Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Jeffrey Mach <mach@****.CALTECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Outage...Results
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 13:20:31 -0800
*****PRIVATE: Rebekkah
>>>>>[Well, here are the projects you were curious about. I was a bit
puzzled why you would know the names of the projects, but you pay me
enough not to ask questions.

I got it yesterday while all the poor engineering students were busy
accessing the system and giving me additional cover. As far as I was able
to tell, the whole thing went completely undetected.

The files are the cad drawings that the group was working on, relevant
e-mail sent between the various group members, and documentation they had
been writing up and my analysis as to what they are actually doing, and
my commentary on their work:

+++++include: Spooky.cad
+++++include: Spooky.correspondence
+++++include: Spooky.doc
+++++include: Texaco.cad
+++++include: Texaco.correspondence
+++++include: Texaco.doc

+++++include: Spooky.analysis
+++++include: Texaco.analysis

The short form of the analysis is that someone wants to be able to convert
a cargo plane into either a tanker or a close support aircraft. All the
reasoning behind my opinions is in the analysis documents.

Texaco is a design for a removable fuel tank, pumps, and refueling
armature. From what they are saying in most recent e-mail, it seems to be
almost done.

Spooky took more time for me to figure out. That group seems to think it
is a frame for some sort of firefighting equipment, but I have seen enough
military hardware to know hardpoints for gun systems when I see them.
Forced to venture a guess from materials, configuration, etc. I would say
that they are designed to hold a pair of 30mm cannon, a pair of 7.62mm guns,
and the gear needed to target and load them. They seem to be mostly done,
but are having difficulty getting the custom parts made in the machine
shop to their specifications (they really should have been forced to take
some sort of machining class or have some software to tell them they are
being unreasonable for no real benefit to the design).

Now the interesting part: comparing the two supposedly unrelated projects
reveals that they have the same volumetric and power/control interface
constraints. So, they are obviously designed to go into the same kind of
aircraft. But which? Two things tipped me off. One, my first comparison
of the power/control interface and loadmastering configuration suggested
the Lockheed Poltergeist, but it wasn't a 100% match. Then it hit me.
Pre-millennium, there was an aircraft called the AC-130 Specter, hence the
project name which was cause for a bit of discussion among the group, but
makes sense to me, now. It was a close support aircraft designed off of
the cargo-hauler C-130 Hercules (also by Lockheed). It had several
variations of armament including one common variant with two 7.62mm
mini-guns, two 20mm and two 40mm cannons and one 105mm cannon all of which
aimed out the side so it could circle over a potential target and shell it
from the air. I included a full report from Jane's on the Specter and
it's predecessor the AC-47 Spooky in the full analysis. Now the size
envelope didn't exactly fit the original Hercules, not that I expected it
to since a lot of C-130A's are over a century old now. However, shortly
before the turn of the millennium, there was a major upgrade and overhaul
to the design. That was a match to the size/weight specs and the last
incarnations of the Hercules are a match on the loadmastering.

Therefore, it seems that someone has some of the latest model of Hercules,
(not that they wouldn't be old enough to be their pilot's parents) and is
planning on using them as either tankers or close support aircraft, and
wants to be able to switch. It will mean putting some removable holes in
the bird, but nothing too impractical. I compiled a list of companies
known to still use Hercules (mostly small air-shipping companies), but if
the unit is a mercenary group, I can't help you since they don't usually
make their procurement "available." I expect prompt
payment.]<<<<<
-- Vernier <12:54:23/03-04-58 PST>
Message no. 2
From: Jeffrey Mach <mach@****.CALTECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Outage...results?
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 13:32:34 -0800
*****PRIVATE: Sacha
>>>>>[Since you are a friend of Lynch and Lilith, and may be hiring me for
a little bit of work once I have some more "free" time, I think you may
need to know about something going on.

I was recently hired through Shadowland to consult for someone by the
moniker of Rebekkah. She had me acquire and analyze some data that some
engineers at the University of Washington are working on:

+++++include SpookyTexaco.mail

I don't know if this person is one of your people, or one of your
competitors nor whether this work is being done for you or one of your
competitors, but it smacks of your style, and I know you are using
Hercs, which I omitted from the report.

If you happen to be the one the work is ultimately being done for, I would
suggest one thing: don't even think of using them unless you have aquired
complete air superiority. While Specters had been used in multiple
conflicts for over half a century (VietNam, Persian Gulf, etc.), they
could easily be eliminated by opponent aircraft. Also, consider
electro/thermal stealth coating and an E/TCM system worth at least as
double what you are putting into guns and ammo. It may have the firepower
of artillery, but it's also a great big--not to mention
slow--target.]<<<<<
-- Vernier <13:05:21/03-04-58 PST>
Message no. 3
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowtk@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Outage...Results
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 01:46:13 +0000
*****PRIVATE: Vernier
>>>>>[Thank you, Jenny.

