From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #69 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, June 19 1999 Volume 08 : Number 069 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Footnote to F-22 submission Re: Skunk-Works Charter (Classified Material) RE: skunk-works-digest V8 #66 Re: Skunk-Works Charter RE: skunk-works-digest V8 #66 Re: skunk-works-digest V8 #68 Re: Skunk-Works Charter RE: skunk-works-digest V8 #66 RE: skunk-works-digest V8 #66 Re: ATF testing Re: ATF testing 18 U.S.C. 795-797 Re: Aviation Archeology Re: skunk-works-digest V8 #66 RE: skunk-works-digest V8 #66 (THAAD Test) New subsciber comments *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 09:14:06 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Footnote to F-22 submission In my previous F-22 submission of this date, I mentioned the on-going F-18E/F problems. This article from the Associated Press can be considered a footnote to the material on the F-18E/F. Jim Stevenson Friday, June 18, 1999 Boeing exec defends Super Hornet against GAO criticism ASSOCIATED PRESS (SEATTLE) =8B A top Boeing official is refuting a congressional report that says the company's new jet fighter has enough serious problems that the Pentagon should hold off on a multiyear contract until they're corrected. The General Accounting Office report released Wednesday identified 84 deficiencies in Boeing's new F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, and said the problems =8B with performance and enemy-missile detection =8B could cause the attack fighter to fail its ongoing evaluation by the U.S. Navy. The report recommended correction of the problems and follow-up testing before the Department of Defense awards Boeing an $8.8 billion multiyear contract for 222 of the new fighters. Mike Sears, president of Boeing's Military Aircraft and Missile System group in St. Louis, disagrees. The Super Hornet has met all its requirements and should pass operational testing, Sears said Thursday. And he contends taxpayers will be the losers if the contract is not approved. "This multiyear buy saves the government nearly three quarters of a billion dollars," Sears told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer in an interview at the Paris Air Show. Such an arrangement requires congressional approval. It would ensure production of the Boeing's most important fighter plane for the life of the contract, and also protect the program against possible cuts in defense spending. Following flight tests and a six-month operational evaluation, the Pentagon is scheduled to decide in March 2000 whether to begin full production of the plane, which constitutes one of the military's biggest arms programs. The GAO contends the test schedule is too tight to fix the problems before that decision is made. The Pentagon has expressed support for the planes since April, when Jacques Gansler, the Defense Department's acquisition chief, sent a memo to Defense Secretary William Cohen recommending Boeing be awarded the multiyear contract. And the Defense Daily, a defense industry trade publication, reported in May that several minor temporary waivers for unsolved Super Hornet technical issues had been approved =8B none involving changes in expectations of the aircraft's capabilities. The Navy wants to buy 548 of the jets for an estimated $46 billion. Gansler said a five-year purchase of 222 Super Hornets for $8.8 billion would save the Navy more than $700 million from 2002 through 2004. About 7,000 Boeing workers build the wings and forward fuselage of the Super Hornet in St. Louis, where final assembly takes place. Subcontractor Northrop Grumman builds aft and center fuselage sections in California. At peak production, Boeing expects to make about 48 Super Hornets a year. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 09:59:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re: Skunk-Works Charter (Classified Material) > Thse two section os the U.S. Code seem most applicable: > "Sec. 951. Agents of foreign governments" > 1+11++%28national%20security%29%20%20AND%20%28%2818%29%20ADJ%20USC%29% > 3ACITE%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20> > > And: > "Sec. 798. Disclosure of classified information" > 4+50++%28national%20security%29%20%20AND%20%28%2818%29%20ADJ%20USC%29% > 3ACITE%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20> > > The United States Code is searchable on the web: > > > There's quite a bit in there on communications, nuclear material, > intelligence matters, and USGov't land grabs! > > As far the the list, I don't think anyone should knowingly disclose > classified material, that is, material they have been entrusted with > by a government agency, representative, or contractor, disclose > civilian trade secets or other proprietary material (ie- LockMart > employee chatting about Tier 3, F-117 RAM, new contracts, etc.), or > be an agent of an intellignece or law