Okay, so let's say that you have some Apollo Program documents in
your possession, or even—wonder of wonders!—an AGC program
listing. You've read the Virtual Apollo website and seen the
plea that you donate digital images to the project. You're
that rarest of people, who actually look ahead to future generations
and think this would be a valuable thing to do.
But ... how do you do it?
Well, if the document you're working with is small—say, 150 U.S.
letter-sized pages—most of you won't really need much advice from
me. Even the cheapest scanner or digital camera will do the
trick. (It may be slow and painful, but that will just help to
give you a sense of accomplishment!) The advice I'd give in
that case is simply this:
other hand, let's suppose that you're lucky enough to have a lot of Apollo materials, and
you recognize that the simplistic scheme mentioned above is going to
take forever to
accomplish. In that case, you need to put a little more
thought ... and possibly money ... into the digitization. If
money is the obstacle, contact me and I can probably defray
- Check carefully before doing anything that your document isn't
already online somewhere. While I'm an assiduous collector
of this info, I'm not necessarily able to tell you accurately
what's available and what's not. Of course, if you have a
different version of
something that's already available, or if you can make it more
legible or better in some other way, go ahead and digitize it
- The document usually will have a binding on it, and you may be
tempted to scan it with the binding in place. You can
certainly do that. However, the document will suffer
excessive wear, the scans will be relatively poor, and it will
be a lot more effort for you. In almost all cases it's
easy to remove the binding before making the copies, and to put
the binding back afterward.
- Don't worry too much about getting the scans into the same
form we use to publish them online ... PDF, JPG, TIFF,
etc. Whatever you send us, we'll preserve the raw images
as-is and turn it into an appropriate format for
- Don't worry too much about things like color vs.
black&white, dots per inch, etc. Worry about
legibility. Make sure that in whatever images you create,
the text and diagrams are readable, even if you need to zoom in
when viewing them to do so. If you need to use higher dpi
in pages that are diagrams than you do on text pages, then
please do so.
- Don't worry about foldouts that are too big to fit on your
scanner. Simply scan them in several passes and provide
several JPGs or TIFFs for them, and we'll digitally recombine
them in a complete foldout.
- Do not skip blank pages. We have know way to know that
they're supposed to be blank, and will think that a page is
missing. Always double-check to make sure that every page
- If you are providing PDF, do not apply optical character recognition to it
(PDF). Let me worry about that part.
- Simply email me (Ron Burkey <firstname.lastname@example.org>) the
finished PDF or a zipfile of the JPGs or TIFFs ... or send them
as a tarball or a rar archive, or using whatever archiving
method pleases you.
In the photo at right, which you can click to enlarge if you'd like
to admire it, is a stack of documents sent to me by original AGC
developer Fred Martin. The large pale-green document in front
is the AGC program listing of Apollo 8; it's about 1600 pages of
11"×15" fanfold paper. Behind it, the brown document in two
volumes is the Command Module AGC program listing of Apollo 9; it's
about 1700 8"×10.5" double-sided pages, with an easy-to remove
binder. Next to that is a collection of miscellaneous
documents—the top document being a portion of the Apollo 10
GSOP—perhaps another 1500 pages of 8.5"×11" double-sized pages, with
either easy-to-remove bindings or staples. That's a stack of
documents that you'd be lucky to have, but which would certainly be
far beyond the capabilities that most people have at their disposal
for digitization of documents or images in any reasonable amount of
time and effort.
In a case like this, I'd usually just recommend letting us do the digitization
for you, and of course that's exactly what Fred did. But
perhaps you've got more time at your disposal and are keener to
volunteer the time and energy to do the digitizations as a
do-it-yourself project? What then? (By the way, Fred
helped write the software and then preserved it for 40 years, so
that's enough expenditure of time and energy as far as I'm
concerned. Thanks, Fred!) I don't know that I can really
give any definitive advice, but I can show you what I did, and that
may at least serve as a guide to whether you want to do it or not.
