Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V16_0/V16NO053.ZIP/V16NO053

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

Date: Sat, 16 Jan 93 05:04:37
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #053
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sat, 16 Jan 93       Volume 16 : Issue 053

Today's Topics:
                 Ariane Launch Record (1979 to 1992)
                         best food for space?
                    DC-1 and the $23M NASA Toilet
                              DC reentry
                       Freedom's orbit (3 msgs)
                         future space travel
Galileo's 3 U.S. Tour(was Re: Galileo Stuck Ribs / Remote Manipulator?)
          Galileo Stuck Ribs / Remote Manipulator? (2 msgs)
                           Goldin's future
                       Hubble Guide Star CD-ROM
               Orbital elements of junk in space wanted
                        Oxygen in Biosphere 2
                            SNC meteorites
                        Soviet space disaster?
     US/Russian Vehicle Mixes (was Re: Freedom's orbit) (2 msgs)
         Who can launch antisats? (was Re: DoD launcher use)

    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: 15 Jan 93 17:10:42 GMT
From: Bruce Dunn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ariane Launch Record (1979 to 1992)
Newsgroups: sci.space

        Thanks for the listing.  The records indicate failures on flights 2,
5, 15, 18 and 36.  A short description of the failure mode and the presumed
cause for each failure would be appreciated.
--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   [e-mail]

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

Date: 15 Jan 93 16:55:44 GMT
From: "Bruce F. Webster" <[e-mail]>
Subject: best food for space?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (rabjab)
writes:
> I watched Robinson Crusoe on Mars the other day and got the idea to
> put my food in toothpaste tubes.  I squezed out all the paste into
> jars and used the blender to turn various foods into paste.  I'm
> having some problems getting the paste in the tubes, however.  Does
> anyone have suggestions?
>
> When that problem is solved, I am going to need to get more tubes.
>

As Dave Barry would say, obviously a case of this person having too much time
on his hands....    ;-)   ..bruce..

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce F. Webster             |  I grow old...I grow old...
CTO, Pages Software Inc      |  dBASE II and Wordstar are no longer sold.
[e-mail]           |                         -- Jeff Duntemann
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 15 Jan 93 19:29:49 GMT
From: Max Elliot <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-1 and the $23M NASA Toilet
Newsgroups: sci.space

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Henry Spencer):
> In article <bern.726963746@kleopatra> [e-mail] (Jochen Bern) writes:
>>>BTW, does anyone have the text of the toilet instructions on _2001_? ...
>>
>>... The REALLY funny Thing about it is that the 2001
>>Starship had artificial Gravity in at least a Part of the Ship; Every
>>Idiot would have chosen to put into that Area.
>
> (a) There was no starship in 2001.
>
> (b) The toilet (and instructions) were in the Earth-Moon shuttle, not
>     the Discovery.
> --
> "God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
>        -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

  Well Henry, guess you won't be needing a toilet anytime soon,
  as you are supremely retentive in that area.

  Cheers!
-Max

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

Date: 15 Jan 93 18:51:37 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC reentry
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>I thought nose first re-entry was chosen because the rear of the
>vehicle, with it's multiple engine bells and plumbing hanging out, was
>not aerodynamically clean enough. I read that they were considering
>using a rear entry when and if they switched to aerospike engines.
>That would eliminate the tricky turnover maneuver at high Q.



Um. I know there was some consideration of rear first descent using
regular engines.  The idea was light the engines for the retro
burn,  then throttle them down to low power, as you hit atmosphere,
increase thrust enough to create a protective envelope.  the bonus is
you know the engines are performing as you come into final descent.
the minus is you burn more fuel.  the nose first trajectory conserves
fuel, which seems to be the current tight spot in DC-Y.  if they
still have a 10,000 lb margin after construction, then maybe
they will skip the flip over.

Alan, can comment better.

pat

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

Date: 15 Jan 93 17:10:34 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Freedom's orbit
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ken Sheppardson) writes:
>  .... As an approximation, folks
>  around here doing launch vehicle manifesting are using 220 nmi. 28.5
>  degrees is the baseline orbit, although there's a small radical fringe
                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>  contingent of folks who continue to advocate/consider a higher
>  inclination to allow for the use of Russian facilities and vehicles.
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>  Go figure.

