From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V7 #51 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 Friday, August 21 1998 Volume 07 : Number 051 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** FA-18 OZ Crash A-11: CASE CLOSED Re: Teledyne Mach 4.0 UAV A-11, A-12... TR3A Re: TR3A RE: Teledyne Mach 4.0 UAV - SR-71 Sensory Equip ?? Just Think, SR-71 Costs Paid for by who uses it ... Duplicate efforts, operating SR-71s Re: Just Think, SR-71 Costs Paid for by who uses it ... Globalhawk Re: TR3A F-117 recon RE: F-117 recon Re: Duplicate efforts, operating SR-71s Re: TR3A Re: F-117 recon RE: F-117 recon Aerosonde UAV successfully crosses the Atlantic Re[2]: F-117 recon RE: TR3A & Plausible Discussion *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 08:13:43 +0930 From: Dennis Lapcewich Subject: FA-18 OZ Crash Warplane crashes in NT A United States Marine Corp FA-18 Hornet participating in military exercises crashed overnight near Katherine in the Northern Territory, the Australian Defence Force said in a statement. The plane crashed while participating in Exercise Southern Frontier at Delamere Range facility, south-west of Katherine. The fate of the pilot of the single-seat aircraft was not immediately known. The entire Delamere Range airspace has been declared a prohibited area. The accident happened about 10.45pm last night. A spokeswoman for the ADF northern command public affairs unit said no further details were immediately available. AAP Published: Fri Aug 21 08:33:24 EST 1998 http://www.theage.com.au/ Dennis ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 22:53:46 EDT From: Xelex@aol.com Subject: A-11: CASE CLOSED >So, to come full circle, let me assure you that Peter Merlin's comments are not only totally on the mark, they are unassailably accurate. >Jay Miller Thank you, Jay. I had forgotten that your official history of the Lockheed Skunk Works included a very detailed explanation of the A-11 design, its ultimate fate, and how it was superseded by the A-12. There is also a photo of the A-11 wind tunnel model. Combine that photo with the declassified CIA drawing from their official program history, and one could build a nice scale model. For additional references: The pilot's AF Form 7 (Pilot Individual Flight Record) always lists the aircraft as "A-12," and the AF Form 711 (Aircraft Accident/Incident Report) also has "A-12" as the aircraft type. There is more than ample evidence to put the final nail in the coffin of the A-11/A-12 "controversy." George's (YF117@aol.com) ad hominem attack against me that "he (Merlin) discounts evidence like the A-11 designation because it conflicts with what he believes" was uncalled for, and extremely insulting. My statements were based on good, solid documentation, not beliefs. I have no "belief" to promote or axe to grind. I am an historian, and as such I work had to get my facts straight. I make mistakes from time to time due to inaccurate or obsolete information. Garbage in, garbage out. This, however, is not one of those times. Peter W. Merlin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 23:20:11 -0400 From: jeffhclark@juno.com Subject: Re: Teledyne Mach 4.0 UAV I have a copy of "Fireflies and other UAVs", about Teledyne drones / UAVs According to it, the Firebolt (Teledyne Model 305) is the AQM-81A (USAF) and AQM-81N (USN). It's about ten feet long and one foot in diameter, with a small delta wing with endplates at the back, and a canard. It is powered by a hybrid rocket engine. It uses a solid fuel grain with oxidizer coming from a tank of red fuming nitric acid, pressurized by a small ram-air turbine. Apparently, this liquid-solid rocket is throttlable by controlling the oxidizer feed. A picture in the book shows it being carried to launch by an F-4D. It is recovered by helicopter at the end of its flight. It was first flown in June 1983 from Eglin AFB. At Eglin, Firebolts set records for unmanned sustained level flight for both speed & altitude in January 1984. It flew at Mach 4.3 and 103,000 feet. _____________________________________________________________________ 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: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 21:19:03 -0700 From: Ryan Kirk Subject: A-11, A-12... Okay. From an outsider's perspective this is all very complicated. I would just like to know the history of the SR-71 and its variants, which came first, and what they all do. Can someone do this? Ryan ____________________________________________________________ Ryan Kirk Website Architect Topflight Productions http://www.topflight.