Date: Thu, 20 May 93 05:00:18 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #594 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Thu, 20 May 93 Volume 16 : Issue 594 Today's Topics: Billsats Liberal President murders spaceflight? (was Re: SDIO kaput!) Magellan to Test Aerobraking in Venus Atmosphere (2 msgs) murder in space (3 msgs) Philosophy Quest. How Boldly? Questions for KC-135 veterans Saturn (was Re: Dance of the Planets) Soyuz and Shuttle Comparisons Space Billboard - How visible would it be? Space Marketing -- Boycott (2 msgs) Space Marketing would be wonderfull. (3 msgs) Yoo hoo, White Sands? (was Re: DC-X Status?) 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: Tue, 18 May 93 17:00:11 CDT From: jim jaworski Subject: Billsats Newsgroups: sci.space 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) writes: > Richard J Shank sez; > > >I can see it now emblazened across the evening sky -- > > THIS SPACE FOR RENT > > How about - ALL SPACE FOR RENT -? Who's the landlord for space, anyway? GOD IS!!! jim@inqmind.bison.mb.ca The Inquiring Mind BBS, Winnipeg, Manitoba 204 488-1607 ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 1993 15:08:15 GMT From: Pawel Moskalik Subject: Liberal President murders spaceflight? (was Re: SDIO kaput!) Newsgroups: sci.space Indeed, Carter was a President during early years of shuttle development. And indeed, he did not kill it. Does it prove that he was good for space technology. Not at all. Carter did not secure adequate funding for the shuttle development. He wanted to have it built cheap. You save on development, but then you have to pay much more in operational costs. Today US is paying for Carter's petty saving. Pawel Moskalik ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 1993 09:56:30 GMT From: "Nik Whitehead (MicroCentre PhD" Subject: Magellan to Test Aerobraking in Venus Atmosphere Newsgroups: sci.space : MAGELLAN TO TEST AEROBRAKING MANEUVER IN VENUS ATMOSPHERE : NASA's Magellan spacecraft will dip into the atmosphere of Venus : beginning May 25 in a first-of-its-kind "aerobraking" maneuver, lowering the : spacecraft's orbit to start a new experiment. : The aerobraking technique will use the drag created by Venus' : atmosphere to slow the spacecraft and circularize Magellan's orbit. Currently : Magellan is looping around Venus in a highly elliptical orbit. Are we talking aerobraking a la 2010 here? Nik ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 1993 15:00 UT From: Ron Baalke Subject: Magellan to Test Aerobraking in Venus Atmosphere Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1td08e$7r3@dux.dundee.ac.uk>, nwhitehe@tay.mcs.dundee.ac.uk (Nik Whitehead (MicroCentre PhD)) writes... > >: NASA's Magellan spacecraft will dip into the atmosphere of Venus >: beginning May 25 in a first-of-its-kind "aerobraking" maneuver, lowering the >: spacecraft's orbit to start a new experiment. > >: The aerobraking technique will use the drag created by Venus' >: atmosphere to slow the spacecraft and circularize Magellan's orbit. Currently >: Magellan is looping around Venus in a highly elliptical orbit. > >Are we talking aerobraking a la 2010 here? > The aerobraking Magellan will be doing won't be quite as dramatic as the aerobraking in 2010. However, this will be the first controlled aerobraking experiment around another planet. There is some risk involved with the aerobraking. The spacecraft will experience some heating as it passes through the atmosphere, most of which will be dissipated through the solar arrays and the back of the High Gain Antenna. The aerobraking will not only help circularize the orbit, but valuable data will also be collected on the aerobraking itself that can be used by future missions. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | Never laugh at anyone's /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | dreams. |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 09:21:02 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: murder in space Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1tb3f1$18a@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes: > > >THe US now has Long Arm statutes, that cover crimes against >Government personnell anywhere, anytime and against >People on US vessels. I think it also inludes, crimes against >US citizens in International areas, including AIrports. These statutes are also probably illegal. According to the Constitution, treaties form superior law to legislation, and we are founding signatories to the UN treaties which prohibit interference in the internal sovereign affairs of nations. That means kidnaping Noreiga is likely a crime conducted "under color of law". There are strict penalties in the US Code for crimes conducted "under color of law". Note that it would be perfectly OK to declare war on Panama and sieze Noreiga as a "spoil of war", but the raid as conducted is probably illegal under the UN charter, and hence under US law. The same goes for the doctor kidnaped by US agents in Mexico. Of course the law is what the men with the most guns say it is, so the point is moot. Gary -- Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary 534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 10:17:44 GMT From: Achurist Subject: murder in space Newsgroups: sci.space In article djf@cch.coventry.ac.uk (Marvin Batty) writes: >In article enf021@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Achurist) writes: >> >>If you murdered someone in space, whose juristiction is it. i.e who >>will prosecute you for it? The boundaries of individual countries >>stop in the upper atmosphere so what happens??? >> >> >>Akurist. > >I presume that if the murder took place aborad a craft or station, the >country that owned the vessel would have juresdiction over the killer. >In 2010, A. C. Clarke has the Russians prohibited from boarding Discovery >on the grounds of it being US government property. Presumably, the government >would have juresdiction over all the nationals entering into that vessel. >Another question is not "who has juresdiction?" but "who can get the thief?" > >"Star Cops" as an example of the problems such an international body would >have. > That's the 2010 univese but does it still work in this one? well yes actually I think it would, muscles both political and military would probably flexed down on earth. You mentioned the problems of international bodies. What if the ship which housed the murder was owned or operated by many countries. (fred possibly), the saudi's would want to chop something off, the americans would want there investment back on the victim, and the japanese would give him/her to the americans!! I quite liked starcops by the way. It would be quite easy to hide a body in the vastness of space. space being] BIG ,(see hitchhikers). Akurist. ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 1993 11:29:27 -0400 From: Matthew DeLuca Subject: murder in space Newsgroups: sci.space,soc.culture.canada In article <1993May19.071557.8577@wisipc.weizmann.ac.il> ward@pashosh.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il (Ward Paul) writes: >In article <1tbf3sINNft9@mojo.eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes: >> >>Don't worry. We've got you on the list after we take over Canada, but those U. >>of Toronto folks keep on finding the fine print on the contracts we send up. >>If they don't stop it, more drastic action will be required. >Yeah right. We won last time (and burned the White House to boot!), and >we'll do the same thing again if necessary. You have to wonder what they are teaching in Canadian schools these days. And people say American schools are bad... :-) -- Matthew DeLuca Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!matthew Internet: matthew@phantom.gatech.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 08:52:22 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Philosophy Quest. How Boldly? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <4470@uswnvg.uswnvg.com> djwilli@uswnvg.com (Dan Williams) writes: >: >Shells also provide protection from gravity, and also from loss of precious >water. Large variable tides would subject a variety of sealife to the rigours >of a duo-environment. In the real world, the race between the tortoise and the hare was won by the hare. A shell limits movement and the rejection of waste heat to the environment. Thus shelled creatures are less active foragers. In the arms race between armor and speed, armor seems to have lost most frequently. The large armored creatures are no more while the agile endoskeletal creatures seem to have prospered. The design of the largest armored amphibian, the turtle, seems to have been frozen early. It has changed little in millions of years. I think rapid evolution is necessary for intelligence to develop, and that a hard shell tends to freeze evolution before it can advance enough. >I would argue that Nature has worked with several successful bus designs in >creating different species. Insects do walk on a double tripod base, >I know of no three legged species but 5 limbs are common amoung some >groups, {Elephants, and new world monkeys} How about snakes? Crustaceans, >clams, or slug. The squid might be a good base design. Grow a shell to provide support, use large tentacles to pull the body along and retain the smaller >tentacles as manipulators combined with the mandibles to provide leverage. >Of course this creature requires either wheels under the shell, or a natural >environment of a thick algal mat to ease the drag on its shell. :-) I was suggesting that bipedal locomotion requires a more complex brain than more stable bases. Whether one forces development of the other is subject to debate. I suspect a feedback occurs. If we want to end up with intelligence, we should prefer forms that encourage development of complex brains. Neither 2 nor 4 limbs offer unconditional stability in motion while the double tripod of the insect does. >I would consider it to be a falacy to expect life to have evolved under rules >simular to what guided life on this planet. Materials taken advantage of >could be diferent, as could base structures. What if the intelligent creature >is some form of communal organism. I suspect carbon chemistry forces common structures for life. I don't expect a creature to have titanium bones or Kevlar skin simply because the creation of such things isn't compatible with the energetics of carbon life chemistry. Life tends to fill every available niche, and the Earth offers a very wide variety of niches, yet most creatures follow a common pattern of material usage in their construction. I don't think this is accidental. I suspect this is the only way the chemistry allows. Silicon creatures breathing a fluorine atmosphere seem far fetched. As to intelligent communal organisms, I suspect