From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #79 Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Sender: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Errors-To: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Precedence: bulk skunk-works-digest Friday, July 9 1999 Volume 08 : Number 079 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: A/F-X DFRC press release, SR-71 returns NASAs SR-71 flies again Re: That Aurora Budget Line/ B-2 Competition Funding ? U-2 accident record released. Death of Pete Conrad RE: Death of Pete Conrad Re: U-2 accident record released. Re: That Aurora Budget Line/ B-2 Competition Funding ? RE: Death of Pete Conrad *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 06 Jul 99 05:00:18 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: A/F-X On 7/2/99 8:00PM, in message , Dan Zinngrabe wrote: > > > In my own experience, SecDef's office is the last to know about > procurement decisions. By the time it gets there it has been > percolated through endless layers of cruft and gone though enough > commands, with their own agendas, that it carries little in the way > of substance. > This may have been true in the past, but now for the major programs this is so incredibly centralized. Examples: F-22/23. Cancellation of F-14D just as development complete in order to develop an inferior aircraft. Speaking of which, the F/A-18E/F. The push to force Navy to use Army's land attack missile rather than just adapt the Standard missiles already on board the ships. The decision to push the AH-64 as the chosen export instrument, etc. > > > > This more or less suceeded with the H-60. This was because the H-60 was designed to a single requirement. The other services then decided that the basic already-developed vehicle could be adapted to fit their missions > To a lesser extent it has > been sucessful in the V-22 program. With the V-22, the aircraft was essentially designed around the Marine Corps mission. For the USAF SOF role, extra fuel and avionics are added. However all the fittings, plumbing, power reserves and wiring are in every V-22 regardless of model. USAF also accepts the marinization and shipboard compatibility features. There was to be specialized features for the original role the Army planned for the aircraft, but USAF lobbied against Army getting that version. V-22 also has two other advantages. USAF has traditionally not been interested in developing its own rotorcraft from scratch, which is a wise decision given the numbers it uses, and V-22 is such a leap forward from what has gone before that it exceeds normal rotorcraft expectations as is. Consequently, it's easier to get services to get past "Not Invented Here", because its so much beyond their "here". Art ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 08:58:12 -0700 From: tonydinkel@clubnet.net Subject: DFRC press release, SR-71 returns Perhaps this is old news to the regulars but it was interesting to me and I wanted to pass it along. I was not aware of the Iridium tie-in. Is Mary still on this project? td NASA News National Aeronautics and Space Administration Dryden Flight Research Center P.O. Box 273 Edwards, California 93523 Phone 661-258-3449 FAX 661-258-3566 For Release July 6, 1999 Leslie Mathews Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, Calif. (661) 258-3458 RELEASE: 99-20 WORLD'S FASTEST AIRCRAFT, SR-71, RETURNS TO CALIFORNIA SKY AGAIN NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, Calif., sent its fastest and highest-flying airplane, the SR-71A, into the air for further research flights to evaluate the SR-71's performance, handling and flying qualities with a test fixture mounted atop the aft section of the aircraft. This test fixture was originally used for the Linear Aerospike SR-71 Experiment (LASRE), supporting research for the X-33 program. The flight of the SR-71 "A"model occurred on June 30, 1999, which was the first flight of this aircraft since October 29, 1998. The aircraft reached a maximum speed of Mach 2.25, about 1,450 mph at 55,000 feet. Three more flights are scheduled between July to September with the next flight planned for mid-July. "The long anticipated prospect of getting the SR-71 aircraft back in the air is exhilarating," said Steve Schmidt, Dryden's SR-71 project manager. "This phase of the flight research program has gotten off to a great start in that the aircraft and project team performed flawlessly which is further testament of the cooperative "teamwork" that has been a sustaining hallmark of the SR-71 programs." NASA's "B" model is used for proficiency training for pilots and the flight test engineers. Recently the "B" model completed its planned 200-hour phase inspection