Date: Fri, 7 May 93 05:00:15 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #537 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Fri, 7 May 93 Volume 16 : Issue 537 Today's Topics: BBS in Space? (2 msgs) Boeing TSTO (Was: Words from Chairman of Boeing) (2 msgs) Gamma Ray Bursters. Where are they. HST Servicing Mission HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days Late Registrations for AI Workshop (17-19/5/93) Level 5? (2 msgs) Report on redesign team Russia's OPERATIONAL Starwars Defense System Sun coning (was Mars Observer Update) U.S. Government and Science and Technolgy Investment (2 msgs) Vandalizing the Sky Visas for astronauts after an abort (2 msgs) 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: 6 May 93 07:19:15 From: Bob McGwier Subject: BBS in Space? Newsgroups: sci.space Mir already has a packet radio BBS on 145.55 Mhz (amateur radio service). It regularly has bulletins posted by the Cosmonauts. I used to practice my Russian with Manarov during his 365+ day visit when they first installed amateur radio. He really had a blast talking to us. I was lucky enough to meet him later at an amateur radio event. Naturally it was an occasion to hoist a Wadka ;-) (I found out soon enough that almost any event was such an occasion ;-( ). They sometimes talk directly by voice on that frequency using narrowband FM voice. A large percentage of the shuttle astronauts are amateur radio operators. They have ALSO carried up packet radio robots, Slow and Fast Scan television transmitters and receivers. I talked to Owen Garriot during the first amateur radio astronaut to ground experiment. The acknowledgement I received from he, Tony England, Ron Parise, Manarov and others I have talked hold places of honor in my amateur radio `shack.' Amateur radio is a BLAST! BMc -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Robert W. McGwier | n4hy@ccr-p.ida.org Center for Communications Research | Interests: amateur radio, astronomy,golf Princeton, N.J. 08520 | Asst Scoutmaster Troop 5700, Hightstown ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 13:04:23 GMT From: Dave Stephenson Subject: BBS in Space? Newsgroups: sci.space n4hy@growler.ccr-p.ida.org (Bob McGwier) writes: >Mir already has a packet radio BBS on 145.55 Mhz (amateur radio service). >It regularly has bulletins posted by the Cosmonauts. I used to practice >Amateur radio is a BLAST! Note also several 'microsats' are digital transponders or BBS's. FO-20 144 MHz up, 435 MHZ down runs a BBS for 6 days a week, on Wednesdays it is an SSB/CW transponder. There was a 'popular' article on this bird in QST a couple of months ago. Arsene will soon (we hope) be launched by ariane and this satellite is a high orbit, packet radio transponder designed to link BBS's and packet nodes on Earth. Just get a Ham licence, invest a $1000 or so from the station and join in. I operate AO-13 with 10 watts CW from a condo backyard! -- Dave Stephenson Geological Survey of Canada Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Internet: stephens@geod.emr.ca ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 13:10:23 GMT From: Dave Stephenson Subject: Boeing TSTO (Was: Words from Chairman of Boeing) Newsgroups: sci.space henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >A non-trivial side issue, by the way, is that you can build experimental >aircraft with much less hassle than experimental rockets. As Gary Hudson >put it (at Making Orbit): "You can build an aircraft with less paperwork >than it takes to build a house." >-- The most important precident (or is it deja vu) being reestablished by the DCX is the X program management style. i.e. Minimum paper work, build it, try it, learn a bit, mod it a bit, and try again. Better known in academic circles as 'the scientific method':- Observation hypothesis, and experiment. (trial and error in a lab coat). If Boeing are proposing their own program on the same ASAN (that's anti-NASA) principles, more power to them. -- Dave Stephenson Geological Survey of Canada Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Internet: stephens@geod.emr.ca ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 15:58:35 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Boeing TSTO (Was: Words from Chairman of Boeing) Newsgroups: sci.space In article stephens@geod.emr.ca (Dave Stephenson) writes: >>... "You can build an aircraft with less paperwork >>than it takes to build a house." > >The most important precident (or is it deja vu) being reestablished by >the DCX is the X program management style. i.e. Minimum paper work... Actually, Hudson wasn't talking about