Date: Sun, 6 Jun 93 05:10:21 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #689 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Sun, 6 Jun 93 Volume 16 : Issue 689 Today's Topics: 1992 NASA Authorization Budget- shuttle Calling all chemical engineers (etc.) Dr. Paine- Budgeting for space & why (part 3) Dr. Thomas Paine on space policy Part 1 manifest destiny = US getting uppity again (2 msgs) Outline of STS Systems (A response to Fraering's misstatement) Tom Paine- Why Space (Part 2) Why are SSTO up-front costs rising? (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: 5 Jun 93 16:36:40 From: Steinn Sigurdsson Subject: 1992 NASA Authorization Budget- shuttle Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1uq6cmINNj66@phantom.gatech.edu> matthew@phantom.gatech.edu (Matthew DeLuca) writes: In article <1uq4k5$3tt@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes: >And as for abandoning a jobs sector >to another country, what distinguishes Aero-space from Automotives >or Energy Production or Textiles. or Memory or PC board production. Nothing at all distinguishes them. Notice how we regret loss of leadership in these fields? It shows up in our annual trade deficit. I'd like to keep that from happening again in yet another field. Might I beg to differ here a little and note that aerospace differs from most of the other fields in one small respect: that is the country that excels in aerospace can take the other fields back on a short time scale. You can kill people, directly, with aerospace, and do it fast enough that them embargoing your DRAMs is irrelevant. There honestly is more to this then business and employment. | Steinn Sigurdsson |I saw two shooting stars last night | | Lick Observatory |I wished on them but they were only satellites | | steinly@lick.ucsc.edu |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware? | | "standard disclaimer" |I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983 | ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jun 1993 16:45:07 -0700 From: Nick Szabo Subject: Calling all chemical engineers (etc.) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary I'm trying to contact folks who have an interest in cooking up scenarios for space industrialization or colonization, and a reasonably strong background in one or more of the following, or a good general knowledge of most of the following: chemical engineering organic chemistry materials science planetary science (esp. spectroscopy & chemistry, comets) biotechnology (esp. agricultural, waste processing, metabolic engineering) I'm looking to start a special-topic list on comet materials processing, especially in terms of the processing steps needed to create a wide variety of end products. If you or someone you know meets these criteria, I'd love to here from you. Nick Szabo szabo@techbook.com -- Nick Szabo szabo@techboook.com ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jun 1993 18:14:13 -0700 From: Ken Hayashida Subject: Dr. Paine- Budgeting for space & why (part 3) Newsgroups: sci.space In this last of 3 posts, Dr. Paine's views on budgeting and why we go to space are made clear. _______________ " The meeting that was held in Mark Albrecht's Space Council about last November was for me a remarkable eent. Jack Kerrebrock and I were there and toward the end, the Director of the Budget, Richard Darman, met with us and gave us the following statement which I thought was remarkable. I've had a lot of interaction with OMB Directors and I regard them as the natural enemy of NASA types, and it was very interesting to hear him give us a very broad philosophical comment. He said, as we look at the planning for the Bush Administration's Space Program and the mark that they would like to leave in their tenure in office, that we should think very broadly indeed about what should be done by the United States in concert with other nations in space, without restricting ourselves-- at least in the initial period, to problems of the budget. He said that all of the money that we could possibly imagine how to spend in space was actually available in our wealthy nation. We have, of course, a five trillion dollar gross national product which is exponentially growing. We have a federal budget in the trillion and a quarter area, a budget which is undergoing great changes, and he pointed out that really our problem in deciding what to do in space will not be decided on the basis of whether we want to spend the money in the area of space. Our challenge, he stated, was to put together a space program that would attract the funds. The funds were certainly available, and I think also, if you spend the next couple days thinking about the future of space, that's the way you should look at it, too. The problem is not that in our 5+ trillion dollar economy we can't afford space. The question is, how much of that do we want to spend, and for what, and why? So these are things we will be addressing and which are very relevant indeed. ... I'd like to run through the broad spectrum of reasons why we want to go out into space and become a multi-planet species. Number one is economics, the long-term investment in the economic development of the inner solar system. This is something that can occupy us for a century... The second is access to limitless growth potential, access to virgin continents that can remove the Malthusian limits to the aspirations of humanity and can cause us to move beyond a mere zero sum battle for which people on Earth control our dwindling resources and rather make it an open end, and opens up a vast new growth potential for humanity. The next is national pride in leadership... I thought the way Richard Darman put it from his budgetary perspective was very good. He said, there are three types of things you spend money for in government. One of them is paying for the things you did in the past; he must have been conscious of his interest payments for all the borrowings -- I think we owe some 3 trillion dollars now, and that's a fair amount of interest. But we have Veterans Administration, we have other costs associated with things we've done in the past, and those bills have to be settled. And secondly, he said, there are things that we should be spending money on today -- all of the Head Start for the young children; all of the questions of housing; doing a much better job on our highway sytem, which has come up recently; the war on drugs; all of the things that we have to do today. These are always the most popular with politicians. So paying for the past, spending money on the present are the two leading items, and there's a little bit left over for investing in the future. That, of course, is where the space program comes in, and thus national pride in leadership for investing in the future. ...there are religious, ideological, or humanistic values associated with a basic desire to preserve life.... ...opportunity for a fresh start. ...of course research and exploration ... search for extraterrestial intelligence ... opportunity to create prototype extraterrestial communities in nearby space (...paragraphs deleted) NASA must develop six new challenging technology bases and program elements: 1 A highway to space, using economical joint NASA/USAF man-rated heavy-lift launch vehicles to provide regular automated low-cost access to Earth orbit 2. Orbital space ports, evolved from International Space Station Freedom technology, circling Earth, Moon, and Mars to support remote human operations and the assembly, storage, repair, refueling, check-out, launch, and recovery of robotic and piloted spacecraft 3. A bridge between worlds, to open regular transports to the Moon and to extend spaceflight to Mars... 4. Prospecting and resource utilization sytems to map and characterize the resources on the inner solar system... 5. Closed ecology biospheres to recycle air and water and provide food and organic products within Earth-like habitats of other worlds... 6. Lunar and Martian bases to furnish advanced life-support, habitats... Perhaps, my concluding remark ought to be the one I wrote you in a letter, a quote from my friend, Arthur Clarke, who said: " In the difficult years that lie ahead, we must remember that the snows of Olympus lie silently beneath the stars, waiting for our grandchildren." ________ This concludes this 3 part series on the comments of the late- Dr. Thomas Paine, former NASA Adminstrator and chairman of the National Commission on Space. Thank you Dr. Paine for your years of dedication to the concepts of space exploration. Ken Comments? send them to: khayash@hsc.usc.edu thanks for reading ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jun 1993 18:02:40 -0700 From: Ken Hayashida Subject: Dr. Thomas Paine on space policy Part 1 Newsgroups: sci.space Friends, over the past few weeks we have been seeing alot of conjecture posted regarding the future of the US space program. Perhaps, one of the greatest leaders that the civilian space program has had is Dr. Thomas Paine. Dr. Paine served as NASA administrator under the Johnson and Nixon Administrations, led the National Commission on Space appointed by President Reagan to foresee a future for the US space program, and was highly involved with the space advocacy community. During the proceedings of the National Commission on Space Dr. Paine gave me the opportunity to present some ideas before his esteemed committee. Through several years of limited contact I found Dr. Paine to be cordial, always enthusiastic, and quite an inspiration. As an undergraduate student, this ex- admiral and advisor to Presidents took the time to speak with me on numerous occasions, answering my phone calls and messages, and sending me references. His staff assistant was equally cooperative. I was profoundly saddened to hear of his passing during the past year (as I am sure alot of you were), and I believe that we have lost a tremendous intellect and leader. Because of my debt of gratitude and my desire that his views continue to gain attention, I am posting exerpts from a speech which Dr. Paine made before the 28th Goddard Memorial Symposium, held March 14-16, 1990, Washington, D.C. Those of you that wish to read the entire speech can find it in the following reference: Leaving the Cradle: Human Exploration of Space in the 21st Century 28th Goddard Memorial Symposium; edited by Thomas O. Paine; Volume 78, Science and Technology Series, A Supplement to Advances in the Astronautical Sciences; copyright 1991, American Astronautical Society; ISBN 0-87703-336-6 (hard cover), ISBN 0-87703-337-4 (soft cover), published by Univelt, Incorporated; P.O. Box 28130, San Diego, CA 92198. In the text below I have added "..." when I have deleted text. When paragraphs are deleted, I will so designate. This entire volume is packed with great presentations and testimony, including Al Gore, Harrison Schmitt, and others. I encourage any interested in space policy and exploration to obtain a copy. ------------ And now, exerpts from AAS 90-101, titled "Leaving the Cradle: Human Exploration of Space in the 21st Century," by Thomas O. Paine "Thank you very much, Larry, and welcome. We're meeting at an extermely interesting time in the history of the space program and I think in many ways in the history of our planet...One of the reasons we are meeting here today and examining many of the precepts underlying the exploration of space is because these are such critical, pivotal times that all of our new thinking is going to be required to make sure that we come out in the end with a successful program. (paragraph omitted) We need more of that kind of thinking as we take a look at the Mars Program and decide, on the basis of what we will want to do in perhaps the second decade of the next century on Mars to figure out what we should be doing on the Moon in the first decade, and what we should be doing in Earth orbit during the decade of the 90's. So this afternoon, we're going to look at some of the challenges that Mars