that inter-unit communications would be too slow and too limited to make that work. >: Thermodynamic considerations of surface/volume relationships would >: seem to dictate that active complex creatures stay in a size range >: similar to what we see about us. 6 inch tall intelligent aliens >: seem unlikely, as do those much larger than the elephant. >: >Giants were not unknown in this world and given a little longer development >time may have produced intelligent tool users. Our own species ranges from >7 foot giants to under 3 feet tall. It might have been harder to survive >outside that range, but we really don't have enough of a sample to say it >is impossible to be intelligent tool users on either end of the scale. I think we can be fairly confident of the lower bounds due to the necessity for complex brains and the need to regulate temperature. The top end is less clear. I'll concede that intelligent dinosaurs may be a possibility. But I don't think they'd succeed in competition with creatures in our size range. As I said above, life seems to actively fill all possible niches, so it's highly likely that such competition would exist. The thermodynamics favors the smaller creature when high activity is required. I suspect that "monkey curiosity" is a prerequisite for intelligence of high order to develop. A large sluggish creature wouldn't be able to sustain that. Gary -- Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary 534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 08:58:09 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Questions for KC-135 veterans Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993May18.113849.15908@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: > >Hmm. I would think being on edge would be *worse*, since that might >make the tracks unsymmetrical around the spindle due to the sideways >force on the head. Older drives used to tell you to reformat if you >were going to stand the drive on edge; at 3+g, this side force might >even be a problem for new drives. Modern drives have embedded servo tracks. The G force on the heads from a track to track seek are substantially greater than 3G. The servo can cope. Head loading on the platter is another matter. It's regulated by Bernoulli forces of trapped air flow. There's no servo to keep the spacing constant. I don't know if 3G is enough to cause a head crash, but it might be. Gary -- Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary 534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 07:59:14 GMT From: Uwe Bonnes Subject: Saturn (was Re: Dance of the Planets) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro |> |> Does anyone know of any other packages that plot the positions |> of Saturn's moons apart from 'Dance'? |> I ask because Saturn is returning and determining which moon is which and best |> time to look can be very laborious from tables with pen and calculator. My |> record is 6 moons with Celestron-8 (hoping to break record with 20"! Ireland's |> LARGEST telescope by the way! Both the "starchart" and "(x)ephem" - package can plot the position of the moons of saturn (and very much more!) Uwe Bonnes bon@lte.e-technik.uni-erlangen.de ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 14:37:56 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Soyuz and Shuttle Comparisons Newsgroups: sci.space In article <119604@bu.edu> tombaker@bumetb.bu.edu (Thomas A. Baker) writes: >>The most revealing comparison between Shuttle and Soyuz is cost. All >>other comparisons are apples and oranges. >I like this statement, though for my own reasons. Cost comparisons depend >a lot on whether the two options are similar, and *then* it becomes very >revealing to consider what their differences are. Can Soyuz launch the >Long Exposure Facility? Course not... >relay to LEO by year's end? Almost certainly not, but the Russians are >pretty good about making space accessible on a tight schedule. I think it is better to look at overall space infrastructure. The Russians can't operate LDEF or Spacelab, true enough. On the other hand, they don't need to. Soyuz/Mir gives them far more capability for far less cost then Shuttle/LDEF or Shuttle/Spacelab. 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." | +----------------------28 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 1993 15:26:55 GMT From: Terry Morse Subject: Space Billboard - How visible would it be? Newsgroups: sci.environment,misc.consumers,sci.astro,talk.environment,talk.politics.space,sci.space,rec.backcountry In article <24.P022y43JM01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> jjh00@diag.amdahl.com (Joel Hanes) writes: >Well, I just got off the phone after talking to someone at >Space Marketing. > >According to the person I talked to, the proposed "billboard" >will be too small to resolve with the naked eye -- so small >and visually unimportant that fairly accurate directions about >where and when to look will be needed to observe it (for >laymen; I assume you astronomers and space enthusiasts >will know the exact ephemerides, and be painfully aware >of the damn thing). > Anyway, he suggested that the >visual impact would approximate that of a jumbo jet >at 45k feet (12km) altitude. >--- >Joel Hanes If this is the case, then what is the point? Who and how big is the target audience? The world's optical astronomers? Something here doesn't compute. Terry Morse