Message posted by JoenTX on September 04, 2010 at 1:48:59 PST:
"There is no single set of rules. It all depends on the situation. When Tony Moore and I designed a patch for the X-51A, it had to be approved by a large number of people within the Combined Test Force and on up the chain of command. When we designed a patch for a black project, we only needed a verbal agreement from two or three people....." Ding-ding-ding.......zing, zang, pow!.........ta-da. Perfect. I love the imagery and concept. But, it was not overtly descriptive of the program or the platform or the program. Yet, canned? What is the factor here?
Pete, once again, TIA for the wealth of extremely interesting info for someone like myself whose focal point is operations and actualities of a functioning military installation and its associated designated programs.
Exactly the jist of my thoughts above. What is the chasm between "white" projects and "black" projects? Who is the determiner? Daylight projects (as determined by someone) must concur with a certain set of rules whereas others, maybe "black" projects, have to concur with relatively few. Because? Who? Where? And, when?
" The HAVE BLUE project emblem, designed by Keith Beswick of Lockheed, featured a cloud with the nose of the airplane (colored light blue and equipped with a flight-test data probe) sticking out one end and a skunk tail (from the Skunk Works logo) sticking out the other. It originally featured the words HAVE BLUE FLIGHT TEST TEAM. The security officer refused to approve the emblem until the words FLIGHT TEST had been removed, despite the fact that the imagery made it quite obvious that it was for a Lockheed Skunk Works flight-test project with or without the words..."
In Reply to: Re: Interesting patches posted by Peter Merlin on September 03, 2010 at 10:03:57 PST:
Replies: