Slashdot Mirror


Area 51 No Longer (Officially) a Secret

schnell writes "The first-ever declassified story of Area 51's origin is now available, thanks to a Freedom of Information Act filed years ago by George Washington University's National Security Archive. The (only lightly redacted) document is actually primarily a history of the U-2 and A-12 ("Oxcart") spy plane programs from the Cold War, but is remarkable for being the first-ever official unclassified acknowledgment of Area 51's purpose and its role in the program. Interesting tidbits include that the U-2 program was kicked off with a CIA check mailed personally to Lockheed Skunk Works chief Kelly Johnson for $1.25M; a U-2 was launched off an aircraft carrier to spy on French nuclear tests; and the U-2 delivery program itself was actually done under budget, a rarity for secret government programs then or now."

115 comments

  1. False documents by Thanshin · · Score: 5, Funny

    The entire thing must be completely fake.

    I refuse to acknowledge as possible the finalization of a secret government program under budget.

    1. Re:False documents by gl4ss · · Score: 5, Interesting

      kelly johnson was an engineering god and he didn't run the projects to just pump money out of government. of course back then the guys were probably actually motivated, that they felt a real need to build u2, a12 etc.. and their plan to pump more money out of government was to keep churning out cool stuff instead of extending one project to last their entire professional career.

      "Um.. it'll work if we build it out of titanium! what do you mean we'll have to invent the machinery to make it happen? do it already!"
      14 rules for saving cash:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Johnson_(engineer)#Kelly_Johnson.27s_14_Rules_of_Management

      "Because only a few people will be used in engineering and most other areas, ways must be provided to reward good performance by pay not based on the number of personnel supervised."

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:False documents by Pherdnut · · Score: 1

      Let's not forget that they crashed one in Russia.

    3. Re:False documents by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 4, Funny

      Art Bell says it's fake. Why would I not believe him.

      (this post itself is fake)

    4. Re:False documents by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Funny

      Let's not forget that they crashed one in Russia.

      It was shot down, and the Russian's had proof .. they paraded the pilot out after all the denials and he said "In Soviet Russia denials shout U2!"

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    5. Re:False documents by Sockatume · · Score: 4, Funny

      Of course, that was all part of the plan. The alien rumours were a start, but by creating a project that genuinely came in under budget - completely impossible, but irrefutable because it was true - they ensured that nobody would ever believe anything that was said about Area 51.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    6. Re:False documents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The entire thing must be completely fake.

      I refuse to acknowledge as possible the finalization of a secret government program under budget.

      Thanks, Obama!

    7. Re:False documents by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Amateur! Every one knows you can trust documents wrapped in tin foil.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    8. Re:False documents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      kelly johnson was an engineering god

      Scotty type budgeting huh? Overstate the time and effort involved then just get it done?

    9. Re:False documents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Art Bell is an alien himself.

      You heard it here first.

    10. Re:False documents by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Funny

      Nah the key words were "only lightly redacted"

      so This project was Under [strike]the the oversight of our alien overloads, who financed it by extracting gold from asteroids, in exchange for our compliance which helped hide our[/strike] Budget

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    11. Re:False documents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Rule 15 is interesting as well

      Note that Kelly had a 15th rule that he passed on by word of mouth. According to the book "Skunk Works" the 15th rule is: "Starve before doing business with the damned Navy. They don't know what the hell they want and will drive you up a wall before they break either your heart or a more exposed part of your anatomy."

      I know that feeling.

    12. Re:False documents by Epicaxia · · Score: 2

      Johnson's biography is quite a good read--not going to win a Nobel prize in literature any time soon, but the content is a delight for aerospace engineers like me. Johnson WAS Skunk Works, for many many years.

      Funny note about Rule 4: He's advocating version control for engineering projects. If he was alive today, I suspect Mercurial would give him a hard-on.

      Rule 4: A very simple drawing and drawing release system with great flexibility for making changes must be provided.

      Last point: It's funny how many of the 14 Rules are anathema to modern management practice, particularly as implemented by the dominant aerospace firms. I'm not saying you can solve all of the industry's problems by requiring 14 Rule adherence, but you'd come close, The parent post already mentioned Rule 14, and implied it's laughable contradiction with current pay-scales in the engineering industry; Rule 5 directly contradicts the micro-managed, hyper-documented approach for modern systems engineering standards. Rule 12 has been repeatedly blown away by deeply-ingrained contractor dishonesty w.r.t. pricing and scheduling estimates, and by contractees' fanatical devotion to requirements creep and abrupt project changes (although in fairness, the budgeting environment doesn't help things), and as a result it's hard to imagine that this kind of trust will ever again exist between the government and the large aerospace contractors. Rule 10 is also a victim of this phenomenon.

