From owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Sat Nov 9 01:56:20 2002 Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 00:24:41 -0600 From: skunk-works-digest Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V11 #6 skunk-works-digest Saturday, November 9 2002 Volume 11 : Number 006 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: ABL in Iraq?? Re: ABL in Iraq?? Re: skunk-works-digest V11 #5 OT: Demise of DARO Boneyard Re: Boneyard Re: Boneyard Fw: Boneyard Re: Boneyard Ekranoplan, we hardly knew you Bird of Prey Re: Bird of Prey Re: Bird of Prey RE: Bird of Prey Re: Bird of Prey Re: Bird of Prey Re: Bird of Prey Re: Bird of Prey Re: Bird of Prey Re: Bird of Prey Re: Bird of Prey Adrians Site. Whatsit? Re: Whatsit? Re: Whatsit? Re: Whatsit - Story sold?! Re: Whatsit? Re: Whatsit? *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 16:47:13 -0700 From: "Jon" Subject: Re: ABL in Iraq?? Thanks Tom. I thought that was getting for a test shot soon. PJ - ----- Original Message ----- From: Tom Genereaux To: Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 11:39 Subject: Re: ABL in Iraq?? > Not even close. The airframe was just finished, integration hasn't even > begun yet, much less testing. JSTARS was at least flying > characterization missions at the time. > > > On Sun, 2002-09-29 at 23:18, Jon wrote: > > Just curious. Anyone know if the ABL is in about the same stage of > > development as J-Stars was at the time of the first Gulf war?? > > > > PJ > > > > > > --- > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > Version: 6.0.372 / Virus Database: 207 - Release Date: 6/20/02 > - --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.372 / Virus Database: 207 - Release Date: 6/20/02 ------------------------------ Date: 29 Sep 2002 19:37:40 +0000 From: Tom Genereaux Subject: Re: ABL in Iraq?? Well, it IS undergoing flight-worthiness testing - the airframe that is. The tracking system and laser is scheduled to be installed at Edwards later this year, with a series of demonstration shots in 2004. On Sun, 2002-09-29 at 23:47, Jon wrote: > Thanks Tom. I thought that was getting for a test shot soon. > > PJ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Tom Genereaux > To: > Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 11:39 > Subject: Re: ABL in Iraq?? > > > > Not even close. The airframe was just finished, integration hasn't even > > begun yet, much less testing. JSTARS was at least flying > > characterization missions at the time. > > > > > > On Sun, 2002-09-29 at 23:18, Jon wrote: > > > Just curious. Anyone know if the ABL is in about the same stage of > > > development as J-Stars was at the time of the first Gulf war?? > > > > > > PJ > > > > > > > > > --- > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > > Version: 6.0.372 / Virus Database: 207 - Release Date: 6/20/02 > > > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.372 / Virus Database: 207 - Release Date: 6/20/02 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 20:55:48 -0400 From: "Jim Bjaloncik" Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V11 #5 - ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 7:41 PM Subject: skunk-works-digest V11 #5 > Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 17:35:05 -0400 (EDT) > From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl > Subject: Antigravity Research > > Lee Markland wrote: > > >A long-time secret project has been anti-gravity machines. A small belated > >admission has come out from Boeing. > [...] > >"Boeing challenges the laws of physics", Financial Times, 7/29/02 > > This, as well as similar articles on the net (BBC, SpaceDaily, etc.) are all > based on (another) Nick Cook article in Jane's Defence Weekly, available at: > http://www.janes.com/aerospace/civil/news/jdw/jdw020729_1_n.shtml > > It only reiterates that some companies are looking into such questions, on > the remote chance that something viable might come from it. At this point, > nobody has been able to verify or substantiate Podkletnov's claims, though. > > Until then, I consider this nothing very news-worthy. I'm going to reserve judgement until I look into Cook's new book, "The Hunt For Zero Point". It may or may not have more substance to it. Then again, at $26 a pop, maybe I'll wait until the paperback comes out. Best regards, Jim ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 10:55:09 -0500 From: "thomsona" Subject: OT: Demise of DARO This is probably off topic, but I figured someone in the readership might know: What led to the demise of the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 20:45:07 -0500 From: "thomsona" Subject: Boneyard There are many ordinary looking airplanes, and a few I'm at a bit of a loss to identify in http://www.digitalglobe.com/images/qb/tucson_boneyard_col081102_dg.jpg ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 08:54 +0100 (BST) From: mark@markr.net (Mark Rousell) Subject: Re: Boneyard > There are many ordinary looking airplanes, and a few I'm at a bit of a > loss to identify in > > http://www.digitalglobe.com/images/qb/tucson_boneyard_col081102_dg.jpg The central row with the mostly fighter-sized aircraft looks like an interestingly varied collection. The 8th aircraft in from the bottom left edge is clearly a Canberra/B-57, but its neighbour (7th in) looks like a RB-57F version. I think the first two aircraft on that row are F-111s, but what about the 6th? MarkR ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 09:35:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: Boneyard Hi all, As the photo quality is relatively low, I have to guess a bit: * Top Left: 33 P-3 Orions, various models * Bottom Right: 25 P-3 Orions, various models Celebrity Row left bottom area, left to right (going up): * McDonnell Douglas EC-24B, 163050 * Boeing C-22A, 84-0193 * Boeing NKC-135A Stratotanker, 56-3596 * Boeing EC-135C Stratolifter ("Looking Glass"), 62-3585 * Lockheed C-141B Starlifter, 65-0275 * Alenia/Chrysler C-27A, 91-0105 * Lockheed AC-130A Hercules ("Spooky"), 54-1628 Celebrity Row right top area, left to right (still going up): * Lockheed LC-130D Hercules (?) (two) * Boeing YC-14A, 72-1874 * Grumman C-2A Greyhound, 162151 * to the left and top of the C-130s seems to be a partially gutted KC-135 ? Celebrity Row left bottom area, left to right (again going up): * General Dynamics EF-111A Raven, 66-0039 (former F-111A) * General Dynamics F-111E Aardvark, 68-0030 * Lockheed SP-2H Neptune, 147963 * Lockheed UP-3A Orion, 150527 * Grumman TC-4C Academe, 155724 * General Dynamics F-111G Aardvark, 68-0244 (former FB-111A) * General Dynamics RB-57F (WB-57F), 63-13295 (former B-57B, 53-3918) * Martin EB-57B Canberra, 52-1506 * Vought RF-8G Crusader, 144618 * Republic F-105G Thunderchief, 62-4432 * McDonnell F-101B Voodoo, 57-0436 * Convair F-106B Delta Dart, 57-2513 * North American Aviation F-100F Super Sabre, 56-3880 * Grumman F-14A Tomcat, 160908 Celebrity Row right bottom area, left to right (still going up): * Douglas TA-4J Skyhawk, 158110 * Douglas NA-3B Skywarrior, 142630 * Douglas A-4F Skyhawk, 154207 * Grumman A-6E Intruder, 164377 * McDonnell Douglas/BAe AV-8B Harrier, 161584 or 162948 * Lockheed ES-3A Viking ("Shadow"), 159404 * Bell AH-1S TOW Cobra, 71-21000 (former AH-1F) * Bell AH-1J Super Cobra, 157785 * Bell HH-1H Iroquoise, 70-2474 * Bell TH-57C Sea Ranger, 162673 * Kaman SH-2F Sea Sprite, 151314 * Sikorsky SH-3H Sea King, 156483 * Sikorsky MH-53E Sea Stallion, 162511 Of course, the FY Serials and BuAerNos are from my lists, but if I identified the aircraft correctly -- which I hope -- they should be correct, which also applies to the actual designations/versions of the shown aircraft. Of course there is some (educated) guess-work involved, especially with the helicopters, as the photo does not show much details! - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: GPahl@CharterMI.net 415 Gute Street or: schnars@ais.org Owosso, MI 48867-4410 or: Andreas@Aerospace-History.net Tel: (989) 723-9927 Web Site: http://www.Aerospace-History.net - --- --- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 18:39:19 +0100 From: "David" Subject: Fw: Boneyard I sent the image to Chris Gibson - the a/c recognition expert who saw that mystery black triangle over the North Sea some years back - with his permision, here's his reply: Best D BEGINS > The one in the middle is a McDonnell Douglas YC-15 STOL transport from the > 1970s. Designed as a C-130 replacement, some of the technology found its > way into the C-17 Globemaster III. The competing Boeing YC-14 is up in the > top right next to a Herk. This may be an old photo as the YC-15 and YC-14 > were in the Pima Air Museum when I was there in 1993. Mind you there was > two of each. > > As for the rest, it's almost a list of the USAF inventory since 1965. > Interestingly there is an RB-57 in there next to a standard B-57. > > Any others you'd like ID'd ? ENDS > > > > There are many ordinary looking airplanes, and a few I'm at a bit of a > > loss > > > to identify in > > > > > > http://www.digitalglobe.com/images/qb/tucson_boneyard_col081102_dg.jpg ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 12:52:01 -0500 From: "thomsona" Subject: Re: Boneyard > As the photo quality is relatively low, I have to guess a bit: Well, as it was taken from ~500 km up and the camera was moving at 7.5 km/s, you should cut it a bit of slack. ;-) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 21:00:10 -0500 From: "thomsona" Subject: Ekranoplan, we hardly knew you It's a supersized fleet carrier Peter Almond LONDON SUNDAY TELEGRAPH Published 10/7/2002 - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- - --- Boeing plans to build the world's largest airplane, capable of delivering a fleet of battle tanks directly into a war zone. The aircraft, which has been named the Pelican, will have a wingspan of more than 500 feet and a wing area of one acre. A Boeing 747 has a wingspan of 195 feet. Aeronautical engineers say the plane will be able to transport 14,000 tons of cargo more than 10,000 miles. The Pelican will be designed to fly 50 feet above the ocean, using the buoyant aerodynamic effect of flying close to the water to achieve maximum fuel economy. U.S. defense chiefs believe that a fleet of Pelicans will enable them to deliver thousands of troops, tanks and aid anywhere in the world in a fraction of the time it takes cargo ships. The Pelican will have the capacity to carry up to 17 main battle tanks, each of which weighs more than 50 tons. The largest military cargo aircraft now in service is the Russian Antonov 225, which has a range of 2,800 miles. The Pelican would land and take off on civilian or military runways like conventional aircraft, but it would have up to 38 sets of landing gear and 76 tires to spread the weight evenly. Powered by four advanced turboprop engines, it would be capable of cruising over land at up to 20,000 feet, although its maximum effectiveness would be over water. Blaine Rawdon, the Pelican project manager, said: "It will be much faster than ships at a fraction of the operational cost of commercial airplanes. The ultralarge transport aircraft will be attractive to commercial and military operators that require speed. It will compete with container ships." The aircraft evokes memories of the gigantic H-4 Hercules Spruce Goose seaplane designed during World War II by Howard Hughes, the reclusive billionaire industrialist and film producer. Hughes built the H-4 after the U.S. war department lost interest in a plan for a flying boat that would carry bulky cargo or up to 700 troops alongside the "liberty ships" that were turned out rapidly to move supplies to Britain and elsewhere during the war. In November 1947, thousands of people watched as the wooden eight-engined aircraft flew a mile across the harbor at Long Beach, Calif., at a height of 70 feet. The Spruce Goose never flew again. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:34:55 -0700 From: Joy Richards Subject: Bird of Prey Whoa... http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2002/q4/nr_021018m.html and http://www.boeing.com/nosearch/science/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 11:00:26 -0700 From: "Jon" Subject: Re: Bird of Prey Amazing. Looks like the list may be revived for a while. Be sure to take the time to d/l the video. PJ - ----- Original Message ----- From: Joy Richards To: Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 09:34 Subject: Bird of Prey > Whoa... > > http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2002/q4/nr_021018m.html > > and > > http://www.boeing.com/nosearch/science/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 11:38:12 -0700 From: Joy Richards Subject: Re: Bird of Prey At 11:00 AM 10/18/02 -0700, you wrote: >Amazing. Looks like the list may be revived for a while. Be sure to take >the time to d/l the video. No - what's amazing is that this flew in '96 and that the project started in '92, while I was at Boeing. And no, it was black and thinking back now, the only thing I even heard was in reference to my asking a question of a co-worker. Years ago, I saw remnants of a concept they called the 'Mini-Fighter'. I saw artists' conceptions and models at the Wind Tunnel at Boeing Field. Well, that is if you're an employee and can get into the cube farms in the building. The concept had twenty of them launched from a 747 and it was taken seriously enough that they did wind tunnel studies... they were stacked front to back and dropped out the back. Don't know how the mechanism was supposed to work, though there was a launch arm involved. I think they did intend to retrieve them, however. I'd asked him around '93 why they stopped working on it. He replied something like 'Don't be too sure they did.' He refused to elaborate. I hate when they do that... The older design was prior to the '80s stealth technology and looked vaguely like a miniature, redesigned F-16 with rounded wings and no tailplane. Wish I had pictures... But I notice that one of these might fit inside a 747 with a bit of modification... hrmmn. Only needs about three less feet of width. They could do that easy if they hinged the wings. Joy ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 13:32:39 +0100 From: "Gavin Payne" Subject: RE: Bird of Prey So its out....what do we want to know? How many? How far through its lifecycle is it? Test project? Operational? Potential role? What next? Anyone any guesses? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 10:23:01 -0700 From: "Mr. K. Rudolph" Subject: Re: Bird of Prey Haven't there been pictures of this floating around for years? It looks awfully familiar. Looks pretty flimsy. Kurt - --- Ross Technologies Signals Intelligence Division Rosetta Proving Grounds - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joy Richards" To: Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 09:34 Subject: Bird of Prey > Whoa... > > http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2002/q4/nr_021018m.html > > and > > http://www.boeing.com/nosearch/science/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 13:59:50 -0400 From: "Jeffrey L. Blue" Subject: Re: Bird of Prey What's with the teensy tires? My kid's wagon has bigger wheels. Is it really that light or is there something different about these tires? Jeff ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 08:31:34 +0000 From: Robin Hill Subject: Re: Bird of Prey On 18/10/2002 18:39:11, joy@realityresource.com wrote: >The concept had twenty of them launched from a 747 and it was taken >seriously enough that they did wind tunnel studies... they were stacked >front to back and dropped out the back. Don't know how the mechanism was >supposed to work, though there was a launch arm involved. I think they did >intend to retrieve them, however. >But I notice that one of these might fit inside a 747 with a bit of >modification... hrmmn. Only needs about three less feet of width. They >could do that easy if they hinged the wings. Wow! Proper parasite fighters. Mind you, Boeing did try that once before with the Goblin. With control and stability augmentation you'd stand a better chance of close formation flying through the turbulence around the mother ship during launch and recovery. Why a 747, though? Wouldn't a C-5 be a better carrier vehicle (high wings, less lower fuselage turbulence)? You might have to tilt them to stack them diagonally to get them all in, though, a bit like the Cadillac car freighter. Maintaining trim as you off-loaded might be a bit of a pig, though. Presumably you'd have some kind of palletisation system to move the whole stack backwards and forwards to make it easier to keep within c.g. limits. Of course, you could always wait for the militarised A380 to come on stream. (I have an impression of a huge ramp under the tail of the 747 and the Bird of Prey being trailed by cables attached to pickups on either side of the front fuselage chines, screaming through the air like a transonic glider until its engines get to cruising speed. Real Wiley Post, stuff.) Robin Hill, Hawk IPD Integration, 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: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 22:28:43 -0700 From: Art Hanley Subject: Re: Bird of Prey Gavin Payne wrote: > > So its out....what do we want to know? > > How many? > How far through its lifecycle is it? Test project? Operational? > Potential role? > What next? > > Anyone any guesses? >From Boeing's web page: Boeing [NYSE: BA] today unveiled the "Bird of Prey," a technology demonstrator that pioneered breakthrough low-observable technologies and revolutionized aircraft design, development and production. The once highly classified project ran from 1992 through 1999, and was revealed because the technologies and capabilities developed have become industry standards, and it is no longer necessary to conceal the aircraft's existence. In addition to proving many new stealth concepts, the Bird of Prey program demonstrated innovative rapid prototyping techniques. Developed by the Boeing Phantom Works advanced research-and-development organization, the Bird of Prey was among the first to initiate the use of large, single-piece composite structures; low-cost, disposable tooling; and 3-D virtual reality design and assembly processes to ensure the aircraft was affordable to build as well as high-performing. Fully funded by Boeing, the Bird of Prey project costs $67 million. A subsonic, single-seat technology demonstrator, the aircraft completed 38 test flights as part of its flight-demonstration program. Its first flight took place in fall 1996. Bird of Prey has a wingspan of approximately 23 feet and a length of 47 feet, and weighs nearly 7,400 pounds. Powered by a Pratt & Whitney JT15D-5C turbofan engine, the Bird of Prey has an operational speed of 260 knots and a maximum operating altitude of 20,000 feet. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 16:29:39 +0000 From: "wayne binkley" Subject: Re: Bird of Prey If Boeing proposed A 747 it is only because THEY make 747s.