HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams)
Subject: Re: STS-1 Disaster -- follow-up #2
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 02:22:37 GMT


eidetics@nic.cerf.net (Eidetics Int'l) writes:
 >SUBORBITAL FLIGHTS ARE *LESS* DANGEROUS BECAUSE THERE IS *NO* CHANCE OF
 >BURNING UP ON RE-ENTRY. 
Guess again... The reentry heating depends on the speed/altitude reached,
NOT if you have completed a full orbit...

 >NO SHUTTLE GROUND LAUNCHES WERE SECRET.  LAUNCHES FROM A 747, AT 
 >35,000 FEET OR SO, WOULD *NOT* BE EASY TO SEE.

Right, they would be IMPOSSIBLE to see, since NO such capability exists.

 >SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IS *LIKELY* TO BE HARD TO FIND WHEN COVERED UP 
 >BY SUCH POWERFUL PEOPLE.

No, "supporting evidence" is IMPOSSIBLE to find when something is dreamed up
by people with such a POWERFUL imagination and even MORE powerful ignorance.

 >THE ORIGINAL ENTERPRISE *DID* HAVE REGULAR ENGINES UNTIL ITS DESTRUCTION
 >DURING STS-2.  SO DOES ITS CLONE.

Oh, brother... So first your Columbia was destroyed, and then "Enterprise"??
Just *WHO* is BUILDING (and LAUNCHING) all these seemingly ENDLESS Shuttles
of yours?   I'm sure you don't remember all the TIME/MONEY/EFFORT it took
to get the Endeavour funded and built.

Of course *ALL* of this in relation to the Enterprise is total NONSENSE,
since it ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY had NO engines OR tiles.  Even the most
casual inspection by the most unknowing of persons can see that VERY easily.  
The one and ONLY Enterprise (OV-101) is now in a Smithsonian hanger...

 >PART OF THE REASON THAT CONSPIRATORS CAN GET AWAY WITH SUCH THINGS IS THAT
 >THEY KNOW THAT MOST PEOPLE WOULD NEVER BELIEVE IT
Yea, sure.  :-)

 >THEY HAVE BEEN PROGRAMMED BY THEIR TEACHERS ...

I would HOPE they had been "programmed" to tell the difference between
FACT and (very) wild fantasy...  Clearly some have NOT.  :->

In addition to a 100% total ignorance of the Space Transportation System,
perhaps the most telling part of this whole fictional posting was the
talk about "John Young and Robert Crippen 'entities'"..<heh>  I'm afraid
that shows all to obviously the rantings of a 100% certifiable WACKO! :-)

If Crip was a replicant, then just WHO was running the Space Shuttle program
for all that time?  What about all those NASA press conferences he was at?
I wonder if the congress had to pass any special waivers to allow "entities"
to testify before their committees?? 

Enquiring minds want to know!  :-)
From: gsyme@cix.compulink.co.uk (Gavin Syme)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: == No Subject ==
Date: 27 Dec 92 17:27:00 GMT
Reply-To: gsyme@cix.compulink.co.uk

In article <72445@cup.portal.com>, BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
 writes:

>  Oh, and despite what has been posted here from time to time, the
>  SPACEPORT USA tourist attraction DOES NOT provide bus rides to see
>  a Shuttle launch. The facility DOES NOT open until something like
>  two hours after a launch on the day in question....
>
Tickets to see STS-53 were available from the ticket office a week before
the launch. The facility opened at 3am, some 4 hours before the launch to
admit those with tickets either for their vehicles or for the bus tours.

I can't speak for the other launches, but we certainly watched the launch
from the causeway courtesy of Spaceport USA.

