Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_3/V15NO370.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 29KB

Date: Mon,  2 Nov 92 05:25:02
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #370
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Mon,  2 Nov 92       Volume 15 : Issue 370

Today's Topics:
          ANSWER: Recognizing a Dyson sphere if you saw one
                 Automated space station construction
                    Limits to growth of knowledge
                           low earth orbits
                            Moving comets
                        NASA Coverup (2 msgs)
                Swift-Tuttle Comet a threat to earth?
                        the Happyface on Mars
                              Why Vote?

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 Nov 92 01:01:15 GMT
From: "Alan M. Carroll" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ANSWER: Recognizing a Dyson sphere if you saw one
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

>     Did you look at Dyson Spheres suspended on light-presuure?
> They require less mass (They  better *have* less mass to float on
> light) and I don't think they suffer the same forces.

In _Farthest Star_, the (solid) Dyson sphere is supported via momentum
transfer effects, in the same way the stations in a Lofstrom Loop
would be supported.

P.S. To solve the mass problem, the Builders were a galactic
civilization and built a single Dyson sphere, i.e. they used entire
other solar systems for material.

--
Alan M. Carroll          "Weren't there yams involved, too?" - J. Ockerbloom
Epoch Development Team
Urbana Il.               "I hate shopping with the reality-impaired" - Susan

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

Date: 2 Nov 92 01:28:25 GMT
From: Andrew Haveland-Robinson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Automated space station construction
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (I am a terminator.) writes:

>Can robots be launched to build the space station? They can work overtime.
>
>Henry Choy
>[e-mail]

Of course they could - this is just another area where Virtual Reality
will come into its own...

Virtual space travel and construction is much safer than the real thing!
Major cock-ups needn't involve loss of life, so I think this should
justify more VR space research...

(They don't need feeding or oxygen and don't produce any awkward waste
either... )

Anyone know what's going on?

Andy.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Haveland-Robinson Associates   | Email: [e-mail]         |
| 54 Greenfield Road, London     |        [e-mail] |
| N15 5EP England. 081-800 1708  | Also:  0621-88756 081-802 4502       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
>>>> Those that can, use applications. Those that can't, write them! <<<<

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

Date: Sun, 1 Nov 92 15:19:35 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Limits to growth of knowledge

-From: [e-mail] (Ken Arromdee)
-Subject: Re: Comet Collision
-Date: 30 Oct 92 18:16:16 GMT
-Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

-In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
->You are guilty of the classic fallacies of extrapolation. The first
->fallacy is an overestimate of short term advance. The second is the
->underestimate of the long term. Both are due, in part, to linear
->thinking, straight line extrapolation. Technological capabilities and
->knowledge are accumulating exponententially. If you make a linear
->extrapolation in a particular field, you will tend to "draw a line"
->of some slope that seems "reasonable". But the problems invariably
->turn out to be more difficult in your field than you actually
->believed.  So the exponential will for some period of time grow
->slower (lesser slope) than your line, but when it finally does cross
->it...

-There was a non-fiction article in Analog (a science fiction magazine) around
-1960.  The author pointed out exactly what you do here: lots of ideas about the
-future are extrapolated linearly.  He graphed the maximum speed that human
-beings could travel at, as an example, and showed that it increased faster than
-even an exponential.

-The curve also showed, however, that (by extrapolation) humanity would surpass
-the speed of light by the year 1985.

-I believe that in the 1980's he (or someone, anyway) wrote another article
-recognizing the existence of S-shaped curves that eventually level off.

-The moral is that some barriers can't be found by extrapolation from points
-before the barriers have any significant effect.  It's legitimate to argue that
-advances require solving a difficult or impossible problem; just noting that
-you can graph past that point is not an answer.

-(How do you conclude that technological capabilities are accumulating
-exponentially, anyway?)

There's a limit to growth of knowledge that doesn't seem to be getting as
much attention as it warrants in light of the seriousness of the problem:
the huge amount of information now available is pushing the limits of the
traditional library system.

