Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_1/V16NO160.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 28KB

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 93 18:14:21
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #160
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri, 12 Feb 93       Volume 16 : Issue 160

Today's Topics:
                     Atlas launch record (2 msgs)
                              DC reentry
                     Fred is dead again. (2 msgs)
                         hardware on the moon
                        kerosene/peroxide SSTO
                        leading-edge anonymity
                    Mir mission to Mars? (2 msgs)
                          Money->Shuttle/SSF
                      NASA Five Year Plan/Budget
                  parachutes on Challenger? (2 msgs)
                       Pegasus Launch Advisory
                        Pegasus launch Tuesday
                          Precursors to SSF
Reasons for SS(was Re: Precursors to Fred (was Re: Sabatier Reactors.)) (2 msgs)
                          Refueling Freedom
         SS Freedom and Supercollider again on chopping block
                    Using off-the-shelf-components
                                Well..

    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: 02 Feb 93 16:26:58 GMT
From: Ralph Buttigieg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Atlas launch record
Newsgroups: sci.space

Original to: peter.hunter
 PH> I refer to earlier messages on Atlas, Delta & Titan
 PH> launch records. I did not get a copy of the original
 PH> files by Steven S. Pietrobon, but would like to do so.

 G'day Peter,

 You will a copy of Mr Pietrobon's article on VULCANS WORLD BBS.
 The Australia's premier Astronomy/Space BBS. (well, I think so :-))

 ta
 Ralph


--- Maximus 2.01wb
 * Origin: Vulcan's World-Sydney Australia 02 635-1204 (3:713/635)

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

Date: 05 Feb 93 09:49:06 GMT
From: Peter Hunter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Atlas launch record
Newsgroups: sci.space

Original to: ralph.buttigieg
OK Ralph, I grant you it's a great board!
But..I've browsed Usenet Space for Pietrobon's article..Did you save it as a
file elsewhere on the board? Or has it come and gone in this or another
message area?
Will upload latest RPV.ZIP at end of this session


--- Maximus 2.01wb
 * Origin: Vulcan's World -Sydney Australia 02 635-1204 (3:713/635)

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

Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1993 23:00:51 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC reentry
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>|...allegations that this is the real reason why the DC design is set up
>|for nose-first reentry -- because base-first with an aerospike offers
>|McDD nothing to call its own.)
>
>But in the DC-10, is there anything that is McDac Proprietary?

No -- not that I know of -- but it's not for want of wishing.  They'd
certainly be very happy if nobody else could build fuel-efficient large
airliners.
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 8 Feb 1993 21:52:03 GMT
From: Andy Cohen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fred is dead again.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pat)
wrote:
>
>
> Rumour has it that SSC went on the block too.
>
> However, don't hold your breath.  IN DC, nothing dies.  The contractors
> are spending 30 million on PR this week alone.   Look for major ads.
>
> So waht re-write of the NASA act is likely????
>


OK..... where did you get the "30 million on PR" ....data... from???

That is a fallacy in the extreme.

If SSF goes away, the profit loss will not be as big as you seem to assume
it is....

The loss will be to personnel.

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

Date: 8 Feb 1993 21:54:44 GMT
From: Andy Cohen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fred is dead again.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jeff
Foust) wrote:
>
> In a recent article [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
> >However, don't hold your breath.  IN DC, nothing dies.  The contractors
> >are spending 30 million on PR this week alone.   Look for major ads.
>
>     I don't doubt that.  Friday afternoon I called up the communications
> office at McDonnell Douglas in Huntington Beach for reasons entirely
> unrelated to SSF.  The person I talked to said he would get back to me on
> Monday morning because "we're in panic mode about the space station right now."
> Thinking he was referring to the reports of cost overruns on SSF work as
> reported in Space News, I didn't completely understand him until I caught the
> evening news...
>


We have been in nothing but panic mode since 1988!!!!

Fact is..... we've all heard it so many times....we're numb to it!!

Believe what you will....there were so many different "panicks" last
week...the Friday story was simply noise!!!!

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

Date: 8 Feb 93 23:06:12 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: hardware on the moon
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Anton Gaidos) writes:
> Then the narrator went on to say the lunar mod was released before
>burn back to earth. What happened to them? Did these moduales crash
>to the moon or drift out to space or fall into some kind of lunar
>orbit?