Gavin Syme  

'If God had meant systems analysts to fly, He would have given programmers 
 wings.'
From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: black tiles on the space shuttle
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 92 15:13:40 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

>
>
>        For Christmas I received a Space Shuttle model with instructions to
>paint the underside black.  This brought up the question "Why is the
>bottom of the Shuttle black?"  It occurred to us that a black surface might
>absorb a lot more radiation and that in space there might be greater
>exposure to radiation than on earth, so why isn't the whole shuttle white
>or perhaps silver to reflect as much as possible?
>
>        Perhaps a simple posted response would be better than everyone
>sending mail to me, only to have me follow up with a post.
>
>--
>/*______________________________Jeff Tannehill_______________________________*

    The shuttle uses many different types of thermal insulation. There
    are tiles and thermal blankets, and there are varieties of each.
    The black tiles are rated for the highest temperatures and are used
    where the shuttle gets the greatest heating (the underside, the nose,
    and the leading edge of the tail). White tiles are next, with the
    second-highest rated protection, and are used on the forward fuselage,
    the aft area, and the tail. The lowest temperatures on the shuttle
    are experienced on the upper surfaces, i.e., the tops of the wings
    and the tops of the payload bay doors. In this area, NASA switched
    from white tiles to thermal blankets in 1984, so Discovery, Atlantis,
    and Endeavour have blankets while Columbia still mostly has tiles.
    Both are white, but you can see the differences in good photos.
    
    That's a simple, but not complete or 100% accurate description. The
    Shuttle also uses a grey thermal insulation on the wing leading
    edges, but I'm not sure which category they belong to.
    
    Please note that the tiles and blankets have proven very effective
    in the years since the 1981-82 test flights, despite their
    reputation for being a maintenance nightmare. The average flight
    requires the replacement of only a half-dozen tiles (more on the
    dry-lake runways at Edwards, less on the concrete at the Cape.)
       
    -Brian

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
BrianT@cup.portal.com                               this must be heaven."
                                                -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky sci.space.shuttle:3043 sci.space:18311 sci.astro:13469 alt.conspiracy:13476 news.misc:2082
From: pfritsch@skid.ps.uci.edu (Paul Fritschle)
Subject: Re: The Space Shuttle Disaster Coverup Conspiracy (with extra slaw)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space,sci.astro,alt.conspiracy,news.misc
Organization: Miskatonic University Department of Computer Science
Date: 28 Dec 92 19:46:52 GMT
Distribution: usa
Followup-to: sci.space.shuttle,alt.conspiracy

Please take this thread off sci.astro.. it really doesn't go here.

--

Paul Fritschle                                         pfritsch@skid.PS.UCI.EDU
                 Have you hugged YOUR shoggoth today?
Xref: sparky sci.space.shuttle:3010 alt.conspiracy:13363 talk.politics.misc:65189
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: STS-1 Disaster -- follow-up #2
From: hugh@whio.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz (Hugh Emberson)
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 03:49:07 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept., University of Canterbury, New Zealand

>>>>> On 20 Dec 92 23:38:17 GMT, eidetics@nic.cerf.net (Eidetics Int'l) said:

JV>    SUBORBITAL FLIGHTS ARE *LESS* DANGEROUS BECAUSE THERE IS *NO* CHANCE OF
JV> BURNING UP ON RE-ENTRY.  EXPERIENCE IN ONE TYPE OF VEHICLE IS *NOT* MUCH HELP
JV> WITH A NEW AND DIFFERENT ONE.  ROCKET LAUNCHES DO *NOT* REQUIRE A PILOT, NOR DO
JV> PARACHUTE LANDINGS.

WHY did the ENTERPRISE need SHUTTLE TILES then, as you have PREVIOUSLY
stated?  

Hugh
--
Hugh Emberson -- CS Postgrad
hugh@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz
Xref: sparky sci.space.shuttle:3062 alt.conspiracy:13561
From: wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: The Space Shuttle Disaster Coverup Conspiracy (with extra slaw)
Summary: Don't forget the relish
Date: 31 Dec 92 00:41:45 GMT
Followup-To: sci.space.shuttle
Distribution: usa
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <1hnlo5INNivp@transfer.stratus.com> dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:
]In article <pfritsch.725571937@skid.ps.uci.edu>, pfritsch@skid.ps.uci.edu (Paul Fritschle) writes:
]> Please take this thread off sci.astro.. it really doesn't go here.
]
]I beg to differ, sir!  McElwaine threads go *everywhere*!

Yeah, that's why he's the sole occupant of my global killfile.

