From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #90 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Wednesday, 25 May 1994 Volume 05 : Number 090 In this issue: LERC Re: Auroa and mothership Re: Air Force 2 question Re: LERC Re: Air Force 2 question Re: LERC Re: Auroa and mothership Re: Auroa and mothership Re: LERC Re: LERC Re: Auroa and mothership B-2 as AWACS... coupla things of interest .. maybe Re: B-2 as AWACS... B-2 AWACS. Re: B-2 as AWACS... Air Force 2 question PM Article on Aurora Re: IR Re: Aurora - 2 planes 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: dougt@u011.oh.vp.com (Doug Tiffany) Date: Wed, 25 May 94 5:15:04 EDT Subject: LERC I received a small flyer in the mail quite some time ago from the Lockheed Employees Recreation Club. I ordered a video called "SR-71 the Movie" and innocently tossed the flyer away. I want to call them to find out where it is. Can someone give me their 1-800 number? Thank-you. - -- Douglas J. Tiffany (dougt@u011.oh.vp.com) Varco-Pruden Buildings Northern Division Van Wert OH. (419) 238-9533 ------------------------------ From: BaDge Date: Wed, 25 May 1994 09:35:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Auroa and mothership On Tue, 24 May 1994, John Regus wrote: > Dear Skunks; > I don't know how many of you read the 2/94 copy of "Popular Mechanics" > since it really is not part of the National Intelligence Estimate > briefings :}, but they did provide the information about the "Aurora" John, Good to see a new 'face' on the mailing list. I haven't heard of the members being referred to as "skunks" before; p-ewww. :) That 'info' on the Aurora is quite ancient, BTW. Most of the members here believe that the "aurora" per se is actually the Mothership-Drone combo, or discount the nomenclature completely. There is some evidence found in 2 year old research project proposals that the AF has/had bids out for a trans atmosphereic craft. [reference avail on req] > tests being done near England, etc. > First, some have believed that "Aurora" has been a SSTO vehicle with > scramjet engines. According to PM your right. Second, some believe that Some think the future is in in unmanned recon. > If someone knows how to ftp or gopher a library and can download and > disseminate that article to all of the skunks, we would have one heck of > a lot to talk about (particularly about how the Russians engine technology > was part of the design). I have several hundred K to go through on a periodicals search that I did on these kind of key words (scramjet, hypersonic, adv. propulsion, etc.) that I will post to the group when I get it edited and compiled. > > P.S. > I still think the B-2 is a viable new generation AWACS. > I disagree. AWACS and Stealth are incompatible for configuration reasons and for radar signature reasons. This topic was hashed to a pulp recently. - -regards - -BaDge ------------------------------ From: Geoff.Miller@corp.sun.com (Geoff Miller) Date: Wed, 25 May 1994 07:51:54 +0800 Subject: Re: Air Force 2 question The pod in question was described as a single unit mounted between the wing and engine. I remember seeing photos in AvLeak of the NASA 747 taken when it appeared at the Paris Air Show carrying the shuttle Enterprise several years ago. It had a pair of cylindrical IR suppressors mounted on the pylon behind each engine. They looked like they were about the size of Hi-C cans, and were canted outward at an angle. What kind of plane was Hillary using on this occasion? - --Geoff ------------------------------ From: dougt@u011.oh.vp.com (Doug Tiffany) Date: Wed, 25 May 94 10:57:03 EDT Subject: Re: LERC > | > |I received a small flyer in the mail quite some time ago from the > |Lockheed Employees Recreation Club. I ordered a video called "SR-71 > |the Movie" and innocently tossed the flyer away. I want to call them > |to find out where it is. Can someone give me their 1-800 number? > | > |Thank-you. > > Call 1-800-555-1212 and ask them. > I tried that. No luck. - -- Douglas J. Tiffany (dougt@u011.oh.vp.com) Varco-Pruden Buildings Northern Division Van Wert OH. (419) 238-9533 ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Wed, 25 May 1994 11:02:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Air Force 2 question When we sent Enterprise and the SCA to Europe lo