Date: Thu, 13 May 93 05:34:31 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #560 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Thu, 13 May 93 Volume 16 : Issue 560 Today's Topics: G. Gordon Liddy mentions T-Shirt at NASA GPS Launch HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days I'd like to see me town from space Life on Earth Life on Mars. (3 msgs) Math?? (Was US govt & Technolgy Investment McElwaine FAQ (2 msgs) Need help in finding address... Philosophy Quest. How Boldly? space camp URGENT EMAIL: NASA BUDGET? When is Nat'l Spa. Funding Dispns'bl? Why we like DC-X (was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X?) Yoo hoo, White Sands? (was Re: DC-X Status?) (3 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: 11 May 1993 23:07:51 -0400 From: Pat Subject: G. Gordon Liddy mentions T-Shirt at NASA Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space Yesterdays Post, mentioned that people at JSC are already wearing those T-SHirts. pat ------------------------------ Date: 12 May 1993 12:28:19 GMT From: Uli Allgeier Subject: GPS Launch Newsgroups: sci.space Hi! When will the next GPS-Satellite be launched ? Thanks in advance. Viele Gruesse Uli ------------------------------ Date: 11 May 1993 23:35:20 -0400 From: Pat Subject: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,sci.astro In article <1993May11.140807.1@stsci.edu> dempsey@stsci.edu writes: >and I don't really need to know. I did not post because several people >have been recently scolded for posting ANYTHING. Unfortuantely, Bill YOu guys need private accts. I got this acct, speciifically so i couldn't take heat from the bosses. Of course, isn't it odd that someone would get burned for posting to a public forum. is it because they don't like you using your first amendment rights? or that the data is confidential? if so you should remind them that because the taxpayers pay for AURA, we are entitled to all information a tthe institute, except for data which is held backa s a courtesy to the PI's. actually even the DATA is public, and under FOIA, cannot be withheld. no-one has ever bothered to sue, that's all. pat ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 01:53:50 GMT From: Chuck Rose Subject: I'd like to see me town from space Newsgroups: sci.space Are there graphical images available for anonymous ftp of pictures of areas of the earth taken from space. I know that there must be some images, but I'd like to find ones of the Barnegat Bay NJ area where I'm from. Do any of the images get this specific? Thanks in advance, chuck. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 02:10:53 GMT From: "Richard A. Schumacher" Subject: Life on Earth Newsgroups: sci.space In 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) writes: >Sorry. The sum purpose of life on Earth is to evolve to the point where >life can leave Earth and live elsewhere as well. And we're it. Almost. Our direct descendents get to leave. We're stuck in the solar system forever. (But hey, it's big place, nice view; it could be worse.) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 00:02:16 GMT From: Richard Ottolini Subject: Life on Mars. Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.bio In article <1993May11.153010.438@den.mmc.com> seale@possum.den.mmc.com (Eric H Seale) writes: >I can't speak for the Russian probes, but the last I heard, the 1997 US >probe is planned to have air-bags on it (seriously!) to cushion the >impact. Hopefully, it won't be a "bouncer" (should just hit and go >"thud"). The JPL/San Gabriel AIAA session last week showed the Russian lander encased in a single large airbag with ravelable stitches. The Russian design is pretty firm and hardware is due from international experimenters by 1/94. The proposed 1997 American lander has a bunch of airbags shaped like a bunch of grapes. They were dropping it in the desert last month. It may have a 20 kg mini-rover in it. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 May 1993 20:51:29 GMT From: Gord Wait S-MOS Systems Vancouver Design Center Subject: Life on Mars. Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.bio Here is a potentially dumb question: What prevents the martian landers themselves from "polluting" the martian environment with earth based critters? Is the long trip in cold radiation bathed space enough to completely sterilize the landers? I could imagine that a few teeny microbes could manage to get all the way there unharmed, and then possibly thrive given the right circumstances. -- Gord Wait SMOS Systems Vancouver Design Centre uunet!jericho!gord gord%jericho@uunet.uu.net or even some days ------------------------------ Date: 12 May 93 12:32:21 GMT From: G T Clark Subject: Life on Mars. Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.bio I was reading an article a while back about the infamous Dr. Lovelock, which said that one of his more interesting pieces of work was the interpretation of a spectrographic analysis of the Martian atmosphere - performed using a terrestrial telescope. His main point was that it's at chemical equilibrium for its temperature and pressure. This means that there are no significant chemical reactions which involve the atmosphere, and therefore earth-type life is either absent or incredibly rare. This was, incidentally, published before the Viking launch (according to the article) but after all the Viking budget had been spent. G. ------------------------------ Date: 12 May 93 05:12:34 EDT From: Tal Kubo Subject: Math?? (Was US govt & Technolgy Investment Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space,sci.research,talk.politics.misc,misc.education >greg mccolm suggested that math is a good example of the inertia >(silver age) of current science..... > >is math really a science? what new has math "told" us recently? >please dont flame me... ive taken no math since 11th grade... >completed BC calc early and go the hell out... is there really >NEW stuff going on?? (im not flaming, but honestly durious...) Nope. We're just living off the inheritance from our forefathers, reading dusty old books, and exchanging baroque incantations among a small circle of devotees. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 03:30:51 GMT From: "Simon E. Booth" Subject: McElwaine FAQ Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,rec.arts.drwho In article jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins) writes: >I'm not sure which amazes me more: the fact that someone would go to all this >trouble to write about McElwaine or the fact that someone would post something >which repeatedly says it shouldn't be posted. > >It's all moot anyway. He had is net access privileges revoked last week. >-- >Josh Hopkins jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu > "Find a way or make one." > -attributed to Hannibal McElwaine got his access revoked? Finally!!!! And they say it couldn't be done. If we can rid the net of McElwaine, then anything is possible :- Simon ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 08:55:32 GMT From: The Master Subject: McElwaine FAQ Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,rec.arts.drwho sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes: >In article jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins) writes: >>I'm not sure which amazes me more: the fact that someone would go to all this >>trouble to write about McElwaine or the fact that someone would post something >>which repeatedly says it shouldn't be posted. >> >>It's all moot anyway. He had is net access privileges revoked last week. >>-- >>Josh Hopkins jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu >> "Find a way or make one." >> -attributed to Hannibal >McElwaine got his access revoked? Finally!!!! >And they say it couldn't be done. If we can rid the net of McElwaine, >then anything is possible :- >Simon Oh, don't worry, I'm sure he'll be back! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 09:20:27 GMT From: Mark Elowitz Subject: Need help in finding address... Newsgroups: sci.space Could someone please help me. I am trying to find the address to the TDRS receiving station at White Sands Missile Range. I am interested in possible employment and would like to write for information. Thanks... ------------------------------ Date: 11 May 1993 23:20:05 -0400 From: Pat Subject: Philosophy Quest. How Boldly? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993May11.221533.26338@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: | |>I could visualize some sort of multi-tentacled land creature, |>which developes a pretty good tool culture. it could even |>be amphibious, or aquatic. something like an octopus, |>with a bigger brain. | |I can't see an aquatic creature. Too much of chemistry and metalurgy |becomes too difficult, and flight itself would be more difficult if |you had to haul around that much water. Metallurgy may become difficult, from a thermal chemistry point of view, but you may see technologies develope out of membrane and colloidial chemistry. Due to the immense heat capacity of water, you wouldn't see thermal processes much but you may see concentration chemistry. some species with a mastery of colloids may manufacture using accretion methods. and as for flight, you'd see fluid filled liquid breathing suits. Oh how i love when threads crash:-) but amphibious is more plausible then pure aquatic. we don't seem to have any aquatic creatures with high versatility effectors and complex nueral systems. i suspect, that the additrional control