From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #66 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 Thursday, June 17 1999 Volume 08 : Number 066 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Recall: WERE WE VISITED BY THIS STRANGE BIRD ? [Aurora] SR-71 News (long) My response to Larry on AURORA THAAD Re: THAAD RE: THAAD Re: THAAD Re: THAAD Skunk-Works Charter RE: Skunk-Works Charter Re: Skunk-Works Charter Re: Skunk-Works Charter Re: Skunk-Works Charter Re: Skunk-Works Charter Re: Skunk-Works Charter *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 21:31:23 -0400 From: "Clark, Scott (S.R.)" Subject: Recall: WERE WE VISITED BY THIS STRANGE BIRD ? [Aurora] Clark, Scott (S.R.) would like to recall the message, "WERE WE VISITED BY THIS STRANGE BIRD ? [Aurora]". ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jun 99 04:24:50 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: SR-71 News (long) Up through April, the SRs could have been restored to operational status within 60 days using contractor personnel (USAF types having been gone for months). All the sensors were still available except for the Optical Bar Cameras, which had been sent to the U-2 program. However, they could have been recovered. Crews might be a problem, since the older ones are all retired, but with NASA's help the expertise could be regained. With the collapse of DarkStar, the rumored plan to dump Global Hawk next year and the continuing lack of timely intelligence (can you say Chinese Embassy boys and girls), there was a Congressional move to try and bring the Blackbirds back. It centered on also having the birds operated by another service since it was obvious AF would continue to sabotage the program and really isn't that interested in airborne recon ("We don't know what we'll be shootin' at, but dammit we'll shoot harder than anyone..."). The ANG was considered, but it turns out that AF gets to approve their operational missions, so that was a non-starter. Recently, high ranking Army officials had asked SecDef for control of all airborne recon, since it wasn't being done by others. DARO is gone, Navy continues to limit F-14 TARPS capabilities as it tries to figure out some way to get the Jack-of-no-Trades Super Hornet to do recon (they've been trying and failing for 15 years with the A/B/C/D), and AF doesn't seem very interested at all. SecDef said no to Army's request so they were not an option for the Blackbirds. Navy showed real interest. So did DEA as a customer. High level staffers got the CNO interested and he assigned an Admiral to investigate the benefits. There was also an investigation of writing the SR into the Kosovo Bill, and Billy Jeff no longer has a line item veto. Navy made inquiries to AF for info and were blown off. They then went to DoD for info and fortunately the questions were routed to people actually in the program and straight information was provided. A briefing was scheduled for the Navy investigators and for people on the Hill and House Intelligence Committee. One of the staffers on that Committee is heavily AF, and in fact was the person that tipped off AF that the SR program was in the initial markups of the FY99 budget, so they could lie and say it would take $100 million to restore the two birds. Reports are that USAF worked to sabotage the briefing and data (if there's one thing they would hate more than the SR, it would be the SR with "Navy" painted on the side). They started spreading the word in the Pentagon and in Congress that it would now take $200 million to restore the SR program. They overstated the cost by a factor of 95, and GAO pointed this out. The Navy briefings went well, and so did the Congressionals, despite word being "leaked" out that the Electro-Opticals have never worked on the SR. This deception was easily handled by sending some of the supposedly non-existent SR EO imagery and data to Washington for those involved to see for themselves who was telling the truth. The Navy study team completed their investigation and recommended to their superiors positively to the question of whether the Navy should acquire the SR program. There was no answer from above for a while and them they were advised that the Navy was no longer interested in the SR-71, I don't know if any explanation given. This probably indicates that AF got to somebody and either laid "DoD unity" on them or applied serious pressure. One way to do that is through tankers. With the arrival of the Hornet E/F, the Navy's need for air-refueling rises dramatically at the same time that it has lost its refueling assets. I can't prove any of this, of course, but a casual mention