Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v15_0/v15no016.txt

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 05:02:02
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #016
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Mon, 20 Jul 92       Volume 15 : Issue 016

Today's Topics:
                  Chemical unit operations in space
              If the sun went out-how long life survive?
                           Manned/Unmanned
                        Solar Power Satellites
Space Transportation Infrastructure Costs (Was Re: Interstates) (3 msgs)
 STS-50 postflight briefings set for July 20 [NTE 92-61] (Forwarded)
   Support Lunar Resource Mapper Too!  Re: Manned/Unmanned (3 msgs)

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]".  Please do **NOT** send (un)subscription
    requests to that address!  Instead, send a message 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: 20 Jul 92 08:09:28 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Chemical unit operations in space
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Richard Bell) writes:
> The point of building a chemical plant in space is not to make the things
> that chemical plants make on Earth,                ^^^
                                                      I disagree.

> but to make things that cannot be made
> in the Earth's gravity field, things like perfect crystals and foamed steel.

Richard, you are half right:  This is appropriate, and we may hope
that microgravity-produced products are developed which make a nice
profit and encourage the growth of near-Earth space manufacturing.

However, it is also worthwhile to make boring things like liquid
oxygen, aluminum, iron or even concrete (you should hear T.D. "Dr.
Concrete" Lin talk about the little sample blocks he made from 40
grams of Apollo moondust) from the Moon, or a wider variety of stuff
from the asteroids and Mars, if there is a space-based market for
them.  You can get these things on Earth, but under the right
circumstances they'd be cheaper to use *in space* if they were
produced *in space*.

     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     [e-mail]
   -   -       Internet:  [e-mail]
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS

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

Date: 19 Jul 92 23:23:07 GMT
From: Mark Schlegel <[e-mail]>
Subject: If the sun went out-how long life survive?
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.misc,sci.space

[e-mail] writes:

>If the sun went out tomorrow - for sake of argument let's assume it
>was "turned-off", and did not blow up - how long would life survive
>on Earth?

>   Does anyone have any idea as to how long roughly it would take
>for the atmosphere to liquify then solidify if there was not
>any sunlight to heat it up.

>   I guess that within a few days the surface would become cold
>enough to kill most life.  An after a week or so even the oxygen
>would fall to the ground as snow, but these are just guesses.
>    Ocean life would survive a long time
>because a layer of insulating ice would form over the top of the
>ocean.  Would the entire oceans freeze solid or would a point be
>reached where ice pressure and geothermal heating would keep
>significant a volume liquid?
>   Life in the deep oceanic vents could survive even if the oceans
>were to be covered by  a 1km layer of ice
>   Life 5km down utilising methane from oil would perhaps survive
>for millions of years?
>                                         [e-mail]


If the hydrogen fusion energy source of the sun were turned off, it
would begin undergoing gravitational contraction which would keep it
luminous for quite a while (on the order of a few millions of years)

But hypothetically removing all sources of energy and miraculously
removing all the thermal energy from the sun so it's a cold body,
we have to remember that the earth is in a state of equilibrium of
receiving solar energy and emitting or reflecting visible or infrared
radiation.  The flux on the top of the atmosphere from the sun is
about 1300 W per square meter so the average loss is ~ 650 W per m2 per day
(but only a normal temp. at cold temps this is less).  So figure out
the total heat capacity of the whole mass of the atmosphere, include
the latent heat from the liquifaction of all the different gases,
water first, then CO2, O2, N2, etc.  I'm not going to do it!

Then a estimate might be t ~ N*total heat capacity/(650 W/m2/day)
where N is some numerical factor, 1 < N <5 or so, that corrects for the
650 W/m2/day being too much towards the end of the cooling.  This is
back of the envelope, remember.

Mark

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 05:57:59 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Manned/Unmanned
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes...
>CRAF was cut from the NASA budget because CRAF/Cassini appeared to be
>firmly on track to overrun its budget cap, and Congress had already
>warned NASA that CRAF was the more expendable of the two.  Cassini is
>still in danger, despite semi-protected status as an international
>program, precisely because its funding requirements continue to skyrocket.
>

The cost overruns were due to the inability of Congress to provide funding
at the agreed upon schedule.  When the CRAF/Cassini mission was approved,
a budget cap and a funding schedule was worked out and agreed upon by NASA and
Congress.  The project then proceeded along quite well and was underneath
the budget cap.  Then Congress decided a couple of years ago to not provide
the full amount of money that they said they would for that year.  This
caused the mission to be extended another two years, and the launch date had
to be moved from 1995 to 1997.  The mission had to be redesigned around the
new launch date.  All of this increased the overall cost of the mission.

