From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #633 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Friday, 8 March 1996 Volume 05 : Number 633 In this issue: Searchlights Cargo A/C vs. Transports Re: Nuclear rockets Re: Nuclear rockets RE: Cargo & Transports Re: Nuclear rockets & "Skyquakes" SL-1 (was Re: Nuclear rockets) Shamu unsub re: C-17 reborn (possible duplicate) Re: C17 reborn.. ... Re: SL-1 (was Re: Nuclear rockets) Re: SL-1 (was Re: Nuclear rockets) Weekend Wings 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: adrian mann Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 09:23:57 +0000 Subject: Searchlights jburtens@athena.bournemouth.ac.uk wrote: >Yep it was British. The RAF fitted high-powered lamps on the nose and >leading edge of their U-Boat hunters (Sunderland flying boats etc). During >an attack one of the crew would control the brightness of the lamps so that >the aircraft would blend in with the sky. It appears that the US copied the >idea for their sub hunters in the Pacific, but I've got little info on that. Well, my Dad flew for RAF Coastal Command in WWII, in LIberators, Mitchels, Catalinas et al., and the search light was called a Leigh Light. I think it was used to spot U-boats, to help with depth-charging, rather than for dazzling, although this may have been a side-effect. It worked - his crew sank 2 U-boats using it! As far as I know, it was never used with any kind of control other than on/off. It did put out a quite staggering amount of candle power though! He also used the microwave radar, as he was a radio op/navigator/gunner to detect snorkels on the surface, but he didn't say much else - sorry! But it did exist and was used operationally. Adrian Mann Adrian Mann, Birmingham, England ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 05:18:57 PST Subject: Cargo A/C vs. Transports I`m very surprised by the Air Force`s comments that commercial jetliners can do what military transports can. Any undergrad who`s taken aircraft design 101, or buff for that matter, can easily explain why military transports are high-wing Rube`s and jetliners are low-wing tubes. As far as all weather, - again, not a problem. Most big airplanes built today, mil spec or no, are cat. III birds. Anything with a Waldo can be assumed an auto-lander, as far as I know. Known icing is standard. And nothing can go through a thunderstorm without mucho risk. I just read a pretty neat article on the C-17 in my February Air Force magizine. Nice pics. Lots of propoganda too. I just can`t picture an M1 driving into a 777, or a DC10 kicking out supplies on a drop and go to a certain airfield in Viet Nam that will remain nameless.......... Chuck "Long live the rodeo and long-horned steer, long live longnecks, and Lone Star beer!" ------------------------------ From: albert.dobyns@mwbbs.com (ALBERT DOBYNS) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 96 22:36:00 -0500 Subject: Re: Nuclear rockets JP> Date: Wed, 06 Mar 96 15:19:19 MET > From: "J. Pharabod" > Subject: Re: Nuclear rockets [snip] JP> AFAIK, this phenomenon already occurred three times (not in nuclear > rockets !) (and not speaking of the program SPERT, Special Power > Excursion Reactor Test, which I don't know very well). JP> Experiment: July 22, 1954, Borax (Boiling Reactor Experiment), near > Idaho Falls, USA. Debris climbed up to 75 feet and were scattered > within a 300 feet radius. It's a good thing the reactor test site is several miles from the city of Idaho Falls. I spent a week out there sometime around 1981. It seemed like I had to drive forever to go from my motel room to the site. Just a bit of advice for anyone visiting Idaho Falls: don't bring up the subject of the movie "China Syndrome"! I did and the formerly friendly treatment I had received suddenly turned icy. Fortunately I did not commit this blunder during the computer class I was teaching (which was why I was sent there for a week). I told the fellow who was my escort while on site that I had not seen the movie but had a fair idea of what it was about because of the ads on tv. I wish he and I and maybe some of his friends could have watched it from a tape so they could explain whatever errors were in it. I would expect some technical errors probably ranging from small to totally impossible, but I don't know what sort of errors like workers or whoever being unbalanced or psychotic or whatever. It might have been an educational experience for me. JP> Accident: January 3, 1961, SL-1 (Stationary Low Power Reactor 1), > near Idaho Falls, USA. 3 immediate deaths. I'm wondering if this is the same one I heard about years ago. The story I heard was that one of the plant workers found out that his wife as having an affair with another plant worker. The unhappy husband decided to rig something in the plant to have a failure that would kill the other worker yet it would be treated as an accident rather than a deliberate attempt to kill the person. I think the accident killed both men, but I don't know anything about the 3rd person. Perhaps he was just one of the workers who happened to be on that shift. JP> Accident: April 26, 1986, Chernobyl (Soviet Union). 