HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: Moon can hold its air (was Re: Mars over the Moon???)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 16:32:57 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.094520.1@fnalc.fnal.gov> higgins@fnalc.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>In article <1ddrqjINNns7@uranium.sto.pdb.sni.de>, sav@nanette.sni.de (Dr.Savory) writes:
>> Any body to be terraformed should have sufficient gravity to retain
>> an atmosphere (obvious?), so exclude the moon, OK ;)
>
>This is unfair to the Moon.  If it were magically given an atmosphere,
>the Moon would retain it for a long time, at least thousands of years.

This depends *entirely* on what kind of atmosphere you *put* there.
Sure, an atmosphere of pure Xenon would last a 'long time' but an
atmosphere of H or He would get blown away in a matter of a 'short time'.

>As somebody already mentioned, the Moon is not a good candidate for
>terraforming because it has no large native source of volatiles. 
>However, claiming that it can't hang on to an atmosphere is not valid
>for short timescales.

Yes, and according the Heisenberg, we can do *anything* if we make
sure we do it often enough  ;-)

>
>It seems to me that anybody who had the technology to give the Moon an
>atmosphere would find it easy to freshen it up every millenium or so
>with new gases...
>
>(Should I mention this?  Oh, what the heck, go ahead, Bill.  In the
>absolutely clunker TV series *Space 1999* there is an episode where
>precisely this happens: a mysterious alien cylinder suddenly gives the
>Moon a breathable atmosphere.  The happy human crew of Moonbase Alpha,
>who have spend their whole TV career huddled underground or working in
>spacesuits, run outside and begin playing volleyball.  We see a shot
>from outside a window of Barbara Bain and Martin Landau watching this
>magic moment. Then one of them touches a control AND THE MOONBASE
>ALPHA WINDOW SLIDES OPEN ELECTRICALLY.
>
>(Back in grade school we used to say, "That makes about as much sense
>as a screen door on a submarine.")
>
>Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey              | 
>Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | "Get the dinosaurs in, Martha, 
>Bitnet:           HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET  |  they're predicting comets."
>Internet:       HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV  |      --Dr. Barry D. Gehm
>SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS  |


-- 
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Perpetual Student                                   knapp@spot.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Mars Simulation in Antarctica
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 02:05:15 GMT

In article <1ds2aoINN1hp@gap.caltech.edu> kwp@wag.caltech.edu (Kevin W. Plaxco) writes:
>>	Later this season, NASA plans to send an eight-legged robot into the
>>crater of Antarctica's Mount Erebus, the world's only easily-reached volcano
>>with a permanent lava lake.  

>This is obviously some new definition of the phrase "easily-reached".

How about, "within 25(?) miles of a United States Navy base?" Mt.
Erebus is right next to MacMurdo station, which is a fairly 
sizeable establishment providing all the logistical support for
American research stations in the Antarctic.

                                          Frank Crary
                                          CU Boulder

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: cecil@physics.unc.edu (Gerald Cecil)
Subject: Re: Where are Pioneer and Voyager Headed?
Reply-To: cecil@physics.unc.edu
Organization: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:52:06 GMT

In article 1@scivax.stsci.edu, mbobrowsky@scivax.stsci.edu () writes:
>A student asked me what direction the Pioneer and
>Voyager spacecraft are headed.  I had no idea but
>I said I'd try to find out.  Does anyone have an
>approximate RA and Dec for the asymptote of the
>trajectories of any of the four spacecraft that
>are beyond Pluto's orbit?

The Starflight Handbook, p.6 quotes figures from
Cesarone, Sergeyevsky, and Kerridge, ``Prospects for the
Voyager Extra-Planetary and Interstellar Mission'', JBIS 37
(March 1984), 99-116.  Anyone have this handy? 

The Starflight book gives the following table:
                Pioneer 10    Pioneer 11   Voyager 1   Voyager 2
Loss of Signal   1994/59 AU   1996/45 AU   2012/121 AU 2013/106 AU
Departure Vel
Asymptotic (AU/yr)  2.4       2.2          3.5         3.4
Trajectory angle
to Earth Orbit plane 2.9      12.6         35.5        -47.5
(degs)
Closest stellar     3.27      1.65         1.64        0.80
approach (ly)
Star                Ross 248  AC +79 3888  AC +79 3888 Sirius
yrs to reach        32,600    42,200       40,300      497,0000

The Pioneer 11 & Voyager 1 trajectories look quite different, but they are
both going in the general direction of AC +79... whose name gives the Dec
at least.
---
Gerald Cecil cecil@wrath.physics.unc.edu  919-962-7169 
Physics & Astronomy, U of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3255 USA

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: veit@opal.cs.tu-berlin.de (Veit Zimmermann)
Subject: Request: Mars Observer information
Keywords: Mars Mission
Organization: Techn. University of Berlin, Germany
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 10:57:16 GMT

Hi Everybody

I'm looking for Information about the Mars Observer mission (See sub).
I know that Ron does a very good coverage on the advances of the mission
(thank's Ron), But I need generell Information about Experiments and
flight trajectory. I have to make a small lecture at Berlin University.
So ANY, really ANY Information is of interest for me.
If anybody is interrested, I could do a summary.

Thanks 

		veit@troll.cs.tu-berlin.de

Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Pioneer 6 Update - 11/11/92
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:55:25 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Nov12.144347.5579@news.weeg.uiowa.edu> jboggs@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (John D. Boggs) writes:
>Where is Pioneer 6 now?  Is that the one that passed Pluto's orbit some
>time back? ...

No, Pioneers 6-9 are in solar orbits relatively near the Earth's orbit.
Their mission was fields-and-particles measurements in interplanetary
space.
-- 
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Asteroid impact simulation
Date: 10 Nov 92 02:55:32 GMT
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: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
-Subject: Re: "Earth Gains a Retinue of Mini-Asteroids"
-Date: 9 Nov 92 18:05:25 GMT
-Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park

-In article <BxAxsL.LLC.1@cs.cmu.edu>, amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk writes:

->With objects sized on the order of Barringer I can well imagine the  
->mushroom cloud occuring: the energy is released very rapidly and in a  
->very small area. Although at a certain size the explosion simply  
->blows a hole in the atmosphere, ie it is a circular curtain rather  
->than a mushroom cloud. 

-I wonder how much trouble it would be to try to recreate one of those events
-under controlled and monitoried conditions. 

-All we need is an asteroid, a vacant plot of land, and a lot of confidence
-in our aiming. 

One of the episodes of "Space Age" showed an early V-2 launch where the
rocket was allowed to land ballistically. I believe the crater it made
was 80 feet across and 40 feet deep, with virtually none of the rocket
remaining recognizable. (Thus the incentive to develop in-flight radio
contact for collection of scientific data. :-)

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary
From: sl25@cus.cam.ac.uk (Steve Linton)
Subject: Re: Lunar "colony" reality check
Organization: U of Cambridge, England
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:21:30 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.143433.18514@news.weeg.uiowa.edu>, jboggs@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (John D. Boggs) writes:
|> From article <1992Nov11.005151.15358@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov>, by jenkins@fritz (Steve Jenkins):
|> > 
|> > Oxygen, like many gases, has narcotic effects at very high pressures,
|> > such as in deep-sea diving.  It can cause blindness in newborns
|> > 
|> 
|> Yes to blindness in newborns, but it is the *nitrogen* that has the narcotic
|> effect in deep sea diving -- hence the use of helium for the really really
|> deep dives.

Oxygen causes drunkenness-like symptoms above around 2atm. Any inert gas (except
helium, which I'll come back to) causes narcosis (anaesthesia) at sufficient
partial pressure. Roughly, the larger the molecule, the lower the pressure
needed. For nitrogen it's about 10atm, for ether or chloroform, less than 1.
Helium, presumably because of its very small molecule, causes the opposite effect
at very high pressure (> 50atm), causing trembling and over-excitation  of the
nerves. Hence divers at great depths breathe  mostly helium, with a few %
nitrogen to balance the effect of the helium, and less than 1% oxygen. Hydrogen
is also used, but I'm not sure of the details.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Subject: Re: Man in space ...
Originator: nickh@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<1992Nov5.062650.20243@ils.nwu.edu> <BxDHG0.6Eu@zoo.toronto.edu>
	<1992Nov9.182037.19085@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:50:03 GMT

Isn't the point of hyperventilating to boost stores of ATP? Clearly
you're not going to do much to increase the oxygen in the blood, but
the brain doesn't need oxygen, it needs energy.

