Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 05:04:10 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #259 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Tue, 29 Sep 92 Volume 15 : Issue 259 Today's Topics: 21cm rights Atlas E and F questions ( Actually Pershing missile) (2 msgs) a twist on dynamic structures Clinto and Space Funding Clinton and Space Funding Henry's hypersonic summary (was Re: Hypersonic test vehicle proposed) Mars Observer Update - 09/25/92 (Launch Day) Nick Szabo Disinformation debunking (Re: Clinton and Space Funding) (3 msgs) platforms Space Life Sciences Training Program Space platforms (political, not physical :-) Toutatis impact in 2000 AD? (was Re: Help !) 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: Mon, 28 Sep 92 18:32:48 EDT From: Tom <18084TM@msu.edu> Subject: 21cm rights >>>Also, with strict property rights, you own whatever is over your >>>land. So, radio emmissions are, technically, pollution. Anyone >>>could sue for quiet in the 21cm band...in their neighborhood. >>So let me get this straight. Libertarians believe that I should be able to >sue the local TV station for broadcasting radio waves in the air over my land? >Can I also refuse to let airline pilots talk to ground control if they're over >>my house? If I lived nearer the equator, would NASA have to refrain from >talking to astronauts? Would the Moon undergo a radio blackout once a day? Yeah, this kind of thing really does bring into question the definition of 'property'. I won't even attempt that in this forum. >Something wierder occured to me after I posted this. Do Libertarians restrict >this right to radio waves or does it apply to other frequencies as well? For >example, can I sue my neighbor for having his outdoor lights on if I want to >sleep? Or more interestingly, could major obervatories sue the inhabitants >of nearby cities because of light pollution? Well, I wouldn't presume to speak for all Libertarians, but, in strict property rights, I'd think that would be a possible scenario. What would you do, if you had recently built a nice roll-off observatory in your backyard, and your neighbor decided to install a 5000 watt spotlight, just for kicks? For that matter, there already are limitations on sound 'radiation', based on "free use and enjoyment." Why not light, too? 'Course, whenever I'm out with the 'scope, my backdoor neigbor ususally turns off his porchlight at my request :-) In the case of 21cm, I'd bet the 'de facto' ownership scenario would be more realistic, given some sudden Libertarian philosophy revolution. -Tommy Mac . " + .------------------------ + * + | Tom McWilliams; scrub , . " + | astronomy undergrad, at * +;. . ' There is | Michigan State University ' . " no Gosh! | 18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu ' , * | (517) 355-2178 ; + ' * '----------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 18:12:21 GMT From: Doug Mohney Subject: Atlas E and F questions ( Actually Pershing missile) Newsgroups: sci.space In article , henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >The Pershings would probably make okay sounding rockets, if the treaty >language was suitable. (There are problems here, which is why the treaty >called for destruction and set time limits. A sounding rocket sitting in >a warehouse awaiting launch needs only a warhead and a launch truck to >become a weapon again.) It's all moot, cuz all the Pershing IIs and SS-20s HAD to be scrapped, and (I believe) already have, with the exception of the training hardware sitting at the Air and Space Museum ... there might be a counterpart Pershing sitting in the Russian equal of the A&S, but I'm not too sure. I do know getting the Pershing and SS-22 into A&S requires some special handling consideration under treaty, don't remember the details. Play in the intelluctual sandbox of Usenet -- > SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU < -- ------------------------------ Date: 28 Sep 92 19:23:13 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Atlas E and F questions ( Actually Pershing missile) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Sep28.163429.14691@access.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: >>Oh, if you let the Pershings go as government surplus at fire-sale prices, >>they'd be cheaper than commercial sounding rockets. Of course, this has >>a good chance of bankrupting some of the sounding-rocket companies by >>flooding the market with government-subsidized competition... > >as for the sounding rocket companies. pay them to run the launches. >then they get the profits from launch... What about the ones who are neither manned nor equipped to handle Pershings? Sounding rockets are not like jellybeans, where a different flavor just means a different color. While they're all broadly similar, details matter a lot, and not every company is going to be happy if you dump a bunch of free Pershings on its doorstep. For that matter, how do you decide which companies get them and how many? The way to handle this is to think capitalist, not socialist. Sell the Pershings at a competitive market price for sounding rockets of that size. Use the revenues to fund a one-time-only launch-grant program for the experimenters: show your payload ready for launch, get a voucher good for $XXX toward one launch, first come first served, until the money from the Pershings runs out. Same net result, but without the destructive side effects on the industry. -- There is nothing wrong with making | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 28 Sep 92 20:19:42 GMT From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey Subject: a twist on dynamic structures Newsgroups: sci.space In article , henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > In article stiles@quik.clearpoint.com writes: >>How about fuel pellets being accelerated from a ground-based station >>up into the 'nozzle' of a rocket ship in flight... > > The idea has been proposed before, in the context of interstellar > propulsion Yes. See articles by C.E. Singer in *Journal of the British Interplanetary Society* in the late Seventies and early Eighties. I believe Singer is now at the University of Illinois. Engineer of Hijacked Train: Bill Higgins "Is this a holdup?" Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory Masked Gunman: (Hesitates, looks at partner, Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET looks at engineer again) SPAN/Hepnet/Physnet: 43011::HIGGINS "It's a science experiment!" Internet: HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:31:20 GMT From: Robert Nehls Subject: Clinto and Space Funding Newsgroups: sci.space clements@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes: : : Japan and Germany have relatively little military spending, and as a result of : this they can spend more on government support of civilian R & D programs. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Japan and Germany had a unique advantage in that they lost WWII, (this sounds stupid, but I'm talking about today, not 50 years ago) and weren't allowed to have militaries. Also, because of the reconstruction after the war (much of which was funded by the US), Japan and Germany were given new factories which were often better than the older ones that were left in the US. Things were tough for them and they did do a lot of things right and for that they do deserve a lot of credit. : : >Do you really think that it is a coincidence that : >the military and space budget cuts coincide with the Japenese gaining a : >technological edge? : : Come on... They've had an edge for a *lot* longer than that! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Not true. If you look at the emergence of the Japenese as a superpower, they didn't really have any say in the world's economic picture until the mid-70s. This is the same time period when NASA's budget began to take serious hits and the military started to take a lot of heat (post-Vietnam). If you look at Japan's R and D efforts up until then it was pretty dismal. It basically consisted of taking apart US products to see how they worked and then repackage them at a lower cost. Even today, that is what Japan is best at. Even though they are leading in a lot of fields. If you look at the technologies involved, most of the theoretical work was done outside of Japan. The Japanese will be the first to admit that due to the rigid structure of their culture, they are not as creative as a lot of western countries. What they are good at is producing. This IMO is why Japan is doing so well. They let others do the R and D which is expensive and very time consuming, while they fine tune their manufacturing facilities in order to exploit the product once it is ready to be produced. They have already stated that they don't necessarily abide by any patents and even if something does go to court, they've already made their billions off of it and they're willing to take a slap on the wrist and pay a few millions in penalities. : seen to be spent. This is what MITI does in Japan, and look how successful they : have been. : : This is where that military money can and should be spent. However, the typical ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Dave, this is exactly what I was talking about. So many people can say where the money should go, but nobody knows where it goes when its cut from the military budget. It just vanishes and leaves thousands of people out of work. As I stated in my previous post. Until the programs are set up to orderly divert the money to another R and D effort, it should stay in the military budget where at least it is going some good. (other rhetoric deleted) -- Bob Nehls Sr. Design Engineer rn11195@sage.medtronic.com (612)574-8559 Working Towards Full Life... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 23:25:22 GMT From: "Carlos G. Niederstrasser" Subject: Clinton and Space Funding Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Sep27.141056.13@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes: > Spanish "colonies" were fundamentally different from the Plymouth colony > which is why I didn't include them. The Spanish possesions were colonies, just like any other. The main difference was that they actually prospered because of the large mineral wealth found in New Spain. Plymouth on the other hand took years to fully develope because there was no wealth to speak of. So in this case I would rather compare a Spanish colony with our future moon colonies. We are not going to seriously colonize the moon with people seeking religious freedoms, the only way to do it, and what most of us probably would like to see, is getting all the resources that the moon, asteroids, etc can offer. >They were Missions, funded by the > Church, and they were Conquistidors funded by the Spanish "military > industrial complex." Yes, the _first_ colonies and Conquistadores were funded by the military, because then, as now, it was the easiest and largest fund of money. Later the main funding came from the large amount of trade being generated. Again, just like I would like to see happen to space colonies. >They were mainly *men* who acquired "native" women as > companions, something highly unlikely in outer space since "Mars Needs > Women", or so I've heard. :-) Sure there were those who 'aquired' women, but again that was mainly during the first phases. By the time Plymouth was founded, New Spain was a thriving vise-royalty, with a fully developed social structure. Again, kind of what we hope will eventually happen with space colonies. One final note, it is Venus who needs the women... :-) -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- | Carlos