There are really two different cases, and they need to be handled
completely differently. The methods used for one aren't
suitable for the other, or at least not without some re-imaginings
... which is to say, not without some ideas that have occurred to me
but which I haven't actually tried myself. The two different
a Fanfold Computer Printout
A computer printout of an AGC program listing will typically be on
oversized (11"×15") fanfold paper. In most cases, it will be
on extraordinarily thin, floppy white paper with black lines,
although in some cases the computer paper has green and orange bands
on it. All of these points make such a listing difficult to
First, as a theoretical proposition, it might be possible to scan
such a document using a tabloid-sized (11"×17") flatbed scanner, and
very carefully (so as not to tear the pages apart) slide the pages
across the scanner one at a time. If you did so, I dare say
the results would be exceptional, and would be far better than the
method I'm actually going to recommend using. I have such a
scanner myself, but the scanner itself is so poor and so slow that
it would be unthinkable to actually use it. Aside from price,
the problem is speed.
So if you were to purchase such a scanner, you find that it was
unusable if it took (say) 1 minute to scan each page. Most
scanner models do not give you a specification for the scanning
speed, and that usually means slow ... slow ... slow. If you
have occasion to try this approach let me know the details
(including the scanner model) and how well it worked out. At
the present time, not having tried this approach myself, I'd
probably recommend the Epson GT-20000 ($1500) scanner.
But putting talk of scanners aside, the method we have used at Virtual AGC
& friends is a digital camera. A digital-camera setup was
used for obtaining images of AGC software for Apollo 4, Apollo 8, Apollo 11 CM, Apollo 11 LM, and Apollo 15-17 CM.
If you actually look at the images so achieved, you may not be
impressed with the quality. Indeed, those images are not even
the raw images from the cameras, but were post-processed to make
them look better! But realize that the goal was not be able to
make an image that you could print out that would be
indistinguishable from the original hardcopy. Rather, the goal
was to achieve legible text,
with minimal document wear,
and a reasonable expenditure of
And I think a reasonable compromise has been achieved between those
goals. If your goal is to make something indistinguishable
from the original, go back to the last paragraph and think about
One great advantage of the digital camera approach is that the
equipment cost is very cheap, since most people have an acceptable
camera already, or else can purchase one for a very modest
cost. How good a camera is needed? As you'll discern
from the following table, the "features" that most people would
choose a camera for are not necessarily good for our purposes. The best
camera for the job may well be the one in which you can turn off the
most "features". Fancy optics and what-not? Forget them,
as they'll not help you one bit for the digitization!
- 5 megapixels or greater
- AC adapter to run from 120V rather than from batteries
- Manual mode in which auto-focus can be turned off
- Means of setting the white-balance as desired
- Means of setting the exposure as desired
- 2-3 exposures per second.
- 16 GB or greater storage—for example, 16 GB SDHC
card—accessible without unmounting the camera from the
- USB 2.0 interface, accessible without unmounting the
camera from the tripod.
- Remote control
- 4 megapixels or greater
Examples: practically any new camera in the $100-200
Most of the criteria listed for the "ideal camera" are really
productivity features that allow you to attain a better rate of
speed in the photography. The best sustained rate it is
possible to achieve using the method I'll describe is around 8-10
seconds per page, allowing an entire AGC listing to be photographed
in about 5 hours. Any productivity feature that is lacking
makes the process take longer, although there are tradeoffs between
some of the features so that if you have one of the features you
might not need some of the others. The remaining criteria are
for the purpose of maintaining shot-to-shot consistency, but
obviously the importance of that is debatable.
The cheapest known example of a camera having all of the features
(at least as options) listed above is the Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1,
which presently (8/2009) costs around $800. I have also used
the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ5, which is an older, now obsoleted, less
expensive ($350) camera that lacks several of the productivity
features mentioned above. Both were very acceptable. The
better camera produced better results, but that may be because of
improvement in my understanding of white balance more than any other
factor. However, working without the productivity features
made the work go much more slowly with the older camera,
particularly in so far as extracting the photos from the camera was
Let's go through the criteria one-by-one to understand whether or
not they'll be important to you:
Now, what will you need in order take the pictures?
- 5 megapixels or greater—You may think that the more pixels the
better. Well, yes, that's obviously true. The higher
the resolution you want to use, the happier we'll be to get
them. But the images are presently crunched down to about
1400×1000 pixels for publication online, so most of the pixels
from even a 4 megapixel image are going to be thrown away.
The advantage of using 5 megapixels as opposed to (say) 3
megapixels is that you don't have to worry as much about getting
an optimal zoom-in when you're setting up for the shoot.
