From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V7 #37 Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Sender: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Errors-To: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Precedence: bulk skunk-works-digest Monday, July 13 1998 Volume 07 : Number 037 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** SR-71 fate Re: SR-71 & Line Item Veto Re: The Aircraft List - How Do You Subscribe??? Re: skunk-works-digest V7 #36 Re: SR-71 & Line Item Veto The other F-22 Re: SR-71 & Line Item Veto Re: SR-71 & Line Item Veto Re: The other F-22 Re: Clementine 2, Armageddon Re: The Aircraft List - How Do You Subscribe??? Re: The Aircraft List - How Do You Subscribe??? Saving the SR-71. U-2 B-1B is on deck for the next Big Show SR-71 update Playing with money *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 05 Jul 1998 21:47:48 +0000 From: Jim Rotramel Subject: SR-71 fate Nah, nah, nah. The REAL reason we need to keep the SR-71 in the inventory has nothing to do with national security. It is to provide way-cool backdrops for movies like Armageddon! Now THERE is the kind of argument the 'We GOTTA look good in the shower' generals at the Puzzle Palace could get behind. You guys REALLY need to start thinking with the depth and clarity of our leaders! Jim Rotramel ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 06 Jul 98 20:35:03 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: SR-71 & Line Item Veto On 7/5/98 10:48AM, in message <199807051748.NAA26842@aegis.vgnet.mcs.kent.edu>, Sam Kaltsidis wrote: . > > The UAV crowd I can understand. Why is the USAF so opposed to the SR-71A > Blackbird? I believe they said it was too expensive to keep active, but I > suspect this was just an excuse to kill the program. Is there a reason they > wanted to chop the planes to pieces this time around to make sure the venerable > Blackbird did not make it back into service? No one will make General working on a program involving planes built 30 years ago. The military is also a bureaucracy, and when the bullets aren't flying acts like one. If bringing the SR-71 back was the right thing to do, then retiring it before was the wrong thing to do. In Washington, it is Much more important not to be wrong than it is to be right. > > Even if we have a far more capable aircraft already in service to replace the > Blackbird there are many reasons to keep the SR active. One reason would be to > discourage our enemies from trying to pull a stunt similar to the one India > pulled recently. Another has to do with the capabilities of our reconnaissance > platforms and the equipment they carry -- we can share intelligence collected by > the SR with friends and foes (as we have been doing, according to "Wings" on the > Discovery Channel, since the Yom Kippur War of 1973-1974 with the Israelis, the > Egyptians and the Syrians under a UN mandate) and we wouldn't have to worry > about revealing the capabilities of our top secret platforms, since just about > everyone knows about the SR and its capabilities (at least the declassified > ones). The rest of the reasons to put the SR back into service are, of course, > classified :). > All of those are secondary to the fact that the SR might take some of the pressure off to develop the large UAVs so soon (and thereby threaten established organizations) and my paragraph above. > > > . > > > > on grounds there was no military requirement for it, > > > against a backdrop of long-standing Air Force opposition > > > tot he program. In total, e vetoed 13 military programs > > > worth a combined total of $144 million, including $37.5 > > > million for the Army's kinetic kill anti-satellite > > > interceptor and $30 million for the Clementine 2 asteroid > > > interceptor. > > We need both of these systems quite badly. Planetary defense is quite important, > let's not forget what happened to the dinosaurs 70 million years ago... > We don't need a statistician to tell us what this means -- it HAS BEEN 70million > years!!! We also require a system capable of blinding the enemy by destroying > their surveilance and communications satellites. Naturally, after the war, we > could charge them a few billion dollars to put replacements of the satellites we > destroyed in orbit :)). > > Both of the above projects were initiated under programs related to "Star Wars". To this Administration, that's reason alone to kill it. It could be a cure for cancer, but if it was initiated under anything associated that program it would be canceled. Art ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Jul 1998 00:05:41 GMT From: georgek@netwrx1.com (George R. Kasica) Subject: Re: The Aircraft List - How Do You Subscribe??? On Sun, 05 Jul 1998 12:29:38 -0700, you wrote: >Hello George: > >How do you sub to the "Aircraft List" several have mentioned in >the list couple of issues of "skunk-works" > >Thanks, > >Rodney Rodney & All: I have no connection with the "Aircraft List" I've seen mentioned so I can't even begin to tell you how or how to contact the owners since I've never heard of it. Sorry, George ===[George R. Kasica]=== +1 414 541 8579 Skunk-Works ListOwner +1 800 816 2568 FAX http://www.netwrx1.com West Allis, WI USA georgek@netwrx1.com Digest Issues at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 00:58:05 EDT From: ConsLaw@aol.com Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V7 #36 Dan Zinngrabbe wrote (or responded to): > Of course, we've never fired an ICBM or SLBM in anger either, >and haven't fired a torpedo in anger since WWII. I dont' think that's correct. I vaguely remember reading about a dam busting mission in Korea where torpedos were used. (It might have even been in Vietnam) I can't recall what kind of planes were used. Skyraiders perhaps? Steve Hofer conslaw@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 00:53:02 -0800 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: SR-71 & Line Item Veto > >> > on grounds there was no military requirement for it, >> > against a backdrop of long-standing Air Force opposition >> > tot he program. In total, e vetoed 13 military programs >> > worth a combined total of $144 million, including $37.5 >> > million for the Army's kinetic kill anti-satellite >> > interceptor and $30 million for the Clementine 2 asteroid >> > interceptor. > >We need both of these systems quite badly. Planetary defense is quite >important, >let's not forget what happened to the dinosaurs 70 million years ago... >We don't need a statistician to tell us what this means -- it HAS BEEN >70million >years!!! Deep Impact/Armageddon fever anyone? Several years ago I heard about a study SPACCECOM initialed to determine the effectivness of several near and long term technologies for countering near-earth asteriod ("Apollo") collisions. The results weren't very promising. If something like that is on a path to earth, the only way to keep it from hitting is to detect it early and *redirect* it. There aren't too many ways to do that now or 5 years from now. We also require a system capable of blinding the enemy by destroying >their surveilance and communications satellites. Naturally, after the war, we >could charge them a few billion dollars to put replacements of the >satellites we >destroyed in orbit :)). Well, for one, USAF seems to have some kind of ASAT program in the works being funded at $100m or so a year (as of last year). I don't have the references handy, but several of the past year or two's AWST articles on the Army program alluded to USAF ASAT work. The US and Russia both have serveral research lasers capable of blinding IMINT assests. It doesn't take much. Comsats are a little harder, but solar cells are fragile and hard to replace. And, well, you have various commercial and military microwave transmitters with more than enough power, and then there's all that work LANL and LLNL have been doing with pulsed power- high power microwave directed energy devices (more or less a directed EMP). Maybe more has come out of that than just Procyon warheads for ALCMs. Dan _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ #define oxymoron = "Microsoft Interactive Developer" _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 04:14:22 -0700 From: ryankirk@juno.com Subject: The other F-22 A friend of mine down at Edwards mentioned something to me recently that I thought was interesting. In addition to Raptor 01 and now 02, there exists another F-22 chassis already at Edwards in a hanger; however it can't really be considered a plane because all of its electronics are on its outside, and it has no engine. All of its avionics systems and subsystems are all attached to the outside supposedly for the purpose of easy access for maintenance, design, etc. Is this a common practice? - --Ryan _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 04:23:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: SR-71 & Line Item Veto On Tue, 7 Jul 1998, Dan Zinngrabe wrote: > Deep Impact/Armageddon fever anyone? > Several years ago I heard about a study SPACCECOM initialed to determine > the effectivness of several near and long term technologies for countering > near-earth asteriod ("Apollo") collisions. The results weren't very > promising. If something like that is on a path to earth, the only way to > keep it from hitting is to detect it early and *redirect* it. There aren't > too many ways to do that now or 5 years from now. > I spoke with expert that had studied asteroid collisions long time ago and he told me that there are mainly three problems: 1) A way to locate a asteroid that is heading to Earth before it gets too close. 2) A way to reach the asteroid fast enought before it is too late. 3) A way to destroy it or change its course. For the problem #1, so far, most of the asteroid were discovered by "amateur" observers. Problem #2, the best way to accomplish this is to develop nuclear propulsion. Is the fastest way known in current technology for spacecraft propulsion. So far, the U.S. goverment cancelled all researches relative with nuclear propulsion technology. Problem #3, more study of asteroid properties must be done so we can find the best way to avoid asteroid collision. I believe NASA is currently developing a spacecraft to orbit a asteroid if the budget didn't kill it so far. From the experts, they say that the probability of a "fatal" asteroid collision to Earth is almost the same as the Titanic being sink by a iceberg in her first trip. I just saw Armagedon... It is full of technical error. I like Deep Impact better. May the Force be with you Wei-Jen Su E-mail: wsu@cco.caltech.edu "No matter where you go, there you are." U.S.S. Excelsior NCC-2000 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 12:03:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re: SR-71 & Line Item Veto > > > > >> > on grounds there was no military requirement for it, > >> > against a backdrop of long-standing Air Force opposition > >> > tot he program. In total, e vetoed 13 military programs > >> > worth a combined total of $144 million, including $37.5 > >> > million for the Army's kinetic kill anti-satellite > >> > interceptor and $30 million for the Clementine 2 asteroid > >> > interceptor. > > > >We need both of these systems quite badly. Planetary defense is quite > >important, > >let's not forget what happened to the dinosaurs 70 million years ago... > >We don't need a statistician to tell us what this means -- it HAS BEEN > >70million > >years!!! > > Deep