morset@ccmail.orst.edu ************************************************************************** A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. -- Emerson Geez, I gotta have a REASON for everything? -- Calvin, imaginary friend of the tiger, Hobbes ************************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 07:26:54 GMT From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us Subject: Space Marketing -- Boycott Newsgroups: sci.environment,misc.consumers,misc.invest,sci.astro,talk.environment,talk.politics.space,sci.space,rec.backcountry,misc.rural,misc.headlines,k12.chat.teacher In article Dan Gaubatz writes: >For some reasons we humans think that it is our place to control >everything. I doubt that space advertising is any worse than any other >kind advertising, but it will be a lot harder to escape, and is probably >the most blatant example yet of our disregard for the fact that we are >not in fact creaters of the universe. Annoying little species, aren't we? Particularly annoying are people like yourself who think that anything human beings do is pathetic, insulting, and not worth trying. While it is true that we didn't create the universe, we CAN change many aspects of it and we SHOULD change it in ways that improve our lives. By your logic we should just stop trying to make our lives better because we are going to die anyway, and because we aren't powerful enough to control everything in the universe in some vast and impossible way. There's something really sick of that view of man's place in the universe and the pursuit of human values. --Brian ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 14:44:43 GMT From: Rob Dobson Subject: Space Marketing -- Boycott Newsgroups: sci.environment,misc.consumers,misc.invest,sci.astro,talk.environment,talk.politics.space,sci.space,rec.backcountry,misc.rural,misc.headlines,alt.flame NOTE FOLLOW UP In article brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us writes: >In article Dan Gaubatz writes: >>For some reasons we humans think that it is our place to control >>everything. I doubt that space advertising is any worse than any other >>kind advertising, but it will be a lot harder to escape, and is probably >>the most blatant example yet of our disregard for the fact that we are >>not in fact creaters of the universe. Annoying little species, aren't we? > >Particularly annoying are people like yourself who think that anything >human beings do is pathetic, insulting, and not worth trying. While it is >true that we didn't create the universe, we CAN change many aspects of it >and we SHOULD change it in ways that improve our lives. By your logic >we should just stop trying to make our lives better because we are >going to die anyway, and because we aren't powerful enough to control >everything in the universe in some vast and impossible way. There's >something really sick of that view of man's place in the universe >and the pursuit of human values. > I love it--one person does an extreme argument, then the next poster has to take it even further out. Look, Brian, your argument is too full of holes to detail them all, but basically: you are full of it. It is ridiculous to say "well, we change our environment some, therefore we should just change it haphazardly, and no one has the right to object to any changes we make, cause then they are obviously sick". Just because we have changed our enviornment to make it more habitable is no justification for placing a billboard in space. We DO change our environment to make it better, that is not the point. The point, which you avoided, is this: does adding a space billboard to the night sky make human life any better? I (and lots of others) think not. The only argument Ive heard in favor of this proposal is "o, its progress, you eco-freaks just want to stop progress.", which ignores the crucial point that putting a billboard in space doesnt make life any better for anyone except those who will be getting paid for it. -- A jazz singin farmer out standin in his field ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 1993 12:43:27 GMT From: David C Daye Subject: Space Marketing would be wonderfull. Newsgroups: misc.consumers,misc.headlines,misc.invest,sci.astro,sci.space,sci.environment,rec.backcountry,misc.rural,talk.environment,talk.politics.space In article <1993May18.142134.12974@newstand.syr.edu> dwjurkat@rodan.acs.syr.EDU (Jurkat) writes: >In article <1t866pINN8b8@rodan.UU.NET> kyle@rodan.UU.NET (Kyle Jones) writes: >>I was curious how much of an eyesore this proposed flying >>billboard would be so I did some rough calculations. >> >> [ add, subtract, pi, .... ] >> >>This doesn't sound like a nuisance or an abomination to me. >> >Do you really think there'll be only one advertiser or just one billboard? > [ .... fret, pant, .... ] >It'll make Los Vegas look down right homey in comparison. > Wait a minute, folks. There are still a few dozen of us geezers left who realize that TV isn't life. *TV* fills up with ads because it's inherently a communication medium. As such it's prime for stuffing full of ads because you're in the message receiving mode when you're watching. The rest of life is more complicated. Right now we have lots of indications of what space ads might come to be. We've had overhead advertising at least since the early 19xx's, in the forms of balloons, blimps, skywriting, search lights, and planes towing banners. For