Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v15_1/v15no163.txt

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

Date: Thu,  3 Sep 92 05:06:34
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #163
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu,  3 Sep 92       Volume 15 : Issue 163

Today's Topics:
                    Antarctica (was: SPS) (4 msgs)
                Inflatable Space Stations - Why Not ?
                        soviet rovers on mars
                      space digest 156 troncated
             Space FAQ 11/15 - Upcoming Planetary Probes
              What is the speed of light measured from?
                           Who went to Rio
         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: 2 Sep 92 22:49:07 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: Antarctica (was: SPS)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Frederick A. Ringwald) writes:
>Yes, and it puzzles me: why are people who wax rhapsodic about living
>in space not more enthusiastic about Antarctica? You don't even have to
>make your own air and water in Antarctica!

You actually do have to "make" (more properly melt) your own water there.
(Except at the big stations like MacMurdo and Mirny.)

Antarctica isn't popular for two reasons (asside from it's lack of
glamor): It has already been explored and all colonization/private
property is _illegal_ under international treaty. (The phrasing of
the treaty, by the way, was fairly similar to the space treaty the
United States refused to ratify.)

                                              Frank Crary
                                              CU Boulder

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

Date: 2 Sep 92 23:43:11 GMT
From: Matthew DeLuca <[e-mail]>
Subject: Antarctica (was: SPS)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:

>Antarctica isn't popular for two reasons (asside from it's lack of
>glamor): It has already been explored and all colonization/private
>property is _illegal_ under international treaty. (The phrasing of
>the treaty, by the way, was fairly similar to the space treaty the
>United States refused to ratify.)

Besides, there's gravity in Antarctica; I think some of the mystique
of space exploration and colonization is the fact that when you are
floating in the middle of your spacecraft of habitat, you know you aren't
in Kansas anymore.  With just freezing weather and snow and ice, you
could be in Toronto for all you can tell the difference. :-)

--
Matthew DeLuca                      "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their
Georgia Institute of Technology      P.O. box."
Office of Information Technology                - Zebediah Carter,
Internet: [e-mail]              _The Number of the Beast_

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

Date: 3 Sep 92 04:39:51 GMT
From: "Frederick A. Ringwald" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Antarctica (was: SPS)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:

> It has already been explored

So has the Moon, albeit to a lesser extent.

> and all colonization/private
> property is _illegal_ under international treaty.

Come on: since when did that ever stop anyone? If it became
technologically feasible to make a profit from extracting petroleum
there, that treaty would be abrogated faster than Greenpeace could let
out a good whine. Besides, most international treaties can be LEGALLY
abrogated, given 90 days' notice.

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

Date: 3 Sep 92 04:45:47 GMT
From: "Frederick A. Ringwald" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Antarctica (was: SPS)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

> Besides, there's gravity in Antarctica; I think some of the mystique
> of space exploration and colonization is the fact that when you are
> floating in the middle of your spacecraft of habitat

But micro-g gives every indication of being unhealthy; and if you can
live there permanently, you might be stuck there permanently. (From
bone demineralization, not from space colonization turning into the
ultimate slavery; although I have been taken advantage of so many times
and so badly in the name of space, I can't discount the latter.)

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

Date: 1 Sep 92 19:26:34 GMT
From: Russell Katz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Inflatable Space Stations - Why Not ?
Newsgroups: sci.space

This is a bit related to the topic...I think.

I have read in several sf stories about using the shuttle main tanks as
modules for space habitats...just having the shuttle carry the tank with it
into orbit.  Some authors stated that it would not take any extra fuel(??)
to do so.

Any of you experts out there have an answer as to why NASA doesn't use the
tanks as at least a temporary habitation?

*************************************************************************
* The Crystal Wind is the Storm, * Daniel K. Moran: * Russell Katz      *
* and The Storm is Data,         *  "Emerald Eyes"  * [e-mail]*
* and the Data is Life.          *       and        *                   *
* -The Player's Litany           *  "The Long Run"  *                   *
*************************************************************************

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

Date: 3 Sep 92 03:10:00 GMT
From: "John A. Weeks III" <[e-mail]>
Subject: soviet rovers on mars
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1992Sep2.900.2102@ALMAC> [e-mail] writes:
> The Soviets maintained for many years that Gagarin did not eject -
> something to do do with claiming the record - but later, it is reported,
> admitted he did.