31 immediate > or quasi-immediate deaths + an unknown (probably great) number > of delayed deaths. A documentary was done by NOVA, I think, about the effects of the radiation on young people living in Kiev or perhaps closer to Chernobyl. One victim was a girl around 14 years old. I believe she had leukemia. All of her hair had fallen out except for one small patch. These hairs were several inches long and it made her look like she had a tassle of hair stuck on her bald head. It was a very depressing program. I read in note from an Internet friend of mine that the amount of radiation released by Chernobyl was compared to the Three Mile Island incident. The TMI value was in the hundreds range but the Chernobyl value was in the HUNDRED MILLION range!! I do not know what units these values were measured in, but the extreme difference in magnitude is the key element. - -Al- * SLMR 2.1a * ... Advisor: The person who told you how to screw up. ------------------------------ From: "J. Pharabod" Date: Thu, 07 Mar 96 15:06:35 MET Subject: Re: Nuclear rockets >In all modern western reactor designs, the reactors are designed with >natural negative feedback coefficients. That is, as the power levels >increase, their own internal feedback mechanisms tend to decrease, and >then ultimately shutdown the chain reaction. Designing reactors this >way is pretty much just the result of a long tradition in nuclear >safety, at least here in the west. [...] > >Chernobyl: This type of reactor raises steam by boiling water in it's >core. Any reactor which does this will have what's called a void >reactivity feedback coefficient, which is simply the reactor's >response to steam voids being formed in its core. Chernobyl had (and >the remaining reactors there still do have) a positive void >coefficient, making it highly unstable. [...] > >Paul Keller (Wed, 06 Mar 96 15:31:14 EST) Not all modern western reactors have natural negative feedback coefficients. Our big French LMFBR (Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor) Superphenix has a positive void coefficient (and 6 tons of plutonium, far more than Chernobyl...). Of course, in this case, the voids are not steam but sodium vapor. I have heard that the Canadian heavy water reactors CANDU also have a positive void coefficient. >Whew, long response, but I thought an intelligent question deserved an >intelligent answer. Thanks. By the way, on last Tuesday I asked a question which was as intelligent, easier to answer, and more on charter. It was about the "skyquakes" experienced in Southern California in 1992. However I got no answer, therefore I ask again: What is the status of these "skyquakes" ? Are they still heard / felt ? What is the present explanation (if there is one) ? J. Pharabod ------------------------------ From: JOHN SZALAY Date: Thu, 7 Mar 96 09:29:10 EST Subject: RE: Cargo & Transports > "Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com" "MAIL-11 Daemon" > Subj: Cargo A/C vs. Transports > > Im very surprised by the Air Forces comments that commercial > jetliners can do what military transports can.< > I just cant picture an M1 driving into a 777, or a DC10 kicking > out supplies on a drop and go to a certain airfield in Viet Nam that > will remain nameless.......... Agreed, As one who has backed many a 6x6 and 3/4 ton with trailers onto C-124, C-130 & C-141 (even one C-133), its a LOT easier to go onto the high wing/ low ramp birds. C-124's are a bear to get up that ramp. Don,t even want to think about what it would take to back-up the ramp on a 747 freighter or the transporter/loader to a 747. Take a look at the picture of when they unloaded the prototype U-2 from the C-124 at Groom lake, that takes steady nerves... John Szalay jpszalay@tacl.dnet.ge.com Been there, done that, got the gray hair that goes with it! :) ------------------------------ From: keller@eos.ncsu.edu Date: Thu, 07 Mar 96 09:58:24 EST Subject: Re: Nuclear rockets & "Skyquakes" [deletia] J. Pharabod shaped the electrons to say... >Not all modern western reactors have natural negative feedback >coefficients. Our big French LMFBR (Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor) >Superphenix has a positive void coefficient (and 6 tons of pluto>nium, >far more than Chernobyl...). Of course, in this case, the voids are >not steam but sodium vapor. I have heard that the