From owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Fri Aug 17 17:30:29 2001 Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 13:14:40 -0500 From: skunk-works-digest Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V10 #32 skunk-works-digest Friday, August 17 2001 Volume 10 : Number 032 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: Fw: To shunkworks list - "U2" surveillance over Iraq Flight Manual Wish List RE: Fw: To shunkworks list - "U2" surveillance over Iraq Re: Flight Manual Wish List [Fwd: [Fwd: Re: SR-71 Flight Manual]] Re: Flight Manual Wish List Re: Flight Manual Wish List SR-71 Flight Manual Flying Wing Surpasses Altitude Records for Non-Rocket Aircraft Early morning mutterings... Re: Fw: To shunkworks list - "U2" surveillance over Iraq Re: Flight Manual Wish List Re: Early morning mutterings... Re: Fw: To shunkworks list - "U2" surveillance over Iraq Mary, Trying to reach you Re: Fw: To shunkworks list - "U2" surveillance over Iraq F-22 inlet RE: F-22 inlet Re: Fw: To shunkworks list - "U2" surveillance over Iraq *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 07:27:49 -0500 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: Re: Fw: To shunkworks list - "U2" surveillance over Iraq > 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. My favorite quote along those lines comes from Gen. Moorman, a former CINCSPACE: "One of our Titan 4s was on and off the pad for longer than the time between Pearl Harbor and VJ Day before we could get it launched." ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 09:32:21 +0800 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Flight Manual Wish List Mary (and anyone else for that matter), Assuming that Ross & Perry could get the proper permission to reprint flight manuals, what manuals would you like to see printed? Jim Stevenson Ross & Perry, Inc. JStevenson@RossPerry.com On 8/11/01 12:26 PM, "Mary Shafer" wrote: > 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 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 14:33:36 +0100 From: "Gavin Payne" Subject: RE: Fw: To shunkworks list - "U2" surveillance over Iraq True but I don't think 51 sqn knew what hit them :) > 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. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 14:50:52 +0100 From: Art Hanley Subject: Re: Flight Manual Wish List "James P. Stevenson" wrote: > > Mary (and anyone else for that matter), > > Assuming that Ross & Perry could get the proper permission to reprint flight > manuals, what manuals would you like to see printed? > > Jim Stevenson > Ross & Perry, Inc. > JStevenson@RossPerry.com > F-14D (mine's incomplete) and AV-8B for a couple. Art ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 14:52:55 +0100 From: Art Hanley Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: Re: SR-71 Flight Manual]] Mary, I've tried to send this to you directly a couple of times, but your server keeps refusing e-mails. My advice about Pt. Mugu and NATEC may work for you, given who you work for, but probably won't for the general public. Art Mary Shafer wrote: 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 > There's hope, Mary. The F-4B and F-4J manuals have been published commercially, I've seen them. Didn't look too close since I've got the original NATOPS. I expect there will be more if the interest is there. You might also check with NATEC at Mechnicsburg. Since the only place left in the USN using the F-4 is Pt. Mugu (you may be able to scrounge/trade for one there), NATEC may be willing to part with one if they have any left. It may take a FOIA request, but that's sometimes just a formality. I found something interesting comparing the USN F-4 manual and the USAF F-4C manual. They're essentialy the same aircraft except for the dual controls in the -4C and the different landing gear. The -4B manual essetnailly says, Here are the only things you shouldn't do", while the - -4C manual says, "Here are the only things you're allowed to do"! Art ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 10:52:43 -0400 From: "Weigold, Greg" Subject: Re: Flight Manual Wish List how convenient!! and right here on our little list.... !! "James P. Stevenson" wrote: > > Mary (and anyone else for that matter), > > Assuming that Ross & Perry could get the proper permission to reprint flight > manuals, what manuals would you like to see printed? > > Jim Stevenson > Ross & Perry, Inc. > JStevenson@RossPerry.com > F-14D (mine's incomplete) and AV-8B for a couple. Art ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 11:10:08 -0400 From: John Szalay Subject: Re: Flight Manual Wish List At 10:52 AM 8/13/01 -0400, you wrote: > how convenient!! and right here on our little list.... !! > > > "James P. Stevenson" wrote: > > > > Mary (and anyone else for that matter), > > > > Assuming that Ross & Perry could get the proper permission to >reprint flight > > manuals, what manuals would you like to see printed? > > > > Jim Stevenson > > Ross & Perry, Inc. > > JStevenson@RossPerry.com > > Tis nice to have a dedicated group.. \\ ~ ~ // ( @ @ ) -----------oOOo-(_)-oOOo---------- | john.szalay@att.net | ------------------Oooo.----------- .oooO ( ) ( ) ) / \ ( (_/ \_) I yam whaddIyam. No trees were harmed in the transmission of this message, However, A rather large number of electrons were temporarily inconvenienced. Friends, don't let friends do AOL! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 00:24:15 -0400 From: "Paul R. Kucher" Subject: SR-71 Flight Manual Greetings, I'm glad that you all are enjoying the SR-71 Flight Manual that I posted to www.sr-71.org. It actually took less than a month to get those 741 pages up. I intend to release the rest by year's end. I will be offering the manual in CD-ROM format for a nominal fee after I complete it to help cut costs. It will be complete with an alphabetical index that was manually generated with hyperlinks to all topics. The reason why it was never compiled in PDF format is that I don't expect people to download a 108 MB file. It was presented for browsing purposes. However, I wish all of you luck in printing it out. We do not endorse it, though, for fear of killing a printer. I recently posted 158 new Blackbird photos to my site, taking the gallery to over 400 images. They may be viewed at www.sr-71.org/photogallery/blackbird if interested. Best regards, Paul R. Kucher Webmaster/Internet Manager SR-71 Online: An Online Aircraft Museum http://www.sr-71.org ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 15:26:16 From: "wayne binkley" Subject: Flying Wing Surpasses Altitude Records for Non-Rocket Aircraft wayne d.binkley >From: space@web1.int.space.com >To: wbinkley@hotmail.com >Subject: Message from >Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 11:20:05 -0400 (EDT) > >Comments from : > >This article was forwarded to you from space.com -- http://www.space.com >)2000 SPACE.com, inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. > > >Flying Wing Surpasses Altitude Records for Non-Rocket Aircraft > > helios_records_010814 > >NASA's solar-powered Helios experimental aircraft lifted off from a U.S. >Navy >base on the Hawaiian island of Kauai on Monday, reaching a height of 96,500 >feet. The $15 million aircraft failed in its attempt to reach an altitude >of >100,000 feet, but it broke a record set by its predecessor, the Pathfinder >Plus, for 80,201 feet for solar-powered and propeller-driven aircraft in >1998. >Officials decided to bring down the radio-controlled Helios at 4:08 p.m. >Hawaii time (10:08 p.m. EDT), NASA spokesman Alan Brown told the Associated >Press, as the craft had reached a "zero climb rate" in thinning air and >slanting sunlight. Helios reached an altitude of 81,100 feet five hours and >16 >minutes after its launch shortly before 9 a.m. local time. About a quarter >of >an hour later, Helios peaked at 85,100 feet, besting a record for a >non-rocket >craft of 85,068 feet, set in 1976 by a Lockheed SR-71 jet-powered aircraft. > >"It's a real milestone of flight," Brown said. "It's a landmark >achievement, >and especially to do it with a solar aircraft that is nonpolluting. It is a >triumph of technology in this area." > >The radio-controlled Helios craft, which cruises at speeds of 19 to 25 mph, >can reach 103,000 feet under ideal weather conditions, its designers say. >It >could even be used to fly above Mars, NASA says. > >The flight on Monday was delayed for nearly 40 minutes by clouds that >prevented the aircraft's 62,000 solar cells from developing enough >electricity >for take-off. But pilots operating the craft from the ground took advantage >of >a brief hole in the clouds to get the craft flying. The Helios, which has a >wingspan of 247 feet, has been designed to reach high altitudes and stay >aloft >for up to three months. It is intended to function like a "poor man's >satellite,'' providing telecommunications and other services at a fraction >of >the cost of launching a satellite into orbit, said John Hicks, project >manager >for AeroVironment Inc. AeroVironment has contracted with NASA to develop >the >craft under the space agency's cooperative Environmental Research and >Sensor >Technology program. Helios had its inaugural check-out flight on July 13, >when >it soared to 76,000 feet. Prior to that, it had been flown only once, in >1999 >at Edwards Air Force Base in California, when it reached heights of just >1,000 >feet operating on battery power. Staying aloft for months > >Once it demonstrates it can reach the target altitude, engineers will try >to >develop a lightweight fuel cell system that will allow the craft to fly at >night by storing the excess solar power it generates. Currently, the Helios >has batteries that allow it to stay up for just a few hours after sunset. >The >solar cells will generate about 40 kilowatts of power -- about the amount >used >each day by four to six homes -- to drive 14 propellers on the craft, which >looks like a single boomerang-shaped translucent wing. When fuel cells are >installed by summer of 2003, the Helios will be able to stay aloft for >months >at a time, Hicks said. And because the Helios will travel close to the >Earth, >rather than in space orbit like a satellite, it can be brought down easily >for >routine maintenance and payload changes. It also can remain in one spot >over >the Earth's surface for an extended period of time. AeroVironment is >pursuing >commercial applications for the craft, but the government plans to use the >Helios for a variety of earth science research programs, such as >remote-sensing and imaging of the earth's atmosphere and water to study >global >warming and ozone depletion, Hicks said. The craft also can be used to >monitor >the health of fisheries and forest resources, track natural events like >hurricanes, tornadoes and volcanic eruptions and even determine the >readiness >of agricultural crops for harvest, Hicks said. The military also may use >the >Helios for surveillance activities because it is essentially a stealth >aircraft that is silent and cannot be detected by radar, he said. At >maximum >altitude, it can fly at speeds of about 200 miles per hour, he said. > > > >http://www.space.com/news/helios_launch_010814.html > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 08:52:11 -0700 From: "Mr. K. Rudolph (Facility 406 Field Account)" Subject: Early morning mutterings... On a funny tip.... Hawaiian time, Eastern time... Why not use something the other 22 zones understand like Zulu? I woke up at 0347 AIT (Albanian Inverted Time). Kurt Officials decided to bring down the radio-controlled Helios at 4:08 p.m. Hawaii time (10:08 p.m. EDT)... - -- Ross Technologies Signals Intelligence Division Rosetta Proving Grounds ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 00:59:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Mary Shafer Subject: Re: Fw: To shunkworks list - "U2" surveillance over Iraq On Sat, 11 Aug 2001, Art Hanley wrote: > 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. However, it's well-known that we supplied the UK with recce data and other intel during the Falklands War. This was in spite of our saying that we were neutral and not taking sides in the conflict. Where the information came from, I don't know, but some versions of the story say satellites and some say aircraft, with both groups seming to be very well-informed. We also supplied the UK with the latest versions of AIMs, rather than making them wait until their name came up to the top of the list, or so everyone says. However, the French did something about Exocet deliveries, or specifications, or something, giving an advantage to one of the sides, according to the accounts I've read. Naturally, I only know what I've read, since the military doesn't check with me before they do things like this, but the stories seem pretty solid. 