HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: higgins@fnalo.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Subject: Okay, what are the new odds? (was Re: Swift_tuttle's orbit)
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 19:05:24 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.165126.10076@vax.oxford.ac.uk>, wgw@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>          The following should put all of the recent hoo-hah over 
>          comet P/Swift-Tuttle's next apparition into perspective.

Thanks for your posting... fairly technical, I know I for one am not
familiar with the literature on nongravitational effects, but
providing interesting information nonetheless.

>Thus, for these osculating epochs, we find the following times of successive 
>perihelion passages (Gregorian calendar) for the comet,
>
>                epoch             T (n-body)         T (non-grav)
>
>           1609 Aug. 14.0      1610 Jan. 20.98     1610 Jan. 27.94    
>           1736 Aug. 28.0      1737 July  7.12     1737 June  5.00
>           1863 Sept 12.0      1862 Aug. 28.33     1862 Aug. 23.66
>        *  1992 Dec.  4.0                1992 Dec. 12.32
>           2126 July 15.0      2126 July 6.50      2126 June 29.64

Can I ask you for your best guess on the question of the odds of
collision?  Marsden told a reporter one in 10,000, and that is what
everybody has been quoting.  Can you refine this number based on your
calculation?  Since your incorporation of the effects of outgassing
moves the perihelion crossing earlier, the probability of an impact
will get smaller-- but can you estimate how small?  Even a handwaving
approach would be useful.

Also, could you explain what your outgassing coefficients A1 and A2
are to those of us who are not comet specialists?

>NOTE
>====
>   It should be stressed that all of the foregoing is based entirely on
>the osculating elements given on IAUC 5636 (dated 1992 October 15) which
>have presumably already been improved upon.

Should you eventually repeat your runs based on improved elements, I
would be interested in seeing the results.

     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET
   -   -       Internet:  HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS 
Xref: sparky sci.astro:11746 sci.space:15435
From: jscotti@lpl.arizona.edu (Jim Scotti x2717)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space
Subject: Re: "Earth Gains a Retinue of Mini-Asteroids"
Date: 7 Nov 92 01:16:56 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Lunar & Planetary Laboratory, Tucson AZ.

In article <BxACCF.D3A@techbook.com> dant@techbook.com (Dan Tilque) writes:
>jscotti@lpl.arizona.edu (Jim Scotti x2717) writes:
>>dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>>>
>>>Since the Tunguska event is thought to have been due to a 40 meter
>>>body, and such events were calculated to occur once every 2 to 3
>>>centuries, something is screwy here.
>>
>>Not really screwy.  The number of 50 meter objects is enhanced by
>>about 10 times and the Tunguska type events probably happen once
>>or a few times per century.  
>
>This sparked a memory, but unfortunately not a detailed one.
>
>There was a second (but less powerful) Siberian meteor-explosion
>sometime after Tunguska.  I seem to remember that it was in either the
>20's or the 40's, but the name of it totally eludes me.
>
>Anyone know about this?

Yup, I do.  You are remembering the meteorite fall called "Sikhote-Alin"
which happened in 1947 in Siberia.  The fall created about 200 small
craters of the non-explosive type created by the fall of large objects 
traveling relatively slowly, perhaps at terminal velocity.  The largest 
crater was about 26.5 meters in diameter.  I think that about 50 tons of 
material was recovered and the progenitor was estimated as being about 
200 tons before atmospheric entry.  I suppose the object would have been 
around 5 meters diameter before entry and was probably a stoney iron.

This size object probably hits the Earth around 10 times per year and
I suppose about 1% of them are stoney iron, so a fall of this type
probably happens on the order of once a decade.
 
>---
>Dan Tilque    --     dant@techbook.com

Jim.
---------------------------------------------
Jim Scotti 
{jscotti@lpl.arizona.edu}
Lunar & Planetary Laboratory
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721 USA
---------------------------------------------
From: higgins@fnalc.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: e-mail activated telescope?
Date: 6 Nov 92 17:32:07 GMT
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

In article <1992Nov3.181024.23474@Princeton.EDU>, richmond@spiff.Princeton.EDU (Stupendous Man) writes:
> BH > (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
> MK > (Mark Kent) writes:
>  
> MK > I recently heard that there is an e-mail address where one can mail
> MK > celestial coordinates to and (in time) get back an image of that part
> MK > of sky.  
> BH > True or not, this is a *very* pleasant fantasy!  I hope there is one
> BH > in each hemisphere.  
> 
>   Actually, Bill, it ISN'T a fantasy.  The Berkeley Automatic Imaging
> Telescope IS activated by E-mail - in fact, that's how I told it to
> look at SN 1992bf for a month several days ago.  