G. Niederstrasser | It is difficult to say what | | Princeton Planetary Society | is impossible; for the dream of | | | yesterday, is the hope of today | | | and the reality of tomorrow | | carlosn@phoenix.princeton.edu |---------------------------------| | space@phoenix.princeton.edu | Ad Astra per Ardua Nostra | --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- | Carlos G. Niederstrasser | It is difficult to say what | | Princeton Planetary Society | is impossible; for the dream of | | | yesterday, is the hope of today | ------------------------------ Date: 28 Sep 92 23:58:26 GMT From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey Subject: Henry's hypersonic summary (was Re: Hypersonic test vehicle proposed) Newsgroups: sci.space In article , henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > In article PHARABOD@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR writes: >> Aurora >> TSTO/XB-70 like aircraft (AW&ST, August 24, 1992) >> X-30 (AW&ST, September 14, 1992) >> HALO (AW&ST, September 14, 1992) >> HL-20 >> SSTO/DCX/DCY >> others ? >> >>Could somebody on this list explain the differences between these >>projects ? Hmm, possible fodder for the FAQ list... > > Okay, here's a quick rundown. [good summaries deleted, except for:] > The X-30 is/was a project to build a high-hypersonic aircraft ultimately > capable of reaching orbit. It is dying because the pricetag for flight > vehicles is too high. The project has done some useful work on things > like high-temperature materials, which other projects may use. In a definitive summary, Henry, you should have mentioned that the X-30 is the product of the NASP (National Aerospace Plane) program, and that it will be an experimental aircraft, and *not* a direct replacement for the Shuttle or an operational launcher with useful payload. In the "others?" category, I would name Hermes, HOTOL, Saenger, Buran, and HOPE. I can't summarize them in this message, but maybe soon... Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey | Here Lies Bill Higgins: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory | He Never Ever Learned Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET | To Play Guitar So Well Internet: HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV | But He Could Read and Write SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS | Just Like Ringing A Bell ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:37:48 GMT From: Steve Collins Subject: Mars Observer Update - 09/25/92 (Launch Day) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary Thanks for your words of encouragement. The launch was even more "exciting" from the mission support area than it sounded on nasa select, and the 24 hours after acquisition are something I will never forget. The SC is in better shape than any of us had hoped. Since we have spent the last couple of months concentrating on procedures for really ugly failures, it was great to stay on the nominal sequence of events. Oops! got to get ready for TCM 1... Steve Collins AACS MO Spacecraft Team ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 18:04:24 GMT From: Doug Mohney Subject: Nick Szabo Disinformation debunking (Re: Clinton and Space Funding) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <27SEP199216051882@judy.uh.edu>, wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes: >I changes my mind slightly while writing this. Fission will be the tech of >choice in Cislunar Space and Fusion for everthing else. We ain't gonna >have either one if you keep pushing it back into the future with unsupported >statments. I can't believe I just read this. Eco-political considerations will keep fission out of near-earth space. If you've got fusion, you've got fusion for everywhere, unless I'm grossly missing something on the byproducts of a fusion plant verses the neuroticism which must go into place to make sure a fission plant doesn't end up in the atmosphere. Play in the intelluctual sandbox of Usenet -- > SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU < -- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 21:51:20 GMT From: "Thomas H. Kunich" Subject: Nick Szabo Disinformation debunking (Re: Clinton and Space Funding) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Sep28.180424.25844@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes: > >I can't believe I just read this. Eco-political considerations will keep >fission out of near-earth space. If you've got fusion, you've got fusion for >everywhere, unless I'm grossly missing something on the byproducts of a fusion >plant verses the neuroticism which must go into place to make sure a fission >plant doesn't end up in the atmosphere. You don't _have_ fusion. For here or anywhere else. We _may_ have fission drive, but just. And it's about as easy to do as colonize the Mariannas Trench. Fission drive is at least understood. Fusion is Big Science's way to more money. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Sep 92 19:50:55 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Nick Szabo Disinformation debunking (Re: Clinton and Space Funding) Newsgroups: sci.space In article amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk writes: >The forging of a coalition can easily turn an initially elegant solution >into a committee'd monstrosity to get a large enough constituency on board. >The shuttle is an excellent example of this. I think it was Charles Sheffield who commented, approximately: "A mouse designed by the government isn't an elephant -- it's a giant squid, with tentacles running off in all directions. Apollo worked so well because for a short while, all the political vectors pointed the same way. That will not happen again." -- There is nothing wrong with making | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 19:59:51 EDT From: Tom <18084TM@msu.edu> Subject: platforms > It is my understanding that the LP does support withdrawl from the UN. Just to keep things in context, the LP supports any action that decreases tha amount of force used to push policies in other countries. Take a look at the general impression of Americans in Latin America, for a good example of the failure of pushy foreign policy. There's pretty good evidence that 'spreading democracy and freedom' could be better served by allowing citizens of other countries free access to America, and vice versa. Meeting other citizens is always more effective than propaganda. -Tommy Mac . " + .