Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!cbnews!military From: shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (OFV) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: RE: SR-71 Message-ID: <13879@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 12 Feb 90 04:26:07 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Lines: 27 Approved: military@att.att.com From: Mary Shafer (OFV) Chris Thompson (christ@sci.ccny.cuny.edu) writes: >I see in Saturday's paper that the Air Force has decided to ground the SR-71 >fleet. The rationale is that it costs too much ($200-$300 million/year for >the fleet) and that the KH-12 satellites being sent up now will replace the >planes admirably. Any thoughts? I have really mixed emotions about this. I think it's dumb as a rock to get rid of something as flexible as the SR-71, but Dryden's getting three of the retired SR-71s. Objectively, I have to say that orbital mechanics will limit the availability of KH-12 surveillance compared to the SR-71. Aviation Week (and others) think that the cost of operating the SR-71 is somewhat exaggerated by the Air Force. But, they're not cheap to operate. We're all hoping for a three-ship flyover here. -- Mary Shafer shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov or ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA Of course I don't speak for NASA