If I need a specific item of physics or technology for a calculation, I can go
to the library and look through the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics,
Eshbach's Handbook of Engineering Fundamentals, and various encyclopedias.
If I can get the information there, then all's well, and I can often find it
in a few minutes to an hour. However, there is a considerable amount of
information in those publications that is not adequately covered in the
index, so I may have to think of all the related topics and run an
exhaustive search through them, which could take hours. If the information
is not there, I have to look for the specialized books and periodicals that
cover the topic (we do have a computerized card catalog, which helps
considerably with this). The specialized books tend to have pretty poor
indexes, so I often end up having to read a considerable portion of each
book to see if what I need is there. Sometimes the book is not available
locally, and it may take days to weeks to find a copy. (Assuming I don't
get fed up and postpone the entire line of investigation.)

When I finally find the information, it is often expressed in terms that are
highly specific to that particular field of study, since specialized books
are mainly intended for specialists. So I may have to study the subject for
days just to convert the information to a form that I can use.

The end result is that I may have to spend hours to weeks just to assemble

the information I need, before I can begin to work on my own design or
calculation. That's the status quo, and researchers seem to accept it more
than complain about it. But it does slow down further advances considerably,
and the problem continues to get worse as more information is added.

I think much greater use of computer technology can aid substantially in
dealing with this problem. Data bases, pattern searches, and greatly
improved indexing offer considerable hope. For instance, when the Grolier's
Encyclopedia came out on CD-ROM, magazine articles claimed that it had an
exhaustive index generated in advance by computer, which is actually larger
than the text of the encyclopedia itself. With aids such as these, research
time can potentially be cut tremendously. (Anyone know whether the CRC and
Eshbach's handbooks are available on CD-ROM yet?)

Another change that's very important in the long run for cross-pollination of
different fields is to make the notation and terminology more uniform, and
to include more explanations in the text - with conversion to electronic
format, the pressure to condense the text as much as possible to minimize
the number of printed pages is greatly reduced. Ideally, much of the
information in specialized fields would be usable by non-specialists
for peripherally related projects.

Putting reference materials on CD-ROM is a considerable step forward, but
perhaps an equally important advance is the development of huge centralized
data bases that can be accessed by multiple users. Having multiple terabytes
on-line at all times can nearly eliminate the task of sorting through stacks
of CD-ROMs. Fully implementing this may require changes in policies toward
copyrights and royalties.

Additions can also be made to the field of indexing. A permuted index (?)
allows the researcher to find every instance of a term in the text. It's
also possible (though very difficult) to create a "search tree", in which
the researcher enters one or more keywords or phrases, and the system
responds with a suggested range of topics that are relevant. (For instance,
to go back to the encyclopedia example, entering "Thomas Jefferson" might
bring a response of "President", "US History", etc., and entering "Thomas
Jefferson" and "Monticello" might produce "architecture".) This might be
an interactive system, in which the user is led through a sequence of topics
to find what is needed. (Encyclopaedia Britannica has one volume that
essentially does this. I don't usually find that implementation particularly
helpful, but at least it's a step in the right direction, within the limits
of what can be done in a printed format.)

For the present, and at least for specific topics, the computer networks
are a valuable resource. It's not too difficult to select interesting
posts and file them by category, after which they can be searched by topic
or by pattern match. Even without a regular data base program, "grep" is
usually fast enough to produce useful results.

And of course the frequently-asked-questions list is very helpful, though
I'd like it to be much bigger than it is, and to include a section for
speculative proposals and calculations, so at least people can see what's
been discussed before, and in how much detail. (Maybe a section for
calculations and proposals that have to be "refereed" by independent checks
before they can "graduate" to the main body of the list.)

