SR-71 Presentation -- Reminder & Last Chance

[Jay Honeck]

To those of you who have reserved a seat for Bill Fox's talk about his years
working as a project manager at the Lockheed Skunk Works during the
development of the SR-71 Blackbird (7 PM tomorrow -- Tuesday -- night),
please arrive around 6:30 PM. Seating is limited and by reservation only,
so please (for a change!) don't bring a bunch of friends.

HOWEVER -- due to a couple of last-minute cancellations, we do have TWO
seats available. If you're at all interested in hearing Bill's talk, please
email me ASAP at The talk will be held in our
small theater (in lieu of "Movie Night") inside the Alexis Park Inn &
Suites, 1165 S. Riverside Drive, Iowa City, IA 52246

Bill is a fascinating guy. If you've ever wondered about ANYTHING to do
with the SR-71, or the inner workings of the Skunk Works, or Area 51 (he
went on to run the super-secret Groom Lake facility later in his career),
this is your chance.

Blue skies!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Big John]

Jay

Believe I asked you this question before but you didn't have the
chance to ask Bill.

A friend (?) of mine here in Houston was on a console when the Shuttle
blew up after launch. He said that a '71 was also lost because the
shuttle fuel burned all the oxy out of air in a large area and '71
flamed out and crashed.

I never was able to validate this story. When you see Fox please ask
him if it is true (I don't think so as ascent trajectory is kept clear
of aircraft for safety on launches).

Would love to hear his stories but am to far away and don't travel
well any more.

Be sure the flags are up this Memorial Day for those who are no
longer with us.

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````````````````````````````````

On Mon, 29 May 2006 12:34:13 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>To those of you who have reserved a seat for Bill Fox's talk about his years
>working as a project manager at the Lockheed Skunk Works during the
>development of the SR-71 Blackbird (7 PM tomorrow -- Tuesday -- night),
>please arrive around 6:30 PM. Seating is limited and by reservation only,
>so please (for a change!) don't bring a bunch of friends.
>
----clip----

[Matt Whiting]

Big John wrote:

> Jay
>
> Believe I asked you this question before but you didn't have the
> chance to ask Bill.
>
> A friend (?) of mine here in Houston was on a console when the Shuttle
> blew up after launch. He said that a '71 was also lost because the
> shuttle fuel burned all the oxy out of air in a large area and '71
> flamed out and crashed.

You mean an SR-71 allegedly flew through the area the shuttle had just
flown through? Or did I missinterpret what you wrote above.

If that is the case, then I'm about 99% certain that the above is urban
legend as the shuttle carries its own oxidizer for its fuel. You don't
see air intakes anywhere on the shuttle do you? I really doubt it
depletes the atmosphere of oxygen in any significant way.


Matt

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Matt Whiting > writes:

> If that is the case, then I'm about 99% certain that the above is
> urban legend as the shuttle carries its own oxidizer for its fuel.
> You don't see air intakes anywhere on the shuttle do you? I really
> doubt it depletes the atmosphere of oxygen in any significant way.

The shuttle certainly doesn't burn atmospheric oxygen, no. On the
other hand, it produces high volumes of combustion products, and I
wouldn't be shocked to discover the reaction hasn't gone to
completion, and the stuff left reacts with the air in some way or
other.

Or at least, I'd want expert advice before I walked into a cloud of
the stuff :-).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
David Dyer-Bennet > wrote:

> Matt Whiting > writes:
>
> > If that is the case, then I'm about 99% certain that the above is
> > urban legend as the shuttle carries its own oxidizer for its fuel.
> > You don't see air intakes anywhere on the shuttle do you? I really
> > doubt it depletes the atmosphere of oxygen in any significant way.
>
> The shuttle certainly doesn't burn atmospheric oxygen, no. On the
> other hand, it produces high volumes of combustion products, and I
> wouldn't be shocked to discover the reaction hasn't gone to
> completion, and the stuff left reacts with the air in some way or
> other.
>
> Or at least, I'd want expert advice before I walked into a cloud of
> the stuff :-).