Impact/Armageddon fever anyone? My comment had nothing to do with either of those movies, in fact, Hollywood's portrayal of such events has little or no basis in scientific fact. I read article about planetary defense and potentially threatening celestial objects in AWST quite a few months ago. I do not recall in which issue, but I believe it was months before these movies were released. BTW: I haven't watched either of these movies, I've only seen the previews on TV like everyone else. I try not to let these cloud my judgement. > Several years ago I heard about a study SPACCECOM initialed to determine > the effectivness of several near and long term technologies for countering > near-earth asteriod ("Apollo") collisions. The results weren't very > promising. If something like that is on a path to earth, the only way to > keep it from hitting is to detect it early and *redirect* it. There aren't > too many ways to do that now or 5 years from now. We need to have an early warning network for detection and whatever type of weapon it takes to "*redirect*" the threatening object or objects. We cannot allow ourselves to be destroyed now that we have, or could easily develop, the technology required to detect and intercept whatever might threaten our fragile little planet. Naturally, this system could also be used to nuke Tony's friends, should they decide to visit :)) (evil grin). Please pardon me, I couldn't help it. The comets that hit Jupiter some time ago where the wake up call for most of us including Congress. > > We also require a system capable of blinding the enemy by destroying > >their surveilance and communications satellites. Naturally, after the war, we > >could charge them a few billion dollars to put replacements of the > >satellites we > >destroyed in orbit :)). > > Well, for one, USAF seems to have some kind of ASAT program in the works > being funded at $100m or so a year (as of last year). I don't have the > references handy, but several of the past year or two's AWST articles on > the Army program alluded to USAF ASAT work. > The US and Russia both have serveral research lasers capable of blinding > IMINT assests. It doesn't take much. Comsats are a little harder, but solar > cells are fragile and hard to replace. And, well, you have various > commercial and military microwave transmitters with more than enough power, > and then there's all that work LANL and LLNL have been doing with pulsed > power- high power microwave directed energy devices (more or less a > directed EMP). Maybe more has come out of that than just Procyon warheads > for ALCMs. > This is pretty encouraging, hopefully the administration will not axe these programs like their predecessors. > Dan > > > > > _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ > #define oxymoron = "Microsoft Interactive Developer" > _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Sam ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 12:24:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re: The other F-22 > A friend of mine down at Edwards mentioned something to me recently that > I thought was interesting. In addition to Raptor 01 and now 02, there > exists another F-22 chassis already at Edwards in a hanger; however it > can't really be considered a plane because all of its electronics are on > its outside, and it has no engine. All of its avionics systems and > subsystems are all attached to the outside supposedly for the purpose of > easy access for maintenance, design, etc. > > Is this a common practice? Oh, yeah, definitely. The USAF and aircraft manufacturers use these, so-called, static test airframes for performing all sorts of ground tests. Most often these are used for performing airframe fatigue tests, extensive avionics tests, engine tests (if an engine is installed), simulations, etc. The goal is to stress the aircraft and its systems in order to determine what, if anything needs to be fixed, how often the aircraft and its components will require maintenance, the lifetime of the airframe, etc. In the event of an accident these static test vehicles are often used in an attempt to trace all the steps that lead to the accident and find a fix, or find out what happened. These are commonly used by the military, aircraft manufacturers, the FAA, NTSB, etc. as appropriate. I believe these methods date back to early days of aviation (if I remember correctly, as early as WWI 1914-1918). > > > --Ryan > > _____________________________________________________________________ > You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. > Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com > Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Sam ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 12:32:06 -0700 From: ryankirk@juno.com Subject: Re: Clementine 2, Armageddon Actually, several theories have been proposed to stop asteroids/meteors. One very interesting idea was to create a large cube of interconnected titanium that would decimate the asteroid before it approached earth. Try to picture a hollow frame of a cube (made out of titanium) about a foot in diameter. Now imagine several thousand of these stacked on top of each other in all three dimensions -- making, in effect, one gigantic cube with a lot of little cubes inside it. The team of scientists who proposed this said it was entire possible to compress this somehow to fit it into the payload of a space shuttle, but once "inflated" to its full size it would be larger than the size of the asteroid. When placed in the asteroid's path, the cube would obliterate the asteroid into thousands, if not millions, of tiny meteors that would harmlessly burn up in the atmosphere. Other ideas were just to send a nuke right at the