of unavailability of tankers due to "conflicts in scheduling" if the SR was pursued would be enough to panic the upper NAVAIR echelon. Also, after 20 months, AF suddenly "found" $4.5 million to finally terminate the program. AF says it will be out of the SR business totally by 6/30. Final contractors to be let go in the next couple of months, and the Test Pilot School gets the SR spaces on Oct. 1 for a year. There's still some move to get the program in the FY2000 budget but that's a long shot. NASA gets to keep 956 and 980. They will also get 967 and 971, the two flyables. Although Mary mentioned earlier that NASA was to get 968 (the SR that was about to start restoration when the Fundraiser-in-Chief vetoed the program), AF orders are that it and 962 are to be taken to Arizona and cut up. This is a sign of how hated the program is. This will cost millions, when the two could have been left out in the desert (as they had been all those years) for nothing. Regarding their going to museums: Alaska was told not to request one, and another request was withdrawn in light of all the things the AF Museum now demands for a loaned plane in general, let alone an SR. I was speaking with a museum official this week and he said there's been a change of administration and attitude at the AF Museum, and now they would rather cut aircraft up than preserve them (his words). This would go double for the SR. Duxford in Great Britain, though, might request one anyway. This is not certain. AF's official position is that no museums are interested in the last two SRs. I know this is false because of two organizations I've had conversations with. If anyone out there knows of museums that may be interested, they need to get in touch with Wright Patt soonest. Remember, it would cost the taxpayers Less to preserve the SRs than to destroy them. It would be a crime for these two beauties to be lost just so someone in Disneyland East can parade around his ego. There is a chance the SR will get back into the FY2000 budget, so letters are not yet wasted. With enough support and visibility, the Navy might yet take another stab at it. I wouldn't count on military SRs, though. A successful SR program would cause too many people to lose face no matter how badly it is needed (General John H. Tilelli, commander of US forces in South Korea recently told Congress the US can't generate enough U-2 sorties to meet demands). Remember, it's more important not to be wrong, than it is to be right. Art ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 21:38:11 -0700 From: "Miller, Stacy" Subject: My response to Larry on AURORA > >SO are we looking for soap on a rope or a string of sausages when we look > >for the Aurora? Is there more than one craft? Are there any photos of > >the vapor trails? The last ones there was a big thrill over on this list > > There is not general agreement among researchers that what has been called > Aurora exists. > > Also, the contrail photos that have appeared have never proven that Aurora > exists, only that there may be an aircraft leaving an unusual contrail, > that is worthy of legitimate efforts to explain them. > > The first scientific attempt to explain the contrails were published in > AW&ST: AW&ST, October 28, 1991, pp. 68-69. This was an article that showed > that a Pulsed Detonation Engine of a certain configuration could leave a > similar contrail. This however does not prove that a PDE indeed laid the > contrails in question. > > There are other engine configurations which can exhibit pulsing behavior > over part of their regimes, and it is uncertain what such contrails would > look like. > > The first set of interesting contrail photos were published in Aviation > > Week magazine: AW&ST, May 11, 1992, pp. 62-63. > > You might be able to find a copy of these somewhere on the Net. > > >I must see a half dozen a day. > > You are [probably] not seeing legitimate 'Aurora' (for lack of a better > name) contrails. > > The evolution of standard contrails with time can form something that > looks like the interesting contrail. Such contrails are not interesting > from this standpoint. > > The interesting contrails appear in their final form directly out the > back of the aircraft. So the interesting contrail has not had time to > expand much, yet it still portrays the unusual structure. > > It is also good to know that the AW&ST contrail photos are a blowup of a > section of contrail photo, so if one didn't know that, it would make one > think that the actual interesting contrail resembled quite closely > standard contrails that have expanded over time. > > This may have been the cause of the confusion and some associated > skepticism (always healthy) regarding these contrails. > > Besides, the heart of the matter is what is laying the contrail. There > are plenty of photos of interesting contrails today. We need to understand > if anything interesting is laying them, or if they are a side effect of > something else that is less sensational, but nonetheless interesting. > > Larry > > > IN RESPONSE.... I have been following all the info on this aircraft and I can say with feeling and full belief that we know the US Government has been hiding its "black" projects for years so I ask you Larry why all the disinformation? The fact of the matter is the all the facts point to it and there is really no changing statistics now is there. Just cause you don't think they would lie to you doen't mean the rest of us don't know.........I hope it is in existence, it would only prove that they have more technology available to them now then ever before. If an aircraft like this were to be in use it would be greatest weapon of war ever created and that alone is enough reason the bash the facts/witnesses. Wonder what else they are hiding?...Only time will really tell huh.... Straycatt "Individuality is the key to our existence..." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 01:49:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: THAAD Guys, I heard recently that THAAD finally got a succesfull test. It finally intercept a ballistic head. I got this from a reliable person. Anyone know anything about this? If it is so, congratulation to the THAAD team! May the Force be with you Wei-Jen Su E-mail: wsu@cco.caltech.edu - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "You have been well trained, my apprentice. Those finals will be no match for you." The California Tech (Caltech newspaper) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 06:28:18 -0400 From: Drew Menser Subject: Re: THAAD AW&ST reported THAAD intercepted a ballistic MISSLE, not just a re-entry vehicle. Next test may be to try and intercept just the RV, and if so will be much more difficult, but more along the lines of what is really required of the system. Drew Wei-Jen Su wrote: > Guys, I heard recently that THAAD finally got a succesfull test. > It finally intercept a ballistic head. I got this from a reliable person. > Anyone know anything about this? If it is so, congratulation to the THAAD > team! > > May the Force be with you > > Wei-Jen Su > E-mail: wsu@cco.caltech.edu > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > "You have been well trained, my apprentice. > Those finals will be no match for you." > The California Tech (Caltech newspaper) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 06:29:54 -0400 From: "Frank Markus" Subject: RE: THAAD It's true. I read it in the NY Times. Joy at Lockheed-Martin. - -----Original Message----- From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com] On Behalf Of Wei-Jen Su Sent: Thursday, June 17, 1999 4:50 AM To: Skunk Works Subject: THAAD Guys, I heard recently that THAAD finally got a succesfull test. It finally intercept a ballistic head. I got this from a reliable person. Anyone know anything about this? If it is so, congratulation to the THAAD team! May the Force be with you Wei-Jen Su E-mail: wsu@cco.caltech.edu - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -- "You have been well trained, my apprentice. Those finals will be no match for you." The California Tech (Caltech newspaper) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 12:18:01 -0500 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: Re: THAAD Drew Menser noted: >AW&ST reported THAAD intercepted a ballistic MISSLE, not just a re-entry vehicle. >Next test may be to try and intercept just the RV, and if so will be much more >difficult, but more along the lines of what is really required of the system. After which they can try intercepting the RV plus decoys, jammers, chaff and other complicating objects. Since there are apparently a lot of fairly dumb SCUD clones around, a capability against them is worth having, but it isn't the whole story. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 19:12:20 +0000 From: georgek@netwrx1.com Subject: Re: THAAD On Thu, 17 Jun 1999 12:18:01 -0500, you wrote: > >Drew Menser noted: > >>AW&ST reported THAAD intercepted a ballistic MISSLE, not just a re-entry >vehicle. >>Next test may be to try and intercept just the RV, and if so will be much >more >>difficult, but more along the lines of what is really required of the >system. > >After which they can try intercepting the RV plus decoys, jammers, chaff >and other >complicating objects. Since there are apparently a lot of fairly dumb SCUD >clones around, a capability against them is worth having, but it isn't the >whole story. > FWIW: I heard this was test #7...the previous 6 were failures...not exactly a great kill ratio IMHO. George George, MR. Tibbs & The Beast Kasica West Allis, WI USA georgek@netwrx1.com gkasica@hotmail.com gkasica@yahoo.com gkasica@netscape.com http://www.netwrx1.com ICQ #12862186 Zz zZ |\ z _,,,---,,_ /,`.-'`' _ ;-;;,_ |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'_' '---''(_/--' `-'\_) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 19:15:14 +0000 From: georgek@netwrx1.com Subject: Skunk-Works Charter Before I place this into the "official" skunk-works charter...anyone have any comments or changes they'd like to make...I'm targeting making the change sometime early next week, so if you can get any comments or suggestions on changes in by say 1200Z on Monday 21 June 1999 I'd appreciate that. George P.S. Thanks Greg W. > >How's this for a start? GW >-----Original Message----- >From: at INTERNET >Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 1999 02:29 AM >To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com at INTERNET >Subject: Skunk-Works Charter > >The skunk-works mailing list was created for discussions of advanced >technology aircraft and historical discussions about products of the >Lockheed Advanced Development Company (LADC), also known as the >Skunk Works, as our list name suggests. However, we also welcome >discussions about leading-edge technologies from any other aircraft >manufacturer. > >Primary areas of discussion include: > > Stealth aircraft, manned and unmanned > New aircraft technology - stealth or non-stealth > Historical discussions about how current technologies came about > Leading-edge technology associated with aircraft, ie: cruise missiles and >laser guided bombs > Other uses of stealth technology not related to aircraft > Stealth can be defined as the implementation of ANY technology that allows >a vehicle or person to go > somewhere undetected (or minimally detected) - this includes detection by >any radar, sonar and optical devices > > >CLASSIFIED INFORMATION IS NOT ALLOWED > >Appropriate book and magazine reviews may be submitted > >Posting of complete magazine articles or other commercially published materials >that >are copyrighted will not be permitted. A brief synopsis with excerpts and >quotes may be submitted. >The poster will attribute all copyrighted materials to the author AND publisher. >The list-owner is responsible for maintaining order. Off-topic discussions may >occasionally occur >as the list-owner permits, and the majority of list participants concur. > > ===[George R. Kasica]=== +1 414 541 8579 Skunk-Works ListOwner +1 800 520 4873 FAX http://www.netwrx1.com West Allis, WI USA georgek@netwrx1.com gkasica@hotmail.com gkasica@yahoo.com gkasica@netscape.com ICQ #12862186 Digest Issues at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jun 99 15:37:00 -0500 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com Subject: RE: Skunk-Works Charter My only changes would be to change references to aircraft to aircraft/aerospace or something to that defect as someone suggested, I forget who. Greg W. - -----Original Message----- From: at INTERNET Sent: Thursday, June 17, 1999 7:15 PM To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com at INTERNET Subject: Skunk-Works Charter Before I place this into the "official" skunk-works charter...anyone have any comments or changes they'd like to make...I'm targeting making the change sometime early next week, so if you can get any comments or suggestions on changes in by say 1200Z on Monday 21 June 1999 I'd appreciate that. George P.S. Thanks Greg W. > >How's this for a start? GW >-----Original Message----- >From: at INTERNET >Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 1999 02:29 AM >To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com at INTERNET >Subject: Skunk-Works Charter > >The skunk-works mailing list was created for discussions of advanced >technology aircraft and historical discussions about products of the >Lockheed Advanced Development Company (LADC), also known as the >Skunk Works, as our list name suggests. However, we also welcome >discussions about leading-edge technologies from any other aircraft >manufacturer. > >Primary areas of discussion include: > > Stealth aircraft, manned and unmanned > New aircraft technology - stealth or non-stealth > Historical discussions about how current technologies came about > Leading-edge technology associated with aircraft, ie: cruise missiles and >laser guided bombs > Other