>Turning off Magellan *is* a pretty dumb idea.
>

Can't argue with that one.

>Unmanned planetary science has been crippled by its own inability to control
>costs and regulate its program starts to survive on stable funding.

It would be helpful if you can cite some examples.
Of course, unmanned planetary science has never had stable funding.  Every
year a lot of time and effort is put in to get any kind of funding, and even
when the funding is allocated, it is not guaranteed.  The CRAF/Cassini case
is a classic example of this.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Most of the things you
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | worry about will never
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | happen.

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

Date: 20 Jul 92 01:58:14 GMT
From: George William Herbert <[e-mail]>
Subject: Solar Power Satellites
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Bunge) writes:
>[.....]
>But, it does bother me when I see "well, by the the time
>SPS is developed, perhaps astronomy will be spacebased."  I have seen
>some SPS stuff that mentions light pollution as a problem.  I'm thrilled
>to see it mentioned... that means people are thinking about.

    You're right, and most professional astronomers figure (rightly)
that given a miniscule percentage of the launch mass required for even a
lunar-materials using SPS, they can do better science from orbit
than they'll lose due to light pollution on the ground.  They just ask the
SPS people for 0.1% or so of the launch mass for on-orbit science
applications, the SPS people in general are inclined to give it to them.
The SPS people, in fact, try and garner support from other fields by
saying "you know, we could piggyback a X for almost nothing... and you'll
have all the power you want...".  8-)  It's amusing to watch it happen.

    There's a solution to making astronomers happy.  There may or
may not be a solution to convincing the public that they wont be
microwaved to death and getting over the cost hurdle*.

*Re: costs; Interesting new work suggests that it's possible to build
a SPS in the 5 gigawat range (sort of standard sized) with about 85,000
tons of mass, 99.4+-% of which can be lunar.  Thus the potential cost
is as low as 540 tons to GEO, plus lunar & L2 factories, plus the space
transportration infrastructure to move stuff from a L2 factory to GEO.
Which is half to an eighth of what earlier estimates looked like.
The estimated cost of building an SPS is coming down, presuming that
lunar materials work...


-george william herbert
[e-mail]  [e-mail]  [e-mail] until 28 aug
++  copyright (c)  george william herbert.       All rights except usenet   ++
++ transmission/use and inclusion in followup/reply articles/mail reserved. ++

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

Date: 19 Jul 92 21:48:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Transportation Infrastructure Costs (Was Re: Interstates)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (George William Herbert) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>[...]
>>I think the demand is going to have to come from the manned programs.
>>Most of the unmanned people are very thoroughly locked into the mindset
>>of never depending on new technology if they can avoid it.  (As witness
>>Cassini being shrunk to fit on a Titan IV without the new SRBs... which
>>have now been successfully tested.)  An unmanned program that seriously

>>proposes things like the MarinerMk2 Neptune/Pluto concept is not going
>>to bang fists on tables and demand better propulsion technology -- they've
>>forgotten it's possible.
>
>    If NASA were willing to look past the Shuttle, it would realize
>that it could redesign the station in 15klb chunks (ugh), develop the
>DC SSTO concept, and fly Freedom in it for less than it'll cost to
>fly it on Shuttle as is.

Yea right. What is your expertise for this wonderful suggestion?
Consider the assembly problems for such a tinker toy approach just for starters
SSRT is a good idea but it has a specific place and that place is not
putting up small chunks of a theoretical space station.

>    Anyone for shooting the Shuttle program office people
>in the name of progress? 8-)
>
>-george william herbert
>[e-mail]  [e-mail]  [e-mail] until 28 aug
>
>
Dennis Wingo, University of Alabama in Huntsville

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

Date: 20 Jul 92 03:55:21 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Transportation Infrastructure Costs (Was Re: Interstates)
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] writes:


>>
>>    If NASA were willing to look past the Shuttle, it would realize
>>that it could redesign the station in 15klb chunks (ugh), develop the
>>DC SSTO concept, and fly Freedom in it for less than it'll cost to
>>fly it on Shuttle as is.