    13. Re: False documents by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      since it is secret there wolud possibly be fewer congresscritters tacking on pork for their district.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    14. Re:False documents by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      Art Bell is an alien himself.

      You heard it here first.

      So is Rush Limbaugh, that's not lard, it is actually him hiding his tentacles in his costume.

      Kang or Kodos - You decide.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    15. Re:False documents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!

    16. Re:False documents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rule #15: Never work for the goddamned Navy!

      Former Skunk, X-35 and X-47B engineer...

    17. Re:False documents by kimvette · · Score: 4, Informative

      > "Um.. it'll work if we build it out of titanium! what do you mean we'll have to invent the machinery to make it happen? do it already!"

      Completely false. They tried less exotic, more conventional materials before turning to titanium. They also wrestled with how to deal with thermal expansion - and the state of metallurgy at the time was such that the best way they could come up with to deal with it was to have gaps in the fuselage (including the fuel tanks!) at normal temperatures, which caused the tanks to leak until the fuselage came up to operating temperature. This is why after a Blackbird/Oxcart/etc. takes off they would immediately go supersonic to heat up the airframe so the designed-in leaks would seal up, then they would meet up with a tanker to refuel. The A-12/YF-12A/SR-71 was absolutely b;eeding edge at the time, and remained so in many ways even to this day. The only manned air-breathing aircraft which could match the "official" top speed of the Blackbird was the MiG-25, and such a sprint in that bird requires an immediate overhaul or replacement of the engines. The SR-71 could CRUISE up to and well past the published speed because it was constructed largely of titanium throughout.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    18. Re:False documents by laejoh · · Score: 1

      Yeah, definitely photoshopped!

    19. Re:False documents by Talderas · · Score: 1

      It's not surprising. It did happen under Eisenhower's stewardship and he saw a significant reduction in deficits. Given certain other views he expressed...

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    20. Re:False documents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After he didn't bite down on the cyanide pill. The loser.

    21. Re:False documents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moderation
      40% Troll
      30% Insightful
      30% Overrated

      People don't get irony.

    22. Re:False documents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot rule #15 (unwritten) on Kelly Johnson's list: Never deal with the Navy
      And to be fair, the U2 was a bitch to fly:
      information: Aircraft stall speed: Speed of the air flowing over the wings which provides the minimal amount of lift to keep the aircraft in the air.
                                                VNE: (Velocity Never Exceed) Speed of the air flowing over the wings beyond which the wings get ripped off the aircraft.

      Why the U2 was a bitch to fly: The difference between the stall speed and VNE on a U2 was 29 miles per hour. On most aircraft it's usually at least 100 miles per hour (a 747 has a stall speed of about 120 miles per hour, and a max speed (VNE) over 600 miles per hour, so the difference is more than 455 miles per hour). In a U2, there is little room to "accelerate to get away from the missile" --if you are doing 1 mile per hour faster than the stall speed, you can safely go 28 miles per hour faster.

    23. Re:False documents by tompaulco · · Score: 3, Informative

      Why the U2 was a bitch to fly: The difference between the stall speed and VNE on a U2 was 29 miles per hour. On most aircraft it's usually at least 100 miles per hour (a 747 has a stall speed of about 120 miles per hour, and a max speed (VNE) over 600 miles per hour, so the difference is more than 455 miles per hour). In a U2, there is little room to "accelerate to get away from the missile" --if you are doing 1 mile per hour faster than the stall speed, you can safely go 28 miles per hour faster.

      The 747 has the same characteristics if you go high enough. See "Coffin Corner". As altitude increases in any aircraft, the stall speed approaches the maximum maneuvering speed.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    24. Re:False documents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it really was under budget. That why it had to be top top secret!

    25. Re:False documents by mbone · · Score: 1

      Actually, of all of the facts in the summary, that one I knew. Lockheed used to mention that a lot back in the 1960's (the skunkworks wasn't a secret, just most of what they did).

    26. Re:False documents by Tweezak · · Score: 1

      I was always amazed that the evasive maneuver employed by the SR-71 in the event of a ground-air missile launch was to simply accelerate away. That is seriously badass. Granted, if you are at 80k feet you will have some time before said missile even gets close.

    27. Re:False documents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that the U2 is unique in that it is technically possible to turn tight enough to where the inside wing looses lift (and stalls) and the outside wing goes past safe operating speed (over speed warning) .... at the same time ..

