From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V9 #14 Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Sender: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Errors-To: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Precedence: bulk skunk-works-digest Friday, February 18 2000 Volume 09 : Number 014 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #10 Re: High-altitude airship concept design nears completion at Lockheed Martin Re: High-altitude airship concept design nears completion at Lockheed Martin Re: High-altitude airship concept design nears completion at Lockheed Martin Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #10 Re: Stealth blimp [was Re: FWD (SW/FT) B2 andYF22electrogravitics] Re: HAVE FLAG Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #10 Re: Stealth blimp propulsion system RE: propulsion system *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 14:09:36 -0800 From: Timothy Toth Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #10 The People’s Republic of China will soon field a new, passive anti-aircraft early-warning system, dubbed the PCL (Passive Coherent Location) system, which will be capable of detecting stealth aircraft . The system tracks civilian radio- and TV-broadcast signals, detecting aircraft by analyzing the slight distrubance in the commercial wavelengths caused by their flight. US military and industry experts reportedly held a secret meeting in December 1999 to discuss the potential implications of the PRC fielding such a system. In 1998 Lockheed Martin Mission Systems had already developed and tested a similar system, dubbed Silent Sentry. The system had been under development for the almost 15 years, the concept might be viewed as a 'passive radar', because it uses the reflections of the commercial FM or television broadcast signals(operating between 50 and 800 MHz) which are present in great profusion in most of the world's densely populated areas. The Silent Sentry uses high-dynamic-range digital receivers, phased-array antennas, powerful commercial processors from Silicon Graphics (SGI) and software tools, the system is first initialized by cataloging the broadcast transmitters in the region, their location and signal characteristics. The Silent Sentry measures the Doppler shift of the reflected energy from the target, so one way to defeat it would be to 'stand still' (stealth blimp?). The current detection range for a 10m2 target is 180 km - soon to be extended to 220 km. Additional growth plans include the facility for direct target-elevation measurement; the ability to classify targets,and be able to track over 200 targets,differentiating among those as little as 15 m apart. Of course being passive such a system would be imprevious to conventional SEAD tactics, and the tracked target wouldn't be aware it is tracked. (One wonders if it was just because of the 'Propaganda problem' that TV /civilian radio broadcasting and relay antennas where attacked in Yougoslavia, when the Chinese seemed to be so involved, could they have been testing their PCL?) The Silent Sentry is offered in either fixed-site or rapid-deployment non-militarized versions. In the mobile configuration, three illuminators are employed, providing 2-D real-time tracking, and 3-D visualization during subsequent analysis.On option is a cooperative illuminator whose signals look like those of a standard FM transmitter in order to improve accuracy or provide redundancy. The system is also relatively cheap at $3 to $5 million per system. betnal@ns.net wrote: >...the F-22 will really need its stealth because it will be outgunned throughout the spectrum (maybe they'll have to deploy that ramjet AMARANTH they've been >trying to bury for the last ten years). ... This Ramjet powered version was apparently tested operationnaly during the Gulf war(1991) where a whole squadron of F-15s where fitted with the weapon and several kills with this weapon where credited to other weapons, to cover up the tests. >...I'm not aware that the AIM-120C is all that stealth, just that it has smaller fins, and that's so that they can carry six instead of four of them in the Raptor's bay. As a matter of fact this is just a suposition of mine, It is probably not stealth, but of reduced RCS (only needing to stay unobserved untill the last stages of the attack, approx. last 20km, when the AIM-120's own seeker locks-on). I assume this to be the case only because the Amraam was tested at the Radar Target Scatter Division (RATSCAT) facility, which is used for RCS measurements, and test improvements. The other reason would be that if the F-22 has to rely on it's stealthiness to shoot down an unalerted enemy, I assume with advances in radar technology an unstealthy Amraam would appear on the radar screen of the ennemy as soon as the F-22 launches. In any case the relatively clean body with the smaller fins may provide a reduced enough RCS, although the cylindrical shape of the body is not very good (suceptible to 'progressive waves'). >Don't get me wrong, the F-22 is a better fighter than the Typhoon. But the Typhoon isn't bad and it is more versatile. >Art I agree, but developement of smaller lighter, while as powerfull as current munitions, is a priority for the US, and I think some weapons are close to testing phase. We can assume this to be amongst other things for fitting into the F-22's weapon's bays. (for the moment the F-22 is limited in the attack configuration to 2 air-ground munitions, 2 AIM-120C, and 2 AIM-9). Of course even if you double the air-ground munitions to 4 it is still not a lot of an 'attack aircraft' but combined with high precsion this could be considered 'good enough'. The 'reluctancy' of the US to adopt the ASRAAM or Python IV is supposed to be because these weapons have a 6" diameter body while the AIM-9 has a 5" diameter body. With the F-22's weapons bay better suited for the 5" size. Timothy ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 14:11:52 -0800 From: Timothy Toth Subject: Re: High-altitude airship concept design nears completion at Lockheed Martin "Weigold, Greg" wrote: > Is this from a periodical, newspaper, or what? This comes from http://defence-data.com/current/newsindx.htm a web site dedicated to miliatry technology, that's updated daily. Timothy ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 17:26:02 -0600 From: "Dave Bethke" Subject: Re: High-altitude airship concept design nears completion at Lockheed Martin - ----- Original Message ----- From: Terry W. Colvin To: Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2000 9:56 AM Subject: High-altitude airship concept design nears completion at Lockheed Martin > 16 February 2000 > > Lockheed Martin and its partners have developed an unmanned > lighter-than-air vehicle that would operate above the jet stream > and above severe weather in a geostationary position to serve as a > telecommunications relay, a weather observer, or a peacekeeper > from its over-the-horizon perch. Apparently referring to the same vehicle, I saw this article today on the AP wire. - -------Begin quote-------- Lockheed Martin floats an idea _ a high-altitude blimp AKRON, Ohio (AP) _ A high-tech blimp under development would carry no passengers. But it could serve as a tool for communications and surveillance from about 70,000 feet. Lockheed Martin Corp. says its Naval Electronics & Surveillance Systems unit is working on the design of a helium-filled aircraft that can fly at high altitudes over a specific area for months at a time. Ron Browning, director of business development for surveillance systems in Akron for Bethesda, Md.-based Lockheed Martin, said the high-tech blimp could become a less expensive alternative to satellites. The new blimp would be 428 feet long, about twice the length of a typical Goodyear blimp. Browning said the cost would probably range from $10 million to $20 million per blimp. A research phase started in October 1998. ``Realistically, we're at least a year or two away getting a prototype built and flying,'' he said. - ---------------End quote------------------ I have a forward search running on the word "Lockheed" but nothing else related showed up. Maybe tomorrow..... - -- Dave Bethke ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 20:12:40 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: Re: High-altitude airship concept design nears completion at Lockheed Martin < http://defence-data.com/current/page6495.htm > Defence Systems Daily Terry - ----- > "Weigold, Greg" wrote: > > Is this from a periodical, newspaper, or what? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Terry W. Colvin [mailto:fortean1@frontiernet.net] > Sent: February 17, 2000 10:56 AM > To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com > Subject: High-altitude airship concept design nears completion at > Lockheed Martin > > 16 February 2000 > > Lockheed Martin and its partners have developed an unmanned > lighter-than-air vehicle that would operate above the jet stream > and above severe weather in a geostationary position to serve as a > telecommunications relay, a weather observer, or a peacekeeper > from its over-the-horizon perch. > > [lmblimp.jpg] > ^^^^^ > > -- > Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) > < fortean1@frontiernet.net > > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > > Sites: Fortean Times * Northwest Mysteries * Mystic's Cyberpage * > TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program > ------------ > Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List > TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > > 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) - -- Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1@frontiernet.net > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: Fortean Times * Northwest Mysteries * Mystic's Cyberpage * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program - ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > 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: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 20:31:00 -0800 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #10 >betnal@ns.net wrote: >>...the F-22 will really need its stealth because it will be >>outgunned throughout >the spectrum (maybe they'll have to deploy that ramjet AMARANTH they've been >>trying to bury for the last ten years). ... > >This Ramjet powered version was apparently tested operationnaly >during the Gulf >war(1991) where a whole squadron of F-15s where fitted with the >weapon and several >kills with this weapon where credited to other weapons, to cover up the tests. Oh, this one will probably start a firestorm... None of the Eagle drivers or crew chiefs I talked to who deployed during the war mentioned anything like that, not even installation of a software upgrade that might support such a weapon. Obvious questions: What units used them? Where were they based? Who was the primary contractor on the weapon? Were any tech-reps present in theatre? How did they keep it