and has been put into flyable storage. These two SR-71s have been on loan to NASA from the U.S. Air Force, which just transferred ownership to NASA. In addition to these two SR-71's, the Air Force turned over possession of its two other flyable SR-71s, which will complement the other two NASA planes in future flight research programs providing unsurpassed flexibility as well as additional capabilities to perform multiple high-speed research experiments. The SR-71 can fly more than 2200 miles per hour, Mach3+ or three times the speed of sound, and at altitudes of over 85,000 feet. Data from the SR-71's high-speed research program will be used to aid designers of future supersonic and hypersonic aircraft and propulsion systems, including a high-speed civil transport. SR-71 flights have also provided information on the presence of atmospheric particles at extremely high altitudes, where future hypersonic aircraft will be operating. As research platforms, the SR-71s carry out research and experiments in a variety of areas: aerodynamics, propulsion, structures, thermal protection materials, high-speed and high temperature instrumentation, atmospheric studies and sonic boom characteristics. The LASRE project was a small, half-span model of a lifting body positioned on the rear of the SR-71 aircraft, which operated like an "airborne wind tunnel." The SR-71 has also acted as a surrogate satellite for transmitters and receivers on the ground, assisting in the development of a commercial satellite-based, instant and wireless, personal-communications network, called IRIDIUM. Another project with the SR-71 joined NASA and the University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA), investigating the use of charged chlorine atoms to protect and rebuild the ozone layer. Ongoing research in high-speed, high-altitude flight continues to gain interest among the scientific community, industry and other government agencies. - --nasa-- NOTE TO EDITORS: Still photos and video footage are available from the Dryden Public Affairs Office to support this release. Photos are also available on the Internet under NASA Dryden Research Aircraft Photo Archive, Dryden News and Feature Photos, URL: http//www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo. Dryden news releases are available on the Internet at: http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/PAO/PressReleases/index.html. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 11:05:25 -0400 From: "Kim Keller" Subject: NASAs SR-71 flies again From a just-received DFRC press release: "NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, Calif., sent its fastest and highest-flying airplane, the SR-71A, into the air for further research flights to evaluate the SR-71's performance, handling and flying qualities with a test fixture mounted atop the aft section of the aircraft. This test fixture was originally used for the Linear Aerospike SR-71 Experiment (LASRE), supporting research for the X-33 program. The flight of the SR-71 "A"model occurred on June 30, 1999, which was the first flight of this aircraft since October 29, 1998. The aircraft reached a maximum speed of Mach 2.25, about 1,450 mph at 55,000 feet. Three more flights are scheduled between July to September with the next flight planned for mid-July. "The long anticipated prospect of getting the SR-71 aircraft back in the air is exhilarating," said Steve Schmidt, Dryden's SR-71 project manager. "This phase of the flight research program has gotten off to a great start in that the aircraft and project team performed flawlessly which is further testament of the cooperative "teamwork" that has been a sustaining hallmark of the SR-71 programs." NASA's "B" model is used for proficiency training for pilots and the flight test engineers. Recently the "B" model completed its planned 200-hour phase inspection and has been put into flyable storage. These two SR-71s have been on loan to NASA from the U.S. Air Force, which just transferred ownership to NASA. In addition to these two SR-71's, the Air Force turned over possession of its two other flyable SR-71s, which will complement the other two NASA planes in future flight research programs providing unsurpassed flexibility as well as additional capabilities to perform multiple high-speed research experiments. The SR-71 can fly more than 2200 miles per hour, Mach3+ or three times the speed of sound, and at altitudes of over 85,000 feet. Data from the SR-71's high-speed research program will be used to aid designers of future supersonic and hypersonic aircraft and propulsion systems, including a high-speed civil transport. SR-71 flights have also provided information on the presence of atmospheric