From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #645 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Thursday, 11 April 1996 Volume 05 : Number 645 In this issue: Re: Scale B-2 (II) Re: DarkStar Press Release Re: Aquilla RE: Skunk Works Digest V5 #643 AA Nuclear Warhead Re: AA Nuclear Warhead Re: Aquilla Re: Fwd: DOE and Area 51 Ramjets contract for classified SENIOR CITIZEN aircraft? Re: contract for classified SENIOR CITIZEN aircraft? Re: contract for classified SENIOR CITIZEN aircraft? Re: contract for classified SENIOR CITIZEN aircraft? SR-71 Pilot's Manual Re: SR-71 Pilot's Manual 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: "Steve Caldwell" Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 12:29:01 GMT+7 Subject: Re: Scale B-2 (II) [snip] >( I missed the original discussion of the scale B-2's. Here's Another) >Some years ago, i toured the AF Base & Museum outside Rapid City, SD. >(Name escapes me.) They had a roughly 70% scale quasi B-2, with a story >behind it. It had been built by an Ad agency for an auto commercial prop, >JUST after the real McCoy had been announced. Once they were done with the >photo session, someone called the museum and said: > Would you like a B-2? [snip] Dave, The AF Museum is located at Ellsworth AFB which is right next to Rapid City, SD and the Black Hills. The auto ad B-2 model was used by Honda and donated to the museum. It's still on display there along with a bunch of real military aircraft. Steve Caldwell - --former resident of Ellsworth AFB and Rapid City ========================================================== Capt Steve Caldwell DSN: 781-5442 Comm: (318) 456-5442 Email: caldwels@det5wg57.barksdale.af.mil (Military) srcaldwe@iamerica.net (personal) ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 13:18:16 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Re: DarkStar Press Release On Sun, 7 Apr 1996, habu wrote: > > Ah, I was getting it confused with the rumoured "Q" which has had that > > name associated with it. Allegedly a Lockheed built 150'/45 m span flying > > wing UAV that was abandoned due to cost overruns and succeded by Tier > > III minus/Tier II plus. I was thinking that like Suntan, something would > > dribble out eventually. Are we talking about the same thing here? > > --Brett > I worked on the Aquilla trainer/simulator in the middle '80's - it was definitely > a Lockheed designed and built Army battlefield UAV (back then we called them RPVs) > that died due to _extreme_ gold plating. The requirements were upped, re-upped, Right, that's Aquilla. I was confused. Anyone know anything about the "Tier IV" (?) or "Q" UAV? - --Brett P.S. I _do_ work for a foreign government, but in a strictly civilian capacity, honest! ------------------------------ From: "Art Hanley" Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 20:04:27 +0700 Subject: Re: Aquilla Re Brett's question: The Aquilla I was talking about was a battlefield surveillance UAV that the Army was quite open about. It definitely was not the mongo UAV that got canceled. Art ------------------------------ From: Earl Needham Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 22:30:00 -0600 Subject: RE: Skunk Works Digest V5 #643 I keep getting messages RE: Skunk-Works-Digest, but I never get the digest itself. Can someone help me get the digest? thanks... Earl Needham 6 miles west of Clovis, NM - ---------- From: Michael Chui[SMTP:mchui@cs.indiana.edu] Sent: Monday, April 08, 1996 12:27 AM To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #643 dosgood@proxima.gsfc.nasa.gov (Dean Osgood) writes: >Those who know say a night launch is much more spectacular. It lights up the beach like dawn. Quite a noticeable event. :-) Michael Chui mchui@cs.indiana.edu ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 04:08:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: AA Nuclear Warhead Can someone in the list answer the following question: Why they stop building AA (Air-to-Air) missiles with nuclear warhead? I don't have knowledge of a moderm AA missile with nuclear warhead. The F-106 used to carry one...The YF-12A used to carry too (the Hughes AIM-47 with a 250 kiloton of nuclear warhead and later use to develop the AIM-54 Phoenix with a conventional type explosive warhead). My concern are: a AA nuclear warhead is more effective than a conventional warhead since you don't need to have a "hit-to-kill" technology. And it can destroy more than one aircraft at once if the enemy aircraft fly in a tight formation. Maybe it is because of budget and security problems... May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu ------------------------------ From: dadams@netcom.com (Dean Adams) Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 03:33:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: AA Nuclear Warhead > I don't have knowledge of a moderm AA missile with nuclear > warhead. The F-106 used to carry one... That was the AIR-2A Genie, which carried a W25 ~1.5 Kt warhead. > The YF-12A used to carry too (the > Hughes AIM-47 with a 250 kiloton of nuclear warhead and later use to > develop the AIM-54 Phoenix with a conventional type explosive warhead). As far as I know, the YF-12 never carried a nuclear warhead. > My concern are: a AA nuclear warhead is more effective than a > conventional warhead since you don't need to have a "hit-to-kill" technology. > And it can destroy more than one aircraft at once if the enemy aircraft > fly in a tight formation. > Maybe it is because of budget and security problems... The primary role for the Genie was to attack a force of incoming Soviet stragetic bombers. Two main reasons it become obsolete is that the threat of a first strike massed bomber attack was replaced by ICBMs and SLBMs, and in addition the guidance and accuracy of AA missiles improved to the point where a nuclear warhead was no longer needed to ensure destruction of the target. ------------------------------ From: dadams@netcom.com (Dean Adams) Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 05:40:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Aquilla > The Aquilla I was talking about was a battlefield surveillance UAV > that the Army was quite open about. It definitely was not the mongo > UAV that got canceled. Right. I've only heard of one Aquilla, and that is the one built by LSMC. The designation was MQM-105 and it had a wing span of about 12 feet. ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 12:22:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Fwd: DOE and Area 51 Er, sorry. Ignore this, please, as it was actually a reply to something that had nothing to do with the skunk-works list at all, but I mistook the message I replied to for the other, as both referred to company newsletters. It's actually quite a coincidence that the same topic would come up in both lists, I think, but I should have been more careful. My apologies for putting two messages into everyone's mailbox; first the non sequitar and now this explanation and retraction. Regards, Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end.... On Mon, 8 Apr 1996, Mary Shafer wrote: > You know, if you read the CSC or AS&M newsletters, you'd think that NASA > Dryden was one of their facilities, too. Hasn't anyone ever heard of > _contractors_? > > Let me see, Dryden has Lockheed Martin supporting the Shuttle, someone > else (used to American Airlines) maintining the SCA, Lockheed Martin Fort > Worth maintaining the AFTI/F-16, USAF folks working on the AFTI/F-16, > Lockheed Martin operating the Darkstar, a different piece of Lockheed > Martin maintaining the support aircraft, McAir supporting the F-18 HARV > and other McAir aircraft, CSC supporting the WATR and the sims in the ITF, > AS&M and Sparta and another company I can never remember providing > engineering and other technical support on the support services contract, > Woodside providing secretarial services, Kay & Associates maintaining the > motor pool, Ameriko Omserv doing the janitorial and facility maintainence > stuff, a contractor providing security and visitor control, and yet > another company providing the shipping and receiving and stores > management. > > We have more contractors here than we do civil servants, about 480 to 600. > Civil servants oversee the contractors and do what are referred to as > "inherently governmental functions", which is to say the project > decisions, personnel matter, financial matters, and so on. There are two > reasons for this. The first is that the USG is in charge. The second, > which is a little more rarified, is that civil servants are not liable for > for decisions that they make in the course of ther duties unless the > person suing can prove that they acted recklessly or with deliberate > malice. If they are sued, the government is required by law to represent > them in court for no charge, too. However, a contractor can be sued for > anything and there's no requirement that their company provide legal > representation. You can wee why we protect our contractors by insisting > that government employees assume the liability. > > I personally use the services of two full-time contractors, two part-time > contractors, and a