a secret? Why hasn't it been reported before? Why hasn't the program become public? Where did the Eagle drivers train on the weapon? When? Where did the program's money come from (if memory serves, HAVE FLAG wasn't in procurement at the time). > >>...I'm not aware that the AIM-120C is all that stealth, just that >>it has smaller >fins, and that's so that they can carry six instead of four of them >in the Raptor's >bay. > >As a matter of fact this is just a suposition of mine, It is >probably not stealth, >but of reduced RCS (only needing to stay unobserved untill the last >stages of the >attack, approx. last 20km, when the AIM-120's own seeker locks-on). >I assume this >to be the case only because the Amraam was tested at the Radar Target Scatter >Division (RATSCAT) facility, which is used for RCS measurements, and test It's also used the test antennas, and RCS testing is a fairly integral part of any AF program these days- in fact, IIRC, missiles were the reason we have RCS ranges in the first place! >I agree, but developement of smaller lighter, while as powerfull as current >munitions, is a priority for the US, and I think some weapons are >close to testing >phase. We can assume this to be amongst other things for fitting >into the F-22's >weapon's bays. (for the moment the F-22 is limited in the attack >configuration to 2 >air-ground munitions, 2 AIM-120C, and 2 AIM-9). Of course even if >you double the >air-ground munitions to 4 it is still not a lot of an 'attack aircraft' but >combined with high precsion this could be considered 'good enough'. These programs are focused on a/g weapons, not AAMs - AAMs are a much bigger deal to develop and deploy for a lot of reasons. The thrust to develop smaller, lighter a/g ordinance has been driven by the ability to deliver the weapon more precisely- making most current PGMs overkill. If we can acheive the same effect as a GBU-24 with a smaller, more precise weapon, everybody wins. Unfortunately the same rules don't apply to AAMs. >The 'reluctancy' of the US to adopt the ASRAAM or Python IV is supposed to be >because these weapons have a 6" diameter body while the AIM-9 has a >5" diameter >body. With the F-22's weapons bay better suited for the 5" size. > Wouldn't it be nice if the procurement system were so logical? :) I thought the arguments were more like "the ASRAAM is X centimetres in diameter, while the AIM-9 is 5 inches in diameter". Dan _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ The software you were born with helps you follow thousands of different threads on the Internet, whip up gourmet feasts using only ingredients from the 24-hour store, and use words like "paradigm" and "orthogonal" in casual conversation. It deserves the operating system designed to work with it: the MacOS. _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 20:42:49 -0800 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: Stealth blimp [was Re: FWD (SW/FT) B2 andYF22electrogravitics] >First of all I have to admit my ignorance as to the difference >between a blimp and a dirigible >(english is not my first language). Secondly what of a RAS (radar >absorbant structure) as used on >stealth aircraft, but with a radar transparent material as the 'bag' >of gas . Of course if as you >mention all materials in use today are reflective then a >breakthrough would be needed, unless there is >an active system on that too :-). You'd be facing much the same problems, if not making them more difficult. > >Did you have a look at http://defence-data.com/current/page6495.htm >This would seem to be a good candidate for LO measures (with >transparent material or active system). Why would it be a good candidate? > >I realise you have made some pretty good points there, and I'm only >playing the devil's advocate (as >they say in French). But what of this coating or paint that is >suposed to 'shift' IR radiation into >frequencies that are much more absorbed by the athmosphere. (I >really have to find that article again >:-( ) I'm not expert on the coating you're describing, but I'd venture a guess that it wouldn't be desinged for the kind of environment it would be subjected to as a coating for a "stealth blimp", or that it would be effective in reducing the signature of the craft considerably. > >> And why would you want a blimp, anyway? What role is it fufilling? >>Is it a role that a more >> conventional aircraft (that has established ground support >>facilities, crews, etc.) could fufill? >> Dan > >The main interest would be very long endurance >surveillance/reconnaissance. We are talking of 30 days >instead of max 30hrs (TIER III UAV) on station. This means it makes >for easier and cheaper >surveillance missions. They can be more effective because your are >on station for the whole time (no >transitionning from base to station and back). The primary factors limiting the on-station time of an aircraft like Tier III or the B-2 are the wear on the parts (in the case of a recce a/c, the sensors in particular). The same things would affect a blimp. And your missions still couldn't be all that much cheaper, since you would have to reinvent all of the ground support infrastructure require to support a lighter than air craft, and keep it away from prying eyes when you deploy. When the B-2 was used over Serbia, nobody really knew until the press releases went out- no natives saw it deploying in theatre beforehand, etc. Thjat's not easy to do with a blimp, and sure isn't cheap. You'd have to haul your lifting gas, probably