From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #70 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 Monday, June 21 1999 Volume 08 : Number 070 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: New subsciber comments Re: New subsciber comments Re: New subsciber comments Re: New subsciber comments Re: New subsciber comments RE: Classified? was Skunk-Works Charter UAV's RE: Classified? was Skunk-Works Charter Re: ATF testing RE: skunk-works-digest V8 #66 (THAAD Test) Re: skunk-works-digest V8 #66 RE: WERE WE VISITED BY THIS STRANGE BIRD ? [Aurora] RE: WERE WE VISITED BY THIS STRANGE BIRD ? [Aurora] RE: skunk-works-digest V8 #66 (THAAD Test) RE: skunk-works-digest V8 #66 (THAAD Test) Charter: Final Draft(?) RE: Charter: Final Draft(?) *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 00:12:10 -0500 From: G&G Subject: Re: New subsciber comments Scott Cullen wrote: > > Then they were handed off to Joshua APR and said " NASA 809 descending from > DELTA plus 9"- then a minute or two later "SANTE FE 807, and NASA 809 > descent out of 60 over Lake Isabella". (348.7) > anyone know what these NASA aircraft are or what altitude "DELTA" is? My records show NASA 809 (N809NA) is/was a Martin B-57B. It has been 'parked' at Edwards AFB since October 1990. Does NASA reuse or reissue N-numbers? Greg Fieser - -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %% %% %% Reality is for People Who %% %% Can't Handle Simulation %% %% %% %% habu@cyberramp.net %% %% srcrown@flash.net %% %% gdfieser@hti.com %% %% %% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 12:10:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: New subsciber comments Scott Cullen wondered: >Then heard, "Negative 809 is Oscar today". Then they were handed off to >Joshua APR and said " NASA 809 descending from DELTA plus 9"- then a minute >or two later "SANTE FE 807, and NASA 809 descent out of 60 over Lake >Isabella". (348.7) >anyone know what these NASA aircraft are or what altitude "DELTA" is? The altitude "DELTA +9" was either "FL690" (69,000 ft) or "FL790" (79,000 ft.) and possibly, but unlikely, "FL890" (89,000 ft), depending on the active code word. For an explanation of this, see the following paragraphs, quoted from Skunk Works Digest 7-081, (posted by Terry Colvin): >Ultra-Ultra-High (FL600+) Missions >Technically "positively controlled airspace" in the U.S. is only from FL180 >to FL600, so an aircraft (like a U2) above FL600 could fly VFR and not be >in contact with ATC. Some may do this, but most regular missions above >FL600 are IFR. Separation standards above FL600 are 10 miles and 5000 feet, >instead of 5 and 2000. There are so few above FL600 anymore that the odds >are incredibly slim any two would get within 20 miles of each other, even, >but you still have to watch out for it (it has happened). The actual >altitudes they fly at are classified, so the transponder stops at 600C, >even if they are above. If you really need to separate them, there are >frequently-changing altitude codes you are supposed to be able to locate at >some sectors, such as a codeword like "BAKE." If you ask a U2 at or above >FL600 his altitude, he may respond "Bravo plus 5," so if "BAKE" was the >current code word, B corresponds to 60,000, A to 70,000, and so on, so B+5 >is FL650. >Conflicts are so rare, though, that sometimes the codes get mis-communicated >or can't be found, so you can always tell one to maintain a letter altitude, >and the other a letter plus 5, and they will be separated regardless of >which they choose. >Best regards, >Frits Westra -- fwestra@hetnet.nl >Netherlands And Greg Fieser responded: >My records show NASA 809 (N809NA) is/was a Martin B-57B. >It has been 'parked' at Edwards AFB since October 1990. >Does NASA reuse or reissue N-numbers? One of the aircraft (NASA 809) was ER-2, Article 097, USAF FY-Serial 80-1097, registered as N809NA to NASA Dryden. This aircraft was registered to and based at NASA Ames (as N709NA, NASA 709) before all Ames research aircraft went to Dryden a couple of years ago. I do not have a clue which aircraft "X-RAY 99" or "SANTE FE 807" could be. As far as I know, NASA never used 807 as a number for their aircraft, so I assume it was a military aircraft. NASA does not (re)issue N-numbers (or civilian registrations), the FAA does. NASA requests N-numbers, usually based on their NASA numbers, which (for permanently assigned aircraft) are usually coded in accordance with the NASA center that the aircraft belongs to at the moment. Most of the time, if the registration is not yet used, they receive the requested registration. From 1969 on, most NASA research and administrative aircraft received civil registration, probably for financial/budgetary and political reasons. If an aircraft is transfered (permanently) to another NASA center, it usually receives a new NASA number, and most of the time also a new civilian registration, usually based on this new NASA number. NASA numbers for research aircraft, coded by center are: ======================================================== 400 - 499 ==> WFF (Wallops Flight Facility) 500 - 599 ==> LRC (was LaRC, Langley Research Center) 600 - 699 ==> GRC (John H. Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field) (was LeRC, Lewis Research Center) 700 - 799 ==> ARC (Ames Research Center) 800 - 899 ==> DFRC (Hugh L. Dryden Flight Research Center) 900 - 999 ==> JSC (Johnson Space Flight Center) Of course, not all aircraft owned (or used) by NASA receive NASA numbers, and not all receive civil registrations. Also, not all registrations of the type NxxxNA (where xxx is a number) are automatically NASA aircraft, nor are all civil registrations of NASA aircraft of the type NxxxNA, (even though most are). NASA flew the following U-2s/ER-2s: =================================== * Lockheed ER-2, Article 063, USAF FY-Serial 80-1063, was originally: - NASA 706, registered as N706NA to NASA ARC, after transfer to DFRC now: - NASA 806, registered as N806NA (modified to ER-2S); * Lockheed U-2C, Article 348, USAF FY-Serial 56-6681, was: - NASA 708, registered as N708NA to NASA ARC, now on display at NASA ARC, Moffett Field, CA; * Lockheed ER-2, Article 069, USAF FY-Serial 80-1069, built as TR-1A, but was modified to ER-2 after ground accident, temporary loaned as: - NASA 708, registered as N708NA to NASA ARC, (later returned to USAF, modified to U-2S); * Lockheed U-2C, Article 349, USAF FY-Serial 56-6682, was: - NASA 709, registered as N709NA to NASA ARC, now on display at Museum of Aviation, Robins AFB, Warner-Robins, GA; * Lockheed ER-2, Article 097, USAF FY-Serial 80-1097, was originally: - NASA 709, registered as N709NA to NASA ARC, after transfer to DFRC now: - NASA 809, registered as N809NA (modified to ER-2S); Other interesting (in this context) aircraft are: * Martin B-57B, Ship No. 166, USAF FY-Serial 52-1576, was: - NASA 809, registered as N809NA to DFRC, now on display at Edwards AFB, CA; * Lockheed NC-130B, c/n 282-3507, USAF FY-Serial 58-0712, built as C-130B, modified to C-130C, and then NC-130B, was originally: - NASA 929, registered as N929NA to NASA JSC, used as "Earth Survey-2", after transfer to ARC and still now, after transfer to DFRC: - NASA 707, registered as N707NA (a candidate for NASA 807, though); - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@acm.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.ais.org/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 09:27:35 -0700 From: doncline@teleport.com Subject: Re: New subsciber comments when I worked at LA Center, we changed the code words frequently and they DID NOT always correspond to 10k foot increments. They were often random. > > The altitude "DELTA +9" was either "FL690" (69,000 ft) or "FL790" (79,000 ft.) > and possibly, but unlikely, "FL890" (89,000 ft), depending on the active code > word. For an explanation of this, see the following paragraphs, quoted from > Skunk Works Digest 7-081, (posted by Terry Colvin): > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 13:04:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: New subsciber comments doncline@teleport.com wrote: >when I worked at LA Center, we changed the code words frequently and they >DID NOT always correspond to 10k foot increments. They were often random. That makes much more sense. Otherwise the 'classified' altitude would be way too easy to guess by anyone listening in. I was wondering about that! Thanks for the info, - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@acm.