portion of the time of about another five contractors, > all on-site. When I have a research program with, for example, Calspan, I > have absolute control over how the program is run, how flights are > scheduled, what's flown on the flights, and how the data is analyzed, as > well as how the results will be interpreted and what the final conclusions > will be. Not being a fool, I tend to take their advice and > recommendations greatly to heart, but the final decision is mine and mine > alone. > > I should mention that this morning I drove by a big pack of contractors > who are repaving bits of the roads at Edwards. > > The only way to tell who did what is to find out where the funding came > from. If the government paid to have something done, then it belongs to > them. If the contractor used internal funding to do something for the > government (usually because of a cost overrun or IR&D), it still belong to > the government. Only if the contractor used internal funding to do > something only for the contractor, does it belong to them. Doing things > on government time to government facilities belongs to the government, no > matter where the fundinng came from. > > Regards, > Mary > > Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com > URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html > Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard > Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end.... > > > On Sun, 7 Apr 1996 TRADER@cup.portal.com wrote: > > > [I orignally sent the following to Glenn Campbell and others. Since it > > deals with everybody's favorite secret Air Force flight test facility, > > Groom Lake, Nevada (aka "Area 51" or "the Ranch" or "Watertown Strip"), > > I decided to publicly post the message.] > > > > Glenn -- in the recent DR, you mentioned that the DOE states that Area 51 > > is not a NTS facility. The links between the DOE and Groom Lake is a > > subject I'm researching, something I brought up at the EIS hearing. I know > > the following, based on documents I have and some analysis: > > > > * Watertown Strip was built under the direction of the AEC by REECo. > > > > * The NTS supplies the electricity for Groom Lake. (Compare the location > > of the power lines in the EIS with the Nellis Range Chart NRCXX01.) > > > > * NTS employee bulletins from the 1960s mention Area 51 Camp in very > > mundane ways, such as the results of bowling leagues or basketball games > > between Area 51 and Mercury. Also, a 1960 NTS employee bulletin listed > > the phone numbers for the Area 51 base commander and security office. This > > clearly indicates that Area 51 was linked to the Test Site at that time. > > > > * Something I need to follow up on is a lead given to me by someone who > > said that between the end of the SR-71 program and the Stealth fighter > > (late 1960s to early 1970s) Los Alamos National Laboratory ran the place. > > (This was during the time when the AEC became ERDA (Energy Research & > > Development Administration) before it became the DOE.) Of course, that could > > mean that they just did maintenance and preserved the place. > > > > * 2 NTS roads (Valley Road and Mercury Highway) provide access to Area 51. > > There is a Test Site document I have to a mapmaking company in Nevada that > > says that those 2 roads should be removed from public maps (i.e. the kind > > sold at gas stations) because they are closed to the public. It says that > > the purpose of the roads can not be explained nor would the Air Force explain > > the purpose of the 2 roads. > > > > * The DOE's Nevada Operations Office has control of R-4808E, the so-called > > "Dreamland" restricted airspace, not the Air Force. (R-4808N is broken into > > R-4808W for the Test Site and R-4808E for Groom Lake.) Even stranger -- the > > DoD "Special Use Airspace" guide provides -no- telephone number for pilot's > > access to this airspace. (At least for all parts of R-4806, the rest of > > the Nellis range, it says to call DSN (military telephone network) number > > 683-3709 if military pilots need access to the Nellis restricted airspace.) > > > > Vernon Brechin (vbrechin@igc.apc.org) pointed out page 4-10 of the NTS > > EIS which shows a shaded area taken under Public Land Order 1662 (38,400 > > acres on June 20, 1958 on the NAFR complex. Notice the road? That is > > Mercury Highway, which goes on to Groom Lake. (I turned a DMA topo map > > over to Turley's people for the lawsuit that had the marking "Groom Lake > > 42 km" on Mercury Highway. The DMA map was of the Cane Springs area of > > the Test Site.) Also, at CP-1 on the Test