these many years ago, we had the same IR decoys mounted on the 747's wing. We all went out and looked at the plane on the ramp (talk about an impressive pair) and noticed the pods. Of course, we knew they couldn't be anything required to fly the plane, or they'd have had them all along, so we got the whole story. They're a hotter target than the tailpipe of the high-bypass-ratio engines, so a heatseeking SAM will target them, not the engine. The decoys are on long enough pylons that blowing them up won't do enough damage to bring down the entire plane. Regards, Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end.... ------------------------------ From: mangan@Kodak.COM (Paul Mangan) Date: Wed, 25 May 94 12:36:57 EDT Subject: Re: LERC LERC 1011 Lockheed Way Palmdale, Ca., 93599 (805)572-2201 fax (805)572-2747 > From skunk-works-owner@gaia.ucs.orst.edu Wed May 25 12:13:25 1994 > Subject: Re: LERC > To: skunk-works@gaia.ucs.orst.edu (Skunk Works) > X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8] > Sender: skunk-works-owner@gaia.ucs.orst.edu > Content-Length: 492 > X-Lines: 17 > > > | > > |I received a small flyer in the mail quite some time ago from the > > |Lockheed Employees Recreation Club. I ordered a video called "SR-71 > > |the Movie" and innocently tossed the flyer away. I want to call them > > |to find out where it is. Can someone give me their 1-800 number? > > | > > |Thank-you. > > > > Call 1-800-555-1212 and ask them. > > > I tried that. No luck. > > > -- > Douglas J. Tiffany (dougt@u011.oh.vp.com) > Varco-Pruden Buildings Northern Division > Van Wert OH. (419) 238-9533 > ------------------------------ From: "Clarence Dent" Date: 25 May 1994 09:48:02 -0800 Subject: Re: Auroa and mothership Subject:RE>>Auroa and mothership Hi Baj, Just a note to think about: On Tue, 24 May 1994, John Regus wrote: > P.S. > I still think the B-2 is a viable new generation AWACS. > I disagree. AWACS and Stealth are incompatible for configuration reasons and for radar signature reasons. This topic was hashed to a pulp recently. -regards -BaDge I disagree. I've listened to the hashing during the last few weeks and I still see the need to have a stealthy spy aircraft. The Soviets have been using fishing trawler-type surface vessels to monitor ALL of our testing offshore and as much as they can (within their range) onshore in addition to their surveillance satellite coverage. I'm sure we are doing the same wherever possible. But we do not have an aircraft with steathy features that can serve as a monitoring/listening post. C-130's just don't do the trick. Small observation aircraft can't afford the weight of the gear necessary. We need a large, low observability aircraft that can loiter for large amounts of time with little risk. I'm sure our U-2/TR-1 squadrons are doing their best, but they also are limited in size and scope. We need something similar in size and design to a B-2. If only we could figure out how to make the airframe more inexpensively. Well, just a thought. - -cd - -------------------------------------- Date: 5/25/94 8:23 AM To: Clarence Dent From: BaDge On Tue, 24 May 1994, John Regus wrote: > Dear Skunks; > I don't know how many of you read the 2/94 copy of "Popular Mechanics" > since it really is not part of the National Intelligence Estimate > briefings :}, but they did provide the information about the "Aurora" John, Good to see a new 'face' on the mailing list. I haven't heard of the members being referred to as "skunks" before; p-ewww. :) That 'info' on the Aurora is quite ancient, BTW. Most of the members here believe that the "aurora" per se is actually the Mothership-Drone combo, or discount the nomenclature completely. There is some evidence found in 2 year old research project proposals that the AF has/had bids out for a trans atmosphereic craft. [reference avail on req] > tests being done near England, etc. > First, some have believed that "Aurora" has been a SSTO vehicle with > scramjet engines. According to PM your right. Second, some believe that Some think the future is in in unmanned recon. > If someone knows how to ftp or gopher a library and can download and > disseminate that article to all of the skunks, we would have one heck of > a lot to talk about (particularly about how the Russians engine technology > was