From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #197 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Thursday, 2 February 1995 Volume 05 : Number 197 In this issue: Aereon Corp. NC-141 modification Boscombe Down Crash (Latest) Triangular Craft in Near Fatal Miss Re: NC-141 modification Re: NC-141 modification M$ Stealth Aeron & Deltoid Pumpkin Seed (was Triangular Craft) [repost] Triangular Craft 2/2 Re: NC-141 modification Aereon Corp. Re: Aeron & Deltoid Pumpkin Seed (was Triangular Craft) stealth targeting ...and there was light stealthy transponders 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: Frank Markus Date: Thu, 2 Feb 1995 12:10:14 -0500 Subject: Aereon Corp. Using my trusty CD-ROM tepehone directory, I managed to find the Aereon (note the extra "e") Corporation. Their full address is: Aereon Corp. 20 Nassau Princeton, NJ 08542-4509 Tel: (609) 921-2131 I called and spoke to a very pleasant young man who was relatively new to the company. He told me that the company had been employed by the Navy in a project to build a heavier-than-air aircraft to house a radar system. He was less knowlegeable about other projects in the years between 1973 and the present. He did say that the company had been honored by Small Business Awards from the government. So apparently the company is well managed. - -Frank - ========================================== "What if they take genetic material from wet noodles and blowfish and splice it into politician chromosomes and create a Clinton administration?" -- P.J. O'Rourke ========================================== ------------------------------ From: jburtens@bournemouth.ac.uk (John Burtenshaw) Date: Thu, 02 Feb 1995 13:48:25 +0000 Subject: NC-141 modification Hi Can anyone on the list tell me for what purpose NC-141A 61-2779 has had its nose modified. It looks like it has grown a fighter aircraft pointed nosecone. It was photographed at Edwards open day on October 22. John ============================================================================= John Burtenshaw BOURNEMOUTH System Administrator, The Computer Centre UNIVERSITY - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -Postal Address: Talbot Campus, Fern Barrow, POOLE, Dorset, BH12 5BB Internet: jburtens@bournemouth.ac.uk Phone: 01202 595089 Fax: 01202 513293 Packet Radio: G1HOK @ GB7BNM.#45.GBR.EU AMPRnet: G1HOK.ampr.org. [44.131.17.82] Compuserve: 10033,3113 ============================================================================= ------------------------------ From: jburtens@bournemouth.ac.uk (John Burtenshaw) Date: Thu, 02 Feb 1995 13:43:53 +0000 Subject: Boscombe Down Crash (Latest) Hi In the February edition of AirForces Monthly (AFM) there is a report on the RAF's envolvement in USAF Black projects and the Boscombe Down crash in November. It states that the RAF have been flying F-117's (but not where) which ties in with a report after the Gulf War that the RAF wanted to either buy or lease a squadron of F-117As, as far as I know that idea was dropped on the grounds of cost. Also it mentions FIVE Black aircraft projects including Aurora and Artichoke(?) being undertaken in the US. These the report says may include the Northrop A-17( two-seat EW/recon) developed from the YF-23 which may be the swing-wing aircraft seen at Plant 42 and over Edwards and Tonopah ranges. The possibe home for this new aircraft could be Cannon AFB in New Mexico which is now a F-111 base and at which Northrop has a large facility the article goes on. Also in september an A-17 callsign Omega made an emergency landing after a hydraulic failure over Amarillo, Texas. The sight of the landing was not mentioned. On the subject of the Boscombe Down incident AFM report the following: The Sunday Telegraph (a right-wing newspaper not prone to sensationalism ) reported that *a sleek twin-finned aircraft of unknown origin* had been seen in broad daylight over Exmoor National Park (part which is used for Royal Marine training) prior to the Boscombe Down crash in which the crew of two were killed. The crash resulted in increased night-time security at the airfield during the period that a C-5A callsign Lance18 and *civil* Boeing 737's and a Gulfstream G IV were based there. The Gulfstream was N604M and registered to the US Bank J.P. Morgan Inc. It flew out of Boscombe Down to Luton Airport to clear customs on October 9 where it was heavily guarded and only stayed for less than hour before flying to Farmingdale, New York which is close to Grumman's Bethpage site. The article concludes with some very good artist impressions of the A-17 taken from interviews with witnesses of the aircraft seen over Exmoor. ============================================================================= John Burtenshaw BOURNEMOUTH System Administrator, The Computer Centre UNIVERSITY - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -Postal Address: Talbot Campus, Fern Barrow, POOLE, Dorset, BH12 5BB Internet: jburtens@bournemouth.ac.uk Phone: 01202 595089 Fax: 01202 513293 Packet Radio: G1HOK @ GB7BNM.