“Artist drawing by North American Aviation, Inc. -- After 24 hours on the lunar surface the count down for launch will begin when the command module is in line of sight over the horizon. The return stage of LEM will separate and lift off from the landing stage. Three thousand pound-thrust engine will burn for 6 minutes reaching orbital speed of 4,000 MPH at an altitude of 10 miles.”

1963. Nothing had been built yet, to my knowledge…other than models. Nothing had landed, orbited or even just crashed into the moon yet.

Gary Meyer. Brilliant. Timeless. A masterpiece.

Commencing at the 7:12 elapsed time mark:

vimeo.com/345946093

Credit: Jeff Quitney/Vimeo

“SATURN APOLLO 501 IN HIGH BAY 1, WITH WORK PLATFORMS RETRACTED. VAB HIGH BAY 1.

5-24-67”

Note access arm No. 8 “Service Module (inflight)” directly behind the CSM. Access arm No. 9 “Command Module (preflight)” is to the far right. Speaking of the CSM, note also the lack of RCS thrusters on the SM. Kind of clue as to vehicle identification.

And, unless something else surfaces, maybe on the verso of a “S-67-XXXXX” version of this photo - if such exists - the following lame, I’m sure contemporary pablum is apparently what’s meant to pass as the official description/caption:

“This photograph depicts the Saturn V vehicle (SA-501) for the Apollo 4 mission in the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC). After the completion of the assembly operation, the work platform was retracted and the vehicle was readied to rollout from the VAB to the launch pad. The Apollo 4 mission was the first launch of the Saturn V launch vehicle. Objectives of the unmanned Apollo 4 test flight were to obtain flight information on launch vehicle and spacecraft structural integrity and compatibility, flight loads, stage separation, and subsystems operation including testing of restart of the S-IVB stage, and to evaluate the Apollo command module heat shield. The Apollo 4 was launched on November 9, 1967 from KSC.”

Surprisingly, the above, with a bullshit, probably arbitrarily assigned “NASA ID” of 6754387 is actually available at:

images.nasa.gov/details-6754387

Unfortunately, as with many others, the description has been propagated everywhere. While I’ve read MUCH worse, it’s merely a copy/paste from some Apollo 4 document, which doesn’t address the context of the photograph…that is, what’s actually going on…the REASON the photograph was taken.

With that, the recognition/correct identification of the content of this photograph, along with the date, hence its pertinence to the problematic history of the SA-501 vehicle, has been…take your pick: lost, overlooked, unrecognized, omitted…something unacceptable.

For starters, the NASA photo ninjas, especially at the time of the photo’s processing, i.e., 1967, should’ve recognized that the CSM atop the vehicle was NOT the flight CSM (CSM-017). It ALSO should’ve been easily/readily identified as M-11, the Flight Verification Vehicle (FVV), it having been photographed a bazillion times during 1966 as part of SA-500F photo documentation.

As if that weren’t enough, within the multiple regurgitations of the trials & tribulations of making Apollo 4 happen, there’s not a mention of M-11, other than within the following, which although incomplete, with its own errors, at least references it…ONCE:

“The third stage (S-IVB) was the first major component of Apollo 4 to be delivered at KSC. It arrived from Sacramento aboard the Guppy aircraft on 14 August 1966 and went immediately into a low bay of the assembly building for inspection and checkout. The following week the spacer and instrument unit arrived. On 12 September, as Peter Conrad and Richard Gordon prepared to blast off in Gemini 11, the barge Poseidon sailed into the Banana River with the first stage. Boeing gave it a lengthy checkout in the transfer aisle of the high bay before erecting the booster on 27 October. During the following week, technicians stacked the remaining launch vehicle stages, using the spool for the absent S-II. There were a few problems - the checkout of the swing arms took an extra two days and a cooling unit for the instrument unit sprang a leak - but the launch team, still counting on the mid-November delivery date for the S-II, hoped to roll the complete vehicle out to pad A by 13 January 1967.

By late November the Apollo Program Office had moved the S-II's arrival back to January, and the launch back to April. Since spacecraft 017 would not arrive for another three weeks, KSC erected the facilities verification model of Apollo on 28 November.

[The first linked black & white photograph by Cliff Steenhoff below, depicts such.]

This allowed North American to check out some of its spacecraft support equipment. The first week in December the memory core in a digital events evaluator failed after intermittent troubles; cracked solder joints were blamed. A hurried repair put the computer back on line.

The command-service module arrived at KSC on Christmas Eve and was mated to the launch vehicle on 12 January 1967. That tardy prima donna, the S-II stage, finally appeared on 21 January. Tank inspection, insulation, and engine work were in progress by the 23rd. Test crews found damaged connectors on three recirculation pumps and set about investigating the extent of the rework that would be necessary. While inspecting the liquid hydrogen tank on the second stage, the North American team found 22 cracked gussets. These triangular metal braces, used to support the horizontal ribs of the stage framework, had to be replaced. Plans to move the second stage into a low bay checkout cell on the 29th were temporarily set aside because of a late shipment of the aft interstage (the cylindrical aluminum structure that formed the structural interface between the first and second stages). The interstage arrived on 31 January, and by the end of the next day the stage was in a low bay cell with work platforms around it.

Despite the delay with the S-II stage, KSC officials expected to meet the new launch date in May. The fire on 27 January placed all schedules in question. Although Apollo 4 was an unmanned mission, NASA officials wanted to give command-module 017 a close examination. On 14 February, a week before the S-II could be inserted into a fully assembled vehicle, the spacecraft was removed from the stack and taken to the operations and checkout building. When inspection disclosed a number of wiring errors, KSC's Operations Office cancelled the restacking of the spacecraft. By 1 March electrical engineers had discovered so many wiring discrepancies that the test team stopped their repair work, pending a thorough investigation of all spacecraft wiring. Within two weeks the North American and NASA quality control teams recorded 1,407 discrepancies. While North American repaired about half of these on the spot, modifications, repair work, and validations continued into June. During the break technicians performed pressure tests on service module systems at pad 16. It would be mid-June, with the wiring modifications for the command module finally completed, before North American could remate the spacecraft and take it back to the assembly building.

As the extent of the wiring problems was not immediately recognized, the launch vehicle team forged ahead to recoup the time lost on the S-II stage. In mid-February Boeing's airframe handling and ordnance group removed the instrument unit and spacer from the 501 stack and on the 23rd erected the S-II. The operation involved incredibly close tolerances. To qualify crane handlers, Stanley Smith, Bendix senior engineer of the crane and hoist group, stated, "We give them a technical examination and then check their reflexes and response to commands in training sessions." During a mating, an operator and an electrician boarded the crane and another man helped guide movements from the floor by communicating with the operator via a walkie-talkie. Smith set a high goal for his team: "We strive to train our men to the point where they could conceivably lower the crane hook on top of an egg without breaking the shell."

After a stage was properly aligned on the Saturn stack, a crew of one engineer, two quality control inspectors, one chief mechanic, and eight assistants took eight hours to complete the mating. Three 30-centimeter pins on the second stage fitted into brackets located 120 degrees apart on the periphery of the first stage. Then the mechanics inserted 216 one-centimeter, high-strength fasteners into matching holes around the perimeter where the two stages joined. The team torqued the fasteners in a staggered sequence to secure the bolts evenly and ensure a uniform distribution of stress. The mating of the second and third stages was conducted in much the same manner. The 501 was now set up except for the missing CSM.

[This is where something about the FVV (M-11) being reincorporated into the stack should’ve been referenced.]

The lengthy delays with the flight hardware aided the Site Activation Board in its efforts to get LC-39 ready for its first launch. The board's first flow [see chapter 15-1] included firing room 1, mobile launcher 1, high bay 1, and the other facilities required for the support of Apollo 4 - 1,280 activities altogether. During the first quarter of 1967, PERT charts showed less than 1% of these activities behind schedule. The decision in mid-April to modify the LOX system on launcher 1 and pad A put five weeks of negative slack into the site activation schedule. The modifications were made necessary by excessive pressure in the LOX system. KSC engineers added an automatic bleed system, relief valve supports, and a block valve that prevented purging through the drain line. As continued vehicle problems further delayed the rollout, the five weeks of negative slack disappeared.

On 24 May the S-II stage was in trouble again. NASA announced it would be dismantled for inspection, consequent on the discovery of hairline cracks in the propellant tank weld seams on another S-II at the factory in California.

[The photograph is dated 5-24-67. If correct, then the image was taken as part of documenting preparations for destacking M-11 & the S-IVB in order to remove the S-II stage.]

Additionally, thanks to the remarkable “CAPCOM ESPACE” website:

“For Apollo 4, the M11 was placed on launcher 501 on November 28, 1966 and removed at the end of 1966 following delays in stage S2. It will be put back in place on April 6, 1967 and removed on May 26.”]

Above, along with much more good stuff, at:

www.capcomespace.net/dossiers/espace_US/apollo/vaisseaux/...

So, somewhere out there, there’s some documentation from which the above was gleaned. I probably don’t have it & certainly didn’t find it online.]

The additional checks were not expected to delay the flight of 501 "more than a week or so." By mid-June the inspection, which included extensive x-ray and dye penetrant tests, was completed and the stage returned to the stack. On 20 June, the command-service module was mechanically mated to the Saturn V, and 501 was - at last - a fully assembled space vehicle. A revised schedule on 21 July set rollout for mid-August. On 26 August 1967, the big rocket emerged from the high bay slightly more than a year after its first components had arrived at KSC, and a good six months after its originally scheduled launch date. It had been a year of delay and frustration, and the end was not yet.”

The above, other than the inserted (bracketed) astute comments, observations & additional useful links, at/from:

www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4204/ch19-3.html

Inexcusable, incompetent, confounding at least, considering the importance/significance of this vehicle. But then again, for an organization that seems to have “officially/formally” misidentified the Command Module on display at Expo ’67 – to this day – the oversight, ignorance & tacit mis/non-identification of a lowly FVV is both literally & figuratively a no-brainer. The buffoonery continues. At least this shit is so far back in the rearview mirror that no one remembers, those that did are probably dead, and no one now cares, or will in the future. No harm, no foul, all good. 👍

A five man version of Hallvard Industries Longhouse Bunker.

This version is equipped with an LRM 5 Turret with Artemis IV Fire Control System

I have been lost in Photoshop. I was having ideas in Lightroom and they led to edits and on to Photoshop CS and from there they are stretching out towards some notion of motion pictures. I have not used this Film Temperature Control System. I have been calling a film cooker. It looks superb and it comes with a three pin U.K. Plug fitted ready for accurate simmering film into tender toner and sharpish shadows and might fine highlights.

I have used two fonts to give °CineStill a look as it has in the packaging.

I forget to mention the soundtrack. Two tracks from those provided by my editing service with no composers and players listed. I have edited tracks individually and together. All errors on me and all praise to unknown originators of music. I wish that I had some names to praise.

© PHH Sykes 2023

phhsykes@gmail.com

CineStill TCS-1000 - Temperature Control System - UK Plug

analoguewonderland.co.uk/products/cinestill-tcs-1000-temp...

°CS "TEMPERATURE CONTROL SYSTEM", TCS-1000 IMMERSION CIRCULATOR THERMOSTAT FOR MIXING CHEMISTRY AND PRECISION FILM PROCESSING, 120V ONLY

cinestillfilm.com/products/tcs-temperature-control-system...

Following a relatively brief development period, the C3 was formally accepted into service by the Canadian Army in 2024. The vehicle represented a major leap in capabilities from the old Leopard 1 variants they replaced, and its fire control system and 130mm ETC armament remain one of the most potent in all of NATO. Due to the intense rearmament campaigns in the west, surplus Leopard 2s were not available as anticipated, and American M6 Jacksons would also take too long to acquire. Its smaller size compared to its contemporaries also makes transportation relatively easier, making the vehicle a favorite among NATO leadership for organizing quick reaction forces. It also means that smaller recovery vehicles, like the ZEUS Boxer ARM can service and recover these vehicles, thus greatly improving recoverability and availability.

On deployment, the PAAWS (Passive/Active Armor, Wartime, Supplemental) kit is considered essential to survive against any sort of anti-armor threat. The pictured C3 is “in-theater” as part of NATO’s rotating Baltic security commitment in Lithuania, near the border with Kaliningrad. NATO works closely with the Nordic Defense Council in this region to serve as a deterrent against the ever-enigmatic West Russia. Of course, one could reasonably argue that West-Russia has some reason for its aggressive posturing, with its exclave surrounded by NDC Lithuanian and NATO Polish .

Also check out Brian's new tank c:

LEGO MOC based on Russian Sprut-SDM1 with scale of 1:30.

The 2S25 Sprut-SD (Russian: 2С25 «Спрут-СД»; 2S25 "Kraken-SD") is a self-propelled tank destroyer or light tank developed and manufactured by Volgograd Tractor Plant joint stock company.

Sprut-SDM1 is a new version with fire-control system and remote weapon station.

This is the Pioneer Cemetery just east of Grand Canyon Village.

I took a little winter trip to the South Rim. Hardly any crowds at this time of year. Temperatures in the upper 20's during the day, mid teens at night with windchills into the single digits. I am well prepared for these temperatures and was comfortable most of the time. I stayed at the El Tovar Lodge.

www.nps.gov/places/000/grand-canyon-pioneer-cemetery.htm

Located next to Shrine of the Ages and Parking Lot A, the Grand Canyon Pioneer Cemetery is the final resting place of many historical figures. involved in the development and protection of Grand Canyon as a National Park. Captain John Hance, Ralph Cameron, Pete Berry, Ellsworth Kolb, Gunnar Widforss, and Eddie McKee are just a few of the folks you might visit here.

People interred at the cemetery include Grand Canyon pioneers, war veterans, tribal members, and employees of the park concessionaires, US Forest Service, and National Park Service. The cemetery, grave markers, and gateway arch are included on the List of Classified Historic Structures in Grand Canyon National Park.

Individuals must have lived at Grand Canyon for no less than three years or have made a significant and substantial contribution to the development of, public knowledge about, understanding of, or appreciation for Grand Canyon National Park to qualify for burial in the cemetery. While the cemetery is still considered open at this point in time, all of the final spots have been allocated.

www.arizonahighways.com/article/grand-canyon-pioneer-ceme...

The Pioneer Cemetery at the Grand Canyon’s South Rim is a who’s who of early 20th century Canyon history. Of the roughly 400 people buried here, only about 10 percent are famous. But in some ways, the unfamiliar names are just as interesting.

I’ve come so early that mine is the only vehicle in the Shrine of the Ages parking lot. The air is fresh and scented of ponderosa pine. Past the arched gate (above) are granite slabs with plaques for information, although a petrified wood marker also catches my eye. Some rough stones have no inscriptions. Even sadder are faded-to-unreadable wooden markers. These people were intended to be remembered and now cannot be.

First resident John Hance, famous for telling irreverent tales to early tourists, was buried here in 1919, before this was officially a cemetery. It would be nine years before the National Park Service and the American Legion dedicated the new burial ground.

Equally noteworthy, for a much different reason, is the monument for some of the 128 people killed when two planes, one United and one TWA, collided over the Canyon in 1956 — an incident that spurred the creation of the modern air traffic control system. Remains from the United flight are here, while those of the TWA victims are in a cemetery in Flagstaff.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Canyon_Pioneer_Cemetery

Grand Canyon Pioneer Cemetery, also known as Pioneer Cemetery, is a historic cemetery located near the Grand Canyon's South Rim. [1][2] It is also known as South Rim Cemetery and the American Legion Cemetery due to its association with the veterans' organization.

The cemetery is home to some 400 individual graves.[3][4] The cemetery closed to new burials in 2017, but remains open for visitation.[5]

GC2025

Chevrolet Camaro (1970-81) 350cu (5700cc) V8

Registration Number FAO 363 N (Carlisle)

CHEVROLET Album

www.flickr.com/photos/45676495@N05/sets/72157623638181561/

Designed by Henry Haga, the second generation Camaro ran from 1970-81 the restyle produced a heavier, wider, and larger car than its predecessor. Known as the Super Hugger Still using the GM F body platform with a unibody construction, front subframe, an A arm front suspension and leaf springs to control the solid rear axle. The RS, SS and Z28 performance packages and the Z28 here received a 350 Ci engine upgrade.

The 1974 Camaro grew seven inches (178 mm) longer, thanks to new aluminium bumpers required to meet federal standards and a forward-sloping grille.

For 1975, a catalytic converter was added to the exhaust system of all US-market GM passenger cars, including the Camaro, the Air Injection Reactor secondary air injection system was still present. The catalytic emission control system was more efficient at reducing emissions than the previous non-catalytic system, and allowed engines to be retuned for improved drivability and fuel economy

For the 1979 model years the biggest changes were the introduction of the luxury-oriented Berlinetta model, replacing the Type LT, and a restyled instrument panel. The base models, RS and Z28 remained, Z28s now came with a front spoiler and fender flares much like its Pontiac Trans Am twin and large Z28 side decals. Sales for 1979 were the highest ever for any generation Camaro before or since

Diolch am 86,997,104 o olygfeydd anhygoel, mae pob un yn 90cael ei werthfawrogi'n fawr.

Thanks for 86,997,104 amazing views, every one is greatly appreciated.

Shot 05.09.2021 at Himley Hall, Himley, Wolverhampton Ref. 121-040

Boeing C-135C Stratolifter USAF 61-2669 ``Speckled Trout`` 412th FLTS @ Edwards AFB, CA Note: Speckled Trout was the official nickname given to this modified C-135C, acquired in 1974 and retired on 13 January 2006, that was used by the Secretary and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force for executive transport requirements. Fully equipped with an array of communications equipment, data links and cryptographic sets, the aircraft served a secondary role as a testbed for proposed command and control systems and was also used to evaluate future transport aircraft design.

Terakk-Mül jumped on his speeder just in time to escape the jedi who was chasing him.

Made for the Speeder Bike Contest 2011

The following wonderful extracts provide information regarding CM-007/007A, the first specifically pertaining to the circumstances of the photograph. I highly recommend reading both in their entirety:

From an article by Amy Shira Teitel for Popular Science magazine online:

”Spacecraft 007 arrived at NASA’s Manned Spaceflight Center in Houston on April 18, 1966. Designed to test the spacecraft’s post-landing systems – the crew egress, survival, communications, location, power, and ventilation systems astronauts would rely on after returning from the Moon – this test article was a Block I version of the command module with the same configuration as flight articles. There was just one key difference: in place of the ablative heat shield, spacecraft 007’s was made of cork.

The first test in a natural body of water was the first delayed recovery test and it took place in the Gulf of Mexico. It was a run through to see what would happen if, after splashdown, adverse weather or rough seas kept recovery forces from collecting the crew from the ocean. The spacecraft’s systems could give engineers technical data, but they needed human factors data as well and this meant the test had to be manned. In this case, the crew was three volunteer “astronauts” associated with the Apollo program: Texas M. Ward, head of the Apollo egress training program, fellow Apollo astronaut trainer Louis DeWolf, and member of the Apollo Landing and Recovery Division Harry Clancy. Each of these three men knew that sitting in for astronauts on this test would give them a unique perspective on their work, but none were sure what lay in store sitting in a spacecraft at sea for two days.

The test started on Friday, September 30 at 4pm once the main test requirement was met: the water was rough enough to produce the desired three-to-four-foot waves. The three volunteers were strapped into their couches, the hatch was closed, and spacecraft 007 was lowered from the deck of the Motor Vessel Retriever.

The first part of the test was a test of the spacecraft’s ability to right itself. Spacecraft 007 was immediately flipped upside-down to its Stable-Two position (the thin end of the cone was facing down into the water and the heat shield was facing the sky), which left Ward, DeWolf, and Clancy suspended from their harnesses. Before long, the spacecraft’s two electric air compressors inflated the three uprighting bags, flipping the command module to its Stable-One position, the upright (heat shield down) position that had the stand-in astronauts lying comfortably in their couches.

This first objective achieved, the less exciting duration test began. Spacecraft 007 drifted south for 24 hours before starting to move parallel to the coast while a weather front moved through the test area generating waves 12 feet high. All the while, the Retriever was nearby keeping an eye on the spacecraft and establishing voice communication with the crew at least once an hour on the hour. As would be the case on the first two manned Apollo missions, one man out of three men was awake at all times to monitor the spacecraft systems and keep the test operators in the loop.

The test ended on Sunday night, and for the crew this meant a very welcome shower, shave, and steak dinner. The three men unanimously agreed that the test had overall been quite a ride. Especially when things got rough during the flip to Stable-Two and when the waves picked up; during these dynamic moments there was little for the volunteer astronauts to do but hang on. But more importantly, the spacecraft had weathered the rough waves and lengthy float very well. Ward noted that the Apollo spacecraft was a far better boat than the Gemini spacecraft, more stable and comfortable. All in all, the test subjects agreed it was a “pretty seaworthy craft.”

At:

www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/when-astronauts...

Along with:

“CM-007/007A is a North American Aviation production-line Apollo Command Module (CM) spacecraft designated as a ground test vehicle for water impact, acoustic and vibration, and postlanding tests. The CM was skinned with cork on the aft and crew compartment heat shields to simulate the flight ablator. CM-007 was in the Block I configuration and initially used in impact and acoustic testing at the manufacturer in Downey, California. It was the first Apollo Command Module delivered to the NASA-Manned Spacecraft Center (NASA-MSC) and was assigned to be used in manned postlanding tests to be conducted by the Landing and Recovery Division. These tests included systems operational and crew compatibility tests for uprighting, postlanding ECS, postlanding communications systems and recovery.

After delivery to Houston in April, 1966, CM-007 was prepared for open water tests in the Gulf of Mexico to operationally qualify the Block I CM postlanding systems. The manned Block I 48-hour open water tests in the Gulf of Mexico were successfully conducted with a NASA test subject crew (Harry Clancy, Tex Ward, Lou DeWolf) onboard CM-007 on September 30-October 2, 1966. Following completion of the Block I tests, CM-007 was shipped back to North American Rockwell in 1967 for modification to Block II (CM-101/Apollo 7 had a two-hatch configuration in the tunnel as compared to subsequent missions which had a single unified tunnel hatch configuration.) After modification, CM-007 was designated CM-007A and returned to NASA-MSC for testing. After the modifications, the manned Block II 48-hour open water tests in the Gulf of Mexico were successfully conducted with an astronaut crew (James A. Lovell, Jr., Stuart A. Roosa, and Charles M. Duke, Jr.) onboard CM007A on April 5-7, 1968. After returning to NASA/MSC, the tunnel hatch was reconfigured to the single unified hatch by a contractor team. Additional static water testing of the uprighting system bag failure modes continued in 1968 in NASA-MSC Building-260 water tank.”

At:

www.jonessite.net/upload/LRD/stories/CM007A.pdf

Credit: Coye Mac Jones' website

I wish I had more information regarding Mr. Jones! Other than:

“Welcome to Broomfield in the Denver/Boulder Colorado area. We moved here from Pagosa Springs Colorado almost three years after CMJ retired from NASA Johnson Space Center in Houston TX on 1/3/03 after 38 years of service, including the historic Project Apollo and Space Shuttle Program. We love our cats Rusty and Berry.”

Also:

photos.google.com/share/AF1QipPBNJ4rFImUqIJsn2mpVVvFrwZr0...

Credit: Coye Jones/Google Photos

Finally:

www.museumofflight.org/spacecraft/north-american-aviation...

Credit: 'The Museum of Flight' website

Tangential but pertinent:

ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19730010171/downloads/1973001...

“Apollo Lunar Landing. (Courtesy of TRW Systems)”

Above per the first/”contents” page.

Beautiful work, one of many, by TRW’s immensely talented resident artist, John Desatoff. Beautiful despite the choice of tint by I suppose Francis Bremmer, Editor In Chief.

Based on the “TM-1 like” appearance of the Lunar Module, along with the space suits, this may have originally been rendered ca. 1964/65.

I wonder what that tripod-mounted, transmit/receive gizmo is. The approaching Astronaut appears to be toting an ALSRC.

SLR Class :- M9

Introduction years :- 2000 to 2001

No of Locos :- 10

Loco Nos :- 864 to 873

Builder :- Alstom

State :-French

Prime Mover :- Ruston - 12 RK 215 T

Mode of Power transmission :- Diesel Electric (AC - AC Power Transmission )

Power :- 3220 hp

rpm :- 1000

Weight :- 100 ton

Length :- 64’

Wheel arrangement :- Co-Co

Brake system : - Vacuum, Air and Dynamic

Max speed :- 110 Km/h

Gauge : - 1676 mm

Type :- Locomotive

Purpose/Used line :- Main line Passenger and Freight train not to run beyond Nawalapitiya.

M9 868 Destroyed due to Fire at Talawa in May 2009

M9 866 and 867 Installed new control system by Medha Servo Drives Pvt Ltd in 2017

Information as at 23.12.2021

The mark above the front wheelarch is a casting fault that got past the quality control systems at Meccano.

“LUNAR TESTS -- Jack Mays, a test subject from the MSC Crew Systems Division, wears an International Latex Corporation spacesuit under a thermal overgarment during tests at the Lunar Topographical Simulation Area. He is also wearing a Portable Life Support System (PLSS) back pack. A full-scale mock-up of a Lunar Module is in background.”

Jack Mays:

youtu.be/YtbvVZG257o

Credit: Manned Space/YouTube

Based open RC 60.

History

The Brill company supplied the SAR with an enlarged version, known as the Model 75. The first was built by J.G. Brill Company with the remaining 38 by the Islington Railway Workshops, entering service in 1927. They differed from the 55s in having a Winton 4-cylinder petrol engine, at 17.8 metres were three metres longer and had a capacity of 63 versus 43. The first 30 (30-59) entered service on the broad gauge, with the other eight (100-106 and 487) built for narrow gauge operation. They were married with 200 and 300 series trailer carriages. One was sold to the Victorian Railways in 1928 after only a few months service.

RC 60 History

AN converted many of the cars to camp cars in the early 70s. When these became redundant in the late 80s SteamRanger acquired two of the converted trailer cars, 207 and 211. A small group of Goolwa based volunteers coordinated by Phil Neville then commenced the daunting task of recreating a representative power car from trailer 207. A diesel engine was installed in the baggage compartment and the bodywork, windows, and seating replaced or extensively refurbished. The body frame was strengthened and electrical and control systems upgraded.

After thousands of hours of voluntary effort the car emerged in early 2001 as Car 60 and provides an interesting historic attraction on selected services between Strathalbyn, Goolwa and Victor Harbor.

“CHART: Capsule Comparison. Shot for Heiser & Deberk.”

A wonderful & most gratifying find…in several ways. First, I’d never seen this particular ‘capsule comparison’ depiction; ranging from the Mercury capsule’s non-standard cutaway depiction, i.e., it pointing away, to the Apollo Command Module being of the Direct Ascent variety, with periscopes extended (although pointing in the wrong direction).

Most significantly – in my world – the Gemini capsule depiction – the only spacecraft firing its reaction control system thruster btw – in combination with the sun-earth?/moon? conjunction permitted identification of the artist. That being the (I’m sure unintentionally) enigmatic Arnold Pierce. A major WIN.

This then leads to/supports other similar & derivative early works to also be potentially attributable to Mr. Pierce. Although, I exclusively associated Mr. Pierce to be a McDonnell Aircraft Corporation artist, this however being a Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC)-issued photo.

Yessiree, too many tedious & pointless observations, but to me, good stuff…preserved.

Heiser: Joseph M. Heiser Jr.?

Deberk: I think this is a botch job of Gerd De Beek, whose position & other "shot for" reference pretty much confirms. If you wish to go down the rabbit hole with me a little, see the below linked TM-1 LEM photo.

Lockheed Martin F-22 "Raptor's" assigned to the 90th Fighter Squadron, Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska, taxi to their parking location at the Royal Australian Air Force Base Amberley flightline for 'Exercise Talisman Sabre 19', July 9. TS19 provides effective and intense training to ensure U.S. Forces are combat ready, capable, interoperable, and deployable on short notice.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor is a fifth-generation, single-seat, twin-engine, all-weather stealth tactical fighter aircraft developed for the United States Air Force (USAF). The result of the USAF's Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) program, the aircraft was designed primarily as an air superiority fighter, but also has ground attack, electronic warfare, and signal intelligence capabilities. The prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, built most of the F-22s airframe and weapons systems and conducted final assembly, while Boeing provided the wings, aft fuselage, avionics integration, and training systems.

The aircraft was variously designated F-22 and F/A-22 before it formally entered service in December 2005 as the F-22A. Despite its protracted development and various operational issues, USAF officials consider the F-22 a critical component of the service's tactical air power. Its combination of stealth, aerodynamic performance, and situational awareness enable unprecedented air combat capabilities.

Service officials had originally planned to buy a total of 750 ATFs. In 2009, the program was cut to 187 operational production aircraft due to high costs, a lack of clear air-to-air missions due to delays in Russian and Chinese fighter programs, a ban on exports, and development of the more versatile F-35. The last F-22 was delivered in 2012.

Development

Origins

In 1981, the U.S. Air Force identified a requirement for an Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) to replace the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon. Code named Senior Sky, this air-superiority fighter program was influenced by emerging worldwide threats, including new developments in Soviet air defense systems and the proliferation of the Su-27 Flanker- and MiG-29 Fulcrum-class of fighter aircraft. It would take advantage of the new technologies in fighter design on the horizon, including composite materials, lightweight alloys, advanced flight control systems, more powerful propulsion systems, and most importantly, stealth technology. In 1983, the ATF concept development team became the System Program Office (SPO) and managed the program at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. The demonstration and validation (Dem/Val) request for proposals (RFP) was issued in September 1985, with requirements placing strong emphasis on stealth and supercruise. Of the seven bidding companies, Lockheed and Northrop were selected on 31 October 1986. Lockheed teamed with Boeing and General Dynamics while Northrop teamed with McDonnell Douglas, and the two contractor teams undertook a 50-month Dem/Val phase, culminating in the flight test of two technology demonstrator prototypes, the YF-22 and the YF-23, respectively.

Dem/Val was focused on risk reduction and technology development plans over specific aircraft designs. Contractors made extensive use of analytical and empirical methods, including computational fluid dynamics, wind-tunnel testing, and radar cross-section calculations and pole testing; the Lockheed team would conduct nearly 18,000 hours of wind-tunnel testing. Avionics development was marked by extensive testing and prototyping and supported by ground and flying laboratories. During Dem/Val, the SPO used the results of performance and cost trade studies conducted by contractor teams to adjust ATF requirements and delete ones that were significant weight and cost drivers while having marginal value. The short takeoff and landing (STOL) requirement was relaxed in order to delete thrust-reversers, saving substantial weight. As avionics was a major cost driver, side-looking radars were deleted, and the dedicated infra-red search and track (IRST) system was downgraded from multi-color to single color and then deleted as well. However, space and cooling provisions were retained to allow for future addition of these components. The ejection seat requirement was downgraded from a fresh design to the existing McDonnell Douglas ACES II. Despite efforts by the contractor teams to rein in weight, the takeoff gross weight estimate was increased from 50,000 lb (22,700 kg) to 60,000 lb (27,200 kg), resulting in engine thrust requirement increasing from 30,000 lbf (133 kN) to 35,000 lbf (156 kN) class.

Each team produced two prototype air vehicles for Dem/Val, one for each of the two engine options. The YF-22 had its maiden flight on 29 September 1990 and in flight tests achieved up to Mach 1.58 in supercruise. After the Dem/Val flight test of the prototypes, on 23 April 1991, Secretary of the USAF Donald Rice announced the Lockheed team as the winner of the ATF competition. The YF-23 design was considered stealthier and faster, while the YF-22, with its thrust vectoring nozzles, was more maneuverable as well as less expensive and risky. The aviation press speculated that the Lockheed team's design was also more adaptable to the U.S. Navy's Navalized Advanced Tactical Fighter (NATF), but by 1992, the Navy had abandoned NATF.

Production and procurement

As the program moved to full-scale development, or the Engineering & Manufacturing Development (EMD) stage, the production version had notable differences from the YF-22, despite having a broadly similar shape. The swept-back angle of the leading edge was decreased from 48° to 42°, while the vertical stabilizers were shifted rearward and decreased in area by 20%. To improve pilot visibility, the canopy was moved forward 7 inches (18 cm), and the engine intakes moved rearward 14 inches (36 cm). The shapes of the wing and stabilator trailing edges were refined to improve aerodynamics, strength, and stealth characteristics. Increasing weight during development caused slight reductions in range and maneuver performance.

Prime contractor Lockheed Martin Aeronautics manufactured the majority of the airframe and performed final assembly at Dobbins Air Reserve Base in Marietta, Georgia; program partner Boeing Defense, Space & Security provided additional airframe components as well as avionics integration and training systems. The first F-22, an EMD aircraft with tail number 4001, was unveiled at Marietta, Georgia, on 9 April 1997, and first flew on 7 September 1997. Production, with the first lot awarded in September 2000, supported over 1,000 subcontractors and suppliers from 46 states and up to 95,000 jobs, and spanned 15 years at a peak rate of roughly two airplanes per month. In 2006, the F-22 development team won the Collier Trophy, American aviation's most prestigious award. Due to the aircraft's advanced nature, contractors have been targeted by cyberattacks and technology theft.

The USAF originally envisioned ordering 750 ATFs at a total program cost of $44.3 billion and procurement cost of $26.2 billion in fiscal year (FY) 1985 dollars, with production beginning in 1994. The 1990 Major Aircraft Review led by Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney reduced this to 648 aircraft beginning in 1996. By 1997, funding instability had further cut the total to 339, which was again reduced to 277 by 2003. In 2004, the Department of Defense (DoD) further reduced this to 183 operational aircraft, despite the USAF's preference for 381. A multi-year procurement plan was implemented in 2006 to save $15 billion, with total program cost projected to be $62 billion for 183 F-22s distributed to seven combat squadrons. In 2008, Congress passed a defense spending bill that raised the total orders for production aircraft to 187.

The first two F-22s built were EMD aircraft in the Block 1.0 configuration for initial flight testing, while the third was a Block 2.0 aircraft built to represent the internal structure of production airframes and enabled it to test full flight loads. Six more EMD aircraft were built in the Block 10 configuration for development and upgrade testing, with the last two considered essentially production quality jets. Production for operational squadrons consisted of 37 Block 20 training aircraft and 149 Block 30/35 combat aircraft; one of the Block 35 aircraft is dedicated to flight sciences at Edwards Air Force Base.

The numerous new technologies in the F-22 resulted in substantial cost overruns and delays. Many capabilities were deferred to post-service upgrades, reducing the initial cost but increasing total program cost. As production wound down in 2011, the total program cost is estimated to be about $67.3 billion, with $32.4 billion spent on Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) and $34.9 billion on procurement and military construction (MILCON) in then year dollars. The incremental cost for an additional F-22 was estimated at about $138 million in 2009.

Ban on exports

The F-22 cannot be exported under US federal law to protect its stealth technology and other high-tech features. Customers for U.S. fighters are acquiring earlier designs such as the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon or the newer F-35 Lightning II, which contains technology from the F-22 but was designed to be cheaper, more flexible, and available for export. In September 2006, Congress upheld the ban on foreign F-22 sales. Despite the ban, the 2010 defense authorization bill included provisions requiring the DoD to prepare a report on the costs and feasibility for an F-22 export variant, and another report on the effect of F-22 export sales on U.S. aerospace industry.

Some Australian politicians and defense commentators proposed that Australia should attempt to purchase F-22s instead of the planned F-35s, citing the F-22's known capabilities and F-35s delays and developmental uncertainties. However, the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) determined that the F-22 was unable to perform the F-35s strike and close air support roles. The Japanese government also showed interest in the F-22 for its Replacement-Fighter program. The Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) would reportedly require fewer fighters for its mission if it obtained the F-22, thus reducing engineering and staffing costs. However, in 2009 it was reported that acquiring the F-22 would require increases to the Japanese government's defense budget beyond the historical 1 percent of its GDP. With the end of F-22 production, Japan chose the F-35 in December 2011. Israel also expressed interest, but eventually chose the F-35 because of the F-22s price and unavailability.

Production termination

Throughout the 2000s, the need for F-22s was debated, due to rising costs and the lack of relevant adversaries. In 2006, Comptroller General of the United States David Walker found that "the DoD has not demonstrated the need" for more investment in the F-22, and further opposition to the program was expressed by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon R. England, Senator John McCain, and Chairman of U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services Senator John Warner. The F-22 program lost influential supporters in 2008 after the forced resignations of Secretary of the Air Force Michael Wynne and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force General T. Michael Moseley.

In November 2008, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated that the F-22 was not relevant in post-Cold War conflicts such as irregular warfare operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in April 2009, under the new Obama Administration, he called for ending production in FY2011, leaving the USAF with 187 production aircraft. In July, General James Cartwright, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated to the Senate Committee on Armed Services his reasons for supporting termination of F-22 production. They included shifting resources to the multirole F-35 to allow proliferation of fifth-generation fighters for three service branches and preserving the F/A-18 production line to maintain the military's electronic warfare (EW) capabilities in the Boeing EA-18G Growler. Issues with the F-22s reliability and availability also raised concerns. After President Obama threatened to veto further production, the Senate voted in July 2009 in favor of ending production and the House subsequently agreed to abide by the 187 production aircraft cap. Gates stated that the decision was taken in light of the F-35s capabilities, and in 2010, he set the F-22 requirement to 187 aircraft by lowering the number of major regional conflict preparations from two to one.

In 2010, USAF initiated a study to determine the costs of retaining F-22 tooling for a future Service Life Extension Program (SLEP). A RAND Corporation paper from this study estimated that restarting production and building an additional 75 F-22s would cost $17 billion, resulting in $227 million per aircraft, or $54 million higher than the flyaway cost. Lockheed Martin stated that restarting the production line itself would cost about $200 million. Production tooling and associated documentation were subsequently stored at the Sierra Army Depot, allowing the retained tooling to support the fleet life cycle. There were reports that attempts to retrieve this tooling found empty containers, but a subsequent audit found that the tooling was stored as expected.

Russian and Chinese fighter developments have fueled concern, and in 2009, General John Corley, head of Air Combat Command, stated that a fleet of 187 F-22s would be inadequate, but Secretary Gates dismissed General Corley's concern. In 2011, Gates explained that Chinese fifth-generation fighter developments had been accounted for when the number of F-22s was set, and that the U.S. would have a considerable advantage in stealth aircraft in 2025, even with F-35 delays. In December 2011, the 195th and final F-22 was completed out of 8 test EMD and 187 operational aircraft produced; the aircraft was delivered to the USAF on 2 May 2012.

In April 2016, the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee proposed legislation that would direct the Air Force to conduct a cost study and assessment associated with resuming production of the F-22. Since the production halt directed in 2009 by then Defense Secretary Gates, lawmakers and the Pentagon noted that air warfare systems of Russia and China were catching up to those of the U.S. Lockheed Martin has proposed upgrading the Block 20 training aircraft into combat-coded Block 30/35 versions as a way to increase numbers available for deployment. On 9 June 2017, the Air Force submitted their report to Congress stating they had no plans to restart the F-22 production line due to economic and operational issues; it estimated it would cost approximately $50 billion to procure 194 additional F-22s at a cost of $206–$216 million per aircraft, including approximately $9.9 billion for non-recurring start-up costs and $40.4 billion for aircraft procurement costs.

Upgrades

The first aircraft with combat-capable Block 3.0 software flew in 2001. Increment 2, the first upgrade program, was implemented in 2005 for Block 20 aircraft onward and enabled the employment of Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM). Certification of the improved AN/APG-77(V)1 radar was completed in March 2007, and airframes from production Lot 5 onward are fitted with this radar, which incorporates air-to-ground modes. Increment 3.1 for Block 30 aircraft onward provided improved ground-attack capability through synthetic aperture radar mapping and radio emitter direction finding, electronic attack and Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) integration; testing began in 2009 and the first upgraded aircraft was delivered in 2011. To address oxygen deprivation issues, F-22s were fitted with an automatic backup oxygen system (ABOS) and modified life support system starting in 2012.

Increment 3.2 for Block 35 aircraft is a two-part upgrade process; 3.2A focuses on electronic warfare, communications and identification, while 3.2B includes geolocation improvements and a new stores management system to show the correct symbols for the AIM-9X and AIM-120D. To enable two-way communication with other platforms, the F-22 can use the Battlefield Airborne Communications Node (BACN) as a gateway. The planned Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) integration was cut due to development delays and lack of proliferation among USAF platforms. The F-22 fleet is planned to start receiving Increment 3.2B as well as a software upgrade for cryptography capabilities and avionics stability in May 2019. A Multifunctional Information Distribution System-Joint (MIDS-J) radio that replaces the current Link-16 receive-only box is expected to be operational by 2020. Subsequent upgrades are also focusing on having an open architecture to enable faster future enhancements.

In 2024, funding is projected to begin for the F-22 mid-life upgrade (MLU), which is expected to include new sensors and antennas, hardware refresh, cockpit improvements, and a helmet mounted display and cuing system. Other enhancements being developed include IRST functionality for the AN/AAR-56 Missile Launch Detector (MLD) and more durable stealth coating based on the F-35s.

The F-22 was designed for a service life of 8,000 flight hours, with a $350 million "structures retrofit program". Investigations are being made for upgrades to extend their useful lives further. In the long term, the F-22 is expected to be superseded by a sixth-generation jet fighter to be fielded in the 2030s.

Design

Overview

The F-22 Raptor is a fifth-generation fighter that is considered fourth generation in stealth aircraft technology by the USAF.[91] It is the first operational aircraft to combine supercruise, supermaneuverability, stealth, and sensor fusion in a single weapons platform. The F-22 has four empennage surfaces, retractable tricycle landing gear, and clipped delta wings with reverse trailing edge sweep and leading edge extensions running to the upper outboard corner of the inlets. Flight control surfaces include leading-edge flaps, flaperons, ailerons, rudders on the canted vertical stabilizers, and all-moving horizontal tails (stabilators); for speed brake function, the ailerons deflect up, flaperons down, and rudders outwards to increase drag.

The aircraft's dual Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 augmented turbofan engines are closely spaced and incorporate pitch-axis thrust vectoring nozzles with a range of ±20 degrees; each engine has maximum thrust in the 35,000 lbf (156 kN) class. The F-22s thrust-to-weight ratio at typical combat weight is nearly at unity in maximum military power and 1.25 in full afterburner. Maximum speed without external stores is approximately Mach 1.8 at military power and greater than Mach 2 with afterburners.

The F-22s high cruise speed and operating altitude over prior fighters improve the effectiveness of its sensors and weapon systems, and increase survivability against ground defenses such as surface-to-air missiles. The aircraft is among only a few that can supercruise, or sustain supersonic flight without using fuel-inefficient afterburners; it can intercept targets which subsonic aircraft would lack the speed to pursue and an afterburner-dependent aircraft would lack the fuel to reach. The F-22s thrust and aerodynamics enable regular combat speeds of Mach 1.5 at 50,000 feet (15,000 m). The use of internal weapons bays permits the aircraft to maintain comparatively higher performance over most other combat-configured fighters due to a lack of aerodynamic drag from external stores. The aircraft's structure contains a significant amount of high-strength materials to withstand stress and heat of sustained supersonic flight. Respectively, titanium alloys and composites comprise 39% and 24% of the structural weight.

The F-22s aerodynamics, relaxed stability, and powerful thrust-vectoring engines give it excellent maneuverability and energy potential across its flight envelope. The airplane has excellent high alpha (angle of attack) characteristics, capable of flying at trimmed alpha of over 60° while maintaining roll control and performing maneuvers such as the Herbst maneuver (J-turn) and Pugachev's Cobra. The flight control system and full-authority digital engine control (FADEC) make the aircraft highly departure resistant and controllable, thus giving the pilot carefree handling.

Stealth

The F-22 was designed to be highly difficult to detect and track by radar. Measures to reduce radar cross-section (RCS) include airframe shaping such as alignment of edges, fixed-geometry serpentine inlets and curved vanes that prevent line-of-sight of the engine faces and turbines from any exterior view, use of radar-absorbent material (RAM), and attention to detail such as hinges and pilot helmets that could provide a radar return. The F-22 was also designed to have decreased radio emissions, infrared signature and acoustic signature as well as reduced visibility to the naked eye. The aircraft's flat thrust-vectoring nozzles reduce infrared emissions of the exhaust plume to mitigate the threat of infrared homing ("heat seeking") surface-to-air or air-to-air missiles. Additional measures to reduce the infrared signature include special topcoat and active cooling of leading edges to manage the heat buildup from supersonic flight.

Compared to previous stealth designs like the F-117, the F-22 is less reliant on RAM, which are maintenance-intensive and susceptible to adverse weather conditions. Unlike the B-2, which requires climate-controlled hangars, the F-22 can undergo repairs on the flight line or in a normal hangar. The F-22 has a Signature Assessment System which delivers warnings when the radar signature is degraded and necessitates repair. While the F-22s exact RCS is classified, in 2009 Lockheed Martin released information indicating that from certain angles the aircraft has an RCS of 0.0001 m² or −40 dBsm – equivalent to the radar reflection of a "steel marble". Effectively maintaining the stealth features can decrease the F-22s mission capable rate to 62–70%.

The effectiveness of the stealth characteristics is difficult to gauge. The RCS value is a restrictive measurement of the aircraft's frontal or side area from the perspective of a static radar. When an aircraft maneuvers it exposes a completely different set of angles and surface area, potentially increasing radar observability. Furthermore, the F-22s stealth contouring and radar absorbent materials are chiefly effective against high-frequency radars, usually found on other aircraft. The effects of Rayleigh scattering and resonance mean that low-frequency radars such as weather radars and early-warning radars are more likely to detect the F-22 due to its physical size. However, such radars are also conspicuous, susceptible to clutter, and have low precision. Additionally, while faint or fleeting radar contacts make defenders aware that a stealth aircraft is present, reliably vectoring interception to attack the aircraft is much more challenging. According to the USAF an F-22 surprised an Iranian F-4 Phantom II that was attempting to intercept an American UAV, despite Iran's assertion of having military VHF radar coverage over the Persian Gulf.

A fantastic view of Command Module 103 (CM-103) during assembly & testing at North American Aviation’s (NAA) Downey, CA facility. Possibly bldg. 290?

Excessive elaboration to confirm/prove my identification of it as CM-103 accompanies the below linked photos. In lieu, suffice it to say that the look/configuration of certain forward compartment components visible here, along with markings, which, like fingerprints, are unique to each CM, confirm it to be a Block II capsule, which eventually flew on Apollo 8.

The dangling hoses from the fixture partially encircling the Command Module are all pneumatic, and the exposed tanks/vessels visible within the exposed aft compartment, other than the one clearly labeled “WASTE WATER TANK”, are Reaction Control System related. So, this ‘station’ may be to pressure test those tanks/vessels. What I initially thought was the framework of the overhead structure are the myriad of feed lines to each hose position!

Additionally, per an ‘H-Missions’ Command/Service Module News Reference, at:

www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/CSM16_Reaction_Control_Subsystem_pp1...

which may or may not be applicable (I choose to think it is):

“The [CM reaction control] system consists of two independent, redundant systems, each containing six engines, helium and propellant tanks, and a dump and purge system. The two systems can operate in tandem; however, one can provide all the impulse needed for the entry maneuvers and normally only one is used.”

Further, per figure/plate P-200 within the above document, the two nearly adjacent tanks closest to the camera are fuel tanks, System 1 on the left, System 2 on the right. The smaller single tank to the right is the System 2 Helium tank. The panel of plastic wrapped/capped? connections farther to the right may then be fuel line connections to the yet-to-be installed yaw jets below it. To the left of the waste water tank are, left-to-right, System 1 & System 2 oxidizer tanks. Finally, the four connected pneumatic lines are at, appropriately enough, the ‘fuel servicing panel’.

A rare, obscure & stunning photograph that somehow fortunately survived.

Compare/contrast. Awesome:

archive.org/details/S68-22202

Credit: the wonderful Internet Archive website

CM-009, flown February 26, 1966 as part of AS-201 is seen here, January 31, 1967 at North American Aviation’s Downey facility, and based on the double-row window configuration, possibly in Building 290? Knowing neither squat nor diddly regarding timelines for Command Module post-flight inspections, who knows what prompted this photograph. Possibly as documentation in preparation for display at Expo '67, which commenced April 28, 1967. It does look like it’s about to be crated/or has just been uncrated.

According to NASA releases, the vehicle was subsequently used in two land impact tests conducted in 1968, on March 7 & October 26.

Additionally, note the hatch, just right of the capsule’s center. Specifically, its trapezoidal window opening. ‘Opening’, because to me, it looks like there’s no glass anymore…at all. Furthermore, the fact that it is clearly/only (in this photograph at least), only a trapezoidal opening is also noteworthy. Its outward appearance was/is the source of some confusion & confoundment…at least as far as subsequent identification of the vehicle is concerned:

www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum40/HTML/000063.html

Credit: collectSPACE website

Space History: CM-009 was the first production Command Module to launch on a Saturn rocket, that also being the first flight of a Saturn IB.

But wait, the ‘best’ is yet to come:

As if all of the above wasn’t enough, there’s the dependable & perpetual NASA…’photo identification, cataloging, description, reproduction, articulation, ad infinitum’ debacle:

The capsule in the photograph I've posted is the one that was on display at Expo ‘67 - with all markings matching up - which is universally, as per the following - possible source document - identified as CM-011, flown on AS-202. WRONG.

Where would’ve the content & identification in the press release originated? Hmm…one guess:

www.worldsfairphotos.com/expo67/documents/press-releases/...

Credit: Bill Cotter, at his superb Expo '67 website. It MOST DEFINITELY merits one's attention!

A confirmed photograph of CM-011/AS-202 during recovery operations is at the following link. The capsule clearly bears a large, intense & conspicuous scorch mark, well-placed for comparative purposes, which then should be visible, or its remnant, in either my, or any/all of the above/linked below images. There are multiple other features, markings, damage, etc., exclusive to CM-011. Also at the link is the following, possibly its official NASA caption. It may even be correct:

"Apollo spacecraft 011 Command Module floats in the Pacific Ocean during recovery operations following the successful unmanned Apollo/Saturn Mission 202 test flight".

At:

www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/misc/apmisc-S66-4...

Credit: "The Project Apollo Image Gallery" website

Contrast to CM-009 recovery photos at the following, which, I think to be correct, and which support all above:

www.alternatewars.com/SpaceRace/SP-4205/Chapter_08.htm

Also, great information & discussion & further visual proof/evidence of Expo '67 vehicle confirmation, despite erroneous identification in the discussion:

www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum29/HTML/001008.html

Credit: collectSPACE website

AN INEXPLICABLY ENDURING & INEXCUSABLE BLUNDER, OF EPIC (IN MY WORLD) PROPORTIONS.

NOT THAT IT MATTERS...ANYMORE...BUT HOW DID IT PERSIST…FOR ALL THIS TIME? IN FACT, IT’S ACTUALLY EVEN BEEN "CONFIRMED" BY FOLKS I CONSIDERED KNOWLEDGEABLE, OR AT THE VERY LEAST, OBSERVANT.

WOW.

Almost, and other than the blatant error regarding the Expo, a good article:

roundupreads.jsc.nasa.gov/roundup/1754

HUH?!?!?! How the f**k did they arrive at the WRONG idenfication??? Again, wow...just WOW:

forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29899.0

Credit: "NASA SPACEFLIGHT" Forum website

And...I'M SURE...the ORIGINAL SIN/F**K UP of this spacecraft's 'unidentification' exacerbated, and to whatever degree, was the genesis for the following thread of discussion & CONFUSION - by intelligent & otherwise knowledgable folks!!!

The subsequent muddled & likely erroneous 'chain of custody' - IF SUCH EVEN EXISTED, for CM-009 - is obvious:

www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum40/HTML/000063.html

Credit: collectSPACE website

DUMBASS, DEFICIENT, DOLT N(Ass)A BUFFOONS.

JUST WOW...MIND-BLOWING.

THERE'S REALLY NO EXCUSE FOR THIS. NONE. PATHETIC ACTUALLY.

Whatever, right? It is what it is.

The Art of NASA: THE ILLUSTRATIONS THAT SOLD THE MISSIONS, cover/dust jacket

The time has come for blatant self-promotion...my health is deteriorating more quickly than I'd like, primarily the ability to walk. Not meant to elicit any maudlin sentiment, merely stating fact, it being the impetus for this album.

As a handful of you've probably deduced, I have way too much of this stuff. The time to divest - enmasse if possible - has arrived. So, I'm compelled to attempt to generate a little 'buzz', and I'm hoping the content of this album is a small step in that direction. I'm not kidding myself, I'm a nobody & I know this will barely create a ripple, but I have to start somewhere.

There are way too many animals suffering in the world, absolutely horrifically in many instances, by the actions/inactions of humans. That's where I need to focus whatever efforts I can muster, in ways I'm not yet even sure of.

Whatever it is, money from this (hoped for) liquidation will help.

Very nice cutaway of either - take your pick - the Apollo 7 or Apollo 8 Command Module, as depicted by talented artist Russ Arasmith.

Note the lack of a docking probe in the space above the “FORWARD ACCESS TUNNEL”, as it was not required on either Apollo 7 or 8.

I wonder what, if anything actually occupied that space for those missions? There would’ve surely been something, of equivalent mass, possibly in the form of basic instrumentation or recording/telemetry capability, no?

A life well-lived, thank you for your service Sir, Rest In Peace:

www.dignitymemorial.com/obituaries/westminster-ca/russell...

Credit: Dignity Memorial website

Control system of the "Gorch Fock" occupied during storms with six sailors.

In the right foreground is the master compass, next to it is the engine telegraph.

Steueranlage der "Gorch Fock" bei Sturm mit 6 Matrosen besetzt.

Rechts vorn ist der Mutterkompass, daneben der Maschinentelegraf zu sehen.

The Gorch Fock

is a three-masted barque and

a sail training ship of the German Navy

(I myself was in 1963 on the Gorch Fock)

© 11 - 2014 by

RICHARD von LENZANO

Kamera:

Fujifilm

Finepix

HS50 EXR

Paveway is a welding specialist who works on the Hero Factory's high altitude solar generation plants. Her thick armor and environmental control systems allow for extended operations in the frigid radioactive abyss of near-space. She is equipped with a hoverboard that can transform into a quad-rotor drone, and an arc rifle that can double as her welder.

Lockheed Martin F-22 "Raptor's" assigned to the 90th Fighter Squadron, Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska, taxi to their parking location at the Royal Australian Air Force Base Amberley flightline for 'Exercise Talisman Sabre 19', July 9. TS19 provides effective and intense training to ensure U.S. Forces are combat ready, capable, interoperable, and deployable on short notice.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor is a fifth-generation, single-seat, twin-engine, all-weather stealth tactical fighter aircraft developed for the United States Air Force (USAF). The result of the USAF's Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) program, the aircraft was designed primarily as an air superiority fighter, but also has ground attack, electronic warfare, and signal intelligence capabilities. The prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, built most of the F-22s airframe and weapons systems and conducted final assembly, while Boeing provided the wings, aft fuselage, avionics integration, and training systems.

The aircraft was variously designated F-22 and F/A-22 before it formally entered service in December 2005 as the F-22A. Despite its protracted development and various operational issues, USAF officials consider the F-22 a critical component of the service's tactical air power. Its combination of stealth, aerodynamic performance, and situational awareness enable unprecedented air combat capabilities.

Service officials had originally planned to buy a total of 750 ATFs. In 2009, the program was cut to 187 operational production aircraft due to high costs, a lack of clear air-to-air missions due to delays in Russian and Chinese fighter programs, a ban on exports, and development of the more versatile F-35. The last F-22 was delivered in 2012.

Development

Origins

In 1981, the U.S. Air Force identified a requirement for an Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) to replace the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon. Code named Senior Sky, this air-superiority fighter program was influenced by emerging worldwide threats, including new developments in Soviet air defense systems and the proliferation of the Su-27 Flanker- and MiG-29 Fulcrum-class of fighter aircraft. It would take advantage of the new technologies in fighter design on the horizon, including composite materials, lightweight alloys, advanced flight control systems, more powerful propulsion systems, and most importantly, stealth technology. In 1983, the ATF concept development team became the System Program Office (SPO) and managed the program at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. The demonstration and validation (Dem/Val) request for proposals (RFP) was issued in September 1985, with requirements placing strong emphasis on stealth and supercruise. Of the seven bidding companies, Lockheed and Northrop were selected on 31 October 1986. Lockheed teamed with Boeing and General Dynamics while Northrop teamed with McDonnell Douglas, and the two contractor teams undertook a 50-month Dem/Val phase, culminating in the flight test of two technology demonstrator prototypes, the YF-22 and the YF-23, respectively.

Dem/Val was focused on risk reduction and technology development plans over specific aircraft designs. Contractors made extensive use of analytical and empirical methods, including computational fluid dynamics, wind-tunnel testing, and radar cross-section calculations and pole testing; the Lockheed team would conduct nearly 18,000 hours of wind-tunnel testing. Avionics development was marked by extensive testing and prototyping and supported by ground and flying laboratories. During Dem/Val, the SPO used the results of performance and cost trade studies conducted by contractor teams to adjust ATF requirements and delete ones that were significant weight and cost drivers while having marginal value. The short takeoff and landing (STOL) requirement was relaxed in order to delete thrust-reversers, saving substantial weight. As avionics was a major cost driver, side-looking radars were deleted, and the dedicated infra-red search and track (IRST) system was downgraded from multi-color to single color and then deleted as well. However, space and cooling provisions were retained to allow for future addition of these components. The ejection seat requirement was downgraded from a fresh design to the existing McDonnell Douglas ACES II. Despite efforts by the contractor teams to rein in weight, the takeoff gross weight estimate was increased from 50,000 lb (22,700 kg) to 60,000 lb (27,200 kg), resulting in engine thrust requirement increasing from 30,000 lbf (133 kN) to 35,000 lbf (156 kN) class.

Each team produced two prototype air vehicles for Dem/Val, one for each of the two engine options. The YF-22 had its maiden flight on 29 September 1990 and in flight tests achieved up to Mach 1.58 in supercruise. After the Dem/Val flight test of the prototypes, on 23 April 1991, Secretary of the USAF Donald Rice announced the Lockheed team as the winner of the ATF competition. The YF-23 design was considered stealthier and faster, while the YF-22, with its thrust vectoring nozzles, was more maneuverable as well as less expensive and risky. The aviation press speculated that the Lockheed team's design was also more adaptable to the U.S. Navy's Navalized Advanced Tactical Fighter (NATF), but by 1992, the Navy had abandoned NATF.

Production and procurement

As the program moved to full-scale development, or the Engineering & Manufacturing Development (EMD) stage, the production version had notable differences from the YF-22, despite having a broadly similar shape. The swept-back angle of the leading edge was decreased from 48° to 42°, while the vertical stabilizers were shifted rearward and decreased in area by 20%. To improve pilot visibility, the canopy was moved forward 7 inches (18 cm), and the engine intakes moved rearward 14 inches (36 cm). The shapes of the wing and stabilator trailing edges were refined to improve aerodynamics, strength, and stealth characteristics. Increasing weight during development caused slight reductions in range and maneuver performance.

Prime contractor Lockheed Martin Aeronautics manufactured the majority of the airframe and performed final assembly at Dobbins Air Reserve Base in Marietta, Georgia; program partner Boeing Defense, Space & Security provided additional airframe components as well as avionics integration and training systems. The first F-22, an EMD aircraft with tail number 4001, was unveiled at Marietta, Georgia, on 9 April 1997, and first flew on 7 September 1997. Production, with the first lot awarded in September 2000, supported over 1,000 subcontractors and suppliers from 46 states and up to 95,000 jobs, and spanned 15 years at a peak rate of roughly two airplanes per month. In 2006, the F-22 development team won the Collier Trophy, American aviation's most prestigious award. Due to the aircraft's advanced nature, contractors have been targeted by cyberattacks and technology theft.

The USAF originally envisioned ordering 750 ATFs at a total program cost of $44.3 billion and procurement cost of $26.2 billion in fiscal year (FY) 1985 dollars, with production beginning in 1994. The 1990 Major Aircraft Review led by Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney reduced this to 648 aircraft beginning in 1996. By 1997, funding instability had further cut the total to 339, which was again reduced to 277 by 2003. In 2004, the Department of Defense (DoD) further reduced this to 183 operational aircraft, despite the USAF's preference for 381. A multi-year procurement plan was implemented in 2006 to save $15 billion, with total program cost projected to be $62 billion for 183 F-22s distributed to seven combat squadrons. In 2008, Congress passed a defense spending bill that raised the total orders for production aircraft to 187.

The first two F-22s built were EMD aircraft in the Block 1.0 configuration for initial flight testing, while the third was a Block 2.0 aircraft built to represent the internal structure of production airframes and enabled it to test full flight loads. Six more EMD aircraft were built in the Block 10 configuration for development and upgrade testing, with the last two considered essentially production quality jets. Production for operational squadrons consisted of 37 Block 20 training aircraft and 149 Block 30/35 combat aircraft; one of the Block 35 aircraft is dedicated to flight sciences at Edwards Air Force Base.

The numerous new technologies in the F-22 resulted in substantial cost overruns and delays. Many capabilities were deferred to post-service upgrades, reducing the initial cost but increasing total program cost. As production wound down in 2011, the total program cost is estimated to be about $67.3 billion, with $32.4 billion spent on Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) and $34.9 billion on procurement and military construction (MILCON) in then year dollars. The incremental cost for an additional F-22 was estimated at about $138 million in 2009.

Ban on exports

The F-22 cannot be exported under US federal law to protect its stealth technology and other high-tech features. Customers for U.S. fighters are acquiring earlier designs such as the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon or the newer F-35 Lightning II, which contains technology from the F-22 but was designed to be cheaper, more flexible, and available for export. In September 2006, Congress upheld the ban on foreign F-22 sales. Despite the ban, the 2010 defense authorization bill included provisions requiring the DoD to prepare a report on the costs and feasibility for an F-22 export variant, and another report on the effect of F-22 export sales on U.S. aerospace industry.

Some Australian politicians and defense commentators proposed that Australia should attempt to purchase F-22s instead of the planned F-35s, citing the F-22's known capabilities and F-35s delays and developmental uncertainties. However, the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) determined that the F-22 was unable to perform the F-35s strike and close air support roles. The Japanese government also showed interest in the F-22 for its Replacement-Fighter program. The Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) would reportedly require fewer fighters for its mission if it obtained the F-22, thus reducing engineering and staffing costs. However, in 2009 it was reported that acquiring the F-22 would require increases to the Japanese government's defense budget beyond the historical 1 percent of its GDP. With the end of F-22 production, Japan chose the F-35 in December 2011. Israel also expressed interest, but eventually chose the F-35 because of the F-22s price and unavailability.

Production termination

Throughout the 2000s, the need for F-22s was debated, due to rising costs and the lack of relevant adversaries. In 2006, Comptroller General of the United States David Walker found that "the DoD has not demonstrated the need" for more investment in the F-22, and further opposition to the program was expressed by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon R. England, Senator John McCain, and Chairman of U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services Senator John Warner. The F-22 program lost influential supporters in 2008 after the forced resignations of Secretary of the Air Force Michael Wynne and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force General T. Michael Moseley.

In November 2008, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated that the F-22 was not relevant in post-Cold War conflicts such as irregular warfare operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in April 2009, under the new Obama Administration, he called for ending production in FY2011, leaving the USAF with 187 production aircraft. In July, General James Cartwright, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated to the Senate Committee on Armed Services his reasons for supporting termination of F-22 production. They included shifting resources to the multirole F-35 to allow proliferation of fifth-generation fighters for three service branches and preserving the F/A-18 production line to maintain the military's electronic warfare (EW) capabilities in the Boeing EA-18G Growler. Issues with the F-22s reliability and availability also raised concerns. After President Obama threatened to veto further production, the Senate voted in July 2009 in favor of ending production and the House subsequently agreed to abide by the 187 production aircraft cap. Gates stated that the decision was taken in light of the F-35s capabilities, and in 2010, he set the F-22 requirement to 187 aircraft by lowering the number of major regional conflict preparations from two to one.

In 2010, USAF initiated a study to determine the costs of retaining F-22 tooling for a future Service Life Extension Program (SLEP). A RAND Corporation paper from this study estimated that restarting production and building an additional 75 F-22s would cost $17 billion, resulting in $227 million per aircraft, or $54 million higher than the flyaway cost. Lockheed Martin stated that restarting the production line itself would cost about $200 million. Production tooling and associated documentation were subsequently stored at the Sierra Army Depot, allowing the retained tooling to support the fleet life cycle. There were reports that attempts to retrieve this tooling found empty containers, but a subsequent audit found that the tooling was stored as expected.

Russian and Chinese fighter developments have fueled concern, and in 2009, General John Corley, head of Air Combat Command, stated that a fleet of 187 F-22s would be inadequate, but Secretary Gates dismissed General Corley's concern. In 2011, Gates explained that Chinese fifth-generation fighter developments had been accounted for when the number of F-22s was set, and that the U.S. would have a considerable advantage in stealth aircraft in 2025, even with F-35 delays. In December 2011, the 195th and final F-22 was completed out of 8 test EMD and 187 operational aircraft produced; the aircraft was delivered to the USAF on 2 May 2012.

In April 2016, the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee proposed legislation that would direct the Air Force to conduct a cost study and assessment associated with resuming production of the F-22. Since the production halt directed in 2009 by then Defense Secretary Gates, lawmakers and the Pentagon noted that air warfare systems of Russia and China were catching up to those of the U.S. Lockheed Martin has proposed upgrading the Block 20 training aircraft into combat-coded Block 30/35 versions as a way to increase numbers available for deployment. On 9 June 2017, the Air Force submitted their report to Congress stating they had no plans to restart the F-22 production line due to economic and operational issues; it estimated it would cost approximately $50 billion to procure 194 additional F-22s at a cost of $206–$216 million per aircraft, including approximately $9.9 billion for non-recurring start-up costs and $40.4 billion for aircraft procurement costs.

Upgrades

The first aircraft with combat-capable Block 3.0 software flew in 2001. Increment 2, the first upgrade program, was implemented in 2005 for Block 20 aircraft onward and enabled the employment of Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM). Certification of the improved AN/APG-77(V)1 radar was completed in March 2007, and airframes from production Lot 5 onward are fitted with this radar, which incorporates air-to-ground modes. Increment 3.1 for Block 30 aircraft onward provided improved ground-attack capability through synthetic aperture radar mapping and radio emitter direction finding, electronic attack and Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) integration; testing began in 2009 and the first upgraded aircraft was delivered in 2011. To address oxygen deprivation issues, F-22s were fitted with an automatic backup oxygen system (ABOS) and modified life support system starting in 2012.

Increment 3.2 for Block 35 aircraft is a two-part upgrade process; 3.2A focuses on electronic warfare, communications and identification, while 3.2B includes geolocation improvements and a new stores management system to show the correct symbols for the AIM-9X and AIM-120D. To enable two-way communication with other platforms, the F-22 can use the Battlefield Airborne Communications Node (BACN) as a gateway. The planned Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) integration was cut due to development delays and lack of proliferation among USAF platforms. The F-22 fleet is planned to start receiving Increment 3.2B as well as a software upgrade for cryptography capabilities and avionics stability in May 2019. A Multifunctional Information Distribution System-Joint (MIDS-J) radio that replaces the current Link-16 receive-only box is expected to be operational by 2020. Subsequent upgrades are also focusing on having an open architecture to enable faster future enhancements.

In 2024, funding is projected to begin for the F-22 mid-life upgrade (MLU), which is expected to include new sensors and antennas, hardware refresh, cockpit improvements, and a helmet mounted display and cuing system. Other enhancements being developed include IRST functionality for the AN/AAR-56 Missile Launch Detector (MLD) and more durable stealth coating based on the F-35s.

The F-22 was designed for a service life of 8,000 flight hours, with a $350 million "structures retrofit program". Investigations are being made for upgrades to extend their useful lives further. In the long term, the F-22 is expected to be superseded by a sixth-generation jet fighter to be fielded in the 2030s.

Design

Overview

The F-22 Raptor is a fifth-generation fighter that is considered fourth generation in stealth aircraft technology by the USAF.[91] It is the first operational aircraft to combine supercruise, supermaneuverability, stealth, and sensor fusion in a single weapons platform. The F-22 has four empennage surfaces, retractable tricycle landing gear, and clipped delta wings with reverse trailing edge sweep and leading edge extensions running to the upper outboard corner of the inlets. Flight control surfaces include leading-edge flaps, flaperons, ailerons, rudders on the canted vertical stabilizers, and all-moving horizontal tails (stabilators); for speed brake function, the ailerons deflect up, flaperons down, and rudders outwards to increase drag.

The aircraft's dual Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 augmented turbofan engines are closely spaced and incorporate pitch-axis thrust vectoring nozzles with a range of ±20 degrees; each engine has maximum thrust in the 35,000 lbf (156 kN) class. The F-22s thrust-to-weight ratio at typical combat weight is nearly at unity in maximum military power and 1.25 in full afterburner. Maximum speed without external stores is approximately Mach 1.8 at military power and greater than Mach 2 with afterburners.

The F-22s high cruise speed and operating altitude over prior fighters improve the effectiveness of its sensors and weapon systems, and increase survivability against ground defenses such as surface-to-air missiles. The aircraft is among only a few that can supercruise, or sustain supersonic flight without using fuel-inefficient afterburners; it can intercept targets which subsonic aircraft would lack the speed to pursue and an afterburner-dependent aircraft would lack the fuel to reach. The F-22s thrust and aerodynamics enable regular combat speeds of Mach 1.5 at 50,000 feet (15,000 m). The use of internal weapons bays permits the aircraft to maintain comparatively higher performance over most other combat-configured fighters due to a lack of aerodynamic drag from external stores. The aircraft's structure contains a significant amount of high-strength materials to withstand stress and heat of sustained supersonic flight. Respectively, titanium alloys and composites comprise 39% and 24% of the structural weight.

The F-22s aerodynamics, relaxed stability, and powerful thrust-vectoring engines give it excellent maneuverability and energy potential across its flight envelope. The airplane has excellent high alpha (angle of attack) characteristics, capable of flying at trimmed alpha of over 60° while maintaining roll control and performing maneuvers such as the Herbst maneuver (J-turn) and Pugachev's Cobra. The flight control system and full-authority digital engine control (FADEC) make the aircraft highly departure resistant and controllable, thus giving the pilot carefree handling.

Stealth

The F-22 was designed to be highly difficult to detect and track by radar. Measures to reduce radar cross-section (RCS) include airframe shaping such as alignment of edges, fixed-geometry serpentine inlets and curved vanes that prevent line-of-sight of the engine faces and turbines from any exterior view, use of radar-absorbent material (RAM), and attention to detail such as hinges and pilot helmets that could provide a radar return. The F-22 was also designed to have decreased radio emissions, infrared signature and acoustic signature as well as reduced visibility to the naked eye. The aircraft's flat thrust-vectoring nozzles reduce infrared emissions of the exhaust plume to mitigate the threat of infrared homing ("heat seeking") surface-to-air or air-to-air missiles. Additional measures to reduce the infrared signature include special topcoat and active cooling of leading edges to manage the heat buildup from supersonic flight.

Compared to previous stealth designs like the F-117, the F-22 is less reliant on RAM, which are maintenance-intensive and susceptible to adverse weather conditions. Unlike the B-2, which requires climate-controlled hangars, the F-22 can undergo repairs on the flight line or in a normal hangar. The F-22 has a Signature Assessment System which delivers warnings when the radar signature is degraded and necessitates repair. While the F-22s exact RCS is classified, in 2009 Lockheed Martin released information indicating that from certain angles the aircraft has an RCS of 0.0001 m² or −40 dBsm – equivalent to the radar reflection of a "steel marble". Effectively maintaining the stealth features can decrease the F-22s mission capable rate to 62–70%.

The effectiveness of the stealth characteristics is difficult to gauge. The RCS value is a restrictive measurement of the aircraft's frontal or side area from the perspective of a static radar. When an aircraft maneuvers it exposes a completely different set of angles and surface area, potentially increasing radar observability. Furthermore, the F-22s stealth contouring and radar absorbent materials are chiefly effective against high-frequency radars, usually found on other aircraft. The effects of Rayleigh scattering and resonance mean that low-frequency radars such as weather radars and early-warning radars are more likely to detect the F-22 due to its physical size. However, such radars are also conspicuous, susceptible to clutter, and have low precision. Additionally, while faint or fleeting radar contacts make defenders aware that a stealth aircraft is present, reliably vectoring interception to attack the aircraft is much more challenging. According to the USAF an F-22 surprised an Iranian F-4 Phantom II that was attempting to intercept an American UAV, despite Iran's assertion of having military VHF radar coverage over the Persian Gulf.

The abandoned control room for Bethlehem Steel's massive lackawanna complex. The entire control system for the factory used analogue switches, dials, and buttons. When I visited the Beaux Arts jewel of Bethlehem Steel's 1901 Lackawanna Steel Factory, it was clear the demolition was imminent. The site had become somewhat of mecca for photographers and explorers. FIlled with labs, offices, and hidden rooms that contained stunning vintage pieces, from lamps to typewriters, to a complete control room filled with 1960s era computers. Now demolished, the factory holds an almost mythical place in my memory. As it closed in the late 1970s and early 80s, its interior fixtures and furnishing remained frozen in time. Time capsules are rare in my travels, in this was one of the most pristine. Bethlehem Steel's Buffalo administration headquarters was demolished in 2013.

Porsche 911 (964) Carrera 2 Coupe (1989-93) Engine 3600cc H6 Production 67,762 (all 964 Carrera 2 and Carrera 4)

Registration Number H 11 PEB (Cambridge)

PORSCHE SET

www.flickr.com/photos/45676495@N05/sets/72157623690528015...

The 964 version of the 911 was designed by Benjamin Dimson The first 964's to arrive in December 1989 were the all wheel drive Carrera 4, with the two wheel drive Carrera 2 following in 1990.

A new naturally aspirated engine called the M64 was used for 964 models, with a flat-6 displacement of 3.6 litres. Porsche substantially revised the suspension, replacing the rear torsion bars with coil springs and shock absorbers. Power steering and ABS brakes were added to the 911 for the first time; both were standard. The exterior bumpers and fog lamps became flush into the car, allowing for better aerodynamics. A new electric rear spoiler raised at speeds above 50 mph (80 km/h) and lowered down flush with the rear engine lid at lower speeds or at rest. A revised interior featured standard dual airbags beginning in 1990 for all North American production cars. A new automatic climate control system provided superior heating and cooling. Revised instrumentation housed a large set of warning lights that were tied into the car's central warning system, alerting the driver to a possible problem or malfunction.

Thankyou for a massive 57,606,424 views

Shot 02.04.2017 at Curborough Sprint, Curborough, Lichfield, Staffordshire REF 125-033

The baseline MiG-29B has a Phazotron RLPK-29 radar fire control system that includes the N019 Safir look-down/shoot-down coherent pulse-Doppler radar and the Ts100.02-02 digital computer. The N019 radar was not a new design, based on the system used in the MiG-23, and thus limited the MiG-29’s ability to detect and track airborne targets at ranges available with the R-27 and R-77 missiles. After the specifications for the N019 were leaked to the CIA by Adolf Tolkachev, the Soviet Air Force developed the N019 Zhuk-M radar that had a planar array antenna rather than a dish. This improved the radar’s range and processing ability, giving the MiG-29S multi-target engagement capability and compatibility with the Vympel R-77 or RVV-AE (AA-12 “Adder”).

The Polish Air Force, or Wojska Lotnicze (WL), bought 12 aircraft from the Soviet Union between 1989 and 1990. The next ten were ex-Czech aircraft (nine MiG-29A and one MiG-29UB) were exchanged with Czech Republic for 11 Polish PZL W-3 Sokół helicopters in 1996. Between 2001 and 2005 all aircraft were upgraded with domestic SC-10D2 Supraśl IFF, Rockwell Collins AN/ARN-153 (TCN 500) TACAN and ANV-241 MMR VOR/ILS receivers, Trimble 2101AP civilian GPS receiver, Thomson-CSF SB-14 radar warning receiver, RS 6113-2 VHF/UHF radio with R-862 control panel and new anti-collision lights. Their service life was extended up to 4000 flight hours or until 2028.

This aircraft, one of the ten MiG-29As acquired from the Czech Air Force, is from the 1st Fighter Aviation Regiment (“Warszawa”) stationed at Mińsk Mazowiecki Air Base. It still carries the Czech Air Force’s 11th Fighter Regiment tiger stripe on the vertical stabilizer. The design of the Fulcrum’s fuselage has a drooping nose to facilitate a better view for the pilot. For the model, I used hinge plates to cant the nose downwards to capture the original aircraft’s profile.

“Launch Platform for Mars Ascent Vehicle”

And/or, per the following linked document & near equivalent depiction within it (Page 97, Figure 43):

“Mars excursion module configuration.”

ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19700026519/downloads/1970002...

See also:

www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/19690804_man...

Last, but not least, with a vivid color version of the image and superior caption of:

“MEM ascent stage liftoff. The ascent stage was a stage-and-a-half design with a cluster of approximately conical expendable propellant tanks and integral tanks in its cylindrical core feeding a single engine.”

At/from:

spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com/search?q=integrated+progr...

Credit: David S. F. Portreee/”No Shortage of Dreams” blog

Unfortunately, no signature is visible. A very similar Mars Excursion Module (MEM) depiction, also within NASA’s grand Integrated Program Plan (IPP) is by Renato Moncini. However, its depiction of the Martian landscape doesn’t agree with that of my posted photo, sooo…possibly/probably not by him. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

A U.S. Air Force Lockheed Martin F-22 "Raptor" flies above Royal Australian Air Force Base Tindal, Australia, March 2, 2017. Twelve Lockheed Martin F-22 "Raptors" and approximately 200 U.S. Air Force Airmen participated in the first Enhanced Air Cooperation, an initiative under the Force Posture Agreement between the U.S. and Australia.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor is a fifth-generation, single-seat, twin-engine, all-weather stealth tactical fighter aircraft developed for the United States Air Force (USAF). The result of the USAF's Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) program, the aircraft was designed primarily as an air superiority fighter, but also has ground attack, electronic warfare, and signal intelligence capabilities. The prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, built most of the F-22's airframe and weapons systems and conducted final assembly, while Boeing provided the wings, aft fuselage, avionics integration, and training systems.

The aircraft was variously designated F-22 and F/A-22 before it formally entered service in December 2005 as the F-22A. Despite its protracted development and various operational issues, USAF officials consider the F-22 a critical component of the service's tactical air power. Its combination of stealth, aerodynamic performance, and situational awareness enable unprecedented air combat capabilities.

Service officials had originally planned to buy a total of 750 ATFs. In 2009, the program was cut to 187 operational production aircraft due to high costs, a lack of clear air-to-air missions due to delays in Russian and Chinese fighter programs, a ban on exports, and development of the more versatile F-35. The last F-22 was delivered in 2012.

Development

Origins

In 1981, the U.S. Air Force identified a requirement for an Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) to replace the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon. Code named "Senior Sky", this air-superiority fighter program was influenced by emerging worldwide threats, including new developments in Soviet air defense systems and the proliferation of the Su-27 Flanker- and MiG-29 Fulcrum-class of fighter aircraft. It would take advantage of the new technologies in fighter design on the horizon, including composite materials, lightweight alloys, advanced flight control systems, more powerful propulsion systems, and most importantly, stealth technology. In 1983, the ATF concept development team became the System Program Office (SPO) and managed the program at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. The demonstration and validation (Dem/Val) request for proposals (RFP) was issued in September 1985, with requirements placing strong emphasis on stealth and supercruise. Of the seven bidding companies, Lockheed and Northrop were selected on 31 October 1986. Lockheed teamed with Boeing and General Dynamics while Northrop teamed with McDonnell Douglas, and the two contractor teams undertook a 50-month Dem/Val phase, culminating in the flight test of two technology demonstrator prototypes, the YF-22 and the YF-23, respectively.

Dem/Val was focused on risk reduction and technology development plans over specific aircraft designs. Contractors made extensive use of analytical and empirical methods, including computational fluid dynamics, wind-tunnel testing, and radar cross-section calculations and pole testing; the Lockheed team would conduct nearly 18,000 hours of wind-tunnel testing. Avionics development was marked by extensive testing and prototyping and supported by ground and flying laboratories. During Dem/Val, the SPO used the results of performance and cost trade studies conducted by contractor teams to adjust ATF requirements and delete ones that were significant weight and cost drivers while having marginal value. The short takeoff and landing (STOL) requirement was relaxed in order to delete thrust-reversers, saving substantial weight. As avionics was a major cost driver, side-looking radars were deleted, and the dedicated infra-red search and track (IRST) system was downgraded from multi-color to single color and then deleted as well. However, space and cooling provisions were retained to allow for future addition of these components. The ejection seat requirement was downgraded from a fresh design to the existing McDonnell Douglas ACES II. Despite efforts by the contractor teams to rein in weight, the takeoff gross weight estimate was increased from 50,000 lb (22,700 kg) to 60,000 lb (27,200 kg), resulting in engine thrust requirement increasing from 30,000 lbf (133 kN) to 35,000 lbf (156 kN) class.

Each team produced two prototype air vehicles for Dem/Val, one for each of the two engine options. The YF-22 had its maiden flight on 29 September 1990 and in flight tests achieved up to Mach 1.58 in supercruise. After the Dem/Val flight test of the prototypes, on 23 April 1991, Secretary of the USAF Donald Rice announced the Lockheed team as the winner of the ATF competition. The YF-23 design was considered stealthier and faster, while the YF-22, with its thrust vectoring nozzles, was more maneuverable as well as less expensive and risky. The aviation press speculated that the Lockheed team's design was also more adaptable to the U.S. Navy's Navalized Advanced Tactical Fighter (NATF), but by 1992, the Navy had abandoned NATF.

Production and procurement

As the program moved to full-scale development, or the Engineering & Manufacturing Development (EMD) stage, the production version had notable differences from the YF-22, despite having a broadly similar shape. The swept-back angle of the leading edge was decreased from 48° to 42°, while the vertical stabilizers were shifted rearward and decreased in area by 20%. To improve pilot visibility, the canopy was moved forward 7 inches (18 cm), and the engine intakes moved rearward 14 inches (36 cm). The shapes of the wing and stabilator trailing edges were refined to improve aerodynamics, strength, and stealth characteristics. Increasing weight during development caused slight reductions in range and maneuver performance.

Prime contractor Lockheed Martin Aeronautics manufactured the majority of the airframe and performed final assembly at Dobbins Air Reserve Base in Marietta, Georgia; program partner Boeing Defense, Space & Security provided additional airframe components as well as avionics integration and training systems. The first F-22, an EMD aircraft with tail number 4001, was unveiled at Marietta, Georgia, on 9 April 1997, and first flew on 7 September 1997. Production, with the first lot awarded in September 2000, supported over 1,000 subcontractors and suppliers from 46 states and up to 95,000 jobs, and spanned 15 years at a peak rate of roughly two airplanes per month. In 2006, the F-22 development team won the Collier Trophy, American aviation's most prestigious award. Due to the aircraft's advanced nature, contractors have been targeted by cyberattacks and technology theft.

The USAF originally envisioned ordering 750 ATFs at a total program cost of $44.3 billion and procurement cost of $26.2 billion in fiscal year (FY) 1985 dollars, with production beginning in 1994. The 1990 Major Aircraft Review led by Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney reduced this to 648 aircraft beginning in 1996. By 1997, funding instability had further cut the total to 339, which was again reduced to 277 by 2003. In 2004, the Department of Defense (DoD) further reduced this to 183 operational aircraft, despite the USAF's preference for 381. A multi-year procurement plan was implemented in 2006 to save $15 billion, with total program cost projected to be $62 billion for 183 F-22s distributed to seven combat squadrons. In 2008, Congress passed a defense spending bill that raised the total orders for production aircraft to 187.

The first two F-22s built were EMD aircraft in the Block 1.0 configuration for initial flight testing, while the third was a Block 2.0 aircraft built to represent the internal structure of production airframes and enabled it to test full flight loads. Six more EMD aircraft were built in the Block 10 configuration for development and upgrade testing, with the last two considered essentially production quality jets. Production for operational squadrons consisted of 37 Block 20 training aircraft and 149 Block 30/35 combat aircraft; one of the Block 35 aircraft is dedicated to flight sciences at Edwards Air Force Base.

The numerous new technologies in the F-22 resulted in substantial cost overruns and delays. Many capabilities were deferred to post-service upgrades, reducing the initial cost but increasing total program cost. As production wound down in 2011, the total program cost is estimated to be about $67.3 billion, with $32.4 billion spent on Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) and $34.9 billion on procurement and military construction (MILCON) in then year dollars. The incremental cost for an additional F-22 was estimated at about $138 million in 2009.

Ban on exports

The F-22 cannot be exported under US federal law to protect its stealth technology and other high-tech features. Customers for U.S. fighters are acquiring earlier designs such as the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon or the newer F-35 Lightning II, which contains technology from the F-22 but was designed to be cheaper, more flexible, and available for export. In September 2006, Congress upheld the ban on foreign F-22 sales. Despite the ban, the 2010 defense authorization bill included provisions requiring the DoD to prepare a report on the costs and feasibility for an F-22 export variant, and another report on the effect of F-22 export sales on U.S. aerospace industry.

Some Australian politicians and defense commentators proposed that Australia should attempt to purchase F-22s instead of the planned F-35s, citing the F-22's known capabilities and F-35's delays and developmental uncertainties. However, the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) determined that the F-22 was unable to perform the F-35's strike and close air support roles. The Japanese government also showed interest in the F-22 for its Replacement-Fighter program. The Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) would reportedly require fewer fighters for its mission if it obtained the F-22, thus reducing engineering and staffing costs. However, in 2009 it was reported that acquiring the F-22 would require increases to the Japanese government's defense budget beyond the historical 1 percent of its GDP. With the end of F-22 production, Japan chose the F-35 in December 2011. Israel also expressed interest, but eventually chose the F-35 because of the F-22's price and unavailability.

Production termination

Throughout the 2000s, the need for F-22s was debated, due to rising costs and the lack of relevant adversaries. In 2006, Comptroller General of the United States David Walker found that "the DoD has not demonstrated the need" for more investment in the F-22, and further opposition to the program was expressed by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon R. England, Senator John McCain, and Chairman of U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services Senator John Warner. The F-22 program lost influential supporters in 2008 after the forced resignations of Secretary of the Air Force Michael Wynne and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force General T. Michael Moseley.

In November 2008, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated that the F-22 was not relevant in post-Cold War conflicts such as irregular warfare operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in April 2009, under the new Obama Administration, he called for ending production in FY2011, leaving the USAF with 187 production aircraft. In July, General James Cartwright, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated to the Senate Committee on Armed Services his reasons for supporting termination of F-22 production. They included shifting resources to the multirole F-35 to allow proliferation of fifth-generation fighters for three service branches and preserving the F/A-18 production line to maintain the military's electronic warfare (EW) capabilities in the Boeing EA-18G Growler. Issues with the F-22's reliability and availability also raised concerns. After President Obama threatened to veto further production, the Senate voted in July 2009 in favor of ending production and the House subsequently agreed to abide by the 187 production aircraft cap. Gates stated that the decision was taken in light of the F-35's capabilities, and in 2010, he set the F-22 requirement to 187 aircraft by lowering the number of major regional conflict preparations from two to one.

In 2010, USAF initiated a study to determine the costs of retaining F-22 tooling for a future Service Life Extension Program (SLEP). A RAND Corporation paper from this study estimated that restarting production and building an additional 75 F-22s would cost $17 billion, resulting in $227 million per aircraft, or $54 million higher than the flyaway cost. Lockheed Martin stated that restarting the production line itself would cost about $200 million. Production tooling and associated documentation were subsequently stored at the Sierra Army Depot, allowing the retained tooling to support the fleet life cycle. There were reports that attempts to retrieve this tooling found empty containers, but a subsequent audit found that the tooling was stored as expected.

Russian and Chinese fighter developments have fueled concern, and in 2009, General John Corley, head of Air Combat Command, stated that a fleet of 187 F-22s would be inadequate, but Secretary Gates dismissed General Corley's concern. In 2011, Gates explained that Chinese fifth-generation fighter developments had been accounted for when the number of F-22s was set, and that the U.S. would have a considerable advantage in stealth aircraft in 2025, even with F-35 delays. In December 2011, the 195th and final F-22 was completed out of 8 test EMD and 187 operational aircraft produced; the aircraft was delivered to the USAF on 2 May 2012.

In April 2016, the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee proposed legislation that would direct the Air Force to conduct a cost study and assessment associated with resuming production of the F-22. Since the production halt directed in 2009 by then Defense Secretary Gates, lawmakers and the Pentagon noted that air warfare systems of Russia and China were catching up to those of the U.S. Lockheed Martin has proposed upgrading the Block 20 training aircraft into combat-coded Block 30/35 versions as a way to increase numbers available for deployment. On 9 June 2017, the Air Force submitted their report to Congress stating they had no plans to restart the F-22 production line due to economic and operational issues; it estimated it would cost approximately $50 billion to procure 194 additional F-22s at a cost of $206–$216 million per aircraft, including approximately $9.9 billion for non-recurring start-up costs and $40.4 billion for aircraft procurement costs.

Upgrades

The first aircraft with combat-capable Block 3.0 software flew in 2001. Increment 2, the first upgrade program, was implemented in 2005 for Block 20 aircraft onward and enabled the employment of Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM). Certification of the improved AN/APG-77(V)1 radar was completed in March 2007, and airframes from production Lot 5 onward are fitted with this radar, which incorporates air-to-ground modes. Increment 3.1 for Block 30 aircraft onward provided improved ground-attack capability through synthetic aperture radar mapping and radio emitter direction finding, electronic attack and Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) integration; testing began in 2009 and the first upgraded aircraft was delivered in 2011. To address oxygen deprivation issues, F-22s were fitted with an automatic backup oxygen system (ABOS) and modified life support system starting in 2012.

Increment 3.2 for Block 35 aircraft is a two-part upgrade process; 3.2A focuses on electronic warfare, communications and identification, while 3.2B includes geolocation improvements and a new stores management system to show the correct symbols for the AIM-9X and AIM-120D. To enable two-way communication with other platforms, the F-22 can use the Battlefield Airborne Communications Node (BACN) as a gateway. The planned Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) integration was cut due to development delays and lack of proliferation among USAF platforms. The F-22 fleet is planned to start receiving Increment 3.2B as well as a software upgrade for cryptography capabilities and avionics stability in May 2019. A Multifunctional Information Distribution System-Joint (MIDS-J) radio that replaces the current Link-16 receive-only box is expected to be operational by 2020. Subsequent upgrades are also focusing on having an open architecture to enable faster future enhancements.

In 2024, funding is projected to begin for the F-22 mid-life upgrade (MLU), which is expected to include new sensors and antennas, hardware refresh, cockpit improvements, and a helmet mounted display and cuing system. Other enhancements being developed include IRST functionality for the AN/AAR-56 Missile Launch Detector (MLD) and more durable stealth coating based on the F-35's.

The F-22 was designed for a service life of 8,000 flight hours, with a $350 million "structures retrofit program". Investigations are being made for upgrades to extend their useful lives further. In the long term, the F-22 is expected to be superseded by a sixth-generation jet fighter to be fielded in the 2030s.

Design

Overview

The F-22 Raptor is a fifth-generation fighter that is considered fourth generation in stealth aircraft technology by the USAF.[91] It is the first operational aircraft to combine supercruise, supermaneuverability, stealth, and sensor fusion in a single weapons platform. The F-22 has four empennage surfaces, retractable tricycle landing gear, and clipped delta wings with reverse trailing edge sweep and leading edge extensions running to the upper outboard corner of the inlets. Flight control surfaces include leading-edge flaps, flaperons, ailerons, rudders on the canted vertical stabilizers, and all-moving horizontal tails (stabilators); for speed brake function, the ailerons deflect up, flaperons down, and rudders outwards to increase drag.

The aircraft's dual Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 augmented turbofan engines are closely spaced and incorporate pitch-axis thrust vectoring nozzles with a range of ±20 degrees; each engine has maximum thrust in the 35,000 lbf (156 kN) class. The F-22's thrust-to-weight ratio at typical combat weight is nearly at unity in maximum military power and 1.25 in full afterburner. Maximum speed without external stores is approximately Mach 1.8 at military power and greater than Mach 2 with afterburners.

The F-22's high cruise speed and operating altitude over prior fighters improve the effectiveness of its sensors and weapon systems, and increase survivability against ground defenses such as surface-to-air missiles. The aircraft is among only a few that can supercruise, or sustain supersonic flight without using fuel-inefficient afterburners; it can intercept targets which subsonic aircraft would lack the speed to pursue and an afterburner-dependent aircraft would lack the fuel to reach. The F-22's thrust and aerodynamics enable regular combat speeds of Mach 1.5 at 50,000 feet (15,000 m). The use of internal weapons bays permits the aircraft to maintain comparatively higher performance over most other combat-configured fighters due to a lack of aerodynamic drag from external stores. The aircraft's structure contains a significant amount of high-strength materials to withstand stress and heat of sustained supersonic flight. Respectively, titanium alloys and composites comprise 39% and 24% of the structural weight.

The F-22's aerodynamics, relaxed stability, and powerful thrust-vectoring engines give it excellent maneuverability and energy potential across its flight envelope. The airplane has excellent high alpha (angle of attack) characteristics, capable of flying at trimmed alpha of over 60° while maintaining roll control and performing maneuvers such as the Herbst maneuver (J-turn) and Pugachev's Cobra. The flight control system and full-authority digital engine control (FADEC) make the aircraft highly departure resistant and controllable, thus giving the pilot carefree handling.

Stealth

The F-22 was designed to be highly difficult to detect and track by radar. Measures to reduce radar cross-section (RCS) include airframe shaping such as alignment of edges, fixed-geometry serpentine inlets and curved vanes that prevent line-of-sight of the engine faces and turbines from any exterior view, use of radar-absorbent material (RAM), and attention to detail such as hinges and pilot helmets that could provide a radar return. The F-22 was also designed to have decreased radio emissions, infrared signature and acoustic signature as well as reduced visibility to the naked eye. The aircraft's flat thrust-vectoring nozzles reduce infrared emissions of the exhaust plume to mitigate the threat of infrared homing ("heat seeking") surface-to-air or air-to-air missiles. Additional measures to reduce the infrared signature include special topcoat and active cooling of leading edges to manage the heat buildup from supersonic flight.

Compared to previous stealth designs like the F-117, the F-22 is less reliant on RAM, which are maintenance-intensive and susceptible to adverse weather conditions. Unlike the B-2, which requires climate-controlled hangars, the F-22 can undergo repairs on the flight line or in a normal hangar. The F-22 has a Signature Assessment System which delivers warnings when the radar signature is degraded and necessitates repair. While the F-22's exact RCS is classified, in 2009 Lockheed Martin released information indicating that from certain angles the aircraft has an RCS of 0.0001 m² or −40 dBsm – equivalent to the radar reflection of a "steel marble". Effectively maintaining the stealth features can decrease the F-22's mission capable rate to 62–70%.

The effectiveness of the stealth characteristics is difficult to gauge. The RCS value is a restrictive measurement of the aircraft's frontal or side area from the perspective of a static radar. When an aircraft maneuvers it exposes a completely different set of angles and surface area, potentially increasing radar observability. Furthermore, the F-22's stealth contouring and radar absorbent materials are chiefly effective against high-frequency radars, usually found on other aircraft. The effects of Rayleigh scattering and resonance mean that low-frequency radars such as weather radars and early-warning radars are more likely to detect the F-22 due to its physical size. However, such radars are also conspicuous, susceptible to clutter, and have low precision. Additionally, while faint or fleeting radar contacts make defenders aware that a stealth aircraft is present, reliably vectoring interception to attack the aircraft is much more challenging. According to the USAF an F-22 surprised an Iranian F-4 Phantom II that was attempting to intercept an American UAV, despite Iran's assertion of having military VHF radar coverage over the Persian Gulf.

I have been lost in Photoshop. I was having ideas in Lightroom and they led to edits and on to Photoshop CS and from there they are stretching out towards some notion of motion pictures. I have not used this Film Temperature Control System. I have been calling a film cooker. It looks superb and it comes with a three pin U.K. Plug fitted ready for accurate simmering film into tender toner and sharpish shadows and might fine highlights.

I have used two fonts to give °CineStill a look as it has in the packaging.

I forget to mention the soundtrack. Two tracks from those provided by my editing service with no composers and players listed. I have edited tracks individually and together. All errors on me and all praise to unknown originators of music. I wish that I had some names to praise.

© PHH Sykes 2023

phhsykes@gmail.com

CineStill TCS-1000 - Temperature Control System - UK Plug

analoguewonderland.co.uk/products/cinestill-tcs-1000-temp...

°CS "TEMPERATURE CONTROL SYSTEM", TCS-1000 IMMERSION CIRCULATOR THERMOSTAT FOR MIXING CHEMISTRY AND PRECISION FILM PROCESSING, 120V ONLY

cinestillfilm.com/products/tcs-temperature-control-system...

Porsche 911 Carrera 2 Coupe (1989-93) Engine 3600cc H6 Production 67,762 (all 964 Carrera 2 and Carrera 4)

Registration Number (G 3 BLH (London NW)

PORSCHE SET

www.flickr.com/photos/45676495@N05/sets/72157623690528015...

The 964 version of the 911 was designed by Benjamin Dimson The first 964's to arrive in December 1989 were the all wheel drive Carrera 4, with the two wheel drive Carrera 2 following in 1990.

A new naturally aspirated engine called the M64 was used for 964 models, with a flat-6 displacement of 3.6 litres. Porsche substantially revised the suspension, replacing the rear torsion bars with coil springs and shock absorbers. Power steering and ABS brakes were added to the 911 for the first time; both were standard. The exterior bumpers and fog lamps became flush into the car, allowing for better aerodynamics. A new electric rear spoiler raised at speeds above 50 mph (80 km/h) and lowered down flush with the rear engine lid at lower speeds or at rest. A revised interior featured standard dual airbags beginning in 1990 for all North American production cars. A new automatic climate control system provided superior heating and cooling. Revised instrumentation housed a large set of warning lights that were tied into the car's central warning system, alerting the driver to a possible problem or malfunction.

Thankyou for a massive 55,057,056 views

Shot 03.07.2016 at Cars in the Park, Beacon Park, Lichfield REF 121-271

img.blog.yahoo.co.kr/ybi/1/24/56/shinecommerce/folder/6/i...

Medium tank T-72M2 is a well-equipped tracked vehicle, providing reliable protection of a three-member crew and high maneuverability. Tank is armed with 125 mm smooth bore cannon which is stabilized in two planes. It is coupled with 7.62 mm machine gun. For anti-aircraft defense is armed with 30 mm cannon located on right side of the turret. Tank has a fire control system, which allows high-combat activities day and night with a high probability of intervention. Tank is equipped with a device protecting personnel from exposure to weapons of mass destruction, smoke device to create smoke screens and fire equipment for fire detection in a vehicle.

Combat weight: 46.25 t

Height: 2.19 m

Width: 3.65 m

Brightness: 0.45 m

The average speed off road: 35 to 45 km / h

The driving range off road: 430-560 km

Max. climb angle: 30 °

Max. lateral inclination angle: 25 °

Obstacle height: 0.85 m

Obstacle width : 2.6 to 2.8 m

Armament:

2A46MS smoothbore gun: 125 mm 39rounds (22 in autoloader) - (APFSDS, HE-FRAG, HEAT)

- elevation - -6 ° to +13.4 °

Coaxial MG: 7.62 mm HM vz.95 2000 rounds

Secondary armament: 30 mm 2A42 250 rounds

Smoke device: Galix - 22x81 mm (16x smoke GL + 4x anti personal GL + 2x anti ATGMs GL)

Cadency:

main gun: max. 8 rounds/min.

secondary gun: 250/550 /min.

The equivalent thickness of a homogeneous shell:

Turret, front hull: 1200 mm

Sides: 200 mm

Roof: 200 mm

A U.S. Air Force Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor flies above Royal Australian Air Force Base Tindal, Australia, March 2, 2017. Twelve Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptors and approximately 200 U.S. Air Force Airmen participated in the first Enhanced Air Cooperation, an initiative under the Force Posture Agreement between the U.S. and Australia.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor is a fifth-generation, single-seat, twin-engine, all-weather stealth tactical fighter aircraft developed for the United States Air Force (USAF). The result of the USAF's Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) program, the aircraft was designed primarily as an air superiority fighter, but also has ground attack, electronic warfare, and signal intelligence capabilities. The prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, built most of the F-22's airframe and weapons systems and conducted final assembly, while Boeing provided the wings, aft fuselage, avionics integration, and training systems.

The aircraft was variously designated F-22 and F/A-22 before it formally entered service in December 2005 as the F-22A. Despite its protracted development and various operational issues, USAF officials consider the F-22 a critical component of the service's tactical air power. Its combination of stealth, aerodynamic performance, and situational awareness enable unprecedented air combat capabilities.

Service officials had originally planned to buy a total of 750 ATFs. In 2009, the program was cut to 187 operational production aircraft due to high costs, a lack of clear air-to-air missions due to delays in Russian and Chinese fighter programs, a ban on exports, and development of the more versatile F-35. The last F-22 was delivered in 2012.

Development

Origins

In 1981, the U.S. Air Force identified a requirement for an Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) to replace the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon. Code named "Senior Sky", this air-superiority fighter program was influenced by emerging worldwide threats, including new developments in Soviet air defense systems and the proliferation of the Su-27 Flanker- and MiG-29 Fulcrum-class of fighter aircraft. It would take advantage of the new technologies in fighter design on the horizon, including composite materials, lightweight alloys, advanced flight control systems, more powerful propulsion systems, and most importantly, stealth technology. In 1983, the ATF concept development team became the System Program Office (SPO) and managed the program at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. The demonstration and validation (Dem/Val) request for proposals (RFP) was issued in September 1985, with requirements placing strong emphasis on stealth and supercruise. Of the seven bidding companies, Lockheed and Northrop were selected on 31 October 1986. Lockheed teamed with Boeing and General Dynamics while Northrop teamed with McDonnell Douglas, and the two contractor teams undertook a 50-month Dem/Val phase, culminating in the flight test of two technology demonstrator prototypes, the YF-22 and the YF-23, respectively.

Dem/Val was focused on risk reduction and technology development plans over specific aircraft designs. Contractors made extensive use of analytical and empirical methods, including computational fluid dynamics, wind-tunnel testing, and radar cross-section calculations and pole testing; the Lockheed team would conduct nearly 18,000 hours of wind-tunnel testing. Avionics development was marked by extensive testing and prototyping and supported by ground and flying laboratories. During Dem/Val, the SPO used the results of performance and cost trade studies conducted by contractor teams to adjust ATF requirements and delete ones that were significant weight and cost drivers while having marginal value. The short takeoff and landing (STOL) requirement was relaxed in order to delete thrust-reversers, saving substantial weight. As avionics was a major cost driver, side-looking radars were deleted, and the dedicated infra-red search and track (IRST) system was downgraded from multi-color to single color and then deleted as well. However, space and cooling provisions were retained to allow for future addition of these components. The ejection seat requirement was downgraded from a fresh design to the existing McDonnell Douglas ACES II. Despite efforts by the contractor teams to rein in weight, the takeoff gross weight estimate was increased from 50,000 lb (22,700 kg) to 60,000 lb (27,200 kg), resulting in engine thrust requirement increasing from 30,000 lbf (133 kN) to 35,000 lbf (156 kN) class.

Each team produced two prototype air vehicles for Dem/Val, one for each of the two engine options. The YF-22 had its maiden flight on 29 September 1990 and in flight tests achieved up to Mach 1.58 in supercruise. After the Dem/Val flight test of the prototypes, on 23 April 1991, Secretary of the USAF Donald Rice announced the Lockheed team as the winner of the ATF competition. The YF-23 design was considered stealthier and faster, while the YF-22, with its thrust vectoring nozzles, was more maneuverable as well as less expensive and risky. The aviation press speculated that the Lockheed team's design was also more adaptable to the U.S. Navy's Navalized Advanced Tactical Fighter (NATF), but by 1992, the Navy had abandoned NATF.

Production and procurement

As the program moved to full-scale development, or the Engineering & Manufacturing Development (EMD) stage, the production version had notable differences from the YF-22, despite having a broadly similar shape. The swept-back angle of the leading edge was decreased from 48° to 42°, while the vertical stabilizers were shifted rearward and decreased in area by 20%. To improve pilot visibility, the canopy was moved forward 7 inches (18 cm), and the engine intakes moved rearward 14 inches (36 cm). The shapes of the wing and stabilator trailing edges were refined to improve aerodynamics, strength, and stealth characteristics. Increasing weight during development caused slight reductions in range and maneuver performance.

Prime contractor Lockheed Martin Aeronautics manufactured the majority of the airframe and performed final assembly at Dobbins Air Reserve Base in Marietta, Georgia; program partner Boeing Defense, Space & Security provided additional airframe components as well as avionics integration and training systems. The first F-22, an EMD aircraft with tail number 4001, was unveiled at Marietta, Georgia, on 9 April 1997, and first flew on 7 September 1997. Production, with the first lot awarded in September 2000, supported over 1,000 subcontractors and suppliers from 46 states and up to 95,000 jobs, and spanned 15 years at a peak rate of roughly two airplanes per month. In 2006, the F-22 development team won the Collier Trophy, American aviation's most prestigious award. Due to the aircraft's advanced nature, contractors have been targeted by cyberattacks and technology theft.

The USAF originally envisioned ordering 750 ATFs at a total program cost of $44.3 billion and procurement cost of $26.2 billion in fiscal year (FY) 1985 dollars, with production beginning in 1994. The 1990 Major Aircraft Review led by Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney reduced this to 648 aircraft beginning in 1996. By 1997, funding instability had further cut the total to 339, which was again reduced to 277 by 2003. In 2004, the Department of Defense (DoD) further reduced this to 183 operational aircraft, despite the USAF's preference for 381. A multi-year procurement plan was implemented in 2006 to save $15 billion, with total program cost projected to be $62 billion for 183 F-22s distributed to seven combat squadrons. In 2008, Congress passed a defense spending bill that raised the total orders for production aircraft to 187.

The first two F-22s built were EMD aircraft in the Block 1.0 configuration for initial flight testing, while the third was a Block 2.0 aircraft built to represent the internal structure of production airframes and enabled it to test full flight loads. Six more EMD aircraft were built in the Block 10 configuration for development and upgrade testing, with the last two considered essentially production quality jets. Production for operational squadrons consisted of 37 Block 20 training aircraft and 149 Block 30/35 combat aircraft; one of the Block 35 aircraft is dedicated to flight sciences at Edwards Air Force Base.

The numerous new technologies in the F-22 resulted in substantial cost overruns and delays. Many capabilities were deferred to post-service upgrades, reducing the initial cost but increasing total program cost. As production wound down in 2011, the total program cost is estimated to be about $67.3 billion, with $32.4 billion spent on Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) and $34.9 billion on procurement and military construction (MILCON) in then year dollars. The incremental cost for an additional F-22 was estimated at about $138 million in 2009.

Ban on exports

The F-22 cannot be exported under US federal law to protect its stealth technology and other high-tech features. Customers for U.S. fighters are acquiring earlier designs such as the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon or the newer F-35 Lightning II, which contains technology from the F-22 but was designed to be cheaper, more flexible, and available for export. In September 2006, Congress upheld the ban on foreign F-22 sales. Despite the ban, the 2010 defense authorization bill included provisions requiring the DoD to prepare a report on the costs and feasibility for an F-22 export variant, and another report on the effect of F-22 export sales on U.S. aerospace industry.

Some Australian politicians and defense commentators proposed that Australia should attempt to purchase F-22s instead of the planned F-35s, citing the F-22's known capabilities and F-35's delays and developmental uncertainties. However, the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) determined that the F-22 was unable to perform the F-35's strike and close air support roles. The Japanese government also showed interest in the F-22 for its Replacement-Fighter program. The Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) would reportedly require fewer fighters for its mission if it obtained the F-22, thus reducing engineering and staffing costs. However, in 2009 it was reported that acquiring the F-22 would require increases to the Japanese government's defense budget beyond the historical 1 percent of its GDP. With the end of F-22 production, Japan chose the F-35 in December 2011. Israel also expressed interest, but eventually chose the F-35 because of the F-22's price and unavailability.

Production termination

Throughout the 2000s, the need for F-22s was debated, due to rising costs and the lack of relevant adversaries. In 2006, Comptroller General of the United States David Walker found that "the DoD has not demonstrated the need" for more investment in the F-22, and further opposition to the program was expressed by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon R. England, Senator John McCain, and Chairman of U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services Senator John Warner. The F-22 program lost influential supporters in 2008 after the forced resignations of Secretary of the Air Force Michael Wynne and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force General T. Michael Moseley.

In November 2008, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated that the F-22 was not relevant in post-Cold War conflicts such as irregular warfare operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in April 2009, under the new Obama Administration, he called for ending production in FY2011, leaving the USAF with 187 production aircraft. In July, General James Cartwright, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated to the Senate Committee on Armed Services his reasons for supporting termination of F-22 production. They included shifting resources to the multirole F-35 to allow proliferation of fifth-generation fighters for three service branches and preserving the F/A-18 production line to maintain the military's electronic warfare (EW) capabilities in the Boeing EA-18G Growler. Issues with the F-22's reliability and availability also raised concerns. After President Obama threatened to veto further production, the Senate voted in July 2009 in favor of ending production and the House subsequently agreed to abide by the 187 production aircraft cap. Gates stated that the decision was taken in light of the F-35's capabilities, and in 2010, he set the F-22 requirement to 187 aircraft by lowering the number of major regional conflict preparations from two to one.

In 2010, USAF initiated a study to determine the costs of retaining F-22 tooling for a future Service Life Extension Program (SLEP). A RAND Corporation paper from this study estimated that restarting production and building an additional 75 F-22s would cost $17 billion, resulting in $227 million per aircraft, or $54 million higher than the flyaway cost. Lockheed Martin stated that restarting the production line itself would cost about $200 million. Production tooling and associated documentation were subsequently stored at the Sierra Army Depot, allowing the retained tooling to support the fleet life cycle. There were reports that attempts to retrieve this tooling found empty containers, but a subsequent audit found that the tooling was stored as expected.

Russian and Chinese fighter developments have fueled concern, and in 2009, General John Corley, head of Air Combat Command, stated that a fleet of 187 F-22s would be inadequate, but Secretary Gates dismissed General Corley's concern. In 2011, Gates explained that Chinese fifth-generation fighter developments had been accounted for when the number of F-22s was set, and that the U.S. would have a considerable advantage in stealth aircraft in 2025, even with F-35 delays. In December 2011, the 195th and final F-22 was completed out of 8 test EMD and 187 operational aircraft produced; the aircraft was delivered to the USAF on 2 May 2012.

In April 2016, the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee proposed legislation that would direct the Air Force to conduct a cost study and assessment associated with resuming production of the F-22. Since the production halt directed in 2009 by then Defense Secretary Gates, lawmakers and the Pentagon noted that air warfare systems of Russia and China were catching up to those of the U.S. Lockheed Martin has proposed upgrading the Block 20 training aircraft into combat-coded Block 30/35 versions as a way to increase numbers available for deployment. On 9 June 2017, the Air Force submitted their report to Congress stating they had no plans to restart the F-22 production line due to economic and operational issues; it estimated it would cost approximately $50 billion to procure 194 additional F-22s at a cost of $206–$216 million per aircraft, including approximately $9.9 billion for non-recurring start-up costs and $40.4 billion for aircraft procurement costs.

Upgrades

The first aircraft with combat-capable Block 3.0 software flew in 2001. Increment 2, the first upgrade program, was implemented in 2005 for Block 20 aircraft onward and enabled the employment of Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM). Certification of the improved AN/APG-77(V)1 radar was completed in March 2007, and airframes from production Lot 5 onward are fitted with this radar, which incorporates air-to-ground modes. Increment 3.1 for Block 30 aircraft onward provided improved ground-attack capability through synthetic aperture radar mapping and radio emitter direction finding, electronic attack and Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) integration; testing began in 2009 and the first upgraded aircraft was delivered in 2011. To address oxygen deprivation issues, F-22s were fitted with an automatic backup oxygen system (ABOS) and modified life support system starting in 2012.

Increment 3.2 for Block 35 aircraft is a two-part upgrade process; 3.2A focuses on electronic warfare, communications and identification, while 3.2B includes geolocation improvements and a new stores management system to show the correct symbols for the AIM-9X and AIM-120D. To enable two-way communication with other platforms, the F-22 can use the Battlefield Airborne Communications Node (BACN) as a gateway. The planned Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) integration was cut due to development delays and lack of proliferation among USAF platforms. The F-22 fleet is planned to start receiving Increment 3.2B as well as a software upgrade for cryptography capabilities and avionics stability in May 2019. A Multifunctional Information Distribution System-Joint (MIDS-J) radio that replaces the current Link-16 receive-only box is expected to be operational by 2020. Subsequent upgrades are also focusing on having an open architecture to enable faster future enhancements.

In 2024, funding is projected to begin for the F-22 mid-life upgrade (MLU), which is expected to include new sensors and antennas, hardware refresh, cockpit improvements, and a helmet mounted display and cuing system. Other enhancements being developed include IRST functionality for the AN/AAR-56 Missile Launch Detector (MLD) and more durable stealth coating based on the F-35's.

The F-22 was designed for a service life of 8,000 flight hours, with a $350 million "structures retrofit program". Investigations are being made for upgrades to extend their useful lives further. In the long term, the F-22 is expected to be superseded by a sixth-generation jet fighter to be fielded in the 2030s.

Design

Overview

The F-22 Raptor is a fifth-generation fighter that is considered fourth generation in stealth aircraft technology by the USAF.[91] It is the first operational aircraft to combine supercruise, supermaneuverability, stealth, and sensor fusion in a single weapons platform. The F-22 has four empennage surfaces, retractable tricycle landing gear, and clipped delta wings with reverse trailing edge sweep and leading edge extensions running to the upper outboard corner of the inlets. Flight control surfaces include leading-edge flaps, flaperons, ailerons, rudders on the canted vertical stabilizers, and all-moving horizontal tails (stabilators); for speed brake function, the ailerons deflect up, flaperons down, and rudders outwards to increase drag.

The aircraft's dual Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 augmented turbofan engines are closely spaced and incorporate pitch-axis thrust vectoring nozzles with a range of ±20 degrees; each engine has maximum thrust in the 35,000 lbf (156 kN) class. The F-22's thrust-to-weight ratio at typical combat weight is nearly at unity in maximum military power and 1.25 in full afterburner. Maximum speed without external stores is approximately Mach 1.8 at military power and greater than Mach 2 with afterburners.

The F-22's high cruise speed and operating altitude over prior fighters improve the effectiveness of its sensors and weapon systems, and increase survivability against ground defenses such as surface-to-air missiles. The aircraft is among only a few that can supercruise, or sustain supersonic flight without using fuel-inefficient afterburners; it can intercept targets which subsonic aircraft would lack the speed to pursue and an afterburner-dependent aircraft would lack the fuel to reach. The F-22's thrust and aerodynamics enable regular combat speeds of Mach 1.5 at 50,000 feet (15,000 m). The use of internal weapons bays permits the aircraft to maintain comparatively higher performance over most other combat-configured fighters due to a lack of aerodynamic drag from external stores. The aircraft's structure contains a significant amount of high-strength materials to withstand stress and heat of sustained supersonic flight. Respectively, titanium alloys and composites comprise 39% and 24% of the structural weight.

The F-22's aerodynamics, relaxed stability, and powerful thrust-vectoring engines give it excellent maneuverability and energy potential across its flight envelope. The airplane has excellent high alpha (angle of attack) characteristics, capable of flying at trimmed alpha of over 60° while maintaining roll control and performing maneuvers such as the Herbst maneuver (J-turn) and Pugachev's Cobra. The flight control system and full-authority digital engine control (FADEC) make the aircraft highly departure resistant and controllable, thus giving the pilot carefree handling.

Stealth

The F-22 was designed to be highly difficult to detect and track by radar. Measures to reduce radar cross-section (RCS) include airframe shaping such as alignment of edges, fixed-geometry serpentine inlets and curved vanes that prevent line-of-sight of the engine faces and turbines from any exterior view, use of radar-absorbent material (RAM), and attention to detail such as hinges and pilot helmets that could provide a radar return. The F-22 was also designed to have decreased radio emissions, infrared signature and acoustic signature as well as reduced visibility to the naked eye. The aircraft's flat thrust-vectoring nozzles reduce infrared emissions of the exhaust plume to mitigate the threat of infrared homing ("heat seeking") surface-to-air or air-to-air missiles. Additional measures to reduce the infrared signature include special topcoat and active cooling of leading edges to manage the heat buildup from supersonic flight.

Compared to previous stealth designs like the F-117, the F-22 is less reliant on RAM, which are maintenance-intensive and susceptible to adverse weather conditions. Unlike the B-2, which requires climate-controlled hangars, the F-22 can undergo repairs on the flight line or in a normal hangar. The F-22 has a Signature Assessment System which delivers warnings when the radar signature is degraded and necessitates repair. While the F-22's exact RCS is classified, in 2009 Lockheed Martin released information indicating that from certain angles the aircraft has an RCS of 0.0001 m² or −40 dBsm – equivalent to the radar reflection of a "steel marble". Effectively maintaining the stealth features can decrease the F-22's mission capable rate to 62–70%.

The effectiveness of the stealth characteristics is difficult to gauge. The RCS value is a restrictive measurement of the aircraft's frontal or side area from the perspective of a static radar. When an aircraft maneuvers it exposes a completely different set of angles and surface area, potentially increasing radar observability. Furthermore, the F-22's stealth contouring and radar absorbent materials are chiefly effective against high-frequency radars, usually found on other aircraft. The effects of Rayleigh scattering and resonance mean that low-frequency radars such as weather radars and early-warning radars are more likely to detect the F-22 due to its physical size. However, such radars are also conspicuous, susceptible to clutter, and have low precision. Additionally, while faint or fleeting radar contacts make defenders aware that a stealth aircraft is present, reliably vectoring interception to attack the aircraft is much more challenging. According to the USAF an F-22 surprised an Iranian F-4 Phantom II that was attempting to intercept an American UAV, despite Iran's assertion of having military VHF radar coverage over the Persian Gulf.

“NEW MARS SHIP—This artist’s conception of “Mars ship” designed at Lockheed Missiles and Space Division at Palo Alto. Object trailing from center of rotation is nuclear reactor to power air supply and other life systems. Cutaway shows return to earth vehicle inside booster. Also shown are fuel container for return trip (smaller sphere); crew cabin and life systems (larger sphere). Booster at opposite end of cable contains equipment for Martian landing. Precautions have been taken to safeguard crew.”

Beautiful “retro” (not at the time of course) space artwork by Al Montgomery, one of Lockheed Missiles & Space Company’s talented pool of artists of the time. Along those lines, the influence of Ludwik Źiemba would seem to be evident.

Note the tethered chap(s) on the gangway making their way to the ferry craft.

Artist’s concept depicting a space shuttle orbiter about to land after completion of its mission.

One of who knows how many near identical (as far as the scene/perspective is concerned) of evolving/proposed shuttle configurations, as developed & propagated by (I think) Rockwell International. As such, I’m guessing it’s gotta be by the once elusive Manuel E. Alvarez…I think.

The date range is a total SWAG.

And most importantly, it lives on as a "REPUBLIQUE ISLAMIQUE DE MAURITANIE" stamp:

www.dreamstime.com/editorial-photo-space-shuttle-postage-...

Credit: "dreamstime" website

Entry for The Brothers Brick "Pimp Rey’s Speeder Contest"

Space Speeder is build with powerful thruster engine and Ultimate Control System (UCS) to hover any uneven surface in the Universe.

Competition Page:

www.brothers-brick.com/2015/11/05/pimp-reys-speeder-contest/

A Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor assigned to the 525th Fighter Squadron from Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska, flies away after refueling from a Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker assigned to the 909th Air Refueling Squadron from Kadena Air Base, Japan, during exercise Northern Edge, May 16, 2019, over Alaska. Northern Edge is designed to sharpen participants’ tactical combat skills, to improve command, control and communication relationships and to develop plans and programs across the Joint Force.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor is a fifth-generation, single-seat, twin-engine, all-weather stealth tactical fighter aircraft developed for the United States Air Force (USAF). The result of the USAF's Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) program, the aircraft was designed primarily as an air superiority fighter, but also has ground attack, electronic warfare, and signal intelligence capabilities. The prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, built most of the F-22's airframe and weapons systems and conducted final assembly, while Boeing provided the wings, aft fuselage, avionics integration, and training systems.

The aircraft was variously designated F-22 and F/A-22 before it formally entered service in December 2005 as the F-22A. Despite its protracted development and various operational issues, USAF officials consider the F-22 a critical component of the service's tactical air power. Its combination of stealth, aerodynamic performance, and situational awareness enable unprecedented air combat capabilities.

Service officials had originally planned to buy a total of 750 ATFs. In 2009, the program was cut to 187 operational production aircraft due to high costs, a lack of clear air-to-air missions due to delays in Russian and Chinese fighter programs, a ban on exports, and development of the more versatile F-35. The last F-22 was delivered in 2012.

Development

Origins

In 1981, the U.S. Air Force identified a requirement for an Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) to replace the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon. Code named "Senior Sky", this air-superiority fighter program was influenced by emerging worldwide threats, including new developments in Soviet air defense systems and the proliferation of the Su-27 "Flanker"- and MiG-29 "Fulcrum"-class of fighter aircraft. It would take advantage of the new technologies in fighter design on the horizon, including composite materials, lightweight alloys, advanced flight control systems, more powerful propulsion systems, and most importantly, stealth technology. In 1983, the ATF concept development team became the System Program Office (SPO) and managed the program at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. The demonstration and validation (Dem/Val) request for proposals (RFP) was issued in September 1985, with requirements placing strong emphasis on stealth and supercruise. Of the seven bidding companies, Lockheed and Northrop were selected on 31 October 1986. Lockheed teamed with Boeing and General Dynamics while Northrop teamed with McDonnell Douglas, and the two contractor teams undertook a 50-month Dem/Val phase, culminating in the flight test of two technology demonstrator prototypes, the YF-22 and the YF-23, respectively.

Dem/Val was focused on risk reduction and technology development plans over specific aircraft designs. Contractors made extensive use of analytical and empirical methods, including computational fluid dynamics, wind-tunnel testing, and radar cross-section calculations and pole testing; the Lockheed team would conduct nearly 18,000 hours of wind-tunnel testing. Avionics development was marked by extensive testing and prototyping and supported by ground and flying laboratories. During Dem/Val, the SPO used the results of performance and cost trade studies conducted by contractor teams to adjust ATF requirements and delete ones that were significant weight and cost drivers while having marginal value. The short takeoff and landing (STOL) requirement was relaxed in order to delete thrust-reversers, saving substantial weight. As avionics was a major cost driver, side-looking radars were deleted, and the dedicated infra-red search and track (IRST) system was downgraded from multi-color to single color and then deleted as well. However, space and cooling provisions were retained to allow for future addition of these components. The ejection seat requirement was downgraded from a fresh design to the existing McDonnell Douglas ACES II. Despite efforts by the contractor teams to rein in weight, the takeoff gross weight estimate was increased from 50,000 lb (22,700 kg) to 60,000 lb (27,200 kg), resulting in engine thrust requirement increasing from 30,000 lbf (133 kN) to 35,000 lbf (156 kN) class.

Each team produced two prototype air vehicles for Dem/Val, one for each of the two engine options. The YF-22 had its maiden flight on 29 September 1990 and in flight tests achieved up to Mach 1.58 in supercruise. After the Dem/Val flight test of the prototypes, on 23 April 1991, Secretary of the USAF Donald Rice announced the Lockheed team as the winner of the ATF competition. The YF-23 design was considered stealthier and faster, while the YF-22, with its thrust vectoring nozzles, was more maneuverable as well as less expensive and risky. The aviation press speculated that the Lockheed team's design was also more adaptable to the U.S. Navy's Navalized Advanced Tactical Fighter (NATF), but by 1992, the Navy had abandoned NATF.

Production and procurement

As the program moved to full-scale development, or the Engineering & Manufacturing Development (EMD) stage, the production version had notable differences from the YF-22, despite having a broadly similar shape. The swept-back angle of the leading edge was decreased from 48° to 42°, while the vertical stabilizers were shifted rearward and decreased in area by 20%. To improve pilot visibility, the canopy was moved forward 7 inches (18 cm), and the engine intakes moved rearward 14 inches (36 cm). The shapes of the wing and stabilator trailing edges were refined to improve aerodynamics, strength, and stealth characteristics. Increasing weight during development caused slight reductions in range and maneuver performance.

Prime contractor Lockheed Martin Aeronautics manufactured the majority of the airframe and performed final assembly at Dobbins Air Reserve Base in Marietta, Georgia; program partner Boeing Defense, Space & Security provided additional airframe components as well as avionics integration and training systems. The first F-22, an EMD aircraft with tail number 4001, was unveiled at Marietta, Georgia, on 9 April 1997, and first flew on 7 September 1997. Production, with the first lot awarded in September 2000, supported over 1,000 subcontractors and suppliers from 46 states and up to 95,000 jobs, and spanned 15 years at a peak rate of roughly two airplanes per month. In 2006, the F-22 development team won the Collier Trophy, American aviation's most prestigious award. Due to the aircraft's advanced nature, contractors have been targeted by cyberattacks and technology theft.

The USAF originally envisioned ordering 750 ATFs at a total program cost of $44.3 billion and procurement cost of $26.2 billion in fiscal year (FY) 1985 dollars, with production beginning in 1994. The 1990 Major Aircraft Review led by Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney reduced this to 648 aircraft beginning in 1996. By 1997, funding instability had further cut the total to 339, which was again reduced to 277 by 2003. In 2004, the Department of Defense (DoD) further reduced this to 183 operational aircraft, despite the USAF's preference for 381. A multi-year procurement plan was implemented in 2006 to save $15 billion, with total program cost projected to be $62 billion for 183 F-22s distributed to seven combat squadrons. In 2008, Congress passed a defense spending bill that raised the total orders for production aircraft to 187.

The first two F-22s built were EMD aircraft in the Block 1.0 configuration for initial flight testing, while the third was a Block 2.0 aircraft built to represent the internal structure of production airframes and enabled it to test full flight loads. Six more EMD aircraft were built in the Block 10 configuration for development and upgrade testing, with the last two considered essentially production quality jets. Production for operational squadrons consisted of 37 Block 20 training aircraft and 149 Block 30/35 combat aircraft; one of the Block 35 aircraft is dedicated to flight sciences at Edwards Air Force Base.

The numerous new technologies in the F-22 resulted in substantial cost overruns and delays. Many capabilities were deferred to post-service upgrades, reducing the initial cost but increasing total program cost. As production wound down in 2011, the total program cost is estimated to be about $67.3 billion, with $32.4 billion spent on Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) and $34.9 billion on procurement and military construction (MILCON) in then year dollars. The incremental cost for an additional F-22 was estimated at about $138 million in 2009.

Ban on exports

The F-22 cannot be exported under US federal law to protect its stealth technology and other high-tech features. Customers for U.S. fighters are acquiring earlier designs such as the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon or the newer F-35 Lightning II, which contains technology from the F-22 but was designed to be cheaper, more flexible, and available for export. In September 2006, Congress upheld the ban on foreign F-22 sales. Despite the ban, the 2010 defense authorization bill included provisions requiring the DoD to prepare a report on the costs and feasibility for an F-22 export variant, and another report on the effect of F-22 export sales on U.S. aerospace industry.

Some Australian politicians and defense commentators proposed that Australia should attempt to purchase F-22s instead of the planned F-35s, citing the F-22's known capabilities and F-35's delays and developmental uncertainties. However, the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) determined that the F-22 was unable to perform the F-35's strike and close air support roles. The Japanese government also showed interest in the F-22 for its Replacement-Fighter program. The Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) would reportedly require fewer fighters for its mission if it obtained the F-22, thus reducing engineering and staffing costs. However, in 2009 it was reported that acquiring the F-22 would require increases to the Japanese government's defense budget beyond the historical 1 percent of its GDP. With the end of F-22 production, Japan chose the F-35 in December 2011. Israel also expressed interest, but eventually chose the F-35 because of the F-22's price and unavailability.

Production termination

Throughout the 2000s, the need for F-22s was debated, due to rising costs and the lack of relevant adversaries. In 2006, Comptroller General of the United States David Walker found that "the DoD has not demonstrated the need" for more investment in the F-22, and further opposition to the program was expressed by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon R. England, Senator John McCain, and Chairman of U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services Senator John Warner. The F-22 program lost influential supporters in 2008 after the forced resignations of Secretary of the Air Force Michael Wynne and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force General T. Michael Moseley.

In November 2008, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated that the F-22 was not relevant in post-Cold War conflicts such as irregular warfare operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in April 2009, under the new Obama Administration, he called for ending production in FY2011, leaving the USAF with 187 production aircraft. In July, General James Cartwright, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated to the Senate Committee on Armed Services his reasons for supporting termination of F-22 production. They included shifting resources to the multirole F-35 to allow proliferation of fifth-generation fighters for three service branches and preserving the F/A-18 production line to maintain the military's electronic warfare (EW) capabilities in the Boeing EA-18G Growler.[60] Issues with the F-22's reliability and availability also raised concerns. After President Obama threatened to veto further production, the Senate voted in July 2009 in favor of ending production and the House subsequently agreed to abide by the 187 production aircraft cap. Gates stated that the decision was taken in light of the F-35's capabilities, and in 2010, he set the F-22 requirement to 187 aircraft by lowering the number of major regional conflict preparations from two to one.

In 2010, USAF initiated a study to determine the costs of retaining F-22 tooling for a future Service Life Extension Program (SLEP).[66] A RAND Corporation paper from this study estimated that restarting production and building an additional 75 F-22s would cost $17 billion, resulting in $227 million per aircraft, or $54 million higher than the flyaway cost. Lockheed Martin stated that restarting the production line itself would cost about $200 million. Production tooling and associated documentation were subsequently stored at the Sierra Army Depot, allowing the retained tooling to support the fleet life cycle. There were reports that attempts to retrieve this tooling found empty containers, but a subsequent audit found that the tooling was stored as expected.

Russian and Chinese fighter developments have fueled concern, and in 2009, General John Corley, head of Air Combat Command, stated that a fleet of 187 F-22s would be inadequate, but Secretary Gates dismissed General Corley's concern. In 2011, Gates explained that Chinese fifth-generation fighter developments had been accounted for when the number of F-22s was set, and that the U.S. would have a considerable advantage in stealth aircraft in 2025, even with F-35 delays. In December 2011, the 195th and final F-22 was completed out of 8 test EMD and 187 operational aircraft produced; the aircraft was delivered to the USAF on 2 May 2012.

In April 2016, the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee proposed legislation that would direct the Air Force to conduct a cost study and assessment associated with resuming production of the F-22. Since the production halt directed in 2009 by then Defense Secretary Gates, lawmakers and the Pentagon noted that air warfare systems of Russia and China were catching up to those of the U.S. Lockheed Martin has proposed upgrading the Block 20 training aircraft into combat-coded Block 30/35 versions as a way to increase numbers available for deployment. On 9 June 2017, the Air Force submitted their report to Congress stating they had no plans to restart the F-22 production line due to economic and operational issues; it estimated it would cost approximately $50 billion to procure 194 additional F-22s at a cost of $206–$216 million per aircraft, including approximately $9.9 billion for non-recurring start-up costs and $40.4 billion for aircraft procurement costs.

Upgrades

The first aircraft with combat-capable Block 3.0 software flew in 2001. Increment 2, the first upgrade program, was implemented in 2005 for Block 20 aircraft onward and enabled the employment of Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM). Certification of the improved AN/APG-77(V)1 radar was completed in March 2007, and airframes from production Lot 5 onward are fitted with this radar, which incorporates air-to-ground modes. Increment 3.1 for Block 30 aircraft onward provided improved ground-attack capability through synthetic aperture radar mapping and radio emitter direction finding, electronic attack and Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) integration; testing began in 2009 and the first upgraded aircraft was delivered in 2011. To address oxygen deprivation issues, F-22s were fitted with an automatic backup oxygen system (ABOS) and modified life support system starting in 2012.

Increment 3.2 for Block 35 aircraft is a two-part upgrade process; 3.2A focuses on electronic warfare, communications and identification, while 3.2B includes geolocation improvements and a new stores management system to show the correct symbols for the AIM-9X and AIM-120D.[83][84] To enable two-way communication with other platforms, the F-22 can use the Battlefield Airborne Communications Node (BACN) as a gateway. The planned Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) integration was cut due to development delays and lack of proliferation among USAF platforms. The F-22 fleet is planned to start receiving Increment 3.2B as well as a software upgrade for cryptography capabilities and avionics stability in May 2019. A Multifunctional Information Distribution System-Joint (MIDS-J) radio that replaces the current Link-16 receive-only box is expected to be operational by 2020. Subsequent upgrades are also focusing on having an open architecture to enable faster future enhancements.

In 2024, funding is projected to begin for the F-22 mid-life upgrade (MLU), which is expected to include new sensors and antennas, hardware refresh, cockpit improvements, and a helmet mounted display and cuing system. Other enhancements being developed include IRST functionality for the AN/AAR-56 Missile Launch Detector (MLD) and more durable stealth coating based on the F-35's.

The F-22 was designed for a service life of 8,000 flight hours, with a $350 million "structures retrofit program". Investigations are being made for upgrades to extend their useful lives further. In the long term, the F-22 is expected to be superseded by a sixth-generation jet fighter to be fielded in the 2030s.

Design

Overview

The F-22 Raptor is a fifth-generation fighter that is considered fourth generation in stealth aircraft technology by the USAF.[91] It is the first operational aircraft to combine supercruise, supermaneuverability, stealth, and sensor fusion in a single weapons platform. The F-22 has four empennage surfaces, retractable tricycle landing gear, and clipped delta wings with reverse trailing edge sweep and leading edge extensions running to the upper outboard corner of the inlets. Flight control surfaces include leading-edge flaps, flaperons, ailerons, rudders on the canted vertical stabilizers, and all-moving horizontal tails (stabilators); for speed brake function, the ailerons deflect up, flaperons down, and rudders outwards to increase drag.

The aircraft's dual Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 augmented turbofan engines are closely spaced and incorporate pitch-axis thrust vectoring nozzles with a range of ±20 degrees; each engine has maximum thrust in the 35,000 lbf (156 kN) class. The F-22's thrust-to-weight ratio at typical combat weight is nearly at unity in maximum military power and 1.25 in full afterburner. Maximum speed without external stores is approximately Mach 1.8 at military power and greater than Mach 2 with afterburners.

The F-22's high cruise speed and operating altitude over prior fighters improve the effectiveness of its sensors and weapon systems, and increase survivability against ground defenses such as surface-to-air missiles. The aircraft is among only a few that can supercruise, or sustain supersonic flight without using fuel-inefficient afterburners; it can intercept targets which subsonic aircraft would lack the speed to pursue and an afterburner-dependent aircraft would lack the fuel to reach. The F-22's thrust and aerodynamics enable regular combat speeds of Mach 1.5 at 50,000 feet (15,000 m). The use of internal weapons bays permits the aircraft to maintain comparatively higher performance over most other combat-configured fighters due to a lack of aerodynamic drag from external stores. The aircraft's structure contains a significant amount of high-strength materials to withstand stress and heat of sustained supersonic flight. Respectively, titanium alloys and composites comprise 39% and 24% of the structural weight.

The F-22's aerodynamics, relaxed stability, and powerful thrust-vectoring engines give it excellent maneuverability and energy potential across its flight envelope. The airplane has excellent high alpha (angle of attack) characteristics, capable of flying at trimmed alpha of over 60° while maintaining roll control and performing maneuvers such as the Herbst maneuver (J-turn) and Pugachev's Cobra. The flight control system and full-authority digital engine control (FADEC) make the aircraft highly departure resistant and controllable, thus giving the pilot carefree handling.

Stealth

The F-22 was designed to be highly difficult to detect and track by radar. Measures to reduce radar cross-section (RCS) include airframe shaping such as alignment of edges, fixed-geometry serpentine inlets and curved vanes that prevent line-of-sight of the engine faces and turbines from any exterior view, use of radar-absorbent material (RAM), and attention to detail such as hinges and pilot helmets that could provide a radar return. The F-22 was also designed to have decreased radio emissions, infrared signature and acoustic signature as well as reduced visibility to the naked eye. The aircraft's flat thrust-vectoring nozzles reduce infrared emissions of the exhaust plume to mitigate the threat of infrared homing ("heat seeking") surface-to-air or air-to-air missiles. Additional measures to reduce the infrared signature include special topcoat and active cooling of leading edges to manage the heat buildup from supersonic flight.