We'll crop off anything we don't like before we publish the
images anyway, so you might as well leave a little margin around
the page when you take the photographs.
- Tripod-mountable—Self-explanatory, I think.
- AC adapter rather than batteries—You're going to take about
3500 shots for a typical AGC program listing. A typical
camera's batteries may give you 200-500 shots. Obviously
you can recharge batteries and change them periodically.
This requires a lot of extra time, but more importantly it
requires you to remove the camera from the tripod and to lose
any setups such as zooms you've made. The re-setup after
the battery has been replaced takes time, and you won't be able
to do it exactly the same every time, so different blocks of
pages will be inconsistent in size, lighting, angle, etc., with
- Auto-focus off—Auto-focus takes extra time on every shot, but
it also means that each shot will be different in appearance,
since the focus will be done a little differently. With a
cheap camera, most shots will be in-focus, but some of them will
be out of focus, and you won't know that until you review the
images later. It's better to set up the focus once and to
keep using it that way.
- White-balance—Setting the white balance allows you to
compensate for the color of the lighting used, such as natural
light vs. incandescent lights. You may think that this
doesn't matter—I know that I
did—but it affects the color of the page background, and that in
turn affects the ability to post-process it easily, which in
turn affects the final contrast of the posted images. So
if the white-balance isn't compensated properly, the background
will be darker than it needs to be and the text will be lighter
than it needs to be.
- Exposure—Same problem as with auto-focus, except that it
usually expresses itself in an inconsistency in brightness from
page to page. Often the even pages will be at a different
brightness than odd pages.
- 2-3 exposures per second—In the method I'll suggest using,
most of your time is
spent in manually changing from one page to the next.
Taking 2 or 3 shots of each page takes little more time than
taking a single shot, but greatly lowers the odds that you'll
have to go back later (after reviewing the images) and reshoot
any of the pages.
- 16 GB or greater storage—For an AGC listing, the recommended
method will require just over 8 GB if two shots are made of
every page, and just under 16 GB if three shots are made.
If the camera has a great enough capacity to store the entire
shoot, it saves the time of stopping in the middle of a shoot to
download images and/or to re-setup after changing SD cards.
- USB 2.0—Actually, the 16 GB criterion and the USB 2.0
criterion are really mutually exclusive, in that you don't have
as much need for the one if you have the other. The point
of the USB 2.0 interface is that if you don't have big enough
internal storage in the camera to hold the entire shoot, you can
download whenever the camera fills up without having to take the
camera off of the tripod and do a re-setup afterward. USB
1.0 is workable, but (for example) takes about 40 minutes to
download from a 2 GB SD card, so it adds something like 50% to
the total photography time just for the downloads. In
contrast, the download time using USB 2.0 is negligible.
Similarly, if the SD cards can be removed without having to
remove the camera from the tripod, then USB might not be needed
- Remote control—This is really just a nice-to-have. With
the method we're going to recommend it's not really needed, it's
very nice to have. It allows you to work without touching
the camera, which means that a much lighter-weight tripod can be
used (good for the pocket-book and very good if you have to
carry it around) and that you don't have to worry so much about
bumping the camera as you move around.
What? Some books? A moving box? You'll understand
in a moment.
- The camera, of course.
- A tripod—by which I mean a regular tripod, not a table
tripod. A heavier, sturdier tripod is better, but on my
last shoot I used a sleazy tripod that Circuit City gave me for
free with my camcorder. And if you have a remote control,
the quality of the tripod doesn't matter at all.
- A table.
- 2-3 60W lamps ... maybe. Depending on the ambient
lighting and how well you are able to configure you camera, you
may not even want to use any extra lighting at all.
- A few pages of white paper.
- Some scotch tape.
- Some books.
- A moving box.
First, let me show you the setup I actually use, which will be a
little different than yours (no moving box!), because a friend has
been kind enough to create a special-purpose copy-stand for
me. What you see in the photos below, which you can click to
enlarge if you like, is a table with my laptop computer and the
white custom-built copy-stand I mentioned on it. Perhaps 6
feet in front of the table—the exact distance isn't critical—is a
tripod with the camera on top of it and two lamps clipped to the
sides of it. Because it happens to be a very light-weight
tripod, and it is atop carpeting, some books have been placed
underneath the legs of the tripod to hopfully reduce settling and
vibration. The various cables you see are the power cords of
the computer, the camera, and the lights, and the USB cable (going
through several extensions) from the camera to the laptop
computer. The fanfold printout, for what it's worth, is the
Apollo 8 AGC program listing. At the beginning of the photo
shoot, it was completely on the floor, but at this point I've
already advanced one page at a time through perhaps 1200 pages, and
the pages that have already been photographed are stacked up behind
the page being photographed.