uses of stealth technology not related to aircraft > Stealth can be defined as the implementation of ANY technology that allows >a vehicle or person to go > somewhere undetected (or minimally detected) - this includes detection by >any radar, sonar and optical devices > > >CLASSIFIED INFORMATION IS NOT ALLOWED > >Appropriate book and magazine reviews may be submitted > >Posting of complete magazine articles or other commercially published materials >that >are copyrighted will not be permitted. A brief synopsis with excerpts and >quotes may be submitted. >The poster will attribute all copyrighted materials to the author AND publisher. >The list-owner is responsible for maintaining order. Off-topic discussions may >occasionally occur >as the list-owner permits, and the majority of list participants concur. > > ===[George R. Kasica]=== +1 414 541 8579 Skunk-Works ListOwner +1 800 520 4873 FAX http://www.netwrx1.com West Allis, WI USA georgek@netwrx1.com gkasica@hotmail.com gkasica@yahoo.com gkasica@netscape.com ICQ #12862186 Digest Issues at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 20:58:00 +0000 From: georgek@netwrx1.com Subject: Re: Skunk-Works Charter On Thu, 17 Jun 99 15:37:00 -0500, you wrote: > >My only changes would be to change references to aircraft to aircraft/aerospace >or something to that defect >as someone suggested, I forget who. > >Greg W. OK here we go....how's this: The skunk-works mailing list was created for discussions of advanced technology aircraft and historical discussions about products of the Lockheed Advanced Development Company (LADC), also known as the Skunk Works, as our list name suggests. However, we also welcome discussions about leading-edge technologies from any other aircraft manufacturer, or university or government sponsored research group. Primary areas of discussion include: Stealth aircraft, manned and unmanned New aircraft technology - stealth or non-stealth Historical discussions about how current technologies came about Leading-edge technology associated with aircraft, ie: cruise missiles and laser guided bombs Other uses of stealth technology not related to aircraft Stealth can be defined as the implementation of ANY technology that allows a vehicle or person to go somewhere undetected (or minimally detected) - this includes detection by any radar, sonar and optical devices. CLASSIFIED INFORMATION IS NOT ALLOWED Appropriate book and magazine reviews may be submitted Posting of complete magazine articles or other commercially published materials that are copyrighted will not be permitted. A brief synopsis with excerpts and quotes may be submitted. The poster will attribute all copyrighted materials to the author AND publisher. The list-owner is responsible for maintaining order. Off-topic discussions may occasionally occur as the list-owner permits, and the majority of list participants concur. George ===[George R. Kasica]=== +1 414 541 8579 Skunk-Works ListOwner +1 800 520 4873 FAX http://www.netwrx1.com West Allis, WI USA georgek@netwrx1.com gkasica@hotmail.com gkasica@yahoo.com gkasica@netscape.com ICQ #12862186 Digest Issues at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 18:21:58 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: Skunk-Works Charter Will you consider discussion on the viability of stealth and if it works, is it worth the cost? Jim Stevenson > On Thu, 17 Jun 99 15:37:00 -0500, you wrote: > >> >>My only changes would be to change references to aircraft to > aircraft/aerospace >>or something to that defect >>as someone suggested, I forget who. >> >>Greg W. > OK here we go....how's this: > > The skunk-works mailing list was created for discussions of advanced > technology aircraft and historical discussions about products of the > Lockheed Advanced Development Company (LADC), also known as the > Skunk Works, as our list name suggests. However, we also welcome > discussions about leading-edge technologies from any other aircraft > manufacturer, or university or government sponsored research group. > > Primary areas of discussion include: > > Stealth aircraft, manned and unmanned > > New aircraft technology - stealth or non-stealth > > Historical discussions about how current technologies came about > > Leading-edge technology associated with aircraft, ie: cruise > missiles and laser guided bombs > > Other uses of stealth technology not related to aircraft > > Stealth can be defined as the implementation of ANY technology > that allows a vehicle or person to go somewhere undetected (or > minimally detected) - this includes detection by any radar, sonar and > optical devices. > > > CLASSIFIED INFORMATION IS