7 ms·

Transporting the CIA A-12 Blackbird to Area 51

215 points by jmonegro 13y ago

cstross 13y ago
The A-12 wasn't a bloody bomber! (It was the single-seat predecessor version of the SR-71 Blackbird. While interceptor and bomber versions were proposed, only 3 prototype YF-12A interceptors were built; the bomber variant was a paper study. The A-12 itself was definitively unarmed, being a pure reconnaissance aircraft.) See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_A-12 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_A-12
- jnazario 13y ago
  to this point, given that eisenhower was pushing his open skies initiative, it was vital to ensure that the aircraft used in recon were distinguished from armed aircraft, lest they get shot down (or we think the soviets were invading, if they had taken up eisenhower on his offer under open skies). other considerations - space, weight, aerodynamics - are also key, but this policy angle is just as important.
- philwelch 13y ago
  People are probably confusing it with the abortive A-12 tactical naval bomber: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_A-12_Avenger_II http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_A-12_Avenge...
ck2 13y ago
Wouldn't it have been cheaper to build a runway there and fly them there?
- LoganCale 13y ago
  It was a heavily classified project, as evidenced by the enclosure to hide its shape. I don't think they would want to be flying it out of Burbank in plain view of everyone. Additionally, its first test flight occurred at Area 51, after this move, which is an ideal location for testing such things. Test flights near a city are probably not a good idea.
  - kpao 13y ago
    I also doubt they would have long enough runways in Burbank to take off with that beast.
    - mds 13y ago
      Burbank is actually somewhat infamous for having one of the shortest runways in the US used by full sized jets.
  - noonespecial 13y ago
    All they have to do is issue a press release saying that it most definitely was not a UFO and the rest will take care of itself.
  - toomuchtodo 13y ago
    Had this been a few years later, they could've transported it via helicopter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-12 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-12
    - ChuckMcM 13y ago
      Perhaps, but then this Russian helicopter, which the US didn't learn about until much much later, would have taken it home to Mother Russia :-)
- dsl 13y ago
  It was being moved to Nevada for test flights. They had a pretty good idea, but no evidence at that point, that it would even fly. Later "production" models were flown to the test site.
- pcl 13y ago
  Or alternately, to have built them in Area 51.
  - lolcraft 13y ago
    A great part of the success of Skunk Works, or at least what I took it to be from Rich's book, was how coupled manufacture and design was done in the division. About a cardboard wall as separation, with design ideas and manufacturing troubleshooting going back and forth. So that would've been counterproductive.
monokrome 13y ago
Is anyone else bothered by the fact that this site changes the color of all text on the page if you click any of it? O_O
- Sniffnoy 13y ago
  I certainly was. I could hardly read the page because of it; it was just too distracting.
MCompeau 13y ago
If you enjoyed this article, I highly recommend checking out the book Skunk Works by Ben R. Rich (director of Lockheed's Skunkworks). It covers the development of this aircraft and several others through some pretty gripping accounts of engineering during the Cold War.
- SkyMarshal 13y ago
  Definitely one of the best books about hacking I've ever read. Kelly Johnson and his team were the ultimate hardware hackers.
- incision 13y ago
  Absolutely. Talk about working the bleeding edge of technology, they basically built something from the future - theirs and ours - by inventing what they needed along the way. Skunk Works is an incredibly engaging book. I devoured it in a few days and genuinely look forward to re-reading eventually.
- JunkDNA 13y ago
  After seeing posts like this for a while I finally got around to reading the book this winter. Blew me away. If you're at all technically inclined and involved in engineering or science, read this book when you're feeling sorry for yourself and things aren't going your way. It will get your mind right. I say that because many extraordinary things came from these incredibly smart but otherwise ordinary engineers. It reminds me of the quote from Steve Jobs about how once you realize all the stuff around you has been invented by people who are not that much smarter than you, it's very liberating. I liked all the worrying and self-doubt that comes through in the book (especially since you know they pull most of it off eventually). There were daunting problems that they had to surmount one after another. They had to invent completely new ways of doing things: manufacturing, testing, materials, lubricants, etc... they were so far out in uncharted territory any one of those things could have been the end. But they pulled it all off not just once, but multiple times.
- twistedpair 13y ago
  I knew this was a long time ago, but I was surprised by the year on one of the photo's. They were testing that plane 51 years ago! And we have trouble getting a battery in an airplane these days. Sure makes it seem the rate of innovation in aviation has slowed way down.
tomarr 13y ago
I know a project manager tasked with moving one of the retired concordes from Heathrow to somewhere along the Thames for transport up to a museum in Scotland. This required removal of several traffic islands and signals temporarily (overnight), and was quite the logistical challenge, made for some cool pictures though!
- Someone 13y ago
  If you like such pictures, check out the pictures from moving "Bagger 288" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagger_288 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagger_288) over a mere 22 km in 2001 (https://www.google.nl/search?q=bagger+288+2001 https://www.google.nl/search?q=bagger+288+2001) I remember seeing a nice writeup of what that move involved, but cannot find it anymore.
at-fates-hands 13y ago
Here's the story of Area 51 Nat Geo did a few years ago. I thought it was a pretty good documentary: part 1 of 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcJzDqxqmEc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcJzDqxqmEc It talks extensively about the A-12 project. I thought the most interesting part was how they shipped square parts in round boxes and round parts in square boxes to conceal what was inside. Different time back then for sure.
hrayr 13y ago
Reminds me of the recent move of Endeavour through the streets of LA. It was truly a magical sight to behold. http://framework.latimes.com/2012/10/15/time-lapse-video-space-shuttle-endeavours-trek-across-l-a/ http://framework.latimes.com/2012/10/15/time-lapse-video-spa...
randlet 13y ago
Cool article. In a similar vein, the time lapse video[1] of moving the shuttle Endeavour through LA to the California Science Center is wonderful! [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdqZyACCYZc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdqZyACCYZc
jordan0day 13y ago
I read this earlier today and have been thinking about it since then. This story seems like a great example of thinking hard but methodically about what you want to do. Then planning it out. Then just doing it. Agile methodologies are really en vogue in software development right now, but this story, complete with its 100 foot long, 35 foot wide trailer seems to be very nearly the (literal?) antithesis of "agile". Maybe I'm grasping at straws, maybe it really is a lot more complicated to build web sites or whatever we all do, but this story seems to illustrate a "waterfall" process, executed relatively successfully 50 years ago. Why then, are we so bad at it now?
- sneak 13y ago
  > but this story seems to illustrate a "waterfall" process, executed relatively successfully 50 years ago. Why then, are we so bad at it now? We have much smaller budgets, and our budget sizes are not classified.
- dfc 13y ago
  Hthinking hard but methodically? As opposed to thinking hard and haphazardly about something?
- learc83 13y ago
  Mechanical and Civil engineering requires more up front design than software because of the physical processes involved (plus the consequences of mistakes are usually deadlier). There are more questions with definite yes or no answers in engineering, and engineering uses a more rigorous application of applied mathematics than software engineering. If software engineering were more like civil engineering we'd spend a lot more time formally proving our algorithms before we implemented them.
  - joshAg 13y ago
    There are quite a few projects that do formally prove the algorithm before its implementation, but most of them we don't have access to. The closest we can easily see is the code JPL uses on their rovers and the associated C coding standard (http://lars-lab.jpl.nasa.gov/JPL_Coding_Standard_C.pdf http://lars-lab.jpl.nasa.gov/JPL_Coding_Standard_C.pdf). That, and the rest of NASA's software was pretty much done entirely using a waterfall approach.