how much paperwork the project generates *internally*. He was talking about how much government hassle you have to put up with to get permission to fly a private project. Experimental aircraft are easy. Large rockets are not. -- SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology between SVR3 and SunOS. - Dick Dunn | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 May 93 15:31:44 MET From: PHARABOD@frcpn11.in2p3.fr Subject: Gamma Ray Bursters. Where are they. Are there theories or hypotheses associating or mixing the "gamma ray bursters" with the "dark matter" ? If my memory is good (I am not an expert) the distribution of dark matter also is isotropic. I sort of remember that exotic dark matter should have nothing to do with the electromagnetic interaction, hence with gamma rays, but who knows really ? Maybe there is some kind of interface ? Something triggering quantum void fluctuations ? (Well, now I shall probably be demolished by one of the brilliant theoretical physicists belonging to this discussion group...). J. Pharabod ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 13:57:26 GMT From: Steve Willner Subject: HST Servicing Mission Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,sci.astro In article <1s2rpc$khq@techbook.techbook.com>, dant@techbook.techbook.com (Dan Tilque) writes: > Has anyone looked at the cost of taking the second mirror, building > another Hubble around it (with modifications for things that weren't > right on Hubble I such as the solar panel supports) and launching > that? This is quite an interesting question. I have it on good authority that the cost of Hubble servicing is roughly $250 million per year. It doesn't take many years at that rate to add up to the cost of a new telescope. Or the cost of another major mission. For comparison, the cost of operating the telescope, including running the Institute, generating commands, and supporting the scientists, is $80 million per year. -- Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu member, League for Programming Freedom; contact lpf@uunet.uu.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 16:11:21 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,sci.astro In <1s60eg$68b@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes: >In article <1993May3.154229.20543@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: >>Well, no, for a lot of the reasons cited. Contamination risk is less >>using the Shuttle OMS system because the Shuttle is a nice big bird >>and that distances the source of contamination from the thing you're >>worried about (not to mention Shuttle mass blocking it). >> >maybe they could create an inflatable spatter shield, to >divert reaction byproducts far away from the HST. Maybe they should just do it the way that works and quit trying to make the 'Pat Plan' work? >it may be insovable, it may not be a problem. it needs proper >engineering analysis. I'm not convinced you know what that phrase means; you just mouth it every time you want something different than what is being done. >>I'm curious. What would be your reaction if they took your advice, >>had some whiz kids cobble together something, slapped it on the butt >>of the HST, and it screwed up? I suspect you'd be the first person >>calling for lynchings. I'd rather have the people on the spot to deal >>with problems when we're talking about a $1G instrument. >> >It depends, on what you mean by screwed up? if it didn't work at all. >well, back to the drawing boards. Except, of course, that you've now wasted a flight plus all that development money when you have a perfectly good way to do the reboost in hand already. >if it pushed it into a higher >but wrong orbit, i suppose that would be tolerable. I'd say that's rather a function of just where it put it, wouldn't you? >Now if it pushed it into earth's atmosphere, then that would be >a bigger problem. Not necessarily. You've ignored a lot of possibilities. What it if tumbles and is thus useless? What if your 'cobbled together' rig contaminates the instruments and ruins them? What if the motor blows up? So much for that "proper engineering analysis" you're so fond of. >let say the HST de-orbited, crashed into Rock Creek Park here by my house >and a splinter hit my cat in the tail. THat would be terible, and >people should hang. >now if it de-orbited and the HST hit your house, while you were sleeping >in the living room, well, I guess we put that on the list of >major engineering blunders and get to working on a replacement HST. Flame bait, Pat? Feel free to take your cat and shove it. >pat >And besides, these "cobbled