There are a few of important points to note that may not be clear
from the photographs:
Even though I don't appear in the pictures at all, the technique is
very simple: I step forward and move the paper up by one page,
aligning it properly, then I step back out of the light and press
the camera button. Then repeat. I suggest taking 2-3
pictures for each page, since it takes 6-7 seconds to advance the
paper and only a second to take the picture, so (timewise) extra
pictures are essentially free. I'd also suggest doing a test
run of 50 pages or so to make sure you're doing it right before
photographing 1700 pages!
- The binder holding the program listing had to be removed for
this process to work. It was put back on afterward.
The program listing suffers no damage whatever from either the
binder removal or from the photography if you're careful.
- The lamps clamped to the camera tripod are simply normal
lamps—not special photographic equipment—that just happen to
have clamps rather than supporting bases. I rely on
ambient lighting along with these lamps. The lamps cost me
$10 apiece at Target. Floor-standing lamps would work
also, but note that we're trying to get the lighting as even as
possible across the page being photographed, and the more
oblique the light the less even it will be. Also, as
you'll see in a moment, you may have to be careful with
floor-standing models to keep from knocking them over. I
happen to be using 60W-equivalent compact flourescent bulbs
rather than actual 60W incandescent bulbs, simply because it's
not as hot that way. As I mentioned above, you may not
even want the extra lighting at all, and in my most-recent shoot
(Colossus 237) I
did not use them. Don't
be fooled into thinking that because the page background is gray
rather than white you need more lights!
- The copy-stand is at a slight angle from vertical, and the
camera is actually angled downward a little to be at
right-angles to the copy-stand. This angling unfortunately
limits the distance between the copy-stand and the camera—in
other words, you can't get the camera very far away—but it has
the important purpose of helping the printout to lay flat
against the copy stand. If the copy-stand were vertical,
the paper would have a tendency to waft around in every little
breeze, not only causing the pages to be in motion, but also for
there to be a shadow-casting gap between the paper and the
- The perforated edge between printout pages is placed exactly
at the top of the copy-stand, which is something that can be
done very quickly and accurately when advancing the paper.
- There is a small mark drawn on the copy-stand to show where
the edge of the paper is supposed to go, and it's very easy to
align the paper with this mark.
- But most
important of all, to take a picture you have to press
the camera button downward,
which is the direction in which the tripod support provides the
greatest stability, so there is very little camera motion when
you press the button. That means that while a remote
control would be nice, it is not needed.
When people talk about using a digital camera to photograph
documents, they normally think of the document as laying flat on
a table and the camera looking down from above. This has
many disadvantages compared to the scheme I'm advocating, but
the principal disadvantage is that the camera would be at right
angles to the tripod, which is a very unstable setup, prone to a
lot of camera movement, when the camera button is pressed.
If you have a remote control for the camera, this factor isn't
important at all, but the vertical arrangement of the paper
still allows easier paper movement than a horizontal
For the camera setup:
Now of course, you probably don't have a custom-built copy
stand. The custom-built copy-stand is great for me because it
folds up and is light-weight, and I usually have to travel to take
these photos, but you can get results of just as high quality
without it. What you do is to take a sturdy cardboard box, and
place it where the copy-stand would have been, at the edge of the
table. Put a book under the front edge of the box to tilt it a
little. Fill the box with books or other weights
so that it won't move around. Tape some white paper at the
front to make the front surface of the box white. Make a mark
on the white paper to show where the edge of the printout is
supposed to go. Voila! Instant, cheap copy-stand!
I have taken hundreds of photos using this exact moving box :), and
believe me that the quality of the photos is identical to what they
are with the fancy copy-stand.
- If you have a choice of file formats (TIFF, JPG, etc.), I'd
recommend using JPG.
- If you have a choice of image quality, choose whatever format
gives you JPG images that are roughly in the range of 1.5-2.5
megabytes. This doesn't have to be very exact.
- If you have a choice of turning auto-focus OFF, do so.