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: 2 Nov 92 03:27:44 GMT
From: Adrian Hassall Lewis <[e-mail]>
Subject: low earth orbits
Newsgroups: sci.space

I admit that this is a bit of a dumb question, but I have had absolutely
no luck trying to find an explanation in any textbook on space dynamics.

The question:  Why is 28.5 degrees such a common orbit?

I can understand the US launching to this inclination as the KSC is at 28.5N,
but I've read that the ESA also launches to this orbital plane as well.  Isn't
it most efficent for them to launch to a 1 degree orbit?  Is it something to do
with GTO? and if so, what?

Any help greatly appreciated.

Adrian.

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

Date: 2 Nov 92 01:21:11 GMT
From: Andrew Haveland-Robinson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moving comets
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:

>
>-From: [e-mail] (Henry Spencer)
>-Subject: Re:         Scenario of comet hitting Earth
>-Date: 29 Oct 92 18:16:02 GMT
>
>-Bombs are actually a relatively good way to move asteroids.  Comets
>-are a difficult case, because they are probably fragile and because they
>-probably have a thin crust with concentrated volatiles underneath.  A
>-small nearby nuclear explosion would blow off the crust on one side, and
>-the result would be a tremendous spill of gas from the comet itself.
>-If you knew what you were doing, and did it carefully, this could permit
>-steering a comet with far less effort than the brute-force approach.
>
>How far could a well-placed 10-magaton explosion divert the path of
>Swift-Tuttle over the course of 120 years?
>
>I've seen calculations of this type in the past, but I don't have access
>to them now.
>John Roberts
>[e-mail]

An awful lot I should think...  1000kg of Semtex would probably be enough..

I read once that the average underground nuclear explosion created spaces
in rock half a mile across.  (Anyone confirm this?)

This is a big fraction of the size of the comet and would cause a big
perturbation in the orbit.  If this could be directed at one of the
poles then is should throw it far enough out of the ecliptic plane to
not be a problem...

Of course, if they were really clever they'd get put it on a trajectory
into the Sun!

Andy.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Haveland-Robinson Associates   | Email: [e-mail]         |
| 54 Greenfield Road, London     |        [e-mail] |
| N15 5EP England. 081-800 1708  | Also:  0621-88756 081-802 4502       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
>>>> Those that can, use applications. Those that can't, write them! <<<<

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

Date: Sun, 01 Nov 92 11:09:42 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: NASA Coverup
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.conspiracy

                snarfy to NASA Physicists -  "YOU'RE ALL BUSTED!"

    According to conventional theories of science , the Moon (Luna) has only
   1/6th  of  the  Earth's  gravity.   Newton  formulated his famous Laws of
   Universal Gravitation  in  1666  which  led  to  this  conclusion.   This
   conclusion  was based on assumptions that (1) The density and composition
   of the moon was similar  to  the  earth's,  and  (2.)  This  density  and
   composition  was fairly uniform throughout the lunar globe.The calculated
   mass of the moon would  not  be  sufficient  to  cause  very  significant
   density  increases as one approached the moon's center of gravity. It has
   never been disputed , nor do I dispute here that the  gravitational  pull
   that  one  body  has upon another depends on the product of the masses of
   the two bodies divided by the distance between them.

    These assumptions and observations, taken together ,  lead  one  to  the
   conclusion  that  the moon has "1/6" of the earth's gravitational pull at
   it's surface.  This  figure  has  been  accepted  for  centuries.   In  a
   pre-Apollo  Astronomy  textbook  "Exploration  of the Universe" by George
   Abell (Holt ,Reinhart 1966), there is a statement on page 179 that ,given
   the formula a=G*(M/R^2)

               where G is the Gravitational Constant

               it follows that :

               a(moon)/a(earth) = 1/81.3/(.273)^2 = .165 ( @ 1/6 )

     This calculation is apparently based on the observed distance  of  2903
   miles  of  the  earth's  distance  from the earth-moon barycenter as that
   distance is divided  into  the  observed  distance  to  the  moon.   This
   calculation  yields  a distance to the moon of 81.3 times the distance of
   earth's center to the barycenter, locating this  barycenter  well  inside
   the earth.