215 points by jmonegro 13y ago

The A-12 wasn't a bloody bomber! (It was the single-seat predecessor version of the SR-71 Blackbird. While interceptor and bomber versions were proposed, only 3 prototype YF-12A interceptors were built; the bomber variant was a paper study. The A-12 itself was definitively unarmed, being a pure reconnaissance aircraft.) See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_A-12 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_A-12

jnazario 13y ago
to this point, given that eisenhower was pushing his open skies initiative, it was vital to ensure that the aircraft used in recon were distinguished from armed aircraft, lest they get shot down (or we think the soviets were invading, if they had taken up eisenhower on his offer under open skies). other considerations - space, weight, aerodynamics - are also key, but this policy angle is just as important.
philwelch 13y ago
People are probably confusing it with the abortive A-12 tactical naval bomber: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_A-12_Avenger_II http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_A-12_Avenge...

ck2 13y ago

Wouldn't it have been cheaper to build a runway there and fly them there?

LoganCale 13y ago
It was a heavily classified project, as evidenced by the enclosure to hide its shape. I don't think they would want to be flying it out of Burbank in plain view of everyone. Additionally, its first test flight occurred at Area 51, after this move, which is an ideal location for testing such things. Test flights near a city are probably not a good idea.
- kpao 13y ago
  I also doubt they would have long enough runways in Burbank to take off with that beast.
  - mds 13y ago
    Burbank is actually somewhat infamous for having one of the shortest runways in the US used by full sized jets.
- noonespecial 13y ago
  All they have to do is issue a press release saying that it most definitely was not a UFO and the rest will take care of itself.
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
  Had this been a few years later, they could've transported it via helicopter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-12 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-12
  - ChuckMcM 13y ago
    Perhaps, but then this Russian helicopter, which the US didn't learn about until much much later, would have taken it home to Mother Russia :-)
dsl 13y ago
It was being moved to Nevada for test flights. They had a pretty good idea, but no evidence at that point, that it would even fly. Later "production" models were flown to the test site.
pcl 13y ago
Or alternately, to have built them in Area 51.
- lolcraft 13y ago
  A great part of the success of Skunk Works, or at least what I took it to be from Rich's book, was how coupled manufacture and design was done in the division. About a cardboard wall as separation, with design ideas and manufacturing troubleshooting going back and forth. So that would've been counterproductive.

monokrome 13y ago

Is anyone else bothered by the fact that this site changes the color of all text on the page if you click any of it? O_O

Sniffnoy 13y ago
I certainly was. I could hardly read the page because of it; it was just too distracting.

