Aurora/SR-72/SR-91 ?

Sunhouse
Profile picture for user Sunhouse
Posts
3674
Joined
3/2/2009
Location
NO
Sunhouse 6/13/2016 3:19pm
6/13/2016 3:19pm
It may sound strange to you coming from a foreigner, but with the resources and money at your disposal, I really wish the US would fund NASA more. The stuff they discover on a regular basis is just astonishing to me, and I see no reason why it should be underfunded. The technology and knowledge that comes from it across many sciences and where it can be applied is just amazing. Don't want to make it political, but to me - if you really want to "make America great again" you should direct more funds to that amazing institution you have. It did wonders for programs like the SR71 etc back in the day too.
Neil Degrass Tyson has a really good take on it. I'm on a phone now so I can't post it, but go on YT and search for a vid called "we stopped dreaming". Gives me goose bumps each time
1
kzizok
Profile picture for user kzizok
Posts
8428
Joined
10/19/2010
Location
USA
kzizok 6/13/2016 3:43pm
6/13/2016 3:43pm
M-M wrote:
Do they only showcase a blackproject plane when it's been exposed or coming to retirement?

Personally can't wait to see the SR91 or TR-3.
I'm by no means an expert on this. Some projects get info leaked out, a little, kind of like this SR-72 (which Lockheed has already had official press releases etc.and announced the name as the SR-72). And then some just show up out of thin air that have been in the works for 10-20 years or so. I am sure there is a hierarchy of secrecy, hence, the reason we seem to get bits of info for some and shocked at stuff we never had a clue about ( kind of like the Blackbird).

I'm sure there are times where they tried to be as covert as possible but sonic booms, and pulse condensation trails that go from western US to western Europe probably speeds things a long that they didn't anticipate.These projects kind makes me feel like a kid waiting on Christmas! You just wanna know, now! History has taught us that the US has had stuff in development for a long time with technology that the general public didn't know existed and they just boggle the mind when released

Personally, I think the lines of NASA and atmosphere plane technology are getting real blurry..
kzizok
Profile picture for user kzizok
Posts
8428
Joined
10/19/2010
Location
USA
kzizok 6/13/2016 3:52pm
6/13/2016 3:52pm Edited Date/Time 6/13/2016 4:11pm
Sunhouse wrote:
It may sound strange to you coming from a foreigner, but with the resources and money at your disposal, I really wish the US would fund...
It may sound strange to you coming from a foreigner, but with the resources and money at your disposal, I really wish the US would fund NASA more. The stuff they discover on a regular basis is just astonishing to me, and I see no reason why it should be underfunded. The technology and knowledge that comes from it across many sciences and where it can be applied is just amazing. Don't want to make it political, but to me - if you really want to "make America great again" you should direct more funds to that amazing institution you have. It did wonders for programs like the SR71 etc back in the day too.
Neil Degrass Tyson has a really good take on it. I'm on a phone now so I can't post it, but go on YT and search for a vid called "we stopped dreaming". Gives me goose bumps each time
Funny, I just made a comment to this effect. I certainly don't know the answer to this and I know that there are people in this thread that know way more about it than I do. However, I don't think the issue is as cut and dry as it may appear. I'm not arguing your point but just bear with me for a minute. A lot of military technology is already space based with some that can operate in both the atmosphere and outside. Personally, I only see that increasing. What I am saying is this, things aren't always what they appear (especially with US government technology) and secrecy and misdirection can prove to be very valuable when it comes to strategy. For instance, this could be the thought of an enemy military, "The US has pulled out of the space program so we are going to develop things to defeat them". Not so fast, things like that provide an opportunity for enemies to go down a rabbit hole and develop things so far off base from the superior projects that we had been developing, in secrecy, that they can be further behind than if they had done nothing at all. Like above, I think in atmosphere and space programs are getting closer to each other as for as technology, so maybe its just a redirection of what they are calling it with similar outcomes and goals in mind.

Einstein's postulation of the general (and some space time) theory of relativity was so new that the ink was still wet, and we had projects, like the SR-71, that could not have been developed successfully without its understandings. Flight itself had been around for only about 45 years or so and they are developing the Blackbird. Truly, truly amazing. That is why there is no doubt, that we have stuff out there that we (general public) didn't even think of, let alone know if they are even possible.
OldPro277
Profile picture for user OldPro277
Posts
1880
Joined
11/9/2009
Location
Avonmore, PA, USA
OldPro277 6/13/2016 4:17pm
6/13/2016 4:17pm
There is a lot of speculation (and for some very good reasons) that there is a "secret" space program over and above NASA, that's sucking up the funding .Look into it, some very intriguing stories.......

The Shop

See All »
kzizok
Profile picture for user kzizok
Posts
8428
Joined
10/19/2010
Location
USA
kzizok 6/13/2016 4:24pm
6/13/2016 4:24pm Edited Date/Time 6/13/2016 4:38pm


I'm gonna just leave this right here!

And......this one too!



You may want to do a little fast forwarding on this one above.

If I can find some time this week, I may tun over to the AFB and see what I can get pics of. Obviously if I can see them they are not top secret but trust me, Ive seen some cool stuff over there. I promise I wont bring back a bunch of AWAC pictures though
G-man
Profile picture for user G-man
Posts
9479
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Mesa, AZ, USA
G-man 6/13/2016 5:33pm
6/13/2016 5:33pm Edited Date/Time 6/13/2016 8:19pm
If only this guy was still alive:

Aviation Genius


Yeah I know the future is drones but there's something about them that just does not get me excited like a real aircraft that a pilot must fly.

It's hard for me to explain but the Romance of Aviation will be gone with drones.

It's looking more like the opening scene from the original Terminator movie where there's nothing but drones flying around, bores the crap out of me. Unsure

It would be like watching a Formula 1 race with a car that has no driver.
At that point who really gives a crap?
1
kzizok
Profile picture for user kzizok
Posts
8428
Joined
10/19/2010
Location
USA
kzizok 6/13/2016 5:52pm
6/13/2016 5:52pm
kzizok wrote:
I realize this is unknown at this time but the SR-71 started development almost 20 years before many really knew of its existence. It seems that...
I realize this is unknown at this time but the SR-71 started development almost 20 years before many really knew of its existence. It seems that there is too much smoke to deny that an Aurora like plane isnt out there. Current theory is saying it to be around mach 8 upwards of 8 thousand mph (of course some sort of SCRAM). Not so sure about all that but there are satillite con trails that are visible from Nevada to Russia and China. The pulse wave con trail is continous and suggests a speed of around 8K MPH. Any thoughts?
Great points. Stuff with drones and aircraft carrier is interesting. Drones, otherwise not as exciting as manned flights. I will say this, if all communications were wiped out, like satellites, radar etc, still having some manned aircraft would be a huge advantage, with the addition of our own flying radar systems too. In other words, if the shit hits the fan that bad, we are poised to defend and protect at a huge level. Obviously, drones (like the fourstroke) are the future but regular manned (2 stroke) airplanes could still prove to be invaluable.
Sunhouse
Profile picture for user Sunhouse
Posts
3674
Joined
3/2/2009
Location
NO
Sunhouse 6/13/2016 10:25pm
6/13/2016 10:25pm
kzizok wrote:
Great points. Stuff with drones and aircraft carrier is interesting. Drones, otherwise not as exciting as manned flights. I will say this, if all communications were...
Great points. Stuff with drones and aircraft carrier is interesting. Drones, otherwise not as exciting as manned flights. I will say this, if all communications were wiped out, like satellites, radar etc, still having some manned aircraft would be a huge advantage, with the addition of our own flying radar systems too. In other words, if the shit hits the fan that bad, we are poised to defend and protect at a huge level. Obviously, drones (like the fourstroke) are the future but regular manned (2 stroke) airplanes could still prove to be invaluable.
I know there is a space treaty signed, so no country can bring weapons and war to space. However, I personally find it very likely that there are US systems or weapons that in the event of a war can wipe out enemy satellites rather quickly and blind the enemy compltetly, and make other systems like GPS and communication lines unavailable. It would be absurd to me if they hadn't already developed this and made it secret. That could also make unmanned drones etc useless
motoxracer723
Profile picture for user motoxracer723
Posts
123
Joined
10/29/2006
Location
Portland, ME, USA
motoxracer723 6/15/2016 4:37am
6/15/2016 4:37am
Sunhouse wrote:
I know there is a space treaty signed, so no country can bring weapons and war to space. However, I personally find it very likely that...
I know there is a space treaty signed, so no country can bring weapons and war to space. However, I personally find it very likely that there are US systems or weapons that in the event of a war can wipe out enemy satellites rather quickly and blind the enemy compltetly, and make other systems like GPS and communication lines unavailable. It would be absurd to me if they hadn't already developed this and made it secret. That could also make unmanned drones etc useless
Agreed. Everyone plays nice 'under the treaty' then when shit hits the fan it's all 'actually we did put them up there'. I think the treaty is in particular on chemical based space weapons? I was reading recently about tungsten-style 'orbital bombardment' weapons - basically an extremely dense metal rod dropped from a satellite. By the time it reached the ground and terminal velocity it'd have kinetic energy pretty much equal to an large bomb minus all moving parts. Technically it would fall outside the 'space weapons' treaty.