problems in something like a tentacle may detract from intelligence oriented synapses. but that's random speculation. pat ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 May 93 18:51:36 PDT From: Jennifer Witt Subject: space camp Newsgroups: sci.space I'm replying to someone who asked for information on space camp. I have a brochure that has all different schedules. What age, what level and what program do you want to know the schedule of? Most of the missions are 5 to 8 days long. The address for Huntsville is: Alabama Space Science Exhibit Commission U.S. Space and Rocket Center One Tranquility Base, Huntsville, AL 35807 - Jennifer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ******** WHY ARE WE HERE, WHAT DOES IT MEAN *********************?? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 01:06:34 GMT From: apryan@vax1.tcd.ie Subject: URGENT EMAIL: NASA BUDGET? Newsgroups: sci.space What is NASA's annual budget? This year will do, a few years back wpuld be nice too but I need this item fast so emails off the top of your head very much appreciated (FAQs vanish here!). -Tony Ryan, "Astronomy & Space", new International magazine, available from: Astronomy Ireland, P.O.Box 2888, Dublin 1, Ireland. 6 issues (one year sub.): UK 10.00 pounds, US$20 surface (add US$8 airmail). ACCESS/VISA/MASTERCARD accepted (give number, expiration date, name&address). (WORLD'S LARGEST ASTRO. SOC. per capita - unless you know better? 0.034%) up another notch as of end April 1993!-----^ Tel: 0891-88-1950 (UK/N.Ireland) 1550-111-442 (Eire). Cost up to 48p per min ------------------------------ Date: 11 May 93 23:47:38 -0500 From: Frank Bynum Subject: When is Nat'l Spa. Funding Dispns'bl? Newsgroups: sci.space to; sci.space dt; tu051193 subj: "When is Nat'l Spa. Funding Dispns'bl?" Dispensablety of national space funding? Frank Bynum [*] Mon. 4-12-93 In the hypothetical event-- past, present, or foreseeable future-- that support by major nations' governmental bodies fully stopped, historically when might 'human presence in space' kinds of activities be able to survive and advance anyway? This question should be contemplated by persons interested in knowing about, perhaps hoping to exert influence on the situation. Opinions about the matter would seem to be relevant to varying observers' evaluations as to implications of various space policy past decisions or options for future directions. Provision of funding from national budgets, and the initiative to carry out a specific activity coming from governmental bodies, are both key issues under the "governmental support" label. In general terms a few kinds of sources giving rise to the question can be identified. Some of those were articles having to do with their writers' opposition to Shuttle project, 1970's through 1st half of 1980's. [DcShtl] In the comments, from many rank & file Pro- Space activist organizations, unfettered expectancy, of prospects to persuade a scale-up of governmental leadership & budget support in space, run high. From certain other individuals come views concerning possible importance of participation, and perhaps even initiative, by non-public sector entities. From fiction, and from recent affairs in aerospace technology field, there can be seen instances illustrating views about space activities 'not by governments only'. In fiction, published between the 1950's and now, a few authors depicted 'near to present date' spacefaring conducted privately. [pspnovl] Orbital Sciences Corp. (allied with Hercules) premiered the 1st privately developed satellite launch capability. G. Hudson's concepts, and 3rd Millennium Inc. concepts, for private entries eligible to have humans to orbit transport capability, floated for a while. But they did not yet gain financial backers sufficiently committed to sustain their plans. Douglas Corp., allied in early test phase with Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO), are presently involved in Delta Clipper single stage rocket technology research vehicle project. For my own part, I've become persuaded by the comments by speakers who allude to (eventual) potential stemming from actions by entrepreneurs who recognize value of the opportunities. A hurtle exists in that within this, my native nation, presently most business decision makers deny any but the shortest term planning view points. I would not mind the possibility that the nation might have undertaken to promote the provision of benefits from large scale civil space applications development. But our historical trend since 1969 has been not in that direction (nor is it likely to go that way). There was an occasion that many, including myself, consider to have the crowning moment for the L-5 space activist organization. That was when their educational efforts were instrumental to inducing rejection, by the US Congress, of the so-called 'Moon Treaty', arising from UN action. The USSR representatives to COPUOS (UN Committee on Peaceful Uses of Outer Space) had sponsored this convention during late 1970's. L-5 focused upon a particular objection. The Moon Treaty apparently would stipulate that private corporations were to be considered as entities Not legitimately permitted to conduct utilization of non-terrestrial resources (from our ". . . Moon or other celestial bodies") under proposed international law. A view holding companies to be the a primary engine for generating new wealth, and the view embodied in the treaty, appear incompatible. There have been a number of decision points, between 1940's and present, from which the historically observed US and other space programs, as well as future aspirations, flow. Operation Paper Clip transferred highly valuable expertise, in the form of the German Rocket Team, into possession and (Slow Pace) utilization by US for national purposes. Missile derived vehicles became a mainstay transportation option by which space access was obtained. The automated systems thus sent aloft directly addressed scientific, national security relevant, and certain civil utilitarian benefits. Spacecraft with crews were initiated to advance nationalistic glory. Along the way they spawned numerous society and economy enhancing "spinoffs". There's wide, though far less than unanimous, recognition that human presence in Earth orbit, extending outward into the Solar System, can serve diverse utilitarian purposes. These are of greater importance than symbolism. By now, the ICBM's program, Mercury, Apollo to the Moon, have already occurred. And, partially DoD financed too, developments such as "VSIC" (Very large scale Integrated Circuitry) manufacturing came to fruition. The National Aerospace Plane program, National Launch System, and the like, in 1993 seem rather less likely than previously to be on the verge of yielding civil applications follow-ons directly. But methods, particularly in new high performance materials, "Concurrent Engineering" and other aspects of computer aided manufacturing, seem to be likely high value pay offs that are materializing. Suppose that a given organization were to contemplate making a move to provide some given type of space service. There is a major consequence to the above space programs history. Conducting space services clearly is now technologically easier, with potentially lower intrinsic costs or project success risks, than would have been the case at earlier dates. On the other hand, though, one of the Truisms of Aerospace is that in specific fields such as propulsion, power systems, for space systems, only rarely will one find something genuinely New under the sun. Many of the concepts of the field have a long history, due to being extensively studied 2, 3, or more decades ago. [NewSPrl] (In numerous instances, though feasibility tests went favorably, adoption into practice of system concept was left not done. Electric driven thrusters are a prime example.) The above several paragraphs illustrate some of the factors involved when trying to find answers to this essay's main question, "When" might non-governmental human space presence be feasible. From such basis, arguments suggesting a few differing approximate dates might be advanced. Some space flight pessimists, due to being unfamiliar with the field's technology status and history, might assert that only after far- future unplannable occurrence of fundamental discoveries, might human presence in space have merit, occur on any socially significant scale. Natures of those postulated ideal break-throughs might include the likes of "Anti-Grav" engines, or presently unknown means to easily reach naturally human habitable worlds about other stars. We, who are familiar with Space Development concepts, believe they'd be nice to have, but know that much can be done soon, without waiting for them to occur. There are many techniques, "Buildable in the 1960's", which could have formed the engineering basis for space services carried out by non-government organizations. The German missiles and space developers provided seeds, from which substantial space efforts, in 1940's or early 1950's, could have been feasibly done, if only a willing sponsor had been found. (USA demonstrably Was Not willing, beyond far more modest scale experimentation, such as with Viking rockets at White Sands.) This essay poses a challenge to readers who are, or may be willing to become, knowledgeable of spaceflight technology history, are interested in Space Economic Development concepts. They are asked to provide arguments and speculation as to when in past or future history governmental