Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_0/V15NO004.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 29KB

Date: Thu, 16 Jul 92 05:00:04
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #004
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu, 16 Jul 92       Volume 15 : Issue 004

Today's Topics:
              Chemical unit operations in space (6 msgs)
                          Coding on Galileo
                         FTL drives (5 msgs)
                 GIOTTO and GRIGG-SKJELLERUP (on TV!)
            Interplanetary communications relays (2 msgs)
                        Interplanetary Relays
           N2 in nuclear thermal rocket / Hohmann to Venus
            Now, where at last ? (Re: apollo 10) (2 msgs)
                             Space Power

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]" (on Internet).  If you are on Bitnet,
    you must use a gateway (e.g., "space%isu.isunet.edu@CUNYVM").
    Please do **NOT** send (un)subscription requests to that
    address!  Instead, send the message "Subscribe Space <your name>"
    to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), RICE::BOYLE
    (SPAN/NSInet), UTADNX::UTSPAN::RICE::BOYLE (THENET), or
    [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Jul 92 11:48:52 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Chemical unit operations in space
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Thomas Koenig) writes:

>I've been wondering a bit about how a chemical plant would look
>like in space.
>
---- typical chemical engineering separation techniques deleted --


I would like to change your frame of reference from polypropylene to biotech
and suggest that for the small batches to be done in space the unit ops would
be capillary extraction, reverse osmosis, electrophoresis, diffusion based
separation.  We lose density as a bulk separator, but we also lose 2 dimensiona
l constraints on various processes.  Charge on particles, convection currents
and other forces that are small compared to gravity will become important.
Density can still be used but as you noted it will need to be done carefully
as the spacecraft is it own frame and disturbance torques will be felt througho
ut the spacecraft.  I think that it will take many years but once the new
situation is thoroughly explored the unit ops will be more varied and possibly
for specific types of production cheaper.

                                     Karl Pitt ([e-mail])

PS:  These opinions are mine alone and do not reflect the views of MITRE or
my Chem E professors (long ago in a galaxy far away).


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

Date: 15 Jul 92 14:14:00 GMT
From: Greg Macrae <[e-mail]>
Subject: Chemical unit operations in space
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Thomas Koenig) writes...
>I've been wondering a bit about how a chemical plant would look
>like in space.
>
>If you assume microgravity conditions, there are going to be severe
>difficulties in separating two phases, which affects just about
>everything.  Some examples:

(examples deleted)
There are many benefits to processing in microgravities, but not all
processes are suitable.  Many processes that require distillation or
centrifuging can be conducted with electrophoresis and other techniques.
Moving solids becomes easier because conveyer belts are not needed, just
set the solids in motion and they keep going along their orbital track.
Centrifuges will still function as on Earth, and by processing at
accellerations greater than 1 g, less time, space, etc. is needed. Boiling
presents some very interesting challenges.  Solutions vary with the
requirements, bulk boiling can be conducted by vaporizing the entire quatity
of liquid and then extracting the gas.  Flow boiling can be conducted in a
packed bed configuration or, if the heat of vaporization is low enough, you
can superheat the liquid and then flash it to a vapor through an orifice.
The last shuttle flight demonstrated a very high degree of control over
droplet location, and motion using sound waves, and that was the first
such experiment ever conducted!  Working with fluid is not impossible, it
just requires different techniques on orbit.

>Conclusions: to build a chemical factory in orbit, build a rotating one
>with about 10 m/s^2 of acceleration (but make it big, current distillation
>columns are up to 50 m high); if you want to build something like that
>on the moon, build a couple of universities there first and let the
>people study things there for about a decade.

Providing an artificial accelleration environment nullifies one of the
biggest benefits of orbital processing.  Additionally, you will find that
the peculiarities of an accelleration field produced by rotation (apparently
curved trajectories, varying accelleration, rotational+orbital interactions,
etc.) will not even allow you the benefit of exact translation of many Earth
based processes.  It will be much more effective to exploit the advantages
of microgravity on orbit than to try to reproduce earthly conditions.

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

Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1992 12:30:00 -0400
From: "Andrew C. Plotkin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Chemical unit operations in space
Newsgroups: sci.space,rec.arts.sf.science

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (Thomas Koenig) writes...
>Conclusions: to build a chemical factory in orbit, build a rotating one
>with about 10 m/s^2 of acceleration (but make it big, current distillation
>columns are up to 50 m high); if you want to build something like that
>on the moon, build a couple of universities there first and let the
>people study things there for about a decade.