#45.GBR.EU AMPRnet: G1HOK.ampr.org. [44.131.17.82] Compuserve: 10033,3113 ============================================================================= ------------------------------ From: James Easton Date: Thu, 2 Feb 95 18:34 BST Subject: Triangular Craft in Near Fatal Miss Regarding... >From: "J. Pharabod" >Date: Wed, 01 Feb 95 17:34:01 MET >Subject: Re: UFO? >Since I was the first who threw cold water on the UFO-or-secret-plane >hypothesis, I allow myself to reheat it. I have seen on TV some apparently >serious pilots (often retired) who said "I saw one (or more) UFO(s), but I >did not report, as I feared being ridiculed". This is one of the aspects which makes this apparent near fatal encounter so puzzling. If you are literally seconds away from a fatal crash involving some 60 passengers, you have a responsibility to report this, no matter what you believe you may have encountered. I find it hard to believe that a "highly-experienced" pilot would not be familiar with design concepts utilised in the latest military aircraft and that he would fear ridicule for reporting what could conceivably be a covert development. If we are to accept that, "Highly-experienced Captain Wills and first officer Stuart, 24, did not initially report what they had seen, as they feared being ridiculed by their colleagues", one can only assume that the appearance of the craft was such that ridicule was likely to follow. However, in this case, perhaps it's sensible not to assume anything until more detailed information is available, or not. Jean-Pierre also mentioned: >Doesn't pm mean "post meridian" ? According to the _Manchester Evening >News_: Despite the drama, which the passengers knew nothing about, the >plane landed safely at Ringway at 7pm on January 6. Indeed it does and if the encounter occurred over the Pennines it should have done so within the preceding 30 minutes, by which time (in the midst of winter), the incident should have taken place in darkness. Cheers, James. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: TEXJE@VAXB.HW.AC.UK Internet: JAMES.EASTON@STAIRWAY.CO.UK - ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Thu, 2 Feb 1995 14:19:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: NC-141 modification John Burtenshaw wondered: >Can anyone on the list tell me for what purpose NC-141A 61-2779 has had its >nose modified. It looks like it has grown a fighter aircraft pointed nosecone. Here are the three Starlifter, I saw at Edwards AFB, last August: C-141A-1-LM 61-2776 used by USAF/AFMC/AFFTC/412th TW/4__th TES, marked "12776", c/n 6002; NC-141A-5-LM 61-2777 used by USAF/AFMC/AFFTC/412th TW/4__th TES, marked "12777", ex C-141A-5-LM, c/n 6003, converted with enlarged nose (longer than "12779") and extended pitot probe (?) above nose; NC-141B-5-LM 61-2779 used by USAF/AFMC/AFFTC/412th TW/4__th TES, marked "12779", ex C-141B-5-LM, ex C-141A-5-LM, c/n 6005, ex "Into the Wind", converted to ARTB (Advanced Radar Testbed) with enlarged nose (but smaller than "12777") and a small, round radom (?) below (maybe EO equipment ?); - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl Absolute Software 313 West Court St. #305 schnars@umcc.ais.org Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 - --- --- ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Thu, 2 Feb 1995 14:26:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: NC-141 modification That's because they put a pitot-static boom on the plane. Is it the same one that has a boom on the top of the vertical, too? Notice that it's an NC-141--that N means that it's been heavily modified. They were doing some sort of research that required good air data, so they put the boom on to get out in the undisturbed flow. Production air data is OK