(not C-5s) wayne d.binkley _________________________________________________________________ Unlimited Internet access -- and 2 months free! Try MSN. http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/2monthsfree.asp ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 08:02:27 +0000 From: Adrian Mann Subject: Re: Bird of Prey I was just having a look through the Air Force Research Laboratory "Tech Horizons" site, and on the "About" page (http://www.afrlhorizons.com/About/) I found a small image of an aircraft that looks like a scaled-down B2... (pic attached). Does anyone know anything about this? Is this a thing, or just an "artists inmpression"? Adrian Mann www.aemann.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk On 22/10/02 5:29 pm, "wayne binkley" wrote: > If Boeing proposed A 747 it is only because THEY make 747s.(not C-5s) > > > > wayne d.binkley > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Unlimited Internet access -- and 2 months free! Try MSN. > http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/2monthsfree.asp [demime 0.98e removed an attachment of type multipart/appledouble] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 00:21:29 -0800 From: Joy Richards Subject: Re: Bird of Prey At 08:02 AM 11/1/02 +0000, you wrote: >I was just having a look through the Air Force Research Laboratory "Tech >Horizons" site, and on the "About" page (http://www.afrlhorizons.com/About/) >I found a small image of an aircraft that looks like a scaled-down B2... >(pic attached). > >Does anyone know anything about this? Is this a thing, or just an "artists >inmpression"? While I'm not absolutely sure, it looks like the X-45 UCAV in operational colors. Joy ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 00:40:02 -0800 From: "Mr. K. Rudolph" Subject: Adrians Site. A very nice site. The photo in the lower right of the TR-3A page is the exact shape and color of a craft I saw flying W-E across central California and Nevada. I was unable to see any detail beyond this however. Kurt - --- Ross Technologies Signals Intelligence Division Rosetta Proving Grounds ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 08:19:03 -0600 From: "thomsona" Subject: Whatsit? What, if anything, is the triangular aircraft shown in the two pictures at http://www.g2mil.com/ ? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 15:57:32 +0100 From: Andreas Parsch Subject: Re: Whatsit? thomsona wrote: > What, if anything, is the triangular aircraft shown in the two pictures > at http://www.g2mil.com/ ? > Someone has either photographed a previously unknown aircraft or is having fun with a hoax. See discussion (sort of ;-)!) at "http://forum.a-10.org/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2241" . The quintessence is that the photographer said he has sold his story to the magazine "Aircraft Illustrated", which he said will print it in their Nov 8th issue. So if it's not an obvious hoax, you may read about it in a few days. Andreas ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 10:04:24 EST From: SecretJet@aol.com Subject: Re: Whatsit? In a message dated 04/11/02 14:30:35 GMT Standard Time, thomsona@flash.net writes: << What, if anything, is the triangular aircraft shown in the two pictures at http://www.g2mil.com/ ? >> Greetings! It's a skillfully 'modified' plastic kit. The original (sadly discontinued) is/was the Testors XR-7 ThunderDart. ('Piggy-backed' on their huge SR-75 'Penetrator') Mods include the main-gear (undercarriage): the original kit has single main-wheels, the version in the pictures are (rather nice) double-bogey's! The 'tactical' modern 2-tone fighter-grey replaces the 'black' (extremely dark blue) recommended for the model. Hope that helps? - ------------------ Clear Skies! Bill Turner, B-T 'Admin'. http://www.secretjet.net Black-Triangle E-Group HQ. Near London Heathrow, UK. http://members.aol.com/BlackTriangles/index.html - ----------------------------------------------------------------- Trust No-One! - ----------------------------------------------------------------- http://members.aol.com/Secretjet/Links.html Black-Triangle Links ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 10:06:21 EST From: SecretJet@aol.com Subject: Re: Whatsit - Story sold?! In a message dated 04/11/02 14:58:26 GMT Standard Time, aparsch@gmx.net writes: << The quintessence is that the photographer said he has sold his story to the magazine "Aircraft Illustrated", >> Hope they didn't pay too much?! - ----------------------------------------- Best Wishes, Bill Turner, B-T 'Admin'. http://www.secretjet.net Black-Triangle E-Group HQ. Near London Heathrow, UK. http://members.aol.com/BlackTriangles/index.html - ----------------------------------------------------------------- Keep Your Eyes On The Skies! - ----------------------------------------------------------------- http://members.aol.com/Secretjet/Links.html Black-Triangle Links ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 18:19:57 -0700 From: Brad Hitch Subject: Re: Whatsit? Reading further on the g2mil website, specifically, the editorial at: http://www.g2mil.com/Nov2002.htm indicates that the author also believes in antigravity and the cost-effectiveness of the "VARISM" [sic] rocket engine (apparently referring to the VASIMR or "Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket"). See links at: http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/mars/technology/propulsion/aspl/vasimr.html http://www.ae.utexas.edu/design/phoenix/vasimr.html The VASIMR needs several design miracles to fulfill all of its promoter's promises and the concept is considered "snake oil" by those I know at JPL who have studied it. While VASIMR could conceivably produce a high specific impulse from the propellant, ANY application requiring magnetic field strengths that are only attainable with cryogenic superconducting magnets will be so massive that an engine thrust/weight of even 0.1 would be a major accomplishment. That's about 3 orders of magnitude lower than current bipropellant engines. Light weight is the first, second, and third priority of anything that flies. A high Isp but massive engine & power supply will still give you a small overall vehicle delta-v and severely limit the kind of missions that you can perform. It looks and sounds impressive, but it actually can't get anywhere worthwhile. Carlton Meyer apparently needs to read some Bob Park before touting his favorite myths for funding, for example: http://www.aps.org/WN/WN02/wn080202.html Judging by these items, I wouldn't have especially high hopes that the rest of the site is worth reading. Brad Hitch Engineer Andreas Parsch wrote: > thomsona wrote: > >> What, if anything, is the triangular aircraft shown in the two pictures >> at http://www.g2mil.com/ ? >> > > > Someone has either photographed a previously unknown aircraft or is > having fun with a hoax. See discussion (sort of ;-)!) at > > "http://forum.a-10.org/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2241" . > > The quintessence is that the photographer said he has sold his story to > the magazine "Aircraft Illustrated", which he said will print it in > their Nov 8th issue. So if it's not an obvious hoax, you may read about > it in a few days. > > Andreas ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 22:25:02 -0800 From: Patrick Cullumber Subject: Re: Whatsit? At 06:19 PM 11/4/2002 -0700, you wrote: >Reading further on the g2mil website, specifically, the editorial at: > > http://www.g2mil.com/Nov2002.htm > >indicates that the author also believes in antigravity and the >cost-effectiveness of the "VARISM" [sic] rocket engine (apparently >referring to the VASIMR or "Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma >Rocket"). See links at: > >http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/mars/technology/propulsion/aspl/vasimr.html >http://www.ae.utexas.edu/design/phoenix/vasimr.html > >The VASIMR needs several design miracles to fulfill all of its promoter's >promises and the concept is considered "snake oil" by those I know at JPL >who have studied it. While VASIMR could conceivably produce a high >specific impulse from the propellant, ANY application requiring magnetic >field strengths that are only attainable with cryogenic superconducting >magnets will be so massive that an engine thrust/weight of even 0.1 would >be a major accomplishment. That's about 3 orders of magnitude lower than >current bipropellant engines. Light weight is the first, second, and >third priority of anything that flies. A high Isp but massive engine & >power supply will still give you a small overall vehicle delta-v and >severely limit the kind of missions that you can perform. It looks and >sounds impressive, but it actually can't get anywhere worthwhile. > >Carlton Meyer apparently needs to read some Bob Park before touting his >favorite myths for funding, for example: > >http://www.aps.org/WN/WN02/wn080202.html > >Judging by these items, I wouldn't have especially high hopes that the >rest of the site is worth reading. > > >Brad Hitch >Engineer > > >Andreas Parsch wrote: > >>thomsona wrote: >> >>>What, if anything, is the triangular aircraft shown in the two pictures >>> at http://www.g2mil.com/ ? >> >>Someone has either photographed a previously unknown aircraft or is >>having fun with a hoax. See discussion (sort of ;-)!) at >> "http://forum.a-10.org/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2241" . >>The quintessence is that the photographer said he has sold his story to >>the magazine "Aircraft Illustrated", which he said will print it in their >>Nov 8th issue. So if it's not an obvious hoax, you may read about it in a >>few days. >>Andreas ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V11 #6 ******************************** 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