This is what I've always thought hyperventilating does, and it seems
to work for me :-)

Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: NASA COVERUP
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 06:15:19 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <6583.309.uupcb@thcave.no> elling.olsen@thcave.no (Elling Olsen) writes:
>HS> This is laughable.
>
>Why don't you do some work and disprove the claim that the
>earth/moon neutral point have changed from 20,000-25,000 miles
>to 43,495 miles from the center of the moon?

I have too much real, worthwhile work to do already.

>Or is it more
>confortable to sit in your couch judging and laughing?

"They laughed at Fulton."

"Yes, but they also laughed at Rube Goldberg."
-- 
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Xref: sparky sci.space:15460 alt.conspiracy:11973
Subject: Man in space ... ) 
Distribution: world
Organization: Haveland-Robinson Associates
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 01:58:23 +0000


In article <1992Nov7.153032.9998@vax.oxford.ac.uk> atmtjkv@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:

>>>>>   What will happen if the space suite of an austronaut gets ripped in> space> ?
>>>> 
>>>Ever put your hand up against the nozzle of vacuum cleaner? Your skin
>>>will hold about 1 atmosphere pressure nicely.
>>>
>>>Astronauts might wear spacesuits without gloves for delicate work!
>> 
>> Ah well... I stand corrected...  Thanks for the explanation, it still

> Anyone who thinks you get 15psi of `suck' from a vacuum cleaner is
> seriously in error.  A typical reduction in pressure (nozzle to atmosphere)
> is about 2--4 inches of water: remember that one atmosphere is 32 feet of
> water approximately.  You need a much larger diameter, and a much larger
> rotation speed, to get a bigger pressure difference from a centrifugal
> pump for air, as the density is so low. To get a decent vacuum from
> something of a similar size you need a displacement-type pump (i.e. one 
> with valves, such as a diaphragm or rotary vane pump).  
>
> You can certainly plug up a hole about 1/4" diameter with your finger for at
> least a minute -- I've done it (got a leak rate of about 10^-8 mb l/s) ,
> but I wouldn't advise trying a larger area for a long time as the skin
> isn't sufficiently rigid.  I do remember a story of someone trying --
> he was in hospital for a long time.  
>
>Tim Kingsmill-Vellacott
>Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics
>University of Oxford, UK.
>tjkv@atm.ox.ac.uk  preferred


It's a little more than 2--4 inches of water!

I have a VAX, (no not the DEC thingy!)... and thought I'd actually do this
experiment with a rigid pipe 7ft in length.

It was struggling, some water was getting through because I could feel it
it the flexible section...  I then tilted the straight bit, and the water
flowed when the apex was about 6ft above the surface of the water.

Pressure difference = 14.7*6/32 = 2.76 psi

Doesn't sound a lot really, and it's quite a powerful vacuum cleaner (1kW)
Puts a real vacuum into perspective!  Based on this I certainly wouldn't
like to wear a gloveless space suit if the internal pressure is 5 psi...
2.76 psi would be bad enough.

                 /\ 7ft
       _       /  |
     +---+   /    |
     |VAX|_/      |
     |||||        |
    ~~~~~~~       |
                  |
                  |
                  |
                  |
                | | |
                |~|~|
                ~~~~~

Andy.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Haveland-Robinson Associates   | Email: andy@osea.demon.co.uk         |
| 54 Greenfield Road, London     |        ahaveland@cix.compulink.co.uk |
| N15 5EP England. 081-800 1708  | Also:  0621-88756 081-802 4502       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
> Some dream of doing great things, while others stay awake and do them <
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Low-pressure O2 atmosphere
Date: 11 Nov 92 16:24:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BxK8Gu.LvM.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: sl25@cus.cam.ac.uk (Steve Linton)
-Subject: Re: Low-Pressure O2 Atmosphere
-Date: 10 Nov 92 23:24:26 GMT
-Organization: U of Cambridge, England

-Once again. IT ISN'T THE PURITY IT'S THE PARTIAL PRESSURE!!
-In a 0.2 atm 100% O2 environment things burn just like they do on
-the ground. 

