From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V7 #67 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 Saturday, September 26 1998 Volume 07 : Number 067 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: A-12 Avenger Re: UFO's vs. black aircraft sightings Re: UFO's vs. black aircraft sightings Gray aircraft? Re: A-12 Avenger RE: A-12 Avenger SR-71 update RE: SR-71 update Re: SR-71 update *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 22:30:25 -0700 From: G&G Subject: Re: A-12 Avenger pharabod@in2p3.fr wrote: > > Could not find the info on the web... see: http://www.cyberramp.net/~habu/avenger2.htm > Does anybody know: > How many A-12 Avenger planes were built? zero > Did the A-12 Avenger ever fly? obviously not (see above), although an ATF prototype known as "Sneaky Pete" may mave flown in sub-scale form. Sneaky Pete (d)evolved into the A-12 Avenger II... I'm in the process of updating my page with approx 70 images, feel free to browse the image files until the html is uploaded: http://www.cyberramp.net/~habu/images/avenger2/ Greg ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 21:38:32 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: UFO's vs. black aircraft sightings At 04:53 PM 9/21/98 -0700, I wrote: Arial< Examples of these were the sighting of a delta shaped craft flying amidst a gaggle of F-117's sighted personally by Bill Scott in the Antelope Valley. He postulated soon thereafter it might be something he had heard about and referred to as a "TR-3A". No subsequent sightings of this craft were ever mentioned by anyone again and no connection with that term has ever been seen from a manufacturer. Thus we have Bill's sighting and nothing to go on after that. It remains as an unidentified flying object. and Dan responded.... Ahem. from the Desert Rat, archived on Ufomind, excerpted on my pages: An experienced aviation watcher says that he and his companions saw an unacknowledged delta winged aircraft about 35 miles east of Groom on Nov. 23 (1995). This was a triangular craft with rounded corners, as has been described in the press as the "TR-3A." The witness works for a major aircraft developer in California and says that he knows aircraft well. He says the sighting took place around 7 or 8 in the evening (long after dark) as he and several companions were traveling north on US-93 for a visit to the Tikaboo Valley. South of Alamo, they stopped to watch some orange flares being dropped by jets on maneuver. These flares, intended to distract heat-seeking missiles, are a common sight in the area, but the jets themselves were not. The witness was drawn by the unusual lighting of the jets: Four had only a single red strobe on the bottom about midway down the fuselage. About four others had only three steady lights: red lights in the front and rear and a white light at mid-fuselage. The witness says that the moon had just risen, so he was able to see the outline of the aircraft from below, using low-power binoculars and looking almost directly upward from their location near the Pahranagat Lakes. The planes with the single red strobes he recognized as F-117A Stealth fighters. The other four aircraft had a distinctive triangular shape with rounded corners. Both the witness and his companion, also an aviation worker, insist that these aircraft were not B-2s, the only acknowledged craft in the U.S. arsenal that resembles that shape. <<<<<<<< Dan, I have to disagree with you if you are implying your sighting you referred to was the same aircraft that Bill Scott reported. Keep in mind that Scott saw a triangular planform. And later he heard the term "TR-3A" from a conversation with Northrop. Finally a drawing was sent to him of a "THAP" that looked like his sighting. The point I stress is these are three independent data points. None of which are related to the other. It was Scott who presented the idea that they might be the same airplane but he had no evidence nor reason to believe that. In other words Northrop never confirmed the sighting nor the drawing Scott received. Likewise the person supplying the drawing did not witness the sighting. And finally, the Air Force was not aware of the sighting or Northrop's comment. So my point is your sighting quoted may be very real and I have no reason to not believe it occurred as you tell it. But no creditable evidence is mentioned to connect this sighting with the Scott sighting. I would argue it is another independent data point which is worth further examination or discussion. It has to be classified as another delta shaped aircraft with rounded corners