    28. Re:False documents by rwa2 · · Score: 2

      Not to mention that part of the budget is for a fleet of high-performance chase cars:
      https://www.google.com/search?q=U2+air+force+chase+cars

    29. Re:False documents by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Don't helicopter rotors do that?

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    30. Re:False documents by El_Oscuro · · Score: 1

      The SR-71 was one bad-assed plane. I got to look at one up close in Pamldale about 1972 when I was about 5. Prettiest bird ever. When they retired it, the last one flew from LA to DC in about an hour. Think about that. And keep in mind, they designed it in late 1950'/earily 60's. If they had that, imagine what kind of bad-assed shit they have flying now.

      --
      "Be grateful for what you have. You may never know when you may lose it."
    31. Re:False documents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it's called "retreating blade stall".

      Wikipedia has a quick synopsis:

      "Retreating blade stall is the primary limiting factor of a helicopter's airspeed, and the reason even the fastest helicopters can only fly slightly faster than 200 knots (about 370 km/h)."

    32. Re:False documents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thinking about retreating blade stall? As in, when the rotor blade moving backwards relative to the fuselage end up in effect standing still because the fuselage is moving forward at about the same speed?

    33. Re:False documents by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Partly, but I was also wondering about the forward moving blade, whether it "goes past safe operating speed" as the U2 wing does.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  2. You don't say! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    > "The (only lightly redacted)documentis actually primarily a history of
    > the U-2 and A-12 ("Oxcart") spy plane programs from the Cold War,"

    Of course it's only lightly redacted -- they made the whole thing up. Light redaction is how we know they're lying. Give it up feds! >:-(

    Give us the LGM BEM SAUCERS NAO!

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re:You don't say! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe that means they used a transparent sharpie. This is the gov, after all.

  3. Sounds like some of the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And what has it been doing for the last 20 years? then again i didnt RTFA

    1. Re:Sounds like some of the story by f3rret · · Score: 5, Informative

      And what has it been doing for the last 20 years? then again i didnt RTFA

      F-117, B-2, remote sensing gear for arms control/inspection, The Predator and global hawk drones, NERVA Rockets and probably those fancy stealth modified Black Hawks from Neptune Spear and comms and radar gear.

      Just your average run-of-the-mill secret aerospace stuff.

      --
      Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
    2. Re: Sounds like some of the story by peragrin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Exactly. I bet there are current yet unheard of planes there still.

      A UFO is an unidentified flying object. The average person is an idiot and can't tell the difference between a fly and a bird under certain conditions.

      For me a couple of weeks ago I got caught in the middle of a coast guard search and rescue. They were dropping parachute flares for hours bright enough to light up miles and miles if open water. It took us 20 minutes to figure out they were parachute flares and not boats. You couldn't hear the planes unless they were close. It was surreal for a little while as they didn't fall very fast. And sometimes took sharp changes in course.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    3. Re: Sounds like some of the story by darkstar949 · · Score: 1

      There are actually a lot of reports of the B-2 Spirt being reported as Black Triangle UFOs and there is some plausible evidence out there that there might be another experimental airframe out there that is triangular in shape.

    4. Re: Sounds like some of the story by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      I live near a military base and near the flight path of a municipal airport. I've seen plenty of aircraft that I can or can't recognize over my place {no aliens}. A couple months ago something came awfully close to the house in the late evening while I was kicked back on the deck couldn't say what it was {other than probably military} but it was dead silent until it passed by and startled me good. What ever it was it was moving fast and rattled the house.

      I think the only other time I've been startled like that is when the roof top AC for my office building got struck by lightening.

    5. Re: Sounds like some of the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The average person is an idiot and can't tell the difference between a fly and a bird under certain conditions.

      Pure anecdote, but here it goes. I worked with a guy who was by all observations above average intelligence; but a space-alien UFO believer. One day on a break we're looking up at the edge of the building, blocking out the Sun in the clear blue sky so you can see the pale blue right next to it. Any dust or insects in the air will also be back-lit by the Sun and may shine nicely.

      He goes, "see that? Those are high altitude UFOs flying in the upper atmosphere". I was flabbergasted. "Dude, they're insects and dust particles 30 feet (10 m) up. You can't establish perspective in this situation". IIRC, he realized the error of his ways and it was somewhat of a revelation to him. At least he was smart enough to be disabused of his foolish notions. Some people aren't.

    6. Re:Sounds like some of the story by JTsyo · · Score: 2
    7. Re: Sounds like some of the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the point is that Flying Saucer/Alien nutters have never figured out that "UFO" is standard flight terminology for something in the sky which you don't know what it is. If you know it's an Alien Spaceship then it's not a UFO any more, and the secret documents wouldn't be using that term. They'd either flat out state it was Alien, or use some type of code word... but not "UFO".
      The Air Force figured out pretty quick that any time someone caught wind of one of their secret test flights they could smile and say "It wasn't a UFO". Which technically it wasn't, because they knew what it was- one of their test flights. Then they sit back and watch the Nutters go wild, using their denial as "proof" it really was an Alien Craft.