The later lunar modules were deliberately crashed on the lunar surface
for the benefit of the lunar-surface seismometer network.  One or two
of the early ones weren't; I forget whether they were just abandoned
in lunar orbit (from which they almost certainly would have crashed
by now) or boosted into solar orbit to keep them out of the way.

> Does anybody know if any of the experiments or hardware still work
>or how long some of the stuff did work? When was the last time one of
>those camaras were turned on? Do the siesmonitors still send back
>data?

I don't think the cameras were active more than briefly after departure,
but most of the seismometers and other instruments were alive until
they were deliberately turned off in 1977.  (That was when the money
for collecting and analyzing the data ran out.)

> We were pretty interested in knowing if it was planned to explore
>these sites in the future to see the effects of long term exposure...

There are currently no specific plans to return to the Moon at all,
so there's nothing right now.  An active program of lunar exploration
undoubtedly will revisit some of those sites eventually, in the same
way that Apollo 12 visited Surveyor 3.
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 9 Feb 93 02:34:21 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <[e-mail]>
Subject: kerosene/peroxide SSTO
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1993Feb8.145724.14753@bsu-ucs> [e-mail] (Craig Meyer) writes:

> I, the space-dunce, would like to know how H2O2 could serve as a
> monopropellant when the decomposition of H2O2 is an endothermic
> reaction (takes up energy).
>
> Could someone please explain the chemical reaction?

Quite simply: because decomposition of peroxide is *exothermic*, not
endothermic.  H2O2(liq) --> H2O(g) + 1/2 O2 + 12.9 kcal/mole.  This
reaction is catalyzed by any number of things, including silver and
manganese.

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: 8 Feb 93 23:10:15 GMT
From: John Eaton <johne@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_GATEWAY_FILE>
Subject: leading-edge anonymity
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.privacy

Steve Gardner ([e-mail]) wrote:
:     Anonymity
:     is the great equalizer--kind of like Mr. Colt's invention.
:     This is why the powerful and their spear carriers and sympathizers
:     resent anonymous posts.  I expect that anything that threatens the
:--------------
Society as a whole fears anonymonity because society has no way to control
an anonymous individual. Crooks and school boys have long known that by hidding
who they are they will never be punished.

But our superheros also hide their idenities. Look at Batman, The Lone Ranger
etc. They all operate without revealing their true names. They know that if
someone knows who you are then they can harm you.

V. Vinge wrote a classic cyberspace novel called "True Names" that explores
the concept of anonymous net access. In the future you will keep your true
name as your most closely guarded secret because anyone who discovers it
can use the info to harm you.

As the man says "Anything you say can be used against you". Chances are that
everything we say on the net is archived in some federal vault. If the net
had been around in Bill Clintons days then these tapes could have been searched
and every posting he ever made would have been found. Smoking a joint at a
party in the 60's was not considered in the same light as it is today. But
George Bush tried to make it a campaign issue. You may post something today
that is acceptable by todays standards only to find that it is unacceptable
by tommorrows standards. If someone ever takes the time and effort to locate
every posting that a particulat individual ever made it is likely that they
are trying to dig up dirt and nail him to the wall.


John Eaton
!hp-vcd!johne

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

Date: 9 Feb 93 02:52:46 GMT
From: Josh Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mir mission to Mars?
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Ralph Buttigieg) writes:

> [e-mail] (Marcus Lindroos INF) wrote:

> M> Exactly. An orbital mission would require an additional
> M> 220 ton rocket stage
> M> (=one more launch by Mir) and would prolong the mission
> M> by up to two years.
> M>

> Perhaps better yet would be to include an asteriod rendezvous  as well
> as the Mars flyby. If orbits could be matched, our explorers could don
> a MMU and physically explore it. Also many of the previous Mars
> mission plans I have seen got a boost by a Venus flyby on the return or
> beginning.

I'm not aware of any asteroids one could rendezvous with on a Mars mission
without significant fuel expenditure.  And while a Venus flyby might save
energy it (and the asteroid mission) would prolong the mission substantially.
That's fine for a robot but the added mass of consumeables required for
humans and the increased radiation exposure would both be prohibitive tradeoffs.



