Date: Thu, 4 Mar 93 05:35:27 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #265 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Thu, 4 Mar 93 Volume 16 : Issue 265 Today's Topics: Aurora (rumors) (2 msgs) Book Computers/AI in Shuttle-SSF David Sternlight and wasted bandwidth hardware on the moon History repeating? Re: Scientists Foresee Strengthening El Nino Event How to power the LEO-moon space bus International Rarefied Gas Dynamics Symposium military aircraft New name for Fred (Fed?): Results, SS Courage (F-Troop). Orientation of the shuttle in orbit Reliable Source says Freedom Dead, Freedom II to be developed Shuttle operational reliability software engineering vs. civil engineering (wasRe: Nobody cares about Fred?) Spaceflight for under $1,000? Space Scientist Spy Sats (2 msgs) SSF Resupply (Was Re: Nobody cares about Fred?) Where is MOLAB? (was Re: Why Apollo didn't continue?) Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Mar 93 12:55:03 GMT From: Dean Adams Subject: Aurora (rumors) Newsgroups: sci.space PHARABOD@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR writes: >> Aurora could very likely incorporate stealth characteristics. >Maybe, but it seems difficult to make hypersonic planes really stealth. Maybe... but I didn't say it would be "all-aspect" stealth, just that it would likely incorporate some stealth characteristics. Considering the kind of operational speeds and altitudes this aircraft would likely utilize, it would probably not take much to make it hard to detect. >> That is still no reason to go blaming every strange "explosion" on Aurora. >The Dutch scientists said it was an unknown supersonic plane. You say >it was not Aurora. Maybe the Russians ? I didn't say it was definitely "not Aurora", just that there was no reason to start hanging every boom on its doorstep... >"The several-second sighting gave the crew the impression that the > other aircraft was a lifting-body configuration, and they described > it as looking like the forward fuselage of a Lockheed SR-71 - > without wings but with a tail of sorts. >Yes, this does not look like the "classical" description of Aurora. There are MANY "Aurora" descriptions. About three different vehicles worth. That one has been speculated as being some sort of a drone carrier... >Too small, in particular. This is one of the reasons why I find >these August 24 AW&ST articles not very serious. WHAT makes it "not serious"? >Suppose Aurora wants to spy on some installation deep inside a big >country. Suppose it flies over the border at 30,000 ft up. DON'T suppose. If Aurora ever flew over any such "borders", then it would be up at least 100,000 feet... >But maybe Aurora has been designed to spy on little countries like >Panama... With the large U.S. base in that country, they could just use something like a Cessna to do all the spying they wanted... ------------------------------ Date: 2 Mar 93 12:33:02 GMT From: Dean Adams Subject: Aurora (rumors) Newsgroups: sci.space pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron) writes: >But the SR-71 is a "hype"rsonic aircraft. The Blackbird flies at Mach 3-3.5, and "hypersonic" starts at Mach 5. >By flying at FL 850, the intended never heard a pop, nevermind a boom. Right. >I would be sorely disappointed to learn the the Aurora was anything >less than 100,000 ft (32000 m) and Mach 3.5. Make that Mach 6. >Not that we will learn any of that this century :-) We'll see...(or not). >The booms LA hears, assuming they come from the Aurora, are due to a >Mach 1 aircraft coming home at about 25,000 ft. Probably a little higher and faster than that. >Consider how many approach options there are. Apparently there must not always be that many options, otherwise they would never have been bringing in in over L.A. so often. >I'll bet we don't hear many more. Why? Not even the USGS reports stopped them before. >Finally, SSR is just not an effective surveillence tool. Well, DoD/NRO/CIA/etc. do not agree with you, since radar imaging has been a significant part of reconnaissance systems for decades. There is a LONG list of aircraft which carry "SSR" type equipment, and there are currently TWO Lacrosse radar imaging satellites in orbit which cost Billions of dollars to develop and launch. Somebody must think it is "effective". :-> >I might use it to look for the "Lost City of Zur", but >not for the "Lost Scuds of Saddam". Once again that is not the case. Perhaps the #1 system that DoD wants to use for that very