enforcement agency "probaing" > for classified or proprietary material from list members (material > they have been entrusted with). > so why us not in the know about, say, Aurora can discuss it openly, a > Lockheed or USAF employee who has access to that classified and/or > confidential material should not. > > And if your local, state, or federal (gov't) law is significantly > different from the above US Code, adhere to the rules in your part of > the world, of course :) > > Dan Since the list server is located in US, I believe US Federal Law applies to posts from all members of the list, regardless of where they reside. Naturally, there are very severe penalties for breaching an NDA (non disclosure agreement) for both military and civilian personnel working on sensitive projects. Individuals from other countries revealing US government secrets may be subject to extradition to the US for trial and upon conviction to incarceration. In addition to this, they may be prosecuted by authorities in their own country, especially if that country is bound by treaty with the US. To top it all off, the US government reserves the right to carry out clandestine operations anywhere in the world should US national security or US interests be threatened or compromised. Information in the public domain only please. Sam ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 10:11:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: RE: skunk-works-digest V8 #66 > It even made the 6 o'clock news here in San Diego. It looked like the > missile had a funky initial launch path, like it was seriously > overcorrecting, sort of like this: > > > > ^ > _______/ > / > | > | > | > | > _____/ > / > | > | > | > | > This was the intended flight path of the missile. It was done intentionally in order to burn excess fuel to make sure the missile did not have enough to leave the White Sands test range and possibly crash into a populated area. > ...for several repetitions before it finally flew a much straighter > trajectory and hit the target... > > As far as the saga goes for the SR-71, someone needs to clean house at the > Pentagon, and give the Air Force brass a *serious* bitch slap. They > obviously have forgotten their raison d'etre, which is NOT to further their > careers or get better tee times at the base golf courses... > Amen to that! > -Corey Lawson > clawson@ucsd.edu Sam ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 07:25:20 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: Skunk-Works Charter Seems we are making mountains out of molehills on this issue. This concern is getting way out of hand. It is not based on anything we have ever posted here. It has NEVER been a problem in the past. We seem to be conjuring up demons that give no evidence of existence. The stuff isn't discussed here, none of us probable even have any of it, and we aren't lawyers or judges trained in espionage laws. We have a much greater problem with staying on topic then anything else. Let's get back to talking about something we might know about--AIRPLANES!!! patrick cullumber ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 07:42:54 -0700 From: patrick Subject: RE: skunk-works-digest V8 #66 At 10:11 AM 6/19/99 -0400, Sam wrote: >This was the intended flight path of the missile. It was done intentionally in >order to burn excess fuel to make sure the missile did not have enough to leave >the White Sands test range and possibly crash into a populated area. > > > Say what? This makes no sense whatever. Excess fuel equals poorer performance (acceleration after ignition) as Art has recently pointed out. What kind of an anti-missile has a pregrogrammed flight path designed for fuel manoevering and when does this profile give way to the flight profile requiring intercept? If it was a true concern why have the excess fuel onboard? The "burn" segment of flight indicates too much fuel was added knowingly before flight if your statement is valid. And finally having some awareness of WSMR and its operations I don't believe they need to be concerned with populated areas when they plan and conduct testing like this. WSMR is a vast range, surrounded by even more unpopulated areas, much of which can be called up for temporary range use by pre-negotiated agreements with ranchers. As I recall the Patriot missiles flown against SCUD's during the Gulf War exhibited similar characteristics. I could be wrong though. Sam, were you kidding?? patrick ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 11:12:18 -0400 From: Brian Mork Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V8 #68 skunk-works-digest wrote: > AAI Corporation, a U.S.