Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V15_3/V15NO350.ZIP/V15NO350

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 27KB

Date: Wed, 28 Oct 92 05:00:06
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #350
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Wed, 28 Oct 92       Volume 15 : Issue 350

Today's Topics:
   active planetary probes; should someone update the FAQ (2 msgs)
                   Clinton's bad posting etiquette
                    Comet => Millennial Madness ?
                       Comet Collision (5 msgs)
         Federal Spending (was: Space for white people only?)
                    nasa shake up rumor? (2 msgs)
                     Planets, moons gifs, jpegs.
      pocket satellite receivers (was Re: how much is the 95LX)
    Preventing hypothetical Comet Collision (was: Comet collision)
                       re HRMS for ETI (2 msgs)
                 Smith-Tuttle Comet a sight on earth?
            Smith-Tuttle Comet a threat to earth? (4 msgs)
                        Subscription Request.
                                 test

    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: Tue, 27 Oct 1992 16:44:49 GMT
From: Nick Haines <[e-mail]>
Subject: active planetary probes; should someone update the FAQ
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

[...]

   >... or Giotto, which I believe is still active...

   It's in hibernation after its second comet encounter, and will probably
   not be revived again -- it's too low on fuel to do much more, and its
   next Earth gravity-assist opportunity isn't until the end of the decade.

Thanks. Launch/encounter dates, anyone?

   >... I think that those two complete a roster of 10 probes in solar
   >orbits (or escape trajectories) from which we still receive signals.
   >Can anyone name any others?

   Well, the Pioneer Venus orbiter should have rated mention unless the FAQ
   was updated very recently, since it only just died.

It's in the FAQ, I deleted it from the list since it's dead.

   Pioneer 6 is still alive, and I think one or two of its later siblings
   are too, in near-Earth heliocentric orbits.

6, 7, and 8, according to the FAQ. I missed them.

Thanks for your other tips.

Nick

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

Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1992 16:54:00 GMT
From: Nick Haines <[e-mail]>
Subject: active planetary probes; should someone update the FAQ
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:

   [...]

   Sounds like the FAQ needs to be updated to include Ulysses, Giotto,
   Hiten and Pioneers 6-8.  Geotail may even qualify since it made a
   couple of lunar flybys recently.  As of a couple of weeks ago, the
   list would of included Pioneer Venus.

Whoops, I missed those Pioneers. The FAQ does include Pioneer Venus.
Is Geotail different from the Japanese mission? What is Hiten?

   [...]

                       The approved missions are
   the Soviet Mars '94 and '96 missions and the Cassini mission.
   Proposed missions include MESUR, NEAR, Pluto Fast Flyby, and
   Rosetta.  I'll provide more details when I update the FAQ files.

Thanks.

Nick

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

Date: 27 Oct 92 10:45:42 GMT
From: Eric Loeb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clinton's bad posting etiquette
Newsgroups: sci.space

> We did finally get an apology for bad posting etiquette, even if it wasn't the
> most polite I've ever seen (could be that the people mentioned deserved it
> though).

That is the case.  I should have cooled of before writing the
note, but thank you for reading between the lines.  I am sure
most readers of this group are extremely intelligent, rational,
calm, thoughtful, dedicated scientists who have no wish nor need
to prop up their egos with unwarrented verbal violence.


Eric Loeb

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

Date: Tue, 27 Oct 92 14:14:21 EET
From: [e-mail] (F.Baube x554)
Subject: Comet => Millennial Madness ?

Let's not be too Euro-centric here.

Does anyone know whether Wednesday 14 August 2126
corresponds to any nice, round number in any *other*
calendar systems ?

I'm thinking, something like 31 Urgtember 4999.

fred :: [e-mail]

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

Date: 27 Oct 92 02:07:35 GMT
From: Bruce Watson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Comet Collision
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]| [e-mail] (Faust) writes:
|
|    I was amazed and want to find out more.  I'm suprised that sci.space
|    seems to have almost no discussion of this discovery.  Does this mean
|    that the whole story is a hoax --or have you pro's out there been
|    caught with your pants down?
|
|    (Don't tell me:  it was discussed to death 6 months ago and now
|    it's part of the FAQ list :-)
|
You need to read this newsgroup more often. The news broke after the
announcement in IAU Circular No. 5636 dated October 15, 1992. Not 6 months
ago but 11 days ago.


--
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom)  Tumbra, Zorkovick; Sparkula zoom krackadomando.

