From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #30 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 Wednesday, March 31 1999 Volume 08 : Number 030 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: What happened to the f-117? links to photos of #806 Re: more about Kosovo Re: F-117 PR Machine ----- VERY LONG Would a bullethole increase RCS Re: F-117 PR Machine Re: time to call up the SR-71s yet? Re: What happened to the f-117? Re: more about Kosovo Re: What happened to the f-117? rescue of F-117 pilot Re: F-117 PR Machine Re: more about Kosovo Re: F-117 PR Machine NASA Observatorium Aeronautics SR-71 *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 17:49:54 -0500 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: What happened to the f-117? John Stone wrote: > Lockheed had to pay to get a new pole done at the radar range because it > gave back a too big of a return and masked the Have Blue return.....so the > Skunk Works designed a new pole, so that they could get an accurate return > from Have Blue and then the F-117. Are you sure that it was the Have Blue and F-117 that were put on the pole? My understanding is that what was put on the poles were models of these aircraft. There is a big difference between a model and an actual aircraft. > > All you given us is anecdotal assumptions. I agree with David that the > pilots are the ones that know whether it works or not. The pilots are not necessarily the ones who know best. Furthermore, the F-117 pilots are not going to keep their jobs if they say anything negative about the F-117. So, their comments are somewhat suspect. Ask the pilots who flew non-stealth aircraft that were not shot down either why they did not get shot down. > > Actually you haven't given us any information as to why it doesn't work! My failure to give you the reasons does not work does not mean it works. > > Please enlighten us! > > Best, > > John > > John Stone > > PLEASE NOTE (another!) NEW EMAIL ADDRESS: blackbirds@iname.com > > U-2 & SR-71 Web page: http://www.thepoint.net/~jstone/blackbird.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 17:07:03 -0600 From: "Gregory Fieser" Subject: links to photos of #806 I found the following links in rec.aviation.military, from USAF site, 806 last month: http://www.af.mil/photos/Feb1999/990285c.jpg don't know where they got these, but they do confirm the aircraft came to rest inverted: http://www.geocities.com/EnchantedForest/2130/nose.jpg http://www.geocities.com/EnchantedForest/2130/tail.jpg http://www.geocities.com/EnchantedForest/2130/engine.jpg http://www.geocities.com/EnchantedForest/2130/text.jpg http://www.geocities.com/EnchantedForest/2130/site.jpg Greg Fieser - -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %% %% %% Reality is for People Who %% %% Can't Handle Simulation %% %% %% %% gdfieser@hti.com %% %% habu@cyberramp.net %% %% %% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 19:11:21 -0500 From: Sheila and the GeeSer Subject: Re: more about Kosovo Sam, CREATIVE spelling is a way to foil web crawlers and search engines! It is a sine of a creativ mine! could not resist!! bob Sam Kaltsidis wrote: > > The USAF site has some interesting pictures :)) (B-2, F-117, etc.) > > http://www.af.mil/current/kosovo/ > > Please pardon the spelling and or grammar errors in my previous post, I was > being sloppy. > > Sam - -- real address is shsrms at erols dot com The Herbal Gypsy and the Tinker. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 19:44:56 -0500 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: F-117 PR Machine ----- VERY LONG >> We don't. That's why we only built a few of them. The cruise missile is >> taking their place. > > > > WARNING: VERY LONG > > > Negative. We need both manned and unmanned aircraft on the modern battlefield. Correct: manned aircraft for close air support to go after targets that cannot be preplanned like immovable targets; cruise missiles for fixed predictable targets. F-117s are too thin skinned for close air support and cruise air missile can handle the balance of the targets. > Cruise missiles are not perfect and neither are manned or unmanned aircraft. > Standoff missiles used in conjunction with manned and unmanned aircraft will > offer us the best options for destroying the enemy's ability to wage war. Bombing does not destroy an enemy's ability to wage war. > Cruise missiles are useless for CAP or BARCAP (note that I'm being sneaky > here). Right. It's the job for a fighter, not the B-117. > Cruise missiles cannot engage highly mobile targets or discriminate between > friendly and enemy forces in close proximity to each other or engaged in close > combat. This is a problem that manned aircraft also have. >Unmanned aircraft would also have difficulty in a situation like that, > and then there is the question of whether to make them remotely piloted or use > AI to make them autonomous, but then we have to deal with other serious > problems, such as losing contact with the remotely piloted vehicle because of > jamming or other enemy or friendly actions (we might even accidentally jam our > own transmissions). In the event we decide to go with AI, we have to make sure > the AI has similar abilities to those of a human being and although we have > gotten pretty