From: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V4 #7 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Wednesday, 8 September 1993 Volume 04 : Number 007 In this issue: unsubscribe skunk-works unsubscribe skunk-works unsubscribe skunk-works A rebuttal about an old posting. AWACS and AURORA; SATCOM ROCKS!! Skunk Works 50th Anniv. Book Rumor RE: AWACS and AURORA; SATCOM ROCKS!! Re: AWACS and AURORA; SATCOM ROCKS!! Re: A rebuttal about an old posting. New Book Notice. Read and maybe save 5 bucks! Re: A rebuttal about an old posting. See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the skunk-works or skunk-works-digest mailing lists and on how to retrieve back issues. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: edwards@sde.mdso.vf.ge.com (Edwards Samuel H) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 93 07:44:15 EDT Subject: unsubscribe skunk-works unsubscribe skunk-works =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | Samuel H. Edwards /0\ edwards@sde.mdso.vf.ge.com \_______[|(.)|]_______/ ASTA Operations Engineer (Martin Marietta) o ++ 0 ++ o My opinions in no way reflect my employer's =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- The RF-4E Phantom - Living proof that if you put enough engine on something...even a BRICK could fly! W. Weasel ------------------------------ From: edwards@sde.mdso.vf.ge.com (Edwards Samuel H) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 93 07:44:15 EDT Subject: unsubscribe skunk-works unsubscribe skunk-works =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | Samuel H. Edwards /0\ edwards@sde.mdso.vf.ge.com \_______[|(.)|]_______/ ASTA Operations Engineer (Martin Marietta) o ++ 0 ++ o My opinions in no way reflect my employer's =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- The RF-4E Phantom - Living proof that if you put enough engine on something...even a BRICK could fly! W. Weasel ------------------------------ From: nataraja@egr.msu.edu Date: Tue, 7 Sep 93 10:46:07 -0400 Subject: unsubscribe skunk-works unsubscribe skunk-works Josh nataraja@egr.msu.edu ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1993 11:03:29 -0700 Subject: A rebuttal about an old posting. Posted by Tim Tyler (tim@ais.org) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:50:57 -0500 (EST): Regarding the AURORA issue of Intercepts Newsletter. > While I cannot comment on the tremendous speculation Mr. Douglass makes >about AURORA, stealth, etc. in his 'Intercepts' newsletter, I do have a >strong opinion in regards to other aspects, such as the information related >to communications monitoring. > > I'm not a subscriber to the 'Intercepts' newsletter (marketed to 'the >serious military [communications] monitor'), but I have some familiarity >with some of the frequencies, callsigns, & communications systems which his >newsletter deals with. > > A friend let me borrow 4 or 5 'Intercepts' issues from earlier this year, >& I was amazed at some of the gross inaccuracies to be found. Many of the >things he got wrong (in particular, 'static' tactical callsigns) were things >that someone with minimal knowledge in military systems should have been >able to properly figure out. If I still had the issues in question, I'd be >happy to provide specific examples. > > Mr. Douglass is the photographer of the well-known 'doughnuts-on-a-rope' >photographs which appeared in AW&ST, and again, I'm not in a position to add >enlightenment about AURORA, but the same AW&ST article quotes Douglass as >being a communications monitoring enthusiast, and that he heard strange >radio-traffic on military frequencies during the time he witnessed the >mysterious contrails in the sky. > > 288.0MHz was mentioned as being a military SATCOM frequency that was >active with secure ('scrambled') traffic, & that Douglass hadn't previously >heard any traffic on that frequency since DESERT STORM. > > 288.0MHz is not in the military satellite band plan, & since the traffic >was secure-mode, I don't think Douglass had reason to assume it was >associated with his UFO-contrail sighting. Further, Douglas makes >reference to hearing the callsign "DARKSTAR," and possibly associating it >with AURORA. > > As many monitoring enthusiasts know, DARKSTAR is one of several >callsigns used by a battlestaff position aboard an E-3 Sentry AWACS >aircraft. > > These aircraft are often monitorable in Texas while they are on training >and/or narcotics interdiction missions. > > > The only speculation that *I* care to make about AURORA is that I