cryogenically cooled, to whereever you were going to fly it, then hope nobody *saw* your "stealth blimp" lift off. At that point, it doesn't offer significant advantages over even satellites. If you can make a survivable (stealth) dirigeable or >stealth, you could have one on station over a theater of operation >instead of 3-4 aircraft/UAVs for >the same mission(or even more if time on station is reduced). If you >have several potential areas of >'interest' (Kosovo/ Irak/ North Korea etc...) It gets more interesting. Which the intelligence agencies and DoD *do* at any given time. So a stealth blimp would only be useful in a tactical role- you'd have to deploy it somewhere you had an airfield, all the support people and hardware, and in a place where you didn't mind people seeing it flying. And at that point, having it up there for 30 days wouldn't matter all that much. And it would, of course, have to be unmanned, otherwise it would need so many people in the crew it would be too heavy to lift off- you can't bend the crew rest rules, even for a stealth blimp. Dan _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ The software you were born with helps you write code into the wee small hours, find the bugs in your competitors' products, and create fake demos for the first six months of a project. It deserves the operating system designed to work with it: the MacOS. _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 09:15:14 -0500 (EST) From: george.allegrezza@altavista.net Subject: Re: HAVE FLAG Dan Zinngrabe wrote: [F-22/Typhoon/AIM-120 commentary deleted] > >This Ramjet powered version was apparently tested operationnaly > >during the Gulf > >war(1991) where a whole squadron of F-15s where fitted with the > >weapon and several > >kills with this weapon where credited to other weapons, to cover up the tests. > > Oh, this one will probably start a firestorm... > None of the Eagle drivers or crew chiefs I talked to who deployed > during the war mentioned anything like that, not even installation of > a software upgrade that might support such a weapon. > Obvious questions: > What units used them? Where were they based? > Who was the primary contractor on the weapon? Were any tech-reps > present in theatre? > How did they keep it a secret? Why hasn't it been reported before? > Why hasn't the program become public? > Where did the Eagle drivers train on the weapon? When? Where did the > program's money come from (if memory serves, HAVE FLAG wasn't in > procurement at the time). I was off the list for a few years. Did we ever get closure on what exactly HAVE FLAG was? Thanks, George - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Get your free email from AltaVista at http://altavista.iname.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 08:56:43 -0800 From: Timothy Toth Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #10 Dan Zinngrabe wrote: >>This Ramjet powered version was apparently tested operationnaly during the Gulf war(1991) where a whole >>squadron of F-15s where fitted with the weapon and several kills with this weapon where credited to other weapons, >>to cover up the tests. > >Oh, this one will probably start a firestorm...None of the Eagle drivers or crew > chiefs I talked to who deployed during the war mentioned anything like that, not > >even installation of a software upgrade that might support such a weapon. > Obvious questions: What units used them? Where were they based? Who was the > >primary contractor on the weapon? Were any tech-reps present in theatre? How did > they keep it a secret? Why hasn't it been reported before? Why hasn't the > >program become public? Where did the Eagle drivers train on the weapon? When? > Where did the program's >money come from (if memory serves, HAVE >FLAG wasn't in > procurement at the time). Ok first of all sory for the lack of references I give for the information , but I haven't been on this list for long and I didn't have a need to keep track of references (to share information or for analysis by others). So I have to backtrack all this which is not easy, and time consuming. As I recall it this info came from 3 different sources: the first which I have found is still available at http://defence.janes.com/defset.htm on the net and is an article by Bill Sweetman called: 'In search of the Pentagon's billion dollar hidden budgets - how the US keeps its R&D spending under wraps' It states that "...Raytheon has acquired important SAP operations through acquisitions. The former Hughes missile operation was presumably involved in the classified air-breathing AMRAAM variant that was apparently used in Operation 'Desert Storm'..." The second source I had copied just as, without any references and says: "Ramjet BVRAAM used in Gulf War combat The UK is about to select a future long-range air-to-air missile to arm the planned fleet of Eurofighters, and has been offered an improved version the US Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM). The US missile is supposed to be the latest and best that the US has to offer, but another secret long-range missile is known to have been developed - and used in combat by the US Air Force during the 1991 Gulf War." The third source, which I have not been able to 're-identify' (It was a short note in either a book or a magazine, which I didn't buy !, but I haven't lost hope yet). I read this fairly recently (last 2-3 months). It stated that rumours had been circulating about a sercret missile tested in the Gulf in 1991, and that this missile had now been identified as a Ramjet powered version of the Amraam. The missile was either Rayethon's proposal for the British BVRAAM program or very close to it. A full squadron of F-15 had been equiped with the weapon. And several kills accredited to other wepons where due to this one, which meant that they pre-dated the official first kill date of the AMRAAM (which is 1992). Of course you ask some very good questions, And I have to admit my ignorance to any of the answers. But then even If I knew would I be allowed to tell? :-) So I have no 'proof' that this is valid info, and I will definetly try to find that note, so that you can give us some feed back on it. Of course one could always assume that this 'new secret version' was only one of the planned upgrades (with +5" or +11" rocket motors)... > >>...I'm not aware that the AIM-120C is all that stealth, just that it has > smaller fins.. ...was tested at the Radar Target >>Scatter Division (RATSCAT) > facility, which is used for RCS measurements... > It's also used the test antennas, and RCS testing is a fairly integral part of > any AF program these days- in fact, IIRC, missiles were the reason we have RCS > ranges in the first place! Yes but what of the need to hide the weapon's launch (and the launcher)!.I know one shouldn't always assume that the military will do what seems best and logical but, The advantages of a 'hard to detect' Amraam seem so obvious in the case of the F-22, or for F-16 C/D's and F-18 E/F who have to carry their weapon externally. Well even if I'm wrong they would certainly be stealthier than a R-77! > >>I agree, but developement of smaller lighter, while as powerfull as current > munitions, is a priority for the US, and I >>think some weapons are close to > testing phase. We can assume this to be amongst other things for fitting into the > >>F-22's weapon's bays. (for the moment the F-22 is limited in the attack > configuration to 2 air-ground munitions, 2 >>AIM-120C, and 2 AIM-9). Of course > even if you double the air-ground munitions to 4 it is still not a lot of an > 'attack >>aircraft' but combined with high precsion this could be considered > 'good enough'. > > >These programs are focused on a/g weapons, not AAMs - AAMs are a much bigger > deal to develop and deploy for a >lot of reasons. The thrust to develop smaller, > lighter a/g ordinance has been driven by the ability to deliver the weapon >more > precisely- making most current PGMs overkill. If we can acheive the same effect > as a GBU-24 with a smaller, >more precise weapon, everybody wins. Unfortunately > the same rules don't apply to AAMs. Yes I was talking about ag weapons, my case was to show that the ag capabilities of the F-22 could be improved with more numerous smaller lighter ag weapons. Timothy ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 09:06:39 PST From: "wayne binkley" Subject: Re: Stealth blimp i can not quote a source for this so just take it with a grain of salt.when lighter than air powered craft were under development they were divided into 2 categories (A)rigid (B)limp.while this sounds good it is worth noting that dirigible comes from the latin(adj.)dirigere,to direct,make straight:steerable. wayne d.binkley ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 15:42:27 -0800 From: Timothy Toth Subject: propulsion system Endeavour Gets Go Ahead for Full Mission By Brad Liston CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (Reuters) - After days of uncertainty, NASA told the astronauts aboard the space shuttle Endeavour on Thursday that they have enough fuel to complete their ambitious Earth-mapping mission. Early in the 11-day mission a tiny thruster at the end of the 197-foot (60-meter) mast malfunctioned. The thruster was in the right spot to keep the mast configuration steady with just a whisper of gas. When it failed, the shuttle had to use its control jets, with 24 pounds of thrust, to accomplish the same job. That began eating up critical fuel supplies. At one point, ground controllers were amused to learn that astronaut Gerhard Thiele's workout on an exercise bike actually helped hold the shuttle in the right position. Mission commander Kevin Kregel and pilot Dom Gorie took their turns on the bike Wednesday... Could the B-2 be using this same revolutionary propulsion system? :-) Anyone have an idea how pedaling on a bike could help the shuttle? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 15:48:27 -0800 From: Erik Hoel Subject: RE: propulsion system Timothy Toth (Timothy_toth@bc.sympatico.ca) writes: ... ... > The thruster was in the right > spot to keep the mast configuration steady with just a > whisper of gas. When it > failed, the shuttle had to use its control jets, with 24 > pounds of thrust, to > accomplish the same job. That began eating up critical fuel supplies. > At one point, ground controllers were amused to learn that > astronaut Gerhard > Thiele's workout on an exercise bike actually helped hold the > shuttle in the right > position. Mission commander Kevin Kregel and pilot Dom Gorie > took their turns on > the bike Wednesday... > > Could the B-2 be using this same revolutionary propulsion system? :-) > Anyone have an idea how pedaling on a bike could help the shuttle? Is the bike acting like a gyroscope and helping to stabilize the shuttle? 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 ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V9 #14 ******************************** 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