From owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Sun Aug 12 10:03:03 2001 Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 23:27:40 -0500 From: skunk-works-digest Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V10 #31 skunk-works-digest Saturday, August 11 2001 Volume 10 : Number 031 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: SR-71 Flight Manual Re: SR-71 Flight Manual News Re: SR-71 Flight Manual Re: SR manual on-line demime test - Home Location.rtf demime test - Home Location.rtf List Patch Installed Re: List Patch Installed Sustained horizontal flight set by SR-71 may be broken by Solar powered flight Fw: To shunkworks list - "U2" surveillance over Iraq Re: SR-71 Flight Manual Re: SR-71 Flight Manual Re: Sustained horizontal flight set by SR-71 may be broken by Solar powered flight Re: Fw: To shunkworks list - "U2" surveillance over Iraq Fwd: Yahoo! News Story - Associated Press Photo Re: To shunkworks list - "U2" surveillance over Iraq Re: Fw: To shunkworks list - "U2" surveillance over Iraq Re: Fw: To shunkworks list - "U2" surveillance over Iraq *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 19:41:09 +0100 From: Art Hanley Subject: Re: SR-71 Flight Manual If Lockheed was paid the full cost of producing the manuals NASA owns them, unless the contract specified differently (or if there's a copyright notice). If it were me, I'd check with the responsible office before I posted them, considering who your employer is. They may be public documents, but not necessarily publicized documents. Probably will be no problem, but if you just go and do it, you might generate hard feelings on principle within the organization. Heck! PA may even think it's a great idea and you'll get an attaperson for being a team player and checking first! Art Mary Shafer wrote: > > You know, it's just occurred to me, in looking through all my back > messages, trying to weed out a few hundred, that this posted version > appeared very soon after someone on the mailing list announced that Jim > Goodall was putting out a new version of the SR-71 Dash-1, with forty > extra pages. > > Does the posted version have those forty pages? > > If so, has this just wiped out the market for Goodall's second edition? > What about the e-bay market? > > Should I put the two volumes of The Researcher's Guide to the SR-71 up > on the Web in .pdf format? I've requested an extra copy for a certain > mailing list moderator, but I could probably cut his Vol. 2 apart at the > spine (Vol 2 is perfect-bound, I think, but little Vol 1 is > saddle-stapled) to make the scanning easy and then send him the loose > sheets. Would he forgive me if I did this? > > The Researcher's Guide copyright status isn't quite as clear as the > Dash-1 copyright status. It was produced by Lockheed for NASA. I think > this makes it public domain, as a government document. I don't believe > there is a copyright claim in it, which would indicate that Lockheed > thinks the same way I do, but I have to admit I haven't looked very > closely. > > Regards, > Mary > > Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com > "Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard > Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end...." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 10:04:54 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: SR-71 Flight Manual Mary, You bring up a good point about copyright. The issue that you will have to determine is whether or not Lockheed's agreement with NASA permitted it to retain the copyright. In virtually every case, the contractor gives up the copyright "rights." But you don't know for certain. If you know anyone in the NASA contracts office, they could tell you. You comment about the market for the SR-71 manual disappearing because of its availability in PDF is logical but not certain. There are many examples of books being available in electronic form with subsequent sales of the identical book. The book format is not for everyone but we have already had some sales of the book. Jim Goodall is not publishing the book; Ross & Perry, Inc. will bring it out in the next two to three weeks. - -- Jim Stevenson Publisher Ross & Perry, Inc. 717 Second St., N.E., Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20002 Telephone (202) 675-8300 Facsimile (202) 675-8400 On 8/7/01 7:00 PM, "Mary Shafer" wrote: > You know, it's just occurred to me, in looking through all my back > messages, trying to weed out a few hundred, that this posted version > appeared very soon after someone on the mailing list announced that Jim > Goodall was putting out a new version of the SR-71 Dash-1, with forty > extra pages. > > Does the posted version have those forty pages? > > If so, has this just wiped out the market for Goodall's second edition? > What about the e-bay market? > > Should I put the two volumes of The Researcher's Guide to the SR-71 up > on the Web in .pdf format? I've requested an extra copy for a certain > mailing list moderator, but I could probably cut his Vol. 2 apart at the > spine (Vol 2 is perfect-bound, I think, but little Vol 1 is > saddle-stapled) to make the scanning easy and then send him the loose > sheets. Would he forgive me if I did this? > > The Researcher's Guide copyright status isn't quite as clear as the > Dash-1 copyright status. It was produced by Lockheed for NASA. I think > this makes it public domain, as a government document. I don't believe > there is a copyright claim in it, which would indicate that Lockheed > thinks the same way I do, but I have to admit I haven't looked very > closely. > > Regards, > Mary > > Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com > "Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard > Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end...." > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 13:10:49 -0700 From: David Lednicer Subject: News You guys/gals are all Skunk Works enthusiasts, but have any of you been keeping up on the Palmdale issue of the Lockheed Star (their internal newspaper)? Its on the Internet at: http://www.lmaeronautics.com/lmaerostar/sw701.htm I only remember to look at it every now and then, but sometimes it contains some juicy news... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 18:16:06 -0500 From: George R. Kasica Subject: Re: SR-71 Flight Manual >Should I put the two volumes of The Researcher's Guide to the SR-71 up >on the Web in .pdf format? I've requested an extra copy for a certain >mailing list moderator, but I could probably cut his Vol. 2 apart at the >spine (Vol 2 is perfect-bound, I think, but little Vol 1 is >saddle-stapled) to make the scanning easy and then send him the loose >sheets. Would he forgive me if I did this? LOL...As long as I can three hole punch it to put it in a binder or get it rebound somehow, yes. George ===[George R. Kasica]=== +1 262 677 0766 Skunk-Works ListOwner +1 206 374 6482 FAX http://www.netwrx1.com Jackson, WI USA georgek@netwrx1.com ICQ #12862186 Digest Issues at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works 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: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 21:12:02 EDT From: Xelex@aol.com Subject: Re: SR manual on-line The on-line version of the SR-71 flight manual has at least 40 "new" pages that didn't appear in the Motorbooks version. There are still 11 missing pages on the ASARS system that were deleted according to the SENIOR CROWN Security Classification Guide. We probably won't see those anytime soon. The only pages that are REALLY missing are 1-174 and 1-175 that deal with the canopies. Those are apparently missing from all available copies, including Motorbooks. It looks like someone making the first generation copy screwed up, or two pages stuck together while going through the copying machine. Peter Merlin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 12:51:55 -0500 From: George R. Kasica Subject: demime test - Home Location.rtf this is a test to strip or convert mime attaches George, MR. Tibbs, Nazerene & The Beast Kasica(8/1/88-3/19/01) Jaxkson, WI USA georgek@netwrx1.com http://www.netwrx1.com ICQ #12862186 Zz zZ |\ z _,,,---,,_ /,`.-'`' _ ;-;;,_ |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'_' '---''(_/--' `-'\_) [demime 0.98e removed an attachment of type application/octet-stream which had a name of Home Location.rtf] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 12:58:01 -0500 From: George R. Kasica Subject: demime test - Home Location.rtf this is a test to strip or convert mime attaches George, MR. Tibbs, Nazerene & The Beast Kasica(8/1/88-3/19/01) Jaxkson, WI USA georgek@netwrx1.com http://www.netwrx1.com ICQ #12862186 Zz zZ |\ z _,,,---,,_ /,`.-'`' _ ;-;;,_ |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'_' '---''(_/--' `-'\_) [demime 0.98e removed an attachment of type application/octet-stream which had a name of Home Location.rtf] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 13:14:43 -0500 From: George R. Kasica Subject: List Patch Installed Hello: As of 100pm CDT Friday August 10, 2001 the mailing list manager that this list runs on known as majordomo has been patched to PREVENT or FILTER MIME attachments. This was done to try to prevent the excessive use of disk storage space when these items get posted to the list. TEXT portions of the messages will still come through untouched, just the MIME will be affected. If you have any questions just ask. Thanks, George ===[George R. Kasica]=== +1 262 677 0766 President +1 206 374 6482 FAX Netwrx Consulting Inc. Jackson, WI USA http://www.netwrx1.com georgek@netwrx1.com ICQ #12862186 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 20:45:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: List Patch Installed George, >As of 100pm CDT Friday August 10, 2001 the mailing list manager that >this list runs on known as majordomo has been patched to PREVENT or >FILTER MIME attachments. This