From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #615 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Wednesday, 7 February 1996 Volume 05 : Number 615 In this issue: Re: IR & Stealth Engine (EM) noise emissions Re: Re: IR & Stealth Re: As I said.... Re: As I said.... Weekend WINGS... News about Groom Lake Re: As I said.... Aplogies to Skunk Works devotees. Re: Engine (EM) noise emissions What is SR-71 Current Status? Re: As I said.... Re: Interstellar Travel and Aplogies to Skunk Works devotees Re: News about Groom Lake Error in Web page 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: benny@sirius.com Date: Mon, 5 Feb 1996 15:39:47 -0800 Subject: Re: IR & Stealth >Date: Mon, 5 Feb 96 11:36:00 -0500 >From: Emerson Parker >Organization: Tech Data Corporation >To: skunk-works@mail.orst.edu (SKUNK-WORKS) >Subject: Re: IR & Stealth >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Sender: owner-skunk-works@mail.orst.edu >Precedence: bulk >Status: U > > > >>---------- >>From: Art Hanley >> >> From: "Art Hanley" >> The first problem was that, except for F-14/TARPS, we really >>didn't have a lot of tactical airborne reconaissance available > >Art, > > I was sure Joint Starts was over there. I can't believe they >couldn't find the launchers!? Maybe they were just under ground?? > > According to a Wings over the Gulf i saw the F-15 was used heavily on airstrikes against the Scuds.. Supposedly it was used in a hunter/killer role.. - --tom ------------------------------ From: SBinkley@atitech.ca (Scott Binkley) Date: 05 Feb 96 17:39:54 EST Subject: Engine (EM) noise emissions Would it be possible to track a stealth A/C by looking for the EM noise of the engine? I was thinking that you could use a psedo-random noise algorithm, and match it to what you "hear", and look for any anomolies. I believe that this type of algorithm is used to pull GPS signals from random noise, as the signals from GPS birds are quite weak. Of course you would need to look in a certain range, so you can hopefully eliminate "noise" from communications channels. With a neural-network, you might even be able to quickly make a quick ID. Anyway, just my $0.02 /sb ------------------------------ From: Edward_R._Hotchkiss@atlmug.org (Edward R. Hotchkiss) Date: 06 Feb 1996 03:37:01 GMT Subject: Re: Re: IR & Stealth The picture I saw on Joint Stars showed barbed wire and armored formations. For the Scuds, the information I read was that experienced pilots were used to sight the launchers and designate them for other aircraft to destroy. The countryside was divided into grids and swept. /Ed Hotchkiss/ edward_r_hotchkiss@atlmug.org ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 00:36:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: As I said.... On Mon, 5 Feb 1996 Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com wrote: > per an alternate point of veiw, the old "warp drive" > came up! Wow. > > So you use standard impulse (rocket) techniques. If you say the > exhaust velocity is 0.99C, you only need 3000 times the mass > of the ship for fuel to get to about 0.7C! Oops. > So you can get to somewhere in the local system in about > 70,000 years. Remember the theory of relativity by Einstein??? The time is not always straight. Therefore, Earth time is 70,000 years, a guy in a spaceship traveling at almost the speed of light will have time different than the Earth time... May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu ------------------------------ From: jgregor@bitbucket.engr.sgi.com (John Gregor) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 00:02:11 -0800 Subject: Re: As I said.... > On Mon, 5 Feb 1996 Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com wrote: >> So you use standard impulse (rocket) techniques. If you say the >> exhaust velocity is 0.99C, you only need 3000 times the mass >> of the ship for fuel to get to about 0.7C! Oops. >> So you can get to somewhere in the local system in about >> 70,000 years. Charles, was the 3000x taking into account the relativistic nature of the exhaust? If not, you get about a 7x boost in energy, so you might only need ~430x. Su Wei-Jen said: > Remember the theory of relativity by Einstein??? Yes, we remember. Have you ever learned them (special/general)? > The time is not always straight. Therefore, Earth time is 70,000 years, > a guy in a spaceship traveling at almost the speed of light will have > time different than the Earth time... Lesse, time dilation formula (from SR): ( 1 - ( v^2 / c^2 ) ) ^ 0.5 