    Throughout the fifties and sixties , the so called "neutral point" where
   the  gravitational forces of the earth-moon system balance,was given over
   and over again as being between 22,100 and 25,200 miles from the  surface
   of the moon in the direction of the earth. These figures were presumed to
   represent  logical  guesses  from  trained  scientists.   However , it is
   acknowledged in Abell's book that only by observing falling  or  orbiting
   bodies  in  the  moon's vicinity could the actual neutral point distance,
   hence the moon's true gravity , be determined.

     Using   the   above   neutral  point  and  assumed  gravity  for  their
   calculations, the U.S. and the Soviet Union began to send space probes to
   the moon in the late fifties.  They  met  with  miserable  failure.   The
   Russians were first to launch a successful probe , Luna 1 , on January 2,
   1959.  It  flew  to  within  4660  miles  of  the moon and broadcast back
   information before continuing  into  deep  space.  The  U.S.  made  three
   unsuccessful  attempts before achieving a fly-by of 37,000 miles from the
   surface some months after luna 1 with Pioneer  4.  The  Russian's Luna  2
   became  the  first space probe to hit the moon and Luna 3 circled the far
   side of the moon, approached within 4,372 miles, and sent back photos  of
   the  far  side.  Strangely , Russian moon exploration came to a four year
   stop after these  successes.  Furthermore  the  Russians  were  intensely
   secretive about the data they collected.

    The American efforts were almost laughable at first.  The  Ranger  space
   probes  were  designed  to  hard  land  with  seismometers  in  spherical
   containers intended to withstand the impacts.  Ranger  3  ,  launched  on
   January  26th  1962  ,missed it's target completely and went into a solar
   orbit.  Ranger 4  hit  the  moon  but  did  not  send  back  any  usefull
   information.  Ranger  5  missed the moon by 450 miles and then the effort
   was put off for two years while the entire program was  re-organized.  It
   was evident that something was wrong with their calculations.

    Ranger  6,  launched on January 30th 1964, allegedly had it's electrical
   system burn out in flight and no pictures were sent.   Subsequent  Ranger
   Probes  were  more  successful  .   The  Russians reactivated their space
   probes , but their Luna 5, launched on May 9, 1964, crashed at full speed
   on the moon, when it was intended to make a soft landing. Luna 6  utterly
   missed  the moon , and Luna 7 crashed on the the moon's surface when it's
   retro rockets supposedly fired too soon. Luna 8 also crashed on the moon,
   but Luna 9 became the first probe to succesfully soft land.

    Missions  became  more successful  after this, this possibly attributable
   to the notion that the  Soviets  and  the  Americans  had  been  able  to
   recalculate  the  neutral  point and the correct gravity of the moon from
   the many failures (and few successes).

    The strangest thing to come out  of  the  re-analyzing  of  "  observing
   bodies  falling  toward  and  orbiting the moon " was for NASA to come up
   with a new neutral point between  the  Earth  and  the  moon.  This  then
   becomes the key to a possible "NASA Coverup" .

    The  July  25th  ,  1969  issue of TIME magazine stated that the neutral
   point was 43,495 miles from the center of the  moon.   Werner  von  Braun
   stated in the 1969 edition of "History of Rocketry and Space Travel" that
   the  neutral  point  was  43,495  miles  the  center  of  the moon .  The
   pre-Apollo distances were given as 20,000 to 25,000 miles from the center
   of the moon. NASA , it appears,  had  re-calculated  the  neutral  point,
   which  would indicate that the moon's gravity is not 1/6th, as Newton had
   stated.

   Using the inverse square law to  calculate  gravitational  effects  at  a
   given  distance  ,we  derive that the weight of an object at a distance D
   from the center of a gravitating body ,and Ds equaling the radius of that
   body , the gravitational effect Wd at that distance  =  (Ds/D)^2  of  the
   weight on the surface of that body.

