From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V9 #84 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, December 16 2000 Volume 09 : Number 084 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Laser Antigravity machine Re: Laser (fwd) Technical Questions Re: (fwd) Technical Questions F-104 Re: F-104 RE: F-104 Re: (fwd) Technical Questions IRC #Skunk-Works Chat this evening F-104 Max speed Satellite Photos with 1/2 Meter Resolution For Sale *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 14:22:16 -0800 From: David Lednicer Subject: Laser > BTW, in the laser incident, in addition the to injured Canadian crew, > a USN LieuLieutenantard suffered permanent eye damage from the laser and > had to be taken off flight status. The Administration first said it > never happened, and after it couldn't be spun out of sight (I believe > there were even photos), launched a "detailed inspection" of the ship to > find out "the truth". However, prior to coming aboard, the Russian > embassy was provided the date and time the inspection would take place > as well as what was being looked for. Amazingly enough, no laser was > found. Careful Art, your partisanship is showing again. This listserve is about airplanes, not about politcal bashing. The incident you refer to took place off of Port Angeles Washington, in the Straits of Juan de Fuca on April 4, 1997. The USN Lt. (John Daly) was onboard a CAF Sea King monitoring a Russian freighter, The Kapitan Man. According to the Seattle Times 8/23/99, "After the mission, Daly and the Canadian helicopter pilot, Capt. Pat Barnes, reported symptoms of laser exposure that permanently damaged their eyes." Also, "Daly complained that the Coast Guard did not board the Russian ship until three days after he was hit, and then only after the State Department notified the Russians." According to the Seattle Times 9/9/99, "The Pentagon investigated Daly's claim of having been hit with a Russian laser and concluded from medical examinations that the injuries to his eye were consistent with retinal damage from a low-power laser device. But it said there was "no evidence" to prove it was a laser." Also see the 2/12/99 Seattle Times (www.seattletimes.com). ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 23:43:12 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: Antigravity machine Fortean Times 135/July 2000/p. 66 Antigravity machine Whatever happened to=85 In which we explore current developments in subjects of interest to FT readers, present the latest news about expeditions, or catch up with the most intriguing people in the world=85 The antigravity machine In 1996 Dr Eugene (Evgueni) Podkletnov (below) caused a brief stir in the popular press(1) following his sudden withdrawal of a scientific paper immediately prior to publication.(2) The paper described, apparently, an gravity shielding effect observed when a high-temperature superconductor was rotated in a strong magnetic field. In fact, his accidental discovery occurred in 1992, when a colleague's pipe smoke rose suddenly as it drifted over his test apparatus, and was described in an earlier, published paper.(3) In the intervening four years, improvements in the apparatus increased the observed weight reduction from a fraction of one per cent to a maximum of two per cent. Such claims were too much for his university at Tampere, Finland,(4) so much so that, following the withdrawal of the 1996 paper, they denied knowledge of his work and dismantled his experimental apparatus. Save for a brief appearance in a 1998 German documentary,(5) little has been seen or heard of the man himself since=85 although several amateur attempts(6) at replication of his work and a few more formal studies have taken place. He has been appointed consultant to several groups - the best known being 'Project Delta-G' led by Dr Ning li of the University of Alabama at Huntsville,(7) funded by the NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics programme.