Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v15_1/v15no132.txt

Text File | 1993-07-13 | 30KB | 715 lines

Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 05:10:02
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #132
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri, 21 Aug 92       Volume 15 : Issue 132

Today's Topics:
                           Asteroid report
                 Cosmic strings & supralight (2 msgs)
                          female astronauts
                          Home made rockets
                    Hubble visible in evening sky
            Inflatable Space Stations - Why Not ? (2 msgs)
                  Meteorite/Fireball object spotted?
                     Nevada Casino - 200 miles up
                        Private space ventures
             Satellites in polar orbits - which/how many
                            Soyuz as ACRV
             SPS feasibility and other space development
superstrings & supralight (was SPS feasibility and other space development)
                      Ulysses Update - 08/20/92
                                wefax
             What about Saturn?/Future not Past (2 msgs)
                       What happened to Viking?
         With telepresence, who needs people in Earth orbit?

    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: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 00:17:37 GMT
From: Forrie Aldrich <morwyn!forrie>
Subject: Asteroid report
Newsgroups: sci.space

Recently, and associate mentioned there was a report of a rather large
asteroid (or some object) approaching or within our solar system, and
with a trajectory currently in our direction.  And that radio signals
have been transmitted from said object.

This does sound a little out-of-the-ordinary, can someone confirm or
deny this? (for those familar with Arthur C. Clark, the above reference
makes me have visions of RAMA heading our way... ::wince:: ;)

Thank you.

--
       -----------          Forrest Aldrich          -----------
       -------     morwyn![e-mail]      -------
       ----                             ----
       --         VISION GRAPHICS --    Dover, NH - USA           --
       ------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 20 Aug 92 18:38:02 GMT
From: "Frederick A. Ringwald" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cosmic strings & supralight
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Brian Tarbox) writes:

> Can someone explain (simply, please), what superstrings are?

OK, but I meant to say COSMIC STRINGS, not superstrings - my mistake.
(Superstrings are microscopic, and very popular these days for unifying
the forces of nature; the theory is still being thrashed out, though,
so they may or may not exist.)

Cosmic strings are defects in the structure of space and time
("spacetime," for short), left over from the origin of the Universe,
when the whole Universe was hot and cooling rapidly. They resemble
one-dimensional black holes, can be very massive, and are STILL
HYPOTHETICAL: no one has yet detected one definitively.

When something undergoes a phase transition, going from a disordered to
an ordered state, such as water turning into ice, small fluctuations
can get amplified. In ice, you can see this as the little lines in an
ice cube, formed by trapped dissolved air bubbles. Crystals do this,
too. Cosmic strings are roughly analogous to this, being defects in the
structure of spacetime.

The jist of general relativity is that matter gives shape to space and
time. So, two moving, parallel massive cosmic strings might bend
spacetime so much, it might curve back on itself, giving you a closed
timelike curve (CTC) and faster-than-light travel...MAYBE...maybe!

(And to think grownups spend all day on such stuff! (And it should be
in sci.physics anyway) I should be getting back to something more
practical, such as an eruption around a neutron star...)

Fred

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

Date: 21 Aug 92 01:06:46 GMT
From: "Frederick A. Ringwald" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cosmic strings & supralight
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Brian Tarbox) writes:

> Can someone explain (simply, please), what superstrings are?

OK, but I meant to say COSMIC STRINGS, not superstrings - my mistake.
(Superstrings are microscopic, and very popular these days for unifying
the forces of nature; the theory is still being thrashed out, though,
so they may or may not exist.)

Cosmic strings are defects in the structure of space and time
("spacetime," for short), left over from the origin of the Universe,
when the whole Universe was hot and cooling rapidly. They resemble
one-dimensional black holes, can be very massive, and are STILL
HYPOTHETICAL: no one has yet detected one definitively.

When something undergoes a phase transition, such as water turning
into ice, small fluctuations can get amplified. In ice, you can see
this as the little lines in an ice cube, formed by trapped air
bubbles. Crystals do this, too. Cosmic strings are roughly
analogous to this, being defects in spacetime.

The jist of general relativity is that matter gives shape to space and
time. So, two moving, parallel massive cosmic strings might bend
spacetime so much, it might curve back on itself, giving you a closed
timelike curve (CTC) and faster-than-light travel...MAYBE...maybe!

(And to think grownups spend all day on such stuff! (And it should be
in sci.physics anyway.) I should be getting back to something more
practical, such as an eruption around a neutron star...)