close to that goal, we may never be able to replace a human > pilot. > The maturity level of current AI projects is pretty low and we certainly COULD > NOT trust human lives to AI. AI also has poor reliability, fault tollerance > and > fault recovery. Human pilots are naturally not infallible, however they have > much better reliability and respond to the unexpected much better than > computers. > > The fact the we only built 54 F-117's doesn't prove anything. It doesn't prove anything? So the fact that we have thousands of F-16s and a handful of F-117 proves nothing? Please-- >The F-117 is still a viable stealth aircraft and we certainly should > not allow anyone to obtain the ability to manufacure F-117's or >stealth aircraft based on it. "Stealth" is simply an input to "getting through" to the target. The U.S. Air Force made the same claim before WW II and it has been making it ever since: we will get through to the target. As to its viability, as I keep repeating, it does no better than any other aircraft that flies above 10,000 feet and at night. >Stealth alone > will not guarrantee success, however stealth can be extremely useful. If the > enemy does not know you are coming that alone is a huge advantage. The enemy in Iraq knew they were coming. They tracked them. They just did not hit them as they did not hit any other aircraft flying at night above 10,000 feet. >The 117 was never invisible, neither was the B-2 or the F-22. You are correct. The military miscreants sold it as invisible so we would foot the bill for this wasted technology. >These aircraft all have > reduced RCS but that does not make them invisible. They can all be detected > using appropriate detection techniques, and they are far easier to detect when > they are in very close proximity to a powerful radar or set of radars, by the > time they are detected however they will most likely have already completed > their mission and be on their way home. Just like all of the aircraft that flew at night in the Gulf War that flew above 10,000 feet did. >Stealth alone will not get the plane and it's crew home safely You are correct but that is the mendacious platter on which it was served. > speed, agility, ECM, ECCM, flares, chaff, RWR, the > pilot's ability to evade enemy defenses and good real-time intelligence > will all help enormously. Who could argue. > But if the enemy cannot maintain lock-on because of the > aircraft's stealth characteristics that can also save your behind to fight > another day. The enemy will also have dificulty sending interceptors against > you, if they don't know your speed, course and altitude and the interceptors > themselves will have difficulty detecting you and locking onto your plane. > Even > if they fire against you, it will be easier to evade enemy missiles if they > cannot maintain a solid lock and missiles fired blindly will have no chance of > hitting. AAA fire can still be a problem, however without guidance from radar > even thick AAA will most likely be ineffective and will have a low probability > of success. This sounds like the dribble out of an aerospace company brochure that is attempting to sell a stealth aircraft. It is purely an assertion without proof. > > I still contend that we SHOULD HAVE destroyed the wreckage immediately > after the incident to deny the enemy the opportunity to use this technology (even if it is obsolete) and also deny the enemy the satisfaction and publicity they got out of this incident. It is still not at all clear that the F-117 was shot down, in fact there is some evidence to the contrary. Also, it appears that other F-117's in the same strike package returned to base safely and perhaps even without a scratch. How would we have destroyed it? With bombs? We have trouble hitting bigger targets. You can take some satisfaction that the people standing around it as it burned were probably poisoned by the fumes. Jim Stevenson > Now a little about the political situation... > > All ethnic and religious groups in the former Yugslavia and the balkans in > general hate each other to death. They have hated each other for over a > thousand > years. All ethnic and religious groups, including but not limitted to > Serbs, and > Albanians, in the former Yugoslavia have committed war crimes and attrocities > against each other. They are all guilty of terrible things, a lot of which are > unknown to the international public. We cannot blame all this to the Serbs > alone, in fact a lot of the bull we have been hearing on TV is just that. In > Bosnia all groups committed attrocities (these have been confirmed) far worse > than what the Serbs are currently being accussed of. The fact that > thousands of > Albanian refugees are being allowed to leave Kosovo proves that the Serbs are > not indiscriminately killing them all which is the definition of genocide. > In fact, all the scenes we've been seeing on TV show tens of thousands of > Albanian refugees fleeing Kosovo and allegedly being pursued by Serb > forces. If > this were the case then WHERE are the dead and wounded??? Why have we been > unable to independently confirm any of this? If the Serbs where are blutal as > depicted then no one would have made it out of Kosovo alive. Am I not > correct??? > I am not defending ANYONE here, I am just