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.ais.org/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 17:57:37 +0000 From: John Szalay Subject: Re: New subsciber comments At 06:32 PM 6/19/99 PDT, you wrote: >NASA 809 descending from >DELTA plus 9"- then a minute or two later "SANTE FE 807, and NASA 809 >descent out of 60 over Lake Isabella". (348.7) >anyone know what these NASA aircraft are NASA 809 photo.. http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/ER-2/Medium/EC98-44530-3.jpg ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 08:29:57 +0930 From: Dennis Lapcewich Subject: RE: Classified? was Skunk-Works Charter > I am reminded of a senior high school student physics > assignment on nuclear > fusion. He designed a thermo-nuclear device from all the unclassified > material at the local university and ended up with a classified paper. > > Does anyone remember that story, because I don't have a > source, mid 70's I > think? > > Clifford M Dubery > > Sherman, turn on the Way-Back machine, will ya? If I recall correctly, The Progressive magazine ( http://www.progressive.org/ ) did a cover story back in the 70s on how to build a nuclear weapon from available public resources. The synapses aren't all firing this morning, but I believe this turned into a US Supreme Court issue real fast (First Amendment stuff) that the Progressive eventually won. Hmm, aren't the Chinese now claiming a similar "defense" with the intrusion at Los Alamos using the 'net? Can I use a similar approach and post it to the list if I find something on the 'net that later turns out to be classified? Dennis ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 23:01:32 +0000 From: John Szalay Subject: UAV's Anyone interested in UAV's , there is a series of images of UAV's posted in the binaries newsgroup alt.binaries.pictures.military ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 13:23:31 +1000 From: "Clifford M Dubery" Subject: RE: Classified? was Skunk-Works Charter Dennis, with my post and yours, we have demonstrated the problems associated with classifying material that may be in the public domain. I can think of another example involving "Flight International" and the Atlas ICBM. Along with stealth, the principles of radar reflection and airborne objects is well documented and any school that teaches electronics and radio stuff would have the theory available, and I am sure, like MIT and other technical Universities, the aerodynamic application of this material to "stealth" is also published, weather it is airframe design or materials technology the point is the same. Since, if you don't work for Uncle Sam, or in my case HMG, then writing and publishing your own original research, using your example, the design of a thermonuclear device, let's say for arguments sake it is comparable to state of the art circa 1999, then publish it, the law is only broken when the material is classified. This of course depends on how fast the No Such Agency can pick it up and run with it. So don't deliberately publish anything that "is classified" and you will be safe from prosecution. You may not be safe from other forms of intimidation? Clifford M Dubery OHMS not - -----Original Message----- From: Dennis Lapcewich [mailto:Dennis.Lapcewich@unisa.edu.au] Sent: Monday, June 21, 1999 9:00 AM To: 'skunk-works@netwrx1.com' Cc: 'clifford@dubery.com' Subject: RE: Classified? was Skunk-Works Charter > I am reminded of a senior high school student physics > assignment on nuclear > fusion. He designed a thermo-nuclear device from all the unclassified > material at the local university and ended up with a classified paper. > > Does anyone remember that story, because I don't have a > source, mid 70's I > think? > > Clifford M Dubery > > Sherman, turn on the Way-Back machine, will ya? If I recall correctly, The Progressive magazine http://www.progressive.org/ ) did a cover story back in the 70s on how to build a nuclear weapon from available public resources. The synapses aren't all firing this morning, but I believe this turned into a US Supreme Court issue real fast (First Amendment stuff) that the Progressive eventually won. Hmm, aren't the Chinese now claiming a similar "defense" with the intrusion at Los Alamos using the 'net? Can I use a similar approach and post it to the list if I find something on the 'net that later turns out to be classified? Dennis ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 99 04:11:41 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: ATF testing On 6/19/99 11:23AM, in message <199906191823.LAA18814@gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "James P. Stevenson" wrote: > > I'm saying that Riccioni said that he suspects that the F-22 cannot fly > supersonically much further than the F-15 can fly supersonically, at > similar speeds. > > Jim > If this turns out to be the case, the implications are staggering; For US technology, for the F-22, for the Air Force and for out entire R&D process. Art ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 99 04:22:51 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: RE: skunk-works-digest V8 #66 (THAAD Test) On 6/19/99 4:17PM, in message <3.0.1.32.19990619161730.0074e82c@e-z.net>, patrick wrote: > > If they wanted to keep the missile within a box (the airspace over WSMR) > and they knew the fuel to be superfluous why not load it with a "test" load > rather than the full amount and the TEMS system to burn it off after > ignition? > Because then the missile would not perform as a "regular" missile would. It would be non-representative in performance. It would be like using the performance of the 1970s Streak Eagle as a basis for planning regular F-15 tactics. > But the greater question comes to mind and that is they obviously rigged > this test for a higher probability of kill. Something either not > mentioned, glossed over or not asked by the media. Are they not launching > the target missile to follow a predetermined path with known reentry points > (as it was designed to do) and are they not launching the kill missile with > a special device to limit its range? This implies the test was designed > for an impact at a much lower range or distance than called for in the > THAAD specifications. So how staged was this politically crucial test? > > Now this may not be a bad thing if the real test was the final moment of > lock on and effectiveness of the ballistic hit on the incoming warhead. A > valid test indeed. But this will still require Lockheed to validate the > system in a true no holds barred future test where range restrictions don't > modify flight profiles. (Both the HERA target missile and THAAD are > launched from WSMR and intercepted over WSMR. This is no where near full > scale.) > Having the target coming in on a known course is not an invalid measure. For BMD to work, it is assumed that there is a good track on the incoming prior to interceptor launch. To stage a full-blown, no holds barred test of the system would require doing it out of CONUS. It would be hideously expensive, would require systems that have not yet been finalized and at this stage of the game would be premature. I would agree, though, that such a test should be conducted before full-scale production would be authorized. Art ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 99 04:41:20 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V8 #66 On 6/19/99 2:58PM, in message <002001beba9e$d5da3880$b8716f0a@default>, "Adam Chance" wrote: > > It would also seem that the closer the missile got to its target the more > important its manuverbility and flight characteristics would be. So what I > am going to suggest is maybe it is a basic feature that the when the > computer plots the course it also includes a flight pattern that would burn > off the excess fuel well before the intercept point. > > Against a ballistic missile, you are essentially going against a non-maneuvering target. Accuracy and speed are more important than terminal maneuverability. You want to intercept as far out as possible, as quickly as possible. Fancy fuel burn courses would tend to lower your likelihood of a hit as well as making the system very complex. Different profiles may be flown depending on the intercept conditions in any given case, though, but not to burn off fuel. The more fuel aboard at impact/detonation, the bigger the explosion, which is always good. Art ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 20:52:07 +0930 From: Dennis Lapcewich Subject: RE: WERE WE VISITED BY THIS STRANGE BIRD ? [Aurora] > -----Original Message----- > From: Terry W. Colvin [mailto:fortean@primenet.com] > Sent: Monday, June 14, 1999 1:51 AM > To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com > Subject: WERE WE VISITED BY THIS STRANGE BIRD ? [Aurora] > > > Am I the only one suspicious of a spy plane that is so easily > recognised by > the distinctive vapour trail ? > For people on the list not familiar with Down Under ways and means, UFO sightings (sorry!) are quite common, and thanks to at least one Oz television network which contributes to the hype, lends to the regular hysteria. We have enough legitimately weird things going on here that little green men and spaceships are far down on the list. On the other hand, Oz is an excellent location for testing things in a very large area, in a significantly secure manner, and not arouse suspicion. (Oz is so large and empty that the best way to hide things is just park them out in the open!) Agreements between the US and Oz goverments must surely be exploited by the US to include the testing of aircraft - all the US has to do is get them here. Even discounting the known public and military airports, Australia is literally strewn with hundreds, if