Canadian heavy >water reactors CANDU also have a positive void coefficient. You are correct on both counts here, I didn't think of either one of these until after yesterday's posting. Yes, in the case of Superphenix, they would be sodium voids which wouldn't be produced during normal operation. If my recollection of Superphenix's operating conditions is correct, its reactor outlet temperature is around 600 degC. Sodium boils at 883 degC, so that leaves a fair margin. Still, this is a controversial issue, and alot of research time & money has been spent on trying to design fast reactor cores which do not have positive void coefficients. Right now, it looks like a small reactor can be designed that way, although at some economic cost. For large reactors, it's a bit more difficult. No one is in a hurry with this right now since, with the combination cheap uranium and the possible sale of former weapons material, both uranium and plutonium as reactor fuel, no one has an interest in building another big breeder reactor. The Canadian CANDU reactors also have some positive feedback characteristics, although they are otherwise up to western safety standards. As an american nuclear engineer I haven't had time to study these much, and so can't say much about them. [more deletia] >Thanks. By the way, on last Tuesday I asked a question which was >as intelligent, easier to answer, and more on charter. It was >about the "skyquakes" experienced in Southern California in 1992. >However I got no answer, therefore I ask again: >What is the status of these "skyquakes" ? Are they still heard / felt ? >What is the present explanation (if there is one) ? The March, '94 issue of Pop Sci. was the most recent reference to this which I am aware of. Obviously, not the greatest source, and I think that all they did was provide some ground tracks from previously published observations. The last reputable "Aurora" reference I know of now is the December '92 Jane's Defence Weekly report. There were some claims by the Pentagon that the "apparent booms" over metro LA were due to refracted shock waves generated by aircraft offshore. Can anyone on the list provide any credance or rebuttal to this claim? Paul Keller ------------------------------ From: krs@caos.aamu.edu (Karl R. Sackett) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 10:45:55 -0600 (CST) Subject: SL-1 (was Re: Nuclear rockets) keller@eos.ncsu.edu writes: > > SL1: This was an accident at an experimental reactor intended for the > US Army that happened around 1960. The operators at the time were > supposed to be preparing the reactor for startup, a procedure which > required lifting each control rod slightly to connect it to it's drive > shaft. The procedure specified that each control rod be slowly lifted > no more than 4-5 inches. The subsequent analysis of the accident > suggested that the excursion which destroyed the reactor would have > taken a fast pull of around 20 inches. What was the operator doing? > We don't know. He's dead. So are his two buddies, and the three > together were the three fatalities, and the only people at the site at > the time of the accident. It has been suggested that the operator > reponsible for this event my have trying to commit suicide. I have > note that SL-1 didn't meet current safety standards. It could be > started up (taken critical) by pulling just a single control rod, with > all others fully inserted. The current western standard is that the > reactor has to remain safely shutdown with the most reactive control > rod fully withdrawn, with the rest fully inserted. This is > Adm. Rickover's response to the SL-1 event. The SL-1 operator bent over the core and gave the rod a good, strong pull. This was the conclusion of the investigation based the fact that the operator's body was found pinned to the ceiling with the control rod impaled through his chest. A report published in an Idaho Falls, ID newspaper in the late 70's suggested that the accident was a murder- suicide - the operator's wife was having an affair with one of the other men in the building at the time of the excursion. My father started work at INEL a few months after the accident happened and had some interesting stories to relate to me. - -- Karl R. Sackett krs@caos.aamu.edu Run silent, run deep ------------------------------ From: CULLY@svr81trw.kee.aetc.af.mil (CULLY, George Mr) Date: 07 Mar 96 11:40:39 EST Subject: Shamu Has anyone noticed the drawing of an attack UAV-carrying "airlifter" on p. 23 of AW&ST for Feb. 26th? The illustration is apparently taken from an ARPA study, and the article is largely based on an interview with the study's senior author. But here's the odd thing. In Curtis Peebles' "Dark Eagles; a History of Top Secret Aircraft