part of the design). I have several hundred K to go through on a periodicals search that I did on these kind of key words (scramjet, hypersonic, adv. propulsion, etc.) that I will post to the group when I get it edited and compiled. > > P.S. > I still think the B-2 is a viable new generation AWACS. > I disagree. AWACS and Stealth are incompatible for configuration reasons and for radar signature reasons. This topic was hashed to a pulp recently. - -regards - -BaDge - ------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------ Received: by cl_63smtp_gw.chinalake.navy.mil with SMTP;25 May 1994 08:22:24 - -0800 Received: by gaia.ucs.orst.edu id AA08605 (5.67a/IDA-1.5 for skunk-works-outgoing); Wed, 25 May 1994 06:35:53 -0700 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU [128.143.2.7]) by gaia.ucs.orst.edu (8.6.8.1/8.6.6) with SMTP id GAA08599 for ; Wed, 25 May 1994 06:35:50 -0700 Received: from galen.med.virginia.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa04878; 25 May 94 9:35 EDT Received: by galen.med.Virginia.EDU (5.67a8/1.34) id AA42076; Wed, 25 May 1994 09:35:16 -0400 Date: Wed, 25 May 1994 09:35:16 -0400 (EDT) From: BaDge Subject: Re: Auroa and mothership To: John Regus Cc: skunk-works@gaia.ucs.orst.edu In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: skunk-works-owner@gaia.ucs.orst.edu Precedence: bulk ------------------------------ From: "Clarence Dent" Date: 25 May 1994 09:49:06 -0800 Subject: Re: Auroa and mothership Subject:RE>>Auroa and mothership Hi Baj, Just a note to think about: On Tue, 24 May 1994, John Regus wrote: > P.S. > I still think the B-2 is a viable new generation AWACS. > I disagree. AWACS and Stealth are incompatible for configuration reasons and for radar signature reasons. This topic was hashed to a pulp recently. -regards -BaDge I disagree. I've listened to the hashing during the last few weeks and I still see the need to have a stealthy spy aircraft. The Soviets have been using fishing trawler-type surface vessels to monitor ALL of our testing offshore and as much as they can (within their range) onshore in addition to their surveillance satellite coverage. I'm sure we are doing the same wherever possible. But we do not have an aircraft with steathy features that can serve as a monitoring/listening post. C-130's just don't do the trick. Small observation aircraft can't afford the weight of the gear necessary. We need a large, low observability aircraft that can loiter for large amounts of time with little risk. I'm sure our U-2/TR-1 squadrons are doing their best, but they also are limited in size and scope. We need something similar in size and design to a B-2. If only we could figure out how to make the airframe more inexpensively. Well, just a thought. - -cd ------------------------------ From: jon@zeus.ladc.lockheed.com (Jonathan Schwartz) Date: Wed, 25 May 94 10:18:48 PDT Subject: Re: LERC To find Lockheed Employees Recreation Club: call (805)572-2201 Jon ------------------------------ From: rakoczynskij@agcs.com (Jurek Rakoczynski) Date: Wed, 25 May 1994 10:21:17 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: LERC > From: dougt@u011.oh.vp.com (Doug Tiffany) > Subject: Re: LERC > To: skunk-works@gaia.ucs.orst.edu (Skunk Works) > Date: Wed, 25 May 94 10:57:03 EDT > X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8] > Sender: skunk-works-owner@gaia.ucs.orst.edu > Precedence: bulk [various text deleted] > > |I received a small flyer in the mail quite some time ago from the > > |Lockheed Employees Recreation Club. I ordered a video called "SR-71 > > Call 1-800-555-1212 and ask them. > I tried that. No luck. From the LERC store catalog: Phone: 1-805-572-2201 Fax: 1-805-572-2747 Store Hours: 10:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. (PST) No Aurora model ... yet! :-) - -- Jerzy (Jurek) Rakoczynski Voice: +1 602 581 4867 Fax: +1 602 581 4022 AG Communication Systems Internet: rakoczynskij@agcs.com POB 52179 Internet: jurek.rakoczynski@gte.sprint.com Phoenix AZ 85072-2179 GTEMail: j.rakoczynski ------------------------------ From: lhawkins@annie.wellesley.edu Date: Wed, 25 May 94 15:15:10 -0400 Subject: Re: Auroa and mothership In your message dated: 25 May 94 09:49:06 -0800 you write: > >I disagree. I've listened to the hashing during the last few weeks