------------------------ + * + | Tom McWilliams; scrub , . " + | astronomy undergrad, at * +;. . ' There is | Michigan State University ' . " no Gosh! | 18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu ' , * | (517) 355-2178 ; + ' * '----------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 28 Sep 92 18:41:17 GMT From: SLSTP Subject: Space Life Sciences Training Program Newsgroups: sci.space ***** ANNOUNCEMENT OF OPPORTUNITY ***** American Undergraduates 1993 Space Life Sciences Training Program A Summer Program at the Kennedy Space Center, Florida Sponsored by NASA, Bionetics Corporation, Florida A&M University The Space Life Sciences Training Program (SLSTP) is an investment in tomorrow. It is an intensive six-week training program at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida for college students interested in Life Sciences, Pre-Medicine, Bioengineering or related fields. The program will allow students to participate in the conceptualization, preparation, preflight and postflight testing, data analysis, and report preparation phases of space flight experiments and NASA life sciences research. The program is scheduled for mid-June through the end of July 1993. After the successful completion of the program, five semester hours of tuition free college credit will be offered to each student through Florida A&M University, which is also responsible for program promotion, student recruitment, selection, travel, housing, program evaluation, and academic consultation. The purpose of SLSTP is to attract college students interested in research germane to the NASA field of Space Life Sciences. Participants will gain insight into how space life sciences flight experiments are conducted as well as explore future research opportunities in space life sciences. After completion of this program and subsequent professional training, the end result should be a pool of talented research scientists employed in universities, industries, and NASA with practical experience in the flight of life sciences experiments in space. The six week SLSTP curriculum will involve morning lectures by leading research scientists, managers, engineers, and astronauts from NASA Centers, distinguished universities, and industry. Tours of the KSC shuttle and payload facilities will provide students firsthand knowledge of the processes involved between arrival of a life sciences flight experiment at KSC and final integration of that experiment into the shuttle. In the afternoons, students will be actively involved in the planning and execution of experiments that span the range of life sciences research of current interest to NASA. These experiments have been chosen to provide the trainees with experience in as many aspects of flight experiment development as possible - from experiment conception and design to timeline development, protocol testing, and actual flight operations. Evening and weekend activities will be scheduled to include informal discussions with visiting lecturers and astronauts and work on special projects. The curriculum will emphasize the unique features of experiments conducted in the spaceflight environment which include weightlessness, space limitations, and issues of compatibility with other on-board experiment requirements. Some of the potential flight experiments in which the students may become involved include plant studies, animal development projects, human studies of sensory conflict, and environmental studies related to spaceflight. Student activities will include the opportunity to participate in development and testing of operational protocols, performance of ground based control experiments, direction, analysis, and evaluation of postflight testing sessions, as well as participation in the implementation of actual shuttle flight experiments when possible. Students will be divided into groups of 9 to 10 and work in a rotating schedule on each of the experiments, with opportunity for additional emphasis in at least one project. Students will receive round trip transportation between their home and the Orlando International Airport in Florida, free accommodations in the Cocoa Beach area near Kennedy Space Center, and local transportation to and from the space center. Students will also receive a daily meal allowance which should also cover other expenses. This program costs nothing to the student - there is no registration fee. ***** HOW TO APPLY ***** Student enrollment is limited to 36 to 40 currently enrolled undergraduate college students: -> Eligibility is limited to currently enrolled undergraduate students who are pursuing their first undergraduate degree. -> A minimum cumulative GPA of 3.00 or higher at the time of application is required. -> Graduating seniors (those students who complete their senior year prior to the start of the program in mid-June are not eligible to apply. Fourth year seniors going to their fifth year are eligible. -> Minimum age requirement is 16 years old -> United States citizenship is mandatory. There are no exceptions. -> Eligible majors include: Animal Sciences, Biochemistry, Biology, Biophysics, Biostatistics, Chemistry, Computer Science, Ecology, Engineering, Geology, Life Sciences, Mathematics, Pharmacy, Physics, Plant Sciences, Pre-Medicine, Psychology. If you have a question about the eligibility of your major, please call the program office at 904-599-3636. -> Previous SLSTP participants are NOT ELIGIBLE FOR A SECOND EXPERIENCE. Application materials include: -> A completed SLSTP Application form filled out in BLACK INK -> An official transcript from every college or university attended up to and including Fall 1992. Transcripts in the possession of the applicant will not be accepted. -> A SLSTP postcard on which you will write you address. It will be sent back to you when all of you application materials have been received in our office. -> A 500 word typed double spaced essay which will be used to evaluate the applicant's experience and written communication skills. The essay should relate to the classroom, laboratory and research experiences of the applicant in the sciences. Moreover, the career goals of the applicant should be concisely stated. Print you full name on each page of the essay. -> Three completed reference request forms from persons familiar with you academic record. This is very very important. Application requests should be sent to: Program Director, SLSTP Florida A&M University College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences 106 Honor House Tallahassee, FL 32307 or call (904) 599-3636 The following application materials must be post-marked no later than January 31, 1993 and be sent to the same address. ALL necessary credentials must be on file before an application will be processed. Applicants will be notified of their acceptance or non-acceptance no later than March 31, 1993. This is a worthwhile experience. Most of the students that participate in SLSTP regard it best educational experience of their lives. If you have any interest in space, please apply. I was a student in 1990 and a staff member in 1992. If you have any questions regarding the program (that are not of an application nature), you can contact me at byaa741@hermes.chpc.utexas.edu For questions regarding the application, contact the program office. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 19:00:23 EDT From: Tom <18084TM@msu.edu> Subject: Space platforms (political, not physical :-) >> If [Clinton] gets elected after all but promising to raise taxes $1.5E11 >> BEFORE the election, think of the things he'll do once he's in. Brrr... >And what is Bush going to do if he gets back in now he's sold his soul to the >Fundamentalists like Pat Robertson???? He'll waffle his way through, wrecking the well-being of the citizens while helping his political buddies (those with $$). Clinton's plan would only wreck the well-being faster, while failing to help his political buddies (the one's with pull). >This is about a *lot* more than space funding which, quite frankly, is a side >issue for *all* of these politicians. Sure it is. I see a lot of people talking about letting private funding do what it can in space, wihtout gov interference. That's what the LP platform is all about. All references to gov. 'helping' people, 'creating' jobs, 'reforming' education, etc. are a side-issue to the LP, as all these goals would be fulfilled by letting the citizens keep their $$, and getting gov back to it's job: Catching crooks, cleaning the environment, or making the jerks who [explitive] it up fix it, and generally protecting our rights; something 150 years of Rebublicrats have destroyed. Has anyone heard any references to "Extopians"? -Tommy Mac . " + .------------------------ + * + | Tom McWilliams; scrub , . " + | astronomy undergrad, at * +;. . ' There is | Michigan State University ' . " no Gosh! | 18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu ' , * | (517) 355-2178 ; + ' * '----------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 28 Sep 92 18:32:38 GMT From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey Subject: Toutatis impact in 2000 AD? (was Re: Help !) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Sep25.141957.9814@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes: > In article , PHARABOD@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR writes... >>They say that, on September 28, 2000, the Toutatis asteroid >>(diameter 1 kilometer) may hit the earth. They say that >>normally the distance would be the same as the Earth-Moon >>distance, but that there is a rather big uncertainty. > > The comet will pass .074 AU from Earth in the year 2000, which is 3 times > farther than its closest approach coming up on December 8 (.025 AU). Not responsive to the question. How big are the error bars? That is, Toutatis will miss the Earth by .074 AU, plus or minus how much? Just beecause the 2000 encounter figure is larger doesn't mean its uncertainty is the same. Conceivably it could be fuzzier than the 1992 encounter-- maybe enough for a significant chance of collision. I have to say that this seems unlikely, though. There are other interesting questions, like "Which side of the Earth is facing Toutatis at the time of the 2000 encounter?" or "According to the best guesses, how big a SPLAT! would it make?" (I recall that there are crater-size formulae in the sci.space FAQ, but I can't at the moment access my records about the estimated size of Toutatis.) Oh, by the way, Donald Yeomans of JPL mentioned at the World Space Congress that Hubble was scheduled to take a look at Toutatis this winter, but couldn't provide any more information when I questioned him on this. I am sure that by the time the Decmber 1992 encounter has happened, the uncertainties in Totatis's future position will shrink considerably. Then we will know whether we should start panicking or forget about the whole thing. 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 15 : Issue 259 ------------------------------