Fred

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

Date: 20 Aug 92 20:39:12 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: female astronauts
Newsgroups: sci.space

If a shuttle was launched with an all-female crew, would it be
referred to as an unmanned space flight?

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 23:52:42 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Home made rockets
Newsgroups: sci.space

Both [e-mail] and [e-mail] question the
figure "138,490 Americans killed or wounded over the last 10 years
by gun-wielding children under six years of age" quoted in my recent
post.

My source for this was a newspaper article claiming the U.S. General
Accounting Office as its source.  I have not and did not confirm
this figure with the GAO.  I simply quoted the statement (notice the "'s).
It seemed high to me too.  (ANY number for this seems too high! :-).)
(BTW, the article concerned the State of Maryland's attempt to require
gun owners to keep their guns out of the hands of children.)

If anyone can show these numbers are wrong, I will certainly accept
the correct figure, but suspicion isn't verification.  I'll believe
this one until I hear better.

The suggestion by [e-mail] to distinguish between 'killed'
and 'wounded' does not seem relevant.  The point is bullets entered
these (disputed number of) bodies.  I've also heard the argument
comparing automobile deaths to gun deaths before and I don't see
any connection.  In any case, children don't drive.
Again, I am not trying to take away anyone's firearms.
So, so sensitive...  What is it with the insecurity already????
Get a streetlight if you're scared.   (!!!Very smiley!!!)

[e-mail] also suggested this discussion doesn't
belong here and that is fine with me.  I'll be happy with no
further followups in this newsgroup.

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

Date: 21 Aug 92 04:37:00 GMT
From: "BRUTON, WILLIAM DANIEL" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hubble visible in evening sky
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bruce Watson) writes...
>
>Just a reminder that the Hubble Space Telecope is appearing in the evening
>twilight for the next few weeks for northern hemisphere observers. For
>those of us much further north thatn approx. 35 degrees, it will
>be low on the horizon towards the south.
>
>--
>Bruce Watson (wats@scicom)  Tumbra, Zorkovick; Sparkula zoom krackadomando.

 Any idea how many degrees above the horizon for latitude of 35 degrees
for some day this week?  Or where to find info on Hubble's coordinates?
Thanks,
Dan

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

Date: 20 Aug 92 17:49:04 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Inflatable Space Stations - Why Not ?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

>Large low mass structures at LEO don't stay in orbit very long. In
>ballistic terms their Sectional Density is lousy.

The LLNL does require more fuel for stationkeeping but the overall cost
was still far lower.

>At higher orbits, balloons don't offer enough radiation shielding.

The LLNL design orbited at 150 miles and offered better shielding
than Freedom. They also had a water protected 'storm shelter' for
large solar storms.

>A lot of assembly
>work is required to move equipment in and anchor it to hard points

But the work happens in shirtsleves so it isn't that bad.

    Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  [e-mail]     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------246 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 20 Aug 92 13:54:22 GMT
From: Rui Sousa <[e-mail]>
Subject: Inflatable Space Stations - Why Not ?
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

   Path: pinkie!dec4pt.puug.pt!inesc.inesc.pt!mcsun!uunet!ogicse!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!eng.ufl.edu!gnv.ifas.ufl.edu!jrm
   From: [e-mail]
   Newsgroups: sci.space
   Date: 19 Aug 92 23:34:03 GMT
   Article-I.D.: gnv.1992Aug19.183403.1527
   Lines: 20

   Whatever became of the idea of inflatable space habitats/workstations ?
   The savings on initial cost and on launch weight should be very great.
   Add to that the large size and configurational possibilities and you
   have an incredibly good deal. Modern materials, esp tri-weave carbon
   fiber, could strengthen an envelope and protect against ripping or
   bursting. All you need is a docking hatch and a few hard points to attach
   odds and ends to. The rest is just hot air. Internal partitions and
   compartments would be easy to build into such a structure ... or glue in
   later on. The large internal free volume of air would also add safety
   against explosive decompression. Self-sealing layers could deal with
   micrometeorites. If desired, thin interlocking plates of metal could be
   attached to the envelope to armor the whole thing.

   What's the problem ? Is this perhaps a TOO CHEAP solution - meaning that
   the contractors couldn't steal enough money during development ? If we
   want nice BIG space stations, with loads of internal room, with easy
   expandability ... inflatable spheres sound like the economical solution.
   Any feedback on this ?