(8) I met Dr Podkletnov during his recent visit to the UK to provide assistance to a group at the University of Sheffield which is examining aspects of his work. He freely admits not being an expert in gravitational physics - he is a materials scientist with a special interest in superconductivity. While he would like to study the 'antigravity' effect full-time, funding has not been forthcoming, so he continues to teach materials science at another university in Tampere. Following discussions with theoreticians like Giovanni Modanese,(9) he ha= s refined his ideas somewhat. The effect is now referred to as gravity "modification" rather than "shielding" due to the shape of the affected region - cylindrical rather than conical, as a shield would produce. The effect, he claims, appears to be a result of interaction between the superconducting 'Cooper pairs' of the surface and the 'normal' electrons of the lower layers. Replication work is underway in Russia, Italy, the USA and now the UK. While not greatly forthcoming about the precise details of the Russian experience, he did state that a weight reduction of five per cent had now been achieved by counter-rotation of the superconductor and magnetic field. By stacking discs, it is possible to magnify the effect, so long as the discs rotate in the same direction, otherwise the effect is cancelled. He is enthusiastic about the theoretical work on GWASERs (the gravitational equivalent of lasers) done in Italy by Modanese and Giorgio Fontana.(10) He also finds agreement with Jerry Bayles(11) and with Russian Academician Akimov's ideas about torsion fields.(12) Podkletnov's critics have so far made no serious attempt to debunk his work and he feels confident that he has done his best to minimise sources of experimental error. Current research is still at an early stage and nowhere near producing a marketable device. It remains unclear whether the effect represents a reduction of gravitational or inertial mass. Podkletnov hopes to publish a paper in the near future, which may well be based on the Russian efforts with which he seems to be most closely involved. As with many areas on the fringes of science, Russians seem to be taking the lead.(13) When questioned about this, he replied simply: "It is because they have nothing to lose." Robert Chambers REFERENCES 1. Sunday Telegraph (1 Sept 1996, p3), New Scientist (21 Sept 1996, p7), FT96:26-29. 2. HTML version available at < http://www.gravity.org/msu.html >. 3. E Podkletnov and R Nieminen, 'A possibility of gravitational force shi= elding by bulk Yba2Cu3O7-x superconductor' in Physica C (Elsevier Science Publishers, Holland, 1992, v203, pp441-4). 4. The Technical University of Tampere: < http://www.tut.fi >. 5. English transcript and video stills at < http://www.inetarena.com/~noetic/pls/Gallery/pioneer.htm >. 6. Lists of experimenters and results at < http://www.inetarena.com/~noetic/pls/exp.html >. 7. Pictures and (old) info at < http://cspar.uah.edu/www/research/gravity.htmlx#GMOD >. 8. Details of supported projects at < http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/ >. 9. Links to Modanese's papers at < http://www.gravity.org >. 10. Links to relevant papers at < http://alpha.science.unitn.it/~fontana = >. 11. Downloadable book at < http://www.electrogravity.com/GRAVBOOK >. 12. See, for example, the paper at < http://www.binet.lv/firms/project/russian/torsion.htm >. 13. CD-ROM with video demonstrations available from < http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Station/8158/cd.htm >. RESOURCES RECOMMENDED SURFING < http://www.inetarena.com/~noetic/pls/gravity.html > Pete Skeggs' 'Quantum Cavorite' with lots of history and background to the "Podkletnov affair". < http://www.gravity.org > The Gravity Society homepage with links to theoretical background materia= l - --=20 Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1@frontiernet.net > Alternate: < terry_colvin@hotmail.com > 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 >[Allies, CIA/NSA, and Vietnam veterans welcome] 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: Fri, 15 Dec 100 08:17:20 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Laser On 12/14/00 2:22PM, in message , David Lednicer wrote: what was being looked for. Amazingly enough, no laser was > > found. > > Careful Art, your partisanship is showing again. This listserve is about > airplanes, not about politcal bashing. > > The incident you refer to took place off of Port Angeles Washington, in > the Straits of Juan de Fuca on April 4, 1997. The USN Lt. (John Daly) was > onboard a CAF Sea King monitoring a Russian freighter, The Kapitan Man. > According to the Seattle Times 8/23/99, "After the mission, Daly and the > Canadian helicopter pilot, Capt. Pat Barnes, reported symptoms of laser > exposure that permanently damaged their eyes." Also, "Daly complained > that the Coast Guard did not board the Russian ship until three days after > he was hit, and then only after the State Department notified the > Russians." According to the Seattle Times 9/9/99, "The Pentagon > investigated Daly's claim of having been hit with a Russian laser and > concluded from medical examinations that the injuries to his eye were > consistent with retinal damage from a low-power laser device. But it said > there was "no evidence" to prove it was a laser." Also see the 2/12/99 > Seattle Times (www.seattletimes.com). > > > I'm sorry, I fail to see what's partisan. We have two military people in a helicopter, an airplane, who say they were hit by a laser. This is certainly relevant to flight issues, especially in light of the later laser attack on a USA helo pilot in Bosnia. The stories have been widely reported. The use of laser as an offensive weapon against aircraft I would think are relevant to the list, which is why I expanded on the laser incident first brought up in the context of the Sukhois bouncing the Kitty Hawk. It's certainly true that there was "no evidence" (other news reports use the words "no proof"). However, the only "evidence" of the source of the injury would be the laser itself. If the State Department did warn the Russians, as alleged, the lack of finding the laser shouldn't be considered conclusive or even a suprise. If you are referring to my use of the word, "amazingly", I'll plead guilty to sarcasm but not partisan proclamations. I will say I temd to give more credibility to the two guys who were their and who have the laser burns, but that doesn't seem particularly partisan. Ah well, we digress.... Art ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 09:00:05 -0600 From: George R. Kasica Subject: (fwd) Technical Questions On 15 Dec 00 12:16:22 America/New_York, Stickmaker wrote: >Some questions about F-104 Starfighter performance, which I hope list members >can answer. > > > The F-104's top speed is heat limited rather than thrust limited. How much >fuel in what combination of external tanks can the Starfighter carry and still >do Mach 2+? > > Given that load, dropping tanks as they go dry and assuming best cruise >altitude and a comfortable reserve for descent and landing, how far can a >Starfighter go (one way) at Mach 2+? > > The F-104 can maintain level flight above 70,000 feet. Are pressure suits >needed for these high-altitude flights, or is the cockpit pressurized enough >that the pilot can get by with an oxygen mask? > > > > Rod (Stickmaker) Smith > > >Outside of mathematics, nothing is proven. > > > >____________________________________________________________________ >Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.amexmail.com/?A=1 George, MR. Tibbs & The Beast Kasica Waukesha, WI USA georgek@netwrx1.com http://www.netwrx1.com ICQ #12862186 Zz zZ |\ z _,,,---,,_ /,`.-'`' _ ;-;;,_ |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'_' '---''(_/--' `-'\_) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 10:55:26 -0500 (EST) From: David Allison Subject: Re: (fwd) Technical Questions > > The F-104 can maintain level flight above 70,000 feet. Are pressure suits With THOSE tiny wings?!? This I gotta see. I'm sure it can reach those altitudes in a ballistic trajectory, but given the wing area, if the F-104 can fly horizontally at FL700, that would give the U-2 a service ceiling at about FL1200! Somehow I doubt that... Sincerely, - D - David Allison webmaster@habu.org S L O W E R T R A F F I C K E E P R I G H T tm / \ / \ _/ ___ \_ ________/ \_______/V!V\_______/ \_______ \__/ \___/ \__/ www.habu.org The OnLine Blackbird Museum ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 20:20:02 From: "wayne binkley" Subject: F-104 General characteristics F-104A Primary function Fighter Contractor Lockheed Aircraft Corporation Power plant One General Electric J79-GE-3A/3B turbojet engine with afterburner Speed max. 1,047 mph 1,669 km/h min. 195 mph 314 km/h Initial climb rate 1,006 ft/s 307 m/s ***CEILING**** 64,830 ft 19,760 m <------------------------------------NOTE-------------------------- Range normal 730 miles 1,174 km maximum 1,400 miles 2,250 km Wingspan 21 ft 9 in 6.6 m Length 54 ft 8 in 16.7 m Height 13 ft 5 in 4 m Weight empty 13,184 lb 5,980 kg max. takeoff 25,840 lb 11,720 kg Crew One Armament One 20mm M61A1 cannon (725 rounds); 2x AIM-9B Sidewinder on wingtips; 4,000 lb of bombs under the wings Lockheed F-104 Starfighter some F-104 info. wayne. In 1952, C.L. "Kelly" Johnson designed the F-104. This aircraft was among the most successful ever produced. It was the first aircraft to fly at twice the speed of sound and held numerous airspeed and altitude records. Our F-104 served at Edwards flight test center