From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #613 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Friday, 2 February 1996 Volume 05 : Number 613 In this issue: Re: Electronic shield against artillery -- more SF-like hi-tech Re: Self-destruct devices Re:Tonapah base(?) Re: Electronic shield against artillery -- more SF-like hi-tech Re: Self-destruct devices Re: self-destructing electronics CAA Report on "Triangular Craft" Incident Re: Self-destruct devices Re: Self-destruct devices Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #611 Mars Anomalies - Update Mars Anomalies Re: Self-destruct devices 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: Wei-Jen Su Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 01:20:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Electronic shield against artillery -- more SF-like hi-tech On Thu, 1 Feb 1996, Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl wrote: > And another fascinating press release, I stumbled across -- not really > skunky, but... :) > > -- Andreas > > Whittaker Corporation "Electronic Umbrella" to protect U.S. Army soldiers > deployed in Bosnia; electronic system will automatically provide silent and > invisible protective shield against attack by enemy artillery and mortar > shells fitted with proximity fuses > My God!!!! This look like a kind of Science Fiction story!!! Amazing, I was waiting all my life to see if the profesy of Isaac Assimov will happen... And this is it, a umbrella against "bombs". I just wonder if we can use this against ICBM so we can put it surround the cities and the whole nation... May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 01:22:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Self-destruct devices On Thu, 1 Feb 1996, John Gregor wrote: > > On a different tack, I've been thinking recently, if an IR linescan can > > show you where recently departed aircraft have been parked from the > > slight temperature difference of the tarmac, then an imaging IR seeker > > should have no trouble locking-on to a stealth plane, no matter how > > diffuse the jet efflux is. Some of the Russian AAMs especially have the > > body diameter to accommodate a really large imaging seeker, enabling > > lock-on at fairly long range. What do you think, is this a valid > > approach or not? > > > > Adrian Brown (92913938@mmu.ac.uk) > > Seat of the pants mode... > > The nose of a missile gets pretty warm. Warm enough that an > ultra-sensitive IR seeker would be overwhelmed by the IR glow in the > optics and the boundary layer air. You could possibly chill the optics > with enough power or a big enough heat sink (like a few liters of LN2), > but your S/N would still be crummy. > > -JohnG > Plus it must track a very small target in a very big space. And if it is flying very low, it can be confuse with the terrain. That's one of the reason that the allies aircraft have problem in tracking a Scut launcher. They only show up for about 20 minutes and then they hide (they move to another place too). With a big desert is very hard to track one small and particular vehicle, and if will do it, it will take times for a fighter to get there and bomb it. May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu ------------------------------ From: John Burtenshaw Date: Fri, 02 Feb 1996 09:08:15 -0100 Subject: Re:Tonapah base(?) Just to add my 10 cents (or pence as I'm a Brit;-)) worth. Didn't Howard Hughes have a hideaway in the Tonapah area. I seemed to recall hearing that name being mentioned on a British documentary about Hughes recently. Seems like he had bought a ranch around there and did one of his disappearing acts to it in the 1950's - just wondered if it was the same area and if there was connection seeing that Hughes had close relationship with military / intellegence community. Regards John =========================================================================== John Burtenshaw Systems Administrator, The Computer Centre, Bournemouth University - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Postal Address: Talbot Campus, Fern Barrow, POOLE, Dorset, BH12 5BB U.K. Internet: jburtens@bournemouth.ac.uk Phone: 01202 595089 Fax: 01202 513293 AX.25: g1hok@gb7bnm.#45.gbr.eu. AMPRnet: g1hok.ampr.org. (44.131.17.82) CompuServe: 100336.3113@compuserve.com =========================================================================== ------------------------------ From: tcrobi@most.magec.com (Tom Robison) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 07:55:29 +0500 Subject: Re: Electronic shield against artillery -- more SF-like hi-tech >> Whittaker Corporation "Electronic Umbrella" to protect U.S. Army soldiers >> deployed in Bosnia; electronic system will automatically provide silent and >> invisible protective shield against attack by enemy artillery and mortar >> shells fitted with proximity fuses >> > > My God!!!! This look like a kind of Science Fiction story!!! >Amazing, I was waiting all my life to see if the profesy of Isaac Assimov >will happen... And this is it, a umbrella against "bombs". > I just wonder if we can use this against ICBM so we can put it >surround the cities and the whole nation... > > May the Force be with you > > Su Wei-Jen > E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu You folks need to bone up on your science fiction. In 1979 Clive Cussler wrote a story called "Raise The Titanic". Therein, the US was preparing to develop