MCompeau 13y ago

If you enjoyed this article, I highly recommend checking out the book Skunk Works by Ben R. Rich (director of Lockheed's Skunkworks). It covers the development of this aircraft and several others through some pretty gripping accounts of engineering during the Cold War.

SkyMarshal 13y ago
Definitely one of the best books about hacking I've ever read. Kelly Johnson and his team were the ultimate hardware hackers.
incision 13y ago
Absolutely. Talk about working the bleeding edge of technology, they basically built something from the future - theirs and ours - by inventing what they needed along the way. Skunk Works is an incredibly engaging book. I devoured it in a few days and genuinely look forward to re-reading eventually.
JunkDNA 13y ago
After seeing posts like this for a while I finally got around to reading the book this winter. Blew me away. If you're at all technically inclined and involved in engineering or science, read this book when you're feeling sorry for yourself and things aren't going your way. It will get your mind right. I say that because many extraordinary things came from these incredibly smart but otherwise ordinary engineers. It reminds me of the quote from Steve Jobs about how once you realize all the stuff around you has been invented by people who are not that much smarter than you, it's very liberating. I liked all the worrying and self-doubt that comes through in the book (especially since you know they pull most of it off eventually). There were daunting problems that they had to surmount one after another. They had to invent completely new ways of doing things: manufacturing, testing, materials, lubricants, etc... they were so far out in uncharted territory any one of those things could have been the end. But they pulled it all off not just once, but multiple times.
twistedpair 13y ago
I knew this was a long time ago, but I was surprised by the year on one of the photo's. They were testing that plane 51 years ago! And we have trouble getting a battery in an airplane these days. Sure makes it seem the rate of innovation in aviation has slowed way down.

tomarr 13y ago

I know a project manager tasked with moving one of the retired concordes from Heathrow to somewhere along the Thames for transport up to a museum in Scotland. This required removal of several traffic islands and signals temporarily (overnight), and was quite the logistical challenge, made for some cool pictures though!

Someone 13y ago
If you like such pictures, check out the pictures from moving "Bagger 288" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagger_288 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagger_288) over a mere 22 km in 2001 (https://www.google.nl/search?q=bagger+288+2001 https://www.google.nl/search?q=bagger+288+2001) I remember seeing a nice writeup of what that move involved, but cannot find it anymore.

at-fates-hands 13y ago

Here's the story of Area 51 Nat Geo did a few years ago. I thought it was a pretty good documentary: part 1 of 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcJzDqxqmEc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcJzDqxqmEc It talks extensively about the A-12 project. I thought the most interesting part was how they shipped square parts in round boxes and round parts in square boxes to conceal what was inside. Different time back then for sure.

hrayr 13y ago

Reminds me of the recent move of Endeavour through the streets of LA. It was truly a magical sight to behold. http://framework.latimes.com/2012/10/15/time-lapse-video-space-shuttle-endeavours-trek-across-l-a/ http://framework.latimes.com/2012/10/15/time-lapse-video-spa...

randlet 13y ago

Cool article. In a similar vein, the time lapse video[1] of moving the shuttle Endeavour through LA to the California Science Center is wonderful! [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdqZyACCYZc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdqZyACCYZc

jordan0day 13y ago

I read this earlier today and have been thinking about it since then. This story seems like a great example of thinking hard but methodically about what you want to do. Then planning it out. Then just doing it. Agile methodologies are really en vogue in software development right now, but this story, complete with its 100 foot long, 35 foot wide trailer seems to be very nearly the (literal?) antithesis of "agile". Maybe I'm grasping at straws, maybe it really is a lot more complicated to build web sites or whatever we all do, but this story seems to illustrate a "waterfall" process, executed relatively successfully 50 years ago. Why then, are we so bad at it now?

sneak 13y ago
> but this story seems to illustrate a "waterfall" process, executed relatively successfully 50 years ago. Why then, are we so bad at it now? We have much smaller budgets, and our budget sizes are not classified.
dfc 13y ago
Hthinking hard but methodically? As opposed to thinking hard and haphazardly about something?
learc83 13y ago
Mechanical and Civil engineering requires more up front design than software because of the physical processes involved (plus the consequences of mistakes are usually deadlier). There are more questions with definite yes or no answers in engineering, and engineering uses a more rigorous application of applied mathematics than software engineering. If software engineering were more like civil engineering we'd spend a lot more time formally proving our algorithms before we implemented them.
- joshAg 13y ago
  There are quite a few projects that do formally prove the algorithm before its implementation, but most of them we don't have access to. The closest we can easily see is the code JPL uses on their rovers and the associated C coding standard (http://lars-lab.jpl.nasa.gov/JPL_Coding_Standard_C.pdf http://lars-lab.jpl.nasa.gov/JPL_Coding_Standard_C.pdf). That, and the rest of NASA's software was pretty much done entirely using a waterfall approach.