Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V16_9/V16NO890.ZIP/V16NO890

Text File | 1993-07-18 | 28KB | 686 lines

Space Digest                Sun, 18 Jul 93       Volume 16 : Issue 890

Today's Topics:
                    Brown Dwarf Companion to Sol?
                           Clementine (ref)
                            European space
                   GPS Altitudes (was: DC-1 & BDB)
              GPS in space (was Re: DC-1 & BDB) (4 msgs)
                   Hubble, Why the hurry?  (2 msgs)
                        It's DEAD, Jim, Bones!
                    Moon Cable/Beanstalk. (3 msgs)
                     Saturn stage names (2 msgs)
                       SOIL PRODUCTION ON MARS
                      Space Movie/PR.. (2 msgs)
                  What's the market for Solar Cells?
                   Why are meteor showers seasonal?

    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: Sat, 17 Jul 1993 03:04:36 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Brown Dwarf Companion to Sol?
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Lynne K Wahl) writes:

>Not to mention a brown dwarf would put out a gravitational signature
>big enough to disrupt (perturb?) the orbits of the distant planets if
>it was this close.  Remember, a brown dwarf used to be a *sun*.

>For a smaller source such as a Jovian or *very* distant orbiting brown
>dwarf, could you examine the orbits of comets?  At apogee, the smallest
>gravitational disturbance would change the orbit of a comet drastically.

Yes, one could do that. People have done it. There is probably a lot
to be done still in that (I don't want to discourage anyone from looking).

Maybe later I'll look at typing in a local bibliography on the subject.
The profs here have done a lot of stuff along these lines... which I
need to read up on, come to think of  it...

(Excuse me...)

>--
>--Lynn Wahl   [e-mail]           | The meek will inherit the
>Kansas State University Student                | earth, the rest of us are
>Soil Conservation Service Computer Specialist  | going to the stars. ----*

--
+-----------------------+"...for the Gods were engaged in their
|"Standard disclaimer"  |aeons-long struggle with the Ice Giants,
|[e-mail] |who had refused to return the lawmmower..."
+-----------------------+

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

Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1993 20:42:39 GMT
From: Remi Cabanac <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clementine (ref)
Newsgroups: sci.space

Hello netters,

I am currently following a summer session at ISU Huntsville Alabama, and
I am involved in a project to design a Lunar Farside Observatory. We
decided we needed a precursor orbiter and would like info on the Clementine
mission. Any help will be appreciated.

please write at:

[e-mail]  or [e-mail]

Thank's

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

Date: Sat, 17 Jul 93 16:08:00 -0500
From: Charles Radley <[e-mail]>
Subject: European space
Newsgroups: sci.space

 -=> Quoting Dave Stephenson to All <=-

 Somebody other than David Stephenson said this :

 >>>Ariane 4 is totally booked up for the next two years,  and ariane
 >>>offers no cost savings on logistics missions  compared to Delta or
 >>>Titan.

How come they keep beating their competitors on price then ?

 DS> drops of course. British Aerospace proposed a 4 man 'super
 DS> command module' to fly on the Ariane 44 back in 1987. Could have
 DS> taken 6 back to Earth as crew return vehicle. It got nowhere fast.
 DS> a. It was British, B. it was like something the Americans had done!
 DS> c. The french wanted Hermes!

David,

I think has more to do with the fact that the British government
wanted somebody else to pay for it.  Britain spends remarkably
little on space.


... Internet address:- [e-mail]  Ad Astra per Guile !
--- Blue Wave/QWK v2.10

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

Date: 18 Jul 1993 13:55:36 +1000
From: Greg Price <[e-mail]>
Subject: GPS Altitudes (was: DC-1 & BDB)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (SNYDER GARY EDWIN JR) writes:

>Seeing the discussion on what altitude The Navstar/GPS system works, I
>thought I should give my information gleaned over the last three years.

>       ... stuff deleted...         The US Govt has "strongly" requested
>that when a receiver solves a position above 50K ft that it disables its
>outputs. This was a hassel with our weather balloon project. A max speed
>is also defined, something like mach 1.