represents. I think that that can cast a very long shadow through the 90's. One of the things that I think we will also have to do some brand new thinking about is the whole question of the international participation in space in the next two or three decades... Back in the 1960's when I was concerned with NASA, we had a rather simple rule: If the budget was in trouble, wave the Russian flag. That's not the way it's going to work in the future. We think much more carefully about how this is going to go. (paragraph omitted) I guess, what I'm really talking about, therefore, this morning is opportunity. We have a magnificent opportunity and a very challenging opportunity, and as we meet in these very rapidly changing times, we need more than ever to be thinking of the fundamentals because if we're going to put together a program that will take us to Mars sometime in the first, second, third decade of the next century, it will have to require sustained effort. We're going to see Presidents come and go. Congresses will have many different concerns. There will be all sorts of crises, alarms, excursions, and during all of this period, we will have to have the exploration of space on such a firm philosophical and technological basis that it can indeed attract the type of sustained support that will be required not only in the United States but in the world. It's a magnificant challenge and, I think, one that we are ready for... Please see part 2 for the continuation... ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1993 22:57:32 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: manifest destiny = US getting uppity again Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1uoegpINNabs@mojo.eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes: >> Alas, coming from a neighbor of the US, 'manifest destiny' >>hasthe implication you folks are contemplating yet another unsuccessful >>invasion. > >Just lay back and think of England, bub... We have to do it so the jarhea-, >er Marines don't embarass themselves again... And to think we spared their headquarters when we burned Washington DC. Well, we won't make *that* mistake again... You see, this time we're planning a preemptive strike, rather than waiting for you uppity rebels to invade us again. Early in the morning of July 4, when most everybody down there is preparing to celebrate the anniversary of your insurrection against lawful authority, most of the Canadian Armed Forces will move swiftly to seize North Dakota. They will bypass and contain major population centers, which could offer lengthy resistance anyway, and stick to seizing strategic assets. And I do mean strategic. This one move will make us the world's third largest nuclear power. Maybe the second, if Yeltsin's situation continues to go downhill. Now, in itself this wouldn't be very useful. North Dakota otherwise isn't that interesting a place. :-) And being a nuclear power, per se, is not all that helpful, especially when doing so devastates one's foreign trade. (The US and Canada are each other's largest trading partners, but that's a much larger proportion of Canada's trade than the US's.) Oh, it might deter an invasion, if we could hold our new territory... but we probably couldn't, not for any length of time. However, we won't have to. We plan to participate in a grand old US tradition: fireworks on the evening of the 4th. You see, last time we burned Washington, our mistake was that we weren't *thorough* enough. We plan to rectify that this time. Blasting the entire area within the Beltway clear down to bedrock ought to do it... After this, of course, resistance will vanish, and our troops will be greeted as liberators. Our biggest problem will be how to cope with a sudden 1000% growth in Canada's population and wealth. We're still debating exactly what do with all the new territory. The British like the idea of getting the original Thirteen Colonies back, but they're objecting to having to take New York City as part of the package, and we may have to throw in Hawaii to sweeten the deal. Negotiations with Mexico over Texas etc. are underway. We're keeping the West Coast, since it has the only decent climate on the continent. The USSR was interested in buying Alaska back, but recent events there have scuttled that idea -- Russia can't afford it. France wouldn't take Louisiana even at a bargain price, so I suppose we'll have to keep it. Stay tuned for more details. :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) -- Altruism is a fine motive, but if you | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology want results, greed works much better. | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1993 00:37:08 GMT From: Eric H Seale Subject: manifest destiny = US getting uppity again Newsgroups: sci.space henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >...You see, last time we >burned Washington, our mistake was that we weren't *thorough* enough. >We plan to rectify that this time. Blasting the entire area within >the Beltway clear down to bedrock ought to do it... Promises, promises, promises..... ;-) >... and our troops will be >greeted as liberators. At this point, they probably would! Eric Seale seale@pogo.den.mmc.