-- 
Patrick Chester            |----------------------------------------------------
wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu |"The earth is too fragile a basket in which to keep
Politically Incorrect      |  all your eggs." Robert A. Heinlein
Future Lunar Colonist      |"The meek can *have* the Earth. The rest of us are 
#^%$!! Militarist          |  going to the stars." Robert A. Heinlein
(Of the Sun Tzu mentality) |----------------------------------------------------
From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: KSC Tours while shuttle is on the launch pad
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 92 15:12:56 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

>I was wondering if someone at NASA could tell me how long before a
>launch one could take the KSC tour with a shuttle on the pad. My
>mom went to a convention in Miami last year and she said that a
>shuttle was on the launch pad when her KSC tour bus (tram?) went
>by, and she got a real good look at it up close. So what is the
>tour "window" for getting to do this?
>
>Thank you.
>
>--
>Julie Bixby                        Internet: markb@spock.dis.cccd.edu
>Engage Romulan .sig cloaking device....
>

  The shuttle is on the pad alot, but most of the time all you can see
  is the top of the tank sticking out above a mass or girders and beams
  called the Rotating Service Structure on the launch pad. The shuttle
  itself is surrounded by the RSS for weather protection and payload
  installation. Hence, to get a good look at the Shuttle, you have to
  be there when its on its way to the launch pad, the "roll-out" or
  immediately thereafter. I did that once and the bus (a bona-fide bus,
  not a tram) stopped about a half-mile away while the Shuttle was
  near the turn onto Launch Pad 39A. Then we went over to Pad 39B
  (unoccupied) and got out to take pictures... we watched it (Columbia
  on STS-9) climb up the incline a good distance before we left.
  
  Oh, and despite what has been posted here from time to time, the
  SPACEPORT USA tourist attraction DOES NOT provide bus rides to see
  a Shuttle launch. The facility DOES NOT open until something like
  two hours after a launch on the day in question. Since the RSS only
  pulls away from the Shuttle about 12 hours before launch, you can't
  see much but the aforementioned top of the tank even on the day
  before the launch.

  -Brian

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
BrianT@cup.portal.com                               this must be heaven."
                                                -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: i0c0256@zeus.tamu.edu (IGOR)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Space Shuttle heat load...
Date: 21 Dec 1992 16:30 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    


Hello everybody, following the discussion on the shuttle cooling system,
I was wondering how much heat was produced by the shuttle ( astronauts, ...)
during each mission and how much was dissipated by radiation..
Also does anybody have an idea of the heat to be dissipated in the average
satelite.... 


Thanks in advance.


Igor Carron
Nuclear Engineering Department
Texas A&M University
From: a_willisgt@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: black tiles on the space shuttle
Date: 26 Dec 92 19:35:51 CST
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In sci.space.shuttle, BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:
>     The shuttle uses many different types of thermal insulation. There
>     are tiles and thermal blankets, and there are varieties of each.
>     The black tiles are rated for the highest temperatures and are used
>     where the shuttle gets the greatest heating (the underside, the nose,
>     and the leading edge of the tail). White tiles are next, with the
>     second-highest rated protection, and are used on the forward fuselage,
>     the aft area, and the tail. The lowest temperatures on the shuttle
>     are experienced on the upper surfaces, i.e., the tops of the wings
>     and the tops of the payload bay doors...
>     
>     That's a simple, but not complete or 100% accurate description. The
>     Shuttle also uses a grey thermal insulation on the wing leading
>     edges, but I'm not sure which category they belong to.

  The grey insulation is a composite material called RCC (reinforced
carbon-carbon).  It is used only on the nose of the orbiter, and the leading
edges of the wings - the two places where the orbiter gets hottest during
descent. RCC can withstand much higher temperatures than the black tiles can.

  The principal drawback of RCC is the price - I heard once that, to replace a
half-meter strip on one of the orbiter's wings cost somewhere around $6 million
bucks...