>Yea right. What is your expertise for this wonderful suggestion?
>Consider the assembly problems for such a tinker toy approach just for starters
>SSRT is a good idea but it has a specific place and that place is not
>putting up small chunks of a theoretical space station.

So you finally admit that Freedom is theoretical?

--
Phil Fraering [e-mail] where the x is a number from 1-5.
Phone: [phone]
"There are still 201969 unread articles in 1278 groups" - nn message
"57 channels and nothing on" - Bruce Springsteen

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

Date: 20 Jul 92 05:26:31 GMT
From: George William Herbert <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Transportation Infrastructure Costs (Was Re: Interstates)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (George William Herbert) writes...
>>    If NASA were willing to look past the Shuttle, it would realize
>>that it could redesign the station in 15klb chunks (ugh), develop the
>>DC SSTO concept, and fly Freedom in it for less than it'll cost to
>>fly it on Shuttle as is.
>
>Yea right. What is your expertise for this wonderful suggestion?

    Bs Engineering, UC Berkeley; Currently attending ISU; taught big parts
of 2 semesters of Spacecraft design at berkeley; own my own (teeny)
aerospace company (Retro Aerospace)

>Consider the assembly problems for such a tinker toy approach just for starters
>SSRT is a good idea but it has a specific place and that place is not
>putting up small chunks of a theoretical space station.

    As if Freedom isn't tinkertoy now?

    It doesn't matter to a system, generally, how small the module
around it is.  The cases where it matters are in very large systems that
can't be fit into a single module and have to be split among
several modules.  Someone inside the program can correct me on this,
but none of the hardware/systems designs I've seen for Freedom had
any equipment systems that I couldn't fit (system and structure) into
15klbs.  There's some slight penalty in structure mass due to the smaller
size modules (probably 15-25% of structural mass, from various size
module designs _I've_ done).  If the launch cost is that much less, it won't
be a problem.
    On orbit assembly of pressurized modules is easy.  It's things
like the truss and associated hardware (ug) that are hard, even if
it's mostly preassembled.  A lot of hardware still ends up being
hand-placed out on the truss in the intermediate stages of assembly.
    It's nice to build out of big chunks.  Structural masses go
down, you don't have to route cables and pipes around through openings
etc. nearly as much.  Makes things conceptually easier and easier to
assemble.  But it is by no means critical, whereas killing NASA by
having Freedom eat all the other programs until it self destructs is.
The engineering problems are slight, and the policy and costing benefits
are enormous.  There's a bottom limit in size (you can't make a reasonable
3 ton module), but we're nowhere near that.


-george william herbert
[e-mail]  [e-mail]  [e-mail] until 28 aug

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

Date: 20 Jul 92 07:46:26 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: STS-50 postflight briefings set for July 20 [NTE 92-61] (Forwarded)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mike Schatz) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter E. Yee) writes:
>>       The STS-50 U.S. Microgravity Laboratory postflight crew press
>>   conference will be held Monday, July 20, from 1-3 p.m. CDT
>>   [...] NASA Select programming is carried on Satcom F2R,
>>   transponder 13, located at 72 degrees west longitude.
>
> Can anyone tell me what I need or where I can go to access this program?

You need a C-band (plain vanilla) satellite dish, aimed at 72 degrees W on the
celestial equator, and tuned to Transponder 13.

If you don't have one, and you don't have a friend who has one, bake some
brownies, get some blank videotape, and print out this message.  Drive around
your favorite suburb or rural area until you spot a dish.  Knock on the door.
Offer the brownies, make a new friend, then ask for a favor...

During the first and second stage         Bill Higgins
flights of the vehicle, if a serious      Fermilab
irretrievable fault should occur and      [e-mail]
the deviation of the flight attitude of   [e-mail]
the vehicle exceeds a predetermined       SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS
value, the attitude self-destruction      ===========================
system will make the vehicle
self-destroyed.        --Long March 3 User's Manual
     Ministry of Astronautics, People's Republic of China (1985)

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

Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1992 22:19:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Support Lunar Resource Mapper Too!  Re: Manned/Unmanned
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (ryan korniloff) writes...
>
>
>
>
>The Comet Rendezvous Asteroid Flyby (CRAF) has been cut from the NASA
>budget. Megellan will be turned off while in Venus orbit and still fully
>funtional next year. Cassini, mission to Saturn, is in great danger of
>meeting the same fate as CRAF. And intruments have been stripped from The
>Mars Observer Orbiter to further conserve funds.

