From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #653 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Friday, 26 April 1996 Volume 05 : Number 653 In this issue: Re: LASRE Re- AW&ST 4/18/96 (p.18) - Re- Darkstar movie part 4 Re: Re- Darkstar movie part 4 [none] [none] Flying costs, Photo costs, etc. Re: Re- Darkstar movie part 4 Re: Flying costs, Photo costs, etc. Re: Flying costs, Photo costs, etc. Re: Flying costs, Photo costs, etc. chicken gun Re- Darkstar movie part 4 re: Flying costs, Photo c Re: Flying costs, Photo costs, etc. Re: AW&ST 4/18/96 (p.18) - SR-71 Flights Suspended U2 and Cuba Re: AW&ST 4/18/96 (p.18) - SR-71 Flights Suspended 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: OnLine Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 18:57:32 Subject: Re: LASRE Larry writes: >From what I understand, there were linear engines proposed for the Shuttle engine as well. Yes, according to David M.Urie-Director-High Speed/Space Systems at LM in his 'Affordable Access to Space' paper, the aerospike was indeed a 'candidate propulsion system for the Space Shuttle.' >Or are you really pointing at the risk and therefore trying to conclude that >something must have flown already because the risk in your mind is excessive? > >Well, I can make the same point for airbreathers. Maybe we should mix the >two! As is often the case, I'm not sure what I'm saying ! Although because of the lead time to develop new engines, compared to airframes, I'd be pretty surprised if there were no advanced engine test beds flying as we 'speak'. BTW I hope the DarkStar crash won't give more leverage to those who maintain that advanced defense projects should all be 'black.' Also, thanks to those who responded to my initial question. Best David ------------------------------ From: "Alun Whittaker" Date: 24 Apr 1996 10:41:36 -0800 Subject: Re- AW&ST 4/18/96 (p.18) - From: chosa@chosa.win.net (Byron Weber) >> Hate to suggest this, but seems any chance the congressional >> majority gets to ding their upcoming presidential opponent, and >> remind the public the budget has not been signed, they take it. Looks more like the airforce taking advantage of a congressional SNAFU to shutdown a program it never wanted. ALUN WHITTAKER alun@ia-us.com ------------------------------ From: "Alun Whittaker" Date: 24 Apr 1996 10:46:34 -0800 Subject: Re- Darkstar movie part 4 Thank you for not sending parts 1, 2 and 3, and if you're thinking of doing so -- PLEASE DON'T! I might mistake a digest containing three binaries as a mail bomb and reply in kind. ALUN WHITTAKER alun@ia-us.com ------------------------------ From: Dave.Tilbury@UK.Sun.COM (David Tilbury - Sun UK) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 07:15:51 +0100 Subject: Re: Re- Darkstar movie part 4 {} From skunk-works-owner@mail.orst.edu Wed Apr 24 20:54 BST 1996 {} Date: 24 Apr 1996 10:46:34 -0800 {} From: "Alun Whittaker" {} Subject: Re- Darkstar movie part 4 {} To: "Skunkworks" {} {} Thank you for not sending parts 1, 2 and 3, and if you're thinking {} of doing so -- PLEASE DON'T! I might mistake a digest containing {} three binaries as a mail bomb and reply in kind. {} {} ALUN WHITTAKER {} alun@ia-us.com {} {} I think you need to take a cold shower Alun! To me you message sounds like a threat. Is this sort of thing allowed on this list? I should hope not and hope you get a message from the moderator. Please read message below for explanation. Rgds Dave - ----- Begin Included Message ----- From kean@gaia.ucs.orst.edu Wed Apr 24 18:20 BST 1996 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 10:17:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Kean Stump X-Sender: kean@gaia To: David Tilbury - Sun UK Subject: Re: Darkstar movie part 4 Mime-Version: 1.0 I upped the limit on the max message size to skunk-works, it's now 128k. Sorry for the bounce. I only get the headers, so you'll have to resubmit the movie clip. Also, the skunk-works list lives on mail.orst.edu. It used to live on gaia.ucs.orst.edu, but we moved it a while back and put an alias pointing off to mail.orst.edu. We're going to break that alias link this week, so using skunk-works@mail.orst.edu would be advised 8) keanj Kean Stump Network Engineering kean@nws.orst.edu Oregon State University OSU doesn't pay me to have official opinions. (541)-737-4740 - ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------ From: John Stone Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 06:25:32 +0100 Subject: [none] Dave, >285mb Quicktime movie of Darkstar taking off. > >Courtesy Dept. of Defence. Perhaps you could give us the url for the site that you got the clip from, that is assuming it came from a site! Thanks, John | / ^ \ ___|___ -(.)==<.>==(.)- --------o---((.))---o-------- SR-71 Blackbird U-2 Dragon Lady John Stone jstone@thepoint.net U-2 and SR-71 Web Page:http://www.thepoint.net/~jstone/blackbird.html ------------------------------ From: Allan West Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 09:14:08 -0400 Subject: [none] > Perhaps you could give us the url for the site that you got the clip from, > that is assuming it came from a site! http://cnn.com/US/9604/23/newsbriefs/darkstar.mov This is by far the preferred way to disseminate such a large piece of information. Binaries just choke mail programs and frustrate recipients who didn't specifically request them. - -- Allan West allan@ucet.ufl.edu http://www.ucet.ufl.edu/~allan the "Good Times virus" is a hoax. Please do not report it. ------------------------------ From: Hank_Lapa_at_PO-PLAZA1@SIGNALCORP.COM (Hank Lapa) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 09:50:23 -0400 Subject: Flying costs, Photo costs, etc. All, I can tell you that in the Navy, at least when I was *per onally doing* it not so very long ago, flying costs for each aircraft type was all done the same way: total fuel $$s spent during the month divided by total flight hours during the same month. These numbers thus give averages for all acft of a given type in the squadron and are sent up to the wing, where all the squadrons are reported, and so on... until you get the average for the acft type fleet-wide. So, early-to-mid 80s costs/hour were $110 for UH-1N and $700 for P-3C. Granted, the '71 is a special case, but once one deviates from this simple formula, you're in the "creative reality" mode. Hey, why not add the cost of day care for the twins belonging to the single parent engineer developing the GSE upgrades to reactivated Blackbirds? This philosophy of adding R&D, E&MD, overhead, support personnel, non-specific base infrastructure, etc., etc., to the "cost" is why most folks think the B-2, costs what it does, I mean *doesn't*! If some of these same folks decided to target the auto industry, you'd learn that your 2-door Buick "costs" $78,000 and every drive-thru hamburger at Micky D's is $20+/-. $1M per photo? I can "prove" it's more like $20M, and I wouldn't necessarily be "lying," just misleading. When your real intent is to get people to listen, you might say just about anything! Another rare S/W 2 cents from Hank P.S., Thanks re: Gray Wolf ------------------------------ From: bsmith@zippynet.com (Brentley Smith) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 11:15:55 -0400 Subject: Re: Re- Darkstar movie part 4 >{} Thank you for not sending parts 1, 2 and 3, and if you're thinking >{} of doing so -- PLEASE DON'T! I might mistake a digest containing >{} three binaries as a mail bomb and reply in kind. >{} >{} ALUN WHITTAKER > >I think you need to take a cold shower Alun! > >To me you message sounds like a threat. Is this sort of thing allowed >on this list? > >I should hope not and hope you get a message from the moderator. > >Please read message below for explanation. > >Rgds > >Dave > [deleted included message from Kean regarding max message size of 128K] > Regardless of what the max message size is, the "living" charter of this group prohibits sending _binary_ messages. For years now, when we have had binaries to share with others, we simply post where on the internet these pictures or whatever can be obtained. If no public site is available to us, we take requests and email copies directly to those who are interested. That way, you see, those with a slow connection aren't hit with a _digest_ that takes a half an hour to download. If you are not familliar with the term _digest_ and how it differs from the standard mail-list format, maybe you should be the one reviewing our charter and related mail-list documentation. Please in the future, ask the list for suggestions before hammering us all with a ton and a half of binaries. Thanks. Brentley ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 10:19:03 PDT Subject: Re: Flying costs, Photo costs, etc. Su Wei-Gen may be reached via the Blackbird militia, somewhere in the Montana hills. just a passing thought.... For the price of owning and opreating the vast intellegence gathering systems the US has- couldn`t we have bought-off every government in the world? Hmmmmm.......... Chuck ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 12:55:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Flying costs, Photo costs, etc. On Thu, 25 Apr 1996, Hank Lapa wrote: > "costs" $78,000 and every drive-thru hamburger at Micky D's > is $20+/-. > > $1M per photo? I can "prove" it's more like $20M, and I > wouldn't necessarily be "lying," just misleading. > > When your real intent is to get people to listen, you might > say just about anything! Do you thing Blackbird is expensive??? Try ignorance. Without blackbird we will never know what the enemy is doing and their military arsenal. We might spend more money in our militarty arsenal because we don't know what we are facing. (that's why it was so important to build the U-2 during the Cold War, because we didn't know what type of military arsenal we were facing to the Soviet Union). We might be spending so much money in the military budget and crash in bankrupte (like URSS did it). May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein ------------------------------ From: bsmith@zippynet.com (Brentley Smith) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 14:08:17 -0400 Subject: Re: Flying costs, Photo costs, etc. >$1M per photo? I can "prove" it's more like $20M, and I >wouldn't necessarily be "lying," just misleading. > >Hank Yes, but can you come up with a cost-benefit analysis as well as two separate efficiancy models all by 5pm? :-) Brentley ------------------------------ From: BaDKaRmA Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 17:29:34 +0100 (BST) Subject: chicken gun hi, Can anyone tell me where to find footage of a 'chicken gun' in action I would love to see some of this footage, sounds like a cool job to do! Thanks in advance BaDKaRmA ______________________________________________________________________________ "Did ya, did ya really?" "He said.........maybe" "Damm fine walls" "Look, I'm really not sure about this" "WHERE did you leave it!" "Dai Taoloth" "I can't, I mustn't, please dont make me" "I can hear you staring at me!" "Once you die, you're dead, and thats all there is!" ______________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ From: "Alun Whittaker" Date: 25 Apr 1996 11:43:55 -0800 Subject: Re- Darkstar movie part 4 Subject: Time:10:01 OFFICE MEMO Re- Darkstar movie part 4 Date:4/25/96 OK, now I've been straightened out by both the moderator and the originator of the message. Since I don 't know how much of this 3-way conversation has appeared on the list itself, let me summarize what I've learned: * It _IS_ acceptable to include multiple unsolicited binaries in messages to this discussion list. * It _IS_NOT_ acceptable to point out that the only difference between a list digest loaded with multiple unsolicited binaries and a mail bomb is the intent of the sender. In my quaint, old-fashioned way, I'd believed it to be discourteous to fill people's mailboxes with large amounts of data they hadn't asked for and/or couldn't use... -------------------------------------------- Is it a mail bomb? Is it spam? No, its the "285mb Quicktime movie of Darkstar taking off. Courtesy Dept.of Defence" file that you've always needed but never knew! -------------------------------------------- For years, people have regularly posted references on this list to books, news groups, ftp sites, websites, or video programs that other people _MAY_ want to check out to find pictures and movies. To me, this has always seemed to be a most economical and resource-considerate procedure and one which needed no improvement. It seems I was wrong. Therefore, I make an earnest apology to all concerned. ALUN W.... PS But the first time a GIF of little green (or gray) men or a splattered frozen chicken appears in my morning e-mail, I'm outa'here! ------------------------------ From: albert.dobyns@mwbbs.com (ALBERT DOBYNS) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 96 15:13:00 -0500 Subject: re: Flying costs, Photo c HL> Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 09:50:23 -0400 > From: Hank_Lapa_at_PO-PLAZA1@SIGNALCORP.COM (Hank Lapa) > Subject: Flying costs, Photo costs, etc. HL> All, > I can tell you that in the Navy, at least when I was *per > onally doing* it not so very long ago, flying costs for each > aircraft type was all done the same way: total fuel $$s > spent during the month divided by total flight hours during > the same month. These numbers thus give averages for all > acft of a given type in the squadron and are sent up to the > wing, where all the squadrons are reported, and so on... > until you get the average for the acft type fleet-wide. Ooops, lost a line of your note. But I think your description of how they figure the fuel costs as an average of total fuel $$ diveded by total hours provides a good way to estimate what the next year's cost will be. That's if nothing changes too much. > early-to-mid 80s costs/hour were $110 for UH-1N and $700 for > P-3C. Granted, the '71 is a special case, but once one > deviates from this simple formula, you're in the "creative > reality" mode. "Creative reality" sounds something like the term a real estate agent said to us. He called it "creative financing"! It must have worked because we did get the house. > Hey, why not add the cost of day care for > the twins belonging to the single parent engineer developing > the GSE upgrades to reactivated Blackbirds? This philosophy > of adding R&D, E&MD, overhead, support personnel, > non-specific base infrastructure, etc., etc., to the "cost" > is why most folks think the B-2, costs what it does, I mean > *doesn't*! If some of these same folks decided to target > the auto industry, you'd learn that your 2-door Buick > "costs" $78,000 and every drive-thru hamburger at Micky D's > is $20+/-. This reminds me of what I think was a Reader's Digest article where the author said it's ridiculous to have to pay something like $400 for a brand new shiny, chrome-plated bumper compared to a refrigerator that costs $300. The bumper has NO moving parts! The frige has many moving parts plus it's built from many different parts. I think this was written way back in the 1960s. The center/raised red taillight of my '87 Toyota Tercel broke. Somehow the light bulb popped out of the socket. This broke the center wire connector. Toyota parts guy said I had to order the complete assembly for about $95!! I decided to fix it myself before buying the new assembly. The repair works well so far. I did have to buy a new bulb, but I already had soldering stuff and tools. Total cost is about $2 for the bulb, but I could add in the cost of my tools, my house where I did the repair and the garage where the car was parked waiting for the parts to be repaired! HL> $1M per photo? I can "prove" it's more like $20M, and I > wouldn't necessarily be "lying," just misleading. I believe ya! HL> When your real intent is to get people to listen, you might > say just about anything! Sad but true sometimes. Now to get serious for a moment, I really would like to know what a gallon of JP-7 costs. I don't know if the Air Force or NASA buys it by the gallon or pound or something else, but I would like to know a ballpark figure so I can feel better when I fill my gas tank at over $1.50/gal in our western suburb of Chicago. I am assuming the cost is not classified info, but maybe it is. Various books on the SR-71 list a fuel consumption figure of 8,000 gallons per hour when using the afterburners. If I made a wild guess of $5/gal, that comes to $40,000 hour already! And this doesn't include the cost of the special oil used or the cost of TEB or liquid nitrogen and oxygen carried. The cost of the nitrogen and oxygen is perhaps not a significant sum. I hope Mary or someone can give us some cost figures without breaking any security-related rules. - -Al- * SLMR 2.1a * Dogs come when you call. Cats have answering machines! ------------------------------ From: John Stone Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 18:54:35 +0100 Subject: Re: Flying costs, Photo costs, etc. Charles E. Smith wrote: >just a passing thought.... >For the price of owning and opreating the vast intellegence >gathering systems the US has- couldn`t we have bought-off >every government in the world? >Hmmmmm.......... Have we not bought off half the goverments in the world and built a vast intelligence system........ John | / ^ \ ___|___ -(.)==<.>==(.)- --------o---((.))---o-------- SR-71 Blackbird U-2 Dragon Lady John Stone jstone@thepoint.net U-2 and SR-71 Web Page:http://www.thepoint.net/~jstone/blackbird.html ------------------------------ From: chosa@chosa.win.net (Byron Weber) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 18:26:01 Subject: Re: AW&ST 4/18/96 (p.18) - SR-71 Flights Suspended Alas, the day is saved. The "congressional majority," as yet, is not claiming a loss and the budget has been agreed upon. Strangely, in his press conference today, President Clinton could not answer a reporters question, "Do you know what happened to change their minds?" He said he did not, but that he would have been happy with what they agreed on today, seven months ago. You inability to understand what I am driving at might best be understood in an article from the NY Times, Wednesday, April 24, 1996, titled U.S. Defends Its Decision on Bosnia Arms Shipments, pg 4 "...their (Republicans) accusations represent partisan politics at its worst." And, what was objected to, "Congress is told little about how the policy was decided." Not all was forthcoming. As for "life threatening consequences," use your imagination. Maybe you've read something about the U2 and Cuba? What does that have to do with today? Hot spots that could seriously erupt without warning include: Pakistan/India, Bosnia, China/Taiwan, Russia/Checken, Libia with bio/chem weapons, Irael/Lebanon-Syria, and Iraq to mention a few. Despite the upcoming election, the world continues to turn and it might be nice if the guy in charge could get a little support. Byron > >I'm not really sure what you're driving at here. The 1996 defense budget did >become law in December (although it passed into law unsigned by the >president). "Executive privilege, " has not been invoked in the case of the >Iranian arms shipments to the Bosnian Muslims. In fact, the administration >has been surprisingly forthcoming about the details, which some members of >Congress (including Sen. Bob Dole) have been aware of it since January >1995. The only new revelations are that certain State officials may have >been more actively intervening with Croatia than previously believed. > >Most agree that it was the "congressional majority" that were the losers in >the budget fight of 1996, and are actively looking for ways to regroup. The >budget conference has adopted a new, low-key approach. It would be unlikely >Congressional Republicans would want to call attention to the five >appropriations bills which have not been signed, since a number of polls >(Republican and Democrat) indicate Americans blame Republicans for the >stalemate. > >The only "life-threatening" circumstances I can recall in recent memory that >could possibly relate to all this is Sen. Jesse Helms' remarks that Clinton >had better not venture down to North Carolina, because there are a lot of >pissed off service members there. Yeeehawwww! > > --Duncan Murrell > ---------- >From: skunk-works-owner >To: skunk-works >Subject: Re: AW&ST 4/18/96 (p.18) - SR-71 Flights Suspended >Date: Tuesday, April 23, 1996 7:30PM > > >Hate to suggest this, but seems any chance the congressional >majority gets to ding their upcoming presidential opponent, and >remind the public the budget has not been signed, they take it. This >seems especially true when they can usurp his executive role as >commander-in-chief, ordinarily out of reach, and more so with his >recent "executive privilege" decision which was >vehemently criticized regarding the details of Iranian arms >shipments to Bosnia. It amounts to nothing more than political >infighting, comparable to, "oh yea, well then that take this!" Hope >like hell it doesnt have life threatening consequences down the >road. > >Byron > > > > ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 02:42:47 PDT Subject: U2 and Cuba Byron (not Lord) writes: As for "life threatening consequences," use your imagination. Maybe you've read something about the U2 and Cuba? What does that have to do with today? End Quote Intersting choice. Question. Why did the Soviet Union put missles in Cuba? And, wasn`t the real resolution to the crisis Kennedy`s decision to remove the US missles from Turkey? People with a cause sometimes twist the facts, don`t you think? Chuck ------------------------------ From: "Murrell, Duncan V." Date: Fri, 26 Apr 96 09:12:00 PDT Subject: Re: AW&ST 4/18/96 (p.18) - SR-71 Flights Suspended ---------- From: skunk-works-owner To: skunk-works Subject: Re: AW&ST 4/18/96 (p.18) - SR-71 Flights Suspended Date: Thursday, April 25, 1996 6:26PM >Alas, the day is saved. The "congressional majority," as yet, is >not claiming a loss and the budget has been agreed upon. >Strangely, in his press conference today, President Clinton could >not answer a reporters question, "Do you know what happened to >change their minds?" He said he did not, but that he would have >been happy with what they agreed on today, seven months ago. If the president gets spending levels "he would have been happy with" seven months ago on the five remaining appropriations bills, is that not a victory for the president, albeit a belated one? You don't need to take my word for who are the winners and losers on the budget fight -- consult polls conducted by the Luntz Company (who brought you the Contract with America), CNN, ABC, the Washington Post, the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times. Also, talk to conservative columnists George Will, Charles Krauthammer and Washington Times editor Wes Pruden. While you're at it, come on up to Capitol Hill and ask Mr. Gingrich himself. >You inability to understand what I am driving at might best be >understood in an article from the NY Times, Wednesday, April 24, >1996, titled U.S. Defends Its Decision on Bosnia Arms Shipments, pg >4 "...their (Republicans) accusations represent partisan politics >at its worst." And, what was objected to, "Congress is told little >about how the policy was decided." Not all was forthcoming. Bob Dole made a speech in January, 1995, in which he specifically referred to reports of arms shipments from Iran to the Bosnian muslims, and evidence that the administration was aware of it. >As for "life threatening consequences," use your imagination. >Maybe you've read something about the U2 and Cuba? What does that >have to do with today? Hot spots that could seriously erupt without >warning include: Pakistan/India, Bosnia, China/Taiwan, >Russia/Checken, Libia with bio/chem weapons, Irael/Lebanon-Syria, >and Iraq to mention a few. My mistake. I misinterpreted your finely crafted original missive as reference to some "life threatening consequence" the president might face. I better learn to read English. >Despite the upcoming election, the world continues to turn and it >might be nice if the guy in charge could get a little support. >Byron --Duncan > >I'm not really sure what you're driving at here. The 1996 defense budget did >become law in December (although it passed into law unsigned by the >president). "Executive privilege, " has not been invoked in the case of the >Iranian arms shipments to the Bosnian Muslims. In fact, the administration >has been surprisingly forthcoming about the details, which some members of >Congress (including Sen. Bob Dole) have been aware of it since January >1995. The only new revelations are that certain State officials may have >been more actively intervening with Croatia than previously believed. > >Most agree that it was the "congressional majority" that were the losers in >the budget fight of 1996, and are actively looking for ways to regroup. The >budget conference has adopted a new, low-key approach. It would be unlikely >Congressional Republicans would want to call attention to the five >appropriations bills which have not been signed, since a number of polls >(Republican and Democrat) indicate Americans blame Republicans for the >stalemate. > >The only "life-threatening" circumstances I can recall in recent memory that >could possibly relate to all this is Sen. Jesse Helms' remarks that Clinton >had better not venture down to North Carolina, because there are a lot of >pissed off service members there. Yeeehawwww! > > --Duncan Murrell > ---------- >From: skunk-works-owner >To: skunk-works >Subject: Re: AW&ST 4/18/96 (p.18) - SR-71 Flights Suspended >Date: Tuesday, April 23, 1996 7:30PM > > >Hate to suggest this, but seems any chance the congressional >majority gets to ding their upcoming presidential opponent, and >remind the public the budget has not been signed, they take it. This >seems especially true when they can usurp his executive role as >commander-in-chief, ordinarily out of reach, and more so with his >recent "executive privilege" decision which was >vehemently criticized regarding the details of Iranian arms >shipments to Bosnia. It amounts to nothing more than political >infighting, comparable to, "oh yea, well then that take this!" Hope >like hell it doesnt have life threatening consequences down the >road. > >Byron > > > > ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #653 ********************************* 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).