together" projects have a reasonably good >record. voyager, magellan, skylab, ASTM were all cobbled together. Ah, yes. One big difference, Small One. Those were all to do something we didn't otherwise have capability to do, and if those are your idea of 'cobbled together' I would say that perhaps we should just build a laser launcher and throw gold tola bars at HST until we bounce it into the right orbit. Damned expensive 'cobbles' you have there. -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 93 15:53:26 GMT From: Joachim Fuchs Subject: Late Registrations for AI Workshop (17-19/5/93) Newsgroups: sci.space,comp.ai It is still possible to register to the following workshop: Artificial Intelligence and Knowledge Based Systems for Space - 4th Workshop - May 17th - 19th, 1993 ESTEC, Noordwijk The Netherlands Organized by THE EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY Simulation & Electrical Facilities Division Technical Directorate Purpose ======= The European Space Agency (ESA) has for many years pursued activities in Artificial Intelligence and Knowl- edge Based Systems for Space. The technology has already been successfully applied in several domains and is now widely considered a viable option in many devel- opments. The objective of this workshop is to obtain an active exchange of information within the European AI com- munity, within industry as well as within ESA. Not only increasing awareness of the new developments and tech- nologies play an important role, but inputs obtained in this workshop will also serve ESA to harmonize and standardize the developments in Artificial Intelligence for European Space programmes. This programme reflects the main interests of the Agency in this workshop. The first day will be dedicated to the use of AI techniques in applications. The second day is entirely dedicated to specialized sessions and Round Table discussions, featuring some of the present activities of ESA/ESTEC. The final day will mainly con- centrate on Methodology aspects of Artificial Intelli- gence. Organizing Committee ==================== U. Mortensen, ESA/ESTEC (Workshop Chairman) F. Allard, ESA/ESTEC E. Bornschlegl, ESA/ESTEC F.-J. Demond, ESA/EAC H.A. Laue, ESA/ESOC A. Moya, Commission of the European Communities (DG XIII) G. Muhlhauser, ESA/ESRIN S. Valera, ESA/ESTEC J. Fuchs, ESA/ESTEC (Workshop Organizer) Programme ========= The general schedule of the workshop is as follows: Monday: Registration and Welcome speech Session I: General (Plenary) Session II: Applications (Plenary) Monday evening: Cocktail The Tuesday is dedicated for Round Table Discussions. The subjects chosen are the following: Session III: Model-Based Reasoning (Parallel) Session IV: Knowledge Reuse (Parallel) Session V: Planning (Parallel) The morning sessions are intended to provide a certain background of the subjects to be discussed in the afternoon. They serve as well to introduce some of the participants and their particular interests. After the lunch break the moderators of the different parallel sessions will introduce to the discussion groups, and - depending on interest and breadth of the field - possibly several working groups will be initiated in order to discuss issues raised in the morning sessions. At the end of the day there will be a plenary session with a short summary of the results obtained in the discussions. Wednesday: Session VI: Verification and Validation (Plenary) Session VII: Methodology (Plenary) The total number of papers presented will be 40. There will be an area dedicated to posters and demonstrations. General Information =================== The Workshop is free of charge. Working language will be English. If you would like to have more detailed information, (complete programme...) please contact either: ESA/ESTEC Conference Bureau P.O. Box 299 NL-2200 AG Noordwijk The Netherlands Tel: +31-1719-8-5005, Fax: +31-1719-8-5658 or the Organizer: ESA/ESTEC-WGS Joachim Fuchs P.O.Box 299 NL-2200 AG Noordwijk The Nethrlands Tel: +31-1719-8-5298, Fax: +31-1719-8-5419 email: joachim@wgs.estec.esa.nl Registration should be sent to the Conference Bureau. ESTEC has as well a Hotel Reservation service (Tel: +31-1719-8-5858). ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 93 11:14:55 BST From: Greg Stewart-Nicholls Subject: Level 5? Newsgroups: sci.space In <1993May5.153636.410@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov writes: > -- nice description of orthodox software development theory deleted -- I was being a little facetious. We _have_ well defined processes, metrics, reiterations etc. and still can't reliably predict development cycles. Granted that _some_ projects either benefit from (or are impossible without) rigidly defined processes, I find the assumption that this is the _only_ way to do it 'properly' amusing. I think we can all cite world class software that simply wasn't written according to any orthodoxy. IBm are guilty of focussing more on the process than the product in many instances. I submit that if you can do the work on time, within budget, and please the customer, then who cares whether you followed the 'rules'. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Greg Nicholls ... : Vidi nicho@vnet.ibm.com or : Vici nicho@olympus.demon.co.uk : Veni ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 07:25:14 GMT From: Mark Spiegl Subject: Level 5? Newsgroups: sci.space Wingert@vnet.IBM.COM (Bret Wingert) writes: >I am familiar with the project. It is the Onboard Shuttle Flight >Software Project. This software controls the Space Shuttle During >all dynamic phases as well as on-orbit. >It has ultra-high reliability and extremely >low error rates. There have been several papers published on the >subject and I'll collect some references. There may be an >article in the IBM Systems Journal Late '93, early '94. >There is no magic formula. We did it with dedicated and disciplined >folks who worked to put together a process that finds and removes errors >and is corrected based on errors that "escape". We present a >one day overview of our process periodically to interested folks. >The next one is May 19th in Washington, D.C. I can fax specifics >to those who are interested. Pardon my ignorance with this program, but can you provide some project specifics: number of lines of code, staff size or staff months to implement. I suspect (admittedly unsubstantiated though) that commercial projects are much more market driven and do not have the time/staff luxuries of government programs. That is, a difference of just six short months frequently defines which companies make the profits and which bust. A lot of good it does to deliver a zero defect product if your competition already has won the lions portion of the market. Opinions? ^ |U| Mark Spiegl |S| Motorola Inc. /|A|\ spiegl@rtsg.mot.com ~~U~~ ------------------------------ Date: 4 May 93 19:22:51 GMT From: Dani Eder Subject: Report on redesign team Newsgroups: sci.space Sender: mrf4276@egbsun12 (Matthew R. Feulner) Other political stuff being tossed around - We can get 38K lbs into 220 nm orbit at 28.5 degrees with a shuttle. Now, if we want Russian cooperation and go into 51.6 orbit, we can only get 25K lbs at 220 nm. But, if we go for development of the Al-Li tanks, we can get 37K lbs into 175 nm orbit (or 32.5K into 220 nm) at 51.6 degrees. The ASRM brings us to 44.5K lbs at 220 nm and 51.6 degrees. So, it looks like they're thinking about the Al-Li tanks to go for a 175 nm orbit at 51.6 degrees since it still has the same capabilities as 28.5 degrees and 220 nm. But, now, the Russians may have problems with 51.6 degrees because things are now falling into one of the republics, Kazakstan (sp?). Incidentally, the launch site (don't remember the name) is at about 45 degrees lat, but they launch into 51.6 so they don't drop things on China. [end quote] As I said to my management at Boeing, the performance numbers above look about right, you lose about 12-13000 lb going from 28.5 to 51.6 degrees inclination, and the Aluminum-Lithium ET will gain an expected 7500 lb. Gaining 12,000 lb on the ASRM may be optimistic. That was the original goal. My understanding is the actual gain will be more like 10,000 lb. Treating the Shuttle performance as a single number, however is only sufficient for a gross comparison. In reality, which Orbiter you fly, how many crew for how many days, how much on-board power you need, and the time of year you launch all affect the payload capacity by thousands of pounds. Another thing to think about: it is estimated that the Al-Li tank will cost $300 million to develop. The ASRM is about $3 billion. The new tank will gain enough performance to be worthwhile under any circumstance where the shuttle continue to fly. The ASRM should be second priority, followed by SSME turbopump improvements (worth around 10,000 lb). The problem with launch sites is that Baikonur, where the Mir station is launched from, is in Kazakstan, which is now an independant country from Russia. There is not much worry about booster impact, since thats why they picked that launch site in the first place - the downrange area is pretty barren. You are correct that 51.6 degrees is needed to clear China. A higher inclination orbit also allows you to launch to the Station from Tanegashima (Japan). Along with Kourou (French Guiana) you would have 4 launch sites representing all the major participants which could reach the station. This is good for resupply/contingency (like what do you do if the Shuttle can't launch), and for spreading the work around. Dani -- Dani Eder/Meridian Investment Company/(205)464-2697(w)/232-7467(h)/ Rt.1, Box 188-2, Athens AL 35611/Location: 34deg 37' N 86deg 43' W +100m alt. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 14:47:29 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: Russia's OPERATIONAL Starwars Defense System Newsgroups: sci.space > From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu > Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire > Date: 5 May 93 19:03:37 -0600 > Newsgroups: sci.space > Followup-To: alt.fan.robert.mcelwaine > Subject: Russia's OPERATIONAL Starwars Defense System > > > > Russia's OPERATIONAL Starwars Defense System Well, at least now he's setting the Followup-To to something germane. Now if only we could get him to just post the initial articles there, as well. This is the third or fourth time I've seen this one in as many months. -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me. ------------------------------ Date: 6 May 93 07:10:26 From: Bob McGwier Subject: Sun coning (was Mars Observer Update) Newsgroups: sci.space If you cone about the sun, with high probability you will eventually receive commands from earth since it is guaranteed to be in a cone around the sun from Mars orbit. This is a fail-safe mechanism for the spacecraft to regain communications during a spacecraft emergency. Bob -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Robert W. McGwier | n4hy@ccr-p.ida.org Center for Communications Research | Interests: amateur radio, astronomy,golf Princeton, N.J. 08520 | Asst Scoutmaster Troop 5700, Hightstown ------------------------------ Date: 6 May 93 08:11:28 GMT From: Jim Hart Subject: U.S. Government and Science and Technolgy Investment Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space,sci.research,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.libertarian,misc.education >In article <1993Apr30.151033.13776@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov writes: >>People who criticize "big Government" and its projects rarely seem to >>have a consistent view of the role of Government in science and >>technology. ...[idiocy about government going into R&D to help >> U.S. economic competitiveness] Your view, on the other hand, is perfectly consistent -- I want my pork, and I want it now. You have the gall to use our tax money to sit here and lecture us on how stupid you think we are, and you can't even even tell the difference between your fetid bureaucracy's propaganda and history. In actual history, the the U.S. govnt. went into R&D with World War II (Manhattan Project) and the Cold War (H-bomb, ICBMs, etc.) in response to military threats from National Socialist Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. No knowledgeable person ever tried to pretend this was going to help the economy. In fact, countries that concentrated their R&D in the private sector (eg Japan) kicked our ass economically in the latter half of the Cold War as rigor mortis set in. Japan now outnumbers the U.S. in patents over 2:1, and dominates the world in electronics, autos, etc. despite being a small little island country and late-comer to the industrial revolution. At first U.S. govnt. R&D was able to borrow the habits of private R&D to create large productive organizations, but due to lack of incentive to do anything but whine for pork, they gradually deteriorated to the level of miserable selfish complainers like yourself. Through the misplaced hysteria over Sputnik we got your agency, which started off well, but now spends $10's of billions on PR and props for shows on CNN, and apparently now for idiotic posts by stuck-up jerks pretending to tell us masses how ignorant we are to question the wisdom of your pathetic attempts at technology development. Like that wonderful incredibly shrinking space station you keep pretending you're going to build, for purposes you keep pretending are so all-important. Your PR is good though; any PR that convinces people to spend $2 billion a year on blueprints for a "space station" has to be pretty clever, even if those people are Congressmen. Established in order to *fight* socialism, the military-industrial complex now seems to have delusions of *becoming* socialist! Your agency persists in the delusion that it can make history. You persist in the delusion that you can lecture us on history. In fact you are just a miserable little side-effect of this unfortunate history. Your posts are so blatantly self-serving, it's truly sad, like seeing a beggar in the streets. Jim Hart jhart@agora.rain.