   -- Jim Mason

Well, I think NASA has been doing some nice research on how several materials
cope with LEO atomic oxygen and radiation. If it turns out those THIN walls
can't do it, it would have been too soon to talk about inflatable structures
...
Despite that possibility (I hope those materials can do it) the idea seems fascinating from the ecenomic point of view!

Rui
--
*** Infinity is at hand!                               Rui Sousa
*** If yours is big enough, grab it!                   [e-mail]

                All opinions expressed here are strictly my own

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

Date: 20 Aug 92 20:04:24 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Meteorite/Fireball object spotted?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Hello,

I just recently heard over NPR (National Public Radio) that a possible
"meteorite" was spotted over Europe somewhere.  I missed the information on
exactly where it was spotted.  However, the object was accompanied by large
tremors covering a 12 mile stretch and a flood of calls to authorities who
have already confirmed that the "fireball" object was NOT
military test aircraft, abnormal weather patterns, an earthquake OR
anything else identifiable, at this point.

If anyone has specifics to this event please post or email.  Thank you.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond - [e-mail]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 21 Aug 92 03:14:40 GMT
From: Dave Decot <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nevada Casino - 200 miles up
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space,rec.gambling

[e-mail] (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
: I'll leave that to the rocketeers in sci.space.  They'll
: probably suggest a better orbit (although I think
: geosynchronous is a bit out of the way for junkets...).

It would float away because there is no atmosphere in the sky.

Dave

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

Date: 20 Aug 92 17:34:47 GMT
From: Alex Howerton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Private space ventures
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (William Naylor) writes:
>A private company called "Astrotech" has been trying to get
>into the space business (Astrotech is a public company; its stock
>trades on the American stock exchange in the USA).
My father has some Astrotech shares. He bought them when the company went
public in '85. They were going to develop private uses of the shuttle.
The '86 Challenger didaster put the company and the stock into a tailspin.
My father says the most recent annual report says they have bailed out
of the private space business.

If any of you are interested in exploring private space ventures further,
I publish a bimonthly newsletter on space business developments called
Space Times. Send me your postal address (I'm not doing an online version)
and I'll send you a sample copy.

Alex Howerton
[e-mail]

Space Times
P.O. Box 565
Lynnwood, WA  98046-0565

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

Date: 20 Aug 92 19:16:42 GMT
From: Gregory M Ellis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Satellites in polar orbits - which/how many
Newsgroups: sci.space

On a recent camping trip in the North Cascades we observed what appeared to
be several satellites (approx. 8 in an hour) moving in a south-to-north
polar orbit and all on roughly he same track.  They appeared to be way too
high for aircraft.  What were they?

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:44:44 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz as ACRV
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

>Yeah but I'd rather have an operational space transporter than higher
>VA benefits.

That's not the choice. Gary, your model of the political process and
budget allocation just isn't correct. We DO have some clout. We have
enough clout to get about $15B per year for NASA. NASA is a popular
agency within the government and if savings where found, most if not
all would be allocated back to NASA.

If space opponents where as powerful as you say, then Freedom would
have been killed long ago. Traxler would have been successufl in
killing it instead of going down to an embarasing defeat.

Even if you where correct, we would still be better off with the
money in VA since the alternative makes the space market far larger
(enough to pay for HLV development and almost double the number of
MLV launches) and cheaper. This encourages greater activity which is
now stifled by a space program (and supporters) who don't consider
cost an important factor.

  Allen

PS. Note followups.
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  [e-mail]     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------246 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 20 Aug 92 18:47:08 GMT
From: "Frederick A. Ringwald" <[e-mail]>
Subject: SPS feasibility and other space development
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

[...]
> Risk takers are an endangered species in America in large part because too
> many "experts" are on the sidelines asking questions to infinity and not
> enough engineers have the testicles to tell them to shove off.

This statement is as unprofessional as it is irrelevant. I'M an
experimental scientist: uncritical, unquestioning acceptance of ideas,
no matter how appealing, is as bad for experiment as it is for
theory. The funding will be wasted on doing inappropriate experiments;
the experiments will not be designed or run properly; and if someone
else does do a good experiment, biased interpretation of the data will
make them useless. It really helps to know what you're doing, and
nationality has nothing to do with it. (By the way, never lecture an
American astronomer about risk-taking. Openings for permanent jobs are
almost non-existent these days, and many of the best are living off
their research grants, hoping they'll get renewed. If you don't believe
me, see the science section in the New York Times for Tuesday, August
18. Even Riccardo Giacconi, director of the Space Telescope Science
Institute, is emigrating.)

