Date: Fri, 21 May 93 05:34:04 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #603 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Fri, 21 May 93 Volume 16 : Issue 603 Today's Topics: About the mercury program Dark sky property rights Draft of SSTO report language Impediments to NASA productivity Ion-photon rockets, what are they? Liberal President murders spaceflight? (was Re: SDIO kaput!) Murder in space Orion Spacecraft (3 msgs) Questions for KC-135 veterans Satellite Capabilities-Patriot Games SDI RIP. So what happens to DC? Space Billboards and Low-Cost Access to Orbit Vandalizing the sky-something is moving (2 msgs) Why Government? Re: Shuttle, "Centoxin" (2 msgs) 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: 20 May 1993 12:25:10 -0400 From: Pat Subject: About the mercury program Newsgroups: sci.space In article <26785@ksr.com> clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones) writes: |In article <1tb0uo$qpe@access.digex.net>, prb@access (Pat) writes: |> |> |>a few questions. |> |> When Glenn flew in Friendship 7, he spotted a large |>cloud of "fireflies". What were they? | |On the next flight, Carpenter was able to reproduce them by banging on the |inside walls of his capsule. I believe they were concluded to be ice |particles. | Where were the ice crystals coming from? Condensed humidity from the air, flash freezing at altitude??? or were there some cryo tanks, soemwhere aft for O2? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 16:27:00 GMT From: Jim Hart Subject: Dark sky property rights Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.econ tilley@leads15.UUCP (Tom Tilley) writes: >So instead of passing a law to regulate the commons, we pass a law >defining a form of "sight-line property" (which is really, by its >nature, a commons regardless of what we want to call it)? No, it's a specific divisible, fungible, tradeable property, in units of artificial or reflected megacandles (physical units of light). Line of site is not involved except in terms of time-of-day, but that to do with other sources of light (eg astronomers more likely to sell megacandles at sunrise, sunset, full moon, etc.) not with defining one individual's right to an entire dark sky, which would be a nonsensical, unenforceable right. Since shares are fungible, an individual share would typically only account for a tiny fraction of the megacandles (see below). So your refusal to sell, or another's decision to sell, would only have a minor impact; the conensus reached by the active astronomers as to the value of night sky vs. the value of, eg new equipment would go farthest towards determining how many megacandles of ad "space" are made available to commerce. And, on the demand side, how much advertisers are willing too pay -- not much, probably, it's a pretty poor medium, I doubt they'll even be able to afford to launch the satellite, much less buy a significant number of megacandles. >["nature lover"], >so I guess I hold an ownership share. Sorry, you can't simply claim a share, we are not talking here about socialist utopian notions like "the common heritage of mankind." You have to demonstrate that you've made an investment in the use of dark sky. I've suggested distributing shares to organizations and individuals in proportion to the amount of money they've invested in ground-based astronomy equipment. That's simple, measurable, and reasonably fair. There may be other good ways to distribute the dark sky, based on measuring the amount invested in using or improving our view of the sky, based on the common-law tradition of right-by-usage. Jim Hart jhart@agora.rain.com ------------------------------ Date: 20 May 1993 12:12:34 -0400 From: Pat Subject: Draft of SSTO report language Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space You can't tell the players without a ScoreCard. ------------------------------ Date: 20 May 1993 11:59:11 -0400 From: Pat Subject: Impediments to NASA productivity Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space In article <1993May20.143321.16393@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov writes: >out of work," are all phrases which come to mind. Every time a change >is proposed, our NASA culture has taught us to shoot holes in it, >inventing reasons why the change will not work. (For numerous Gee, I wonder if mccall@dseg.ti.com is really a sendmail alias for mccall@hq.nasa.gov? Ken proposes in essence implementation of Performance based budgeting systems, wherein, budget requests are tied to previous performance. It's very messy. I like it myself, but it's not as easy as you think. The launch pressure from missing reagans state of the union speech, contributed to the loss of 51-L. What makes you think that a loss of direct budget due to a slipped deadline won't