not thousands, of runways of all shapes and sizes. Many were created because of WWII and a considerable number are still maintained and used by ranchers, mining companies and the Royal Flying Doctors. Although the majority are hard-packed gravel and unsuitable for the type of aircraft discussed here, it would take minimal effort to upgrade a few strips in remote locations and no one would be the wiser. I can still recall coming across one such strip by accident in the Northern Territory and the level of maintenance to the "abandoned" strip seemed a wee bit expensive for the few mining planes and ranchers that might be using it. In addition, the Australian Defence Forces have constructed some pretty large high-tech bases along the northern arc of the country for very fast mobilization - many of these bases are fully stocked but devoid of any activity except for caretakers. A C5A could easily drop in, unload and be gone wuith no notice. Finally, this information is from all public sources - as I said earlier, it's easy to hide things here by just keeping them in the open because the suspicious types are too busy looking under the rocks. :) Back to lurk mode. Dennis ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 07:22:54 -0700 From: patrick Subject: RE: WERE WE VISITED BY THIS STRANGE BIRD ? [Aurora] At 08:52 PM 6/21/99 +0930, Dennis wrote: > >On the other hand, Oz is an excellent location for testing things in a very >large area, in a significantly secure manner, and not arouse suspicion. (Oz is >so large and empty that the best way to hide things is just park them out in >the open!) Agreements between the US and Oz goverments must surely be >exploited by the US to include the testing of aircraft - all the US has to do >is get them here. Dennis I would agree with your analysis about the possibilities of OZ being a potential test area. Another member of your corner of the world posted some newspaper articles about this on going topic several months ago. To fly to Oz would not be a problem in itself. But to base a test program there would be prohibitely expensive. It would require heavy support including fuels to base any tests in Oz. And we have discussed the potential of some fairly hi-tech new fuels which really complicate the picture. As much hype and folklore and other garbage attributed to the area along Highway 375 through Nevada for the record no one has reported a legitimate sighting or photographed a black airplane operating out of the Groom Lake facility. Oddly enough we have only the AF's word and their photos to prove the place is even used as a flight test facility. So if they want to fly a test hop from Groom it seems that option is still viable. Even more so with the recent expansion of its perimeter. As far as a long distance flight goes, this would also be safe to do at night over the emptiness of Nevada. I think its safe in assuming the Australian government is doing its best to provide a defensive perimeter along its northern border after watching the politics of the last 50 years in SE Asia. (nice seeing you posts again) patrick ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 07:38:22 -0700 From: patrick Subject: RE: skunk-works-digest V8 #66 (THAAD Test) At 04:22 AM 6/21/99 GMT, I wrote: >> >> If they wanted to keep the missile within a box (the airspace over WSMR) >> and they knew the fuel to be superfluous why not load it with a "test" load >> rather than the full amount and the TEMS system to burn it off after >> ignition? >> >Art chipped in: > > Because then the missile would not perform as a "regular" missile would. It >would be non-representative in performance. It would be like using the >performance of the 1970s Streak Eagle as a basis for planning regular F-15 >tactics. > > Having the target coming in on a known course is not an invalid measure. For >BMD to work, it is assumed that there is a good track on the incoming prior to >interceptor launch. To stage a full-blown, no holds barred test of the system >would require doing it out of CONUS. It would be hideously expensive, would >require systems that have not yet been finalized and at this stage of the game >would be premature. I would agree, though, that such a test should be conducted >before full-scale production would be authorized. > =-=-==-=-=-=-=--=- My point is this was an attenuated flight test. I believe THAAD is required to protect from a missile with a range of 800 miles. This was a test of an interecept done at far less than that, under 100 miles. Since this is nowhere near real time then to not test on