HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Ulysses Update - 12/11/92
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Keywords:  Ulysses, JPL, ESA
Reply-To: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 01:57:36 GMT

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
                        December 11, 1992

     All spacecraft and science operations are performing well. 
Routine Earth-pointing maneuvers continue to be conducted about
every five days.  The last maneuver was performed on Dec. 9 and
the next is scheduled for Dec. 14.

     Ulysses' on-board tape recorders will be switched tomorrow,
Dec. 12.  Tape recorder 2 will become the primary recorder and
tape recorder 1 will be used as a backup unit.

     A reduction in the number of ranging passes continued during
this reporting period to improve the spacecraft signal at its
great distance from Earth.  Today Ulysses is about 760 million
kilometers (470 million miles) from Earth, traveling at a
heliocentric velocity of about 32,500 kilometers per hour (20,600
miles per hour).  The spacecraft is 14.3 degrees south of the
ecliptic plane in which the planets orbit, slowly looping its way
back toward the sun.

     The Keppler Gas Experiment that measures neutral helium gas
from interstellar space was turned on again on Dec. 9. 
Measurement of the arrival speed and direction of the
interstellar gas allows scientists to determine how our solar
system is moving through interstellar space.  Now that Ulysses
has climbed more than 14 degrees out of the ecliptic plane, it is
possible to determine speed and direction more accurately by
including measurements made in the third dimension.

                            #####   
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The 3 things that children 
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | find the most fascinating:
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | space, dinosaurs and ghosts.
From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 20:10:25 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

>>Ever hear of the "Manned Orbiting Laboratory"? A Gemini with a very
>>Spacelab-like module launched together by Titan III.
>
>Yeah, I've heard of it.  I've also heard that it was cancelled about 25 years
>ago, and that none of them ever flew.
>
>Spacelab is very dependent on the Shuttle for life support, power, and heat
>rejection.  You couldn't fly it on a Titan IV (which was my point).
>
>Mike

 My point was that we could do more or less the same thing without
 Shuttle. MOL was cancelled without a manned flight (a boilerplate
 flew, though) basically because NASA was already spending billions
 on SkyLab and the Congress said 'No.'
 
 -Brian
 
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Casinissini Udergoed Intense Design  Review
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 01:22:25 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Dec12.055831.783@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> rkornilo@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ryan Korniloff) writes:
>Regarding the Titan probe - will it have a camra to take images of the
>landscape? ...

There is an imaging system of some sort -- I forget the details -- on
Huygens (the Titan probe that will fly on Cassini).

(My personal opinion is that the omission of this on Galileo's probe was
a mistake, although admittedly it would have taken a major redesign
because the probe's data rate is too low for imaging.)
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 11:02:41 GMT

In article <ewright.724443671@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <1992Dec11.175719.24880@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>I'm sure that Truax, who worked alongside Robert Goddard, will
>appreciate your educating him about the main concerns in building
>liquid rockets. :-)

I'm not trying to educate Truax. I'm sure he's aware of the various
causes of vehicle stress. It's not clear that you are, however.

Gary
From: wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Titan IV
Date: 13 Dec 92 20:40:48 GMT
Organization: Alpha Science Computer Network, Denver, Co.

In article <71519@cup.portal.com| BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:
|
|That was Number 6. I never heard anything about it, and was mildly
|surprised to read about it in this weeks AVLeak and Space News. It
|got no attention from the media (to the USAF's delight, no doubt), not
|even with the last military shuttle mission launched a few days later.

It made our media. Denver Post: _Titan IV Carries Secret Payload Into
Space_, Vandeberg AFB, CA -- At Titan IV rocket carrying a secret
government payload was launched yesterday from this central coast
base, officials said...etc.

-- 
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom) Bulletin 629-49 Item 6700 Extract 75,131
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Hubble's view of the universe
Date: 12 Dec 92 03:07:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.Bz4M8v.F3J.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology formerly National Bureau of Standards
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU


-From: zellner@stsci.edu
-Subject: Re:  Hubble's view of the universe
-Date: 11 Dec 92 16:03:04 GMT
-Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute

-HST _currently_ has a highly stable and computable point-spread-function with
-a sharp inner core 0.1 arcsecond in diameter, with the peak intensity confined
-to a single pixel of the Planetary Camera (0.04 arcsecond).  The effect of 
-the spherical aberration is essentially to waste light, putting most of the
-light in a much larger cob-web pattern.  The effect of the WFPC2 and COSTAR
-corrective optics will be to put that wasted light back into the central
-core.  I would be delighted to hear that any ground-based telescope can do
-that routinely for faint objects, but it remains to be demonstrated.

-Ben

Could you please compare the imagers of WFPC and WFPC2? In the HST lecture
I recently attended, Dana Mitchell said that WFPC uses 800 x 800 arrays
(four at a time?). He said that the new imagers can be operated at a higher
temperature, and implied that they have more pixels. I don't know about
relative sensitity to light.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: M22079@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Relay to Follow Galileo?
Date: 17 Dec 92 18:25:13 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <n1201t@ofa123.fidonet.org>
David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
 
>
>No matter which way you cut it, a TDRS is too heavy to be launched to Jupiter
>orbit from the shuttle (remember it needs to carry fuel for Jupiter orbit
>insertion, as well).
>
>One of the problems with the space activist commnity is that we tend to make
>half-a**ed designs here on the net, instead of what we should be doing:
>creating an environment where things simply don't go wrong in the first place.
>That's what TQM is all about.
>
>--- Maximus 2.00
 
     I would like to see the math that shows that TDRS could not be sent to
Jupiter, remember that a TDRS has relatively large fuel tanks, in addition to
fuel in the IUS.
     I believe the redesign of TDRS-F looked very complicated and was thought
very risky.  I was not consulted and did not look into it.  The link budget
 would need to be quite a bit different than the situations for which TDRS
was designed.
 
      These opinion are my own.   KPITT@MITRE.ORG
From: mt90dac@brunel.ac.uk (Del Cotter)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Aurora
Date: 18 Dec 92 13:05:56 GMT
Organization: Brunel University, West London, UK

In article <STEINLY.92Dec16152132@topaz.ucsc.edu> Steinn Sigurdsson writes:
>In article <BzCzo5.76z.1@cs.cmu.edu> nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes:
>
>   Assuming that it's launching from the continental USA. Seems much more
>   likely to me (given the sightings over the Netherlands as well) that
>   one of the long-runway US bases in the UK or Germany is `home' to an
>   Aurora.
>
>Nah, not isolated enough, rumour seems to be that the forward
>base is a US NATO base in Scotland. 

Yes, Scotland's still in the UK at time of writing...

(What's a US NATO base?)

-- 
 ',' ' ',','  |                                                  |  ',' ' ',','
   ', ,','    |       Del Cotter       mt90dac@brunel.ac.uk      |    ', ,','  
     ','      |                                                  |      ','
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Space Tourism
From: hugh@whio.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz (Hugh Emberson)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 07:44:43 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept., University of Canterbury, New Zealand

>>>>> On 11 Dec 92 18:43:47 -0600, higgins@fnalo.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) said:
Bill> NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalo.fnal.gov

Bill> In article <Bz462y.4or@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:
> So, if 350 people will pay 
> I think we can assume that this price will provide a big enough market for
> space tourism.  The next question is how much higher it can get before the
> market dries up.  Is there any other data out there?  What's the maximum that
> real people pay for really cool Earth-bound trips?  Anyone ever priced a trip
> to Antarctica?

It costs  NZ$60,000 (~US$30,000) for a guided tour to the top of Mt.
Everest. 

Bill> My parents circled Mt. Everest in a jetliner, on a round-the-world
Bill> trip that probably cost them several kilobucks apiece.  How much would
Bill> it be worth to land there?

Don't you mean Mt. Erebus in Antartica?  I can't see anyone landing a
airliner in the close to Mt. Everest.  

Air New Zealand used to fly DC-10's around Mt. Erebus, until they flew
one into it.

Hugh
--
Hugh Emberson -- CS Postgrad
hugh@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: absolutely, positively overnight
Date: 11 Dec 92 17:24:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: ke4zv.1992Dec11.172437.24552
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <Bz20KA.MwD@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
[on jet lag]
>However, on closer examination, trip time is relevant... because a long
>fatiguing trip can only make the problem worse.  The shorter the better.

That depends on trip direction. Getting some sleep on the plane can ease
jet lag if you are heading into morning.

>I'm sure that if certification were suitable and appropriate facilities
>were widespread, there'd be a few executive DC-1s bought.  The Saudi
>royal family would surely buy one.  And then there's Air Force One...

Take a look at Air Force One, or Two. A 747 and a 707. The Air Force
is very conservative in the choice of aircraft on which to fly the
President. The Saudi royals are even more conservative. Maybe a
playboy nephew might be allowed on a high performance aircraft,
but none of those directly in line for the throne. Give DC 20 
years of routine passenger carrying flight experience, then if
it's record was good enough, maybe.

Gary
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Date: 18 Dec 1992 23:53:55 GMT
Organization: UDSI
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <1992Dec16.143834.533@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.200752.13747@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>>
>the same. The two designs lead to different stresses, though. A low volume, 
>high pressure pump has different failure modes than a low pressure, high 
>volume pump. One is not necessarily better than the other.
>
>Gary


Kinda like the difference between Glider Landings and Powered Vertical
Descent;-)




.
From: higgins@fnalo.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Did HGA suffer from heat? (Re: : Relay to Follow Galileo?)
Date: 18 Dec 92 11:14:01 -0600
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalo.fnal.gov

In article <roelle.724695444@uars_mag>, roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle) writes:
> Is there a possiblity that, despite Galileo's HGA parasol, solar heat
> could have still been a factor in its failure to deploy?  Especially
> when one considers that for the nine successful deployments out of
> ten, cited above, every corresponding spacecraft never left earth
> orbit, while Galileo got as close to the sun as the planet Venus.

My guess: No.  Good question, but also a very obvious one (launch was
in October 1989, Venus encounter February 1990, HGA attempt April
1991).  I would presume that the Galileo people investigated this idea
very thoroughly, although I don't have first-hand knowledge about
their inquiries.  

They've never publicly suggested that solar heat was involved in the
problem, so I presume they have reason to be satisfied that the cause
lies elsewhere.  Their best guess is loss of lubricant between the
alignment pins on the ribs and the sockets on the central mast,
possibly due to excessive vibration as Galileo was trucked  to
California from the Cape and back again after modifications.

Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey         | "I'm gonna keep on writing songs
Fermilab                          | until I write the song
Bitnet:      HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET  | that makes the guys in Detroit
Internet:  HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV  | who draw the cars
SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS  | put tailfins on 'em again."
                                            --John Prine
From: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Lageos
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 16 Dec 92  07:55:06

Hmmm...it looks like Lageos would have been a good mission for either the new 
Taurus launcher, or the new extended Pegasus.

--- Maximus 2.00
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:21:11 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1992Dec11.175719.24880@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

>Snide remarks not withstanding, chamber pressure isn't the only form
>of stress on a vehicle. While I like Truax's Sea Dragon proposal
>on several grounds, the low chamber pressures lead to very high
>loads on the turbopumps because so much more fuel per unit time
>has to flow to achieve the high thrust required with low pressure
>engines. Reducing stress in one area can lead to increased stress 
>in another area when the objective remains to get a vehicle from 
>surface to orbit in a single leap. The high speed pumps, not combustion 
>chamber stresses, are the main reliability concern of liquid fuel rockets
>anyway.

I'm sure that Truax, who worked alongside Robert Goddard, will
appreciate your educating him about the main concerns in building
liquid rockets. :-)


>>No, it's not.  The mass of propellent required for a vertical landing
>>is much less than the weight of the wings.  The only way you can possibly
>>come out ahead is if you use the wings for lift on both takeoff and landing.

>I'm not convinced this is true, especially if most of the "wing" is really
>lifting body. Also the fuel is not the only mass penalty of VTOL, bigger
>tankage and structure are required as well. 

Again, people like Truax are convinced, and they have the advantage
of actually having done the math.  You are completely adamant about 
not believing anyone who has done the math, yet have never shown us
any figures of your own to prove they are wrong.  If you don't do the
math, it isn't science, it's opinion.
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Wither the ET?
Date: 17 Dec 1992 20:07:30 GMT
Organization: UDSI
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <Bz689p.Gr4@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:
>or is ET use to remain forever a dream?  Did the SOFI (Spray On Foam Insulation)



I saw a preseentation on uses for the ET's, and asked about the insulation
problem.  THe response was, that given the low density of the insulation and
the presence of atomicx  oxygen, any kernels  would not last more then
14 days in orbit, an acceptable level of problem reduction.

Now my gut instinct is that the best way to use the ET's  would be in a
wet workshop configuration,  ALA skylab.   rig the tanks with either
Airlocks,  or hardpoints for airlocks,  and put flooring and racks
in,  flooded in the LOX/LH2.   then just carry cargo in the Shuttle
Bay and load it in, before you put an atmosphere in.   

they also had lots of applications, using the tanks as carriers.
put a truss on hte tank, and then hang stuff off the truss.

i saw it, but i couldnt see people going for 2 week expendable space craft.

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com (Dennis Newkirk)
Subject: Re: Sea Dragon?
Organization: Motorola
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 09:27:28 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.161811.989@cs.ucf.edu> clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke) writes:
>I see many references to Bob Truax's Sea Dragon design.
>
>Can anyone point me at a reference, or post a summary
>of the Sea Dragon?

Do you mean the 1965 Aerojet proposal for a heavy lift
water launched booster?  There is a short summary in
US Civilian Space Programs 1958-1981, Vol. 1, Congressional
Research Service, Jan. 1981. pp 251. Also summarys for
Roost and CLOV Big Dumb Booster (Project Scrimp).

Sea Dragon:
lift-off weight 45,360,000 kg.
2 stage, water launched, pressure fed motors. 
both stages reusable 
recovered by unaided atmospheric and hydrodynamic deceleration only

The book says little more about it but talks about benefits
of reusable design.


Dennis Newkirk (dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com)
Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 12:30:30 GMT

In article <ewright.724443346@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>
>There are different ways of designing redundancy into a system.  Some
>reduce the probability of a failure, others increase it.  Engineers
>are taught to recognize the difference, maximize the former, and minimize
>the latter.  Your multi-megawatt generators wouldn't work very well,
>either, if the engineers were the kind of blithering idiots that you
>assume everyone who works on SSTO must be.

No, I don't assume the engineers working on SSTO are blithering idiots,
just some of the posters making bizzare claims comparing 747s and LEMs
to DC fit that description. I expect that the engineers actually working
on the program fully realize what new ground they are breaking and what
risks their program represents.

Gary

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: DC vs Shuttle capabilities
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 01:49:54 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <b-p254n@rpi.edu> strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes:
>>>on rendezvous and repair.  So, now we have to get 3 objects in close
>>>proximity to each other...
>>Last time I flew back into DFW, I saw more than three planes on
>>the ground, in close proximity to one another.  I saw people and
>>baggage being transferred between flights.   Looks do-able.
>>
>	Umm, so?  Tell me, did you see 3 aircraft landing at the same
>time, or flying in formation?  Did you see baggage transferred between
>them while in flight?  I'm not talking about on the ground, I'm talking
>about in space...

Why do you assume that "in the air" is a better analogy for "in space"
than "on the ground" is?  Flying aircraft in close proximity is vastly
harder than doing the same for spacecraft, because of the complex and
unpredictable behavior of the atmosphere.  In-orbit operations resemble
on-ground operations more than in-flight operations:  the environment
is simple and predictable and you can take your time.
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: Space Tourism
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 00:05:36 GMT

On Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:23:21 GMT, jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins) said:

J> Right.  There was an Air & Space article on this a number of years ago.  They
J> also carried the original add in their first issue - quite an eyecatcher.  As
J> I recall there were something like 350 people who put down $500 deposits on a
J> $52,000 flight.  I think they were eventually refunded but I'm pretty sure 
J> that they were supposed to be non-refundable.  So, if 350 people will pay 
J> $52,000 for a vehicle that isn't flying and isn't all that heavily advertised
J> I think we can assume that this price will provide a big enough market for
J> space tourism.  The next question is how much higher it can get before the
J> market dries up.  Is there any other data out there?  What's the maximum that
J> real people pay for really cool Earth-bound trips?  Anyone ever priced a trip
J> to Antarctica?

My husband and I each paid $3,000 to go to the Patriot Hills in
Antarctica, on a DC-6 from Punta Arenas.  The folks on the plane who
went on to the pole paid $20,000.  It's a lot cheaper to just go
to the shore by boat, but we went deep into the interior.

--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."  Unknown US fighter pilot
From: higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Shut up about DC (was Re: DC vs Shuttle capabilities)
Date: 17 Dec 92 14:39:31 -0600
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalf.fnal.gov

In article <pgm2hxr@rpi.edu>, strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes:
> In article <ewright.724354656@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>>Depends on your assumptions.  I've done some back-of-the-envelope
>>calculations.  If you can set up an oxygen-extraction plant on the
>>Moon, your costs go way down if you land the DC with its LOX tank
>>dry.  
[...]
> 	Right, that works fine once you've built your power-plant
> on the moon.  I'm talking at first.  It seems to me that someone
> here is forgetting the middle step of testing and flying the thing.

Greg is right.  Everyone on the Net should refrain from speculating on 
the potential applications of the DC series and its derivatives until
all these spacecraft are tested and flown.

Sheesh.

Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey              | "Enough marshmallows
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | will kill you 
Bitnet:           HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET  | if properly placed."
Internet:       HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV  | --John Alexander, leader of
SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS  | "disabling technologies"
 [*Aviation Week*, 7 Dec 1992, p. 50]  | research, Los Alamos
Newsgroups: sci.space