I have a hard time believing in a full-scale black budget space program. People enmasse are too dumb to keep a tight lid on something as large as that. I know there are a ton of 'secret space program' conspiracy theories out there and while interesting it's just a bit too much for me.
That being said, if we've got the level of technology today (basic learning computers, ANI, smart phones, etc) available to the common first-world person, and we consider that high level gov tech is at least 50years ahead of that, it could be unbelievable what they've got built in the lab.
Hman144
Profile picture for user Hman144
Posts
2133
Joined
12/4/2007
Location
York, PA, USA
Fantasy
1385th
Hman144 6/15/2016 8:47am
6/15/2016 8:47am
kzizok-

What did you mean when you said," Einstein's postulation of the general (and some space time) theory of relativity was so new that the ink was still wet, and we had projects, like the SR-71, that could not have been developed successfully without its understandings."

Not arguing, just asking for clarification.

Thanks.
Sunhouse
Profile picture for user Sunhouse
Posts
3674
Joined
3/2/2009
Location
NO
Sunhouse 6/15/2016 10:05am
6/15/2016 10:05am
motoxracer723 wrote:
Agreed. Everyone plays nice 'under the treaty' then when shit hits the fan it's all 'actually we did put them up there'. I think the treaty...
Agreed. Everyone plays nice 'under the treaty' then when shit hits the fan it's all 'actually we did put them up there'. I think the treaty is in particular on chemical based space weapons? I was reading recently about tungsten-style 'orbital bombardment' weapons - basically an extremely dense metal rod dropped from a satellite. By the time it reached the ground and terminal velocity it'd have kinetic energy pretty much equal to an large bomb minus all moving parts. Technically it would fall outside the 'space weapons' treaty.

I have a hard time believing in a full-scale black budget space program. People enmasse are too dumb to keep a tight lid on something as large as that. I know there are a ton of 'secret space program' conspiracy theories out there and while interesting it's just a bit too much for me.
That being said, if we've got the level of technology today (basic learning computers, ANI, smart phones, etc) available to the common first-world person, and we consider that high level gov tech is at least 50years ahead of that, it could be unbelievable what they've got built in the lab.
Could be interesting to see the terms of the space treaty. If the satellites were shot down, EMP´d or something from earth, and not from space, would it break the treaty...? For instance, setting a satellite out of function by something similar to EMP, hacking etc without physically destroying it, and this was done from earth - would it be legal?
I can see myself Googling the treaty to find out later tonight
kevingent55
Profile picture for user kevingent55
Posts
176
Joined
9/20/2010
Location
Maryville, TN, USA
kevingent55 6/15/2016 2:01pm
6/15/2016 2:01pm
My dad was a test engineer on the J-58 program at Pratt Whitney back in the 60s and spent some time at Area 51, those are the engines that powered the SR-71. He left me this souvenir when he passed away.



3
kzizok
Profile picture for user kzizok
Posts
8428
Joined
10/19/2010
Location
USA
kzizok 6/15/2016 7:03pm
6/15/2016 7:03pm
Hman144 wrote:
kzizok- What did you mean when you said," Einstein's postulation of the general (and some space time) theory of relativity was so new that the ink...
kzizok-

What did you mean when you said," Einstein's postulation of the general (and some space time) theory of relativity was so new that the ink was still wet, and we had projects, like the SR-71, that could not have been developed successfully without its understandings."

Not arguing, just asking for clarification.

Thanks.
Just physics laws that are relative to concepts of acceleration vs non acceleration along with gravitational forces. More than anything, I was just saying that flight, theorems, materials, etc were all so new. It is just hard to imagine that people had the forethought to plan projects like the Blackbird in parallel time with the advances.
kzizok
Profile picture for user kzizok
Posts
8428
Joined
10/19/2010
Location
USA
kzizok 6/15/2016 7:04pm
6/15/2016 7:04pm
kevingent55 wrote:
My dad was a test engineer on the J-58 program at Pratt Whitney back in the 60s and spent some time at Area 51, those are...
My dad was a test engineer on the J-58 program at Pratt Whitney back in the 60s and spent some time at Area 51, those are the engines that powered the SR-71. He left me this souvenir when he passed away.