So, plug in v = 0.7 c, and you get .714... So that 70,000 years is now a measly 50,000 years. Gosh! I feel better already. We still haven't addressed how to get 99.97% of our ship's mass to go 0.99c out the other end! Here's a challenge: figure out the energy density in that 0.03%. Compare it with chemical reactions, nuclear fission reactions, nuclear fusion reactions, and matter/antimatter reactions. Report back if any of those have energy/kg to perform the necessary accellerations. This is still an oversimplified problem. We haven't even begun to talk about the little details like engines, shielding, life-support, etc. - -JohnG ------------------------------ From: BaDge Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 11:54:57 -0500 (EST) Subject: Weekend WINGS... This just in: ===================== Specials Sat Feb-3 ===================== Nova [PBS 9-10pm EST] [ Nature] "B-29 Frozen in Time". Darryl Greenamyer forms an expedition to recover a B-29 lost over the North Pole more than 50 years ago. CC, Stereo. Wings [DISC 9-10pm EST] [Document] "The Scout". The Navy's S-3 Viking is developed to meet the need for more versatile anti-submarine warfare. How'd They Do That? [TLC 7-8pm EST] [Infotainment] Ice skating troupe; dismantling nuclear weapons; the U.S. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Postal Service; sky divers break a world record. CC, ===================== Specials Sun Feb-4 ===================== Flying the Space Shuttle [TLC 6-7pm EST] [ Science] Footage follows a space-shuttle mission from liftoff to landing. regards, ________ BaDge ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 03:40:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: News about Groom Lake To get away from the word jousting and name calling, here is something really interesting to the Skunk Works List. The latest Aviation Week & Space Technology (AW&ST), from February 5, 1996, has two very skunky articles on pages 26-28. I am a little bit behind with my AW&ST summaries, but I think, this one can't wait: The headlines are: "GROOM LAKE TESTS TARGET STEALTH", pages 26-27, and "PILOTS TO LEAVE COCKPIT IN FUTURE AIR FORCE", pages 26-28. The first article confirms rumors about two or more new stealth aircraft being tested at Groom Lake. One is an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) the other is an aircraft, which can fly manned or unmanned. At least the UAV has apparently already flown, while the other will incorporate "Smart Skin" properties. These include the ability to attenuate radar reflections better than current Radar Absorbing Materials (RAM), as well as the ability to change its color, to blend in with the background. It also incorporates infrared signature limiting technology. The aim is for an "invisible air vehicle" (in the radar, infrared and visual spectrum), which can operate unimpeded day or night. AW&ST also mentions drag reduction by electrostatic fields, again. Both vehicles have hard points for weapons, but because the current US combat rules do not allow UAVs to drop bombs or fire missiles, at least the second aircraft could fly manned attack missions, besides unmanned reconnaissance or targeting missions. To make an aircraft truly invisible, the USAF would need to perfect the ability to repeat and reverse radar signals, and further improve infrared signature reductions. [Besides those two fixed-wing USAF stealth aircraft, it is also rumored that a British stealth aircraft and at least one stealth helicopter is currently tested at Groom Lake.] The second article (and parts of the first) deal with the "New World Vistas" report, which highlights the technological advances, expected to be used by the USAF in the next 30 years (1995 to 2025). The possible high-tech weapons listed in a year-long study released by the service are so advanced that special training would be essential to make sure humans are not overwhelmed by science. "The keyboard and the mouse are simply not adequate for the 21st Century," said Gene McCall of Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), chief of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board. Some of the technologies, sketched out in the 15-volume report: * Use of unmanned aircraft to do more than the spy missions they perform now; Uninhabited Combat Aerial Vehicles (UCAV) and Uninhabited Reconnaissance Aerial Vehicles (URAV), able to out-maneuver missiles at 15-20 g, flying at speeds of Mach 12-15 and operating at altitudes of 85,000-125,000 ft. Guided from control centers inside