While that's mostly correct, the presence of inert gas makes *some* difference,
since it conducts away much of the heat of combustion.

In space, the local gravity has a strong influence on the rate of combustion.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: cfifer@rvgs.vak12ed.edu (Craig Fifer)
Subject: Re: Need Specific NASA Image
Organization: Virginia's Public Education Network (Roanoke)
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 92 18:55:38 GMT

You might try ftping to ames.arc.nasa.gov in the SPACE
directory, or contacting NASA at:

NASA Audio-Visual Facility
918 North Rengstorff Ave
Mountain View, CA  94043
(415)-604-6270

Now might me a good time to upload a quite extensive file I
have on how to obtain any data or images you need from NASA.
So as not to make you read it if you don't want to, I have put
it in a separate post called HOW TO GET DATA AND IMAGES.  I
hope this helps!

Craig Fifer
cfifer@rvgs.vak12ed.edu
-- 
_____________________________________________________________________________
|   Never play leapfrog with              |   Craig Fifer                   |
|   a unicorn!   -Murphy                  |   3736 Heritage Road, S.W.      |
|                                         |   Roanoke, Virginia  24015-4518 |
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: jtk@s1.gov (Jordin Kare)
Subject: Re: Slush Hydrogen
Organization: LLNL
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 18:50:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.002139.6768@ptdcs2.intel.com> greason@ptdcs2.intel.com (Jeff Greason ~) writes:
>
>What exactly is "slush hydrogen?"  

	It's the stuff that covers the sidewalks after a 
snowstorm on Jupiter :-)

	Jordin Kare

-- 

	Jordin Kare	jtk@s1.gov	510-426-0363
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: Asteroid impact simulation
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 15:28:18 GMT
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park
Distribution: sci
Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu

In article <BxHC55.6L3.1@cs.cmu.edu>, roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes:
>
>-From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
>-In article <BxAxsL.LLC.1@cs.cmu.edu>, amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk writes:
>
>->With objects sized on the order of Barringer I can well imagine the  
>->mushroom cloud occuring: the energy is released very rapidly and in a  
>->very small area. Although at a certain size the explosion simply  
>->blows a hole in the atmosphere, ie it is a circular curtain rather  
>->than a mushroom cloud. 
>
>-I wonder how much trouble it would be to try to recreate one of those events
>-under controlled and monitoried conditions. 
>
>-All we need is an asteroid, a vacant plot of land, and a lot of confidence
>-in our aiming. 
>
>One of the episodes of "Space Age" showed an early V-2 launch where the
>rocket was allowed to land ballistically. I believe the crater it made
>was 80 feet across and 40 feet deep, with virtually none of the rocket
>remaining recognizable. (Thus the incentive to develop in-flight radio
>contact for collection of scientific data. :-)

Naw, we need to measure the atmospheric effects of a large dense body as it 
reenters. Holes in the ground are easy to make; the military has perfected it
to a fine science. 

Referring to the original question: Do we get a circular curtain or a mushroom
cloud? 

Of course, the experiment would have to repeated for different circumstances of
temperature and humidity. 

				:-)

                 Play in the intelluctual sandbox of Usenet 

  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary
From: sl25@cus.cam.ac.uk (Steve Linton)
Subject: Re: Comet deflection & mining
Organization: U of Cambridge, England
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 07:34:28 GMT

In article <BxBGKy.34H@techbook.com>, szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
|> Deflecting anything but the strongest nickle-iron asteroid
|> with a nuclear explosive is silly.  Many asteroids are probably 
|> rubble piles, not single big rocks, and comets are so fragile we've 
|> seen some calve off big chunks and obliterate themselves just from
|> internal gas pressure.  For a comet, farting can be suicide!