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1993 23:02:06 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Outline of STS Systems (A response to Fraering's misstatement) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1uk9pb$qap@hsc.usc.edu> khayash@hsc.usc.edu (Ken Hayashida) writes: >1 Press Information- Space Transportation System, January 1984, > Rockwell International Corporation >2 Space Shuttle Operator's Manual... > >The first reference is my primary information source. Because I expect >that interested readers will have difficulty obtaining the first document, >I have included the second reference... Getting the STS News Reference is no problem -- several of the space- enthusiast groups sell copies. -- Altruism is a fine motive, but if you | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology want results, greed works much better. | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jun 1993 18:08:48 -0700 From: Ken Hayashida Subject: Tom Paine- Why Space (Part 2) Newsgroups: sci.space this is a continuation of Dr. Tom Paine's speech before the 28th Goddard Memorial Symposium, published with the AAS in "Leaving the Cradle". In this part of the speech, Dr. Paine discusses reasons to advocate space and the philosophical underpinnings of space exploration. _________________ "My own rationale for why we are going this is that you can't come up with any one reason, and if you ever tried, it would very quickly become obsolete anyway, and that furthermore, space by its very inherent nature is something so fundamental to the human drive for exploration that, at any given time in the history of our country and in the history of the world, we would come up with a different rationale as the times change, but that the fundamentals would always be there. So I think the challenge we have is to try to understand the exploration of space in terms of these fundamentals. One example I might give you is that if we were indeed meeting one hundred years ago to discuss the exploration of space--that would be in the 1880's -- very likely one of the fundamental rationales would be colonization, because strength of the ohrld scene was really related to the number of colonies that any nation controlled. It would be on a highly commpetitive basis, and we wouldn't want the British Empire, with all of those parts of the world painted red, to start painting the Moon or Mars red, would we? We'd want to take our colonial holdings in the Phillipines which we were about to acquire in the next twenty years and we'd want to become a great colonial power, too. That was the big deal in the end of the last century. If we'd moved out a little beyond that another quarter century or so, it would be in terms of military power. The great fleets were being built that would later fight in Jutland. Submarine were being developed to deny the British their long domination of the seas. These were the kinds of concerns nations had, and we'd ask the question, how our power in space would contribute to this kind of national power aimed at World War I and, then later, World War II. Question the Depression, and it would be jobs. Can we indeed use this as a WPA Project? Today, you talk about missile/bomber builders and fighter plane builders reconverting and doing this as a kind of a make-work project. Again, I think all of these are not really good reasons. There are far more fundamental reasons.... (2 paragraphs deleted- Dr. Paine talked about upcoming speakers) ...we've been able to get a very broad representation of experts looking at this from different perspectives. I think that for everything we do in space we need to get this broad perspective. Space is very much like the blind man and the elephant...(sentence deleted)...this is like the fellow holding the tail of the elephant, saying, "Hey, it's a long, stringy thing," trying to talk to the engineer who's trying to build a new launch vehicle who's got a hold of the ear saying, "No, it's a great big flat thing," and somebody else worrying about tusks and trying to convince people that's what the Space Program is. (several paragraphs omitted) ...We've had a series of relatively weak Presidents in the grand sweep of our nation, concerns that were very much with the problems of yesterday and today and not much left over for the problems of tomorrow, which is where those of us in this room pretty much keep our own thoughts and attention. I was very pleased, therefore, when the Congress created the National Commission on Space...And I think that that allowed us to take a breather back in the 1986 period to detach ourselves from the Space Program as it then existed and take a look twenty, thirty years out into the future and try to answer the question that Congress had put to us and that the President had appointed us to come up with an answer to, what the Space Program should be for Twenty-First Century America. I think in many ways, that's the challenge that all of us in this room have still before us: What should be the Space Program for the Twenty-First Century America? In order to get your mind around it, I'll warn you right at the beginning that you have to decide what Twenty-First Century America is. It certainly is not the America of 1990. It will be a different country with different concerns, and we have to think about the fact that it will be an extremely affluent, very high technology country, but a country which will probably not be in as leading a position in the world as it has been since World War II, a country that can lead other nations in a participatory sense, but only by selling the strength of its good ideas. So think about Twenty-First Century America as you sit through the sessions that you'll be listening to for the next couple of days. Think about the kind of a Space Program that will be appropriate for Twenty-First Century America as we did on our Commission. We thought at the time that we were probably going to be criticized after our report came out for being too far-out for the first ten years, and we thought that probably in the second ten years, which would be '96 to about 2006, it would be considered about right, and that from 2006 on, it would be considered too pedestrian. I think we are about on that track now. One of the things that you also put your mind to when you think about the Twenty-First Century America is the fundamental objective that humanity as a whole will accept during that period as being worthy of major international projects. I think in that connection that all of us in this room and all of the people who think about space are very conscious of the connection between space and environmental concerns... (several paragraphs deleted) I think that from all of these various factors that come into the Space Policy question, which our Keynote Speaker has been invited to address, you can see the complexity of it and you can see the fact that our program, as broad as it is, probably isn't broad enough. But it will give us, I think, considerable breadth. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1993 00:44:44 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Why are SSTO up-front costs rising? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1uq0erINNikt@phantom.gatech.edu> matthew@phantom.gatech.edu (Matthew DeLuca) writes: >This isn't my discussion, but I have to hop in here for just a second. Just >yesterday, Allen, you were telling me that since NASA messed up on the >Shuttle they can't possibly build a cost-effective replacement; That's not what I said. I said that NASA had nither the money or culture needed to build SSTO. I base the statements on both the projections for spending at NASA make by Congress and the problems with almost every large project undertaken at NASA in the past 15 years. Their own procurement office says it costs them several times what it should to do things. I also believe that the existance of serious cultural problems is generally acknowledged by people up to and including the NASA Adminstrator. NASA has serious problems executing large programs. I think you would agree with that statement. SDIO, however, has a long history of using streamlined procurement, learning from past mistakes, and focusing on the problem. Do you see the difference? Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Lady Astor: "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!" | | W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it." | +----------------------11 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1993 01:00:26 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Why are SSTO up-front costs rising? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1ur6i3INNm96@phantom.gatech.edu> matthew@phantom.gatech.edu (Matthew DeLuca) writes: >Hmmm, I don't think this is true, either; Delta Clipper is being brought to >you by the same folks doing parts of the space station. and the C-17. This was a matter of serious concern for me a few years ago. However, I note the management processes put in place both at SDIO and MacDac. I also looked at early progress and the results of their Phase I study and decided that this effort was being run properly and had a good chance of success. If I concluded otherwise, I would be working just as hard to kill it as I am to helping it. I also note the actions of the NASA department who would build a SSTO if NASA decided to. That organization distinguished itself by working hard to kill the SDIO effort for no other reason than that it competed with their effort. That is not the actions of a group wanting to reduce the cost of access to space. >Is Delta Clipper >going to be a success, indicating that organizations can change? Well so far, I think it looks good. I think the lesson isn't that organizations are angels or devils but that the deciding factor is the rules of the game. DC is working because SDIO picked good rules for the game. Should NASA change the rules, they will have my wholeharted support. In fact, this is why I have lobbied for Goldin so that can happen. Why does that bother you? >mud forever? Allen likes to assert both sides, depending on whether or not >it is one of his 'blessed' projects. You missed it. I 'bless' projects because they work, not the other way around. I 'bless' results. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Lady Astor: "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!" | | W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it." | +----------------------11 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+ ------------------------------ id AA00157; Sat, 5 Jun 93 18:37:51 EDT Received: from CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU by VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU id ab16833; 5 Jun 93 19:33:06 EDT To: bb-sci-space@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU Xref: crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu sci.space:64126 Newsgroups: sci.space Path: crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!darwin.sura.net!math.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!deep.rsoft.bc.ca!mindlink!a684 From: Nick Janow Subject: Re: Moon vs. asteroids, Mars, comets Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1993 20:20:02 GMT Message-Id: <25106@mindlink.bc.ca> Sender: "Usenet News at rsoft.bc.ca" Lines: 32 Source-Info: Sender is really news@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU Source-Info: Sender is really isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU jhart@agora.rain.com (Jim Hart) writes: > Furthermore, most of the mass of processing materials used to make those > robots are volatiles,... ...assuming a "designed for Tokyo 1992" robot factory, building robots designed for Earth. You do not need to use today's factories' techniques on the moon. The working environment is different, and makes different techniques possible and economical, and makes today's techniques uneconomical. Instead of machining a gear out of metal using lots of cutting fluid, you can use the laser-sintering fabrication technique that is now being developed for "desktop fabrication". Instead of washing parts every few steps in production, you can take advantage of the moon's clean vacuum. If hydraulic fluids are uneconomical for moving arms, use electric motors. > Do you have fantasies of full recycling of volatiles (include HF-acid :-) > like the last poster did? > .... > No, you have demonstrated an almost infinite capacity for > self-delusion. For example: > .... > OK you've convinced me! Beam me up Scotty! :-) You've totally blown any credibility you might have had. Ad hominem attacks like you've shown merely make you look afraid/unable to deal with the arguments. -- Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 689 ------------------------------