role is the new E-8 J-STARS, which stands for Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar. These aircraft carry SAR and Doppler radar systems for locating mobile ground targets such as Scud missile launchers... ------------------------------ Date: 2 Mar 93 08:06:32 GMT From: George William Herbert Subject: Book Computers/AI in Shuttle-SSF Newsgroups: sci.space In article jpc@avdms8.msfc.nasa.gov (J. Porter Clark) writes: >I don't think the EMU's have IR or anything really advanced in the way >of comm equipment. They were using UHF radios dating back to the >Apollo program last time I looked; they worked somewhere around 250 >MHz. There is a new comm system being developed for the Shuttle and >SSF, but it too is UHF (TDMA, though!) somewhere between 410-420 MHz. >This would be used in the EMU's. These are the same 4.5 kilo radios? Argh. We tried to figure out where the mass and energy consumption was going in those boxes (given black-box characteristics but not the insides, we didn't have _complete_ EMU plans). Someone finally guessed "Heaters for the Tubes". We think that they were right 8-( -george ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1993 10:28:29 GMT From: Ove Hellvik Subject: David Sternlight and wasted bandwidth Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk,sci.space,sci.astro In article <2133@frackit.UUCP> dave@frackit.UUCP (Dave Ratcliffe) writes: >From: dave@frackit.UUCP (Dave Ratcliffe) >Subject: Re: David Sternlight and wasted bandwidth >Date: 19 Feb 93 23:47:15 GMT >In article <1993Feb14.201213.1780@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes: >> mandel@netcom.com (Tom Mandel) writes: >> > worthless. I may disagree with Sternlight's views, but views that >> > hide behind the veil of anon are hardly worth the trouble of >> > reading. >> >> then don't read them. i'm sure you know how to use a killfile or can >> figure it out if you give it a try. it's relatively simple to kill >> all posts from *@anon.penit.fi. > >The problem with this solution is simple. YOU say use a kill file to >avoid this post. Others say use a kill file to avoid THAT post. The kill >file, while it has it's place, is NOT the solution to all the complaints >on the net. It is the net equivalent of hiding your head in the sand or >turning the other way and letting things continue on, unchecked. > >The checks and balances that keep what control we ALL have over the net >in place would soon fail if every little thing that bugged someone was >relegated to a kill file and nothing more. Anonymous postings have their >place in some groups (do I need to tell you which ones?) but the problem >showing up now is that they are being used to avoid accountability for >outrageous (to some) postings. > >Use a kill file, let it all continue unchecked and the problem WILL get >worse. We need to deal with it now, not stick our collective heads in >the sand. > >-- > vogon1!compnect!frackit!dave@psuvax1.psu.edu | Dave Ratcliffe | > - or - ..uunet!wa3wbu!frackit!dave | Sys. <*> Admin. | > | Harrisburg, Pa. | ---------------------------- Standard disclaimer applies ---------------------------- Ove Hellvik, Principal Scientist, SHAPE Technical Centre, Architecture and Planning Branch, Communications Division, Email: hellvik@stc.nato.int ---------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 1 Mar 93 14:55:43 GMT From: AJ Madison Subject: hardware on the moon Newsgroups: sci.space In article , henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > In article keithley@apple.com (Craig Keithley) writes: > >I vaguely recollect that one of the seismometer experiments was to measure > >the impact of a (several?) lunar ascent module (after the mascons finally > >perturbed the orbit enough for it 'fall' out of orbit). Something to do > >with measuring the elasticity of the lunar surface after being hit with an > >object of a known mass. Much like ringing a very large bell. (Do you know > >anything about this Henry?) > > You can do seismic studies using either "passive" techniques (just listen; > pretty boring on the Moon, since it has very little geological activity) > or "active" techniques (hit it with something and listen for the echos, > so to speak). Starting with Apollo 12 they crashed the LM ascent stages > deliberately, soon after the astronauts departed, to give the seismometers > a thump of a known size to listen for. Starting (I think) with Apollo 13, > they also crashed the Saturn V third stages for even bigger