think >it is safe to say that any high-priority, 'black' aircraft operations would >use radio-communications systems which would normally not simply be >scrambled, but would also utilize low-probability of (radio) interception >techniques such as frequency-hopping or direct sequence spread spectrum, let >alone radio-silence. > > Mr. Douglass makes a lot of speculation --some of it might undoubtably be >accurate-- as well as a lot of wild guesses, without much differentiation >between the two. It could be said that we all do that here in skunkworks, >but the difference is that we're not making money doing so. > Posted for Steve Douglass (steve1957@aol.com): Date: Fri, 03 Sep 93 20:47:19 EDT >Intertesting stuff, even the criticisms. I can't help but wonder why one's >motives are suspect because one makes a little money off something? Is it >wrong to profit from being interested in something? Doesn't everyone want to >get paid for what they like to do? I am intensely interested in black >projects and all the skull duggery. What's wrong if I happen to make a few >bucks at it. Does it damage credibility to get paid for something you do. I >don't understand these guys. Off course I do have to keep in consideration >from where thay are at, but tell me, if these guys shot some video of say >something on a par with the Rodney King video, and someone offered them big >bucks for it . Do you think they would turn it down? Would their motives >for shooting the video be suspect? In that light is Bill Scott suspect >because he gets paid to write the article? I welcome the criticisms. The >worst thing is apathy. I am glad I struck a nerve. > >As for the comunications revolving around the sightings. I never said that >what I intercepted had anything to do with the sighting. All I noted was what >communications were going on at the time. As for 288.000 Mhz being a Satcom >frequency, believe me it is. These dudes said they never have seen it listed >as a SATCOM frequency,. Gosh I shure would like to get a hold of that list ! >I don't think anyone outside of the Pentagon really has a list of all the >SATCOM transponders, but I get the general idea that the satellites are >flexible enough to be programmed to transmit and receive on any frequency >they choose. The callsign SENTRY and Darkstar have since been confirmed as >NORAD Southwest sector call signs. > > Lets's try this senario out. The pulsar craft was on a test flight, it's >super secret so no one without the need to know, knows about it. Okay ?" So >they launch it and it trips a few bells at NORAD . NORAD doesn't know what's >going on and sends an AWACS from Tinker and a few F-15s up to investigate. >Now, this thing is fast, so it can't change course like a fighter and it has >to cover a lot of airspace just to turn arround, so it trips the fence say >over Oregon and NORAD tracks its course and sees it will be over Texas in a >bit. So they send an already airborne AWACS and few fighters to investigate >Or maybe they did know what was going on and the aircraft were part of a >tracking exercise or were there for communications support? ? Were the NORAD >aircraft just in my area coincidentally or were they their for some other >reason related to the flight... > >I only told AVWK what I saw and heard. As for conjecture on my part, damn >right its conjecture. I don't have the keys to the black vault and have all >the answers (like these guys seem to). > >I guess I wont know how wrong (or right) I am untill everything comes to >light.. We will just have to wait. >Thanks Larry , Keep em coming - Steve ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1993 11:18:59 -0700 Subject: AWACS and AURORA; SATCOM ROCKS!! Posted for Steve Douglass (steve1957@aol.com): Sun, 05 Sep 93 22:46:27 EDT >Larry, > >I was talking to a subscriber the other day and he had an interesting thought. > >He said an AWACs aircraft would be a logical platform to recieve >real time data from a recon platform (if that was what the pulser was). >Since AWACs platforms can receive and send real-time data from TR-1s and the >like, why not from whatever the pulser was? Especially if the pulser is an >unmanned platform . An AWACS could be used to not only track the aircraft but >to recieve its data dump (sounds gross) as the recon craft nears. Much like >one of our expendable (short use) spy sats. > >i actually heard one once dump a film cannister as it passed close to Cannon >AFB. unfortunatly the cannister wasn't caught by the retrival aircraft (this >was in the days before data dumps) and the film cannister landed onthe roof >of a drug store in Clovis. reminded me of Ice Station Zebra ! (great flick) >Anyway, the poor drugstore was decended on by all types of storm troopers >looking for the capsule- > >gotta go- Bye ! Posted for Steve Douglass (steve1957@aol.com): Mon, 06 Sep 93 15:03:28 EDT >Larry, >A funny thing happened today. it was about noon and I was working on the >monitoring book, when the mil scanner froze up on a Holloman AFB, frequency >or 344.200 MHz . I heard somebody talking in the background sort of mumbling >saying, "Ok wait a minute, I am hooked up to the SATCOM, are you guys ready? >Here it comes !' > >Gee I thought cool, Iam gonna here some great SATCOM stuff! >I turned up the radio in anticipation of receiving the plans for the Aurora >(of course), when.. "We're an American Band !' (by Grand Funk Railroad) comes >blaring out of my radio. In fact they transmitted the whole Grand Funk >Greatest hits albumn, via AFSATCOM. This went on for 45 min ! >It's nice to know that the taxpayer's money spent on Air Force satellite >communications hasn't gone to waste.- Steve No Steve, they've discovered that they can mix data and Grand Funk on the same channel! I guess Grand Funk is one of the bands whose music supports this. The government has funded their compositions for years! :) Larry ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1993 11:36:24 -0700 Subject: Skunk Works 50th Anniv. Book Rumor Hello again, A friend of mine talked to a close friend of Jay Miller's this past weekend. It seems that the Skunk Works 50th Anniv. Book went to press last week. Jay's friend had seen the galleys and said that it looked real good and that there are a LOT of words in that book! Boy, what a thing to say about a book. Larry ------------------------------ From: cimshop!KELLEHER%DISNEY@uunet.UU.NET Date: Tue, 7 Sep 93 12:27:11 PDT Subject: RE: AWACS and AURORA; SATCOM ROCKS!! >No Steve, they've discovered that they can mix data and Grand Funk on the >same channel! I guess Grand Funk is one of the bands whose music supports >this. The government has funded their compositions for years! :) > >Larry Perhaps next time they will play some Lawrence Welk recordings so we can have some spread spectrum wide band distribution. I'll leave it to you whether it is high band or low band! John Kelleher johnk@consilium.com ------------------------------ From: tim@umcc.umich.edu (Tim Tyler) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1993 18:39:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: AWACS and AURORA; SATCOM ROCKS!! > Sun, 05 Sep 93 22:46:27 EDT > > >Larry, > > > >I was talking to a subscriber the other day and he had an interesting thought. > > > >He said an AWACs aircraft would be a logical platform to recieve > >real time data from a recon platform (if that was what the pulser was). > >Since AWACs platforms can receive and send real-time data from TR-1s and the > >like, why not from whatever the pulser was? Especially if the pulser is an > >unmanned platform . An AWACS could be used to not only track the aircraft but > >to recieve its data dump (sounds gross) as the recon craft nears. Much like > >one of our expendable (short use) spy sats. If you assume that the drone is hypersonic, an E-3B/C would not make a good receiver for 'real-time' data dumps, nor would an E-3 be able to track such a platform for very long. Let alone that E-3s attract attention, which in most cases, would be undesireable. A SATCOM system (such as TDRSS) would be a better idea, as long as the SATCOM antenna aboard the recce platform could track the satellite. For near-real-time dumps, it might only take a few seconds or less to transmit. This doesn't mean that it wouldn't be a good idea for autonomous drones or RPVs to have microwave links to other platforms such as E-8s, E-9s, or E-3s... > > Posted for Steve Douglass (steve1957@aol.com): > Mon, 06 Sep 93 15:03:28 EDT > > >Larry, > >A funny thing happened today. it was about noon and I was working on the > >monitoring book, when the mil scanner froze up on a Holloman AFB, frequency > >or 344.200 MHz . I heard somebody talking in the background sort of mumbling > >saying, "Ok wait a minute, I am hooked up to the SATCOM, are you guys ready? > >Here it comes !' > > > >Gee I thought cool, Iam gonna here some great SATCOM stuff! > >I turned up the radio in anticipation of receiving the plans for the Aurora > >(of course), when.. "We're an American Band !' (by Grand Funk Railroad) comes > >blaring out of my radio. In fact they transmitted the whole Grand Funk > >Greatest hits albumn, via AFSATCOM. This went on for 45 min ! > >It's nice to know that the taxpayer's money spent on Air Force satellite > >communications hasn't gone to waste.- Steve > Neat, but AFSATCOM is record-mode (data) only... - -- Tim Tyler Internet: tim@ais.org MCI Mail: 442-5735 GEnie: T.Tyler5 P.O. Box 443 C$erve: 72571,1005 DDN: Tyler@Dockmaster.ncsc.mil Ypsilanti MI Packet: KA8VIR @WB8ZPN.#SEMI.MI.USA.NA 48197 ------------------------------ From: tim@umcc.umich.edu (Tim Tyler) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1993 19:04:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: A rebuttal about an old posting. > > Posted by Tim Tyler (tim@ais.org) > Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:50:57 -0500 (EST): Glad to see you forwarded it to Douglass! I really don't think he addressed many of my points, but seemed to focus a lot on my one line indicating that he's (assumably) profitting off the speculations. > > Regarding the AURORA issue of Intercepts Newsletter. > > > While I cannot comment on the tremendous speculation Mr. Douglass makes > >about AURORA, stealth, etc. in his 'Intercepts' newsletter, I do have a > >strong opinion in regards to other aspects, such as the information related > >to communications monitoring. > > > > I'm not a subscriber to the 'Intercepts' newsletter (marketed to 'the > >serious military [communications] monitor'), but I have some familiarity > >with some of the frequencies, callsigns, & communications systems which his > >newsletter deals with. > > > > A friend let me borrow 4 or 5 'Intercepts' issues from earlier this year, > >& I was amazed at some of the gross inaccuracies to be found. Many of the > >things he got wrong (in particular, 'static' tactical callsigns) were things > >that someone with minimal knowledge in military systems should have been > >able to properly figure out. If I still had the issues in question, I'd be > >happy to provide specific examples. His recent column in _Monitoring Times_ which listed callsigns indicates that the above paragraph is still valid. For a hint about AKSARBEN CONTROL, Steve, write AKSARBEN on a piece of paper, hold it up to a mirror, and read the paper via the mirror... > > 288.0MHz was mentioned as being a military SATCOM frequency that was > >active with secure ('scrambled') traffic, & that Douglass hadn't previously > >heard any traffic on that frequency since DESERT STORM. > > > > 288.0MHz is not in the military satellite band plan, & since the traffic > >was secure-mode, I don't think Douglass had reason to assume it was > >associated with his UFO-contrail sighting. Further, Douglas makes > >reference to hearing the callsign "DARKSTAR," and possibly associating it > >with AURORA. > > > > As many monitoring enthusiasts know, DARKSTAR is one of several > >callsigns used by a battlestaff position aboard an E-3 Sentry AWACS > >aircraft. > > > > These aircraft are often monitorable in Texas while they are on training > >and/or narcotics interdiction missions. > > > > Mr. Douglass makes a lot of speculation --some of it might undoubtably be > >accurate-- as well as a lot of wild guesses, without much differentiation > >between the two. It could be said that we all do that here in skunkworks, > >but the difference is that we're not making money doing so. > > > > > > > > Posted for Steve Douglass (steve1957@aol.com): > Date: Fri, 03 Sep 93 20:47:19 EDT > > >Intertesting stuff, even the criticisms. I can't help but wonder why one's > >motives are suspect because one makes a little money off something? Is it > >wrong to profit from being interested in something? Doesn't everyone want to > >get paid for what they like to do? I am intensely interested in black > >projects and all the skull duggery. What's wrong if I happen to make a few > >bucks at it. Does it damage credibility to get paid for something you do. I > >don't understand these guys. Off course I do have to keep in consideration > >from where thay are at, but tell me, if these guys shot some video of say > >something on a par with the Rodney King video, and someone offered them big > >bucks for it . Do you think they would turn it down? Would their motives > >for shooting the video be suspect? In that light is Bill Scott suspect > >because he gets paid to write the article? I welcome the criticisms. The > >worst thing is apathy. I am glad I struck a nerve. > > > >As for the comunications revolving around the sightings. I never said that > >what I intercepted had anything to do with the sighting. All I noted was what > >communications were going on at the time. As for 288.000 Mhz being a Satcom > >frequency, believe me it is. These dudes said they never have seen it listed > >as a SATCOM frequency,. Gosh I shure would like to get a hold of that list ! > >I don't think anyone outside of the Pentagon really has a list of all the > >SATCOM transponders, but I get the general idea that the satellites are > >flexible enough to be programmed to transmit and receive on any frequency > >they choose. The callsign SENTRY and Darkstar have since been confirmed as > >NORAD Southwest sector call signs. 