The space shuttle burns hydrogen. Its only combustion product is water
vapor.

rg

[Friedrich Ostertag]

Ron Garret wrote:
> In article >,
> David Dyer-Bennet > wrote:
>
>> Matt Whiting > writes:
>>
>>> If that is the case, then I'm about 99% certain that the above is
>>> urban legend as the shuttle carries its own oxidizer for its fuel.
>>> You don't see air intakes anywhere on the shuttle do you? I really
>>> doubt it depletes the atmosphere of oxygen in any significant way.
>>
>> The shuttle certainly doesn't burn atmospheric oxygen, no. On the
>> other hand, it produces high volumes of combustion products, and I
>> wouldn't be shocked to discover the reaction hasn't gone to
>> completion, and the stuff left reacts with the air in some way or
>> other.
>>
>> Or at least, I'd want expert advice before I walked into a cloud of
>> the stuff :-).
>
> The space shuttle burns hydrogen. Its only combustion product is
> water vapor.

The boosters burn solid fuel. I'm not sure what the combustion products
are, but I suspect that they are not particularly healthy.

regards,
Friedrich

--
for personal mail please remove 'entfernen' from my emailadress

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Ron Garret > writes:

> In article >,
> David Dyer-Bennet > wrote:
>
> > Matt Whiting > writes:
> >
> > > If that is the case, then I'm about 99% certain that the above is
> > > urban legend as the shuttle carries its own oxidizer for its fuel.
> > > You don't see air intakes anywhere on the shuttle do you? I really
> > > doubt it depletes the atmosphere of oxygen in any significant way.
> >
> > The shuttle certainly doesn't burn atmospheric oxygen, no. On the
> > other hand, it produces high volumes of combustion products, and I
> > wouldn't be shocked to discover the reaction hasn't gone to
> > completion, and the stuff left reacts with the air in some way or
> > other.
> >
> > Or at least, I'd want expert advice before I walked into a cloud of
> > the stuff :-).
>
> The space shuttle burns hydrogen. Its only combustion product is water
> vapor.

During launch, they are also burning the solid boosters.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

[Peter Duniho]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> You mean an SR-71 allegedly flew through the area the shuttle had just
> flown through? Or did I missinterpret what you wrote above.

The way I read the original message, it was the explosion that consumed the
oxygen, not the normal combustion of the fuel. That is, when the Shuttle
exploded, the hydrogen fuel tanks (contained within the main fuel tank)
released their contents, the hydrogen subsequently burned all at once,
consuming enough oxygen in the area to cause the SR-71 engine problem.

So, the normal operation of the Shuttle rocket engines isn't relevant to
that question.

It still sounds like BS to me. I doubt that any oxygen-poor area would
exist beyond the visible area of smoke left from the explosion, and so the
SR-71 pilot would have had to fly through a visible area of contamination.
Either there's one really dumb SR-71 pilot out there (hardly seems likely),
or the story is just a fabrication.

Pete

[Matt Whiting]

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

> Matt Whiting > writes:
>
>
>>If that is the case, then I'm about 99% certain that the above is
>>urban legend as the shuttle carries its own oxidizer for its fuel.
>>You don't see air intakes anywhere on the shuttle do you? I really
>>doubt it depletes the atmosphere of oxygen in any significant way.
>
>
> The shuttle certainly doesn't burn atmospheric oxygen, no. On the
> other hand, it produces high volumes of combustion products, and I
> wouldn't be shocked to discover the reaction hasn't gone to
> completion, and the stuff left reacts with the air in some way or
> other.
>
> Or at least, I'd want expert advice before I walked into a cloud of
> the stuff :-).

Oh, no doubt. But at the speed an SR-71 flies, it would spend at most a
few milliseconds in the exhaust remnants of the shuttle. I find it very
hard to believe that this would bring down an SR-71. It'll be curious
to see what Jay finds out when he asks the expert.