It would be nice if postings of this nature were at least factual. There
have been no deletions of Mars Observer instruments, especially only
60 days from launch.

Also we will be very lucky to have a functioning Magellan spacecraft by
the end of September due to the transmitter problems. I hope they are able
to get the gravity data which is unaffected by the transmitter problem.

How about posting something about Lunar Resource Mapper? Is it because it
is targeted to the moon that you don't care? JPL folks have been wonderfully
silent over this issue and the Congress Critters have cut the funding this
year by recission and have basically gutted Mike Griffin's budget for next
year. Where is the pleas from the likes of Allan protesting this injustice?

Sorry, but Lunar Resource Mapper is more important than Magellan, CRAF, and
Cassini all put together because it will get us information that can be
used to actually make space exploration a viable effort by all of the
people instead of just a few scientists.

>All this is happening while space station Freedom is being issued all the
>funds it is requested. Yet an army of advisers to Congress from many space
>interest groups insist that Freedom if poorly designed and not up to par
>on the capabilities it is intended to fulfill. Congress has ignored all of
>the contrary statements conserning Freedom and approved of the budget that
>is crippling unmanned planetary science.

Give us your references on this wonderful statement. I know folks like the
American Fed of scientist don't like it and even IEEE issued a statment
discouraging it, but you do not see the people that will use space station
saying that it is not usable. How about asking microgravity materials
researchers and medical researchers about its use?

>Don't get me wrong, I am very much for our manned space program. I, myself
>intend to be walking an Mars in the next 15-20 years,

There is no possible way that you will be standing on Mars or even watching
it on TV in that time frame unless we can prove some monetarily useful
activities that will come from the effort. Going to the Moon before
going to Mars is the way to do this. It will not happen at all if Space Station
Freedom is cancelled. Why? Because forever more any effort to explore space
will be seen by the public who has to pay for it as another useless boondoggle
and they will point to SS Freedom's demise at the hands of shortsided people
who scream that everything but what they are working on is crap.
We need manned and unmanned efforts to generate wealth for the planet or
the riots in LA will one day be seen as a mere picnic up against future
troubles.

 but we can't
>continue to push forward the manned program at the expence of all other
>mothods of getting knowledge about he universe around us. And where does
>congress get the idea that they know what makes a space station useful or
>not? What do YOU think.
>
This is what I think. I think that there is more than a little self righteous-
ness in some of these posts on unmanned that focus only on what you want and
portrays everthing else as bad. Support Lunar Resource Mapper as well if you
truly want to support unmanned space flight. Write your Congress critter
or call or fax to support that in the 93 budget. It is a low cost planetary
probe that will do much to increase our knowledge of our nearest planetary
body. Do you know that after Mars Observer's mission is over, that we will
know more about Mars and Venus than about the Moon! That is tragic and
must be corrected.

Call Barbara Mikulski and sound your support of the Office of Exploration
and the Lunar Resource Mapper project. This is the first of a new generation
of reasonable priced planetary missions that will end up supporting the
exploration of the other planets as well by lowering costs.

Too many boondoggles and not enough boon for mankind

Dennis Wingo, University of Alabama in Huntsville

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

Date: 20 Jul 92 12:01:57 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Support Lunar Resource Mapper Too!  Re: Manned/Unmanned
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...
>Also we will be very lucky to have a functioning Magellan spacecraft by
>the end of September due to the transmitter problems. I hope they are able
>to get the gravity data which is unaffected by the transmitter problem.

Actually, only the radar data is affected by the transmitter problem, and the
collection of radar data if unaffected.

>How about posting something about Lunar Resource Mapper? Is it because it
>is targeted to the moon that you don't care? JPL folks have been wonderfully
>silent over this issue and the Congress Critters have cut the funding this
>year by recission and have basically gutted Mike Griffin's budget for next
>year. Where is the pleas from the likes of Allan protesting this injustice?
>

The Lunar Resource Mapper is not a JPL mission, and I myself would like to
see more details about it.  It seems that Congress is very reluctant to
fund the Lunar Resource Mapper because it is associated with SEI.  There are
other missions that haven't recieved any budget support and have fallen
to the wayside, Lunar Observer and SIRTF come to mind.  Mike
Griffin has been doing a great job since he has taken over in his new
position, but without the support of Congress, his plans are going to go
nowhere.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Most of the things you
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | worry about will never
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | happen.