--
Josh Hopkins                                          [e-mail]

    You only live once.  But if you live it right, once is enough.
            In memoria, WDH

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

Date: 01 Feb 93 16:01:46 GMT
From: Ralph Buttigieg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mir mission to Mars?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Original to: [e-mail]
 [e-mail] (Marcus Lindroos INF) wrote:

 M> Exactly. An orbital mission would require an additional
 M> 220 ton rocket stage
 M> (=one more launch by Mir) and would prolong the mission
 M> by up to two years.
 M>

 Perhaps better yet would be to include an asteriod rendezvous  as well
 as the Mars flyby. If orbits could be matched, our explorers could don
 a MMU and physically explore it. Also many of the previous Mars
 mission plans I have seen got a boost by a Venus flyby on the return or
 beginning. I think a good examination of the most fruitfull trajactory
 a Mir/Energia combo could do in the inner solar system would be
 interesting.

 ta
 Ralph

--- Maximus 2.01wb
 * Origin: Vulcan's World-Sydney Australia 02 635-1204 (3:713/635)

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

Date: 8 Feb 1993 22:20:31 GMT
From: Andy Cohen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Money->Shuttle/SSF
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer)
wrote:
port them..
>
> If we are stuck with them then it doesn't matter if we support them or
> not; we get them either way.

I dissagree. SSF will need the support of the public for the 30 year life
of the facility. Otherwise it, like Skylab before it, will make for a great
light show as it augers in.
>
> If we support it instead of alternatives (like Delta Clipper) it is the
> best we will ever have.
>
Why do you feel that DC and SS are mutually exclusive??  I don't think they
are and neither do those who ride with me on my vanpool who work DC.

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

Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1993 22:12:47 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA Five Year Plan/Budget
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>I like the five year plan/budget idea..

If you think government five-year plans are the way to
develop space, you should look at the success they had
in the Soviet Union.

>Maybe try to get the Individual States involved to..

Uh-huh. "Perestroika."  They tried that, too.

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

Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1993 22:05:26 GMT
From: "R. Lee Hawkins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: parachutes on Challenger?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>Actually, Martin-Baker thought they could build an ejection system for
>the shuttle... and they are the world's most respected manufacturer of
>ejection seats.  The upper-deck crew would go first, followed by the
>mid-deck crew, whose seats would follow rails up through the upper deck.
>I don't think anyone has done a system quite like that before, but
>"sequenced" ejection systems, in which seats fire in a preprogrammed
>sequence to avoid collisions etc., are fairly common.

Why not a full-ejection-module like on the F-111 or B-1?  Seems like
this would work at almost any speed, with a large enough rocket could
easily clear the SRB blast, and would save everybody, and might even
save some of the equipment in the crew compartment for use as spares or
incorporation into the (now toasted) shuttle's replacement.  I realize
such a solution would have a hugh weight penalty, and by its nature
isn't exactly retrofittable, but perhaps such a system would be useful
on future vehichles.  I can't imagine any other means that is even
remotely survivable over much of the flight regime.

Cheers,
--Lee
________________________________________________________________________________
R. Lee Hawkins                         [e-mail]
Department of Astronomy                     [e-mail]
Whitin Observatory
Wellesley College                Ph. 617-283-2708
Wellesley, MA 02181                FAX [phone]
________________________________________________________________________________

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

Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1993 23:14:48 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: parachutes on Challenger?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (R. Lee Hawkins) writes:
>>Actually, Martin-Baker thought they could build an ejection system for
>>the shuttle...
>
>Why not a full-ejection-module like on the F-111 or B-1?

Major weight penalty plus the same safety problems as ejection seats...
and in case you weren't aware of it, the F-111 system does not work very
well and the B-1 switched to ejection seats.

>...isn't exactly retrofittable, but perhaps such a system would be useful
>on future vehichles...

ESA looked into such a system for Hermes, but ended up with ejection seats.
The ESA astronauts didn't want *any* escape system, on the grounds that it
was only marginally useful and the weight was better spent on other things.

The right solution for future vehicles is the one used today for airliners:
build them redundant and fail-safe so you don't *need* escape systems.  Any
escape system is far inferior to being able to save the whole vehicle.
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 9 Feb 93 00:07:01 GMT
From: Jeffrey J Bloch <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pegasus Launch Advisory
Newsgroups: sci.space

To the best of my current knowledge, the third flight
of Pegasus carrying the Brazilian comsat will occur
tommorow (2/9) morning at 5:15AM PST, 8:15AM EST
(This is the drop time from the B-52). I believe that
it will be covered by NASA Select.

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

Date: 9 Feb 93 01:28:11 GMT
From: "David M. Palmer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pegasus launch Tuesday
Newsgroups: sci.space

From today's Washington Post (Feb 8 biz section):

    Orbital Plans Fourth Try at Rocket Launch
    Technical problems forced past scrubs.

