Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v16_4/v16no410.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 27.0 KB

Date: Sat,  3 Apr 93 12:10:03
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #410
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sat,  3 Apr 93       Volume 16 : Issue 410

Today's Topics:
                       Abyss: breathing fluids
                       Curvature and Embedding
                      Elevator to the top floor
                      Galileo Update - 04/01/93
                       Info on Probe Computers
                   lie low netters! UFO's want you!
              Location of Superconducting Supercollider
                          Luddites in space
                  Mars Observer Update #2 - 03/29/93
                   Mars Observer Update - 03/29/93
                          PBS space special
    Shuttle *Endeavour* (was Re: Space Research Spin Off) (2 msgs)
               Small Astronaut (was: Budget Astronaut)
                       Space Research Spin Off
               STS-1 DISASTER/COVERUP and NASA COVERUP
            Terraforming Venus: can it be done "cheaply"?
       the call to space (was Re: Clueless Szaboisms ) (3 msgs)
                  Why use AC at 20kHz for SSF power

    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: 1 Apr 1993 15:38:22 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Abyss: breathing fluids
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>Sorry Pat there are no C's in this flourcarbon emulsion.  That's why it
>can be used in animals and humans.  But you are probably right that the
>EPA will still ban it.  And it does make a good non-dairy >>dessert<<. :-)

Why wouldn't CFC's be usable for human or animal studies?  I thought
one of the great advantages of CFC's are that they are chemically
inert and hence non-toxic.  Ammonia was a good refrigerant but
it corroded the heck out of things.  Not to mention service was
always a tough activity.

I'm glad somebody caught my joke on cool-whip.

pat

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

Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1993 01:23:04 GMT
From: Bruce Bowen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Curvature and Embedding
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.physics,alt.sci.planetary

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Herman Rubin):
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Haines) writes:
>
>>>Should this go in the FAQ?
>
>>     No.  There is no intrinsic reason we should restrict inquiry to the
>>     "ant's eye view".  If it is useful to embed the space in another,
>>     we should go right ahead.
>
>>     "Existence" is a rather tenuous concept in this context.  Do
>>     complex numbers "exist"?  How about tensors?  How about the
>>     "space" itself.  Why do you think physical space is some sort
>>     of local manifold describable by our mathematics?
>
> We cannot always embed a "curved" space in a flat Euclidean space
> isometrically.  One way of looking at the conditions is that the
> squares of the distances between points forms a matrix of finite
> rank, and even a little more is needed.  Even embedding a sphere
> in the Euclidean space of one more dimension changes distances;
> the distance ON THE SPHERE between antipodes in pi*r, whereas in
> the Euclidean space the diameter is of length 2*r.  On the other
> hand, it can be embedded topologically in a space of enough more
> dimensions.

  The above paragraph is wrong as stated and appears to confuse
"isometric embedding" with "isometric mapping".  Embedding means
to isometrically map a space into a subspace of a higher dimensional
space, without self intersection.  It is trivial to isometrically
embed the 2-sphere into Euclidian 3-space. Standard spherical polar
coordinates with a constant "r" is one example. It is not possible
though to isometrically map the 2-sphere to Euclidean 2-space, even
locally.

  It was proven by Nash that given any Riemannian Manifold, it is
alway possible to find a finite "N" such that the given manifold is
isometrically embeddable in Euclidean n-space for all n > N.  So there
is no loss of generallity in assuming your manifold is embedded in a
higher dimensional flat space.  Whether this is true of spaces with
non-positive definite metrics I don't know.

-Bruce        megatest![e-mail]

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

Date: 2 Apr 1993 02:38:00 GMT
From: Henry Choy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Elevator to the top floor
Newsgroups: sci.space

If we can build bridges and towers, we can surely build a structure
that reaches to the heavens. Or are we afraid of babbling?
It would be like building a mountain. If possible, a mountain on
a mountain can be built.

How about a wall-less elevator shaft? A spaceship can winch up an
"elevator car" or space shuttle. This may save on fuel because
the shuttle doesn't have to take jackrabbit starts. Rocket controls
can be used to keep the shuttle on course.




