Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_0/V15NO052.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 27KB

Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 05:03:34
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #052
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu, 30 Jul 92       Volume 15 : Issue 052

Today's Topics:
              Answers to PLANES of the ecliptic question
                   Biogenesis (was: ETs and Radio)
                         Calendar and Zodiac
                         Calendar and Zodiak
                            ETs and Radio
                            Space Calendar
                      Star Trek Realism (3 msgs)
          Testers for Astronomy  Lab:  NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS!!!
                            Whales (SETI)

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "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: 30 Jul 92 01:45:08 GMT
From: Shari L Brooks <[e-mail]>
Subject: Answers to PLANES of the ecliptic question
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Steven Robiner) writes:
>Thanks to all who responded to my question about the solar
>system's plane of ecliptic relative to the galaxies. Almost
>everyone who responded agreed that the number was about
>60 degress.  The rest of the details were most consisely
>summed up by the following to respondents.

>Thanks agian to all who responded.

>=steve=

[...first reply and most of the second (from Bill Gawne, STSI) deleted...]

>Roughly, its a 63 degree tilt.  Yes, this changes as the sun orbits
>the galactic center.  The solar motion is not simply circular, it also
>moves up and down thru the disk of the galaxy.  Look at an introductory
>astronomy book for the period of the sun's orbit about the GC.

I am aware that the sun orbits the galactic center, and also oscillates
about the center of the galactic plane.  This has made me think, though,
does the plane of the ecliptic precess?  We have, on a planetary scale,
the Earth rotational axis precessing every 26K years; does the plane
of the solar system do thie also?

What would we measure this precession against, in order to distinguish it
from the revolution about the galactic center, and oscillation about the
galactic plane?

--
  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: 29 Jul 92 18:31:35
From: "Steven J. Edwards" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Biogenesis (was: ETs and Radio)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (russell wallace) writes:
# In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
#
#> When you place hydrogen and oxygen together in a 2:1 ratio and provide
#> an energy source, what happens? Blooey! Every time? Yes, every time.
#> That's the way it is with life chemicals, there is nothing accidental
#> about their combination.  It's just basic organic chemistry at work.
#> We have very good evidence that the primordial chemical mixtures of
#> early planetary bodies contain the proper precursor compounds and
#> elements in abundance. We know that solar UV and electrical discharges,
#> lightning, will supply the necessary energy. We've done it in a test tube.
#> We haven't yet made the step to the enclosed cell, but with 10^23 precursor
#> molecules in every cubic meter, the combination is bound to occur.
#
# Yes, I realize that amino acids are bound to form under the appropriate
# conditions. However, those amino acids are no more likely to
# spontaneously assemble into a life form than 10^6 transistors placed in
# a box and shuffled around are to assemble themselves into a working
# computer.

The current leading theory is that ribonucleic acids were the first
step ont he biogenesis chain.  A recent (early 1992.07) issue of
_Science_ had a very convincing article about self assembly of
replicating clusters of pure and nearly pure RNA molecules.  It turns
out that a regular ribosome (protein assembler) is still remarkably
functional even when almost all of its structural amino acids are
removed.  Before this research, many scientists had a deep suspicion
that nucleic acids, either DNA or RNA, got the ball started; now we
have experimental evidence.

Therefore, there is now no need to appeal to deep time and large
reaction volumes for complex protein self assemblers and self
replicators: the RNA molecules got there first.

A suggested scenario:

1) Significant quantities of single or small chain amino acids form
spontaneously, but no "wonder molecule" replicator is seen.

2) Ancestral variants of rRNA molecules form clusters spontaneously;
these have partial replicative ability in varying degrees.  Cluster
replication is irregular and probably not too accurate as far as
faithful duplication of the parent template.

3) Some rRNA clusters are capable of incorporating naturally formed
amino acid chains.  Some of these cases the amino acids enhance
replicative fidelity and productivity; natural selective pressure
begins due to limited supplies of spontaneously formed amino acids.

4) At some point an rRNA replicating cluster using amino acids becomes
capable of partial synthesis of useful amino acids.  This replicator
gains a tremendous advantage over imperfect and less efficient
replicators who must compete for the limited spontaneous amino acid
production.

5) The protein making rRNA clusters become self sufficient and the
first true ribosomes are the result.  This is a good candidate for
"first life".