particles at extremely high altitudes, where future hypersonic aircraft will be operating. As research platforms, the SR-71s carry out research and experiments in a variety of areas: aerodynamics, propulsion, structures, thermal protection materials, high-speed and high temperature instrumentation, atmospheric studies and sonic boom characteristics. The LASRE project was a small, half-span model of a lifting body positioned on the rear of the SR-71 aircraft, which operated like an "airborne wind tunnel." The SR-71 has also acted as a surrogate satellite for transmitters and receivers on the ground, assisting in the development of a commercial satellite-based, instant and wireless, personal-communications network, called IRIDIUM. Another project with the SR-71 joined NASA and the University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA), investigating the use of charged chlorine atoms to protect and rebuild the ozone layer. Ongoing research in high-speed, high-altitude flight continues to gain interest among the scientific community, industry and other government agencies." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 12:07:32 -0700 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: That Aurora Budget Line/ B-2 Competition Funding ? David writes: >Maybe it's because it's ten years since Chris Gibson saw that delta over >the North Sea or maybe it's the phase of the moon, but I was recently >thinking about >that< Aurora budget line. > >According to Ben Rich: > >The Aurora code name related to black USAF funding for the B-2 competition. > >(SKUNK WORKS p.336) > >Later he writes: > >"I was shocked when we received formal notification in October 1981, that >Northrop had been awarded the B-2 project." >(Op Cit p.338) > >According to FAS > >" The first suggestion that these studies might be translated into >operational hardware appeared in the Fiscal Year 1986 procurement program >document, colloquially known as the P-1, dated 4 February 1985. >... > >AFAIK, everyone agrees with the dates cited in the FAS extract, so my >belated question is: How can the 1985 budget line that Ben Rich clearly >says was for the B-2 competition, be related to a program that was awarded >in 1981. > >Clearly, I've missed something, but I damned if I can see what it is. VERY interesting David! You've hit upon a most interesting research project here David! If I understand your point David, the idea is that the ATB program, awarded in 1981, was incurring expenses for many years out in 1981 and after (probably even before), and that the publication of the AURORA line items in the Feb. 1985 publication of the FY 1986 P-1, was a mistake. So, we never saw budget line items for 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1988, ... . Or so the claim. It has been said that the AURORA line items were removed from later publications of the FY 1986 P-1 document (published after 4 Feb. 1985). The reason for the blackness may be that USAF wanted minimal budget flack from non-cleared congress members, due to the large cost of the ATB program, which came out much later around the time the ATB first flew. But, that is only my conjecture. So your reasoning is, if I'm on the same wavelength: if the above is true, namely, for a program that has such HUGE spending over a number of years, one might expect that funding should occur EACH year. After all, Northrop, would ramp the effort which would culminate in delivery of the airplane. It just so happens, that the old FY 1986 P-1, published on 4 Feb. 1985, that mentions AURORA, has expenditure columns for 1984 AND 1985. Guess what? NO ENTRIES for 1984 and 1985 for AURORA! ONLY 1986 AND 1987 entries. Not sure what it means, but it sure sounds interesting. See the 2/4/85 P-1 reproduced below. I also have a paper copy in my records that I took the following from. The title of the document is: "Procurement Programs (P-1); Department of Defense Budget For Fiscal Year 1986; February 4, 1985" There's no page number, but you want: Exhibit P-1; "Strategic Reconnaissance" Section; "Other Aircraft" Category. Line No. 28: Aurora Ident Code: B No Procurement (dollars) in FY 1984 No Procurement in FY 1985 In 1986: No number under 'quantity' but 80.1 million dollars under 'cost'. In 1987: No number under 'quantity' but 2,272.4 million dollars under 'cost'. Line Nos. 29 and 30 are both TR-1/U-2 Procurements with aircraft quantities written in under the 'quantity' columns. Larry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 00:53:51 +0000 From: John Szalay Subject: U-2 accident record released. http://www.af.mil/news/Jul1999/n19990708_991309.