Matt

[Jim Macklin]

BTW, they have an SR 71 in the lobby of the Cosmosphere in
Hutchinson, Kansas and you can walk up and touch it. It is
under going a restoration, but is pretty complete.
http://www.cosmo.org/ It is just a few miles west of the
airport KHUT on 11th Street.


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:9TBeg.753493$084.540702@attbi_s22...
| To those of you who have reserved a seat for Bill Fox's
talk about his years
| working as a project manager at the Lockheed Skunk Works
during the
| development of the SR-71 Blackbird (7 PM tomorrow --
Tuesday -- night),
| please arrive around 6:30 PM. Seating is limited and by
reservation only,
| so please (for a change!) don't bring a bunch of friends.
|
| HOWEVER -- due to a couple of last-minute cancellations,
we do have TWO
| seats available. If you're at all interested in hearing
Bill's talk, please
| email me ASAP at The talk will
be held in our
| small theater (in lieu of "Movie Night") inside the Alexis
Park Inn &
| Suites, 1165 S. Riverside Drive, Iowa City, IA 52246
|
| Bill is a fascinating guy. If you've ever wondered about
ANYTHING to do
| with the SR-71, or the inner workings of the Skunk Works,
or Area 51 (he
| went on to run the super-secret Groom Lake facility later
in his career),
| this is your chance.
|
| Blue skies!
| --
| Jay Honeck
| Iowa City, IA
| Pathfinder N56993
| www.AlexisParkInn.com
| "Your Aviation Destination"
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

The space shuttle is a rocket and carries all the "air" it
uses (liquid oxygen) and doesn't burn "all the air out of an
area" so I'd say the story is a real urban legend.


"Big John" > wrote in message
...
| Jay
|
| Believe I asked you this question before but you didn't
have the
| chance to ask Bill.
|
| A friend (?) of mine here in Houston was on a console when
the Shuttle
| blew up after launch. He said that a '71 was also lost
because the
| shuttle fuel burned all the oxy out of air in a large area
and '71
| flamed out and crashed.
|
| I never was able to validate this story. When you see Fox
please ask
| him if it is true (I don't think so as ascent trajectory
is kept clear
| of aircraft for safety on launches).
|
| Would love to hear his stories but am to far away and
don't travel
| well any more.
|
| Be sure the flags are up this Memorial Day for those who
are no
| longer with us.
|
| Big John
|
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````````````````````````````````
|
| On Mon, 29 May 2006 12:34:13 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
| > wrote:
|
| >To those of you who have reserved a seat for Bill Fox's
talk about his years
| >working as a project manager at the Lockheed Skunk Works
during the
| >development of the SR-71 Blackbird (7 PM tomorrow --
Tuesday -- night),
| >please arrive around 6:30 PM. Seating is limited and by
reservation only,
| >so please (for a change!) don't bring a bunch of friends.
| >
| ----clip----

[[email protected]]

I was at the cape watching that very sobering sight that morning..
There was so much debris flying though the air when it exploed there
would be no way something could have flown anywhere close to the area
and not hit some trash. If I rememeber correctly NASA would not even
launch helicopters to the area for over an hour cause stuff was still
falling out of the sky and that crap would have taken down a rescue
vehicles. That was a sad day in space flight for sure...

Ben
www.haaspowerair.com

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Matt Whiting > writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
> > Matt Whiting > writes:
> >
> >>If that is the case, then I'm about 99% certain that the above is
> >>urban legend as the shuttle carries its own oxidizer for its fuel.
> >>You don't see air intakes anywhere on the shuttle do you? I really
> >>doubt it depletes the atmosphere of oxygen in any significant way.
> > The shuttle certainly doesn't burn atmospheric oxygen, no. On the
> > other hand, it produces high volumes of combustion products, and I
> > wouldn't be shocked to discover the reaction hasn't gone to
> > completion, and the stuff left reacts with the air in some way or
> > other. Or at least, I'd want expert advice before I walked into a
> > cloud of
> > the stuff :-).
>
> Oh, no doubt. But at the speed an SR-71 flies, it would spend at most
> a few milliseconds in the exhaust remnants of the shuttle. I find it
> very hard to believe that this would bring down an SR-71. It'll be
> curious to see what Jay finds out when he asks the expert.