of unknown origin or name. Just as Scotts sighting is. It may be the same aircraft and may not be. I then added: Once again, these are not my rules, only how I remember them. I am a skeptic if you wish to label me but my intent is to challenge you to be able to confirm your beliefs. <<<<<<<< And you commented: Then do it off the list. <<<<<<<< Dan what is this list for if not to discuss black aircraft? I would point out that this is one reason we are here. To discuss and debate assertions ideas anyone makes. I believe this comes under the category of researching and furthering the validity of our hobby. patrick cullumber ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 23:41:58 -0700 From: Dan Zingrabe Subject: Re: UFO's vs. black aircraft sightings At 04:53 PM 9/21/98 -0700, I wrote: Arial< Examples of these were the sighting of a delta shaped craft flying amidst a gaggle of F-117's sighted personally by Bill Scott in the Antelope Valley. He postulated soon thereafter it might be something he had heard about and referred to as a "TR-3A". No subsequent sightings of this craft were ever mentioned by anyone again and no connection with that term has ever been seen from a manufacturer. Thus we have Bill's sighting and nothing to go on after that. It remains as an unidentified flying object. and Dan responded.... Ahem. from the Desert Rat, archived on Ufomind, excerpted on my pages: An experienced aviation watcher says that he and his companions saw an unacknowledged delta winged aircraft about 35 miles east of Groom on Nov. 23 (1995). This was a triangular craft with rounded corners, as has been described in the press as the "TR-3A." The witness works for a major aircraft developer in California and says that he knows aircraft well. He says the sighting took place around 7 or 8 in the evening (long after dark) as he and several companions were traveling north on US-93 for a visit to the Tikaboo Valley. South of Alamo, they stopped to watch some orange flares being dropped by jets on maneuver. These flares, intended to distract heat-seeking missiles, are a common sight in the area, but the jets themselves were not. The witness was drawn by the unusual lighting of the jets: Four had only a single red strobe on the bottom about midway down the fuselage. About four others had only three steady lights: red lights in the front and rear and a white light at mid-fuselage. The witness says that the moon had just risen, so he was able to see the outline of the aircraft from below, using low-power binoculars and looking almost directly upward from their location near the Pahranagat Lakes. The planes with the single red strobes he recognized as F-117A Stealth fighters. The other four aircraft had a distinctive triangular shape with rounded corners. Both the witness and his companion, also an aviation worker, insist that these aircraft were not B-2s, the only acknowledged craft in the U.S. arsenal that resembles that shape. <<<<<<<< Dan, I have to disagree with you if you are implying your sighting you referred to was the same aircraft that Bill Scott reported. It was similar enough that it shouldn't be overlooked. Same test range, same operational pattern, same planform... Keep in mind that Scott saw a triangular planform. And later he heard the term "TR-3A" from a conversation with Northrop. Finally a drawing was sent to him of a "THAP" that looked like his sighting. The point I stress is these are three independent data points. None of which are related to the other. It was Scott who presented the idea that they might be the same airplane but he had no evidence nor reason to believe that. Actually, Joseph Jones first presented the idea (and several others) several years earlier in "Stealth Technology: the Art of Black Magic". He's even credited in Scott's original TR-3 article. In other words Northrop never confirmed the sighting nor the drawing Scott received. Likewise the person supplying the drawing did not witness the sighting. And finally, the Air Force was not aware of the sighting or Northrop's comment. The Air Force *is* aware of Northrop comments, the AvWeek article (they even sent a copy to me with their THAP material). Their comments were to the effect that the only public records they have of the THAP study, studies leading to it, or programs spawned from it, is the reference in "Flight Vehicle Technology for Aerospace Systems" 9th edition, and the records for the study's budget (and several related items that are.... wierd). Sooner or later, when I redo my website I'll even scan in the letter (once I dig it out of it's