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 10:01:20 +0100 (BST) From: s.barber@xpedite.co.uk (Steven Barber) Subject: TR3A A (relatively) low-cost LO recon aircraft might be very useful to a battlefield commander or the Intelligence community (particularly if it had high endurance ie long time-on-station too. The problem is, the service who would run (and fund?) the asset is not the service who would get the benefit. We've all seen how well that works... Steve Barber - -- York, England ~ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 12:09:11 From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David) Subject: Re: TR3A Steve Barber wrote: >A (relatively) low-cost LO recon aircraft might be very useful to a >battlefield commander or the Intelligence community (particularly if it >had high endurance ie long time-on-station too. The problem is, the >service who would run (and fund?) the asset is not the service who would >get the benefit. We've all seen how well that works... Sure, but let's not forget that the CIA funded the development of the U-2 and A-12, then operated them. If history repeated itself which it often does, it's a fair guess that an intel. agency (insert favourite acronym) is the likely sponsor and operator of a black recon. a/c rather than the Air Force. If that's the case, we'll be waiting a very long time before the thing is acknowledged. One last thought: if strategic recon. is being acquired by another agency using a black asset - the NRO perhaps it's not surprising that the USAF don't want to duplicate efforts by operating its very expensive SR-71s, D ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 08:42:10 -0400 From: Martin Hurst Subject: RE: Teledyne Mach 4.0 UAV - SR-71 Sensory Equip ?? What type of sensory and imaging capture equipment did it have onboard? What was it designed and built to be used for? Was it and where was it ever operational, or has it been cancelled ? The reason I ask is, I was wondering if it might have been in competition as a cheaper means of doing what the SR-71 can do? > -----Original Message----- > From: jeffhclark@juno.com [SMTP:jeffhclark@juno.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 20, 1998 11:20 PM > To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com > Subject: Re: Teledyne Mach 4.0 UAV > > I have a copy of "Fireflies and other UAVs", about Teledyne drones / UAVs > > According to it, the Firebolt (Teledyne Model 305) is the AQM-81A (USAF) > and AQM-81N (USN). It's about ten feet long and one foot in diameter,... > > ...it being carried to launch by an F-4D. It is recovered by helicopter > at the end of its flight. It was first flown in June 1983 from Eglin > AFB. > At Eglin, Firebolts set records for unmanned sustained level flight for > both speed & altitude in January 1984. It flew at Mach 4.3 and > 103,000 feet. > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 09:04:36 -0400 From: Martin Hurst Subject: Just Think, SR-71 Costs Paid for by who uses it ... > We've all seen how well that works... Ya, it made the USAF antagonistic towards the Blackbird from day one it took over the operational responsibility and costs of the program from the CIA. It should be paid for by the services that request its use. You use it, you pay for it. That's the way the private sector works. A company makes a product or provides a service and then sells it, to pay for it. BUT that company will most certainly charge a fee to anyone who buys or uses their product to cover their own costs. It really got on the USAF's bad side when they had to foot the total costs of running the Blackbird program even though other branches or areas of the military & govt. asked for and used the recon-intel obtained by the 'bird. Hummm ... Just think if they (the military and govt.) had done that from the beginning. Perhaps just perhaps the USAF might a have been a champion of the Blackbird and keep the program going without the politics of trying to keep it grounded, as we have now !?!?!? > -----Original Message----- > From: s.barber@xpedite.co.uk [SMTP:s.barber@xpedite.co.uk] > Sent: Friday, August 21, 1998 5:01 AM > To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com > Subject: TR3A > > A (relatively) low-cost LO recon aircraft might be very useful to a battlefield commander > or the Intelligence community (particularly if it had high endurance ie long time-on-> > > > station too. The problem is, the service who would run (and fund?) the asset is not the > > service who would get the benefit. We've all seen how well that works... > > Steve Barber > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 09:29:46 -0400 From: Martin Hurst Subject: Duplicate efforts, operating SR-71s > Steve Barber wrote: > One last thought: if strategic recon. is being acquired by another agency > using a black asset - the NRO perhaps it's not surprising that the USAF > don't want to duplicate efforts by operating its very expensive SR-71s, Yeah, we all, on the civillian outside, may never know what black op's are really going on. But, ... Then how come Gen. Norman during the Gulf war complained about not getting recon-intel quick enough? Just prior to that Sec of Def Dick C. grounded the Blackbird - right at the most critical time when its operational use would have been greatly beneficial to Gen Norman !!! How come there has been calls that the US is not capable of collecting all the critical intelligence it needs both in time of war or peace-time? How come its spending so much on UAV development, Global Hawk and the like? Like I suggested before, "without a vision the people perish", that is, that lack of "vision" is one of not really knowing who or where your enemy is anymore (post cold war) and being taken by surprise [India, etc.]; "perish" because of ill-conceived ideas of what you should be doing and when - strategic ideas that my be way off the mark. I personally feel the Airforce might be thinking pretty big for its britches, after the Gulf War and all its major successes there, in which they figure they can now dictate to the other branches what money goes where (to them mostly), how much, what programs go or cancelled, etc. But the AF forgets one big component, and that is any and all wars are ultimately won in the trenches and on the battlefields, hand-to-hand, face-to-face. The AF alone has never and never will win a war. My editorial thoughts again ... - -Martin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 08:55:34 -0500 From: "Tom C Robison" Subject: Re: Just Think, SR-71 Costs Paid for by who uses it ... Martin Hurst wrote: It really got on the USAF's bad side when they had to foot the total costs of running the Blackbird program even though other branches or areas of the military & govt. asked for and used the recon-intel obtained by the 'bird. - --------------------- But taking that logic a step further, one could say that the Air Force doesn't benefit from anything it does. Who benefits from CAS and BAI? The grunts on the ground. Who benefits from resupply missions? The grunts on the ground. Who benefits from tank plinking? The grunts on the ground. Who benefits from strategic and tactical bombing? Who benefits from enforcing no-fly zones? The only time the Air Force does something to benefit itself is Air-Air Combat and aerial refueling! In my opinion, the Air Force should shut up and fly the missions they're told to fly, provided they are sufficiently funded. This includes high-speed, high-altitude reconnaissance... IF they're provided with all the assets required to perform the mission, then they should say "Yes, SIR" and perform the mission. Obviously, if they are forced to perform missions that are not adequately funded, such as the peace-keeping efforts in Bosnia, then they have reason to squawk. From a tired old Air Force Grunt who doesn't like the attitude of today's Air Force. _________________________________________________ Tom Robison tcrobi@most.fw.hac.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 10:27:19 -0400 From: Eric Rebentisch Subject: Globalhawk Art said: >Actually, they'll probably usually fly these across in the belly of a C-5. >They >probably wouldn't want to risk flying these through the weather you get >mid-Atlantic and mid-Pacific. Besides, you've also got to get all their >ground >support and control equipment over to where you plan to use them anyway, so >there's really not much point in flying them there, even if you could. >Might as >well air-transport them there and them send them up as targets. The Global Hawk program goals are a 3,000NM mission radius with 24 hours on station at that radius. The ferry range goal is 15,000 NM. One of the initial selling points for the concept was that is could self-deploy from CONUS and provide useful imagery for an extended period, well within 24 hours of decision to go. A briefing from the program office gives Korean and Bosnian scenarios as examples (deploy from Beale or Langley, loiter over target for x hours, return). Time over target increases significantly if it lands at a local staging base. It is supposed to deploy with 3 C-141 loads, and since the C-141 is faster than Globalhawk, a local staging base could be set up by the time the initial recon mission is winding down. Now, to address your point, with a 15000 NM ferry range, they can probably steer it around weather (if they know where bad weather is). And, as we all know, lacking more testing these are still program goals, and program goals sometimes aren't achieved. Finally, while the SR can quickly provide a snapshot of events, in a fluid situation the ability to loiter over the target may more beneficial to the local user. This isn't an "SR vs. Globalhawk" argument - both have their merits. Debating one versus the other is academic at this point, since we currently have neither with operational capability. Eric ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 08:41:43 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: TR3A At 12:09 PM 8/21/98, you wrote: >Steve Barber wrote: > >>A (relatively) low-cost LO recon aircraft might be very useful to a >>battlefield commander or the Intelligence community (particularly if it >>had high endurance ie long time-on-station too. The problem is, the >>service who would run (and fund?) the asset is not the service who would >>get the benefit. We've all seen how well that works... > >Sure, but let's not forget that the CIA funded the development of the >U-2 and A-12, then operated them. > >If history repeated itself which it often does, it's a fair guess that an >intel. agency (insert favourite acronym) is the likely sponsor and operator >of a black recon. a/c rather than the Air Force. > >If that's the case, we'll be waiting a very long time before the thing is >acknowledged. > >One last thought: if strategic recon. is being acquired by another agency >using a black asset - the NRO perhaps it's not surprising that the USAF >don't want to duplicate efforts by operating its very expensive SR-71s, > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- The concept of a TR-3A is as speculative as the AURORA program. Absolutely no conclusive evidence exists no matter how hard you want to be believe it. What favorite 3 letter does this sound like? No matter how logical you may want to imagine a need for it that has nothing to do with its reality. No matter how much speculation you make regarding some mysterious method of managing and funding the operation, it provides zero validation of its existence. It makes as much sense as discussing what if Napoleon had B-52's at the Battle of Waterloo. This remains a mysterious ufo of the black airplane kind. And fortunately/unfortunately we are blessed with many of these from the Antelope Valley. patrick cullumber ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 09:53:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: F-117 recon I am just wondering how easy is to set up the F-117 for a recon mission in case of any emergency. There must be some proposal from Lockheed Martin Skunk Works about it. May the Force be with you Wei-Jen Su E-mail: wsu@cco.caltech.edu "Find a job you love and you will never have to work a day in your life." Confucius ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 13:23:39 -0400 From: Martin Hurst Subject: RE: F-117 recon Actually I have thought about the F-117 being used for that very purpose. What's there to setup? It is already invisible, quiet, and could loiter probably quite nicely for a period of time over an area, with being detected. Slap some sensor and imaging devices in the bombay compartment, change the actual bombay doors to the same (radar absorbing) glass used on the pilot's canopy, and "vwala" - our new "off-the-shelf" recon-intel platform. I'm not making a joke, here, but why couldn't this be done, since the shell of this new platform has already been built, tried and tested !?!?!? > Wei-Jen Su wrote: > From: Wei-Jen Su [SMTP:wsu@cco.caltech.edu] > Sent: Friday, August 21, 1998 12:53 PM > I am just wondering how easy is to set up the F-117 for a recon > mission ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 18:40:30 From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David) Subject: Re: Duplicate efforts, operating SR-71s Martin Hurst writes: > David (not Steve Barber) wrote: >> One last thought: if strategic recon. is being acquired by another >>agency using a black asset - the NRO perhaps it's not surprising >>that the USAF don't want to duplicate efforts by operating its very >>expensive SR-71s, > >But,then how come Gen. Norman during the Gulf war complained about not >getting recon-intel quick enough? Just prior to that Sec of Def Dick C. >grounded the Blackbird - right at the most critical time when its >operational use would have been greatly beneficial to Gen Norman !!! A perfectly fair point and I agree that grounding the SRs at that time was from our perspective (out of the loop) a strange move to say the least. They would have made a valuable contribution both in recon. and psychological terms. >How come there has been calls that the US is not capable of collecting >all the critical intelligence it needs both in time of war or >peace-time? >How come its spending so much on UAV development, Global Hawk and the >like? Without knowing the specifics, it's impossible to do anything but speculate, but it's a safe bet that a LO recon. a/c will be nowhere near as fast as the SR-71, it may, like the F-117 be a creature of the night, which would leave a hole in daytime recon. acquisition. The UAV programmes you mention don't seem to be maturing anywhere near as fast as hoped, though the Predator has been doing a good job in Bosnia and valuable experience in operating modern, sophisticated UAVs is being gained. William Perry is on record saying that manned recon. a/c will be 'squeezed out in 5 to 10 years' so it seems to be a step change in perception at the top rather than anything else. David ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 18:08:35 From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David) Subject: Re: TR3A patrick cullumber writes in reponse to my post: >The concept of a TR-3A is as speculative as the AURORA program. Absolutely >no conclusive evidence exists no matter how hard you want to be believe it. The concept of a LO recon. a/c is nothing like as complex or as speculative as an operational hypersonic spy plane. As far as my wanting hard to believe it - I don't. I'm simply questioning why is it so extraordinary for some people to accept that LO technology could be applied to a recon. a/c ? > What favorite 3 letter does this sound like? No matter how logical you >may want to imagine a need for it that has nothing to do with its reality. I assume you mean UFO in which case you've lost me. I see no correlation. Perhaps you can explain why (if my premise is as facile as the belief in alien spacecraft) is the Tier III- a LO a/c ? >No matter how much speculation you make regarding some mysterious method of >managing and funding the operation, it provides zero validation of its >existence. As I've already said, I'm not setting out to prove the existence of a classified LO recon. a/c. With regard to ' mysterious method of managing and funding the operation,' I've cited factual precedents with other secret recon. assets which are anything but mysterious or extravagant. >It makes as much sense as discussing what if Napoleon had B-52's at the >Battle of Waterloo. Run that one by me again ? You're suggesting that a LO recon. a/c is many decades and several major technological breakthroughs away ? >This remains a mysterious ufo of the black airplane kind. And >fortunately/unfortunately we are blessed with many of these from the >Antelope Valley. And not one is a LO recon. a/c ? I find the reason for your heated response and somewhat denigrating tone far more interesting than whether or not such an a/c exists. Perhaps you could explain that ? This list is about informed and reasoned discussion of many subjects some of which are speculative 'black' a/c (including specifically the so called TR-3) is it not ? Clearly informed debate on classified projects is not possible, so what I was hoping to do was elicit some reasoned discussion on the practicability of an a/c like, let's call it the TR-3 for want of a better name. If the general feeling on the list is that such a discussion isn't appropriate here, then perhaps we should remove topics like TR-3 and Aurora from its remit. David ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 10:47:09 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: F-117 recon At 09:53 AM 8/21/98 -0700, Wei-Jen wrote: > > I am just wondering how easy is to set up the F-117 for a recon >mission in case of any emergency. There must be some proposal from >Lockheed Martin Skunk Works about it. > > Kind of a poor man's SR-71? It's an interesting idea and would probably work. The airframe would require a complete gutting of the IRADS system for the installation of a sensor platform. But it seems like the military, I mean warfighter's as they like to say, are seriously going in the direction of unmanned vehicles to save lives. Thus all these UAV's we are seeing. The ultimate goal seems to be an unmanned fighter plane. patrick ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 11:00:14 -0700 From: patrick Subject: RE: F-117 recon At 01:23 PM 8/21/98 -0400, you wrote: >Actually I have thought about the F-117 being used for that very >purpose. >What's there to setup? It is already invisible, quiet, and could loiter >probably quite nicely for a period of time over an area, with being >detected. >Slap some sensor and imaging devices in the bombay compartment, change >the actual bombay doors to the same (radar absorbing) glass used on the >pilot's canopy, and "vwala" - our new "off-the-shelf" recon-intel >platform. > I am such a bozo! Why I neglected the weapons bay???? Again an interesting idea. But.....it really does