From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #712 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Tuesday, 1 October 1996 Volume 05 : Number 712 In this issue: Re: XB-70...? Re: XB-70...? Re: XB-70...? Re: XB-70...? Re: XB-70...? Re: XB-70...? XB-70 "Brilliant Buzzard" Origin of Aurora codename Re: XB-70...? Re: XB-70...? Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's a Starship... Re: Origin of Aurora codename Re: XB-70...? Re: Starship Rudders Re: Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's a Starship... 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: Brett Davidson Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 12:26:00 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Re: XB-70...? On Mon, 30 Sep 1996, David wrote: > With Pathfinder being such a good idea, why spend resources on building > a TSTO when you've got the chance of going for a S+a bit STO ? > AFAIK from reading Mitchell Burnside Clapp et als papers, the Black Horse concept doesn't scale up very well: it's limited by the mass of fuel that the tanker aircraft can lift. Two tankers perhaps for a Black Clydesdale, three or four for a Black Elephant? Tricky? A 2STO would be more suitable for larger payloads, which might be what is required by whatever missions are performed. Big Dumb Booster for heavy lift? Standard disclaimers, ifs, maybes etc. - --Brett ------------------------------ From: FSalles@trip.com.br (Felipe Salles) Date: Sun, 03 Mar 1996 23:04:55 -0800 Subject: Re: XB-70...? David wrote: > > > Only that AFAIK the Tu-144LL tests are being conducted in the former Soviet > Union...at Zhukovsky airfield ? > > The a/c in question is fitted with canards. (Snip) When I saw the Tu-144 at Paris, it was the > noisiest a/c I'd heard for may a day. I understand that the Tu144LL has the Blackjack's engines in place of the original ones. ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Mon, 30 Sep 96 20:09:26  Subject: Re: XB-70...? Brett, No one ever said that Black Horse is capable of continuous scaling. With known technology, such a vehicle could put 5,000 to 6,000 lbs. in LEO. That's all that has ever been claimed for it. With different techniques and advances in propulsion (i.e. use the ramjet but still keep the higher energy fuel; higher engine temperature), you could boost this, but still you're definitely talking 10,000 lbs. and under. Still, 5,000 lbs. is plenty for many LEO payloads. It would also be more than enough as a weapons or recon. platform (look at the internal payload of JSF and you'll see what I mean). The point is that given that payload limitation, you've got a vehicle that you can turn around quickly, launch cheaply, requires far less ground support than other concepts for operation, does not require much special equipment, can operate out of and recover at any decent sized commercial airfield, can be readied for a mission on short notice and can achieve an orbit of essentially any heading from any location. For example, take off from a UK airfield. Turn aerodynamically and head North. Refuel over the North Sea, possibly with a couple of F-111 chase planes during the early testing (sound familiar?). Then, fire up the rocket and away you go. Polar orbit achieved from a UK airfield. Black Horse won't lift as much as the big dumb booster, but it costs a lot less to acquire and to operate. I don't know the promised per-pound costs of big dumb, but Black Horse appears to be well under $500. If you need more than Black Horse's payload to go up all at once on the same vehicle, you've got to look at another solution. On the other hand, if you don't, it offers a very attractive alternative. My point in bringing it up was as an admittedly far out hypothesis, more for fun than anything else. The thing is, like the North Sea sightings of "Aurora", it fits the known data quite well. Art Hanley Those of you who search for any opinion here that reflects my employers' views do so in vain. ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 00:00:49 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: XB-70...? Here are some clarifications regarding the Tu-144/Concorde and some opinions I have, concerning this thread: * The Tu-144 was not a copy of the Concorde. The Tu-144 was in many aspects similar to the Concorde, but not much more than the MiG-15 was similar to the F-86 Sabre -- and nobody claims that the MiG-15 was copied from the Sabre (even though both were based on German research). The Kfir is a (modified) copy of the Mirage IIIC, and the Tu-4 was a copy of the B-29 (but forget the 'bullet hole' myth). The notion that the FSU could only copy western designs is just not based on facts, rather than 'cold war propaganda'. * The original prototype of the Tu-144, which made its maiden flight on 12/31/1968 (9 months before the Concorde), had the engines in a single block under the wing (like the XB-70, rather than the Concorde), with the main landing gear located outside of the engine-box, in the wings. It did not have the retractable canards of the later Tu-144, and it had a more straight forward double-delta wing, rather than the elaborately ogival and twisted wing of the Concorde. This wing configuration was tested on the two MiG-21I 'Analog' test aircraft. But because of the lack of sophisticated computers, the wing was much less efficient than the Concorde wing. * The Tu-144, which crashed in 1973 at the Paris Airshow, had the retractable canards, a modified wing (still not as complex as Concorde's), and the engines were moved outward into two separate boxes (but not as far apart as on the Concorde) with the main landing gear retracting into those boxes. * The refurbished Tu-144LL is (as mentioned already) only flying in Russia, at the Zhukovsky Flight Test Center near Moscow (which was known as Ramenskoye to western intelligence during the '70s and '80s). * The Concorde has two small 'strakes' (sort of baby canards) under the cockpit, to improve low-flight characteristics, while the Tu-144 has retractable high-aspect-ratio canards, behind and above the cockpit for the same purpose. * The second XB-70 prototype (FY-serial '62-0207'), the one which crashed in that tragic accident on 06/08/1966, didn't have a 'second set of canards', and the first (FY-serial 62-0001), preserved at the USAFM in Dayton, OH, doesn't either. (At least I never heard or saw anything like that before -- are you sure you don't mix that up with the small B-1B canards?) * I believe the most important thing one can learn from this thread is, that many people on this list don't like the idea of an 'unknown' aircraft. I have to point out, that when I got the description of the sighting in Maryland, I didn't know the observer (I still don't), I had no idea what aviation background he had, or anything else. After hearing about the other sighting (which had a much more precise description), I am very much convinced of the following points: 1) Don't jump to conclusions. If you believe the witnesses are credible, and the whole thing is not just a hoax (and I believe the witnesses in this case), then the possibility of the aircraft being either a Starship, Concorde, Tu-144 or XB-70 is basically zero. One might suppose at first, that the observer is unfamiliar with these 'known' aircraft. After getting more information though, one often finds that the witness has some sort of aviation background, which led him to notice that the aircraft was unusual in the first place. 2) A picture is worth 10,000 words. Humans are visually oriented and the human brain uses most of its capacity to analyze visual input. When the witness uses a drawing, instead of a verbal description, the Starship answer seems much less convincing, and the conclusion that this was either an 'unknown aircraft' or 'most likely a Starship' can be made much faster. 3) It seems that several people are somewhat afraid to acknowledge: "Yes, that might have been an 'unknown' aircraft." 4) It is much more interesting and productive to speculate what mission or purpose such an aircraft could have, rather than trying to convince each other that it would be a Tu-144 (a much more exotic explanation, in my opinion, than a secret research or operational aircraft). I believe that analyzing its appearance, including the obvious lack of loud engine noise, and its sightings in Maryland and Illinois, rather than New Mexico, Nevada or California, is more useful, than pointing out how unlikely that silence or location is. Just some things to consider. - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@raptor.csc.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Mon, 30 Sep 96 22:01:22  Subject: Re: XB-70...? Brett: Frankly, unless Black Horse first flies as a black program, I don't think it'll ever become operational. It has too much baggage: It's too simple, and it suffers from "Not Invented Here". On the other hand, since it fits the North Sea sightings as well as the ones at Maryland better than anything else, maybe it already is flying... If you want I can send you a couple of illustrations of notional Black Horse vehicles as well as some of models. Art Hanley Once again, do not make the mistake of believing that whatever I droned on about above has anything to do with I am authorized to drone on about. ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 16:44:52 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Re: XB-70...? On Mon, 30 Sep 1996 ahanley@usace.mil wrote: > Brett, > > No one ever said that Black Horse is capable of continuous scaling. With known I didn't mean to imply any criticism of the concept or its proponents. For what it does, in its particular role, it looks perfect. I'm wondering if there would be a need for an on-demand RLV system that can carry heavier payloads... If that were to be the case, a 2STO might fit the bill. > Black Horse won't lift as much as the big dumb booster, but it costs a lot less > to acquire and to operate. I don't know the promised per-pound costs of big > dumb, but Black Horse appears to be well under $500. If you need more than What do you think would be the right mix for the spectrum of payload masses? Black Horse - 2STO - Big Dumb? BH - VentureStar? etc? > My point in bringing it up was as an admittedly far out hypothesis, more for > fun than anything else. The thing is, like the North Sea sightings of > "Aurora", it fits the known data quite well. It's always fun, because at the very least, the "thought experiment" can reveal a lot about broader issues of strategy and technology as well beyond whatever the single example might be. A bit like mooting in law schools... hmmm Socratic Method aerospace.... - --Brett ------------------------------ From: quellish@shore.intercom.net (Dan Zinngrabe) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 03:30:56 -0500 Subject: XB-70 "Brilliant Buzzard" Several points on the XB-70-like aircraft being discussed- I've done a lot of research on various design studies which _might_ explain the aircraft's consistant characteristics . I looked at a number of drone and TSTO studies. Interestingly, Boeing, LMSC and the Skunk Works have done the most work on TSTO systems in both quality (detail) and quantity. The three have actually worked together on several, one of which _very_ much resembles the features of the "XB-70" mystery a/c. Several sources (Assn. Old Crows, one former SPACECOM lt. col, two others) associated the designation "Brilliant Buzzard" with the "XB-70". Of course, this would lead one to beleive it is a SDIO (now BMDO) project (fits their naming system- Brillant Pebbles, etc.). No budget line item I've ever seen though, but that doesn't confirm or deny anything. Back to the TSTO studdies. Most military studies proposed a requirement for 20,000lbs or more to polar LEO. The studies (fewer of them, I might add) after 1990 called for much smaller payloads- indicating new smallsat tech. or somebody realized that their figures were unrealistic. A typical TSTO system for putting up 20k lbs would have a 1st stage "mothership" weighing 1 million pounds or more! A few thoughts on a "hypothetical" Brilliant Buzzard/"XB-70"- The notable "hump" on the rear dorsal area- fuel tank for transonic/high supersonic dash, or perhaps fuel for a daughter vehicle? Retactable canards might improve pitch control and/or stability after a major CG change- like emptying a BIG fuel tank for a sprint, or launching a large payload (weapon, drone...). For an a/c like the one described by sightings, I'd be worried about low speed stability. A TSTO capable of launching >10k lbs to polar LEO would be useful for a few things, like... small ferrets... wide-area photo recon (low res)... small comsats... asat systems... SDI targets... etc. In wartime (WWIII thinking) it would be very useful, for replacing assets that would undoubtedly fall to attrition (any number of things) Yeah, I have WAY too much free time. ------------------------------ From: UKdragon@aol.com Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 04:03:06 -0400 Subject: Origin of Aurora codename Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl wrote: >As anyone on this list surely knows, "Aurora" was, according to Ben Rich, a >line item referring to the (Lockheed) competitor to the B-2A Spirit stealth >bomber, Well, I'm sorry, but that's NOT what Ben wrote. He wrote that Aurora was the codename for the ATB competition funding, not specifically the Lockheed entry. It QUOTE somehow leaked out during Congressional hearings UNQUOTE However, like a number of Ben's recollections, this one appears not to be entirely accurate. The Aurora name didn't surface in public until February 1985, as a line item in the FY 1986 procurement program document. That was some time after the ATB competition was decided, I suppose. My understanding is that the appearance of this line item was quite deliberate, because as the ATB moved into development, the funding requirements became so large that they could no longer be entirely disguised within the Air Force's black budget. Some of the funding (request) was therefore moved into the white world, and was deliberately inserted between the SR-71 and TR-1 funding lines (or thereabouts). The title Aurora was chosen for the line item, after the Roman goddess of the dawn, because those working the ATB program in the Pentagon knew that Stealth represented a new dawn in combat aircraft capability. I want to add a few comments re Ben's book: 1. Like Kelly Johnson's autobiography before it, it contains a number of quite obvious errors (and some not-so-obvious ones). Those who post to this list and elsewhere should take care, and not automatically quote SKUNK WORKS as the gospel. 2. I don't want the above to imply that I consider Ben's book to be worthless. Far from it! It is a great read, and gives tremendous insights into the workings of a unique organisation. 3. I had the privilege of meeting Ben Rich on a number of occasions, and found him to be a delightful individual who, given the nature of his position, was remarkably willing to help journalists and researchers, to the maxumum extent possible consistent with his obligations to Lockheed and the government. Regards Chris Pocock "Information is useless without Intelligence" UKdragon@aol.com ------------------------------ From: John Burtenshaw Date: Tue, 01 Oct 1996 09:53:50 -0100 Subject: Re: XB-70...? At 00:00 01/10/96 -0400, you wrote: >Here are some clarifications regarding the Tu-144/Concorde and some opinions >I have, concerning this thread: > >* The Tu-144 was not a copy of the Concorde. The Tu-144 was in many aspects > similar to the Concorde, but not much more than the MiG-15 was similar to > the F-86 Sabre -- and nobody claims that the MiG-15 was copied from the > Sabre (even though both were based on German research). The Kfir is a > (modified) copy of the Mirage IIIC, and the Tu-4 was a copy of the B-29 > (but forget the 'bullet hole' myth). The notion that the FSU could only > copy western designs is just not based on facts, rather than 'cold war > propaganda'. > Hi Andreas I must disagree to a point on this statement. British TV transmitted a documentary recently and asked several people who were connected with the TU-144 program about the similarity. After the Concorde had been given the go-ahead by the Anglo-French governments the Russians decided that they wanted a SST. The Kremlin wanted Russia to have the World's first SST to prove that Communisit technology was better than Western technology etc. Many designs were tested in wind tunnels but non met the design specs (remember that computers were not used widely, if at all, in the Soviet aircraft industry design offices) therefore the KGB were authorised to start an espionage program against the British and French design teams. Apparently they failed to get anything from the British but they did compromise a design team member in France who was caught by the French Secret service passing drawings and data to a Soviet diplomat. Anglo/French security agencies then began a counter operation to feed the Russians false information, the most famous was the formula for a tyre rubber which was basically a rubber with the properties of bubble gum(!). It was also rumoured that MI6 passed incorrect data about the wings, but we Brits hide behind the Official Secrets Act so much that it has never been proved or disproved. However the damage had been done and the design of the TU-144's wing began to resemble Concorde's, but they had not got all the data hence the problems that the TU-144 had. Also Andreas, have a look at the VC-10 and a Tupelov airliner (number escapes me) they also look similar, yet the VC-10 flew first. There is nothing wrong in copying, why re-invent the wheel ;-) Just as the French Mirage and the US Delta Dart/Dagger bears a striking resemblance to the 1956 British FD.2 (first airplane to break the 1,000 mph mark in level flight) only difference is that we did not put it into production but thats another story. Cheers John =========================================================================== John Burtenshaw Internet Applications Developer The Computer Centre, Bournemouth University - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Postal Address: Talbot Campus, Fern Barrow, POOLE, Dorset, BH12 5BB U.K. Internet: jburtens@bournemouth.ac.uk Phone: 01202 595293 Mobile: 0850 240931 =========================================================================== ------------------------------ From: dadams@netcom.com (Dean Adams) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 02:40:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: XB-70...? ... > * I believe the most important thing one can learn from this thread is, that > many people on this list don't like the idea of an 'unknown' aircraft. Well, the serious discussion of "unknown aircraft" (also known as unacknowledged/black aircraft), has long been a major focus of this list. I think what many people don't like is in the past when that focus has shifted more towards "UFO" type threads. > 1) Don't jump to conclusions. If you believe the witnesses are credible, and > the whole thing is not just a hoax (and I believe the witnesses in this > case), then the possibility of the aircraft being either a Starship, > Concorde, Tu-144 or XB-70 is basically zero. In these kind of situations, "witnesses" can be notoriously unreliable. So far from what i've heard the Starship sounds like by far the most likely explanation... however, I would agree that the possibility of it being a Tu-144 or XB-70 is zero. :) > One might suppose at first, > that the observer is unfamiliar with these 'known' aircraft. After getting > more information though, one often finds that the witness has some sort of > aviation background, which led him to notice that the aircraft was unusual > in the first place. The Starship is more than unusual enough to have the potential to trick even someone with an "aviation background". > 2) A picture is worth 10,000 words. Humans are visually oriented and the > human brain uses most of its capacity to analyze visual input. When the > witness uses a drawing, instead of a verbal description, the Starship > answer seems much less convincing, and the conclusion that this was > either an 'unknown aircraft' or 'most likely a Starship' can be made > much faster. But don't forget that anything they might draw has been filtered through their own ideas and preconceptions of what they saw. > 3) It seems that several people are somewhat afraid to acknowledge: "Yes, > that might have been an 'unknown' aircraft." I doubt very much that "fear" has anything to do with it. More like (with this example at least), the "unknown" angle just seems rather improbable. > 4) It is much more interesting and productive to speculate what mission or > purpose such an aircraft could have, rather than trying to convince each > other that it would be a Tu-144 (a much more exotic explanation, in my > opinion, than a secret research or operational aircraft). The Tu-144 would be pretty exotic... but fortunately the Starship still fits like a glove. :) As for "mission and purpose", a lot was speculated on that front back when the XB-70-like concept first appeared in AW&ST several years ago, and so far none of it seems to add up to much. > I believe that > analyzing its appearance, including the obvious lack of loud engine noise, > and its sightings in Maryland and Illinois, rather than New Mexico, > Nevada or California, is more useful, than pointing out how unlikely that > silence or location is. Maryland and Illinois seem likely locations for a Starship sighting, far more than any super-classified unknown-mission "XB-70" aircraft. :) ------------------------------ From: seb@tadpole.co.uk (Steven Barber) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 11:02:04 +0100 Subject: Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's a Starship... XB-70 look-alike or Beechcraft Starship? Aren't we missing something here? One of the features reported was the delta wing, hence being like the XB-70. My memory of the Starship says quite clearly that it *doesn't* have a delta wing, or anything like the wing-shape of an XB-70, Concorde or Tu-144. Canards, yes, very unusual engine noise (enough to get me to rush outside to see just what *was* flying over my house!), yes, wing-tip strakes (or whatever), yes. But not a delta wing. So far, the known aircraft that comes closest to fitting the bill - it seems to match *every* detail - is the Tu-144. So why is that hypothesis more exotic than a "black" aircraft of unknown type? Not that I'm ruling that out, though, as there is the famous "mothership" sighting to consider. Is there anything we can do to definitely rule out (or even confirm it *was*) a Tu-144? Until we can, that has to be the prime candidate for me. Like I said, it seems to match every observed feature of the mystery aircraft... My two pen'orth. Steve ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 06:28:39 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Origin of Aurora codename On Tue, 1 Oct 1996 UKdragon@aol.com wrote: > Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl wrote: > > >As anyone on this list surely knows, "Aurora" was, according to Ben Rich, a > >line item referring to the (Lockheed) competitor to the B-2A Spirit stealth > >bomber, > > Well, I'm sorry, but that's NOT what Ben wrote. He wrote that Aurora was the > codename for the ATB competition funding, not specifically the Lockheed > entry. It QUOTE somehow leaked out during Congressional hearings UNQUOTE If I am not wrong, ATB (Advance Tactical Bomber) is the competition program for the next generation Stealth Bomber between Lockheed and Northrop. The winner was of course Northrop B-2A Spirit. May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mails: wsu02@barney.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net ------------------------------ From: David Date: Tue, 01 Oct 1996 09:24:27 Subject: Re: XB-70...? Art Writes: >...Frankly, unless Black Horse first flies as a black program, I don't think it'll ever become operational. It has too much baggage: It's too simple, and it suffers from "Not Invented Here"..... I'm afraid you've lost with the last phrase. Burnside Clapp is ex-USAF, he was born in the US and as far as I know the rocket motor is the only major item of non-US hardware.. The figure he's quoted to develop Pathfinder is $100m..not much by any standards. In asking why a TSTO would be developed when the Pathfinder was "ready to go", I was relating the specific mission profile of :light LEO payload-recon... not implying that it was entirely scaleable to VentureStar size. David ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 05:25:47 PDT Subject: Re: Starship Rudders Dave writes: > OK, I couldn't wait - I ran the Long EZ model with and without rudder deflections late this afternoon. What it shows is that you are 40% right and I am 60% right. For longitudinally trimmed flight, for right half of the model, the code calculates: Rudder Defl. Wing CL Wing CMx Winglet CS Winglet CMx 0.0 deg .0134 .0141 -.0188 .0037 1.0 deg .0136 .0143 -.0207 .0040 The rudders on the Long EZ only deflect outwards (last I knew), so if the right rudder is deflected outwards (as here), the left rudder wouldn't move. Hence, the right rudder/wing produces all of the rolling moment. As you can see, the rolling moment (CMx) increases by .0005 when the rudder is deflected 1 degree. The wing contributes .0002 (40%) of this and the winglet contributes .0003 (60%) of this. ______________________________________________________________________________ end quote Dave, I feel vindicated at 40% on a CFD model. What about aeroelastic effects? I`m going out on a twig and assuming your model doesn`t take this effect(s) into account. Remember- the winglet/rudder is WELL AFT of the MAC on a XXXEZ. The wingtips on a LongEZ move around quite a bit in flight. Almost like a sailplane. Also, are we assuming a linear realtionship between CMx and deltaR? 1 degree is small in real world terms. The aeroelasticity of a foam and glass wing tends to introduce non-linearities into the system. All in all, a nifty analysis Dave! I think we`re very near the "wind tunnel data required" stage of the design process. =8-O BTW- I`ve never seen a flight controls engineer and an aerodynamicist agree within 20% before. Maybe we should start our own company! Chuck ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 12:38:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's a Starship... Steven Barber wrote: >So far, the known aircraft that comes closest to fitting the bill - it >seems to match *every* detail - is the Tu-144. So why is that hypothesis >more exotic than a "black" aircraft of unknown type? Not that I'm ruling >that out, though, as there is the famous "mothership" sighting to consider. The Tu-144 does not match every detail: it has a very long tail section with a single rudder, the canards are way back behind the cockpit, and the wing is a sweeping double delta, without any winglets or rudders on the tips. >Is there anything we can do to definitely rule out (or even confirm it >*was*) a Tu-144? Until we can, that has to be the prime candidate for me. >Like I said, it seems to match every observed feature of the mystery >aircraft... The winglets of the Starship are not in a 45 degrees upwards and outwards position, but are rather canted 95 degrees upwards and inwards, and the canards are also not at the very front of the nose, but are still much further ahead than on the Tu-144. The (pusher propeller) engines are mainly above (and behind) the wings, rather than below, while the wings are less a delta but more a swept wing with really big root extensions/fillets. Also, the Starship would be too small. All of this assuming, of course, that the witnesses' descriptions of their observations were accurate. - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@raptor.csc.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #712 ********************************* 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).