> >Uncritical acceptance of ideas, no matter how appealing they might
> >seem, is harmful to any field. Space is no exception. People will hold
> >you to promises you make, and will hold it against you if you tell
> >them things that aren't right. Undisciplined grand speculation isn't
> >even good science fiction. At best, boosterism (good pun intended) is
> >misleading; at worst, it makes you look kooky. Believe me, kooky is
> >NOT an image you want to project when writing a research proposal,
> >especially not when you get to the budget section!
>
> Blind questioning of everything that anyone tries to do is more harmful
> than the other extreme that you posit.

Sorry, but I'm going to keep asking questions: you can't stop me! Nor
could they stop Galileo, although they did stop him from doing it in
public. But they were wrong. And my questions are not "blind": I ask
questions, because I want to know the answers, and I have reasons why I
want to know the answers.

> It is far better to do something,
> make a mistake, and try again than to sit on your part that you are busy
> covering and continually ask questions. If you fear to make mistakes
> then you never will do anything of note.  The present American cover your
> ass and never do anything that might be percieved as a failure is the
> primary cause of the decline of our once great nation.

By "not right", I had in mind public statements like "too cheap to
meter." (How would the power company make money?) Sorry, but there's an
enormous
difference between an error and a blunder, about the same difference as
between curiosity and dishonesty. Serendipity is wonderful and perhaps
the most *fun* aspect of science, but *alone* it cannot justify *any*
project - because it may happen in any project, any at all. It takes an
open, unbiased, prepared, and questioning mind even to recognize
serendipity: the happy error itself is not so important, it's the
realization "...but even so,..." Again, it really helps to know what
you're doing. Haphazard tinkering (as opposed to real experimentation
to test ideas or explore concepts or the Universe) is unproductive,
wasteful, and can even be dangerous. One should have at least some idea
of what's going to happen before mixing charcoal, sulfur, and saltpeter
and lighting it with a match. (This is the old argument between
Galilean and Baconian scientific method.)
[...]
As far as scientific literature references go, the best are usually
from refereed journals, and the very best are often refereed invited
reviews. Conference proceedings will do in a pinch, although not if
serious doubts have been raised about an author's methods: proceedings
often aren't refereed, and so might still contain blunders. Not that
the refereeing process is completely infallible, either, but bypassing
it is always suspicious: look at the Cold Fusion flap, which began with
a media circus. Try not to use magazines or newspapers, except strictly
for news items; reporters rarely have the background for detailed
technical discussion.
[...]
Well, I've had more than enough of this, and I shall not post again on
it, no matter what the provocation. This discussion of scientific
method has too little to do with SPS anyway; but in a way, it has
everything to do with it. Whatever, I suggest everyone have a look at
Advice to a Young Scientist, by Peter Medawar. His scientific
achievements are unimpeachable, and his writing style is delightful. I
think you'll need to know this book, if you want to become an effective
PI on many projects. (The GAS Winchester disk experiment sounds like an
excellent concept, by the way: was it your idea?)

P.S. Much of this discussion applies equally well to engineering. The
emphasis is different - for example, in the development stage, the LAST
thing you want is serendipity - but an engineer must have the integrity
to tell whether or not the work matches the specifications, and to
admit it if it doesn't and get back to the old CAD board.

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 17:36:14 GMT
From: Dave Jones <[e-mail]>
Subject: superstrings & supralight (was SPS feasibility and other space development)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Tarbox) writes:
>Can someone explain (simply, please), what superstrings are?

I think the terms are misused in this context.  Superstrings per se are
theoretical entities in the realm of particle physics which are used as
models for fundamental particles, such as quarks, in order to represent
them as "extended objects" rather than dimensionless points, in an
attempt to resolve problems with infinite quantities arising from the
calculations.

"Cosmic" strings are also theoretical (so far) and represent leftovers
from the Big Bang, or rather the hypothetical "inflation" that preceded
it.  The Universe supposedly underwent a "phase transition" in which
the energy level of space itself changed.  As in a liquid freezing, this
didn't happen at the same rate everywhere, but tended to be uniform
across small regions.  The boundaries between regions, like the
boundaries within the crystalline structure of a solid, have different
energy levels than the rest of the Universe.

I forget the details, but Cosmic String manifests this in a form which
is small in cross-section (many times smaller than a nucleus) and very
long (some strings may span the Universe).  The concentration of energy
is manifested in a large mass (millions of tons per inch?).