--

Henry Choy
[e-mail]

We are Borg. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

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

Date: 2 Apr 1993 00:34 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Galileo Update - 04/01/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Forwarded from Neal Ausman, Galileo Mission Director

                                   GALILEO
                        MISSION DIRECTOR STATUS REPORT
                                 POST-LAUNCH
                          March 26 - April 1, 1993

SPACECRAFT

1.  On March 29, a NO-OP command was sent to reset the command loss timer to
240 hours, its planned value during this mission phase.

2.  Throughout this week, there was no spacecraft sequence controlled activity
planned.  This period had previously been set aside for possible High Gain
Antenna rib release activities of which none were scheduled.

3.  The AC/DC bus imbalance measurements have not exhibited significant change
(greater than 25 DN) throughout this period.  The AC measurement reads 19 DN
(4.3 volts).  The DC measurement reads 151 DN (17.8 volts).  These
measurements are consistent with the model developed by the AC/DC special
anomaly team.

4.  The Spacecraft status as of April 1, 1993, is as follows:

       a)  System Power Margin -  69 watts
       b)  Spin Configuration - Dual-Spin
       c)  Spin Rate/Sensor - 3.15rpm/Star Scanner
       d)  Spacecraft Attitude is approximately 13 degrees
           off-sun (lagging) and 8 degrees off-earth (leading)
       e)  Downlink telemetry rate/antenna- 40bps(coded)/LGA-1
       f)  General Thermal Control - all temperatures within
           acceptable range
       g)  RPM Tank Pressures - all within acceptable range
       h)  Orbiter Science- Instruments powered on are the PWS,
           EUV, UVS, EPD, MAG, HIC, and DDS
       i)  Probe/RRH - powered off, temperatures within
           acceptable range
       j)  CMD Loss Timer Setting - 240 hours
           Time To Initiation - 163 hours


TRAJECTORY

     As of noon Thursday, April 1, 1993, the Galileo Spacecraft trajectory
status was as follows:

    Distance from Earth         121,242,900 km (0.81 AU)
    Distance from Sun           258,439,300 km (1.73 AU)
    Heliocentric Speed          98,200 km per hour
    Distance from Jupiter       568,132,700 km
    Round Trip Light Time       13 minutes, 34 seconds


SPECIAL TOPIC

1.  As of April 1, 1993, a total of 67693 real-time commands have been
transmitted to Galileo since Launch.  Of these, 62586 were initiated in the
sequence design process and 5107 initiated in the real-time command process.
In the past week, one real time command was transmitted: one was initiated in
the sequence design process and none initiated in the real time command
process.  Major command activities included commands to reset the command
loss timer.

2.  The Galileo Preliminary Mission/System Design Review for implementation
with the Low Gain Antenna (LGA) was held on March 31, 1993.  A comprehensive
and well organized review of the science/mission requirements, and the
spacecraft and ground system design efforts to meet those requirements were
presented.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Being cynical never helps
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | to correct the situation
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | and causes more aggravation
                                                  | instead.

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

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1993 04:39:42 GMT
From: The Arch-Deviant <[e-mail]>
Subject: Info on Probe Computers
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.folklore.computers

(Originally posted to alt.sci.planetary - thanks for the ptr Bill!)

I'm after _detailed_ technical information on the on-board computers used in
early probes (Ranger, Mariner, Pioneer, Voyager) - system architecture,
programming model, command codes, basically everything needed to write a
true-to-life simulator of the probe as seen by programmers/flight engineers.
Obviously this data, if it still exists, is liable to be very bulky and/or
expensive, but I'd like to get an idea of how big a project it would be to get
hold of it. I've tried the JPL and Ames archive sites (no joy), and have been
advised that the Nat. Space Science Data Ctr at Goddard can't help either.
Can anyone suggest who I should approach for this?

Many thanks...

Simon Brady                 // EXEC FS02,PARM='FILIN=CARD FILOT=PRNT'
University of Otago         ARF! ARF! GOT YOU!
Dunedin, New Zealand        /*

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

Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1993 20:56:04 GMT
From: Craig Keithley <[e-mail]>
Subject: lie low netters! UFO's want you!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (Martin Connors) wrote:
>
> This from todays Global Mail (Canada's 'national newspaper'):
> ===
> Toronto - The Canadian Research Association for Cosmic Knowledge of
> Phenomena, Observations, and Technology

Sounds like a bunch of Crackpots to me.  When will they ever learn...