-based maker of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) > for the military and civil markets, is featuring its family of > Shadow UAVs at Le Bourget this week. I worked on the Mission Systems panel of the 1996 SecAF UAV Science Advisory Board study. I designed at flew Radio Control airplanes as a teenager. I guess the difference between "UAVs" and "Radio control airplanes" is cost, ..or funding, per se. - -- Brian Mork, http://www.qsl.net/ka9snf, or mork@usa.net ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 11:00:52 -0500 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: Re: Skunk-Works Charter James P. Stevenson noted, >The disclosure of classified material is a crime. >In order to be guilty of a crime you have to have committed the act >(actus reas) and have the necessary mental intent (mens rea). In most >cases, a lack of knowledge that something was classified would be enough >to not be found guilty of passing classified material. >Now, Art brings up the point of knew or should have known, which is the >same standard that is used for receiving stolen property. However, in the US, criminal disclosure of classified information has never been prosecuted, successfully or not, except in the context of classical espionage in which the information was given to a foreign entity in exchange for some sort of compensation. The Samuel L. Morrison III case was as close as it's ever come to an exception, and even it wasn't strictly one. Check Bill Gertz' articles in the Washington Times and his recent book, "Betrayal," for contemporary examples of disclosure of pretty highly classified stuff that seems to be going unprosecuted. Outside of the espionage context, the government's sole demonstrated means of enforcement is civil suit recovering profits made as a consequence of breach of contract (aka security agreements) and administrative measures such as revocation of clearances and blacklisting from government contracts. Of course, a certain amount of common sense and restraint is called for -- just because you can get away with something doesn't mean you should do it. But I agree with the person who said too much is being made of this -- it's unlikely any SW participant is going to bring about the downfall of Western Civilization, or even get thrown in jail. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 12:44:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: RE: skunk-works-digest V8 #66 > From owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com Sat Jun 19 10:48:36 1999 > Return-Path: > Received: from ns.mcs.kent.edu (root@mcs.kent.edu [131.123.2.130]) by aegis.mcs.kent.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8/mcs.10.31.97) with ESMTP id KAA13137 for ; Sat, 19 Jun 1999 10:48:36 -0400 (EDT) > Received: from netwrx1.com (netwrx1.com [192.41.8.79]) by ns.mcs.kent.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8/mcs.10.31.97) with ESMTP id KAA08339; Sat, 19 Jun 1999 10:48:34 -0400 (EDT) > Received: (georgek@localhost) by netwrx1.com (8.8.5) id IAA02286; Sat, 19 Jun 1999 08:46:06 -0600 (MDT) > Received: from zoo.e-z.net (root@zoo.e-z.net [192.243.32.12]) by netwrx1.com (8.8.5) id IAA02281; Sat, 19 Jun 1999 08:46:04 -0600 (MDT) > Received: from patrick (11-130.021.popsite.net [207.138.232.130]) by zoo.e-z.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA10707 for ; Sat, 19 Jun 1999 07:46:06 -0700 (PDT) > X-Authentication-Warning: zoo.e-z.net: Host 11-130.021.popsite.net [207.138.232.130] claimed to be patrick > Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990619074254.0074eca4@e-z.net> > X-Sender: patrick@e-z.net > X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) > Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 07:42:54 -0700 > To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com > From: patrick > Subject: RE: skunk-works-digest V8 #66 > In-Reply-To: <199906191411.KAA12631@aegis.mcs.kent.edu> > 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 > Content-Length: 1274 > Status: RO > > At 10:11 AM 6/19/99 -0400, Sam wrote: > >This was the intended flight path of the missile. It was done > intentionally in > >order to burn excess fuel to make sure the missile did not have enough to > leave > >the White Sands test range and possibly crash into a populated area. > > > > > > > Say what? This makes no sense whatever. Excess fuel equals poorer > performance (acceleration after ignition) as Art has recently pointed out. > What kind of an anti-missile has a pregrogrammed flight path designed for > fuel manoevering and when does this profile give way to the flight profile > requiring intercept? If it was a true concern why have the excess fuel The THAAD. > onboard? The "burn" segment of flight indicates too much fuel was added > knowingly before flight if your statement is valid. The THAAD is fueled by solid propellants and I suspect it is fully fueled during the final phases of the manufacturing process. > > And finally having some awareness of WSMR and its operations I don't > believe they need to be concerned with populated areas when they plan and > conduct testing like this. WSMR is a vast range, surrounded by even more > unpopulated areas, much of which can be called up for temporary