And Alan thinks you'll see a Soyuz sitting on top of a U.S. booster launched
from a U.S. facility....


                    I have talked to Ehud, and lived.
  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: 15 Jan 93 19:20:31 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Freedom's orbit
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>And Alan thinks you'll see a Soyuz sitting on top of a U.S. booster launched
>from a U.S. facility....

Oh, that's a given. The booster may be the Shuttle but we will see Soyuz
being launched for (at the very least) ACRV on US launchers.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------990 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 15 Jan 93 19:56:20 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Freedom's orbit
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>>And Alan thinks you'll see a Soyuz sitting on top of a U.S. booster launched
>>from a U.S. facility....
>
>Oh, that's a given. The booster may be the Shuttle but we will see Soyuz
>being launched for (at the very least) ACRV on US launchers.
>
>  Allen

You're splitting hairs. Your scenario is no-Shuttle, all Soyuz to lift
astronauts.

Itt ignores the original comment about "radical" elements
within the Freedom office who want to be more friendly to using (other)
Russian hardware & launch sites.

And if you want to be really anal-retentive, the ACRVs are cargo inside of the
Shuttle. Not carrying U.S. astronauts.

And the booster to lift ACRV may not be shuttle, for that matter. Lockheed has
made a proposal to use Proton <sp?> to deliver them to Freedom.


                    I have talked to Ehud, and lived.
  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: 10 Jan 93 19:48:26 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: future space travel
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (rabjab) writes:
>If they don't find water on the moon, I have a hard time believing that
>there will ever be large colonies there.  Maybe small stations devoted
>to running astronomical instrumentation.

I'd have to agree with this: The key to a large colony would be minimizing
imports (since high transportation costs make them impracticle.) If
all the hydrogen needed to support a lunar colony had to be imported,
I doubt it would be possible.

>Mars will be the only real place for a large colony, but then again,
>if there isn't anything there that's very interesting (like life or
>fossils) I can't see large colonies being placed up there.

I don't think a colony depends on interesting sceintific research: With
out anything interesting, there wouldn't be a scientific base. But most
colonies on Earth were founded for reasons totally seperate from
science. Many were for religious/social reasons that had nothing to do
with the colony's location (i.e. anywhere where there weren't people
already, to persecute/disturb/whatever them.) I see no reason why
such a colony wouldn't be practicle on Mars. Since all the raw materials
needed for life are available, the only needed imports would be high
technology items.

By the way, this is also true of Titan, but (to my knowledge) no other
place in the solar system.

>The urge to colonize the universe seems to come from an urge for
>terretorial conquest that has been with us for a long time.  It is
>interesting how old themes are constantly repeated in the present.

"... for my purpose holds to sail beyond the sunset and the baths of
all the western stars until I die... To strive, to seek, to find and
not to yield." (from Ulysses, assuming my memory is accurate...)

                                                    Frank Crary
                                                    CU Boulder

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

Date: 15 Jan 93 19:56:16 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Galileo's 3 U.S. Tour(was Re: Galileo Stuck Ribs / Remote Manipulator?)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John F. Woods) writes:
>>
>>Now, as to what went wrong with Galileo's antenna,
>>it wasn't an oversight of even one engineer, really -- it was the mechanical
>>damage caused by trucking Galileo across country several times due to missed
>>launch opportunities and the shutdown of the space program after Challenger.
>
> I don't recall, if I ever knew, why the probe was trucked across the
> country several times. What was the story, no storage facilities at
> the Cape? Or no aircraft available?

It was trucked from JPL to the Cape in December 1985.  Recall that the
launch schedu for spring 1986, on Shuttle-Centaur, was intended to
send Galileo directly to Jupiter.  Hence it would never get closer to
the Sun than 1 AU.

When Shuttle-Centaur was canceled after the *Challenger* disaster in
1986, JPL came up with the Venus-Earth-Earth Gravity Assist (VEEGA)
trajectory, in order that Galileo could get to Jupiter on the
lower-performance IUS.  (At this point I'm giving up on explaining the
acronyms.)

