From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V7 #87 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 Sunday, December 13 1998 Volume 07 : Number 087 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Walter Horten 1913-1998 re Albanian U-2 Re: Finding genuine, totally authentic written or , photograph Re: SR-71 photo question Re: SR-71 photo question Re: SR-71 (LASRE) photo question Re: skunk-works-digest V7 #86 Area 51 photo page Re: skunk-works-digest V7 #86 Re: skunk-works-digest V7 #82 SW corporate restructuring? Re: SW corporate restructuring? Re: SW corporate restructuring? Re: SW corporate restructuring? Re: SR-71 (LASRE) photo question Re: SW corporate restructuring? cc:Mail Link to SMTP Undeliverable Message cc:Mail Link to SMTP Undeliverable Message *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 17:26:48 From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David) Subject: Walter Horten 1913-1998 As this isn't strictly SW, I'll keep it brief: The sad news is that Walter Horten died unexpectedly this morning (Wednesday 9th) at a hospital in Baden-Baden from a heart attack, after contracting pneumonia. He was 85. The contributions made by him and his brother Reimar to innovative aereospace design, in particular flying wings and later deltas is a matter of record. With so many UCAV designs - including those by Lockheed Martin employing the flying wing planform it looks like the legacy of original thinkers like Jack Northrop and the Hortens will live on for many years to come. A sad day indeed. David ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 13:51:05 EST From: UKdragon@aol.com Subject: re Albanian U-2 Steve wrote via George: >Saw your name connected to the skunkworks site and thought you could help= . >I'm looking for details on the U2 forced down in Albania in 1957. I am starting from 0 so will appreciate any accounts. I am not a skunkworks member/subscriber so I'd appreciate a response to this e-mail address. Over the years, have spoken or corresponded with most of the dozen U-2 pilots who could have been involved at that time, plus countless other= program personnel. None has ever mentioned such an incident. George - no email for Steve carried in Digest version at least - perehaps = you will forward this Regards, Chris Pocock=09=93Information is useless without Intelligence=94 email: UKdragon@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Dec 98 23:21:12 -0000 From: jaz5@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: Finding genuine, totally authentic written or , photograph Robert, call the Air Force ecretary of Public Affairs 703-695-0640 They will probably tell you tis classified, but they may have a direction to go. They were very helpful with a request I made some time ago. Also be persistent, ask "Well if you can't, who can?" and you never know where you'll end up. And let me know if this does any good. Jaz ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 14:08:04 -0700 From: Brad Hitch Subject: Re: SR-71 photo question > > > > > > Yes, this is definitely the linear aerospike testbed, which was recently > > cancelled before it ever flew with the linear aerospike engine mounted on it. > > > > Actually, NASA's SR flew a number of times with the Linear Aerospike > mounted, > and did some "cold" firings at much lower than design thrust. Persistent > propellant leaks and other problems kept postponing the hot firings until the > point where the project was canceled. > > Art So, did they collect the enough data to answer the questions these tests were supposed to answer in the first place? I think that it is unlikely they did if no hot firings were conducted. There is a BIG difference between hot and cold flow performance of combustion equipment in general. This illustrates an all-too-common occurrence in technology programs, especially government technology programs, where no one can accurately predict how much work will be required to accomplish the goals in the first place. ("If we haven't done it before, how can we tell you how much it will cost and how long it will take?"). The result is usually that plans are made optimistically (plan for success) and without being aware of all of the pesky details (these are often the REAL problems), therefore underscoping the resources and time that will be required. When you come up short, it blows up in everyone's face. On the other hand, if you inflate your estimates too much, the project won't even be attempted (or the job will go to a competitor). Another problem is that programs are often undertaken due to technical "fads" and political agendas without a very good understanding of, or interest in, the long-term picture, therefore MOST technology programs lose their luster and political support within a couple of years and are cancelled. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Dec 98 04:43:56 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: SR-71 photo question On 12/10/98 1:08PM, in message <36703834.176C@tda.com>, Brad Hitch wrote: > > So, did they collect the enough data to answer the questions these tests > were supposed to answer in the first place? No they didn't. Given the timeframe of the tests, teh answers would have been of more benefit to VentureStar than to X-33. VentureStar is going to be a Big scale uup in thrust and pressure, if Lockheed goes forward. It still looks like for them to go forward they are going to want the Government to guarantee them a certain amount of cargo, in a kind of "fly or buy" contract. Art ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 21:17:01 -0800 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: SR-71 (LASRE) photo question >This illustrates an all-too-common occurrence in technology >programs, especially government technology programs, where no one can >accurately predict how much work will be required to accomplish the >goals in the first place. ("If we haven't done it before, how can we >tell you how much it will cost and how long it will take?"). The result >is usually that plans are made optimistically (plan for success) and >without being aware of all of the pesky details (these are often the >REAL problems), therefore underscoping the resources and time that will >be required. When you come up short, it blows up in everyone's face. >On the other hand, if you inflate your estimates too much, the project >won't even be attempted (or the job will go to a competitor). I second that! Another result of what you're saying, is that the people who end up getting the development contract, sometimes could care less about 'discovering' the technology. They just want the government contract. So you end up with no results. It takes the people with the desire to see the technology developed to make it happen. I think this work has to be funded privately now. The government, as you say, just isn't into it long enough to matter. And then you have the bean counters and the oversight specialists. Put the Wright Brothers into this system we have now. It's rather amusing! Larry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 08:33:36 GMT From: abeaumont@canterbury.kent.sch.uk (Adrian Beaumont) Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V7 #86 > >Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 15:07:12 EST >From: kc7vdg@juno.com (K. Rudolph) >Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V7 #82 > >You forgot to mention RADAR has been in use since 1917, and the Germans >used 108 MCs RADAR in their aircraft, quit small antennas, system, and >high resolution. > >Kurt > >Amateur Radio Stations KC7VDG/KQ6NG >Monitor Station Registry KCA6ABB >Based In Nevada, United States Of America > > A practical radar system in 1917? There was some use of radio towards the end of the First World War, but very very limited. The first example of an aircraft being tracked by reflected radio waves was on 26 February 1935 - it was a Handley Page Heyford bomber at its cruising speed of 80 knots. It followed the ground breaking paper by Robert Watson Watt titled "Detection and Location of Aircraft By Radio Methods" which was produced under great secrecy and passed to government on 12 February 1935. You are quite right about the Lichtenstein radar used in the Me110 and Ju88 night fighters, though the aerial arrays on the aircraft nose were large enough to cause degradation of performance - though they remained vastly in excess of that of an RAF Lancaster or Stirling bomber. We were lucky enough to get a complete example when a Luftwaffe pilot decided to deliver his Ju88 intact to RAF Woodbridge. The resolution was not high (what do we mean by high!) but was sufficient to home in on a bomber from some miles away in complete darkness. The pilot offered to fly the Ju88 for the tests to show how it was done, but his offer was declined - instead he taught RAF pilots and scientists how it worked and how to get the best out of it. Adrian Beaumont ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Dec 98 01:46:56 -0000 From: jaz5@ix.netcom.com Subject: Area 51 photo page At this URL there is a set of 20 photos of the airfield at Groom Lake taken in 1995. They are quite good, you can identify a pickup truck as such. I didn't see any unusual aircraft, but all the buildings are visible. http://www.eagle-net.org/groomwatch/panoramic.