Sorry, did I forget to give you my full name? Rebekkah Rosalita Trevilla
DiAnnio Rusanov. My husband's a mercenary and _ever_ such a good one.
He'll be _so_ pleased that those students are doing well on their design
projects :)

Yes, those are our designs, and yes, those are for us, and we're paying
to have them done. Lynch pointed out that you were asking for work and
thought this was a good way to check on progress too. He also said you'd
enjoy it.

+++++include credit transfer <agreed sum+50%> nuyen

I hardly think you really need the money, but you deserved it. Sasha was
_so_ pleased that you referred back to him instead of just telling
everything to a total stranger.

This wasn't a test of you at all, so please don't be offended. You
really are very clever to do so much extra work and guess who might be
involved, and we're _so_ pleased you went out of your way to warn a
friend of a friend that someone was asking questions.]<<<<<
-- Rebekkah R T D Rusanov <01:30:32/03-05-58>
Chief Administrator
Rusanov's Rebels
Message no. 4
From: Jeffrey Mach <mach@****.CALTECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Outage...results?
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 20:25:24 -0800
*****PRIVATE: Rebekkah
>>>>>[Well, in that case, I am glad to help. I got the other message from
you husband verifying that everything was kosher. And no, you didn't tell
me your name and the sysadmins around Shadowland (when they aren't busy
trying to keep the place from crashing) do their best to make sure the
messages here are kept as private and as anonymous as the person wants.

Since we are currently gainfully employed, Arashi and I aren't quite
considering becoming mercs or shadowrunners in the near future, but we
have some free time coming up in the next few months where we can come by.
I hope the invitation to lend a hand to your new wing in Seattle is still
open. To be perfectly honest, I do kinda need the money. There are many
around here impeccably coiffed and wearing beautiful suits that get paid a
few (and more) times my salary to push pencils all day and look good at
the board meetings while we technicians slave away with our mussy hair and
jumpsuits doing something for our living. Arashi and I have got plenty to
get by, but not much more than nicely comfortable: payscale was not the
deciding factor in choosing either of our jobs. Besides, every once and a
while I need to make a purchase where corp cred just won't do.

As for the thoroughness of the report, you paid enough to get no less. As
a researcher, you have to be able to exhaust all leads when you want to
figure something out, and occasionally when you reach the end, you have to
find a new way to keep going. That's what they pay me for.

It was good for me to get back into the decking game; I didn't want to
scare off a paying client by saying I hadn't done that in a while. Up
until recently the only difficult work in that area was keeping up with
shadowland. But it was just like riding a bike; if of course you had to
redesign, reconfigure, rewrite, recompile, and otherwise replace a good
portion of your bike every few months, sure. (Part of the need for
non-corp cred. ;) ) Pulling a dataraid at a place where you a) already
had an account (not exactly a real one though), and b) were already well
familiar with the system, wasn't that hard. The only difficulty worth
what you paid was the decryption and analysis.

And yes, it was a bit fun. It took my brain off my current problems:
nursing a trio of neural-nets through the terrible two's. You know how
little kids always ask "Why?" no matter how may recursions or levels you
go into an explanation? Now multiply that by three and accelerate it
beyond the terraflops range. They are so cute when they learn their first
control law, and so pretty when they are nothing but a schematic, but they
can really make you want to smash their little neuro-optical brains out
when they start heading all over the place for an answer to a problem when
you aren't even done giving them the question or the means to solve it.
Then comes socialization, a headache I don't even want to go into. All in
the name of giving a fighter enough brains to be able to help the pilot
instead of just being another dumb tool. At least they don't need to be
potty trained.

By the way, I happen to know another woman with the maiden name DiAnnio,
loves jets just a bit less than another fellow she flies them with. Any
relation? A thing in my head keeps me from being a complete scatterbrain
when it comes to names and other little things, like computational
neural nets.]<<<<<
-- Vernier <20:17:22/03-04-58 PST>
Message no. 5
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowtk@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Outage...results?
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 19:49:41 +0000
*****PRIVATE: Vernier
>>>>>[Well, while we certainly couldn't expect you to do operational
work for us, from what we hear you and your partner could find quite a
lot of valuable work training our pilots and maintenance crews,

If you mean Lilith, then yes, she's my daughter, but I try not to
advertise that fact, we're _ever_ so different, in fact if I didn't
remember giving birth I would swear she was someone else's child. It's
enough to make one believe in changelings.

Perhaps it's just because she takes after her father so much. Poor
man.]<<<<<
-- Rebekkah <19:50:42/03-05-58>

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Outage...results?, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!