make things worse? But certainly, numerous programs could use PBBS. pat Oh and as for procurement. Low cost is non-sense. Every Bid has purchase criteria, and the experience of the contractor management team, prevvious history on similiar projects, and solution quality are often 2/3rds of the bid selection criteria. I worked for years in a small company, that was turned down for bids, based on these very arbitrary criteria. We ended up going into commercial work, because there was less non-sense on the procurements. award cycles took 30 days, you'd get your checks monthly. pat ------------------------------ Date: 20 May 93 15:21:45 GMT From: Gopinath Kuduvalli Subject: Ion-photon rockets, what are they? Newsgroups: sci.space In the late sixties and early seventies, when space was considered the next frontier to explore, there were a number of ideas of floating around as promising for long distance space travel. One of the concepts heard at that time was called "ion-photon rocket," if I remember right. I think the idea was that ion-photon mehcanism (whatever that is) gave a slow and sustained acceleration that resulted in very high velocity given enough time. Does anybody know anything about the concept? If so, can you describe it in a few words? Or give some references? Cheers, -- Gopi Dr. Gopi Kuduvalli |e-mail: gopinath@mda.ca MacDonald Dettwiler & Associates |Phone: (604) 278 3411 (Office) 13800 Commerce Pkwy | (604) 241 1689 (Home) Richmond, BC V7C 1G4, CANADA |Fax: (604) 278 0531 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 17:34:14 GMT From: Herman Rubin Subject: Liberal President murders spaceflight? (was Re: SDIO kaput!) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1tepf5$4iu@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes: >In article <1tdnpb$jok@skates.gsfc.nasa.gov> xrcjd@resolve.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles J. Divine) writes: >|Carter himself did not seem that protechnology in general. His >|general approach to problems seemed to be puritanical preaching -- >|not let's see what we can do. >Let's not forget, Carter was a nuclear engineer, >and seemed a whole lot more realistic about what could be done >as opposed to reagan who had no idea what the laws of physics were. Carter' knowledge of nuclear engineering corresponds to that of the person who runs a locomotive about what is usually called engineering. He was not antitechnology, but he had the layman's attitude about R&D. -- Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399 Phone: (317)494-6054 hrubin@snap.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet) {purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP) ------------------------------ Date: 20 May 1993 19:04:55 GMT From: "Palmer T. Davis" Subject: Murder in space Newsgroups: sci.space In a previous article, 0004229010@mcimail.com (Steven Fisk) says: > > For example, assuming that the > murderer was the only one left aboard one of the space shuttles, how are > you going to get him/her to land the thing?! I realize that eventually all > of the oxygen, food, water, etc. would be used up, but the murderer might > also decide that going back to earth and facing an arrest not to mention > the electric chair would be just as bad or worse than dying in space. There is, of course, no guarantee that the murderer would indeed receive the death penalty; relatively few murders actually result in such a sentence. A more likely outcome might be the murderer landing or ditching the orbiter in some place with no extradition treaty with the United States (or with an unfriendly government willing to harbor this individual in return for the orbiter). -- Palmer T. Davis ___ UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of \X/ this IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 15:33:32 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: Orion Spacecraft Newsgroups: sci.space In WCHAYWARD@CHEMISTRY.watstar.uwaterloo.ca (Colby Hayward) writes: > This is sort of a crossover from a question I asked on sci.military; >If anyone here has heard of the proposed Orion spacecraft, they may be >wondering the same thing. > Apparently, the Orion has a large "pusher plate" (read: shock >absorber) built into the rear of the vessel. It propels (sp?) itself by >dropping nukes out the back, and detonating them at (relatively) short >range. The shockwave is supposed to propel the ship forward. > WHAT shockwave? Aren't we in near vaccuum, here? :) Expanding plasma from the explosion is all the shockwave you need. These things are exploded *close*. It works the same way any other rocket does, except that it's pulsed and the combustion chamber is 'slightly' more external than most. -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 13:13:03 -0400 From: Kevin William