thumps. And from what I can remember, the data collected from those studies were pretty strange. Ringing bell pretty much sums up the interpretation of the data. Unlike the earth, the moon would ring from the impact for a considerable time. The (simplest) model suggested at the time for this geophysical behavior was a hollow moon with a 1 mile thick outer shell made up of titanium. (Yes that's right folks, it was built by Elvis worshipping aliens as an outpost/base to keep an eye on the humans). I presume that geological/geophysical interpretation has improved over the years. Anyone have a more recent interpretation of the data? Another tidbit I recall was that occasionally the moon would just vibrate for awhile then stop. Considering how conductive the moon is, I figured this to be lunar landslides, or very small impacts. -- A.J. Madison PHONE: (703) 342-6700 X383 FiberCom, Inc. FAX: (703) 342-5961 P.O. Box 11966 INTERNET: ajm@fibercom.com Roanoke, VA 24022-1966 UUCP: ...!uunet!fibercom!ajm ------------------------------ Date: 1 Mar 93 18:52:48 GMT From: Scott Lindstrom Subject: History repeating? Re: Scientists Foresee Strengthening El Nino Event Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.geo.meteorology In article <26FEB199322103365@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov>, baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) $> $>SCIENTISTS FORESEE STRENGTHENING EL NINO EVENT $> [interesting press release deleted] I recall reading somewhere that after the El Nino event in the late '70s, the ocean never reverted back to it's `cold' phase until after the behemoth of '82-'83. Now we have a re-invigoration of warm conditions in the mid-Pacific right on the heels of an El Nino that looked like it was dying last November. My question, to those who know more about this than I do: Is this the same thing as what happened after the El Nino in the late 70s? Scott -- The only other sound's the sweep of easy wind and downy flake shipman@zippy.gso.uri.edu 4017926516 URI GSO NBC Narragansett RI 02882 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1993 06:41:30 GMT From: Frank Crary Subject: How to power the LEO-moon space bus Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Mar02.033436.10439@news.mentorg.com> drickel@bounce.mentorg.com (Dave Rickel) writes: >Further support: my CRC gives 300 ppm (or grams/ton) Fluorine, 65 ppm Lithium >in the earth's crust. That should give some indication of how common they'd >be on the moon. Not really: The composition of the Earth and Moon is quite different (which leads to interesting questions about how the Moon formed...) At a guess, I'd expect both lithium and fluorine to be to be more common on the moon than on the Earth... But perhaps a goephysicist could answer that better: If fluoine or lithium baring minerals are below that average density of terrestrial rocks, they would probably be more common on the Moon... Frank Crary CU Boulder ------------------------------ Date: 2 Mar 93 10:10:24 GMT From: "Mr T.L. Parsons" Subject: International Rarefied Gas Dynamics Symposium Newsgroups: sci.space ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 19th INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON RAREFIED GAS DYNAMICS University of Oxford Oxford, England July, 25-29 1994 FIRST ANNOUNCEMENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ANNOUNCEMENT: ------------ The International Rarefied Gas Dynamics Symposium is recognised as the principal forum for the presentation of recent advances in the field of Rarefied Gas Dynamics. It is an inter-disciplinary conference of interest to physicist, engineers, chemists and mathematicians and it encompasses the areas of kinetic theory, transport processes and non-equilibrium phenomena in gases. The next International Rarefied Gas Dynamics Symposium (RGD19) will be held next year in Oxford, England, from July 25 to July 29, 1994. Oxford provides an ideal venue for the meeting. Besides being a beautiful city in its own right and the home of one of the world's oldest Universities, it makes a perfect centre for excursions to such places of interest as Blenheim Palace (birthplace of Winston Churchill), Stratford on Avon, Stonehenge, the Cotswolds and, of course, London. Inexpensive accommodation in the Colleges of Oxford University will be available for participants. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- TOPICS: ------ The 19th RGD Symposium will include technical sessions on the following topics: A Kinetic Theory and Transport Theory B Numerical Methods including Direct Simulation Monte-Carlo C Gas-surface phenomena D Gas Beams E Clusters, Aerosols and RGD aspects of Condensation and Evaporation F External Flows including Space Vehicles and Vacuum Technology. G Jets and Plumes H Internal Flows I Collision Dynamics J Relaxation Processes, Reaction Rates and Shocks. K RGD in Space Engineering. L RGD aspects of Ionized Gas Flows M Plasma Processing of Materials and Electron Impact. N Experimental Techniques and Instrumentation for RGD. Papers presented at the meeting will be refereed and published in bound Proceedings. The Second Announcement will be a call for the submission of abstracts. These should be up to three pages in length and they are to be received no later than December 12th, 1993. Further information concerning the invited speakers, registration, accommodation, travel and the social programme will be included in the Second Announcement. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Symposium Co-Chairmen: --------------------- Professor John Harvey, Department of Aeronautics, Imperial College of Science, Technology, and Medecine, London, U.K. Dr Gordon Lord, Department of Engineering Science, Oxford University, Oxford, U.K. *************************************************************************** In order to receive the Second Announcement, please complete and return the attached sheet as soon as possible to the address given below: *************************************************************************** 19th INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON RAREFIED GAS DYNAMICS University of Oxford Oxford, England July, 25-29 1994 REPLY FORM ----------- I am interested in receiving further information on the 1994 RGD Symposium. Name .................... Affiliation .................... Address .................... .................... .................... .................... E-mail ............. Telephone ............. Fax ............. Please indicate your research area(s) using letters A-N (see announcement) ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... I am definitely/possibly/not* planning to attend RGD19 I will definitely/possibly/not* be presenting a paper I am/am not* interested in the accompanying person's programme. ( * Delete as appropriate ) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you know of another person who would be interested in receiving information about the Symposium, could you kindly take the time to complete the following: Name .................... Affiliation .................... Address .................... .................... .................... .................... Please return this form to: Professor J K Harvey, Department of Aeronautics, Imperial College of Science, Technology, and Medecine, London, SW7 2BY, U.K. E-mail: rgd19@ae.ic.ac.uk FAX: (44) 71 584 8120 PHONE: (44) 71 589 5111 ext 4011 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Mar 93 12:53:46 GMT From: Dean Adams Subject: military aircraft Newsgroups: sci.space merle@a.cs.okstate.edu (MERLE CHRISTOPHER) writes: >Historical Tidbit: The first plane to receive the designation A-12 was >the precursor to the SR-71. the A-12 was operated by the CIA. >As for rumoured replacement. The SR-71, the A-12, the F117A were secret for >many years before they went public. So it is reasonable to assume that >the USA has a replacement. Yup... all quite correct (up until that point :) >After all the original designs for the SR-71 dated from the late 40's. Nope. Kelly Johnson and his Skunk Works crew began working on designs for a Mach 3 follow on aircraft to the U-2 in April 1958. The CIA approved the final design and gave Lockheed a contract to produce the first A-12s on January 30, 1960. The first flight was on April 26, 1962... ------------------------------ Date: 2 Mar 1993 01:32:09 -0500 From: Pat Subject: New name for Fred (Fed?): Results, SS Courage (F-Troop). Newsgroups: sci.space How about Fort Apache : The Orbit. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Mar 93 13:48:49 GMT From: Dick Edgar Subject: Orientation of the shuttle in orbit Newsgroups: sci.space In article jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins) writes: >robijn@rulcvx.LeidenUniv.nl (Frank Robijn) writes: > >> Recently I tested a computer program that showed a space shuttle in a >>circular orbit around the earth. The shuttle was oriented in such a way that >>its nose pointed in the same direction as its velocity, just like a plane. >>Someone then remarked that this is wrong: according to him the shuttle has a >>fixed orientation with respect to the stars, not the earth. I'm not sure >>whether that is really the case. Anyone who can help me out? > >I can't say that he's always wrong, but he usually is. The shuttle flies at >different attitudes for different missions. It often flys with the payload bay >pointed at Earth so that astronauts and payloads can look down. Sometimes, >as with the TSS mission, it flies with the cargo bay pointed up. I believe it >also uses a gravitational gradient mode, with the tail pointed at Earth on >occasion. This is useful when you don't want to use the thrusters since it's >a naturally stable position. The shuttle does fly fixed with respect to the >stars when it's trying to observe them, such as during an astronomy mission. >However, I'm not aware of any other reason why it would do so. > Other reasons include thermal ones. Under normal circumstances, the shuttle folks like to fly bay-to-earth, sometimes nose forward, sometimes wing forward. During the last couple hours prior to re-entry, however, they go into a "cold soak" attitude, -XSI (minus X axis [i.e. tail] Solar Inertial); this is the coldest attitude they can think of. If something needs warming quickly, they will use a -ZSI attitude, bay to sun. These inertial attitudes are fixed relative to the stars (or sun, which is nearly the same thing). For example, during the STS-54 mission in January, the orbit nights were used for the Diffuse X-ray Spectrometer, an x-ray astronomy payload, and so were in an inertial attitude pointed at deep space. However, the IUS/ASE (Inertial Upper Stage/Airborne Support Equipment), the cradle that was used to launch the TDRS satellite on the first day, is rather sensitive to cold. So when the crew were awake, they maneuvered to a -ZSI attitude in orbit day, and back to the DXS inertial attitude for orbit night. --------- Richard J. Edgar (edgar@wisp4.physics.wisc.edu) University of Wisconsin--Madison, Department of Physics Project Scientist, Diffuse X-ray Spectrometer (DXS) on STS-54 "It all depends, of course, upon whether or not it depends or not, of course, if you take my meaning" ------------------------------ Date: 2 Mar 93 07:49:34 GMT From: George William Herbert Subject: Reliable Source says Freedom Dead, Freedom II to be developed Newsgroups: sci.space I was told by MacDac employees months ago that there were serious problems with WP2. They indicated that their management and NASA management refused to accept them because they couldn't afford to fix them at the time. [Serious == among other things "the solar panels will FALL OFF"] This is not a minor problem. It's an institutional disaster. THIS is why killing the Freedom project dead may not be a bad idea. -george william herbert Retro Aerospace gwh@retro.com gwh@soda.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: 2 Mar 93 08:09:50 GMT From: George William Herbert Subject: Shuttle operational reliability Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1mtmokINN4ia@access.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: >Also, We do need to work on better faster cheaper launchers in the >expendable category. Some of us are trying to actually do this. Wish us luck. -george ------------------------------ Date: 2 Mar 93 14:45:44 GMT From: Jim Kissel Subject: software engineering vs. civil engineering (wasRe: Nobody cares about Fred?) Newsgroups: sci.space mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: : In <1993Feb23.175002.14263@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com> c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos) writes: : : Great quote; pity you didn't try for something just a touch more : *accurate*. : "Software Engineering is at about the same state as Civil Engineering was before the discovery of the right angle." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Kissel Telephone +44 344 863 222 Siemens Nixdorf Information Systems 344 850 461 (Direct line) Systems Development Group Fax +44 344 850 452 Nixdorf House Domain jlk@sni.co.uk Oldbury, Bracknell, Berkshire UUCP ....{ukc,athen}!sni!jlk RG12 4FZ Great Britain Noli illegitimi carborundum! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 2 Mar 93 08:01:20 GMT From: George William Herbert Subject: Spaceflight for under $1,000? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Mar1.150242.19839@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes: >It's also worth noting that AMSAT found out that some shielding is worse >than no shielding at all. >[...] Yes, however, there's this inconvenient problem that normal packaging (vehicle structure, systems, unit packaging (nice metal cases etc...) often is enough to go past this limit. Adding more to reduce the secondaries isn't so hard. Neither is it painless, though. You don't get light little computers. -george ------------------------------ Date: 2 Mar 93 06:53:35 GMT From: David Lai Subject: Space Scientist Newsgroups: sci.space Hi there, I'm interested in becoming a space scientist, like those who work for NASA. I want to know what qualifications I need. Do those scientists who work for NASA are all Ph.D.s? Is there any recommendations for what degrees to get? Thanks! Regards, David. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1993 21:42:25 GMT From: Dennis Newkirk Subject: Spy Sats Newsgroups: sci.space In article flb@flb.optiplan.fi ("F.Baube x554") writes: >Dean Adams >> The space based ELINT systems [..]can deploy LARGE antenna arrays > >how large is LARGE ? Several years ago Aviation Week ran a photo of a prototype wire mesh dish antenna section which deployed (unwound) like a watch spring. I think it was designed for antennas about 100 feet in diameter. Dennis Newkirk (dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com) Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector Schaumburg, IL ------------------------------ Date: 2 Mar 93 12:31:32 GMT From: Dean Adams Subject: Spy Sats Newsgroups: sci.space flb@flb.optiplan.fi (F.Baube) writes >>deploy LARGE antenna arrays and ferret out all kinds of interesting signals. >how large is LARGE ? Well, Rhyolite was the first major series of GEO heavy ELINT satellites, and it was supposed to have a 70 foot dish antenna which unfurled upon reaching orbit. The Argus satellite design would have utilized a dish around twice that size. The Aquacade/Chalet series used a dual dish configuration, somewhere around 100 feet across. Magnum birds could be even larger... ------------------------------ Date: 2 Mar 93 07:54:41 GMT From: George William Herbert Subject: SSF Resupply (Was Re: Nobody cares about Fred?) Newsgroups: sci.space In article steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes: >Here I disagree. NASA is not FedEx-in-space, it is a development >and research agency. It's purpose is more than delivering gross >weight to orbit. This is also why I think the high-end numbers >for STS cost per pound to LEO are nonsense, they amortise all >of NASA's (space) operations to orbit delivery when a lot of the >R&D is going to take place independent of missions actually flown, That's not the point. The PURE OPERATIONS cost of shuttle is half of NASAs budget. That is not research, tech development or science related, that's the cost that shuttle just by itself incurrs. Treating that section of the budget independently from R&D etc. is a perfectly reasonable way of doing things. Of course you can't lump flight costs in with Venus mapping in determining LEO launch costs, but all the LEO operations costs MUST be included. -george william herbert Retro Aerospace gwh@retro.com gwh@soda.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: 2 Mar 93 04:34:15 GMT From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey Subject: Where is MOLAB? (was Re: Why Apollo didn't continue?) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Mar1.232521.3564@ee.ubc.ca>, davem@ee.ubc.ca (Dave Michelson) writes: > Perhaps someone should get such a book written > ("The Dream That Died: The Apollo and Post-Apollo Missions That Never Flew") > while the people that know the story are still around to tell it. Good idea... > > Trivia Question: Where is the Grumman MOLAB prototype currently located? Um, Alabama Space and Rocket Center? (I still have a snapshot of my friend Hugh Daniel's legs sticking out of the bell of Huntsville's NERVA engine... "don't try this at home, boys and girls!") -- O~~* /_) ' / / /_/ ' , , ' ,_ _ \|/ - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / / / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap! / \ (_) (_) / | \ | | Bill Higgins Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory \ / Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET - - Internet: HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV ~ SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 265 ------------------------------