saying that the truth is not as it > seems! The Serbian forces and the KLA SHARE responsibility for what is > going on, > they ARE BOTH guilty and MUST be PUNISHED. This started as an attempt by > the KLA > to expand Albanian borders to include Kosovo -- this is just a land-grab, just > like the situation in Bosnia, where all sides where guilty of terrible crimes. > > Milosevic MUST be removed from power immediately, and Congress should > authorize > the CIA and the Special Forces to do whatever it takes to remove him > immediately, however we also need to remove his senior officers as well as the > KLA leadership and force the KLA to disband. As long as Milosevic remains in > power and the KLA exists there can be no lasting peace in Kosovo. > > We also need to be very careful not to encourage any other ethnic groups in > the > area to try to emulate the KLA or try to attack their neighbors because that > WILL start WWIII. Let's not forget about all the hatred and territorial > disputes > between Greece and Turkey (both NATO members) and the fact that it won't take > much to get them to start killing each other. We also need to watch > Bulgaria and > Skopje (former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia -- this name is NOT acknowledged > by Greece because the Northeastern part of Greece is also called Macedonia) > very > carefully because they have territorial claims against Greece, Serbia, Turkey > and possibly other countries in the region. > > > Let me recap... > > We should be bombing BOTH the Serbian forces and the KLA!!! > If Greece and Turkey start misbehaving we should bomb the two of them as well!! > If Bulgaria and Skopje want to get into this, we should spank them too! > > > Sam > > >> >> Jim Stevenson >> >> >> Mission planning took several hours of a number of people for each flight. >> >> The result was a precise path that was plugged into the planes flight >> >> computer. The tactics discussed even long after the Gulf War were very >> >> simple. The best defense considered for the plane/pilot was to > "follow the >> >> black line". In other words once the mission was initiated, the pilot >> >> never deviated from the path given to him and flown by the flight > computer. >> > >> > So why do we need a human in the seat? I realize an on-board pilot can >> > make better last minute go/no-go decisions and probably jink the plane a >> > little better to avoid being shot up. But couldn't much of that be done >> > remotely on demand since the flight plan is pretty much set in stone ahead >> > of time? >> > >> > How much cheaper (if at all) would replacement F-117s be if the cockpit >> > could be left empty? Crank 'em out and fly 'em over. Is this even > feasible? >> > >> > Thinking outside the [possibly soggy] box, >> > Brentley Smith >> > > - ----------------------------- James P. Stevenson (301) 254-9000 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 10:52:10 +1000 From: "Andrew See" Subject: Would a bullethole increase RCS One possible scenario for the downing of the stealth: The 117 gets a minor (non terminal) hit from a bullet, small arms fire, or flak/shrapnel. This cuts the skin of the a/c and increases the RCS. The serbs then pick it up on their SA3 radar, and sling off a missile at it. The big question, is how big an effect does minor skin damage have on RCS? I seem to remember in the Skunk works book, something about the RCS increasing dramatically when the rivets aren't screwed all the way in. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Mar 99 04:36:57 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: F-117 PR Machine On 3/30/99 6:41AM, in message <3.0.1.32.19990330094142.00950420@zippynet.com>, Brentley Smith wrote: > > > So why do we need a human in the seat? For now, because we've been trying for years to produce UAVs for missions much simpler than this, and they've all flopped (Darkstar is just the latest). > > How much cheaper (if at all) would replacement F-117s be if the cockpit > could be left empty? Crank 'em out and fly 'em over. Is this even feasible? > > Given a lot of time and many billions of $$$, probably yes. However, they will be very expensive (the more versatility and flexibility you build in, the closer the cost comes to that of a manned aircraft). Art ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Mar 99 04:42:34 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: time to call up the SR-71s yet? On 3/30/99 7:07AM, in message <3.0.1.32.19990330100713.00948d30@zippynet.com>, Brentley Smith wrote: > Sure the Predator is a cute and sexy way to gather intel. Too bad it doesn' work that well and is of limited value in this kind of situation. > But if the whole > thing is at risk every time an antenna goes goofy or whatever, wouldn't it > make sense to have a manned "spy" plane around ready in reserve to pick up > where the U2 falls short? Maybe the Blackbird offers nothing over the U2 > in this scenario, It doesn't have the endurance, but it could carry more sensors, get the info sooner and would actually survive over Kosovo. > but it make sense to have it around just in case? Of course it does, but Washington is simply not interested in that. Besides, that would embarrass some policy makers and that's unacceptable. > Particularly if the