Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v16_3/v16no311.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 27KB

Date: Sun, 14 Mar 93 05:00:02
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #311
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sun, 14 Mar 93       Volume 16 : Issue 311

Today's Topics:
         Cancels & Clari.* was Re: Threat of mass cancellings
                 cancel wars accountability (3 msgs)
                Clementine, SDIO, ABM Treaty (3 msgs)
                            DC-X (2 msgs)
                  Galileo Update - 03/10/93 (3 msgs)
                     Gaspra Animation (QuickTime)
                Here's an example of an anonymous post
                         Lunar Ice Transport
                          Mass Cancellings ?
                       shuttle-derived vehicles
            Soviet Energia: Available for Commercial Use?
                     SR-71 Maiden Science Flight
    Threat of mass cancellings was Re: Anonymity is NOT the issue

    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, 13 Mar 1993 13:39:09 GMT
From: Larry Snyder <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cancels & Clari.* was Re: Threat of mass cancellings
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,sci.space,alt.privacy

[e-mail] (David Clunie) writes:

>I don't get a clari feed (unfortunately) - what is the significance of
>clari.* feeds and cancel messages ?

lots of additional traffic and activity on the machines who do receive
it


--
Larry Snyder
[e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1993 06:38:33 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: cancel wars accountability
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,sci.space,sci.astro,news.admin.policy

Ordinarily I would edit the headers to remove all but news.admin.policy from
the Newsgroups: and Followup-To: line.  This is an exception.

8 February 1993 ([e-mail]) wrote:

: If do not think Richard E. Depew's ([e-mail]) threat to censor
: the postings *you* may wish to read by beginning a "canceling war,"
: a good idea, please write directly to:

[...]

: You may also wish to copy:


: Express your concern for this threatened instance of network vandalism and
: damage to academic freedom throughout the world by a reputed representative
: of his organization.

(1) Dick is accountable for his actions.  You aren't.  You don't even have
    a sysadmin (other than Julf) to write to.
(2) Dick announced his intentions openly, where he could have just as easily
    surreptitiously started doing it, and the 5-6 posts a day would have
    just vanished.  You just appeared out of nowhere, posted tabloid stuff
    to a scientific newsgroup, and otherwise stirred the pot on this.
(3) Dick, as someone that I exchange news with directly and as a resource
    when I was getting started in usenet, has proved his understanding of
    what's going on and his competence in news administration.  You haven't.
(4) Dick was very straightforward about what he was going to do.  You posted
    a cowardly, anonymous suggestion that we phone/mail/otherwise annoy his
    supervisor.

Maybe Dick should've announced he was going to do anonymously ??  Would
Julf have done the same thing you did, breaching his anonymity at the same
time ?

It's people like you that justify responses like Dick's.

--
Doug Sewell, Tech Support, Computer Center, Youngstown State University
[e-mail]       [e-mail]    <internet>!cc.ysu.edu!doug

uuencode bunny.dropping < core | mail [e-mail]

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

Date: 13 Mar 93 08:14:13 GMT
From: Doug Sewell <[e-mail]>
Subject: cancel wars accountability
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,sci.space,sci.astro

Ordinarily I would edit the Newsgroups: line to limit discussion to news.
admin.policy.  I have directed followups there.

8 February 1993 ([e-mail]) wrote:

: If do not think Richard E. Depew's ([e-mail]) threat to censor
: the postings *you* may wish to read by beginning a "canceling war,"
: a good idea, please write directly to:

[...]

: or call him at [...]

: You may also wish to copy:

[...]

: Express your concern for this threatened instance of network vandalism and
: damage to academic freedom throughout the world by a reputed representative
: of his organization.

This is the most cowardly thing I've ever seen posted through an anonymous
service.

It's people like you that justify Dick's response.

And yes, I seriously considered canceling your post.  Whether I would've
announced it or not, I dunno.

Oh, and if you succeed in getting Dick to not run an auto-canceller, then
perhaps someone will implement one and not announce it to the net.  It's
not difficult.

Or perhaps we need someone to implement an anonymous-cancel-by-mail server ?

--
Doug Sewell, Tech Support, Computer Center, Youngstown State University
[e-mail]       [e-mail]    <internet>!cc.ysu.edu!doug

uuencode bunny.dropping < core | mail [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 13 Mar 93 12:53:53 GMT
From: Jay Maynard <[e-mail]>
Subject: cancel wars accountability
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,sci.space,sci.astro,news.admin.policy

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>If do not think Richard E. Depew's ([e-mail]) threat to censor
>the postings *you* may wish to read by beginning a "canceling war,"
>a good idea, please write directly to:

[...]
>Express your concern for this threatened instance of network vandalism and
>damage to academic freedom throughout the world by a reputed representative
>of his organization.

So who do I write to express my concern for your repeated instances of network
vandalism and damage to academic freedom by posting offensive messages in an
apparent attempt to drive folks out of a serious newsgroup? Turnabout is fair
play.

I'll say it again: YOU, SIR, ARE A COWARD!

(BTW, I plan to write the gentlemen in your original message expressing my
opinion that Richard E. Depew's idea is a good one and that he should
implement it without delay.)
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
[e-mail]      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
        You won't see this on TV: (video of Mount Carmel compound)
        "This is David Koresh, of Waco, Texas. He cannot be seen."

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

Date: Sat, 13 Mar 93 14:25:47 EET
From: [e-mail] (F.Baube x554)
Subject: Clementine, SDIO, ABM Treaty

SDIO has been shooting holes in the ABM Treaty for a *long* time.
Ten years ago, after noting that the treaty prohibits tests against
objects in space, they announced their intention to conduct tests
against *points* in space.

The program's focus has changed from defending against a mass
[Soviet] attack, to defending against a onesies-&-twosies attack.
Such a defense could be developed, and more cheaply, using ground-
based systems, with considerably less damage to the treaty.  This
would not be a bad idea, and not just because the US would actually
be honoring its treaty commitments.

Consider that any halfway-adequate space-based ABM system is neces-
sarily an excellent anti-satellite system, and so potentially quite
destabilizing in a crisis.

Relevance to sci.space ?  Hm-m-m .. maybe detour all that
SDIO money and hardware into unabashedly civilian programs ?

--
* Fred Baube GU/MSFS      * We live in only one small room of the
* Optiplan O.Y.           * enormous house of our consciousness
* [e-mail]       *       -- William James
* It's lo-og, it's lo-og, it's big, it's heavy, it's wood !
* It's lo-og, it's lo-og, it's better than bad, it's good !
* #include <disclaimer.h>

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

Date: 13 Mar 93 13:48:25
From: Brian Yamauchi <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clementine, SDIO, ABM Treaty
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] ("F.Baube x554") writes:
>The program's focus has changed from defending against a mass
>[Soviet] attack, to defending against a onesies-&-twosies attack.
>Such a defense could be developed, and more cheaply, using ground-
>based systems, with considerably less damage to the treaty.  This
>would not be a bad idea, and not just because the US would actually
>be honoring its treaty commitments.

Given that the other treaty signatory no longer exists, I'm not sure
that the ABM treaty is all that relevant.  Sure, the US and CIS have
agreed to honor these treaties, but, the Russians, at least, are
unlikely to complain about creative reinterpretations of these
treaties -- as long as they're asking for money...

>Relevance to sci.space ?  Hm-m-m .. maybe detour all that
>SDIO money and hardware into unabashedly civilian programs ?

The question is how to do this without losing the willingness to
innovate and take risks that has been demonstrated by SDIO --
Clementine, DC-X, Timberwind.  There are smart, innovative thinkers
working at NASA and NASA contractors, but the management structure is
not oriented toward implementing these ideas -- with the possible
exception of some parts of JPL and (ex-SDIO boss) Griffin's (woefully
underfunded) Office of Exploration.

One alternative would be to set up SDIO as an alternative
military/civilian space exploration agency (just as LLNL was set up as
an alternative to LANL) -- but I think there would be substantial
opposition to this from certain sectors of the NASA hierarchy...
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi            Case Western Reserve University
[e-mail]    Department of Computer Engineering and Science
_______________________________________________________________________________

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

Date: 13 Mar 93 21:21:18 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clementine, SDIO, ABM Treaty
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] ("F.Baube x554") writes:
>The program's focus has changed from defending against a mass
>[Soviet] attack, to defending against a onesies-&-twosies attack.
>Such a defense could be developed, and more cheaply, using ground-
>based systems, with considerably less damage to the treaty.  This
>would not be a bad idea...