I bought a Magellan OEM board. Under "Operational Characteristics" it states
that max velocity is 950mph (1529 kph) and max accel is 2g. Under Evironmental
Characteristics, Altitiude, Operating it states -1000 to +58000 feet (-0.30km
to 17.68km). It goes on to say that domestic firmware for 2000000 meters is
available. This unit costs about US$500 and does not give you pseudoranges,
etc. If you want pseudoranges and other good stuff it costs US$1500 (just
a different EPROM I believe) and you have to sign some docs explaining what
you intend to do with it, etc, etc. It smells like the US govt has probably
had more than a strong word to them.

Greg

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

Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1993 23:36:53 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: GPS in space (was Re: DC-1 & BDB)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>Remember, there are several modules that the Shuttle can't boost to
>higher inclination.  You'd need an Energiya launch for those.

No, a Proton launch would probably do, although you'd need a new payload
fairing.  The idea has been discussed.
--
Altruism is a fine motive, but if you   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
want results, greed works much better.  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1993 23:47:52 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: GPS in space (was Re: DC-1 & BDB)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <229kmb$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>Reasons for a High Inclination Orbit :
> ...
>5)  Apparently ACRV return is simplified( This is what i was told,
>    I can't see an intuitive reason why this is).

Look at the parts of the globe within 28.5 degrees of the equator.  Lots
of ocean, lots of desert and jungle, lots of underdeveloped countries
with slightly-dubious governments.  You'd really like to aim an emergency
return at somewhere like the great plains of North America or the Russian
taiga+steppe:  large areas of flat dry land with hospitable climates,
reliable governments, and good search-and-rescue organizations.  In a
high-inclination orbit, you get repeated shots at such locations every day.
--
Altruism is a fine motive, but if you   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
want results, greed works much better.  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1993 23:53:33 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: GPS in space (was Re: DC-1 & BDB)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <229kmb$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>Why is it, cheaper for me to drive to work in DC (Home to the best
>public transit system in AMerica)  then to take metro.

Bad management. :-)  I assume "AMerica" refers to the country, not the
continent -- Toronto has the best public transit system on the continent,
and it's certainly the cheapest way for me to get to work, if you exclude
bicycling.  (Might be different if I needed a car for other things, but
in Toronto you don't.)
--
Altruism is a fine motive, but if you   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
want results, greed works much better.  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 17 Jul 1993 21:20:18 -0400
From: Matthew DeLuca <[e-mail]>
Subject: GPS in space (was Re: DC-1 & BDB)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <226do3$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:

>COnsidering we put 1/3rd of our GNP  into relying on certain very unstable
>arab countries to sell us Oil,  I don't see what the problem is.

1.8 trillion dollars a year on Mideast oil?  I'd love to see where *that*
number came from...
--
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology    "Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards,
Office of Information Technology   for they are subtle, and quick to anger."
[e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1993 22:57:03 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hubble, Why the hurry?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <stone.742859908@cwis> [e-mail] (Travis Stone) writes:
>>It's not that bad.  First, I don't think something that massive would start
>>tumbling -- where would the force come from?
>
>Probably the same place the force came from when they sent up
>the---Explorer, I think?---satellite back around 1959 or so: it was
>launched with a healthy spin around its long axis, and it had these four
>funky antennas attached to it which were pulled straight out by
>centrifugal action.  The silly thing started to tumble around an axis
>perpendicular to its long axis...

Note, though, that this was a change in the spin axis -- not a spin-up
of a previously-unrotating satellite.  More precisely, the spin axis
stayed fixed in space, but the satellite's own orientation around it
changed.  People designing spin-stabilized satellites have to pay
careful attention to these issues (see, for example, the Agrawal book
in the FAQ bibliography for lots more detail), but spin doesn't come
out of nowhere.

Starting in a low orbit without significant spin, Hubble would *probably*
end up with its long axis aligned with the zenith-nadir axis, due to
gravity-gradient torques.  (Actually, since I don't think it has any
serious damping, it would end up oscillating around that alignment.)
The gravity gradient tends to be the dominant torque on an enlongated
but fairly dense satellite in low orbit; it's often used to stabilize
satellites that don't need precise pointing, e.g. LDEF.
--
Altruism is a fine motive, but if you   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
want results, greed works much better.  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1993 23:28:33 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hubble, Why the hurry?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>I think there are two places the force would come from, firstly there will
>be the solar radiation pressure on the satellite combined with the residual
>atmosphere that could cause the HST to start to rotate.