whole program costs the same per year as a couple of > Predators. > You are correct about the cost. The fact that the SR is so cheap relative to undeveloped UAVs is one of the prime reasons (along with the fact that it can answer questions many people don't want asked) that it was terminated again. Art ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Mar 99 04:47:05 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: What happened to the f-117? On 3/30/99 9:32AM, in message <459@writer.win-uk.net>, David wrote: . > > However, if, as I suggested it was AAA fire, then it's just sheer chance > and skill of the AA gunners that brought it down. Even if an aircraft was > totally stealthy to every detection media, it might not survive flying into > a wall of AAA or even a few bullets in the wrong places . > > One of the most effective methods of air defense if you have a lot of AAA is not to actually aim but to have a disciplined fire pattern where guns fire on predetermined headings and inclinations at a certain rate. This will fill a "box" in the air with a lot of steel. If the aircraft flies through that box, the laws of probability will do your work for you better than if you aimed. The North Vietnamese learned that early on. Art ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 23:51:21 -0500 (EST) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re: more about Kosovo Art, You were right once again. The Pentagon announced today that "our supply of cruise missiles won't last for ever". If we run this thought the Pentagon bullshit filter, this translates to: "we are outta darn cruise missiles and need cash to make more". The administration has done it again! If we had to fight a real war right now we'd be in a lot of trouble. When are they gonna stop selling out the armed forces? And they're complaining about poor retention of experienced personnel... BTW: How are we doing with spare parts and maintenance? Sam ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Mar 99 04:51:44 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: What happened to the f-117? On 3/30/99 9:33AM, in message , David Allison wrote: > > > Regardless of what brought down 82-806, keep in mind one thing about > the F-117A's during Desert Storm: > > They went in FIRST. > > The early destruction of enemy air defenses made all future flights > at night above 10,000 feet safer for everyone. > > I'm nowhere near as skeptical of the F-117 as Jim, but in the interests of accuracy, what went in first were UH-60s and AH-64s which blew a hole in the Iraqi radar warning net for the fixed wings to exploit. Art ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 23:52:37 -0500 From: Jeff Clark Subject: rescue of F-117 pilot Does anyone here know if anyone involved with the rescue of the F-117 pilot sent out a description of what happened during the mission? After Scott O'Grady's rescue, another F-16 pilot (everyone here probably remembers this) wrote up a quick message about how the rescue mission went, and e-mailed it to the outside world. It spread everywhere on the Internet. The news sources don't seem too clear, and the AF isn't going to reveal much right now, for understandable reasons. I would guess the AF is trying to crack down and keep another O'Grady-style letter from coming out via e-mail and accidentally revealing either tactical or embarassing information. Is there a reliable list of what got used? I've seen one article say it was an HH-60 and a 'Super Jolly Green Giant', and another say MH-60 Pave Hawk and MH-53E Sea Stallion. I would have thought that a -53J Pave Low would have gotten involved. If this information was available easily online somewhere, I'm sorry. I should be asking this in rec.aviation.military but there's a giant flamewar going on there right now. Jeff Clark ___________________________________________________________________ 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/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Mar 99 04:59:24 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: F-117 PR Machine On 3/29/99 10:32PM, in message <3.0.1.32.19990329223209.0071f564@e-z.net>, patrick wrote: > > Mission planning took several hours of a number of people for each flight. > The result was a precise path that was plugged into the planes flight > computer. The tactics discussed even long after the Gulf War were very > simple. The best defense considered for the plane/pilot was to "follow the > black line". In other words once the mission was initiated, the pilot > never deviated from the path given to him and flown by the flight computer. > > patrick > This is kind of depressing. The USMC developed an automated mission planning system years and years ago which could be used with virtually any aircraft type. It could be programmed with aircraft and weapons/sensor characteristics, terrain, defenses and what have you. I saw it, and I saw it work. The kind of mission planning a stealth aircraft would need would be sort of a mirror image of what an EA-6B would need, including avoiding/ engaging radars and other sensors and which way to turn the aircraft to achieve maximum effectiveness. The USMC tried to get USAF to come on board, figuring they would like to take advantage of the fact that you didn't need a