not have much of a loiter time. And....for the umpteenth time, it is not a guiet airplane. Except for the manned aspect as previously mentioned it should work fairly well as a tactical recon plane. Maybe they will convert the last few to this mission as they discontinue their use as a viable attack squadron. patrick ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 11:17:52 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Aerosonde UAV successfully crosses the Atlantic The Aerosonde has made a successful crossing of the Atlantic from New Foundland to Scotland. This is a small plane, only a 10 foot wingspan and a 26 cc model airplane engine (tweaked) built in Australia and developed in the US near Portland, Oregon. They went to Newfoundland with 4 aircraft. The planes are controlled out to 150 nautical mile by UHF. They use GPS for guidance. Future flights will be controlled by satellite telephone systems thru their entire flight. The first plane was launched on Aug. 17. Control was lost at the expected 150 mile range but this plane never showed up in Scotland. A second plane was then launched. When the autopilot was turned on after launch the plane crashed. On Aug 20 the last 2 aircraft were launched and both were still flying at the 150 mile mark. The next day, Aug. 21 the 3rd plane landed in Scotland guided by its gps receiver. The 4th plane has not been found. The company is partially funded by the US Navy to develop these planes as meteorological sensor platforms for overwater use. Their homepage is at: http://www.BoM.GOV.AU/bmrc/meso/New/aerohome.htm patrick ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Aug 98 14:22:19 -0500 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com Subject: Re[2]: F-117 recon I think Patrick's right about the military moving away from manned fighters. Think about the remotely-piloted (or robotically-piloted) vehicles we've seen. Wouldn't it be easier (and cheaper) to train pilots if you didn't have to worry about some of the health/physical issues? If the plane can pull 9G turns, but the pilot can't, take out the pilot! If the plane can be made smaller/lighter OR carry a larger payload by taking out the pilot and associated life-support equipmnet, take out the pilot! If the pilot's eyes are going or he's overweight, who cares, if he's on the ground? Greg ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: F-117 recon Author: at INTERNET Date: 8/21/98 10:47 AM At 09:53 AM 8/21/98 -0700, Wei-Jen wrote: > > I am just wondering how easy is to set up the F-117 for a recon >mission in case of any emergency. There must be some proposal from >Lockheed Martin Skunk Works about it. > > Kind of a poor man's SR-71? It's an interesting idea and would probably work. The airframe would require a complete gutting of the IRADS system for the installation of a sensor platform. But it seems like the military, I mean warfighter's as they like to say, are seriously going in the direction of unmanned vehicles to save lives. Thus all these UAV's we are seeing. The ultimate goal seems to be an unmanned fighter plane. patrick ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 14:58:25 -0400 From: Martin Hurst Subject: RE: TR3A & Plausible Discussion > David wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: win@writer.win-uk.net [SMTP:win@writer.win-uk.net] > Sent: Friday, August 21, 1998 2:09 PM > To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com > Subject: Re: TR3A > If the general feeling on the list is that such a discussion isn't > appropriate here, then perhaps we should remove topics like TR-3 and Aurora > from its remit. I feel that the very mention of the name "Skunk Works" conjures up and solicits that very type of stimulating discussion about black op's, unknown, classified, even speculative conversations. But even these types of discussions can be carried to such a point that make them seem tooooooo far fetched to be considered even plausible. What is plausible, that which is or can be based on some basic premise. That premise could be aerodynamic, scientific, physics, mathematical, educated and academic, or from personal experiences. Each or any one of these may not be sufficient to justify a path for reasonable discussion. These when used collectively could, however, and should be used to weed out the far fetched. Mathematical can be very theoretical, take Einstein's Theory of Relativity, never been proven yet, but seems plausible, based on other scientific and physical evidences or ideas. Based on that, I leave you to your own conclusions. - -Martin ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V7 #51 ******************************** 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