Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V11_4/V11_473.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 30KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from beak.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/8aNTzuW00VcJI=Fk51>;
          Fri,  1 Jun 1990 01:41:15 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <MaNTzPa00VcJE=[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri,  1 Jun 1990 01:40:44 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #473

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 11 : Issue 473

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Submissions to the Digest/sci.space should be mailed to [e-mail]
 while all other mail, such as subscription requests and general question,
 should be sent to [e-mail] or, if pressing, to
 [e-mail].  Thanks.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Today's Topics:
                  Innumeracy
               Re: HAWAII AND STAR WARS
   USSR's Krystall expansion module launched for Mir space station
             Re: shuttle progress
               Space Sail Race
              Mt. Graham Hearings (long)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 31 May 90 08:03:26 PDT
From: [e-mail]
X-Vmsmail-To: UTADNX::UTSPAN::AMES::"[e-mail]",HAIRSTON
Subject: Innumeracy

I recently finished reading the book "Innumeracy" by John Allen Paulos and I
recommend it highly.  The theme of the book is that people who who have no
concept of magnitudes and are unable to deal with numbers (hence the term
"innumeracy") are therefore vulnerable to any con artist, politician,
financial investment salesperson, etc. who can throw a statistic at them.
Paulos uses a lot of great examples to show how a quick, back of the envelope
calculation can be used to figure whether a statistic or claim is valid or not.
So in that spirit, let's  do a quick analysis on the following factoid that
turned up here in Space Digest:

>--Alan Wexelblat
>Bull Worldwide Information Systems    internet: [e-mail]
>phone: [phone]            Usenet: spdcc.com!know!wex
>  The taxes of every American west of the Mississippi are used to pay off
>  the interest on the national debt.

Now that's a really frightening thought if it's true (and I have no doubt
that some politician somewhere has used this and probably believes it too),
but let's see if it stands up to examination.  Using round numbers (remember,
this is a quick off the cuff exercise, we don't need the answer to be accurate
to the penny) the federal government last year spent about $1.1 trillion and
ran a deficit of around $100 billion (that last figure is still debated, but
$100 billion is close enough for here).  That means the feds took in about
$1 trillion in taxes.  Now the interest payment on the deficit is about 15% of
the budget or $165 billion.  Thus that means that only 16.5% of all the taxes
paid in last year came from west of the Mississippi.  Thus either the popula-
tion east of the Mississippi is very dense (no jokes please) comprising roughly
83.5% of all the US, or else all the wealth is concentrated over there (which
will come as a real shock to California and Texas).  We do have fewer folks
this side of the Big Muddy, but 16.5%???  Get real!  So I checked the census
records in the library (the one statistic here that I wasn't certain of, so
I went to find out before I commited it to electrons) and out of 245.2 million
folks in the US in 1988, 95.1 million (or 38.8%) of us live west of the
Mississippi.  So even allowing some inequality in the geographical distribution
of wealth, the western half of the US pays somewhere on the order of 35-43% of
the federal taxes, more than double the payment on the interest on the deficit.

So what does this have do with space?  Lots.  For a group that is supposed
to be technologically and scientifically oriented, a surprisingly large
number of postings quote bogus "statistics" or "numerical facts" that
any competent high school graduate ought to be able to catch.  And when
someone pulls a howler like the above, then the reaction of the reader is
"well, if they aren't competent to see through that fallacy, why should I take
anything else they say as valid?"  I probably would agree with Mr. Wexelblat
that the size of the deficit is a horrible, obscence, gargantuan, (insert your
choice of adjectives here) thing, but it doesn't do his cause any good to spew
out misinformation about it.