Orb. Sci. Corp. of Fairfax (Va) said it plans to make another try at
launching Pegasus tomorrow after scrubbing launches three times
in the past two months because of technical problems.

The $13.5 million launch of a data relay sat. that was designed and
built in Brazil is to take place off the Atlantic coast of Florida,
when the winged rocket fires after being dropped from the right wing
of a NASA Boeing B-52.

The launch was first postponed in Dec. for a ground-control problem
unrelated to Pegasus, and a second time early last month for a problem with
the rocket's vertical fin.  A third launch attempt planned forlate January
was scrubbed after engineers found a problem in the rockets on-board computer.

Pegasus is a winged, three-stage rocket that can put payloads weighing
as much as 900 pounds into low-Earth orbit.  The Brazillian satellite weighs
250 pounds.

The satellite, called SCDI, is designed to help monitor Brazil';s environment.
It will take data sent from ground stations throughout the country and
transmit it to a Brazilian space agency receiver in Cuiaba.

Orbital Sciences has twice before launched payloads aboard the Pegasus,
once in 1990 and once in 1991.  Both launches originated from Edwards Air
Force Base in California and put Defense Department payloads into orbit.

The company has 22 firm orders for Pegasus launches and 54 optional
orders, valued at a total of $800 million.  It also has five more
firm orders from the NASA and the Air Force for launches using a
slightly more powerful version of the rocket, Pegasus XL.
--
        David M. Palmer        [e-mail]
                    [e-mail]

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

Date: 8 Feb 1993 22:15:00 GMT
From: Andy Cohen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Precursors to SSF
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer)
wrote:
>

>
> Too little too late. Freedom has got to be the shoddiest large scale
> engineering project every attempted. Almost no prototyping, zero
> integration testing. Only now are they asking themselves if it can
> even be built.

Wrong.  That question has been asked daily since 1986.
>
> The old truss alone would have been enough to kill it if they ever
> tried to assemble it in orbit. If it wasn't for the 'evil micromanagers'
> in Congress we wouldn't have the pre-integrated truss.

Wrong again.  The old truss design's death started around 3 or more years
ago during a WP-02 Engineering Review Board meeting. At this internal
review, those who were responsible for designing different types of truss
members told the chief engineer that no matter what they did, the members
were compromised when the loads were modeled.  I'll never forget that day
and the look on the man's face.

About 1 year later, the Fisher/Price EVA maintainance time study appeared
and allowed us to "redesign" to the PIT....  As I've posted before, a PIT
approach was what the contractors all wanted back at phase B.

By the way, the chief engineer spearheaded the PIT design effort here which
took just under 1 year to complete till our "delta" PDR. It was a
monumental effort in engineering.  One that will likely go unnoticed.

The chief engineer died of lung cancer last christmas.  He was well liked
here.

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

Date: 8 Feb 1993 21:48:33 GMT
From: Andy Cohen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Reasons for SS(was Re: Precursors to Fred (was Re: Sabatier Reactors.))
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry
Spencer) wrote:

> However, NASA has been officially working on, and selling, the project
> since at least 1982.  And some of the early projections were just a wee
> bit more optimistic than the 1988 ones.  (Like, for example, permanently
> manned operations by 1992 with a rather larger configuration.)

So....what is your point?  Phases A and B were NEVER sold as production
programs.  They were design study programs and low level at that.  OK so
PR-based projections don't match what Omni magazine told you back in 1982.
So what!  When phase C was originally approved by Congress, the schedule
was to have it totally completed by the end of the century...with
man-tended by 95-96.....

Henry...a LOT of people read this board. A LOT more people have devoded not
only their careers to SSF and the NASA manned space program, but their
lives as well.  Please be responsible when posting on schedules and costs.

By the way......NASA has been working on a Space Station for MUCH longer
than 1982.  Before Skylab there was MOL (which was an Air Force program),
after Skylab there were many studies funded such as the THURIS study
performed here.  True, there have been many years of study and little
ENGINEERING, but hey....it had to have a champion like Reagon to sell it to
the country.

LET ME REPEAT MYSELF.....WITHOUT YOUR SUPPORT THERE WILL NOT BE A SPACE
STATION FREEDOM!!!!  Instead of negative discussion on what it should have
been or problems....how about focusing on helping those with the burden of
trying to design and build it????