Focus the camera once, at the beginning of the shoot, an let it
focussed the same way throughout.
- If you have a choice of white-balance and exposure, experiment
a little until you get some test shots that look good to you.
- Turn off the flash.
- ... and if you know anything about photography—I sure
don't!—you'll undoubtedly figure out some other
improvements. Just remember, though, if you spend 20 hours
experimenting for a 5-hour shoot, and you don't have more of the
same kind of thing to photograph in the future, you may be
When you're all done photographing—or before, if you're insecure
:)—pull the photos from the camera into your computer, and step
through them to see that you have at least one legible picture from
every page, then send
them to me.
Digitizing a Normal
A "normal" document that is just a stack of pages in a binder
requires a very different technique than a fanfold document such as
a program listing, and depending on the equipment at your disposal
may be very much faster to digitize or very much slower.
Several digitizing methods are discussed below. Understand
that no matter what method you use to digitize the document, you are
going to be better off removing its binder and restoring it
afterward than trying to digitize with the binder in place. In
the three sub-sections below, you should be able to determine
relatively quickly if you can use that method or not, therefore
quickly move to the next section if need be.
The Convenient Way
The most convenient way to digitize a normal document, if you have
the equipment at your disposal to do so, is to use a scanner with an
automatic document feeder (ADF). It's also the priciest method
if you have to purchase the equipment yourself, but many workplaces
have suitable equipment available if they will allow you to use
it. If the documents you are digitizing don't belong to you,
you may not be allowed to
use a document feeder. For example, the National Archives was
fine with me wanting to scan documents on a flatbed scanner, but had
rules against automatic document feeders. At any rate, if you
don't have access to such a scanner, or wouldn't be allowed to use
it, advance to the next section.
I do enough document scans that I actually thought it was worth my
while to purchase a fairly high-end scanner, an Epson WorkForce Pro
GT-S80. This gadget has a 75-page feeder, can pull through 40
pages per minute, and can scan both sides of the page at once (so
that it effectively scans 80 pages per minute). It's not
cheap. On the other hand, I also have an HP R60 multi-function
device (printer/scanner/fax) with a 25-page feeder, that can
probably pull and scan 1-2 pages per minute. It wasn't cheap,
either. So there's a very wide range of performance, and none
of it is cheap. But of course, if there's a document feeder
the digitization process can run unattended and it doesn't really
use up any of your time, regardless of the speed.
Most scanners do not specify a scanning speed, and with good reason
... they're very, very slow. The reason for this is that
scanners for personal use are basically optimized for scanning a
small number of photographs at very high quality, as opposed to a
very high volume of documents at fairly low quality. Scanners
which are optimized for the latter are identified by the buzzword
"document scanner" as opposed simply to "scanner". Document
scanners are optimized for 200 dpi black&white scanning, and the
speed specification relates to a 200 dpi b&w
configuration. That's the setting I typically use myself,
except in rare cases of very small print.
Other than the price, the only real drawback of the scanner with ADF
is that there is a very small chance of a paper jam that could
conceivably damage your document. (That was the reason for the
National Archives' rule against ADF.) Having scanned many
thousands of pages using ADFs, I don't believe that's something to
worry about, but it's something you might want to test out by
scanning dummy documents before scanning real documents. A
lesser drawback with a very fast machine (such as my scanner) is
that it scans the pages so fast that there can be a pretty big
variation in the alignment of the pages. :)
The Safest Way
If a scanner with ADF can't be used, a flatbed scanner may be the
next-best option. I call it the "safest way", but I don't
really believe it's any safer than ADF since humans are no more
perfect at handling paper than machines are. The principal
difficulty with a flatbed scanner is, as described in some detail in
the prior section, that they are typically very, very slow.
For example, scanning a single page might take 45 seconds.
Without an ADF, that 45 seconds, times however many pages there are,
comes right out of your lifespan and probably won't be replaced,
The irony is that old scanners which provided a mere 150-600 dpi
rather than the modern photographic thousands of dpi were often much
faster. With my old HP ScanJet 2C that's over ten years old, I
can sustain a throughput of about 10 seconds per scan at 200 dpi
b&w. I used this method for scanning many thousands of
pages at the National Archives.