As the old saying (slightly updated) goes: "Be sure brain is engaged before
putting fingertips into gear."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Hairston--Center for Space Sciences--University of Texas at Dallas
SPAN address  UTSPAN::UTADNX::UTD750::HAIRSTON

So long as you get your statistics right 90% of the time, who cares about the
other 5% ? ---- Rap Master Ronnie

------------------------------

Date: 31 May 90 19:22:19 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!uflorida!stat!sun13!fsu!prism![e-mail]  (Matthew DeLuca)
Subject: Re: HAWAII AND STAR WARS

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bruce Henderson) writes:
>
>All this huffing and belowing about launch facilities in Hawaii is really
>nonsense.  I don't know why anyone owuld go to the trouble of building
>a launch site in a place where you have to put all you rockets on a
>ship of some sort and sail them arround when we have a perfectly good desert
>here in California to play with!  And before any people who think they are
>environmentally concerned than I am bring up "endangered speciaes X", I
>would suggest you go visit the Mojave Desert out north of a little place
>called Land Fare.  Nothing..... for miles and miles.  A nice rocket launch
>wouldn't disturb anyone's beach party.  Besides, I'd love an excuse to
>go work on high tech stuff in the middle of my favorite desert!
>:-)

It's easy; from California, you can't make launches into 'normal' orbits
that make maximum use of the Earth's rotational velocity.  To take maximum
advantage of the extra 'kick' provided by the Earth, you must launch to
the east.  However, this means that all your stages, failed rockets, and
various debris will follow the ground track of your ascent...which goes
up over part of the U.S. and probably across Mexico.  I don't think the
Mexicans would appreciate the first stage of a Titan IV dropping down on
them.  With a couple thousand miles of ocean separating Hawaii from North
and South America, this problem is eliminated.

Also, Hawaii is the southernmost state in the U.S.; at somewhat under 20
degrees of latitude, it gets more of a boost from the Earth's rotation
(remember, rotational velocity is faster the closer to the equator you
are) than any other site, including Cape Canaveral, which is at 28.5 degrees.
Shipping rockets is a pain, true, but Ariannespace has to ship all of their
rockets from (presumably) Europe to Kourou, French Guiana, in South America,
and seems to have no problems.

--
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology      Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards,
Office of Computing Services         for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
ARPA: [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 31 May 90 18:31:31 -0400
From: Glenn Chapman <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
        [e-mail], [e-mail],
        [e-mail], [e-mail]
Subject: USSR's Krystall expansion module launched for Mir space station

     The USSR successfully launched the new the 20 Tonne Krystall expansion
module for the Mir space station May 31 (today) at 2:33 pm Moscow Time
(6:33 EDT)  using  a Proton booster from the Baikonur Cosmodrome.
Currently all systems are operating
perfectly.  The planed docking with Mir will occur on June 6th on the axial
docking port at the front "ball" section of Mir. Shortly there after the
module will be swung to one of the four side docking ports on that ball by
means of a robot arm attached to the new section itself. This module is almost
the same size as the core section of Mir, and will deploy solar panels
producing up to 20 Kilowatts of power, doubling Mir's capacity.  Its main
function is to study crystal growth and materials processing in zero G.  In
addition at its front end is a ball style docking port designed to take the
Buran type shuttle. Krystal is also carrying supplies to help repair the Soyuz
TM-9 craft, which has several lose thermal blankets.
     Kristall has had some problems getting off the ground, as the
launched was originally to be in February, then the end of March was set, Apr.
9, followed by Apr. 19th.  It appears at that time software problems on board
the Mir station computers were causing problems with the docking tests.  These
are now stated as having been ratified.     When Krystall docks to Mir it will
complete the second stage of Mir's expansion.  At this point it will have both
room and power that the NASA space station will not achieve before 1997. In
spite of this the launch was shown on Vermya (Moscow TV's nightly news) but
only after programs on the USA and Canadian visits of Gorbachev.

                                                  Glenn Chapman
                                                  MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jun 90 01:18:51 GMT
From: ucla-seas!boole![e-mail]  (Sean F. Nazareth/;093090)
Subject: Re: shuttle progress

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Len Popp) writes:
>>Did you know that the actual shuttle color is green?  The special alluminum
>>used in the body is green.
>
>Are you sure this is the aluminum?  Airplanes built by Boeing have a
>protective green coating on the aluminum, which is eventually removed by
>spraying the plane with some noxious solvent.
>
>    Len Popp        ...microsoft!lenp
Yes it is aluminum, but it has been sprayed with a primer. Jim remembered
incorrectly.