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 07:32:05 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Death of Pete Conrad Pete Conrad died last night from injuries he received from crashing his Harley Davidson motorcycle while on an outing with his family in Ojai, California. After setting foot on the Moon during Apollo 12 Conrad worked at McDonnell-Douglas where he retired in 1996. He was 69 years young. Vaya Con Dios Pete. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jul 99 14:33:00 -0500 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com Subject: RE: Death of Pete Conrad I was afraid of this...... we'll never get back into space before all of the men who've walked on the Moon are gone; if ever! The work and sacrifice of people like Pete Conrad has gone unfulfilled, we're still not 'in space'!! We visit, but we're not there permanently. Godspeed Pete, say 'Hello' to Carl Sagan and the other space folk for us...... Greg W. - -----Original Message----- From: at INTERNET Sent: Friday, July 09, 1999 7:32 AM To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com at INTERNET Subject: Death of Pete Conrad Pete Conrad died last night from injuries he received from crashing his Harley Davidson motorcycle while on an outing with his family in Ojai, California. After setting foot on the Moon during Apollo 12 Conrad worked at McDonnell-Douglas where he retired in 1996. He was 69 years young. Vaya Con Dios Pete. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 15:50:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: U-2 accident record released. John Szalay already quoted the web address for the AFNS article, but for archival reasons, and because AFNS articles can be reproduced without any copyright concerns, here is the full article, as well as a previous one about the F-117: 991294. F-117 SPO delivers upgrade in 32 days Released: 2 Jul 1999 by 1st Lt. Serena Mosley-Day Aeronautical Systems Center Public Affairs WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Ohio (AFPN) -- Using the standard-setting Total System Performance Responsibility type of contract pioneered at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base less than a year ago, the F-117 System Program Office supported an operational request from units supporting Operation Allied Force with 32 days from request to delivery. The TSPR contract motivates the F-117 contractor, Lockheed Martin Skunk Works, to be cost efficient by making the contractor an equal partner in any cost overages or savings, giving Lockheed Martin an incentive to beat the budget and earn additional profit. Any savings realized by the F-117 SPO are returned to Air Combat Command at the end of the fiscal year. In mid-April, the F-117 SPO and Lockheed Martin received a request from deployed units of the 49th Fighter Wing to upgrade the ground-based mission planning system of the F-117. While a permanent upgrade is planned to start in fiscal year 2000, the need for an increase in capability was immediate. Mission planning for the F-117 Nighthawk is an intricate process that requires the aircraft's computers to have a detailed outline of the aerial route to avoid threats and accurately strike the target. The mission planning system ensures that the F-117 flies the most survivable route in high-threat areas against high-value targets. Ground-based mission planning can start weeks or months before an aircraft leaves the ground. When it is time to fly the mission, the updated mission-planning information is loaded into the aircraft. The major components of a mission plan are the take-off point, the target or objective, and the landing point. With those major components established, provisions then are made for aerial refueling and the electronic order of battle, or EOB. The EOB provides the planning system with information about enemy aircraft in range of the mission, enemy bases, surface-to-air missiles, anti-aircraft artillery sites and enemy radar. The mission planning system operators and electronic warfare officers develop routes that direct the F-117 around those sites. The mobile, van-based mission planning system can have a number of operators planning different missions simultaneously. The result was a mission-planning system that was two to three times faster. In response to the operational request, the SPO used the flexibility given in the TSPR contract and allocated $500,000 of the cost savings from the contract, out of $1.2 million year to date. The SPO did an emergency upgrade using existing B-2 mission planning system hardware suites and slight modifications to current F-117 mission-planning software. The mission planning systems were sent to the two air bases supporting the F-117s in Operation Allied Force: Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany and Aviano