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

Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1993 23:24:46 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Reasons for SS(was Re: Precursors to Fred (was Re: Sabatier Reactors.))
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Andy Cohen) writes:
>> However, NASA has been officially working on, and selling, the project
>> since at least 1982.  And some of the early projections were just a wee
>> bit more optimistic than the 1988 ones...
>
>So....what is your point? ...

Precisely what I said originally:  a lot of materials experimenters
were originally thrilled at the prospect of a hands-on, easily accessible
microgravity lab, but have gradually lost interest as the station solidified
into a pale shadow of the early promises.  If some of those promises had
been delivered on, there would be rather more enthusiasm for the station.
A lot of the disenchanted ones aren't disenchanted with microgravity as
a whole, they just don't see the current station program giving them the
kind of access that they need.
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 9 Feb 93 03:00:38 GMT
From: Josh Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Refueling Freedom
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Josh Hopkins) writes:

>>By the way Allen, I should point out that paper airplanes and vaporware don't
>>have operational costs.

>Nonsense. Boeing is offering to gurantee operational costs and purchase
>price of a B-777 and it is only a paper airplane. Alternatives to
>Shuttle exist which involve no more technical risk.

HOPE (the subject of the post) has substantially more techinical risk than a
777.  I bow to your point of Boeing policies but remind you that such a
promise has not been made for any logisitics vehicle (to my knowledge).

--
Josh Hopkins                                          [e-mail]

    You only live once.  But if you live it right, once is enough.
            In memoria, WDH

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

Date: 8 Feb 1993 21:59:05 GMT
From: Andy Cohen <[e-mail]>
Subject: SS Freedom and Supercollider again on chopping block
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Jeff Bytof) wrote:
>
> I just heard on the radio that the Space Station and the Supercollider
> are up for discussion by Clinton officials.  The broadcast gave
> little in the way of details.  The report mentioned the "30 billion
> dollar pricetag" for the space station.  Curiously, Clinton's job
> stimulus package is pegged at $31 billion...
>

Now....just imagine how that would look!!!

Clinton kills SSF and eliminates over 100,000 (according to Space News and
AV week) jobs for a job stimulus package!!!!

GREAT!!!  Put the educated scientists and engineers out of work for the
high school drop outs!!!

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

Date: 8 Feb 93 16:55:29 EST
From: "Kevin L. Carlen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Using off-the-shelf-components
Newsgroups: sci.space

  Just out of curiousity, how does the NASA (and other space agency)
requirements match up to NEMA specifications?  Would starting with a NEMA 12
rated rack buy you anything in terms of fewer and cheaper modifications?

--

!==============================================================================!
!  Kevin L. Carlen                    ! OARnet  : CHESS::KEVINC                !
!  Edison Industrial Systems Center   ! Internet: [e-mail]!
!  1700 N. Westwood Ave, Suite 2286   ! BellNet : [phone]               !
!  Toledo, OH 43607-1207              ! ICBM    : 41 39 N / 83 33 W            !
!==============================================================================!
! DISCLAIMER:   The above statements and opinions belong to the author.        !
! Any resemblence to statements found in actual reality is purely coincidental.!
! And, as always, the above opinions have absolutely nothing to do with the    !
! little, fat man putting $100 bills in my pocket.                             !
!==============================================================================!

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

Date: 4 Feb 93 13:31:19 GMT
From: "Robert A. Baumgartner" <gtephx!baumgartnerb>
Subject: Well..
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.misc,rec.arts.startrek.tech

Lines: 21
Sender: [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Michael Y Ko) writes:
> Well, since Warp 1 is c, the speed of light, it should take a ship traveling
> to a planet 60 light years away 60 years. Pretty basic...
>

Theoretically (Not mine), when a ship travels at near the speed of light
time, for people aboard this ship, would slow down to near zero.
This is a relative effect - The time for people left on earth, for
example would take 60 years, but the people on the ship would not
age 60 years, actually much much less.  In this same theory, one
could travel to the edge of the universe and return in a human life span.
The problem is that when they returned it would be quadrillion-billion-
million years later ( a large number of years).  Suffice it to say the
solar system that we live in would not exist.

This is from Carl Sagan PBS series.
--
 Bob Baumgartner; AG Communications Systems; Phoenix AZ
 UUCP: {ncar!noao!asuvax | uunet!zardoz!hrc | att}!gtephx!baumgartnerb
 Internet: gtephx![e-mail]
 (602) - 582-7444

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 160
------------------------------