   Therefore,

   The figure of 43,495 miles from the moon's center  for the neutral point
   given  above  by  Time  magazine represents a relative gravitation of the
   moon compared to the earth of approximately 64% !

                          SIXTY FOUR PERCENT    (!)

   The  problems  this figure represents for the allegation that we actually
   landed and lifted  off  from  the  moon  using  conventional  rockets  is
   obvious.

   NASA  physicists.....  YOU  ARE  withholding  the truth from the American
   People.  If you want  to  argue  about  the  merits  of  my  calculations
   fine,let's flame! You are going to lose.

   Below is an ascii printout of a GWBasic language computer program I wrote
   to  aid  in  my  calculation  process.To those accustomed to mathematical
   sophistry, it may seem a rather inelegant  number  cruncher,  but  it  is
   based on straightforward math right out of one of Beiser's physics texts.

    For  those  of you not using DOS machines or not otherwise familiar with
   how to load and run a GWbasic ascii file program , download this file and
   remove this text with a word processor. Rename the resulting file with  a
   ".bas" extension , for example:"moongrav.bas". Put the file into the same
   directory  as the GW or IBM Basic interpreter program.  At the Dos prompt
   "C>" Type "GWBASIC moongrav".  Hit F2  (RUN)  and  answer  the  questions
   presented.

   "The Laws of Physics just went out the window!"
   "and why shouldn't they...their so inconvenient!"
   -Dialog   overheard   on  "Star  Trek-the  Next  Generation ",  Halloween
   Night, October 31,1992

   ------------------------Remove this line and above-----------------------
10 INPUT "Weight of object on earth surface ";Z
20 INPUT "Postulated weight of same object on moon surface ";ZM
30 GMOON=ZM/Z
40 PRINT "Moon Gravity =";GMOON;" Earth gravity"
50 INPUT "Estimated MAXIMUM Neutral Point distance from moon center ";EMAX
60 INPUT "Estimated MINIMUM Neutral Point distance from moon center";EMIN
70 X=4000:XM=1080:MD=238857!:SP=MD-EMAX
80 YE=SP
90 A=X/YE
100 B=A^2
110 WE=B*Z
120 YM=EMAX
130 A=XM/YM
140 B=A^2
150 WM=B*ZM
160 PRINT "Calculating, please wait"
170 IF WE>WM THEN 180 ELSE 210
180 YE=YE+50
190 EMAX=YM-50
200 GOTO 90
210 PRINT "Moon weight = ";WM;" lb "
220 PRINT "Earth weight =";WE;" lb"
230 PRINT "Neutral Point :";YM;" miles from moon center."

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

Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1992 03:18:18 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA Coverup
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.conspiracy

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>   NASA  physicists.....  YOU  ARE  withholding  the truth from the American
>   People...

Oh, come now.  A conspiracy that large, held together for that long?  In
a government that couldn't suppress Watergate or Iranscam?  Come now.
This is laughable.

I also note that the conspiracy must extend to Japan, since their first
near-Moon navigation efforts, for Hiten, worked flawlessly.

>If you want  to  argue  about  the  merits  of  my  calculations...

What merits?  Just for starters, your calculations assume that the Earth
and Moon are motionless with respect to each other.  This will not yield
physically meaningful answers; the Moon's orbital motion (and thus that
of the neutral point) is *not* negligible.  Indeed, you get a better first
approximation for lunar trajectories by assuming that the Moon's mass is
zero than by assuming that its velocity is zero.
--
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 1 Nov 92 16:38:56
From: Steinn Sigurdsson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Swift-Tuttle Comet a threat to earth?
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Holger Stegemann) writes:

   [e-mail] (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:

   >In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Thorsten Altenkirch) writes:


   >   I understand that it is pretty unlikely that Swift-Tuttle will hit
   >   earth in 2126. However, I would like to know what would happen in the
   >   case such a big object would collide with our planet? I am not sure

   >You die, I die, Everybody dies!