and I >still see the need to have a stealthy spy aircraft. The Soviets have been >using fishing trawler-type surface vessels to monitor ALL of our testing >offshore and as much as they can (within their range) onshore in addition to You obviously don't understand the mission of an AWACS platform then. AWACS stands for Airborne Warning and Control System (or something close), meaning essentially that it is a airborne battlefield 'control tower' for combat air support, strike missions, and the like for areas where we don't have friendly ground facilities for those jobs. To the best of my knowledge, its mission is not and has never been 'spying' or elint. Those things are currently done with EA and EC platforms in various configurations. > >Well, just a thought. >-cd > Cheers, - --Lee ------------------------------ From: Corey Lawson Date: Wed, 25 May 1994 14:52:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: B-2 as AWACS... Perhaps it would be potentially viable, but I don't think very cost-efficient. For one, the B-2's stealth characteristics would be negated by having this very bright neon sign on top of the plane that is radiating "Shoot Me!" to the world. For another, it's too expensive. Wouldn't it be better to develop a new suite of electronics and stick it on a Boeing 757/767/777? Wouldn't it be better to develop a new suite of anti-radiation missile countermeasures? Or, what if one could develop a suite of electronics that provides about half of the power of the existing AWACS plane, but through satellite networking and cheap costs, lets one fly about 10 or 20 of them for the same cost as an existing AWACS plane at the same time providing 5-10x the processing power and coverage as 1 AWACS? At the $500-750 Million cost for each B-2, I think one could come up with a much better system based on satellites or non-stealthy planes. - -Corey Lawson alfalfa@booster.u.washington.edu - ------------------------------------- U U W W W Bothell Campus U U W W W W =================== UUU W W Computer Facilities - ------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: "S.K. Whiteman" Date: Wed, 25 May 94 15:28:14 EST Subject: coupla things of interest .. maybe This may interest some of you, I found it on MAPS-L a list for map librarians. It may be available at your local library. >Dear Map Librarian: >You may be aware, as the result of one of our recent mailings, that the >Cartographic Division of Four One Company Ltd. in London, Canada >currently offers a comprehensive catalogue of: > > MAPS & ATLASES OF THE EX-USSR, > >featuring a variety of hard-to-find city plans, topographic maps (both >secret military and civilian issues) ranging from 1:1,000,000 to >1:50,000 scales, tourist maps and guides as well as a number of >different thematic maps and atlases. >RANDAL EASTMAN (randal.eastman@dt-can.com) >Four One Company Ltd. (four.one@dt-can.com) >v:(519)433-1351 f:(519)433-5903 Disclaimer: I don't know this company and have no idea who Randal is. May 1994 AOPA Pilot has this short note on pages 55 and 56: "Leonard M. Greene, president of Safe Flight Instrument Corp of White Plains New York, Has patented an idea to minimize the adverse effects of the sonic boom from a supersonic transport. He has assigned rights in the patent to Boeing Aircraft Co., which may use his idea in designing a high-speed commercial transport. Wind-tunnel testing of Green's design at 2,000 mph show no shock wave such as those generated by conventional supersonic aircraft designs." There is a picture of Mr. Greene holding a model of his idea and it reminds me of a roach-motel with wings. My understanding of aerodynamics ends with air becoming compressible so I have no idea as to the validity of this idea. One other thing. It would seem that our ANG squadron is getting out of the F-16 business. By mid 1995 8 KC-135Es will be assigned to Ft. Wayne Inter'nat. Aaa to live on the approch end of the state's longest runway now that the 135s are here........ after '95 PLEASE SPEAK UP. | / MI What do I know, I'm a geology major. \ /___________________ Sam \_____/ | IBM Systems Programmer Chicago/ | * | O Indiana University - I | Ft. Wayne | H Purdue University at Fort Wayne L | 1794-1994 | Fort Wayne, Indiana USA ------------------------------ From: Bruce Henderson Date: Wed, 25 May 94 16:03:45 -0700 Subject: Re: B-2 as AWACS... >Wouldn't it be better to develop a new suite of electronics and stick it on >a Boeing 757/767/777? Wouldn't it be better to develop a new suite of >anti-radiation missile countermeasures? Or, what if one could develop a >suite of electronics that provides about half of the power of the existing >AWACS plane, but through satellite networking and cheap costs, lets one >fly about 10 or 20 of them for the same cost as an existing AWACS plane >at the same time providing 5-10x the processing power and coverage as 1 >AWACS? Me thinks this is not quite right. 