Which is why SDIO is already working on it; in fact, that and tactical
missile defence for military forces are the big growth areas of their
budget.

However, even a ground-based interceptor system would benefit quite
substantially from space-based sensors.  And even a ground-based system
is likely to require amendments to the treaty, because it would be a
whole lot easier to defend the US from bases in its four corners (plus
one apiece for Alaska and Hawaii) than from one base in the center of
the continent, which is all the treaty now allows.

>Consider that any halfway-adequate space-based ABM system is neces-
>sarily an excellent anti-satellite system, and so potentially quite
>destabilizing in a crisis.

Destabilizing from whose viewpoint?  Mass Soviet attack is no longer
a big concern, remember.  I doubt that Libya or Iraq is going to have
a worldwide satellite-based communications-and-control system to worry
about.

Note also:  a halfway-adequate ground-based system has the same problem.
Satellites make much easier targets than missiles, whether you are
shooting at them from the ground or from space.

>Relevance to sci.space ?  Hm-m-m .. maybe detour all that
>SDIO money and hardware into unabashedly civilian programs ?

Bear in mind that SDIO's budget is less than half the size of NASA's.
You're not going to see a huge gain from rerouting the money.  People
seem to be under the impression that SDIO's budget is vast; it's not.

Some cross-fertilization of technology would be a good idea, and it's
already happening to some extent.  But the main reason why SDIO has
things to contribute is simply that civilian space technology has
stagnated so badly for the last two decades.  Giving more money to
the people responsible for the current mess is not going to help.
SDIO's big advantage in technology development is not big budgets,
but organizational youth and a lack of enshrined sacred cows.  The
people pushing SSTO aimed their sales pitch at SDIO not because SDIO
could throw billions and billions at it, but because SDIO could make
up its mind quickly, could run a lean project emphasizing results
rather than ass-covering and press releases, and didn't have massive
organizational commitments to existing launchers.
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 13 Mar 93 07:43:12 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X
Newsgroups: sci.space

Hating to sound cynical,  but note how different the Management
structure and design philosophy of DC-X is from SSF.

Everything is off the shelf engineering.  All connectors are standard.
THey are leaving slack to modify without having a coronary.
I suspect the management structure is very small.

pat

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

Date: 13 Mar 93 21:31:55 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave Michelson) writes:
>>They were MOST interested in hearing about YOUR support.
>>I agreed to carry hard copies of posts from here to their facility as a
>>morale booster...
>
>It goes without saying that the DC-X team certainly have *my* support.

I think it's fair to say that almost everyone in this community is hoping
and praying that DC-X will work (and that DC-Y will get funded and work).
Even most of the skeptics -- who think it's a poor approach or beyond
the near-term state of the art -- would be delighted to be proved wrong.
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1993 11:20:49 GMT
From: Dan Tilque <[e-mail]>
Subject: Galileo Update - 03/10/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

[e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
>
>     Galileo's spin rate was increased to 10.5 rpm today to
>demonstrate the high spin rate required for probe release (July
>1995) and subsequent activities using the large, 400-newton
>rocket engine.  The spin rate will be returned to 3.15 rpm on
>Friday.

Did they try pulsing the deployment motor in conjunction with a high
spin rate to try to release the antenna?  Or is the antenna on the
non-spinning part of the craft?  (I do remember rightly that Galileo is
a dual spin craft, don't I?)  If it is on the spinning part, can the
spin rate go higher than this without damaging the craft?

---
Dan Tilque    --     [e-mail]

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

Date: 13 Mar 1993 16:31 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Galileo Update - 03/10/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dan Tilque) writes...
>[e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
>>
>>     Galileo's spin rate was increased to 10.5 rpm today to
>>demonstrate the high spin rate required for probe release (July
>>1995) and subsequent activities using the large, 400-newton
>>rocket engine.  The spin rate will be returned to 3.15 rpm on
>>Friday.
>
>Did they try pulsing the deployment motor in conjunction with a high
>spin rate to try to release the antenna?

The spinup was not expected to open the antenna.  The deployment motors
were pulsed anyway during the spinup, and the antenna did not open.