a "force field" to protect the entire country from missile attack. It was, in effect, an electronic umbrella. It needed a very large nuclear power source, however, fueled by an element known as "byzanium". The only known source of byzanium in the world just happened to be (are you ready?) in the hold of the Titanic. Whitaker Corp's press release almost sounds like it was written by Clive Cussler. Tom in Indiana tcrobi@most.fw.hac.com or TCRobi0648@aol.com ' (oo) - -------oOOO-()-OOOo-------- ------------------------------ From: fmarkus@pipeline.com (Frank Markus) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 09:51:13 -0500 Subject: Re: Self-destruct devices On Feb 01, 1996 12:14:00, 'BaDge ' wrote: >On Thu, 1 Feb 1996, Frank Markus wrote: > >> There are less aggressive methods for protecting secret electronics devices >> than blowing them up. One that springs to mind was employed by Audio >> Research (a high-end audio products manufacturer) to protect the secret of >> its first solid state devices. The circuits were packaged so that any >> attempt to open the devices, released acid that erased the circuits within. >> The advantages of this passive protection over active (and dangerous) >> devices that have to be triggered are obvious. > >Good point, Frank, but as we've seen, these methods are often easily overcome, >the U2 example, and we can all think of ways to overcome an acid release, such >as freezing, and rapid neutralization. > >Makes ya wonder what the State of the art failsafe methods are today. > >[Perhaps a Gerald Ford module, so that any attempt to fool with the technology, >and you get hit in the head with a golfball.] >regards, >________ >BaDge > > I'm not so sure that in this context a "booby-trapped" chip would be so easy to defeat. Defeating such a chip assumes that you know that it is booby-trapped and what its defenses are. Assuming that you have a crashed aircraft with a black box, how would an "investigator" know what to expect when the tried to penetrate the sealed chip? Would he be able to apply the appropriate countermeaure in time? A simple question comes to mind. Either a strong acid or a strong base should be able to destroy the delicate pattern of a complex IC. Chose wrong and ... ZAP! Clever minds can concieve and create more complex booby traps. Remember each chip is unique and the investigator has only one chip to practice on. Indeed, I can imagine a chip that is programmed to self destruct if a specific set of circumstances consistent with a crash (or theft) occurs. If I can imagine it, no doubt others can -- and have. ------------------------------ From: russellk@BIX.com Date: Fri, 02 Feb 1996 11:44:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: self-destructing electronics I was told that, when the feds first started with the Clipper Chip encryption scheme (with escrowed back-door "law enforcement" keys), the chips were manufactured with embedded materials (possibly diamond dust? I don't recall for sure) to prevent anyone from taking one and literally slicing the chip, layer by layer, to reverse-engineer it. If you did try to take it apart, the crystals would drag across the substrate and cause so much damage that you couldn't reconstuct it. ================================================ Russell Kay, Technical Editor, BYTE Magazine 1 Phoenix Mill Lane, Peterborough, NH 03458 603-924-2591; fax 603-924-2550; russellk@bix.com ================================================ ------------------------------ From: Easton James Date: Fri, 02 Feb 96 16:40:00 PST Subject: CAA Report on "Triangular Craft" Incident The CAA report on the January 6th, 1995 incident over the Pennines has now been published and concludes that the object encountered is "unknown". There is an article concerning the report on the front page of today's (Friday) "The Times" newspaper and a copy can be found on their WWW site at: http://www.the-times.co.uk/news/pages/Times/timnwsnws01030.html?1107954 I hope to have a copy of the full CAA report shortly. The article reports that the Boeing 737 was overtaken at high speed by a, "wedge-shaped craft" as it descended through 4,000ft on the final stages of a journey from Milan. Captain Roger Wills is attributed as describing the object as being, "emblazoned with small white lights and possibly a black stripe down its side". It was such a close encounter that First Officer Mark Stuart involuntarily ducked as it went by. Interesting comments include a report that there was, "no sound and no wake" from the unknown object. This is apparently the fourth such incident since 1987, at least 3 of which are reported to have involved triangular or "lozenge" shaped objects. The three previous reported sightings are also unexplained. The incident reportedly occurred with the Boeing 737 just above the clouds and with visibility at least ten miles. The object did not show up on radar. I'm sure The Times won't object if I mention their reported air traffic controllers conversation with Flight 5061: B737: "We just had something go down the right-hand side, just above us very fast." Manchester: "Well there's nothing seen on radar. Was it an aircraft?" B737: "Well, it had lights, it went down the starboard side very quick." Both Captain Wills and First Officer Stuart are reported to be certain that the object was solid and not a balloon, a model aircraft or a "Stealth" aircraft, which the Captain had apparently seen