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: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 01:20:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Mary Shafer Subject: Re: Flight Manual Wish List On Sun, 12 Aug 2001, James P. Stevenson wrote: > Mary (and anyone else for that matter), > > Assuming that Ross & Perry could get the proper permission to reprint flight > manuals, what manuals would you like to see printed? The F-4E circa 1990 (which is when I got a backseat ride) and the F-16D circa 1995 (when I flew an evaluation flight in the VISTA version). Also the TF-104G, circa 1982 (another backseat ride) and the T-33A circa 1988 and 1995 (two more evaluation flights, the second being the last evaluation flight it ever flew). Yes, I know how lucky I am and I'm grateful to NASA and the USAF for the wonderful opportunities they gave me throughout my career. It's all personal with me. I have the emergency procedures pages for the F-16 and the F-4 because we happened to have both aircraft and Dash-1s around at the time I needed the information, but we no longer have an F-4 and we've mothballed the F-16s, so I assume the Dash-1s aren't conveniently available in a bookcase in the pilots' office any more (I haven't looked, not wanting to be tempted). Even if they were, they've got that FOUO warning so I don't feel comfortable borrowing them and taking them to Kinko's for personal copies. I want legal copies, not copies I've bootlegged, even if the F-104 and T-33 are no longer flown by the US. I'm just not able to sneak around and take advantage of my position and access to benefit myself, particularly when there's a good chance what I'm doing isn't quite allowed. 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: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 01:31:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Mary Shafer Subject: Re: Early morning mutterings... On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, Mr. K. Rudolph (Facility 406 Field Account) wrote: > On a funny tip.... > > Hawaiian time, Eastern time... Why not use something the other 22 zones > understand like Zulu? I woke up at 0347 AIT (Albanian Inverted Time). The Helios is flying at Barking Sands, in Hawaii, and NASA Headquarters is in Washington, DC. Hence local time and PAO time. I don't think the PR people would ever introduce the complication of Zulu time to the general public. 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: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 21:51:50 +0100 From: Art Hanley Subject: Re: Fw: To shunkworks list - "U2" surveillance over Iraq Mary Shafer wrote: > > On Sat, 11 Aug 2001, Art Hanley wrote: > > > 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. > > However, it's well-known that we supplied the UK with recce data and > other intel during the Falklands War. This was in spite of our saying > that we were neutral and not taking sides in the conflict. Where the > information came from, I don't know, but some versions of the story say > satellites and some say aircraft, with both groups seming to be very > well-informed. The point I was making was referring to the fact that satellites are not good in unpredicted situations or areas. During all the time of the original invasion, Britain assembling a task force, sailing half-way around the world and the entire war being fought, we were unable to get a satellite in position. We never said we were neutral. On the contrary, we were very open about our support for Britain. Haig did some "Shuttle Diplomacy", for which the Reagan Administration was criticized--the overwhelming sentiment being that we should immediately be backing Britain 100%. Once the diplomatic efforts collapsed, the US openly pledged the UK anything it needed and gave them free reign and use of any of our bases they needed. > > We also supplied the UK with the latest versions of AIMs, rather than > making them wait until their name came up to the top of the list, or > so everyone says. At the time, the AIM-9L was entering service with our forces. It was a revolutionary weapon at the time because it was the first true all-aspect IR missile. It forced a revolution in air combat that exceeded anything since the invention of the synchronized gun. The fact that you didn't have to get on someone's tail to use it completely changed the face of air combat It hadn't been cleared for export to anyone, but we openly made it available to Britain. The Argentineans had no concept of how to counter a weapon like that--no one did. However, the French did something about Exocet > deliveries, or specifications, or something, giving an advantage to one > of the sides, according to the accounts I've read. After some blather, the French suspended all deliveries and support for the Exocet missile. Argentina had to make do with the five or six already delivered, and had to keep them functional on the couple of Super Entendards equipped to carry them entirely on their own. Art ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 