At any rate, you can figure it out for yourself whether the flatbed
will work for you. Scan a few pages, time it, extrapolate to
see how long it will take to do the entire job, and then decide if
that fits into a reasonable budget.
One thing I haven't tried,
but which may be worth considering is to use a variation of the digital camera
methodology described earlier for fanfold printouts. If
the same method was used, except that a lip or clip or magnets or
some other trick was added to added to allow the copy-stand to hold
a single page at a time, you could probably digitize documents at a
rate of about 10 seconds per page. But as I say, it has never
been tried, that I know of.
Digitized Documents To Us
The size, in bytes, of document scans or photographs is typically
quite large. If you can package your scans in small
chunks—say, 10-20 megabyte zipfiles—you may be able to email them to
me one at a time.
However, as mentioned earlier, a complete set of raw photos from an
AGC program listing is typically over 8 gigabytes, and I don't think
you're too likely to want to email 8 gigabytes in 10-20 megabyte
chunks. Nor do I have an online site to which you could upload
a huge chunk of data like this. So in those cases, I'd
recommend physically mailing me DVDs or USB keys with the data on
them. Inquire by email for a physical shipping address.
Make sure you have backups of any data you send, in case the ones
being shipped are lost in transit! I'd prefer not returning
the DVDs or USB keys to you. If you need shipping expenses or
the cost of DVD-R or USB keys to be defrayed, let me know the total
amount and the method by which you'd like the money sent to you.
Getting Us To Do It
There are two basic possibilities for getting me to do the
digitizing for you, as follows:
- If you ship documents or AGC program
listings to me, I will digitize any that aren't already online,
and then return the originals to you—or to a museum, if you
would prefer. Inquire by email about a physical shipping
address. I can defray the shipping cost, if requested.
- I can come to your location to perform the digitization.
However, I am only willing to do this if the benefit is very
great, and if you are willing for me to use the digitization
methods I've outlined on this web-page. As far as I know,
the only cases in which I
would consider the benefit very great are: you have
previously-unavailable program listings for AGC, AGS, or LVDC;
or, you have a large quantity
(thousands of pages) of previously unavailable documents.
This is not to say that I think small documents aren't valuable,
just that my time, safety, and convenience have value as
well. Besides, if I came to your location it would have to
be something that was scheduled months in advance.
As far as the notion of donating to
a museum is concerned, if you were interested I'm presently
recommending the Research Library of the Wings Over the Rockies
Air & Space Museum in Denver. In general a research
library is probably preferable to a museum as such, since
documents have very little sex appeal when considered as display
items, but may be profitably viewed for research if properly
supervised. The Virtual AGC project has no affiliation
with the museum, but has received very significant help from the
Research Library in the past, and that is the basis for my
recommendation. Obviously, there are many other fine
institutions which deserve consideration as well, if you have
some personal preferences in that regard.
Sadly, an important point to consider about shipping documents,
is that there is a non-zero probability that they will be lost
in transit, even if they are shipped by the safest feasible
means. The most popular methods of shipping in the
U.S.—namely FedEx, UPS, and the USPS—do not publish their
shipping-loss rates. If you google this question, you'll
find any number of meaningless personal rants about lost
packages, demonstrating that one or more of these shippers are
terrible. However, somebody got the bright idea of looking
at the insurance rates being charged, and estimating the loss
rates from the insurance charges. On this basis, one can
conclude that FedEx and UPS are roughly equivalent to each
other, and that either of them is perhaps twice as good as the
USPS. Alarmingly, though, the package-loss rate would
appear to be on the order of 1%. By "on the order of", I
don't mean exactly 1%; perhaps it is 2% or 0.5%. But it is
probably less than 10% and greater than 0.1%. (Figure it
out for yourself: FedEx and UPS charge something like
$0.32 per each $100 of insurance. So they must expect
something like a 0.3% loss.)
Now, when you're shipping a commercial item the loss rate
doesn't really matter, because if you insured the object
properly then in the worst case all you have to do is to order
another one. But when you're shipping a one-of-a-kind
object, you can't just order up a new one. No amount of
insurance can compensate for the loss. So that's something
you'll want to consider if you decide to ship your documents to
And speaking of insurance, how much is reasonable? Well,
recent activity on eBay suggests that a typical Apollo Program
document may be worth about $300, so that's the number I'll
arbitrarily use when shipping items back to you unless
Last modified by Ronald Burkey on