
Transporting the CIA A-12 Blackbird to Area 51 - jmonegro
http://www.roadrunnersinternationale.com/transporting_the_a-12.html?m=8
======
cstross
_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>

~~~
philwelch
People are probably confusing it with the abortive A-12 tactical naval bomber:
[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_A-12_Avenge...](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_A-12_Avenger_II)

------
MCompeau
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.

~~~
JunkDNA
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.

------
jordan0day
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?

~~~
learc83
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
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>).

That, and the rest of NASA's software was pretty much done entirely using a
waterfall approach.

------
at-fates-hands
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>

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.

------
monokrome
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
I certainly was. I could hardly read the page because of it; it was just too
distracting.

------
hrayr
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-
spa...](http://framework.latimes.com/2012/10/15/time-lapse-video-space-
shuttle-endeavours-trek-across-l-a/)

------
ck2
Wouldn't it have been cheaper to build a runway there and fly them there?

~~~
LoganCale
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.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Had this been a few years later, they could've transported it via helicopter:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-12>

~~~
ChuckMcM
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 :-)

------
tomarr
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
If you like such pictures, check out the pictures from moving "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>)

I remember seeing a nice writeup of what that move involved, but cannot find
it anymore.

------
randlet
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>