for flying the plane, but it's not good enought for research. Regards, Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html 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.... On Thu, 2 Feb 1995, John Burtenshaw wrote: > Hi > Can anyone on the list tell me for what purpose NC-141A 61-2779 has had its > nose modified. It looks like it has grown a fighter aircraft pointed nosecone. > It was photographed at Edwards open day on October 22. > > John > ============================================================================= > John Burtenshaw BOURNEMOUTH > System Administrator, The Computer Centre UNIVERSITY > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -Postal Address: Talbot Campus, Fern Barrow, POOLE, Dorset, BH12 5BB > Internet: jburtens@bournemouth.ac.uk > Phone: 01202 595089 > Fax: 01202 513293 > Packet Radio: G1HOK @ GB7BNM.#45.GBR.EU > AMPRnet: G1HOK.ampr.org. [44.131.17.82] > Compuserve: 10033,3113 > ============================================================================= > > ------------------------------ From: I am the NRA Date: Thu, 2 Feb 95 15:37:18 EST Subject: M$ Stealth >>>Such as M4 or so with maybe 90kft and a lot more stealth and ECM. >>> Unpossible, under the laws of physics. >>>Hot means not stealthy. All the radar stalth in the world is no good >>>if the a/c glows like a comet. IR detectors are better (lots) than >>>the human eye... >Hmmm. Here are some ideas. >Who says you have to be in the atmosphere for the overflight? At those speed and altitude, one is high, visible for a long time. M4 is fast, but suborbital. One can pop up, but not for extended periods (should be simple math to determine.) And a popup to suborbital with a hot a/c leaves a hot a/c in a vacuum, where it cools very slowly. >What are the hottest points on the airframe All of it. Leading edges & there joins to airframe. And the exhaust plume. (OK, if suborbital, engines can be shut down, but i doubt M4 gives very long suborbital coast.) CURENT PRODUCTION IR Seekers lock on to sonic/subsonic heating in All Aspect Seekers. M4 is gonna be a LOT hotter. & Ground based detectors can be better than airborne. > - can they be addressed individually by cooling them, Move the heat, make something else hot, increase its visibility. (It can be argues that SR71 "worked" in this regard because IR technolgy at the time was limited compared to now.) I wonder if the relatively early appearance of IR gear on Sov fighters had to do with wanting to "see" the SR71 by its own heat... >blocking them from view, Whatever is being used for blocking will be hot, to. This is not exhaust heating (ala F117, with its hrouded exhaust, or A10 with its high mounted and blocked enignes. This is the entire airframe, heated by just being there.) MIght could dump heat to top (No one looking down, well, satellite developments aside) but "transferrring heat" means mechanism, which means waeight & reliability: (Ach Captain, the presurizer just faild and the cloaking device d'nae wurrrrk.) >or removing them (assuming you have an adequate heat sink if cooling is >required). Thi air, heated by passage is a lousy place to dump heat. The xhaust plume itself can be seen. (F117 spends mucho effort diffusing a MUCH lower energy exhaust heat source. And the engines here are MORE powerful. A lot. (unless M4 Seagull sized "bird")) >How sensitive are the best IR focal planes? You may still be too small >to see. See above for handwaving on current seeker abilities. Ultimate limits for groundbased detectors, wellll, they image planets by IR... (are we discussing seeker heads, a/c based IR, or gound based systems? Or all?) >What is the background temperature of the sky, after all, that is what >you're trying to hide in. The background is essentially absolute zero, looking up. Looking sideways, some atmospheric, still close to zero. Looking down, well, nobody had better be looking down.... >Who says you need high speed, except to escape, or to cover large amounts >of geography, or to make time requirements. I've been curious about the >proper usage of the diffferent technologies. For example, for stealth >use subsonic, for escape or coverage use speed. This requires variable >configurations of course. Absotutely. Speed has been the beall of much of a/c development, until McCready & Etc reinvented low speed aerodynamics (massive oversimplification). Hence the plasuibility of F117 (slow by