22:49:12 +0100 From: Art Hanley Subject: Mary, Trying to reach you If you aren't Mary Shafer, reading beyond here is a waste of your time Mary, I have more info in answer to your recent e-mail to me about flight manuals, but your server/ISP blocks all my e-mails to you, including replies. E-mail me again with any idea on how I can get the info to you tying up the List's' bandwidth Art ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 08:05:09 +0000 From: Robin Hill Subject: Re: Fw: To shunkworks list - "U2" surveillance over Iraq Art wrote: >After some blather, the French suspended all deliveries and support for >the Exocet missile. Argentina had to make do with the five or six >already delivered, and had to keep them functional on the couple of >Super Entendards equipped to carry them entirely on their own. This didn't make the Exocets that the Argentinians already had any less potent. The warhead of the missile that hit HMS Sheffield didn't actually explode. It was fired late (a consequence of the effectivitiy of the air cover and the anti-aircraft defences) and appears to have failed to arm. The damage it inflicted was caused by its rocket motor continuing to burn after it had penetrated the hull of the destroyer. It was also a measure of desperation on the part of the Argentinian forces in that they attempted to engineer ground-based launchers for their remaining Exocets. The possibility that the Argentine air force might obtain supplies of AMI-9Ls (or similar) immediately after the Falklands conflict resulted in a very rapid programme to design and fit countermeasures dispensers (chaff and flare packs) to the Buccaneer and Phantom aircraft that were sent out to the Falklands. (AN/ALE-40s , if memory serves). The British forces had immense respect for the Argentine air force and recognised their skill, bravery and motivation. Their opinions of the rest of the Argentine armed forces, and the people that led them, were less than complimentary. Robin Hill, BAE SYSTEMS, Brough, East Yorkshire. ******************************************************************** This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender. You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or distribute its contents to any other person. ******************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 09:10:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: F-22 inlet I wonder anyone know about technical issues of the F-22 inlet. As you well know, the F-22 inlet nozzle is fix (no movable ramps) due to stealth signature, therefore, that means that it is efficient at only one speed. But recently, I visited the US Air Force Museum in Dayton, Ohio and saw the YF-22 close up. I saw tiny porous holes surround the internal wall of the inlet, I guess those holes are use for either suction or injection of mass flow, therefore, controlling the pressure at inlet so its efficiency. I wonder if this technique is also applied in the F-22 and JSF. I know it is apply in some UAV/UCAV. May the Force be with you Wei-Jen Su E-mail: wsu@its.caltech.edu - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Whether outwardly or inwardly, whether in space or time, the farther we penetrate the unknown, the vaster and more marvelous it becomes." Charles A. Lindbergh ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 09:24:20 -0700 From: Erik Hoel Subject: RE: F-22 inlet Wei-Jen Su wrote in part: > But recently, I visited the US Air Force Museum in Dayton, > Ohio and saw the YF-22 close up. I saw tiny porous holes > surround the internal wall of the inlet, I guess those holes > are use for either suction or injection of mass flow, > therefore, controlling the pressure at inlet so its efficiency. > I wonder if this technique is also applied in the F-22 and > JSF. I know it is apply in some UAV/UCAV. I believe that I have seen such matrices of holes on the inlets of several other older fighters. Are we referring to the same thing here? In any event, what are they for? Erik ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 13:14:13 -0500 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: Re: Fw: To shunkworks list - "U2" surveillance over Iraq Art Hanley said, > The point I was making was referring to the fact that satellites are > not good in unpredicted situations or areas. Certainly that's true for the kind of reconnaissance satellites/constellations the US operated for the last part of the Cold War and somewhat