    8. Re: Sounds like some of the story by f3rret · · Score: 1

      In some cases if a plane is high enough and fast enough, the sound from it wont have time to travel that far ahead of it and thus it and the sound of it arrive pretty close together.

      I've seen it with fighter jets, it's completely silent, then just as the thing passes over or near you you get that awesome engine sound. Not a sonic boom, mind you, but still loud as fuck if they're low enough.

      --
      Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
    9. Re: Sounds like some of the story by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      I usually don't pay to much attention and to them cause they are usually a lot higher and a lot less noisy, but this one caught me by surprise.

    10. Re:Sounds like some of the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No more like ... Bird of Prey ..

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Bird_of_Prey

    11. Re: Sounds like some of the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In some cases if a plane is high enough and fast enough, the sound from it wont have time to travel that far ahead of it and thus it and the sound of it arrive pretty close together.

      You kind of hit on it, but altitude has little-to-nothing to do with it (except if it's high enough, you will never hear it).

      It's the speed. Anything between 0.9 and 0.99 Mach won't be heard until it's nearly on top of you. 1.0 and you get a window-shattering boom. The Thunderbirds use this to good effect during their standard show; near the end, while everyone is watching the diamond do a big, swooping loop, one of the solo pilots does a low/fast pass from the opposite direction the audience is looking. It hits show-center before you hear it.

    12. Re: Sounds like some of the story by f3rret · · Score: 1

      You kind of hit on it, but altitude has little-to-nothing to do with it (except if it's high enough, you will never hear it).

      it.

      But it kind of does, remember that the speed of sound (depending on temperature, pressure and moisture in the air, of course) is about 340.29 m/s, so if the plane is, let's say, 680.58 meters up in the air, the sound will take 2 seconds to reach you, now if the plane is moving, let's say, 300 m/s it'll have passed you before the sound actually makes it to you, despite not actually being supersonic.

      --
      Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
  4. Kelly Johson was a genius by plopez · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If you look at the aircraft that came out of the skunk works you'll know what I mean. He and his organization came up with the P-38, the U-2, the C-130, and the SR-71; to name only a few achievements. It makes most people in tech look like little kiddies playing in a sandbox.

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    1. Re:Kelly Johson was a genius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just proves they were reverse engineering alien technology!

    2. Re:Kelly Johson was a genius by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      The F-117A Stealth Fighter came after Johnson retired but he was still acting as a consultant to the company. I'm not sure how much he contributed to that design but that was another achievement for the Skunk Works team.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    3. Re:Kelly Johson was a genius by stjobe · · Score: 2

      Indeed.

      I don't fancy the U-2 or C-130 much, but the P-38 and SR-71 are two of the most aesthetically pleasing aircraft ever to have graced the skies. In fact, the SR-71 is probably the most beautiful plane ever to have flown. That it's also still the current speed record holder (air-breathing manned aircraft, record set in 1976) despite being retired since 1998 is just icing on the cake.

      I'm quite grateful that I managed to squeeze in a trip to the Udvar-Hazy Center at Dulles last time I was in DC so I could get to see one in real life.

      --
      "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
    4. Re:Kelly Johson was a genius by jonwil · · Score: 1

      What I want to know is when the US government is going to declassify the REAL top speed of the SR-71. (that is, the fastest speed it was ever recorded as being flown at rather than the fastest speed it was rated to fly at, the fastest speed it was designed by Lockheed to fly at or the fastest speed the air force allowed its pilots to fly it at or the fastest speed the air force is willing to admit it flies at)

    5. Re:Kelly Johson was a genius by filthpickle · · Score: 1

      It is all, of course, just personal taste...but I think the U-2 is one of the prettiest planes ever made. The C-130 is just a truck...and trucks just look like trucks.

    6. Re:Kelly Johson was a genius by stjobe · · Score: 5, Interesting

      From wikipedia:

      The Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird holds the official Air Speed Record for a manned airbreathing jet aircraft with a speed of 3,530 km/h (2,193 mph). It was capable of taking off and landing unassisted on conventional runways. The record was set on 28 July 1976 by Eldon W. Joersz and George T. Morgan Jr. near Beale Air Force Base, California, US

      There's non-official (e.g. Brian Shul's book Sled Driver) reports of speeds up to Mach 3.5 (4,200 kph or 2,600 mph), but those aren't official. Different official and unofficial analyses of the materials and production techniques of the SR-71 strongly suggest that it was incapable of reaching much more than Mach 3.5 (among other things the pressure wave from the nose would enter the engine intake and unstart the engine; also the metal divider on the windshield got so hot at those speeds it threatened the integrity of the windshield).