Wow.  Cool.

How do you know it isn't some kind of hoax?  Like, there's a dwarf
inside it or something?

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  |
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: edwards@andy.bgsu.edu (Bruce Edwards)
Subject: Re: Okay, what are the new odds? (was Re: Swift_tuttle's orbit)
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 16:17:31 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.130524.1@fnalo.fnal.gov>, higgins@fnalo.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
> In article <1992Nov11.165126.10076@vax.oxford.ac.uk>, wgw@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
> >          The following should put all of the recent hoo-hah over 
> >          comet P/Swift-Tuttle's next apparition into perspective.

For those of you who have been following this P/Swift-Tuttle thread, go
down to your local video store and check out the recently released sci-fi
movie, 'THE GRAND TOUR', I guarantee a major chuckle and IMHO everything
will be explained after you've seen it :-)

edwards@andy.bgsu.edu


> 
-- 

edwards@andy.bgsu.edu
From: Robert_N_Brauer@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Know an adjective for black holes?
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 15:35:41 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: na

>   To refer to the Earth, I can use  "terrestrial".
>   To refer to the stars, I can use  "stellar".
>   To refer to galaxies,  I can use  "galactic".
>   To refer to black holes,  what can I use?
>
>Any suggestions would be appreciated.  Thanks.
>
>Greg Aharonian
>-- 
>**************************************************************************
>Greg Aharonian
>Source Translation & Optimiztion
>P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178

I suggest the term "post-stellar" in accord with the theory that
they are the collapsed cores of super-massive stars. If you are 
coping with the mathematical concept, how about "singular".

Bob Brauer      Robert_N_Brauer@cup.portal.com
Organization: Georgia Tech Research Institute
Date: Wednesday, 11 Nov 1992 18:22:03 EST
From: <LABBEY@GTRI01.GATECH.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Lunar astronaut covers earth with thumb

It is a common illusion (optical and pshological) that the Moon is a large
object as viewed from the Earth.  It is actually only 0.5 degrees.

At its widest point, my thumb is about 1" wide, and I can extend it roughly
24" from my eye.  Therefore my thumb subtends an angle of about 0.04 radians,
or about 2.5 degrees (rough calculations).

Since the Earth is roughly three times as large (in diameter) as the Moon,
it would subtend an angle of 1.5 degrees as viewed from the Moon.  Plenty
small enough to be covered by a thumb.

Lenny

Leonard Abbey, F.R.A.S.
Georgia Tech Research Institute
Atlanta, Georgia, USA
labbey@gtri01.gatech.edu
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: kayser@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (Susan E. Kayser NSSDC/STX (301)513-1673)
Subject: What's good astronomical software for the Mac?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA - Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 01:22:00 GMT

After playing around with Expert Astronomer on my Mac for a while, I'd like to
get this or something similar.  Voyager 2.0 has just come out; it's 4 or 5
times more expensive, so it is presumably at least a little better.  There's
also MacAstro, of which I know nothing.  Will someone who has tried these give
some advice?  Is Voyager worth the extra money? 


Susan Kayser		NCF::KAYSER  or  kayser@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov
Hughes/STX at NASA/GSFC/NSSDC
Greenbelt, MD
From: dadams@cray.com (David Adams)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Hubble's mirror
Date: 11 Nov 92 20:15:58 GMT
Reply-To: dadams@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.

Instead of using two launches to repair the hubble, how about using
one to launch a brand new one?  (Or wait 5 or 10 years and launch
a brand new one.)