I read something about this in one of the NASM exhibits.  The flight did
not count as a record unless you land with your craft.  I guess I personally
do not whether Gagarin ejected or not--it was still a very impressive feat
that the Soviets pulled off.

I have also heard a rumor that Gagarin's flight did not complete an entire
orbit, and the Soviets supposedly airlifted his capsule a few hundred miles
to the east to make it appear that they completed a full orbit.  Has anyone
else heard this?

-john-

--
==============================================================================
John A. Weeks III        [phone]            [e-mail]
Newave Communications, Ltd.                ..!uunet!tcnet!newave!john

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

Date: Thu,  3 SEP 92 10:14 N
From: [e-mail]
Subject: space digest 156 troncated

Date sent:  4-SEP-1992 21:12:57

I receive space digest 156 troncated. This is the end of the digest:

>        It was a very successful test of this probe design.  At 225-plus
>    days, ZOND 3 was also the longest-surviving Soviet lunar or planetary
>    probe to date, beating the previous record holder, MARS 1, by almost
>    three months.  Ironically, its Venus-bound sister probes did not fare
>    as well.  VENERA 2, launched on November 12, which carried the same
>    instruments as ZOND 3, failed just as it was to perform its photo-
>    graphing session of Venus on February 27, 1966, after a flight of
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 156
>------------------------------

Please, would you remail to me the article "THE GREAT MOON RACE: THE LONG ROAD
TO SUCCESS" ?

Thanks
Mauro


|===================================|    /\
|Mauro Andrea Cremonini (IW4BOX)    |   //\\
|Dept. Organic Chemistry            |  ///\\\
|University, Bologna, ITALY         |  \\\///
|e-mail [e-mail]    |   \\//
|===================================|    \/

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

Date: 2 Sep 92 18:58:25 GMT
From: Jon Leech <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space FAQ 11/15 - Upcoming Planetary Probes
Newsgroups: sci.space,news.answers

Archive-name: space/new_probes
Last-modified: $Date: 92/09/02 14:48:23 $

UPCOMING PLANETARY PROBES - MISSIONS AND SCHEDULES

    Information on upcoming or currently active missions not mentioned below
    would be welcome. Sources: NASA fact sheets, Cassini Mission Design
    team, ISAS/NASDA launch schedules, press kits.


    GALILEO - Jupiter orbiter and atmosphere probe, in transit. Has returned
    the first resolved images of an asteroid, Gaspra, while in transit to
    Jupiter. Efforts to unfurl the stuck High-Gain Antenna (HGA) are
    continuing, though eventual success appears less likely. If the HGA
    cannot be unfurled, JPL has developed a backup plan using data
    compression (JPEG-like for images, lossless compression for data from
    the other instruments) which should allow the mission to achieve
    approximately 70% of its objectives.

       Galileo Schedule
       ----------------
       10/18/89 - Launch from Space Shuttle
       02/09/90 - Venus Flyby
       10/**/90 - Venus Data Playback
       12/08/90 - 1st Earth Flyby
       05/01/91 - High Gain Antenna Unfurled
       07/91 - 06/92 - 1st Asteroid Belt Passage
       10/29/91 - Asteroid Gaspra Flyby
       12/08/92 - 2nd Earth Flyby
       05/93 - 11/93 - 2nd Asteroid Belt Passage
       08/28/93 - Asteroid Ida Flyby
       07/02/95 - Probe Separation
       07/09/95 - Orbiter Deflection Maneuver
       12/95 - 10/97 - Orbital Tour of Jovian Moons
       12/07/95 - Jupiter/Io Encounter
       07/18/96 - Ganymede
       09/28/96 - Ganymede
       12/12/96 - Callisto
       01/23/97 - Europa
       02/28/97 - Ganymede
       04/22/97 - Europa
       05/31/97 - Europa
       10/05/97 - Jupiter Magnetotail Exploration


    MAGELLAN - Venus radar mapping mission. Has mapped almost the entire
    surface at high resolution. Funding for continuing operations into
    mapping cycle 4 and beyond has been cut from the proposed NASA budget.


    MARS OBSERVER - Mars orbiter including 1.5 m/pixel resolution camera.
    Launch scheduled 9/16/1992 aboard Titan III; arrival in 8/93, operations
    start 11/93 for one martian year (687 days).


    TOPEX/Poseidon - Joint US/French Earth observing satellite, launched in
    August 1992 on an Ariane 4 booster. The primary objective of the
    TOPEX/POSEIDON project is to make precise and accurate global
    observations of the sea level for several years, substantially
    increasing understanding of global ocean dynamics. The satellite also
    will increase understanding of how heat is transported in the ocean.


    CASSINI - Saturn orbiter and Titan atmosphere probe. Cassini is a joint
    NASA/ESA project designed to accomplish an exploration of the Saturnian
    system with its Cassini Saturn Orbiter and Huygens Titan Probe. Cassini
    is scheduled for launch aboard a Titan IV/Centair in October of 1997.
    After gravity assists of Venus, Earth and Jupiter in a VVEJGA
    trajectory, the spacecraft will arrive at Saturn in June of 2004. Upon
    arrival, the Cassini spacecraft performs several maneuvers to achieve an
    orbit around Saturn. Near the end of this initial orbit, the Huygens
    Probe separates from the Orbiter and descends through the atmosphere of
    Titan. The Orbiter relays the Probe data to Earth for about 3 hours
    while the Probe enters and traverses the cloudy atmosphere to the
    surface. After the completion of the Probe mission, the Orbiter
    continues touring the Saturnian system for three and a half years. Titan
    synchronous orbit trajectories will allow about 35 flybys of Titan and
    targeted flybys of Iapetus, Dione and Enceladus. The objectives of the
    mission are threefold: conduct detailed studies of Saturn's atmosphere,
    rings and magnetosphere; conduct close-up studies of Saturn's
    satellites, and characterize Titan's atmosphere and surface.

    One of the most intriguing aspects of Titan is the possibility that its
    surface may be covered in part with lakes of liquid hydrocarbons that
    result from photochemical processes in its upper atmosphere. These
    hydrocarbons condense to form a global smog layer and eventually rain
    down onto the surface. The Cassini orbiter will use onboard radar to
    peer through Titan's clouds and determine if there is liquid on the
    surface. Experiments aboard both the orbiter and the entry probe will
    investigate the chemical processes that produce this unique atmosphere.

    The Cassini mission is named for Jean Dominique Cassini (1625-1712), the
    first director of the Paris Observatory, who discovered several of
    Saturn's satellites and the major division in its rings. The Titan
    atmospheric entry probe is named for the Dutch physicist Christiaan
    Huygens (1629-1695), who discovered Titan and first described the true
    nature of Saturn's rings.

     Key Scheduled Dates for the Cassini Mission (VVEJGA Trajectory)
     -------------------------------------------------------------
       10/06/97 - Titan IV/Centaur Launch
       04/21/98 - Venus 1 Gravity Assist
       06/20/99 - Venus 2 Gravity Assist
       08/16/99 - Earth Gravity Assist
       12/30/00 - Jupiter Gravity Assist
       06/25/04 - Saturn Arrival
       01/09/05 - Titan Probe Release
       01/30/05 - Titan Probe Entry
       06/25/08 - End of Primary Mission
        (Schedule last updated 7/22/92)


    OTHER SPACE SCIENCE MISSIONS (note: this is based on a posting by Ron
    Baalke in 11/89, with ISAS/NASDA information contributed by Yoshiro
    Yamada ([e-mail]). I'm attempting to track changes based
    on updated shuttle manifests; corrections and updates are welcome.

    1992 Missions
    o Spacelab Japan [Sep, STS-47 SL-J]

    o Laser Geodynamics Satellite [Sep, STS-52 LAGEOS II]

    o Mars Observer [Sep, Titan III rocket]
        September by rocket, to study Mars' climate and surface.

    o ASTRO-D (Astronomy Satellite-D) [ISAS]
        Conducting precise observations of the X-ray images and X-ray
        spectra of various heavenly bodies.

    o GEOTAIL (Geophysical Tail) [ISAS/NASA, July, Delta II rocket]
        The Geomagnetic Tail Observation Satellite for engaging in
        observations of the structure and dynamics of the solar wind and
        extending from the night side of the earth. This spacecraft is
        to be launched by the United States. GEOTAIL is a collaborative
        program with NASA and of USA.

    1993 Missions
    o Wind [Aug, Delta II rocket]
        Satellite to measure solar wind input to magnetosphere.

    o Space Radar Lab [Sep, STS-60 SRL-01]
        Gather radar images of Earth's surface.

    o Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer [Dec, Pegasus rocket]
        Study of Stratospheric ozone.

    o SFU (Space Flyer Unit) [ISAS]
        Conducting space experiments and observations and this can be
        recovered after it conducts the various scientific and
        engineering experiments. SFU is to be launched by ISAS and
        retrieved by the U.S. Space Shuttle on STS-68 in 1994.

    1994
    o Polar Auroral Plasma Physics [May, Delta II rocket]
        June, measure solar wind and ions and gases surrounding the
        Earth.

    o IML-2 (STS) [NASDA, Jul 1994 IML-02]
        International Microgravity Laboratory.

    o ADEOS [NASDA]
        Advanced Earth Observing Satellite.

    o MUSES-B (Mu Space Engineering Satellite-B) [ISAS]
        Conducting research on the precise mechanism of space structure
        and in-space astronomical observations of electromagnetic waves.

    1995
    LUNAR-A [ISAS]
        Elucidating the crust structure and thermal construction of the
        moon's interior.

    Proposed Missions:
    o Advanced X-ray Astronomy Facility (AXAF)
        Possible launch from shuttle in 1995, AXAF is a space
        observatory with a high resolution telescope. It would orbit for
        15 years and study the mysteries and fate of the universe.

    o Earth Observing System (EOS)
        Possible launch in 1997, 1 of 6 US orbiting space platforms to
        provide long-term data (15 years) of Earth systems science
        including planetary evolution.

    o Mercury Observer
        Possible 1997 launch.

    o Lunar Observer
        Possible 1997 launch, would be sent into a long-term lunar
        orbit. The Observer, from 60 miles above the moon's poles, would
        survey characteristics to provide a global context for the
        results from the Apollo program.

    o Space Infrared Telescope Facility
        Possible launch by shuttle in 1999, this is the 4th element of
        the Great Observatories program. A free-flying observatory with
        a lifetime of 5 to 10 years, it would observe new comets and
        other primitive bodies in the outer solar system, study cosmic
        birth formation of galaxies, stars and planets and distant
        infrared-emitting galaxies

    o Mars Rover Sample Return (MRSR)
        Robotics rover would return samples of Mars' atmosphere and
        surface to Earch for analysis. Possible launch dates: 1996 for
        imaging orbiter, 2001 for rover.

    o Fire and Ice
        Possible launch in 2001, will use a gravity assist flyby of
        Earth in 2003, and use a final gravity assist from Jupiter in
        2005, where the probe will split into its Fire and Ice
        components: The Fire probe will journey into the Sun, taking
        measurements of our star's upper atmosphere until it is
        vaporized by the intense heat. The Ice probe will head out
        towards Pluto, reaching the tiny world for study by 2016.


NEXT: FAQ #12/15 - Controversial questions

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

Date: 2 Sep 92 21:02:01 GMT
From: SCOTT I CHASE <[e-mail]>
Subject: What is the speed of light measured from?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brad Wallet) writes...
>
>Bare with me a second because I am not a physicist.  Why can't it be said
>that the frame containing the Earth was moving relative to the traveller's
>frame.  If this is the case, the traveller would age more than the Earth.

I have snipped the following item from the sci.physics FAQ.  Enjoy.
-Scott

********************************************************************************
Item 7. Special Relativistic Paradoxes - part (b)

The Twin Paradox                 updated 17-AUG-1992 by SIC
----------------                original by Kurt Sonnenmoser

A Short Story about Space Travel:

    Two twins, conveniently named A and B, both know the rules of
Special Relativity.  One of them, B, decides to travel out into space with
a velocity near the speed of light for a time T, after which she returns to
Earth. Meanwhile, her boring sister A sits at home posting to Usenet all
day.  When A finally comes home, what do the two sisters find?  Special
Relativity (SR) tells A that time was slowed down for the relativistic
sister, B, so that upon her return to Earth, she knows that B will be
younger than she is, which she suspects was the the ulterior motive of the
trip from the start.

    But B sees things differently.  She took the trip just to get away
from the conspiracy theorists on Usenet, knowing full well that from her
point of view, sitting in the spaceship, it would be her sister, A, who
was travelling ultrarelativistically for the whole time, so that she would
arrive home to find that A was much younger than she was.  Unfortunate, but
worth it just to get away for a while.

    What are we to conclude?  Which twin is really younger?  How can SR
give two answers to the same question?  How do we avoid this apparent
paradox? Maybe twinning is not allowed in SR?  Read on.

Paradox Resolved:

    Much of the confusion surrounding the so-called Twin Paradox
originates from the attempts to put the two twins into different frames ---
without the useful concept of the proper time of a moving body.

    SR offers a conceptually very clear treatment of this problem.
First chose _one_ specific inertial frame of reference; let's call it S.
Second define the paths that A and B take, their so-called world lines. As
an example, take (ct,0,0,0) as representing the world line of A, and
(ct,f(t),0,0) as representing the world line of B (assuming that the the
rest frame of the Earth was inertial). The meaning of the above notation is
that at time t, A is at the spatial location (x1,x2,x3)=(0,0,0) and B is at
(x1,x2,x3)=(f(t),0,0) --- always with respect to S.

    Let us now assume that A and B are at the same place at the time t1
and again at a later time t2, and that they both carry high-quality clocks
which indicate zero at time t1. High quality in this context means that the
precision of the clock is independent of acceleration. [In principle, a
bunch of muons provides such a device (unit of time: half-life of their
decay).]

    The correct expression for the time T such a clock will indicate at
time t2 is the following [the second form is slightly less general than the
first, but it's the good one for actual calculations]:

         t2          t2      _______________
            /           /      /             2 |
      T  =  | d\tau  =  | dt \/  1 - [v(t)/c]              (1)

        /           /
        t1          t1

where d\tau is the so-called proper-time interval, defined by

              2         2      2      2      2
     (c d\tau)  = (c dt)  - dx1  - dx2  - dx3 .

Furthermore,
                   d                          d
           v(t) = -- (x1(t), x2(t), x3(t)) = -- x(t)
                  dt                         dt

is the velocity vector of the moving object. The physical interpretation
of the proper-time interval, namely that it is the amount the clock time
will advance if the clock moves by dx during dt, arises from considering
the inertial frame in which the clock is at rest at time t --- its
so-called momentary rest frame (see the literature cited below). [Notice
that this argument is only of a heuristic value, since one has to assume
that the absolute value of the acceleration has no effect. The ultimate
justification of this interpretation must come from experiment.]

    The integral in (1) can be difficult to evaluate, but certain
important facts are immediately obvious. If the object is at rest with
respect to S, one trivially obtains T = t2-t1. In all other cases, T must
be strictly smaller than t2-t1, since the integrand is always less than or
equal to unity. Conclusion: the traveling twin is younger. Furthermore, if
she moves with constant velocity v most of the time (periods of
acceleration short compared to the duration of the whole trip), T will
approximately be given by      ____________
                  /          2 |
                    (t2-t1) \/  1 - [v/c]    .             (2)

The last expression is exact for a round trip (e.g. a circle) with constant
velocity v. [At the times t1 and t2, twin B flies past twin A and they
compare their clocks.]

