From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #301 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Tuesday, 13 June 1995 Volume 05 : Number 301 In this issue: Skunks in space Re: Alaska-North Slope Re: 'black" aircraft speculations Re: Skunk Works - Moving right along... Receipt: Skunk Works Digest V5 #300 Receipt: Skunk Works Digest V5 #299 DNA hybridization Re: Somebody post something skunky Laminar Flow Control Research Shock-wave riders overflight by U-2s after Powers flight??? Re: Laminar Flow Control Research Re: Museum of Flight - Seattle UFOs & Skunkworks Re: Somebody post something skunky Re: DNA hybridization Re: overflight by U-2s after Powers flight??? 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: Nick Barnes Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 09:33:39 +0100 Subject: Skunks in space OK, what do skunkers think of the generally skunky movements in space technologies? Cheaper-faster-better (or some permutation thereof) is a skunky slogan if there ever was one, DC-X seems to get project management ideas directly from SkunkWorks, &c. I know skunkers are generally more aero- than -space, but what do you think about different space access technologies? Wings, or no wings? Air-breathing, or not? If we're going to discuss extra-terrestrial craft here, we could do worse than discuss Clementine. :-) Nick Barnes ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 05:32:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Alaska-North Slope The URL of the file mentioned by Byron Weber is: http://www.sandia.gov/eesector/besgcc.html and the picture is: http://www.sandia.gov/eesector/gnat.gif As the filename of the picture suggests, the UAVs used by the SNL for the AMR-UAV program are General Atomics Gnat-750 drones. The military or CIA- used version of this UAV is known as Tier 1, some of which are currently deployed to the Bosnian theater. - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@raptor.csc.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ From: dougt@u011.oh.vp.com (Doug Tiffany) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 95 6:03:28 EDT Subject: Re: 'black" aircraft speculations > > This brings to mind something I've been wondering about. What ever came > of the advanced tactical transport that Rutan's Scaled composites built > a 2/3rds scale prototype of a number of years back? It has twin wings, > twin booms with engines and tail. Rutan called it Special Mission Utility > Transport, but the AF didn't like the acronymn and gave it a different > name. > I would imagine the Air Force didn't like it because of the abbreviation. S.M.U.T. - -- A hundred years from now, it will not matter what kind of house I live in, how much is in my bank account, or what kind of car I drive, but the world may be a different place because I was important in the life of a child. Douglas J. Tiffany dougt@u011.oh.vp.com Varco-Pruden Buildings Van Wert, Ohio ------------------------------ From: David Windle Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 12:59:44 Subject: Re: Skunk Works - Moving right along... BaDge > said: >> > >One of the cutting edge areas of development in aviation right now is >called LFC, or laminar air flow control. > >Many here have caught the recent Air & Space, where it details this, but >for those who haven't this intriguing sidebar: > >`Small but =Very= Smart > >"Smart" is an engineering buzzword for the '90s: there are smart bombs, >smart TVs, and, if a group of University of California at Los Angeles and >Cal Tech researchers can work it out, smart wings. > >These scientists and engineers have developed a "microelectromechanical >system" that, instant by nano-instant, alters the airflow over a wing to >maintain laminar flow. Whenever microscopic sensors detect the changes in >airflow that foretell an incipient burble, minute tabs that function as >tiny spoilers bend upward into the airflow to to create counter burbles >that cancel out the boundary layer separation. > >Microelectromechanical systems - let's henceforth revert to the official >acromyn MEMS - include devices (flaplets, in this case) so small that >thousands of them can be built into microchips that also house the >controlling sensors as well as the actuators that activate the surfaces >themselves. >... > >For stealthy airplanes, MEMS arrays that maintain laminar flow could also >be used as substitutes for conventional movable control surfaces, which >create radar signatures, when they're deflected. Deflect a bunch of MEMS >on one wing...[creates lift that] literally invisibly [rolls] the >airplane just the way an aileron would.' > > - July 95 A&S 'Go With the Flow' S. Wilkinson. >--------- > >Not only that, but this kind of technology could greatly extend the range >of an aircraft, as the article also mentions. I'd guess for the military >this stuff has been being looked at for quite some time. > >regards, > >BaDge > There are two programmes going on at UCLA with these micro flaps both under the direction of Prof.Chih-Ming Ho - one funded by ARPA ($1.5m) which uses MEMS to manipulate the vortex off a delta wing. I understand that because this vortex originates in a specific area of the wing's leading edge, the panel of MEMS wouldn't need to be all over the wing - just in that spot. The flight control systems on the a/c would deal with the micro flap movements. I was told that by cancelling this vortex on one side would cause a roll