thereafter. It doesn't have to be that way, and in fact it appears that part of the idea of the Future Imagery Architecture now being pursued by the NRO is to fix the problem. BTW, the Israeli EROS follow-on to their Ofeq spysats will be much better in this respect also. > During all the time of the original invasion, Britain assembling a task force, > sailing half-way around the world and the entire war being fought, we > were unable to get a satellite in position. That's not quite right. We had two KH-11 electro-optical spysats in orbit during the period, and launched a KH-9 area-search film return satellite halfway through the fracas, on May 11, 1982. Then there were the SIGINT birds which likely made significant contributions, but I don't consider those here. As it happens, orbital elements for the KH missions are available, and I've just run a quick-and-dirty analysis of satellite passes over the Falklands for two five-day periods starting May 10, about a month after the invasion, and June 10, after the KH-9 had had a chance to get working and while the shooting still going on. What emerges is what commanders griped about after Desert Storm a decade later: the density of coverage just isn't really what you want for tactical support. And my look didn't take into account the famously bad Falklands weather, so several of the passes identified below may well have been clouded out. Nobody should be surprised by the lack of tactical utility, BTW, because the satellites were designed for strategic reconnaissance, quite a different thing. If anybody is interested in doing a less q&d analysis -- for example, I just took passes between local 0600 and 1800 local time rather than look up actual sunrise/sunset times -- I'll be happy to send the complete collection of orbital elements by e-mail. - ------------------------------------------------------------- These tables look better in non-proportionally spaced font. For the earlier period and using the orbital elements KH-11/3 1 11687U 82119.20272538 .00036567 38510-3 9181 2 11687 96.8947 235.8778 0040475 167.6085 192.6149 15.63189262127107 KH-11/4 1 12799U 82119.22910000 .00059960 42106-3 03 2 12799 96.9289 188.0700 0130900 1.0400 359.1200 15.63175300 37017 we get, with the 0600-1800 time constraint and a 30 deg evevation mask STANLEY, FALKLAND ISLANDS [ Line Of Sight (LOS) Visibility ] Input File: FALK1.TXT Satellite UTC Time Local Time Azimuth Max Min Duration Date HR:MN:SC Date HR:MN:SC Ele Range HR:MN:SC KH-11/4 10May82 12:42:11 10May82 06:42:11 NE TO S 30 691 00:09:11 KH-11/3 10May82 16:41:46 10May82 10:41:46 N TO S 55 479 00:09:46 KH-11/4 11May82 13:15:07 11May82 07:15:07 N TO S 88 387 00:09:07 KH-11/4 13May82 12:50:32 13May82 06:50:32 NE TO S 36 558 00:08:32 KH-11/3 13May82 16:51:43 13May82 10:51:43 N TO S 40 599 00:09:43 KH-11/4 14May82 13:23:14 14May82 07:23:14 N TO S 69 381 00:09:14 KH-11/3 14May82 15:54:19 14May82 09:54:19 NE TO S 31 682 00:09:19 KH-11/3 15May82 16:27:27 15May82 10:27:27 N TO S 88 403 00:09:27 In the later period, things are a bit better wrt the KH-11s, but still not wonderful. The KH-9 makes little contribution. KH-11/3 1 11687U 82158.20887992 .00003962 53034-4 9632 2 11687 96.9030 273.7780 0025316 329.9122 30.0580 15.57736151133184 KH-11/4 1 12799U 82158.17796000 .00046610 36176-3 00 2 12799 96.9200 226.0500 0145900 220.3100 139.1200 15.58775800 43085 KH-9 1 13170U 82158.18194781 .00485987 43588-5 10275-3 612 2 13170 96.3941 230.1166 0063845 124.3093 236.4080 16.24977988 4292 Input File: FALK2.TXT Satellite UTC Time Local Time Azimuth Max Min Duration Date HR:MN:SC Date HR:MN:SC Ele Range HR:MN:SC KH-11/4 10Jun82 13:17:30 10Jun82 07:17:30 N TO S 81 327 00:08:30 KH-11/3 11Jun82 16:17:21 11Jun82 10:17:21 N TO S 72 438 00:10:21 KH-11/4 12Jun82 13:02:42 12Jun82 07:02:42 N TO S 55 381 00:08:42 KH-9 12Jun82 13:39:41 12Jun82 07:39:41 N TO S 69 244 00:07:41 KH-11/3 12Jun82 16:57:13 12Jun82 10:57:13 N TO S 33 705 00:09:13 KH-11/4 13Jun82 13:40:57 13Jun82 07:40:57 N TO S 33 563 00:08:57 KH-11/3 13Jun82 16:05:14 13Jun82 10:05:14 NE TO S 48 519 00:09:14 KH-11/3 14Jun82 16:44:44 14Jun82 10:44:44 N TO S 47 540 00:09:44 KH-11/4 15Jun82 13:25:29 15Jun82 07:25:29 N TO S 59 379 00:08:29 KH-9 15Jun82 13:48:49 15Jun82 07:48:49 N TO S 39 312 00:06:49 KH-11/3 15Jun82 15:53:06 15Jun82 09:53:06 NE TO S 33 668 00:09:06 ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V10 #32 ********************************* 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