------------------------------

Date: 31 May 90 21:21:51 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!jhunix![e-mail]  (Thomas G Edwards)
Subject: Space Sail Race

I was just reading The Johns Hopkins University Gazette, and
caught an article about the Columbus 500 Space Sail Cup during
the 1992 International Space Year.  Evidently, Hopkins Aplied Physics
Lab (JHU APL) has an entry in this.  The article claims that
various space sails from six countries will be launched for the
event.  They also claim that NASA has agreed to provide the
team with free launch and technical advice.
  The sails themselves cost $3 to $15 million, and include many
various shapes.  The JHU-APL entry will be an aluminized, reflective
sail in the shape of a flat disk with a diameter of 560 feet, and
will weigh 400 pounds (180 kg).  The sail will be folded up for
launch, and unfurl in high Earth orbit.  It will carry a tv camera,
antenna, solar panels, and student experiments.

  When I was much yonger, I remember making models of solar sails
out of paper and pipecleaners.  It's nice to see that the fantasy
of a decade or so ago will become reality soon.

-Thomas

------------------------------

Date: 31 May 90 17:23:48 GMT
From: pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!ohstpy![e-mail]
Subject: Mt. Graham Hearings (long)

Congressional Hearings on Mt. Graham

On June 26th, select subcommittees of the House Committee on Merchant Marine
and Fisheries, and the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs will review
the establishment of an astronomical observatory on Mt. Graham.  The General
Accounting Office (GAO) has been investigating claims by the Sierra Club and
its co-plaintiffs versus the Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service
that the University of Arizona and their collaborators in the Mt. Graham
International Observatory are attempting to circumvent federal environmental
protection statutes.  These hearings, in view of the recent round of court
injunctions and appeals regarding construction on Mt. Graham, will decide the
ultimate fate of an observatory on Mt. Graham.

As a result, an intense lobbying and letter writing effort has been intiated
by certain environmental groups - primarily the Sierra Club - opposed to an
observatory on Mt. Graham.  Notably, the Environmental Defense Fund has
remained neutral, even going so far as to publically distance itself from the
more extreme anti-development groups.

Similar efforts were made to block the establishment of an observatory on
Mauna Kea (unsuccessful) and Junipero Serra (successful, but because it turned
out to be a site of significance to the religion of coastal Native Americans,
not for environmental reasons).  If the effort to block an observatory on Mt.
Graham succeeds, it is unlikely that any future site will be developed in the
continental US again.

What is at stake is the future of astronomy on Mt. Graham, and with it the
future of the further development of ground-based astronomy in the continental
United States.

I'm passing on a call from my astronomical colleagues to ask for the support
of all those interested to try to offset the anti-observatory effort with one
of our own.  While as an astronomer I have a vested interest, we need others
concerned about the future of astronomy in general (not just in the US) to
express their support for this project.  So, cut this out and spread it around
to astronomical societies and the like.  We have to act soon.

Here are the principal players:

    The Honorable Gerry E. Stubbs, Chairman
    Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife
    237 CH Office Building
    Washington, DC  20515

    The Honorable Bruce F. Vento, Chairman
    Subcommittee on National Parks/Public Lands
    2304 RH Office Building
    Washington, DC 20515

   Arizona congressional delegation

    The Honorable Jim Kolbe
    410 Cannon House Office Building
    Washington, DC  20515

    The Honorable Morris K. Udall
    235 Cannon House Office Building
    Washington, DC  20515

   Ohio congressional delegation (and one responsive senator)

    The Honorable Chalmers P. Wylie
    Rayburn House Office Building
    Washington, DC  20515

    The Honorable John R. Kasich
    Longworth House Office Building
    Washington, DC  20515

    The Honorable John H. Glenn
    United States Senate
    Hart Senate Office Building
    Washington, DC 20510

If you care about an observatory on Mt. Graham, please write to these people
and your home state's congressional and senatorial representives.

