From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #603 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Tuesday, 23 January 1996 Volume 05 : Number 603 In this issue: Re: NASA SR's fly with ANS's? Correction on Neat "HABU" goodies.... Flight Test Engineer opening Re: Air Canada 767 out of fuel Flight Test Engineer opening 767 out of fuel 767 out of fuel Re: 767 out of fuel Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #602 Re: 767 out of fuel Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #602 Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #602 Wire EDM Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #602 Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #602 Code One Magazine KH-11 resolution Re: KH-11 resolution 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: Mary Shafer Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 11:26:13 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: NASA SR's fly with ANS's? We do use the ANS's but we've also put a very high-precision GPS in the A. However, I might mention that we were using outdated star maps until the USAF got back in the business and bought a new one. Yes, we do need the accuracy--examples include our playing low-earth-orbit satellite for Motorola. 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 Fri, 19 Jan 1996, Brian R Hutchison wrote: > While reading the _Untouchables_, I started wondering if the ANS's are > installed in the NASA SR-71's. Would they need the navigational accuracy > of these systems to carry out their missions? Are the reactivated USAF SR-71's > still using the same system? I was wondering about the accuracy of this book > since it starts out with the old cover story that the Blackbird was developed > for the USAF as an interceptor. > > Also is the new edition of Jay's book out yet? I've seen it in Zenith's > catalog which doesn't mean much but it doesn't show up on Barnes & Noble > Books in Print computer yet. I'm anxiously awaiting it. > > Hopefully someone on the list is familiar with the NASA SR-71 program 8^) > > Thanks, ooOOOO (SKUNK TRAIN?) ___ > Brian Hutchison oo _____ ______|O|_____ > _I__n_n__||_|| ________ | O O O | > Microwave Technology Division >(_________|_7_|-|______|-_|__________|_- > Hewlett Packard Company /o ()() ()() o oo oo oo oo > > INTERNET : brianrh@sr.hp.COM ------------------------------ From: jstone@iglou.com (John Stone) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 96 11:22 EST Subject: Correction on Neat "HABU" goodies.... Hi All, Sorry I got the wrong address on the E.D. McKim for the SR and U-2 and F-117, screen saver, his correct address is: emckim@ix.netcom.com Sorry for the inconvenience.... John | / ^ \ ___|___ -(.)==<.>==(.)- --------o---((.))---o-------- SR-71 Blackbird U-2 Dragon Lady John Stone jstone@iglou.com U-2 and SR-71 Web Page http://wl.iglou.com/blackbird/ ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 10:05:09 PST Subject: Flight Test Engineer opening Anybody want a new challenge? Raytheon Aircraft is looking for a flight-test engineer. They want someone with a BSAE and SEL and MEL, about 2K+ hours. Will manage a program. Seems interesting. The job is in Wichita, KS. Anybody intersted drop a note. Chuck ------------------------------ From: "Stefan 'Stetson' Skoglund" Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 19:00:48 +0100 Subject: Re: Air Canada 767 out of fuel >>>>> "Chris" == "Christopher A Poterala" writes: Chris> Stefan, This plane DID NOT CRASH! The pilot was able to Chris> land it on an old military field. Chris> Chris Yes, I know. I didn't simply know what to call it. They did crash in one way. They tried to land without the nose-wheel in locked position. The pilot didn't have much of an choice of course... ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 09:03:26 PST Subject: Flight Test Engineer opening Anybody want a new challenge? Raytheon Aircraft is looking for a flight-test engineer. They want someone with a BSAE and SEL and MEL, about 2K+ hours. Will manage a program. Seems interesting. The job is in Wichita, KS. Anybody intersted drop a note. Chuck ------------------------------ From: Robert.Herndon@Central.Sun.COM (Robert Herndon) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 11:33:04 -0700 Subject: 767 out of fuel Although this was an unfortunate incident, I don't believe a crash resulted. (Unless this is an incident other than the one I'm familiar with.) What I remember reading is that the crew converted "backwards" and took off with ~1/4 as much fuel as they thought. Not too long after, they ran out of fuel. Fortunately, airliners have good glide ratios, and the crew still had auxiliary power to control the flight surfaces. Re glide ratios, a 747 has a glide ratio of 19/1 (19 units forward per unit of descent). Training gliders are often 20/1 or so. I.e., from 35,000', an engine-out airliner can travel 100 miles or more. (Not that landing one is as easy as flying a glider; airliner's best glide speed is very fast and the vertical descent rate is also high. Then again, the space shuttle is only about 3/1; i.e., it drops like a rock.) Nonetheless, one of the pilots was a glider pilot, and set the 767 down on an unused airstrip without injuring anyone. I believe the nose gear may have collapsed during the stop. Nonetheless, the airline took all the passengers and stripped out the internal fittings (seats, etc.) and flew it off the strip. (The airstrip was apparently being used for drag races only very shortly (15 minutes??) before the 767 landed there, so it is fortunate that the airstrip wasn't in use.) This incident is widely known among the soaring community as the "Gimli Glider" incident. Rumor has it that there was a T-shirt issued by the Gimli Glider Club (?) that shows a picture of a super-cub aero-towing a 767. (I'd love to have one!) Robert Herndon PP-ASEL, IA, G ------------------------------ From: "Stefan 'Stetson' Skoglund" Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 20:49:49 +0100 Subject: 767 out of fuel Regarding the accident with Air Canada 767. Nobody was hurt in the landing but because the nose-wheel wasn't looked in the down position it collapsed and the nose got a beating. The damages to some passengers were inflicted by evacuation. The a/c's nose was on the deck so the after exit door was 4 or 5 metres up in the air. From the front door leaving the a/c was like jumping from a chair unfortunately almost every passenger exited over the wing or through the after evacuation slips. Theese slips ended 1 meter about the ground with the result that some of the evacuees got pretty beat up. The only one who did really got away unhurt was some males. Almost every woman and all elderlies got hurt. One landed face down and damaged her teeth. Án elderlie woman hit the tarmac with the first. I think all theese damages would have been prevented if the steward and stewardess would have calmed down and look over the situation : 1. The tanks is pretty empty so the risk for and devastating fuel fire is nil. 2. The a/c nose is on the ground -> the a/c end is a long way up in the air -> much better to exit over the wing or out the front door. They had a fire in the insulation materials up front in the nose area but I do think the smoke inside the cabin wasn't really bad enough to warrant an maximum speed evacuation without regards to the fact that the after evacuation slip was clearly out of design parameters. ------------------------------ From: neil@bedford.progress.COM (Neil Galarneau) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 96 15:54:28 EST Subject: Re: 767 out of fuel > Although this was an unfortunate incident, I don't believe a crash > resulted. (Unless this is an incident other than the one I'm familiar > with.) What I remember reading is that the crew converted "backwards" > and took off with ~1/4 as much fuel as they thought. Not too long > after, they ran out of fuel. > > Fortunately, airliners have good glide ratios, and the crew still had > auxiliary power to control the flight surfaces. But almost no instruments. The magnetic compass was unusable and they had no vertical speed indicator. The pilot later said "That cockpit became the darkest place in the world". > Re glide ratios, a 747 > has a glide ratio of 19/1 (19 units forward per unit of descent). Training > gliders are often 20/1 or so. I.e., from 35,000', an engine-out airliner > can travel 100 miles or more. (Not that landing one is as easy as flying > a glider; airliner's best glide speed is very fast and the vertical > descent rate is also high. Then again, the space shuttle is only about > 3/1; i.e., it drops like a rock.) The pilot selected 220 knots as his glide speed (he guessed) which gave them a 10:1 glide ratio. They became a glider at 26,000 feet. > Nonetheless, one of the pilots was a glider pilot, and set the 767 > down on an unused airstrip without injuring anyone. I believe the > nose gear may have collapsed during the stop. [snip] This info is from a Wall Street Journal article. > Robert Herndon > PP-ASEL, IA, G Neil ------------------------------ From: dosgood@proxima.gsfc.nasa.gov (Dean Osgood) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 09:38:25 +0027 Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #602 >On Thu, 18 Jan 1996 Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com wrote: >> One of my pet techno peaves. >> You can always determine the resolution of a >> camera (or any optical device) by size of diameter of the objective and the >> wavelength observed. To "read lisence plates" you need about a 300 ft >>diameter >> objective even for a low orbit! >> When you go IR you loose reso. >> Been there, done that. > The formula is from the resolution of the Fraunhofer diffraction >pattern of a circular aperture: >(1.21 * lambda) / (Diameter of lens) <= (resolution distance) / (distance >from the lens to the target) > Where: > lambda = wavelenght of the light > Therefore, a bigger lens diameter we can have greater resolution >(they are inversely proportional, so a bigger lens the resolution >distance can be smaller then better resolution). Or, a larger light > Su Wei-Jen > E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu A lot depends on the imager (camera/film) you are useing. Some rough calculations here in the office for a 350 mile orbit figure around 3+ meters. given available pixles of 15 microns.but thats for daylight, etc.But its all theoretical . Given orbital speed, etc, who knows? But the resolution of the older de-classified Lacrosse, etc. photo images are very good (6'?), and look at the limitations on shroud size imposed by the launchers of the day (2 meters???). Size Up to current available shroud (6-8? meters) and add in a "technology improvement" factor of say 10??. True, film still supposedly has a hgher resolution than available solid state imagers...... dean Dean Osgood e-mail:0800-1600 est M-F = dosgood@proxima.gsfc.nasa.gov voice: 0800-1600 est M-F = (301) 286-2782 ------------------------------ From: Greg Fieser Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 09:35:22 -0600 Subject: Re: 767 out of fuel > (seats, etc.) and flew it off the strip. (The airstrip was apparently > being used for drag races only very shortly (15 minutes??) before the > 767 landed there, so it is fortunate that the airstrip wasn't in use.) > > Robert Herndon > PP-ASEL, IA, G > Before my interest in aviation, I spent a lot of time racing around old airstrips with the SCCA (Sports Car Club of America). These are popular locations for club racers, due to the concrete surfaces, wide runoff areas and no other traffic to worry about. I heard about this incident through the racing community, not aviation. One of the details I remember was that the airline pilot was a (former?) glider pilot himself, and remembered the abandoned strip from his gliding days... BTW, the SCCA-sanctioned racing event was a Formula V 'road race', not 1/4 mile drag racing, and I don't think the race had actually ended at the time. I believe the course workers picked up information on their radios and red-flagged the cars on the course, stopping the race to clear the strip. I still have a photo (somewhere) of the drivers standing around their cars with the nose-down airliner in the background... Greg Fieser ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 08:00:30 PST Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #602 Well, This is the crux of the biscuit. What I said and others elaborated on is that no matter how you capture the image-silver halide, selenium, CCD`s, it doesn`t matter. The quantum nature of light (EM radiation) decides the maximum resolution. All the technology in the world can`t change the basic nature of the universe. (Don`t you love the term "empty space"? Space is anything but empty. Its a seething cauldron of quantum fluxuations!) Chuck ------------------------------ From: dadams@netcom.com (Dean Adams) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 08:38:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #602 > A lot depends on the imager (camera/film) you are useing. > Some rough calculations here in the office for a 350 mile orbit figure > around 3+ meters. given available pixles of 15 microns.but thats for > daylight, etc.But its all theoretical . Given orbital speed, etc, who > knows? But the resolution of the older de-classified Lacrosse, etc. photo > images are very good (6'?), and look at the limitations on shroud size As far as I know there have never been any Lacrosse (radar) images released or leaked. You are probably talking about the KH-11 photos of the Russian shipyard. That was about 1 ft. resolution. > imposed by the launchers of the day (2 meters???). Size Up to current > available shroud (6-8? meters) and add in a "technology improvement" factor > of say 10??. True, film still supposedly has a hgher resolution than > available solid state imagers...... The Titan IV has a 5m wide payload fairing. This subject has been debated a lot, and generally the best theoretical resolution attributed to the Advanced KH-11 series optics is in the 6cm range. ------------------------------ From: JOHN SZALAY Date: Tue, 23 Jan 96 15:13:59 EST Subject: Wire EDM > From: THOMAS::"michaelg@csd.uwm.edu" > Out in Utah, a FOAF works in a machine shop/manufacturing firm. One of > their pieces of equipment is cutter which uses an electrically charged > wire to cut through metal in various shapes (it's sort of like passing a > high current through a bandsaw blade with no teeth, to 'zap' away metal as > the wire cuts through... Horrid explanation, sorry). FWIW: machine is known as Wire EDM or Wire Electro-Discharge Machine, We have several on-site, (among other things) :) Very handy machines. John Szalay jpszalay@tacl.dnet.ge.com ------------------------------ From: Ralph the Wonder Llama Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 13:05:34 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #602 Dean Adams (I think) wrote: >As far as I know there have never been any Lacrosse (radar) images >released or leaked. You are probably talking about the KH-11 photos >of the Russian shipyard. That was about 1 ft. resolution. Have there been any other released or leaked KH-XX photos? The Russina shipyard picture is one of the few which I'm familiar with... (I also recall seeing a picture of a Soviet launch facility - Tyuratam? (horribly incorrect spelling, I know...)) **Only vaguely skunky friend-of-a-friend story:** Out in Utah, a FOAF works in a machine shop/manufacturing firm. One of their pieces of equipment is cutter which uses an electrically charged wire to cut through metal in various shapes (it's sort of like passing a high current through a bandsaw blade with no teeth, to 'zap' away metal as the wire cuts through... Horrid explanation, sorry). One day a few men from the government show up (I think he said they were Secret Service) with a job that needed to be done immediately - they offered to pay twice the normal charge. Along with them they had a briefcase which contained a small block of metal that needed to be cut with the 'electrical cutter' that they had - the metal was much too hard to be machined in any other way. Well, they took the job, and started it going on the cutter. A few days later, the govt. men came back to check on the progress - about an inch. The men were impressed and said "Keep going." Several days later, the part was finally done, and the boys in the shop started playing with some of the cutoff metal - incredible stuff. They beat on it with sledge hammers, tried burning it with lighters and torches, but the metal was unscathed.... The govt. men returned to pick up the part, and all the cutoff 'scrap', weighing every part to make sure that they were getting everything back. Satisfied, they put the pieces in the briefcase, wrote ot a check for several thousand dollars, and left. Several days later, the shop manager received a call from the govt. men, who wnated to know why they found 'traces of butane on the scrap pieces'? :) Kinda makes me want to go into metallurgy... :) - - Michael ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 15:06:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #602 On Tue, 23 Jan 1996, Dean Adams wrote: > > A lot depends on the imager (camera/film) you are useing. > > Some rough calculations here in the office for a 350 mile orbit figure > > around 3+ meters. given available pixles of 15 microns.but thats for > > daylight, etc.But its all theoretical . Given orbital speed, etc, who > > knows? But the resolution of the older de-classified Lacrosse, etc. photo > > images are very good (6'?), and look at the limitations on shroud size > > As far as I know there have never been any Lacrosse (radar) images > released or leaked. You are probably talking about the KH-11 photos > of the Russian shipyard. That was about 1 ft. resolution. > > > imposed by the launchers of the day (2 meters???). Size Up to current > > available shroud (6-8? meters) and add in a "technology improvement" factor > > of say 10??. True, film still supposedly has a hgher resolution than > > available solid state imagers...... > > The Titan IV has a 5m wide payload fairing. This subject has > been debated a lot, and generally the best theoretical resolution > attributed to the Advanced KH-11 series optics is in the 6cm range. > > The last Soviet Union president (Mijael Gorvachov) said in front of western press: "We both know (USA and URSS) that both of our satellites can see the number of plates of the cars..." May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu ------------------------------ From: Greg Fieser Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 13:48:17 -0600 Subject: Code One Magazine The latest issue of Lockheed-Martin's Code One magazine has some interesting articles. I thought I might provide a summary much like some of you have done for other publications. I would appreciate feedback as to whether anyone feels reviewing this publication is too far "off topic"... :) Composite Force (Bill Sweetman) - discusses the events that brought about USAF's (partial) realignment from TAC/SAC to ACC with composite wings. Lots of good color photography by Randy Jolly. Recover or Eject at Low Altitude (Skip Hopler) - simulator tests to determine minimum recovery altitudes for F-16s in different configurations/situations (i.e. deep stalls, inverted stalls, dive pullouts, etc.). Fighting Falcons Face Hungarian Fulcrums (Jaapjan Rijlaarsdam) - RNLAF's 313th Squadron (flying F-16s, of course) deploys to Kecskemet, Hungary, home of the 59th Tactical Fighter Regiment, currently flying MiG-29s. Interesting perspectives on flying conditions in former Warsaw Pact contries - for example, the average Hungarian fighter pilot flies about 60 hours per *year*.... Also interesting were the Dutch F-16 pilot's opinions of flying in and against MiG-29s. F-16 Precision Strikers (Tim Ripley) - how 31st FW in Aviano, Italy is using LANTIRN AN/AAQ-13 nav pods and AN/AAQ-14 targeting pods to deliver GBU-10s and - -12s, and ASQ-213 HARM Targeting Systems with AGM-88 HARMs in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Also some info on the "coalition" forces operating in the theater. Again, *lots* of good color photos... Events - Lots of color photos accompanied by short captions, for example: * Japan's first flight of the new FS-X (F-16 derivative), * Indonesian F-16s in refueling ops with USAF KC-135Rs, * Modified F-16s performing at Dubai, UAE (Saudi Arabia) air show, * F-22 wind tunnel tests (appear to be testing different intake configurations), * JAST hover tests (shows doors deployed to control exhaust gas recirculation), * VISTA F-16 with Pratt & Whitney vectored thrust nozzle on an F100-PW-229 engine core (360 deg vectoring w/20 deg deflection) (first flight early '97), * NASA's wing glove tests on F-16XL#2 (can't remember if this is 848 or 850...) (beautiful full-page color shot of new wing planform), * NASA's F-16XL#1 (849) in formation with SR-71A (844) for sonic boom tests, * NASA's CV-990 (810) shredding space shuttle tires at Dryden. The F-16XL wing glove photos were especially interesting, as the resulting wing planform is quite asymmetrical - the left glove extends forward almost to the radome, and a vertical plate is shown extending from the bottom surface of the left wing. Can Mary Shafer add anything about this configuration? Another interesting (short) article about an F-16 from Eglin - during BFM exercises, specifically a gun jink, the side mounted control stick "broke", leaving the pilot with no pitch or roll control of the aircraft. (the article doesn't say if the stick just stopped "working" (FBW, remember) or if it literally came off in his hand...) The good news: this particular F-16 was a two-seat "B" model. The bad news: this was the first time in an F-16 for the GIB (guy in back). After a few impromptu flight lessons, the front-seater talks the back-seater down to a safe landing back at Eglin... Greg Fieser ------------------------------ From: thad@hammerhead.com (Thaddeus J. Beier) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 13:58:23 -0800 Subject: KH-11 resolution I was given a tour of the Lockheed facility when the Hubble telescope was still in drydock, it was an impressive sight. I've often speculated, and followed other people speculation, that the KH-11 and Hubble telescopes were more or less the same design. One of the many pointers to this is the design of the crate (ok, this is not the correct technical term, I know) that the Hubble was inserted into to be put in a C5 to go to Kennedy is classified, as it is the same as the one that the KH11s go into. Things like that. So here's the question. Is it in any way possible that the problems with the shape of the mirror of the Hubble is due to the fact that the optics were set up to focus on something only 150 miles away, instead of at infinity? I have never accepted the reasoning that has always been proposed, that "Oh, we just used the wrong test equipment". I speculate, without any substantiation, it's true; that the mirror was ground exactly the same way the rest of Iteks 2.3 meter (or whatever) mirrors were ground. thad - -- Thaddeus Beier thad@hammerhead.com Technology Development 408) 286-3376 Hammerhead Productions http://www.got.net/~thad ------------------------------ From: "R. Lee Hawkins" Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 22:13:20 -0500 Subject: Re: KH-11 resolution In your message dated: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 13:58:23 PST you write: > >So here's the question. Is it in any way possible that the >problems with the shape of the mirror of the Hubble is due to >the fact that the optics were set up to focus on something >only 150 miles away, instead of at infinity? I have never First of all, the problem wasn't one of focus (Hubble has quite a range of focus), but spherical aberation. Look it up in any optics book, but the point is the mirror couldn't get *all* the rays in focus at a given focus position. This has nothing to do with how far away the target is. My favorite quote on this is from Roger Angel of the Stewart Mirror Lab at U of A, when he saw some of the first images. The gist of it was: "Boy, that looks like pretty bad spherical aberation, hope they can fix it". Of course it was fixed, but it took CoSTAR. The problem was a technician (who has probably long since committed ceremonial hari-kari) lining up a metering rod on the null tester with the wrong point. The top of the metering rod is rounded, and he was supposed to set it up at the apex of the dome on the metering rod, but instead set it up on a bright spot lower than the apex. The metering rod still exists, and if you look at how far off he aligned it, you get the exact spherical aberation that was seen on-orbit. >accepted the reasoning that has always been proposed, that "Oh, we >just used the wrong test equipment". I speculate, without any >substantiation, it's true; that the mirror was ground exactly >the same way the rest of Iteks 2.3 meter (or whatever) mirrors >were ground. Nope, no way. You wouldn't want a mirror with that much spherical aberation for *any* reason. And grinding "the same way the rest of Iteks mirrors were ground" wouldn't do it either. In fact, ITEK didn't even grind the Hubble mirror. Perkin-Elmer (now Hughes-Danbury) did it. And it was worse than most amateur mirrors that are tested with a Foucault tester. In fact, they used a Foucault test on the Hubble mirror (along with a third test that I forget) and both of those showed the spherical aberation, but were ignored, since it was felt that the reflective null test was much more accurate. I'm not sure what data you used to come to your conclusions, but they weren't very scientific and most of them seem to be wrong. :) Cheers, - --Lee ____________________________________________________________________________ R. Lee Hawkins lhawkins@annie.wellesley.edu Department of Astronomy lhawkins@wellesley.edu Whitin Observatory http://annie.wellesley.edu/lhawkins/lee.html Wellesley College Ph. 617-283-2708 Wellesley, MA 02181 FAX 617-283-3667 ____________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #603 ********************************* 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).