Ryan Subject: Orion Spacecraft Newsgroups: sci.space Sorry about the previous aborted reply - there are days when I _hate_ that editor... WCHAYWARD@CHEMISTRY.watstar.uwaterloo.ca (Colby Hayward) > Apparently, the Orion has a large "pusher plate" (read: shock >absorber) built into the rear of the vessel. It propels (sp?) itself by >dropping nukes out the back, and detonating them at (relatively) short >range. The shockwave is supposed to propel the ship forward. > > WHAT shockwave? Aren't we in near vaccuum, here? :) The idea was to use the shockwave to some extent while lifting off through the atmosphere, and to use parts of the bomb as reaction mass in vaccuum. The following attempt at an ascii graphic might explain: III /===I III==I---\ * ====I III I I (Not to scale) \===I III==I---/ III Bomb Mass Plate Ship The bomb has a wad of reaction mass that will be vaporized and thrown against the pusher plate, thus accelerating the ship. I don't recall what they were considering for reaction mass off hand, unfortunately. This would also have the desirable effect of spreading the impulse over time, reducing the load on the plate and ship. The impact of vaporized metal, water, and whatever would be much better for propulsion than just X-rays, ionized gas, and various nuclear particles whacking the plate. Note that there are to be LARGE shock absorbers between the plate and the ship. As I recall, the estimated Isp for the Orion would be about 2000 for the first models with an upper limit of about 10,000 Isp for ones with optimized design, shaped nuclear charges, etc.. Also in the numbers I read were estimates of 5 million pounds to LEO, 2 million pounds to the Lunar surface (no shock waves to help there). kwr Internet: kevin.ryan@cmu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 16:54:05 GMT From: Leigh Palmer Subject: Orion Spacecraft Newsgroups: sci.space In article Colby Hayward, WCHAYWARD@CHEMISTRY.watstar.uwaterloo.ca writes: > This is sort of a crossover from a question I asked on sci.military; >If anyone here has heard of the proposed Orion spacecraft, they may be >wondering the same thing. > > Apparently, the Orion has a large "pusher plate" (read: shock >absorber) built into the rear of the vessel. It propels (sp?) itself by >dropping nukes out the back, and detonating them at (relatively) short >range. The shockwave is supposed to propel the ship forward. > > WHAT shockwave? Aren't we in near vaccuum, here? :) > > Someone care to explain this to me? "Shockwave" is a poor term for this purpose since it does imply that a medium exists. The bomb itself throws material into the pusher plate. Another contributor mentioned that reaction mass was to be added to the bombs to be used. I guess that's sort of an inverse tamper. I would call it an impedance matching technique. I visited the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum hoping to see the film of the Orion test I had been told* was showing there. The test craft itself is up on the wall, with a minimal graphic explaining the experiment. A curator assured me that they did not have a film of the experiment. Anyone knowing the whereabouts of such a film should try to get the owner to provide a copy to the NASM, and I'd still really like to see it myself. According to the graphic the experiment was performed in 1959, which was the year after I left General Atomic, so now I don't feel so badly about having been left out of the fun. Leigh *in this group ------------------------------ Date: 20 May 1993 12:21:21 -0400 From: Pat Subject: Questions for KC-135 veterans Newsgroups: sci.space If you are really, considered about drive survival, write to tape. I bet that would hold up well. look dor weight balanced torsioners, on the drive path, or maybe 8mm tape. pat ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 93 11:30:48 PDT From: Charlie Prael Subject: Satellite Capabilities-Patriot Games Newsgroups: sci.space dion@netcom.com (Scott Smith) writes: > Live video as shown in Patriot Games most likely is possible. From a > satellite, improbable. Think about a satellite in low earth orbit, which > the US recon satellites supposedly orbit. Think about the period of said > orbit. How many minutes is the scene in Patriot Games last? Do you think > that the satellite could actually maintain pointing on that one spot for > that long without varying the resolution, etc.? Do you think that the > satellite is capable of those kinds of body rates to do this? > > The average period of a low earth orbit is around 90 minutes, with an > average velocity of 17,000 mph (give or take). Think about what kinds > of capability would be required to give live video with that kind of > resolution. I think that Real Time means that the image is collected > at the time that it is taken and not dropped off on some film cartridge > for later retrieval. > > I would guess that a video image like shown in Patriot Games would more > likely come from a blackbird or similar airplane, not from space. > -- > Scott Smith > dion@netcom.com Scott-- You're ignoring several things that make live 30fps video realitstic. Those things are the military communications satellite array that is normally used for transmitting data. The TDRS series, for instance, provide high data-rate transmission capabilities to both NASA and the USAF. There's LOT of ways to get 30fps video down in realtime. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Charlie Prael - dante@shakala.com Shakala BBS (ClanZen Radio Network) Sunnyvale, CA +1-408-734-2289 ------------------------------ Date: 20 May 1993 18:59:13 GMT From: "Palmer T. Davis" Subject: SDI RIP. So what happens to DC? Newsgroups: sci.space With space-based SDI now a thing of the past (or, more accurately, of the past's future :-) ), what is going to happen to programs like Delta Clipper and Clementine? Does the new Ballistic Missile Defense Organization have any sort of mandate to keep these programs going? Might they be picked up by some other agency, like NASA or the Air Force? Or will they go the way of the X-20 and the MOL? -- PTD -- -- Palmer T. Davis ___ UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of \X/ this IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED. ------------------------------ Date: 20 May 93 14:42:19 From: Brian Yamauchi Subject: Space Billboards and Low-Cost Access to Orbit Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space In article <11922@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sheaf@donald.phyast.pitt.edu (Sheaf) writes: >I think "visiting LEO" would be still be wishful thinking in 100 years, >let alone 10-20... especially if the only technology we're >talking about developing here is how to put stuff in orbit more cheaply. If you reduce the cost of orbit to a sufficiently low level, it becomes economical to launch passengers into orbit... >A commercial launching venture is not going to put money into R&D for >spacetravel, No, but they can provide a potential market for launch vehicles using new technology, like the Delta Clipper. >which still has major, possibly insurmountable technological >barriers. What "insurmountable technological barriers"? MDAC's SSTO group doesn't seem to see any. DC-X flies in less than a month... -- _______________________________________________________________________________ Brian Yamauchi Case Western Reserve University yamauchi@alpha.ces.cwru.edu Department of Computer Engineering and Science _______________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 14:40:44 GMT From: Jim Hart Subject: Vandalizing the sky-something is moving Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space >from What's new 14 May 1993, in sci.physics: >>[space as "common heritage"...] >>and Alice Harding, chair of the APS Division of >>Astrophysics, points out that it would also set a dangerous >>precedent for the unregulated commercialism of outer space. Astronomers have all sorts of legitimate objections they can raise against the adsat, and instead they bring up the dreaded prospect of voluntary commerce in space? Astronomy vs. capitalism, gosh I wonder who will win. Hey, we astronomers have a wonderful solution to this problem, listen up. We'll put 99.9999....% of the universe under the control of all-knowing central planning bureaucrats. Perhaps one of Us will even get a seat on the Council, seeing as how we know so much about space! Not to be picking on astronomers or APS; alas this kind of view is endemic in the world of science. BTW, astronomers might find that making space a "common heritage" won't leave much room left for their uncommon practice. If astronomers don't claim their legitimate *ownership* of the view of space, instead of this fuzzy-minded crap where nobody knows who controls what, astronomers may eventually *lose* their rights without compensation. Astronomers have already lost much with the light pollution around big cities, and with all their loud complaining doing little to stave off the trend. Unless they start defining *specifically* what they have a right to, turning it into enforceable, tradeable property rights, they will be at the mercy of politicians who care more about their reelection than they do about astronomy. And you know, some voters out here, like a majority, think that there is *too much* regulation on business, in space or down here. Astronomers, gaze back down at earth for a bit to reflect on your goal in this fight: is your purpose to maintain your right to study the stars, or is it to impose a political regime for space? If it's the latter, be prepared to set down your telescope, you'll need to learn other tools, to take up other occupations to fight that fight. If it's to maintain your right to gaze at the stars, start dealing with the problem in terms of the free market and property rights, not by sniping against the alleged evils of commerce, not in terms of the socialist utopian nonsense like "common heritage" which most of us would like to leave on the scrapheap of history. Jim Hart jhart@agora.rain.