NOT ALLOWED > > Appropriate book and magazine reviews may be submitted > > Posting of complete magazine articles or other commercially published > materials that are copyrighted will not be permitted. A brief > synopsis with excerpts and quotes may be submitted. The poster will > attribute all copyrighted materials to the author AND publisher. > The list-owner is responsible for maintaining order. Off-topic > discussions may occasionally occur as the list-owner permits, and the > majority of list participants concur. > > George > > > ===[George R. Kasica]=== +1 414 541 8579 > Skunk-Works ListOwner +1 800 520 4873 FAX > http://www.netwrx1.com West Allis, WI USA > georgek@netwrx1.com > gkasica@hotmail.com > gkasica@yahoo.com > gkasica@netscape.com > ICQ #12862186 > > Digest Issues at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 00:33:23 GMT From: georgek@netwrx1.com (George R. Kasica) Subject: Re: Skunk-Works Charter On Thu, 17 Jun 1999 18:21:58 -0400, you wrote: >Will you consider discussion on the viability of stealth and if it >works, is it worth the cost? > >Jim Stevenson Sure, no problem...thought is was in there...add some wording and I'll put it in. George ===[George R. Kasica]=== +1 414 541 8579 Skunk-Works ListOwner +1 800 520 4873 FAX http://www.netwrx1.com West Allis, WI USA georgek@netwrx1.com gkasica@hotmail.com gkasica@yahoo.com gkasica@netscape.com ICQ #12862186 Digest Issues at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 00:34:19 GMT From: georgek@netwrx1.com (George R. Kasica) Subject: Re: Skunk-Works Charter On Thu, 17 Jun 1999 18:21:58 -0400, you wrote: >Will you consider discussion on the viability of stealth and if it >works, is it worth the cost? > >Jim Stevenson > > Primary areas of discussion include: >> >> Stealth aircraft, manned and unmanned It seems to already be there however.... George George, MR. Tibbs & The Beast Kasica West Allis, WI USA georgek@netwrx1.com gkasica@hotmail.com gkasica@yahoo.com gkasica@netscape.com http://www.netwrx1.com ICQ #12862186 Zz zZ |\ z _,,,---,,_ /,`.-'`' _ ;-;;,_ |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'_' '---''(_/--' `-'\_) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 18:09:00 -0700 From: "A.J. Craddock" Subject: Re: Skunk-Works Charter >CLASSIFIED INFORMATION IS NOT ALLOWED How does a lay person know what is Classified? Tony Craddock ________________ At 08:58 PM 6/17/99 +0000, you wrote: >On Thu, 17 Jun 99 15:37:00 -0500, you wrote: > >> >>My only changes would be to change references to aircraft to aircraft/aerospace >>or something to that defect >>as someone suggested, I forget who. >> >>Greg W. >OK here we go....how's this: > >The skunk-works mailing list was created for discussions of advanced >technology aircraft and historical discussions about products of the >Lockheed Advanced Development Company (LADC), also known as the >Skunk Works, as our list name suggests. However, we also welcome >discussions about leading-edge technologies from any other aircraft >manufacturer, or university or government sponsored research group. > >Primary areas of discussion include: > > Stealth aircraft, manned and unmanned > > New aircraft technology - stealth or non-stealth > > Historical discussions about how current technologies came about > > Leading-edge technology associated with aircraft, ie: cruise >missiles and laser guided bombs > > Other uses of stealth technology not related to aircraft > > Stealth can be defined as the implementation of ANY technology >that allows a vehicle or person to go somewhere undetected (or >minimally detected) - this includes detection by any radar, sonar and >optical devices. > > >CLASSIFIED INFORMATION IS NOT ALLOWED > >Appropriate book and magazine reviews may be submitted > >Posting of complete magazine articles or other commercially published >materials that are copyrighted will not be permitted. A brief >synopsis with excerpts and quotes may be submitted. The poster will >attribute all copyrighted materials to the author AND publisher. >The list-owner is responsible for maintaining order. Off-topic >discussions may occasionally occur as the list-owner permits, and the >majority of list participants concur. > >George > > >===[George R. Kasica]=== +1 414 541 8579 >Skunk-Works ListOwner +1 800 520 4873 FAX >http://www.netwrx1.com West Allis, WI USA >georgek@netwrx1.com >gkasica@hotmail.com >gkasica@yahoo.com >gkasica@netscape.com >ICQ #12862186 > >Digest Issues at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works > ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V8 #66 ******************************** 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