Compared to previous stealth designs like the F-117, the F-22 is less reliant on RAM, which are maintenance-intensive and susceptible to adverse weather conditions. Unlike the B-2, which requires climate-controlled hangars, the F-22 can undergo repairs on the flight line or in a normal hangar. The F-22 has a Signature Assessment System which delivers warnings when the radar signature is degraded and necessitates repair. While the F-22's exact RCS is classified, in 2009 Lockheed Martin released information indicating that from certain angles the aircraft has an RCS of 0.0001 m² or −40 dBsm – equivalent to the radar reflection of a "steel marble". Effectively maintaining the stealth features can decrease the F-22's mission capable rate to 62–70%.

The effectiveness of the stealth characteristics is difficult to gauge. The RCS value is a restrictive measurement of the aircraft's frontal or side area from the perspective of a static radar. When an aircraft maneuvers it exposes a completely different set of angles and surface area, potentially increasing radar observability. Furthermore, the F-22's stealth contouring and radar absorbent materials are chiefly effective against high-frequency radars, usually found on other aircraft. The effects of Rayleigh scattering and resonance mean that low-frequency radars such as weather radars and early-warning radars are more likely to detect the F-22 due to its physical size. However, such radars are also conspicuous, susceptible to clutter, and have low precision. Additionally, while faint or fleeting radar contacts make defenders aware that a stealth aircraft is present, reliably vectoring interception to attack the aircraft is much more challenging. According to the USAF an F-22 surprised an Iranian F-4 Phantom II that was attempting to intercept an American UAV, despite Iran's assertion of having military VHF radar coverage over the Persian Gulf.

Rare photograph of an early Command Module ‘chop shop’, with two of the clean-cut thugs, posing as Honeywell Manufacturing engineers, preparing to fence the stripped components, which include both a Translation Hand Controller & Rotation Hand Controller, a Stabilization and Control System (SCS) panel, an Attitude Set & Gimbal Display panel & Velocity Change Indicator panel. Even a coveted Flight Director/Atitude Indicator (FDAI), with a street value of least $275. Fortunately, these were all Block I Command Module components, only to become obsolete and of no value within several years. What looks to be the installed Translation Hand Controller is visible through the side window, equipped with its jail cell door observation window sliding panel.

Note also the chart recorder/plotter, which looks to be placed/positioned atop some sort of shelving or similar structure in the background. Also, the elevated floodlights, angled downward & possibly attached to scaffolding. Interesting.

“RONALD CHISENHALL”. Really? Obviously, the perps got a little carried away with the alias. I suppose to not be too plain/dull/vanilla, like say Jones, Smith, Carpenter, etc.

Or, I suppose it could conceivably be associated with the following, from the February 6, 1964 entry of “The Apollo Spacecraft - A Chronology”/NASA SP-4009. In fact, it explains the components prominently “on display” in the photograph:

“Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Company reported it had developed an all-attitude display unit for the CM to monitor the guidance and navigation system and provide backup through the stabilization and control system. The Flight Director Attitude Indicator (or "eight-ball") would give enough information for all spacecraft attitude maneuvers during the entire mission to be executed manually, if necessary.

Honeywell News Release, "All-Attitude Display Produced By Honeywell For Apollo Spacecraft," February 6, 1964; Space Business Daily, February 24, 1964, p. 290.”

At:

www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4009/v2p2c.htm

Finally, as I’m sure at least one of you is wondering, what is this Command Module designated as? A ‘boilerplate’ I think.

"NASA Manned Spacecraft Artist concept of Spacecraft Comparison."

An iconic illustration, and yet I've never even remotely/slightly/tangentially read/seen/heard anything regarding the mystery artist. Which leads me to cautiously think it's Gary Meyer. The lack of signature supports such, as it was pretty much the rule for his works. The time frame. And, it is part of the "S-63-XXX" family/series of photos, which is a stretch however.

We may never know. Although...the straight dark lines representing the Astronauts' eyes may be a clue...

Note the round windows of the Apollo Command Module.

The design team was carrying on its work on new versions. Problems with the setup of the 5TDF engine occurred as the local production capacity was proven to be insufficient against a production done in three factories (Malyshev in Kharkiv, Kirov in Leningrad and Uralvagonzavod).

From 1961, an alternative to the obyekt 432 was studied, with 12 V-cylinder V-45 engine: the obyekt 436. Three prototypes were tested in 1966 in the Chelyabinsk factory. The order to develop a model derived from the 434 with the same engine gave the obyekt 438, later renamed as obyekt 439. Four tanks of this type were built and tested in 1969, which showed the same mobility as the production version, but mass production was not started. They served however as a basis for the design of the T-72 engine compartment.

At the beginning of the 1970s, the design team was trying to improve the tank further. The T-64A-2M study in 1973, with its more powerful engine and its reinforced turret, served as a basis for two projects:

Obyekt 476 with a 6TD 1000 hp (735 kW) engine which served as a model for the T-80 combat compartment.

Obyekt 447 which featured a new fire control with a laser telemeter, and which was able to fire missiles through the gun.

For the latter, the order was given to start its production under the name T-64B, as well as a derived version (which shared 95% of its components), the obyekt 437, without the missile guidance system for cost reasons. The latter was almost twice as much produced under the designation T-64B1. On 3 September 1976, the T-64B and the T-64B1 were declared good for the service, featuring the improved D-81Tm gun (2A46-2) with a 2E26M stabiliser, a 6ETs40 loader and a 1A33 fire control, including:

a 1V517 ballistic calculator

a 1G21 sight with laser telemetry

a 1B11 cross-wind sensor.

Its ford capacity reaches 1.8 m without equipment. The T-64B had the ability to fire the new 9M112 "Kobra" radio-guided missile (NATO code "AT-8 Songster"). The vehicle then carries 8 missiles and 28 shells. The missile control system is mounted in front of the tank leader small turret and has many changes. The T-64B1 carries only 37 shells and has 2,000 7.62 mm rounds, against 1,250 for the T-64B.

They were modernised in 1981 by the replacement of the gun by a 2A46M1, the stabiliser by a 2E42, and the mounting of a 902A "Tucha-1" smoke grenade launcher in two groups of four, on each side of the gun. Two command versions are realised, very similar to the T-64AK: the T-64BK and the T-64B1K.

The decision, in October 1979, to start production of the 6TD engine, and its great similarity with the 5TDF engine, allowed after some study to fit it in versions B and B1, but also A and AK, yielding the new models T-64AM, T-64AKM, T-64BM and T-64BAM, entering service in 1983.

The production ended in 1987 for all versions. The total production has reached almost 13,000.

ESA engineers test and debug ground control software and equipment, identifying and solving problems before a current or future mission can be affected.

They work close to real mission conditions to verify new software and hardware in a complete chain.

This runs from the flight controllers who sit at workstations through the complex and sophisticated mission control systems and ground tracking stations used to transmit commands right up to the satellite. And it’s all simulated in a safe, effective and rigorous way, helping to ensure the success of ESA missions.

More information

ESA ground systems engineering

Credit: ESA/J.Mai

A "NATO AWACS" aircraft shortly before landing.

AWACS: Airborne Warning and Control System.

Aircraft: Boeing E-3A Sentry.

Location: Airspace above Munstergeleen.

Country: Netherlands.

Please press "L" to see large picture.

DHC-8-100/200

Details

Country of Origin

Canada

Type

Turboprop regional airliner

History

Bombardier's de Havilland Dash 8 has proven to be a popular player in the regional turboprop airliner market. De Havilland Canada began development of the Dash 8 in the late 1970s in response to what it saw as a considerable market demand for a new generation 30 to 40 seat commuter airliner. The first flight of the first of two preproduction aircraft was on June 20 1983, while Canadian certification was awarded on September 28 1984. The first customer delivery was to norOntair of Canada on October 23 1984. Like the Dash 7, the Dash 8 features a high mounted wing and Ttail, and has an advanced flight control system and large full length trailing edge flaps. Power meanwhile is supplied by two Pratt & Whitney Canada PW120 series (originally designated PT7A) turboprops. Initial Dash 8 production was of the Series 100, which was followed by the Series 100A in 1990. The 100A introduced a revised interior with extra headroom and PW120A turboprops. The Series 100B was offered from 1992 with more powerful PW121s for better climb and airfield performance. Production since switched to the improved performance Dash 8-200. Announced in 1992 and delivered from April 1995 the -200 features more powerful PW123C engines which give a 56km/h (30kt) increase in cruising speed, as well as greater commonality with the stretched Dash 8300. The 200B derivative has PW123Bs for better hot and high performance. From the second quarter of 1996 all Dash 8s delivered have been fitted with a computer controlled noise and vibration suppression system (or NVS). To reflect this the designation was changed to Dash 8Q (Q for `quiet'). In 1998 that was changed again to Dash 8 Q200 when a new interior was introduced.

Powerplants

100 - Two 1490kW (2000shp) Pratt & Whitney Canada PW120A turboprops driving four blade constant speed Hamilton Standard propellers. 100B - Two 1605kW (2150shp) PW121As. 200 - Two 1605kW (2150shp) PW123Cs in 200A, or two PW123Ds in 200B.

Performance

100A - Max cruising speed 490km/h (265kt), long range cruising speed 440km/h (237kt). Initial rate of climb 1560ft/min. Range with full passenger load, fuel and reserves 1520km (820nm), range with a 2720kg (6000lb) payload 2040km (1100nm). 100B - Same except max cruising speed of 500km/h (270kt). 200A & 200B - Same except max cruising speed 546km/h (295kt). Initial rate of climb 1475ft/min. Range with 37 passengers 1795km (970nm).

Weights

100A - Operating empty 10,250kg (22,600lb), max takeoff 15,650kg (34,500lb). 100B - Operating empty 10,273kg (22,648lb), max takeoff 16,465kg (36,300lb). 200A & 200B - Operating empty 10,434kg (23,004lb), max takeoff 16,465kg (36,300lb).

Dimensions

Wing span 25.91m (85ft 0in), length 22.25m (73ft 0in), height 7.49m (24ft 7in). Wing area 54.4m2 (585.0sq ft).

Capacity

Flightcrew of two. Typical passenger seating for 37 at four abreast and 79cm (31in) pitch, max seating for 40.

Production

347 Dash 8-100s/-200s in service or on order at late 1998.

Source: www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/de-havilland-canada-dhc-8...

DHC-8-300

Details

Country of Origin

Canada

Type

Turboprop regional airliner

History

With the success of the Dash 8-100 series, a stretched version with greater capacity was a logical development. De Havilland Canada (now part of Bombardier) launched full scale development of a 50 seat stretched version of its Dash 8 regional airliner during 1986, approximately two years after the standard fuselage length aircraft had entered service. The first series 300 aircraft was in fact the prototype Dash 8 converted to the new length, and it flew for the first time in its new configuration on May 15 1987. Flight testing culminated in the awarding of Canadian certification in February 1989, with the first delivery to Time Air following late that same month. US certification was awarded in June 1989. The stretch comprises fuselage plugs forward and aft of the wing, increasing length by 3.43m (11ft 3in). In addition, the wings are greater in span. The fuselage stretch increases typical seating capacity to 50 (at 81cm/32in pitch), or for up to 56 (at 74cm/29in pitch). Other changes compared with the Dash 8-100 were minor, but included a larger, repositioned galley, larger toilet, additional wardrobe, dual air conditioning packs, a new galley service door and optional APU. The Dash 8-300 has been offered in a number of variants. The standard 300 was followed in 1990 by the 300A which introduced optional higher gross weights, interior improvements (as on the Dash 8-100A), and standard PW123A engines (with PW123Bs optional). The 300B was introduced in 1992 and has 1865kW (2500shp) PW123Bs as standard, as is the optional high gross weight of the 300A. The 300E has 1775kW (2380shp) PW123Es rated to 40 degrees, thus improving hot and high performance. Like the Dash 8Q-200, all Dash 8-300s built since the second quarter of 1996 have been fitted with a computer controlled noise and vibration suppression system (or NVS) and so from then all models were designated Dash 8Q-300s. In 1998 the aircraft was again renamed, this time to Dash 8-Q300 when a new interior was also introduced.

Powerplants

300A - Two 1775kW (2380shp) Pratt & Whitney Canada PW123A turboprops driving four blade Hamilton Standard propellers. 300B - Two 1865kW (2500shp) PW123Bs.

Performance

300 - Max cruising speed 532km/h (287kt). Initial rate of climb 1800ft/min. Service ceiling 25,000ft. Range with full passenger load and reserves 1538km (830nm), with 2720kg (6000lb) payload 1612km (870nm). 300B - Max cruising speed 528km/h (285kt). Range with 50 passengers 1625km (878nm), with 50 passengers and auxiliary fuel 2275km (1228nm).

Weights

300 - Operating empty 11,657kg (25,700lb), standard max takeoff 18,642kg (41,100lb). 300B - Operating empty 11,719kg (25,836lb), max takeoff 19,505kg (43,000lb).

Dimensions

Wing span 27.43m (90ft 0in), length 25.68m (84ft 3in), height 7.49m (24ft 7in). Wing area 56.2m2 (605sq ft).

Capacity

Flightcrew of two. Standard single class seating for 50 passengers at four abreast and 81cm (32in) pitch.

Production

Total orders for Dash 8300s stood at over 136 by late 1998, of which 128 were in service.

Source: www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/de-havilland-canada-dhc-8...

LaGuardia Airport

The site of the airport was originally used by the Gala Amusement Park, owned by the Steinway family. It was razed and transformed in 1929 into a 105-acre (42 ha) private flying field named Glenn H. Curtiss Airport after the pioneer Long Island aviator, later called North Beach Airport.[9]

The initiative to develop the airport for commercial flights began with an outburst by New York mayor Fiorello LaGuardia (in office from 1934 to 1945) upon the arrival of his TWA flight at Newark Airport – the only commercial airport serving the New York City region at the time – as his ticket said "New York". He demanded to be taken to New York, and ordered the plane to be flown to Brooklyn's Floyd Bennett Field, giving an impromptu press conference to reporters along the way. He urged New Yorkers to support a new airport within their city.[9]

American Airlines accepted LaGuardia's offer to start a trial program of scheduled flights to Floyd Bennett, although the program failed after several months because Newark's airport was closer to Manhattan. LaGuardia went as far as to offer police escorts to airport limousines in an attempt to get American Airlines to continue operating the trial program.

During the Floyd Bennett experiment, LaGuardia and American executives began an alternative plan to build a new airport in Queens, where it could take advantage of the new Queens–Midtown Tunnel to Manhattan. The existing North Beach Airport was an obvious location, but much too small for the sort of airport that was being planned. With backing and assistance from the Works Progress Administration, construction began in 1937.[12] Building on the site required moving landfill from Rikers Island, then a garbage dump, onto a metal reinforcing framework. The framework below the airport still causes magnetic interference on the compasses of outgoing aircraft: signs on the airfield warn pilots about the problem.[13]

Because of American's pivotal role in the development of the airport, LaGuardia gave the airline extra real estate during the airport's first year of operation, including four hangars, which was an unprecedented amount of space at the time.[14] American opened its first Admirals Club (and the first private airline club in the world) at the airport in 1939. The club took over a large office space that had previously been reserved for the mayor, but he offered it for lease following criticism from the press, and American vice president Red Mosier immediately accepted the offer.[15]

Opening and early years

The airport was dedicated on October 15, 1939, as the New York Municipal Airport,[16][17] and opened for business on December 2 of that year.[9] It cost New York City $23 million to turn the tiny North Beach Airport into a 550-acre (220 ha) modern facility. Not everyone was as enthusiastic as LaGuardia about the project; some[who?] regarded it as a $40 million boondoggle. But the public was fascinated by the very idea of air travel, and thousands traveled to the airport, paid the dime fee, and watched the airliners take off and land. Two years later these fees and their associated parking had already provided $285,000, and other non-travel related incomes (food, etc.) were another $650,000 a year. The airport was soon a financial success. A smaller airport in nearby Jackson Heights, Holmes Airport, was unable to prevent the expansion of the larger airport and closed in 1940.

Newark Airport began renovations, but could not keep up with the new Queens airport, which TIME called "the most pretentious land and seaplane base in the world". Even before the project was completed LaGuardia had won commitments from the five largest airlines (Pan American Airways, American, United, Eastern Air Lines and Transcontinental & Western Air) to begin using the new field as soon as it opened.[18] Pan Am's transatlantic Boeing 314 flying boats moved to LaGuardia from Port Washington in 1940. During World War II the airport was used to train aviation technicians and as a logistics field. Transatlantic landplane airline flights started in late 1945; some continued after Idlewild (now John F. Kennedy International) opened in July 1948, but the last ones shifted to Idlewild in April 1951.

Newspaper accounts alternately referred to the airfield as New York Municipal Airport and LaGuardia Field until the modern name was officially applied when the airport moved to Port of New York Authority control under a lease with New York City on June 1, 1947.

LaGuardia opened with four runways at 45-degree angles to each other,[19] the longest (13/31) being 6,000 ft (1,800 m). Runway 18/36 was closed soon after a United DC-4 ran off the south end in 1947; runway 9/27 (4,500 ft) was closed around 1958, allowing LaGuardia's terminal to expand northward after 1960. Circa 1961 runway 13/31 was shifted northeastward to allow construction of a parallel taxiway (such amenities being unknown when LGA was built) and in 1965–66 both remaining runways were extended to their present 7,000 ft (2,100 m).

The April 1957 Official Airline Guide shows 283 weekday fixed-wing departures from LaGuardia: 126 American, 49 Eastern, 33 Northeast, 31 TWA, 29 Capital and 15 United. American's flights included 26 nonstops to Boston and 27 to Washington National (mostly Convair 240s).[20] Jet flights (United 727s to Cleveland and Chicago) started on June 1, 1964.

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaGuardia_Airport

This prototype is based on the same chassis as the 458 Italia but it has been specially modified for testing components of LaFerrari. For example inside this prototype there is a huge 6262 cm³ V12 engine, different steering, improved suspensions and electronic stability control system (EPS).

“APOLLO 6 MATING---Apollo Spacecraft 020 Command Module is hoisted into position for mating with Service Module in the Kennedy Space Center’s Manned Spacecraft Operations Building. Spacecraft 020 will be flown on the Apollo 6 (Spacecraft 020/Saturn 502) unmanned, earth-orbital space mission.”

images.nasa.gov/details-S68-17301

Pacific Electric had these nifty double-end, multiple unit PCCs built by Pullman-Standard at Worcester, where 5023 was seen on 11-17-40.

B&W print in my collection, photographer unknown.

History:

In November 1939, California Public Utilities Commission ordered Pacific Electric to restore rail service on the Glendale-Burbank line with PCC cars. In February 1940 thirty double-ended cars were ordered from Pullman-Standard. All cars were ordered with new Westinghouse multiple control system that would allow these PCCs to be coupled into trains. Seventeen cars went into service on the Glendale-Burbank line in November 1940 and in the following January, the other thirteen started running on the Venice Short Line; because of the poor track on the latter line all cars were assigned to Glendale-Burbank, where they ran until the abandonment in 1956. After three years of storage in the abandoned subway tunnel, all 30 were sold to the General Urquiza Railway in Buenos Aires, Argentina. None of them were preserved.

“By igniting the descent engine (contained in the LEM’s lower, descent stage), the separated LEM is inserted into an elliptical transfer orbit. Following cutoff of the descent engine, the LEM coasts to the low point of its descent orbit which brings the craft to within about 50,000 feet of the lunar surface, and uprange of the proposed landing site. At that time, the descent engine is refired to reduce velocity during the LEM’s descent to landing.

The LEM’s descent is automatically controlled to an altitude of a few hundred feet by a Guidance/Navigation Control System. During the final landing phase, the two-man crew selects a favorable landing site and, by manual control of the reaction control system jets (clustered at the four corners of the LEM upper, ascent stage) and the variable thrust descent engine, the craft is manipulated into the correct attitude over the landing site, and landed gently on the moon.”

The above are affixed to the verso of the photograph. Although informative, they don't describe what's depicted, which appears to be lunar orbit insertion.