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 16:39:29 GMT From: "George F. Krumins" Subject: Vandalizing the sky-something is moving Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space jhart@agora.rain.com (Jim Hart) writes: (stuff deleted) >Astronomers, gaze back down at earth... (stuff deleted) "...Oh my God, it's full of stars..." -- "While we sleep, they go to work If one can grasp it... We're legally crippled, Up the hill backwards, It's the death of love, It's no game..." It'got nothing do with you, -- David Bowie, from _Scary Monsters_ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 15:13:27 GMT From: Jim Hart Subject: Why Government? Re: Shuttle, "Centoxin" Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space khayash@hsc.usc.edu (Ken Hayashida) writes: >As a minority person who is critical of >shuttle, you must accept the majority's view that it is a worthwhile >program worthy of continued funding. There sad irony in you saying this about minorities, given what we did in WWII, but sticking to the main issue here I'll point out that most people don't give a flying f*ck one way or another about the Shuttle, it crosses their minds about an order of magnitude less often than, for example, their local basketball team. The main priority with the vast majority is cutting the deficit. If Clinton cancelled the Shuttle tommorrow as a highly visible way to help cut the deficit, he'd probably get majority support, and help give him an image he badly wants, as somebody who cares about cutting the deficit not just raising taxes. In fact, cutting the Shuttle would go much farther in terms of that image than cutting just about any other comparably sized government program, *because* it is such a visible program. I can't believe after what's happened to the incredibly shrinking space station, and all these other budget-bloated failures over the last decade there are people who still place confidence in the ability of government pork to make their dreams come true. It's also difficult to fathom, but here we have people who think their own strongly held beleifs are automatically held by the majority, and if not by golly they *should* be, and furthermore should be imposed on the minority, who are obviously wrong since they're not the majority. Wake up you people, get a sniff of reality! The majority does agree just because you wish something, the government does not necessarily do what the majority wants, and things don't get done just because the government wants or tries to do them! Outside the walls of Washington D.C. and Johnson Space Center there is a real world out here, and we're actually getting some things done, even if (or more likely because of) it has nothing to do with what you want us all to do, or what the majority wants us to do, or what the politicians think is best for us. >You should also not criticize the Food and Drug Administration for electing >to perform high levels of testing before allowing the wide spread use >of centoxin. Do you know what thalidomide is? Do you know that (a) FDA would approve thalidomide for use today, just as it has a number of other important drugs that should not be used by pregnant women, and (b) would not have approved penicillin or aspirin, which are too dangerous by modern drug testing standards. The FDA has kept drugs off the market what would have saved millions, but in doing so has saved few. Stop mouthing off about how ignorant you think other people are and start learning some things for yourself. Jim Hart jhart@agora.rain.com ------------------------------ Date: 20 May 1993 11:09:32 -0700 From: Ken Hayashida Subject: Why Government? Re: Shuttle, "Centoxin" Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space jhart@agora.rain.com (Jim Hart) writes: Generally about how shuttle program should be ended due to Budget Deficit issues. >I can't believe after what's happened to the incredibly shrinking >space station, and all these other budget-bloated failures over the >last decade there are people who still place confidence in the >ability of government pork to make their dreams come true. It's >also difficult to fathom, but here we have people who think their own >strongly held beleifs are automatically held by the majority, and >if not by golly they *should* be, and furthermore should be imposed >on the minority, who are obviously wrong since they're not the majority. >Wake up you people, get a sniff of reality! The majority does agree >just because you wish something, the government does not necessarily do >what the majority wants, and things don't get done just because the >government wants or tries to do them! Outside the walls of Washington >D.C. and Johnson Space Center there is a real world out here, and we're >actually getting some things done, even if (or more likely because >of) it has nothing to do with what you want us all to do, or what >the majority wants us to do, or what the politicians think is best >for us. Jim, do you want tens of thousands of people on welfare? You and other liberal democrats want to cut defense spending, kill our nation's greatest assets in science and technology, put hundreds of thousands of skilled engineers + blue collar guys on the assembly lines out of work, and then tax us more. Get a damn clue. I am so sick and tired of this blantly false rhetoric about how bad the shuttle program is. It is rather infuriating that people on this network could be so insensitive as to kill major sources of income to huge communities across this nation. Jim and other shuttle critics, after you've killed space station, space shuttle, and NASA in general...what are you proposing to replace it with? You can't supply the capital necessary to fund ANY program to replace NASA. I am not interested in seeing my dad out of work, my friends on welfare, and my community destroyed by people who would wield a budgetary ax without understanding where they are chopping! You fit this category. Think about the tens of thousands who are dependent on a vigorous space program for their very existance. How do you make money? You would not like it if I proposed to kill your job and your parents living and your friend's hopes for tommorrow. >Do you know that (a) FDA would approve thalidomide for use today, >just as it has a number of other important drugs that should not >be used by pregnant women, and (b) would not have approved penicillin >or aspirin, which are too dangerous by modern drug testing standards. >The FDA has kept drugs off the market what would have saved millions, >but in doing so has saved few. Stop mouthing off about how ignorant >you think other people are and start learning some things for yourself. Jim, are you a doctor? Are you a pharmacist? If you are, then I'll allow you opinion to stand. However, I am a doctor. I know thalidomide, I know penicillin and I've prescribed it. Don't tell me the FDA is turning down drugs that "would have saved millions" Before you make an statement as this, you should cite an example, give the literature reference and then post regarding your view with cited examples. Until you do, do attempt to confuse sci.space readers with this gibberish! CHALLENGE: which drugs would have saved millions and were prevented from use in the US by the FDA? I want to know so I can learn from you. Tell me. ------------------------------ Newsgroups: sci.space From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: Re: Down in flames Message-Id: <1993May20.151337.811@mksol.dseg.ti.com> Organization: Texas Instruments Inc References: Distribution: sci Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 15:13:37 GMT Lines: 38 Sender: news@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU Source-Info: Sender is really isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU In 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) writes: >>>Fred responds: >>>>Hey, a gadget designed to make you barf and it's named PAT. Now, >>>>that's so nigh-on to a perfect straight line that I can't pass up >>>>comment. ;-) >>>This from the same guy that interprets anyone's jokes as 'flame-bait'. >>>Control your emotions, Fred. >>My emotions are fine, Tommy, but you seem to be having trouble with >>yours... >Not really. I feel no compulsion to flame or insult people for little or >no reason, ad infinitum. Funny, but neither do I. Of course, I'm not the one who initiated several long threads of snotty mail and is now back to sniping in public now that his mail is no longer being accepted, am I? That guy is named Tommy Mac. >>[Once again, someone who calls sniping at me 'jokes' and my doing the >>same thing back 'flames'. Shove it, Tommy.] >I didn't call anything 'jokes'. You did, when you make comments like the >above, but then you get all bent if someone does the same towards you. >Wintess your referral to what they thought was joking as 'sniping'. Why >the double standard? There isn't one. Why yours? And have you figured out why I asked you the "are you still beating your girlfriend" question yet? -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me. ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 603 ------------------------------