range use > by pre-negotiated agreements with ranchers. We are talking about a missile with a range of several hundred miles, a wrong turn could send it flying into a populated area almost anywhere in the Central and Western US or Mexico. > > As I recall the Patriot missiles flown against SCUD's during the Gulf War > exhibited similar characteristics. I could be wrong though. > > Sam, were you kidding?? > > patrick > No, I was perfectly serious. This is what was reported by a relatively reliable source on the aircraft list and on the silly tube (TV - CNN). According to: http://defence-data.com/archive/page4563.htm "Flight tests conducted since April 21, 1995 have verified the ability of the missile's guidance and control system to process radar-provided target information; proven the design of the Palletized Load System (PLS) launcher, the solid rocket motor, the THAAD radar, and BMC4I system; and validated the THAAD Energy Management Steering (TEMS) manoeuvre, which allows the missile to reduce speed immediately after it leaves the canister to remain within range safety constraints." You might want to check out the following sites as well: http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/news99/990610-thaad-cnn.htm http://cnn.com/US/9906/10/missile.test.02/ Sam ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jun 99 17:35:08 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: RE: skunk-works-digest V8 #66 On 6/19/99 7:42AM, in message <3.0.1.32.19990619074254.0074eca4@e-z.net>, patrick wrote: > > > Say what? This makes no sense whatever. Excess fuel equals poorer > performance (acceleration after ignition) as Art has recently pointed out. > What kind of an anti-missile has a pregrogrammed flight path designed for > fuel manoevering and when does this profile give way to the flight profile > requiring intercept? If it was a true concern why have the excess fuel > onboard? The "burn" segment of flight indicates too much fuel was added > knowingly before flight if your statement is valid. I did? I must be tripping again (gotta stop sniffin' those Oreos!). Actually, I think I was trying to communicate that if you put penetration aids on a ballistic missile, you have to give up either payload or fuel. In other words, putting on penetration aids means you Must have a shorter range or less lethal missile than you would without them. Sam is right, a solid fuel interceptor missile will be pre-fueled and is treated as a "wooden" round. Since at the time you won't know what you're going to be shooting at, you'll always put in the amount of fuel that gives you the range and performance you need for the most probably worst case. Range/performance can be adjusted by how it's burned. Art ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jun 99 17:55:23 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: ATF testing A question and some follow-ups to Jim's two posts: "...nor can the F-22 supercruise much further than the F-15C it is designed to replace." Jim, are you saying that the F-22's supercruise distance @ M1.4-5 isn't much farther than F-15C can fly subsonically (which would actually be very impressive, going the same distance .6M faster), or F-15 "supercruising" (which is marginal at best with the Pratt engines and still would be much slower with a smaller payload) or has same supersonic persistence as F-15 in afterburner [any level] which means we've got a major problem here? "...the F-18E/F wing drop problem re-emerged. The production fix functions more poorly than the interim fixed used to gain the production approval." It also induces two forms of buffet, which they're working on fixes for "...with minimal impairment to other performance parameters". "...in a low level range comparison, an F-18C flew further than the F-18E, defeating in large part, the justification to build the F-18E in the first place." Although the E/F has a number of improvements over the C/D [for what it costs, it better], it does no accelerate better in subsonic or negative g environments, and accelerates slower to supersonic speeds. Climb performance above 30,000 ft. has been judged substandard. "...the problems ‹ with performance and enemy-missile detection ‹ could cause the attack fighter to fail its ongoing evaluation by the U.S. Navy." The evaluation will probably fall out like this: Parameter 1: The Hornet E/F will pass its evaluation. Parameter 2: Should the test force recommend a no pass, see parameter 1. "The Super Hornet has met all its requirements...". The requirements have been defined to be whatever the Super Hornet is capable of. You know, the Rafale is looking better and better :(. Hopefully, these levels of shenanigans can be avoided on the F-22 if the lessons of the Hornet E/F program can be taken to heart. Art ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 14:23:09 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: ATF testing > A question and some