support for spaceflight became or might become non- essential. A few related historic and technic factors were cited. Notes [*] Typed composition began Mon. 4-12-93. The issue has occurred to me various times over the years. Though not (at least initially) consulting the former text in writing this essay, occasionally pin & paper entries to J. of F.A.B. have been generated on this topic. [DcShtl] Upon seeing articles written by persons opposing continuation of the US NASA / DoD Space Shuttle effort, during 1975 to mid '80's, I'd logged, to personal journal, reactions on numerous occasions. Frequently in that period those reactions flowed from my belief, held at the time, that failure to accomplish the set of programs including Mercury, Apollo, Shuttle, would be equivalent to deciding that humans would be prevented from traveling spaceward. That might last for as much of the rest of this cycle in terrestrial civilization as could be forecast. Rationale at the time was along the lines that if US federal policy makers were to terminate their interest in human space flight, the social /political climate of the 1970's left suspicion that there weren't any other likely candidates, within western society, to consider taking it over as substitute players. And only continued early expensive steps might permit evolution of future more affordable and socially significant steps. It seemed preferably that the early steps be unbroken. Hence need to repeat them again later might be avoided. Then the USSR was in space. But it was an extern foe, not promoter, from within, of western society. Besides, USSR use for people in space was to substitute for weaknesses in automated system reliability, rather than being likely to lead toward founding self sustaining communities, making their living with non-terrestrial resources. The current text is intended to provoke critical examination, by a number of people, of this past assumption or belief. [pspnovl] By R.H. Heinlein, there was: the film, _Destination Moon_; several stories in the collection, _The Man Who Sold The Moon_; by another author, a novel, _To Touch the Stars: Emergence_ [NewSPrl] From between 1989 and '91, one of those rare new ideas arose, and deserves mention. That's the Magnetic Sail. It was originated by Robert Zubrin from Martin Marrietta/ Astronautics and Dana Andrews from Boeing /Aerospace. As a cover article from May 1992 issue of Analog Mgz., a general audience level article appeared. AIAA's J. of Spacecraft and Rockets contained a technical paper on the subject just a few months earlier. This was file DNSPF.TXT . Signed, Frank Bynum, mail c/o C.A. Bynum, 1616 Rosewood Ave., Louisville KY 40204 e-mail on the InterNet: bynum@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu ph. 502/459-3033 ------------------------------ Date: 11 May 93 18:50:01 -0600 From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey Subject: Why we like DC-X (was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X?) Newsgroups: sci.space Ken: Your arguments are thoughtful but you are going up against the Big Boys if you're tackling Henry. Allen Sherzer will doubtless chime in on the subject of staggering operational costs, too. Good luck, son. In article <1sp513$beo@hsc.usc.edu>, khayash@hsc.usc.edu (Ken Hayashida) writes: >Shuttle is the only method in the free world of orbiting large life sciences >and medical related packages. Ahem. The Russians are in the Free World now, or at least it would be Politically Correct to contend so. >I am hopeful that DC-X, or whatever the follow-on is eventually called, >will perform as you state. But right now, I must admit that I am more >skeptical than ever. It will be tough to make DC-X succeed, and to turn it into an operational orbital vehicle. Doubtless it will fail to meet some of the promised goals. The reason people are so fond of it is that it's the *only* chance we have now, or will have for a *long* time to come, to develop a launch vehicle with radically lower costs. There is no Shuttle successor in funded development, NASP is dwindling away, and ALS/NLS/Spacelifter sure as hell aren't gonna knock any zeroes off that $2000-$3000 per pound cost. Part of the blame for this must be placed on a Shuttle program that consumes many annual billions of the, er, Free World's available space cash. As you will no doubt hear from many correspondents in the days to come. (-: DC-X is an attempt to break out of the vicious cycle by keeping development costs low and flying incremental "X-plane" hardware. It's been, to my mind, incredibly successful already-- they've built a complex prototype in under 600 days for under 60 megabucks. I would have been extremely skeptical that this could be accomplished in 1990s America, never mind flying the