and that moving it away from the a/c would cause it to sideslip, maybe even turn without using conventional control surfaces - this is the system which could dispense with the tailplane and both reduce RCS and make the a/c highly manoeuverable - ideal for fighters. The other project funded by the USAF ($3.5) addresses the more complicated problem of conventional wings-this is the Smart Wing Programme. Threadlike turbulence occurrs randomly in time and space all over the surface, so the MEMS need to be autonomous. This is where the neural net computer system is required to sense the onset of turbulence via a pressure sensor and operate the micro flap as necessary. Prof Ho said that a reduction of just 1% of drag on a commercial airliner would translate to a 20% increase in operator's profits on fuel consumption. I don't have all my notes to hand but that's about the size of it-two different programmes, two areas of research but both using micro flaps. There was also talk that MEMS may have applications on supersonic a/c. At the risk of sounding like a total shmuck I covered this story back in November last year in England so that's how long it's been in the public domain !! I know that Stuart Brown also covered it some time ago in Pop Science. On the UFO thing: I don't want to read "amazing but true stories" of Aliens, Elvis and Atlantis on this list, but the best way to deal with off topic postings is to ignore them.I agree with Larry that we're in danger of being Victorian in our attitude. Regular readers know when post about a UFO (in the widest sense) is suitable and when it's not. The likely outcome of an exodus from this list by well informed people will be counter productive in every sense, and lead to a downgrading of it's quality. None of us wants that so let's just play the UFO thing by ear. I haven't kept count but it doesn't seem to be that much of a problem. I learn something new most days from listmembers all around the world, and I'd hate to see it all come apart just for the sake of some off topic postings. This is a great forum, so let's keep it together. David ------------------------------ From: anonymous NFS user 13-Jun-1995 0941 <"bword::nobody"@xanadu.enet.dec.com> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 95 09:39:49 EDT Subject: Receipt: Skunk Works Digest V5 #300 This is a receipt notification for a message you submitted previously. The message <9506130902.AA09173@bword.zko.dec.com> was delivered to . The message was read and acknowledged by the recipient at Tue Jun 13 09:41:21 1995 Supplementary information: Subj: Skunk Works Digest V5 #300. ------------------------------ From: anonymous NFS user 13-Jun-1995 0941 <"bword::nobody"@xanadu.enet.dec.com> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 95 09:39:50 EDT Subject: Receipt: Skunk Works Digest V5 #299 This is a receipt notification for a message you submitted previously. The message <9506122321.AA09094@bword.zko.dec.com> was delivered to . The message was read and acknowledged by the recipient at Tue Jun 13 09:41:14 1995 Supplementary information: Subj: Skunk Works Digest V5 #299. ------------------------------ From: "Frank Schiffel, Jr." Date: Tue, 13 Jun 95 08:51:21 CDT Subject: DNA hybridization get real. There's no conspiracy about UFOs and Sandia. Think about it, how hard is it to design and model a nuclear explosion? If you can do that, you can have somebody plead to use your computers to run DNA hybrids. It is a laboratory and LNL and SNL do MORE than nuclear research. 1. How about a comprehensive list of Skunkworks aircraft? 2. It seems one reason to keep SR-71s out of service (besides there are only 3 or so the AF can use (Mary wants to keep hers, thanks)), there seems to be some statements in the testimony that bases are not available and that some seem to be in what could be called ' denied areas '. Seems there was Beale, Kadena, and Mildenhall (the UK base). The inference from the testimony was that there were 4 to 6 locations that had been used in the career of the Blackbird. Any unclassified comments? There might have been transit points or emergency airfields, but the comments were that there were other actual basing locations. 3. Since the CORONA satellite is declassified, is any of the SR-71 operations being opened up? Vietnam and other areas might be interesting historically. Naturally, those areas that were current at the time of program shutdown would be withheld. 4. Related to 3. did anything besides the use of RAF pilots in the U-2 in the 50s get released about operations when there were overflights under Eisenhower? regards, Frank ------------------------------ From: neil@bedford.progress.COM (Neil Galarneau) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 95 10:29:40 EDT Subject: Re: Somebody post something skunky I was at the Hanscom AFB air show on Saturday. There, I spoke with a senior officer from an MC-130, which, he said, is used to deliver SF types and resupply them (using terrain following radar and FLIR). I wish I had asked him: "So when are you guys going to get Senior Citizen?" just to see his reaction. :-) Oh, well. Next time. Neil neil@progress.com ------------------------------ From: David Lednicer Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 08:36:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Laminar Flow Control Research Just for the record, that article "Go With The Flow" in Air & Space Smithsonian sucked. Attached is my letter