follow-ups to Jim's two posts: > "...nor can the F-22 supercruise much further than the F-15C it is designed to > replace." Jim, are you saying that the F-22's supercruise distance @ M1.4-5 > isn't much farther than F-15C can fly subsonically (which would actually be > very impressive, going the same distance .6M faster), or F-15 "supercruising" > (which is marginal at best with the Pratt engines and still would be much > slower with a smaller payload) or has same supersonic persistence as F-15 in > afterburner [any level] which means we've got a major problem here? I'm saying that Riccioni said that he suspects that the F-22 cannot fly supersonically much further than the F-15 can fly supersonically, at similar speeds. Jim ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 13:28:43 -0500 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: 18 U.S.C. 795-797 All this talk of classification got me wondering (again) about 18 U.S.C. 795-797, which may be viewed at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/795.html through /797.html . In particular, Sec. 797 sez, "Sec. 797. Publication and sale of photographs of defense installations "On and after thirty days from the date upon which the President defines any vital military or naval installation or equipment as being within the category contemplated under section 795 of this title, whoever reproduces, publishes, sells, or gives away any photograph, sketch, picture, drawing, map, or graphical representation of the vital military or naval installations or equipment so defined, without first obtaining permission of the commanding officer of the military or naval post, camp, or station concerned, or higher authority, unless such photograph, sketch, picture, drawing, map, or graphical representation has clearly indicated thereon that it has been censored by the proper military or naval authority, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. " So have all those folks who've taken pictures of A51, not to mention the local air field, naval base, etc elegible for time in jail? If not, there seem to be two plausible explanations (not mutually exclusive). 1) The government realizes that the law is foolish and unenforceable, and therefore doesn't bother to try. 2) No president has ever made the proclamation required under Sec. 797. With regard to 2), does anyone know if there actually is a list of such presidentially forbidden sites? ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 15:17:00 EDT From: JNiessen@aol.com Subject: Re: Aviation Archeology Pete, Good hearing from you and hope all is well. Keep hearing from friends who visit you that you're still pursuing the wrecks. I think it's great! I'm working with the Discovery Channel folks on some story ideas and I'm thinking about proposing a piece on you and your friends. Open to this? You need to go after the X-2 that's in Lake Ontario. I think it's findable...and with the technology that exists today, it's probably recoverable. I think that would be a world-class recovery! Keep in touch. Let me know if there's anything you need from this end. All the best, Jay ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 17:58:15 -0400 From: "Adam Chance" Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V8 #66 Forgive me if this is just plain stupid, I have no idea what I am talking about. However just a quick observation. It seems to me that for a variety of reasons the amount of fuel onboard the missile would have effects on its maneuvarbility, range and speed. However in the field there would be no time for people to properly fuel up the missiles before plotting the intercept. It would seem a safe bet that the missiles are kept pretty much fueled up (would a missile like this use solid fuel or liquid fuel?) so they would have maximum range at a moments notice. It would also seem that the closer the missile got to its target the more important its manuverbility and flight characteristics would be. So what I am going to suggest is maybe it is a basic feature that the when the computer plots the course it also includes a flight pattern that would burn off the excess fuel well before the intercept point. Please feel free to poke holes in this theory, that is why I read this group, so I can get smarter. - ----- Original Message ----- From: patrick To: Sent: Saturday, June 19, 1999 10:42 AM Subject: RE: skunk-works-digest V8 #66 > At 10:11 AM 6/19/99 -0400, Sam wrote: > >This was the intended flight path of the missile. It was done > intentionally in > >order to burn excess fuel to make sure the missile did not have enough to > leave > >the White Sands test range and possibly crash into a populated area. > > > > > > > Say what? This makes no sense whatever. Excess fuel equals poorer > performance (acceleration after ignition) as Art has recently pointed out. > What kind of an anti-missile has a pregrogrammed flight path designed for > fuel manoevering and when does this