6) Over long periods, lots of nifty developments occur: many different
amino acids start to be used and are assembled in complex three
dimensional shapes; these proteins have greater and more complicated
electropotential surface features for greater variety; very primitive
precursors to cells form as the natural result of polar molecules that
can spontaneously form spheres; the membranes of these spheres become
more complex and are used to mediate molecular and energy transport to
the replicators within; RNA molecule families specialize in functions
and now handle molecular transport (tRNA) along with information
transport (mRNA precursors) as well as both RNA and amino acid
synthesis; organelles form and become specialized; nucleated cells
develop and the nucleus becomes the repository for the latest variant
of RNA: deoxynucleic acid; DNA combined with replicating and
transcribing enzymes starts along the path of today's DNA->DNA
(replication) + DNA->mRNA->(tRNA + ribosome)->protein; the genetic
code starts with a single base reader, then a two base reader, and
finally today's three base reader (plenty of evidence for this as the
first two codes can be recovered from the third).

So there's none of this one chance in 10^1000 stuff.  It could have
happened that way, but it very probably didn't.

Even if the probability of planets like Earth (comparable star,
distance, mass, age, composition) is only one in 10^6 stars (a bit
pessimistic), then there still may be 10^4 life bearing planets in the
Milky Way.

I think the two big problems are: 1) the estimation of the rise of
tool using (radio capable) lifeforms, and 2) the average longevity of
such species.  Unless a signal of some sort is received by us, we will
never know the real figures until we start interstellar travel.

 [The above opinions expressed are my own; not necessarily held by others.]
      == Steven J. Edwards           Bull HN Information Systems Inc. ==
      == [phone]              300 Concord Road         MS 820A ==
      == [e-mail]     Billerica, MA 01821          USA ==
"That Government which Governs the Least, Governs Best." -- Thomas Jefferson

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

Date: 30 Jul 92 02:31:37 GMT
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calendar and Zodiac
Newsgroups: sci.space

-From: [e-mail] (Ken Arromdee)
-Subject: Re: Calendar and Zodiac
-Date: 29 Jul 92 20:10:07 GMT
-Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

-In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
->In the British Empire, the month of September, 1752 lost 11 days (the day
->after September 2 was September 14). It was the renters who complained,
->because they had to pay a full month's rent.

-OK.  I've had it.  Could someone in alt.folklore.urban please clear this up?

-The way I've usually heard this is as a "rebuttal" to the notion of
-superstitious peasants who felt that they lost 11 days out of their life
-because of the calendar change; the explanation, you see, is that they were
-upset about having to pay the extra 11 days rent, so they weren't acting on
-superstition at all.

-But even this seems rather suspicious to me.  It implies a bit too much of a
-lack of common sense on the part of landlords.  Does anyone know if this is
-what _really_ happened?

I don't think it was lack of sense on the part of the landlords - I think
it was part of the the legal decisions that brought about the change.

By the way, the Orthodox church still uses the Julian calendar (in the US
and Russia, anyway, and presumably elsewhere). I believe the skew is currently
14 days, and should remain so until AD 2100. Since the determination of the
date of Easter is partly a function of the phase of the moon, the lag between
the two observations of Easter is variable.

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: 29 Jul 92 17:32:28 GMT
From: BakerRC <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calendar and Zodiak
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Richard Ottolini) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (George Hastings) writes:
> >To make up the VERY small difference due to precession, as well
> >as to adjust for the slowing of the Earth's rotation due to
> >tidal drag of the oceans (caused by the moon's gravitation),
> >from time to time they declare "leap-seconds" there was one
> >this year.
> >--
>
>
> Incorrect.  Precession advances the year appoximately 20 minutes per year.
> (24*60*365.2422)/26000.  There are other influences- quakes, solar activity,
> weather- that may cause the length of the year to vary one or two seconds
> per year.  Since we can measure the length of year to an accuracy of about
> a microsecond (one part in 10E14), a second is a noticable effect.
> Universal time based is based on atomic vibrations and independent of
> astronomical irregularity.


Also not quite right. Leap seconds are added to keep the DAY correct.
Let's start from the beginning.

We measure time in seconds. The second is now defined relative to cesium
clocks, and was made to approximately equal the second as it was then (1950s?).
However, since this [previous] second was defined in 1900, it approximately equals
1/86,400 of a mean solar day in 1900. Since then the day has been increasimg
at a rate of (1 second/ year) per century. Since it has been about a century
since the second was "defined", approximately 1 leap second a year
is added to keep the day correct, ie the mean sun crosses the
meridian at noon. If this was not done daytime would drift to the night hours.