from June 1957 until October 1967. Because of its physical appearance and performance, the F-104 has often been called the "missile with a man in it." Like the F-84F Thunderstreak before it and the F-16 Fighting Falcon of today, the F-104 was selected for use by the NATO allies. The design was a product of the Korean War. Intended as a point defense interceptor, range was sacrificed for rate of climb. Range, however, can be extended using external tanks and in-flight refueling. Several F-104 squadrons are still flying today with the air forces of Italy, Germany and Japan. Some F-104s have been modified to include a second cockpit for transition training and some weapons delivery. A reconnaissance version also exists although it never served with the USAF. NOTE-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> Using an accelerated loft technique, some F-104s have been flown to higher than 90,000 feet.<-----------------NOTE---------------------------------------------------------------- This F-104 was delivered to the Air Force June 29, 1957 and spent its entire service life assigned to the Air Force Flight Test Center, Edwards AFB, California. It retired from service in December 1972. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 16:41:32 -0500 (EST) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re: F-104 > General characteristics F-104A > Primary function Fighter > Contractor Lockheed Aircraft Corporation > Power plant One General Electric J79-GE-3A/3B turbojet engine with > afterburner > Speed max. 1,047 mph 1,669 km/h > min. 195 mph 314 km/h > Initial climb rate 1,006 ft/s 307 m/s > ***CEILING**** 64,830 ft 19,760 m > <------------------------------------NOTE-------------------------- > Range normal 730 miles 1,174 km > maximum 1,400 miles 2,250 km > Wingspan 21 ft 9 in 6.6 m > Length 54 ft 8 in 16.7 m > Height 13 ft 5 in 4 m > Weight empty 13,184 lb 5,980 kg > max. takeoff 25,840 lb 11,720 kg > Crew One > Armament One 20mm M61A1 cannon (725 rounds); 2x AIM-9B Sidewinder on > wingtips; 4,000 lb of bombs under the wings > > Lockheed F-104 Starfighter > > > some F-104 info. > wayne. > In 1952, C.L. "Kelly" Johnson designed the F-104. This aircraft was > among the most successful ever produced. It was the first aircraft to fly at > twice the speed of sound and held numerous airspeed and altitude records. > Our F-104 served at Edwards flight test center from June 1957 until October > 1967. Because of its physical appearance and performance, the F-104 has > often been called the "missile with a man in it." > Like the F-84F Thunderstreak before it and the F-16 Fighting Falcon of > today, the F-104 was selected for use by the NATO allies. The design was a > product of the Korean War. Intended as a point defense interceptor, range > was sacrificed for rate of climb. Range, however, can be extended using > external tanks and in-flight refueling. > Several F-104 squadrons are still flying today with the air forces of > Italy, Germany and Japan. Some F-104s have been modified to include a second > cockpit for transition training and some weapons delivery. A reconnaissance > version also exists although it never served with the USAF. > NOTE-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> > Using an accelerated loft technique, some F-104s have been flown to > higher than 90,000 > feet.<-----------------NOTE---------------------------------------------------------------- > This F-104 was delivered to the Air Force June 29, 1957 and spent its > entire service life assigned to the Air Force Flight Test Center, Edwards > AFB, California. It retired from service in December 1972. The F-104's max speed is more like 1,450 mph (Mach 2.2 ~ 2333.05 km/h) at 35,000 ft. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/airdef/f-104.htm Sam CIO - Dark Entertainment LLC http://www.darkent.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 16:46:42 -0500 From: "Weigold, Greg" Subject: RE: F-104 This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. - ------_=_NextPart_001_01C066E1.27BF13C4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Interesting.... in cruising the web I found no less than 4 different sites showing 4 different top speeds!! Ranging from 1300 - 1476mph.... Wonder why they vary so widely..... Greg W - -----Original Message----- > Speed max. 1,047 mph 1,669 km/h The F-104's max speed is more like 1,450 mph (Mach 2.2 ~ 2333.05 km/h) at 35,000 ft. - ------_=_NextPart_001_01C066E1.27BF13C4 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: F-104