On March 10, while the spacecraft was at high spin (10.5 rpm), real-time
commands were sent to warmup the High Gain Antenna (HGA) motors and to hammer
the motors for 540 pulses at 1.25 hertz at a 33.3 percent duty cycle.
Subsequent analysis of motor current data indicated no change to the HGA
configuration.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | It's kind of fun to do
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | the impossible.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | Walt Disney

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

Date: 13 Mar 93 20:59:21 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Galileo Update - 03/10/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dan Tilque) writes:
>>     Galileo's spin rate was increased to 10.5 rpm today to
>>demonstrate the high spin rate required for probe release...
>
>Did they try pulsing the deployment motor in conjunction with a high
>spin rate to try to release the antenna?  Or is the antenna on the
>non-spinning part of the craft?  (I do remember rightly that Galileo is
>a dual spin craft, don't I?)  If it is on the spinning part, can the
>spin rate go higher than this without damaging the craft?

Galileo is dual-spin, the antenna is on the spinning section, and they
did try another hammering run.

However, do bear in mind that the antenna's central mast, where the
stuck ribs are, is on the spin axis.  It would take a horrendous spin
rate to exert noticeable forces on lightweight ribs a few centimeters
from the axis.  They tried it because it was easy to try, not because
there was much chance of it having any effect.

They can't take the spin rate all that much higher because the
magnetometer and the RTGs are out on booms, exposed to far higher
centrifugal forces than the antenna.
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1993 20:50:50 GMT
From: Mike Smithwick <[e-mail]>
Subject: Gaspra Animation (QuickTime)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

[]
Is this file compressed or corrupted somehow? The Zmodem hurled when
trying to download this so I finally went to Kermit. But the
quicktime readers I have don't recognize it at all.

mike

--
This message brought to you by the Happy Fun Ball! It's Happy! It's
fun!! It's the HAPPY FUN BALL!!! (Still legal in 16 states)
*** Mike Smithwick - [e-mail]
*** No disclaimer is necessary since I only work for myself, HA! HA! HA! HA!

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

Date: 13 Mar 1993 17:30:49 GMT
From: Erik Oliver <[e-mail]>
Subject: Here's an example of an anonymous post
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,news.admin.misc,sci.space,alt.privacy

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Q. Random) writes:
>What does it take for people to realize that anyone can be anyone they
>choose? You don't have to use any damn anonymous service, you can say
>what the hell you want by just getting a random account like this one
>and posting away.
>
>Give me a break, people. Choose something else to get mad about...
>like inappropriate postings or cascades. This one you cannot do anything
>about.

Um, there is a difference of degrees.  Our college is experiencing
basically this same problem with mail forging now that POPmail and
Eudora are available from any mac.   Prior to this, only 5-10 people
really knew how to forge mail at Haverford, fortunately this has not yet
become a problem, perhaps because of our Honor Code.

The same is true of forging New posts.  "anonimity" of sorts is possible
with some severe effort, but only a _REALLY_ small portion of the users
could do a really good forgery.  Most users could just change there from
line, but the paths would be a give away as would the NNTP-POSTING-HOST
line.

So, coming back to the point, in general you can feel reasonably
assured that when you are dealing with most posts, there is a traceable
and legitimate account being used to post from.  And a chain of
authority.  E.g. for a UUCP site, perhaps it starts at there
UUCP<->INTERNET connect site.  And not at the SysAdmin level.  For
Haverford it starts with the director of Academic Computing.

-Erik

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

Date: 13 Mar 93 07:40:25 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Lunar Ice Transport
Newsgroups: sci.space

Fred talks about accuracy problems in Ballistic delivery due to masscons
and weight variations.


I imagine tha tthe  problem is not that difficult.

First, a highly accurate gravity map would be available,  and this
would be over a single well known route.

Second,  the moon is seismically dead, so it won't vary.

Third.  THere is no atmosphere to foul up flight.

I imagine loads would be weight and balance checked before launch,
and may even fly with an emergency trajectory correction package
for abort purposes.  i.e.  the gun loses power on the final 10%
of acceleration.

Remember, using 18"  cannon,  in atmosphere,  the US navy had a regular
accuracy of 50 meters in 35 miles.