--
||)) Dump the Whatizit!  Ren and Stimpy for Olympic mascots in '96 ! )))))))|
||)) "What is it, man?!?" ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
||))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
||Dave Jones ([e-mail]) | Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY   |

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

Date: 21 Aug 92 10:30:53 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ulysses Update - 08/20/92
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

Forwarded from:
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIF. 91109. TELEPHONE [phone]

                     ULYSSES MISSION STATUS
                         August 20, 1992

     Spacecraft and science operations are being carried out as
planned.  Routine Earth-pointing maneuvers were performed on Aug.
13 and 16.  The next precession maneuver will be conducted on
Aug. 23.

     The spacecraft will continue to recede from Earth through
Aug. 26, when it will reach a maximum distance of 938 million
kilometers (583 million miles).  A reduction in the number of
ranging passes continued during this reporting period to improve
the spacecraft's signal as it moves farther away from Earth.

     Today Ulysses is about 937 million kilometers (582 million
miles) from Earth, traveling at a heliocentric velocity of about
30,000 kilometers per hour (19,000 miles per hour).  The
spacecraft is about 790 million kilometers (490 million miles)
from the sun.

                              #####
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Optimists live longer
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | than pessimists.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |

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

Date: 21 Aug 92 01:48:38 GMT
From: Earl W Phillips <[e-mail]>
Subject: wefax
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

Does anyone know who, where, to contact to sign up
for wefax?

*****************************************************************
*                                    | ====@====      ///////// *
* [e-mail]|     ``________//         *
*                                    |       `------'           *
*                 -JR-               | Space;........the final  *
*                                    | frontier...............  *
*****************************************************************

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

Date: 20 Aug 92 17:35:36 GMT
From: "Frederick A. Ringwald" <[e-mail]>
Subject: What about Saturn?/Future not Past
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

> > This may seem futuristic to some, but no more so than cryogenic
> > rocket engines would have seemed in the 40's, and they were
> > actually built for the first time in the 50's.
>
> This may seem futuristic to some, but no more so than magnetic
> confinment fusion devices would have seemed in the 40's, and they were
> actually built for the first time in the 50's.

Surely you're joking, Mr. Higgins. Magnetic confinement fusion devices
don't work so great, in the early '90s!

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 23:48:37 GMT
From: Gerald Cecil <[e-mail]>
Subject: What about Saturn?/Future not Past
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Frederick A. Ringwald) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>
>[e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>> This may seem futuristic to some, but no more so than magnetic
>> confinment fusion devices would have seemed in the 40's, and they were
>> actually built for the first time in the 50's.
>
>Surely you're joking, Mr. Higgins. Magnetic confinement fusion devices
>don't work so great, in the early '90s!

Higgins works @ Fermilab, HINT HINT
--
Gerald Cecil  [e-mail]  919-962-7169
Physics & Astronomy, U North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3255 USA
-- Intelligence is believing only half of what you read; brilliance is
   knowing which half. ** Be terse: each line cost the Net $10 **

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

Date: 20 Aug 92 23:37:34 GMT
From: John Burris <[e-mail]>
Subject: What happened to Viking?
Newsgroups: sci.space

What happened the Viking spacecraft?

I heard through the grapevine that someone sent a bogus signal to it which
turned the antenna away from Earth, resulting in LOS.

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

Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 00:10:04 GMT
From: Gerald Cecil <[e-mail]>
Subject: With telepresence, who needs people in Earth orbit?
Newsgroups: sci.space

--
Gerald Cecil  [e-mail]  919-962-7169
Physics & Astronomy, U North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3255 USA
-- Intelligence is believing only half of what you read; brilliance is
   knowing which half. ** Be terse: each line cost the Net $10 **

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

Date: 
P
From: 
P

To: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!uunet!decwrl!csus.edu!netcom.com!tomk
From: "Thomas H. Kunich" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Home made rockets
Message-Id: <mx#[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 17:14:12 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: world,local
Lines: 14
Sender: [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>into little brass containers, stick lead plugs in the ends for projectiles
>and SELL the stuff to all sorts of people to use in things called "guns".
>"(according to the U.S. General Accounting Office) 138,490 Americans
>have been killed or wounded over the last 10 years by gun-wielding
>_children_ under _six_ years of age."   Definitely Just Not Worth It.

iMaybe you ought to distinguish between 'killed' and 'wounded'. I don't
believe you have the correct figures there.

Of course, you miught mention that 500,000 have _died_ over the
last 10 years in automobile accidents. Perhaps we ought ot simply
outlaw automobiles of all sorts because they cause deaths.

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 132
------------------------------