the United States or from aircraft like E-3 AWACS or E-8 J-STARS (and their follow-ons), robot planes could roam the world with laser or other high-energy/microwave weapons to destroy ground and air targets. Although it goes against the grain of traditional Air Force people, the idea of pilotless combat aircraft has inherent advantages over manned warplanes. Unmanned craft could be more survivable, for starters. Shape and function need not be constrained by a cockpit, a human body or an ejection seat. Gene McCall, who directed the "Vistas" project, told a Pentagon news conference an unmanned strike plane could be designed to accelerate and maneuver at 20 times the force of gravity, or double what a pilot can withstand. With such speed of maneuver the unmanned plane could simply outfly a hostile missile, McCall said. An unmanned bomber or fighter also could be stealthier. The plane could be perfectly flat on the bottom, reducing vulnerability to radar detection. The landing gear could be on top rather than on the bottom, and a simple rollover maneuver -- impossible with a human in the cockpit -- would put it in landing position. Small versions of the unmanned combat plane could be carried aboard and launched from large conventional aircraft -- giving them truly global reach. For all its promise, remotely piloted combat planes aren't likely to enter the Air Force for another 20 years or so, McCall said. Even then, pilots will not become extinct. "I don't think we're ever going to replace completely the manned aircraft," he said. The Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) is working on a modification program for F-16s, to enable autonomous flight and auto-landing capability. Other options include an F-117-like delta-wing design without a cockpit, but with a blended surface fuselage, instead of flat planes. [A sketch of this design is included, which might also be a candidate for the "A-17".] * Hypersonic fighters and UCAVs could soar into battle at 12 to 15 times the speed of sound, enabling the USAF to reach high value targets anywhere in the world in minutes. Hypersonic UAVs would cut costs dramatically and give better performance. Crucial to their development would be advanced dual- mode ramjet/scramjet engines and high-temperature, lightweight materials, allowing for long-range, long-endurance, high-altitude supercruise flight. * Stealth will have to be pushed to a new plateau -- the multispectral approach would encompass capturing, repeating and reversing enemy radar signals, further reducing the infrared signatures and making the aircraft invisible in the visual spectrum. [Considering the difficulties encountered with relatively slow sound waves, the active cancellation of light-speed fast radar signals seems to be quite a feat to me.] * Mega-lifter with up to 1 million pound gross takeoff weight will be able to deliver cargo within 10 meters of a preselected point at a range of 12,000 miles, after dropping them from 20,000 ft. They will be equipped with an all-weather, automatic landing aid, using Differential-Global Positioning System (D-GPS), enabling the pilot to land and taxi with an accuracy of 30 centimeters (1 foot) in zero visibility. Those airlifters could also carry UAVs or directed energy weapons like lasers, to be used as survivable offensive weapons platforms in high-thread areas. * Hypersonic missiles. With on-board links to navigation satellites, they not only will be faster but also more accurate. McCall said a one-second electronic emission from a hostile surface-to-air, or SAM, missile radar would be enough to enable an Air Force plane 200 miles away to strike it within one minute. "We can make the operation of SAM sites the world's most dangerous occupation," McCall said. * Precision guided micro-bombs will be able to kill tanks with mere grams of more powerful explosives. Besides being more accurate, munitions will be more powerful, per unit mass, by a factor of 10. Tiny bombs using just grams of explosive could destroy moving targets, even tanks or missile batteries. Natalie Crawford, a RAND defense specialist and chairman of the report's attack panel, said, that aircraft firepower could be increased 100 times while reducing the cost for war reserves. * High-power microwave weapons and Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) generators. These would be used against electronics or computers, not people. McCall said a fighter pilot threatened by a hostile warplane could send microwave signals to confuse his opponent -- perhaps by causing all of the other plane's warning lights and signals to come on. EMP generators were already tested on board of cruise missiles, which were powerful enough to destroy small electro motors and disable auto ignitions. * Space-based surveillance and reconnaissance is expected to be worldwide, continuous and largely conducted from commercial satellites. A new, highly accurate and jam-resistant GPS system would be available, as well as distributed space-sensors and starring sensors aboard of URAVs, which could continuously monitor important targets with increased resolution. * Brain-wave guidance of UAVs and other vehicles as well as other advanced human-machine interfaces will be perfected. "Information Munitions" will be developed, to seek out and confuse enemy computers -- the USAF's "Hacker Squadron" (the 609th Information Warfare Squadron (IWS), based at Shaw AFB, SC) is only the beginning. * Drugs. Using what the "Vistas" report called "chemical intervention," the endurance and performance of pilots and other Air Force personnel can be enhanced. Chemical and other means can be found to reduce physical and psychological effects of jet lag, for example. "Let me assure you that this study is not going to sit on the shelf and gather dust. We have already set aside funding for some of these promising new areas of research," Air Force Secretary Sheila Widnall said. [Some information was compiled from additional sources like press reports.] - -- 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: "J. Pharabod" Date: Tue, 06 Feb 96 11:50:53 MET Subject: Re: As I said.... I am not sure that interstellar travel is on the skunk-works charter, but in any case it's better to exchange information in a cool way. There are discussion groups devoted to these matters: sci.space.tech, sci.space.science and other sci.space.xxx. Maybe you will find some interest in the following reposts. The first is from Henry Spencer, one of the best informed contributors to these sci.space.xxx groups: [begins] Date: Sun, 29 Oct 1995 02:36:04 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: starflight and UFOs (Re: A NASA Employee's Opinions) >...The distances are so incomprehensibly >vast, and the laws of physics so inflexible regarding such matters as >speed limits, that I am very skeptical of the possibilities REGARDLESS of >the level of technological advancement an extraterrestrial society may >have achieved. Another NASA employee who doesn't read JBIS. :-) Difficult, expensive interstellar flight will be within *our* reach within a century or so. See, for example, Mallove&Matloff's "The Starflight Handbook". [end of re-post] ._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._. The second is more recent (I found it last week in one of these sci.space.xxx groups): [begins] Perusing my local University of California library I have discovered the most comprehensive book for non-scientists on interstellar travel. It is entitled "Prospects For Insterstellar Travel" written by Dr. John H. Mauldin and put out by the American Astronautical Society. Here are just the chapter titles: Basics of Travel in Space; Advanced Propulsion Methods; Relativity and Interstellar Travel; Relativistic Drives and Problems; Starships as Systems; Missions; Astrogation, Observation, and Communication; Technological Requirements and Hazards; Biological Requirements; Personal, Social And Political Considerations; Insterstellar Life and Civilizations; and Long-Term Prospects. This books has everything you have ever wanted to know about insterstellar travel. It is big too, about 400 pages. It blows every other book out of the water. And what I like about it is that it is not overly optimistic. In fact, after reading the book you feel kind of overawed by the forces that will have to be harnessed in order to get anywhere on an interstellar scale. I was so impressed I felt like I should get the word out about this book (also because I haven't seen it listed on any of the reference lists that I've seen). I've also never seen it in a bookstore so I tracked down the publisher. It is published by Univelt, Inc. in Escondido (in San Diego County), CA (619)746-4005. It is expensive though, $27 for the softbound and $50 for the hardbound. Just wanted to let anyone know who might be interested. Mark Druskoff "Ad Astra, Ad Nauseam" [ends] ._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._. There is no need of "warp drive", "faster-than-light speed", "tachyons", "anti-gravity", "wormholes", "teleportation" and