Gee, what's today's date...

Craig Keithley           |"I don't remember, I don't recall,
Apple Computer, Inc.     |I got no memory of anything at all"
[e-mail]       |Peter Gabriel, Third Album (1980)

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

Date: Thu, 01 Apr 93 23:58:01 GMT
From: "Nathan M. Urban" <nurban@tjhsst>
Subject: Location of Superconducting Supercollider
Newsgroups: sci.space

     I was wondering:  What criteria were used in choosing the
location for the construction of the Superconducting
Supercollider?  Are there geophysical reasons why that region is
preferable, or was it mainly political?  What physical factors
would be important to its construction/operation?


---
-------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Urban                  [e-mail]
Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology
-------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 1 Apr 1993 15:14:00 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Luddites in space
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <1oveeu$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>>I hardly ever 'ignore economics', since I went to the trouble and
>>>effort to get a degree in the subject so I would understand things
>>>that to you are apparently beyond comprehension.  Perhaps you should
>
>>And DOug Mohney in a previous Post
>>   How much do I know about Economics, I have a degree in the subject.
>
>>SO who else has a degree in economics?
>
>>Pat
>
>>    Who didn't bother, because i already know the field.
>
>Famous last words.  I'm curious, though, Pat.  How would you feel if
>your doctor told you that he/she "didn't bother" with medical school
>because they "already knew the field" or that the flight control
>software for the airplane you were riding in was designed and built by
>someone who "didn't bother" with training to learn about software
>engineering because they "already knew the field"?
>
>Hmmm, maybe this explains some things?  :-)

I guess the best response would be to point out that you like mohney
couldn't have been very good economists.  You couldn't get jobs in the field.

Now considering that one of the partners in the medical practice that I go
to never went to med school what does that mean.  SChools only teach dogma.
Unless you are going to get a PhD,  all you are doing is learning the
dogma of the faculty.  And in fact numerous people conduct highly
valuable research without having a Degree at all.

The best computer guys I ever worked with never had their degrees in either
EE or CS or Math.  Ward was a statistician.  Bob was a physicist.
Russ white was an English major,  Andy was an architect.

I suppose you think Ovishinky was an idiot because he never finished
High School.  My Grandfather is one of the greatest economists to live
in in this century, and I probably learned more about the fundamentals
of economic theory hanging around him  then in all the classes I did
take as an undergrad.  You see  I took the classes, I just never bothered
with the detail work to get the major.  I actually ended up with more classes
in acctg, Finance and Economics then my brother who had a degree in economics.

So fred.  Do you with all your Brilliant economic reasoning think that
the last administrations economic policies were advantageous to the
american people and th economy?

Or here.  Postulate what role Space has in improving our GNP over the
next 10 years, and what should be done to implement it and what levels
of funding should be committed.

pat  (WHo obviously doesn't know enough to answer these questions)

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

Date: 2 Apr 93 02:20:08 GMT
From: James Thomas Green <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Observer Update #2 - 03/29/93
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
>
>The Flight Team is conducting an "Anomalous Mars Orbit
>Insertion" training rehearsal during this period.
>
>
What exactly does this mean?  Does it mean a problem during
insertion?  A problem before?  Or insertion into the wrong
orbit?


/~~~(-: James T. Green :-)~~~~(-: [e-mail] :-)~~~\
|           No animals were                       >_,<          |
|           killed in                             (oo)          |
|           the creation or               ,-------(._.)         |
|           testing of                   / |     ||             |
|           this message!               *  ||W--'||             |

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

Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1993 23:14:00 GMT
From: David Ward <abdkw@stdvax>
Subject: Mars Observer Update - 03/29/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

>
>Now isn't that always the kicker.  It does seem stupid to  drop
>a mission like Magellan, because there isn't  70 million a year
Message-ID: <1APR199318143683@stdvax>
References: <[e-mail]> <1p7fqc$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <1pcgaa$[e-mail]>
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center - Robotics Lab
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

>to keep up the mission.  You'd think  that ongoing science  could
>justify the money.  JPL gets accused of spending more then neccessary,
>probably some validity in that,  but NASA  does put money into some
>things  that really are Porcine.  Oh well.
>
>pat

$70 million seems awfully high to keep any mission going.  Where
do your numbers come from and is there something I'm missing in
the translation between planetary spacecraft and Earth orbiters?