288.0 is a NORAD frequency, mostly used to communicate with the NE ROCC. It is AM mode, & not SATCOM. The SENTRY callsign is not a NORAD callsign. It is simply a static callsign, mostly used by the front-end crews of 552nd Air Control Wing E-3 AWACS aircraft. It is common knowledge. DARKSTAR callsigns, as I previously mentioned, are used by battlestaff personnel aboard the AWACS platforms, incidently, mostly for training missions, since they're also static callsigns. This is also fairly common knowledge for people who have either been seriously monitoring military on HF & UHF for years, or who have simply walked up to an E-3 aircrewmember at an airshow & asked "What is DARK STAR?" The reason they'll usually tell you is because the static callsigns are mostly used for training... > > > > Lets's try this senario out. The pulsar craft was on a test flight, it's > >super secret so no one without the need to know, knows about it. Okay ?" So > >they launch it and it trips a few bells at NORAD . NORAD doesn't know what's > >going on and sends an AWACS from Tinker and a few F-15s up to investigate. > >Now, this thing is fast, so it can't change course like a fighter and it has > >to cover a lot of airspace just to turn arround, so it trips the fence say > >over Oregon and NORAD tracks its course and sees it will be over Texas in a > >bit. So they send an already airborne AWACS and few fighters to investigate > >Or maybe they did know what was going on and the aircraft were part of a > >tracking exercise or were there for communications support? ? Were the NORAD > >aircraft just in my area coincidentally or were they their for some other > >reason related to the flight... I sure don't know the answer to that last question, but you clearly assume there was a connection. I certainly didn't see what you saw or heard what you heard that day, but based on the info that I read, I sure wouldn't assume that there was a connection! > > > >I only told AVWK what I saw and heard. As for conjecture on my part, damn > >right its conjecture. I don't have the keys to the black vault and have all > >the answers (like these guys seem to). You don't have to have "all the answers" to notice & point out misinformation, do you? > > > >I guess I wont know how wrong (or right) I am untill everything comes to > >light.. We will just have to wait. > >Thanks Larry , Keep em coming - Steve > - -- Tim Tyler Internet: tim@ais.org MCI Mail: 442-5735 GEnie: T.Tyler5 P.O. Box 443 C$erve: 72571,1005 DDN: Tyler@Dockmaster.ncsc.mil Ypsilanti MI Packet: KA8VIR @WB8ZPN.#SEMI.MI.USA.NA 48197 ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1993 17:35:18 -0700 Subject: New Book Notice. Read and maybe save 5 bucks! A little follow-up on my morning post about the new 50th Anniv. Skunk Works book. Being a member of the skunk-works mail list can save you almost 5 bucks! See below! It looks like it is actually being carried to the printer tomorrow! The book should be available in 3-4 weeks. It can be purchased now from AEROFAX at 1-800-733-2329 (an 800 number even!) via VISA/Master Card. Title: "Lockheed's Skunk Works, The First Fifty Years" Containing: 216 pages; 350 photos (many in color); and approx. 