was done to try to prevent the excessive >use of disk storage space when these items get posted to the list. This is really appreciated! Thanks very much! - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: GPahl@wazoo.com 1517 Michigan Avenue or: Andreas@Aerospace-History.net Alamogordo, NM 88310 Web Site: http://www.wazoo.com/~gpahl/ Tel: (505) 434-6276 or: http://www.Aerospace-History.net - --- --- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 23:17:35 -0400 From: "Martin Hurst" Subject: Sustained horizontal flight set by SR-71 may be broken by Solar powered flight I actually thought the Blackbird flew higher than the acticle states? Read on. - -Martin - -----Original Message----- From: Press Releases To: press_release@cs2.dfrc.nasa.gov Date: Thursday, August 09, 2001 2:29 PM Subject: 01-53: NOTE TO EDITORS: Helios record flight attempt >NASA Note to Editors: >National Aeronautics and >Space Administration >Dryden Flight Research Center >P.O. Box 273 >Edwards, California 93523 >Phone (661) 276-3449 >FAX (661) 276-3566 > > __ >For Release: August 9, 2001 > >Alan Brown >NASA Dryden Flight Research Center >(661) 276-2665 > >NOTE TO EDITORS: 01-53 > >HELIOS PROTOTYPE TO ATTEMPT RECORD FLIGHT THIS WEEKEND > > A new world's altitude record for a non-rocket-powered >aircraft could be achieved over Hawaii this weekend by the >NASA-sponsored Helios Prototype solar-electric flying wing. The >flight from the U.S. Navy's Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF) on >the island of Kauai is tentatively set for Saturday, Aug. 11, with >backup flight days scheduled for Aug. 12 and 13, and Aug. 16 through >19. > The Helios Prototype is believed capable of reaching >altitudes in the vicinity of 100,000 feet under ideal conditions. >Engineers estimate the aircraft could reach at least 95,000 feet on >this mission with 100,000 feet still a possibility, well above the >current record of 85,068 feet for sustained horizontal flight set by >a SR-71 in 1966. > Designed and built by AeroVironment, Inc., of Monrovia, >Calif., the ultra-lightweight Helios Prototype's development is >funded and managed under NASA's Environmental Research Aircraft and >Sensor Technology (ERAST) project. The demonstration flight should >validate the Helios' capability as a platform for high-altitude >environmental monitoring and atmospheric sampling missions. > News media representatives planning on-site coverage of the >flight activity should contact the PMRF Public Affairs Office at >(808) 335-4742 no later than noon Friday, Aug. 10, for credentials >and access. > Status reports will be issued to media via e-mail >periodically during and after the flight. Media representatives >desiring to receive these status reports should provide their e-mail >address to Alan Brown, NASA Dryden public affairs, at >alan.brown@dfrc.nasa.gov. Status reports will also be posted on the >www.solaraircraft.com website as they become available. A NASA public >affairs representative will also be available by phone at (808) >335-4768 to respond to media inquiries. > B-roll video footage of the previous checkout flight will be >fed on NASA Television during the regularly scheduled NASA Video File >on Friday, Aug. 10, at noon Eastern time (9 a.m. Pacific time). >Post-flight video B-roll footage of the record flight will be >available on the first weekday after the flight actually occurs on >the NASA Video File at noon Eastern (9 a.m. Pacific). NASA TV is >available on the GE-2 satellite, transponder 9-C, at 85 degrees west >longitude, vertical polarization, with video on 3880 MHz and audio on >6.8 MHz. Any changes to the line-up will appear on the NASA video >file advisory on the web at: >Ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/tv-advisory/nasa-tv.txt. > A limited number of dubs on Beta-SP will be available to >broadcast media representatives on-site at PMRF approximately four >hours after takeoff, and from the NASA Dryden public affairs office >at Edwards, Calif., two days after the flight occurs. > Still photographs in high resolution will be available on the >www.solaraircraft.com website approximately four hours after takeoff, >and on the Dryden website at >www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/Helios/index.html two days after the >flight. > >- NASA - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 23:26:55 -0400 From: "Martin Hurst" Subject: Fw: To shunkworks list - "U2" surveillance over Iraq Why are they still using a recon plane "U2" to do surveillance over Iraq? Can't satellites do that now - wasn't that the reason given by then Def Sec (now veep) Cheyenne why the SR-71 Blackbird was taken out of service - the satellites could it better !?!?!?! Iraq 'nearly downs' US spy plane: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1457000/1457672.st m Can some one explain it to me? thanks, - -Martin ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 00:26:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Mary Shafer Subject: Re: SR-71 Flight Manual On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, James P. Stevenson wrote: > You bring up a good point about copyright. The issue that you will have to > determine is whether or not Lockheed's agreement with NASA permitted it to > retain the copyright. In virtually every case, the contractor gives up the > copyright "rights." But you don't know for certain. If you know anyone in > the NASA contracts office, they could tell you. I know who to check with and I'm pretty sure that NASA paid the entire cost of the production. There is no copyright notice, just mention that it was prepared by Lockheed for NASA. > You comment about the market for the SR-71 manual disappearing because of > its availability in PDF is logical but not certain. There are many examples > of books being available in electronic form with subsequent sales of the > identical book. The book format is not for everyone but we have already had > some sales of the book. Considering the size of the manual, it wouldn't surprise me one bit that even people with access would buy the printer version. Downloading and printing out that many pages isn't exactly free, unless you bootleg the copy at work. If I were to do so, it would cost me the price of a ream or two of pre-punched paper and at least one ink-jet cartridge, putting me close to half the price even without counting the cost of my time and the wear on my printer. My only regret about the copy Dryden made, which I have because I worked on the airplane, is that they "blew down" some of the fold-out pages to letter size. Since these were the hand-plotted figures done on ten-to-the-centimeter graph paper, the quality isn't as good as the original. But since I never had to do the flight planning for this airplane, my complaint is more theoretical than real. > Jim Goodall is not publishing the book; Ross & Perry, Inc. will bring it out > in the next two to three weeks. I just picked up Goodall's name from a previous message. My apologies to Ross & Perry for the misattribution. What was so cute about what Goodall did was that the Dash-1, having originally been classified, didn't have the usual FOUO or Government Agencies and Contractors Only distribution limits that unclassified Dash-1s have, so he didn't break any rules reprinting it, once he managed to snivel a copy by lying about what he wanted it for. The copy on the Web is a copy that originated at Dryden, because it has the same copy number, inadequately crossed out, that my copy has and we have the original copy with that number. I don't know how Ross & Perry got the copy they're reproducing, and I want to make it crystal clear that I am absolutely not implying they did anything less than honest in obtaining it. This copy has more pages, so it probably came from an entirely different source. However, they too are benefitting from the lack of distribution limits. It's going to be a long time before copies of Dash-1s and NATOPS manuals for most modern aircraft are going to be available because of the distribution limits, even though they're not classified and or copyrighted. And it'll probably be even longer before we ever see the classified tactics manuals (Dash-?) for modern fighters unclassified and given unlimited distribution. The SR-71 community just lucked out. Us F-4 fans are stuck. Regards, Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com "Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end...." ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 00:55:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Mary Shafer Subject: Re: SR-71 Flight Manual On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, George R. Kasica wrote: > >Should I put the two volumes of The Researcher's Guide to the SR-71 up > >on the Web in .pdf format? I've requested an extra copy for a certain > >mailing list moderator, but I could probably cut his Vol. 2 apart at the > >spine (Vol 2 is perfect-bound, I think, but little Vol 1 is > >saddle-stapled) to make the scanning easy and then send him the loose > >sheets. Would he forgive me if I did this? > LOL...As long as I can three hole punch it to put it in a binder or > get it rebound somehow, yes. It goes the other way, bound on the short side, not the long side. When we slice off the perfect binding to make copies at work, the guys in Repro usually use those Acco binders to hold the original together, but it's a shame to do that to such a nicely-produced volume. Maybe it's got a plastic binding, come to think of it (my copy is on a bookshelf that's almost over my head, under the entire stack of seventy references for my paper on in-flight simulation at Dryden and the 50-some references for our aerothermodynamic of hypersonic vehicles paper that I'm turning into a journal article, and I haven't actually seen more than the front edge for about two years, which is why I'm so uncertain about it). I have renounced temptation (for now) and your copy