separate automated system for each aircraft type and that it did more than other contemporary systems. At the time I saw the system, they couldn't give it away to USAF ("NIH", you know). It sounds like things haven't changed since then [sigh]... Art ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Mar 99 05:21:37 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: more about Kosovo On 3/30/99 8:51PM, in message <199903310451.XAA17514@aegis.mcs.kent.edu>, Sam Kaltsidis wrote: > > BTW: How are we doing with spare parts and maintenance? > > Sam > If it's a unit that is involved in UN or Bosnia-area operations, it's in good shape. The rest of our forces are being stripped to take care of that. One (of many) example: When USS Independence came back for the last time to be decommissioned, she had to exchange some of her F-14s over to the carrier that was coming on station to relieve her, and haul some of that carrier's Tomcats back with her to CONUS. Seems there weren't enough fully-maintained F-14s available for Kitty Hawk, so she deployed with some F-14s that were really at the end of their lives to have a full deckload and switched them mid ocean. So, some of the F-14s that would have been returning had to do a double deployment with the consequent shortening of their lives (which wouldn't be noticeable for a few years and then it's another Administration's problem). I don't know if there was money to even maintain the F-14s Independence brought back or if they were flown to the boneyard. Art ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 23:12:57 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: Re: F-117 PR Machine Art, is this NIH attitude responsible for CTAPS (Contingency Theater Automated Planning System)? Air Tasking Order and Airspace Control Measures messages and all that. Terry - ------------------- betnal@ns.net wrote: > > On 3/29/99 10:32PM, in message <3.0.1.32.19990329223209.0071f564@e-z.net>, patrick > wrote: > > > > > Mission planning took several hours of a number of people for each flight. > > The result was a precise path that was plugged into the planes flight > > computer. The tactics discussed even long after the Gulf War were very > > simple. The best defense considered for the plane/pilot was to "follow the > > black line". In other words once the mission was initiated, the pilot > > never deviated from the path given to him and flown by the flight computer. > > > > patrick > > > > This is kind of depressing. The USMC developed an automated mission planning > system years and years ago which could be used with virtually any aircraft type. > It could be programmed with aircraft and weapons/sensor characteristics, terrain, > defenses and what have you. I saw it, and I saw it work. The kind of mission > planning a stealth aircraft would need would be sort of a mirror image of what an > EA-6B would need, including avoiding/ engaging radars and other sensors and which > way to turn the aircraft to achieve maximum effectiveness. > > The USMC tried to get USAF to come on board, figuring they would like to take > advantage of the fact that you didn't need a separate automated system for each > aircraft type and that it did more than other contemporary systems. At the time I > saw the system, they couldn't give it away to USAF ("NIH", you know). It sounds > like things haven't changed since then [sigh]... > > Art - -- 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 Long Binh, Can Tho, Danang (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: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 00:26:05 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: NASA Observatorium Aeronautics SR-71 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - --------------1CF425F90C84C70C47BF55FA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit < http://observe.ivv.nasa.gov/nasa/exhibits/sr-71/java/SR-java.html > - -- 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 Long Binh, Can Tho, Danang (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) - --------------1CF425F90C84C70C47BF55FA Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1; name="SR-java.html" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="SR-java.html" Content-Base: "http://observe.ivv.nasa.gov/nasa/exhib its/sr-71/java/SR-java.html" NASA Observatorium Aeronautics SR-71

SR-71 header

Using this Java applet you can determine how long it will take to fly between any two locations in the world! Simply use your mouse and click on two different areas of the map shown below. It will then calculate what the distance is between those two points, and then give an average trip time assuming that the plane will have to slow down for refueling and that it can't fly at full speed all the time. Just click on the "Reset" button if at any point you wish to clear your choices and pick new ones.

You need to use a web browser that supports java to use this applet.

back button

Home

Comments to: Observatorium Curator (curator@rspac.ivv.nasa.gov)

Copyright © 1995-1998 BDM Federal, Inc. All rights reserved (with exceptions noted).

- --------------1CF425F90C84C70C47BF55FA-- ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V8 #30 ******************************** 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