10 to 20 AWACs aircraft in the same battle area sounds like a big mess to me. Remember the modern war is executed with information. Maintaining a link with that many active command nodes would be a real problem. Remember each AWACs usually needs at least 2 CAPs (usually 15s). Or say 6 over the length of a normal patrol. They are pretty easy targets for a real air forces, and they usually hang around well back of the action. The real nifty stuff research wise is along the lines of a passive AWACs system, using RPV or UPVs as radar xmitters, and allowing the AWACs bird to enhance its range with the radar transmitter on the RPV/UPV. Remember in radar the range is usually a factor of the size (watts) of the pulse you are willing to create along with the sensitivity of your receiver. The AWACs receiver is pretty good, but there is just so much power you can generate, because it dissipates logarithmicly in relation to the distance from the transmitter (if I remember my radar theory). Bruce ------------------------------ From: tpoole@psi.wilmer.com (Poole, Timothy) Date: Wed, 25 May 94 19:19:15 EST Subject: B-2 AWACS. Sure it may be feasible to utilize the B-2 as a LISTENING post, but that is not the duty of an AWACS. An AWACS (as we all know by now) is constantly transmitting data, communications, etc. thus saying "Here I am!" Correct me if I'm wrong but most listening aircraft, stations, etc. make little to no transmissions of their own, particularly when performing a mission. ------------------------------ From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Bj=F8rn_Remseth?= Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 01:38:03 +0200 Subject: Re: B-2 as AWACS... > dissipates logarithmicly in relation to the distance from the transmitter (if I > remember my radar theory). Sounds very weird. It is more likely to be the inverse square of the distance. - -- (Rmz) Bj\o rn Remseth !Institutt for Informatikk !Net: rmz@ifi.uio.no Phone:+47 22855802!Universitetet i Oslo, Norway !ICBM: N595625E104337 ------------------------------ From: Steve Nasypany Date: Wed, 25 May 94 12:10:57 -0600 Subject: Air Force 2 question > A friend was down to graduation at U of I and brough back pictures (from a distance) > of Hillary's Air Force 2. Mounted between the wing and the engine is a pod > of some sort. The nearest we could guess at was some sort of countermeasure, like > flares or chaff. > > Any one got a real explaination? >> This device is used for IRCM (InfraRed CounterMeasures) >> purposes, with it's main intent being to mask the thermal >> signature of the engines to keep infra-red seeking missles, >> etc. from being able to lock on. Hope that helps. These pods were put on NASA's 747 Shuttle Carrier when it took the shuttle over to the Paris Air Show in the early 80's. I've heard that when the tail-warning radar senses a missle, the pods flash bursts of IR in a pattern(s) that causes an IR sensor to freak out the closer it gets to the target. The closer it gets, the farther apart the flashes get, the faster it turns its control surfaces to maintain lock, until it tumbles or misses. Probably need a couple of pods for it to be effective. Always wondered why they don't put one on a cable and drop it a 200ft behind the plane. Guess the response time wouldn't be fast enough at take-off. ------------------------------ From: John Regus Date: Wed, 25 May 1994 21:51:10 -0500 (CST) Subject: PM Article on Aurora Back to the other topic of debate about two planes being lumped into the "Aurora" category: "Boeing has been working with a grant from the Air Force's BMDO to develop a two stage to orbit vehicle. BMDO is the successor to the old SDI." About downgrading