I don't really give much credit to the SR-71 story, but it's not my
field of expertise so I'm not confident my opinion is right
particularly. I was just pointing out that the shuttle could affect
the atmosphere in ways other than burning atmospheric oxygen.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

[Rolf Blom G (AS/EAB)]

On 2006-05-29 18:43, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> Matt Whiting > writes:
>
>
>>If that is the case, then I'm about 99% certain that the above is
>>urban legend as the shuttle carries its own oxidizer for its fuel.
>>You don't see air intakes anywhere on the shuttle do you? I really
>>doubt it depletes the atmosphere of oxygen in any significant way.
>
>
> The shuttle certainly doesn't burn atmospheric oxygen, no. On the
> other hand, it produces high volumes of combustion products, and I
> wouldn't be shocked to discover the reaction hasn't gone to
> completion, and the stuff left reacts with the air in some way or
> other.
>
> Or at least, I'd want expert advice before I walked into a cloud of
> the stuff :-).

Not that I'm too savvy about this, but what I recall the Columbia
shuttle burned on reentry, and at that stage the shuttle would be mainly
a glider with very little onboard fuel?

Whatever burns through friction, I'd expect to use up athmospheric
oxygen, excepting the oxygen in breathing eqm, if such is used.

/Rolf

[Jay Honeck]

> Not that I'm too savvy about this, but what I recall the Columbia shuttle
> burned on reentry, and at that stage the shuttle would be mainly a glider
> with very little onboard fuel?

I believe Big John's SR-71 question was referring to the Challenger
explosion -- not the Columbia re-entry break-up.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

me too

[Rolf Blom G (AS/EAB)]

On 2006-05-30 15:02, Jay Honeck wrote:
>>Not that I'm too savvy about this, but what I recall the Columbia shuttle
>>burned on reentry, and at that stage the shuttle would be mainly a glider
>>with very little onboard fuel?
>
>
> I believe Big John's SR-71 question was referring to the Challenger
> explosion -- not the Columbia re-entry break-up.


Oh, sorry, mea culpa; I read too much into the SR-71 issue; I was
trying to make a sensible connection to the SR-71 question, and when
such a craft might have been used close to the shuttle.

I can't imagine NASA would put one anywhere near a launch site, since
it's not very manouverable, and AFAIK they have other craft for launch
photography. (Noone else uses SR71:s nowadays, if at all, but back in
-86 it was still in use by the USAF; but they would surely have stayed
far away too.)

IMO, it could perhaps have been useful for watching a shuttle during the
descent, since that is pretty straight until the breaking turns.

But as stated before, the lost SR-71 is probably an urban legend.

/Rolf

[Jim Macklin]

In any case, all space launches involve very strictly
controlled restricted airspace. No aircraft are allowed
anywhere near the launch vehicle flight path because of the
risk of a mid-air. There are planes doing airspace
monitoring. probably armed F16 or FA18. But an SR71 would
not be a good choice for monitoring the launch from a close
point, although it might be 100 miles away as a training or
evaluation of its detection equipment.


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:cnXeg.754859$084.22232@attbi_s22...
|> Not that I'm too savvy about this, but what I recall the
Columbia shuttle
| > burned on reentry, and at that stage the shuttle would
be mainly a glider
| > with very little onboard fuel?
|
| I believe Big John's SR-71 question was referring to the
Challenger
| explosion -- not the Columbia re-entry break-up.
| --
| Jay Honeck
| Iowa City, IA
| Pathfinder N56993
| www.AlexisParkInn.com
| "Your Aviation Destination"
|
|