Ty Willis
Stephen F. Austin State University
a_willisgt@ccsvax.sfasu.edu

Xref: sparky sci.space.shuttle:3028 alt.conspiracy:13428 talk.politics.misc:65383
From: eidetics@nic.cerf.net (Eidetics Int'l)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: STS-1 Disaster -- follow-up #2
Date: 27 Dec 1992 01:41:14 GMT
Organization: CERFnet Dial n' CERF Customer Group
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: nic.cerf.net

From Jon Volkoff, mail address eidetics@cerf.net

hugh@whio.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz (Hugh Emberson) writes:
>>>>>> On 20 Dec 90 23:38:17 GMT, eidetics@cerf.net (Eidetics Int'l) said:
>
>>   SUBORBITAL FLIGHTS ARE *LESS* DANGEROUS BECAUSE THERE IS *NO* CHANCE OF
>>BURNING UP ON RE-ENTRY.  EXPERIENCE IN ONE TYPE OF VEHICLE IS *NOT* MUCH HELP
>>WITH A NEW AND DIFFERENT ONE.  ROCKET LAUNCHES DO *NOT* REQUIRE A PILOT, NOR DO
>>PARACHUTE LANDINGS.
>
>WHY did the ENTERPRISE need SHUTTLE TILES then, as you have previously
>stated?

The type of mission under discussion is one where re-entry is made from a
ballistic trajectory at a maximum height of 125 miles.  The tiles are still
needed at this height because there is still a fair amount of heat generated
and the aluminum skin of the shuttle has to be protected (aluminum loses its
strength above 350 degrees F).  It may not be the kind of heat generated from
full-fledged re-entry from orbit, where the risk of burning up is far greater,
but at those temperatures I would think it would still be preferable to have
the tiles in place as an added safety factor rather than risking the aluminum
skin.
From: erudnick@claudius.pica.army.mil (Edward J. Rudnicki )
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: STS-1 Disaster
Date: 30 Dec 92 20:12:25 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: U.S. Army  Armament Research Development & Engineering Center, Dover NJ
Originator: erudnick@claudius

Jeff Szmyd writes:
#I'm sure I must be speaking for a lot of other people when I say that I'm
#really sick of all the attention this bozo Dr. Beter is getting.  Let's
#please put an end to this nonsense and get back to real postings.


Well put - start the New Year off right.

However.... I have encountered the rantings of the schizophrenic Dr. Beter
in other newsgroups. In those other cases the poster was McElwaine
himself. Yet here in s.s.s the poster was not McElwaine but Jon Volkoff.
Could it be that as a result of making himself a nuisance once too often
McElwaine has been denied net access? Could this be done to Volkoff as
well? Or at least keep him out of the sci newsgroups?

I realize that this is not a nice thing, but neither is the incredible
waste of bandwidth resulting from these incessant postings. IMHO it's also
not fair to have battles of wits with unarmed opponents, which is what
"debating" McElwaine and Volkoff amounts to.

Happy New Year to all...except the last mentioned :)



Ed Rudnicki     erudnick@pica.army.mil    All disclaimers apply
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc
From: jfurr@nyx.cs.du.edu (JKF)
Subject: Re: STS-1 Disaster -- follow-up #2
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 92 06:00:11 GMT

In article <SHAFER.92Dec23213122@ra.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:
>On Wed, 23 Dec 92 02:22:37 GMT, dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams) said:
>
> >NO SHUTTLE GROUND LAUNCHES WERE SECRET.  LAUNCHES FROM A 747, AT 
> >35,000 FEET OR SO, WOULD *NOT* BE EASY TO SEE.
>
>Dean> Right, they would be IMPOSSIBLE to see, since NO such capability exists.
>
>Er, Dean, we did launch the Enterprise from the 747 at altitude.
>It was quite easy to see, too.  I saw it all five times.

Which just goes to show that Mary Shafer is also a member of the
conspiracy, else she would not go to such desperate lengths to try to
explain away NASA's horrible LIES.

Yes, Mary Shafer and all members of the NASA/Bolshevik/Krystal's/NACA
conspiracy are in this together, controlled by their true masters...

the lemurs.


Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Trivia quiz - answers
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 20:27:29 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Dec29.130042.1@vf.jsc.nasa.gov> oliver@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>30. How many Saturn V's flew?
>    Thirteen - Apollos 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and Skylab
>    1...