      So yeah, official word would be great, but there is little doubt the SR-71 was capable of Mach 3.5 but not much more than that.

      --
      "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
    7. Re:Kelly Johson was a genius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this can actually be calculated with the unclassified information about the SR-71. the extensible inlet cones on the engines only move forward so far.

      if you calculate the distance from the cone tip to the inlet wall, you can find the maximum mach angle before the shockwave enters the inlet. if a shockwave enters the inlet, the engine unstarts and stops producing thrust.

      the maximum Mach value before unstart is around 3.8 to 4.0, IIRC. assuming the skin of the aircraft can handle the heat (which it was designed to), then your max "speed" is determined by the speed of sound, directly proportional to the square root of the absolute temperature.

      at altitude, where the air is thin enough to reach those speeds, we're talking about ~2500mph. the engines had more than enough thrust to get there.

    8. Re:Kelly Johson was a genius by CTachyon · · Score: 1

      Back when I was living in Wichita, Kansas, one of the few nice things about the area was the Cosmosphere, a shockingly out of place top-notch aerospace museum in nearby retirement town Hutchinson. It has a decommissioned SR-71 hanging from the ceiling in the lobby. I'm not by any means an aircraft geek, but even I have to stop and mumble "that is a gorgeous plane".

      --
      Range Voting: preference intensity matters
    9. Re:Kelly Johson was a genius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you leave out the F104? Same cockpit as the SR-71 (look at pictures, double dog dare ya), and faster than anything flying today that isn't ramjet, scramjet or rocket powered.

    10. Re:Kelly Johson was a genius by plopez · · Score: 1

      But what a truck! Rugged, forgiving, able to land on airfields with poor surface, high angle landing, rato pods.... It is the Unimog of aircraft.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  5. national geographic channel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so the national geographic channel documentary from a few years ago with interviews of several guys that worked there, and plenty of original fotage was just something I dreamt?

    1. Re:national geographic channel by TWiTfan · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's been a widely open secret for a long time. Everyone who wasn't a UFO kook has known that the place was used for testing experimental aircraft for decades now. A bunch of workers from there even sued the government a while back for medical conditions related to exposure to toxic chemicals (they were ordered to burn all kinds of experimental jet fuels and other nasty stuff while they worked there).

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    2. Re:national geographic channel by Sockatume · · Score: 2

      In fact, the Government's motion to dismiss that lawsuit was (I believe) the first public acknowledgement that the base existed.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    3. Re:national geographic channel by Kjella · · Score: 1

      It's been a widely open secret for a long time. Everyone who wasn't a UFO kook has known that the place was used for testing experimental aircraft for decades now.

      The UFO kooks say the same, only that the experimental aircraft are based on alien technology from Roswell and/or other contact/cooperation with aliens. Nobody except the US government denies that part.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  6. Space Aliens by Are+You+Kidding · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So where is the part about the captured Space Aliens and their ship?

    1. Re:Space Aliens by Urkki · · Score: 5, Funny

      So where is the part about the captured Space Aliens and their ship?

      Lightly redacted.

    2. Re:Space Aliens by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      Those went to Wright Patterson.

    3. Re:Space Aliens by jonwil · · Score: 1

      Didn't you watch Star Trek: Deep Space Nine? The captured aliens and their ship returned to the 24th century thanks to the energy of a US atomic bomb test... (The episode in question was broadcast on TV here last night :)

  7. Purpose != Existence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, this makes more sense. On the radio this morning, they were going on like this was the first official acknowledgement of its existence, which I could have sworn has been acknowledged for many years now. But if this is the first official acknowledgement of its purpose, then yeah, that is new.

    1. Re:Purpose != Existence by Sabathius · · Score: 1

      Yes, I think over a decade ago the government acknowledged that Area 51 = Groom Lake Air Force Base.

  8. Not exactly news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    None of those "revelations" are news.

    The check being mailed to Kelly Johnson he mentioned in his biography.

    The U-2 launch off an aircraft carrier was public info too, as the pilot got a medal for that.

    The U-2 coming in under budget, likewise, not news.

  9. forgetting something by Xicor · · Score: 1

    i believe they are forgetting to mention all the aliens theyve been testing on and keeping secret from us

    1. Re:forgetting something by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh, the aliens aren't *that* secret: They have a large office building and a place where they meet in Washington DC with a really nice rotunda. There are tours and everything!