So now we have an accurate second, and a little more than 86,400 of them
to make a mean solar day. Back to the original posters question, the
calendar is based upon the tropical year, the time between successive
vernal equinoxes (or other seasons). This is slightly
different then the sidereal (star) year due to precession as mentioned by others.
The calendar was developed to keep track of the seasons, not to
keep track of how many times the earth revolves around the sun.
Julius had a good approximation of 365.25 days, but by Pope Gregory's
time the error had built up to 11 days, and the seasons were
out of synch with tradition. Thus he took 11 days out of the calendar,
and changed the rules to make the year more closely correct at
365.2425 days, subracting 3 leap days every 400 years
(multiples of 100 are not leap years unless divisible by 400.)
That was a decent approximation then, but now the tropical year
is 365.2422 days and getting smaller (both due to the earth slowing down
it's rotation and the earth getting closer to the sun).

Thus the seasons stay in the same months because we make it that way,
that's what the calendar is supposed to represent.
Where the sun appears during
those seasons, and thus the months representing them, drift to different
constellations due to precession.

Hope this helps

Robin Radar Baker

Let's get Henry fired for talking about American politics :.) :.)

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

Date: 30 Jul 92 08:06:41 GMT
From: russell wallace <[e-mail]>
Subject: ETs and Radio
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (russell wallace) writes:
>>However, one crystal is pretty much the same as another; none of them
>>actually do anything (in the absence of humans to make use of them).

>You've obviously never studied crystal properties.  They can be complex
>and strange.  Incidentally, in some circumstances they can even display
>a limited form of self-reproduction.

*Trivial* self-reproduction.

>>... You actually need something like a cell to have
>>self-reproduction at all, where by "self-reproduction", I mean
>>non-trivial self-reproduction, not things like crystal growth...

>Sorry, this simply isn't true.  Simple molecules in solution can reproduce
>themselves, given favorable conditions.  RNA, in particular, does this.
>Not well, and not quickly, by itself... but it does do it.

Again, if it is replicating by itself, it is performing *trivial*
self-reproduction, because it is not carrying any genetic information.

>>for non-trivial self-reproduction to occur, the following must be present:
>>An information storage unit which stores information on how to build the
>>organism.
>>Some machinery to construct a new organism.

>With sufficiently favorable conditions or sufficient patience, the machinery
>need be little more than a supply of suitable raw materials.  Don't confuse
>a self-reproducing *system* with a self-reproducing *organism*; just because
>you can't draw a line around it and say "this is where it ends and the rest
>of the world begins" doesn't mean it's not a real system, capable of
>both reproduction and evolution.

>>In organic life forms, DNA is the blueprint, which is interpreted by the
>>transcription process, and copied by splitting the strands and adding
>>matching nucleotides to each. The enzymes are the machinery, and there
>>is a cell membrane around the whole thing (which is needed, otherwise
>>the enzymes will float away and be lost).

>If circumstances are favorable, you don't need the cell membrane.  There
>is no fundamental problem with just having the blueprint and the machinery
>floating free in solution, if it's concentrated enough (the proverbial
>"small warm pond").  The cell membrane does confer a very important
>advantage -- the benefits of better machinery are available only to the
>blueprint that produced them, not to all blueprints at large -- but it
>is not essential to the first stages.

If the only machinery required is the stuff floating around all over the
place (free amino acids etc.) then you have trivial self-reproduction
which does not count, because even if RNA can replicate in this context,
it is trivial self-reproduction because the RNA does not have or need
any genetic information.

--
"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem"
Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin
[e-mail]

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

Date: 30 Jul 92 07:11:02 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Calendar
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,sci.astro

     Here's the latest Space Calendar.  If you know of any space-related
events that should be included in the calendar, or see anything that
is out-of-date, then let me know and I'll make the appropriate changes.
Note that anniversaries are only done in five year increments.
Launch dates are subject to change at any time.

     The following people made contributions to this month's calendar:

        o Erich Weber - 1993 Quadrantid Meteor Shower date
        o Steven Pietrobon - Ariane launch dates for Hispasat 1A, Galaxy 4,
          Galaxy 7, Eutelsat II-F5 and launch date for LEAP-3.


                             =========================
                                  SPACE CALENDAR
                                  July 29, 1992
                             =========================

* indicates change from last month's calendar

   July 1992
     30 - Delta Aquarid Meteor Shower
     31 - MSTI Scout Launch
     31 - Consort 5 Starfire Launch
    *31 - STS-46, Atlantis, Tethered Satellite System (TSS)

   August 1992
     04-07 - Galileo, Trajectory Correction Maneuver (TCM-14)
     06 - Galaxy 1R Launch
     09 - Soyuz TM-14 Return to Earth
     10 - TOPEX/Poseidon Ariane Launch
     11-13 Perseid Meteor Shower
     20 - Hipasat 1 Ariane Launch
     20 - Optus B1 Long March Launch (China)
     20 - GE Satcom C4 Delta Launch
     20 - 15th Anniversary, Voyager 2 Launch (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune)
     27 - 30th Anniversary, Mariner 2 Launch (Venus Flyby Mission)
     27-31 - SEDS International Conference, Washington D.C.
     28-05 - World Space Congress, Washington D.C.