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

Date: 20 Jul 92 09:16:14 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Support Lunar Resource Mapper Too!  Re: Manned/Unmanned
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (ryan korniloff) writes...
>>
>>The Comet Rendezvous Asteroid Flyby (CRAF) has been cut from the NASA
>>budget. Megellan will be turned off while in Venus orbit and still fully
>>funtional next year. Cassini, mission to Saturn, is in great danger of
>>meeting the same fate as CRAF. And intruments have been stripped from The
>>Mars Observer Orbiter to further conserve funds.
>
> It would be nice if postings of this nature were at least factual. There
> have been no deletions of Mars Observer instruments, especially only
> 60 days from launch.

I infer that Ryan was trying to summarize, in a single sentence per
project, the status of these projects as he's read them in the
aerospace press.  There *were* instruments dropped from MO a couple
years ago to save money and keep it on schedule.  I think one was an
infrared mapping spectrometer; I forget the other.  The way Ryan put
it made it sound like punks were stealing the hubcaps off MO on the
pad, though.

> How about posting something about Lunar Resource Mapper? Is it because it
> is targeted to the moon that you don't care? JPL folks have been wonderfully
> silent over this issue and the Congress Critters have cut the funding this
> year by recission and have basically gutted Mike Griffin's budget for next
> year.

Dennis, I won't claim that LRM's turf is not politically sensitive,
but I think the *real* problem is that hardly any information about
the project is available.  If you have access to details of this
mission, or can noodge somebody else into posting those details, it
would be great.  Instruments?  Masses?  Mission design?  Cost
breakdown?  Expected science return?  There really hasn't been very
much detail in *AvLeak* or *Space News*.

I have access to some of the Lunar and Planetary Institute information
on these efforts, but would have to get permission to post it.  Guess
I should try to do that.

> Where is the pleas from the likes of Allan protesting this injustice?

Allen Sherzer has been an enthusiastic supporter, so far as I know, of
the SEI probe fleet, and has posted information about their progress
in Congress.

Ryan's statements about Space Station Fred are just poorly informed;
there is a case to be made against the project, but he doesn't make it
very well.

>>All this is happening while space station Freedom is being issued all the
>>funds it is requested. Yet an army of advisers to Congress from many space
>>interest groups insist that Freedom if poorly designed and not up to par
>>on the capabilities it is intended to fulfill. Congress has ignored all of
>>the contrary statements conserning Freedom and approved of the budget that
>>is crippling unmanned planetary science.

I would claim that Fred has *not* received everything it asked for in
most years, and that the "contrary statements" have caused quite a
stir in Congress.  It even came to a floor vote in the House last
year; yes, Fred won that one, but it means that the station's
opponents have been working fairly hard against it.

>>Don't get me wrong, I am very much for our manned space program. I, myself
>>intend to be walking an Mars in the next 15-20 years,

I was talking about shopping for a house, and 30-year mortgages, with
somebody who reminded me that Rolf Wilson once said, "I'm not used to
thinking about what I'll be doing in 2022."  I said, "I *do* think
about what I'll be doing in 2022... but I expected to be picking up
ice on the surface of Callisto, not making the last payment on a condo
in Warrenville."  Who knows, maybe I can squeeze both in.

> This is what I think. I think that there is more than a little self righteous-
> ness in some of these posts on unmanned that focus only on what you want and
> portrays everthing else as bad.

Dennis, of course, *never* indulges in self-righteousness. (-:

> Support Lunar Resource Mapper as well if you
> truly want to support unmanned space flight. Write your Congress critter
> or call or fax to support that in the 93 budget. It is a low cost planetary
> probe that will do much to increase our knowledge of our nearest planetary
> body. Do you know that after Mars Observer's mission is over, that we will
> know more about Mars and Venus than about the Moon! That is tragic and
> must be corrected.
>
> Call Barbara Mikulski and sound your support of the Office of Exploration
> and the Lunar Resource Mapper project. This is the first of a new generation
> of reasonable priced planetary missions that will end up supporting the
> exploration of the other planets as well by lowering costs.

As I am posting from a government-owned machine, I cannot comment on
the above remarks.  (-: (-:

     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     [e-mail]
   -   -       Internet:  [e-mail]
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 016
------------------------------