a full scale range seems foolish. Despite the costs involved. It seems we should be able to place the THAAD on Kawajelin Island and fire the HERA from a ship or submarine modified for this purpose. On the other hand the test team "needed" this kill to keep their spirits and momentum up! patrick ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 08:39:43 -0700 From: Dave Cox Subject: RE: skunk-works-digest V8 #66 (THAAD Test) On 21 Jun 99 at 7:38, patrick wrote: >My point is this was an attenuated flight test. I believe THAAD is >required to protect from a missile with a range of 800 miles. This was a >test of an interecept done at far less than that, under 100 miles. Since >this is nowhere near real time then to not test on a full scale range seems >foolish. Despite the costs involved. The max range of the THAAD missile is ~150km. The interception will always be closer than that. As I recall, the claim to fame of the HERA target missile is it's ability to accurately mimic the speed and approach of a ballistic warhead launched from 800 miles away, while the HERA itself is launched from about 100 mi. dave ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 16:30:27 +0000 From: georgek@netwrx1.com Subject: Charter: Final Draft(?) >This should work for everyone: > >The skunk-works mailing list was created mainly for discussions of the >technology produced by >Lockheed Advanced Development Company (LADC), also known as the >Skunk Works, as our list name suggests. We also welcome discussions about >appropriate technologies from sources outside of the Skunk Works. These >discussions may include historical and political aspects of these products. > And in addition to include discussion of sightings of unknown aircraft >thought to have the potential of being a LADC product. Here is what I'm hoping is final format....any changes or such get them to me by 1200Z Tuesday 22 June 1999...I deleted many of the "details" from before since we seem to get in an endless debate on what is xyz, etc. lets keep it general for now and if needed we can refine it again in the future. George The skunk-works mailing list was created mainly for discussions of the technology produced by Lockheed Advanced Development Company (LADC), also known as the Skunk Works, as our list name suggests. We also welcome discussions about appropriate technologies from sources outside of the Skunk Works. These discussions may include historical and political aspects of these products. And in addition to include discussion of sightings of unknown aircraft thought to have the potential of being a LADC product. 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: Mon, 21 Jun 99 13:26:00 -0500 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com Subject: RE: Charter: Final Draft(?) after all my hard work...... Greg W. ps: Fine by me! - -----Original Message----- From: at INTERNET Sent: Monday, June 21, 1999 4:30 PM To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com at INTERNET Subject: Charter: Final Draft(?) >This should work for everyone: > >The skunk-works mailing list was created mainly for discussions of the >technology produced by >Lockheed Advanced Development Company (LADC), also known as the >Skunk Works, as our list name suggests. We also welcome discussions about >appropriate technologies from sources outside of the Skunk Works. These >discussions may include historical and political aspects of these products. > And in addition to include discussion of sightings of unknown aircraft >thought to have the potential of being a LADC product. Here is what I'm hoping is final format....any changes or such get them to me by 1200Z Tuesday 22 June 1999...I deleted many of the "details" from before since we seem to get in an endless debate on what is xyz, etc. lets keep it general for now and if needed we can refine it again in the future. George The skunk-works mailing list was created mainly for discussions of the technology produced by Lockheed Advanced Development Company (LADC), also known as the Skunk Works, as our list name suggests. We also welcome discussions about appropriate technologies from sources outside of the Skunk Works. These discussions may include historical and political aspects of these products. And in addition to include discussion of sightings of unknown aircraft thought to have the potential of being a LADC product. 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 ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V8 #70 ******************************** 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