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

Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1992 12:15:21 GMT
From: Dave Tholen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Comet Collision
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary

Ken Jenks writes:

> The date given in the Post is 2116, while the date given in the "SKY
> TV" notice and the date my office mate gave me were both 2016.  No
> NASA people involved in the discovery.
>
> The Smith-Tuttle comet was first discovered in 1862.  Steel re-acquired
> it on Oct. 15th.  The International Astronomical Union (IAU), for the
> first time every, could not rule out a collision with Earth.  The story
> says the Smith-Tuttle comet, a 3.1-mile-wide dirty snowball, "could
> plunge the world into the Dark Ages."
>
> Of course, the million-nukes and plunge-into-Dark-Ages part of the
> story was front page, but the technical details were on the
> continuation on A-6.  Reading the details, it becomes clear that there
> are no calculations which prove there WILL be a collision, just
> speculation that there MIGHT be a collision on August 14, 2116,
> when Smith-Tuttle's orbit intersects that of the Earth.
>
> Drat.  I was hoping for the "Comet" movie scenario and a real shot
> in the arm for the space program.  A 2016 collision would be a
> real challenge; 2116 is far enough away that Congress won't feel
> the need for immediate action.

First of all, the name is P/Swift-Tuttle.  Second, both dates are wrong;
the year of the next perihelion passage in 2126.  Third, the recovery was
not by Steel himself, but rather by a Japanese amateur astronomer by the
name of Kiuchi.  Fourth, didn't your site receive the earlier postings
that would have clarified all of this? Check out IAU Circular 5636 for
details.  This one was posted, though I don't encourage this practice.

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

Date: 27 Oct 92 07:47:00 GMT
From: Bill Nunnelee <[e-mail]>
Subject: COMET COLLISION
Newsgroups: sci.space

-> I caught the end of a newsclip on SKY TV this a.m. which said that
-> NASA "scientists" (probably the techs. that actually do the real
-> work) had tracked a comet on collision course with the earth - I
-> think it was due to hit us in 2016. Anyone else hear this, or was I
-> just fantasising it !

The comet that you are referring to is Periodic Comet Swift-Tuttle,
which is responsible for the Perseid meteor shower each year.  It was
recently recovered by a Japanese comet hunter.  When experts started
analyzing its position, they discovered that its perihelion had been
delayed several days as the result of nongravitational forces---jets
of gas coming off the comet had essentially acted like braking rockets.
IF this continues at the same rate (and that's a mighty big if), the
next time the comet returns in 135 years it COULD hit us.  But the
uncertainties at this point are very large.  Astronomers are obviously
watching it very closely to try to refine the orbit and their
predictions.


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

Date: 27 Oct 92 13:54:45 GMT
From: Jon Hanson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Comet Collision
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bruce Watson) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]| [e-mail] (Faust) writes:
> |
> |    I was amazed and want to find out more.  I'm suprised that sci.space
> |    seems to have almost no discussion of this discovery.  Does this mean
> |    that the whole story is a hoax --or have you pro's out there been
> |    caught with your pants down?
> |
> |    (Don't tell me:  it was discussed to death 6 months ago and now
> |    it's part of the FAQ list :-)
> |
> You need to read this newsgroup more often. The news broke after the
> announcement in IAU Circular No. 5636 dated October 15, 1992. Not 6 months
> ago but 11 days ago.
>
>
> --
> Bruce Watson (wats@scicom)  Tumbra, Zorkovick; Sparkula zoom krackadomando.


his sounds interesting - what happened ??

Jon.


        __             ______  ____    __    __
       /\ \       |   /_  __/\/ __ \  /  \  / /\  .-------------------.
      /  \ \      |  _\/ / __/ /_/ /\/ /\ \/ / /  | [e-mail] |
     / /\ \ \     | /___/ /  \____/ /_/ /\__/ /   |                   |
    / / /\ \ \    | \____/    \____/\__/  \__/    |                   |
   / / /__\_\ \   |---..---..---..---..---..---.  | "Party on dude"   |
  / / /________\  |   |.---||   |`---.|   ||   |  | - Bill & Ted      |
  \/___________/  `   '`---^`   '`---'`---'`   '  `-------------------'

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

Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1992 17:10:40 GMT
From: Mark 'Henry' Komarinski <[e-mail]>
Subject: Comet Collision
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:

>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dillon Pyron) writes:
>>They guy they interviewed was rather strange.  He kept talking about the
>>tremendous threat to Earth, then says the chances of an actual collision are
>>about 1:10000.

>What's strange about describing this as a tremendous threat? If you knew that
>on a particular day next month there was a 1 in 10,000 chance that you, your
>family, all your friends and everybody you ever heard of would be boiled in
>oil, wouldn't that seem to be a tremendous threat?


There is a greater change of dying from a train wreck or a car accident than
getting plowed by the comet.
Another thing to consider:  How big is this comet?  It doesn't have to hit
us to do some major damage.  YOOGE tidal waves, earthquakes, knocking
the earth out of it's orbit, etc.  Y'know...minor worldwide disaters.

Making your day brighter....
-Mark
--
- Mark Komarinski - [e-mail]
[MIME mail welcome]
Credo quia absurdum est - "I believe because it is absurd"

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

Date: Tue, 27 Oct 92 08:59:30 PST
From: "UTADNX::UTDSSA::GREER"@utspan.span.nasa.gov
Subject: Federal Spending (was: Space for white people only?)

In Space Digest V15 #339
Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>

flames me for writing down some facts about how people spend money.

>Lies, damned, statistics. Oh yah, and computer modeling, but that's another
>story.

He disputes that these are really facts but, like Ross Perot, he offers no
support for his claim.

>> Relating spending to entertainment is especially
>>pertinent, since the anti-science-spending argument is usually based on
>>the notion that such spending is frivolous and expendable.
>
>Nope. It means you're trying to justify pulling money in the form of taxes out
>of someone's pocket. If a consumer decides to spend money on entertainment,
>that's his/her decision.

The person in question, an Hispanic woman who said the government ought not
to spend money on space because it only helps white people, already believes
that people should be taxed.  She just thinks this money shouldn't be spent
on something she considers frivolous.  My numbers were meant to help her see
how to put her money where her mouth is.  The question of the morality of
taxation per se is another matter.

>>  It is much
>>more difficult for someone to continue this line once they realize how
>>much they spend on true frivolity.
>
>Not so frivilious when you start adding up everyone else's "small, little"
>programs in the Big Picture.

I'm just trying to show people how to see the big picture.  Also, I'm
assuming that spending on science increases the productivity of individuals
over time.  Maybe you would dispute that assumption.

>Me, I'd rather give NASA $80/year, and have the other $80 to spend on more
>entertainment....but, of course, Big Daddy Goverment knows best.

You obviously work at a university.  Does all of this university's money
come from private sources?

>                 Play in the intelluctual sandbox of Usenet
>
>  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

_____________
Dale M. Greer, whose opinions are not to be confused with those of the
Center for Space Sciences, U.T. at Dallas, UTSPAN::UTADNX::UTDSSA::GREER
"Pave Paradise, put up a parking lot." -- Joni Mitchell

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

Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1992 13:28:55 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: nasa shake up rumor?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] ("Phil G. Fraering") writes:

>If Clinton/Gore does this, in ten years we won't have a space program,
>just more of these Space Shuttle rides, 1/2 billion for half a dozen
>entertainee/astronauts.

It won't be ten years since Clinton will be a one term president. At the
end of which (if we are successful lobbying Congress) we will have an
operational SSTO at which point we may not need the government any more.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------179 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1992 16:38:48 GMT
From: Gerald Cecil <[e-mail]>
Subject: nasa shake up rumor?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>It won't be ten years since Clinton will be a one term president. At the
>end of which (if we are successful lobbying Congress) we will have an
>operational SSTO at which point we may not need the government any more.

Quayle/Buchannan in '96 to ensure no more government!
---
Gerald Cecil [e-mail]  919-962-7169
Physics & Astronomy, U of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3255 USA

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

Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1992 14:59:11 GMT
From: Hartmut Frommert <[e-mail]>
Subject: Planets, moons gifs, jpegs.
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

[e-mail] (David Knapp) writes:

>Does anyone know of sites that carry gifs or jpegs of planets and moons?

ames.arc.nasa.gov
--
 Hartmut Frommert                 <[e-mail]>
 Dept of Physics, Univ of Constance, P.O.Box 55 60, D-W-7750 Konstanz, Germany
                                           -- Eat whale killers, not whales --

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

Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1992 14:12:01 GMT
From: Bo Thide' <[e-mail]>
Subject: pocket satellite receivers (was Re: how much is the 95LX)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.hp48,comp.sys.palmtops,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Burn Hockey) writes:
>: There is a GPS receiver for the 95, it probably also uses the serial
>: port and would work with other serial devices.
>:
>Can someone point me to information on this GPS receiver please?
>
>Burn Hockey  [e-mail]

Me too!
--
   ^   Bo Thide'--------------------------------------------------------------
  |I|        Swedish Institute of Space Physics, S-755 91 Uppsala, Sweden
  |R|      Phone: [phone].  Fax: [phone].  IP: 130.238.30.23
 /|F|\          INTERNET: [e-mail]      UUCP: ...!mcvax!sunic!irfu!bt
 ~~U~~ ----------------------------------------------------------------sm5dfw-

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

Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1992 10:52:26 GMT
From: Faust <[e-mail]>
Subject: Preventing hypothetical Comet Collision (was: Comet collision)
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John P. Mechalas) writes:
>
>I saw a lot of stuff on this, too.  And it brings up an interesting point.
>There have been a lot of scientists in recent years discussing the
>possibilities of comets and/or meteors striking the Earth.
>   My question:  How hard would it be to deflect an incoming object with,
>say, a nuclear explosive?  This theory is one I have heard postulated many
>times, and have wondered how easy or hard such a task would be.  The
>orbit mechanics aspects could be worked out, I am sure...given enough time.
>Plus, the greater the distance, the smaller an orbital perturbation would be
>needed to alter the orbit.  But how much warning would we have in such an
>instance?
>

  I'm a software designer, dammit, not an engineer :-) so I don't have
  an answer on how much force would be required to deflect or destroy an
  incoming comet.  The force required would obviously depend on the objects
  mass and velocity.

  David Langford's WAR IN 2080 (an interesting speculation on the shape
  of war in the future) deals with the use of asteroids (and other hunks
  of rock floating around in space) as weopons.  At high enough velocities
  , an asteroid of sufficient size would be almost impossible to stop
  without some form of mind boggling technology (such as a device that
  soaks up inertia).  Even if you blew the incoming object apart, many of
  the remaining chunks would probably still hit the Earth.

  The nastiest variant on this idea that he describes is the 'Relativistic
  Missile'.  This is an object (not necessarily of all that great mass)
  which has been accelerated to near relativistic speeds (something on the
  order of .7c) and aimed at whichever planet you don't like.  Given the
  enormous velocity of the object it would be hard to detect and difficult
  to track, making it almost impossible to stop.  When it hit the planet
  the energy released would be enormous.

    ********    ***      **    **   *******   ********  "Quantum Mechanics:
    **         ** **     **    **  **            **      even I don't fully
    ******    *******    **    **  *******       **      understand it."
    **       **     **   **    **        **      **              - Ian Sales
    **      **       **   ******   ********      **    [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1992 17:25:45 GMT
From: Nick Haines <[e-mail]>
Subject: re HRMS for ETI
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.bio

To sci.bio readers: this is from a discussion going on in sci.space,
    about the current Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence
    (SETI) projects. A big question in that field is the
    probability of (some form of) life evolving in conditions
    similar to those on primordial earth (it's generally believed
    that such conditions are reasonably common and that the
    evolution of intelligence is reasonably likely given life).
    I'd appreciate any comments from molecular biologists.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:

   In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Haines) writes:

      [... stuff, including reference, about how

      My guess for P(life evolving | suitable planet) is 1e-12.

   Well, I disagree, I'd put it at 0.1-1.0 (formally I'd actually
   put it at 0.5 if really pressed) but then we have very poor
   sampling on that.

Why so high? Can you get a molecular biologist to agree with you? The
old `amino-acid soup' theory has been largely discounted (on the
grounds of extreme improbability, funnily enough) and replaced by new
theories involving such things as self-reproducing systems based on
clay minerals. My claim is that this sort of system is still very
unlikely. The anthropic principle (in any form) says that our sample
(of one) tells us nothing without further analysis.

   Maybe further discussion on that line should move out of sci.space

Agreed, hence the cross-post.

Nick
To:

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

Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1992 18:30:27 GMT
From: Nick Haines <[e-mail]>
Subject: re HRMS for ETI
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.bio

Whoops, typo:

In article <[e-mail]>, I wrote:

   [...]
   In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:

      In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Haines) writes:

     [... stuff, including reference, about how

     My guess for P(life evolving | suitable planet) is 1e-12.

   [...]

The text "how life probably emerged here ...]" got truncated.

Nick Haines [e-mail]

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

Date: 27 Oct 1992 16:07:53 GMT
From: "Kevin W. Plaxco" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Smith-Tuttle Comet a sight on earth?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Any estimates of this things Maximum Visual Magnitude?  Maximum
angle subtended by the visible tail?

Or am I going to have to wait untill 2116 to see a show?