---
--David C. Adams  Statistician  Cray Research Inc.  dadams@cray.com
___________________________________________________________________
       Old Sourdoughs never die.  They just ferment away.
Xref: sparky sci.astro:11785 sci.space:15528
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space
Subject: Re: Hubble's mirror
Date: 8 Nov 92 23:25:47 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <PXiye-Go3@lopez.marquette.MI.US> stick@lopez.marquette.MI.US (Stick,CommoSigop) writes:
>In <yssPTB4w165w@bluemoon.rn.com> gerry@bluemoon.rn.com (Gerard M. Foley) writes:
>>dhl@mrdog.msl.com (Donald H. Locker) writes:
>
>>> Now that I know a little about mirror-making, I'd like to hear again
>>> how the Hubble mirror contractor messed up the figure of the main
>>> mirror.  I understand it has spherical aberration, but wonder how
>>> [Rockwell?] managed to do that.
>>> 
>>It wasn't Rockwell (I forget axactly who it was, but it was an
>>otherwise reputable New England outfit) and put briefly, they
>>fouled up the test, performing it incorrectly, and never
>>checked by any independent method.
>
>   According to Dr. Steve Maran, who works on the HST project at the
>Goddard Flight Center, and who was recently a guest lecturer at my college,
>none of the above is true.  The company that ground the mirror did it
>exactly to the specs they were given.
>
>   The specs were wrong.


According to the NASA investigation of the Hubble mirror problem, there
was nothing wrong with the specs. The backup mirror built to the same
specs by Kodak is *perfect*. The problem was that Perkin-Elmer bollixed
up the testing of the figure of the mirror and ignored the results of
a Foucault test that showed the mirror to have spherical abberations
because their primary test was supposed to give more accurate results.
Unfortunately, they installed a fixture backwards when making the
primary measurements and got the *wrong* result.

Gary
From: random@cbnewse.cb.att.com (David L. Pope)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Know an adjective for black holes?
Date: 13 Nov 92 03:34:54 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

From article <69374@cup.portal.com>, by Robert_N_Brauer@cup.portal.com:
>>   To refer to the Earth, I can use  "terrestrial".
>>   To refer to the stars, I can use  "stellar".
>>   To refer to galaxies,  I can use  "galactic".
>>   To refer to black holes,  what can I use?
>>
>>Any suggestions would be appreciated.  Thanks.

From my meager knowledge, I recall that a black hole is referred to
as a 'singularity'. To refer to a black hole in the manner of the
examples above, one would use 'singular'*.

	*Copywrite 11/12/92
	
			Random
From: wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Swift-Tuttle easily visible
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:59:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: scicom.30158
Organization: Alpha Science Computer Network, Denver, Co.

For those of you who were waiting for S-T to brighten to easy
visibility, your wait is over. I was able to see it using 
7x50 binoculars from southwest metro Denver in a badly light
polluted sky whose naked-eye limit was about 4th magnitude.

It was at the northern side of the Hercules keystone and
must have been brighter than M13 since I could not see M13.
-- 
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom)  Tumbra, Zorkovick; Sparkula zoom krackadomando.  
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: ae472@yfn.ysu.edu (Manuel Lozada)
Subject: Intro
Organization: Youngstown State University/Youngstown Free-Net
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 16:54:48 GMT


Hi, everybody. My name is Manuel Lozada. I joust bought the 
October issue of "Astronomy". I found it very interesting
and now I want to learn from the begining this wonderful field.
I'm a Computer Science student at the University of Puerto Rico.
I had visited several times the Arecibo Telescope, wich is the 
world's largest, and made observations. For now, my interests
are in knowing the differences between Refractor telescopes,
Reflector telescopes, Schmidt-Cassegrains telescopes, etc.
I would appreciate very much what I can learn from you and I'll
be reading this net often. Thanks in advance.


----------------------
Manuel E. Lozada
University of Puerto Rico

stud106@cutb.upr.clu.edu
ae472@yfn.ysu.edu
-- 
       
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: djb@cbnews.cb.att.com (david.j.bryant)
Subject: Re: Orbit Determination
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus Ohio
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 17:28:31 GMT

While we're on the subject of orbit determination, I'd be interested in
any pointers to good reference texts that describe the method of determining
orbits from three (or more) visual observations.  A step-by-step approach
would be best (i.e. taking you through the process of reducing your 
observations and deriving the orbital parameters).   

Something with more detail than just "solve the following systems of
differential equations" is called for here, as I'm really interested in
an algorithmic approach I can carry out myself (and probably implement as
a program, just for grins).  (Besides, it's been a *long* time since I
did any differential equations...)