to the editor: To the editor- As an aerodynamicist I feel compelled to take issue with the article "Go With The Flow" in the June/July 1995 issue of Air & Space Smithsonian. Quite a few misconceptions appear in the article that I feel need to be corrected. Firstly, the concept of where laminar flow can exist is not properly defined in the article. The flowfield about an aircraft can be broken down into two parts, a region of viscous flow close to the surface and the rest of the flowfield, which for subsonic aircraft, can be assumed to be inviscid. This region of viscous flow is called the boundary layer and it can exist in one of two primary states; laminar or turbulent. The statement at the top of the third column of page 33, "Actually, there is no such thing as absolutely pure laminar flow, for there is always a very thin and relatively stagnant "boundary layer" of air between the skin of the airplane and the freestream air surrounding it" is dead wrong. It is this "boundary layer" where laminar flow can and does exist. The boundary layer is usually defined as that region of flow between the surface, where the air's speed is zero and the point above the surface where the air's speed is 98% of freestream. The air has zero speed at the surface because of the surface friction. The explanation of what laminar flow is, as described by Mr. Roncz to the author, does not adequately describe the phenomena being discussed. The analogy of an airfoil or board moving through snow is not appropriate. An appropriate analogy to the flow in a laminar and a turbulent boundary layer would be to think of something such as the flow of cars on a multi-lane highway. If the cars were not changing lanes, this is directly analogous to the flow of air in a laminar boundary layer - there is no energy transport between the layers or lamina. If however, the cars were constantly changing lanes, this is analogous to a turbulent boundary layer, where there is energy transport between layers, due to mixing. A laminar boundary layer is desirable because the lack of mixing results in less skin friction and a thinner boundary layer. Being thinner there is less of a loss of momentum in the laminar boundary layer. However, various mechanisms can lead to the laminar boundary layer transitioning to a turbulent boundary layer. One of the primary transition mechanisms is an adverse pressure gradient - a pressure gradient where the pressure is increasing. Shock waves, surface roughness, waviness, heat, acoustic energy and other mechanisms can also cause a boundary layer to transition from laminar to turbulent. Another transition mechanism is instability produced by combinations of high speed, long chord lengths and low viscosity (referred to as high Reynolds number flow). The article is wrong when it states the active laminar flow control deals with the turbulent layer on the wing surface. Active laminar flow control is intended instead to stabilize the laminar flow and fight transition, particularly that due to the high Reynolds number associated with high speed flight. Mr. Roncz's description of boundary layer flow on airfoils in the center column of page 33 is also not accurate. He first states that the flow on the bottom of an airfoil is held against the airfoil by high pressure. Then he goes on to state that the flow on the top of the airfoil is torn away by low pressure. This is not true. As the air flows back from the leading edge on both surfaces it experiences a drop in pressure and then a recovery in pressure back to a value near that of the freestream. There is more of a drop in pressure on the upper surface than the lower surface and this difference in pressure drop between the two surfaces is the lift produced by the airfoil. In the favorable pressure gradient on the beginning of the airfoil, it is fairly easy to maintain a laminar boundary layer. As the flow gets further aft, it then becomes a fight against the transition mechanisms to maintain this laminar nature. When the pressure recovery at the aft end of the airfoil is reached, the boundary layer has to either be turbulent or it will transition quickly, sometimes with a penalty in drag called a laminar separation bubble. The turbulent boundary layer then has to fight its way through the adverse pressure gradient in the airfoil's pressure recovery. If this gradient is too severe, it will separate, with a significant penalty in drag. If the separation reduces the lift produced significantly, this is what we call a stall. The statement in the article "unless the turbulence gets so extreme the wing stalls" is not correct. Extreme turbulence is a symptom of separation, not a cause of it. On page 36 the article states that "a modern subsonic- transport airfoil provides serious lift with the forward 60 to 65 percent of its chord - the "pressure recovery" portion of the wing". This is completely wrong. For starters, the pressure recovery is usually the aft 30 to 50% of the airfoil, not the forward portion. Secondly, with modern, aft loaded airfoils, substantial amounts of the lift are carried by the aft part of the airfoil, which the article states "provides structure rather than lift" - this is incorrect. Lastly, on a historical note, the P-63 laminar flow experiments mentioned on page 34 were not conducted by the Americans. Instead, this work was done by the Royal Aircraft Establishment in Britain. NACA, in the United States, did do similar work, but making use of P-51 and P-47 aircraft. I usually look forward to each issue of Air & Space Smithsonian. However, I have noticed that the mix of technical topics and non-technically educated writers talking to aviation "personalities" can often lead to a total muddle. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: "RUSSELL.B" Date: 13 Jun 1995 14:45:14 GMT Subject: Shock-wave riders Date: Tuesday, 13 June 1995 2:44pm ET To: Internet From: RUSSELL.B@GOMAIL Subject: Shock-wave riders Has anything further been done with the shock-wave riding effect that the XB-70 was to use in high-speed (mach 3+) flight. To my untrained mind, this seems like an interesting way to squeeze more speed from less engine in the super-sonic relm. Just another software type question. Bob Russell Systems Programmer DOAS State of Georgia ------------------------------ From: albert.dobyns@mwbbs.com (ALBERT DOBYNS) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 95 14:01:00 -0500 Subject: overflight by U-2s after Powers flight??? I received an interesting note from a FIDO/aviation user. Although most of his note is related to sending mail to FIDO an/dor Internet, and this is related to skunk works topics, I'll jump over that part to something else that caught my eye. The person asking my assistance received a note from someone who said the following: "I was Gary Powers Controller the night he went down. This was from SAC Hq in Omaha. We continued to launch and fly from Turkey after maybe a week-stand-down. This continued for years. Never heard of this recall to Edwards, maybe one flew in for Testing of equipment". The above response was triggered by someone else's statement that after Powers was shot down, that the USAF or CIA? ordered all U-2s to be moved and stored in one hangar at Edwards AFB. Moving all U-2s to Edwards seems unlikely to me and I never bothered to comment on the post when it was first sent. What intrigues me is the comments in quotes that U-2 flights continued after a week of being idle. The person doesn't really say that the continued U-2 flights flew over any Soviet territory, but I believe that is what he is implying. Is this really true??? I have some doubts about his statements although I'm not expert on U-2 operations. It just seems very strange that we would continue these missions knowing that the Soviet Union could shoot down a U-2. It wasn't easy, but if you've been successful once, chances are you will have learned enough to get better at it. Another possibility is that U-2s were upgraded with some kind of ECM hear or related hardware. I just think the person's statement about continued flights isn't accurate. I would appreciate any feedback about the statements in the quoted text. If the person's statements are true, then I am surprised he would make them public. I don't remember if I posted this on Skunk Works before, but Alexander Zuyev was a speaker at an Illinois Aviation conference last week. I found out about this rather late so I dashed to the hotel with a nice SR-71 photo I took. With the kind assistance of the hetel staff, I got to talk to Mr. Zuyev and he said he could spare a few minutes and that he would come downstairs to receive my gift in person. I gave him the photo which he recognize instantly. He couldn't spare much time so I couldn't ask very many questions. Also I failed to get his address so I could write to him! :( Then in the mail today I get a small letter that was written on the hotel's stationery. Inside was a postcard and a brief note thanking me again for the photo I gave him. He then says "I would like to tell you that this plane never was intercepted." So now I have his autograph on the post card but still no home or work address. I looked at the postmark and noticed that it was stamped from "NO. VA, 220". I know this means northern Virginia because that's where I lived for the first twenty years. Calls to Va. and DC directory assistance showed no phone number/address for Mr. Zuyev. Does anyone know where he lives or works? If you do know,can you tell me??? I suppose I could try sending a letter to CIA Headquarters or perhaps the Pentagon and hope that he would get my letter. I found him to be a very easy person to talk with. I just wish I could have spent an hour or 2 talking with him. Oh well, at least I got to meet him in person and he's the first Russian pilot I've met. Looking forward to any replies! Al ------------------------------ From: kuryakin@arn.net (Illya Kuryakin) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 16:01:13 -0500 Subject: Re: Laminar Flow Control Research + Just for the record, that article "Go With The Flow" in Air & +Space Smithsonian sucked. Attached is my letter to the editor: Let's get back on-charter, eh? ;) Illya ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 15:15:49 -0700 Subject: Re: Museum of Flight - Seattle Seattle Museum of Flight (SMOF) has the sole surviving MD-21 (in MD-21 configuration). In other words, there is a M-21 (modified A-12 #940 Mother ship) and a D-21 Mach 3+ drone attached. There are a lot of Blackbird items for sale as well in their gift shop. They have other neat aircraft on display as well. Larry ------------------------------ From: jstone@iglou.com (John Stone) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 18:24:49 -0500 Subject: UFOs & Skunkworks Sorry to keep this subject alive, but it seems to me that until someone comes up with a fairly good evidence that the Skunk Works has and is building "UFO" (aka "flying saucers") then maybe they shouldn't be posted to the Digest. There are other areas to post this info and the Digest is for Skunk Works related material. So maybe the "dancing lights" and other mysterious light sightings would be of more interest on other groups. I would hate to lose either Mary's or Larry@chips input to the Digest, it's always very interesting. Just a thought, John Stone / ^ \ --(.)