A rotating disk-shaped station would have every gravity level you might
want, without vibration (or at least no more vibration than any other
large inhabited structure.)

There's not much room at the center for microgravity work, though. None
at all if the rotation is a significant effect. Maybe a dumbell-shaped
station, with a rotating disk and a nonrotating disk, connected by an
axle. (Connecting chemical pipes across the axle is the fun part.... :-)

--Z

"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."

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

Date: Wed, 15 Jul 92 18:57:19 GMT
From: Nick Haines <[e-mail]>
Subject: Chemical unit operations in space
Newsgroups: sci.space,rec.arts.sf.science

One advantage that space has over ground-based systems is that your
centrifuge (or all your centrifuges) can be mounted on a platform
which is completely independent of the micro-gravity platform.
Vibrations won't be a problem.

Nick

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

Date: 15 Jul 92 18:23:01 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Chemical unit operations in space
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Greg Macrae) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Thomas Koenig) writes...
>>I've been wondering a bit about how a chemical plant would look
>>like in space.
> Centrifuges will still function as on Earth, and by processing at
> accellerations greater than 1 g, less time, space, etc. is needed.
[...]
> It will be much more effective to exploit the advantages
> of microgravity on orbit than to try to reproduce earthly conditions.

In "Borovsky's Hollow Woman,"  an SF short story published in *Omni*
some years ago, Jeff Duntemann and Nancy Kress suggested that the good
old "wheel" space station might be spun to yield accelerations larger
than 1 g at its outermost or "lowest" levels, so that some chemical
processing could take advantage of higher "gravity."  Most people
would inhabit the part of the station that was at 1 g or lower, but
industry would occupy the high-g levels.  Workers there needed powered
spacesuits-- that's what the Hollow Woman was.

I suspect using a small centrifuge gets you high g's more easily than
this elaborate solution.

Thomas Koenig was complaining that a spinning station would louse up
microgravity.   Why not have two stations-- one with microgravity, one
in the same orbit which spins?  Let the spinner do all the
stationkeeping so the floater is not disturbed.

Engineer of Hijacked Train:      Bill Higgins
"Is this a holdup?"
                                 Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Masked Gunman:
(Hesitates, looks at partner,    Bitnet: [e-mail]
looks at engineer again)         SPAN/Hepnet/Physnet: 43011::HIGGINS
"It's a science experiment!"     Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: 15 Jul 92 20:02:53 GMT
From: Arrowsmith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Chemical unit operations in space
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Thomas Koenig) writes:
>>I've been wondering a bit about how a chemical plant would look
>>like in space.
>>
I'm wondering what *use* this sort of chemical plant would have.  You're
going to have to ship the raw materials up to orbit, and return the
products (there's not likely to be much of a market elsewhere!) -- so
why move anything other than stuff either side of the micro-g phase
of the process?  Even if it's "inconvenient" I imagine it would be both
easier and cheaper than trying to overcome the technical problems of
putting the whole operation up there....

--
\S                                 "I ride tandem with the random
[e-mail]                "Things don't turn out the way I plan them
[e-mail]             "In the humdrum"
and elsewhere....                                --Peter Gabriel

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

Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1992 23:19:08 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Coding on Galileo
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...
>In article <[e-mail]>
>[e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
>>3.  On July 8, as part of the Warming/Cooling Turn No. 6A activities,
>>real-time commands were sent to switch from 10 bps coded telemetry to 40 bps
>                                             ^^^^^^                    ^^^^^^
>>coded telemetry.
>
>What sort of coding is used in the 10 bit/s and 40 bit/s data rates? Is it the
>standard K = 7 rate 1/2 convolutional code? What sort of coding is going to
>be used to get 100 bit/s from Jupiter (is it the new K = 15 rate 1/4
>convolutional code concatenated with the standard (255,223) Reed Solomon outer
>code?).

For all bit rates under 134,400 bps, Galileo uses the K=7, R=1/2 convolutional
coding for its coded telemetry.   The K=15, R=1/4 convolutional coding is
reserved for the 134,400 bit rate, and the DSN is currently being upgraded
to support this.  You also need the High Gain antenna to be open to use the
higher bit rate.  The Reed Solomon (255,223) encoding is optional, and was
used on the Gaspra images.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | In 1991 there were 16 names
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | listed on the FBI's ten
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | most wanted list.