100 drawings; Price: Softbound: before Sept. 30, 1993: $25.00 after Sept. 30, 1993: $29.95 Hardbound, signed by Skunk Works luminaries like Ben Rich: $50.00 Lockheed Skunk Works commissioned AEROFAX to perform this valuable effort of publishing and documenting a comprehensive history of the Skunk Work's first 50 years, that would be available to the general public. The information in this book comes from interviews with Skunk Works personnel, the Skunk Works photo archives, and previously unpublished Skunk Works design proposals. For example, Kelly Johnson evidently kept quite a bit of historical documentation in the form of design notebooks, status reports, memos, etc. There is a lot of previously unpublished information in the form of data and drawings from these sources, in this book. Kelly's widow also provided design documentation that's now in her possession, towards this effort. The book covers the period of history from the start of the Skunk Works (the XP-80) up to the present, as measured by the F-117A Stealth Fighter. Here's a list of goodies that I've been told are in the book: Drawings of ALL the Lockheed ARCHANGEL proposals from the A-1 thru the A-11. (AWESOME!) Drawings of all SUNTAN proposals (that's what he said!) Both top and bottom photos of HAVE BLUE (including camo. paint version) New M-12/D-21A photos. New B-52H/D-21B photos. (FINALLY!) Drawings of the NAVY version of the F-117A. The above is just a taste of the kind of stuff that's in there! WOW! Tomorrow, I'll pass on some of the stories about the problems they had getting this book out. Larry ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1993 17:47:28 -0700 Subject: Re: A rebuttal about an old posting. Posted for Steve Douglass (steve1957@aol.com): Date: Tue, 07 Sep 93 19:09:17 EDT >Sorry, everyone. >I guess I get a little sensitive about things from time to time, especially >when I have put as much work into Intercepts as I have. - >Okay, maybe the AWACs traffic had nothing to do with the pulsar sighting- >then maybe it did. We'll never know until the books are opened. >Question: couldn't an AWACS be part of an exercise conducted with the pulser? >maybe as a platform for real time data or imagery being passed. We all assume >that the pulser is a recon platform right? Pretty useless as a fighter or a >bomber . As for the communications techniques involved. In the NORAD >exercises I have monitored data has been passed on UHF freqs. No frequency >hopping or spread spectrum modes were used. The data sounded like packet >radio (in a fast burst transmission mode) and was probably encrypted. I have >heard them trying o pass data via Have Quick frequency hopping , but the >AWACs scope dopes almost always complained that the syncronization didn't >work well and prefered the data to be sent on a single frequency. Almost all >the data I have heard being sent has been in FM mode (not AM) and some has >been sent in wide band FM but rarely. Voice sometimes will be sent scrambled >( going "green"as they call it) but that seems surprisingly rare also. >Will down at White Sands I monitored live video being sent (but could not >watch it) . If you have ever listened to live video on the TV broadcast bands >the sound is very recognizable. The video was being transmitted by a NASA >photo telemtry unit that was filming a launch of a missile. The photo ops >guys, kept refering to the video in plain voice on a seperate channel. > >In any event, I do monitor AWACS from Tinker AFB on NORAD exercises >occasionaly and they do pass data on single UHF frequencies. Sometimes they >pass it back to NORAD at Cheyenne Mountain (Ringmaster) via AFSATCOM nodes on >FLTSATCOM birds. > >If anyone is interested, I can post the known frequency allocations for the >FLTSATCOMs. (like I say "known" because Uncle Sam, hasn't ever formerly >published his list. Most of the SATCOm frequencies have been ferreted out by >mil monitors, former mil personnel and the like. The Kettering Group in >England has figured out most of the positions on the birds. (last known >positions after Desert Storm). A couple have failed in the last few months- >Maybe they ran into the Mars Probe! - Steve Douglass- >Okay to post this. > Larry ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V4 #7 ******************************* To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe skunk-works-digest in the body of a message to "listserv@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu". If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-skunk-works": subscribe skunk-works-digest local-skunk-works@your.domain.net To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command: unsubscribe skunk-works-digest in the body. Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent to either "skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu" or, if you don't like to type a lot, "prm@ecn.purdue.edu". A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "skunk-works-digest" in the commands above with "skunk-works". Back issues are available for anonymous FTP from harbor.ecn.purdue.edu, in /pub/skunk-works/digest/vNN.nMMM (where "NN" is the volume number, and "MMM" is the issue number).