------

There have been a few postings in this newsgroup about the Mt. Graham issue.
Most, sadly, have been poorly informed, or have quoted from the newsletters of
either the Sierra Club or "Earth First!".  Since I have access to all of the
documents on the issue (some 30+ volumes of it: all the EIS's, Biological
Opinions, and court depositions), I thought I'd provide some background for
those who only have access to newspapers, "Time"-like magazine accounts,
TV evening news sound bites, etc.

While as an astronomer I have an interest in seeing new large telescopes
built, and would directly or indirectly benefit from them professionally, I've
tried my best to state the facts as I see them.

------

I would like to first point out that media coverage has hardly been fair on
this issue.  As public institutions, The University of Arizona and The Ohio
State University are specifically prohibited by law from mounting the kind of
intense media campaign we have seen from the anti-observatory groups.  It
would constitute a political use of public funds.  The opposition groups have
purposely distorted the issues in their bitter media campaign, and beyond
answering specific queries from the press, the universities involved are
powerless to respond with their own media campaigns.  As one colleague of mine
at UofA has put it (and I paraphrase): `They can say anything they want, and
unless asked by the press, we can't answer them.  If we officially try to use
the media to say anything in reply on our own, we open ourselves up to
accusations of misuse of public funds.  And they know it.'

In particular, the opposition groups have claimed that their concern is for
the Mt. Graham Red Squirrel, an endangered sub-species of the North American
Red Squirrel that is found only on Mt. Graham (though the *species* itself is
found all over).  Another claim is that Mt. Graham is one of a rare set of
"sky islands"; isolated, pristine ecosystems left over from the last Ice Age,
which are inhabited by rare species.  They also claim that the UofA has done a
"rush job" in an attempt to circumvent federal environmental law, involving
"millions" in lobbying money.

These claims are patently false.

The *real* issue is a turf battle mounted by those who view development of any
kind - astronomical or otherwise - in wild areas as bad, no matter how benign
or even beneficial to the local environment.  For the Sierra Club chapters
behind the current rounds of lawsuits, astronomical sites on any *Arizona*
mountaintops seem to be a particular bee in their bonnet.  They have
publically stated that if they could work their will, they would see to the
closings of Kitt Peak, Mt. Hopkins, and Mt. Lemmon after shutting down Mt.
Graham.

The groups involved are not representative of the broad spectrum of
environmental concerns - most sincere and which I generally support- in
Arizona or the US in general.  They are simply unusually vocal.  In
particular, this one rather small group seems bent on a misinformation
campaign.

As far as I can tell, a little over $2 million has been spent by UofA on the
effort to get the Mt. Graham site approved.   For one, environmental impact
surveys cost money, pure and simple, and interested parties must pay for them.
A fair fraction has also been spent on lobbying.  It is a simple fact of
political life that to get anywhere near the federal legislature for anything
these days requires that one go through lobbying channels.  Unless you have a
personal relationship with key members of Congress, you can't even get in the
front door (so much for government "for the people").  For the environmental
groups to complain about this is hypocritical; they're masters at lobbying
techniques themselves.  Any project that wishes to use public lands for any
purpose has to get the approval of the Congress, and lobbying is standard
operating procedure; part of the cost of the project.

As a result of the anti-observatory campaign (which includes, unfortunately,
the extremist "Earth First!" group which most reputable environmental groups
have distanced themselves from), a serious misconception has arisen that the
UofA has somehow failed to follow the environmental procedures laid down by
law in regard to the Mt. Graham project.  The "law" in this case is both the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act (EPA).
Most of the opposition literature has accused the UofA of trying to railroad
approval by the Congress through intense lobbying.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

In reality, a long and rather involved process has been followed, begun in
1980, which has so far included two environmental impact studies (EIS), two
biological assessments, and two biological opinons, and now a federal court
injunction, a successful appeal, and a pending Congressional hearing.  In
fact, a complete chronology of events and actions runs some 7 single spaced
type pages.

I summarize the key events below:

In July 1980, the University of Arizona began cooperative efforts with the US
Forest Service and the US Fish and Wildlife Service to find a suitable site
for a new generation of astronomical telescopes in Arizona.  In 1981, site
surveys found that Mt. Graham, in southeastern Arizona, meets the requirements
of a good site for astronomical research, citing in particular its relative
isolation from interference from urban lighting, number of clear nights,
steadiness and dryness of the air above the mountain, and accessibility of the
mountain top.  This began a round in informal discussions with federal and
local officials.

In 1983, Mt. Graham was selected for direct testing and a permit was issued to
the Smithsonian Institution to conduct the study.  In 1984, a formal proposal
for an observatory was made by the UofA and a "Preliminary Analysis Actions"
document was filed.  As a result, the Office of Arid Land Studies was
commissioned, with Forest Service approval, to conduct the first Environmental
Impact Survey (EIS).  Further, an allowance was made in the Arizona Wilderness
Act [of 1984] to establish a 65,000 acre wilderness study area on Mt. Graham.
Ironically, this action was supported by the Grand Canyon Chapter of the
Sierra Club and other environmental groups which have lead the opposition ever
since.

In 1985, the Forest Service initiated a second, independent EIS, before the
completion (in November 1985) of the first EIS.  This "draft" EIS was used as
part of the input data for the second Forest Service EIS, and formally
published in 1986.  The draft EIS put forward 7 alternative site plans for the
3500 acre area and a "Preferred Alternative" with telescopes on what is called
"High Peak."  After publication, this document was subject to an extensive
round of public hearings and comments, all in accordance with strict federal
guidelines.

In June 1987, as a result of the biological studies initiated by the UofA
interest in Mt. Graham as a potential astronomical site, the population of Mt.
Graham Red Squirrel (a sub-species of the rather common North American Red
Squirrel which it was still legal to hunt) was found to have greatly
decreased, and was subsequently was declared an endangered species (even
though it is only a sub-species and the "species" of red squirrels as such is
not in general in danger) in accord with the guidelines established in the
Federal Endangered Species Act.  As a result, the Forest Service, in
accordance with federal environmental law, prepared a "Biological Assessment"
of the impact of the "Preferred Alternative" on the red squirrel.

Here the path gets a bit torturous.

The UofA requested that the Forest Service consider an alternative which met
the university's actual requirements in terms of a minimum number of
telescopes and the necessary space.  This alternative was much reduced from
the original grand concept that would have included up to 17 telescopes and
related facilities, making Mt. Graham in a sense another Kitt Peak.  This new
proposal was the same as "Alternative E" in the original draft EIS, and was to
place telescopes on High Peak and Emerald Peak, connected by *existing* roads,
and making use of areas already cleared by foresting.

This lead to a second biological assessment, called the "Expanded Biological
Assessment" prepared by the Forest Service in February 1988, and a further
"Biological Opinion" entered by the US Fish and Wildlife Service in July 1988.
The latter gave 3 "Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives", the first with 4
telescopes on High Peak and one with 3 telescopes at first, eventually leading
to a total of 7 telescopes, on Emerald Peak.  The UofA elected to accept the
Emerald Peak alternative in view of the better astronomical conditions, and
the fact that Emerald Peak provided adequate space for the minimum telescope
plans ("Reasonable and Prudent Alternative #3" in the biological opinion).

None of the professionals who carried out the biological and environmental
studies were directly connected with the project and some were in fact
personally opposed to it.  The bottom line of all the reports, despite some
philosophical opposition, was that no significant adverse affect of the
observatory on the Mt. Graham ecology was demonstrated, provided certain
precautions and a cutback in the scope of the original proposal be accepted.
UofA and its partner institutions have accepted these precautions and
cutbacks.

The reason for going to Congress was that there was an effort by individuals
in opposition to the project within the Fish and Wildlife agency to use an
unusually rigid intepretation of federal environmental law to delay the
project for their own purposes.  Had a request for Congressional intervention
not been made, the project could have been delayed for 4 or more years.
Essentially, the UofA went to Congress and said `Look, we've just spent more
than 4 years following all of the legally prescribed procedures and got a
compromise result that we accept, but certain employees of the agency are
refusing to budge. Please do something.'  In other words, UofA went over the
heads of the footdraggers to their ultimate bosses, the Congress.  In a sense,
such footdragging represented individuals within the Fish and Wildlife Service
acting outside their legal jurisdiction.  Their Fish and Wildlife superiors
asked them to prepare a fair and unbiased report, and even if they were
opposed to the project.  If their scientific findings supported the project
they were to report those findings regardless of personal feelings.   Anything
else would be a serious breach of professional and scientific ethics.  This
sounds less like "pressure to find a positive result," than a reminder that
their public and scientific mandate is to be fair.  However, that is exactly
how it has been portrayed to the media by two Fish and Wildlife Service
biologists. It was this supposed pressure that led to the recent federal court
injunction against construction issued by Judge Alfredo Marquez which was
successfully appealled by the UofA a few weeks ago.