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

Date: 15 Jul 92 04:37:20 GMT
From: Kent Schumacher <[e-mail]>
Subject: FTL drives
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (Derek Wee) writes... >
>Just out of interest, I'm compiling a list of the FTL drives used in
>science  fiction stories and computer games. I have already got: >

Bob Shaw's "Nightwalk" had a 200 meter ship with a matter transmitter
in the tail, and a matter receiver in the nose.  I seem to remember
they used tachyons to do the matter transmission, so when the ship
transmitted itself to it's nose, it went faster than light (for 200
meters).  It would be interesting to see how many "transports per
second" you would need to achieve a speed significantly FTL.

I think Larry Niven talked about sending STL ships with FTL
teleportation receivers in an article titled (I think) the "Theory and
Practice of Teleportation".

I'm not sure but I believe "Stargate" by Stephen Robinette and "Mindbridge"
by Joe Haldeman used receiverless FTL transporters.

Glen Cook's "The Dragon Never Sleeps" proposed "The Web", which was an
artificial construct that allowed ships to travel FTL along it's members.

>3) Sub-universe. Used Exclusively in Microprose's `LIghtspeed'. The ship
>coccoons itself in a sub-universe. It can move this universe (with itself in
> it) through the `real' universe faster than light.

Well, no...  This has been used in several science fiction stories.  The first
that comes to mind is Glen Cook's "Passage at Arms", where they called the
process "climbing", and the sub-universe "Null", or some such.  "Yesterday's
Children" by David Gerrold has ton's of fictional info on pocket universes,
and his version of "Warp".

Gully Foyle, in "The Stars My Destination" by Alfred Bester,
psychically teleports himself across space and time.  This happens in
"Sentinals From Space" by Eric Frank Russel also (well, space anyway,
but what's the difference).

Does traveling STL and then rotating yourself into the past at your
destination count as FTL?

I hope you realize this could go on all night (and I'm sure many would
say it's gone on far too long already).

>||))) If you build it                          )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
>||))) They will cancel it   - Field of Dweebs. )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
>||))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
>||Dave Jones ([e-mail]) | Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY   |


--
---
I've spent so much on this computer, I can't afford a signature
Kent Schumacher

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

Date: 15 Jul 92 14:02:13 GMT
From: Bob Pendelton <[e-mail]>
Subject: FTL drives
Newsgroups: sci.space

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (WENDY WARTNICK):

> What was the method they used in "Dune"?  It was not one of the mentioned,
> but I cannot remember it offhand.

>                 Wendy

I'd describe it as heavy drugs and lots of wishing...

                Bob P.
--
Bob Pendleton             | As an engineer I hate to hear:
[e-mail]              |   1) You've earned an "I told you so."
Speaking only for myself. |   2) Our customers don't do that.
                   <<< Odin, after the well of Mimir. >>>

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

Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1992 15:15:44 GMT
From: James Davis Nicoll <[e-mail]>
Subject: FTL drives
Newsgroups: sci.space

    [Note followup line]

    Jack DeWinter over on one of the sf or the gaming groups has a
very extensive list of FTL drives, worth asking for.

                            James Nicoll

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

Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1992 16:23:38 GMT
From: Bob Martino <[e-mail]>
Subject: FTL drives
Newsgroups: sci.space

     In DUNE they used drugged-out floating monsterous bloob things
to "warp" space with their minds.  One of the reasons why I detested
that movie.

_________________________________________________________________________
                                    | "...for since the creation of the
      - that Bob Martino guy -      |  world His invisible attributes,
 [e-mail] |  His eternal power and divine
                                    |  nature, have been clearly seen,
   God invented science.  so there. |  being understood through what
       ^^^^^^^^                     |  has been made        -Romans 1:20
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 "That's the whole problem with science.  You've got a bunch of
  empiricists trying to describe things of unimaginable wonder."
                                                  -Calvin

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

Date: 15 Jul 92 16:12:00 GMT
From: "Howard Fink,Ed Site,83422,_" <[e-mail]>
Subject: FTL drives
Newsgroups: sci.space

The Lensmen series used an inertialess drive.  Somehow, the ship lost
its inertia, and a reaction drive sped the ship to the limit of heating
caused by skin friction with the ether.  Ships were streamlined and
refrigerated to go faster.