years we've had opportunities to fill up the sky with ads and we haven't. I'd love to hear from someone in one of these businesses to confirm, but I'm betting there are a lot of natural checks to this kind of advertising. Among them are probably the fact that people aren't looking for messages when they look up, the possibility that significant numbers of people can get pretty annoyed after moderate exposure, and the extremely low information content achievable. Now I'm pretty conservative, which means anti-free-market, when it comes to commercializing entire classes of the environment. Even so I'm *lots* more concerned about commercialization of the net than of the sky. [I'm sure there's a grammatical sentence in there somewhere....] -- +-----------------------------------+------------------------------------+ | David Daye DAYE.1@OSU.EDU | If encryption is outlawed, | | All opinions strictly mine. | only outlaws eo;; etoyr vpfrd/ | +-----------------------------------+------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1993 22:47:04 GMT From: "george.p.cotsonas" Subject: Space Marketing would be wonderfull. Newsgroups: sci.environment,misc.consumers,misc.invest,sci.astro,talk.environment,talk.politics.space,sci.space,rec.backcountry,misc.rural,misc.headlines,k12.chat.teacher In article , wcsbeau@superior.carleton.ca (OPIRG) writes: > In article vis@world.std.com (Tom R Courtney) writes: > >I got incensed when I read that Carl Sagan called this idea an "abomination." > >I don't think that word means what he thinks it does. Children starving in the > >richest country in the world is an abomination; an ad agency is at worst just > >in poor taste. > > > >Tom Courtney > > I don't think that idea means what you think it does. Having everyone > on Earth subject to some ad agency's "poor taste" *is* an abomination. > (abomination : n. loathing; odious or degrading habit or act; an > object of disgust. (Oxford Concise Dictionary)) Maybe *you* don't mind > having every part of your life saturated with commercials, but many of > us loathe it. I'd rather not have the beauty of the night sky always marred > by a giant billboard, and I'll bet the idea is virtually sacrilegious > to an astronomer like Sagan. > > Reid Cooper I couldn't agreed more with Reid. Perhaps it would make for good target practice? :-) -- George P. Cotsonas AT&T BL/CPL att!hocpa!geopi ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 1993 15:13:51 GMT From: ellert@nu1.uh.cwru.edu Subject: Space Marketing would be wonderfull. Newsgroups: sci.environment,misc.consumers,misc.invest,sci.astro,talk.environment,talk.politics.space,sci.space,rec.backcountry,misc.rural,misc.headlines,k12.chat.teacher In article , ez012344@hamlet.ucdavis.edu (Dan Herrin) writes: >In article vis@world.std.com (Tom R Courtney) writes: >>In some sense, I think that the folks who think the idea is wonderful, and the >>I got incensed when I read that Carl Sagan called this idea an "abomination." >>I don't think that word means what he thinks it does. Children starving in the >>richest country in the world is an abomination; an ad agency is at worst just >>in poor taste. > >Is it not also an abomination that somebody would spend money on "space >advertising" when those children are starving? Perhaps some redistribution >of wealth would help them ... By all means redistribute your wealth as you please, but leave my wealth alone. If anything is an abomination it is advertising in general and space billboards are simply a logical extension of advertising, and a techno- logically cool one at that. Initially, I think space advertising will appeal to a lot of people simply due to its novelty. Maybe it will proliferate, but I think it will go the way of Burma-Shave signs and highway billboards. Who really reads billboards anyways? Another logical extension, of a different concept, is space art -- gigantic sculptures of rubber-stamps, frisbees, the Venus di-Milo... Ed ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 14:34:49 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Yoo hoo, White Sands? (was Re: DC-X Status?) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1t326mINNk20@phantom.gatech.edu> matthew@phantom.gatech.edu (Matthew DeLuca) writes: > One possible problem with >regular rocket flights out of airports is that of air traffic control; at a >congested airport like O'Hare or Kennedy or Atlanta, it could be difficult to >come up with a clear vertical launch corridor. Actually, that should be pretty easy. Aircraft never fly over runways, just around them. Any large airport should have lots of space where they can assure there are no low flying aircraft. High flying aircraft are another matter, but that problem must be solved anywhere. >Then, of course, you've got >the problem of coming back down in an abort condition... Just restrict flight rates and it isn't a problem. Besides, it will be a while before rates at even a busy spaceport gets above one flight a day or so. >I'm not sure we could >do it all safely with our current ATC setup, and the costs of the upgrades >and changes needed might not be worth the expense without a *really* high >flight rate. That may be true. 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." | +----------------------28 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+ ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 594 ------------------------------