--------

Mt. Graham is far from pristine.  For decades, Mt. Graham has been a popular
recreational site; with a paved highway all the way to the summit providing
access to communications antennas, hunting lodges, camp sites, (including a
Bible camp) and a fishing lake.  Areas around the summit ridge have been
forested since the late 1800s.  As a consequence of the interest in Mt. Graham
as an observatory site, all development on the mountain and surrounding areas,
hunting of the red squirrel, and logging which had deforested 10,000 acres,
has halted.  Only observatory development would be allowed.  The presence of
an observatory, backed by Arizona "dark sky" statutes would inhibit commercial
development for a fairly large radius around the Mt. Graham area.

In 1985, OSU began considering joining a consortium with UofA to build the
"Columbus Telescope", a twin 8-meter telescope that when completed would be an
effective 11.3m telescope - the largest then planned.  At this time a letter
was sent from the Grand Canyon Chapter of the Sierra Club to the Chairman of
the Astronomy Dept at OSU, Eugene Capriotti.  This letter stated in no
uncertain terms that they would use any means in their power to block the
development of a new observatory site on *any* mountain in Arizona.  That it
was Mt. Graham in particular made no apparent difference to them.  This group
has been at the forefront of all subsequent legal action to block the
observatory.

There was no mention in this letter of the red squirrel.  Probably for good
reason.  Before 1987, when the sub-species was listed as "endangered" by the
US Fish and Wildlife Service, it was legal to hunt the red squirrel in season.
The "bag limit" being 5 squirrels per hunter.  In addition, to make hunting
more attractive, the Fish and Wildlife Service artificially introduced the
Abert squirrel onto Mt. Graham, where, in the absense of its usual predators,
it has thrived and competed with the red squirrel for food and other
resources. Given nearly 4 years of dry winters in the Western and Southwestern
US, this enhanced competition has not helped the red squirrel much.  All this
time, between 1980 and 1986 - SIX YEARS - the environmental groups so
concerned about the squirrel now did not say a single word.

As an environmentally concerned individual, I am most appalled by the alacrity
with which opponents to the Mt. Graham project have stooped to distortion and
outright lies.  If they have a truly valid complaint, then they have no need
to resort to such tactics.  I am even more distressed by those groups that
have used and/or threatened violence against both property and individuals (it
is a fact that the heads of the three major astronomy depts have all received
death threats in association with their involvement in this project).

So far as biologists and ecologists can determine, the only scopes that have
ever killed red squirrels have been attached to hunting rifles.

-----------------

DISCLAIMER:  I am a research astronomer associated with The Ohio State
University, a major partner in the Columbus 11.3m Telescope sited for Mt.
Graham.  However, as a postdoctoral research fellow whose appointment expires
in 1992, about 2-3 years before the projected first light of the project, I
have no direct involvement with the Columbus Project, nor with elements of any
other projects which are targetting Mt. Graham as a potential site.  The
statements above where not obviously personal opinions or observations are
exerpted or distilled from documents at my disposal, and in no way represent
the opinions of The Ohio State University, The University of Arizona, any
local, state, or federal agencies, The American Astronomical Society, the
Astronomical Society of the Pacific, or any groups in support or opposition to
the Mt. Graham International Observatory.

I just calls `em likes I sees `em.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Richard Pogge         |  Internet: [e-mail]
Dept. of Astronomy    |  Bitnet:   pogge@ohstpy
Ohio State University |  USnail:   Columbus, OH  43210
-----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V11 #473
*******************