCMkNFQ0My NTMxQUQyMTE5OEZGMDAwMEY4MDM3MkI0QzQxOTIyMDAAAAAAqY4= - ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01BDDFB9.F9D52080-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 12:04:15 -0400 (EDT) From: ah@CS.Princeton.EDU Subject: Hypersoar There's an announcement in sci.space.news about it. The idea is that, since the craft "skips" into the upper atmosphere for short bursts, then coasts on a ballistic trajectory in space, it will have time to cool off between heatings. The other effect is that passengers will alternately experience 1.5G's, then weightlessness. So it will be like a gradual rollercoaster. The announcement claims that the craft's engines need only to be optimized for "acceleration", since the cruise phase will be unpowered through vaccuum. I know nothing about hypersonic engine design, but they claim it greatly simplifies the engines. Alejo Hausner (ah@cs.princeton.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 11:49:21 -0500 From: "Tom C Robison" Subject: Re: Hypersoar "The other effect is that passengers will alternately experience 1.5G's, then weightlessness. So it will be like a gradual rollercoaster." ======================== Which means the barf bags will alternately be under your feet or dripping from the ceiling... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Sep 98 12:59:58 -0500 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com Subject: Re[2]: Hypersoar Now there's a pleasant thought for your lunch break!! ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: Hypersoar Author: at INTERNET Date: 9/14/98 11:49 AM "The other effect is that passengers will alternately experience 1.5G's, then weightlessness. So it will be like a gradual rollercoaster." ======================== Which means the barf bags will alternately be under your feet or dripping from the ceiling... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 13:38:15 -0400 From: Martin Hurst Subject: RE: Re[2]: Hypersoar - RLCE No, no, no, you have it all wrong. Hypersoar comes with anti-matter gravity-tron transducers, which dampen the RLCE (Roller Coaster Effect) and smoothes out the periodic oscillational patterns between the g's and non-g's transitional zones. Barf bags would be an unnecessary and irrelevant component of the trip. - --------------------------- - -Martin Hurst > -----Original Message----- > From: gregweigold@pmsc.com [SMTP:gregweigold@pmsc.com] > Sent: Monday, September 14, 1998 2:00 PM > To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com > Subject: Re[2]: Hypersoar > > > Now there's a pleasant thought for your lunch break!! > > > ______________________________ Reply Separator > _________________________________ > Subject: Re: Hypersoar > Author: at INTERNET > Date: 9/14/98 11:49 AM > > > > > "The other effect is that passengers will alternately > experience 1.5G's, then weightlessness. So it will > be like a gradual rollercoaster." > > ======================== > > Which means the barf bags will alternately be under your feet or > dripping > from the ceiling... > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 16:40:30 EDT From: MELUMAN@aol.com Subject: Re: Re[2]: Hypersoar - RLCE Martin Hurst wrote: >No, no, no, you have it all wrong. >Hypersoar comes with anti-matter gravity-tron transducers. . . . OK, Martin. Knock off the sci-fi. You know the drill. See latest AvWeek. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 16:30:27 -0500 From: "Tom C Robison" Subject: Darkstar DarkStar Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Completes Second Flight September 14, 1998 12:30 PM EDT EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif., Sept. 14 /PRNewswire/ -- The second Tier III Minus DarkStar high-altitude unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) has successfully completed its second flight. The vehicle took off yesterday (Sunday) from the U.S. Air Force Flight Test Center at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., at 6:36 a.m. PST. During the 45-minute flight, DarkStar achieved its planned altitude of approximately 5,000 feet and completed all preplanned basic flight maneuvers. The system successfully executed a fully automated flight from takeoff to landing using the differential Global Positioning System (GPS) satellite constellation. Mark Sussman, Boeing DarkStar program manager, said the aircraft's second flight is significant because it provides further data on the vehicle's unique wing-body aerodynamics, and validated the changes made to the flight control system to mitigate a low-amplitude oscillation observed in flight one. The program will review the data from the second flight and move ahead with expansion of the flight envelope to its design altitude. After a detailed flight analysis, the DarkStar team will schedule more test flights to continue evaluation of the UAV's general flying characteristics and basic system performance, including the high-resolution synthetic aperture radar (SAR) and electro-optical (EO) payloads. ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V7 #62 ******************************** 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