other exotic or fringe science hypotheses. Maybe the most often quoted solution is the Bussard Ramjet, which, if memory serves, takes its energy from the matter it finds in the not-so-empty interstellar space. Here are a few more references, taken from the sci.space.xxx FAQ: BUSSARD RAMJETS AND RELATED METHODS G. L. Matloff and A. J. Fennelly, "Interstellar Applications and Limitations of Several Electrostatic/Electromagnetic Ion Collection Techniques", JBIS 30 (1977):213-222 N. H. Langston, "The Erosion of Interstellar Drag Screens", JBIS 26 (1973): 481-484 C. Powell, "Flight Dynamics of the Ram-Augmented Interstellar Rocket", JBIS 28 (1975):553-562 A. R. Martin, "The Effects of Drag on Relativistic Spacefight", JBIS 25 (1972):643-652 Hope this helps, J. Pharabod P.S. You surely know that Jupiter-sized planets with temperatures compatible with life have been found 35 light years away. Earth-sized planets can be there too (probably, IMHO) but are still undetectable. The right place to look at is: http://www.physics.sfu.edu/~gmarcy/planetsearch/planetsearch.html ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 04:16:53 PST Subject: Aplogies to Skunk Works devotees. JCarb writes: >I too, feel very well now that Chuck has set us all straight about physics & >distances in space. Talk about hubris!! I believe you mean hybris, the Greek term. Why would it be hybris for an aerospace engineer to discuss spaceflight or the associated mechanics? Someone explain, please. This is why I really dislike the UFO crowd. Anyone who disagrees is either "uneducated (!!)" or part of the conspiracy. I apologize to the 99.9% good people on the list, but these nut cases really get to me. You can`t hide from them, they find you. We all spent years up till 3:00 AM studying and struggling to understand concepts of flight and propulsion, and these Pop-Sci weilding idiots throw speculation in your face as fact.. Well, time to go. I can see by the clock on my office of the future`s desk-sized thinking machine its time to jump into my gyrocopter and head to my automated house. (Per Pop-Sci `s I read as a kid) Chuck ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 06:01:33 PST Subject: Re: Engine (EM) noise emissions There is another way to track jet engines. This is via microwaves in the 53 GHz band. This was discovered by accident in the 80`s, when there was a huge push on to detect CAT. NASA did a big study and built some flying equippment. I got interested in in it because it has the ability of "seeing" convection, also. Turns out that turbulent airflows radiate microwaves due to collision effects between molecules. These are detectable at "usefull" ranges. A heated flow gives of even higher emmisions. The edges of a jet (jet in the fluids engineering sense) are full of turbulent eddies. The energy cascades in the smaller and smaller rotation cells are microwave generators. These are detectable, with no known method of masking them. It seems likely that there is already hardware around that can detect aircraft with this technology. It really isn`t that tough a job. Chuck ------------------------------ From: mikeq@primenet.com (Michael Quinlan) Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 07:49:51 -0700 Subject: What is SR-71 Current Status? I would like to update my Web page with the current status of the SR-71 planes. Can anyone tell me which planes were re-activated? Where are they currently based? Any information would be appreciated. Thanks! +--------------------------------------------+ | Michael Quinlan | | mikeq@primenet.com | | http://www.primenet.com/~mikeq | | If it doesn't fit, you must acquit! | +--------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 12:20:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: As I said.... On Tue, 6 Feb 1996, John Gregor wrote: > Su Wei-Jen said: > > > Remember the theory of relativity by Einstein??? > > Yes, we remember. Have you ever learned them (special/general)? > Eisntein said: There is only about 2,000 people that understand the theory of relativity, and only about 200 of them really understand. Even himself have a problem in understand it :) > > Lesse, time dilation formula (from SR): > > ( 1 - ( v^2 / c^2 ) ) ^ 0.5 > > So, plug in v = 0.7 c, and you get .714... So that 70,000 years is now > a measly 50,000 years. Gosh! I feel better already. I know. But, I mean peharps that. There is time anomalies in the space. The time is not straight in a space. Well.. this has gone too far and nothing