My question, in lunar ballistics, are there second order effects?
Solar changes,  or tidal effects???  that sort of thing.

pat

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

Date: Sat, 13 Mar 93 14:32:50 EET
From: [e-mail] (F.Baube x554)
Subject: Mass Cancellings ?

Karl Denninger <[e-mail]>
>
> Uh, don't bet on it.  The First Ammendment only applies to
> GOVERNMENT censorship, and only within the US.  Private
> companies do not have to abide the First Ammendment.

There are exceptions.  For example, the courts recognize
that for "reasonable" freedom-of-speech purposes, shopping
malls are public spaces.

At some point when Net access becomes as common as telephone
sets, you might see limits on private power to control content.
Has anyone brought a lawsuit re. Prodigy's censorship ?

--
* Fred Baube GU/MSFS      * We live in only one small room of the
* Optiplan O.Y.           * enormous house of our consciousness
* [e-mail]       *       -- William James
* It's lo-og, it's lo-og, it's big, it's heavy, it's wood !
* It's lo-og, it's lo-og, it's better than bad, it's good !
* #include <disclaimer.h>

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

Date: 13 Mar 93 21:25:46 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: shuttle-derived vehicles
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>>... I've seen proposals for launch vehicles using
>>SRB's and ET's with a wingless, unmanned cargo vehicle attached instead
>>of the cargo vehicle.  I 've also seen proposals for shuttle-derived
>>launch vehicles in which shuttle main engines are clustered at the tail
>>of the ET, minimizing some of those stresses.
>
>Sounds like you are describing the ARES launch vehicle Zubrin sketched.
>Shuttle ET, with a Main engine cluster at the base.  2 -4 clustered SRBs.
>launchs 40 tons to orbit, enough for Mars direct.

Actually, Zubrin's Ares, as of his presentation at the last Worldcon, has
its SSMEs in a little pod where the orbiter's tail section is now, although
it puts its payload (and upper stage) on top of the ET rather than
immediately above the SSMEs.

However, Ares is only the latest of a long line of such shuttle-derived
launchers; Zubrin didn't invent the idea.
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 13 Mar 93 17:46:36 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soviet Energia: Available for Commercial Use?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>That's what I had thought.  I've seen proposals for launch vehicles using
>SRB's and ET's with a wingless, unmanned cargo vehicle attached instead
>of the cargo vehicle.  I 've also seen proposals for shuttle-derived
>launch vehicles in which shuttle main engines are clustered at the tail
>of the ET, minimizing some of those stresses.



Sounds like you are describing the ARES launch vehicle Zubrin sketched.

Shuttle ET, with a Main engine cluster at the base.  2 -4 clustered SRBs.

launchs 40 tons to orbit, enough for Mars direct.

pat

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

Date: 12 Mar 93 17:30:31 GMT
From: William Daul <[e-mail]>
Subject: SR-71 Maiden Science Flight
Newsgroups: sci.space

Any of you remember the cost of operating the SR-71?  Wasn't it something
like $10,000 and hour as opposed to 3-4000 for the US?


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:

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

>Contact: Mary A. Hardin

>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                             March 11, 1993
>#1498

>     The first science flight of a high-speed ex-reconnaissance
>aircraft took place March 9 from California's Edwards Air Force
>Base, carrying a payload operated by scientists at the Jet
>Propulsion Laboratory.
--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 William Daul             Advanced Support      INFORMIX SOFTWARE INC.
 4100 Bohannon Dr.        [phone] - wk
 Menlo Park, CA. 94025    uunet!infmx!billd  or  [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1993 17:42:56 -0500
From: Nicholas Kramer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Threat of mass cancellings was Re: Anonymity is NOT the issue
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,comp.org.eff.talk,sci.space,alt.privacy,news.admin

KK=[e-mail]

me>    "Two wrongs does not make a right."
>
KK>Quite so -- I'm not recommending it.  But in order to have applied that
KK>aphorism, you must have acknowledged that what Johan is doing is wrong.

 Technically, yes. But consider that concept if we assume Johan is
right: "Johan has done nothing wrong, therefore I have the right to
punish him." In any case, this is just a word game. We seem to agree on
the basics: Sending cancel messages isn't a great solution.


                        Nick

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 311
------------------------------