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 11:15:35 EST From: kc7vdg@juno.com (K. Rudolph) Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V7 #86 What has been printed i nthis country for years is that the US Navy had RADAR system designed in 1917, by an Amateur Radio man. They wanted a "death ray', but he said forget it, it can't be done, so here's RADAR. I believe his actual words were "I'll tell yuo how fast it is going and how far the aeroplane is". Kurt Amateur Radio Stations KC7VDG/KQ6NG Monitor Station Registry KCA6ABB Based In Nevada, United States Of America On Fri, 11 Dec 1998 08:33:36 GMT abeaumont@canterbury.kent.sch.uk (Adrian Beaumont) writes: >> >>Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 15:07:12 EST >>From: kc7vdg@juno.com (K. Rudolph) >>Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V7 #82 >> >>You forgot to mention RADAR has been in use since 1917, and the >Germans >>used 108 MCs RADAR in their aircraft, quit small antennas, system, >and >>high resolution. >> >>Kurt >> >>Amateur Radio Stations KC7VDG/KQ6NG >>Monitor Station Registry KCA6ABB >>Based In Nevada, United States Of America >> >> > >A practical radar system in 1917? There was some use of radio >towards the >end of the First World War, but very very limited. ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 00:39:04 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V7 #82 At 08:30 AM 12/8/98 GMT, Adrian wrote: > > >Radar remained secret for some time - the Germans >had attempted to detect radio transmissions years before the war started by >flying the old Graf Zeppelin airship up and down the east coast of England - >it did not detect anything, partly because it was not listening on the right >wavebands, and partly because the huge rf energy being picked up by the >immense metal structure of the airship was interfering with radio equipment >on board the airship. > >Some time ago there was discussion as to whether or not wooden aircraft at >the time were an attempt to be stealthy - the truth is that radar was so >secret that aircraft designers did not know of it. The wooden aircraft >were designed merely to economise on the use of scarce metals, that would be >in short supply during a war. Most of the wooden aricraft, eg the >Mosquito, dated in design terms from about 1936 - again, I have all the >precise details/dates if anyone is interested. > >Sorry if this is off-topic! > Sorry if this is off topic???? Adrian your posts are wonderful to read and quite fascinating historically. They touch on several threads of previous discussions we have had in here such as questions about wooden aircraft. And the fabulous "Mossie" being the prime candidate. Please continue as your information if nothing else leads us up to the edge of thinking the Skunkworks was at when it began looking at RCS reduction in its designs. Bravo Adrian!! patrick cullumber ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 15:44:17 -0700 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: SW corporate restructuring? [Reposted from sci.space.policy] Any y'all seen more about this? Or have any insights as to what it might signify in The Larger Scheme Of Things? NM Awaits Word on Spaceport Proposal by Sharon Simonson El Paso Times, Dec. 8, 1998, p. 1A [EXCERPT] Las Cruces - New Mexico must wait until at least Feb.1 to learn how it is doing in its pursuit of a $425 million spaceport and a spacecraft assembly plant that could employ as many as 3,000 people. Changes in corporate structure at Lockheed Martin Advanced Development Projects, known as the "Skunk Works" in Burbank, Calif. have delayed until next year the company's release of a request for proposals for development of the spaceport. The spaceport would accommodate Lockheed's VentureStar, a reusable space vehicle now being developed. The request was originally supposed to be released Nov. 18. "Lockheed Martin has decided to form a limited liability company called VentureStar, and Jerry Rising, our vice president for the reusable launch vehicle, wanted its management team in place before we start the site selection process," Ron Lindeke, the Lockheed Martin Skunk Works spacesman, said Monday. For those who haven't been following the program notes, VentureStar is the for-real single-stage-to-orbit vehicle that the current X-33 is supposed to be demonstrating technologies for, for which LASRE was to investigate some questions of the trans-sonic performance of a linear aerospike. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 18:16:08 EST From: kc7vdg@juno.com (K. Rudolph) Subject: Re: SW corporate restructuring? Where'd you get this info? Skunk-Works is more commonly known as USAF Plant #42, 90 miles NORTH of Burbank. Kurt Amateur Radio Stations KC7VDG/KK7RC Monitor Station Registry KCA6ABB Based In Nevada, United States Of America On Sat, 12 Dec 1998 15:44:17 -0700 "Allen Thomson" writes: >[Reposted from sci.space.policy] > >Any y'all seen more about this? Or have any insights as to what it >might >signify in The Larger Scheme Of Things? > > NM Awaits Word on Spaceport Proposal > by Sharon Simonson > El Paso Times, Dec. 8, 1998, p. 1A > [EXCERPT] > > Las Cruces - New Mexico must wait until at least Feb.1 to learn how >it > is doing in its pursuit of a $425 million spaceport and a >spacecraft > assembly plant that could employ as many as 3,000 people. > > Changes in corporate structure at Lockheed Martin Advanced > Development Projects, known as the "Skunk Works" in Burbank, Calif. > have delayed until next year the company's release of a request for > proposals for development of the spaceport. > > The spaceport would accommodate Lockheed's VentureStar, a >reusable > space vehicle now being developed. The request was originally >supposed > to be released Nov. 18. > > "Lockheed Martin has decided to form a limited liability company >called > VentureStar, and Jerry Rising, our vice president for the reusable >launch > vehicle, wanted its management team in place before we start the >site > selection process," Ron Lindeke, the Lockheed Martin Skunk Works > spacesman, said Monday. > > >For those who haven't been following the program notes, VentureStar is >the >for-real single-stage-to-orbit vehicle that the current X-33 is >supposed to >be demonstrating technologies for, for which LASRE was to investigate >some >questions of the trans-sonic performance of a linear aerospike. > > ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 21:53:02 -0700 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: Re: SW corporate restructuring? kc7vdg@juno.com (K. Rudolph) asked: >Where'd you get this info? Skunk-Works is more commonly known as USAF Plant >#42, 90 miles NORTH of Burbank. >Allen Thomson" >[Reposted from sci.space.policy] >>Any y'all seen more about this? Or have any insights as to what it might signify in >>The Larger Scheme Of Things? >> NM Awaits Word on Spaceport Proposal >> by Sharon Simonson >> El Paso Times, Dec. 8, 1998, p. 1A >> [EXCERPT] [snip] How careless of me not to give my source. The material was from an article titled "NM Awaits Word on Spaceport Proposal", written by a reporter named Sharon Simonson, and it appeared on page 1A of the El Paso Times newspaper on the 8th of December, 1998. Hope that helps. Please forgive the earlier omission. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Dec 98 22:30:56 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: SW corporate restructuring? On 12/12/98 3:16PM, in message <19981212.151437.4791.0.KC7VDG@juno.com>, K. Rudolph wrote: > Where'd you get this info? Skunk-Works is more commonly known as USAF > Plant #42, 90 miles NORTH of Burbank. > > Kurt > > For the overwhelming majority of its life, the Skunk Works was at Burbank, it didn't move until after the F-117s production was finished. It's probably just an oversight on the part of the writer. The Skunk Works is now at the same airfield as Plant #42, but Plant #42 and the Skunk Works are not one and the same. Art ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Dec 98 22:48:36 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: SR-71 (LASRE) photo question On 12/10/98 9:17PM, in message <199812110517.VAA425604@pdxcs266.pdx.intel.com>, Larry Smith wrote: > It takes the people with the desire to see the technology developed > to make it happen. > > I think this work has to be funded privately now. The government, as you > say, just isn't into it long enough to matter. And then you have the > bean counters and the oversight specialists. > > Put the Wright Brothers into this system we have now. It's rather > amusing! > > Larry > I'd echo Larry's wish for more private funding of this kind of research, but I'm less optimistic. There are some big problems I see. One is that unless you come up with something completely out of left field and is something the Government is totally uninterested in, the Government will become an obstacle in its zeal to regulate or control it. The record of what's happened to large development programs done with private money that potentially could compete with government programs is not encouraging. The lure of government money is also hard to resist given the upfront costs. But once you accept the King's gold you accept the King's desires. I'll wager that although Aerospike seems a fascinating technology with potentially high payoff, if Lockheed had decided to fund an SSTO totally out of their own money (and been allowed to operate it), they would not have come up with VentureStar as the planned first