comparison & etc). But the "thread" started with M4 Stealth, which i was commenting on. My guess is we find (if anything) a couple of systems with launch/recover capabilities... >>>And at some speed the surrounding ionization starts degrading sensors, >>>both "visible" and "radar". >The surprising thing is that hasn't been a problem since the early 60's >actually! They've been using X-band to penetrate plasmas surrounding >hypersonic vehicles for many years now! Ummm, depends on how hyper the hypersonic is. The faster the harder and the narrower the window of usable input. Did not say it was impossible, just another thing to think about... regards dwp ------------------------------ From: Frank Markus Date: Thu, 2 Feb 1995 16:34:57 -0500 Subject: Aeron & Deltoid Pumpkin Seed (was Triangular Craft) [repost] The experiments with aerodynamic lighter-than-aircraft by Aeron Corporation described John MacPhee's "Deltoid Pumpkin Seed" came to an abrupt end when the company ran out of money to continue them. The last few pages of the book describe the end of the projects and the dispersal of its employees: "The group that had been around it dispersed. Months went by. A year went by. Two years. Aeron attracted interest but no develepmental contract, no developmental funds." "The Deltoid Pumpkin Seed" was published in 1973. If there has been anything more about the company in the public press it has escaped my attention. (I would love to see the results of a search for the name "Aeron" for the years from 1973 to the present but I am not competent to do it, alas.) If the Aeron Company managed to survive from 1973 to the present, I think that it would be very interesting to know (1) what have they been making and (2) for whom? - - Frank - ========================================== "What if they take genetic material from wet noodles and blowfish and splice it into politician chromosomes and create a Clinton administration?" -- P.J. O'Rourke ========================================== ------------------------------ From: Bryan.L.Allen@jpl.nasa.gov (Bryan L. Allen) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 95 13:36:42 PDT Subject: Triangular Craft 2/2 OK, time for another de-lurk. This "triangle-shaped craft" thread has a very plausible explanation as to what the craft(s) really are. Folks have been speculating about alien UFOs, giant airships (Aereon Corp. in New Jersey has been for all practical purposes moribund for many years), and "black" military projects. No one has men- tioned the simplest explanation - powered and unpowered flex-wing hang gliders, flown by pilots deliberately "trolling" for UFO coverage! First, some extracts: >From: James Easton >Date: Thu, 2 Feb 95 2:07 BST >Subject: Triangular Craft 2/2 > >"A number of "Flying Triangles" had also been seen in the Essex, England >area during November 1993. These included a "massive" (1.5 times the size of >a soccer field) triangular object seen flying silently along the sea-front >at Holland-on-Sea, on Sunday 5th November. It had a variety of coloured >lights underneath with a line of red lights at the back. A number of dark >"indentations" could be seen on the underside of the object including a >large black circle at the centre. The estimated speed was 40/45 m.p.h. [snip, then...] >Consider the consistency of the above reports with an extract from a report >from the Belgian Defence Department: > >BACKGROUND >1. Starting early Dec 89 the BAF has been contacted on several occasions by >eyewitnesses who observed strange phenomena in the Belgian airspace. On some >occasions they described the phenomena as a triangle-shaped platform up to >200 feet wide with 3 downward beaming projectors, hovering at +- 100 m above >the ground and making only a very light humming noise. Some witnesses saw >the object departing at very high speed after a very fast acceleration. I personally have assisted in a couple of "UFO simulations" which received radio and print media coverage, and have friends who are responsible for several more. In the USA it is illegal to fly a hang glider or powered ultralight at night, but some folks occasionally do so anyway. The speed mentioned above (40/45 mph) is exactly the speed at which the typical "trike" (hang-glider wing with seat and engine slung underneath) cruises. It is trivial to place various lights on the frame and sail of a hang glider or trike (bicycle lights