Air Base, Italy, increasing planning processing by almost three-fold. The F-117 mission planning system prime contractor, Marconi Integrated Systems of San Diego, Calif., did the work on the computer upgrade and testing. Marconi was responsible for the upgrade and testing of the new computers to ensure that the existing F-117 software was modified to work properly in the B-2 computers. The Air Force Mission Support System SPO at Hanscom AFB, Mass., and Boeing of Wichita, Kan., the B-2 mission planning contractor, were instrumental in getting the hardware to Marconi and providing assistance during the software integration. The systems will be returned to the B-2 program when the F-117s are returned to the United States. The computers of the B-2 mission planning system are compatible with the F-117's, largely because of compliance to a 1993 program management directive which stated all Air Force weapons systems that require advanced mission planning have their mission-planning systems based on the Air Force Mission Support System. The AFMSS is the core of common, mission-planning tools, while the individual weapons systems' mission planning system fulfill needs specific to each airframe. There are 56 Air Force weapons or weapons systems that are using, or will use, the AFMSS. Use of the B-2 hardware, which was intended for training, caused no setback to the B-2 mission support, since some training and eventual operational use was curtailed due to Operation Allied Force. In addition, because the money spent to modify the B-2 hardware came from TSPR savings, it did not negatively affect the budgets of other programs within ACC or the F-117 SPO. 991309. ACC releases U-2S accident investigation report Released: 8 Jul 1999 LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE, Va. (AFPN) -- Air Combat Command has released an aircraft Accident Investigation Board report on the March 30 Class A mishap of a U.S. Air Force U-2S from the 5th Reconnaissance Squadron at Osan Air Base, South Korea. The mishap occurred on an operational reconnaissance mission when the U-2 experienced a hydraulic failure in flight and lost hydraulic pressure. The pilot attempted an emergency release of the main landing gear; however, there wasn't enough airflow pressure to bring the main landing gear to a down and locked position and the gear remained in an intermediate position. When the aircraft landed, the landing gear collapsed and the aircraft skidded approximately 1,500 feet on the runway before coming to a stop. There were no injuries associated with the mishap; however, the aircraft sustained extensive damage to the lower forward fuselage. The report concluded the accident was caused by a material failure of an actuator cylinder which caused a loss of hydraulic pressure to the normal landing gear system. There was clear and convincing evidence that the right roll spoiler actuator cylinder developed a fatigue crack causing a loss of hydraulic fluid. The 5th Reconnaissance Squadron is a component of the 9th Reconnaissance Wing at Beale Air Force Base, Calif. The wing and its subordinate units are part of the Air Force's Air Combat Command. The 9th RW maintains the nation's fleet of U-2 reconnaissance aircraft. It is responsible for providing national and theater commanders with timely, reliable, high-quality, high-altitude reconnaissance products. - -- 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: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 16:28:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: That Aurora Budget Line/ B-2 Competition Funding ? David wrote: >AFAIK, everyone agrees with the dates cited in the FAS extract, so my >belated question is: How can the 1985 budget line that Ben Rich clearly >says was for the B-2 competition, be related to a program that was awarded >in 1981. Larry responded: >If I understand your point David, the idea is that the ATB program, awarde= d=20 >in 1981, was incurring expenses for many years out in 1981 and after=20 >(probably even before), and that the publication of the AURORA line items = in=20 >the Feb. 1985 publication of the FY 1986 P-1, was a mistake. So, we never= =20 >saw budget line items for 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1988, ... . Or so= =20 >the claim. It has been said that the AURORA line items were removed from= =20 >later publications of the FY 1986 P-1 document (published after 4 Feb. 198= 5).