Dude! That is really cool!
1
motoxracer723
Profile picture for user motoxracer723
Posts
123
Joined
10/29/2006
Location
Portland, ME, USA
motoxracer723 6/16/2016 8:46am
6/16/2016 8:46am
Sunhouse wrote:
Could be interesting to see the terms of the space treaty. If the satellites were shot down, EMP´d or something from earth, and not from space...
Could be interesting to see the terms of the space treaty. If the satellites were shot down, EMP´d or something from earth, and not from space, would it break the treaty...? For instance, setting a satellite out of function by something similar to EMP, hacking etc without physically destroying it, and this was done from earth - would it be legal?
I can see myself Googling the treaty to find out later tonight
From what I've read we (USA, China, Russia) have all demonstrated the ability utilizing missiles to knock out satellites fired from naval vessels, ground-based installations, or from modified air fighters.
Why spend all the money to launch a sat into orbit when you can just knock it out from terra (roughly). Interesting concepts, I didn't know this.

Regarding the 1966 Outer Space Treaty, the summary is that nations are prohibited from placing nuclear or any other 'weapons of mass destruction' into orbit. Interesting loopholes there, but it does as much harm as good IMO.

If people weren't so afraid of using nukes in space we could already be zipping around our solar system in Orion-based spacecraft (nuclear propulsion).
For those that don't know, they (specifically including all-around genius Freeman Dyson) designed and built scale models of spacecraft using this design...and it WORKED.
Unfortunately they decided to design a militarized version of the craft and Kennedy apparently shit himself in disgust/horror when the Brass presented it to him. This I believe in part lead to the Outer Space Treaty (1966)
Most of the designs are still classified but the low-down is that you could achieve close to 10% speed of light with this design (67,061,661 MPH)

Check it out:

FreshTopEnd
Profile picture for user FreshTopEnd
Posts
13361
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
Sacramento, CA, USA
FreshTopEnd 6/16/2016 11:10am
6/16/2016 11:10am
Very cool Gary



My uncle flew a Kittyhawk in the Aleutians for the RCAF against the Japanese (yup, Canadian pilots fighting in America against the Japanese.



His squadron eventually went to England in 44 and were kitted with Typhoons (roughly the WWII equivalent of the A10). His squadron were dive bombers as opposed to the rocket launching Tiffs. Sadly he was killed in a flying accident just before DDay, in a mock dogfight with a P47. He may have been bounced originally, which happened a lot when Typhoons were mistaken for FW190's, but the accident report doesn't suggest anything other than it being boys caught up in it at way too low an elevation. This was May 27, just before DDay and two days before they painted the white stripes on all aircraft to avoid misidentification during the invasion. Brutal business, war.



Put some stuff up on my twitter feed about it on the anniversary of his death, as it hits around memorial day every year.

Sorry, sidebar, not SR71

There are photos of his funeral at the bottom of the page at this link. This was on May 31, six days before DDay. I've wondered whether they kept it elaborate as a way to honor not only him but the guys who never came back to be honored the same way. http://www.rcaf111fsquadron.com/sacrifices.html
1
Homey55
Profile picture for user Homey55
Posts
1313
Joined
2/18/2010
Location
collinsville, OK, USA
Homey55 6/16/2016 12:25pm
6/16/2016 12:25pm
brlatm wrote:
Hey nice pics G-Man, my Father-In-Law also worked for Hughes in SoCal and then spun off with the division of CSC (Computer Science Corporation). All he...
Hey nice pics G-Man, my Father-In-Law also worked for Hughes in SoCal and then spun off with the division of CSC (Computer Science Corporation). All he could tell me was he did stuff with rockets.

BTW both of those planes are badass.
Did he work in Fullerton?
G-man
Profile picture for user G-man
Posts
9479
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Mesa, AZ, USA
G-man 6/16/2016 10:13pm
6/16/2016 10:13pm
kevingent55 wrote:
My dad was a test engineer on the J-58 program at Pratt Whitney back in the 60s and spent some time at Area 51, those are...
My dad was a test engineer on the J-58 program at Pratt Whitney back in the 60s and spent some time at Area 51, those are the engines that powered the SR-71. He left me this souvenir when he passed away.



Wow that is really cool I've worked on quite a few flight manuals, but nothing like the SR-71 when it was "Classified Secret".

Pit Row

See All »
G-man
Profile picture for user G-man
Posts
9479
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Mesa, AZ, USA
G-man 6/16/2016 10:16pm
6/16/2016 10:16pm
brlatm wrote:
Hey nice pics G-Man, my Father-In-Law also worked for Hughes in SoCal and then spun off with the division of CSC (Computer Science Corporation). All he...
Hey nice pics G-Man, my Father-In-Law also worked for Hughes in SoCal and then spun off with the division of CSC (Computer Science Corporation). All he could tell me was he did stuff with rockets.

BTW both of those planes are badass.
Thanks and yes Hughes was a great company to work for back in the day. Smile

I wish I could have taken pictures inside the facility.
G-man
Profile picture for user G-man
Posts
9479
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Mesa, AZ, USA
G-man 6/16/2016 10:16pm
6/16/2016 10:16pm Edited Date/Time 6/17/2016 6:28am
kzizok wrote:
I realize this is unknown at this time but the SR-71 started development almost 20 years before many really knew of its existence. It seems that...
I realize this is unknown at this time but the SR-71 started development almost 20 years before many really knew of its existence. It seems that there is too much smoke to deny that an Aurora like plane isnt out there. Current theory is saying it to be around mach 8 upwards of 8 thousand mph (of course some sort of SCRAM). Not so sure about all that but there are satillite con trails that are visible from Nevada to Russia and China. The pulse wave con trail is continous and suggests a speed of around 8K MPH. Any thoughts?
That is really cool Mike thanks for sharing the story about your uncle.
brlatm
Profile picture for user brlatm
Posts
1775
Joined
2/14/2009
Location
Brock, TX, USA
brlatm 6/17/2016 12:27am
6/17/2016 12:27am
brlatm wrote:
Hey nice pics G-Man, my Father-In-Law also worked for Hughes in SoCal and then spun off with the division of CSC (Computer Science Corporation). All he...
Hey nice pics G-Man, my Father-In-Law also worked for Hughes in SoCal and then spun off with the division of CSC (Computer Science Corporation). All he could tell me was he did stuff with rockets.

BTW both of those planes are badass.
Homey55 wrote:
Did he work in Fullerton?
Yes I believe so, he retired about 18 years ago this last week in fact. I only remember because he retired about 1 month before my son was born. I think he started out working though in Norco originally (I could be totally full of shit on is as well).

Did you work there as well?
Homey55
Profile picture for user Homey55
Posts
1313
Joined
2/18/2010
Location
collinsville, OK, USA
Homey55 6/17/2016 8:20am
6/17/2016 8:20am
brlatm wrote:
Yes I believe so, he retired about 18 years ago this last week in fact. I only remember because he retired about 1 month before my...
Yes I believe so, he retired about 18 years ago this last week in fact. I only remember because he retired about 1 month before my son was born. I think he started out working though in Norco originally (I could be totally full of shit on is as well).

Did you work there as well?
Yes, I worked in Fullerton, El Segundo and Forest, Mississippi (all for Raytheon).

The old timers would tell stories of Hughes wandering the halls late at night, and if I'm not mistaken, he used to wear roller skates to get around faster.
1
Sunhouse
Profile picture for user Sunhouse
Posts
3674
Joined
3/2/2009
Location
NO
Sunhouse 6/17/2016 9:28am
6/17/2016 9:28am
motoxracer723 wrote:
From what I've read we (USA, China, Russia) have all demonstrated the ability utilizing missiles to knock out satellites fired from naval vessels, ground-based installations, or...
From what I've read we (USA, China, Russia) have all demonstrated the ability utilizing missiles to knock out satellites fired from naval vessels, ground-based installations, or from modified air fighters.
Why spend all the money to launch a sat into orbit when you can just knock it out from terra (roughly). Interesting concepts, I didn't know this.

Regarding the 1966 Outer Space Treaty, the summary is that nations are prohibited from placing nuclear or any other 'weapons of mass destruction' into orbit. Interesting loopholes there, but it does as much harm as good IMO.