	Thanks,
                                         UUCP: att!cbosgd!djb
        David Bryant                           att!cborion!djb
        AT&T Bell Laboratories       INTERNET: djb@cborion.cb.att.com
        Room 1B-256                            djb@cbosgd.att.com
        6200 East Broad Street          PHONE: (614) 860-4516
        Columbus, Ohio  43213             FAX: (614) 868-4302

Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space
From: rwmurphr@wildcat.ecn.uoknor.edu (Robert W Murphree)
Subject: Re: Japanese X-ray satellite: Astro_D
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 04:09:21 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

nousek@astro.psu.edu (John A. Nousek) writes:

>The instruments consist of four conical foil X-ray telescopes
>built by Pete Serlimitsos of Goddard Space Flight Center, two
>X-ray CCD cameras built by George Ricker of MIT (with Penn State
>Co-I's) and two gas scintillation proportional counters built
>by Prof. Makashima of Tokyo University.  The four telescopes
>are coaligned and will simultaneously point at the observing
>target, allowing both CCD cameras and both GIS counters to
>collect data.  Each mirror detector system has an effective
>area around 400 cm^2, giving a total effective area greater
>than Einstein, ROSAT or AXAF over most of the energy range.
>Moreover the graze angle is smaller for these mirrors so they
>retain large effective area up to 12 keV!  (For reference
>the Einstein mirrors dropped off at 3-4 keV, ROSAT at 2 keV
>and AXAF at 9 keV).

>The major limitation of these mirrors is that they are not
>true imagers (i.e. they are right cone segments and not para-
>boloid-hyperboloid pairs).  This limits the spatial resolving
>power to 1.3 arc min half power radius [although there is
>a sharp core to the PSF which has been demonstrated to resolve
>point source 36 arc sec apart.]  The spectral resolution
>of the detectors is quite good.  The GIS has 8% energy resolution
>at 5.9 keV, and CCDs have 120 eV resolution at 5.9 keV.  The
>energy band pass runs from 0.4 keV up to 12 keV.

     
I gather that Astro-D is a superlative x-ray spectrometer.
Is it "the first x-ray spectrometer" or only the first wiht
with this wide and bandwidth, resolution, and apeture?
Is the 1 arc minute resolution a significant handicap for
many objects?  What new capacities for doing science will
it result in?  Is this a "major" observatory like ROSAT
and/or AXAF.  I'm not the one to say, but for spectrometry
it seems it may be a "major"  observatory.  Of course,
it doesn't have to be a "major" observatory to do good  
science, and the fact that the japansese have launched 3-4
small missions in the x-ray band in 10 years may actually
be much more significant in terms of science than a behemoth
like AXAF that gets launched every 10-15 years or not at all.
The US hasn't launched any free-flyers in the X-ray since 
HEAO or Eistein 10 years ago, have they? A few detectors on
other people's satellites of course, but nothing big since
Einstein.
`
From: gwlester@cpu.com (Gerald W. Lester)
Subject: Re: NEWS: Galileo Cleared of Heresy Charges by Vatican
Organization: Computerized Processes Unlimited, Metairie, LA, (504)-889-2784
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:39:29 GMT
Reply-To: gwlester@cpu.com
Distribution: na

In article <1992Nov6.113650.1@stsci.edu>, hathaway@stsci.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.230416.8291@samba.oit.unc.edu>, Bruce.Scott@launchpad.unc.edu (Bruce Scott) writes:
>> lattis@sal.wisc.edu (Jim Lattis) writes:
>> 
>> This is entirely correct. I would add to it that the political milieu
>> in which these people operated was of decisive influence. Galileo was
>> known by the Vatican to have exchanged letters with Kepler, whose
>> mother had in the meantime been burned for alleged witchcraft (remember
>  ^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ 
>??? Was his mother really toast?  The book I recall mentioned that Kepler 
>had to make an emergency trip home to prevent such from happening.  I'd 
>thought he saved her.  If the book referenced below has it otherwise 
>I'll try to find it.  I'm troubled by this human sacrifice aspect of 
>religion. 

	Witches were *NOT* burned at the stake as a human sacrifice!  They were
burned becuase this was thought to be the only sure way to kill a witch (i.e.
it was punishment).
From: max@west.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Kepler's mother not burned
Date: 7 Nov 92 21:04:00 GMT
Organization: The Dark Side of the Moon +1 408 245 SPAM

lattis@sal.wisc.edu (Jim Lattis) writes:

> let's be clear on this.  Kepler's mother was not burned
> as a witch.  she was tried as a witch, and evidence indicates
> that Kepler contributed to her successful defense.

Wasn't she imprisoned, and didn't it take Kepler six years to get her 
out?

But she definitely wasn't burned . . .