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 16:42:08 GMT From: Marc Roussel Subject: U.S. Government and Science and Technolgy Investment Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space,sci.research,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.libertarian,misc.education In article jhart@agora.rain.com (Jim Hart) writes: >Japan now outnumbers the U.S. in patents over 2:1 Jim is right that Japan is doing extremely well economically, but we should be careful of statistics like this one. As I understand it, Japanese patent law requires a separate patent for every single innovative feature of an invention. In most of the rest of world on the other hand, a "blanket patent" covering a number of innovations going into a single device is usually sought and granted. I therefore wonder how much of the above 2:1 ratio is due to the quirks of Japanese patent law and how much to actual research output. Marc R. Roussel mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 93 14:37:38 EET From: flb@flb.optiplan.fi (F.Baube[tm]) Subject: Vandalizing the Sky From: fred j mccall 575-3539 > > Why does your ostensible right to see the sky "as nature > intended it" [..] override the 'right' of the advertiser > or the right of the folks putting it up to access part > of their funding that way so they can do things they > wouldn't otherwise be able to get funding to do? This pseudo-justification has been used repeatedly, and now it has insinuated itself into the discussion as an =assumption=: Anything that makes money off of space is Good, because it gets our civilization into space faster; it doesn't matter *who* is making the money, and it doesn't matter *what* they are doing to make it. Gee, how Eighties. How retro. That's roughly akin to saying let's let Anaconda strip-mine the Grand Canyon so that strip-mining can boldly go where no strip mining technology has gone before .. because after all, mining means profits, and profits mean technological advance- ment, and technogical advancement means prosperity, and pros- perity means happiness, and so to hell with the Grand Canyon .. -- * Fred Baube (tm) * In times of intellectual ferment, * baube@optiplan.fi * advantage to him with the intellect * #include * most fermented ! * How is Frank Zappa doing ? * May '68, Paris: It's Retrospective Time !! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 16:20:43 GMT From: Ken Arromdee Subject: Visas for astronauts after an abort Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993May5.230201.17311@eos.arc.nasa.gov> brody@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Adam R. Brody ) writes: >I've read that the crews' passports are kept in a pouch at launch, ready >to be flown to an abort landing site. I always thought that pretty strange >since it would be pretty clear and documented in the media who these people >are and from whence they came. There was a book a number of years ago, first serialized in Analog, called Shuttle Down, by Lee Correy (G Harry Stine). A shuttle had to land on Easter Island, and faced all sorts of political problems ranging from Soviet accusations that it carried military devices to, yes, the astronauts not having any passports. Stine wrote later on that people at NASA did take note of the book, and now astronauts have passports and similar documentation available.... -- "On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me... Leftover Turkey! On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me... Turkey Casserole that she made from Leftover Turkey. [days 3-4 deleted] ... Flaming Turkey Wings! ... -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait) Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 17:42:34 GMT From: Ed Faught Subject: Visas for astronauts after an abort Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993May5.230201.17311@eos.arc.nasa.gov> brody@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Adam R. Brody ) writes: >What about military people? It must have been a nightmare >having 100,000 passports for US GIs in the Persian Gulf! We were told, in 1970, that our immunization records served as passports while stationed in Vietnam. I also went on R&R to Sydney with nothing more. -- Ed Faught WA9WDM faught@ssc.gov DEFINITELY NOT a spokesman for the Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 537 ------------------------------