Site, there is a map pieced > > together from various USGS 7.5 minute topos, on a wall, that shows the > > the NTS and the Test Site. There are numerous hand-drawn additions, > > including the fact that Guard Station 700 is the dividing line on Mercury > > Highway between the Test Site and Groom Lake. > > > > Vernon -- you asked about why Area 13, part of the Groom Lake area moves > > about on the NTS EIS maps. I took a closer look at various maps and found > > that Area 13 doesn't move (verified by using a ruler to measure various > > distances between points.) The map on page 4-2 of the NTS EIS shows the > > land boundaries (which don't include the 1994 additions of Freedom Ridge > > and White Sides, but the boundaries from the 89,600 acre 1984 withdrawal). > > The map on page 4-35 shows the airspace boundaries, which are different. > > > > I have an ongoing FOIA case against the DOE seeking to force them to release > > the MOUs (Memorandums of Understanding) between the DOE and the Air Force, > > that covers the operations and duties of each party in regards to Groom Lake. > > > > I suspect that there is a mutual arrangement similar to that for Camp Perry > > in Virginia, that the CIA uses as a training facility (aka "The Farm"), while > > publicly saying that it is a DoD facility. (Both agencies are involved in > > the operations of Camp Perry.) > > > > Paul McGinnis / TRADER@cup.portal.com / PaulMcG@aol.com > > http://www.portal.com/~trader/secrecy.html > > > ------------------------------ From: Michael Chappell Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 09:04:49 +-1000 Subject: Ramjets I've been reading the book 'SKUNK WORKS' by Ben Rich and Leo Janos and = in this book Rich talks about the D-21 drone. He mentions that this = drone is built using a Marquardt ramjet to propel it. How does this = ramajet work and how does it differ from other ramjet configurations? = Can anyone help me with this one?? ------------------------------ From: TRADER@cup.portal.com Date: Tue, 9 Apr 96 15:50:32 PDT Subject: contract for classified SENIOR CITIZEN aircraft? As some of the readers may know, I have been tracking the classified transport aircraft code-named SENIOR CITIZEN for some time. For example, take a look at http://www.portal.com/~trader/sc.html . SENIOR CITIZEN was funded under PE 0401316F through the end of Fiscal Year 1993, when it disappeared from the budget, suggesting that it had either entered service, or was terminated. Either way, the Air Force is refusing to discuss SENIOR CITIZEN. (I have a FOIA appeal on SENIOR CITIZEN and Groom Lake that is still awaiting an Air Force decision 2 1/2 years later, The FOIA (5 U.S.C. Section 552) requires that appeals be processed within 20 business days.) SENIOR CITIZEN was part of a group of programs funded under PEs 04013xxF that included studies on V/STOL and advanced turbofan engines. (The 0401yyyz designator indicates a tactical airlift program.) There was also another classified transport aircraft code-named THEME CASTLE, funded under PE 0401129F that I have also fought the Air Force on through the FOIA, without any documents getting released. Here's a database entry from "Commerce Business Daily" that lists government contracts. I believe that it is part of the same program as SENIOR CITIZEN. What is especially interesting is that security clearances through Top Secret-Special Access Required are needed. (Special Access Required is the military euphemism for "black" program.) - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2150932 ADVANCED TRANSPORT TECHNOLOGY MISSION ANALYSIS Contact Ida C Rizzo or Richard Claussen, Contr Officer, at 513/255-6134. The objective of this effort is to conduct the second iteration of pre-concept exploration studies for the next generation theater airlifter. Emphasis will be on in-depth examinations of V vs STOL, low vs conventional observables, and the employment of an advanced airlifter in-theater with the C-17, the C-130, and Army helicopters. The tasks will include scenario development, threat projection, systems and subsystem design synthesis, transportation simulation, cost-effectiveness, and technology assessment. Design synthesis will be conducted in the context of selected missions and mission ground rules. Subsystem analysis and synthesis will be accomplished for flight and mission critical subsystems. Transportation effectiveness analyses will be conducted to provide a basis for comparing alternative systems in a mixed force. The study will assess the availability/risk of current technology efforts to determine critical technology developments needed. Responders must have experience and capability in at least the following areas of expertise: acft system design and integrating; the development of system operational concepts for V and STOL systems from both Army and Air Force points of view; system survivability; transportation simulation; cost effectiveness analysis; and acft manufacturing and production. The requested bidders are limited to US contractors or teams. If a team is formed, it must be managed through a single prime contractor. The bidder must be capable of conducting programs at classification levels up through top secret, special access required. This requires the bidder to have certified or certifiable secure facilities, administrative support capabilities and procedures, and personnel with access to handle, for example, low observable and other sensitive technology and operational issues. Multiple awards are anticipated for 10-15 man-year efforts over a two year period. Supporting technology development initiatives separate from but related to this effort are anticipated. The Air Force reserves the right to consider a small business set-aside based upon responses hereto. Closing date for submission of interest and qualifications is 30 days from pub of this notice. One copy of responses should be snet to Attn: Richard D Claussen, address above. (320) SPONSOR: ASD/PMEA, Wright Patterson AFB, OH 45433-6503 SUBFILE: PSE (U.S. GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENTS, SERVICES) SECTION HEADING: A Experimental, Developmental, Test and Research Work PUBLICATION DATE: NOVEMBER 17, 1988 ISSUE: PSA-9719 - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul McGinnis / TRADER@cup.portal.com / PaulMcG@aol.com http://www.portal.com/~trader/secrecy.html ------------------------------ From: "J. Pharabod" Date: Wed, 10 Apr 96 11:51:22 SET Subject: Re: contract for classified SENIOR CITIZEN aircraft? On Tue, 9 Apr 96 15:50:32 PDT Paul McGinnis wrote: >As some of the readers may know, I have been tracking the classified >transport aircraft code-named SENIOR CITIZEN for some time. For example, take >a look at http://www.portal.com/~trader/sc.html . > >SENIOR CITIZEN was funded under PE 0401316F through the end of Fiscal Year >1993, when it disappeared from the budget, suggesting that it had either >entered service, or was terminated.Either way, the Air Force is refusing >to discuss SENIOR CITIZEN. (I have a FOIA appeal on SENIOR CITIZEN and >Groom Lake that is still awaiting an Air Force decision 2 1/2 years later, >The FOIA (5 U.S.C.Section 552) requires that appeals be processed within >20 business days.) [...] > [deleted] > >ADVANCED TRANSPORT TECHNOLOGY MISSION ANALYSIS >Contact Ida C Rizzo or Richard Claussen, Contr Officer, at 513/255-6134. The objective of this effort is to conduct the second iteration of pre-concept >exploration studies for the next generation theater airlifter. [...] > [deleted] > [...] Closing date for submission of >interest and qualifications is 30 days from pub of this notice. One copy of >responses should be snet to Attn: Richard D Claussen, address above.(320) > >SPONSOR: ASD/PMEA, Wright Patterson AFB, OH 45433-6503 >SUBFILE: PSE (U.S. GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENTS, SERVICES) >SECTION HEADING: A Experimental, Developmental, Test and Research Work >PUBLICATION DATE: NOVEMBER 17, 1988 >ISSUE: PSA-9719 Allegedly it's only "second iteration of pre-concept exploration studies" and the publication date is November 17, 1988. What confidence can we have in these elements ? Could it be that the craft was already built, tested over the USA, and going to be tested over other countries (UK, Belgium), in contradiction with what can be inferred from this text ? J. Pharabod ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 03:52:01 PDT Subject: Re: contract for classified SENIOR CITIZEN aircraft? Paul, what is your interest in this program (senoir citizen)and why do you feel compelled to get the facts? Are you doing this as a hobby, do you consider yourself a "public watchdog", or do you suspect this to be part of some conspiracy by the government? I was just wondering. Charles E. Smith "Aerospace Engineer to the Stars" FLS Operations Manager 4/13/96 (am) The fact that my email goes through PARC has no bearing on my job. (Snick, snick) My employers have basically no idea what my opinions are, since that would not be politcally correct, and an intrusion into my private life. ------------------------------ From: TRADER@cup.portal.com Date: Wed, 10 Apr 96 11:17:23 PDT Subject: Re: contract for classified SENIOR CITIZEN aircraft? In a previous message, Charles Smith wrote: >what is your interest in this program (senoir citizen) and why do you feel > compelled to get the facts? A question like that deserves a straight answer. SENIOR CITIZEN was one of the first "black" programs I located in the Fiscal Year 1993 budget, among a group of highly classified Air Force tactical programs, whose individual cost was classified, but as a group cost more than 800 million dollars for FY 1993. (Other programs included the aircraft program code-named OMEGA (PE 0207591F), COPPER COAST (PE 0207424F), the HAVE FLAG missile (PE 0208042F), and "special tactical unit detachments" (PE 0207248F), the funding for the flying of covertly obtained Russian aircraft.) A number of people, myself included, had assumed that the code-name SENIOR CITIZEN referred to a high speed spy plane, sometimes called "Aurora". Hot on the trail of this aircraft, in August 1994, I located an obscure DoD budget document the size of 2 telephone books ("FYDP Program Structure") that clearly indicated that, surprise!, SENIOR CITIZEN was a transport aircraft. >do you consider yourself a "public watchdog" Definitely. I believe in what Patrick Henry said in 1787, "We cannot allow the national wealth...to be disposed of under the veil of secrecy." Background: About 3 years ago, I launched my campaign to reform military policies. I figured that since peace was breaking out all over, the military and the intelligence agencies would change their paranoid Cold War mentality, and the taxpayers would have a lean and efficient defense. (MIT did some studies showing that if we could get the Europeans and Japanese to pay for the costs of their defense, and the military didn't waste money, defense spending would cost only 70 billion dollars a year.) As I started looking into the situation I quickly realized the power of the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower had warned about when he left office. I went down to the local federal documents depository and started poring through military budgets, and saw the huge arms build-up that had occurred during the Reagan and Bush administrations. Then, I read Tim Weiner's 1991 book "Blank Check" about secret military spending. I studied the military budgets and found billions of dollars going to classified programs. I read Congressional testimony about the military budget and some programs were so sensitive that only the committee chairman and ranking minority member of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees were allowed to know about them,and they could only be discussed in the vault in the Capitol. At that point, as a taxpayer, I became irate, and started filing numerous Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) cases, with various military services and intelligence agencies, so I could expose what was going on. Paul McGinnis / TRADER@cup.portal.com / PaulMcG@aol.com http://www.portal.com/~trader/secrecy.html ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 22:24:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SR-71 Pilot's Manual Hello Skunkers... I was reading the SR-71 Pilot's Manual book and I was wonder if anyone know what contain in the top and bottom of each pages that was censure by a black strip... Also, I remember heard from the this list that there is about 81 pages missing... Does anyone know what type of information was missing? Thanks in advance... May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu "In this world, there is only two types of people that is 100% happy: The one that know everything and the one that know nothing..." Master Su Yu-Chang ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 00:58:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SR-71 Pilot's Manual On Wed, 10 Apr 1996, Wei-Jen Su wrote: > > Hello Skunkers... I was reading the SR-71 Pilot's Manual book and > I was wonder if anyone know what contain in the top and bottom of each > pages that was censure by a black strip... Upss... I just find out that it is not that they censure... it is just to de-classified the page... Sorry if I cause any incovenient for my "premature question". But I still want to find if anyone know about the 81 pages missing... May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu "In this world, there is only two types of people that is 100% happy: The one that know everything and the one that know nothing..." Master Su Yu-Chang ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #645 ********************************* 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).