Programs," (Presidio Press, 1995), there's a sketch of a stealth acft nick-named "Shamu." Says Peebles, "The aircraft has been described as looking like a 1950s-era Stratocruiser with no vertical tail and swept wings. The plane is reported to be a one-of-a-kind electronic warfare aircraft...reported during the late 1980s and early 1990s." The two drawings have similar features: a very short, rounded nose, a windscreen arrangemnt like a '50s airliner, no vertical tail, and swept wings with engines housed in a B-2-ish arrangement (close inboard, and signature-masked). Probably just a coincidence, tho.... Geo. Cully ------------------------------ From: bwvenne@solomon.ag.gov.bc.ca (Buddy Venne) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 09:21:33 -0800 Subject: unsub How do I unsub? I have tried 4 different ways, about 25 times total I wish to leave!!!! Thanks Buddy W. Venne, MPH, (Ministry Packet-Head) British Columbia Ministry of Attorney General aka bwvenne@solomon.ag.gov.bc.ca no information is guaranteed error-free, except no information ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Thu, 7 Mar 96 11:59:59  Subject: re: C-17 reborn (possible duplicate) I just got a weird error message when I sent this, so please excuse me if you've already seen the following: - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Stefan's two questions: C-17 cost: From what I read of General Glosson's statements, what I believe he is asserting is that whatever 50-60 C-17s cost (most of which were already on order anyway), 50-60 C-17s with balance of the need filled out by commercial derivatives would cost hundreds of millions of dollars less than an all C-17 buy, and the savings in acquisition and operations would be used to fund the all-weather capability for the airlift fleet. This naturally revolves around acceptance of his position that the USAF's entire need for the C-17's unique features can be met with 50-60 of them. The R&D for the C-17 is already a sunk cost. If we bought no more or if we bought 1,000 more, that money is already gone. Which aircraft: The most likely candidate was a 747 derivative. In fact, such an aircraft was widely expected to be ordered as part of a mix with a smaller order for more C-17s. It was regularly (though not by Boeing) referred to as the C-33, although I do not know if that was an officially assigned number. It carried more payload than the C-17 farther and faster, but naturally couldn't operate from all the airfields the C-17 could. Oh... just read Charles' message-- Again, we're talking about what Gen. Glosson proposed, which was also discussed elsewhere in USAF quarters. His whole position revolves around the contention that 50-60 C-17s, along with existing assets, meet USAF's real need for paradropping, drive-on drive-off, operating out of less than gargantuan airfields, etc. needs (The C-5 and C-141 need 747-type fields and even the C-17 can't get in where C-130s and other smaller airlifters can go). He's probably considering handling the cargo by using the already in-inventory equipment used to load/unload the KC-10s, or the same commercial equipment used worldwide to load/unload 747Fs (at least I hope he is). While it's true that the largest outsize cargo won't quite fit into a 747, there's a very small percentage of that stuff actually sent by air. The overwhelming portion is going to come by sea anyway. In the case of the M-1, you put one of these into a C-17 (or C-5) and you're essentially full if you want to travel any distance (Weight, not volume). You then run into the question, how often will you be in a circumstance where the situation is so secure that you'd be willing to operate $180 million+ aircraft into an environment close to the front line yet simultaneously so desperate that you need to airmail M-1s one at a time? Regarding the all-weather capability, it's Gen. Glosson who says they don't have it. Not that the technology and equipment doesn't exist, just that the money hasn't been forthcoming to put it aboard all the aircraft that need it. Is he right? I dunno. That's sorta like what happened in the Gulf War. We had tons o' technology for laser-guided and other precision weapons, we just hadn't gotten around to actually buying the stuff. LANTIRN consists of two pods, and we had to grab virtually every pod we had in the world to outfit part of the force over there. Even then, we ran into the situation that we had bought the nav pod but not the targeting pod, even though they were already around (same thing on the F/A-18 and its pods). A similar thing is going on right now with the B-2. The big debate is whether to be able to buy more B-2s or to provide precision strike capability for the existing Spirits and the B-1s. We'll also run into this situation next decade when the F-22 enters service. In a time of limited funds, it comes down to a question of priorities. This isn't a pitch for the 747, I just used it because that was the aircraft usually proposed as the commercial aircraft to fill out the airlift need. Whether Gen. Glosson is right or wrong is beyond my qualifications. That's why he got to be a General. Obviously, others at those exalted ranks don't agree with him. Art "Jumbo" Hanley If you asked my employers whether they had anything to do with the above, if it represented their views or if they even knew about it, they'd say, "No", and they'd be telling the truth. ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Thu, 7 Mar 96 11:47:31  Subject: Re: C17 reborn.. Re: Stefan's two questions: C-17 cost: From what I read of General Glosson's statements, what I believe he is asserting is that whatever 50-60 C-17s cost (most of which were already on order anyway), 50-60 C-17s with balance of the need filled out by commercial derivatives would cost hundreds of millions of dollars less than an all C-17 buy, and the savings in acquisition and operations would be used to fund the all-weather capability for the airlift fleet. This naturally revolves around acceptance of his position that the USAF's entire need for the C-17's unique features can be met with 50-60 of them. The R&D for the C-17 is already a sunk cost. If we bought no more or if we bought 1,000 more, that money is already gone. Which aircraft: The most likely candidate was a 747 derivative. In fact, such an aircraft was widely expected to be ordered as part of a mix with a smaller order for more C-17s. It was regularly (though not by Boeing) referred to as the C-33, although I do not know if that was an officially assigned number. It carried more payload than the C-17 farther and faster, but naturally couldn't operate from all the airfields the C-17 could. Oh... just read Charles' message-- Again, we're talking about what Gen. Glosson proposed, which was also discussed elsewhere in USAF quarters. His whole position revolves around the contention that 50-60 C-17s, along with existing assets, meet USAF's real need for paradropping, drive-on drive-off, operating out of less than gargantuan airfields, etc. needs (The C-5 and C-141 need 747-type fields and even the C-17 can't get in where C-130s and other smaller airlifters can go). He's probably considering handling the cargo by using the already in-inventory equipment used to load/unload the KC-10s, or the same commercial equipment used worldwide to load/unload 747Fs (at least I hope he is). While it's true that the largest outsize cargo won't quite fit into a 747, there's a very small percentage of that stuff actually sent by air. The overwhelming portion is going to come by sea anyway. In the case of the M-1, you put one of these into a C-17 (or C-5) and you're essentially full if you want to travel any distance (Weight, not volume). You then run into the question, how often will you be in a circumstance where the situation is so secure that you'd be willing to operate $180 million+ aircraft into an environment close to the front line yet simultaneously so desperate that you need to airmail M-1s one at a time? Regarding the all-weather capability, it's Gen. Glosson who says they don't have it. Not that the technology and equipment doesn't exist, just that the money hasn't been forthcoming to put it aboard all the aircraft that need it. Is he right? I dunno. That's sorta like what happened in the Gulf War. We had tons o' technology for laser-guided and other precision weapons, we just hadn't gotten around to actually buying the stuff. LANTIRN consists of two pods, and we had to grab virtually every pod we had in the world to outfit part of the force over there. Even then, we ran into the situation that we had bought the nav pod but not the targeting pod, even though they were already around (same thing on the F/A-18 and its pods). A similar thing is going on right now with the B-2. The big debate is whether to be able to buy more B-2s or to provide precision strike capability for the existing Spirits and the B-1s. We'll also run into this situation next decade when the F-22 enters service. In a time of limited funds, it comes down to a question of priorities. This isn't a pitch for the 747, I just used it because that was the aircraft usually proposed as the commercial aircraft to fill out the airlift need. Whether Gen. Glosson is right or wrong is beyond my qualifications. That's why he got to be a General. Obviously, others at those exalted ranks don't agree with him. Art "Jumbo" Hanley If you asked my employers whether they had anything to do with the above, if it represented their views or if they even knew about it, they'd