thing, getting a successor funded, or building the DC-Y. I'm sure you know well that launch costs are THE basic problem for any expansion of astronautics. I don't see a realistic prospect for beating down those costs, for multi-ton payloads, anywhere else. If the DC flops, it'll be business as usual in space. The Nineties and the Double-Oughts will look just like the Seventies and Eighties, a prospect too depressing to bear. (Pegasus represents another assault on the problem from a different direction. It doesn't lower cost-per-pound but it offers an orbital launch for under ten megabucks. It's creating its own market for small payloads.) I read the magazines and I've attended the last two IAFs. There are plenty of engineers with paper ideas for cheaper launch systems, some of them as good as or better than SSTO. There is no sign in today's world that any of these designs will be allowed anywhere near an assembly line. >You could change my view on DC-X if you could prove the following: [...deleting some things I'm not going to prove tonight...] >3 that the shuttle need not go on hiatus to allow development of a man-ratable >DC-X successor Strawman. Is anybody seriously proposing this? References, please. The DC must be developed in the real-world funding climate, which includes a NASA ferociously committed to continuing Shuttle operations, as well as the "bird in the hand" argument your common sense tells you. If DC-Y flies at all, it flies alongside the Shuttle, not instead of it. Also, of course, DC-Y and its operational descendants will be useful for a wide variety of jobs even if they are *not* man-rated. >4 Most importantly, that the DC-X will open up LEO to more scientific and >technical payloads. If a DC-X successor can fly a 10,000-kg payload for $1M, or even $5M, rather than the $40M it now costs, more people will be able to afford more payloads... for the same money, you can fly several satellites instead of one. Big outfits can fly multi-satellite series. Little outfits will be able to fly spacecraft of their own, instead of begging a ride. This is just supply and demand. You should be able to convince *yourself* that point 4 will be true, assuming DC makes a big difference in costs. Do you have some reason to think not? O~~* /_) ' / / /_/ ' , , ' ,_ _ \|/ - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / / / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap! / \ (_) (_) / | \ | | Bill Higgins Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory \ / Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET - - Internet: HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV ~ SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 03:12:08 GMT From: "Simon E. Booth" Subject: Yoo hoo, White Sands? (was Re: DC-X Status?) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993May11.142733.7620@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> wdwells@nyx.cs.du.edu (David "Fuzzy" Wells) writes: >Actually, the best food is near the northern part of the range in San >Antonio at the Owl Bar and Cafe.....best green chile cheeseburgers you >ever tasted!! > And while in San Antonio, check out the Alamo.. wait, wrong San Antonio! :-) Seriously- I don't think I've heard of San Antonio, New Mexico. You learn something new every day. Seriously, would White Sands become an operations area for the space-capable versions of the DC series? Simon ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 03:49:33 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Yoo hoo, White Sands? (was Re: DC-X Status?) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993May12.031208.11167@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes: >Seriously, would White Sands become an operations area for the space-capable >versions of the DC series? I'm not sure anybody's planned that far ahead in detail, but it's an obvious possibility. The management there seems less hidebound than the people at the Cape and Vandenberg. -- 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: 12 May 93 00:10:08 From: Craig Powderkeg DeForest Subject: Yoo hoo, White Sands? (was Re: DC-X Status?) Newsgroups: sci.space In article wdwells@nyx.cs.du.edu (David "Fuzzy" Wells) writes: Actually, the best food is near the northern part of the range in San Antonio at the Owl Bar and Cafe.....best green chile cheeseburgers you ever tasted!! Actually, the most well-visited Deli-cum-pizza-joint in the area is the Star Wars Deli, located on the highway back to Las Cruces, New Mexico. It's the only eatery within 10 miles of the base. I bet the DC-X people eat there. We did. So did all the other scientific teams we met. -- DON'T DRINK SOAP! DILUTE DILUTE! OK! ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 560 ------------------------------