If you really want to be picky, you can argue that the count was 12.6666...,
since the Skylab 1 launcher was only the first two stages of a Saturn V.
(The counterargument is that most of the payload was a rebuilt third
stage, of course!)
-- 
"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.shuttle,alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: STS-1 Disaster -- follow-up #2
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 23:51:07 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <72440@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:
>>...no 747 in the world that can carry the Shuttle with the external
>>tank and SRBs.  The empty Shuttle is nicely within the 747's capacity,
>>but adding any of the rest of the stack would exceed it.
>   
>   Actually, a loaded Shuttle is within the 747s capacity too. Witness
>   the ferry flight of Columbia from Edwards to KSC after the STS-32
>   mission. The LDEF satellite was still in the payload bay.

Brian and Mary are talking about two different things.  The 747 can, and
occasionally does, carry an orbiter with a payload in the payload bay.
Conceivably it might be able to carry one with a full load of consumables,
although I'd want to check numbers before I started hoisting.  It most
definitely *cannot* carry an orbiter plus even an empty external tank,
never mind a *full* external tank.
-- 
"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.shuttle
From: joet@dcatlas.dot.gov (Joe Trott)
Subject: Re: Trivia quiz - answers
Organization: U.S Dept. of Transportation
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 19:07:47 GMT

henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

>In article <1992Dec29.130042.1@vf.jsc.nasa.gov> oliver@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>>30. How many Saturn V's flew?
>>    Thirteen - Apollos 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and Skylab
>>    1...

>If you really want to be picky, you can argue that the count was 12.6666...,
>since the Skylab 1 launcher was only the first two stages of a Saturn V.
>(The counterargument is that most of the payload was a rebuilt third
>stage, of course!)

I vaguely remember some of the Mercury launches and many of the Gemini
launches...I thought Apollo VI never flew, due to a fire in the CM that
unfortunately killed 3.  And, I don't remember an Apollo IV.  Oh well...
(I was born 11/59)

-JTT

Xref: sparky sci.space.shuttle:3064 alt.conspiracy:13563 talk.politics.misc:65814
From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: STS-1 Disaster -- follow-up #2
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 20:41:27 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <30DEC199208331121@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov>

>From my recolection, the Moonraker story was that one of the shuttles that
>the criminal wanted to used needed replaced, so they stole the shuttle from
>the ferry 747 by igniting the engines, but they didn't go into space, just
>to where he was going to launch the other 5 shuttles of people.  Was part
>of this crazy story about going into space too???
>
>Vic Canacci, Sverdrup Tech., NASA Lewis Cleveland

  Well, the 'Moonraker' did not go into space, but it sure could have
  with the amount of energy it expended. The Shuttle was being ferried
  from the U.S. to the U.K. Unless it was taking the scenic route, it
  was flying across the North Atlantic. Then it ended up in Brazil,
  about half a world away.
  
  -Brian

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
BrianT@cup.portal.com                               this must be heaven."
                                                -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky sci.space.shuttle:3018 alt.conspiracy:13400 talk.politics.misc:65352
From: peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org (Michael Peirce)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: STS-1 Disaster -- follow-up #2
Date: 24 Dec 92 03:33:37 GMT
Reply-To: peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org (Michael Peirce)
Organization: Peirce Software
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.6v1


In article <78159@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> (sci.space.shuttle,alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc), mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
> In article <1h3059INNq8n@news.cerf.net>, eidetics@nic.cerf.net (Eidetics Int'l) writes:
> | 8) One source that you may want to use for your research is "Aviation Week and
> |    Space Technology".  This weekly industry journal has reported every shuttle
> |    flight in great detail.  They go to great lengths to find and report on
> |    secret or classified data.  You will find not a hint about the secret flight.
> | 
> |    THEY ARE EITHER IGNORANT THEMSELVES, OR AFRAID TO SAY ANYTHING.
> 
> Considering the average shuttle launch can be seen for several hundred
> miles, how did they manage to launch one, and NOBODY noticed.

It's obvious: secret bases in the Pacific.

:-)

Also,       oops      they're coming for me, gotta run.....

--  Michael Peirce      --   peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org
--  Peirce Software     --   Suite 301, 719 Hibiscus Place
--                      --   San Jose, California USA 95117
--  Drop by booth #4463 --   voice: (408) 244-6554 fax: (408) 244-6882
--  at MacWorld Expo/SF --   AppleLink: peirce & America Online: AFC Peirce
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc