From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V7 #77 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 Sunday, November 22 1998 Volume 07 : Number 077 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: F117 used for recon? F-117 Reece? Re: F-117 Reece? Re: F117 used for recon? SR-71 (968) Re: F117 used for recon? Re: F-117 Reece? new records New recon vehicle? Re: new records [none] Re: new records Triangular Aircraft Re: new records Re: new records and SR-71 update Weekend Update *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 09:50:34 -0500 From: Ron and Louise Crawford Subject: Re: F117 used for recon? Can anyone address the critical problems in the UAV programs like Dark Star and Global Hawk? Seems intuitively like those would lie mainly in the transition from RPV's to self-piloted vehicles. Ron ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 15:34:55 -0800 From: David Lednicer Subject: F-117 Reece? There's a very good reason not to use a F-117 for the recon mission. Current emphasis is on "real-time" recon. This means you transmit back the photos or radar pics from the recon vehicle to the units using the data. A lot of this is done via satellites. This totally conflicts with the F-117 concept of no emissions. If you transmit, the bad guys will know where you are, usually quite precisely. The B-2 uses low probability of intercept radar, but trying to transmit lots of bytes of data can't be done so stealthy. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (425) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (425) 746-1299 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 17:13:55 -0800 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: F-117 Reece? >Current emphasis is on "real-time" recon. This means you >transmit back the photos or radar pics from the recon vehicle to the >units using the data. A lot of this is done via satellites. This totally >conflicts with the F-117 concept of no emissions. If you transmit, the >bad guys will know where you are, usually quite precisely. But isn't a directed low width beam to a relay that is out of the line of detection by the enemy possible? I'm not arguing F-117 is a recce of course, just the concept of a stealthy transmission technique. For example, as you mentioned, straight up to a Sat. How could even an enemy aircraft see that unless they flew through the beam? Plus if bandwidth is the problem, there should be ways around that, given compression and high data rates, and multiple relays (distant aircraft or sats). You should be able to record, dump to a relay, change your location, record, dump to a different relay, change your location, etc...). If the enemy knows where your relays are, I can see where they might detect you given a ground based target. But they'd have to be relatively sophisticated, and they'd have to have a detection aircraft orbiting near all the possibilities. In the end it sounds fairly difficult. And detection aircraft orbiting a secret strategic location are a dead giveaway that something there is important. Anyway, maybe I'm mistaken. So what have I missed here? Larry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 17:51:40 -0800 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: F117 used for recon? >>Can anyone address the critical problems in the UAV programs like Dark >>Star and Global Hawk? >Seems intuitively like those would lie mainly in >the transition from RPV's to self-piloted vehicles. Yes. But that's a pretty BIG black box you just described. I was looking for some more detail on exactly where these efforts are failing. I realize that is probably impossible to find out. It is somewhat puzzling as the D-21 did all this 30 years ago, with old technology. The D was not an RPV at all. It was completely autonomous after launch. Now, the D had some problems, and some people call it a failure, but that is not quite my take on it. Failure can be a matter of degree, and my feeling is that the D came close to being a success. We know autopilots can be built. That is old stuff. We know Nav systems that tell you where you are can be built (the D had a star tracker INS). We know mission computers can be built that take were you are and tell the autopiot where to go. The D had a paper tape programmed mission computer, if I recall what the Honeywell guys told me correctly. So what is the real problem? I'd like to know! If you guys could see that video of a D doing a complete programmed mission over the Pacific, you'd see what I mean! There is no need any longer to fly back for a Discovery Capsule type recovery like the D did (in fact, how many D missions would have been successful if they could just beam results up to a Sat?). Has all that been lost? Now, if there is some kind of AI function involved in the mission plan or the stealth, or the endurance, maybe that is the problem. I really don't know. It's an interesting question. Sounds like a fair amount of NIH might be involved, but I don't know, so I should keep my mouth shut. Larry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 22:07:05 EST From: Xelex@aol.com Subject: SR-71 (968) The "third" USAF Blackbird, SR-71A (61-7968), has been sitting out on the DET 2 ramp for the last two days. It is missing its verticals and rear canopy. It's kind of dusty, too. I'm not sure what they are planning to do with it. Also, thanks to everyone who gave me support in the face of my recent faux pas. Everyone makes boo-boos from time to time. Some are just more boo-boo- esque than others. Peter Merlin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 23:25:02 -0800 From: G&G Subject: Re: F117 used for recon? Larry Smith wrote: > > Has all that been lost? what about the nav schemes used by tomahawks and other cruise missile types? Greg %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %% %% %% Reality is for People Who %% %% Can't Handle Simulation %% %% %% %% habu@cyberramp.net %% %% gdfieser@hti.com %% %% %% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 11:23:42 From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David) Subject: Re: F-117 Reece? David Lednicer writes: >Current emphasis is on "real-time" recon. This means you >transmit back the photos or radar pics from the recon vehicle to the >units using the data. A lot of this is done via satellites. This totally >conflicts with the F-117 concept of no emissions. If you transmit, the >bad guys will know where you are, usually quite precisely. So where does this put DarkStar David ? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 08:54:31 -0500 From: "Tom C Robison" Subject: new records Lockheed Martin U-2S Reconnaissance Aircraft and ER-2 Earth Resource Variant Establish Three World Records November 19, 1998 7:25 PM EST PALMDALE, Calif., Nov. 19 /PRNewswire/ -- Lockheed Martin Skunk Works announced that an Air Force U-2S reconnaissance aircraft and its NASA ER-2 variant set three new world records on the 18th and 19th of November. The first two world records, flown from Air Force Plant 42 in Palmdale, California, involved flying a record payload weight of 3,300 pounds to an altitude of 15,000 meters (49, 000 feet.). Air Force officials stated the record setting U-2 aircraft was configured with a normal mission payload and was not specially configured for this record event. Of interest, once the record was established at 15,000 meters the aircraft continued to climb to its nominal cruise altitudes above 65,000 feet. The previous 15,000 meter record, was held by a Russian MiG 29 fighter and was set in 1995. The new records were for a medium weight class of 26,455 to 35,274 pounds (at take off weight) and for the "unlimited" weight class (no aircraft of any weight has ever claimed this amount of a payload to 49,000 feet). The third record, set by the NASA ER-2, flown from NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center located at Edwards Air Force Base, CA, broke an absolute altitude record for it's weight class. The new NASA record of 68,700 feet surpassed the current record of 62,500 feet, which was flown by a Canadian P-42 aircraft in 1988. An official from the National Aeronautics Association (NAA) observed the record setting events and will process the formal record verification with the Federation Aeronautique Internationale (FAI). The FAI is the international organization responsible for the coordination of competition and certification of all world aviation records. The NAA as the U.S. representative of the FAI, is responsible for coordination and certification of all aviation records originating in the United States. The Lockheed Martin U-2S is a high altitude, long endurance reconnaissance and surveillance system. The aircraft carries state-of-the-art sensors able to collect intelligence in all weather and light conditions. Collected data is distributed in real time for processing and exploitation over high-capacity digital links. The U-2 is employed during peacetime for intelligence planning and warning. Its wartime roles include battlefield surveillance, targeting, and battle damage assessment. The first U-2S was delivered to the USAF in October 1994. All U-2R aircraft have now been converted to the U-2S configuration. In addition to a new, high-efficiency General Electric F118 engine, all U-2S aircraft have been equipped with an improved electrical system, digital autopilot, and an auxiliary spoiler activation system. Operational USAF U-2s are operated by Air Combat Command. Home base is the 9th Reconnaissance Wing located at Beale Air Force Base, CA. NASA operates a version of the U-2, the ER-2, flown from NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center located at Edwards Air Force Base, CA. ER-2s are used for a wide variety of earth resources related programs. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 06:18:21 -0800 From: patrick Subject: New recon vehicle? At 05:51 PM 11/19/98 -0800, Larry wrote: > >It is somewhat puzzling as the D-21 did all this 30 years >ago, with old technology. The D was not an RPV at all. It >was completely autonomous after launch. Now, the D had some >problems, and some people call it a failure, but that is not >quite my take on it. Failure can be a matter of degree, and >my feeling is that the D came close to being a success. > >We know autopilots can be built. That is old stuff. We know >Nav systems that tell you where you are can be built (the >D had a star tracker INS). We know mission computers can >be built that take were you are and tell the autopiot where >to go. The D had a paper tape programmed mission computer, >if I recall what the Honeywell guys told me correctly. > >So what is the real problem? I'd like to know! If you guys >could see that video of a D doing a complete programmed >mission over the Pacific, you'd see what I mean! > >There is no need any longer to fly back for a Discovery >Capsule type recovery like the D did (in fact, how many D >missions would have been successful if they could just beam >results up to a Sat?). > >Has all that been lost? > =-=---=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Larry-- I am not much of a futurist, especially in mil matters but.......imagine a device that might be air or sea launched, flys real fast (a technical term), uses GPS (I think its useable at high altitude), has real time uplink capability to a TDRSS orbiting overhead. is powered by an engine/fuel combination allowing a complete flight without refueling, is designed as a no deposit, no return vehicle, maybe vectored to a nearby ocean for ultimate disposal.......you fill in the blanks for propulsion. Could/would this be of value to slide in between the layer of the atmosphere above UAV's and below earth orbit vehicles? This would be simple to do today it would seem like. I mean if budgeting and politics could be removed from the equation. And of course it had Art's blessing!! patrick ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Nov 98 09:33:24 -0500 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com Subject: Re: new records What does an 'auxiliary spoiler activation system' do? I know this might seem like a dumb question, but I'm used to speaking of spoilers in relation to cars and such. Thanks Greg W. ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: new records Author: at INTERNET Date: 11/20/98 8:54 AM auxiliary spoiler activation system. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 10:04:12 -0500 From: Joe Donoghue Subject: [none] The book, THE CIA AND THE U-2 PROGRAM, 1954-1974, has been posted on the CIA's Center for the Study of Intelligence web site. http://www.odci.gov/csi/books/U2/index.htm Their "what's new" page says "July 14, 1998" but it was not there yesterday. Appears to have all the same blacked-out areas as the book presented at the conference. It has been scanned in so you have to load it a page at a time. Joe Donoghue ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 13:11:16 -0500 From: Drew Menser Subject: Re: new records I think spoilers help an aircraft loose altitude without gaining forward speed, I think...... Drew gregweigold@pmsc.com wrote: > What does an 'auxiliary spoiler activation system' do? > > I know this might seem like a dumb question, but I'm used to speaking > of spoilers in relation to cars and such. > > Thanks > Greg W. > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 11:43:07 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: Triangular Aircraft LAB ANNOUNCES NEW HYPERSONIC AIRCRAFT DESIGN London to San Francisco in Under Two Hours LIVERMORE, Calif.-- A revolutionary design for a hypersonic aircraft that could fly between any two points on the globe in less than two hours has been developed by a researcher at the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The aircraft design - dubbed HyperSoar - is featured in the latest issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology (Sept. 7,1998). HyperSoar could fly at approximately 6,700 mph (Mach 10), while carrying roughly twice the payload of subsonic aircraft of the same takeoff weight. The HyperSoar concept promises less heat build-up on the airframe than previous hypersonic designs - a challenge that has until now limited the development of hypersonic aircraft. Skipping Over The Atmosphere The key to HyperSoar is the skipping motion of its flight along the edge of Earth's atmosphere - much like a rock skipped across water. A HyperSoar aircraft would ascend to approximately 130,000 feet - lofting outside the Earth's atmosphere - then turn off its engines and coast back to the surface of the atmosphere. There, it would again fire its air-breathing engines and skip back into space. The craft would repeat this process until it reached its destination. 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 aircraft's angles of descent and ascent during the skips would only be 5 degrees. Passengers would feel 1.5 times the force of gravity at the bottom of each skip and weightlessness while in space. (1.5 Gs is comparable to the effect felt on a child's swing, though HyperSoar's motion would be 100 times slower.) "We believe we have developed a design that not only addresses the primary issues in building hypersonic aircraft, but does so in a way that creates a number of different uses for HyperSoar, thereby helping offset its development costs," said Livermore aerospace engineer Preston Carter, developer of the HyperSoar concept. "An aircraft with the speed, range and lift of HyperSoar could revolutionize intercontinental flight and access to space." Potential applications for HyperSoar aircraft are varied: Passenger aircraft - A commercial HyperSoar airliner or business jet could reach any destination on the planet from the continental U.S. in two hours or less. Freighter - A HyperSoar freight aircraft could make four or more roundtrips to, say, Tokyo each day from the U.S. versus one or less for today's aircraft. Analysis indicates a HyperSoar aircraft flying express mail between Los Angeles and Tokyo could generate ten times the daily revenue of a similarly- sized subsonic cargo plane of today. Military aircraft - A HyperSoar bomber the size of a B-52 could take off from the U.S. and deliver its payload to any point on the globe - from an altitude and at a speed that defies all current defensive measures - and return to the U.S. without the need for refueling or forward bases on foreign soil. Equipment and personnel could also be transported. Space lift - HyperSoar could be employed as the first stage of a two-stage-to-orbit space launch system. Research shows this approach will allow approximately twice the payload-to-orbit as today's expendable launch systems for a given gross takeoff weight. HyperSoar Advantages Most current hypersonic designs rely on rocket engines to boost the aircraft to the edge of space, from where the craft essentially glides back down to its destination. Other designs simply use engines to push the aircraft through the atmosphere. All previous concepts have suffered from heat buildup on the surface of the aircraft and in various aircraft components due to friction with the atmosphere. A HyperSoar plane would experience less heating because it would spend much of its flight out of the Earth's atmosphere. Also, any heat the craft picked up while "skipping" down into the atmosphere could be at least partially dissipated during the aircraft's time in the cold of space. Another HyperSoar advantage is its use of air-breathing engines. Most conventional hypersonic designs rely on rocket motors to boost the aircraft to the edge of space. By not boosting to as high a velocity, and by dropping back into the atmosphere at the bottom of each "skip," a HyperSoar plane can utilize air-breathing engines, which are inherently more efficient than rocket engines. Also, HyperSoar engines would be used strictly as accelerators, rather than as accelerators and cruising engines - as in some hypersonic designs - thereby greatly simplifying the design and reducing technical risk. Although the porpoising effect of a HyperSoar flight might test the adventurousness of some airline passengers, the Lab's Carter does not see this impacting business travel or military or space launch applications, and, in fact, he believes commercial fliers would eventually take to the concept, as well. "The average passenger will probably put up with the slight roller coaster motion if it gets them from San Francisco to Tokyo in less than two hours, rather than ten-and-a-half," said Carter. The HyperSoar concept has been under investigation by Lawrence Livermore for several years and is being discussed with the U.S. Air Force and other government agencies. Livermore has been working with the University of Maryland's Department of Aerospace Engineering to refine the aerodynamic and trajectory technologies associated with the concept. Carter estimates that approximately $140 million would need to be spent over the next few years to advance several technologies to the point where a $350 million one-third-scale flyable prototype could be built and tested. Carter estimates the development cost of full-scaled HyperSoar aircraft to be about the same as spent to develop the Boeing Company's new 777. mailbox:/C|/Program Files/Netscape/Users/fortean/mail/Inbox?id=3654BA14.7DFB%40telekabel2.nl&number=9173587&part=1.2 mailbox:/C|/Program Files/Netscape/Users/fortean/mail/Inbox?id=3654BA14.7DFB%40telekabel2.nl&number=9173587&part=1.3 mailbox:/C|/Program Files/Netscape/Users/fortean/mail/Inbox?id=3654BA14.7DFB%40telekabel2.nl&number=9173587&part=1.4 - -- Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean@primenet.com > Home Page: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/8832 Sites: Fortean Times * Northwest Mysteries * Mystic's Cyberpage * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program - ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: http://www.seacoast.com/~jsweet/brotherh/index.html Southeast Asia (SEA) service: Vietnam - Theater Telecommunications Center/HHC, 1st Aviation Brigade (Jan 71 - Aug 72) Thailand/Laos - Telecommunications Center/U.S. Army Support Thailand (USARSUPTHAI), Camp Samae San (Jan 73 - Aug 73) - Special Security/Strategic Communications - Thailand (STRATCOM - Thailand), Phu Mu (Pig Mountain) Signal Site (Aug 73 - Jan 74) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Nov 98 01:40:53 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: new records The function of a spoiler is to reduce or eliminate lift of a wing (i.e. to "spoil" the lift), just like it is for race cars. This can be desirable for a number of uses. One is to destroy lift when the aircraft is solidly on the ground, to help reduce landing roll or floating tendencies. Another is to reduce the lift of one wing relative to the other for roll control at lower speeds. A third uses partial extension/retraction in order to vary the lift the wing is producing without having to change power or angle of attack. This is often referred to as "Direct Lift Control". The F-14, for example, uses spoilers for all three above purposes. Sailplanes also use them because they allow for a cleaner, stronger yet lighter wing. Art ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Nov 98 02:02:23 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: new records and SR-71 update Not to denigrate the U-2 in any way, but the SR [sigh] would routinely carry a payload twice as large to well over 75,000 feet. Regarding the SRs: My latest intel is that the B model is to undergo its planned Phase inspection and then go into flyable storage for a year or so. I do not know if it'll be flown on a Functional Check Flight when it comes out of Phase before going into flyable storage. Their A model will have the LASRE equipment removed and will be flown at speed twice and then also go into flyable storage for roughly the same period. This is more or less the gap they thought was going to happen in 1998. There is work for the SR, but not immediately, so that's why they're being stored. NASA still wants two more SRs, I don't know if USAF has made any decision on which two to let them have ("SR-71? What's that?"). 968 was the SR that was going to next be returned to operational status and had already been moved in preparation for work to start when Billy Jeff vetoed the program. Since now it'll never fly again, it's been moved out of the hangar where it was being stored until disposition instructions are handed down. No word on where the SRs that don't go to NASA will end up. There is still talk that one may go to a museum in Alaska, but nothing official. If that happens, it would be more practical (and less expensive) to fly it there, provided 967 and 971 aren't allowed to deteriorate to the point where that is no longer feasible. The final USAF engine runs for both of them were around Nov. 10. Art ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 07:52:22 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Weekend Update For those bored weekend readers of the newslist..... 981813. F-22 flight tests surpass expectations by Bobbie Mixon Jr. Aeronautical Systems Center Public Affairs WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Ohio (AFPN) -- America's new fighter aircraft, the F-22 Raptor, continues to impress during its light testing at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. With nearly three hours of supersonic flight, 79 total flights and 164.2 flight hours logged, the Air Force's chosen successor to the F-15 Eagle air superiority fighter is on a roll. "The F-22 System Program Office is pleased with flight-test progress to date," said Jon Ogg, the Air Force's chief engineer for the F-22 program office here. "The entire F-22 team has pulled together and the test program is on track to meet all Department of Defense and congressional criteria required for the Raptor's next stages." In fact, all DOD flight-test criteria necessary to grant the program's Lot 1, advanced-buy contract award were met, or exceeded, by Oct. 10. Lot 1 represents the first six production F-22s to be built by Air Force contractors Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems, Marietta, Ga.; Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft, Fort Worth, Texas; and Boeing of Seattle, along with engine supplier Pratt & Whitney, West Palm Beach, Fla. Among several test points required by DOD officials was the initiation of flight testing on Raptor 4002, the second F-22 off the assembly line. The milestone was completed in June when aircraft 4002 flew for the first time. The criteria also called for the F-22 to be air-refueled and fly above 30,000 feet. Both of those milestones were completed in July. Moreover, the F-22 later bettered the altitude criteria by flying at 40,000 feet. In September, the Raptor exceeded DOD's goal of flight above 18 degrees angle of attack by flying at 24 degrees angle of attack. In October, the Raptor further flew at 26 degrees angle of attack. Also in September, full ground-vibration tests on Raptor 4001 were completed. A final flight-test milestone necessary for advanced buy contract award of the first six production F-22s took place Oct. 10, when Lockheed Martin test pilot Jon Beesley, flew Raptor 4001 faster than the speed of sound for the first time. During that first supersonic flight, Beesley pushed the Raptor to a speed of 1.1 Mach without afterburner at an altitude of 29,000 feet over the skies of Edwards AFB. Since then, the F-22 has accomplished flight at 1.4 Mach without afterburner. Meanwhile, the program continues to fulfill terms established by Congress for ending limitations placed on funding the advanced buy of the Lot 1 aircraft. According to Congress, the F-22 program must demonstrate 433 flight hours, or the secretary of defense must provide a report justifying why 183 flight hours are sufficient to release the funding designated for the upcoming contract award. As of Nov. 18, F-22 Combined Test Force pilots had logged 164.2 hours, leaving 18.8 flight hours needed to meet the congressional mandate. Raptor 4001 had flown 45 sorties and 79 flight hours. Raptor 4002 had flown 34 sorties and 85.2 flight hours. "The Air Force is still shooting for completing 183 flight test hours by Thanksgiving," said Ogg, referencing the congressionally mandated flight-hour requirement and the Air Force chief of staff's completion target of Oct. 26. While the F-22 racks up hours and test points -- on Oct. 31, the program had completed 1,797 test points -- the ranks of qualified F-22 pilots continue to grow. Lt. Col. C.D. Moore, F-22 Combined Test Force director, and Lt. Col. Dave (Doc) Nelson from Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center, Kirtland AFB, N.M., joined the list of pilots qualified to fly the Raptor, bringing the total to six pilots. Moore flew the Raptor for the first time on Nov. 4. "The Raptor performs better than I ever anticipated," he said after his flight. "The handling qualities were great -- it was solid in formation and it landed so softly, I had a difficult time recognizing when the wheels had touched down. Strapping this plane on for the first time was an absolute pleasure." Nelson became the first Air Force operational line pilot to fly the raptor Oct. 21. "I was very impressed by the power of the airplane. I had been briefed on the thrust-to-weight of the F-22 and its supercruising ability, so I expected to be impressed by the power, and I was," he said. "The biggest unexpected surprise I had on my first flight was the smoothness and responsiveness of the flight control system while flying formation," Nelson said. "The F-22 was neither twitchy nor sluggish. I know the flight control engineers put in a lot of effort to get a flight control system that was as good or better than anything out there, and they got it just right." Moore said Nelson's daily participation helps the team stay focused on its ultimate customer -- the operational fighter pilot. (Courtesy of Air Force Materiel Command News Service) ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V7 #77 ******************************** 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