If people weren't so afraid of using nukes in space we could already be zipping around our solar system in Orion-based spacecraft (nuclear propulsion).
For those that don't know, they (specifically including all-around genius Freeman Dyson) designed and built scale models of spacecraft using this design...and it WORKED.
Unfortunately they decided to design a militarized version of the craft and Kennedy apparently shit himself in disgust/horror when the Brass presented it to him. This I believe in part lead to the Outer Space Treaty (1966)
Most of the designs are still classified but the low-down is that you could achieve close to 10% speed of light with this design (67,061,661 MPH)

Check it out:

interesting stuff! Thanks for posting the vid too!
Just a quick question, would nuclear propulsion be in violation of the treaty if it is not a weapon?
motoxracer723
Profile picture for user motoxracer723
Posts
123
Joined
10/29/2006
Location
Portland, ME, USA
motoxracer723 6/17/2016 10:32am
6/17/2016 10:32am
Sunhouse wrote:
interesting stuff! Thanks for posting the vid too! Just a quick question, would nuclear propulsion be in violation of the treaty if it is not a...
interesting stuff! Thanks for posting the vid too!
Just a quick question, would nuclear propulsion be in violation of the treaty if it is not a weapon?
Yes.
Which is (partly) why we're still jerking around with chemical-based rockets that expend 98% of their mass in order to get anywhere...
That, and we're collectively cheap when it comes to space-based fiscal expenditures.
Sunhouse
Profile picture for user Sunhouse
Posts
3674
Joined
3/2/2009
Location
NO
Sunhouse 6/17/2016 11:53am
6/17/2016 11:53am
motoxracer723 wrote:
Yes. Which is (partly) why we're still jerking around with chemical-based rockets that expend 98% of their mass in order to get anywhere... That, and we're...
Yes.
Which is (partly) why we're still jerking around with chemical-based rockets that expend 98% of their mass in order to get anywhere...
That, and we're collectively cheap when it comes to space-based fiscal expenditures.
I looked into it as I, after reading the 67 treaty, couldn´t quite see how it violates it. In fact it doesn´t. However it does violate the 1963 treaty regarding banning nuclear testing in space.
kzizok
Profile picture for user kzizok
Posts
8428
Joined
10/19/2010
Location
USA
kzizok 6/28/2016 4:44pm
6/28/2016 4:44pm Edited Date/Time 6/28/2016 4:55pm
Ok, I am slow and dumb so I know a lot of you know about something I learned today. I was watching a show on the Smithsonian channel about spy and stealth planes. The stealth bombers dropped JDAMS. They can drop numerous at the same time but each one is individually programmed to go to specific targets. Anybody else heard of these? Drop a bunch out and they go to numerous seperate targets! These happened over Kosovo, that was 30 hour nonstop flight with four refuels.

Finally, they said these stealths were being developed in the 70's! And the 117 fighter shot down in Serbia was discovered through cell phone waves. The stealths obviously were difficult to pick up on radar because radar waves sent out were diffused out in all different ways, so when the signal goes back, the object isn't recognizable. So someone had the idea of cell waves. Cell waves go out in specific wave patterns, when that pattern is broken (assuming you're looking for something), there is your stealth plane. First successful shoot down.
2
G-man
Profile picture for user G-man
Posts
9479
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Mesa, AZ, USA
G-man 10/8/2016 11:32am
10/8/2016 11:32am
Here ya go:

SR 72
SCR
Profile picture for user SCR
Posts
1107
Joined
12/10/2009
Location
USA
SCR 10/8/2016 6:11pm
10/8/2016 6:11pm
Back in the 90s I worked for a company that did a renovation project for the two hangers for SR-71 and the F22 at Edwards AFB. They were next door to each other in a secured area. We installed the mechanical systems including a high pressure cooling system they connected to the F22 to simulate cooling for the electronics while it was on the ground. Very cool stuff.

We went back to do some stuff after the project was done and they were operating. I looked down from a loft area and saw the SR-71 sitting there getting ready to do a flight I guess and there was fuel all over the ground. My boss explained how it all sealed up in flight. Shortly after that my boss and some other guys got a chance to go down to the end of the runway and watch it take off. I guess they stopped funding and shut it down with about a year or so after the renovation was completed.

Did a lot of work at Edwards and other bases and got to see cool stuff including the Stealth fighter and bombers. Worked some Slik sites and launch towers at Vandenberg AFB and watch some cool missile launches. Got to see the Blue Angels practice at Point Mugu Naval Base years ago the week before the air show. We went up on top of a building and got a free air show.
G-man
Profile picture for user G-man
Posts
9479
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Mesa, AZ, USA
G-man 2/21/2017 8:51pm
2/21/2017 8:51pm Edited Date/Time 2/24/2017 9:33am
Was going through some stuff here at home and I found an old newsletter when I worked at Lockheed, my first Aviation job.

It reminded me of this thread and how truly incredible the Blackbird was--designed about 50 years ago! Woohoo





The Baddest of the Bad.....







Check out this recent link some really cool info.

http://newatlas.com/how-to-fly-sr-71-blackbird/46366/

2

Post a reply to: Aurora/SR-72/SR-91 ?