Solar radiation pressure is pretty insignificant in low orbit, although it
is a major factor in Clarke orbit.  Gravity gradient will be the biggest
factor, with atmospheric drag somewhat less significant.

>Secondly there are electrical torques caused by the satellite passing
>through the Earth's magnetic field lines. The evidence for this is the
>tumbling of upper stages whose tumbling rates vary due to just these forces.

However, Hubble is designed to use magnetotorquers for momentum dumping,
and magnetometers for sensing the field for that purpose -- in fact, the
magnetometers are on the "to be replaced" list for the repair mission --
so it's built to have no significant permanent magnetic dipole.
--
Altruism is a fine motive, but if you   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
want results, greed works much better.  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1993 03:38:33 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: It's DEAD, Jim, Bones!
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] writes:

>Matybe one of the best ideas to get peopel involved with space and science is
>to beat them over the head with it.. Such as the SKY BILLBOARD..

I dunno. I think all the people who would want to ignore spaceflight
will get upset and lynch anyone who tries.

--
+-----------------------+"...for the Gods were engaged in their
|"Standard disclaimer"  |aeons-long struggle with the Ice Giants,
|[e-mail] |who had refused to return the lawmmower..."
+-----------------------+

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

Date: 17 Jul 1993 16:04:20 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moon Cable/Beanstalk.
Newsgroups: sci.space

The Last Planetary sized  Civil engineering project  in 100 years
was the Panama Canal.  for those not aware,  the US GOvt
essentially bought Panama  from columbia at that time.
THey arranged a perpetual canal zone lease (As a sovereign area)
and  arranged for dozens of protective military installations.

They also  installed a series of puppet governments.

pat
--

God put me on this Earth to accomplish certain things.  Right now,
I am so far behind, I will never die.

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

Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1993 23:10:39 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moon Cable/Beanstalk.
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Pat) writes:


>The Last Planetary sized  Civil engineering project  in 100 years
>was the Panama Canal.  for those not aware,  the US GOvt
>essentially bought Panama

Well, helped it get its independance from Columbia.

> from columbia at that time.
>THey arranged a perpetual canal zone lease (As a sovereign area)
>and  arranged for dozens of protective military installations.

>They also  installed a series of puppet governments.

In Panama, Columbia, or the U.S.?

;-)


>pat
>--

>God put me on this Earth to accomplish certain things.  Right now,
>I am so far behind, I will never die.
--
+-----------------------+"And so it went. Tens of thousands of messages,
|"Standard disclaimer"  |hundreds of points of view. It was not called
|[e-mail] |the Net of a Million Lies for nothing."
+-----------------------+

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

Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1993 23:34:57 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moon Cable/Beanstalk.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve Linton) writes:
>|> >Local govermental problems along the equator...
>|> If you've got the sort of money you would need to build a beanstalk...
>|> ... you can just buy yourself a suitable local
>|> government while you're at it. :-)  This will be a minor expense.
>
>Actually, you will need to buy up, or at least buy off ALL the local governements
>along the equator. In a worst-case catastrophe the cable will come down in pieces
>the whole way round.

Most of it will burn up on reentry.  All but the lowest sections will be
falling from great heights, and will hit at near-orbital velocities.  It
ought to be spectacular, but it shouldn't be very dangerous.

In any case, you don't *need* the approval of those governments -- they
don't have any legal power to stop you -- although it might be smart to
buy a bit of insurance against pieces surviving reentry.  The only local
government whose goodwill you absolutely must have is the one that rules
the area where your cable touches down.
--
Altruism is a fine motive, but if you   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
want results, greed works much better.  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1993 00:09:14 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Saturn stage names
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <229la7$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>Do you happen to know why there is no Saturn Stage marked S-III?
>There was the S-I,  S-II  then S-IV.  kind of funny.

More properly, there was the S-IC, the S-II, and the S-IVB.  This may tip
you off to the reason:  a complicated history in which many pencilled-in
vehicle configurations never became real.  The S-IVB was pretty much an
enlarged S-IV, and the S-IV was, at one time, going to be the fourth
stage of a particular Saturn I configuration.