You don't bomb the comet. You set off a fusion explosion a couple of km away
(maybe even more) to melt the skin on one side and produce a sudden burst of
outgassing. This might cause the comet to calve, though probably no large pieces
would still be on impact trajectories. If one was, repeat as needed.
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: FTS
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 04:56:22 GMT
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: benson@gemed (Mark Benson 5-4228)
-Subject: Re: Automated space station construction
-Date: 9 Nov 92 22:06:20 GMT
-Organization: GE Medical Systems, Milwaukee,  WI

-In article <1992Nov8.064256.7682@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU 
-(Frank Crary) writes:
->Is anyone looking into robots with very limited autonomy? That is,
->under direction from a human, but able to execute instructions on
->their own for periods of, say, ten seconds?

-Yes, I believe so.  SSF had (and I believe still has) a program for the
-Flight Telerobotic Servicer (FTS).  Under Phase B of the contract, various
-options were studied, ranging from basically remote control to releatively
-sophisticated, knowledge / rule based AI for functions ranging from task 
-planning and collision avoidance functions.  Among these possible levels was
-a basic "learn and play" mode, where the operator would do the first one, and 
-then basically just monitor the subsequent 'n' executions of the activity.
-I was working for Martin-Marietta at the time, and heard they won the
-contract.  Haven't heard much since.

-In fact, at the time, there was such a thing as the NASA / NBS Standard 
-Reference Model (NASREM), describing various levels of control over such
-a system, from task planning and resource scheduling down to individual joint
-motions and limit checks (kinematics).  

I believe the FTS has been cancelled, or at least deferred. Some time ago,
the person who was in charge of the NIST part of the project said funding
had been cut off.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: andy@osea.demon.co.uk (Andrew Haveland-Robinson)
Subject: Man in space ... ) 
Distribution: world
Organization: Haveland-Robinson Associates
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 22:13:05 +0000


In article <1992Nov6.155209.1@fnalf.fnal.gov> higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov writes:

>In article <ewright.721079973@convex.convex.com>, ewright@convex.com (Edward V.> Wright) writes:
>> In <720796989snx@osea.demon.co.uk> andy@osea.demon.co.uk (Andrew> Haveland-Robinson) writes:
>[reference to orginal posting has been lost.  It's denoted by ">>>" here.] 
>>>>   What will happen if the space suite of an austronaut gets ripped 
>>>>in space ?
>>>>   Some of us recon that he will explode while others that he will end up 
>>>>with lots of bruises!!. One thing that all of us agree, is that it is not
>>>>going to be a very healthy activity.
>> 
>>>Well Nick, my feeling is that he would nearly explode.  
>> 
>> Well, Andrew, it's like this.  The universe just doesn't care how
>> you *feel*.
>> 
>[explanation of what really happens deleted]
>
>> All of this information has been publicly available for *decades.*
>> So why do self-styled experts keep making up absolute nonsense
>> instead of just reading the relevent literature?
>
>Actually you have three choices:
>
>1. Make up absolute nonsense.
>2. Read the relevant literature.
>3. Ask the readers of Usenet.
>
>Choice 3 is not always appropriate, especially when 2 is available in
>an almanac or encyclopedia.  In this case it wasn't a bad idea, but I
>told Nick to use the fourth option:
>
>4. Check the sci.space FAQ to see if the question is answered there.
>
>As for Andy, I suppose he took what he knew about physics and biology
>and speculated about the answer.  That doesn't seem to deserve Ed's
>nasty tone... or does it?  You're allowed to be wrong around here, but
>you have to put up with the kidding. E.g.:
>
>Evidently Andy has seen *Total Recall* but not *2001*, or, if he's
>seen both, he believes the former has more accurate science than the
>latter.

Thanks for the support Bill - as I said it was just a feeling - without
experience or knowledge of the facts.  (I have seen 2001 but not Total
Recall)..  Now, if just the head was exposed to a vacuum...

I understand Ed's tone - it's easy to be critical if you know the subject
inside out (perhaps I'd do the same if a silly notion came up in my area
of expertise...  :-) , no, I'd try to be a little more circumspect...)

I'm sure that an awful lot of people too shy to postulate have benefited
something from this thread - I have!

Andy.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Haveland-Robinson Associates   | Email: andy@osea.demon.co.uk         |
| 54 Greenfield Road, London     |        ahaveland@cix.compulink.co.uk |
| N15 5EP England. 081-800 1708  | Also:  0621-88756 081-802 4502       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
> Some dream of doing great things, while others stay awake and do them <