box) and put it up there. So my point is your sighting quoted may be very real and I have no reason to not believe it occurred as you tell it. Not my sighting, I'm quoting someone else. But no creditable evidence is mentioned to connect this sighting with the Scott sighting. I would argue it is another independent data point which is worth further examination or discussion. It has to be classified as another delta shaped aircraft with rounded corners of unknown origin or name. Just as Scotts sighting is. It may be the same aircraft and may not be. I then added: Once again, these are not my rules, only how I remember them. I am a skeptic if you wish to label me but my intent is to challenge you to be able to confirm your beliefs. <<<<<<<< And you commented: Then do it off the list. <<<<<<<< Dan what is this list for if not to discuss black aircraft? My point exactly. Most of the mail related to, say, why the F-18 is better than the F-14 (or whatever that discussion was about) I filtered out. It didn't interest me, so I didn't participate. So far you really haven't challenged anything. All you've done is post about rules and regulations. How did this start, anyway? The UFO item on the survey? Dan ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 19:23:31 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Gray aircraft? OFFUTT AIR FORCE BASE, Neb. (AFNS) -- The nuclear threat that spawned the Looking Glass mission may seem to many a distant memory in a world without dueling superpowers. That mission began more than 37 years ago with the Air Force's EC-135 aircraft and its task of being an airborne nuclear command post. In the event the Strategic Air Command (now U.S. Strategic Command) underground Command Center was destroyed or became disabled, Looking Glass would take over. In fact, the term "Looking Glass" refers to the EC-135's ability to mirror all the capabilities of that command center. Although the Cold War is over, a radically changing world environment, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and political uncertainty in countries possessing nuclear weapons are just a few reasons why the Looking Glass mission remains as vital today as when it began in 1961. That mission however, will soon be undergoing a change of "platform." On Sept. 25, the Air Force's venerable EC-135 aircraft will hand over its Looking Glass mission of command, control, and communications of the nation's strategic nuclear forces to the Navy's E-6B "Take Charge and Move Out" aircraft. The roots of this change extend back decades, to the height of the Cold War. In the early 1960s, the U.S. Navy deployed the first ballistic missile submarine fleet, establishing the submarine-launched ballistic missile as a key element of the nation's nuclear triad, which also included Air Force strategic bombers and intercontinental ballistic missiles Like the Air Force, the Navy also developed a method for maintaining constant control of their nuclear forces. The same year that EC-135s took on the Looking Glass mission, modified Marine Corps KC-130s (re-designated EC-130Qs) took on the mission of command and control of SSBN forces. The EC-130Qs were equipped with very low-frequency radio transmitters contained in vans loaded aboard the aircraft. Despite force modernization and advances, both airframes displayed a high degree of reliability and remained essentially unchanged for decades. For 29 years, the EC-135s conducted continuous airborne operations, accumulating more than 281,000 accident-free flying hours. "I've flown more than 100 airborne alert missions on the Glass and it's something I'm proud to have done and wouldn't have traded for money," said Lt. Col. Charles Harper, a member of the Looking Glass battlestaff. "The Glass is the world's most powerful airframe by virtue of the fact that it commands so much firepower. It has been a deterrence mainstay for 30 years." The EC-130Qs maintained a similarly impressive record, but advances in submarine technology in the early 1980s dictated corresponding advances in the aging airframe. Between 1989 and 1992, 16 E-6A Mercury aircraft entered service to replace the EC-130Q. These new aircraft offered more than double the range and almost twice the speed of their predecessor. The end of the Cold War saw other important changes. The EC-135 was taken off continuous airborne alert in 1990, although it remained on ground alert. In 1992, SAC was disestablished, and the command, control, and communications mission of all elements of the triad was placed under the newly-formed USSTRATCOM. Shortly thereafter, the