==<.>==(.)-- SR-71 | ___|___ -------------((.))------------- U-2 jstone@iglou.com john.stone@shivasys.com ------------------------------ From: megazone@world.std.com (MegaZone) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 19:14:57 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Somebody post something skunky Once upon a time Neil Galarneau shaped the electrons to say... >I was at the Hanscom AFB air show on Saturday. I was there too, I was more interested in the C-130s than anything else. They had a C-130E, MC-130H, EC-130E, and AC-130U - a fine, fine collection. ;-) They also had an E-3 and a special test E-3 with lots of extra equipment - big passive detection bulges on the sides, under the chin, and something in the tail. I took the side bulges to possibly be a SLAR, but I asked the crew about them. It is interesting to not that most C-130H models don't have the JATO mounts on the spoiler dors by the wheel wells, but the special forces versions do. I guess they want the most performance they can get. I talk to the AC-130 crew for a while, they have some interesting mods you don't see mentioned in most write-ups. You can mount IR surpressing 'tubs' around the engines. These are squarish, a bit wider than the nacelle, apparently to scoop in air, then they narrow and flatten out towards the back of the wing. They weren't mounted, but the mounting brackets were clearly visible and unusual (I lived next door to the 109th TAG for years - they are the ANG unit that flies the ski equipped H models North) so I asked about them. Also, there have been rumors that the AC-130U can carry missiles (Maverick or Hellfire) on the outer pylon for extra punching power. According to the crew this is *not* true, they carry no missiles, only the guns. - -- megazone@world.std.com (508) 752-2164 MegaZone's Waste Of Time Moderator: anime fanfic archive, ftp.std.com /archives/anime-fan-works; rec.arts.anime.stories - Maintainer: Ani Difranco Mailing List - Mail to majordomo@world.std.com with 'subscribe ani-difranco' in the body. ------------------------------ From: chosa@chosa.win.net (Byron Weber) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 17:20:03 Subject: Re: DNA hybridization >get real. There's no conspiracy about UFOs and Sandia. Think about it, >how hard is it to design and model a nuclear explosion? If you can do >that, you can have somebody plead to use your computers to run DNA >hybrids. It is a laboratory and LNL and SNL do MORE than nuclear research. > Getting real. The debate over defederalization of DOE labs is a hot issue. Extra nondefense work for DOE labs brings each lab an additional $211 million to $290 million annually. From Science News, February 18, 1995, Vol.147, No.7, Mulling over the future of DOE's labs, the DOE wants to restrict the labs to DOE's traditional mission areas: national security, energy, nuclear, and condensed-matter physics. They (the labs) have other ideas and justifiably boast their accomplishments, ie. the first DNA algorithm of its kind. Nothing to do with Skunk Works, it was a response solicitation, thought provoking, sideways statement. Byron Weber ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 20:46:58 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: overflight by U-2s after Powers flight??? Al quoted a 'SAC controller imposter' :), saying the following: >"I was Gary Powers Controller the night he went down. This was from SAC >Hq in Omaha. We continued to launch and fly from Turkey after maybe a >week-stand-down. This continued for years. Never heard of this recall >to Edwards, maybe one flew in for Testing of equipment". The first thing which catches my eye is: Powers was a civilian, employed by the CIA and was not a USAF, SAC, military pilot any more. The CIA operations out of Turkey, or in this case out of Peshewar, Pakistan, would not have been controlled by SAC -- not from Offut AFB, nor elsewhere. The few CIA operated U-2s were returned to the USA, and the original three CIA/USAF joint OLs were deactivated (temporarily). The CIA continued to fly missions, for example in 1962 over Cuba, but the USAF took over most of the routine flying, like training, air-sampling missions, and, of course, reconnaissance missions. Also, the Taiwanese-operated U-2s were CIA controlled and had nothing to do with the USAF. During all this time, meaning before and after the incident over Sverdlovsk, the USAF and the CIA flew out of Edwards AFB, North Base, all sorts of RD&T (Research, Development, and Testing) missions with dedicated and temporarily assigned U-2s. I have never heard of that call-back for storage at Edwards. For a list of OLs, Dets and units, see the list on my www page. As for Mr. Zuyev's address, I have no idea how to proceed with this, but maybe someone else can help? - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@raptor.csc.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #301 ********************************* 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).