Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 05:10:02 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu 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 "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 00:17:37 GMT From: Forrie Aldrich 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!forrie@unhtel.unh.edu ------- ---- ---- -- VISION GRAPHICS -- Dover, NH - USA -- ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: 20 Aug 92 18:38:02 GMT From: "Frederick A. Ringwald" Subject: Cosmic strings & supralight Newsgroups: sci.space In article <5729@transfer.stratus.com> btarbox@sw.stratus.com (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" Subject: Cosmic strings & supralight Newsgroups: sci.space In article <5729@transfer.stratus.com> btarbox@sw.stratus.com (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: dsimon@atlas.nafb.trw.com 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: hathaway@stsci.edu Subject: Home made rockets Newsgroups: sci.space Both isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU and tomk@netcom.com 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 tomk@netcom.com 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!!!) isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU 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" Subject: Hubble visible in evening sky Newsgroups: sci.space In article <26074@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM>, wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (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" Subject: Inflatable Space Stations - Why Not ? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Aug20.135937.8357@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (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 | | aws@iti.org | put a man on the Moon?" | +----------------------246 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 20 Aug 92 13:54:22 GMT From: Rui Sousa Subject: Inflatable Space Stations - Why Not ? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Aug19.183403.1527@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu 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: jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu 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! ruca@saber-si.pt All opinions expressed here are strictly my own ------------------------------ Date: 20 Aug 92 20:04:24 GMT From: LJ10717@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM 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 - lj10717@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 21 Aug 92 03:14:40 GMT From: Dave Decot Subject: Nevada Casino - 200 miles up Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space,rec.gambling bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (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 Subject: Private space ventures Newsgroups: sci.space In article naylor@research.canon.oz.au (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 alexho@microsoft.com Space Times P.O. Box 565 Lynnwood, WA 98046-0565 ------------------------------ Date: 20 Aug 92 19:16:42 GMT From: Gregory M Ellis 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" Subject: Soyuz as ACRV Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space In article <1992Aug20.134030.8206@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (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 | | aws@iti.org | 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" Subject: SPS feasibility and other space development Newsgroups: sci.space In article <18AUG199220444595@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov 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 Subject: superstrings & supralight (was SPS feasibility and other space development) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <5729@transfer.stratus.com> btarbox@sw.stratus.com (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 (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com) | Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY | ------------------------------ Date: 21 Aug 92 10:30:53 GMT From: Ron Baalke 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 (818) 354-5011 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 | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | 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 Subject: wefax Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro Does anyone know who, where, to contact to sign up for wefax? ***************************************************************** * | ====@==== ///////// * * ephillip@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu| ``________// * * | `------' * * -JR- | Space;........the final * * | frontier............... * ***************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: 20 Aug 92 17:35:36 GMT From: "Frederick A. Ringwald" Subject: What about Saturn?/Future not Past Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Aug20.014256.1@fnalo.fnal.gov> higgins@fnalo.fnal.gov (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 Subject: What about Saturn?/Future not Past Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Aug20.173536.21955@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald) writes: >In article <1992Aug20.014256.1@fnalo.fnal.gov> >higgins@fnalo.fnal.gov (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 cecil@wrath.physics.unc.edu 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 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 Subject: With telepresence, who needs people in Earth orbit? Newsgroups: sci.space -- Gerald Cecil cecil@wrath.physics.unc.edu 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: bb-sci-space@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU 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" Subject: Re: Home made rockets Message-Id: Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 17:14:12 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) References: <5969.409.uupcb@matrix.sbs.com> <1992Aug19.234101.1@stsci.edu> Distribution: world,local Lines: 14 Sender: news@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU Source-Info: Sender is really isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU In article <1992Aug19.234101.1@stsci.edu> hathaway@stsci.edu 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 ------------------------------