secretary of defense directed the Air Force and Navy secretaries to begin consolidating the Looking Glass mission aboard TACAMO. The impetus for the change was the cost-savings generated by using one aircraft to do the job that had formerly been done by two. "TACAMO was always simply a relay platform," explained Navy Lt. Dan J. Fee, aircraft commander on TACAMO's first Looking Glass operational flight. "We got a message that came from another aircraft or ground command center and we would relay that message to our submarines and to other platforms. Now, since we're married up with Looking Glass, we'll carry the folks on board who will directly pass the National Command Authority's guidance simultaneously to all three legs of our nuclear triad." In preparation for the transfer of the Looking Glass mission to the TACAMO, the Navy began a series of modifications to the E-6A. These changes consisted of adding communications equipment and command consoles used for the Looking Glass mission. With the modifications complete, the aircraft were re-designated E-6Bs. Six years later, the defense secretary directive is about to become a reality. Most of the 15 EC-135s have been retired to the Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center or "boneyard" at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz. The rest will follow shortly after TACAMO completely assumes the Looking Glass mission Sept. 25. Currently five TACAMO E-6Bs are operational in the Looking Glass mission, but the remaining 11 are slated for completion by 2002. Although under the operational control of USSTRATCOM, the aircraft belong to the Navy's Strategic Communications Wing One located at Tinker AFB, Okla. "The transition will be beneficial to the mission," concluded Maj. Gen. Neubert, who recently completed his final flight as airborne emergency action officer aboard a TACAMO. "The airplane is a more modern airplane and has more capabilities than the EC-135. It's better for the taxpayer and better for the defense of the nation." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 18:33:44 -0700 From: G&G Subject: Re: A-12 Avenger I've uploaded a much better image of the Sneaky Pete design at: http://www.cyberramp.net/~habu/images/avenger2/atf_gd3.jpg The corners aren't quite 'round' (ala "TR-3A") but it may be food for thought. BTW, I scanned the image directly from LMTAS' "Code One" magazine (not Popular Mechanics :) ) Greg ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 14:03:22 +0930 From: Dennis Lapcewich Subject: RE: A-12 Avenger > -----Original Message----- > From: G&G [mailto:habu@cyberramp.net] > Sent: Thursday, September 24, 1998 11:04 AM > To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com > Subject: Re: A-12 Avenger > > > I've uploaded a much better image of the Sneaky Pete design at: > > http://www.cyberramp.net/~habu/images/avenger2/atf_gd3.jpg > > The corners aren't quite 'round' (ala "TR-3A") but it may be food for > thought. BTW, I scanned the image directly from LMTAS' "Code One" > magazine (not Popular Mechanics :) ) > > Greg > Actually your cat http://www.cyberramp.net/~habu/images/feline/bubby4.jpg is a bit more frightening that the Sneky Pete design! I take it the photograph was taken just after stealth mode was turned off and the cat was in final attack mode ... ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Sep 98 19:45:45 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: SR-71 update The news isn't pretty. The middle of this week the House and Senate agreed on a compromise Defense bill. The money for FY99 operations of the SR-71 was not in it. Barring money showing up in the supplemental (not too likely) or some kind of miracle (Clinton vetoing the whole Defense budget AND the revised budget containing the money), that's pretty much it for the program. Had the money been in the budget and if the Air Farce didn't just ignore Congressional direction and sit on the money, there was a plan for restoration. The aircraft would have been flying in about two weeks while the remaining Air Force crew would have been brought back to full proficiency (they have been going through the full pre-and post flight procedures on the engine runs and have been working in the simulator during the past year). There wouldn't have been enough time for full operational capability to be achieved before the crew retires, but they would act as contractor instructors after their retirement. Meanwhile new crews would be selected and the retired crew would train them on the aircraft. Full mission capability would be achieved with one crew by next March and with two crews by June/July. That seems to be out the window, now. Within hours of the report from the Conference Committee there were e-mails flying within USAF HQ saying, 'Green light to terminate SR-71 program'. There is as yet nothing in writing, because the budget has not been officially signed and FY98 isn't over yet. When it gets signed and assuming there's no supplemental, a shutdown order can be expected post haste. No one is exactly sure what will happen if Clinton vetoes the Defense budget or if he decides to trigger a standoff with Congress and cause another government shutdown. If there's a continuing resolution (as expected if this happens) all existing programs are funded at 80% of their FY98 level, but no new starts are permitted. A termination program is a new start. Once a termination order actually hits, there's the problem of how USAF is going to fund the termination. They're going to try and claim the returned $30-39 million (wherever it is) can be used for that with what's left over either going to other AF projects or going back to the general fund. Since that's FY98 money and specifically was for operations, not termination, that may be of dubious legality, but when has that ever stopped SR opponents? Once the dust settles, NASA will get first pick of the assets. As I mentioned once before, they've asked for two SRs, at least one of which is flyable. At the time of the veto, 967 was flying a bit better, but 971 was the bird they returned to AF, so they may want that one back. It's probable that 968, which had already been brought to Palmdale and was to have been restored to flight status when Clinton vetoed the program will be the other one. Why don't they just take 967 and 971? They could, but the opponents of the program may fear that this would leave the possibility that the SR could come back again and may oppose that. 962 will probably end up in some museum evnetually, unless AF just leaves it out in the desert. Assuming that NASA doesn't get both flyable ones, the buzz is that the other one's last flight will be to a museum in Alaska. This, plus a transfer of a C-130 squadron up there may be the reason why Sen. Stevens didn't fight that hard for the SR this time, but that's only some folks speculation. Although it would be more economical and safer to fly the plane there at speed, AF may direct the flight be done subsonically as a final slap at the program. Speaking of speculation, I'm sure it's just a remarkable coincidence that as soon as Lockheed directed its employees to stop publicly championing the SR-71, USAF reservations about Darkstar and its operating altitude miraculously evaporated. Both Global Hawk and Darkstar are fully funded this year, despite their glacial system progress. By the way, it appears that Global Hawk, should it ever enter service is now going to cost at least 30% more than its promised ceiling price. And, just to show that there is Republican as well as Democratic pork, money was inserted in the budget to buy six additional C-130Js (built in Newt's District) which the Air Force didn't want, doesn't need and can't use. Lockheed will make a tidy profit on these (far more than it would have made on the SR program) true, but it was always willing to continue to support the SR. For those of you who pay attention to these things, the cost of those six Hercules would have run the SR program at its FY98 level for 9.69 years. Not everyone is upset about this, of course, No doubt the leaders and staffs of North Korea, China, Iraq, Iran, etc. are giving each other their equivalents of high fives... Art ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 21:09:32 -0400 From: Martin Hurst Subject: RE: SR-71 update - ------ =_NextPart_000_01BDE991.FF009580 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Wrote: betnal@ns.net[SMTP:betnal@ns.net] Saturday, September 26, 1998 3:45 PM ... The news isn't pretty ... \:( X 1,000 ... Not everyone is upset about this, of course, No doubt the leaders = and staffs=20 of North Korea, China, Iraq, Iran, etc. are giving each other their = equivalents of=20 high fives... Art thank you for keeping the rest off us very well informed of all this = on this list. What is that compromise between the Senate and Congress you mentioned? What side is the Senate taking, on the budget in general and the SR-71 = program in specific? What power does the USAF yield that it can stall on giving up that money = that Congress was asking to be put back into the SR-71 program after the = veto was over turned? Is the USAF running now on its own authority and control - it doesn't = have to answer to the elected body of the government anymore !?!?!? This = would appear to be treason under the US Constitution, for the USAF not = to respond and quickly to what Congress is telling it to do !!!=20 The USAF has gotten to big for itself and Congress on the other hand has = allowed the USAF to get away with it. A bunch of those high rank Air = Force brass should be pulled into a Congressional committee, for some = serious questioning about their commitment to their country, and their = government, and what/where their priorities really are. - -Martin - ------ =_NextPart_000_01BDE991.FF009580 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IjEBAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAENgAQAAgAAAAIAAgABBJAG ADABAAABAAAADAAAAAMAADADAAAACwAPDgAAAAACAf8PAQAAAE0AAAAAAAAAgSsfpL6jEBmdbgDd AQ9UAgAAAABza3Vuay13b3Jrc0BuZXR3cngxLmNvbQBTTVRQAHNrdW5rLXdvcmtzQG5ldHdyeDEu Y29tAAAAAB4AAjABAAAABQAAAFNNVFAAAAAAHgADMAEAAAAYAAAAc2t1bmstd29ya3NAbmV0d3J4 MS5jb20AAwAVDAEAAAADAP4PBgAAAB4AATABAAAAGgAAACdza3Vuay13b3Jrc0BuZXR3cngxLmNv bScAAAACAQswAQAAAB0AAABTTVRQOlNLVU5LLVdPUktTQE5FVFdSWDEuQ09NAAAAAAMAADkAAAAA CwBAOgEAAAACAfYPAQAAAAQAAAAAAAADATsBCIAHABgAAABJUE0uTWljcm9zb2Z0IE1haWwuTm90 ZQAxCAEEgAEAEQAAAFJFOiBTUi03MSB1cGRhdGUAzgQBBYADAA4AAADOBwkAGgAVAAkAIAAGADwB ASCAAwAOAAAAzgcJABoAFQAJACAABgA8AQEJgAEAIQAAADA0OTQ2MkMwNTY1NUQyMTE5NkEyNDQ0 NTUzNTQwMDAwAJ0GAQOQBgBMBgAAEgAAAAsAIwAAAAAAAwAmAAAAAAALACkAAAAAAAMANgAAAAAA QAA5AAAC5Huz6b0BHgBwAAEAAAARAAAAUkU6IFNSLTcxIHVwZGF0ZQAAAAACAXEAAQAAABYAAAAB vemze7HAYpQHVVYR0paiREVTVAAAAAAeAB4MAQAAAAUAAABTTVRQAAAAAB4AHwwBAAAAFgAAAG1h cnRpbmhAaXgubmV0Y29tLmNvbQAAAAMABhDb/7epAwAHEDEEAAAeAAgQAQAAAGUAAABXUk9URTpC RVROQUxATlNORVRTTVRQOkJFVE5BTEBOU05FVFNBVFVSREFZLFNFUFRFTUJFUjI2LDE5OTgzOjQ1 UE1USEVORVdTSVNOVFBSRVRUWTooWDEsMDAwTk9URVZFUllPAAAAAAIBCRABAAAA0QQAAM0EAACC BwAATFpGdSk59Wz/AAoBDwIVAqgF6wKDAFAC8gkCAGNoCsBzZXQyNwYABsMCgzIDxQIAcHJCcRHi c3RlbQKDM3cC5AcTAoB9CoAIzwnZO/EWDzI1NQKACoENsQtgYG5nMTAzFFALA2wQaTE4MALRaS0x /DQ0DfAM0BpzC1UUUQvysmMAQCBXA2AT0DoK4VkLaDE2CqAcYmMFQGKVEcBuB0BAAIAubhHAQFtT TVRQOh47XQsKhQYQdAhwZGF5LJ8GUQUwE+AeMAXAMjYhMAAxOTk4IDM6NPA1IFBNCo8beB22JRM+ LiVwGy8cMBy3JD1UaDRlIB7QdwQgBABuJ+cFQBNQEcB0eSWvJrElcaElEVxcOiglEFglEJwxLBoQ CnwZ0DM2Gx6LHbYq4k4ccCBldgSQjnkCIChwBAAgdXARsc4gAaAIYAVAdGgEACEw+G9mIAWgCHAR sCEwLuE0IGQIYGIwkihwbGVOYQSBBCAAcGQgE8BhPw3QBCAi9TERLvAAIGgg7ksFsDKwITBDMMAe YCEw0ElyYXE1k24hMBHAjmMrAArAKHBnaXYLgP5nLyAA0DSwHHAoYAXAMmHiaQXAZXF1NxAHQAnw 3nQEIDERIvUwwGc0sBpA/y9AHrAlcCL/G3w6tQcQMJJpAHBrIC9wdTogBbFr/QngcDcyMmIWEBPA MQExIIZ1BCAvQiB3ZWwDIP8LgD3xB4AzQDERB0ADIDCyvzEAA6BBUxnQE8A6plcRgF8FQC/BPVEF QAWgbR2xbf8EAChwHjFAAAnwMlMGYB5g/xPQMxMIUBkQPvEEID2yB4DlAjBpL4FkP0J6AJANsHdD JEUHAZBrNzEw8UTEYvh1ZGcwIQuANvAJ8ASQxwdAMxNE41ItNxwwHbHJCcBhbUqCc3AFkAaQzGlj RzZCenBvQAAFwIcyAAeRMmJVU0FGPaD9CJBsS2JDAkORA5EzYUAh/0GhNwUv8ENUBGAe0D/gQ2Pp Rdd3YTMBc0lSMKAx4PceMCkwMIFiANA9kAuAVGF/S48wQAGAN/Q/oVRhU7JvLy9BMKAIcEcJSU8p cnX2bgMAN0FuTqBBklCAOSHqdwOgYTCAaAWwUIA/4N8zIgWgAjADYAMgLVByTvL/KQIRgC9AVFIA cU6yVXVAEHcd8UCxBuBkP+AxETJiZz1X8m5GojMRBsA04SAhbj9hUihBL8F3CGBQAWG+cEzgCsFU ZFxgMrBzQaH/WfAEgU81RcITwFCAMIBG4f8hMD3yT0daYDCRMeA+8U6Q7zMxMyI4kVUgbFKxV5FS 6/9DMkARNzJQgVRhMgBhQGpA/zPGOrUoUk+DEYAEIGAgAkD/RLJUcTnwPeNa0UAQQPFFqv9JtTfE PWEzQGvyQRFOoUtk90+DVGFKUmFTsD/hUIA0sGtQgCsAQUoRbjeSX8Jvr0QxOeM2IT2QQThRRgWw 7mNEQTXABBFzW4BiMlST90AgQLFVU2FFx0bhSxFDsf9EEGxRMZE98mOAB4AzUAZx/whgBCA4kD8B RuE3MjBWOEL/d2Rgg1V0enNZ8FxgISFLRe84UWAofFRoIi9oIASQSRH/ODMTUEbgW6EIkAQgNPFA IH9b0RYQOqg7mjPGO38cMC22TQrARtBuTWwVMQCFEAAAAAMAEBAAAAAAAwAREAAAAABAAAcwYElw AqnpvQFAAAgwIKPre7PpvQEeAD0AAQAAAAUAAABSRTogAAAAAGTs - ------ =_NextPart_000_01BDE991.FF009580-- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 22:17:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: SR-71 update On Sat, 26 Sep 1998 betnal@ns.net wrote: > program) true, but it was always willing to continue to support the SR. For those > of you who pay attention to these things, the cost of those six Hercules would > have run the SR program at its FY98 level for 9.69 years. How about those 40 millions for the investigation of Billy and Monica Lewinski investigation? What a waste of money just to say... he did it! May the Force be with you Wei-Jen Su E-mail: wsu@cco.caltech.edu "And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the very first Fokker airplane built in the world. The Dutch call it the mother Fokker." -- custodian at the Aviodome aviation museum, Schiphol airport Amsterdam ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V7 #67 ******************************** 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