From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #635 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Sunday, 17 March 1996 Volume 05 : Number 635 In this issue: Neat pic in this weeks AW&ST showing SR-71 - Aerospike Test ER-2 used for Super-fund program mapping request for info Re: Don't Forget.... Roving Sands SR71 Presentation correction Scaled Down B-2 Re: What I wish I had..... Looking for Information on Long Range Missile Kills Testing with Models. Re: Scaled Down B-2 Re: Looking for Information on Long Range Missile Kills Re: Looking for Information on Long Range Missile Kills More Stealth stuff :) RE: What I wish I had..... Re: Looking for Information on Long Range Missile Kills 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: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 10:44:54 -0800 Subject: Neat pic in this weeks AW&ST showing SR-71 - Aerospike Test Hello, There is a very cool picture in this week's AW&ST showing the NASA SR-71 being fitted for the upcoming aerospike test. Check it out. Larry ------------------------------ From: JOHN SZALAY Date: Wed, 13 Mar 96 16:29:02 EST Subject: ER-2 used for Super-fund program mapping This press release arrived in to-day's mailbag. since the project makes use of the ER-2 , thought the list might like to see what other uses, the Dragon lady has been put. =============================================================== Douglas Isbell Headquarters, Washington, DC (Phone: 202/358-1547) Mary Hardin Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA (Phone: 818/354-5011) RELEASE: 96-48 March 13, 1996 NASA AIRBORNE SENSOR AIDS SUPERFUND SITE CLEAN-UP Maps produced from a NASA airborne sensor are cutting costs and helping to speed the clean-up of hazardous waste at a Superfund site in Leadville, CO. Several federal agencies, including the Bureau of Reclamation, the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), are using the maps to find sources of acid mine drainage and heavy-metal contamination at the California Gulch Superfund Site. The contamination is the result of more than 130 years of mining activities associated with the Leadville Mining District, according to Felix W. Cook, Sr., director of the Technical Service Center at the Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO. The maps were produced by the USGS using data from NASA's Airborne Visible and Infra-Red Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) which was developed and is managed by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, (JPL), Pasadena, CA. The AVIRIS instrument flies aboard a NASA ER-2 high-altitude research aircraft. While being carried 12 miles above sea level at a speed of 450 miles per hour, the instrument can take approximately 7,000 measurements per second. Earth scientists use AVIRIS to make measurements related to global climate and environmental change research in ecology, geology, oceanography, snow hydrology and cloud and atmospheric studies. "This technique of imaging spectroscopy represents a fundamental new way of doing remote-sensing. We are measuring in detail how light is absorbed or reflected by various materials on the Earth's surface and that gives us an accurate picture of what those materials on the ground are made of. Once we know where the materials are, we can begin to make decisions based on those maps," said Robert Green, the AVIRIS experiment scientist at JPL. "The imaging spectroscopy mineral mapping has allowed us to identify potential contaminating sources as small as individual mine dumps for evaluation," Cook said. "Based on our recent experience, the Bureau of Reclamation anticipates that many future hazardous clean-up efforts throughout the United States, especially at large sites, should use AVIRIS to produce relatively inexpensive thematic site maps to aid in remediation." An analysis program that recognizes the spectral signature of the contaminants on the ground has been developed by the USGS to construct mineral maps from the AVIRIS data. "AVIRIS data are like a treasure chest of scripts in an unknown language -- totally unreadable to the untrained observer," said Gregg Swayze, a geophysicist at the USGS. "The imaging analysis program is like a Rosetta stone, a key to that language by which the AVIRIS data can be interpreted and profited from." The mineral maps have helped officials save roughly $500,000 and about a year's time in identifying the areas in need of attention. "NASA's AVIRIS program has enabled more money to be used for actually cleaning up the hazardous mine waste materials currently contaminating this site," Cook said. "In addition, the speed with which the AVIRIS data can be processed, mapped, and integrated into our system has enabled us to complete the site data development and analysis process about a year ahead of schedule, saving additional money and time." Reclamation officials believe the AVIRIS data mineral mapping could be used for site investigations on many of the hazardous waste sites now included on the Environmental Protection Agency's National Priorities List. The AVIRIS instrument is managed by JPL for NASA's Office of Mission to Planet Earth, Washington, DC. The Mission to Planet Earth is a long-term, coordinated program to study the Earth's air, water, land and life as a global environmental system. -end- ------------------------------ From: habu@why.net (habu) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 16:56:20 -0600 Subject: request for info Once upon a time I stumbled across a web site that allowed you to search an extensive list of aviation museums by location, by manufacturer, by aircraft type, etc. Alas, I failed to note the URL, and several searches have led to a variety of dead ends. If anyone on the list knows how to access this site, I would appreciate private replies. Thanks, Greg Fieser ------------------------------ From: dadams@netcom.com (Dean Adams) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 00:56:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Don't Forget.... > Tonight at 10:00 Eastern on the Discovery Channel, "Spy Watch" will be > about the SR-71. > It's a 1989 AW&ST documentary called "SR-71: The Secret Vigil", but its still well worth watching/taping if you haven't seen it before (or maybe even if you have). ------------------------------ From: tullman.robert@ehccgate.sandoz.com Date: Thu, 14 Mar 96 08:14:01 -0500 Subject: Roving Sands David Windle wrote: >I should have said of course that Steve Douglass videoed the mini B-2 >during Roving Sands AND it was also seen near Groom. Thanks to Earl >for pointing out my mistake. I guess this is as good an opportunity as any to inquire of all the skunks out there if anyone has info on Roving Sands 1996..(i.e. if, when, where ) I will be in New Mexico right around the usual time (end April) and would like to try and get to Roswell to see some of the action. Thanks! Bob ------------------------------ From: "Lawrence A. Plummer" Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 09:37:05 EST Subject: SR71 Presentation correction *****CORRECTION on phone number******* I am hosting a reception for Mr. Tom Allison, NASM curator and former SR71 driver in Falls Church, Virginia on April 1st. The evening includes open bar and buffet and features Tom's EXCLUSIVE home videos of the SR71. The cost is $35/person or $60/couple. It is a fundraiser for the MEA, sponsors of the Manssas (Virginia) Airshow and the Manassas Aviation Explorers Post. respond to burke6@aol.com or lplummer@usaep.org or by phone at 202/364-1581. Thanks, Larry Plummer ------------------------------ From: David Lednicer Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 08:48:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: Scaled Down B-2 Back in 1984/85, when we knew the B-2 existed, but before anything had been seen in public, there were rumors floating around that a scaled down, proof of concept, version of the B-2 had flown. The rumors even showed up in an article in an industry magazine (I believe that it was the Air Force Association magazine). As I knew that Burt Rutan had been doing work for Northrop at this time, I suspected that Scaled Composites had built it. However, later when I worked as a consultant for Scaled, I could find no evidence of this. Now the twist to this story - Scaled now has a web site (www.portal.com/~scaled) and there they show a picture of a 40% scale RCS model of the B-2 in 1989. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 ------------------------------ From: albert.dobyns@mwbbs.com (ALBERT DOBYNS) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 96 10:30:00 -0500 Subject: Re: What I wish I had..... DT> From: dougt@u011.oh.vp.com (Doug Tiffany) > Subject: Don't Forget.... > Date: Wed, 13 Mar 96 10:34:06 EST DT> Tonight at 10:00 Eastern on the Discovery Channel, "Spy Watch" will be > about the SR-71. DT> -- DT> Douglas J. Tiffany dougt@u011.oh.vp.com > Varco-Pruden Buildings Van Wert, Ohio Boy am I glad you mentioned it!! I just don't do a good enough search through TV Guide(tm) or other tv guides so I miss seeing/taping some shows. What I wish I had is a computer program that connects to some database of all tv shows available on on channels. Then if I could enter all the topics I would want to watch, the program would search and tell me what's coming on and when!!! I have a feeling this can be accomplished but have no idea how much I'd have to pay to subscribe to this service...if it even exists. I would definitely put lots of aviation keywords in my "subject" file. Then titles like "X-15", "Toward the Unknown", "Rocket Pilots", "Jet Pilot?". That's the one starring John Wayne and Janet Leigh that was reportedly made in 1950 but not released until 1957. Maybe the new cable tv system we are getting will have this service. I wonder if tonight's airing of the SR-71 documentary will have some updated info included. I would expect it to have something about its retirement and limited return to service. * SLMR 2.1a * "Accept no substitutes...SR-71 The first stealth plane!" ------------------------------ From: mcnuttrt@MIT.EDU (Ross T. McNutt) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 96 14:22:18 Subject: Looking for Information on Long Range Missile Kills As part of a project I am doing, I am looking for information on beyond visual range missle kills. The ability to score beyond visual range kills with long range missiles seems to be the reason the Air Force is comfortable with the operational date of 2002 for the AIM-9X dispite a tremendious advantage off bore sight missile provide fighters. A 16 October AWST article stated (paraphrasing) "MIG 29 with AA-11 off bore sight missiles were able to get the first shot off most of the time against the US F-16s. The F-16 were eventual able to out manuever the Migs in 60% of the cases but typically the MIGs had already fired long before." Another AWST article also stated "the MIGs with the missiles could acquire targets in 30 times the volume of the F-15 and the exchange ratio was also very high. The Mig was overwhelming". I see this as a significant shortfall based on our assumption of air superiourity thought technological superiority. Additionally we have know the AA-11 system existed since 1985 and our response, the AIM-9X is not scheduled to be operational until 2002. An Isreali system the Python is ready and could be adapted relatively quickly but has been forgon for a US only system. I am trying to determine ways to shorten product development time and would like to use the AIM-9X as an example of a system the Government should be making a higher priority and fielding faster but is not. One of the reasons the AF clians the missile is not needed earlier is because they can fire at longer ranges witht he AARAM and that eliminated the threat of the AA-11's. My belief is that only a couple of planes have ever been shot down beyond visual range especially without visual identification. I am looking for any information of air to air combat engagments during the Gulf war and other engagements that may help me prove my point. I figured this group with their seeming expertise in Gulf War aircraft engagements (especially gioven the discussion a few months ago) would be a good place to start. Ross McNutt mcnuttrt@mit.edu ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 11:55:36 PST Subject: Testing with Models. Someone asked a for a little insight on using RPV`s to evaluate the performance of an aircraft. Specifically, is it useful to use a radio-controlled scale model to evaluate the full-size? Unfortunately, the answer is yes and no. It really depends on what qualities you wan`t to investigate. For aerodynamics, you still can`t beat the wind tunnel. It eliminates (or quantifies) the variables you don`t want affecting the data, (e.g.- you know that the relative wind is of constant magnitude and direction) while allowing one to isolate the desired output. Stability coefficients (derivatives) are a perfect example. If you wan`t to evaluate the effect of a rudder deflection on sideslip angle, a few hours with the tunnel will yeild d(Cn)/d(deltar) (well, OK, they`re partials) without a lot of fuss. With a free-flying model or even a full-size aircraft this can be a SOB to calculate- I know because I`ve done it [poorly]. Another problem deals with "dynamic similarity." If the model is 1/4 the size of the full size, and all other variables are held constant (alt, temp, etc...) the model must fly 4 times faster than the fullsized A/C to give similar aerodynamic results. (This gets to the "Buckingham Pi" theorem that confuses engineers in about their third year. Non-diminesional numbers are the primary tools of the aerodynamicist!) You can probably see the problem that arises. It the full size is built for a design point of M0.3, a model at M0.9 won`t yeild very useful results. They are operating in completely different regimes. Control systems are almost never model tested, since the heart of the calculations deal with the moments of inertia. Building a model with a scale inertia matrix would be a neat trick, thats for sure. It`s hard enough with a real airplane. For example- we found that a big reason the VISTA wasn`t doing what it was supposed to was that one of the moments of inertia WAS OFF BY 30% from what "it should have been!" So, never use an R/C model then? Nope. turns out there are a few things they excel at. Slow flying aircraft like ultralights model test extremely well. Sailplanes, which usually fly between 40 and 70 mph area are good candidates. These models also allow wing loadings appropriate to allow the model to fly at the same lift coefficient as the full-sized aircraft, so overal flight qualities can be extrapolated from the test data, which obviously, is VERY useful data. Chuck ------------------------------ From: habu@why.net (habu) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 14:07:36 -0600 Subject: Re: Scaled Down B-2 Back in ~88/89 I attended an RC Ducted Fan Fly In north of Ft. Worth, TX. Someone there built and flew a scale B-2 model with a wingspan of about 5 or 6 feet, if I remember correctly. This model wasn't a true ducted fan, but was powered by a Cox 0.49 pusher prop. It wasn't flown by a bunch of sophisticated computers either - just a guy with his RC transmitter. The model was geometrically and aerodynamically accurate and, once in flight, was quite convincing. Somewhere around this place are some photos to back this story up. Not a very skunky story, but just a reminder of what a talented and determined hobbyist can do. Extrapolate this to the sightings mentioned in this thread, and it makes one wonder... Greg Fieser Since I'm self-employed, the above comments DO reflect those of my employer... ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 19:00:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Looking for Information on Long Range Missile Kills On Thu, 14 Mar 1996, Ross T. McNutt wrote: > is because they can fire at longer ranges witht he AARAM and that ^^^^^ I wish if any of you can give me more information about this long range missile... I was looking information in books about this missile but not luck... Thanks in advance... May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu ------------------------------ From: "Robin J. Lee" Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 18:34:28 -0800 Subject: Re: Looking for Information on Long Range Missile Kills At 02:22 PM 3/14/96, you wrote: > > I am trying to determine ways to shorten product development >time and would like to use the AIM-9X as an example of a system the >Government should be making a higher priority and fielding faster but is >not. One of the reasons the AF clians the missile is not needed earlier >is because they can fire at longer ranges witht he AARAM and that >eliminated the threat of the AA-11's. My belief is that only a couple >of planes have ever been shot down beyond visual range especially >without visual identification. I am looking for any information of air >to air combat engagments during the Gulf war and other engagements that >may help me prove my point. I figured this group with their seeming >expertise in Gulf War aircraft engagements (especially gioven the >discussion a few months ago) would be a good place to start. Here's some Gulf War air to air missile data to think about. Note that the AMRAAM was not in-theater during the period of Desert Storm, but arrived in time for Southern Watch and other subsequent operations. The only two AAMs employed (on the Allied side) were the classic representatives of the visual and BVR engagements, respectively, the AIM-9 Sidewinder and the AIM-7 Sparrow. 24 kills were made with various models of the AIM-7 Sparrow missile. A total of 88 Sparrows were "expended"; it's not clear to me whether these were all combat expenditures (that is, actually fired at a target as opposed to being jettisoned, etc.) In official records, one additional kill is recorded as having been made with an AIM-7; this is the 17 Jan downing of a MiG-21 by a Navy F/A-18 from VFA-81. However, subsequent post-war review of the engagement video and aircrew debriefings have made it clear that it was actually an AIM-9 that was the fatal shot. The pilot fired a shot, mistakenly believing that his switches were set to launch an AIM-7; instead, an AIM-9 left the rails. Not seeing the distinct plume of smoke indicating a Sparrow launch, the pilot quickly realized his error, reset his switches, and launched an AIM-7. While the AIM-7 was in the air, the MiG-21 blew up, stricken by the Sidewinder; the Sparrow flew through the resulting fireball. The initial report was never corrected, for what some observers believe to be political reasons, not very far removed from the "BVR vs. visual kill" debate. All of the AIM-7 kills were made by USAF F-15Cs. 13 kills were made with various models of the AIM-9 Sidewinder missile; a total of 86 Sidewinders were "expended." These included the two Navy F/A-18 kills, a helo kill made by a Navy F-14A, and the pair of kills made by the Saudi F-15C; the rest fell to USAF F-15Cs. It should be noted, of course, that the model of missile employed does not necessarily indicate the type of engagement. The MiG-21 on Jan 17, for instance, was fired upon with a Sparrow *while within visual range* (and obviously inside the Sidewinder envelope). I'm not sure exactly how much information is available in the public domain as to the exact circumstances of each kill, barring individual pilot reports in the open press. Typically, such analyses involve classified information on weapons parameters -- note that DoD-released HUD videos usually have the weapon envelope meters "blacked out." Access restrictions, therefore, may limit the validity of any informal study one may try to do. The Gulf War appears to be something of an anomaly with regard to this debate. Historically, BVR/Sparrow kills have been few and far between, when compared to visual/Sidewinder kills. One study, conducted in the mid-1980s by the controversial Col. Jim Burton, concluded that there were only *four* kills made at ranges over five miles over a 27-year period, resulting in a Sparrow Pk of 0.002. On the other hand, it should be pointed out that much of that 27-year period covers the "infant stages" of AAM technology. The predominance of Sparrow kills during the Gulf War could point to two things that may make the radar-guided BVR kill more than a thing of techno-thriller fiction. First, we may simply be seeing the BVR missile system coming to maturity. The AIM-120 AMRAAM reportedly has a perfect kill record, in the few times it has been employed (over Iraq and Bosnia). While these isolated engagements may not represent "combat conditions", such a high degree of success gives some reason for optimism. Second, we may be seeing the effects of emerging noncooperative target recognition (NCTR) technology, providing an alternative to the old VID-based rules of engagement. The early system used on USAF F-15Cs during the Gulf War reportedly included offboard intelligence-gathering platforms and other spooky things -- onboard technologies include jet-engine modulation techniques (that permit radar identification of fan blade signatures). If one can reliably identify hostile air contacts BVR, obviously this makes the use of BVR weapons a whole lot easier. Navy fighters and allied air forces did not have access to this system, which may help to explain the USAF dominance of BVR kills during Desert Storm. A good book to read for the visual-kill side of the argument is James Stevenson's _The Pentagon Paradox_, which makes a very strong case against the "myth" of the BVR kill. Pro-BVR kill evidence (outside of modern Air Force doctrine) is more difficult to come by, since a lot of the data on new systems is still being developed. Having expressed my cautious optimism (or at least lack of pessimism) regarding the BVR missile of tomorrow, I do agree that the delay of AIM-9X leaves a rather glaring gap in American fighter capability. The AA-11/helmet-mounted sight combination affords adversaries a capability that we can ill afford to ignore, or put off until the next century. At typical rates of closure, from the time a decision is made to shoot, BVR can become visual in under a minute. I'd hate to see an American fighter pilot's overwhelming tactical advantage evaporate, for want of a mere thirty additional seconds of separation. (Numerical data extracted from Gulf War Air Power Survey, Volume 5, with some amendments from other sources; modified tables are available on my web site. Reference to Burton study from _The Pentagon Paradox_.) ____________________________________________________________________________ Robin J. Lee amraam@netcom.com Vulture's Row World Wide Web Page URL: http://webcom.com/~amraam/ ------------------------------ From: JOHN SZALAY Date: Fri, 15 Mar 96 15:02:55 EST Subject: More Stealth stuff :) Yes, I know that involves the "other guys" and not the Skunk-works, but it does say its a "Stealth" bird... And WE know whom rules the world of Stealth: :) This arrived in the E-mail box this afternoon.. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Subj: NASA and McDonnell Douglas Unveil Newest X-Plane Don Nolan-Proxmire Headquarters, Washington, DC March 15, 1996 (Phone: 202/358-1983) Mike Mewhinney Ames Research Center, Mountain View, CA (Phone: 415/604-3937) NOTE TO EDITORS: N96-19 NASA AND MCDONNELL DOUGLAS UNVEIL NEWEST X-PLANE The first ever display of the newest X-plane, the X-36, a remotely piloted tailless research aircraft will take place at 11 a.m. EST Tuesday, March 19, at McDonnell Douglas, St. Louis, MO. The X-36 is a tailless design for a stealthy fighter aircraft that could dramatically change the look of future jet fighters. This scaled, remotely piloted aircraft concept has no vertical tail, yet is expected to demonstrate the feasibility of future fighters achieving maneuverability superior to today's best fighters. By eliminating the need for these tail control surfaces, future tailless fighter aircraft will weigh less, fly farther and be able to survive better than todayUs fighters. This revolutionary new design is the result of technical breakthroughs made by a dedicated team of engineers from NASA Ames Research Center, Mountain View, CA, and McDonnell Douglas Aerospace. NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin and McDonnell Douglas President and Chief Executive Officer Harry Stonecipher will unveil this revolutionary experimental aircraft. Camera crews are welcome to use company-provided audio and video feed, or shoot their own footage. B-roll and press photos will be available after the ceremony. Media wishing to attend the ceremony should contact Ellen LeMond-Holman at 314/232-6496 or Barbara Anderson at 314/234-4187. -end- ------------------------------ From: "Mark E. Schmidt" Date: Sun, 17 Mar 96 05:16:23 UT Subject: RE: What I wish I had..... try http://www.tv1.com - ---------- From: owner-skunk-works@mail.orst.edu on behalf of ALBERT DOBYNS Sent: Thursday, March 14, 1996 10:30 AM To: SKUNK-WORKS@MAIL.ORST.EDU Subject: Re: What I wish I had..... DT> From: dougt@u011.oh.vp.com (Doug Tiffany) > Subject: Don't Forget.... > Date: Wed, 13 Mar 96 10:34:06 EST DT> Tonight at 10:00 Eastern on the Discovery Channel, "Spy Watch" will be > about the SR-71. DT> -- DT> Douglas J. Tiffany dougt@u011.oh.vp.com > Varco-Pruden Buildings Van Wert, Ohio Boy am I glad you mentioned it!! I just don't do a good enough search through TV Guide(tm) or other tv guides so I miss seeing/taping some shows. What I wish I had is a computer program that connects to some database of all tv shows available on on channels. Then if I could enter all the topics I would want to watch, the program would search and tell me what's coming on and when!!! I have a feeling this can be accomplished but have no idea how much I'd have to pay to subscribe to this service...if it even exists. I would definitely put lots of aviation keywords in my "subject" file. Then titles like "X-15", "Toward the Unknown", "Rocket Pilots", "Jet Pilot?". That's the one starring John Wayne and Janet Leigh that was reportedly made in 1950 but not released until 1957. Maybe the new cable tv system we are getting will have this service. I wonder if tonight's airing of the SR-71 documentary will have some updated info included. I would expect it to have something about its retirement and limited return to service. * SLMR 2.1a * "Accept no substitutes...SR-71 The first stealth plane!" ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 12:49:42 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Looking for Information on Long Range Missile Kills I'm told by a very reliable source (one of the four pilots) that four Sparrows were launched by F-18s without any pilot input during the Gulf War and immediately after. 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.... ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #635 ********************************* 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).