profile give way to the flight profile > requiring intercept? If it was a true concern why have the excess fuel > onboard? The "burn" segment of flight indicates too much fuel was added > knowingly before flight if your statement is valid. > > And finally having some awareness of WSMR and its operations I don't > believe they need to be concerned with populated areas when they plan and > conduct testing like this. WSMR is a vast range, surrounded by even more > unpopulated areas, much of which can be called up for temporary range use > by pre-negotiated agreements with ranchers. > > As I recall the Patriot missiles flown against SCUD's during the Gulf War > exhibited similar characteristics. I could be wrong though. > > Sam, were you kidding?? > > patrick > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 16:17:30 -0700 From: patrick Subject: RE: skunk-works-digest V8 #66 (THAAD Test) At 12:44 PM 6/19/99 -0400, Sam wrote: >"Flight tests conducted since April 21, 1995 have verified the ability of the >missile's guidance and control system to process radar-provided target >information; proven the design of the Palletized Load System (PLS) launcher, >the solid rocket motor, the THAAD radar, and BMC4I system; and validated the >THAAD Energy Management Steering (TEMS) manoeuvre, which allows the missile >to reduce speed immediately after it leaves the canister to remain within >range safety constraints." > Well Sam you are absolutely correct according to the info supplied in your post. Thank you for the enlightenment. But now I am very curious about several things. For the other poster (new word?) the THAAD is a solid fueled missile. Remember the Patriots that were stored in a box that could be tilted up in the air after deployment on a mobile launcher? If they wanted to keep the missile within a box (the airspace over WSMR) and they knew the fuel to be superfluous why not load it with a "test" load rather than the full amount and the TEMS system to burn it off after ignition? But the greater question comes to mind and that is they obviously rigged this test for a higher probability of kill. Something either not mentioned, glossed over or not asked by the media. Are they not launching the target missile to follow a predetermined path with known reentry points (as it was designed to do) and are they not launching the kill missile with a special device to limit its range? This implies the test was designed for an impact at a much lower range or distance than called for in the THAAD specifications. So how staged was this politically crucial test? Now this may not be a bad thing if the real test was the final moment of lock on and effectiveness of the ballistic hit on the incoming warhead. A valid test indeed. But this will still require Lockheed to validate the system in a true no holds barred future test where range restrictions don't modify flight profiles. (Both the HERA target missile and THAAD are launched from WSMR and intercepted over WSMR. This is no where near full scale.) But since Lockheed is required to kill a second test warhead in just several weeks or suffer a contractual fine of $20 million or so I suspect we won't see too many changes from this recent test. Of course some Congress people are already gleefully announcing "We always knew it would work". patrick ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 18:32:26 PDT From: Scott Cullen Subject: New subsciber comments First off- found the (P) and (S) messages really funny. Are they actual? Second. I live in San Diego County high up on the slope of a solid rock mountain. Over the last few nights have heard a very unusual thrumming, rumbling and PULSED takeoff sound shortly after dark. I highly suspect, from what I have heard, that this is the Pulsed wave detonation engine, producer of the notorious "donuts-on-a-rope" contrail. Anyone else in So Cal hear this thing leaving around 2030-2300 ?? Also, heard unusual conversation on 369.9 a few weeks ago- (High-altitude SoCal apr) X-RAY 77 callsign heard to ATC. Could only hear Aircraft side of conversation. Then heard, "Negative 809 is Oscar today". Then they were handed off to Joshua APR and said " NASA 809 descending from DELTA plus 9"- then a minute or two later "SANTE FE 807, and NASA 809 descent out of 60 over Lake Isabella". (348.7) anyone know what these NASA aircraft are or what altitude "DELTA" is? Anyhow, there is a definitely new, fast, and loudly pulsing aircraft leaving SoCal at dark. Would love to have a night vision camera up on the Angeles Forest ridge above Palmdale to see what it looks like. I think it's alot bigger than most people think it is. It literally vibrates our house, which is out in the back-country, when it leaves and its got to be 200 plus miles away (minimum). scullen911@hotmail.com _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V8 #69 ******************************** 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