From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V7 #61 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, September 11 1998 Volume 07 : Number 061 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: Dreamland Re: Dreamland HyperSoar RE: HyperSoar Re: Dreamland Re: skunk-works-digest V7 #59 Re: HyperSoar Re: Dreamland Re: Dreamland Re: Dreamland Re: Dreamland Re: Dreamland re: Shuttle stuff Re: Shuttle stuff Re: Dreamland re: Air Farce More Hypersoar RE: Air Farce RE: More Hypersoar *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 03:29:21 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: Dreamland At 01:59 AM 9/9/98 EDT, Peter Merlin wrote: >I just read "Dreamland" by Phil Patton. It was a thoroughly enjoyable book, >and took a more comprehensive look at the actual history of Groom Lake than >David Darlington's "Area 51: The Dreamland Chronicles." Patton's history is, >however, spotty and often inaccurate. Here are the biggest problem areas that >I noticed: >P. 145 - "The calculation of radar reflectance from curves....showed up in the >B-2 bomber and the TR3A Black Manta,..." >So far, no one has proved the existence of the "TR3A." Thank you Peter! patrick cullumber ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 13:43:34 From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David) Subject: Re: Dreamland >patrick cullumber writes: >>At 01:59 AM 9/9/98 EDT, Peter Merlin wrote: >>So far, no one has proved the existence of the "TR3A." > >Thank you Peter! No-one has suggested that the so called 'TR-3A' has been proven to exist. It's very easy to dismiss 'black' projects as fanciful until you can read about them. However, Jack Gordon said in the latest edition of JDW which contains an excellent article by Av Ed Nick Cook on 'black' aircraft that the SW has "..maybe twenty major projects" in hand, of which he could probably only talk about ten or eleven in detail. In these days of budget cuts, that's still a lot of classified work. How many more would have been underway in the halcyon days of the Reagan administration ? It's also worth remembering that other aerospace companies have their own advanced R&D outfits that aren't sitting around playing Doom. Oversight committees etc. have made 'black' projects a fact of life when it comes to pushing the envelope and retaining the vital element of surprise.. As a final thought: in the same article Nick Cook mentions a nameless major aerospace sub-contractor that is "providing parts for TWO high flying covert manned aircraft." David ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 11:00:42 -0400 From: "Kim Keller" Subject: HyperSoar Not from the SkunkWorks, but... This week's AvWeek cover shows a Lawrence Livermore Labs concept for a hypersonic waverider. According to the accompanying article, the U.S. Strategic Command is interested. The vehicle would take off from a runway, accelerate to Mach 10 at 130,000 ft., and then use its engine only briefly while skipping off the atmosphere to carry out a mission anywhere on the globe. Shades of Saenger! Will we ever move from concepts to hardware? Or have we already, and just haven't been clued-in yet? Frustrated, Kim ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 13:26:15 -0400 From: Martin Hurst Subject: RE: HyperSoar Kim Wrote: -----Original Message----- From: Kim Keller [SMTP:kekeller@mindspring.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 1998 11:01 AM Not from the Skunk Works, but... Well not maybe Skunk Works directly, but certainly well within the Skunky-enthusiasts, thoughts and lofty aspirations !!! Maybe its now, or maybe it'll be later ... Is this plane strictly for mil op's, or for civilian commerce biz and carry passengers. Ben Rich (in his book) certainly stated that such a plane was not technically or economically feasible in the foreseeable future. Just look at the Concord, it can only fly over open ocean at mach speeds because of the sonic boom, and the seat ticket prices are in the thousands of bananas. In my opinion, I agree with Mr. Rich, its not feasible in the foreseeable future, at least not as a commercial vehicle. As far as a military platform, who ever said the govt. ever did anything that was economically feasible and cost effective !?!?! - -Martin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 10:30:55 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: Dreamland At 01:43 PM 9/9/98, you wrote: >>patrick cullumber writes: > >>>At 01:59 AM 9/9/98 EDT, Peter Merlin wrote: >>>So far, no one has proved the existence of the "TR3A." >> >>Thank you Peter! > >No-one has suggested that the so called 'TR-3A' has been proven to exist. Unfortunately David there are those who do believe without reason it exists. And some write about its existence which convinces others. Some of the basic reasons speculated about its purpose have shown to be totally incorrect. One of these was its so called mission as a target designator for F-117's in the Gulf War. During the Gulf War, all F-117 missions were planned and loaded into the planes onboard computer. It did not allow for any changes such as a new target. It is only this year that F-117's are able to acquire new targets while inflight. This shoots down then the theory that it was spotting targets for the 117. It remains to this day a totally inconclusive program hypothesized by several aviation writers over 8 years ago. >It's very easy to dismiss 'black' projects as fanciful until you can read >about them. I disagree. What is easy to dismiss is wild speculation and assumption based on hearsay and rumour. The Chris Gibson sighting in August of 1989 over the North Sea (as chronicled in Bill Sweetman's book "AURORA" remains to this day the best example of a creditable yet unexplained sighting worth discussion. >contains an excellent article by Av Ed Nick Cook on 'black' aircraft that >the SW has "..maybe twenty major projects" in hand, of which he could >probably only talk about ten or eleven in detail. Is the implication to be made that Cook has knowledge of the remaining projects but has taken an oath of secrecy not to discuss them? I would assume he can only talk about those he has knowledge of therefore he simply is totally uninformed about the others. The Skunkworks is hardly going to invite Jane's magazine in to view all their current projects. Fact is the "owner" of each program is who decides who views their project. Not the contractor. I feel safe in saying the manager of the Skunkworks would be flying back to the Pentagon with an L-1011 full of the best LockMart lawyers he could collar the minute the Pentagon even thought Jane's was being given a tour of their black programs. The remaining half of their projects are openly discussed in their own publications such as "The Skunkworks Star" and LockMart's "Horizons". Both may be obtained by writing to their public affairs office. And of course they have an excellent website. I do agree with all your other points. >As a final thought: in the same article Nick Cook mentions a nameless major >aerospace sub-contractor that is "providing parts for TWO high flying covert >manned aircraft." This is a sexy if not bold statement. I don't think it would be unreasonable to ask or expect Mr. Cook to provide proof or evidence at some point in the future to confirm his claim. In any case something will have to be shown by some one to take this claim from an unsubstantiated one to something conclusive. In the mean time it is fun to read and provides the Jane's staff with a comfortable living. In the words of that Russian president whom Reagan consorted with....."Trust, but verify. patrick cullumber ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 20:49:07 +0000 From: John Szalay Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V7 #59 At 08:50 PM 9/8/98 -0700, you wrote: >> >>odd occasions this month, military sources said. Mobilized for the espionage >>were U-2, >>RC-135, E-3, RC-12, RF-4c, EH-60 and other strategic and tactical >>r------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>-- >> and an aircraft that I believe has been retired from the US active inventory >>The RF-4C. ( maybe they are reporting ghost echos.) > >The Recce Phantoms might actually be in the South korean inventory, I don't >know offhand. > Oh I understand that part, after all some of the RF-4C's from the local AFANG unit were sold to Spain when the unit transitioned into C-130's. (and it really shook the guys up at the pointy-end of the plane too. losing their high sprited mounts) its going be a long time before all the Double-ugly's are out of service. I just found the press-release laughable, calling all of the flights, US aircraft. I miss them, but I have a special place in my heart for the Herc as well since it too is a product of LSC. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Sep 98 16:04:31 -0500 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com Subject: Re: HyperSoar Well, you gotta have the concepts before you have the hardware! Greg W. ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: HyperSoar Author: at INTERNET Date: 9/9/98 11:00 AM Not from the SkunkWorks, but... This week's AvWeek cover shows a Lawrence Livermore Labs concept for a hypersonic waverider. According to the accompanying article, the U.S. Strategic Command is interested. The vehicle would take off from a runway, accelerate to Mach 10 at 130,000 ft., and then use its engine only briefly while skipping off the atmosphere to carry out a mission anywhere on the globe. Shades of Saenger! Will we ever move from concepts to hardware? Or have we already, and just haven't been clued-in yet? Frustrated, Kim ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 20:16:24 -0700 From: "Michael J. Poirier" Subject: Re: Dreamland Peter W. Merlin wrote: > P. 292 - The Space Shuttle had landed at White Sands "once > when bad weather > spoiled the usual landing strips at Edwards or the Cape, > and for the first > time the T.V. crews were kept away from the landing." It > was only the third > landing of the Shuttle. At that time, the runway at > Kennedy Space Center was > not a viable option because the Shuttle was not yet > approved for an attempt at > a runway landing. When Edwards was unavailable for the > STS-3 landing, White > Sands was the next best option. In spite of relatively > short notice, it was > well covered by the news media, and provisions were > hastily made to accomodate > spectators from the general public. Has anyone ever heard if Groom Lake had been considered as an alternate landing location for the Space Shuttle? It seems to make sense, when considering runway length and good weather; not such a great idea, though, if it ever had to land there (where would they park all of the RV's??) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 07:59:01 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: Dreamland >Peter W. Merlin wrote: > >> P. 292 - The Space Shuttle had landed at White Sands "once >> when bad weather >> spoiled the usual landing strips at Edwards..... >At 08:16 PM 9/8/98 -0700, 'Michael J. Poirier wrote: > >Has anyone ever heard if Groom Lake had been considered as >an alternate landing location for the Space Shuttle? It >seems to make sense, when considering runway length and good >weather; not such a great idea, though, if it ever had to >land there (where would they park all of the RV's??) > So then I responded with: The Northrup Strip or White Sands Space Harbor as it is known today is used as an alternate if there is inclement weather at Edwards. It consists of three runways, two available for shuttle landings. These runways are 35,000 feet long and 900 feet wide. They are equiped with all sorts of landing aids for the shuttle. They each have a Micro Wave Scan Beam Landing system. The runways are lit with Precision Approach Path indicator lights, distance to go lights, strobe lights, and xenon spotlights that total more than 11 billion candlepower. And they store all the vehicles and equipment necessary to "safe" the shuttle after landing. They have access to the fire and rescue crews at Holloman AFB and are actually only 75 miles away from El Paso TX airport where NASA has a large hub of aircraft. The shuttle training aircraft operate from here using the Space Harbor daily for practice landings. The 747 Shuttle transport is stored here also. And a Giant Guppy or two. Its my guess Groom isn't needed by NASA and NASA isn't wanted by Groom. Ducks fly with ducks and swans fly with swans. Who gets all the royalties for all these Groom Lake stories? I need a piece of this action. patrick cullumber ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 16:13:55 From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David) Subject: Re: Dreamland patrick cullumber wrote: David wrote: >>It's very easy to dismiss 'black' projects as fanciful until you can read >>about them. > >I disagree. What is easy to dismiss is wild speculation and assumption >based on hearsay and rumour. The Chris Gibson sighting in August of 1989 >over the North Sea (as chronicled in Bill Sweetman's book "AURORA" remains >to this day the best example of a creditable yet unexplained sighting worth >discussion. I fail to see why the notion of a LO recon a/c is de facto 'wild speculation.' It seems a logical application of the technology...SW seem to think so with the Tier III- :) so all we're arguing about is whether a manned LO recon. plane LO exists...we'll have to watch this space. Funny you should mention Chris Gibson. From talking to him I think he rues the day he ever went public with his sighting. He's been called all kinds of things by so called sceptics, who to a man haven't had the courtesy to speak to him directly. If they'd taken the trouble, they would have realised he's a serious, honest and extremely knowledgeable witness. As an engineer, he's the first to look for a logical explanation. I understand that Curtis Peebles in one of his books claims Gibson saw an F-111 with full wing sweep..case solved. Did he speak to Gibson ? No. If anyone in the world could tell one a/c from another it's Chris..he's a recog. expert. Bear in mind also that Chris was called topside by other witnesses who saw it first and wanted to know what it was. Nine years later he's none the wiser, but I'll put good money on his integrity. He saw what he saw and as you know, he's never said it was Aurora. >>JDW contains an excellent article by Av Ed Nick Cook on 'black' aircraft >>that the SW has "..maybe twenty major projects" in hand, of which he >>could probably only talk about ten or eleven in detail. > > >Is the implication to be made that Cook has knowledge of the remaining >projects but has taken an oath of secrecy not to discuss them? Not at all. The 'He' in question is Gordon..you edited out the fact that Gordon was making the statement, not Cook. >... The Skunkworks is hardly going to invite Jane's magazine in to view >all their current projects. Of course not, nor would they want to, so what's your point here ? >>As a final thought: in the same article Nick Cook mentions a nameless major >>aerospace sub-contractor that is "providing parts for TWO high flying covert >>manned aircraft." > >This is a sexy if not bold statement. I don't think it would be >unreasonable to ask or expect Mr. Cook to provide proof or evidence at some >point in the future to confirm his claim. In any case something will have >to be shown by some one to take this claim from an unsubstantiated one to >something conclusive. Journalists have always been privy to sensitive background information which is treated as confidential, so it would be quite unreasonable under the circumstances to expect names to be named. Nick Cook is a journalist of great integrity as you'd expect from Janes, so I would trust his judgement on the quality of his sources. I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on these 'black' a/c. You seem to believe that no classified a/c exist...which is fine, I feel they do. Tell me, did you believe Tacit Blue existed before the roll-out ? Best David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 09:46:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: Dreamland On Thu, 10 Sep 1998, patrick wrote: > They have access to the fire and rescue crews at Holloman AFB and are > actually only 75 miles away from El Paso TX airport where NASA has a large > hub of aircraft. The shuttle training aircraft operate from here using the > Space Harbor daily for practice landings. The 747 Shuttle transport is > stored here also. And a Giant Guppy or two. Hey Patrick, just to clarify, I think there are two 747 Shuttle transport. The other one is in Edwards AFB. I just saw it the other day. May the Force be with you Wei-Jen Su E-mail: wsu@cco.caltech.edu "The first time I ever saw a jet, I shot it down." General Chuck Yeager, USAF, describing his first confrontation with a Me262. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 11:34:59 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: Dreamland At 09:46 AM 9/10/98 -0700, you wrote: > > >On Thu, 10 Sep 1998, patrick wrote: > >> They have access to the fire and rescue crews at Holloman AFB and are >> actually only 75 miles away from El Paso TX airport where NASA has a large >> hub of aircraft. The shuttle training aircraft operate from here using the >> Space Harbor daily for practice landings. The 747 Shuttle transport is >> stored here also. And a Giant Guppy or two. > And then Wei-Jen blurted: > Hey Patrick, just to clarify, I think there are two 747 Shuttle >transport. The other one is in Edwards AFB. I just saw it the other day. > Wei-Jen: There is only one. You think there are two because they use a very large mirror and a whole lot of smoke! Just kidding Wei-Jen. I honestly don't know how many they have. It did refuel at El Paso when flying the Shuttle back to Fla. patrick ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 18:45:12 -0300 From: "Kim Keller" Subject: re: Shuttle stuff - -Yes, there are two Shuttle Carrier Aircraft. N905NA (Boeing 747-143) & N911NA (Boeing 747-200) are based at Ellington Field outside Houston. 905 is ex- American Airlines; 911 is ex- Japan Air Lines. - -I doubt that the Air Farce would want the attention a shuttle landing at Groom Lake would bring. There are plenty of other landing sites available. All it takes is 12,200 feet of asphalt, or a landing barricade installation. Orbiters don't really need all that length. It's the typical NASA safety factor. Typically, they use around 10,000 ft of total runway- touchdown 2,000 ft past threshold and approx. 8000 ft. rollout. Regards, Kim ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 19:46:00 EDT From: MELUMAN@aol.com Subject: Re: Shuttle stuff In a message dated 98-09-10 18:43:09 EDT, you (Kim Keller) write: << -I doubt that the Air Farce >> Isn't that term a little sophomoric, Kim? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 16:49:54 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: Dreamland At 04:13 PM 9/10/98, David wrote: > >I fail to see why the notion of a LO recon a/c is de facto 'wild >speculation.' It seems a logical application of the technology...SW seem >to think so with the Tier III- :) so all we're arguing about is whether >a manned LO recon. plane LO exists...we'll have to watch this space. > Call it what you will, assume what you want. I am only interested in discussing known programs or sightings of black aircraft. If you or anyone desires to present evidence of somethings existence I would be foolish not to examine your findings. Such as the Gibson case. Although I have not talked to him personally, a good friend of mine has. That is why I mention it and we are both in agreement of his superb skill and experience which adds to the credibility of this sighting. Again, if you want to make an a case for a programs existence based on an extrapolation of technology then please do so without me. > >Bear in mind also that Chris was called topside by other witnesses who saw >it first and wanted to know what it was. Nine years later he's none the >wiser, but I'll put good money on his integrity. He saw what he saw and as >you know, he's never said it was Aurora. Good point. And in Sweetman's book, Sweetman immediately identifies Chris' sighting as the "Aurora". How Sweetman can do that is a total mystery to me. I believe Sweetman is one of the better journalist over the long haul but in this case he has taken a very precarious position. > >>... The Skunkworks is hardly going to invite Jane's magazine in to view >>all their current projects. > >Of course not, nor would they want to, so what's your point here ? > My point here is these articles are written sometimes on conjecture and tips and hints from sources thought or hoped to be reliable and/or accurate. And who prints them has nothing to do with adding to the authenticity of the information presented. Unfotunately these ideas if found to be inaccurate are never recanted. But they do get repeated by those who believe if they here it often enough it must be true. This was a general complaint and necessarily referring to the article you quoted. > >>>As a final thought: in the same article Nick Cook mentions a nameless major >>>aerospace sub-contractor that is "providing parts for TWO high flying covert >>>manned aircraft." >> >>This is a sexy if not bold statement. I don't think it would be >>unreasonable to ask or expect Mr. Cook to provide proof or evidence at some >>point in the future to confirm his claim. In any case something will have >>to be shown by some one to take this claim from an unsubstantiated one to >>something conclusive. > >Journalists have always been privy to sensitive background information >which is treated as confidential, so it would be quite unreasonable under >the circumstances to expect names to be named. > >Nick Cook is a journalist of great integrity as you'd expect from Janes, so >I would trust his judgement on the quality of his sources. I am not asking nor expecting Mr. Cook to present his sources or his reasonings at this time. Please note my original statement. I do agree he and his employer have earned a staus allowing them to publish such ideas. But I also believe at some point in the future they need to publish verification of these ideas or their credibility will come in to question about these particular claims. I am in no hurry nor doubt that at some point they will present some factual data. > >I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on these 'black' >a/c. You seem to believe that no classified a/c exist...which is fine, I >feel they do. > >Tell me, did you believe Tacit Blue existed before the roll-out ? I had heard rumours that Northrop was working on something but I don't believe looking back that the rumours were accurate. I was surprised by the TACIT BLUE. It would be wrong I think to not assume work is being done right now at both RCS ranges at White Sands and possibly at Groom. You may want to include the Skunkworks. But these may be studies of airfoils and not actual vehicles. Hypersonic engine designers have been working towards that effort for years. But if someone is to suggest a new vehicle is actually being built or is flying then I want to see some conclusive evidence. Otherwise, IMHO it remains as more speculation. patrick cullumber ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 22:28:17 -0300 From: "Kim Keller" Subject: re: Air Farce Meluman wrote: >>Isn't that term a little sophomoric, Kim?<< in respnse to my use of the phrase "air farce". I used that phrase because USAF has shown itself to be rather sophomoric on its own. When one considers the shenanigans discussed on this list regarding cancellation of SR-71 ops, denying for years the existence of a test facility that they clearly were involved in, and the petty political infighting that takes place between USAF, USN, and the Army, I believe my phrase (which I didn't invent) is accurate. Kim ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 00:22:28 +1200 (NZST) From: Kerry Ferrand Subject: More Hypersoar U.S. Researcher Proposes Mach 10 Aircraft Xinhua 11-SEP-98 LOS ANGELES (Sept. 10) XINHUA - A U.S. researcher has come up with a design for a "HyperSoar" aircraft that could fly at 10,720 kilometers per hour, or Mach 10, according to a news release Thursday. Preston Carter, researcher in the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, said the key to HyperSoar aircraft would be its "skipping" motion along the edge of Earth's atmosphere, much as a rock skips across water. After ascending to roughly 43,000 meters, just outside the atmosphere, the aircraft would turn off its air-breathing engine and coast back to the atmospheric edge, where it would quickly fire its engines again and "skip" back into space, he explained in the news release. The researcher estimated that it would cost a total investment of almost 500 million U.S. dollars to research and build a one-third scale flyable prototype of the HyperSoar aircraft, which, he said, would quickly prove its value. "A commercial flight from the midwestern United States to Japan would require approximately 25 such skips to complete the one-and- a-half-hour journey," the new release said. Scientists believe that HyperSoar aircraft could prove a boon to the space program as the first stage of a two-stage launch process, moving objects to just outside the Earth's atmosphere, from which point they can be guided into their final orbits. K ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 08:38:44 -0400 From: Martin Hurst Subject: RE: Air Farce Kim wrote: Sent: Thursday, September 10, 1998 9:28 PM "Air Farce ... petty political infighting that takes place between USAF, USN, and the Army" Absolute in agreement !!! The govt. and mil has totally lost their perspective, objectives and goals, for their purpose for existence. They are to maintain accurate and update to date intelligence, and develop and maintain a national defense structure to defend against any and all would be aggressors against this country. The Air Farce, Navy, Army, Marines, special ops, etc., are all no lesser or greater than each other, BUT all should be an integral part of this major defense structure - that's it that's all. This "petty political infighting that takes place between USAF, USN, and the Army" serves only to greatly weaken the nation's defensive structure, by not delivering the most efficient and critical solutions that should otherwise be in place to defend this country. How does this tie into this Skunk Works List? Kelly, and Ben and company, truly believed intensely, that they were an integral part of the nation's defense policy, and diligently strived to that end in all they worked on - read why Ben Rich (in his book) and his team worked so exhaustively on the A-12/ SR-71 to bring it into operation (he says that developing and testing the engines "took 20 of the best years off my life" [that may be so, Ben die at 69 years of age]). My views again. - --------------------------- - -Martin Hurst ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 08:56:52 -0400 From: Martin Hurst Subject: RE: More Hypersoar Wrote: Kerry Ferrand [SMTP:kerry@hungerford.chch.cri.nz] Sent: Friday, September 11, 1998 8:22 AM The researcher estimated that it would cost a total investment of almost 500 million U.S. dollars to research and build a one-third scale flyable prototype of the HyperSoar aircraft, which, he said, would quickly prove its value. Does that mean $500million times 3 or $1.5 billion to get a production model into operation !?!?! The bottom line is, what is the seat ticket price going to be for a flight from here to there going to be? How will the passengers and all their luggage be safe and protected from the intense heat at that speed? I don't know but it sure seems pretty pie-in-the-sky concept for now, to be of any real practical use right now. - --------------------------- - -Martin Hurst ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V7 #61 ******************************** 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