Howard Fink

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

Date: 15 Jul 92 02:26:41 GMT
From: Keith Harwood <[e-mail]>
Subject: GIOTTO and GRIGG-SKJELLERUP (on TV!)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

There was a piece about the G-S encounter on the TV news the night it happened.
They showed the `just before closest approach' photo from the Halley encounter,
with glowing craters and gas beams. Presumably the picture has been enhanced.
What would one see if one was standing where Giotto had been? I would guess
one would see just a dark lump, with the glow too dim for the naked eye, or
is there enough material around to reflect sufficient light?

Keith Harwood.

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

Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1992 23:40:25 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Interplanetary communications relays
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes...
>That still leaves the possibility of close-up relays. As Nick says, if you
>want to send a *lot* of scientific probes to Mars or Jupiter, then having a
>relay in orbit around the planet could possibly save the expense of putting
>a powerful high-gain system on every one of those probes. The decision on
>whether to do it this way depends on the number of probes planned, the
>relative cost, and the bandwidth needed. (I believe the Viking landers
>used orbital relays, though they could also communicate directly.)

There is an option being looked into with the MESUR mission of sending
a communications orbiter to Mars.  Even though each of the sixteen landers
will be able to talk directly to Earth, it will be at a low bit rate and
the communications orbiter would significently increase the bandwidth.

>*If* the decision had been made to send a relay probe to Jupiter to help
>Galileo, what sort of bandwidth might we have reasonably expected?
>

134,400 bps.

>And what bandwidth can Galileo get over the low gain antenna during an Earth
>flyby?

134,400 bps was used to playback the Venus data just prior to the December
1990 Earth flyby, and the same rate will be used for the Gaspra playback
for Earth flyby this coming December.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | In 1991 there were 16 names
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | listed on the FBI's ten
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | most wanted list.

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

Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1992 15:38:27 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Interplanetary communications relays
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
>... Inverse square loss isn't the main problem, otherwise the
>relays would have a strong advantage. The problem is that the receivers/
>transmitters on the ground are so much better than anything we can put in
>space with current technology, that even with inverse square loss, space
>relays can't compete over long distances. So if your scientific probe is at
>Saturn, then a relay at the orbit of Jupiter can't communicate with it as
>well as a DSN station, despite the much shorter distance...

Actually, inverse-square loss and technology limitations tie together.
The problem with the Jupiter relay is that it's almost as far away from
Saturn as we are!  Even if it's halfway to Saturn (which Jupiter isn't),
that only gives it a factor-of-4 advantage over Earth-based stations,
which is not nearly enough (and probably never will be) to make up for
the additional engineering problems.  To make deep-space relay stations
worthwhile, they've really got to show an improvement of at least a
couple of orders of magnitude.  The only way to do that is to put them
relatively close to the probes they're relaying for.
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1992 14:00:05 GMT
From: Stuart A Kingsley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Interplanetary Relays
Newsgroups: sci.space

In the future there will be less need for Interplanetary Radio Frequency
Relays if the main means of communication becomes laser based.  The 21st
Century will see photonics provide most long-distance communications.
This includes fiber-optics on the ground, GEO to GEO communications,
communications with the outer reaches of the solar system, and finally,
interstellar communications.

Think: Small Is Beautiful

Stuart


 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
 * Dr. Stuart A. Kingsley, CEng,                                           *
 * Consultant,                                                             *
 * MIEE, SMIEEE,                                                           *
 * The Planetary Society,                                                  *
 * Space Studies Institute,                                                *
 * Columbus Astronomical Society,                                          *
 * Volunteer, SETI Group, Ohio State.                                      *
 *                                                                         *
 *                                    "Where No Photon Has Gone Before &   *
 *                                   The Impossible Takes A Little Longer" *
 *                                                 __________              *
 * FIBERDYNE OPTOELECTRONICS                      /          \             *
 * 545 Northview Drive                        ---   hf >> kT   ---         *
 * Columbus, Ohio 43209                           \__________/             *
 * United States                                                           *
 * Tel/Fax: [phone]                 ..    ..    ..    ..    ..      *
 * Manual Fax Tone Access Code: 33        .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     *
 * Bulletin Board System (BBS):               ..    ..    ..    ..         *
 * Modem: [phone],                                                  *
 * 300/1200/2400/4800/9600 Baud, MNP, 8N1.                                 *
 * Internet: [e-mail]                            *
 * CompuServe: 72376,3545                                                  *
 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

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

Date: 15 Jul 92 11:58:27 GMT
From: FRANK NEY <tnc!m0102>
Subject: N2 in nuclear thermal rocket / Hohmann to Venus
Newsgroups: sci.space

> Frank, older editions do have the table.

So does the 1991 ed (surprise!).  Page 14-28 thru 14-31.

Now if I can just figure out what I'm supposed to do with it.....

Frank Ney N4ZHG EMT-P  LPVa NRA ILA GOA CCRTKBA "M-O-U-S-E"
Commandant and Acting President, Northern Virginia Free Militia
Send e-mail for an application and more information
----------------------------------------------------------------
I don't care if they get the kind of government they deserve,
    Why do *I* have to get the kind of government they deserve?
--
The Next Challenge - Public Access Unix in Northern Va. - Washington D.C.
703-803-0391 To log in for trial and account info.

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

Date: 15 Jul 92 17:16:17 GMT
From: Shari L Brooks <[e-mail]>
Subject: Now, where at last ? (Re: apollo 10)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Lesher) writes:
>Others said
>#
># And -- Is there a listing (or something like) where those hardware of past
># space endeavors went, which is not on earth or earth orbit ? (Apollo AND
># unmanned probes)
>
>Well, I think the folks at NORAD in Colorado Springs keep track
>of everything up there. But, I doubt they answer many
>questions.....

Actually, every three months (i think) USSPACECOM publishes an unclassified
catalog of all that stuff.  I don't get it but I am sure one is kicking around
here somewhere, if I find it I will post the appropriate titles, offices, and
reference numbers.

--
  Shari L Brooks                   |   [e-mail]
  NAVSOC code NSOC323D             |   [e-mail]
  NAWS Pt Mugu, CA 93042-5013      |
--> All statements/opinions above are mine and mine only, not the US Navy's.

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

Date: 15 Jul 92 18:56:11 GMT
From: Shari L Brooks <[e-mail]>
Subject: Now, where at last ? (Re: apollo 10)
Newsgroups: sci.space

I wrote:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Lesher) writes:
>>Others said
>>#
>># And -- Is there a listing (or something like) where those hardware of past
>># space endeavors went, which is not on earth or earth orbit ? (Apollo AND
>># unmanned probes)

[...to borrow a phrase...MUNCH!  :)  ]

>Actually, every three months (i think) USSPACECOM publishes an unclassified
>catalog of all that stuff.  I don't get it but I am sure one is kicking around
>here somewhere, if I find it I will post the appropriate titles, offices, and
>reference numbers.

Well, I looked around and we don't have one, although I am still certain it
exists.  What we *do* have is the annually published "Satellite Situation
Summary" which NAVSPASUR puts out For Official Use Only.  This document is
updated monthly, I believe.

For what it's worth, it does mention the Apollo 10 LM as being out there,
but states that NAVSPASUR never had an element set for it.

--
  Shari L Brooks                   |   [e-mail]
  NAVSOC code NSOC323D             |   [e-mail]
  NAWS Pt Mugu, CA 93042-5013      |
--> All statements/opinions above are mine and mine only, not the US Navy's.

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

Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1992 16:21:16 GMT
From: Bob Martino <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Power
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:
>
>> This is more properly called Dietz's scheme, though I jabber about it
>> alot and have some refinements.  I might argue with your heiarchy of
>> difficulty.  Putting a conducting tether (a la TSS-1) on Metis is
>> pretty easy, given a magsail or electromag brake for getting low enough
>> in Jupiter orbit.  Equipment mass per kilowatt is orders of magnitude less
>> than SPS.  The hard part is getting the power back to Earth.  Somebody
>> suggested using an IR laser for beaming from the Moon; anybody ready for
>> X-ray power transmission?  :-)
>
     It occurs to me that by the time we have developed sufficient
technological know-how to construct something like this, we will
probably not need such a thing.

     Just mt $0.02

_________________________________________________________________________
                                    | "...for since the creation of the
      - that Bob Martino guy -      |  world His invisible attributes,
 [e-mail] |  His eternal power and divine
                                    |  nature, have been clearly seen,
   God invented science.  so there. |  being understood through what
       ^^^^^^^^                     |  has been made        -Romans 1:20
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 "That's the whole problem with science.  You've got a bunch of
  empiricists trying to describe things of unimaginable wonder."
                                                  -Calvin

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 004
------------------------------