asteroid, while others were to send a non-explosive missile towards the asteroid, which would simply change its course. In regard to the movie, NASA stated that it would be much easier to send robots to perfom the task, and it would be much easier and quicker. - --Ryan _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Jul 98 02:46:22 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: The Aircraft List - How Do You Subscribe??? On 7/6/98 5:05PM, in message <35a36601.4669853@smtp.netwrx1.net>, George R. Kasica wrote: > On Sun, 05 Jul 1998 12:29:38 -0700, you wrote: > > >Hello George: > > > >How do you sub to the "Aircraft List" several have mentioned in > >the list couple of issues of "skunk-works" > > > >Thanks, > > > >Rodney > To subscribe to the aircraft list, send an e-mail to majordomo@lists.isdi.net. In the body of the message (not the subject line), put "subscribe aircraft". Art ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Jul 98 04:29:47 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: The Aircraft List - How Do You Subscribe??? O.K., I fumblefingered; it's "idsi", not "isdi" .net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 08:42:22 -0500 From: John Stone Subject: Saving the SR-71. Hello all, Since the Supreme Court's ruling that the "Line-Item Veto" is unconstitutional, we are trying to pesuade our elected representitives to vote for the refunding of the SR-71. If you would like to write to your elected officals and need some accurate info to persuade them to push for the reallocation of funding. Please check my page: http://www.thepoint.net/~jstone/savesr.html Thanks, John John Stone jstone@thepoint.net U-2 and SR-71 Web page: http://www.thepoint.net/~jstone/blackbird.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Jul 1998 09:02:55 -0400 From: Drew Menser Subject: U-2 Just to let you all know (maybe you know this already), there is to be a U2 at the Air Fair in Muskegon, Michigan this weekend. Here is URL for more info. on show: http://www.muskegon-air-fair.com/airfair_98/ Also is supposed to be a B-1 fly-by. Drew (I will be there Saturday) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 20:17:49 -0700 From: patrick Subject: B-1B is on deck for the next Big Show 981008. Ellsworth lays ground work for AEF taskings by Staff Sgt. Steven J. Merrill 28th Bomb Wing Public Affairs ELLSWORTH AIR FORCE BASE, S.D. (AFNS) - The top players in the B-1B bomber community met here June 30-July 1 to finalize planning for current and future Aerospace Expeditionary Force taskings. The planning will ensure everything is in place to put bombs on target should the call go out. Representatives from B-1B units, U.S. Central Command Air Forces, Air Combat Command and 8th Air Force, as well as B-52 planners met to improve the information crossflow within the bomber communities. They gathered here to gain functional knowledge from the medical, support, logistics and operations experts who know from past experiences how to accomplish the AEF mission. "We're completing planning for all of the support required for the current AEF," said Lt. Col. Joseph Butler, 28th Operations Support Squadron commander and conference coordinator. "Additionally, we are laying the groundwork for the entire B-1B community to be ready to respond to combatant commanders' requirements for aerospace forces any time, any place." The 28th Bomb Wing was designated by 8th AF as the lead B-1B unit for the current AEF vulnerability window. A vulnerability window is the timeframe a unit is on call if an AEF is needed. As the lead B-1B unit, the 28th BW has completed initial AEF planning with the other combat air force units tasked for this AEF and is now completing planning with all active and Air National Guard B-1B units. "There's a requirement to hold a conference 45 days prior to AEF vulnerability periods, and we have attended some of these already," the colonel said. "This is the first bomber-specific AEF conference," he said. "But it's not the first time we've gotten together to work out details. We hosted a similar gathering about a year ago to work on the conventional bomber alert concept. A lot of that has rolled nicely into what we're doing now, so the B-1B community is continuing to build on lessons learned." The conference was structured in such a way that attendees from each functional area of B-1B operations gathered for information sessions and discussed basic requirements, assumptions and known data on the set area of responsibility. Functional working groups worked problems learned from the first deployment by the base's B-1B force in November 1997. "While Ellsworth B-1s were successfully integrated into the (November) rapid-response AEF, there are challenges with the current vulnerability period that far surpass the obstacles incurred last time," said Butler. "We need to address those challenges now to be completely ready when and if the current 'on call' AEF is executed." The colonel added that the active duty B-1B units, in conjunction with the ANG, will be prepared to deploy forces as part of an air expeditionary wing, either collocated with the other AEW aircraft or as a geographically separated unit. If deployed as a GSU, the B-1B community will be operating as a deployed "mini-base" --- responsible for providing all the normal support functions associated with a stateside base. "The conference fully explained what's needed in future operations and what's expected of us," said 2nd Lt. David Weishaar, logistics plans officer, 184th Bomb Wing, McConnell AFB, Kan. "We not only learned our role in the big picture of the AEF operations, but we were also given the opportunity to hash out any details we weren't clear on and give our inputs as to how we think the