is in a sealed envelope on the out of sight, out of mind principle, you know. Or at least I think it is, because I just tossed it onto my desk, without opening it, when it showed up (it was sent to me specifically to send to you, so it came in a mailing envelope, not a holey joe, so opening it means doing more than just unwrapping a string), so get your address to me quickly. After all, I'm only human. Everyone here would have enjoyed hearing my explanation of the nature of the Skunk Works mailing list and just why you need a copy of the Guide, made to someone who doesn't use Usenet or mailing lists at all. I'm not entirely sure that the person who sent it knows exactly what the mailing list really is, but you are, indeed, allowed a copy because of the discussion we had before I sent the memo requesting it. The explanation isn't in the memo, of course, but there's absolutely nothing underhanded about it (I don't do underhanded, being terrible at it--totally frank works better for me, perhaps because I've established a reputation for it). Regards, Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com "Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end...." ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 03:14:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Mary Shafer Subject: Re: Sustained horizontal flight set by SR-71 may be broken by Solar powered flight On Fri, 10 Aug 2001, Martin Hurst wrote: > I actually thought the Blackbird flew higher than the acticle states? It may have, but not officially and not cruising. I've heard of a zoom climb to about 90,000 ft, but that was in the Cat I/Cat II testing and never publicized (neither was the dash to 3.5 or so). But a zoom climb altitude isn't at all the same as an official cruise altitud, just as a dash isn't the same as cruise Mach number. Both zooms and dashes are very brief, so they can exceed the limits without doing damage. Actually, a zoom climb is a ballistic trajectory, using the energy available at the beginning, rather than aerodynamic lift, so it's not really flying, either. Besides, there's probably no data to prove the zoom altitude, since they destroyed a lot of the test data when the airplane became operational. If there's no data, it didn't happen because there's no way to prove it. > > The Helios Prototype is believed capable of reaching > >altitudes in the vicinity of 100,000 feet under ideal conditions. > >Engineers estimate the aircraft could reach at least 95,000 feet on > >this mission with 100,000 feet still a possibility, well above the > >current record of 85,068 feet for sustained horizontal flight set by > >a SR-71 in 1966. See? That's the official record for sustained flight (cruise), not a zoom climb. All the difference in the world. Regards, Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com "Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end...." ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 05:53:22 -0400 From: John Stone Subject: Re: Fw: To shunkworks list - "U2" surveillance over Iraq Martin, and All, Martin wrote: >Why are they still using a recon plane "U2" to do surveillance over Iraq? >Can't satellites do that now - wasn't that the reason given by then Def Sec >(now veep) >Cheyenne why the SR-71 Blackbird was taken out of service - the satellites >could >it better !?!?!?! > >Iraq 'nearly downs' US spy plane: >http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1457000/1457672.st >m > >Can some one explain it to me? Maybe they lied, and that wasn't the reason they killed the SR. And Art is right it was for personal and political reasons! Best, John - -- John Stone http://www.blackbirds.net ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 16:58:59 From: "wayne binkley" Subject: Fwd: Yahoo! News Story - Associated Press Photo wayne d.binkley >From: Yahoo! News >Reply-To: wbinkley@angelfire.com >To: wbinkley@hotmail.com >CC: wbinkley@angelfire.com >Subject: Yahoo! News Story - Associated Press Photo >Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 08:33:57 PDT > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp >From yahoo-dev-null@yahoo-inc.com Sat, 11 Aug 2001 08:34:26 -0700 Received: from [216.115.107.2] by hotmail.com (3.2) with ESMTP id MHotMailBD3E9B65006B4004310DD8736B020E080; Sat, 11 Aug 2001 08:33:57 -0700 Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 08:33:57 PDT From: Yahoo! News To: wbinkley@hotmail.com Cc: wbinkley@angelfire.com Reply-to: wbinkley@angelfire.com Subject: Yahoo! News Story - Associated Press Photo Return-path: refertofriend-error@reply.yahoo.com Errors-To: refertofriend-error@reply.yahoo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Converted-To-Plain-Text: from text/html by demime 0.98e wbinkley (wbinkley@angelfire.com) has sent you a news article Personal message: talking about getting "bent out of shape"! wayne Associated Press Photo http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/p/ap/20010811/us/flying_wing_ny111.html - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [TABLE NOT SHOWN][TABLE NOT SHOWN][TABLE NOT SHOWN][TABLE NOT SHOWN][TABLE NOT SHOWN] [TABLE NOT SHOWN][TABLE NOT SHOWN] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [TABLE NOT SHOWN] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 14:37:32 -0500 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: Re: To shunkworks list - "U2" surveillance over Iraq > Why are they still using a recon plane "U2" to do surveillance over Iraq? > Can't satellites do that now - Aircraft are much more flexible than satellites. The US currently has at most seven imaging spysats in orbit (two to four optical/IR, three radar) - -- and most of the time they're not where you want them to be, tasking them is a pain, reconfiguring their sensor packages is not possible, dwell time and revisit frequency aren't great, etc. Seven is a generous estimate: one optical and one radar are very old, probably not in the best of health if functioning at all. And one of the possible optical sats (USA 144) is a bit of a mystery, may be something else. So the number could be as low as four. Sats are great and have their own unique advantages, but at least in today's world, aircraft are quite complementary. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 16:43:55 -0400 From: John Szalay Subject: Re: Fw: To shunkworks list - "U2" surveillance over Iraq At 11:26 PM 8/10/01 -0400, you wrote: >Why are they still using a recon plane "U2" to do surveillance over Iraq? >Can't satellites do that now - Does anyone know how this U-2 was configured ? Or how are this series of U-2 flights are tasked ? Photo, Elint How they are tasked might explain why the sats are not doing the job intended or required.... ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 21:26:29 +0100 From: Art Hanley Subject: Re: Fw: To shunkworks list - "U2" surveillance over Iraq Martin Hurst wrote: > > Why are they still using a recon plane "U2" to do surveillance over Iraq? > Can't satellites do that now - wasn't that the reason given by then Def Sec > (now veep) > Cheyenne why the SR-71 Blackbird was taken out of service - the satellites > could > it better !?!?!?! > > Iraq 'nearly downs' US spy plane: > http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1457000/1457672.st > m > > Can some one explain it to me? > > thanks, > -Martin We've had some wild and woolly discussions about this over the years on this list. Without rehashing in great detail, the answer is that satellites are wonderful for a large number of things, but there are also a large number of things that they can't do. They are predictable, which means things can be concealed. The time that they can be over a target is limited and often is not when we need them to be. Althoguth at geosynch orbit they can "loiter" that's too far out for tactical sensor intelligence. Because the amount of propellant they have on board is limited, it takes a very, very high level to authorize a change in their orbit the greater the change, the more propellant used and the shorter the remaining life of the satellite. They don't tend to be responsive to unplanned situations. Fro example, Schwatrzkof(?) repeatedly said they didn't help him the Gulf War. Back in the early '80s, when we had a greater launch capability than we do now. the entire Falklands invasion, British deployment, War and reoccupation took place before we could get a satellite in position that could provide any data. Satellites are Wonderful devices, but they can't do everything. Their proponents are extremely sensitive about this, especially in light of their enormous cost. One factoid I like to use is that for the cost of putting one recon satellite in orbit in the '90s (not actually operating it, just getting it up there), you could run the entire '90s SR-71 program for over 30 years. Satellite proponents ruthlessly oppose anything they perceive as a threat to their programs, so they opposed the SR. AF opposed it because it lost its champions at the top. That, plus the fact that no one makes Chief of Staff manageing a 25 year old program, insured its death knell. A similar situation took place in the Navy and that's why the Battleships went away. Cheney just sorta went along. One thing about him, once he takes "ownership" of a policy, he'll stick with it, regardless of whatever new data comes up. Again, satellites are incredible things, but they can't do everything. Nor can the SR or U-2, for that matter. But her are things that each of them can do bettere than anything else. Art ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V10 #31 ********************************* To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe skunk-works-digest 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 skunk-works-digest local-skunk-works@your.domain.net To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command: unsubscribe skunk-works-digest 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