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    2. Re:forgetting something by Xicor · · Score: 1

      but every time someone sees one, they use a neuralizer

    3. Re:forgetting something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Under American law I'm considered an alien with no protection guaranteed to a "person" under the law.

      p.s. In case you are wondering I come from planet Canada.

    4. Re:forgetting something by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      No they don't, that's ridiculous. You see them on TV all the time, and sometimes even in person if you go looking for them.

      In case you misunderstood, here's a photo of their meeting building.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    5. Re:forgetting something by Xicor · · Score: 1

      oh, i misunderstood, i thought you were talking about MIB.

  10. K-PAXians think the story is funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Prot from K-PAX contacted me trying to understand why our goverment makes up stories about Area-51. I explained best I could how when people report UFO's they are usually not taken serious. Prot informed me that K-PAXians think our goverments story about Area-51 is so funny that it became the top billing on their comedy shows.

  11. Wait, what? by chinton · · Score: 3, Funny

    You mean that Alien Autopsy: Fact or Fiction was fiction? Shocking. Does that mean we really did land on the Moon?

    1. Re:Wait, what? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Of course it was fiction. They were necropsies. Autopsy is when you do a post mortem on a human.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    2. Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does that mean we really did land on the Moon?

      No, it doesn't.

      However, that is only because the two are highly uncorrelated.

  12. Information already out in the open by SIGBUS · · Score: 1

    Also, Ben Rich (Kelly Johnson's successor) wrote this up in his book Skunk Works. He didn't mention "Area 51" by name, but some of its other nicknames such as "Dreamland" or "Paradise Ranch" were mentioned.

    I think the most impressive thing about the Blackbirds were that they were designed in an era when computers were quite primitive and engineers usually used slide rules.

    --
    Oh, no! You have walked into the slavering fangs of a lurking grue!
    1. Re:Information already out in the open by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and how they needed a large amount of titanium to build a blackbird and at the time the only place to get large amount of titanium was russia, there must be a spy movie hidden in how they pulled that off

    2. Re:Information already out in the open by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how they needed a large amount of titanium to build a blackbird

      Uh... no. You need a large amount to build a nuclear sub or a surface vessel. Blackbirds are tiny in comparison.

      and at the time the only place to get large amount of titanium was russia

      No, not really. They just had a lot more on the market so it was cheaper. We produce plenty here in the US, Canada produces quite a bit, and there are other sources as well. Hell, all you'd have to do is scrap some naval vessels or recycle various parts of rocket stages from the space program and you'd have enough to build an entire fleet.
      There's so many things that routinely take a LOT more titanium than you need for a blackbird that it'd be easy to siphon a little bit here and there without anybody noticing.

  13. Skunkworks by caseih · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I highly recommend the memoir, "Skunkworks" by Ben Rich, who was Kelly Johnson's successor. He tells a great story of the building of the U-2 program, and also later projects including the SR-71 Blackbird, and the F-117 stealth fighter. Amazing stories.

    According to Ben Rich, it was Dick Chaney who ultimately got the SR-71 canceled, and instructed them to destroy all the plans, tooling, and parts for building the aircraft. Ostensibly this was to prevent any other nation from ever learning its secrets. And all this was because Chaney's cronies owned companies who made spy satellites. Even though a lot of analysts argued we still needed aircraft for some surveillance, they decided to go with satellites. Which of course other nations know where they are and when they go overhead. And since then the U-2 has still flown because there are missions that only an aircraft can perform.

    Even as recent as the gulf war (yes I'm old enough to consider 1991 as recent) these aging spy planes were pressed into action because they were all we had, and they performed their task very well. Have to admire how well the military does being yanked around so much by politics (and of course they dish the politics right back... sequester and all that). But with all the abuses revealed of late by Private Manning, perhaps it's only fitting that the military is in decline, along with the nation, and has had its toys taken away.

    1. Re:Skunkworks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe it was the burning of the oil wells that brought back the use of the spy splanes as the satellites were unable to visually penetrate the smoke screen. But, the spy planes were able to fly under and capture imagery.

    2. Re:Skunkworks by filthpickle · · Score: 2

      I remember a press conference with Colin Powell where he was asked what he thought of the SR-71 being cancelled. He said with an obvious 'I am answering your question even though I am not answering it ' smile that "that is a political question".

    3. Re:Skunkworks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      F-14's with TARPS pods did most of this, I think a few RF-4's were still in service then as well.

    4. Re:Skunkworks by k31bang · · Score: 1

      Even as recent as the gulf war (yes I'm old enough to consider 1991 as recent) these aging spy planes were pressed into action because they were all we had, and they performed their task very well. Have to admire how well the military does being yanked around so much by politics (and of course they dish the politics right back... sequester and all that). But with all the abuses revealed of late by Private Manning, perhaps it's only fitting that the military is in decline, along with the nation, and has had its toys taken away.

      How about as recent as this year. The U2s are still flying.

      --
      -+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ *** http://www.mountainfort.com *** +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-
  14. The "U-2 via Aircraft Carrier" isn't new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The "U-2 launched from aircraft carrier" factoid isn't a new one; that's one's been declassified for years (with pictures).

    As for programs coming in under-budget... I attribute that more to Kelly Johnson's personal integrity than anything else.

    As for what's happened since... Just remember Eisenhower's Farewall Address warnings about the MIC - perpetual projects to fight ethereal enemies ("Terror" is not a nation-state, organized malitia, and/or other "special-interest group") was/ continues to be inevitable. Too many jobs, fortunes, and re-election capsigns - not necessarily in that order - depend upon such.

  15. pointless ubiquitous revelation by nimbius · · Score: 4, Interesting

    is it me or is FOIA kinda toothless these days? the oxcart and have blue shit has been a discovery channel/history channel show fodder for almost a decade. most everything in the release is common knowledge to anyone with access to wikipedia. FOIA was designed to start answering questions like who visited the whitehouse while George Bush was president, how does the domestic spy program work, and did we seriously commit war crimes in iraq.

    instead its been so neutered, ignored and redacted at every level of government its basically a rubber stamp for any agency seeking to claim legitimacy in their clandestine day to day operations. the NYPD ignored for 2 years their FOIA for stop and frisk, and administrations routinely claim state secrets or executive privilege when they hear a question they dont like.

    People like Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning and Julian Asssange are today the only means by which we request the freedom of information from our government, elected by and for the people. sideshows like this are to ensuring accountability in the government as the scopes monkey trial was to ensuring credibility to evolution.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:pointless ubiquitous revelation by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      I don't think any state or nation has ever had an FOIA which trumped things like Secret classification or commercial priviledge. Where on Earth did you get the impression that it was supposed to provide access to things like NSA files?

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    2. Re:pointless ubiquitous revelation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      People like Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning and Julian Asssange

      Snowden leaked evidence of wrongdoing. Manning leaked everything he could get his hands on, whether it showed wrongdoing or not. Assange is a middleman, he's an information broker whose only motivation is to make the US look bad (his words, not mine). The three are nothing alike and should not be referred to as if they are.

  16. If Snowden was alive back then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He would have told the French we were spying on their nuclear tests.

    1. Re:If Snowden was alive back then by RaceProUK · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He would have told the French we were spying on their nuclear tests.

      To which they would probably have replied, 'Yeah, we guessed they would be'.

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
  17. of course there are no aliens by k6mfw · · Score: 4, Funny

    you have to be a US citizen work at Groom Lake. duh!

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
  18. Wow by sootman · · Score: 1

    While everyone else is making jokes about aliens and the budget, I'm still trying to wrap my head around what it would take to launch a U2 (103-ft wingspan) from a carrier. Besides the width, I didn't think it was optimized for short takesoffs, and it looks like the wings would snap off if you launched it with a catapult.

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    1. Re:Wow by filthpickle · · Score: 1

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8HMPMYL19E

      Looks like landing is all about catching the tailhook, and planes are very strong for certain stress. The takeoffs look like maybe they put just enough power into the catapult to get it in the air? I can't tell if there is a catapult there...but I would assume there has to be.

    2. Re:Wow by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 2

      While everyone else is making jokes about aliens and the budget, I'm still trying to wrap my head around what it would take to launch a U2 (103-ft wingspan) from a carrier. Besides the width, I didn't think it was optimized for short takesoffs, and it looks like the wings would snap off if you launched it with a catapult.

      Considering that downward visibility is so piss-poor that landing it on a regular runway involves another pilot in a car driving along the runway talking the aircraft down, landing on an aircraft carrier must have been an... exhilarating experience.

      --

      Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

    3. Re:Wow by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      the width part not a problem (assuming pilot with brass cajones), the U2's had widths from 80' 2" to 104' 9".....C130 with 133' wingspans can land and take off from carriers.

    4. Re:Wow by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Well, bigger wings make the takeoffs shorter. I always tought the U2 was so big because it needed a huge operational range, but takeoff distance is at least a nice siede effect (if not the actual reason for them).

    5. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So does loaded weight. SR-71s could barely stagger into the air with a minimum fuel load- just enough to get them to the tanker.

      Only after air-ro-air refueling could they actually go somewhere useful.

      And this is a part of why they were so hideously expensive to fly - You had to launch a fully-loaded tanker airplane a few hours before or the recon bird wasn't going anywhere.

      AC

    6. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The U-2 takes off in about 500 feet on a normal runway. No catapult required.

      Also, the U-2 lacks any of the appropriate mounting points to attach the aircraft to the catapult.

      The U-2 also has incredibly low takeoff and approach speeds. If the carrier is moving at 30 knots, the U-2 probably doesn't need to catch a wire to stop, either.

    7. Re:Wow by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      They had U2s at Utapao when I was stationed there in 1974, and those things wouldn't need a catapult. Those crazy long wings make it so it doesn't need much room to take off, huge amounts of lift. As to landing, almost any plane landing on a carrier will need a tailhook.

      An SR71, now, I doubt they could launch from a boat. Not much wing but fantastically humungous engines. Their runways were about a mile long, they'd thunder down the runway with the ground shaking a mile away, do a wheelie, and take off straight up looking like a bottle rocket, the thing was gone in seconds.

      Those were at a base I nicknamed "Armageddon AFB" because its only purpose was to deploy if the Soviets attacked, there were hundreds of B-52s loaded with nuclear weapons waiting to take off. Google shows it almost empty now. As it's in the middle of nowhere it could possibly be the new "Area 51" (which is why I'll not name it, I don't want to make the deficit bigger by them moving to a new one). Everyone at that base had to have a top secret clearance when I was stationed there.

  19. How would anyone know? by macbeth66 · · Score: 1

    and the U-2 delivery program itself was actually done under budget, a rarity for secret government programs then or now."

    All of this stuff is obfuscated.

  20. First declassified documents? by darkain · · Score: 4, Informative
  21. Baloney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's still a coverup. The are hiding alien weather balloons.

  22. In other (more secret) news by poity · · Score: 1

    The DoD just finished moving the UFOs to another location.

    --
    your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
  23. Prettiest planes by sjbe · · Score: 1

    the SR-71 is probably the most beautiful plane ever to have flown.

    The SR-71 is undeniably a gorgeous plane and I agree that the P-38 is striking as well. But for my money I love the look of the YF-23 if we are talking about jets and the P-51 Mustang if we are talking about prop planes. Just my own preferences of course. I like the U2 just because it is SO simple in design. Basically a powered glider. Simple, elegant and still functional to this day.

    1. Re:Prettiest planes by stjobe · · Score: 1

      Oh, let's talk beautiful planes :)

      WWII-era: Me 262 takes the top spot with its shark-like fuselage and sleek lines, the P-38 as mentioned looks simultaneously both powerful and really, really graceful, the Westland Whirlwind is also gorgeously aggressive with its propellers sticking out in front, and of course the old stalwarts the Spitfire and the Mustang are magnificent designs. Then there's the striking utilitarianism of the Me-109 and the robust stubbiness of the early Fw-190, and the impressive gaping maw of the Typhoon. Also the P-48 Thunderbolt has a certain rotund charm, wouldn't you agree? :)

      Moving on to the cold war era, the SR-71 is the undisputed queen of the air, beautiful as can be and as much a work of art as it is a plane, but the B-58 Hustler is the epitome of a jet bomber, with the B-47 a close second. For fighters, the MiG-29 and MiG-31, the F-14 and F-15 are planes I grew up loving, and the Swedes did all right with their beautiful delta-wings, the sleek J-35 and the more angularly powerful J-37 (which incidentally was the only aircraft that ever managed to get a radar lock on a SR-71 - and they did it on numerous occasions).

      Current planes, well... I'm not a fan, really. Of the current crop of fighters, I guess the Swedes did it again with their J-39; I don't really like the F-22, F-35, Typhoon, or any of the Su-27 variants that seem to number in the dozens across Russia and China. It all seems to be drones, drones, drones anyway these days, and I sometimes long for a past where planes weren't designed by computers but by eye and hand.

      --
      "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
  24. Aliens must be dead? by Ken+Broadfoot · · Score: 1

    All the aliens must have died. No need to keep it secret anymore...
    I don't know about you, but I miss them already... :(

    --
    Bitcoin pyramid: Join here: http://www.bitcoinpyramid.com/r/1427 it's FREE!
  25. other by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is the Bermuda-Triangle of the USA.

    The Earth travelled through a black-hole and it is there in mini-version :)

    Anyone who enters there will be sucked into a pin-sized earth that is covered by a ball of string like in the Sam and Max Hit the Road.

  26. UnderBudget !! That's your proof for the Aliens !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing ever in the government is underbudget. Something fishy is there... Aliens at least...