=20 Maybe David was referring to the "explicit" statement of Ben Rich, that the= =20 "Aurora" line item was a cover/code for the ATB "Competition" rather than= =20 "Development" or "Production", and that the "Competition" was long over in= =20 1985/86/87. If that is the case, I would shrug it off as: don't take Ben Rich (at least= =20 in his autobiography) too literally. He might have meant ATB "Development". And Larry continued: >So your reasoning is, if I'm on the same wavelength: >if the above is true, namely, for a program that has such HUGE spending >over a number of years, one might expect that funding should occur EACH >year. After all, Northrop, would ramp the effort which would culminate in >delivery of the airplane. >It just so happens, that the old FY 1986 P-1, published on 4 Feb. 1985, th= at >mentions AURORA, has expenditure columns for 1984 AND 1985. >Guess what? >NO ENTRIES for 1984 and 1985 for AURORA! >ONLY 1986 AND 1987 entries. >Not sure what it means, but it sure sounds interesting. That of course would suggest to me that the "Aurora" was neither related to= =20 the ATB competition nor the ATB development/production, but rather a=20 different program that just started or was to start in 1986/87. The huge=20 amount ($ 2.35 billions) points to a rather large program, too. OTOH, it could also mean that the code name "Aurora" was just introduced fo= r=20 usage in 1985. The B-2 had just passed its second preliminary design review= =20 in 1984, and production was to start in 1985, so "Aurora" might have been a= =20 code for the B-2 "Production" effort. Work on AV-1 was apparently started i= n=20 1983 and=FFthe aircraft was finally rolled out on 11/22/1988, after 3.5 mil= lion=20 manufacturing man hours.=20 All six pre-production/test aircraft (AV-1 through AV-6) have 1982 FY (Fisc= al=20 Year) serials (82-1066 through 82-1071), while AV-1007 through AV-1011 have 1988 FY-Serials (88-0328 through 88-0332). The B-2A (development) contract went to Northrop on 10/xx/1981 (fiscal year 1982 started 10/01/1981), cover= ing the six airframes mentioned above, 2 static airframes, and options for 127 additional ATB bombers. The first four production B-2As, were only ordered = on=20 11/19/1987 (fiscal year 1988 started 10/01/1987), and I assume the fifth=20 followed either later in that fiscal year, or the contract was modified to= =20 include five airframes instead of four. Some questions I have: * Has anybody seen the line items or a detailed list of expenditures for th= e ATB / B-2 program in any year?=20 * "Senior Ice" (Northrop ATB studies), "Senior Peg" (Lockheed ATB studies) and "Senior CJ" (CJ for Connie Jo Kelly (not Clarence 'Kelly' Johnson)) (Northrop ATB program) code words are associated with the ATB/B-2 program= =2E Has there ever been any other relation suggested between the "Aurora" lin= e=20 item and the "ATB" program (besides Ben Rich's memoirs)? * Maybe "Aurora" was the "Q"/"Tier 3" UAV, which was based on Lockheed's AT= B concept/competition entry ("Senior Peg")? * Everybody quotes the price for B-2A bombers between $500 million and $2.5 billion each -- where do those numbers come from? (The GAO report in 1997= =20 quoted $45 billion (or $30 billion in 1981 dollars) for the whole program= =20 (October 1981 to 2004), which would result in $2.1 billion (1997 dollars)= =20 for each airframe.) Those costs seem to exclude the competition, but do= =20 include construction of production facilities, CAD/CAM development, all sorts of simulation and testing, RCS Model(s) as well as Static Airframes= ,=20 Modifications (to Block 10/20/30), Weapons integration (GAM/JDAM/etc.),= =20 Whiteman AFB construction, pilot and maintenance training, IOC, spares, etc. p.p. * Can those numbers be traced back to line items, eliminating the "Aurora" line item or connecting it directly with the ATB program? (e.g. $2 billio= n=20 appropriated 11/19/1987 for initial production of four B-2A aircraft. * Now that the B-2A is more or less a white program, those numbers should b= e=20 de-classified and it should be possible to say: In 1985 and 1986 x-billio= n dollars were appropriated for such-and-such, see line item xyz. Wouldn't that clear up any "Aurora" relation once and for all? * Maybe someone can do some research in that field (or maybe someone alread= y did)?=20 - -- 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: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 15:48:56 -0700 From: patrick Subject: RE: Death of Pete Conrad At 02:33 PM 7/9/99 -0500, you wrote: > > >Godspeed Pete, say 'Hello' to Carl Sagan and the other space folk for us...... > It was that Carl Sagan guy who arrogantly decided that the planet Uranus' name was being pronounced incorrectly. He single handedly convinced the world press to pronounce it "your-a-nuss" rather than "your-anus". "Beellions and beellions of them." patrick ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V8 #79 ******************************** 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