David W.

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

Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1993 03:53:29 GMT
From: Norman Anderson <[e-mail]>
Subject: PBS space special
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

>I am interested in the Net's reaction to last night's PBS special,
>whose prosaic title "Living and Working in Space" concealed the
>unorthodox sights and sounds within.  I've only watched a fraction of
>the tape, so I'll reserve my opinion for now.

I saw the last 20 minutes of the special and REALLY enjoyed what I saw. I
ran to the TV schedule to see when I could see the rest. ( Saturday, April
3 at 7:00pm on KUED here in Utah.) I would like to know how the younger
"kids" felt about it, but my "gettin' older" group liked it.

Who knows WHEN/(if) we will return to the moon or get to Mars (and beyond),
but isn't it a blast to open our minds and take off today? I think that
this special really does that!! I am recomending it to ALL my friends.

Norm

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

Date: 1 Apr 93 17:26:41 -0600
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle *Endeavour* (was Re: Space Research Spin Off)
Newsgroups: sci.space

Oh, boy, I love to write spelling flames...

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Daniel M. Newman) writes:
> In article <stephens.733592082@ngis> [e-mail] (Dave Stephenson) writes:
>>For my money the most important piece of space research spin off to
>>date (rather before the time of NASA) is Australia. NSW was colonised
>>because of the excellent maps produced by the Endurance expedition
>                                                ^^^^^^^^^
>                                                Endeavour
>             - almost like the shuttle -

EXACTLY like the Shuttle, Dan.  It may not be clear to a guy in
Australia correcting a guy in Canada (and I don't know where Dave's
originally from; his accent doesn't sound Canadian to me), but NASA
named their latest orbiter after Cook's ship.  Therefore they adopted
the British spelling "Endeavour" for the Shuttle even though American
orthography mandates "endeavor."

This is endlessly confusing both to Yanks and Empire residents, and
the press, and Usenet, get it wrong a significant fraction of the
time.

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

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

Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1993 00:27:01 GMT
From: Dave Stephenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle *Endeavour* (was Re: Space Research Spin Off)
Newsgroups: sci.space

Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa.
I will get my computer to write a 100 times do not free hand Usenet
postings. I am originally from the U.K., but have been in various places,
including Oz in the past 20 years. I gave up fighting my speller years
ago and grudgingly accept the American Standard, as I tend to write for
clients in the U.S..
I mixed up the two ships in a lecture at the World S.F. Con last year,
so this is not the first time.
--
Dave Stephenson
Geodetic Survey of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: 1 Apr 1993 15:48:37 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Small Astronaut (was: Budget Astronaut)
Newsgroups: sci.space

Only one problem with sending a corp of Small astronauts.
THey may want to start a galactic empire:-)   Napoleon
complex you know.  Genghis Khan was a little guy too.  I'd bet
Julius caesar never broke 5'1".

pat

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

Date: 1 Apr 1993 23:13:55 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Research Spin Off
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <stephens.733603989@ngis> [e-mail] (Dave Stephenson) writes:
>Anyone have any earlier examples of space research spin offs?

I'd imagine there was some correlation between galileo's studies
of the planets with the age of enlightenment.  Tycho helped a lot on that.

The greeks were interested ins tudying the stars, and developed a lot of geometrical
techniques to help on this.

pat

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

Date: 1 Apr 1993 22:04:21 GMT
From: Mark Adam <[e-mail]>
Subject: STS-1 DISASTER/COVERUP and NASA COVERUP
Newsgroups: sci.space

References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: paix.sw.stratus.com
Sender: [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

hmmmm.... Columbia again. I understand!

When the real Columbia launched, something happened in space. The ship went
through a time warp and detonated 5 years later. (5 year mission? Naw!) The
real crew of the Chalenger is hidden in Nevada with all the UFOs the Air force
has downed. And they've been there for the last twelve years. Rockwell took
Chalenger, which landed secretly and sold it back to NASA as the third shuttle.