----------
Erik Max Francis   Omnia quia sunt, lumina sunt.  Coming soon:  UNIVERSE _ | _
USmail:  1070 Oakmont Dr. #1 San Jose CA 95117  ICBM:  37 20 N  121 53 W _>|<_
UUCP:  ..!apple!uuwest!max   Usenet:  max@west.darkside.com   464E4F5244   |
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au
Subject: Telescope making books. recomendations??
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:36:19 GMT

Hi all, A question for all the Amateur Telescope Makers et al out there.

Waht is your opinion of "Standard Handbook for Telescope Making" 1984 by
Neale E Howard? Other recomendations on this and testing/design?

~Paul

From: calloway@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Frank Calloway)
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 14:18:33 GMT
Subject: Re: Experiences with telescope mail order
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Loveland, CO
Newsgroups: sci.astro

The worst experience mail order experience I ever had was with Adorama in NY.  
They got me mixed up with somebody else and it took six months to get a 
refund.  The folks I talked with were rude and indifferent.  By the time it
was over, I had involved the Attorney-General for the state of NY, the 
Bureau of Consumer Affairs, and the president of Kalmbach Publishing
(publishers of "Astronomy," where I saw Adorama's advertising).  Nothing
less than that got results; for several months Adorama ignored my letters 
and took no action when I spoke with them on the phone. 

I've had good experiences with Orion, National Camera, Astronomics, and
Aries Optics (Aries advertises in "Sky & Telescope" from time to time).
Although experiences seem to vary, my single order to Pauli's was okay.

Frank Calloway 

Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: chaloux@mandolin.mitre.org (Dave Chaloux)
Subject: Mars Observation Questions
Reply-To: chaloux@mandolin.mitre.org (Dave Chaloux)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 16:45:16 GMT

I was putting my 20" F5 through the paces at 3:30 a.m. this morning and was
looking at mars. I was using a 7mm Nagler that gives 360x. Using a 25 red
filter I noticed that Mars was very slightly gibbous. This was expected. What
I did not expect was on the opposite edge the edge was definitely
brighter than the middle. Is this a known affect? I have not read about it
elsewhere but it was quite striking. Seeing was not that great but I am
pretty sure this was real. It looked almost like a very thin crescent moon
with earthshine but with the earthshine almost as bright as the crescent. The
side that was gibbous was not brighter.

Various dark areas were also seen as well as the Polar Cap.

-----------------------------------------------------------

A hint. I have mentioned before using old heating elements from an electric
blanket to make heaters for my finder and eyepiece. One difficulty in doing
this is that nichrome wire does not sodder. I have been experimenting with
various methods of getting a good electrical connection that is reasonably
durable. The best thing I have found so far are butt connectors. These are
connecters where you put the wires you wish to connect in either side. You
then use a crimping tool to clamp the metal connector over the wires. I used
vice grips instead of a crimping tool. The butt connectors can be bought at
Radio shack and at Hechingers.

I need to emphasize again that when working with heating elements you need
to be very careful. If you cut the stuff to short it can get very hot; hot
enough to start a fire. This would be a terrible way to lose a telescope and
possibly more. The heating element does not have to be that hot in order to
do its job.

Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: awootten@polaris.cv.nrao.edu (Al Wootten)
Subject: Re: Medieval Astronomy
Organization: National Radio Astronomy Observatory
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 14:53:55 GMT

In article <1dkr60INNd1a@network.ucsd.edu> reynolds@yin.ucsd.edu (Andy Reynolds) writes:
   Greetings all,
	   I am interested in both astronomy and the middle ages and was wondering
   if anyone might know of a good source of information on the way astronomy
   was practiced in the middle ages in Europe?  Any help would be appreciated.

Victor Tholen's recent book 'The Lord of Uraniborg' a biography of Tycho
Brahe is very readable.  His explanations of how Tycho's instruments surpassed
those previously available gives a good background on what instruments
were used during the middle ages.  


--
+--------------------------------------------__---------+
| Alwyn  Wootten  (awootten@nrao.edu) 	     \/	GBT	|
| National Radio Astronomy Observatory        ^         |
| 520 Edgemont Road, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475, USA|
| (804)-296-0329 voice  Let's build The Millimeter Array|
| (804)-296-0278 FAX           {>    {>    {>    {>     |
+------------------------------^-----^-----^-----^------+





Newsgroups: sci.astro