SSTO. They did a remarkable job in designing to what those holding the purse strings would want, not necessarily what the market would want. Finally, and sadly, the original pioneers are gone. I am referring to those who would do these kind of things for what they could learn or for the satisfaction of doing it. Nowadays Larry's bean counters and oversight specialists are all through the companies as well as government. I wonder if there are any U.S. companies left that would take on a massive R&D program using only their own money knowing that the payoff (no matter how enormous it potentially could be) would be at least 30 years away? Art ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 15:44:58 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: SW corporate restructuring? At 03:44 PM 12/12/98 -0700, you wrote: >[Reposted from sci.space.policy] > >Any y'all seen more about this? Or have any insights as to what it might >signify in The Larger Scheme Of Things? > > NM Awaits Word on Spaceport Proposal > by Sharon Simonson > El Paso Times, Dec. 8, 1998, p. 1A > [EXCERPT] > > Las Cruces - New Mexico must wait until at least Feb.1 to learn how it > is doing in its pursuit of a $425 million spaceport and a spacecraft > assembly plant that could employ as many as 3,000 people. > Los Cruces is the first big town west of White Sands which is the HQ for the WSMR. Actually NASA has a huge testing and fabrication facility on the SW outskirts of WSMR and maybe 20 miles from Los Cruces. Several years ago when McDD was flying their SSTO at WSMR the local visionaries decided that they wanted it to fly out of their back yard. WSMR is a testing facility, not a production facility. So they got the governor and then congressman Bill Richardson to establish a piece of property 50 miles up the highway and just west of WSMR property as the future "Spaceport of America". I think they erected a sign in front of the unimproved property. So as these programs come and go, so does Los Cruces' interest in their future Spaceport. Ever since Wehrner Von Braun moved in here in the late 40's these people just love shooting off rockets. patrick ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Dec 98 20:49:19 -0500 From: rob_ivey_at_pms-hub@pmsc.com Subject: cc:Mail Link to SMTP Undeliverable Message - --simple boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ACSII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message is undeliverable. Reason: User "gregweigold@cc.pmsc.com" is not found in the cc:Mail Directory. Original text follows: - --------------------- - --simple boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ACSII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from seawall.pmsc.com (firewall-user@seawall.pmsc.com [170.30.174.10]) by mail.pmsc.com (8.8.5/8.7.1) with ESMTP id AAA01061 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 00:09:23 -0500 Received: by seawall.pmsc.com; id SAA07327; Sun, 13 Dec 1998 18:46:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from netwrx1.com(192.41.8.79) by seawall.pmsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma007320; Sun, 13 Dec 98 18:45:17 -0500 Received: (georgek@localhost) by netwrx1.com (8.8.5) id QAA07710; Sun, 13 Dec 1998 16:55:40 -0700 (MST) Received: from zoo.e-z.net (root@zoo.e-z.net [205.240.28.15]) by netwrx1.com (8.8.5) id QAA07692; Sun, 13 Dec 1998 16:55:35 -0700 (MST) Received: from home.e-z.net (port111.van.e-z.net [198.145.234.111]) by zoo.e-z.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA02264 for ; Sun, 13 Dec 1998 15:55:42 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: zoo.e-z.net: Host port111.van.e-z.net [198.145.234.111] claimed to be home.e-z.net Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981213154458.006cdf00@e-z.net> X-Sender: patrick@e-z.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 15:44:58 -0800 To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com From: patrick Subject: Re: SW corporate restructuring? In-Reply-To: <006001be2620$f3b9c680$efc294cd@dzn.dzn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com At 03:44 PM 12/12/98 -0700, you wrote: >[Reposted from sci.space.policy] > >Any y'all seen more about this? Or have any insights as to what it might >signify in The Larger Scheme Of Things? > > NM Awaits Word on Spaceport Proposal > by Sharon Simonson > El Paso Times, Dec. 8, 1998, p. 1A > [EXCERPT] > > Las Cruces - New Mexico must wait until at least Feb.1 to learn how it > is doing in its pursuit of a $425 million spaceport and a spacecraft > assembly plant that could employ as many as 3,000 people. > Los Cruces is the first big town west of White Sands which is the HQ for the WSMR. Actually NASA has a huge testing