before and would have recognised. Extracts copyright of The Times (http://www.the-times.co.uk/) I hope this is of interest. James. Internet; eastonj@scot.hw.ac.uk CompuServe; 100626.2242@compuserve.com WWW; http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pulsar/ ------------------------------ From: BaDge Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 11:42:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Self-destruct devices >Booby-trapped chip... Since this thread is becoming peripheral, we can take it to email, or wrap it up soon... Unlike cryptography studies, your postulate of the 'one-chip-to-practize-on', gives the designer an edge, but that's all it is. Not only is it still true that the 'if I could...others have' works both ways, this protection must still be transparent enough to permit the package to be serviced by your own technicians, and it must be somewhat mass-produceable to keep costs down. This works against an edge. How to tell what the trap is? Well generally 'those in the field' have a knowledge of what's possible, plus a fair share of ELINT and HUMINT to clue them in as well. Of course, the protection could be a limited variable, and used in a combination mode, once you had even a damaged module to look at, you'd be way ahead on your next captured piece, eh? I'm sure this is like any other edge tech, like cops and radar, vs speeders and detectors. The better-funded side stays a little step ahead, mostly. ;-) regards, ________ BaDge ------------------------------ From: "Joe Pialet" Date: Fri, 2 Feb 96 12:29:13 +0000 Subject: Re: Self-destruct devices >On Feb 01, 1996 12:14:00, 'BaDge ' wrote: > > >>On Thu, 1 Feb 1996, Frank Markus wrote: >> >>> There are less aggressive methods for protecting secret electronics >devices >>> than blowing them up. One that springs to mind was employed by Audio >>> Research (a high-end audio products manufacturer) to protect the secret >of >>> its first solid state devices. The circuits were packaged so that any >>> attempt to open the devices, released acid that erased the circuits >within. >>> The advantages of this passive protection over active (and dangerous) >>> devices that have to be triggered are obvious. >> >>Good point, Frank, but as we've seen, these methods are often easily >overcome, >>the U2 example, and we can all think of ways to overcome an acid release, >such >>as freezing, and rapid neutralization. >> >>Makes ya wonder what the State of the art failsafe methods are today. >> >>[Perhaps a Gerald Ford module, so that any attempt to fool with the >technology, >>and you get hit in the head with a golfball.] >>regards, >>________ >>BaDge >> >> >I'm not so sure that in this context a "booby-trapped" chip would be so >easy to defeat. Defeating such a chip assumes that you know that it is >booby-trapped and what its defenses are. Assuming that you have a crashed >aircraft with a black box, how would an "investigator" know what to expect >when the tried to penetrate the sealed chip? Would he be able to apply the >appropriate countermeaure in time? > >A simple question comes to mind. Either a strong acid or a strong base >should be able to destroy the delicate pattern of a complex IC. Chose >wrong and ... ZAP! Clever minds can concieve and create more complex booby >traps. Remember each chip is unique and the investigator has only one chip >to practice on. > >Indeed, I can imagine a chip that is programmed to self destruct if a >specific set of circumstances consistent with a crash (or theft) occurs. >If I can imagine it, no doubt others can -- and have. > I remember an article from a few years ago by a researcher who was working on the use of biological molecules for computer memory storage. One of his suggestions was to use these systems (which require refrigeration) to store confidential information on military aircraft. In the event of a crash there would be a loss of refrigeration and the molecules would scramble and be unreadable. ------------------------------ From: jagnow@al.weeg.uiowa.edu (Al Jagnow) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 96 15:15:48 -0600 Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #611 A few years ago (August,1992 I think), there was a reunion for B-25 pilots who trained at Tonopah, NV. There were tours and you could drive out on the desert to visit some of the crash sites. Some of the crashed aircraft seemed to be pretty much as they had crashed. Very little erosion (you could still see the skid marks in the desert. It seemed like they had just crashed,). There appeared to be an operational base there at that time. Apparently there was a problem with B-25's taking off with a full load from about a 1 mile altitude rather than taking off at sea level, resulting in more than an average number of training crashes. A video tape was available -- sorry, I don't remember the name or the producer. Speaking of fly-bys, as we were leaving Tonopah heading for Las Vegas, our radar detector started beeping. We slowed down and looked for a highway partol car but instead, a black aircraft flew over the car at about 50 feet. Too fast to get a good look and too fast to get a picture. It seemed like a pilot had found a moving targht and decided to make a pass at it. - ----------------------forwarded message follows ------------- From: albert.dobyns@mwbbs.com (ALBERT DOBYNS) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 96 22:39:00 -0500 Subject: Re: Tonapah base(?) RC> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 20:51:44 -0700 (MST) > From: Robert Christiansen > Subject: Tonapah base(?) RC> I hate to prove some so intellegent wrong, but there is no base at > Tonapah NV. Being near the NV test site and in open desert area makes it > a prime target for test plane flyovers. Other than that there is no > military significance in the area. Tonapah had nothing with the F-117 > other than a fun place to watch for possible fly-bys. RC> Robert Christiansen If by "no base at Tonopah, NV" you mean the town itself, I agree with you. The Las Vegas Sectional Aeronautical Chart I have clearly shows the town of Tonopah, a public airport near the town, and the Tonopah Test Range base/airport just inside a restricted area. This base is shown as an uncontroled airport (no control tower!?) and a single 12,000' runway oriented SSE/NNW. No radio frequencies are shown. It is marked as a private airport, which is to be expected. I noticed that there is a VOR near the public airport. If you flew over it and then flew on a heading of 120 degrees (magnetic), you would be headed directly for the long runway at TTR! So it's not hard to get there, but I wouldn't want to get too close. Whatever security forces are stationed there would spring to action very quickly. I don't know exactly what they would do, but I believe they would make your life very unpleasant for awhile. :) I have a book that shows photos of the base and a separate housing area plus the main road that connects the base, the housing area, and the town of Tonopah. The road is shown on the chart as best as I can determine. I assume the TTR "airport" is shown on the aeronautical chart because there is a town and public airport in the nearby area. Someone flying around outside of the restricted area could still use the long runway at TTR as a visual nav aid. So now I feel like I have to ask you what sources are you basing your statement on. I am very curious about TTR, Groom Lake, etc. - - -Al- - - --- ~ SLMR 2.1a ~ "Boris, my friend, we need more Titanium..quickly!" :) ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Fri, 02 Feb 96 14:18:04 EST Subject: Mars Anomalies - Update All readers to copy and send the following text to the suggested recipients and to redistribute this article in any way possible. - ------------------------------------------------------- TO: Glenn E. Cunningham Jet Propulsion Laboratory 4800 Oak Grove Drive Pasadena, CA (USA) 91109-8099 Daniel Goldin, Director, NASA 300 E St. SW Washington DC 20546 Michael C. Malin Malin Space Science Systems PO Box 919148, San Diego CA 92101-0148 Dear Sirs, In view of the evidence cited in the publications listed below, indicating there is a reasonable, even if small, possibility that some objects in the Cydonia region of Mars may be artificial; and in consideration of the importance of such a discovery for humanity should this possibility be verified; and in consideration of the fact that the camera for the Mars Global Surveyor is under the control of a private contractor with proprietary rights (Dr. Michael C. Malin of Malin Space Science Systems): I urge NASA, JPL, and Dr. Malin to implement the recommendations from The McDaniel Report reproduced here. Only in this way can NASA restore public confidence in NASA's stated policy of openness, which has been brought into question by various misstatements made by NASA regarding the debated landforms, and maximize the probability of obtaining new high resolution images of those landforms. THE RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Priority Level: NASA and the Mars Global Surveyor Camera Principal Investigator, by agreement, will assign a level of priority to the suspect landforms that will ensure the obtaining of high-resolution photographs of those landforms, using all means at their disposal, subject only to uncertainties beyond their control. This high priority level will be entered into the imaging Target Data Base and taken into consideration in mission sequencing. 2. Area Coverage: The Principal Investigator will plan for and initiate high-resolution imaging sequences on every occasion during which the spacecraft groundtrack is within the area from 8 to 10 degrees longitude, such that the image strips include the area 40.4 to 41.2 degrees N. latitude. 3. Limited Waiver of Proprietary Rights: In consideration of the public interest in this area and of the possible importance to humanity of the resulting images, the camera Principal Investigator will follow the precedent of earlier missions by waiving the proprietary restrictions for release of data in the case of imaging data gathered during camera passes over the specified area. 4. Advance Notice to the Public: The scientific community and the general public will be given prompt advance notice, within the constraints of predictability, as to when each such pass will occur, in order to prepare to receive the data. Among the avenues for such notice will be the Internet. 5. Prompt Release of Data: The raw data for the specific area indicated above will be released to scientists and to the public upon receipt at JPL with no time delay. Video image conversion of data received in the same passes will be released in a continuous stream to NASA Select-TV, PBS, and others who desire to receive it. High priority will be given to the processing of such data and the processed data (in the form of images) will be released to the public immediately upon completion. _________________________________ (Signed), REFERENCES Carlotto, Mark J., "Digital Imagery Analysis of Unusual Martian Surface Features." Applied Optics, Vol. 27, No. 10 (1988). Carlotto, Mark J. And Stein, M. C., "A Method for Searching for Artificial Objects on Planetary Surfaces." Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Vol. 43 No. 5 (May 1990). Carlotto, Mark J., The Martian Enigmas: A Closer Look. North Atlantic Books, Berkeley CA (1991). Telephone (510) 559-8277. Carlotto, Mark J., World Wide Web Page at http://www.psrw.com/~markc/mars.html. Crater, Horace W., "A Statistical Study of Angular Placements of Features on Mars." Paper delivered to The Society for Scientific Exploration, June 15 1995. DiPietro, V., Molenaar, G., \& Brandenburg, J., Unusual Mars Surface Features. Mars Research, PO Box 284, Glenn Dale, MD 20769. (First edition 1982; fourth edition, 1988.) DiPietro, V., Molenaar, G., and Brandenburg, J., "The Cydonia Hypothesis.." Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 5, No. 1, pages 1-25 (1991). Erjavec, J., "The Geomorphology and Geology of a Portion of the Cydonia Region of Mars: a New Interpretation." Unpublished. For copies contact The McDaniel Report, 1055 W. College Ave., Santa Rosa CA 95401. McDaniel, Stanley V., The McDaniel Report: On the Failure of Executive, Congressional, and Scientific Responsibility in Setting Mission Priorities for NASA's Mars Exploration Program. North Atlantic Press, Berkeley CA (1994). McDaniel, Stanley V., The McDaniel Report Newsletter, Web page at http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/mcdrpt. O'Leary, B., "Analysis of Images of the Face on Mars and Possible Intelligent Origin." Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Vol. 43 No. 5 (May 1990). Torun, Erol, ``The Geomorphology and Geometry of the D & M Pyramid.'' (1988). Appendices A and B added June and August 1989. Published electronically on the Compuserve Issues Forum, section 10 (files PYRAMID.RSH, PYRA1.RSH, PYRAM3.RSH). ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Fri, 02 Feb 96 14:04:40 EST Subject: Mars Anomalies CYDONIA DESERVES HIGH PRIORITY IN NASA'S NEXT MARS EXPLORATION: WHAT YOU CAN DO TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE By Professor Stanley V. McDaniel Author of The McDaniel Report Since publication of The McDaniel Report on the Mars anomalies (the Face and other features) in 1994, events surrounding the question of artificial objects on Mars have accelerated. New research is being undertaken, more information is being disseminated, and NASA has apparently been moved to abandon at least one of its long-standing arguments on the subject (the argument that images exist showing that the 'Face on Mars' is nothing but a trick of lighting). At the same time, as the launch of the Mars Global Surveyor draws nearer (November 1996), there are indications that NASA's underlying stance remains unchanged. In particular, inconclusive "assurances" that new images of the debated landforms at Cydonia would be taken have been issued by the Mars Global Surveyor Camera Principal Investigator. These "assurances," which may appear encouraging, suffer from the fact that appropriately high priorities for such new images are not assigned or discussed. NASA's overall policy is one of giving high priority only to objects of high "scientific interest," and the debated objects are considered by the Camera Principal Investigator (Dr. Michael C. Malin) as of "moderate to low" scientific interest. The net result is that despite "assurances" that the debated objects are "in the camera target database" the chances that they will receive the degree of advance planning necessary to ensure success are slim. It is imperative, then, that NASA should upgrade its priorities for the Cydonia objects for the Mars Global Surveyor mission. In The McDaniel Report there are a series of recommendations aimed at accomplishing this. Below is the text of those recommendations. Readers are encouraged to send copies to the addressees below. Also address and send this letter to your own congressional representatives. You may also send the letter to Dr. Michael Malin at malin@esther.la.asu.edu. An ASCII version of this text is available on the Compuserve ISSUES forum, section 10, and will also be posted in the ISCNI Library at America Online. For further information see "The McDaniel Report Newsletter" Web page at http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/mcdrpt. ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 19:56:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Self-destruct devices On Fri, 2 Feb 1996, Joe Pialet wrote: > I remember an article from a few years ago by a researcher who was working > on the use of biological molecules for computer memory storage. One of his > suggestions was to use these systems (which require refrigeration) to store > confidential information on military aircraft. In the event of a crash > there would be a loss of refrigeration and the molecules would scramble and > be unreadable. Guys, have you ever heard about a very advance way to store information using Titanium material? This used to be in the black programs back in the 70's. May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #613 ********************************* 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).