-Kevin

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

Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1992 12:07:33 GMT
From: Dave Tholen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Smith-Tuttle Comet a threat to earth?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Frank Ney writes:

> On the radio news this morning, I heard a report that an Australian
> astronomer by the name of Duncan Steele predicted that the
> Smith-Tuttle comet will strike the earth sometime in the 22nd century.
>
> The news report gave an exact date, but I couldn't write fast enough
> to catch up.
>
> Is anyone else hearing these stories, and how true are they?

First of all, the comet's name is P/Swift-Tuttle, and it's the parent comet
of the Perseid meteor shower, recently recovered heading in toward its late
1992 perihelion passage, the first since the discovery apparition in 1862
(though the comet has now been linked with the comet observed by Kegler in
1737).

Second, replace the "will strike" by "might strike".  Just like any Perseid
meteor, the parent comet also has the potential for running into the Earth.
The uncertainty in the time of perihelion passage at its next perihelion
passage in 2126 includes the date of the Perseids, namely August 14, so it
could theoretically hit the Earth, though the probability is something like
less than 1 in 10,000.  Actually, considering the 10-year error in the
current perihelion passage, one could have claimed in 1862 that the comet
might hit the Earth in 1992, but it isn't going to happen this time around.
Then again, once the identification with Kegler's comet was made, that 10
year uncertainty shrank substantially, and August 14 was no longer within
the uncertainty.

Continued observation of the comet as it rounds perihelion and heads back
out should allow a better determination of its orbit and nongravitational
parameters, permitting a more definitive calculation of it 2126 perihelion
date.  In the meantime, don't get too excited about "The Mother of all
Perseids".

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

Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1992 11:25:20 GMT
From: "Aaron Wigley [Wigs]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Smith-Tuttle Comet a threat to earth?
Newsgroups: sci.space

J. D. McDonald ([e-mail]) wrote:
: In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
: >Speed relative to Earth is 50 km/s
: Lord Almighty! 1/6 the speed of light!!!!!! ???????
:
: Doug McDonald

(Just to be the first of probably many followups to this point :)

Isn't the speed of light (at least last time I checked :)
2.998e08 meters per second, (~3.0e05 kilometers per second) ?
Which makes 50 km/s 1/6000 the speed of light instead.

The Wigs of Oz,
Aaron Wigley

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

Date: 27 Oct 92 13:11:48 GMT
From: FRANK NEY <tnc!m0102>
Subject: Smith-Tuttle Comet a threat to earth?
Newsgroups: sci.space

I've read Lucifer's Hammer.  I'm about to re-read it now.

Frank Ney N4ZHG EMT-A  LPVa NRA ILA GOA CCRTKBA "M-O-U-S-E"
Commandant and Acting President, Northern Virginia Free Militia
Send e-mail for an application and more information
----------------------------------------------------------------
Democracy is based on the theory that the common people know
what they want and deserve to get it -- GOOD AND HARD!!!
--
The Next Challenge - Public Access Unix in Northern Va. - Washington D.C.
703-803-0391 To log in for trial and account info.

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

Date: 27 Oct 92 13:20:31 GMT
From: FRANK NEY <tnc!m0102>
Subject: Smith-Tuttle Comet a threat to earth?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (J. D. McDonald) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>
>
>>Speed relative to Earth is 50 km/s
>Lord Almighty! 1/6 the speed of light!!!!!! ???????
>
>Doug McDonald


I think you dropped a few decimal points.     B-)

Fifty klicks per second is only SOL x 0.0000166782

Frank Ney N4ZHG EMT-A  LPVa NRA ILA GOA CCRTKBA "M-O-U-S-E"
Commandant and Acting President, Northern Virginia Free Militia
Send e-mail for an application and more information
----------------------------------------------------------------
Look!  A one-line mathematical limerick:
((12 + 144 + 20 + (3 * 4^1/2)) / 7 + (5 * 11) = 9^2 + 0
--
The Next Challenge - Public Access Unix in Northern Va. - Washington D.C.
703-803-0391 To log in for trial and account info.

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

Date: Tue, 27 Oct 92 09:44:57 EST
From: "Dave Hansen @ws028" <bytex!ws028![e-mail]>
Subject: Subscription Request.

Please add me to the mailing list.

--
                                   David Hansen, BYTEX Corp.
                                   4 Technology Drive,  Westboro, MA 01581-1760
                                   UUCP: {...}uunet!bytex!dave
                                   Internet:[e-mail]

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

Date: 23 Oct 92 23:25:21 GMT
From: Kevin Burfitt <[e-mail]>
Subject: test
Newsgroups: sci.space

Testing 1 2 3
Please ignore...

K.B.

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 350
------------------------------