So the spacecraft needed modification to operate in the inner solar
system, down to Venus at .72 AU where there is twice as much sunlight.
Back in the truck to Pasadena.  JPL added two sunshades, an extra
Low-Gain Antenna, and some other stuff.  (In the course of these, the
spare relay devoted to telling the motor to close the HGA got used for
something else, as Henry mentioned.  We have no assurance that it
would have helped anyway.)

Once these changes were made and the Shuttle got going again, Galileo
made another trip across the USA for its launch in October 1989.

>It still seems strange that after
> so much delay another full function deployment test wasn't done immediately
> prior to launch.

I don't know whether it was or not.

Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey              | Here Lies Bill Higgins:
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | He Never Ever Learned
Bitnet:           [e-mail]  | To Play Guitar So Well
Internet:       [e-mail]  | But He Could Read and Write
SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS  | Just Like Ringing A Bell

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

Date: 15 Jan 93 18:43:51 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Galileo Stuck Ribs / Remote Manipulator?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Hinz ([e-mail])) writes:
>>... How feasable
>>would it be to incorporate a robotic arm manipulator into these designs,
>>articulated so that it could reach everything on the probe/satellite?
>Bear in mind that the Galileo malfunction is of a fairly unusual type.
>Most failures are subtle things ailing in the innards of the boxes.



IT seems to me the big problem with the antenna, is that they are unable
to reverse the drive screw motor to flex the ribs.  henry posted something
earlier about hwo the relay budgeted to this was used for something
real stupid.   Have there been any studies indicating that" For want of
a Relay, An Antenna was lost" :-)

by the time you budget weight to something silly like a robot arm,
you lose at least one decent science instrument.
pat

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

Date: 15 Jan 93 14:55:18 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Galileo Stuck Ribs / Remote Manipulator?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John F. Woods) writes:
>
>Now, as to what went wrong with Galileo's antenna,
>it wasn't an oversight of even one engineer, really -- it was the mechanical
>damage caused by trucking Galileo across country several times due to missed
>launch opportunities and the shutdown of the space program after Challenger.
>The engineers didn't design the joints to withstand that much of that kind of
>vibration because Galileo shouldn't have been subjected to it -- I'll bet they
>didn't design the antenna to survive having someone whack it several times
>with a 15 pound sledgehammer, either.

I don't recall, if I ever knew, why the probe was trucked across the
country several times. What was the story, no storage facilities at
the Cape? Or no aircraft available? It still seems strange that after
so much delay another full function deployment test wasn't done immediately
prior to launch.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv![e-mail]

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

Date: 15 Jan 93 19:26:41 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Goldin's future
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Greg Earle) writes:

... Rational Critique of Goldin Deleted ...
>
> I was very disappointed as I'd been quite encouraged by some of Goldin's
> comments that he made during the discussion with Dr. Sagan (it was a great
> lecture, btw).  So, count me out of the "Save Goldin" bandwagon, thanks.
>
> (Disclaimer: the above incident occurred while I was a private citizen and not
>  employed at JPL; these are my personal opinions and should not be construed in
>  any way as being related to JPL or anyone at JPL in any manner, shape or form.
>  I consider this a private posting and am just using JPL's facilities to post.)
>
> --
>     - Greg Earle
>       Image Processing Applications and Development, Jet Propulsion Lab
>       [e-mail]    (Work/Office)    [phone]
>       [e-mail]    (Play/Home)    [phone]

O.K.  So, he has good points and bad points.  The question becomes one not of
absolutes, but one of known VS unknown, and one with shades of grey.

Would you prefer someone who will do a BETTER job than Goldin?  Well, the
answer is obvious...  YES.  IF Goldin is replaced will he be replaced
with someone who will do a better job than him?

Personally, I think that he is doing a better job with NASA than any of
the past administrators that I know about (not that detailed really...),
so the track record of people who pick administrators is not good.

I have heard bad things about the people who are proposed as a replacement.
Are there concrete examples out there on these guys from netland?

Assuming that Goldin can not be saved, who then is the BEST person to run
NASA?