operation could be run better." Weishaar said that anytime the entire B-1B community can get together to discuss the best way to do business in the future, it's a plus. "Having the people that just finished that operation showing you what they learned firsthand helps make the conference a tremendous learning experience." (Courtesy ACC News Service) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Jul 98 04:42:32 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: SR-71 update There was some discussion off this a couple of weeks back and I opined that despite the finding of the line item veto as being unconstitutional, I wasn't too optimistic about the return of the SR because of all that has happened since the veto to wind down and disperse the program. I've done some research, and I'm more optimistic form the technical point of view, but still very concerned politically. Here's what I've found out. Since the veto was overturned, the SR program is funded for FY98 to the tune of $39 million. There's a problem, though. Where's that money? When something is line-item vetoed, the money is supposed to go into an account to reduce the National Debt. With the overturn of the veto, that money would come back. Only thing is, the money never made it to the Debt account, and no one is telling what happened to it. An investigation has been launched and a lot of CYA is going on, because according to law, that money now belongs to the SR program. It is thought that AF took the money and spent it on pet projects or more favored projects that were going over budget, but as of now no one knows. The plan to move the two operational aircraft to Davis Monthan was part of a plan to render them unserviceable so that money or not they could never be brought back. That is in abeyance right now, and AF has issued instructions not to do anything "irreversible" to them. However, they are still trying to disperse the program's assets as of last week. The two operational birds have been maintained since the beginning of FY98. Their engines have been run and flightworthy systems exercised monthly. Originally surreptitiously, and them openly. This was part of the plan to move them to DM, since it would be far cheaper to ferry them there on a one-time flight than to try and truck them there. However, they have received more loving care than was "Strictly" necessary. It is estimated that they could be restored to flight status in under 20 days. There is sufficient contractor interest and more than enough civilian and military personnel interested in working on the program that with funding, the program can function economically again. Almost all of the crews have retired or been reassigned. There's one RSO still on active duty. There is one pilot still assigned, because he is retiring in January. It's reported, though, that he would be perfectly willing to come back as a contractor Instructor Pilot to check out new pilots (the Navy does this all the time). There could probably be an operational capability before the end of the calendar year, and "combat capability" could be achieved before next March. Despite what the enemies of the program were putting out, full satellite uplink capability was developed and testing completed for the SR-71 last year. Part of the reason for the increased funding for the program in FY98 (in addition to bringing another one back) was to install this system in the aircraft. The people who hate or are threatened by the program are still there. They will continue to do whatever they can to kill it, because they have face to save. The key is whether Congress funds the program in FY99 or gets lazy. Even if the program gets its $39 million back, that money can only be spent in FY98. If the program gets funded in FY99 it should continue until the big UAVs are fully operational (whenever that day may actually arrive). If there is no FY99 funding, the program will die forever. Time to start writing your Congresscritters! Art ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 04:22:20 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Playing with money Art wrote: >Since the veto was overturned, the SR program is funded for FY98 to the tune >of $39 million. There's a problem, though. Where's that money? When >something >is line-item vetoed, the money is supposed to go into an account to reduce >the >National Debt. With the overturn of the veto, that money would come back. >Only >thing is, the money never made it to the Debt account, and no one is >telling what >happened to it. An investigation has been launched and a lot of CYA is >going on, >because according to law, that money now belongs to the SR program. It is >thought >that AF took the money and spent it on pet projects or more favored >projects that >were going over budget, but as of now no one knows. There is nothing new in the Air Force playing fast and loose with the money accounts. It has done it big time with the Advanced Tactical Fighter account. It violated the anti-deficiency account several different ways. Jim James P. Stevenson ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V7 #37 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe in the body of a message to "majordomo@netwrx1.com". 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 local-skunk-works@your.domain.net To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command: unsubscribe in the body. Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent to georgek@netwrx1.com. 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 viewing by a www interface located at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works If you have any questions or problems please contact me at: georgek@netwrx1.com Thanks, George R. Kasica Listowner