There was great confusion about Saturn I configurations, with many
different proposed sets of upper stages and growth paths.  The semi-final
Saturn I development scheme envisioned a progression of vehicles.  You
started with an S-I carrying an S-IV.  Then you put an S-III in between
for a bigger payload.  Then you added an S-II between the S-I and S-III
for a still bigger payload.  (Oh yes, there was an S-V stage as well,
which was a modified Centaur.)  The stages were named for their role in
the final four-stage launcher, of course.  The original S-II and S-III
were never built, as things finally turned out, and the S-II's name was
re-used for the only Saturn stage ever designed from scratch to be a
second stage.

If you think this is bad, consider that "Saturn C-3" could refer to any
of three or four totally different launchers, depending on the date.
There were *lots* of paper designs for Saturns, all the way from the
one-stage Saturn I (which did in fact fly) to the Saturn C-8 (with
eight F-1s in the first stage, practically a Nova, which didn't).
--
Altruism is a fine motive, but if you   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
want results, greed works much better.  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1993 01:08:26 GMT
From: Dave Michelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Saturn stage names
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>If you think this is bad, consider that "Saturn C-3" could refer to any
>of three or four totally different launchers, depending on the date.
>There were *lots* of paper designs for Saturns, all the way from the
>one-stage Saturn I (which did in fact fly) to the Saturn C-8 (with
>eight F-1s in the first stage, practically a Nova, which didn't).

Consider also that the Saturn I was originally called the Juno V.  It was
supposed to use either four E-1 engines or one F-1 engine but neither were
available (was the E-1 ever brought to production?) so von Braun decided
to cluster eight upgraded Jupiter S3-D engines which were renamed H-1...

--
Dave Michelson  --  [e-mail]  --  University of British Columbia

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

Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1993 22:59:18 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: SOIL PRODUCTION ON MARS
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <227n1h$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (George William Herbert) writes:
>... Ways to get Mars
>an atmosphere are indeed being looked at, see for instance various
>papers in the soon-to-be-published Case for Mars V proceedings
>and the Case IV and III proceedings...

Another good source is JBIS -- the Journal of the British Interplanetary
Society -- which has published several special issues on terraforming in
the last year or two.
--
Altruism is a fine motive, but if you   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
want results, greed works much better.  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1993 03:40:45 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Movie/PR..
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Steven Reardon) writes:

>How about Space Camp c. 1987 (?)

It was c. 1986 and hit the theaters just as everyone could see that
a lot of the stuff there was, er, slightly misleading.

>>It would be a grewat publicity plou to get people interested in space research.

>I've been thinking about this recently, and I have to disagree.  I think that
>all of the popular movies and TV shows about space (a la Star Trek) do more
>harm than good in terms of public interest in space exploration.

>I think that John/Jane Q. Public has a *grossly* exaggerated idea of what
>is possible in terms of space/technology because of these shows.  I did a
>survey recently (totally unscientific) which showed 75% of respondents didn't
>know that the shuttle couldn't go to the moon.  The rest didn't know why.

Actually, my experience shows the exact opposite.
The public has been led to believe that spaceflight is
increadibly hard, and that 15 billion dollars has to
be spent a year just to send a minimal amount of people
to low earth orbit...

>I also think these shows allow people to get their space interest out of
>their systems.  They don't need the excitement of the U.S. (or anybody)
>returning to the moon when Picard, Data, Ryker (sp?), and company are going
>off to Regula 6 on monday night.

>Don't get me wrong.  I personally like these shows, but I don't think they
>do any good in terms of PR for the space program.

>Steve

Well, consider the way they portray space exploration as something
that'll happen only after we get warp drive or transporters or
something else along the lines of new physics we probably won't
get.

Although there is a slight possibility that wormholes could pan
out or something... we just don't seem to know anything.
And some of the speculation there is _very_ interesting.



>--
>I'm going to change my last name to Peece,
>and name my first son Warren.

>[e-mail] -- Steven Reardon Bradley U --  Peoria IL
--
+-----------------------+"And so it went. Tens of thousands of messages,
|"Standard disclaimer"  |hundreds of points of view. It was not called
|[e-mail] |the Net of a Million Lies for nothing."
+-----------------------+

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

Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1993 05:15:11 +1200 (NZST)
From: Bruce Hoult <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Movie/PR..
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] writes:
> Or maybe a high budget First Contact with Aliens.. not a "V" or soem such, but
> a first contact that is a bit more up to modern tech/current tech, and
> possibilties

_Footfall_ could make a good movie, I think.  It's got pretty nifty and well-thought-
out aliens.  For that matter, so has _The Mote in God's Eye_.


>Maybe this time the Government and NASA can play the good guys..

Oh.  I didn't realise you were thinking of a fantasy...

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

Date: 17 Jul 93 18:58:56 GMT
From: AJ Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: What's the market for Solar Cells?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <224ls5$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (dave moore) writes:
>
> I'm trying to gather information about the market for solar cell
> applications in space.
>
> - I suspect the market is inelastic, that is, variations in cell cost
>   wouldn't affect the number of panels built & sold very much.
>   Is that a good assumption?

Not that long ago, I saw something on PBS, where this new company was making
solar cells in sheets.  It was cheap and nearly indestructable.  The guy
who's the company's ceo (and apparently chief salesman) did this demo where
he had 1 square foot of this stuff powering a moderate sized boom box and
drove a nail through the sheet and the boom box kept playing.  My point is,
if the cells get cheap enough, they may have applications here on earth.
If you consider what one is looking for in space applications (durability,
lightweight, reliability, redundancy) are equally desirable here on earth,
the only big problem is cost.

>
> - Would ANY factors make a difference? Or is the market totally
>   driven by the number of satellites flown each year?
>

On a variation of the above, for instance, various power company utilities
used to put in very expensive transformers to step down High Voltage lines
to a power level suitable for their transmission line diagnostic and
monitoring hardware.  Solar cells have gotten cheap enough, that its
cheaper to mount a solar array to power their diagnostic gear.  Knowing
that, I started looking closer at the boxes at the top of electric poles
and high tension towers.  Every so often, you'll see a little solar array
ontop of the box.  Of couse, power companies are very motivated to keep
costs down, so they're more pragmatic (or creative) than some
organizations.

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

Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1993 23:24:04 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why are meteor showers seasonal?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Fagan) writes:
>... Why do particular metor showers recur at the same time of
>year?
>
>... The only answer that leaves me is
>that there is an asteroid belt (or many belts) which cross the earths
>orbit...

Sort of right.  Part of the junk spewed off comets is dust (plus occasional
larger pebbles and such).  This stuff comes off with fairly small relative
velocities, so it stays in pretty much the same orbit as the comet.  On the
other hand, there is *some* velocity difference, so the orbital periods
are not quite the same, and the dust spreads out along the comet's orbit
over time.  The result is a sort of micro-asteroid belt of dust particles
(with occasional larger lumps) centered on the comet's orbit.  If that
orbit happens to intersect Earth's, then you get a meteor shower every
time Earth passes through it -- which naturally happens once a year at
about the same time every year -- with the meteors all coming from about
the same direction.

Some of the known meteor showers are definitely associated with known
comets -- in some cases, with comets that broke up and died out in
historic times.  The rest are relics of extinct comets.

The most frustrating part of all this is that a given shower's intensity
is hard to predict, because the belts of dust and debris aren't uniform.
When Earth happens to pass through a dense area, we get a meteor storm.

We can make educated guesses about storms in some cases.  For example, the
encounter with the Perseids this year will be exceptionally favorable --
Earth will come very close to the comet's orbit not long after the comet
itself went past -- and the last time this happened there was a storm.
(Around 0100 GMT on Aug 12 -- evening of the 11th in North America --
will be a good time to be in a dark area and watching the sky.)

But the detailed structures of the belts are unknown, and nobody can
be sure.  For example, the Leonids peak about every 33 years, and the
1833 storm was so spectacular that it caused worldwide panic, but the
storms were thought to be dying out when the 1900s peak and the 1930s
peak produced nothing much... and then the 1960s peak produced a storm.
(The next Leonids peak will be late this decade.)
--
Altruism is a fine motive, but if you   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
want results, greed works much better.  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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


From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: message from Space Digest
Date: 17 Jul 1993 15:55:30 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 10
Distribution: sci
Message-Id: <229lfi$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: access.digex.net
Sender: [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]


My neighbor works for the IMF.  we are debating when the IMF  will
take over the US GOvernment.  It's Like GM,  the bigger they are the longer
they go,  before the problems show up.

pat
--

God put me on this Earth to accomplish certain things.  Right now,
I am so far behind, I will never die.

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 890