            John Stevens-Schlick

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

Date: 15 Jan 93 19:07:42 GMT
From: Titch <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hubble Guide Star CD-ROM
Newsgroups: sci.space

This posting is with regard to the availibility of the Hubble Guide Star
catalogue and other star catalogues (Yale etc), available either through
ftp or on CD-ROM.

It's for my final year project of my Computer Science degree course.

Any help much appreciated.

Cheers,

Rich.

--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Rich Browning ([e-mail])   * The Intel Plentium: Ethernet controller
Department of Computer Science    * or fiendish knitting pattern?
University of Brighton            * What!? It's a PROCESSOR???
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

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

Date: 5 Jan 93 17:39:55 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: Orbital elements of junk in space wanted
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David "Fuzzy" Wells) writes:
>Sorry Bruce, thanks for playing.  Seeing how _I_ work with the entire
>satcat on a daily basis, I must inform you that the Unclass elsets that are
>found at this BBS cannot be the entire list.

I think it is a list of all functional satellites, classified or not.
(By international treaty, orbital elements and a name for everything
launched onto orbit must be announced within a day of launch. Keeping
this secret would be pointless in any case: An observer can derive
orbital elements with binoculars and a clock...)

>HOWEVER!  Most pieces of space debris are legit Unclass objects with no
>interest to anyone save the debris community (my guys).  Therefore,
>(no exact figures allowed, sorry) "a large majority" of debris pieces are
>probably at the above site (which I imagine gets its info from NASA...which

>is where the best civilian (public domain) Unclass satcat can be found).
>I highly doubt it is the same satcat I get that is pumped out of the Mountain.

As I understand it, NORAD keeps a listing of all objects (functional or
not) large enough to be tracked. The do release information from the
list, but not the entire list. (E.g. an astronomer can call up, and ask
if the object he observed at such-and-such a time and place was a
piece of orbital debris.)

I have a number of references on the subject of debris (actually, the
bibliography from a paper on the subject) but I think they are all
focused on number density vs. size, and don't give individual orbital
elements.

                                             Frank Crary
                                             CU Boulder

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

Date: 15 Jan 93 18:27:42 GMT
From: Josh Diamond <[e-mail]>
Subject: Oxygen in Biosphere 2
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

   Biosphere 2 update, 01/14/93

   Oxygen began coming in yesterday, thus far the O2 has
   been increased by 0.5% to 14.9%. The total addition will be slow,
   over about the next 10 days. Yes, the oxygen is actually
   being removed from the Biosphere 2 atmosphere. In fact
   we are missing 12,000 kg of oxygen. Although biological
   de-nitrification is producing a small amount of nitrogen
   gas, it only accounts for a very small fraction of the
   observed decrease in the relative concentration of oxygen.
   The number of moles of air in Biosphere 2, as calculated
   from the volume in the variable chambers and
   temperature etc., is decreasing. The observed decrease in
   atmospheric mass corresponds to the rate of oxygen loss.
   Also the relative concentration of other noble gasses like
   argon, and trace gasses added like SF6, confirm a removal
   of the oxygen has occurred. The capacity of the variable
   volume chambers has been enough to handle the reduced
   total volume.

That's nice, but where did the oxygen go?  Leakage into the
outside world?  Stored in solid form?  Is there an increase
is CO2 corresponding to the decrease in O2?  Has the missing
O2 been removed from the system together with some carbon by
CO2 scrubbers or some such device?


Spidey!!!



--
You don't hunt ducks with a turnip!

 /\ \  / /\  Josh Diamond                                          [e-mail]
//\\ .. //\\ AKA Spidey!!!                        ...!ctr.columbia.edu!ursa!jmd
//\((  ))/\\
/  < `' >  \                                              Do whatever it takes.

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

Date: 14 Jan 93 22:58:59 GMT
From: Anthony Datri <[e-mail]>
Subject: SNC meteorites
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

> 1)the SNCs were equilibrated at ~4.51Ga (U-Pb and Rb-Sr).

Context makes this look like a dating, but I've never seen "Ga" used as a unit.
--

======================================================================8--<

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

Date: 13 Jan 93 16:22:12 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soviet space disaster?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Chris Jones) writes:
>I took a look at _Spycatcher_ in the library last night and I couldn't find
>this reference.  I read the index, and skimmed the last 200 pages of the book.
>I'm fairly confident I would have picked out any reference that was at least a
>paragraph or two long, but it's not a sure thing.  So ... If anyone can give me
>a more precise reference to *where* in _Spycatcher_ this story might be found,
>I would appreciate it.

I'm also fairly sure I would have remembered any mention of a new or
unknown Soviet space disaster, if there were any in the book. There
_may_ have been a passing mention of one of occasions when the news
media worked itself into a frenzy over a kosmonaut "stranded" on orbit.
That's happened three times not, without any real "disaster" having
occured... The author did occasionally, mention current news items
in passing, to help capture the zeitgeist...

                                                   Frank Crary
                                                   CU Boulder

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

Date: 15 Jan 93 17:47:47 GMT
From: Ken Sheppardson <[e-mail]>
Subject: US/Russian Vehicle Mixes (was Re: Freedom's orbit)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Doug
Mohney) replied to my reply, :
>
> > ...there's a small radical fringe
> > contingent of folks who continue to advocate/consider a higher
> > inclination to allow for the use of Russian facilities and vehicles.
>
> > Go figure.
>
> And Alan thinks you'll see a Soyuz sitting on top of a U.S. booster launched
> from a U.S. facility....


I've also seen Russian drawings of a US orbiter with two Soyuz in the
payload bay to allow both Soyuz ACRVs to be delivered to station at one
time.

Ours is not to reason why...or how, for that matter.

Ken Sheppardson
[e-mail]

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

Date: 15 Jan 93 19:39:23 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: US/Russian Vehicle Mixes (was Re: Freedom's orbit)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ken Sheppardson) writes:
> I've also seen Russian drawings of a US orbiter with two Soyuz in the
> payload bay to allow both Soyuz ACRVs to be delivered to station at one
> time.
>
> Ours is not to reason why...or how, for that matter.

It *does* seem peculiar, but I've acquired the following rumor
sometime in the past couple months.  I think I got it from a live
person rather than over the Net... but I can't recall whom.

Remember the NASA group that studied the Soyuz as Assured Crew Return
Vehicle (space station lifeboat)?  They learned that the limitaion of the
famous three-month lifetime on Soyuz/Mir is that there are some seals
that dry out or outgas or something.

If you launch Soyuz inside a Shuttle orbiter instead of atop a
Semyorka, with the seals covered, they'll last a *long* time in space.

NASA would find replacing the Soyuz every few months unacceptable.
With a long lifetime, Soyuz becomes a much more attractive
candidate.

Sorry I can't provide more detail.

"We call for an immediate ban      Bill Higgins
on all antimatter-related          Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
research, especially as this       Bitnet:     [e-mail]
is fundamental to many third-      SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS
generation nuclear weapon          Internet:  [e-mail]
systems." --A. Gsponer & J. Hurni,
*Nature* v.325 p.754 (26 Feb 1987)

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

Date: 13 Jan 93 05:34:04 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: Who can launch antisats? (was Re: DoD launcher use)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matt J. Martin) writes:
>  I beg to differ.  Article 6 of the U.S. consitution states "...all Treaties
>made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall
>be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in eery State shall be bound
>thereby..."

>  The above includes anything George Bush signs.

No: It includes everything signed be the President _and_ ratified
by the Senate. If the Senate doesn't ratify it, it doesn't have
the force of supreme law.

>>All of which is irrelevent because, as I said, George Bush de facto
>>surrendered US sovereignty in 1992.

>  Sovereignty is an illusion to begin with.  It doesn't exist.

It certainly exists, but it isn't usefull in considering American
government: The sovereign powers of the United States are divided
among the branches of the federal government, the people and
the several States. All the really interesting questions are about
exactly _how_ these powers are divided...

Sovereignty simplty means that the United States isn't subject to
any outside controls or authorities (treaties don't count since
are limits we voluntarily assume, not ones we are automatically
subject to), along with all the powers that such autonomy implies.

                                                  Frank Crary
                                                  CU Boulder

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 053
------------------------------