🚀 go-pugleaf

In <rpfvio0...@unicorn.bbn.com> Chris Jones <c...@bbn.com> writes:

>I'm reading _Skunk Works_ by Ben R. Rich and Leo Janos, and while it's
>generally an enjoyable read, I'm beginning to wonder a bit about its accuracy.
>I'd be interested in knowing what people think about it.

I just finished reading that book last night. I'd say that you're just
unable to follow his frequent timeline switches.
--
Joseph P. Hillenburg
Email:    mailto:johi...@indiana.edu
WWW Page: http://copper.ucs.indiana.edu/~johillen/

Chris Jones (c...@bbn.com) wrote:

: Among the kinds of things I've noticed: The chronology is sometimes hard to
: follow.  I'm not talking about how he starts out with the stealth programs
: before backing up, but rather things like talking about Reagan's military
: buildup, then referring to events that took place in 1980 as if they were part
[CUT]

I'd say you just can't follow his time jumps. It's a bit awkard to follow
the time line jumping but I don't think he lied. I'll ask him in 80 years.
--
					Simon Lam
						It's the man, not the machine.
						(But it often helps)

In article <johillen.817833045@copper> johi...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Joseph P. Hillenburg) writes:

   I just finished reading that book last night. I'd say that you're just
   unable to follow his frequent timeline switches.

In article <49nqp9$g...@main.freenet.hamilton.on.ca> aa...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Simon Lam) writes:

   I'd say you just can't follow his time jumps. It's a bit awkard to follow
   the time line jumping but I don't think he lied. I'll ask him in 80 years.

Gosh, thanks, but I believe I can tell when he's switching his timelines and
when there are mistakes (I pointed out that there were frequent timeline
switches in the portion of my posting you cut out).

Neither of you addressed the third point I raised, unless perhaps you're
arguing "Sputnik 1 was launched by a hydrogen fueled booster in 1957" was a
combination timeline switch/typo for "Buran was launched by a hydrogen fueled
booster in 1988".

I received several email messages which strengthened my belief that the book
is not to be taken as gospel when it comes to the details.  As I said earlier,
it's still an enjoyable read.  I don't mean to cast aspersions on the integrity
of the authors, either.
--
Chris Jones    c...@bbn.com

As a friend of Ben Rich's I would put my money on his being
correct....remember he was one of a few that was very much "in the know",
as I doubt anyone here has or will be.

Cheers,

Ted

In article <49r622$o...@maureen.teleport.com> "Ted B. Blakeley" <gee...@teleport.com> writes:

   As a friend of Ben Rich's I would put my money on his being
   correct....remember he was one of a few that was very much "in the know",
   as I doubt anyone here has or will be.

Certainly Ben Rich was "in the know", but we're not discussing what he knew,
but rather what's written in _Skunk Works_.

When the book says that Northrop "had lost more than $100 million on that
twin-engine fighter, called the F-20 built at the administration's
suggestion...", I know that the F-20 was single engine, and begin to wonder
whether it really cost $100 million or that its construction was suggested by
the administration.

I wasn't going through the book looking for mistakes, contradictions, or
misinformation, but some things did spring out at me, which is why I asked the
original question.

I'll end with another example.  All of these quotes are from chapter 8 of the
book and are found sequentially on pages 169 through 177 of the hardcover
edition I have on loan.  Reading the chapter, it's obvious that it's meant to
be a chronological telling of the story being the attempt to develop a hydrogen
powered airplane.  Note that Sputnik 1 was launched in October 1957, and spring
is not late in the year in the northern hemisphere.

"In the early winter of 1956, Kelly sent for me..."

"Thank God my wife, Faye, had no inkling of how I was earning my paycheck in
the late autumn of 1959."

"And on a clammy spring evening in late 1959, ..."

"... not long after the contract was canceled, the Soviets launched their
Sputnik 1 into orbit."

--
Chris Jones    c...@bbn.com

Chris Jones <c...@bbn.com> wrote:

>I'm reading _Skunk Works_ by Ben R. Rich and Leo Janos, and while it's
>generally an enjoyable read, I'm beginning to wonder a bit about its accuracy.
>I'd be interested in knowing what people think about it.

>Among the kinds of things I've noticed: The chronology is sometimes hard to
>follow.  I'm not talking about how he starts out with the stealth programs
>before backing up, but rather things like talking about Reagan's military
>buildup, then referring to events that took place in 1980 as if they were part
>of the buildup, or when a U-2 pilot talks about flying out of Okinawa in 1960
>and watching the French getting their butts kicked in the Plain of Jars.  Also,
>the book claims that the Sputnik 1 launcher was hydrogen-fueled, and the engine
>builder was Pyotr Kapitsa, an expert on liquid hydrogen who had been released
>from the gulag to work on this project.

>My trouble with all of this is that Reagan didn't take office until 1981, the
>French were out of Indochina by 1956, and the Sputnik 1 launcher was fueled by
>kerosene.  I begin to wonder if there are similar mistakes that I'm missing.


The thing that gets me is (and this is true of a lot of other books as
well) is - why should I believe what the author is saying when, for the
past n years, the official statement has been something to the contrary
or, at the very least, ambiguous.

Just because Ben Rich had written something, why should I take it as
pure gospel? The number of people who use this book to back up, or deny,
particular points of view seems incredible to me.

Maybe I am just too cynical after all the years of Thatcherite
government whose motto was " Deny the truth at all costs, deny any
responsibility".

brian

   Chris Jones <c...@bbn.com> wrote:

   >I'm reading _Skunk Works_ by Ben R. Rich and Leo Janos, and while it's
   >generally an enjoyable read, I'm beginning to wonder a bit about its accuracy.
   >I'd be interested in knowing what people think about it.

   >Among the kinds of things I've noticed: The chronology is sometimes hard to
   >follow.  I'm not talking about how he starts out with the stealth programs
   >before backing up, but rather things like talking about Reagan's military
   >buildup, then referring to events that took place in 1980 as if they were part
   >of the buildup, or when a U-2 pilot talks about flying out of Okinawa in 1960
   >and watching the French getting their butts kicked in the Plain of Jars.  Also,
   >the book claims that the Sputnik 1 launcher was hydrogen-fueled, and the engine
   >builder was Pyotr Kapitsa, an expert on liquid hydrogen who had been released
   >from the gulag to work on this project.

   >My trouble with all of this is that Reagan didn't take office until 1981, the
   >French were out of Indochina by 1956, and the Sputnik 1 launcher was fueled by
   >kerosene.  I begin to wonder if there are similar mistakes that I'm missing.

Besides Pyotr Kapitsa was not in gulag unlike many scientists of
his generation and was expert on producung liquid oxygene, not
hydrogene. He also never built any rocket engines. He was
physicist and got Nobel prize for discovery of superfluidity.

Does not look like reliable source, IMHO.

There is one other little discrepancy.  Robert McNamara was not a fan of
the XB-70 and didnot try to save the project. He was instrumental in
destroying it.