Skunky... well, maybe if the Skunk Works are working in time machines :) May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 11:36:38 -0800 Subject: Re: Interstellar Travel and Aplogies to Skunk Works devotees J. Pharabod writes: > ... >but in any case it's better to exchange information in a cool way. Yes. That has been the tradition of this list going way back to when I joined it years ago. We don't name call. The subject matter of this list doesn't lend itself to open discussion if someone name calls. Anybody that can't adhere to that should be officially censured. >There are discussion groups devoted to these matters: sci.space.tech, >sci.space.science and other sci.space.xxx. Maybe you will find some >interest in the following reposts. Yes. Vanilla starships (techniques using linear techniques of propulsion) would be a subject for those lists. However, exotic techniques may apply here. >The first is from Henry Spencer, one of the best informed contributors >to these sci.space.xxx groups: > >[begins] >Date: Sun, 29 Oct 1995 02:36:04 GMT >From: Henry Spencer >Subject: starflight and UFOs (Re: A NASA Employee's Opinions) > >>...The distances are so incomprehensibly >>vast, and the laws of physics so inflexible regarding such matters as >>speed limits, that I am very skeptical of the possibilities REGARDLESS of >>the level of technological advancement an extraterrestrial society may >>have achieved. Yes. This is also what Chuck argued (he must have changed his opinion since he used to sig his posts as "Aerospace Engineer to the Stars"). I must say that I agree with the foundations of this, however, I will say one thing regarding this as far as UFO's are concerned, and that is that per eyewitness reports going back to the 50's, they aren't seen passing Saturn and Jupiter on their way here, they seem to appear suddenly after a flash of light. This seems strange and different enough to me to warrant some interest. Perhaps some of the wormhole theories may be our first steps in the correct direction, this is of course speculation. I am encouraged that a new field of science and engineering on wormhole engineering has popped up out of the theoretical work done so far. If you are of a mind to believe that ALL UFO reports are bogus and find no interest in them then fine, but don't tell me what I can or can't find interesting. Enough said on this. >Perusing my local University of California library I have discovered >the most comprehensive book for non-scientists on interstellar travel. > >It is entitled "Prospects For Insterstellar Travel" written by Dr. John >H. Mauldin and put out by the American Astronautical Society. Yes, I've heard of it. Thanks for posting the title. Chuck Smith writes: >>JCarb writes: >>I too, feel very well now that Chuck has set us all straight about physics & >>distances in space. Talk about hubris!! >I believe you mean hybris, the Greek term. Actually, according to Webster, hybris is a variant of hubris. >Why would it be hybris for an aerospace engineer to discuss spaceflight >or the associated mechanics? >Someone explain, please. OK. You didn't discuss, you name called and personally attacked. Did the original post have anything even to do with interstellar travel? > This is why I really dislike the UFO crowd. Anyone who disagrees is >either "uneducated (!!)" or part of the conspiracy. I didn't find that implied by any posting I saw. > I apologize to the 99.9% good people on the list, but these nut cases >really get to me. >... and these >Pop-Sci weilding idiots throw speculation in your face as >fact.. You're still doing it! Larry ------------------------------ From: Indiana Joe Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 21:15:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: News about Groom Lake [Many very interesting (and some fantastic) proposals deleted.] Anybody care to speculate which ones are real, and which are red herrings? :-) Joe Claffey | "In the end, everything is a gag." jrc@pcnet.com | - Charlie Chaplin ------------------------------ From: "J. Pharabod" Date: Wed, 07 Feb 96 10:54:27 MET Subject: Error in Web page Sorry, the Web page for the new planets is not: http://www.physics.sfu.edu/~gmarcy/planetsearch/planetsearch.html but: http://www.physics.sfsu.edu/~gmarcy/planetsearch/planetsearch.html (*sfsu* instead of *sfu*; that's San Francisco State University). J. Pharabod ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #615 ********************************* 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).