work well.) The typical trike during cruise makes "...only a very light humming noise". A hang glider, trike, or ultralight is difficult or impossible to detect with radar. Eyewitness accounts which estimate flying-object size are almost always unreliable, too, especially at night. And both trikes & hang gliders can be and on occasion are operated at fairly high alti- tudes (15,000 to 20,000 feet.) Trickster (Coyotyl) is afoot, and has been known to hang glide... BTW, I am NOT advocating that people should fly illegally at night or otherwise participate in UFO hoax activities. And I speak only for myself, not Telos or JPL. - -- Bryan L. Allen bryan@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov Telos Corp./JPL (818) 306-6425 Altadena, Calif. USA ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Thu, 2 Feb 1995 16:38:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: NC-141 modification At least one of the C-141's here also has a pitot-static boom mounted at the top of the vertical. It's the one that's usually parked in the eastern-most position of the ex-4950th (412th Test Wing now) planes. I drive by it and turn left to go down the center taxiway. I don't know its tail number--I'm not really interested in stuff like that. I think this plane also has a drooped cylendrical nose _or_ a faired-in pitot-static boom on the nose, but I have to admit that my main concern at that point is to not hit a taxi-ing airplane, for fear they'll stop it out of my pay check. Regards, Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html 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.... On Thu, 2 Feb 1995, Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl wrote: > John Burtenshaw wondered: > > >Can anyone on the list tell me for what purpose NC-141A 61-2779 has had its > >nose modified. It looks like it has grown a fighter aircraft pointed nosecone. > > Here are the three Starlifter, I saw at Edwards AFB, last August: > > C-141A-1-LM 61-2776 used by USAF/AFMC/AFFTC/412th TW/4__th TES, > marked "12776", c/n 6002; > NC-141A-5-LM 61-2777 used by USAF/AFMC/AFFTC/412th TW/4__th TES, > marked "12777", ex C-141A-5-LM, c/n 6003, > converted with enlarged nose (longer than "12779") > and extended pitot probe (?) above nose; > NC-141B-5-LM 61-2779 used by USAF/AFMC/AFFTC/412th TW/4__th TES, > marked "12779", ex C-141B-5-LM, ex C-141A-5-LM, > c/n 6005, ex "Into the Wind", converted to ARTB > (Advanced Radar Testbed) with enlarged nose (but > smaller than "12777") and a small, round radom (?) > below (maybe EO equipment ?); > > -- Andreas > > --- --- > Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl Absolute Software > 313 West Court St. #305 schnars@umcc.ais.org > Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 > --- --- > > ------------------------------ From: David Lednicer Date: Thu, 2 Feb 1995 14:21:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: Aereon Corp. I can provide first hand testimony about Aereon Corp. and their products(?). In 1989 they bought some CFD software from us and I was assigned the installation and training trip. What I learned is that Aereon never completely died after "The Deltoid Pumpkin Seed" ended. Rev. Miller kept it alive on his own $, but employing only himself. In 1988 he won a DoD Small Business Inovative Research (SBIR) contract from the DoD/SDI people to look at Aereon like vehicles for carrying AWACS radar. For the contract he hired Prof. Bill Putnam, who had recently retired from Princeton and a VPI somphomore, Brian Smith. As the contract called for them to do a aero/structural design, they needed our computational fluids code, VSAERO, which I delivered to them. Since then, they have limped along from one study contract to the next. I talked to Brian a couple of months ago and they were having hard times (he has been paid mostly in stock) and they were looking to recast themselves as a aero consulting company. To this end, they advertised last fall in Kitplanes and Sport Aviation. However, I have heard a rumor in the last month that they have snagged a decent sized DoD contract. To think that they are producing things is nonsense. They work out of a tiny rented office on Nassau St. and have to lease their PCs. BTW - Rev. Miller gave me an autographed copy of "The Deltoid Pumpkin Seed" when I left to return home. Seeing that the book is not what I would call complimentary of him, I was rather suprised that he hands out copies of the book. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 ------------------------------ From: David Windle Date: Thu, 02 Feb 1995 21:15:21 Subject: Re: Aeron & Deltoid Pumpkin Seed (was Triangular Craft) >Can I draw your attention to a Lockheed proposal for a Small >Rigid Airship (SRA) going back to 1984.In the introduction to >the paper they state "Engineers are no longer restricted to use >the classical "Cigar" shapes of the past...Because we can form >these new materials to more desirable aerodynamic shapes,we can >now develop the small rigid airship to be a practical vehicle." >The purpose of the paper was not to propose any particular >design for the SRA but to discuss it's feasibility. The >'Starship' in their paper is around 160 feet long and 45 feet >high.It was to be filled with Helium and hot air. >The abstact was written by Roy Gibbens of Lockheed. >The very nature of airships renders them stealthy because the >materials from which they are made give them a low RCS. Perhaps >it's worth considering that an SRA would make an excellent >Special Forces personnel deployment vehicle and would presumably >be on any country's 'Wanted if Practicable' list.Because the >airship can use aerostatic as well as aerodynamic lift their >engines need not be powerful so they can be very quiet - Rotary >engines would be ideal. If these engines were mounted within the >hull as in the old US rigid ships they would also be screened >from IR. >BTW did my Aurora..In Thrust we trust get onto the list or is it >lost in cyberspace. If it did and I'm wrong I'd appreciate >being put straight! >Best wishes >David Windle ------------------------------ From: "Frank Schiffel, Jr." Date: Thu, 02 Feb 95 15:57:59 CST Subject: stealth targeting One point about the F-117 was they did need to have the targer identified before they left as all they had was a passive IR sensor to track it once they decided to release the ordinance. It did have a hard target kill capability that was quite good, once they knew where the target was. It wasn't sent out to hit targets of opportunity. There were other non stealthy things that did that. Also, there was an idea to paint some sort of pastel on the F-117 for better stealth capabilities. Didn't look quite right (yeah, I fly the pastel one right next to the cammo F-15s.....). There have been paint schemes that really are hard to see (such as the Navy grey) so, using lights seems like too much of an enginneering problem (there are a lot of gee whiz high tech ideas that sort of died once the maintanence troops got tired of messing with them). There was a book called deception or camoflague that had a lot of stuff on a/c. I wonder, does the RADAR absorbing paint come in any other color than black???..... regards. ------------------------------ From: I am the NRA Date: Thu, 2 Feb 95 17:58:52 EST Subject: ...and there was light >Most weapons systems operate in spectrums Ummmm. To operate in other "spectrums" a system is needed. The "Eyball, Mark I" is still a VERY fine sensor. It guides many weapons systems... >where lighting camo would only make the aircraft show up better, >i.e. infra-red. Depends on the source of the light, and the filtering appplied. Not hard to kill the IR, if thats desirable. regards dwp ------------------------------ From: "Frank Schiffel, Jr." Date: Thu, 02 Feb 95 16:08:36 CST Subject: stealthy transponders there was a RADAR reflector on the B-2 during flight test. maybe one of y'all who worked on that will clarify. I think that was part of the orange rig that was in some of the early flight test photos on the rear of the a/c. I do know that there was a question of 'how do we get the RADAR data using our '60s era RADARs off of the B-2.....' when they decided to fly it. There is probably a transponder on somewhere also. One of the interesting questions way back when it was an unknown black project was how (or if) the B-2 would be air refueled as that amount of metal in the refueling UARRSI would really show up on RADAR. then there's the classified patio that was poured by the contractor in the shape of the B-2. took a while for somebody to fly over it and figure out that looked like the shape of a B-2 and had it fixed. ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #197 ********************************* 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).