It's so obvious!

--

mark ----------------------------
([e-mail])    |    My opinions are not those of Stratus.
                |    Hell! I don`t even agree with myself!

    "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers that smell bad."

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

Date: 31 Mar 93 19:26:31 GMT
From: Charles Lindsey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Terraforming Venus: can it be done "cheaply"?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeff Bytof) writes:

>This discussion of terraforming Venus has really begun to fascinate me.
>What is especially intriguing is the possibility that the kickoff
>in the process could be the simple injection of microorganisms into
>the atmosphere of Venus.

I see one fundamental problem with micro-organisms to do the job.
Presumably they are still based on DNA (I don't think we can entirely
re-invent life yet), and one element necessary for DNA is phosphorus. I
do not believe I have heard mention of any phosphorous in the Venusian
atmosphere. Is that correct?

Apparently, the reason why Lake Erie was not all gummed up with green
algae until recently was because the available phosphorus was all used
up - that is until all the housewives of Chicago really got going with
phosphate-rich washing powders.


--
Charles H. Lindsey -------------------------------------------------------------
           At Home, doing my own thing.           Internet: [e-mail]
Voice: [phone]                            Janet:    [e-mail]
Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave., CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.   UUCP:     mucs!clerew!chl

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

Date: 1 Apr 1993 15:22:41 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: the call to space (was Re: Clueless Szaboisms )
Newsgroups: sci.space

If the japanese are really going for Nukes, why not go with better
technology then we have.  AS opposed to BWR/PWRs  have they really
considered some of the 3rd generation Inherently safe designs.
Sodium has lots of chemical problems but it really solves design
difficulties.  Or the inherently safe types.

PWR's work real good,  but they need lots of steel,  and they are highly
complex systems.  Simplicity is a virtue.

pat

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

Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1993 00:25:23 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: the call to space (was Re: Clueless Szaboisms )
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>Vulnerability of the supply line.  Japan could easily stockpile 50 years'
>>supply of slightly-enriched uranium (which is not useful for bombs...
>
>Unfortunately, that is not what the Japanese are planning to do.
>Their plan is to stockpile some 30 *tons* of plutonium -- potentially
>weapons material, unlike reactor-grade uranium...

As Gary has pointed out, the stuff they're stockpiling is reprocessed
power-plant plutonium, which is *not* generally a good bomb material
due to contamination with higher isotopes.  Military plutonium-production
reactors are designed so that the "breeding" portion of their uranium can
be cycled through relatively quickly, reducing the plutonium yield but
minimizing higher-isotope content.

(The discovery of the higher-isotope problem was what finally squashed
the Manhattan Project's hopes of building a gun-type bomb with plutonium.
They didn't particularly want to use implosion if they didn't have to,
because it was poorly understood and hard to test.  But with plutonium
they didn't have a choice, even with specialized production reactors.)

I would also note that there are power-reactor types, such as the High
Temperature Gas-cooled Reactor, that need bomb-grade uranium.
--
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Thu, 1 Apr 93 23:49:31 GMT
From: Ross Borden <[e-mail]>
Subject: the call to space (was Re: Clueless Szaboisms )
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>
>>Why would they be?  They are, of course, subject to things like IAEA
>>rules.  And the Canadian government might make some agreements with
>>the U.S. government.  But have U.S. rules apply to Canada?  I hadn't
>>even heard we'd annexed them yet.  ;-)
>
>Annex?  No, they're going to ask to be members of the United States, once
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Quebec decides to make it on their own.
>
>Lord knows what we're going to do with all those maple tree flags.  At least
>the Marines will be relieved.
>
    Them's fightin' words! (Where's the tar and feathers? ;-)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  I shot a man just to watch him die;    |     Ross Borden                   |
|  I'm going to Disneyland!               |     [e-mail]            |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 1 Apr 1993 22:59:52 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why use AC at 20kHz for SSF power
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
|>WHo'se located in Fort Worth?
|
|General Dynamics.  Bell Helicopter (nearby, actually, I think).  Just
|to name a couple of big ones.

I always thought GD's  Fighter plants were in Long Island.

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 410
------------------------------