funding for NASP...Heinz Pfeffer, head of the European Space Agency's directorate said, " NASP is a cover for Aurora. Aurora has achieved its goals and NASP has been allowed to fizzle out." "Lockheed's Skunk Works advanced development team has drafted detailed plans for what it calls an 'aeroballistic rocket.' With an unpiloted lifting body design the the craft would carry a payload matching the Titan IV rocket in the raised area of its centerline. Liquid hydogen fuel is stored in the bulges on both sides (of the craft), with LOX stored in a trident-shaped tank behind the payload. Lockheed is not releasing drawings of tthe linear aerospike engines arrayed across the launcher's aft end." Apparently these engines are the Rocketdyne SSMEs. Bottom line in the article there is a SSTO and a TSTO vehicles out there. ------------------------------ From: dadams@netcom.com (Dean Adams) Date: Wed, 25 May 1994 20:34:34 -0700 Subject: Re: IR >I've heard that when the tail-warning radar senses a missle, the pods flash >bursts of IR in a pattern(s) that causes an IR sensor to freak out the closer >it gets to the target. >The closer it gets, the farther apart the flashes get, the faster it >turns its control surfaces to maintain lock, until it tumbles or misses. IRCM systems work by emitting high intensity infrared pulses in a specific pattern designed to confuse the seeker on an incoming missile. They definitely do not want to *attract* a missile, since an air-to-air warhead exploding anywhere near the aircraft (particularly an engine), is almost certainly going to cause a lot of problems... >Probably need a couple of pods for it to be effective. Depends on the IR source. The big turbofans on 747s and other priority/VIP transports seem to have a port/starboard IRCM pod mounted above each engine nacelle. Helicopters like the Apache and Cobra for example just have a single all-aspect IRCM "dome" mounted above the engines. ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Wed, 25 May 1994 23:09:37 -0700 Subject: Re: Aurora - 2 planes John Regus writes: >Back to the other topic of debate about two planes being lumped into the >"Aurora" category: >... >About downgrading funding for NASP...Heinz Pfeffer, head of the European >Space Agency's directorate said, " NASP is a cover for Aurora. Aurora has >achieved its goals and NASP has been allowed to fizzle out." Actually, NASP hasn't completely fizzled out. It's still alive in another form, known as HySTP. They want to fly experiments in the higher mach nos using old ICBM's as boosters. >"Lockheed's Skunk Works advanced development team has drafted detailed >plans for what it calls an 'aeroballistic rocket.' ... >... Lockheed is not releasing >drawings of tthe linear aerospike engines arrayed across the launcher's >aft end." Well, maybe Lockheed isn't releasing drawings, but I hate to tell them that drawings have already been released! You could get (maybe still can) drawings of the aft end of the ABR from NASA via public FTP. The linear aerospike is depicted as having 7 segments. It's a dark image but with some tools (ie: xv) you can fix the image to see a lot more. I think this ABR drawing was mentioned on the old newsgroup sci.space, maybe 4-5 mos. ago. Lockheed was also involved in another SSTO project, an airbreathing project, but that one died. Actually, I hope that one will come back some day. >Apparently these engines are the Rocketdyne SSMEs. Rocketdyne has released photos of a linear aerospike engine based on the J-2, if I recall. These are actual photos of a real engine, or was it a mockup of a real engine. Anyway, I don't have it in front of me. The photo is of a linear aerospike engine outside of an airframe. No big deal really. >Bottom line in the article there is a SSTO and a TSTO vehicles out there. I doubt there's an SSTO flying. Larry ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #90 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe skunk-works-digest in the body of a message to "majordomo@mail.orst.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@mail.orst.edu" or, if you don't like to type a lot, "prm@mail.orst.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 mail.orst.edu, in /pub/skunk-works/digest/vNN.nMMM (where "NN" is the volume number, and "MMM" is the issue number).