    Now the big deal with SR, in the present context, is that T (or
d\tau, respectively) is a so-called Lorentz scalar. In other words, its
value does not depend on the choice of S. If we Lorentz transform the
coordinates of the world lines of the twins to another inertial frame S',
we will get the same result for T in S' as in S. This is a mathematical
fact. It shows that the situation of the traveling twins cannot possibly
lead to a paradox _within_ the framework of SR. It could at most be in
conflict with experimental results, which is also not the case.

    Of course the situation of the two twins is not symmetric, although
one might be tempted by expression (2) to think the opposite. Twin A is
at rest in one and the same inertial frame for all times, whereas twin B
is not.  [Formula (1) does not hold in an accelerated frame.]  This breaks
the apparent symmetry of the two situations, and provides the clearest
nonmathematical hint that one twin will in fact be younger than the other
at the end of the trip.  To figure out *which* twin is the younger one, use
the formulae above in a frame in which they are valid, and you will find
that B is in fact younger, despite his expectations.

    It is sometimes claimed that one has to resort to General
Relativity in order to "resolve" the Twin "Paradox". This is not true. In
flat, or nearly flat space-time (no strong gravity), SR is completely
sufficient, and it has also no problem with world lines corresponding to
accelerated motion.

References:
    Taylor and Wheeler, _Spacetime Physics_  (An *excellent* discussion)
    Goldstein, _Classical Mechanics_, 2nd edition, Chap.7

--------------------
Scott I. Chase            "The question seems to be of such a character
[e-mail]        that if I should come to life after my death
                and some mathematician were to tell me that it
                had been definitely settled, I think I would
                immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver

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

Date: 3 Sep 92 03:01:29 GMT
From: Patrick Chester <[e-mail]>
Subject: Who went to Rio
Newsgroups: sci.space

I'll make this brief. I just would like to know if any spaceflight advocacy
groups like the L-5 Society or the Lunar Society made it to the Earth Summit
in Rio last June. I was hoping someone tried to inject some other views on
saving the environment there (like moving some industry off Earth and getting
resources from the asteroids, etc.) Just wondering.

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

Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 06:53:18 GMT
From: Phew <[e-mail]>
Subject: With telepresence, who needs people in Earth orbit?
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Roger Arnold) writes:

>It's easy to make telepresence look bad or difficult if you can get away
>with discussing it in terms of the capabilities of autonomous robots.

>I see telepresence not as competition to manned space activity, but
>as a bridge to the level of space activity that will be necessary to
>bring costs down and make it worth building real space stations.  A
>teleoperated research facility in low earth orbit would find no short-
>age of commercial customers.  If they only had to pay for delivery of
>small quantities of material and a share in amortization of the equip-
>ment in orbit, it would be a bargain.

>Obviously, there are limits to what you can do with telepresence from
>earth.  That doesn't mean that what you *can* do isn't worth doing.

I fully agree that telepresence has validity in a large number of
applications. What I would object to is development of telepresence
as the *sole* means of presence in space.

Telepresence and robotics may be the fastest way to make affordable
space technology, but depending upon them entirely could lead
to problems if permanent human presence is ever required/desired on
the Moon, Mars or beyond. It may require a total redevelopment of the
technology to date if future human presence is *not* envisaged now.

An example of how hard it is to replace existing technologies is current
household refridgeration. These are largely based on CFCs and will have
to be replaced due to ozone depletion. The current CFC replacements are
also not safe, and it may take a total rethink of the technology to get
something that works properly.

The fridge example was the result of lack of scientific understanding,
not because we didn't understanding ourselves, or our objectives.
If it is Human-Kinds goal to have a permanent presence in space, then
the technology to achieve this must be developed, starting now.

Patrick Hew
1st Year Science/ Engineering
University of Western Australia

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 163
------------------------------