say, "No", and they'd be telling the truth. ------------------------------ From: Mr.Echevarria@tube3.com Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 20:02:06 -0800 Subject: ... The March 1996 issue of Scientific American has an article entitled, "The Art and Science of Photoreconnaissance". The description of the article is as follows: "Photoreconnaissance by spy planes and satellites has pulled the superpowers back from the brink of war several times. A former image analyst for the CIA shares tricks of the trade and recently declassified pictures that made history." Enjoy. ------------------------------ From: krs@caos.aamu.edu (Karl R. Sackett) Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 08:56:17 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SL-1 (was Re: Nuclear rockets) Michael Chui writes: > > >The SL-1 operator bent over the core and gave the rod a good, strong pull. > >This was the conclusion of the investigation based the fact that the > >operator's body was found pinned to the ceiling with the control rod > >impaled through his chest. > > Why would the control rod have launched into the ceiling? SL-1 was a water-cooled reactor with a single control rod. When the rod was pulled out the coolant flashed into steam. This ruptured the reactor vessel and propelled the control rod out of the reactor core. - -- Karl R. Sackett krs@caos.aamu.edu Run silent, run deep ------------------------------ From: krs@caos.aamu.edu (Karl R. Sackett) Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 09:21:42 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SL-1 (was Re: Nuclear rockets) keller@eos.ncsu.edu writes: > > >The SL-1 operator bent over the core and gave the rod a good, strong pull. > >This was the conclusion of the investigation based the fact that the > >operator's body was found pinned to the ceiling with the control rod > >impaled through his chest. A report published in an Idaho Falls, ID > >newspaper in the late 70's suggested that the accident was a murder- > >suicide - the operator's wife was having an affair with one of the > >other men in the building at the time of the excursion. > > Yes, I've known about that little item that the guy was impaled by a > control rod on the ceiling, but left it out of my posting as a > gratuitous, gory detail. My point was SL-1 was a deliberate act and shouldn't be compared with Challenger or Chernobyl. > Didn't the old AEC do any investigation of > those guys backgrounds and social lives after the accident? I realize > this sort of sounds like prying, but, given the time & circumstances, > these guys certainly did have AEC clearances, and thus were valid > targets for investigation. Those clearances included handling of nuclear warheads whether or not it was part of an employee's job. One would think that the personal dirt would have been found _before_ their clearances were approved. It may be that the operators' backgrounds were investigated and the AEC didn't make public that part of the findings. > I have read a number of the NTSB reports' > excerpts which AvWeek publishes, and they (NTSB) will delve pretty > deeply into pilot's backgrounds if pilot error is indicated in an > accident investigation. There was a particular crash, that of a > TransColorado commuter plane at Durango in '87, if you follow these > things closely enough and recall, in which the captain's cocaine habit > was implicated as a contributing factor. Yes, you read that right. > *Cocaine habit*. The autopsy on the captain, who was one of the > fatalities, revealed cocaine metabolites in his system indicative of > cocaine use within the previous 12-18 hours prior to the accident. > The investigation of the captain's recent professional and social life > revealed all of the tell-tale signs of a drug abuse problem. And consider the case of the FedEx pilot who, flying as a passenger, attempted to overpower the crew of a FedEx freighter and crash it into FedEx's headquarters in Memphis. The investigation showed he had an extensive history of psychological problems that the company was not aware of when he was hired. - -- Karl R. Sackett krs@caos.aamu.edu Run silent, run deep ------------------------------ From: BaDge Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 11:42:13 -0500 (EST) Subject: Weekend Wings Howdy, Skunky TV for the weekend, don't miss 'em ;-) Sat 2100-2200 (EST) Replay of the popular "NightHawk, Secrets of the Stealth" on the Disc. channel. Sun 2100-2200 (EST) "Eyes in the Sky" Photo recon. series, Disc. Chan. That's all folks (Oh the UFO thing is on TLC 1800-1900 Sun, so beware) regards, ________ BaDge ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #633 ********************************* 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).