   Calm down. Do you expect to live until 2126? OK.

No, I expect I'll be long dead of frustration as an ever decreasing
fraction of the population retains the ability to recognise allusions.
(I'll refrain from claiming it is a literary allusion in deference
to the sensibilities of some of my colleagues...)

|  Steinn Sigurdsson    |I saw two shooting stars last night        |
|  Lick Observatory    |I wished on them but they were only satellites    |
| [e-mail] |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?        |
| "standard disclaimer"    |I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983    |

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

Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1992 23:25:45 GMT
From: Ed McCreary <[e-mail]>
Subject: the Happyface on Mars
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

Well, I'm happy, I received my Mars CDROMs in just the other
day.  I like to find the images that show the "Happyface" on
mars and the Kermit the Frog.  If anyone has either the Lat/Long.
or the image id of the pics, I'd appreciate hearing from you.

I've got the both the raw and the MDIM sets.


--
In the midst of the word he was trying to say,|[e-mail]
     In the midst of his laughter and glee,   |Me, speak for Compaq?
He had softly and suddenly vanished away---   |Yeah, right.
     For the Snark *was* a Boojum, you see.   |#include <stddisclaimer.h>

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

Date: 2 Nov 92 07:33:33 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Why Vote?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.motss,sci.space

                              WHY VOTE?

The reward of a thing well done
is to have done it.
          --Emerson
                                      One never notices what has been done;
                                      One can only see what remains to be done.
                                                      --Marie Curie
Everyone feels instinctively that
all the beautiful sentiments in the world
weigh less than a single lovely action.
          --James Russell Lowell

                                      Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that
                                      more than half of the people are right
                                      more than half of the time.
                                                      --E.B. White

I believe that every right implies a
responsibility; every opportunity, an
obligation; every possession, a duty.
         --John D. Rockefeller, Jr.

                                      The bitterest tears shed over graves are
                                      for words left unsaid and deeds left
                                      undone.
                                                      --Harriet Beecher Stowe

A right is not what someone gives you;
it's what no one can take from you.
         --Ramsey Clark

                                      When written in Chinese the word crisis
                                      is composed of two characters.  One
                                      represents danger and the other
                                      represents opportunity.
                                                       --John Kennedy

Eternal vigilance is the price of
liberty--power is ever stealing from the
many to the few.
         -- Wendell Phillips

                                      An idealist believes that the short run
                                      doesn't count.  A cynic believes the long
                                      run doesn't matter.  A realist believes
                                      that what is done or left undone in the
                                      short run determines the long run.
                                                      --Sydney J. Harris

In the long-run, every Government
is the exact symbol of its People,
with their wisdom and unwisdom.
         --Thomas Carlyle

                                      America. . . .  It is a fabulous
                                      country, the only fabulous country;
                                      it is the only place where miracles
                                      not only happen, but where they happen
                                      all the time.
                                                       --Thomas Wolfe

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence;
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
              --Robert Frost

                      .-~~-.--.
                    :  VOTE   )
              .~ ~ -.\       /.- ~~ .
              > VOTE  `.   .'VOTE   <
             (         .- -.         )
              `- -.-~  `- -'  ~-.- -'
                (   VOTE : VOTE   )           _ _ .-:
                 ~--.    :    .--~        .-~  .-~  }
                     ~-.-^-.-~ \_      .~  .-~   .~
                              \ \'     \ '_ _ -~
                               `.`.    //
                      . - ~ ~-.__`.`-.//
                  .-~   . - ~  }~ ~ ~-.~-.
                .' .-~      .-~       :/~-.~-./:
               /_~_ _ . - ~                 ~-.~-._
                                                ~-.<
VOTE! AS IF YOUR FUTURE DEPENDED ON IT
--IT DOES!

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 370
------------------------------