Interesting....  in cruising the web I found no = less than 4 different sites showing 4 different top speeds!!  = Ranging from 1300 - 1476mph....

Wonder why they vary so widely.....

Greg W

-----Original Message-----
> Speed max.  1,047 mph 1,669 km/h

The F-104's max speed is more like 1,450 mph (Mach = 2.2 ~ 2333.05 km/h) at
35,000 ft.

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C066E1.27BF13C4-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 15:13:56 -0700 From: Brad Hitch Subject: Re: (fwd) Technical Questions Airspeed has alot to do with the lift generated by the wings and body. Generally, lift and drag are proportional to the dynamic pressure,Q, and the wing planform area. Q is defined as 0.5*rho*u^2, where rho is the freestream air density and u is the air speed. Obviously flying faster helps alot, and if you fly slow you need alot more wing area to generate the lift required to balance the weight of the aircraft. Conversely, there have been missiles designed with no wings at all. David Allison wrote: > > ? ? The F-104 can maintain level flight above 70,000 feet. Are pressure suits > > With THOSE tiny wings?!? This I gotta see. > > I'm sure it can reach those altitudes in a ballistic trajectory, but > given the wing area, if the F-104 can fly horizontally at FL700, that > would give the U-2 a service ceiling at about FL1200! > > Somehow I doubt that... > > Sincerely, > > - D - > > David Allison > webmaster@habu.org > > S L O W E R T R A F F I C K E E P R I G H T > tm > / \ > / \ > _/ ___ \_ > ________/ \_______/V!V\_______/ \_______ > \__/ \___/ \__/ > > www.habu.org > The OnLine Blackbird Museum ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 09:32:24 EST From: SecretJet@aol.com Subject: IRC #Skunk-Works Chat this evening Seasons Greetings! Just a gentle reminder that at least one Skunk-Works list member (me!) will be looking in at the IRC #Skunk-Works this evening... See you there? Best Wishes, Bill Turner, 'Admin'. Black-Triangle E-Group HQ. Near London Heathrow, UK. AIM:Secretjet2 ICQ: 29271956 http://members.aol.com/Secretjet/index.html - ----------------------------------------------------------------- No Door is Closed - To an Open Mind! - ----------------------------------------------------------------- Black-Triangle NEW Homepage! Black-Triangle Links ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 17:56:45 From: "wayne binkley" Subject: F-104 Max speed sam wrote: The F-104's max speed is more like 1,450 mph (Mach 2.2 ~ 2333.05 km/h)at 35,000 ft.http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/airdef/f-104.htmSam greg wrote: Interesting.... in cruising the web I found no less than 4 different sites showing 4 different top speeds!! Ranging from 1300 - 1476mph.... Wonder why they vary so widely..... Greg W xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The FAS site does not agree with the T.O. 1F-104G-1,the USAF flight manual. all limits in a -1 must be strictly adhered to,and exceeding them can lead to a FEB(flight evaluation board)and a downgraded performance rating that can affect promotion and assignments.according to the T.O.(technical order) all standard production models have a: Maximum speed: 1,320 mph. (Mach 2) cruising Speed: 575 mph. Range: 1,628 nautical miles max. Service Ceiling: 60,000 ft. this is still a lot faster than the 1,047 MPH from my previous postings, but less than the 1,450MPH used on the FAS site.lacking any other "proof" i would tend to believe the acft.-1. My source of info.(for this reply) is: http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/f104g.htm as regards to "service ceiling"note that it is not the max altitude the plane can obtain, as "service ceiling" is reached at max. continuous power settings at an altitude where the acft.still has the ability to climb a few 100 FPM.(i am guessing that this is to prevent stalls).you can get an acft.to higher altitudes by using METO power (max. except for takeoff)and then when your climb rate again gets to be a few 100 FPM pushing the throttles to the "firewall".this is hard on the turbines and can only be sustained for a few minutes(it also uses a lot of fuel).in the end i guess max altitude is determined by the Lift/Drag ratio and the Power/weight ratio. wayne _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 13:19:01 -0500 From: "Frank Markus" Subject: Satellite Photos with 1/2 Meter Resolution For Sale This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0021_01C06762.C15C9520 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by tisch.mail.mindspring.net id NAA03453 I found this story at http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14261-2000Dec15.html: In essence, a new company called Space Imaging (a joint venture between Lockheed-Martin and Raytheon) will be permitted to sell photos taken from orbit with a resolution of =BD meter. While permitting the photos to be = sold, the US government is requiring that no photo be sold before 24 hours have elapsed from the time it was taken. One fascinating quote from the article is: Whatever security concerns remain, senior military and intelligence officials supported the license, largely for self-interested reasons. The= y are eager to buy high-resolution imagery from U.S. firms to relieve some = of the pressure on the National Reconnaissance Office's overtasked fleet of billion-dollar spy satellites. The article says that while =BD meter resolution is a four-fold improveme= nt over the best current commercially-available photos, it is believed that = the present generation of US and Russian spy satellites can resolve to 10 cm. Quoting again: According to the National Image Interpretability Rating Scales, an unclassified measurement system developed by the intelligence community, one-meter imagery can resolve "an open missile silo door," half-meter imagery can distinguish between "vehicle-mounted" and "trailer-mounted" radars, and 10-centimeter resolution can resolve "the rivet lines on bomb= er aircraft." For copyright reasons, I have not posted the entire article but I strongl= y suggest that those interested in such matters look at it. - ------=_NextPart_000_0021_01C06762.C15C9520 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I found this story at = http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14261-2000Dec15.html:=

 

In essence, a new company = called Space Imaging (a joint venture between Lockheed-Martin and Raytheon) = will be permitted to sell photos taken from orbit with a resolution of =BD = meter.  While permitting the photos to = be sold, the US government is requiring that no photo be sold before 24 hours = have elapsed from the time it was taken.

 

One fascinating quote from = the article is:

 

Whatever security concerns remain, senior military and intelligence officials = supported the license, largely for self-interested reasons. They are eager to buy high-resolution imagery from U.S. firms to relieve some of the pressure = on the National Reconnaissance Office's overtasked fleet of billion-dollar spy satellites.

 

The article = says that while =BD meter resolution is a four-fold improvement over the best = current commercially-available photos, it is believed that the present generation of US and Russian spy satellites can resolve to 10 cm.

 

Quoting = again:

 

According to the National Image Interpretability Rating Scales, an unclassified = measurement system developed by the intelligence community, one-meter imagery can = resolve "an open missile silo door," half-meter imagery can = distinguish between "vehicle-mounted" and "trailer-mounted" = radars, and 10-centimeter resolution can resolve "the rivet lines on bomber aircraft."

 

For copyright = reasons, I have not posted the entire article but I strongly suggest that those = interested in such matters look at it.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0021_01C06762.C15C9520-- ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V9 #84 ******************************** 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