   September 1992
    *?? - Hispasat 1A Ariane Launch
    *?? - LEAP-3 OSC Aries Launch
     05 - 15th Anniversary, Voyager 1 Launch (Jupiter & Saturn Flyby Mission)
     07 - Ulysses, 2nd Conjunction
     08 - 25th Anniversary, Surveyor 5 Launch (Moon Soft Lander)
    *08 - Geotail, 1st Moon Flyby
     11 - STS-47, Endeavour, SpaceLab Japan (SL-J)
     14 - DFS-3/Kopernikus Delta Launch
    *14 - Magellan, Orbit Trim Maneuver, Cycle 4 Begins
     16 - Mars Observer Titan III Launch
     24 - Comet 1 Conestoga Launch
     24 - SCD-1 Pegasus Launch

   October 1992
    *?? - Galaxy 7 Ariane Launch
     ?? - 500th Anniversary of Columbus discovering America
     ?? - UFO Atlas Launch
     01 - Mars Observer, 1st Trajectory Correction Maneuver (TCM-1)
     04 - 35th Anniversary, Sputnik Launch (1st Satellite ever)
     05 - Progress Launch (Soviet)
     09 - Draconid Meteor Shower
     12 - SETI Scanning Begins
     15 - STS-52, Columbia, Laser Geodynamics Satellite (LAGEOS-II)
     15 - Freja Long March Launch (Sweden/China)
     20 - Orionid Meteor Shower

   November 1992
    *?? - Superbird A Ariane Launch
    *?? - Geotail, 2nd Moon Flyby
     05 - STS-53, Discovery, Department of Defense (DOD)
     07 - 25th Anniversary, Surveyor 6 Launch (Moon Soft Lander)
     09 - Taurid Meteor Shower
     16 - Leonid Meteor Shower
     25-27 Andromedid Meteor Shower

   December 1992
     ?? - Pioneer Venus Burnup
    *?? - Galaxy 4 Ariane Launch
     08 - Galileo, Earth Flyby
     08 - Asteroid 4179 Toutatis, Near Earth Flyby (.025 AU)
     10 - Lunar Eclipse
     13 - Geminid Meteor Shower
     14 - 30th Anniversary, Mariner 2 Venus Flyby (1st Flyby of Another Planet)
     15 - STS-54, Endeavour, TDRS-F
     19 - 20 years since man has been to the Moon (Apollo 17)
     22 - Ursid Meteor Shower
     25 - Isaac Newton's 350th birthday (or January 4)

   January 1993
    *?? - Eutelsat II F-5 Ariane Launch
     03 - Mars Observer, High Gain Antenna Deployment
    *03-4 Quadrantid Meteor Shower
     07 - Mars Observer, 2nd Trajectory Correction Maneuver (TCM-2)
     07 - 25th Anniversary, Surveyor 7 Launch (Moon Soft Lander)
     27 - STS-55, Columbia, Spacelab Germany (SL-D2)

   February 1993
     ?? - Hispasat 2 Ariane Launch
     01 - 35th Anniversary, Explorer 1 Launch (1st U.S. Satellite)
     06 - Astro-D Launch (US/Japan)
     07 - Mars Observer, 3rd Trajectory Correction Maneuver (TCM-3)
     15 - Advanced Photovoltaic Electronics Experiment (APEX) Pegasus Launch
     18 - Jules Verne's 165th Birthday
    *19 - Copernicus' 520th Birthday
     22 - STS-51, Discovery, Advanced Communications Technology Satellite(ACTS)

   March 1993
     ?? - SPOT-C Launch
     ?? - Radcal Scout Launch
     03 - Ulysses, 3rd Opposition
     23 - STS-56, Endeavour, ATLAS-2

   April 1993
     06 - 20th Anniversary, Pioneer 11 Launch (Jupiter & Saturn Flyby Mission)
     22 - STS-57, Atlantis, European Retrievable Carrier (EURECA-1R)

   May 1993
     04 - Galileo Enters Asteroid Belt Again
     15 - Magellan, End of Mission?

   June 1993
     04 - Lunar Eclipse
     14 - Sakigake, 2nd Earth Flyby (Japan)
     22 - 15th Anniversary of Charon Discovery (Pluto's Moon) by Christy

   July 1993
    *29 - NASA's 35th Birthday

                                     ######
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Most of the things you
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | worry about will never
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | happen.

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

Date: 29 Jul 92 16:33:46 GMT
From: Michael Ott <astroatc!ott>
Subject: Star Trek Realism
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (tom) writes:
>
>Much as I enjoy Star Trek, this has always bugged me.  Another thing
>which bugs me is the way stars stream rapidly past the ship when they're
>traveling within the same star system.  AND the "whoosh" noise you hear
>when they're showing the Enterprise (from the outside) cruising through
>interstellar space.  AND the way the shuttles bank and turn as if they're
>airplanes.  AND the fact that the Enterprise can accelerate at accelerations
>which *must* be many multiples of one gravity, with no perceived acceleration
>inside the ship, but a phaser hit knocks the crew out of their chairs.

The last "complaint" can be argued away because when you do accelerate,
you know you are going to do it, and can compensate with your artificial
gravity devices, but phaser hits are less predictable, and aren't compensated
for.

Also, having Worf mentioning a phaser hit is rather dry compared to the entire
bridge crew being thrown about.



-michael            Nope, I'm not speaking for Astronautics...
[e-mail]        No really, I'm not.

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

Date: 29 Jul 92 22:04:09 MST
From: Rich Travsky <[e-mail]>
Subject: Star Trek Realism
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>,
   [e-mail] writes:
> Now, another problem, why do they all fall unconcious within about 2 minutes
> of losing "LIFE SUPPORT"?
>
I think it would take much longer for the air to foul, heat to escape, etc.,
from a room in a large structure such as the Enterprise is supposed to be.
How long would such a scenario take to come to pass in something like the
shuttle or Soyuz?

Richard Travsky
Division of Information Technology     RTRAVSKY @ CORRAL.UWYO.EDU
University of Wyoming                  (307) 766 - 3663 / 3668
       No animals were harmed in the preparation of this post.

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

Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 05:02:24 GMT
From: Kevin Hanna <[e-mail]>
Subject: Star Trek Realism
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail]  writes:
> As long as we're on the Star-Trek vs. reality thread, here's a question
> that used to come up before my housemate Doug said "Shut up and just watch
> the show!":   When the ship is streaming through space, stars moving past
> at several per second, how is it that the ship is steadily lit from one
> side?  What is the source for this light?

The light comes from the Enterprise's running lights reflecting
off the hull of the observer's  ship.  Geez!  :-)

kevin
[e-mail]
--
Kevin Hanna              | "After a time, you may find that having is not so
[e-mail]  |  pleasing a thing after all as wanting.  It is not
                            logical, but it is often true."  Spock to Stonn

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

Date: 29 Jul 92 23:10:18 GMT
From: "James A. Hart" <hart@thumper>
Subject: Testers for Astronomy  Lab:  NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS!!!
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms,comp.windows.ms.programmer,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc,sci.astro,sci.space,sci.edu

[e-mail] (Eric Bergman-Terrell) writes:
:
: *** Beta Testers Needed for Windows 3.X Astronomy Program ***
:
: *************************************************************************
: * Sorry about the unreliable e-mail address.  I have a new one that     *
: * should work: uunet!edoc9!erict                                        *
: *************************************************************************
:
: I need people to text version 1.09 of Astronomy Lab for MS Windows 3.X.
: If you are interested, please send me an e-mail message containing the
: following information:
:
: (If you've already sent me your information, see if your e-mail address
: is in the list at the bottom of this posting)

I'd be happy to try your program.
Here's the statistics.

 Name: James A. Hart
 US Mail Address: 17017 Delia ave. Torrance, Ca. 90504
 E-Mail Address: [e-mail]
 Version of MS-Windows: 3.1
 Version of MS-DOS: MS 5.0
 CPU: 80486 33mhz
 Math Coprocessor (not required): internal
 Memory: 20mb
 Graphics Card: Fahrenheit 1280 (@1024x768x256)
 Printer: HP laserjet III, Epson FX286

--
NAME:     Jim Hart
INTERNET: [e-mail]
HAM:      N6JSS

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

Date: 30 Jul 92 02:35:27 GMT
From: Shari L Brooks <[e-mail]>
Subject: Whales (SETI)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (russell wallace) writes:
>Whales are _not_ intelligent in any significant sense of the word. If
>they were, they could prove it in about 30 seconds, by any number of
>means

Why would they want to?  Why would they care?

I have seen a number of posts saying "If whales were intelligent, they would
save themselves from whalers."  This is silly and hypocritical coming from
humans, who kill each other.  Often.  En masse.

--
  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.

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 052
------------------------------