and fabrication facility on the SW outskirts of WSMR and maybe 20 miles from Los Cruces. Several years ago when McDD was flying their SSTO at WSMR the local visionaries decided that they wanted it to fly out of their back yard. WSMR is a testing facility, not a production facility. So they got the governor and then congressman Bill Richardson to establish a piece of property 50 miles up the highway and just west of WSMR property as the future "Spaceport of America". I think they erected a sign in front of the unimproved property. So as these programs come and go, so does Los Cruces' interest in their future Spaceport. Ever since Wehrner Von Braun moved in here in the late 40's these people just love shooting off rockets. patrick - --simple boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Dec 98 21:03:17 -0500 From: rob_ivey_at_pms-hub@pmsc.com Subject: cc:Mail Link to SMTP Undeliverable Message - --simple boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ACSII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message is undeliverable. Reason: User "gregweigold@cc.pmsc.com" is not found in the cc:Mail Directory. Original text follows: - --------------------- - --simple boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ACSII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from seawall.pmsc.com (firewall-user@seawall.pmsc.com [170.30.174.10]) by mail.pmsc.com (8.8.5/8.7.1) with ESMTP id XAA00735 for ; Sun, 13 Dec 1998 23:01:13 -0500 Received: by seawall.pmsc.com; id RAA05289; Sun, 13 Dec 1998 17:38:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from netwrx1.com(192.41.8.79) by seawall.pmsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma005283; Sun, 13 Dec 98 17:37:43 -0500 Received: (georgek@localhost) by netwrx1.com (8.8.5) id PAA27812; Sun, 13 Dec 1998 15:48:00 -0700 (MST) Received: from tomcat.sac.verio.net (tomcat.sac.verio.net [209.162.64.15]) by netwrx1.com (8.8.5) id PAA27801; Sun, 13 Dec 1998 15:47:58 -0700 (MST) From: betnal@ns.net Received: from pm03-30.sac.verio.net (pm03-30.sac.verio.net [209.162.64.96]) by tomcat.sac.verio.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id OAA17592 for ; Sun, 13 Dec 1998 14:48:04 -0800 (PST) To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Subject: Re: SR-71 (LASRE) photo question Date: Sun, 13 Dec 98 22:48:36 GMT Message-ID: References: <199812110517.VAA425604@pdxcs266.pdx.intel.com> X-Mailer: Quarterdeck Message Center [2.00] Sender: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com On 12/10/98 9:17PM, in message <199812110517.VAA425604@pdxcs266.pdx.intel.com>, Larry Smith wrote: > It takes the people with the desire to see the technology developed > to make it happen. > > I think this work has to be funded privately now. The government, as you > say, just isn't into it long enough to matter. And then you have the > bean counters and the oversight specialists. > > Put the Wright Brothers into this system we have now. It's rather > amusing! > > Larry > I'd echo Larry's wish for more private funding of this kind of research, but I'm less optimistic. There are some big problems I see. One is that unless you come up with something completely out of left field and is something the Government is totally uninterested in, the Government will become an obstacle in its zeal to regulate or control it. The record of what's happened to large development programs done with private money that potentially could compete with government programs is not encouraging. The lure of government money is also hard to resist given the upfront costs. But once you accept the King's gold you accept the King's desires. I'll wager that although Aerospike seems a fascinating technology with potentially high payoff, if Lockheed had decided to fund an SSTO totally out of their own money (and been allowed to operate it), they would not have come up with VentureStar as the planned first SSTO. They did a remarkable job in designing to what those holding the purse strings would want, not necessarily what the market would want. Finally, and sadly, the original pioneers are gone. I am referring to those who would do these kind of things for what they could learn or for the satisfaction of doing it. Nowadays Larry's bean counters and oversight specialists are all through the companies as well as government. I wonder if there are any U.S. companies left that would take on a massive R&D program using only their own money knowing that the payoff (no matter how enormous it potentially could be) would be at least 30 years away? Art - --simple boundary-- ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V7 #87 ******************************** 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